The real issue about the new Supreme Court nominee is not his credentials nor his record, but rather his religion — not his religious affiliation, but his world and life view which is the outworking of his religious views.  As religion determines who a man is, so religion determines what a man thinks.  Religion will determine the future of the United States Supreme Court.  The Constitution may cry out “no religious test” all it wants, but it cannot keep personal religious views out of the deliberations of the Supreme Court.   

The U.S. Constitution says “no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any office or Public Trust under the United States” (Article 6, Section 3).  During the actual announcement in the White House of the latest Supreme Court nominee, I hurriedly googled his name to find out his religious affiliation.  I could not find the answer until later when I found that he and his family attend an Episcopal Church, and that he went to a Roman Catholic Preparatory School as a young man while his mother was administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under Ronald Reagan.

The word “Test” in the Constitution may have reference to Oaths and Vows, but it is normally interpreted to mean that a man cannot be chosen based on his religious affiliation.   Regardless, I had to know his religious background, because in reality, that is the most important factor in who a man is.

I was not concerned about his credentials from Harvard Law School and Oxford University.  After all, Judge Ginsburg attended Harvard Law School, and Stephen Hawking graduated from Oxford University.  So much for credentials.

His record as a Federal Judge might give some indication on how he may rule in the future, but that was not very reassuring to me.  Again, I had to know his religious background.

What I leaned from Dr. Van Til years ago, as one of his students at Westminster Seminary, is that everyone is religious.  Denomination affiliation may indicate something of a man’s religious presuppositions, or it may not.  However, we cannot escape the idea that every man has a world and life view (which is simply the outworking of his religious views) that tints everything his sees.

Every man interprets the world through a particular religious grid, whether it be through the Bible, or Islam, or even Social Darwinism.  No man is neutral and all men take their religious views with them wherever they go.  If they wear orange colored lenses they will see everything as orange.  If they wear blue colored lenses they will see everything as blue.

Although the Constitution tells us that we cannot officially take into consideration a Supreme Court nominee’s religious affiliation, neither can the Constitution remove the inherent religious bias of any Supreme Court member as he makes decisions. A religious bias is inescapable.

The real issue about the new Supreme Court nominee is not his credentials nor his record, but rather his religion — not his religious affiliation, but his world and life view which is the outworking of his religious views.  As religion determines who a man is, so religion determines what a man thinks.  Religion will determine the future of the United States Supreme Court.  The Constitution may cry out “no religious test” all it wants, but it cannot keep personal religious views out of the deliberations of the Supreme Court.

Larry E. Ball is a retired minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is now a CPA. He lives in Kingsport, Tennessee.

© 2017 The Aquila Report