Still, there is a world of difference between building rationales on widely accepted social mores and building them on specific theological holdings from the same corpus that may have very narrow acceptance. Not to mention that the Judeo Christian tradition gives itself too much credit - there is plenty of moral enlightenment available in other ancient traditions as well. But I've already spoken to my skepticism about too much focus on history in general. I think sometimes the value of looking at decision precedent get transferred to a reverence for history in general that is misplaced. In general history sucked.
But to be honest, by contradicting his own previous logic enough to get to where he wanted to go, Scalia brought me to understand that the logic given in decisions is not particularly meaningful. They find a way to back fill the logic to get the result they want 90% of the time.