Pat Buchanan, in his usual less-than-charming manner, brought up a point last week about the religious diversity (or lack thereof) of the Supreme Court. Buchanan pointed out that, if Elena Kagan is confirmed to the highest court (as seems likely), there will be only two religions represented on the court -- Judaism and Catholicism. He further points out that the court will be one-third Jewish, when Jews account for only two percent of the American population. Now, aside from the highly amusing spectacle of right-wingers advocating some sort of quota system, I think there's a deeper point here than Buchanan's "pity the unrepresented Protestant majority" theme. Because, even though virtually no politician would ever admit it, there is indeed a widespread (but unacknowledged) religious bigotry in America.
Of course, as I said, this bigotry is never publicly admitted, nor is it ever even discussed. Instead, any politician worth his or her salt can immediately come up with statements disavowing any sort of religious bigotry, when asked. Here is one random example, from yesterday's Face The Nation. Host Bob Schieffer asked Senator Dianne Feinstein about Buchanan's article, and whether a person's religion should be an appropriate thing to talk about when considering a judicial nominee. Feinstein's response:
Well, the answer to your question is no. I really do not believe it makes that kind of a difference. Actually, if she [Kagan] is confirmed, three members will be of the Jewish faith and the remainder will be Catholic. Does that bother me? The answer is no. Each one of the Catholic justices are -- are very different in how they approach the law. And I don't believe it's necessarily related to their -- their religion. And I think that they are total people. The products of their learning, their backgrounds, their experiences in life and that's the way it should be.
Now, I don't mean to single Senator Feinstein out in any way, here. She's not alone, in other words. That answer could have been given by just about any politician, Democrat or Republican. Because no politician wants to appear bigoted in public, in any way, shape, or form. But there's a followup question which really should have been asked, which cuts straight to the heart of the matter: "Would you support an atheist for the Supreme Court?"
Americans, as a whole, see religion on a scale of acceptability. There are acceptable religions, and then there are unacceptable religious beliefs (starting with having no religious beliefs at all). Now, over time, some religions slide back and forth along this scale. And, over time, bigotry has largely gone underground, because such things are no longer seen as acceptable in polite conversation. If you could travel back to the nineteenth century, you would meet people from actual political parties (or "movements," such as the Tea Party folks today) which defined themselves by being against one religious belief or another. Anti-Masonic fervor was probably the first wave of these "antis" to sweep across the political landscape in America, but it certainly wasn't the last. Anti-Semitism, Anti-Catholicism, Anti-Mormonism, and anti-just-about-everything-else have all had their day at one time or another. And if, on your time-machine voyage to the past, you told a member of one of these movements that, in the future, the Supreme Court would be made up of three Jews and six Catholics, their heads would likely explode right there on the spot. As I said, what is "acceptable" and "not acceptable" in the way of a public person's religion is a shifting concept.
Today, it takes someone like Buchanan to even point this sort of thing out. Now, over time, the concept of a religious-based (or ethnic-based, or gender-based) "seat" on the court has also diminished. There used to be "a Jewish seat" on the court, for instance. In other words, the majority would acknowledge Jews by giving them precisely one seat out of nine. There used to be a "black seat" on the court, and more recently, a "woman's seat" on the court. Today, these distinctions seem a little quaint, since in thirty years we've gone from putting the first woman on the court to (if Kagan is confirmed) having three (although there is still only one African-American, I should mention).
But, getting back to the subject of religion, whether politicians want to admit it or not, there are still "acceptable" and "unacceptable" religions, when it comes to discussing a candidate the Senate will have to approve for a lifetime appointment to the highest court. Does anyone believe, for instance, that in today's world a Muslim would be deemed acceptable for a seat on the Supreme Court? Put aside even the crazy "Obama's a Muslim" idiocy -- assume John McCain had won the presidency instead. Do you really think the Senate would confirm a Muslim candidate right now, even a conservative right-wing one? I don't. It just wouldn't be seen as "politically acceptable." Because the Senate is involved, politics is a big consideration in any judicial nominee. And every single senator, on some level or another, would be terrified of campaign ads which would inevitably run against them, for "putting a Muslim on the court." Some might bravely vote to confirm, but my guess is that most would not -- all the while avowing that "the candidate's religion has nothing to do with my decision."
I could be wrong about this, but I doubt I am. Of course, presidents don't like to have nominees defeated, so the real issue is that a president would never nominate someone in the first place who seemed too "radical" in their views -- even on religion -- to get confirmed.
