If Amy Coney Barrett Were Muslim

[iluvatar5150]

Opinion | If Amy Coney Barrett Were Muslim

Here's NYT op-ed today reminding us all of the gross double standards that Republicans have been applying regarding religious tests:

I can’t help wondering: How would Republicans behave if Judge Barrett were a Democrat whose strongly held religious beliefs came from Islam instead of Catholicism?

“working with our enemies.” That’s what Glenn Beck, the conservative radio host and conspiracy theorist, called for when Keith Ellison was elected as the first Muslim to Congress.

They’d probably use her faith to accuse her of hoping to create a “Shariah state” through judicial activism. That what conservative bloggers did in 2011 when Gov. Chris Christie of New Jersey nominated Sohail Mohammed, a Muslim originally from India, for a seat on the Superior Court of Passaic County.

If Judge Barrett wore a hijab, Jeanine Pirro, the Fox News host, would question whether her religious beliefs were in opposition to the Constitution. That’s the ugly accusation Ms. Pirro levied against Representative Ilhan Omar of Minnesota in 2019.

To these examples and the others listed in the piece, I would add the claims that Obama was a Muslim and the attempts to tie Huma Abedin to the Muslim Brotherhood.

 

[zippy2006]

If she were a Muslim the liberals wouldn't touch her religion with a 10 foot pole, but it's always open season on Christians.

 

[durangodawood]

If she were a Muslim the liberals wouldn't touch her religion with a 10 foot pole, but it's always open season on Christians.

The D's on the judiciary arent touching Barret's religion either.

 

[dzheremi]

Yeah, for a second, from the title I thought this was going the other way around, since it's mostly Democrats who are opposing her and making an issue of her religious background (which, yes, was going on and was presumably behind the types of comments made by the likes of Senator Feinstein, before Senate Democrats apparently though better of it, since it makes them look really bad). "What if Amy Coney Barrett was a Muslim" has a very different answer if the question is being asked why Democrats would be treating her differently if that was her religious background.

 

[Albion]

If Amy Coney Barrett were a Muslim, all or most of the Democrats on the judiciary committee would be giving her a pass on the same issues about which they have been criticizing her.

 

[Caliban]

If she were a Muslim the liberals wouldn't touch her religion with a 10 foot pole, but it's always open season on Christians.

If she were a Muslim, Republicans would never have considered her for the Supreme Court.

 

[dzheremi]

If she were a Muslim, Republicans would never have considered her for the Supreme Court.

OK, so both sides want to use a perspective nominee's religious background against them as a pretext to question their fitness for the job, to the extent that they think they can get away with it (see the Reason write up linked in post #4 on how things are going with Mrs. Coney Barrett). What now?

I think my post history will show that I have no great love for the sanctimonious clown car that is the GOP, nor the current crop of idiots driving it, but I really fail to see how something that can be said about both parties vis a vis the respective religious groups that they treat differently (either gingerly or harshly, depending on your perspective) can therefore honestly be presented as though only one of the two ever does so.

Also the unspoken idea behind a lot of public moralizing and attendant intellectual exercises like this think piece, that there is essentially no difference between how a candidate's Islamic faith might impact their interpreting law and how a different candidate's Catholic faith might do the same, is just preposterous, since Islam and Catholicism are very much not the same to begin with. I realize that the state must remain religiously neutral (hence the point of threads like this one), but to the point where that requires blatant ignorance of difference on the part of legislators, I don't think hypotheticals that assume that it's all six of one, half a dozen of another are very well founded.

 

[Caliban]

OK, so both sides want to use a perspective nominee's religious background against them as a pretext to question their fitness for the job, to the extent that they think they can get away with it (see the Reason write up linked in post #4 on how things are going with Mrs. Coney Barrett). What now?

I think my post history will show that I have no great love for the sanctimonious clown car that is the GOP, nor the current crop of idiots driving it, but I really fail to see how something that can be said about both parties vis a vis the respective religious groups that they treat differently (either gingerly or harshly, depending on your perspective) can therefore honestly be presented as though only one of the two ever does so.

Also the unspoken idea behind a lot of public moralizing and attendant intellectual exercises like this think piece, that there is essentially no difference between how a candidate's Islamic faith might impact their interpreting law and how a different candidate's Catholic faith might do the same, is just preposterous, since Islam and Catholicism are very much not the same to begin with. I realize that the state must remain religiously neutral (hence the point of threads like this one), but to the point where that requires blatant ignorance of difference on the part of legislators, I don't think hypotheticals that assume that it's all six of one, half a dozen of another are very well founded.

