Religious Discrimination at the Supreme Court

Broken down on religious lines, today's Supreme Court has members from just two religions, both of which had been historically underrepresented on the highest court: Roman Catholics and Jews. There are now five Roman Catholics (63%) currently serving on the court (Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, Sonia Sotomayor, and Clarence Thomas) and three Jews (37%) (Stephen Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Elena Kagen). Antonin Scalia was a Roman Catholic.

A Religous Landscape Study by the Pew Center shows that the United States is 21% Roman Catholic and 2% Jewish. What about the 46% who identify as protestant? Nothing in this branch of government for them! And to think that most of the founding fathers were protestants, and the form of government they chose for their new country was primarily shaped by the political activities of John Calvin. Calvin was a primary leader of the Protestant Reformation, helping individuals claim rights and demand representation in a world where the pope and monarchs competed for dictatorial powers.

Of course Scalia's replacement will be pivotal, but let's take a moment to look at this from a point of view different from whether Scalia was, and his replacement will be, conservative or liberal. Religious affiliation shapes how each of us approaches authority. Although Roman Catholic beliefs clearly fall within the Christian tradition, their doctrine is more cozy with powerful central authority than protestants whose very existence manifested from the desire to limit such centralized powers over the individual. Is it any wonder that we drift toward greater federal powers over the rights of states and individuals?

It is outrageous that 46% of our population, those who founded and structured our system of governance, would have no representation on its highest court. Protestants must loudly insist on and demand representation in the Supreme Court of the United Sates of America.

The way things are going, Obama will appoint a Muslim (1% of our population) or sympathiser with that cause (which is contra-constitutional in so many ways) and they will be approved. To not approve such a nominee would be religious discrimination, and nobody would want that, right?