Religious Tolerance and the Supreme Court

It is becoming increasingly obvious that the wall of separation between church and state has been greatly exaggerated by the elitist liberals on the far left, including the American Civil Liberties Union. When political correctness becomes a club with which the left beats religious conservatives into silence it becomes abusive and inherently a violation of the freedom of speech and the freedom of religion. I was appalled that the judicial committee would ask if Judge John Roberts would allow his religious views to affect his job.

The unspoken implication of the question is that Judge Roberts must rule by secular views and not based on any "private" religious commitments he might have. Such a premise is ridiculous at best. First of all, anyone who rules on the bench does so based on who they are in totality. Therefore, the real implication of the question is that anyone who is a devoutly religious person cannot possibly be impartial and objective. I might mention that the sword cuts both ways. If the religious person cannot be impartial then neither can the secular person. The unfairness of it is that the atheist gets to slam religion while religious persons are assumed to be bigoted and biased and should therefore have no voice in the political arena. In short, we who are religious cannot abdicate our responsibility to fight back against those who are bigotted against religion that actually stands for truth in all areas of life.

The atheist has no upperhand unless we allow it. There are more of us than they are of them. All that is needed is for religious persons of all faiths to stand together against the encroachment of atheism and call it what it is: a godless secular humanist religion. Religion is still religion, even if it claims to be a non-religion. By the way, a double negative in logic and math equals a positive. So a non-religion claiming not to be a religion is still an organized group advocating a particular point of view, a view which is hostile to religious freedoms fought and died for by millions of Americans of various faith traditions.

While I'm not in favor of establishing a particular Christian church or a religion other than Christianity as the official church or religion of the nation, I am in favor of placing the burden of proof on the government. Unless the state has a compelling state interest, i.e. the interest of the people as expressed in popular vote, the government should not restrict the participation of any religious person in the government of the people, including serving on the United States Supreme Court. That would mean that even devoutly religious persons who would allow their religious convictions to be a part of their decision making process should be allowed to participate on every level of government. After all, atheists allow their views to influence their decisions, including decisions on issues like abortion, euthansia, and religious freedom. Someone's views and morality is going to be legislated, why not mine?

Granted, we will not always be comfortable with the religion of certain persons in government; however, since we have the freedom of religion in this country, the particular religion of the person serving in governmental office is irrelevant, even if that religion influences their decisions and may be a religion we disagree with personally. I am a thoroughly Evangelical Protestant and do not particularly like the doctrinal errors of the Roman Catholic Church. Since Judge Roberts is Roman Catholic, I have my reservations about some of his religious views. Be that as it may, Judge Roberts has as much right to be on the United States Supreme Court as Ruth Bader Ginsberg does. Judge Roberts has as much right to be on the Supreme Court as does Clarence Thomas, also a Roman Catholic. In fact, Judge Roberts is no different than our former president, John, F. Kennedy, who was Roman Catholic, also.

I was not particularly thrilled when Ginsberg was appointed but I accepted it as a natural consequence of a democratic society. I strongly disagree with Roe v. Wade, too. However, if abortion cannot be a litmus test issue to keep liberals off the bench, it cannot be a litmus test to keep conservative religious persons off the bench either, even if such persons might reverse the Roe v. Wade ruling. The elitist Left cannot have it both ways. Either all judicially qualified persons, regardless of their religious convictions, have a right to serve or they do not. Since the United States Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion, one's religious beliefs cannot be a factor in deciding who should or should not sit on the United States Supreme Court.

Liberals are all for appointing religious persons who are theologically and politically liberal because they know that their decisions will be in line with their own worldview and commitments. Why would liberals be surprised when religious conservatives also rule according to their own worldview? Do we or do we not live in a democratic society? If the liberal elites do not like our political system when things do not go their way, they ought to understand that this is the way democracy works. Sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. We religious conservatives lost on the Roe v. Wade issue. But now we are turning the tide and the liberal left does not like it.

Personally, I think democracy can be both good and bad. But when my side is winning I think there is hope for the United States. I pray that God will continue to bring reform and renewal to our nation, even though we are not a "Christian" nation. I would hope that in a pluralistic society that good will still prevail over evil. Make no mistake about it, murdering the unborn is evil and we who are decent, law abiding citizens ought to do everything we can to stand against evil. Legalizing mercy killing so that we will not be burdened with caring for the sick and elderly is reprehensible at best and demonically evil at worst. Evil can only prevail when good men do nothing. President Bush is honoring his campaign commitment to appoint someone to the Supreme Court who will not legislate from the bench. Thank God for George W. Bush, even if he is not perfect on other issues.