Who should replace Antonin Scalia? On Monday, the Times reported that the Justice himself had weighed in on the question: last June, in his dissenting opinion in the same-sex marriage case Obergefell v. Hodges, Scalia wrote that the Court was “strikingly unrepresentative” of America as a whole and ought to be diversified….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.) Scalia’s remarks imply that an evangelical Christian should be appointed to the Court. That’s a strange idea: surely, the separation of church and state enshrined in the Constitution strongly suggests that court decisions shouldn’t be based on religious preference, or even on religious arguments. The Ten Commandments are reserved for houses of worship; the laws of the land are, or should be, secular. Still, I’m inclined, in my own way, to agree with Scalia’s idea about diversity. My suggestion is that the next Supreme Court Justice be a declared atheist.
I’ve often heard it said, and I’ve read in many a place, that the Supreme Court should somehow be representative of America. That’s a difficult charge to fulfill with only nine seats on the bench, but it’s clear that American diversity isn’t well represented on the current court. I’m not one for keeping score, if for no other reason than I prefer qualifications over affirmative action, but there’s something to be said for having a court drawn (as much as is possible) from all walks of life.
That said, there’s a solid argument to be made for appointing a justice who considers themselves “good without God.” I hate the term “atheist,” because it implies a lack of belief in something that actually exists. In fact, those of us who consider ourselves “good without God” don’t recognize the concept of a Supreme Being. It’s not that we don’t believe in a Supreme Being that exists; we don’t acknowledge or accept the reality of such a deity. For some, that’s enough to brand us as “dangerous,” “heretical,” and/or somehow “un-American.” Yes, apparently declining to believe in something that defies empirical observation and objective proof makes a clear and present danger to the moral well-being of the Homeland.
Those who are “good without God” are- the Constitution be damned- barred from holding elective office in several states, including Texas. We’re considered as “immoral,” “dangerous,” and “less than.” We’re regarded with derision in many places simply because we don’t subscribe to the majority religion. If you think about it, denigrating those who are “good without God” is really one of the few acceptable remaining forms of discrimination. You can’t degrade minorities, immigrants, homosexuals, the sick, the poor, and other classes in polite company…but too often denigrating those who are “good without God” is considered perfectly acceptable. After all, if we were truly moral human beings, we’d have accepted Jesus Christ as our personal Lord and Savior. After all, one can’t be moral without an unseen judgmental force monitoring your every thought, word, and deed 24/7/365.
Perhaps it’s a good time to nominate an atheist- someone who considers themselves “good without God”- to replace Justice Scalia…though the inevitable weeping and gnashing of teeth in righteous outrage would be something to behold. The Sturm und Drang resulting from the nomination of someone who neither accepts Jesus Christ as their personal savior nor recognizes the validity of Christianity would be EPIC…and all sorts of entertaining.
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. Three per cent of Americans say that they are atheists—which means that there are more atheists than Jews in the United States. An additional four per cent declare themselves agnostic; as George Smith noted in his classic book “Atheism: The Case Against God,” agnostics are, for practical purposes, atheists, since they cannot declare that they believe in a divine creator. Even so, not a single candidate for major political office or Supreme Court Justice has “come out” declaring his or her non-belief.
The reason no one’s “come out” as “good without God” is because of the pervasive prejudice against those who choose not to conform to expectations and profess a belief in the majority religion. Anyone who does “come out” is automatically viewed as suspect, someone with a profound moral failing and therefore clearly unworthy and unfit to serve. REAL Americans believe in Jesus, and those who don’t…well, they just can’t be trusted with the profound responsibility of a lifetime sinecure on the Supreme Court.
In reality, someone who considers themselves to be “good without God” is far less likely to conflate legal issues with moral concerns, something that defined Antonin Scalia’s tenure on the Supreme Court. He was likely as not to frame what should have been legal arguments in moral terms (Lawrence v. Texas, 2003). An atheist justice would be far more likely to focus on legal arguments as opposed to religious/moral ones. Nominating a justice who’s “good without God” would also reaffirm legal arguments to be secular and the rule of law to be based on a secular document and not the Christian Bible.
Such an appointment would also help counter the perceived connection between atheism and lawlessness and immorality. That unfortunate and inaccurate link is made all too often in the United States. A Pew survey conducted last month showed that, once again, Americans would be less likely to vote for an atheist candidate than for a candidate who has no experience, is gay, was involved in financial improprieties, has had extramarital affairs, or is Muslim. Atheists are widely, absurdly, and openly mistrusted.
The absurdity and hypocrisy inherent in the prejudice against atheists can’t be explained in rational terms. If you substituted “African-American” for “atheist” in that description, the reaction would be loud, indignant…and wholly justified. As every REAL American knows, atheists want nothing more than to destroy God and those who worship Him.
Hmm…project much??
Because we’re talking about those of us who consider ourselves “good without God,” no one gives acknowledges or cares about hypocrisy, double standards, ridiculous beliefs, or discrimination.
That distrust has ancient roots: because religion long ago claimed morality as its domain, atheism has long been connected to immorality. To many people, religiosity confers an aura of goodness. In the U.K., when people who had listed their religious affiliation as Christian on the national census were asked by the Richard Dawkins Foundation why they had done so, most said it was not because they actually accepted the detailed doctrines of their faith but because it made them feel like they were good people.
In other words, people need to be able to hold themselves above others, to consider themselves morally superior, in order to feel good about themselves. It has little, if anything, to do with actually leading a Christ-like life or treating others as you would hope to be treated by others. As sick as this all sounds, denigrating those of us who are “good without God” really is the last socially acceptable form of discrimination in America today.
Perhaps it’s time that a justice who rejects artificial religious constructs when it comes to the rule of law be nominated for a seat on the Supreme Court. It’s time America discovered what respecting the rule of law without conflating it with religion and morality looks like.
