How Christians in America are able to live out their faith is going to be a continual and contentious issue as the country moves further away from that faith that the majority of its citizens once held.
That was clear in a Sept. 6 Senate nomination hearing for Amy Barrett, a law professor at Notre Dame. President Trump has nominated her to be a judge on the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Chicago.
Senators pressed Barrett, a Catholic, about law articles she has written regarding the death penalty, abortion and gay marriage, all issues where her faith could potentially conflict with what the law says.
The 45-year-old mother of seven refused to state her personal views on any issue, a stand most nominees take. Instead, she repeatedly said that as a judge she would never follow her personal convictions if they clashed with what the law says.
“I think one of the great traditions in this country is that judges participate in the law, participate in the decision of cases and rule even when they disagree with the outcome,” she said.
If she had a conscientious objection to a law, Barrett said she would recuse herself but noted she couldn’t think of a potential circumstance where that would be required.
A few notes about such hearings:
1. They are appropriate for grilling potential judges about their beliefs and past actions. These are lifetime appointments with considerable influence and the nominees should be fully vetted. If they can’t handle tough questions from senators, they’re not fit for the bench.
2. It’s all a game. Because of how polarized Congress is, Senators know how they’re going to vote already, and hearings accomplish little than to allow politicians to espouse their views on C-SPAN while the nominees dodge every question that could come back to haunt them.
That being said, Barrett’s hearing did provide an interesting lens into how Christians in public office are viewed.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-California, which is probably the nation’s most secular state, said, “When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws, is that the dogma lives loudly within you. And that’s of concern.”
Sen. Orrin Hatch, a Republican from Utah, which is probably the nation’s most religious state, said he was troubled by the suggestion that someone cannot take their faith seriously and still be an impartial judge.
Barrett, for her part, said she saw “no conflict in having a sincerely held faith and duties as a judge.”
The Constitution states, “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” That was originally meant to protect people who weren’t religious or who weren’t a part of a particular church: If you don’t believe in God or aren’t a member of a denomination, it can’t prevent you from holding office in the United States.
But it applies just the same to religious people: If you do believe in the Bible, it can’t prevent you from holding office.
Feinstein’s comments were evident of a growing opinion that devout Christians should be treated with suspicion. In that light, it’s important for courts to continue to recognize the free practice of religion, including being able to hold public office.