This is the definition of prejudice. Any occupant of the White House is simply not going to consider people for a high court appointment who hold certain religious views, because it would just be seen as "too controversial." Because presidents (of any party) weed candidates out in this fashion, senators are spared having to make such difficult decisions. But, again, this is pre-judging a candidate solely on their religious beliefs (or lack thereof). The most brilliant legal mind of the century would simply be passed over for such an appointment, if he worshipped the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
As I said, it's hard to pinpoint where on the sliding scale of mainstream acceptability each and every religion would fall. Catholics, most mainstream (non-snake-handling) Protestant denominations, and Judaism are all squarely on the "acceptable" side of the scale, of course. Atheism and agnosticism are likely at the other end of that scale (of the over 100 Supreme Court Justices, only one -- David Davis -- was "unaffiliated with any church").
But there are a whole lot of religions which fall somewhere in between. And any one of them could have made for a dandy followup question to the softball "do you think religion should be considered" question Schieffer lobbed at Feinstein. "Would you support an atheist for the Supreme Court?" is just the easiest way to expose this hypocrisy. Because any politician (again, not to pick on Feinstein in particular) would have to think twice about answering that. On the one hand, they don't want to wear their bigotry on their sleeve. They may even, on a personal level, be quite comfortable with an atheist on the high court. But they also can instantly visualize the attack ad which their next political opponent will run if they answer the question in a non-bigoted way: "Senator X actually said he would support an atheist on the Supreme Court!" But answering "No, I don't think I could support an atheist" would also show that the platitude "Religion shouldn't be a factor" is the sheerest hypocrisy. There isn't supposed to be any sort of religious test to hold any office in the United States, but while there is no overt test, there is indeed a hidden test.
I fully admit, it's a "gotcha journalism" kind of question, which some people deplore on general principles. And you can substitute a lot of religions in the question for "atheist," and show the same bigotry or hypocrisy. "Would you support... a Wiccan, a Satanist, a Rastafarian, a practitioner of Santeria, a pagan...?" The list is a long one of religious beliefs that are seen by most Americans as being so far out of the mainstream that it's OK for politicians to express bigotry towards its members. There are also a large number of religions which would truly cause a politician to think long and hard about their answer. Mormons, Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Christian Scientists, Scientologists, and plenty of other groups are in a borderline area somewhere in the middle of the religious scale of acceptability to the general American public. These are religions which are generally seen as being acceptable enough for people to publicly practice without any sort of condemnation, but would likely not be acceptable (at this particular time) for a Supreme Court Justice. Time, though, is a factor, as religions move around on the acceptability scale quite a bit -- usually migrating from "unacceptable" to "somewhat acceptable" and sometimes all the way to "fully acceptable."
This is a tough subject for most Americans to admit. Generally, we like to see ourselves in a very idealistic light -- "we're not bigoted, we're inclusive, we're tolerant," we tell ourselves. At the most, we can acknowledge this scale of acceptability by projecting it upon all our fellow citizens -- "well, I can see that a Satanist would likely be deemed controversial and unacceptable by everyone else...."
But ignoring it altogether, and watching media types and politicians pat themselves on the back for stating that "religion is simply not a consideration" means that this hypocrisy and bigotry will continue. By not even asking the hard questions, we tacitly give approval to the uncomfortable thought that religion is indeed a consideration, on one level. Look at the outcry over a member of Congress being sworn in on the Koran recently, if you don't believe this to be true. Sure, the people making the outcry were those folks who don't mind wearing their religious bigotry on their sleeves. And, as I said, it's becoming more and more unacceptable to the general public to espouse such viewpoints. But that doesn't mean that standing up for Muslim (or Hindu, or Mormon) rights to freely practice their religion doesn't mean that there are some religions (some even derogatorily dismissed as "cults") which are simply beyond the pale when it comes to deeming what is acceptable and what is not for a Supreme Court Justice (or for an American politician, for that matter).
As I said, presidents (from both parties) are generally smart enough not to test the bounds of what is and what is not acceptable, at least not too much. Because if a president were bold enough to try, the bigotry would suddenly burst out into raw public view. Imagine what Republicans in the Senate would have to say if President Obama had just nominated a Wiccan, if you don't believe this.
Americans believe in the concept of freedom of religion. Up to a point. That point moves over time, and we are now inclusive of Catholicism and Judaism. But that wasn't always the case. And, while journalists and politicians are free to pretend that we actually are warmly inclusive of all religions, this is simply not true. America does exhibit bigotry towards religions that are seen as "too far outside the mainstream," and we always have. Covering this fact up with the hypocrisy of "religion would never, ever be a factor for me" doesn't change this basic fact, either.
Chris Weigant blogs at: 
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
Follow Chris Weigant on Twitter: www.twitter.com/ChrisWeigant
So, what would you call a religion that believes in talking snakes and practices ritualized cannibalism? Just curious.
"One man's religion is another man's belly laugh."
