February 19, 2016 at 11:10 am #18133AmusParticipant
It is high time for this IMHO,
Scalia wrote that the Court was “strikingly unrepresentative” of America as a whole and ought to be diversified. He pointed out that four of the Justices are natives of New York City, that none are from the Southwest (or are “genuine” Westerners), and that all of them attended law school at Harvard or Yale. Moreover, Scalia wrote, there is “not a single evangelical Christian (a group that comprises about one quarter of Americans), or even a Protestant of any denomination” on the Court. (All nine Justices are, to varying degrees, Catholic or Jewish.)
Atheists are a significantly underrepresented minority in government. According to recent findings from the Pew Research Center, about twenty-three per cent of American adults declare that they have no religious affiliation—which is two percentage points more than the number who declare themselves Catholic
From a judicial perspective, an atheist Justice would be an asset. In controversial cases about same-sex marriage, say, or access to abortion or birth control, he or she would be less likely to get mired in religion-based moral quandaries.
…the appointment of an atheist Justice would send a meaningful message: it would affirm that legal arguments are secular, and that they are based on a secular document, the Constitution, which was written during the founding of a secular democracy.
Our strange attitudes about atheism warp our politics and our laws. It’s time to remove the stigma attached to it. One way to do that is by appointing an atheist to the Supreme Court. Happily, such an appointment would be a tribute to the spirit, if not the letter, of one of Scalia’s last opinions. More than that, it would be a tribute to the secular principles upon which this country was founded.February 19, 2016 at 3:12 pm #18139mike_kolbParticipant
Fortunately, this wouldn’t happen. Anytime a Supreme Court judge is nominated (let-alone chosen) based-upon solely his or her religious leanings, race, gender or breakfast cereal preferences, we’re headed down a slippery slope.
Absolutely: religious views (or, in this case, lack thereof) are to be given weight, right along with every other facet of an individuals make-up.
That’s what the nomination and the eventual choice is all about. That overall snapshot is all we have, so it’s worth it to consider everything carefully.
But to say “install an atheist on the Court” is foolhardy, short-sighted and downright dangerous.
Be very careful of what you wish for.February 19, 2016 at 3:20 pm #18141
>>Be very careful of what you wish for.
Very true. Atheism has very little social redeeming value.February 19, 2016 at 4:04 pm #18142AmusParticipant
As a matter of fact I do agree with that.
There is to be no religious litmus test when it comes to any Government position.
That would naturally extend to a non-believer as well.
The Constitution makes that clear.
The thing that’s worth noting here is that Scalia, the supposed bastion of constitutional originalism suggested that there ought to be a diversity of religious beliefs on the Supreme court, in effect suggesting a religious litmus test.
I suspect Scalia’s opinion would come much closer to Broadway’s than that which is spelled out in the Constitution.
My experience is very different.
Some of the most moral people I know are atheists.
Some of the least moral people I know call themselves Christian.
Let me ask you this;
What would you prefer on the bench, an atheist or a Muslim?February 19, 2016 at 5:10 pm #18145February 19, 2016 at 6:42 pm #18151VitalogyParticipant
“Atheism has very little social redeeming value.”
Your religion has very little social redeeming value.
I would love to see a non-religious person appointed (atheist or agnostic). I’m tired of religious idiocy ruling our laws. If you want religious law, I will personally pay for your one way flight to Iran and you can soak it up in full force.February 19, 2016 at 6:43 pm #18152VitalogyParticipant
And let’s not forget, the MEN that wrote the Constitution didn’t address slaves or women’s voting rights. So, pardon me if I take that entire group with a grain of salt when it comes to 2016 issues.February 19, 2016 at 8:23 pm #18156
>>Your religion has very little social redeeming value.
Meet me downtown with my homeless friends sometime…February 19, 2016 at 8:36 pm #18157paulwalkerParticipant
Atheists, Agnostics, Muslims and Christians can and do help the homeless. Why we make this so complicated is beyond me.February 19, 2016 at 9:27 pm #18159
A piece of shit sez: “Atheism has very little social redeeming value.”
FUCK OFF YOU GOD DAMNED PIECE OF SHIT! You are the most un-Christ-worthy human being that ever laid eyes on this board.
Your absence from the living would be a welcome addition to civilized society.
Any fucking asshole can help homeless people. I’d like to meet you and your “homeless” friends. They’ll start hurling their feces at you once they know what you’re about.
Stay the fuck on the radio side. Christ is supposed to bring out the best in people. You’re failing miserably with your selfish shit.
The ugliness you see here is brought on by yourself.February 19, 2016 at 9:29 pm #18160
And yes, an Atheist is needed on the Court, if only to remind “Christians” to reign in their selfishness.February 19, 2016 at 9:35 pm #18162Chris_TaylorParticipant
I want the best for this position. There are plenty available. I don’t care what their religious or non-religious affiliation may be. I want the best for the court. We as a nation deserve it.
Vit and Broadway…get a room.February 20, 2016 at 1:46 pm #18167Andy BrownParticipant
“Meet me downtown with my homeless friends sometime…”
You are confusing gratefulness with friendship.
Radical right wing Bible thumping is idiocy.
Trying to inject religious values into laws and the court is unconstitutional.
Broadway, you amaze me sometimes with your ignorance. It’s one thing to have a conservative opinion but a far more dangerous one to be so blind to reality. We (the U.S.A.) is never, repeat, NEVER going to move to the positions held by the insanely stupid right wing religioids like yourself. In addition, the court is about to swing back to the center from too many decades of leaning too far right and that, Broadway, is a blessing. I agree with the Pope when he says “right-wing Christian fundamentalism a sickness.” People like you, Broadway, can not separate faith from ideology and that’s why what you wish to see will NEVER come about. You are the one here that is hostile and arrogant, not Vitalogy, Skeptical or Amus. When faith becomes ideology, Francis says, it frightens people. He’s way too polite. In the end this is why people like Mike Huckabee and ultimately Ted Cruz can never win a national election. I am truly sorry you are such a pathetic individual, but everyone here knows it and although your posts seem innocuous they are a reflection of your extreme values and intolerance. But hey, it’s all on you, not anyone here.February 20, 2016 at 7:29 pm #18177Dxer1969Participant
Ok. I need to ask. Why all of the hate against Broadway? I mean, you know where he comes from. He doesn’t post or say a hell of a lot. Most of it seems innocent enough. Not outright hateful or anything. He just seems set in his ways and single minded is all. Kind of weird, yes. So, I dunno. Maybe this feud goes back years. Or you guys know things I don’t. Anyway, just posting.February 20, 2016 at 8:51 pm #18181
His views discriminate, marginalizes and kills people. You’re probably a white male. If you were in the target group, you’d understand.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.