I’m not sure how much traction The New Yorker gets, but if you pay attention to their work, you’ve probably seen this article. If you haven’t- take a moment to read it.
I was angered by this article- and if you read it, you’ll know that there wasn’t anything explicitly insulting in this article. Instead, there were plenty of implications about the higher thought-process and inherent wisdom of atheists over Christians (or anyone religious, for that matter).
I have since dubbed this concept the Law of Implications. This “law” is the fact that it is very difficult for people to disagree in a fashion that is not condescending or implicitly insulting. For example, the author says:
“An atheist Justice, by contrast, would have different intellectual habits. I suspect that he or she would be more likely to focus on reason and empirical evidence.”
This irks me because it implies that a religious Justice is not nearly as qualified as an atheist to be on the Supreme Court because they are hindered by religion and a higher moral law. But the atheist, fortunately, knows better than any silly religious scoundrel.
This is the reason I got into blogging. I read about 10-20 articles in any given day, from both sides of the political spectrum. I read so many outright lies, explicit insults, implicit insults, and even worse- justification for the insults! At one point I started leaving comments on these articles just to get torn apart by my own kin! I am frustrated that we can spend so much time writing about how awful the other side is; but if someone disagrees with their own side, suddenly they shout, “Crucify him! Crucify him!”.
My goal is to expose truth while encouraging compassion. The reality is that people aren’t often entirely at fault for their own misinformation. They are discipled to believe what they believe by someone older and (presumably) wiser. People are simply a product of the environment they grow up in, and their ability to think through new information is determined by said environment. So why do we spend so much time insulting and defaming people who disagree with us?
The main problem I have with Mr. Krauss’s article is this phrase:
“… the laws of the land are, or should be, secular.”
Morality is the greatest argument for the existence of a Creator. Why is it that we have laws? Who created them? Who decided what would be good and what would be bad?
In ancient societies, slavery was okay- that’s just how things were and no one believed in this higher morality that said that slavery was not okay. They all simply accepted slavery as the law of the land. Nobody will accept that it is okay today, because there is a higher morality that prevents us from making such an absurd assertion.
Without such higher powers pointing humanity in the direction of morality, there is zero guarantee that we won’t suddenly regress and start doing human sacrifices, or enslaving people of different color.
I’m not saying that Atheists cannot be judges, because I believe they too are given this understanding of good and evil by a Creator. I’m also not saying that atheists are bad people who want to regress humanity to a darker age. I believe that both Scalia and Krauss are wrong in their assertion that we need to diversify the Supreme Court because without a higher morality judging our direction toward Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness for all men, then we would not be where we are now, and I wouldn’t very much like where we are going.