5658

I imagine the line is not always that sharply drawn. In any event, there are clearly some religious views that all of us — you, me and @Nightgaunt — would agree are extreme and problematic in a nominee. If so, then you can’t reasonably dismiss questioning Barrett’s views as anti-religious prejudice.

5659
  1. The religious preferences of presidential candidates is largely inconsequential to their character. Bush is a staunch evangelical and also greenlighted torture.
  2. Trump claims to be Presbyterian and, to my knowledge, has never claimed anything else. He may be a de facto atheist but doesn’t claim to be one.
  3. The Court is not the presidency. The Court rules on matters of religious freedom all the time. It would be nice to have a more broad religious representation on the Court. In particular it would nice to have more representation of religious minorities, e.g. atheism/agnosticism/nones.
5660

I took Nightgaunt as arguing that none of the specific things mentioned in the Barrett article (nosiness into romantic life, tithing, living together) were particularly extreme and therefore questioning why the organization was considered extreme.

More generally, I honestly don’t know whether religious views, even extreme views, are fair game. It seems they should be, but it’s true that the Constitution seems to rule it out.

Also, I can’t articulate the difference between questioning Barrett to make sure her views are not “too extreme” and singling out Rep Omar and other Muslims to ask if they will condemn a Muslim terrorist. The latter implication is pretty obnoxious. But both amount to, “I don’t agree with your religious views, now prove to everyone that they are not unacceptable.”

5661

There are more noxious allegations than that in the article, offered by former group members. Are they true? I have no idea.

5662

The Constitution is ambiguous on this point, and the religious test clause has rarely been a basis for Court decisions on religious freedom. Certainly no elected official has to profess a particular faith to hold office. But also certainly voters are permitted to consider the religious faith of candidates when casting a vote.

5663

Indeed, I don’t think anyone is saying that she can’t be on the Court because she’s Catholic; that her faith prohibits her from being on the Court.

5664

Sure, voters can consider whatever they want. I’ve heard that some of them even consider race. Still, when it comes to confirmation hearings I don’t think questions about someone’s race are appropriate. Even if it could theoretically affect their judicial leanings.

Likewise if you personally oppose someone because of their religious views, nobody is going to stop you. But I’m not sure it should be an issue during the hearings.

5665

I grasp the principle here, but I doubt anyone could hold to it in the extreme. There are surely religious practices that, were you to hear of them (e.g. the nominee advocates or even practices genital mutilation on children), would drive Senator Magnet to ask questions and, ultimately, reject the nominee.

5666

If I suspected someone supported genital mutilation then I certainly think it would be a valid issue. But presumably I would have a basis for that suspicion other than religion.

For the same reason, I wouldn’t ask a candidate, “I see you were born and raised in a country where FGM is commonplace, do you support the practice?”

5667

A basis like a leadership position in a group (not just a religion) that advocated the practice? Barrett belongs to a group that e.g. allegedly teaches that women should submit to the sexual demands of their husbands.

5668

Also not extreme. A depressingly commonplace belief among biblical literalists, and those folks are commonplace.

5669

White supremacists and racists are pretty commonplace. I still take issue with it and consider them extreme.

5670

I mean, it is extreme; just that some weak-willed ninnies might be uncomfortable labeling 70% of Americans as religious extremists ;-)

5671

I don’t consider racists to be extremists, for the same reason I don’t consider other assholes to be extremist.

But maybe that’s just semantics. Because either way, racism is worth investigating in a confirmation hearing.

And what about unequal gender roles in marriage? To me, that’s irrelevant because those roles are still consensual. But YMMV.

5672

This probably explains the disconnect. Probably I should use a different word than ‘extremist’. How about ‘objectionable’?

5673

Ok. But so far the main objectionable belief is one that is probably shared by many people in and out of government.

Unlike racism, there is not (yet) a public policy that discourages unequal gender roles in marriage. In fact liberals celebrate diversity in relationships, including explicitly unequal dominant/submissive pairs.

I’m not saying you should be comfortable or agree with her views, but I just don’t see it as a fruitful line of questioning during the hearings.

5674

It might not be. Honestly, depending on how you look at it no line of questioning is going to be fruitful since this is a done deal. I just know that for someone like my wife who is very invested in the rights of women, that sort of belief is of concern for reasons that are probably obvious.

5675

Yes, there are a ton of things to be concerned about! But they aren’t really specific to Barrett. She is just a typical example of a big segment of our society.

5676

I think you might be minimizing what it means to teach that women must submit to the sexual demands of their husbands.

It may not be. That doesn’t make the questions inappropriate, much less unconstitutional.

5677

I am not sure if the person you’re replying to was minimizing this, but I wanted to quote your statement and put a giant QFT on it. It’s the year 2020, and anyone proposing that women must submit to the sexual demands of their husbands is a disgusting troglodyte, just shy of being a rapist, if they’re a man.