Why no Atheists on the Supreme Court?

[Superfluous_Parentheses]

@Captain_Amazing

I think the same thing is true of Catholicism, at least. You might be a heretic or an apostate, but you’re a Catholic heretic or Catholic apostate.

Yup. I started a thread about that some time ago. It still annoys me.

[Dante_Fevah]

@Clu-Me-In

Has there ever been a known Atheist on the Supreme Court? If not why not? Many Americans are Atheists even though some would never admit it. Is it just cos they would never be confirmed or that no Presdient has been corageous enough to nominate one?

There is a difference between non believers and Atheists. Atheists are usually in your face with a self descriptive label. A badge. I’d say there have been no Atheists for many of the same reasons there have been no Muslims, Buddhists, Shintoists…

[fluiddruid]

@Dante_Fevah

There is a difference between non believers and Atheists. Atheists are usually in your face with a self descriptive label. A badge. I’d say there have been no Atheists for many of the same reasons there have been no Muslims, Buddhists, Shintoists…

This strikes me as confirmation bias (not to mention splitting hairs).

I’ll tell you right now I’m an atheist, and I’ve made no secret about it in the relative anonymity and open-dialogue environment of the Straight Dope. But in real life? I’ve maybe told one or two people I don’t believe in God. I don’t know if I’ve ever said I was an atheist to anyone I actually know face to face. But I am one. It’s just not particularly socially acceptable and I see no reason to invite confrontation.

Believe me, there are plenty of atheists.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Dante_Fevah

There is a difference between non believers and Atheists.

No there isn’t. They are the exact same thing. Most atheists aren’t very vocal about it.

I’d say there have been no Atheists for many of the same reasons there have been no Muslims, Buddhists, Shintoists…

Narrow minded Christian ethnocentricity?

For Presidents, it’s even worse. At least there have been a few Jews and Catholics on the Supreme Court.

[Dante_Fevah]

@fluiddruid

This strikes me as confirmation bias (not to mention splitting hairs).

I’ll tell you right now I’m an atheist, and I’ve made no secret about it in the relative anonymity and open-dialogue environment of the Straight Dope. But in real life? I’ve maybe told one or two people I don’t believe in God. I don’t know if I’ve ever said I was an atheist to anyone I actually know face to face. But I am one. It’s just not particularly socially acceptable and I see no reason to invite confrontation.

Believe me, there are plenty of atheists.

I’m a non believer and I say so when people proselytize or keep up revealing their private religious or spiritual beliefs without invitation. Doing this has the potential to cause more problems than if I just said disingenuously “I am an Atheist.”

I was once a man in search of a spiritual being, on a spiritual quest, so I have no patience for dogmatic fools, or well meaning, and ignorant (note to maude squad: broad general definition) believers.

The post you replied to contained my observations. The nuances may have been lost on you but trust me, many of us are neither Atheists nor Agnostics. No matter how many times Atheists and Agnostics insist we are all the same, it does not hold water.

Distinctions with a difference add more nuanced meanings, than mere splitting of hairs do. And they add information and definitions and meanings where hairs split only seek to mask minute differences.

[Dante_Fevah]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

@Originally Posted by Dante Fevah

There is a difference between non believers and Atheists.

1. No there isn’t. They are the exact same thing. Most atheists aren’t very vocal about it.

@Originally Posted by Dante Fevah

I’d say there have been no Atheists for many of the same reasons there have been no Muslims, Buddhists, Shintoists…

2. Narrow minded Christian ethnocentricity?

3. For Presidents, it’s even worse. At least there have been a few Jews and Catholics on the Supreme Court.

1. They are not EXACTLY the same thing.

2. Nope.

3. What is worse?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Dante_Fevah

1. They are not EXACTLY the same thing.

2. Nope.

3. What is worse?

1. They are exactly the same thing. The dictionary definition of an atheist is someone who lacks belief in the existence of gods.

2. Yep.

3. The intolerance of the electorate for anyone who isn’t a Christian – not even just a Christian, but a Protestant Christian. They actually thought it was some kind of big, meaningful issue that JFK was Catholic.

[Dante_Fevah]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

1. They are exactly the same thing. The dictionary definition of an atheist is someone who lacks belief in the existence of gods.

2. Yep.

3. The intolerance of the electorate for anyone who isn’t a Christian – not even just a Christian, but a Protestant Christian. They actually thought it was some kind of big, meaningful issue that JFK was Catholic.

People’s beliefs and non beliefs have more nuance than any strict dictionary definition being used as a single descriptive label does. I do not lack belief, because I do not see my non belief as lacking something. see? semantics.

And just so you know, a dictionary definition can and will change with common understandings and usage. Is this going to turn into an example of one of those sad web phenomena where people confuse semantics with debate?

JFK’s Catholicism was an issue because he was a practicing Catholic in a nation where Catholics were not the majority, but where in the majority ruling class. I do not feel the effects of Christian intolerance as much as one would think I would, because I don’t care for preachy moralistic fools…well meaning or not. Most Christians are not bores.
I am sure more than a few people who have held offices and a judgeship were to be pinned on their beliefs we would find a few who might fit the Atheist label you so cherish. Most people do not hide being an Atheist as much as they might be uncomfortable owning up to atheistic beliefs. … now we’re back to beliefs again. hmmm… maybe saying one is a non believer is more accurate a descriptive label?

