Bleh. I hate this poll. I suspect any pharyngulation is going to be diluted because there isn’t going to be much unanimity of response to it, either. And answers 1 & 3, and answers 2 & 4, are pretty much equivalent, so they’re already splitting the votes no matter what your position.
Should President Obama choose a nominee who is Protestant to get religious diversity on the court?
Yes. Like it or not, this nation’s history is bound to religion. Protestants should be represented on the court.
20%
No. Justices are supposed to rule based on the law and the Constitution. Religion shouldn’t’ matter.41%
Yes. Just as the president should be mindful of gender and race in his selections, he also should take religion into consideration.15%
No. This is a secular nation. It’s absurd to suggest that a nominee’s religion should get any consideration.24%
Personally, I don’t care if another Catholic is appointed, or a Protestant, or an atheist, or a Muslim. All I care about is that whoever it is had better damned well be intelligent and progressive, to counter the Scalia/Thomas/Roberts axis of reactionary stupidity.
I concur, PZ.
At least answers 2 and 4 are winning although #4 is the most correct one.
Here’s another poll that needs phyrangulating:
http://dailyreferendum.blogspot.com/2010/01/is-vote-for-nick-clegg-vote-against.html
It asks if Brits would vote for an atheist.
What a weirdly phrased poll. Those answers don’t make much sense.
Somebody reassure me that Obama isn’t going to pick someone less liberal than Stevens just to appease the right-wing nutjobs. Please?
I think Obama should appoint a skeptic. Screw protestantism. Odd that we have so many Catholics on the court, though. Clearly, that should be corrected as soon as possible.
Sadly, lifetime appointment and all that.
He will probably pick Elena Kagan. Who is a centrist, and rather weaker on civil liberties than Stevens – but that’s what Obama wants, since, as Ed Brayton has been highlighting in recent months, the Obama administration hasn’t been showing great concern for civil liberties lately.
Kagan will, admittedly, be better for civil liberties than several of the other justices currently on the Court. But that isn’t saying much. It’s a very authoritarian-leaning court at present.
Walton you might like this in your RSS.
The question seems to be suggesting that the choices are to select either a Protestant or a Catholic, which is what make the Pharyngulation difficult here.
I think we wouldn’t need to pay attention to religion if we were a solidly secular nation, but since we keep having religious and secular disputes over laws, it would be nice if all of our Supreme Court Justices weren’t Catholic.
If we can’t get an atheist on the court, how about a nice Jew, or Buddhist, or even Muslim.
Well as a Briton,the poll referenced by PZ is not relevent but the Nick Clegg poll referenced above @2 stood at 61%/39% in favor of an atheist leader when I voted
Go Britain
Andrew
I have to agree with Walton at #6.
For months I’ve been getting into arguments with batshit loony right wingers who insist that Obama is this radical left wing socialist (and a few of the nuttier one’s call him a communist), and all along I’ve been telling them they need to stop listening to idiot, flame-war, desperate right-wing radio and actually look at the guy’s record, rhetoric, and actions. He’s a centrist. And I’m with Walton, I think he’ll select someone who is centrist. Not sure it will be Kagan (whose track record is a little unknown), I actually think it will be Garland or perhaps Sears. Garland would be the most centrist pick, IMO. Sears is more liberal leaning but has a report with conservatives that might make her seem more centrist.
Either way, I wouldn’t hold out hope for anyone too progressive, and I would be shocked if the nominee was anywhere near as progressive as Stevens.
lol… dammit… I originally mis-spelled “rapport” in my prior post but must’ve mis-clicked the auto-correct spelling from the list and it said “report”.
Yikes… that’s a president I don’t want to set. ;^)
Religion shouldn’t matter so long as it’s clear religion won’t get in the way. A candidate who uses religious reasons for judicial decisions, who favors religion over non-religion, and who disparages the separation of church and state, would not be fit for the job, in my opinion.
In a way, this is quite similar to the appointment of Francis Collins as director of the NIH; people were opposing him not because of his religion, but because it was obvious to them that his religion would get in the way.
