NationStates

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:47 pm**

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:Which Roman festivals? And why should Catholics be discriminated against?

All of them. And because their church molests children. Ancient Greeks have the courtesy to try and seduce you.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:53 pm**

Pagan Trapistan wrote:
El-Amin Caliphate wrote:Which Roman festivals? And why should Catholics be discriminated against?

All of them. And because their church molests children. Ancient Greeks have the courtesy to try and seduce you.

So because some priests do something sinful you want to punish the whole group? That's messed up.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:56 pm**

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:
Pagan Trapistan wrote:All of them. And because their church molests children. Ancient Greeks have the courtesy to try and seduce you.

So because some priests do something sinful you want to punish the whole group? That's messed up.

If it was merely "some priests" you would be correct.
But since the leadership of the Catholic Church actively facilitated the abuse, protected the guilty and intimidated the victims there is nothing wrong with blaming the institute that is the Catholic Church.

If that by extension means you should blame all Catholics that opt to remain a part of the organisation is left to the reader.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:58 pm**

Scomagia wrote:
Publica wrote:You can argue this is a religious test. I get where you're coming from. I argue that this is the questioning of people's beliefs instead. Unless I miss my guess, not every Catholic believes that abortion is wrong, even if a majority does. I do think that the questions listed could have been asked better, but I don't see it as a religious test. I do think this could descend into blatant religious testing very easily, and so needs to be watched carefully, but for now the questions seem to be "do you believe in x like most Catholics?" rather than "are you a Catholic?".

The implicit assumption is that if you hold the beliefs of most Catholics your ability to make an impartial ruling on those matters is compromised. That's an asinine assumption. Judges aren't supposed to rule based on personal belief but, rather, based on the Constitution and existing jurisprudence. The idea that being a traditional catholic impairs your ability to do that is blatant bigotry.

Maybe so, but no one is foolish enough to think they actually do. People are always biased. Your ability to make impartial decisions is compromised by being human. Every belief affects how you act, and think and make decisions. And again, no one would care if atheists were asked that question. Nor would anyone care if someone was voted against because they are a member of a group that believed in say, gun control, and the voter disagreed with that.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:58 pm**

Publica wrote:
Camelone wrote:Questions should more revolve around the judicial philosophy of the individual judge then whether or not they believe x, y, or z of their particular church. Plus examining their previous rulings instead of bringing up the candidates religion is more efficient then beating around the bush, the previous rulings are more important anyways than these questions as they show how the judge operates and thinks in their role as a judge.

I agree, but no one would bat an eye if an atheist was asked if they agreed with abortion or not, when questioned before becoming a judge, would they?

I probably would, pro-life and pro-choice beliefs of a judge should mean nothing to judge when it comes to looking at the text of the Constitution and previous rulings. The only time it should be brought up is if members of the committee believe that the candidate was reaching on a specific case to support a partisan belief, due to that being a large red flag.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:59 pm**

The Alma Mater wrote:if it was merely "some priests" you would be correct. But since the leadership of the Catholic Church actively facilitated the abuse, protected the guilty and intimidated the victims there is nothing wrong with blaming the institute that is the Catholic Church.

Marry me.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:01 pm**

Camelone wrote:I probably would, pro-life and pro-choice beliefs of a judge should mean nothing to judge when it comes to looking at the text of the Constitution and previous rulings. The only time it should be brought up is if members of the committee believe that the candidate was reaching on a specific case to support a partisan belief, due to that being a large red flag.

Like I said we should work with discriminating Christians until we can get the Roman festivals going again.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:02 pm**

Camelone wrote:
Publica wrote:
I agree, but no one would bat an eye if an atheist was asked if they agreed with abortion or not, when questioned before becoming a judge, would they?

I probably would, pro-life and pro-choice beliefs of a judge should mean nothing to judge when it comes to looking at the text of the Constitution and previous rulings. The only time it should be brought up is if members of the committee believe that the candidate was reaching on a specific case to support a partisan belief, due to that being a large red flag.

Then that is to your credit. Most people wouldn't though, which is why i don't think it should matter that it happened here. I feel the questions was not about Catholisicm, but a person's particular beliefs, ones which are not directly religious, ie it is held by the Church but isn't actually a requirement to be a member.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:03 pm**

Pagan Trapistan wrote:
Camelone wrote:I probably would, pro-life and pro-choice beliefs of a judge should mean nothing to judge when it comes to looking at the text of the Constitution and previous rulings. The only time it should be brought up is if members of the committee believe that the candidate was reaching on a specific case to support a partisan belief, due to that being a large red flag.

Like I said we should work with discriminating Christians until we can get the Roman festivals going again.

Okay whatever Julian.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:07 pm**

Camelone wrote:Okay whatever Julian.

Your acquiescence is a step in the right direction.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 4:13 pm**

Pagan Trapistan wrote:At least he admits it, the Christians deceitfully pretend they belong in a secular court.

Pagan Trapistan wrote:Ok, psuedo-atheist that believes only in the god of the jews.

