The American Family Association Action’s Center for Judicial Renewal doesn’t particularly like it when you say that it wants to impose an unconstitutional religious test on appointees to the Supreme Court and other federal courts.
But that’s what it is. And this aggressive and exclusionary Christian nationalism, embraced by much of the religious right and the MAGA movement, is wrong, unconstitutional and un-American religious discrimination.
The argument is that there’s a big difference between a “preference” for specific religions among judges and an actual “religious test” for holding office. But that distinction means little when a political group uses its influence to pressure presidents and U.S. senators to treat their preference as a de facto religious test.
The bottom line is that conservative organizations are delving into the religious beliefs and practices of conservative judges to decide whether they would be acceptable to serve on the Supreme Court. The Center for Judicial Renewal’s site lists “worldview” as the first of “10 Principles of a Constitutionalist Judge,” explaining that “the greatest predictor of their faithful and constitutional performance on the bench is their ‘worldview’ or ‘Christian faith.’”
The organization has put several conservative judges considered potential Supreme Court nominees on its unacceptable “red list.” The public version of its “serious concerns” dossier on Judge Neomi Rao includes under a “Faith and Worldview” heading the fact that Rao “was raised in an immigrant family of Zoroastrian tradition and converted to Judaism when she got married.”
So it appears that only Christians are acceptable to them, and then only Christians who meet the religious right’s “biblical worldview” standard. The change in the language on their website from “biblical worldview” to “worldview” after public criticism does not change the substance of the effort.
The American Family Association tells prospective students of its biblical worldview training course, “In order to make an impact in culture, we must first submit ourselves to the clear teaching of Scripture and acknowledge its authority to dictate every area of our lives.”
As the association and its allies apply this definition to legal and public policy questions, their standard requires opposition to legal abortion and equality for gay and transgender people and same-sex couples.
It means accepting an interpretation of the Bible that dictates right-wing social and economic policies. It means undermining the separation of church and state and enforcing a right-wing view of religious liberty as a sword to justify discrimination rather than a shield to protect freedom.
This religious worldview test betrays the letter and spirit of the Constitution, whose authors put in writing that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.”
In other words, no public official can be required to hold particular religious beliefs. Along with the First Amendment, it’s a core of our constitutional guarantee of religious liberty.
To demand judges “have a relationship with Jesus” on the grounds that they will be fairer seems like not only a religious test, but also a smear against fair-minded people who don’t share this religious worldview. I’m a Christian, and it offends me.
It certainly does not show respect for the peaceful pluralism that is a defining characteristic of our nation, where one’s rights as a citizen, including the right to serve in public office, are not dependent on having particular religious beliefs. Indeed, some of the nation’s founders had unorthodox Christian views that some might view as falling short.
One key characteristic of Christian nationalism is the belief that certain kinds of Christians should hold a privileged and dominant place in society. Right-wing groups are attempting to impose just that with their effort to hang a sign on our courthouses that says “no Jews, Muslims, liberal Christians or secularists need apply.”
Other Trump-aligned Christian nationalists want to impose explicit tests for anyone holding public office. These calls raise the question of which religious or government figures would be responsible for evaluating whether someone’s Christianity passes muster. When it comes to judges, the opinion piece argues that the White House and Senate should outsource that evaluation to those who adhere to its beliefs.
President Trump has recently created a Religious Liberty Commission whose ostensible mission is to protect every American’s religious liberty. One test of its sincerity would be whether it would publicly reject and disavow this attempt to impose religious discrimination on our courts.
Trump and every U.S. senator should do the same.
Svante Myrick is president of People For the American Way.
