Religious Tests On The Rise

[Hakons]

Atheists should be allowed to run for office.
I probably won't vote for them, but they can run.

Christians should be allowed to run for office.

Senators may not vote to approve them, but they can run.

I'm obviously speaking as a voter. Do you think I'm secretly a senator on the judicial committee?

[Hakons]

^this. Anyway, judges are supposed to be impartial to begin with.

I think this form of questioning was supposed to be getting at if they will be impartial.

If that is the case, the senator should ask if they will separate their religious views from their judicial rulings. The nominee will roll their eyes and say yes because it's a stupid question that gets nowhere. Still, that's better than listing Catholic beliefs that are supposedly scary and dangerous and asking for them to renounce such beliefs.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

If those were done in a different way I'd support this. Then again what I'm thinking of would be more like a mostly religious education test, not just a religious test.

[Conserative Morality]

"Secular liberal democracy" is largely a modern term.

For what has been our traditional form of government.

For the majority of U.S. history, American government was referred to as republicanism. The "secular liberal democracy" crowd is a lot different than American values have historically been.

Yes, the Founding Fathers never would have said anything like

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach [Islam] to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest.

In this enlightened age, & in this land of equal liberty, it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining & holding the highest offices that are known in the United States.

[Conserative Morality]

I'm obviously speaking as a voter. Do you think I'm secretly a senator on the judicial committee?

Why does that matter? The individual in question was allowed to run for office. The representatives of the people were allowed to question him according to their values.

[Vassenor]

I think this form of questioning was supposed to be getting at if they will be impartial.

If that is the case, the senator should ask if they will separate their religious views from their judicial rulings. The nominee will roll their eyes and say yes because it's a stupid question that gets nowhere. Still, that's better than listing Catholic beliefs that are supposedly scary and dangerous and asking for them to renounce such beliefs.

I mean that's what certain conservatives expect Muslims to do, so we're kind of doing turnabout here.

[Conserative Morality]

If that is the case, the senator should ask if they will separate their religious views from their judicial rulings. The nominee will roll their eyes and say yes because it's a stupid question that gets nowhere. Still, that's better than listing Catholic beliefs that are supposedly scary and dangerous and asking for them to renounce such beliefs.

I mean that's what certain conservatives expect Muslims to do, so we're kind of doing turnabout here.

"Do you renounce this organization that you belong to's statement of belief that gays should be stoned?"

"Senator I believe that is a religious test"

[Conserative Morality]

Can't wait to make the next person in charge of Federal antidiscrimination laws someone who thinks Yacoub the mad genetic scientist made white people 7,000 years ago in defiance of God's will or someshit because it's a religious belief.

[Hakons]

"Secular liberal democracy" is largely a modern term.

For what has been our traditional form of government.

For the majority of U.S. history, American government was referred to as republicanism. The "secular liberal democracy" crowd is a lot different than American values have historically been.

Yes, the Founding Fathers never would have said anything like

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts as are only injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.

so that even if the Mufti of Constantinople were to send a missionary to preach [Islam] to us, he would find a pulpit at his service.

Harmony, liberal intercourse with all nations, are recommended by policy, humanity, and interest.

In this enlightened age, & in this land of equal liberty, it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining & holding the highest offices that are known in the United States.

Projecting modern definitions into the past is certainly a favorite pastime of liberals (especially when it comes to judicial opinions I might add). Why not call them by what they called themselves? If you were to ask an American before 1940 what kind of government they had, I don't think they would respond with "secular liberal democracy." It's pretentious and just historically wrong to say that's what America has been, especially when those three words have different meanings and attached political opinions now than they did then.

Those quotes aren't an endorsement of your views, you know. Those are all quotes supporting the secular notion that the government shouldn't interfere in the religious lives of citizens. That's why they banned religious tests and why I'm arguing against religious tests. They can hardly be construed to support "secular liberal democracy" when nothing of the sort is confessed.

Here's a nice article, though rather long, that gets at what I'm trying to say.

[Conserative Morality]

Projecting modern definitions into the past is certainly a favorite pastime of liberals (especially when it comes to judicial opinions I might add). Why not call them by what they called themselves? If you were to ask an American before 1940 what kind of government they had, I don't think they would respond with "secular liberal democracy." It's pretentious and just historically wrong to say that's what America has been, especially when those three words have different meanings and attached political opinions now than they did then.

