I was doing my best to catch up on the Sotomayor hearings, reading a transcript on the LA Times site (which is about a hundred times less damaging to your mental stability than listening to the audio of mouth-breathers like Jeff Sessions or Chuck Grassley).

It’s the horror show you’d expect, of course. Ignorant Republicans pressing Sotomayor on those nasty baby-killing doctors, on why anyone, anywhere, should ever be expected to give up their guns (one, I forget which, questioned her on why FELONS shouldn’t have the right to own whatever guns they like under the 2nd Amendment, which she noted even Scalia (or was it his clone, Alito) was sane enough to dispute.

It’s also mind numbingly repetitive, as time and again, on both sides, Senators ask her questions that she then refuses to answer on the basis that the topic is ‘pending’ in the federal courts. Apparently this is an ABA rule/in the code of Judicial conduct, not to discuss cases that might come up soon in your new job. Which rather makes these hearings pointless, as ANY case could come up before the Supreme Court (they are Supreme, durr.. more specifically, under judicial review they can take any case they feel like), thus.. she can’t answer anything of substance. All she can give are broad platitudes, anecdotes, and answer racist attacks, over and over, for days.

What the hell is the point? Really? I’d rather have them answer questions honestly, then recuse themselves for six months, or something. We desperately need a new process for confirmations, we really do.

But the thing I was getting at occurred toward the end of the day on Wednesday, when Cardin got to trying to nail her down on how much respect courts should afford to religious views. He brought up a case where she was on a panel that basically forced a prison to accomodate a Muslim prisoner’s dietary restrictions during Ramadan. All well and good, I suppose, but it got me to thinking about the myriad ways that government bends over backward for religious people, and a: how far you can go in that direction before it becomes hazardous or unreasonably costly, but also b: how these positive perks for faith aren’t awarded to atheists.

First, issue a. Ok, fine, someone needs a slightly special meal during Ramadan… I guess that’s ok. But what if that special meal required something really expensive? What if your religion requires you to eat caviar and drink fine scotch, single-malt, day after day? What if it requires that you eat human flesh? How far do you have to go to accomodate someone’s personal beliefs?

The second is more fundamental, I think. Religious people occupy a position of privilege over all atheists, who are second class citizens as a result, because they can resort to a religious explanation whenever they want, and get that explanation treated seriously, regardless of its real world merit or factual basis, and the sole criteria for determining whether to take it seriously is *whether they ‘sincerely’ believe it*

Take a look, see what I mean:

SOTOMAYOR: I don’t mean to be funny, but the court has held that it’s fundamental in the sense of incorporation against the state. But it is a very important and central part of our democratic society that we do give freedom of religion, the practice of religion, that the Constitution restricts the — the state from establishing a religion, and that we have freedom of expression in speech, as well.

Those freedoms are central to our Constitution. The Ford case, as others that I had rendered in this area, recognize the importance of that in terms of one’s consideration of actions that are being taken to restrict it in a particular circumstance.

Speaking further is difficult to do. Again, because of the role of a judge, to say it’s important, that it’s fundamental, and it’s legal and common meaning is always looked at in the context of a particular case. What’s the state doing?

In the Ford case that you just mentioned, the question there before the court was, did the district court err in considering whether or not the religious belief that this prisoner had was consistent with the established traditional interpretation of a meal at issue, OK?

And what I was doing was applying very important Supreme Court precedent that said, it’s the subjective belief of the individual. Is it really motivated by a religious belief?

It’s one of the reasons we recognize conscientious objectors, because we’re asking a court not to look at whether this is orthodox or not, but to look at the sincerity of the individual’s religious belief and then look at what the state is doing in light of that. So that was what the issue was in Ford.

(from the LA Times, located here)

Consider the implications of what she’s saying here. The relevant precedent to help determine whether or not you have to accomodate a person’s religious request is on the basis of whether or not they sincerely believe it is necessary. So if you sincerely believe something in a religious vein, a positive duty is forced on the state to help you. Atheists, having at best a negative belief that forces no particular action upon them (no ceremonies, no rituals, no commandments on stone tablets), can NEVER MAKE USE OF THIS STANDARD.

Thus, an extremely powerful, flexible, and subjective method of compelling the government to do something is forever closed off if you don’t believe in… something… mystical. A sky-wizard, a talking animal, a spirit guide, Zeus, Odin, Buddha, whatever.

Not only that, but a judge somewhere gets to decide if you do sincerely believe something.

That last part needs another look though, because it really makes this whole thing sick:

It’s one of the reasons we recognize conscientious objectors, because we’re asking a court not to look at whether this is orthodox or not, but to look at the sincerity of the individual’s religious belief and then look at what the state is doing in light of that.

In other words, you are more likely to be able to avoid a draft, to avoid going to war, to avoid being shot and killed, if you believe in God. Specifically, a God that the Judge in your case finds credible.

If you are an atheist, the state is inherently more likely to have you conscripted, sent off to fight in, say, Southeast Asia, and killed. It is official US policy that being religious confers on you a greater right to prevail in claims against the government, in a wide variety of situations/cases; you can get better jobs, better representation, more money from the state, pay fewer taxes, obey fewer laws, avoid criticism for poor performance (see abstinence education under Bush II), etc etc etc. Even better meals in prison, it seems. Being religious grants you myriad privileges denied to the faithless.

It also grants you a greater right to life.

Go to church, or we might kill you, some day, to advance our national interests.

God Bless America indeed.