We Need an Atheist on the Supreme Court???
 

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

Re: We Need an Athiest on the Supreme Court???
 

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

Re: We Need an Athiest on the Supreme Court???
 

Makes sense to me.

Re: We Need an Athiest on the Supreme Court???
 

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.' "

Re: We Need an Athiest on the Supreme Court???
 

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)

Re: We Need an Athiest on the Supreme Court???
 

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.

Re: We Need an Atheist on the Supreme Court???
 

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.

Re: We Need an Atheist on the Supreme Court???
 

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


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?

Re: We Need an Athiest on the Supreme Court???
 

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.

Re: We Need an Athiest on the Supreme Court???
 

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.)