The Supreme Court has lost its last Protestant member, The Hon. John Paul Stevens. At his retirement the Court also lost one of the court’s true, old style liberals. While not a wild as Justice William O. Douglas, he was firm in his opinions. And, to be safe, this particular honorable did not reveal any specific Protestant denomination to court watchers. Douglas considered himself a Presbyterian, being as he was the son of a minister of that religious body.
Being Protestant, I suppose, meant that he was not a Roman Catholic.
Will there be a “Protestant seat” sometime in the future? More than fifty percent of Americans identify themselves as Protestants, though what we are protesting against or for is not made clear.
In having a court composed of several Catholic gentlemen and one Catholic woman, there is a certain equalizing in that two of the court members are Jews. Surely, this is an interesting development.
Various surveys of the religious affiliations of the justices have shown that in the past there was a substantial Protestant majority on the court. There was an effort, perhaps, to have a seat reserved for a Jewish member, and there was a sprinkling of Catholics here and there. A few, small indeed, were willing to self-define themselves as having no religious affiliation. In the American context, one’s professed religion, even if it is not strictly practiced, has been of some importance.
In the present era, professed and practiced religion may not be of much importance at all.
Now, in thinking about the religious positioning of a justice of the court, one may also ask whether the justice actually attends the services of this or that particular religion. Looking back over the religious practices of presidents (for example), the viewer may think that perhaps religious affiliation was merely a “front” to please people who want a high official to be something or another. I would not want to pass judgment on presidents for poor church attendance. Regular attendance at a service is a logistical task, involving security persons, correct seating, certain protocols, and the like. Mr. Nixon set up services in the White House, to avoid some of the hassle. Mr. Roosevelt was physically very challenged, and many churches may have been unavailable to him. Mr. Reagan was a church-attending Presbyterian, but held views hardly in accord with the theological center of the church to which I belong.
The situation with the Justices may be different. I do not know whether any or all of the present crew worship anywhere at all. I do know that Justice O’Connor attended services at the National Cathedral, and read the Scriptures at certain services. I can only assume that those who claim a religious affiliation practice their faith, publicly.
As time goes on, it is a possibility that other religions may have a presence on the Court. It is not difficult to conceive of a court with a Pentecostal on it, as we remember that then-Attorney General John Ashcroft, was a practicing member of the Assemblies of God. How about a Seventh Day Adventist? Issues related to religious liberty might receive a certain amount of scrutiny if such a one donned the black gown and sat in a high seat. But, perhaps not on Saturday.
Thinking ahead, let us consider that in a generation or so, a Muslim jurist of distinction might sit among a more diverse group of judges. Or, to be a bit gloomy, perhaps more than one justice in the future might bear the label Member of No Church at All. Or, worse yet, a brave member of the court might declare that she or he is an unbeliever. The label might be No Belief at All.
If current trends hold, it may be possible (but not in my life) that a majority of members of the court may represent a growing cohort of those who may be “spiritual” but profess no faith — or they may be actually hostile to formal religious adherence.
What shall we make of all this? Will justice prevail? It may seem now that the religious views of a justice make no difference.
One view, reflected on the present Court, is that the Law is what the Founders intended. Certainly the Founders were an interesting lot, religion-wise. Jefferson, one of the most articulate Founders, did a cut and paste job on The New Testament. What did the Founders actually intend when to support militias they allowed civilian citizens to bear arms?
Then, there are those on the Supreme Court who may give great weight to the law as a growing and evolving thing, permitting as did a court in the past, to make abortions legal based on the concept of privacy.
Perhaps there is a confused middle.
It may be good that the Supreme Court reflects a different religious diversity than that of fifty years ago. The present situation gives two religious groups, perhaps once allowed “seats,” a stronger presence than ever before. Six Catholic males, one of whom is a man of color. Three women, two of whom are Jews, and one a Latina and Catholic.
The real question is will the concept of law just become a matter of heated discussion among graduates of Ivy League schools, or will law be seen as a reflection of nature or of grace?
Each court session begins with the noble words: God save the United States and this honorable court. I will say “Amen” to that, but with hope that Justices will see the Law is greater than words, and God grander than any popular deity.
LAWTON POSEY is a retired minister living in Charleston, W.V.
