This article about Scalia is full of contradictions and oddities. It begins with the following:
Scalia outlined a long list of Christian beliefs that he said are greeted with derision by the worldly — dogmas including Christ’s divinity, the virgin birth and Christ’s resurrection.
Does this mean that Scalia is other-worldly? And I keep hearing how atheists are the arrogant ones.
The article continues:
The Catholic justice cited a story in The Washington Post that described Christian fundamentalists as “poorly educated and easily led.”
“The same attitude applies, of course, to traditional Catholics,” Scalia said, “who do such positively peasantlike things as saying the rosary, kneeling in adoration before the Eucharist, going on pilgrimages to Lourdes or Medjugorje and — worst of all — following indiscriminately, rather than in smorgasbord fashion, the teachings of the pope.”
Scalia said believers should embrace the ridicule of the world.
“As St. Paul wrote to the Corinthians,” he said, “we are fools for Christ’s sake.”
Scalia noted that Christ described his followers as sheep and said no one will get into heaven without behaving like “little children.” Scalia warned, however, that reason and intellect must not be laid aside where matters of religion are concerned.
“Assuredly, a faith that has no rational basis is a false faith,” Scalia said.
In a sarcastic reference to cult leader David Koresh, he added: “That is why I am not a Branch Davidian.”
Where do I even begin? First he asks catholics to embrace every teaching and policy of the pope no matter how ridiculous. Then, he says this shouldn’t be done uncritically. This is a complete dichotomy. He is not a Branch Davidian because they cannot demonstrate their claims.
The oddities continue:
It isn’t irrational to accept the testimony of eyewitnesses to miracles, Scalia said.
“What is irrational,” he said, “is to reject a priori, with no investigation, the possibility of miracles in general and of Jesus Christ’s resurrection in particular — which is, of course, precisely what the worldly wise do.”
Scalia cited the 10-year-old case of a priest in the Washington archdiocese who was said to have the stigmata. Statues of Mary and the saints appeared to weep in his presence. Reporters for The Washington Post did a story and were unable to find an explanation for the strange phenomena.
Eyewitness testimony is the most worthless form of evidence. So, yes it is irrational to accept it without supporting evidence.
We don’t reject Jesus’s resurrection because no evidence has been provided to suggest it happened except a book. Provide credible evidence and we’ll believe. Stigmata and weeping statues? Really? The weeping statues that the Catholic Church has accepted or verified is tiny. Why is the church the only one who can determine if the statue isn’t a fake? They allowed the Shroud of Turin to be tested, which showed it’s a fraud. As for stigmata, there are more likely psychological issues related to self-mutilation.
While he may take his personal faith seriously, Scalia told The Catholic Review he doesn’t allow it to influence his work on the high court.
“I don’t think there’s any such thing as a Catholic judge,” Scalia said in an interview with the newspaper of the Baltimore Archdiocese. “There are good judges and bad judges. The only article in faith that plays any part in my judging is the commandment, ‘Thou Shalt Not Lie.’”
Scalia said it isn’t his job to make policy or law, but to “say only what the law provides.”
This is a complete load. Scalia has actually said the cross represents all dead not just Christian dead:
Justice Antonin Scalia responded that the symbol in the context of a war memorial carried a more general meaning. “The cross is the most common symbol of the resting place of the dead,” he said.
Mr. Eliasberg said, “There is never a cross on the tombstone of a Jew.”
Justice Scalia, who is usually jovial even in disagreement, turned angry. “I don’t think you can leap from that to the conclusion that the only war dead that that cross honors are the Christian war dead,” he said. “I think that’s an outrageous conclusion.”
This is just another example of Christian privilege.
(Sorry about the lack of posting lately. I’ve had thesis work and marking to that has taken most of my time lately. I’ve haven’t even had time to go grocery shopping. I’ve been living off of peanut butter and jam sandwiches for the past few weeks.)