-Robert A. Heinlein
-CW
In the early 20th century, colleges and universities throughout the United States introduced quotas with exactly the same concern Pat Buchanan expressed. They wanted to limit Jews and members of other religious and ethnic groups to prevent them from taking the place of "desirable" (native-born, white Protestant) students. It was only after these quotas designed to limit minority participation fell out of favor that right-wingers adopted the term to refer to affirmative action programs designed to ensure minority participation and decided they too opposed quotas.
It actually has come full circle, in a way. Conservatives, during the 90s especially, began arguing for a quota to get more conservative professors into university systems, because those danged libruls had taken over, it seems. This was the first hilarious "OK, now we're FOR quotas" from the right that I can remember. I believe even Elena Kagan bought into this, and hired more conservatives when she was Dean of the law school...
-CW
But re your question, yes it would expose the hypocrisy because the fact is that the honest answer they'd give (in a rare hypothetical situation where a politician actually is honest) is indeed that they couldn't support an atheist. It would be political suicide and it also would chafe against their own comfort level. Never mind that their comfort level is rubbing someone else's raw. This goes to why the Founding Fathers (I'm getting so tired of that phrase) kept religion and state separate, or tried to. Because someday a Mrs. Buchanan would bring forth a little Pat. So they constructed a constitution strong enough to stand it. "If we build it he will come!"
I'm getting away from the point but it is an interesting question you pose. Personally I'd like to see what would happen if they nominated an Amish judge. Or maybe a Druid? ;-)
Fortunately this is true for the most part. There is one religion, though, that has moved in the opposite direction: Unitarianism. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries Unitarians were often prominent in public life : four Presidents were Unitarians, including John Adams and William Howard Taft, and no less than ten Supremes. Now a Unitarian would have little chance of even being elected Senator, and that in only a handful of states. After all, you can be an agnostic or atheist and still be a Unitarian, and the movement is firmly associated with (hide the children!!) the dreaded taint of *liberalism*.
But like legalizing marijuana, some common sense ideas will never come to fruition among our paranoid and largely unlettered population.
But over and over again, when these guys fall off the Family Values wagon, no one ever seems to question the hypocrisy being displayed.
The conservative ruling class has bought and paid for a media for the purpose of using religion, race as issues to keep the masses riled up hating one another while they perpetuate massive fraud on the American people.
Actually, only 3 religions recognize the 10 Commandments: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. The 10 Commandments have no place in nor influence over other religions such as Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, Hinduism, Wicca, Satanism, Scientology, etc.
Lack of belief -- secularism -- is acceptable. For example if someone's "religion" is being a baseball fan, that won't bother anyone as long as they go along with the usual ceremonial deism. Actually believing something is much more risky, even if it's the most mainstream of beliefs. For example, a Christian who specifically affirms John 14:6 ("no one comes to the Father except through me") is likely to be in hot water for it, whereas one who vaguely affirms that "everything in the Bible is the inerrant word of God" is going to be ok politically.
(As you probably can tell, I am an atheist.)
"Imagine what Republicans in the Senate would have to say if President Obama had just nominated a Wiccan"
Wicca is kind of in the same category with Pastafarianism: people suspect you don't really believe it, and are just identifying that way to make a statement. Of course, much the same could be said of large numbers of people in all mainstream denominations. But then it's the statement that's at issue rather than actual religious belief or lack thereof.
The problem, and the point of the article, is that lack of belief (which is atheism or agnosticism) is not acceptable in public figures. To declare oneself an atheist in today's political climate is by and large to accept that you will never hold a higher public office; the higher the office, the more true this sadly becomes.
Secularism is the belief that governments shouldn't be involved in religion at all, by the way. That's not the same as lacking beliefs (atheism) nor believing that nobody can really know whether God exists (agnosticism). It's perfectly possible to be a secularist Christian, who might believe firmly in Christ but also believe that nobody else should be forced to hold that faith.
That's one meaning of the word. But it also has another meaning, just being secular: not having much use for religion in the course of one's daily life. Besides providing a creed and a route to spiritual experiences, religion also provides social connections, regularly-scheduled activities, and something to identify as a member of. The latter collection of functions can be satisfied by baseball fandom, and more or less are for some secular people.
Some politicians get by without a creed, because they're not intellectually compulsive enough to feel the need for one and didn't get one as a package deal with the other functions of religion. That's socially acceptable as long as they go along with the implicit statements involved in the ceremonial deism of typical public life.
Actually, Theravada Buddhism and Unitarianism don't--but, otherwise: Good comment.
Excellent comment. I believe the only real after-life is embodied in your children. And the only real guide to a full and happy life is common sense and practicing good will towards others.
Is it bigotry to consider religion a lazy way to deal with life? Having the guilt of bad behaviour absolved by ritual.? I don't think it is any more than a vegetarian can be called bigoted towards meat eaters.