NationStates

Vassenor wrote:So here's a question - how is this any different from the tests Conservatives keep demanding Muslims be subjected to to ensure they don't hold interpretations of the scripture that the conservatives deem "anti-American"? Because I'm not seeing anything about nominees being questioned just for being Christian.

Just because that is bad doesn't mean this is not also bad.

Sovaal wrote:

Pagan Trapistan wrote:Why? Seperation of church and state. Not that I believe in that, but I have no problem using it.

Separation of Church and State doesn’t mean religious people aren’t allowed government positions.

Indeed, in it's original context it means that the government cannot dictate the teachings of the church.

The obvious problem here is the assumption that a religious person can't be impartial, that they wouldn't rule against their religious convictions. That is, frankly, an incredibly bigoted viewpoint. Holding particular opinions on a matter does not inherently make a person unable to be impartial or make rulings that are in line with existing precedent.

Obviously some folks have no problem with this sort of questioning because they are so bigoted against religious people that they don't think the religious are capable of making rulings that go against their religious convictions. It's absolute nonsense.

Scomagia wrote:The obvious problem here is the assumption that a religious person can't be impartial, that they wouldn't rule against their religious convictions. That is, frankly, an incredibly bigoted viewpoint. Holding particular opinions on a matter does not inherently make a person unable to be impartial or make rulings that are in line with existing precedent.

Obviously some folks have no problem with this sort of questioning because they are so bigoted against religious people that they don't think the religious are capable of making rulings that go against their religious convictions. It's absolute nonsense.

Nobody is fully impartial.

Salus Maior wrote:

Scomagia wrote:The obvious problem here is the assumption that a religious person can't be impartial, that they wouldn't rule against their religious convictions. That is, frankly, an incredibly bigoted viewpoint. Holding particular opinions on a matter does not inherently make a person unable to be impartial or make rulings that are in line with existing precedent.

Obviously some folks have no problem with this sort of questioning because they are so bigoted against religious people that they don't think the religious are capable of making rulings that go against their religious convictions. It's absolute nonsense.

Nobody is fully impartial.

I never said anyone was fully impartial. Assuming that someone won't be impartial because of their religious views is still bigotry.

Entreum wrote:

Vassenor wrote:So here's a question - how is this any different from the tests Conservatives keep demanding Muslims be subjected to to ensure they don't hold interpretations of the scripture that the conservatives deem "anti-American"? Because I'm not seeing anything about nominees being questioned just for being Christian.

Just because that is bad doesn't mean this is not also bad.

Way to miss my point completely.

Scomagia wrote:The obvious problem here is the assumption that a religious person can't be impartial, that they wouldn't rule against their religious convictions.

Pagans can be impartial, ya'll abrahamics can't even leave incense for the Roman Emperor because the jewish god said not to have any other gods. And he wasnt even talking to you! The Jews even said he wasnt talking to you! Ask one!

Pagan Trapistan wrote:

Scomagia wrote:The obvious problem here is the assumption that a religious person can't be impartial, that they wouldn't rule against their religious convictions.

Pagans can be impartial, ya'll abrahamics can't even leave incense for the Roman Emperor because the jewish god said not to have any other gods. And he wasnt even talking to you! The Jews even said he wasnt talking to you! Ask one!

Has it occurred to you that Christians might think that the Jews are wrong?

Scomagia wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:
Nobody is fully impartial.

I never said anyone was fully impartial. Assuming that someone won't be impartial because of their religious views is still bigotry.

.....What?

I don't think anyone's saying anyone is impartial because of their religious views. And I don't know how that would be bigoted.

Pagan Trapistan wrote:

Scomagia wrote:The obvious problem here is the assumption that a religious person can't be impartial, that they wouldn't rule against their religious convictions.

Pagans can be impartial, ya'll abrahamics can't even leave incense for the Roman Emperor because the jewish god said not to have any other gods. And he wasnt even talking to you! The Jews even said he wasnt talking to you! Ask one!

Hi, someone who follows an Abrahamic religion here.

I have no idea what you're talking about with that Roman Emperor stuff.

Salus Maior wrote:Has it occurred to you that Christians might think that the Jews are wrong?

They're experts in this shit. Ya'll barely even know it half the time. Oh and generally Jews are less legalist. You know.... Being shitty about leviticus instead of just being a good person.

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:

Pagan Trapistan wrote:Pagans can be impartial, ya'll abrahamics can't even leave incense for the Roman Emperor because the jewish god said not to have any other gods. And he wasnt even talking to you! The Jews even said he wasnt talking to you! Ask one!

Hi, someone who follows an Abrahamic religion here.

I have no idea what you're talking about with that Roman Emperor stuff.

Early Christians were sometimes tested by Roman authorities on their loyalty to the Roman Emperor by ordering them to offer some sort of sacrifice to the Emperor. That was and is a big no no so it led to a good few martyrdom's and imprisonments.

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:I have no idea what you're talking about with that Roman Emperor stuff.

Will you observe Roman festivals upon request and leave incense for the Emperor?

Pagan Trapistan wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:Has it occurred to you that Christians might think that the Jews are wrong?

