VOLuntarilyConservative

After reading Scalia's dissent in McCreary County v. ACLU (known as "the Kentucky Ten Commandments case"), I knew that he was going to be a lightening rod for those who believe they are the spontaneous result of some cosmic accident. I have to admit that I was surprised it took them so long. Yesterday's post/column by atheist/secular humanist Austin Cline blasts Scalia's views, although not well. It is a funny read. I don't mind people of different political or religious persuasions that show some adherence to principle. In my experience, most atheists are incapable of such adherence. That's why reading Cline's conclusion:

"I think that all of the above critics are right. Justice Scalia likes to pretend that he is fair and principled; in reality he is about as unprincipled and unfair as a judge can get - at least some of the time. Given the reasoning he has presented in his dissent, though, I am inclined to think that the cases where he is principled and fair are more a matter of good fortune than the product of any virtues on Scalia's part."

makes me laugh and think of classic pot-kettle jokes. Heck, secular humanists can't even adhere to their own Humanist Manifesto, which has to be rewritten every couple of decades so that theprincipless better fit the recent actions of its worshipers. Again, pot-kettle jokes come to mind...