There should be no religious test, but I would prefer to have an atheist on the supreme court than a religious person. Others have the opposite sentiment. We elect our leaders and those leaders write legislation and appoint judges. We should have the representation that we feel best represents our values. That will look different among political groups and among those with differing religious instincts. I think an individuals position on religion is likely to affect their position on a host of social issues. I would prefer a judge that based their opinions on fact and law. If she can do that--great.

 

[iluvatar5150]

I think my post history will show that I have no great love for the sanctimonious clown car that is the GOP, nor the current crop of idiots driving it, but I really fail to see how something that can be said about both parties vis a vis the respective religious groups that they treat differently (either gingerly or harshly, depending on your perspective) can therefore honestly be presented as though only one of the two ever does so.

The difference is that Dems go after religion because they're concerned about how those religious views will manifest as policy. i.e. They're worried about Barrett because they're afraid she'll vote to overturn ACA and Roe. OTOH, nobody is worried about Catholic Biden or Catholic Pelosi or Methodist Hillary doing that, so they're religion never came up.

Republicans, OTOH, go after religion because they're fearful of the religion itself. That's how it can motivate Republicans to oust one of their own. Except for some vague perception of sharia being unconstitutional, I can't recall Republicans expressing a concern that someone's Muslim faith would result in specific policy outcomes that they didn't like.

 

[dzheremi]

There should be no religious test, but I would prefer to have an atheist on the supreme court than a religious person. Others have the opposite sentiment. We elect our leaders and those leaders write legislation and appoint judges. We should have the representation that we feel best represents our values. That will look different among political groups and among those with differing religious instincts. I think an individuals position on religion is likely to affect their position on a host of social issues. I would prefer a judge that based their opinions on fact and law. If she can do that--great.

OK...the "best represents our values" idea is precisely that which conservative Catholics would say is the case with regard to Mrs. Coney Berrett, no? Or should everyone but conservative Catholics have representatives that "best represent their values"?

 

[zippy2006]

Also the unspoken idea behind a lot of public moralizing and attendant intellectual exercises like this think piece, that there is essentially no difference between how a candidate's Islamic faith might impact their interpreting law and how a different candidate's Catholic faith might do the same, is just preposterous, since Islam and Catholicism are very much not the same to begin with. I realize that the state must remain religiously neutral (hence the point of threads like this one), but to the point where that requires blatant ignorance of difference on the part of legislators, I don't think hypotheticals that assume that it's all six of one, half a dozen of another are very well founded.

This is exactly right. It's not even clear to me that the Founders would see these two religions as parallel. The heart of the problem is that the Muslim religion is essentially opposed to the separation principle. An argument at the heart of the OP is that, because religion and state are separate, therefore someone whose religious beliefs ensure that they do not believe religion and state are separate must not be disqualified based on their religion. It is a very strange move.

 

[zippy2006]

The difference is that Dems go after religion because they're concerned about how those religious views will manifest as policy. i.e. They're worried about Barrett because they're afraid she'll vote to overturn ACA and Roe. OTOH, nobody is worried about Catholic Biden or Catholic Pelosi or Methodist Hillary doing that, so they're religion never came up.

Republicans, OTOH, go after religion because they're fearful of the religion itself. That's how it can motivate Republicans to oust one of their own. Except for some vague perception of sharia being unconstitutional, I can't recall Republicans expressing a concern that someone's Muslim faith would result in specific policy outcomes that they didn't like.

No, that's not even close. They would both be going after religious views because they are concerned about how they would manifest as policy.

 

[dzheremi]

The difference is that Dems go after religion because they're concerned about how those religious views will manifest as policy. i.e. They're worried about Barrett because they're afraid she'll vote to overturn ACA and Roe. OTOH, nobody is worried about Catholic Biden or Catholic Pelosi or Methodist Hillary doing that, so they're religion never came up.

Republicans, OTOH, go after religion because they're fearful of the religion itself. That's how it can motivate Republicans to oust one of their own. Except for some vague perception of sharia being unconstitutional, I can't recall Republicans expressing a concern that someone's Muslim faith would result in specific policy outcomes that they didn't like.

