ALL,

Good question in my view. The article by David Waters is thought provoking.

The closest we have come to this in the past is appointment of Unitarians. To my knowledge, never an out and out atheist.

In the following article, you will need to scroll down to find the one on the Supreme Court.

http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/

Comments welcome.

Is It Time for an Atheist on the Supreme Court?

Hell, no!

Sela

Of COURSE it's time for an athiest, a homosexual, or a pagan. This bigoted ideas are gradually being challenged and now is as good a time as any. Remember when the Supreme Court was all white males? Then we got a black man into the court and finally a woman. This is just one more barrier to bring down. Hopefully soon.

There could still be justice if there are openly atheist members on the court, but I have concerns about the continuity of the system if the court were to declare itself to be atheist.

The laws are openly theist. God is deeply embedded in the language and philosophy of the court. In other words, God is one of the things which balance the power of the court. Suppose the justices decide that the court will announce that God does not exist. This would nullify the laws and most precedents as they are currently written. I'm not saying the justices would not recognize all the laws, but they would have lot of power that they shouldn't have. A court declared to be atheist would have Godlike powers over our lives until such time as all of the laws had been reviewed and finalized. --- or until it found a way to define the meaning of God in such a way that it did not offend the court but still served the same purpose. Not sure how they'd do that. If you redefine 'God', then you must redefine everything; and I do mean everything. Absolutely every law.

Does that mean we cannot have atheist, pagan or homosexual judges? No. It means that they have to recognize the power of God whenever they wear the robes. That's just the way it is! That's how it works.

The main functions of the Supreme Court are to:

[1] Settle disputes between states.
[2] Hear appeals from state and federal courts.
[3] Determine the constitutionality of federal laws.

     Anyone with suitable legal credentials and enough objectivity to suppress personal bias meets the standards of the Court. All three court functions are secular, so atheists would not need to deal with the religious implications of their judgments.
Seán

quote:

Does that mean we cannot have atheist, pagan or homosexual judges? No. It means that they have to recognize the power of God whenever they wear the robes. That's just the way it is! That's how it works.

So, by your line of thinking, the first requirement to sit on the Supreme Court is to be a hypocrite?

quote:

Does that mean we cannot have atheist, pagan or homosexual judges? No. It means that they have to recognize the power of God whenever they wear the robes.

That's crazy nonsense. There is no power of God (whatever the heck the phrase means) for an atheist or pagan.

And what does homosexuality have to do with the issue? Are you making the extremely bigoted assumption that homosexuals are all atheists or pagans?

There are plenty of Catholic priests who are perfect examples of the opposite. (And, no, I'm not saying that homosexual priests are all child molesters either.)

Jeff

Koka said:

quote:

So, by your line of thinking, the first requirement to sit on the Supreme Court is to be a hypocrite?

Justices wear robes, because they are ministers, just like the ministers in England are ministers. The court is appointed to wield powers borrowed from God and in deference to God. That is its philosophy from the get-go and that philosophy is incorporated into all of its precedents and documents.

For jury duty I opted to 'Affirm' instead of swear, but I still had to repeat the words given to me and affirm them; and somehow God was in that affirmation even without the word. In NC by law oaths are to be given with solemnity. If you affirm they swap the word 'Swear' for 'Affirm' and remove the phrase "So help me God," and you must affirm separately from the majority which swear an oath So help them God. The law of our state upholds God as the giver and avenger of law. Section 11-3 of the code of NC provides the wording for one kind of swear.

quote:

"I, A.B., do appeal to God, as a witness of the truth and the avenger of falsehood, as I shall answer the same at the great day of judgment, when the secrets of all hearts shall be known (etc., as the words of the oath may be).

Adding: How is the law of the USA any different?

quote:

That's crazy nonsense. There is no power of God (whatever the heck the phrase means) for an atheist or pagan.

If its crazy nonsense, then tell that to the supreme court and the congress. Tell them to rewrite all of the laws and court cases to reflect that knowledge. According to the laws and courts, you'd think there was no such thing as atheists. There are just people that don't like to swear, because their consciences won't allow them to. Their affirmations are given in a court which has borrowed power from the avenger of falsehood, who will avenge the law whether or not they swear.

