Consider what are already becoming routine descriptions - that Judge Roberts and his wife, Jane Sullivan Roberts, are devout Catholics but don't wear their faith on their sleeves; that Judge Roberts hews to his religion but keeps it separate from his legal judgments; that the couple's faith, as one priest who knows them put it, "would affect their personal lives, but they are very professional in their work."It seems we want our public figures to have some religion but not too much.
July 30, 2005
Roberts and (just the right amount of) religion.
Peter Steinfels has a piece about Supreme Court nominee John Roberts and religion:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
"It seems we want our public figures to have some religion but not too much."
Well, yes. Most religions (excluding such aberrations as Thuggee) supply at base a morality acceptable to all - but specifics are often at odds. For the most part, we manage to rub along in our country's society - mostly by not trying more than words to establish a particular religious view, although I can think of some laws (e.g. Sunday Closing laws) that did/do so.
In re Judge Roberts, I think he keeps the morality of his religion in mind, which I don't think is entirely a bad thing, while not allowing it to override secular morality and law. I expect him to continue to be against murder, but not to outlaw condoms...
This reminds me vaguely of how The West Wing has authorized conservatism; we see a conservative principle being developed for an entire episode, but it's only acceptable once one of the stars says it is.
Post a Comment