Jesus Take the Bench

During the introductory statements in the Senate hearings to install Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court the new junior Senator from Missouri, Josh Hawley, lingered on the Constitution. Like other Republicans in the hearing, he was laser focused on religion. They were obviously trying to preempt any Democratic review of Barrett’s religious history.

What made that even more obvious was the fact that none of the Committee’s Democrats brought up religion as an issue. It appears the Democrats have essentially given up on fighting or delaying the confirmation of Barrett. Instead, it would seem, they feel the time is better spent on the coming election. So instead they focused lock-step on healthcare. Their communication is to make this nomination appear to be another attempt by Republicans to overturn the Affordable Care Act.

It’s understandable, but I also feel disappointed since the debate on the wholesale infusion of religious extremism in Government is worth the time spent.

Hawley referenced Article 6 of the US Constitution, seeming to give more gravitas to it being an Article as opposed to an Amendment (as if they would be weighted differently). Article 6 is short and mostly requires an oath of loyalty to the Constitution and laws of the Country if one is to hold office in the three branches of Federal and State Governments. At the end of the Article is single line that states:

 …but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

Hawley excitedly argued that this was foundational proof that Barrett’s religious philosophy was out-of-bounds for any questioning by the members of the Committee. The only serious proof he was making was that no test of intelligence was required to become a Senator.

Prior to the forming of what is fondly referred to as the Great American Experiment in Democracy, Europe had spent centuries using religion to shore up the power of autocratic governments, mostly monarchies. In defining what this new American Democracy would be, one truly foundational aspect was that a government of the people would be secular.

They didn’t try to deny or renounce beliefs in a deity, but they understood that the organizational aspects of religion (i.e. churches), if allowed into the governance of the Country would only lead to conflict, discrimination, and ultimately victory for a single controlling sect. Someone entered that line into the US Constitution in 1787 not to protect Judge Barrett’s religious philosophy from disclosure; rather it was to restrict the Government from imposing any religious philosophy on her.

To hear nominees for the Supreme Court (the only ones we get to hear) say or infer that their job is to be a purely objective jurist to the laws of the land and that their personal beliefs or philosophy will not impact on their decisions is a kabuki dance I’m sick of observing. It’s ridiculous…just stop it! Were it true the Court would only have unanimous decisions. Ask why the adjectives of Liberal or Conservative are universally added to their names!

If a passionately Christian Democrat nominee belongs to a church that used snake handling to ward off bad spirits or ill health do you think ol’Josh wouldn’t bring it up? Nothing illegal about it, but Hawley would be spitting fire…and he should. Do you think Republican Senators would ever vote for a Muslim to be on the Supreme Court?

The background for Barrett, with her long family membership in the religious organization People of Praise should have a big fat spotlight on it. It characterizes the rigidness of her “faith” and that is precisely the antithesis of objectivity. It’s defining of women (Handmaidens) alone clouds a myriad of future opinions regarding women and defiles the history of the woman she’s replacing. People of Praise’s reactionary views on sexual orientation are even more frightening.

Amy Coney Barrett is obviously bright and educated in the field of law. That easily makes her qualified to walk into the Senate Committee hearing. It is also impossible to prove in advance that she would act on her personal faith and philosophy in rendering opinions, as we know judges do. However, it is more than reasonable to question her ability to dismiss beliefs she holds infallible.

My reading of her personal religious history disqualifies her outright. People of Praise, as with many other evangelical Christian sects, is on the extremist fringe of Christian churches. No one is denying them their freedom to worship as they like, like any other legitimate religious organization, but don’t tell me to ignore them either. We ignored Trump’s religion – Money – and look where that got us.

The Senate has the responsibility to choose for us the best qualified individual for such an important lifetime position. Amy Coney Barrett cannot be at the top of the list, except perhaps for those who are attracted by the very rigidness that makes her unqualified.