Religious tests and the Court

One of the oddest things about the recent debates about the qualifications of Supreme Court nominees is the way that some of us have been tiptoeing around a subject that is theoretically off limits.

President Bush said that Meirs Christian beliefs are a part of the whole-thus considered. One cannot construe that as
violation of the "no religious test" The Political Party of
Deception and Division(the Democratic Party) has applied a
litmus test rejecting qualified nominees because they beleived their personal religious beliefs "might" interfere
with their determination of the law. The reply that
"Christians need not apply is an all too sad reality of the
un-American /Anti-Christian State that has been allowed to
evolve while the people slept.

IMO, there’s big difference between having your values and judgments formed by a religious tradition, and believing that you are in direct communication with God.

In the first case it’s possible to admit that human understanding of divine intention is fallible, and at least in theory step back and objectively evaluate human understanding in terms of human experience (an example would be individuals who rejected biblical based arguments in defense of slavery in the times and places when this was a matter of Christian orthodoxy) - and in doing so, acknowledging that the evidence of other’s experience and opinion can be entered into argument over such issues.

OTOH, if someone believes that they can directly petition God for knowledge of his intentions and preferences they have no grounds for complaint if he offers different advice to different ears; if I inform them that my God has instructed me to stone adulterers, practice infanticide of female children, marry off my daughters at the age of twelve and take multiple wives divorceable at will they have no grounds for appeal from my opinion, and no reason to suppose that my understanding of God’s will is inferior to their own.

So from my point of view, a reasonable question of potential justices would be:

“Do you believe that God, though praryer or othe direct experience, a communicate to you his preferences on matters before the court?”

and if the answer is yes, or they are evasive, or refuse to answer, IMO they shouldn’t be on the court; we are appointing jsutices to interpret a body of law established for the protection of all citizens, including protection from the divinely delivered dictates of any religion, not high priests of one religion or another to administer our affairs according to their private communications with God.

I can not fully agree with this author. The issue does not cut both ways.

A religious test shall never be required as a qualification for office. This means that, for example, Congress cannot ask whether Miers believes in baptism by immersion in her confirmation hearings. It does not mean that the president does not have the right to consider her faith in his choice for nominating her.

The same applies to the office of the president. To argue otherwise would forbid me, when I vote for president, to consider whether the candidate's faith makes him more trustworthy in my estimation. I have that right as a voter.

Christian people might feel a man who professes Christian faith would be more trustworthy. A Muslim might feel differently. I would be very unlikely to vote for a Muslim in any political race. Is that unconstitutional for me to allow that to influence my vote. No.

But of course, if a Muslim won an election, he could not be disallowed to serve because he is not Jewish or Christian.

There is nothing wrong with Bush taking into consideration that Miers is a Christian of similar persuasion as himself.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.