Those quotes aren't an endorsement of your views, you know. Those are all quotes supporting the secular notion that the government shouldn't interfere in the religious lives of citizens. That's why they banned religious tests and why I'm arguing against religious tests. They can hardly be construed to support "secular liberal democracy" when nothing of the sort is confessed.

Here's a nice article, though rather long, that gets at what I'm trying to say.

"I don't like those words therefore they're not correct despite meeting the exact definition"

10/10, keep up that persecution complex. I know it's a religious belief, and I'm not allowed to question that.

[Hakons]

I'm obviously speaking as a voter. Do you think I'm secretly a senator on the judicial committee?

Why does that matter? The individual in question was allowed to run for office. The representatives of the people were allowed to question him according to their values.

Obviously, as I hope you would know too, voters are allowed to vote however they want. Public officials are constricted some by ant-discrimination laws. A senator can't vote against a nominee based on their gender nor could they vote against them based on a religious test.

[Hakons]

If that is the case, the senator should ask if they will separate their religious views from their judicial rulings. The nominee will roll their eyes and say yes because it's a stupid question that gets nowhere. Still, that's better than listing Catholic beliefs that are supposedly scary and dangerous and asking for them to renounce such beliefs.

I mean that's what certain conservatives expect Muslims to do, so we're kind of doing turnabout here.

What turnabout? Post where I'm for discounting Muslims before you go on your nonsense about turnabouts. I literally condemned anti-Muslim religious tests in the OP.

[Conserative Morality]

Obviously, as I hope you would know too, voters are allowed to vote however they want.

But public officials can only vote according to the will of the Church.

Public officials are constricted some by ant-discrimination laws. A senator can't vote against a nominee based on their gender nor could they vote against them based on a religious test.

It wasn't a test. It was a question of beliefs, no more nor less appropriate than asking "Do you believe in the Constitution?"

[Hakons]

Can't wait to make the next person in charge of Federal antidiscrimination laws someone who thinks Yacoub the mad genetic scientist made white people 7,000 years ago in defiance of God's will or someshit because it's a religious belief.

I must say, you do make a fine religious bigot. This isn't really related to anything, but I'm glad you got your biases in the open.

Projecting modern definitions into the past is certainly a favorite pastime of liberals (especially when it comes to judicial opinions I might add). Why not call them by what they called themselves? If you were to ask an American before 1940 what kind of government they had, I don't think they would respond with "secular liberal democracy." It's pretentious and just historically wrong to say that's what America has been, especially when those three words have different meanings and attached political opinions now than they did then.

Those quotes aren't an endorsement of your views, you know. Those are all quotes supporting the secular notion that the government shouldn't interfere in the religious lives of citizens. That's why they banned religious tests and why I'm arguing against religious tests. They can hardly be construed to support "secular liberal democracy" when nothing of the sort is confessed.

Here's a nice article, though rather long, that gets at what I'm trying to say.

"I don't like those words therefore they're not correct despite meeting the exact definition"

10/10, keep up that persecution complex. I know it's a religious belief, and I'm not allowed to question that.

That's just a awful rebuttal devoid of any argument or effort. Words have meaning when people right them, and you don't project your concept of words onto that of the past. Case in point, modern secularists are disgusted by natural law while 1700s secularists proclaimed that all law should be based in the natural law created by God. I... didn't mention anything about Christian persecution. That's a crappy joke, but please continue.

[Conserative Morality]

I must say, you do make a fine religious bigot. This isn't really related to anything, but I'm glad you got your biases in the open.

I'm glad that you support the Nation Of Islam discriminating against white people because it's a religious belief. Good thing that religion in general and not just Christianity in America is shrinking, else you might have to actually suffer the consequences of your actions, and that would be awful.

That's just a awful rebuttal devoid of any argument or effort. Words have meaning when people right them, and you don't project your concept of words onto that of the past.

So If I was to, say, find contemporary definitions of all of those words that match the modern definitions you would concede the point and not try to weasel your way out in order to continue this charade of believing that the evil secular liberal democrats are a modern invention and not what this country was founded on?

Case in point, modern secularists are disgusted by natural law while 1700s secularists proclaimed that all law should be based in the natural law created by God.

"Modern secularists are disgusted by natural law"

[citation needed]

I... didn't mention anything about Christian persecution. That's a crappy joke, but please continue.

