Warning Atheists, Judge Scalia Thinks You Are Just Pleasing Satan.

I just read the most incredible article about an interview with Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia.

Scalia said he follows Catholic doctrine which believes the Devil is a real person.  He believes people are not possessed by the Devil any more because the Devil is clever and would not want to draw attention by doing such nasty deeds.

None of this would matter if the Judge did not consider any group which might appear before him as being part of the team Satan.  That is, it would be just fine if he expressed the view that all people have the same exposure to Satan and all make the same effort not to commit whatever terrible Catholic sins are attributed to Satan.

But, he did not do this.  In response to a question about atheists, be explained that atheists please Satan.

Now, I don’t want to read too much in to this friendly bantor the Judge was having with a writer.  But, to hold to the myth there is an invisible evil being, and, to link a group that appears before you as supporters of the invisible evil being does not give one confidence of unbiased Judicial decision making.

We in the Red River Freethinkers have some interest in Judge Scalia’s belief in Satan because our Ten Commandments case has at least a slight chance of going before the Supreme Court.  It’s discouraging that he might think moving the Ten Commandments would please Satan and vote against us because of that.


10 Responses

    1. David Hovgaard

      No he’s not an agent of the devil, he is just a deluded fool. Unfortunately deluded fools like him have been responsible for most of the atrocities committed by religious zealots throughout history. Despite the right wings claims to being persecuted it is they that would like to persecute anyone that disagrees with them. The good news is they can be stopped.

  1. Michael Ross

    “It’s discouraging that he might think moving the Ten Commandments would please Satan and vote against us because of that.”

    The Constitution, not the Bible, is the law of the land. I don’t believe the Constitution mentions Satan so I would hope Justice Scalia would leave him out of any decisions. On the basis if our Constitution the 10 Commandments should stay right where they are. And if they are moved for legal reasons be assured they will one day be brought back to there rightful location when the world finally recognizes the Bible as God’s “Constitution” for every nation:

    ” All the ends of the world shall remember and turn unto the LORD: and all the kindreds of the nations shall worship before thee.” (Psalm 22:27)

    1. Michael 3:00 “..back to their rightful location when the world finally recognizes the Bible as God’s “Constitution” for every nation.”

      I’ve read that a lot of the laws and system of governance the first colonies used relied on models used by American Indians. And, of couse, our laws have a lot in common with governance practices before the Bible was every written. But, you are free to believe whatever.

      1. David

        Our laws are strongly based upon English common law and the English system of justice – as one may expect. But that is all beside the point. Whether the city of Fargo has to remove the 10 commandments will have nothing to do with the basis for our laws but rather, or at least one would hope, the content of those laws.

    2. entech

      How nice that you choose some of the poetry of David to make your case. David who broke practically all of the commandments by himself. Some good lines though:
      My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
      why art thou so far from helping me,
      and from the words of my roaring?

      at least some of that got re-used at some time. Even the bit in verse 16 about piercing hands and feet or a little later casting lots for his clothes

      21. Save me from the lion’s mouth:
      for thou hast heard me from the horns of the unicorns.

      And mythical creatures, how appropriate.
      Of course they are only mythical if you believe that the lion lays down with the lamb and man walked with dinosaurs.

  2. David

    Of course, you could also worry because he is a Catholic. Or you could also worry because he is an Originalist. Rather you worry because he believes in Satan. I think your worry here is a canard. You really pretty much know how Scalia is going to rule. So why the article? This sort of argument regarding your concern is a part of the problem with society today. We make arguments that barely pass the straight face test and trumpet them. How about the meaning of the word “is?” How about “if you like your policy you can keep it!” There’s a hint of dishonesty in making the argument because the motives are hidden.

    1. Actually, you can keep your policy in almost all cases. The ones you hear about are the exceptions because that’s what makes the story, not the fact that most people can actually keep their policies. So that hint of dishonesty you smell might be coming from your own rhetoric, David.

      1. David

        You can’t keep your policy is the insurance company cannot afford to sell it. But that’s probably just a coincidence. My point is that there is no way to make that claim. Obama surely knew that insurer’s in the individual market would not be able to continue offering policies with the new mandates. But instead of saying that as a consequence of Obamacare some policies may no longer be offered. Rather, he took an overly legal approach relying on the notion that Obamacare won’t force you to drop your current policy. That’s true. However, it’s a distinction without a difference when the predictable result is that the consequences Obamacare is that insurers won’t be able to offer your policy. Thus, blame the insurance company, and of course impugn the veracity of someone for pointing out the deception.

Comments are closed.