I was responding to the statements by some that evangelicals were dissed in favor of Catholics and the still stupid reasons Meirs' proponents are giving as to why she was dropped.
I am not a religious person, but arrive at my conclusions and beliefs using a conservative framework of beliefs. Theminister or Pope does not shape my views. History, experience, logic, and rational thought is what I hope to look to form my beliefs. The fact that they might be on the same side as yours is fine just the same.
However, do you think your thought process is entitled to more deferrance than mine if we ultimately reach the same conclusion, however from different angles?
{Diabolical laughing}
Thank you for explaining the intent of your original post. I agree that being an evangelical isn't enough and we both agree on this pick. I responded to your original post becasue it sounded like you thought religion had no influence or relation to one's philosophical worlview including legal philosophy. I would submit that all knowledge including yours has a "faith component." You and I didn't test and verify every single bit of knowledge we rely on and that's a good thing because it's impossible to do so. Remember, all those books we trusted in high school? Even an atheist's worldview is composed of a certain amount of faith. In fact, I don't have enough faith to be an atheist.