TOW #18- Put an Atheist on the Supreme Court

Atheism is becoming one of the most growing sects in America, as many individuals are now tending to not identify as religious or believe in god at all. This group of people is the subject of editorial written by Lawrence Krauss, an American theoretical physicist and cosmetologist. Krauss explains the lack of religious diversity in the Supreme Court, explaining that most Supreme Court justices are Catholic and Jewish. He argues the notion that rather than elect another person of a different faith that the way to bring about religious diversity in the Supreme Court is to appoint a declared Atheist. Krauss's purpose and argument being that this would keep the government secular giving a more unbiased perceptive in the Supreme Court. Krauss does this by making religious allusions and detailing hypothetical situations. Krauss explains that our government that was intentionally made to be secular should base officials based on their religious affiliation. "The Ten Commandments are reserved for houses of worship; the laws of the land are, or should be, secular" (2), by referencing the biblical Ten Commandments Krauss is able to show that appointment of a atheist in the Supreme Court will keep this reservation of a secular government. This issue is again address when he brings up issues in our present day courts that an atheist justice would be effective in handling. Most notably the issue of gay marriage, Krauss explains that hypothetically since the justice would have no religious affiliation that they would have no religious bias holding them back from allowing this right. He goes on to say that this would also be beneficial in issues such as birth control and abortion. Although I do agree with Krauss claim to an Atheist Supreme Court justice, he does not provide enough substantial evidence to make his argument effective. Most of the evidence he presents in hypothetical, if he were to bring in a real life example of an Atheist in a government position it would make his argument more effective. But overall he has the right ideas but the evidence is not enough to make a clear judgement of an Atheist in the Supreme Court.