Last week, New Jersey governor Chris Christie addressed questions from the press about his recent appointment of Sohail Mohammed to the state bench. Mr. Mohammed is a Muslim, and apparently there has been some popular criticism of the appointment decision:
Had I been in Christie’s place, I might have said something like this:
“Yes. It’s absolutely true that Mr. Mohammed’s intellect and judgment are called into serious question by virtue of the fact that he is a Muslim. Absolutely, we should be worried. The same is true for any other judge who is a Christian, a Jew, a Hindu, a Buddhist, or any other religion. The cognitive abilities of all religious people are seriously compromised by their commitments to dogmatic faith. Unfortunately, the state of New Jersey is not lucky enough to have a large enough number of atheists to staff all the jobs where an ability to reason is necessary. So we’ll have to take what we can get. What I can tell you, after knowing Mr. Mohammed personally for nine years, is that he is no more compromised by his religion than any run-of-the-mill Protestant or Catholic. I’m sure he’ll do as good a job as anyone else we’re likely to be able to find.”
Truly a great response. Truly.
Do you know for a fact that their cognitive ability is seriously compromised by their faith? Some extremely intelligent people throughout history have been religious. What would be the conclusion drawn about an atheist who believes in a pseudoscience or has a superstition? Are they cognitively handicapped as well? What is the standard by which we judge perfect cognitive ability? If it is the case that both of these parties have definably reduced capacities, what then do you do and how do you ensure that a person of excellent cognitive ability leads?