Isn't the supposed promotion of Shari'a precisely the outcome that they wouldn't like? In other words, how is expressing discomfort over the possible influence of Islam upon court decisions via Muslim members of the court in any fashion different than expressing the same discomfort over the possible influence of Catholicism upon court decisions via Catholic members of the court? It seems like they're both afraid of the same thing (religious influence upon decision making), but the Republicans are scared of it in the Muslim case because it has a spooky Arabic name or whatever, and it isn't Christian (which they really just seem to mean politically conservative, as I'd bet dollars to donuts that in other contexts our more Evangelical or Mormon senators would be expressing very anti-Catholic opinions). I agree that's both silly and bigoted, but I don't really see how it's different. Sen. Feinstein saying of a Catholic candidate "the dogma lives in you" or whatever is not somehow showing less bigotry towards that candidate on account of their religious views than expressing reservations about "creeping Shari'a" or whatever on the Republican side. If there is a difference, it's that Democrats sometimes know when to rein it in so that they can still claim to be open-minded and inclusive and all that, whereas Republicans get it put into the White House, as they are less concerned with pretending to like a religion they don't trust for the sake of not seeming bigoted.

 

[Caliban]

OK...the "best represents our values" idea is precisely that which conservative Catholics would say is the case with regard to Mrs. Coney Berrett, no? Or should everyone but conservative Catholics have representatives that "best represent their values"?

What would you ask that when I specifically addressed it in my last post?

 

[dzheremi]

What would you ask that when I specifically addressed it in my last post?

Because you didn't address it in a way that actually made your point clear. OK, fine, you'd rather have a non-religious representative, and you recognize that the principle of "best representing our views" results in a different legislative makeup in different regions. My question is: is the fact that then conservative Catholics can view Mrs. Coney Barrett as 'one of their own' therefore something to be welcomed (since it is in conformity with this principle), or is it something to be opposed, because it might result in a conservative Catholic justice ruling in accordance with her beliefs?

Just saying that this is how it shakes out is a fine observation, but doesn't really tell us anything in the context of an article in the OP that makes it out to be a bad thing when it means that conservative Catholics can have a representative who they feel speaks for them (even though from what I understand Mrs. Comey Barrett has quite sensibly claimed that she will not let her faith influence her rulings).

 

[KCfromNC]

The D's on the judiciary arent touching Barret's religion either.

Wait, none of them have told her to go back to where she came from?

Weird, wonder why not?

 

[Caliban]

is the fact that then conservative Catholics can view Mrs. Coney Barrett as 'one of their own' therefore something to be welcomed (since it is in conformity with this principle), or is it something to be opposed, because it might result in a conservative Catholic justice ruling in accordance with her beliefs?

Of course you should expect people to oppose it. Just because she represents your values, it does not follow that I will like her position on certain cases. You support who you like and I'll do the same. The core of the issue is simple.

I'm not sure what your contention is with what I said. I simply don't think we need more religious people on the court. I would prefer to have a Humanist appointed, but my view is currently in the minority--that may not always be the case. I have no problem with Catholics advocating for whom they want on the court; but there will be opposition because not everyone thinks she would make a good justice.

 

[Albion]

I have no problem with Catholics advocating for whom they want on the court; but there will be opposition because not everyone thinks she would make a good justice.

There's hardly anyone who has reason to think she would not "make a good justice." That's why the opposition to her IS about such extraneous things as her being a Catholic Christian or being a mother or being nominated at a disadvantageous time for the minority party in the Senate.

 

[dzheremi]

Of course you should expect people to oppose it.

That's not what I asked. It's a question of whether or not you support the principle you've already outlined of people electing representatives who govern according to their values, not of whether or not anyone would or should oppose a particular legislator on the grounds that their religious views may impact their rulings in a way that you don't like.

I'm not sure what your contention is with what I said.

You're not really saying anything. "I don't want more religious people on the court" tells me how you'd personally like things to be, not whether or not you support the principle of representatives reflecting the values of those who elect them.

I simply don't think we need more religious people on the court. I would prefer to have a Humanist appointed, but my view is currently in the minority--that may not always be the case. I have no problem with Catholics advocating for whom they want on the court; but there will be opposition because not everyone thinks she would make a good justice.

Of course there will be opposition. That's not the point. I can support the right of others to attempt to elect those who represent their views without personally sharing those views, or even thinking it's a very good idea that they do that in the first place.

 

[Caliban]

There's hardly anyone who has reason to think she would not "make a good justice." That's why the opposition to her IS about such extraneous things as her being a Catholic Christian or being a mother or being nominated at a disadvantageous time for the minority party in the Senate.

I don't think that is true. My opinion on judicial review or the standard of interpretation may differ from yours; so you and I may have different views on what constitutes a "good" justice. I don't think a strict originalist is a good choice, so I would support another pick. Good is a relative term.