They're experts in this shit. Ya'll barely even know it half the time. Oh and generally Jews are less legalist. You know.... Being shitty about leviticus instead of just being a good person.

Apparently neither do you.

Pagan Trapistan wrote:

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:I have no idea what you're talking about with that Roman Emperor stuff.

Will you observe Roman festivals upon request and leave incense for the Emperor?

"upon request" That's a funny way of saying "on pain of death".

Camelone wrote:That was and is a big no no.

Only if youre a jew. You all just think youre jews. Unless you are a jew, in which case the Roman Empire gives you special priveleges. Be thankful.

Salus Maior wrote:"upon request" That's a funny way of saying "on pain of death".

I wouldnt have it any other way. Hail Caesar!

The Rich Port wrote:Erm, kind of an obvious question about the candidate's biases.

There should be separation of church and state

Only for the irreligious.

The Rich Port wrote:and if the judge is going to rule against abortion, it should be for a legitimate reason, not because of religious beliefs.

Relogious beliefs are a legitimate reason.

Genivaria wrote:So essentially OP is practicing for the Oppression Olympics.
Being asked if you can separate your personal religious beliefs from your political votes is not a religious test.

Religiously that is a test, in fact.

Western Vale Confederacy wrote:How about religious tests for everybody?

It is not the practice that I am aiming to suppress, but rather the belief that religious law trumps secular law.

For the religious it should.

The Eternal Aulus wrote:

Pagan Trapistan wrote:Why? Seperation of church and state. Not that I believe in that, but I have no problem using it.

Being religious doesn't have to imply you cannot leave your religion inside your home.

You shouldn't, tho.

Pagan Trapistan wrote:

The Eternal Aulus wrote:Thank you for supporting my point.

We'd be better off replacing them with people actually loyal to the Roman state.

This is America, not Rome.

Conserative Morality wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:Believing in the Catholic teachings toward abortion and marriage are nowhere near genocide and murder, obviously.

So it's okay to use religion as a guiding point for the actions of public officials, unless it's something you don't like.

You're missing the principle of the matter, which is why I used an extreme example.

Well Christianity doesn't advocate for genocide afaik, so you used a bad example.

Camelone wrote:

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:Hi, someone who follows an Abrahamic religion here.

I have no idea what you're talking about with that Roman Emperor stuff.

Early Christians were sometimes tested by Roman authorities on their loyalty to the Roman Emperor by ordering them to offer some sort of sacrifice to the Emperor. That was and is a big no no so it led to a good few martyrdom's and imprisonments.

Oh ok, thx.

May Allah SWT curse those DHaalimoon if they hadn't repented, aameen.

Pagan Trapistan wrote:

Camelone wrote:That was and is a big no no.

Only if youre a jew. You all just think youre jews. Unless you are a jew, in which case the Roman Empire gives you special priveleges. Be thankful.

Didn't Rome massacre Jews? And most Christians in early Christianity were of the Jewish ethnicity, and Rome heavily persecuted the Christians prior to being Christianized.

Pagan Trapistan wrote:

Salus Maior wrote:"upon request" That's a funny way of saying "on pain of death".

I wouldnt have it any other way. Hail Caesar!

You like death threats or are you just joking?

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:You like death threats or are you just joking?

I'm not a centurion. Now are you going to leave some incense for the Emperor or not?

Pagan Trapistan wrote:

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:You like death threats or are you just joking?

I'm not a centurion.

What does that have to do with my question?

Pagan Trapistan wrote:Now are going to leave some incense for the Emperor or not?

Depends. Which Emperor are we talking about?

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:Depends. Which Emperor are we talking about?

Julius Caesar of course

Pagan Trapistan wrote:

Scomagia wrote:The obvious problem here is the assumption that a religious person can't be impartial, that they wouldn't rule against their religious convictions.

Pagans can be impartial, ya'll abrahamics can't even leave incense for the Roman Emperor because the jewish god said not to have any other gods. And he wasnt even talking to you! The Jews even said he wasnt talking to you! Ask one!

I'm not sure how that's even related to my post.

Pagan Trapistan wrote:

Camelone wrote:That was and is a big no no.

Only if youre a jew. You all just think youre jews. Unless you are a jew, in which case the Roman Empire gives you special priveleges. Be thankful.

... where are you even getting this information that Christians think they are Jews?

Salus Maior wrote:

Scomagia wrote:I never said anyone was fully impartial. Assuming that someone won't be impartial because of their religious views is still bigotry.

.....What?

I don't think anyone's saying anyone is impartial because of their religious views. And I don't know how that would be bigoted.

That's the implicit assumption behind questioning a religious person about the public beliefs of an organization to which they belong and whether or not those beliefs affect impartiality. You wouldn't ask those questions unless you believed that religious belief itself complicated an individual's ability to be impartial. That's an inherently bigoted position to take.

Pagan Trapistan wrote:

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:Depends. Which Emperor are we talking about?

Julius Caesar of course

Eh, seems cool on my partial reading of his wiki page, but considering that Judaism is around during his time, I'll stick with the Jews.