What exactly is a pagan? Isn't it a sort of amorphous conception of a group of people that don't like to be described as pagans? I think its a Catholic term for anyone that isn't Catholic or something like that.

quote:

And what does homosexuality have to do with the issue? Are you making the extremely bigoted assumption that homosexuals are all atheists or pagans?

Jeff,
I'm just giving deference to Koka who broadened the discussion to include homosexuals and 'Pagans'. (I don't know what Koka thinks pagans are.) Of course I don't assume homosexuals are atheists at all and know four that are not.

quote:

There are plenty of Catholic priests who are perfect examples of the opposite. (And, no, I'm not saying that homosexual priests are all child molesters either.)

Jeff

And one of those I mentioned is a member of the Roman Catholic assembly.

quote:

Justices wear robes, because they are ministers

A quick Google search will show you that the robe tradition has nothing at all to do with religion. There are many different explanations. I can't find a single one that agrees with your notion. See, for example:
http://www.ehow.com/facts_5526...ear-black-robes.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_dress
http://www.vaildaily.com/artic...090210/BIZ/902109908

quote:

The court is appointed to wield powers borrowed from God and in deference to God. That is its philosophy from the get-go and that philosophy is incorporated into all of its precedents and documents.

Again, seriously, where do you get that idea from? It's not in the Constitution, and I don't remember seeing it in any writings of the Founding Fathers. It's a philosophy of the law that I've never even heard of before.

Jeff

Jeff, I grabbed the areas of homosexuals and Pagans as they are considered to be two more groups that deviate from the norm. Pagans do have belief in higher powers, gods and goddesses, and to ask them to affirm the Christian God is probably quite offensive to many of them. Certainly it would be forcing hypocracy upon them.

The premise that our Supreme Court Justices are ministers and Christians is ridiculous. One reason being - we have 2 Jews on the present Supreme Court. They are NOT Christians! The word God is so ambiguous, it would be difficult to know which God you were swearing to or at...

I must back down and completely reverse from saying outright that the Fed court cases draw their authority from God. The Constitution does not say this, and the justices never even allude to it in cases. --- However, I still think the judges still do ceremonially act as if under God's court, so I still think the judges robes seem like a religious throwback, in spite of those links you gave. True, the judges nearly wound up wearing suits; but they they wear robes and they still hear the cry of 'God save the US and this honorable court' every morning.

quote:

Again, seriously, where do you get that idea from? It's not in the Constitution, and I don't remember seeing it in any writings of the Founding Fathers. It's a philosophy of the law that I've never even heard of before.

It seems most of the religious establishment is coming from the states. There are state judges that have issued opinions (Loving V. Virginia) that contain religious statements about God; but I could find none of these in supreme court cases! Supreme court cases don't seem to cite God as a source of law or rights or government.

After taking a good look at the constitution there definitely isn't a lot about God in there, except for a few indirect mentions. I also went through the supreme court justices and looked at famous cases to see if they mentioned 'God' or 'Divine' but none did, except for in cases about religion! Not at all like state courts! So seriously, the states are mostly where I was getting that opinion from. As for God in the US Law, he is there *in places*. For example, there is the Oath of Allegiance for immigrants with the original "So help me God." It is not in the Constitution; but the constitution still does mention Oaths, Ministers, and the "Year of our Lord" on the signatory page.

I no longer think that the court would fall apart if it declared itself to be atheist. It would still function.

También,
     By freely admitting you were wrong, you've done something as admirable as it is extraordinary. Few people have integrity enough to acknowledge their mistakes. Congratulations!
Seán

It's nice to see another open mind on this board!

I try to open too.

Jeff

Duplicate

quote:

Justices wear robes, because they are ministers, just like the ministers in England are ministers.

Tambien,

Did you happen to read the Alan Watts article I posted? He claims it's the other way around! He says Protestant ministers wear robes because judges wear robes, and points out that Protestant churches bear a striking resemblance to British and American courts, which from his POV is no coincidence. As for Catholic churches, he compares them with royal courts going back to the Egyptian pharoahs and other Middle Eastern potentates, and continuing to the present day.

quote:

The court is appointed to wield powers borrowed from God and in deference to God. That is its philosophy from the get-go and that philosophy is incorporated into all of its precedents and documents.