How about, “No, he should appoint a non-Christian to get real religious diversity on the court.” In a perfect world, religion shouldn’t matter — just as in a perfect world, race and gender shouldn’t matter either, but surprise! they do. If for no other reason, it would be a meaningful symbolic gesture to appoint a well-qualified atheist, Hindu, Muslim, Pagan, or fuck, even a Scientologist if in theory their religion wouldn’t interfere with their rulings (which it probably would, but hypothetically speaking…)
I used to oppose diversity for diversity’s sake, but I have since changed my thinking. Obviously it is only one concern among many, and should not override other factors (most important being, you know, qualifications). But it’s a legitimate consideration, and diversity has intrinsic benefits, particular in regards to classifications which have historically been used to unfairly discriminate (like race, gender, religion, sexual preference, etc.)
Don’t worry, that will never happen. Obama will pick someone less liberal than Stevens, but it will be because Obama is himself not particularly liberal.
Grr… no, no, no! Gender and race are inborn traits. If you’re born a black woman, or an Asian man, or whatever else, that’s it, and there’s not much you can do about it, outside of like… surgery, I guess. Religion is a totally different story.
Also, from the comments under the poll:
I’m tired of hearing that. I spent a helluva lot of time looking at the bigger picture, and all that got me was cross looks from the Catholics at my Catholic school (At about 10, I was told not to ask questions like: “So… if God already knows everything we’re going to do, why bother putting us on earth to see if we will be good enough?” because God works in mysterious ways. Mysterious ways that I will be damned to eternal hellfire for questioning!)
And there’s plenty of big picture to look at without invoking magic, ffs.
Anyway, I voted for secular nation, religion shouldn’t matter (4th option). It’s sitting pretty at 53% already.
Excuse me, now, while I go break things to alleviate my frustration.
The last answer is the best amongst a poor lot. It is the only one that states that the US is a secular society as a reason that the religion (or lack thereof) of any candidate ought not to matter.
Unfortunately the knuckle-dragging mouth-breathing Republicans are already promissing to filibuster any nominee whose politics are to the left of Genghis Khan.
Protestant = diversity?
This country is in worse shape that I thought, and that’s saying something.
Doesn´t your constitution say something about there being no religious test for public office? That sounds like a good rule.
Obama was voted in by people who believed in ideals, but because he too is an idealist, he’ll try, once again, to seek common ground.
But don’t forget, the alternative is worse. Don’t ever think that he’s not doing what he should, so you won’t vote for him/them again. Cause the other side for sure is going to vote against him/them.
I suspect № 2, “No. Justices are supposed to rule based on the law and the Constitution…”, is wingnut-fundie-speak for narrow interpretation of USAian (federal?) legislation only. In other words, ignore what the Federalist Papers say, ignore case law, ignore international jurisprudence, to the extent possible ignore treaties, and so on. And also, possibly, to always(?) favour non-federal (state?) law and practice in “States Rights”-related issues.
I suspect Ed Brayton and the crew over at Dispatches from the Culture Wars (another must-read SciBorg blog) could better decode that answer. I agree with the others who’ve pointed out that № 4 is the best of a confused lot.
Oops! Sorry, I mean to say:
Regardless of how it should be, historically, religion appears to affect Supreme Court decisions.
Arrggghhhh!!!1! “Sorry, I meant to say…”
As a note, right now there are 6 Catholics and 2 Jews on the court currently, so adding a third Jew, at the least, wouldn’t be a major change. (This is one of the knocks against Kagan, in some people’s minds.)
I’m hoping for Diane Wood, of course. Someone pointed out that the reason we don’t have a lot of great liberal minds as nominees right now is because Clinton didn’t appoint all that many to the appellate courts, so there aren’t too many from which to choose.
I’d also reject the idea that people are “stupid” just because they’re reactionary. Scalia and Roberts are both absolutely brilliant people. It’s just that their personal morality scares the hell out of me.
And lastly, Obama’s very liberal but very pragmatic, in my view; he will take whatever is best for the nation as a whole, not what’s best for his ideals.
At this moment, the two positive answers together only total 8%.
Where’s the option “Are you fucking stupid? You’re talking about religious diversity with out anything outside of an abrahamic religion?”
I know it’s not the relevant question but GOD DAMN. It’s like that part in The Blues Brothers; “We play both kinds of music; Country /and/ Western”
Just bear in mind that Obama is a Democratic Leadership Council guy, not a liberal. Not even close.
If you’re looking for him to nominate someone truly progessive, you will be disappointed.
Judges are supposed to be impartial. And, so personal, religion in particular, should not used to sway one way or the other.
