Scalia dismisses concept of religious neutrality in speech To me, it is interesting to have Supreme Court Justice who lacks the knowledge and insight to recognize that there are two religions in the US which have chosen opposing symbols, the Christians and the Satanists (regardless of whether the Satanists in question are atheist or not). As soon as you have government siding with Christianity over Satanism, you've violated the Constitution's prohibition of establishing Christianity's god over Satan. It's difficult for me to figure out how Scalia could come to his conclusion by using the law as his basis. Does anyone have a good explanation as to how Scalia could have reasonably come to his conclusion which favors Christianity over Satanism, while basing that explanation on actual Constitutional principles? If not... is Scalia suffering some form of impairment?