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.
I doubt this thread will make it 30 posts before dissolving into THAT
thread, but what the heck give it a try.
I think Marc Cooper makes a valid point--atheists are an underrepresented group in government. Though I didn't know about the laws on the books, apparently there are states with unconstitutional laws that prevent (read: make it incredibly difficult) non-believers from taking office.
There is no doubt in my mind that we will see female and minority presidents long before we see an atheist president.
That said, what arguments could possibly be made against an Atheist (on the grounds of the atheistic belief) becoming a SCOTUS Justice?
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
All opinions are not equal. Some are a very great deal more robust, sophisticated and well supported in logic and argument than others