Notice how the option to say “It should be neither a Protestant nor a Catholic” isn’t possible, nor is the option to say “Either one is okay with me”. You have to pick “should be a Protestant” or “should not be a Protestant”. There might be further explanations you can give for why, but your “yes” or “no” answer is one of those two. What a terribly worded poll. What they’ve done is essentially invalidly conflated to different questions into one. This is really two different questions:
(1) Do you think the religion or lack thereof (hey I can dream) of the candidate should be taken into consideration? Yes/No, why?
(2) If you answered “yes” to the above, then which religion should it be?
This poll is written with the assumption that the only alternative to Catholic is Protestant. It is also bad because by saying “yes” or “no”, you must either demand a Protestant or demand it cannot be a Protestant. Even though you can claim in your answer after having done so that you don’t care one way or the other, you have to have picked “yes” or “no” to do so, thereby invalidating the claim that you don’t care.
Is it just me, or do options 2 and 4 seem to say more or less the same thing?
tl;rd =
Should the President pay heed to the Constitution?
( ) Yes – 3%
( ) No – 37%
( ) Yes – 3%
( ) No – 56%
Results not scientific.
Not too hard – telling them that the US is a secular nation (or at least is meant to be) will get the most up the bible-basher’s noses, so that’s the easy pick.
“Personally, I don’t care if another Catholic is appointed, or a Protestant, or an atheist, or a Muslim. All I care about is that whoever it is had better damned well be intelligent and progressive, to counter the Scalia/Thomas/Roberts axis of reactionary stupidity.”
This is the problem with PZ, much of the country or even the vast majority of the non-theists. The inability to recognize the threat of theism. There is a reason you must care.
If god is real. If the real god is the christian god his orders, directives, laws and expectations of his followers is spelled out with clarity.
It is also equally clear that under no circumstances is any earthly pleasure, hope, dream, vision or wish to be followed if it goes against this god. Logically speaking if this god is real why should it?
If someone is a ‘true’ christian and they know this god is real, regardless of the good they might have done – Ken Miller. . . It is simply not rational or reasonable to trust their judgment. Their commitment is to the higher being, its existence and laws. Again if this god exists this is the way it must be.
The absolute commitment of theists in the end must be to their god. More importantly it must not be with those who disagree with or challenge them.
If god is real and someone held a high ranking political or public office who knew for certain this god was real and did not use this office to openly and aggressively or subtly behind the scenes(passive/peacefully) to promote allegiance, respect and love for this being as it so commands then they are not christian, acting irrational or just dumb fucking assholes.
If the real god is the christian god his orders, directives, laws and expectations of his followers is spelled out with clarity.
Horseshite. Sticking with the xian magic sky faerie, the babble is a confused contradictory mess of Bronze Age drunken sheepherder thinking (slightly cleaned up over multiple millennia by assorted self-appointed editors, scribes, and nutcases).
It is also equally clear that under no circumstances is any earthly pleasure, hope, dream, vision or wish to be followed if it goes against this god. Logically speaking if this god is real why should it?
Well, why should it? What is this “logical” argument?
Hint: There is no such logical reasoning. All that happens is the magic sky faerie supposedly said “hoober ah fidleme”, which the priest of the day translates to mean “pay me 10% of yearly your income.”
If someone is a ‘true’ christian and they know this god is real, regardless of the good they might have done – Ken Miller. . . It is simply not rational or reasonable to trust their judgment. Their commitment is to the higher being, its existence and laws. Again if this god exists this is the way it must be.
Word salad. WTF are you trying to say?
The absolute commitment of theists in the end must be to their god. More importantly it must not be with those who disagree with or challenge them.
No. There are perfectly reasonable theists who—again, sticking with your xian example—don’t do what the priests say to do, and say the priests are wrong, and say the babble is wrong. For instance, a fair percentage of xians don’t agree with the OT’s rules on stoning people to death for various absurd things, such as being as being a child or woman, or with its tolerance of slavery, or so on.
If god is real and someone held a high ranking political or public office who knew for certain this god was real and did not use this office to openly and aggressively or subtly behind the scenes(passive/peacefully) to promote allegiance, respect and love for this being as it so commands then they are not christian, acting irrational or just dumb fucking assholes
No. There’s a helluva lot of USAian xians who support the separation of insanity and state. Including many of the less-nutty priests.