There is a growing hostility toward biblical Christianity in the United States, and this animosity is clouding the response to President Donald Trump’s nomination of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court of the United States. And Bible-believing Christians should be paying close attention.
To be clear, I’m not making any kind of political endorsement with this post. I’m also not addressing all the ramifications and implications of the nomination of Judge Barrett.
I’m focusing specifically and exclusively on those objections to Judge Barrett which have been rooted in her faith and in her affiliations with certain faith-based organizations.
Hearings are now underway for Judge Barrett’s nomination to the Supreme Court. And I want to say that it’s perfectly valid for senators to raise questions about Judge Barrett’s judicial record, her approach to jurisprudence, or to object to the timing of the nomination itself (it being so close to the election).
That latter concern is particularly relevant given what happened with President Barack Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland in 2016.
Therefore, while I believe Judge Barrett is eminently qualified, I accept that honorable people can and will disagree on whether she should be confirmed to the High Court and/or whether this nomination should even be made so close to the election.
With this article, I aim to address just one category of objections to Judge Barrett — a line of opposition that, in my view, is deeply troubling and altogether unacceptable.
Shortly before the official announcement,comedian Bill Maher, a frequent critic of Christians and conservatives, targeted Amy Coney Barrett in a blistering monologue as part of his HBO show Real Time With Bill Maher. The liberal comedian ridiculed Barrett as a “f—ing nut” and warned that she was “Catholic – really Catholic. I mean really, really Catholic.”
Let’s break this “logic” down. For Maher, it’s bad enough that Barrett is Catholic, but for her to be “really Catholic” or “really, really Catholic,” well… that is just (in Maher’s mind) unacceptable. Or I guess I should say “really unacceptable” or “really, really unacceptable.”
To help illustrate the galling nature of this bigotry, imagine if a nationally televised comedian and talk show host objected to a Supreme Court nominee who was an Orthodox Jew for being “really Jewish” or “really, really Jewish” or a devout Muslim for being “really Muslim” or “really, really Muslim.”
Can you imagine the outrage?
In spite of how blatantly bigoted it is to marginalize someone based on the seriousness of their religious faith, this seems to be the anti-Barrett narrative taking shape on much of social media. To many in our culture today (including, it seems, Maher), it’s okay to be religious as long as you aren’t “really” or “really, really” religious.
If you take your faith seriously, this should concern you.
Barrett herself is no stranger to this kind of anti-religious bigotry. She experienced ridicule of her faith at the hands of Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) in 2017 when nominated for the Seventh Circuit Court. During her confirmation hearings, Barrett was subjected to this chilling statement from a United States senator: “the dogma lives loudly within you, and that’s of concern.”
Of course, some say it’s not Barrett’s Catholicism per se, but rather her association with an ecumenical Christian group known as “People of Praise.” This group has its roots in the charismatic movement. They believe in a continuation of the spiritual sign gifts, including healing and speaking in tongues.
And, apparently (at least according to the group’s critics), they take seriously the admonition in Ephesians 5 that wives should “submit to their husbands.” And, until recently, they apparently referred to female leaders in their organization as “handmaids” or “handmaiden.”
This latter point has drawn all kinds of scorn on social media, with critics alleging that a Justice Barrett will help lead America toward a misogynistic, dystopian future resembling Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale.
It seems to completely escape these critics that Mary, the mother of Jesus, referred to herself as (wait for it) the “handmaid of the Lord.”
While I realize the popular TV series based on Atwood’s novel has changed the way people view the term “handmaid,” it’s disappointing that so many of Barrett’s opponents prefer to look to a dystopian novel for their understanding of the term instead of one of the most famous passages in Scripture: the birth narrative of Jesus Christ.
In mischaracterizing and attacking Judge Barrett’s religous beliefs, her opponents are trying to show of course that she can’t be trusted to look out for the civil rights or legal interests of women.