Literally the whole point of your OP. Jesus Christ.

[Hakons]

Obviously, as I hope you would know too, voters are allowed to vote however they want.

But public officials can only vote according to the will of the Church.

Public officials are constricted some by ant-discrimination laws. A senator can't vote against a nominee based on their gender nor could they vote against them based on a religious test.

It wasn't a test. It was a question of beliefs, no more nor less appropriate than asking "Do you believe in the Constitution?"

The Church gives considerable leeway on how Catholic politicians may vote, but I do agree that it is regrettable that Church discipline isn't used when "Catholic" politicians vote against philosophy that is fundamental to being Catholic. You also absurdly shifted to Church policy, which makes for a nice game of dodging.

Questioning Catholic beliefs is a religious test against Catholicism. The nominee didn't renounce them so the senator didn't for him. A nominee cannot be required to renounce religious beliefs before congress.

[The Chuck]

For the most part, this trend is just a sign of improving the balance of power between Christians and everyone else. Christians (as a group, not necessarily every individual personally) have been shitting on everyone else in America since before the US even existed, and it's a good thing that people are starting to push back more.

Actually, for much of America's history, Catholics were persecuted by other groups of Christianity.

[Conserative Morality]

The Church gives considerable leeway on how Catholic politicians may vote, but I do agree that it is regrettable that Church discipline isn't used when "Catholic" politicians vote against philosophy that is fundamental to being Catholic. You also absurdly shifted to Church policy, which makes for a nice game of dodging.

"I regret that Church discipline isn't used to make public officials violate their oaths of office and the laws of the land because it makes me feel better"

Thank you for revealing your true colors for everyone to see. You're a caricature of a Catholic right out of the mid-1850s.

Questioning Catholic beliefs is a religious test against Catholicism. The nominee didn't renounce them so the senator didn't for him. A nominee cannot be required to renounce religious beliefs before congress.

Okay, like I said then, can't wait until we get ourselves a nice evangie who believes that Catholics are literally Satan and heretics and should be killed, and questioning that will be verboten, because it's a religious belief. You can't make someone renounce wanting to kill people. That's religion, and that's protected.

[Hakons]

I must say, you do make a fine religious bigot. This isn't really related to anything, but I'm glad you got your biases in the open.

I'm glad that you support the Nation Of Islam discriminating against white people because it's a religious belief. Good thing that religion in general and not just Christianity in America is shrinking, else you might have to actually suffer the consequences of your actions, and that would be awful.

That's just a awful rebuttal devoid of any argument or effort. Words have meaning when people right them, and you don't project your concept of words onto that of the past.

So If I was to, say, find contemporary definitions of all of those words that match the modern definitions you would concede the point and not try to weasel your way out in order to continue this charade of believing that the evil secular liberal democrats are a modern invention and not what this country was founded on?

Case in point, modern secularists are disgusted by natural law while 1700s secularists proclaimed that all law should be based in the natural law created by God.

"Modern secularists are disgusted by natural law"

[citation needed]

I... didn't mention anything about Christian persecution. That's a crappy joke, but please continue.

Literally the whole point of your OP. Jesus Christ.

My comment was to your absurdism about suddenly making fun of fundamentalism. It's just gross to look at, since presumably that's your internalized view of Christians.

The country wasn't founded on "secular liberal democracy." That founders wrote extensively, and I challenge you to find them write that nauseating three-word soundbite that is now oh so popular. The founders were obviously secular, but if you would actually read them you would realize they have a deep respect for religion, with nearly all of them being religious themselves. You, like modern secularists, don't have any respect for religion. The founders were definitely liberal, but you and I both know liberalism had a different meaning, at least policy wise. As an example, today's liberals want to constrict gun ownership while yesteryear's placed gun ownership as important as free speech and religious freedom. To say the founders obviously supported democracy is probably the grossest claim here. They supported republicanism, with representative government. Many of them wrote quite a lot against the perceived mob rule of democracy.

Most secularists on this website. Whenever I mention natural law, there's usually three or four posts along the lines of "god needs to exist for natural law to exist haha rekt."

Religious tests are a bit different from persecution. Religious tests are immorally preventing a qualified person from a position because of their religion. Persecution is capital punishment for refusing to sacrifice to demons pagan gods, though I know you wish that were brought back.

