Regardless of who is confirmed, that person's religious leanings or lack thereof will be a part of him/her. So it makes no sense to say, "Should they affect his jurisprudence?"

One's religious beliefs are part and parcel of the person, so they can't help but affect whatever decision he or she makes -- and that goes for all of us, not only prospective justices of the Supreme Court. The other question: "Should those leanings be a part of the debate over his appointment?" is quite a valid one, I believe, and I think the answer is yes.

Senators want to know -- and so do the American people who care about such things -- if a judge's religious faith will allow him to uphold the law of the land, even if he thinks that law is wrong. The issue, of course, is not an easy one. Do we want a judge who will uphold a law that his conscience says is wrong? The current law of the land regarding abortion, for example, was "settled" in the 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision, and Judge Roberts has intimated that he doesn't want to mess with "settled" law. That's fine with me and the rest of the Pro-Choice crowd, but I can understand the feelings and beliefs of the Pro-Life folks, too, and they probably don't want a Supreme Court justice who would uphold a law that he thought was wrong. So his religious leanings should very much be a part of the debate, and they have been so far.

THE REV. C. L. "SKIP" LINDEMAN

Congregational Church of the Lighted Window

United Church of Christ

La Cañada Flintridge

 

I cannot imagine an America in which a president would nominate a candidate for the Supreme Court whose religious credentials would put him or her in question.

Is there any validity in questioning a nominee's religious beliefs for such positions? The only answer can be "absolutely not." If ever there is a place for separation of church and state, it is in how the Senate considers confirmation of our judges. No nominee should have to offer up his or her religious values on the altar of pompous vanity by U.S. Senators.

THE REV. THOMAS E. WITHERSPOON

Unity Church of the Valley

La Crescenta

 

It would seem that anyone considered for such a significant position as Supreme Court Justice ought to be moral and hold views consistent with that morality.

Religion is merely an orderly codification of morality, and if a man has secured such religion, then would that not make a better candidate than some immoral opportunist looking for job security? Wouldn't it be better than one who's moral bearing was jellyfish, reflecting only prevailing moods rather than genuine moral justice akin to the Supreme Lawgiver?

What sense would it make for someone to disavow some evil affection only to legislate in its favor?

It behooves any religious person to act according to the tenets of faith; especially should they collide with immorality, popular opinion or even past law.

The Apostle Peter once declared, "We must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).

There are times when such higher accountability is required; where backbone must be in place to effect the kind of justice needed in the Supreme Court.

Years ago the case, Brown vs. Board of Education overturned the previous law of the land that supposedly kept blacks and whites "separate but equal." It took moral fiber to combat that previous decision, but today we recognize its wisdom.

Article 6 of the Constitution guarantees that "no religious test shall ever be required" of Roberts, so it should really end there.

That the man has a moral compass is a plus, not a detriment, and one would think that all the interrogation should cease trying to pigeonhole the man with that charge, and should be about seeing whether or not he is qualified to fairly evaluate cases that would come before him and his colleagues.

"God is a righteous judge" (Psalm 7:11), and so should be his representatives on earth.

THE REV. BRYAN GRIEM

Senior Pastor

Light On The Corner

Montrose

 

Of course we need to be concerned with Roberts' religious convictions.

Each person, whether they sit on the Supreme Court or in the judging booth of the local swim meet, brings their own prejudices to the bench.

Some are able to control and even lose themselves, in striving for the ideal of making justice blind. These are the ones we should be calling to the judicial positions.

Those that cannot, usually betray themselves and are distanced from making those decisions that affect others. In all of our dealings, our personal prejudices, shaped by our faith and convictions, play a part in the decision making process. No matter how minute or trivial that influence may be, it behooves us to know what the variables are.

When you look at the events in the world today, it is easy to be critical of religion and religious convictions.

After all, we see all the misunderstanding, the intolerance, hatred and distain for one another based on a my-God-is-better-than-yourgod mentality. But by the same token, it is important to remember most of the best expressions of love and care have evolved from religious thought and the faith community.

Blind justice is the ideal. Our goal is to come as close to it as possible.

On a personal level though, I would hope that justice could be dished out with compassion for the weak. That personal prejudice would show throw and rule me out of the justice game.

FATHER VAZKEN MOVSESIAN

Armenian Church

 

John Roberts' faith affiliation should not play a part in determining his fitness for appointment to the Supreme Court. Certainly a man's religious conviction is bound to affect his conscientious leanings, as do his experiences, his character, integrity and other attributes.

The Baha'i writings tell us that "from the clash of differing opinions comes the spark of truth" during mature consultation. As the diverse members of the Supreme Court consult, we can expect this clash of opinions to result in an integrated decision, based on fairness, and in conformity to constitutional law. At the same time, we expect them to govern and lead a varied population, allowing for differing beliefs and protecting basic rights.

The laws that govern human behavior are generally built upon spiritual concepts, but Americans are protected from religious coercion by the separation of church and state.

Our justices must carefully follow the secular laws of our land, even while incorporating their spiritual ideals into the consultative process.

BARBARA CRAMER

Secretary

Baha'i Faith Glendale