Being a member of an oppressed minority -- atheists -- I'm totally on board with physicist Lawrence Krauss' call to put one of us on the Supreme Court, now that Antonin Scalia's death has created a vacancy.
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.
From a judicial perspective, an atheist Justice would be an asset. In controversial cases about same-sex marriage, say, or access to abortion or birth control, he or she would be less likely to get mired in religion-based moral quandaries.
...the appointment of an atheist Justice would send a meaningful message: it would affirm that legal arguments are secular, and that they are based on a secular document, the Constitution, which was written during the founding of a secular democracy.
Absolutely.
Our country's founders intended the United States to be an Empire of Reason, not of Faith. I wrote about this in "Naturalism needs to rule public policy debates."
What is the common ground on which we all can stand during our debates and discussions about what is best for us?
What evidence and facts can be brought into attempts to reason our way to some sort of consensus on complex controversial issues?
The answer to both questions is Nature and Nature’s Laws. Everybody lives in the same natural world. We all breathe the same air, drink the same water, walk on the same Earth, gaze into the same sky.
Yes, humans also hold a wide variety of ideas about what, if anything, might lie beyond the physicality of this universe.
But those hypothesized supernatural conceptions divide us, while the actuality of science, and the understanding that flows from reasoned consideration of what is known to be real — that unites us.
Such was the unparalleled vision of our nation’s founders.
An additional rationale for adding an atheist to the Supreme Court is that the percentage of non-believers in God's existence almost certainly is much higher than the 7% cited by Krauss.
I say this because we need to distinguish between (1) people who merely say they believe in God, and (2) people who actually act like they believe in God.
After all, if we want to figure out how many people truly believe in the efficacy of seat belts, we wouldn't simply ask them; we'd rely on studies that measure actual seat belt use.
(But even many ministers openly say they aren't sure about God's existence, making them atheists or agnostics. Up to 16% of Anglican clergy admit to this.)
In his book, "Fighting God: An Atheist Manifesto for a Religious World," David Silverman speaks about the hypocrisy of people who profess a belief in God, but don't act in accord with their supposed beliefs. This makes them atheists for all practical purposes.
Silverman notes several examples of political figures who engage in "lying, coveting, and adultery -- all commandments being broken over and over," then writes:
It may be distasteful, but we must admit it -- these pandering hypocrites in Congress (and in churches) who talk as if they believe in a god but act as if they don't'are probably atheists, lying about their beliefs for their personal benefit.
In this world, there are good theists and bad theists, and there are good atheists and bad atheists, but some of the worst atheists, the ones who feign peity for personal gain, are running religion and politics.
Also, the United States Supreme Court. A Mother Jones piece about what Antonin Scalia said about homosexuality starts off with this.
Justice Antonin Scalia has written that "it is our moral heritage that one should not hate any human being or class of human beings." Judging by the things he has said in court or written in his legal opinions about gays and lesbians, he doesn't really mean it.
So likely Scalia was a closeted atheist, maybe even to himself. (People can lie to themselves just as persuasively as they lie to others.)
Might as well replace him with an atheist committed to secular fairness and reason, then. That person would have a higher standard of morality than Scalia, guaranteed.
I would want to re-phrase it to: A supreme-court that is supporting a certain tradition of holding up FREEDOM and LIBERTY under the premise of "humanity's dignity is untouchable" would be nice to have. And we do have it.
Humanitys dignity, as defined by me:
1.) EVERY human being is supposed to have shelter (housing), food and water, basic education and tools to express ones beingness for free. As a given birth-right. Ownership of "property" of any sort MUST be justified by reasonable and just laws properly. That's not the case right now.
2.) The RIGHT to be able to either accept and/or to deny a particular political view-point on how, by whom and in what manner humanity wants to be "governed" by must be the most important thing humanity has to have the ability to choose freely. Without being manipulated by propaganda and other means of manipulating humanity's own mind-set. Those who run the political show right now "know not what they do."
3.) Stuggling for survival, by being forced to be a (unconscious) slave of the ideas and concepts of those who are seemingly in "power", is NOT what human dignity is all about. Humanity is NOT supposed to be enslaved by irresponsible morons, who (unlawfully) claim to have the right to rule.
4.) Freedom of choise, after proper education is applied to all humanity for free, THAT is what human dignity is all about. AFTER the very basic human needs are met for FREE, a human being can choose freely to be educted by whom and what party a human being chooses to be educated by.
5.) Absolutely nobody benefits from the capitalistic ecconomical system right now. Not even the ones who seem to run and promote it. If utter stupidity is running the worlds ecconomical system, for the sake of being in control, nobody benefits from it. Not even the ones who seem to. The pollution of the environment can not be denied any longer. This is NOT a clean, healthy and beneficial world we all live in. By no means.
"If there is no water to drink from anymore, you will experience that you can't drink money."
Posted by: Upsetter | February 21, 2016 at 09:52 AM
Upstter,
Agreed!
Posted by: Self | February 22, 2016 at 05:47 AM