[Hakons]

The Church gives considerable leeway on how Catholic politicians may vote, but I do agree that it is regrettable that Church discipline isn't used when "Catholic" politicians vote against philosophy that is fundamental to being Catholic. You also absurdly shifted to Church policy, which makes for a nice game of dodging.

"I regret that Church discipline isn't used to make public officials violate their oaths of office and the laws of the land because it makes me feel better"

Thank you for revealing your true colors for everyone to see. You're a caricature of a Catholic right out of the mid-1850s.

Questioning Catholic beliefs is a religious test against Catholicism. The nominee didn't renounce them so the senator didn't for him. A nominee cannot be required to renounce religious beliefs before congress.

Okay, like I said then, can't wait until we get ourselves a nice evangie who believes that Catholics are literally Satan and heretics and should be killed, and questioning that will be verboten, because it's a religious belief. You can't make someone renounce wanting to kill people. That's religion, and that's protected.

I definitely wish Catholics were as united and powerful as the anti-Catholics believed us to be. We could end quite a few atrocities. I don't think I've ever hidden my true colors. I find secularists and their modern view of secularism to detestable.

And back to the bigotry. "Evangie." I wish this site punished anti-religious bigotry as much as they punish anti-LGBT.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

After reading further into this, I've determined that questions regarding faith are important, and while the questions are phrased an an antagonistic way, I wouldn't call this outright political oppression or anything like that. This is just standard partisanship. If I was questioning a judicial candidate, I would query into the political positions of any organization he or she belongs to, including religious ones.

[Conserative Morality]

My comment was to your absurdism about suddenly making fun of fundamentalism. It's just gross to look at, since presumably that's your internalized view of Christians.

>> when you make a reference to the Nation of Islam and the Catholic thinks it's a reference to Christianity

Peak persecution complex.

The country wasn't founded on "secular liberal democracy." That founders wrote extensively, and I challenge you to find them write that nauseating three-word soundbite that is now oh so popular. The founders were obviously secular, but if you would actually read them you would realize they have a deep respect for religion, with nearly all of them being religious themselves. You, like modern secularists, don't have any respect for religion. The founders were definitely liberal, but you and I both know liberalism had a different meaning, at least policy wise. As an example, today's liberals want to constrict gun ownership while yesteryear's placed gun ownership as important as free speech and religious freedom. To say the founders obviously supported democracy is probably the grossest claim here. They supported republicanism, with representative government. Many of them wrote quite a lot against the perceived mob rule of democracy.

So "I don't like the words so the definitions and meanings don't matter; what secular actually means to me is godless atheism a la the Soviet Union, I think that the Founding Fathers didn't write about democracy because I believe a popular conservative talking point that justifies oppressing the majority, and I think that opposition to gun rights is a central tenant of modern liberalism."

Good to know. We're done here.

[Page]

There is nothing wrong with a Christian or a Muslim or a believer in whatever religion holding a position of power, but it is a real concern whether or not one is able to set aside their religious beliefs when legislating or ruling and base their decisions only on constitutional law.

I don't have a problem with believers, I have a problem with theocrats and dominionists.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

The founders were obviously secular, but if you would actually read them you would realize they have a deep respect for religion, with nearly all of them being religious themselves.

The founders were definitely liberal, but you and I both know liberalism had a different meaning, at least policy wise. As an example, today's liberals want to constrict gun ownership while yesteryear's placed gun ownership as important as free speech and religious freedom. To say the founders obviously supported democracy is probably the grossest claim here. They supported republicanism, with representative government. Many of them wrote quite a lot against the perceived mob rule of democracy.

The founders were classical liberals, and that is not a legacy being upheld by conservatives, save for gun rights. The founders might have occasionally mentioned god, but they were hardly uncritical of Christianity's doctrines.

Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity.

In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.

-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814

History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes.

-Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813.

These are not the words of a man who was devoted in any way to religion. There are also other anti-religious quotes from other founding fathers.

[Ifreann]

If asking about a nominee's actions, knowledge, and opinions constitutes a religious test for office then it would seem to me that it will only ever be viable to nominate atheists to offices requiring Senate confirmation. If a nominee holds religious beliefs they there'll be topics that are off limits for the Senate. And that's no way to assess whether someone is suitable to be a judge or Attorney General or whatever else. But atheists could be asked anything. So the Senate could really make an informed decision about whether an atheist nominee will be up for the job, whatever the job is.