Anyone with a modicum of intelligence should realize this is ludicrous on its face. We’re talking about a distinguished constitutional scholar and federal judge in the midst of a well-deserved, distinguished career. If she believes in the subservience and submission of all women (as some are absurdly alleging), why did she pursue such a career? Why is she even a lawyer, let alone a judge – let alone a nominee to the Highest Court of the land?
And where is her husband? If the Barretts and People of Praise believe in the kind of caveman-style male chauvinism their critics claim, why isn’t he grabbing her by the hair, demanding she tell Trump “no,” and then telling her to get back in the kitchen and make him a sandwich?
He’s not doing that, because I’m quite confident that’s NOT the marriage they have!
Only in the ridiculous and twisted imagination of Barrett’s (almost exclusively left-wing) critics and in the minds of those who routinely ridicule the Bible and Christianity (the groups significantly overlap) do such nightmarish scenarios exist.
Yes, there are some abusive homes out there – including abusive Christian homes. And we should do all we can to rescue and help those victimized in such horrible situations. But there is no indication the Barrett family is indicative of such a situation. None whatsoever.
Of course, even in the mainstream, I recognize there are some differences within church circles about how husbands and wives complement one another in the home and what church offices women should serve in (some denominations and churches, for example, objecting to women pastors).
Nevertheless, every Christian (and, as a pastor, I know a lot of Christians) believes in the political, professional, economic, legal, and social equality of men and women — and in the inherent equality of men and women before God.
Critics of Judge Barrett are creating a caricature and beating on it relentlessly in order to stop a constitutional conservative from ascending to the High Court. Make no mistake. They fear how a Justice Barrett will rule on cases pertaining to Roe v. Wade or Obergefell v. Hodges.
That‘s what this is really all about. Everything else is a bunch of noise and smoke-and-mirrors.
What should concern Bible-believing Christians, however, is whether ridicule of someone’s religious beliefs becomes politically and socially acceptable in the United States. It already IS acceptable on social media, and indications are that it is increasingly so in the public square as well – at least in one of the two major political parties.
As a Baptist pastor, I frankly disagree with several of Judge Barrett’s religious views. I’m neither Catholic nor charismatic, but…
The fact is…
Whether our religious views align with Judge Barrett’s religious views is altogether irrelevant to her nomination to the Supreme Court of the United States.
The Constitution of the United States states explicitly in Article VI that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
That’s it.
Case closed.
The Senate can (and should) review her legal record and philosophy of jurisprudence. But her religious views should be off limits. That’s what the institutional separation of Church and State is all about.
Critics will of course argue that it’s conservatives (like Barrett) who wish to breach the so-called “wall of separation” by imposing their religious views on others.
This, in and of itself, is a form of bigotry since the Founders never intended for people of faith to be barred from the public square. Christians have as much right as non-Christians to engage in the marketplace and public square (and to advocate their views, including those views derived from their faith).
Of course, there’s a difference between bringing your views to the table as a voter or legislator versus doing so as a judge. And thus it’s quite fair to ask Judge Barrett (or, for that matter, any appointee to any judgeship) if she will dispose of cases before her based on the law or based on her personal religious beliefs. Obviously, the only valid answer – for a judge – is the former, not the latter.
And I’m quite confident this is how Barrett approaches her duties as a circuit court judge and how she will do so as a Supreme Court Justice.
How does this apply to us?
Well, if we – as people of faith – value the right to participate fully in the public square and the marketplace, we should watch closely how Judge Barrett’s religion is discussed during the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings and the debate on the floor of the Senate.
If a significant number of senators (or, God forbid, a majority of senators) vote against Judge Barrett because of her religious beliefs, then the message they will be sending to the country is this…
Devout people of faith can’t be trusted with the affairs of government unless they jettison said faith — or relegate it to insignificant status in their lives.
How much longer will it be then before devout people of faith can’t be trusted in business as well?
This is how discrimination against people of faith begins. It’s how persecution begins.
This must not be the case in the United States of America.
We must commit to always remaining a nation that respects free speech, free thought, and the freedom of religion.
