Somewhere on the book of feces I stumbled across this:

If, rather than being Catholic, Amy Coney Barrett was a devout Muslim woman who belonged to an extremist Muslim organization that demanded a lifelong covenant, professed a belief that women should be subservient to their husbands, taught at a madrassa, and once said she viewed her participation in the legal profession as a way to bring about the Kingdom of Allah…

The conversation surrounding her appointment to the United States Supreme Court would be slightly different.

The general sense amongst the commentariat where I saw it was that this was a huge zinger and clear proof of double standards, evil, Orange Man Bad and REEEEEEEEEE.

Yet I look at this and see no problem with it. It is absolutely true and there are good reasons for why the conversation surrounding the appointment of a devout Muslim to the USSC would be different. Taking it from the bottom.

once said she viewed her participation in the legal profession as a way to bring about the Kingdom of Allah…

There’s a fundamental observation here in that we have seen what justice is like in places where they want to “bring about the Kingdom of Allah”. The Islamic world has a judicial system called Shariah and it’s not good as a modern judicial system (arguably it was a fine system for a more medieval world, but the USA in the 20th century is not, apart from a few areas in Democrat run cities, a medieval world). From Saudi Arabia’s “Chop chop” square via Iranian executions for the crime of being homosexual (or immodest as a woman) to the outright nutbaggery that was on display as the judicial system of the IS Caliphate in Syria/Iraq we know that many standard American/European expectations of justice are simply absent in the Islamic system. And that this is seen as a feature not a bug by the believers. Even in places like Pakistan or Malaysia which have inherited British Common Law we see harsh rulings for crimes like “blasphemy” which are incompatible with sections of the US constitution (and the various European equivalents). So yes a devout Muslim jurist would be concerning.

A devout catholic not so much. If we look around the world at places where there are majority catholics (and fairly observant/devout ones) we find countries like Ireland or Poland. Neither country executes people, nor prosecutes them for blasphemy or sodomy or counts the testimony of a woman to be worth half that of a man or … There are undoubtedly imperfections in both countries judicial systems, but I don’t think there’s a judicial system anywhere in the world that is perfect, and a Christian would say that is simply due to the fallibility and inherent sinfulness of mankind. The people posting this thought experiment would point back to things like the Spanish Inquisition and events like the Salem witch trials as evidence that Christian-influenced justice can be bad too, but they (wilfully) miss the point: Christianity doesn’t do that any more, and Christians don’t want to do it. Anywhere. Moreover when parts of Chrstendom did those sorts of things they were generally considered an abomination by other Christians. Plus of course the Spanish Inquisition was, arguably, an improvement over the prior more medieval forms of inquiry where a victim was simply tortured until he said whatever it was his accuser wanted. The Inquisition actually had a defense counsel, a defined process, including rules for when torture was to be employed (and when not) as well as a number of other innovations compared to medieval law, that look more like what we recognize today. Of course it had problems (it funded itself from the fines it levied on the guilty, which was a major incentive to target rich ones for example), but the really key point about it is that it was officially disbanded in the 19th century. At about the same time common law jurisdictions were gradually removing their own religious laws, which were (irony alert) mostly anti-catholic. No one, and certainly not Judge Barrett, wants to bring those rules back. Indeed many of them conflict with the US Constitution and Judge Barrett is a scholar who has studied that and sworn to uphold it.

Then there’s all the other “zingers” which are either laughably false or an insight in to the sociopathic thinking of the left (or both)

taught at a madrassa

The University of Notre Dame law school is famous for having strict adherence to Christian morality as defined by the pope being a requirement for its professors and graduates. er Not. There is no requirement to chant the creed or even the Lord’s prayer to graduate, a complete lack of mandatory Sunday chapel and all the other trappings of mandatory religious life seem to be curiously absent. Typically the event that gets the most attendance is the football game. Indeed you could make a strong argument (in terms of money spent etc.) that the official religion of Notre Dame is football. If Judge Barrett were a graduate/professor of, say, BYU in Provo or Oral Roberts University in Tulsa then perhaps the madrassa comparison could be made without sounding silly. Or maybe if we were looking at the ND of the 1950s a case could be made, but not any time in the last 30 or more years. If UND were a madrassa then no one with sense would trust its graduates to design airplanes or bridge, run banks and so on. About the only thing we could expect is that they would be good at self-detonation and they’d be triggered by a fanatical rejection of pretty much anything (other than detonators, explosives etc.) that was invented after about 1485.

professed a belief that women should be subservient to their husbands

Ah yes the famous line in Ephesians, taken out of context of course. Naturally there’s no mention of the subsequent lines where the husband is commanded to cherish his wife and so on or indeed that the whole point of the passage is that husband and wife join together as one. And of course there’s no historical analysis to point out that in the time when St Paul wrote those lines the truly shocking part was that he told the man to treat his wife properly and not as a slave. And so on. You’d be almost as accurate in your quoting if you did this:

Hang all the law and the prophets – Jesus Christ (Matthew 22:40, KJV etc.)

We note that Mohammed, living some 400 years later, was far less clued in about female equality in his writings.

Which leads us to

a lifelong covenant

This seems to be a failing of modern lefty sorts. They don’t get the idea of a permanent agreement; a commitment to do something for ever (or at least as long as practical). They certainly don’t understand that having such a commitment can be a major help to moving past problems. Instead they think every contract, every treaty, every agreement should have an expiry date and that even then you should be able to just quit at any time if you don’t feel like it.

Everyone with sense now distrusts left-wing promises in much the same way that sensible diplomats distrust the promises of Hamas or Hezbollah and for much the same reason. The lefties will ditch the promise/commitment/… as soon as they see a benefit in doing so. One of the joys of Donald Trump is that he points out their faithlessness.

Those of us who are not of their belief think that a commitment like this is a worthy thing, one to be praised and one that is a sign of virtue. To quote from that anathema of the left, the Imperialist, racist etc. Rudyard Kipling, the people we respect:

… do not preach that their God will rouse them a little before the nuts work loose.
They do not teach that His Pity allows them to leave their job when they damn-well choose.

And that really is the difference between the unhinged left and the rest of us. Christianity is a religion that teaches that we are all imperfect but that we should strive to do better (and to be fair it isn’t alone in this, Judaism, Buddhism and even Islam tech much the same). The rest of us see that steadfast faith and desire to do good in the world as something to be admired and respected. The left find it hateful and that is probably because it awakens that voice of their conscience and reminds them of how unpleasant they are.