In order for that concept to be useful at all you absolutely HAVE to secularize it in order to make it applicable to the widest possible range of beliefs. I *think* what you're trying to say is that the court, and the judges/justices who serve on that court, must always act in accordance with what they conceive to be the highest good, within the limits of the applicable law relevant to any given case. "Good" substitutes for "God" in this understanding, and in fact the two words come from the same root in English. That relationship has to be borne in mind at all times in any discussion of justice and the religious beliefs or unbeliefs of judges.

The U.S. Constitution states quite explicitly that no religious test shall ever be required to hold public office. That means that no candidate can ever be disqualified simply because he/she is not an adherent of some particular religion or denomination. It's very important to bear in mind that not everyone agrees with this principle, nor have they EVER agreed with it since this country was founded!

What I'm saying is that there is no universal agreement as to what constitutes "the highest good." There should be, but unfortunately there isn't. The most utterly terrifying words I ever heard on that subject were from a Christian fundie on the old Prodigy Debates/Religious issues board. She was one of those "sola scriptura, sola fides" types. You've been around fundies so you know what I mean. She asserted that "good is what is pleasing to God and evil is what is not pleasing to God."

That flat-out terrified me because it's a completely arbitrary definition, devoid of any meaningful content whatsoever. "God's will" then becomes nothing more than a vehicle for projection of the believer's own prejudices, pet hatreds and revenge fantasies. It absolutely negates the Golden Rule, which is my sole standard of morality and which should be everyone's. I can say that without equivocation or self-contradiction because it is in fact the basis of what Gurdjieff calls "objective morality," what the Catholic Church calls "natural law" and what Judaism calls the primary commandment, which Jesus also reaffirmed.

There's nothing stopping me from having my own personal religious test for a Supreme Court justice or any other public office--and I do. In fact, I get more adamant and outspoken about it by the day, and I don't give a damn who calls me prejudiced and intolerant. I *AM* intolerant of the intolerant and I don't care who knows it! I'm sick and tired of the self-appointed guardians of public faith and morals using my natural liberal tolerance to hamstring me and prevent me from opposing them effectively. Therefore I refuse to extend my tolerance to them any longer. I believe in "live and let live." THEY DON'T, and liberals ignore this difference at their peril and to the detriment of their country.

I will not support any theocrat for public office. I won't support or vote for anyone I even suspect of harboring theocratic tendencies, including but not limited to Protestant fundies, Mormons and conservative Catholics. I would love to see the Supreme Court entirely made up of Unitarian Universalists or the equivalent--i.e. liberal Jews, Buddhists, Pagans, etc. In other words, people with a humanistic orientation who are sincerely committed to the separation of church and state. NOT people who give lip service to it but who actually hate it and want to destroy it, since they believe it's the prerogative of the "godly" (them) to rule over the "ungodly" (the rest of us).

I guess it goes without saying that I'd rather see an atheist on the Supreme Court any day of the week than the wrong kind of believer.

--Linda

Tambien, I applaud your open mind.

quote:

Originally posted by Sean:
También,
     By freely admitting you were wrong, you've done something as admirable as it is extraordinary. Few people have integrity enough to acknowledge their mistakes. Congratulations!
Seán

Amen to that!
If you will excuse the expression.

Yes it is high time that we had an atheist, or at least an agnostic on the Supreme Court. But such a nomination today would have no chance of confirmation. That's just the sad truth.
None the less I would like to see such a nomination. You have to start somewhere.

Come to think of it, do we have any atheist Senators or Congressmen?

John, you ask,

quote:

Come to think of it, do we have any atheist Senators or Congressmen?

