At Boston.com, the Boston Globe points out a startling fact or two or three regarding yesterday's Supreme Court nomination:
Judge Sonia Sotomayor has much to distinguish her, but one element of her biography stands out in the world of those interested in religion and the public square: she is Catholic, and, if approved as a Supreme Court justice, she will be the sixth Catholic on the nine-member court. That is a remarkable accomplishment for American Catholics, who make up 23 percent of the nation's population, and will now potentially hold 67 percent of the high court's seats. Two of the justices are Jewish; the resignation of Justice David Souter, who is an Episcopalian, will leave, amazingly given the history of this nation, just one Protestant on the Supreme Court, 89-year-old Justice John Paul Stevens.
What does this work out to?
- Catholics represent 2/3 of the Supreme Court seats, but 23% of the population, for a representation ratio of 2.9:1.
- Jews are 17% of the Court but 2.1% of the population, for a ratio of 8.1:1.
- And Protestants bring up a very small rear: 8% of the Court but something like 50% of the population, for a ratio of 0.16:1.
What of that lone Protestant? Apparently, he leaves it at that, naming no denomination in particular.
To make the equation even more fascinating, of the 103 Justices in the history of the Supreme Court, only 3 have belonged to a denomination that might be called evangelical: they were Baptists. Maybe you could count Huguenots, too, which were sort of evangelical, weren't they? There was one of those (Gabriel Duval, 1811-1835).
So this begets the question: Aside from Jews being so "overrepresented," what is it about Catholics that makes them better Supreme Court material than Protestants? Any why are evangelicals only slightly better represented than Buddhists, Hindus, and Muslims (those three all at zero)?
If I were Catholic, I'd be crowing right now, claiming that the Catholic intellectual tradition is obviously superior to that of the Protestants. I would also say that the anti-intellectualism of contemporary evangelicalism has borne the fruit it deserves.
But I'm Protestant, and evangelical at that, so I'll ask, instead: Where are the brilliant evangelical jurists? Or is such a term a necessary oxymoron?
(An interesting site from which I got many of my statistics is adherents.com.)
Arnold,
ReplyDeleteOne would think that a Supreme Court with a 67% Catholic majority would surely mean the end of legalized abortion. Sadly, it doesn't. Hopefully, this will result in a militant political mobilization of outraged Catholics.
Derek
Arnold,
ReplyDeleteOne would think that a Supreme Court with a 67% Catholic majority would surely mean the end of legalized abortion. Sadly, it doesn't. Hopefully, this will result in a militant political mobilization of outraged Catholics.
Derek
Hey, I got a double!
ReplyDeleteHi Derek -
ReplyDeleteThe Archbishop of Denver, Charles Chaput, has a rather provocative article in the June/July First Things, addressing this very issue. He says Catholics should care about such things, but don't. An excerpt (until next month, I think only subscribers can access the article online):
"But the new administration has now made its first decisions in moral and cultural areas, and the badness of those decisions should surprise no one. Some Catholics in both political parties are deeply troubled by these issues, but too many Catholics don’t really care. That’s the truth of it: If they cared, our political environment would be different. If 65 million Catholics really cared about their faith and cared about what it teaches, neither political party could ignore what we believe about justice for the poor, or the homeless, or immigrants, or the unborn. If 65 million American Catholics really understood their faith, we wouldn’t need to waste one another’s time arguing whether the legalized killing of an unborn child is somehow balanced out or excused by other social policies.
If we learn nothing else from last November, it should be this: We need to stop overcounting our numbers, our influence, our institutions, and our resources, because they are not real. We cannot talk about following St. Paul and converting our culture until we sober up and admit what we’ve allowed ourselves to become. We need to stop lying to each other, to ourselves, and to God by claiming to oppose personally some homicidal evil—and allowing it to be legal at the same time.
We’ve forgotten how to think, especially how to think as Catholics. "
Well. The meat of it as to our evangelical family is...
ReplyDelete"If we learn nothing else from last November, it should be this: We need to stop overcounting our numbers, our influence, our institutions, and our resources, because they are not real"
If American cultural Kristianity really mattered or meant anything we should be concerned. The fact that people claiming our faith misuse us to get our vote to draw power to themselves to further their own agenda is finally being noticed. How long will the sheeple follow.....
Do you think there might be a connection here with Catholic parochial education?
ReplyDeletePossibly. I guess I'd have to research the educational history of the justices to know whether it applied. I suspect, however, that the reason is somehow more systemic.
ReplyDeleteI totally disagree with this article... I was raised in a catholic country/school and I can tell you catholics are very ignorant, the don't know the scriptures, they are not interested in reading the bible. Even sometimes the laugh at it, hate the priests and the vatican. And I could tell you more...
ReplyDelete