How are we colored?

I'm much more interested in the overarching - philosophical, if you will - issues related to the recent supreme court nominees/confirmations, than in the actual trench level politics of it. The profound and evident fear of both candidates' church affiliation is fascinating to me.

Consider if some nominee had NO religious affiliation, why would THIS ITSELF not be an issue of concern? Have not non-religious persons certain fundamental worldview biases that cause them to be colored in a certain way on certain issues? Speaking as one who knows MANY people who have no religious affiliation I can answer this: YES, of course they do.

Frankly, I am FAR more concerned about the biases and coloring of individuals who are their own gods than I am of people who look to an external authority on issues of morality and ethics. Aye, I do understand that Supreme Court Judges are supposed to look to the Constitution alone (that's their job, right? To interpret that document?), but let's be honest...extrapolation and judgements far outside the context of that document are neccesary to get the Rove v. Wade decision. I'm drifting....hold on while I adjust course...

So, how is that we are so afraid of relgious people's views distorting their interpretation of the Constitution, but not so with regard to non-religious people? The non-religious worldview seems to be - more and more - the default "system" by which we believe a pluralistic society needs to function and therefore if you are in any way pursuaded by a religious tenet in regards to some issue of public life, your opinion is tainted...not allowed...inadmittable...obsolete...fundamentally erroneous or inapplicable.

And this is becoming more and more the case in everday life...not only for Supreme Court Justices, but for all of us. The default is always secular. Anything else is...well see above.

I became a theist because of the weight of the argument from morality. As an atheist I had a certain set of moral beliefs that simply did not fit with my godless worldview and it became a terrible intellectual crisis...my heartfelt belief in right and wrong simply were rendered "stupid" and "fundamentally erroneous" by my atheism. You've heard the old adage that without God everything is permissible, well its true.
Atheism and society may "evolve" a moral code, but in the end it is always foundationally utilitarian and optional depending on who is in charge or who has what particular need at a particular time. It is a morality subjected to the well know failings of men, who desire power above all things, and so the Ring came to Isildur...ahem, sorry....hard aport!

So, suffice to say, I think we ought to be JUST as concerned and obsessed (if not MORE) about what the non-religious Supreme Court nominee does on Sunday mornings as we seem to be with the current ones who choose to be in Church. We are all colored by something.

Comments

Jared said…
So James,

Just thinking out loud here. Not really well thought out, but...

What about separation of church and state here?

As I was saying last week, I think that fundamentally, there should be no separation. "Well, that's so general, Jared. How can this be practical?" I think a completely different ethos is needed in government before this could ever become really practical. Each justice would have to be a practicing Christian.

How can major legal issues be decided "correctly" unless they are based on absolute Truth and morality as guiding posts? I know this is extremely unpopular, but I think this approach can only be the correct approach. How can an amoral person make legal decisions that are morally correct for our country? AND, consequently, affect so many human beings? Roe vs. Wade?

Popular Posts