This is pretty fucking weird:
Insider accounts by former members who are now critical of the organization suggest that the group has âwell-developed courtship and marriage traditionsâ which are closely followed. One critic, former member Adrian Reimers, has said in writings about his experience that people who are in the community do not usually date until the matter has been prayed upon by an individualâs âheadâ â or spiritual leader â who helps make decisions about whether a couple ought to get married.
Or I mean it would be, if most cults did not try to similarly control their adherentâs sex lives.
The Guardian is definitely not the only entity in this thread getting riled up.
That article was written as a recitation of fact. The group does seem pretty secretive and well outside the mainstream, which is, of course, their right. But I donât think itâs out of bounds to know what someoneâs most cherished beliefs and values are before handing them a lifetime appointment to the Court.
Granted, neither of us knows exactly how it plays out inside the organization, but It sounds substantially less controlling than Muslim arranged marriages which happen every day and, hopefully, would not disqualify anyone so married from sitting on the Supreme Court. And someone praying on and helping to decide something like marriage is not strangeâin fact, is downright banalâwithin the Catholic tradition of spiritual direction.
antlers
5641
I donât know why you are insisting that this is so normal. The court already has one adherent of a tiny charismatic Catholic group (Thomas); surely having two would mean that such perspectives, which have no prima facie relationship to constitutional jurisprudence, would be vastly overrepresented on the court. Note that Iâd have the same objection if Trump were appointing a second Mennonite to the court, or a second Sufi Muslim. The Supreme Court is certainly not a representative institution, but to have it so weighted in the direction of a tiny and out-of-the-mainstream religious perspective seems odd.
ShivaX
5642
âItâs probably not quite as bad as Islam!â
Well, there are a lot of Muslims in the U.S., and some of them might even desire to be Supreme Court Justices. Donât look at me, I think all abrahamic religions are wack.
Oh! I didnât know that. What organization is it?
Huh. Well, uh⌠take it up with Article VI of the Constitution, I guess. <shrug>
Iâll assume youâre not trying to sound like a bigot. So what is your point? These are faiths adhered to by billions, in cultures liberal and conservative, that have generally been considered welcome on these shores and in the halls of American government, and we used to call those who wanted to reject them Know Nothings. Is that the company you want to keep?
ShivaX
5647
My point is that I like my law distant from religion. Especially ones that think secularism is a problem.
Itâs not like Catholics are under represented. 21% of the US population is Catholic. 56% of the SCOTUS was (67% with Barrett). And that doesnât count Gorsuch who grew up Catholic, which would make it 78%. Do we count him as half?
The 10% of us identifying as atheist / agnostic sure would love some rational representation on the Court, but I suspect thatâs a century off the way things are going.
magnet
5649
This is basically no better than saying âThereâs too many Jews in Hollywoodâ and trying to justify it using math.
Maybe. But right now I prefer the Catholic guy for president over the atheist one.
And youâll find among those Catholics a range of judicial perspectives. Anyway, what does it gain us to count Catholics? Is it good practice to say âLetâs keep Catholics on the court to three, everybody. Jews can go up to four. And only two Muslims and/or Mormons (weâll count them together)â?
Good practice or not, itâs certainly not constitutional.
Amen.
While I agree with the sentiment, I suspect Trump believes heâs a god at this point.
ShivaX
5652
None, but thatâs literally the position the Right has been pushing since RBG died: That there werenât any.
Despite the nearly the whole court being Catholics.
Now if she was another Scalia? Eh, fine. Though we have Gorsuch already. That Trump and friends think sheâs going to hand them the election, to the point of saying it on camera, and theyâre in a rush to push her through makes me doubt that. Though, to be fair, Trump and Co are pretty fucking stupid.
The right have been saying there are no Catholics on the court? Iâm not sure what youâre referring to here.
Lol. So it sounds a bit weird to you, too, on reflection, just not quite as weird as some other extreme religious practices?
Which part of the constitution prohibits a Senator from declining to confirm a Presidentâs nominee on any grounds whatsoever? And why are you pretending that this is a subject on which there ought to be questions is a religious prejudice? If you discovered she was secretly a member of e.g. the Muslim Brotherhood, or a Wahabist, I imagine you would find that a subject worthy of a few questions. Membership in extreme organizations, whatever type they are, warrants scrutiny.
magnet
5655
I donât think he was suggesting that arranged marriage is extreme. The vast majority of marriages in India are arranged, and it is common practice among Indian-Americans.
Again, I think his point was that the practices of her group are no more restrictive than, say, the practices of the Jesuits. Who are also not extreme, in fact at least one former Jesuit sat in Congress without much fanfare until recently (a Democrat, in fact).
None of those people are likely to be nominated to the Court, though; and if they were, I imagine that a view like I can contract my female child into a marriage against her will would come up as a problem in the confirmation process. How not?
magnet
5657
Thatâs not arranged marriage, thatâs forced marriage. They are not the same thing.
In an arranged marriage, family and/or professional matchmakers play an important role in the process of finding candidates but the final decision is up to the potential bride and groom. Itâs kind of a crowdsourced Tinder.
