While We're on the Subject of Scalia...

Later, from the same dissent:

"I would deny that the dissenter's interest in avoiding even the false appearance of participation constitutionally trumps the government's interest in fostering respect for religion generally."

First of all, as an atheist, let me just say, Justice Scalia, that I don't think you quite get how distinctly unpleasant it is to feel this "respect for religion" raining down on you, especially when it comes from the state. Respect for religion comes damn near equating disrespect for non-religion, and condemning an individual's theological beliefs is something, I thought, that the state wasn't supposed to do.

But more to the point, the government's interest in fostering respect for religion? Isn't the entire point that the government doesn't have that interest? It strikes me that between the commands, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" and "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise thereof," you have overall a framework in which, if nothing else, the government is not allowed to state an interest in either promoting or suppressing religion. It may sometimes aid religions for secular reasons, i.e. the tax-exempt status for churches in their capacity as charities, and it may sometimes hinder religions for secular reasons, i.e. the refusal to allow the Mormons to conduct polygamous marriages. But it's not allowed to do something because it likes a religion, or because it dislikes a religion, or because it likes or dislikes religions in general. Scalia has this thing where he insists that it's fine for the government to favor religion over nonreligion, as long as it doesn't favor a particular religion. I wonder whether he would be okay with laws that seek to suppress religion generally, as long as they want to hinder all religions equally.