Did Scalia Give The Media The Finger At Church?
Posted on March 27, 2006
The Boston Herald, and several liberal blogs are reporting with headlines that would suggest Scalia flipped the finger to the media after being questioned after attending Mass if his religious views can be in conflict with Separation of Church and State. I say, so what if he did? They deserved it. WTH are they doing pestering him with those kind of questions right outside of a Church anyway?
However, once you get past the misleading headlines the truth appears.
Minutes after receiving the Eucharist at a special Mass for lawyers and politicians at Cathedral of the Holy Cross, U.S. Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had a special blessing of his own for those who question his impartiality when it comes to matters of church and state.
“You know what I say to those people?” Scalia, 70, replied, making an obscene gesture under his chin when asked by a Herald reporter if he fends off a lot of flak for publicly celebrating his conservative Roman Catholic beliefs.
“That’s Sicilian,” the Italian jurist said, interpreting for the “Sopranos” challenged.
“It’s none of their business,” continued Scalia, who was the keynote speaker at yesterday’s Catholic Lawyers’ Guild luncheon. “This is my spiritual life. I shall lead it the way I like.”
They go on to state, ““conduct unbecoming a 20-year veteran of the country’s highest court was captured by a photographer for the Archdiocese of Boston newspaper The Pilot.” My first thought when I read this was…where is this photo? I wasn’t the only one that noticed.
Chad Evans at In The Bullpen notes:
Yet, the photo that accompanies the Boston Herald article shows no such gesture so we, the reader, cannot decipher if Scalia was giving the bird to reporters or not.
But the left sure did run with it didn’t they?
The real news here is a vicious reporter with a clear agenda to smear Justice Scalia however he could. He goes on to state, “Although one of his sworn duties is to uphold the freedom of the press, a jocular Scalia told the shutterbug, “Don’t publish that.””
The last time I checked, the word “jocular” meant joking. So, how does this sentence even compute? So, he was joking around! Get a freakin sense of humor! What does that have to do with upholding his sworn duties? And the left are going nuts on this hit piece? What I want to know is why these media heads would ask such a stupid question as to what his personal practices of faith has to do with how he practices his job? And to harrass him right outside of Church? Tasteless! These reporters need to get a clue.
Dan at Rhielworld has what the true gesture was from Scalia.
This gesture, often called the “chin flick,” is widely used among Italians and persons of Italian ancestry. It is a gesture of contempt, somewhat less rude than giving a person “the finger.” When used in the United States, it usually means “Bug off, I’ve had enough of you.” Not a polite gesture, but not a particularly hostile one, either.
Related…REAL ULTIMATE MORAL AUTHORITY. This is what they really have issue with.
» Filed Under News
Trackback URL
Comments
12 Responses to “Did Scalia Give The Media The Finger At Church?”
-
Affiliations
The Giants
-
Advertise
Donate
Our Store
Click the design to visit our store and help Stop the ACLU!
Stop the ACLU blogburst
-
More blogs about the ACLU
Syndicate Me
If I remember right the gesture Italians would use is an open hand pulled forward from beneath the chin, not a raised middle finger. Scratching one’s chin would look like the former gesture but not the latter. Of course claiming that someone is making an obscene gesture when they scratch their chin is bad journalism, but then what would you expect.
Can someone please explain the weird capitalization of “Mass” and “Church?” The capitalization of “God” is hoary, originating in the capitalization of “Yawheh” in Hebrew (and similar translations of “God” – e.g., “Adonai”). But the capitalization of “Mass” and “Church” seems random and a symptom of fetishizing all things religious for no good reason. I don’t mean to pick too many nits here, but it’s just odd. As many a good liberal-yet-religious person like myself might say, overdoing some stuff devalues religion, too (like the uniqueness of capitalizing only “God”).
I suggest sticking to the substance and leave my grammer mistakes out of things.
pericles1979,
Depends on whether you are talking about God’s Church or man’s church.
Loboinok – Aquinas never used the word “church” to describe what you call “God’s church,” and he’d be the authority about the difference.
Jay – I wouldn’t call it a “mistake,” but I understand your point, which is why I acknowledged it was slightly off point. In any event, to the substance, as a federal appellate law clerk (working for a notable conservative judge, at that), I have no problem with Scalia’s remark/behavior. He has a sense of humor others lack. Moreover, and more relevant, I have no problem with his comment about combatants lacking rights…this whole [edited] about never prejudging a case is tiresome. Some questions are sufficiently abstract (especially in the Article II arena) that comments such as his simply won’t affect his judgment. At the same time, however, judicial ethics are about eliminating the appearance of impropriety – even if not impropriety itself. So that is the real danger here. Unfortunately, with the partisan vitriol bandied about these days, there will always be an appearance of impropriety.
Yeah, sorry. I didn’t mean to sound rude there, but I am no English major, nor am I seeking any type of journalism career. This is merely a place for me to express my thoughts.
Of course, I understand. And I must admit to being a first-time reader of the blog. Given the nature of title of the blog, you should check out an article from the November 2004 issue of the Duke Law Journal called “The Internationalist Beginnings of American Civil Liberties.” (Available free at http://www.law.duke.edu.) The article focuses on Crystal Eastman, a radical who helped found the ACLU with Roger Nash Baldwin, and the beginnings of the ACLU itself in the turmoil of WWI. Very interesting. It’s also a good primer about how the ACLU gave the First Amendment some real substance, in that before WWI it was – surprisingly – never really litigated or “used.” Moreover, it’s a fun narrative read.
I’ll check it out. Thanks. I’ve read both of William Donahue’s books on the ACLU which are the “Polictics of the American Civil Liberties Union” and “Twilight of Liberty”. I suggest those books too. I have also read Alan Sears’ book, “The ACLU vs. America.” Also suggested.
I am familiar with the ACLU’s founding. Welcome to the blog. Feel free to search our archives and you will find a lot of materiel on their founding and much more.
Oh, and if you are interested in a particular topic, use our little search bar in the top left.
“Aquinas never used the word “church” to describe what you call “God’s church,” and he’d be the authority about the difference.”
Then ask Aquinas!
No offense, but I’m not Catholic. My authority is Christ. When all else fails, I use ‘The Wiley Office Handbook.’
Lobo: You got a Bible Study student in your midst such as myself, and you rely on Jesus for information? Oh, wait…
“You got a Bible Study student in your midst such as myself, and you rely on Jesus for information?”
You are good though.