I don't know if there any open atheists. The usual route people follow who are free thinkers, atheists, agnistics etc. that aspire to public office is to fake it. That is, they join some mainstream church and throw the church a few pesos every year. Once in a while show up, but not very often.

quote:

También,
By freely admitting you were wrong, you've done something as admirable as it is extraordinary. Few people have integrity enough to acknowledge their mistakes. Congratulations!
Seán

Jeff Sean Koka thanks for not reaming me over it. Being wrong is bad enough on its own.

quote:

In order for that concept to be useful at all you absolutely HAVE to secularize it in order to make it applicable to the widest possible range of beliefs. I *think* what you're trying to say is that the court, and the judges/justices who serve on that court, must always act in accordance with what they conceive to be the highest good, within the limits of the applicable law relevant to any given case. "Good" substitutes for "God" in this understanding, and in fact the two words come from the same root in English. That relationship has to be borne in mind at all times in any discussion of justice and the religious beliefs or unbeliefs of judges.

Those are good points. The part about the highest good and 'Good' substituted for 'God' was a partial consideration. I had the notion the justice system considered itself as borrowing power from a supernatural guardian, or in some way administering justice as the regent of a omniscient, invisible king. Not so. The supreme court is granted power by the Constitution, and the Constitution derives its 'Powers' only from the People of the United States with no mention of a supernatural guardian of any type. So, like Koka asked before, I did think that atheist supreme court justices would have to be hypocrites, though now I do not.

Yes, I read your post about Alan Watts and The Most Dangerous Book, and he's made sense. I agree with you that the greatest good is not something you can preach or reveal to other people! You can try to discuss it, but even then you cannot know whether you are correct! The big problem in so-called 'Fundamentalists' is thinking that we can (despite the Bible saying otherwise). I think the Bible says many times over that all people can have are opinions, that books are just books, and that there is no such thing as a fundamentalist [SC]. Another big problem is fundamentalists [SC] thinking that the Bible (which requires a lot of education and dedication in the reader) will interpret itself! Rather than interpreting itself, the Bible defies casual reading and arrests those that approach by way of a back door or cheat.

quote:

There's nothing stopping me from having my own personal religious test for a Supreme Court justice or any other public office--and I do. In fact, I get more adamant and outspoken about it by the day, and I don't give a damn who calls me prejudiced and intolerant. I *AM* intolerant of the intolerant and I don't care who knows it! I'm sick and tired of the self-appointed guardians of public faith and morals using my natural liberal tolerance to hamstring me and prevent me from opposing them effectively. Therefore I refuse to extend my tolerance to them any longer. I believe in "live and let live." THEY DON'T, and liberals ignore this difference at their peril and to the detriment of their country.

I quite understand that, and I'm inclined to agree with you.

quote:

Another big problem is fundamentalists [SC] thinking that the Bible (which requires a lot of education and dedication in the reader) will interpret itself! Rather than interpreting itself, the Bible defies casual reading and arrests those that approach by way of a back door or cheat.

Tambien,
That's assuming that the Bible is the ultimate guide to life handed down by some sort of God.
Atheists don't buy that. Nor do deists or agnostics. Many have studied the Bible in depth btw.

So why go beyond a face value interpretation of a book that actually may
not warrant any scholarly interpretations?

quote:

Protestant ministers wear robes because judges wear robes

My understanding is that they are (derived from) academic robes--not the cheapo things everybody wears at high school graduation, of course, but the old-style robes of European academia that administrators and faculty still wear at American university graduations.
--
Stephen

John T. said:

quote:

Tambien,
That's assuming that the Bible is the ultimate guide to life handed down by some sort of God.
Atheists don't buy that. Nor do deists or agnostics. Many have studied the Bible in depth btw.

So why go beyond a face value interpretation of a book that actually may
not warrant any scholarly interpretations?

I was addressing the subject of fundamentalists [SC] (especially evangelical) for a second there, not atheists. Kind of got off track of the main topic, because I was responding to Raksha's comment about Allan Watt's article.

"Why go beyond the face value....may not warrant scholarly interpretations?" is a rhetorical question, but the face value is not the value of the Bible unless that is your interest. Some atheists study the Bible in depth, of course; but most generally are not interested in much more than the face value. Neither are many of the fundamentalists [SC]. As you say why go beyond that if you do not see value in doing so, since it isn't easy to study?