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

1. They are exactly the same thing. The dictionary definition of an atheist is someone who lacks belief in the existence of gods.

Agnostics?

3. The intolerance of the electorate for anyone who isn’t a Christian – not even just a Christian, but a Protestant Christian. They actually thought it was some kind of big, meaningful issue that JFK was Catholic.

Which might make sense if you were writing this in 1928 but not now-plus consider that now there are no Protestants on the Supreme Court I think your idea is nonsense.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Curtis LeMay

Agnostics?

No, agnosticism is the belief that it’s impossible to know whether gods exist, it’s not a per se statement of belief in and of itself. One can be both an agnostic and a theist (the recently deceased Martin Gardner, for example), or both an agnostic and an atheist. Agnosticism is not (as is commonly believed) an undecided middle or neutral ground with regards to belief (that’s weak atheism), it’s a affirimative declaration about what can be proven.

Which might make sense if you were writing this in 1928 but not now-plus consider that now there are no Protestants on the Supreme Court I think your idea is nonsense.

An irrelevant comparison. The Supreme Court is an appointed body, not an elected one. It says nothing about all about who people would be willing to elect to the Whitehouse.

I’m willing to believe that the electorate (for the most part) has moved past believing that the practice of Papism is grounds for concern, but that’s about as far as they’re willing to move. Mitt Romney has faced a lot of opposition from fundies for being a Mormon. A Jewish candidate might have a chance, but maybe not. Any religion outside of that would no chance at all, especially not a Muslim, and polls show that Americans would be even less willing to vote for an atheist than a Muslim.

[Qin_Shi_Huangdi]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

An irrelevant comparison. The Supreme Court is an appointed body, not an elected one. It says nothing about all about who people would be willing to elect to the Whitehouse.

If for instance the President nominated a Satanist (a LaVeyan one) there would be such a furor that the nomination will not pass. Supreme Court nominees are still (partially) subject to popular opinion.

I’m willing to believe that the electorate (for the most part) has moved past believing that the practice of Papism is grounds for concern, but that’s about as far as they’re willing to move. Mitt Romney has faced a lot of opposition from fundies for being a Mormon. A Jewish candidate might have a chance, but maybe not. Any religion outside of that would no chance at all, especially not a Muslim, and polls show that Americans would be even less willing to vote for an atheist than a Muslim.

A Jewish candidate has a chance if he’s a theist.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

If for instance the President nominated a Satanist (a LaVeyan one) there would be such a furor that the nomination will not pass. Supreme Court nominees are still (partially) subject to popular opinion.

This would just prove my point, not contradict it. The electorate is religiously biased against non-Christians.

A Jewish candidate has a chance if he’s a theist.

Not much of one. There are a significant number of voters who say they would never vote for a non-Christian candidate under any circumstances.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

Apropos of nothing, the Constitution of North Carolina explicitly bars atheists from holding public office:

Sec. 8. Disqualifications for office.

The following persons shall be disqualified for office:

First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

Second, with respect to any office that is filled by election by the people, any person who is not qualified to vote in an election for that office.

Third, any person who has been adjudged guilty of treason or any other felony against this State or the United States, or any person who has been adjudged guilty of a felony in another state that also would be a felony if it had been committed in this State, or any person who has been adjudged guilty of corruption or malpractice in any office, or any person who has been removed by impeachment from any office, and who has not been restored to the rights of citizenship in the manner prescribed by law.

[Northern_Piper]

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]

[QUOTE=Curtis LeMay]

Which might make sense if you were writing this in 1928 but not now-plus consider that now there are no Protestants on the Supreme Court I think your idea is nonsense.
[/QUOTE]

An irrelevant comparison. The Supreme Court is an appointed body, not an elected one. It says nothing about all about who people would be willing to elect to the Whitehouse.
[/QUOTE]

If it’s irrelevant, why did you yourself mention the composition of the Supreme Court just a few posts earlier?

[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]

For Presidents, it’s even worse. At least there have been a few Jews and Catholics on the Supreme Court.
[/QUOTE]

[Northern_Piper]

And, although in terms of absolute numbers, the number of Jews and Catholics on the Court has been low, at the moment, assuming the Kagan nomination goes through the Senate, the Court will be composed entirely of Jews and Catholics, which is an interesting commentary on the reduction of the dominance of the traditional Protestant religions.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Northern_Piper

If it’s irrelevant, why did you yourself mention the composition of the Supreme Court just a few posts earlier?

The thread itself is about the Supreme Court. I made a comment that the spectrum for religious electability to the Whitehouse is even more narrow than it is for appointment to the Supreme Court. What’s the contradiction?

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

@Northern_Piper

And, although in terms of absolute numbers, the number of Jews and Catholics on the Court has been low, at the moment, assuming the Kagan nomination goes through the Senate, the Court will be composed entirely of Jews and Catholics, which is an interesting commentary on the reduction of the dominance of the traditional Protestant religions.

It’s really just a comment on the overriding importance of Roe as it pertains to appointments.

[Really_Not_All_That_Bright]

@Northern_Piper

And, although in terms of absolute numbers, the number of Jews and Catholics on the Court has been low, at the moment, assuming the Kagan nomination goes through the Senate, the Court will be composed entirely of Jews and Catholics, which is an interesting commentary on the reduction of the dominance of the traditional Protestant religions.

It might point to underrepresentation of members of Protestant denominations in the law. I think it’s probably indicative of some sort of genetic flaw.