Pagan Trapistan wrote:Yes, the state should work with discriminating catholics until we can get the Roman festivals going again and get people actually loyal to the state.

Pagan Trapistan wrote:All of them. And because their church molests children. Ancient Greeks have the courtesy to try and seduce you.

*** Warned for Trolling *** Your posts seem to indicate that you are just here to anger others. Please review our forum rules and do not let this behavior continue otherwise punishment will escalate.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:13 pm**

Salus Maior wrote:The principal of the matter being if your conscience is guided by religious principals you can be thrown in with the worst and most atrocious criminals in history?

No, but you're doing an excellent job of missing the point yet again. The principle of the matter is that people can be questioned on their beliefs when those beliefs are relevant to the matter they are being considered for, period. Otherwise, you end up allowing all sorts of nuts in power because you can't say anything for fear of, apparently, offending Christians on the internet.

But anything for the Christian persecution complex, I see. Bravo.

You realize that you're repeating the same thing that Islamophobes and 19th century anti-immigration parties did, right?

"People's beliefs and whether or not they're willing to set them aside is relevant to whether or not they should be considered for a position in which they will have to, at times, act against their beliefs and in accordance with secular law"?

Wow, which 19th century anti-immigration party was this?

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:17 pm**

Salus Maior wrote:CM, if a member of a party suddenly started voting contrary to the platform of said party, what would happen? They would probably not make it very far in that party, if they weren't ejected.

Not really. You have people going against the party all the time. We don't have strict parliamentary style parties here, and good thing, too.

It's the same deal with the Catholic Church. Violating the tenants of the church means that you can be disassociated from the church (of course, that doesn't really happen much anymore).

And for someone to advocate for that to happen because elected officials dare to uphold their oath in a secular nation is... what, completely fine? Because that's the context of the objection.

But regardless, this isn't a discussion about whether or not excommunication is a good thing. This is a discussion about whether a religious test can be used to bar people from office, which goes beyond Catholicism or Christianity in general.

Not, that's not really the discussion, since the matter raised in the OP was someone being questioned on their beliefs. That's not a religious test. Amusingly enough, Hakons admitted they probably wouldn't vote for an atheist - but since they could still run, it was okay. When I gave them the same response with Christianity in place of atheism, it suddenly became different, because then it was a threat to their interests.

I have very little patience for this disingenuous shite.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:21 pm**

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!

Just wait until Theodosius comes around.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:39 pm**

Conserative Morality wrote:
Salus Maior wrote:CM, if a member of a party suddenly started voting contrary to the platform of said party, what would happen? They would probably not make it very far in that party, if they weren't ejected.

Not really. You have people going against the party all the time. We don't have strict parliamentary style parties here, and good thing, too.
It's the same deal with the Catholic Church. Violating the tenants of the church means that you can be disassociated from the church (of course, that doesn't really happen much anymore).

And for someone to advocate for that to happen because elected officials dare to uphold their oath in a secular nation is... what, completely fine? Because that's the context of the objection.
But regardless, this isn't a discussion about whether or not excommunication is a good thing. This is a discussion about whether a religious test can be used to bar people from office, which goes beyond Catholicism or Christianity in general.

Not, that's not really the discussion, since the matter raised in the OP was someone being questioned on their beliefs. That's not a religious test. Amusingly enough, Hakons admitted they probably wouldn't vote for an atheist - but since they could still run, it was okay. When I gave them the same response with Christianity in place of atheism, it suddenly became different, because then it was a threat to their interests.

I have very little patience for this disingenuous shite.

That's because we have two parties that don't really have any guidelines for who's in them aside from one's kind of progressive leaning and the other is kind of conservative leaning. But anyway, I wasn't trying to directly compare to anything, I was just giving an example.

At that point they'd just have to decide whether it was more important to uphold their secular oath or remain in good standing in the Church. Which means if they chose the latter they'd either step down (which is what I would do if put in that situation), or they would be removed by some authority I imagine. Which means you wouldn't have to worry your pretty little head whether someone who's sincerely religious is in office.

They were being questioned as to whether they adhered to the teachings of the church he's a member of, which absolutely is a question of religion. And no, CM, what you said wasn't that you, personally as a citizen wouldn't vote for someone religious, what you said was that you believed it'd be fine if the Senate, as in the government, would discriminate on the basis of religion.

Conserative Morality wrote:
Salus Maior wrote:The principal of the matter being if your conscience is guided by religious principals you can be thrown in with the worst and most atrocious criminals in history?

No, but you're doing an excellent job of missing the point yet again. The principle of the matter is that people can be questioned on their beliefs when those beliefs are relevant to the matter they are being considered for, period. Otherwise, you end up allowing all sorts of nuts in power because you can't say anything for fear of, apparently, offending Christians on the internet.

But anything for the Christian persecution complex, I see. Bravo.
You realize that you're repeating the same thing that Islamophobes and 19th century anti-immigration parties did, right?

