We Need an Atheist on the Supreme Court??? - New England Patriots Forums

***IcyPatriot*** · 05-04-2010, 08:25 PM

I saw it ... I clicked it ... and i agree with Marc Cooper.

So I'll post it ... I'm a Catholic ... but the Supreme Court is supposed to be for everybody.

To replace John Paul Stevens, an atheist - latimes.com

Quote:

Though the court without Stevens will be left with six Catholics and two Jews, the open seat should not go to either domination. Nor should it go to a Presbyterian, a Lutheran, a Methodist, a Muslim or even a Zoroastrian. If it did, that would make nine people who all have one religious principle in common: a belief in religion.

Clearly, the next person to take the bench should be an atheist.
While few sitting politicians have the political courage to name a declared nonbeliever, it is something that Thomas Jefferson (and several others among the founders) might well have done.

In an 1823 letter to John Adams, Jefferson was forthright about his views of religion, and Christianity specifically.

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerve in the brain of Jupiter," Jefferson wrote.

"But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors."

***apple strudel*** · 05-04-2010, 08:27 PM

Hell yes. But a satanist who'd eat Scalia's or Alito's liver would be even better.

chicowalker · 05-04-2010, 08:44 PM

Makes sense to me.

khayos · 05-04-2010, 09:24 PM

Nice cherry picking by the LA times... some more context shows Jefferson was clearly against the excesses of organized religion but not against belief in Jesus & God.

"The truth is that the greatest enemies to the doctrines of Jesus are those calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them for the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this the most venerated reformer of human errors.

So much for your quotation of Calvin's `mon dieu! jusqu'a quand' in which, when addressed to the God of Jesus, and our God, I join you cordially, and await his time and will with more readiness than reluctance. May we meet there again, in Congress, with our antient Colleagues, and recieve with them the seal of approbation `Well done, good and faithful servants.' "

chicowalker · 05-04-2010, 09:36 PM

Regardless of Jefferson's (or anybdy else's) views, if an atheist is among the top candidates for the bench, I'd like to see it as a nice balance (and, I admit, to spite the religionists who have a problem with atheists / agnostics -- and there are plenty of them out there)

khayos · 05-04-2010, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chicowalker

Regardless of Jefferson's (or anybdy else's) views, if an atheist is among the top candidates for the bench, I'd like to see it as a nice balance (and, I admit, to spite the religionists who have a problem with atheists / agnostics -- and there are plenty of them out there)

Except the whole rule of law is based in religion and someone who would make it known that they fly in the face of that concept is, in comparison, a radical. It might be okay to shake things up once in awhile but to do so as someone who's job it is to look at precedent? Scary.

***IcyPatriot*** · 05-04-2010, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chicowalker

Regardless of Jefferson's (or anybdy else's) views, if an atheist is among the top candidates for the bench, I'd like to see it as a nice balance (and, I admit, to spite the religionists who have a problem with atheists / agnostics -- and there are plenty of them out there)

Well ... as our everyday news relays to us ... when there are too many of similar beliefs in power things aren't for the best for everybody. I personally have less problems with an atheist than I do an overly religious person of any denomination.

***patsfan13*** · 05-04-2010, 09:55 PM

I was thinking of a thread for this column but this seems like a good place for this link:

Quote:

Our American Declaration of Independence is the supreme, unamendable moral law of the United States. Declarational law preceded and trumps our supreme, amendable secular law, the Constitution. As stated in our Declaration, the purpose of secular law (Constitution) is to secure our sacred, unalienable, equal, individual rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness -- i.e., private property honestly earned through creative labor: "That to secure these rights, Governments [constitutions] are instituted among Men...."

While our Constitution and Bill of Rights are the greatest secular laws ever written, it must be acknowledged that our secular Constitution has a sacred mandate -- the Declaration of Independence. The American Revolution is first and foremost a revolution in sacred, unalienable human rights and their associated moral laws (Declaration), and secondarily a revolution in secular law (Constitution).

American Thinker: Declaration of Independence as Law

The notion that we have natural right from our creator that government cannot take away in fundamental to the founding of this country.

Absent A Creator (ie God) our rights derive from the state, very dangerous for freedom and the path to tyranny.

What does an Atheist see as the source for our rights?

sdaniels7114 · 05-04-2010, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by khayos

Except the whole rule of law is based in religion and someone who would make it known that they fly in the face of that concept is, in comparison, a radical. It might be okay to shake things up once in awhile but to do so as someone who's job it is to look at precedent? Scary.

You have it twisted around. God was invented by man to make him(man) feel better about himself and his existence in the world. Law was invented for more sensible reasons.

chicowalker · 05-04-2010, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by khayos

Except the whole rule of law is based in religion and someone who would make it known that they fly in the face of that concept is, in comparison, a radical. It might be okay to shake things up once in awhile but to do so as someone who's job it is to look at precedent? Scary.

The rule of law is based in religion? I think you're living in different times, my friend.

What exactly do you find "scary" about an atheist possibly being on the Court? What are some scenarios you can envision unfolding?

This truly fascinates me. (Seriously -- not being sarcastic.)