Or something like that. Basically, SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia equates people being offended by government-sponsored religious activity with his own aesthetic disdain for public performances of Stravinsky — with the exception that the First Amendment "favors" religion but says nothing about music.
In so doing, he misses how the First Amendment prohibits government religious activity while protecting individual religious expression, but, hey, he gets to at least get his own musical taste on the record.
Embedded Link
The Missing Clause in Scalia’s First Amendment – Lawyers, Guns & Money : Lawyers, Guns & Money
Some there are—many, perhaps—who are offended by public displays of religion. Religion, they believe, is a personal matter; if it must be given external manifestation, that should not occur in public places where others may be offended. I can understand that attitude: It parallels my own toward …