"People's beliefs and whether or not they're willing to set them aside is relevant to whether or not they should be considered for a position in which they will have to, at times, act against their beliefs and in accordance with secular law"?

Wow, which 19th century anti-immigration party was this?

You can tone down your bitter atheist rhetoric, CM. It's not getting you anywhere, and just makes you look super pissy.

I cede that point, I misunderstood you.

Posted: **Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:48 pm**

Salus Maior wrote:That's because we have two parties that don't really have any guidelines for who's in them aside from one's kind of progressive leaning and the other is kind of conservative leaning. But anyway, I wasn't trying to directly compare to anything, I was just giving an example.

At that point they'd just have to decide whether it was more important to uphold their secular oath or remain in good standing in the Church. Which means if they chose the latter they'd either step down (which is what I would do if put in that situation), or they would be removed by some authority I imagine.

"Or they would be removed by some authority I imagine"

No, because people would you would cry persecution. They have a right to keep their religion and serve, don't they? This is a free country! I can hear it now.

Which means you wouldn't have to worry your pretty little head whether someone who's sincerely religious is in office.

lol

That was never what this was about.

They were being questioned as to whether they adhered to the teachings of the church he's a member of, which absolutely is a question of religion.

No, it's a question of belief and policy.

You know what? From now on, I've decided that my beliefs and policies are religious in nature. I have metaphysical beliefs about the nature of the universe. I think if I ever run for office (unlikely), I'll refuse to answer any and all questions about whether I'm willing to uphold the Constitution and the law or silly things like that. Because even though my beliefs and whether or not I'm willing to be a professional and set them aside is absolutely relevant to the job, it would be persecution to ask.

And no, CM, what you said wasn't that you, personally as a citizen wouldn't vote for someone religious, what you said was that you believed it'd be fine if the Senate, as in the government, would discriminate on the basis of religion.

Would discriminate on the basis of someone following the tenets of a religion in the course of their work as an agent of the government, which itself must be secular, that would conflict with the laws and secular nature of the government.

But nice try.

You can tone down your bitter atheist rhetoric, CM. It's not getting you anywhere, and just makes you look super pissy.

I cede that point, I misunderstood you.

I am super pissy. Being asked about whether or not you can be a professional is a fucking basic-ass question. If someone was from the Nation Of Islam and about to get into a position dealing with race, you better bet I'd support grilling them on whether or not they think that white people are an abomination created by a mad genetic scientist 10,000 years ago, and, if they do believe that, if they're willing to set it aside in the course of their work. If there was an atheist who openly espoused social darwinism about to get in a position in Federal healthcare or welfare positions, you better fucking bet I'd support asking some basic-ass questions about whether or not they believe that killing the poor is the most genetically efficient route for society.

Christians throw fits over shit like this all the time, because they're used to getting special treatment not as ceremony and exception, but simply as the norm. Just like whites in the 50s, or men in the 1910s. Things are changing to be more equitable, and because of that, it's perceived as the world being turned upside-down and minorities ruling over majorities.

Posted: **Sun Jan 13, 2019 9:17 pm**

USS Monitor wrote: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.

Protestants. Protestants have been shitting on everybody else since the colonies were founded. The privilege didn't really spread to Christianity in general until the last 3-4 decades or so.

Posted: **Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:44 pm**

El-Amin Caliphate wrote:
Pagan Trapistan wrote:All of them. And because their church molests children. Ancient Greeks have the courtesy to try and seduce you.

So because some priests do something sinful you want to punish the whole group? That's messed up.

How about the when the group goes about hiding and moving those priests?

How about looking at Canada's Duplessis Orphans and the Resdential school system?

They are not clean and should be exempt from actions.

Posted: **Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:55 pm**

Celebration time, come on!

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:02 am**

As someone who believes in strict separation of church and state, I feel that these policies are not enough and that only the nonreligious should be allowed to hold public office to prevent that line from being blurred.

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:10 am**

I simply don't understand why Women's Rights groups think that abortion is about her body and rights. The fetus is a separate entity.

So women are being denied or this 'right', what about all those baby girls that are aborted? Aren't their rights infringed upon when they are 'aborted' (which, by the way, is a very nice way of saying slaughtered)?

Couldn't no regulations of abortion result in people having the baby killed solely due to its gender? Mind you - in most cases - people would abort a baby girl, China's policies resulting in that already prove that.

Women's rights groups are astoundingly contradictory, and actually work against rights.

Posted: **Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:44 am**

Pronalle wrote:I simply don't understand why Women's Rights groups think that abortion is about her body and rights. The fetus is a separate entity.

So women are being denied or this 'right', what about all those baby girls that are aborted? Aren't their rights infringed upon when they are 'aborted' (which, by the way, is a very nice way of saying slaughtered)?

Couldn't no regulations of abortion result in people having the baby killed solely due to its gender? Mind you - in most cases - people would abort a baby girl, China's policies resulting in that already prove that.

Women's rights groups are astoundingly contradictory, and actually work against rights.

The abortion thread is down the hall. Take that edgy hot take there.

NationStates

Religious Tests On The Rise