One's religion or lack there of should have absolutely nothing to do with this appointment!
The elephant in the room with regard to religion is abortion, and 73% of Americans don't believe Roe should be overturned. That said, here we are about to confirm another judge with what appears to be (since noone answers questions anymore) opinions that differ from 3 out of 4 Americans?
Religion is an attribute that helps understand the individual. It should not be a primary reason in favor of or in opposition to a judge, but it definitely has something to do with the appointment. If you have any doubts, what do you think would happen if a President nominated a Muslim?
This may come as a shock to you, but there's actually a thing, commonly referred to as the "No Religious Test Clause". This bit of idealism is found in a document commonly referred to as the Constitution.
The elephant in *this* room is you are suggesting racism would play a significant part in the selection of a Justice by a President. Did you have a particular party in mind - a Democrat or Republican President, which might be more susceptible to this influence?
It's very interesting to see KK's thoughts and diction improve so dramatically from the time when s/he first started posting here. How many people have been paid to post under the KarmaKarma username?
If you have any doubts, what do you think would happen if a President nominated a Muslim?
There would be a lot of frothing from the usual suspects. It's mostly hypothetical (because it's unlikely to happen any time soon).
And while not directly related to the US Constitution, it's easy to point to bigotry in several State constitutions (which are not as shy and in some cases spell out the elephant) e.g.:
Arkansas Art. 19, § 1: No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.
Texas, Article 1, Section 4: No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.
One's religion or lack there of should have absolutely nothing to do with this appointment!
The elephant in the room with regard to religion is abortion, and 73% of Americans don't believe Roe should be overturned. That said, here we are about to confirm another judge with what appears to be (since noone answers questions anymore) opinions that differ from 3 out of 4 Americans?
Religion is an attribute that helps understand the individual. It should not be a primary reason in favor of or in opposition to a judge, but it definitely has something to do with the appointment. If you have any doubts, what do you think would happen if a President nominated a Muslim?
This may come as a shock to you, but there's actually a thing, commonly referred to as the "No Religious Test Clause". This bit of idealism is found in a document commonly referred to as the Constitution.
The elephant in *this* room is you are suggesting racism would play a significant part in the selection of a Justice by a President. Did you have a particular party in mind - a Democrat or Republican President, which might be more susceptible to this influence?
One's religion or lack there of should have absolutely nothing to do with this appointment!
The elephant in the room with regard to religion is abortion, and 73% of Americans don't believe Roe should be overturned. That said, here we are about to confirm another judge with what appears to be (since noone answers questions anymore) opinions that differ from 3 out of 4 Americans?
Religion is an attribute that helps understand the individual. It should not be a primary reason in favor of or in opposition to a judge, but it definitely has something to do with the appointment. If you have any doubts, what do you think would happen if a President nominated a Muslim?
Gosh, it's almost as if there hadn't been a 14th amendment to the constitution for 152 years, and a 19th amendment for 100 years. That you could read. That anyone, even a political cartoonist, even a poster on the RP forums, could read.
Those amendments are part of the constitution, which an originalist would regard as the law. And which all Supreme Court Justices (and all members of Congress; officers of the executive branch, including the president and vice president; and even members of state legislatures) swear an oath to support and defend.
But maybe that's too difficult a concept to communicate in one panel of a cartoon, which seems to be the predominant level of historical scholarship these days.
Catholics do not have to be 'conservative'. Though some of the more salient Catholics in the USA tend to be very conservative.
Courts should not make policy. It is undemocratic. Legislatures should make policy. Legislatures should initiate constitutional reforms. Everything else is just passing the buck.
I was born and raised Catholic. First Communion, Confirmation, Catholic High School, Catholic College for a year, married in a Catholic Church to a Catholic wife.
Even I find the notion that a religion with 20% of the US population will hold 66% of the seats on the highest court in the land a bit concerning.
Meanwhile...we have a President who won't denounce the rumors of an organized pedophilia ring that only he can stop! You just can't make that irony up.
For the first time in years, there's a protestant (Gorsuch, raised Roman Catholic but now is Episcopalian). It was all Jewish or Catholic. I wonder if there's ever been a justice who didn't identify as a member of a church .
I was born and raised Catholic. First Communion, Confirmation, Catholic High School, Catholic College for a year, married in a Catholic Church to a Catholic wife.
Even I find the notion that a religion with 20% of the US population will hold 66% of the seats on the highest court in the land a bit concerning.
Meanwhile...we have a President who won't denounce the rumors of an organized pedophilia ring that only he can stop! You just can't make that irony up.
Living in the same county I grew up and learned in school about the importance of separation of church and state. That's why I'm confused as to when that changed.
It did not change. The confusion of church and state was always there despite the fervent wishes of secular and some religious Americans.
I grew up with a protestant interpretation of Christianity as the de facto official religion of English-language public schools in Ontario. That has withered away in most Canada since those days. Here is a story of a Christian-based young university in BC that tried to get their law program accredited. That effort failed. Canadian top court denies religious freedom to Christian law school
And while we are on this topic, I view compulsory national anthems and other compulsory gestures of allegiance to the nation state in schools and other public institutions as fundamentally anti-democratic but that takes us way off topic.
No, you are just living in the wrong part of the country.
For the sake of your children and your own sanity, I would suggest you back down and actually encourage your children to do 'religion tourism'. Try to help them gain some understanding of rituals, world views, attitudes to 'others', what makes one conservative protestant sect different from another. I am guessing here that the Unitarians are not setting up booths....
On top of this, I would introduce your children to some of the more important ideas of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.
It is possible to learn about Christianity in all its diverse forms and learn something about Judeo-Christian ethics and morals without becoming a practising believer or becoming anti-science, anti-technocrat, anti-expertise or a religiously motivated killer.
Religion-proofing children is easy; just talk to them about geology.
If you are feeding your children a whole grain diet at home, a few meals of bleached white flour pizza might teach them something about how the human bowels work. Nothing beats personal experience in this area.
Living in the same county I grew up and learned in school about the importance of separation of church and state. That's why I'm confused as to when that changed.
No, you are just living in the wrong part of the country.
For the sake of your children and your own sanity, I would suggest you back down and actually encourage your children to do 'religion tourism'. Try to help them gain some understanding of rituals, world views, attitudes to 'others', what makes one conservative protestant sect different from another. I am guessing here that the Unitarians are not setting up booths....
On top of this, I would introduce your children to some of the more important ideas of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin.
It is possible to learn about Christianity in all its diverse forms and learn something about Judeo-Christian ethics and morals without becoming a practising believer or becoming anti-science, anti-technocrat, anti-expertise or a religiously motivated killer.
Religion-proofing children is easy; just talk to them about geology.
If you are feeding your children a whole grain diet at home, a few meals of bleached white flour pizza might teach them something about how the human bowels work. Nothing beats personal experience in this area.
I guess I am misunderstanding what was taught to me in school, as a child. The division of church and state is extremely important. Without it you have religion influencing all sorts of matters that have no business being there. Also one religion can dominate over another in that case. WTF happened to that? I cannot tell you how disturbing it is to attend a city council meeting and have it begin with a prayer!!! That is so inappropriate and yet it is accepted as perfectly ok in a conservative county such as the one I live. Schools are also visited regularly by various religious groups that offer pizza parties and activities to get our youth in their clutches! When I found that out at my children's high school I threw a fit in the principal's office. That is not supposed to happen! Am I wrong?
