NATION

PASSWORD

Religious Tests On The Rise

For discussion and debate about anything. (Not a roleplay related forum; out-of-character commentary only.)

Advertisement

Remove ads

User avatar
Hakons
Senator
 
Posts: 4915
Founded: Jul 14, 2015
Moralistic Democracy

Postby Hakons » Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:03 pm

Page wrote: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.


Is it a "real concern" if someone with a strict philosophy can separate their views from their legislation or ruling, because it seems that you're suggesting the dirty religious people are always suspect while the proud, noble secularists are impartial and without and philosophical bias. If it is a "real question" if religious people can be neutral but not a a real question if secular people can be neutral, that is a textbook example of discrimination.
“That word, ‘conservative,’ is understood by people in different ways. Suppose you say that when we did arithmetic, we learned that two plus two equals four. It’s still the same, so am I then ‘conservative’ for saying so?” - Cardinal Arinze

User avatar
Platypus Bureaucracy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1763
Founded: Jun 06, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Platypus Bureaucracy » Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:09 pm

Hakons wrote:
Page wrote: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.


Is it a "real concern" if someone with a strict philosophy can separate their views from their legislation or ruling, because it seems that you're suggesting the dirty religious people are always suspect while the proud, noble secularists are impartial and without and philosophical bias. If it is a "real question" if religious people can be neutral but not a a real question if secular people can be neutral, that is a textbook example of discrimination.

"Secular"
Last edited by Platypus Bureaucracy on Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Platypus of the non-venomous, egg-laying variety
Platypus Bureaucracy wrote:I will never stop being a gay platypus.

The Huskar Social Union wrote:You glorifted ducking wanabe sea pheasant

Platapusses are not rel

Ostroeuropa wrote:"Can we just eat SOME of the rich?"

User avatar
Petrolheadia
Postmaster-General
 
Posts: 11265
Founded: May 02, 2015
New York Times Democracy

Postby Petrolheadia » Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:17 pm

Hakons wrote:
Page wrote: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.


Is it a "real concern" if someone with a strict philosophy can separate their views from their legislation or ruling, because it seems that you're suggesting the dirty religious people are always suspect while the proud, noble secularists are impartial and without and philosophical bias. If it is a "real question" if religious people can be neutral but not a a real question if secular people can be neutral, that is a textbook example of discrimination.

Discrimination isn't always bad.

For example, blind people don't have much of a chance as marksmen, and people for whom the word of whichever god they believe in may override facts shouldn't have much of a chance as politicians.
Capitalism, single-payer healthcare, pro-choice, LGBT rights, progressive personal taxation, low corporate tax, pro-business law, welfare for those in need.
Communism, socialism, Nazism, edgism, dogmatic statements, multiculturalism, most of Abrahamic-derived morality (esp. as law), welfare for those not in need.
We are not Albania and I am not Albanian, FFS!
Male, gearhead, classic rock fan, gamer, agnostic, centre-libertarian.
Where you can talk about cars!
"They're always saying I'm a Capitalist pig. I suppose I am, but, ah...it ah...it's good for my drumming, I think." - Keith Moon,
If a Porsche owner treats it like a bicycle, he's a gentleman. And if he prays to it, he's simply a moron. - Jan Nowicki.

User avatar
Joohan
Minister
 
Posts: 2616
Founded: Jan 11, 2018
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Joohan » Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:28 pm

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.


... Are you seriously that petty?

He brings up the valid point that senators are unfairly using religious tests against religious people for determining judiciaries, and you ( for some reason ) need to say that conservatives are hypocrites because...

You can't just acknowledge that religious tests are wrong without having to make it partisan?
Last edited by Joohan on Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:28 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Western Vale Confederacy
Powerbroker
 
Posts: 9219
Founded: Nov 09, 2014
Ex-Nation

Postby Western Vale Confederacy » Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:30 pm

Ooh boy, as a hardline secularist...

User avatar
Platypus Bureaucracy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1763
Founded: Jun 06, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Platypus Bureaucracy » Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:43 pm

Joohan 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.


... Are you seriously that petty?

He brings up the valid point that senators are unfairly using religious tests against religious people for determining judiciaries, and you ( for some reason ) need to say that conservatives are hypocrites because...

You can't just acknowledge that religious tests are wrong without having to make it partisan?

They're not religious tests. This is a religious test:
The Test Act wrote:I do declare that I do believe that there is not any transubstantiation in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or in the elements of the bread and wine, at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever.

Vassenor is, of course, conducting herself badly and firing wide of the mark as usual (and failing to read the OP into the bargain). I would suggest you don't attempt to engage with her at all. The OP is still wrong, however.
Platypus of the non-venomous, egg-laying variety
Platypus Bureaucracy wrote:I will never stop being a gay platypus.

The Huskar Social Union wrote:You glorifted ducking wanabe sea pheasant

Platapusses are not rel

Ostroeuropa wrote:"Can we just eat SOME of the rich?"

User avatar
Joohan
Minister
 
Posts: 2616
Founded: Jan 11, 2018
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Joohan » Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:45 pm

Platypus Bureaucracy wrote:
Joohan wrote:
... Are you seriously that petty?

He brings up the valid point that senators are unfairly using religious tests against religious people for determining judiciaries, and you ( for some reason ) need to say that conservatives are hypocrites because...

You can't just acknowledge that religious tests are wrong without having to make it partisan?

They're not religious tests. This is a religious test:
The Test Act wrote:I do declare that I do believe that there is not any transubstantiation in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or in the elements of the bread and wine, at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever.

Vassenor is, of course, conducting herself badly and firing wide of the mark as usual (and failing to read the OP into the bargain). I would suggest you don't attempt to engage with her at all. The OP is still wrong, however.


Why is OP wrong?

User avatar
Vassenor
Post Czar
 
Posts: 46246
Founded: Nov 11, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Vassenor » Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:46 pm

Joohan 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.


... Are you seriously that petty?

He brings up the valid point that senators are unfairly using religious tests against religious people for determining judiciaries, and you ( for some reason ) need to say that conservatives are hypocrites because...

You can't just acknowledge that religious tests are wrong without having to make it partisan?


Oh, I can. I just find it amusing that people are complaining that the thing they wanted applied to the Muslims is being applied in a non-partisan and all encompassing manner.
Jenny / Sailor Astraea
WOMAN

MtF trans and proud - She / Her / etc.
100% Asbestos Free

Hufflepuff/Team Mystic

User avatar
Platypus Bureaucracy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1763
Founded: Jun 06, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Platypus Bureaucracy » Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:51 pm

Joohan wrote:
Platypus Bureaucracy wrote:They're not religious tests. This is a religious test:

Vassenor is, of course, conducting herself badly and firing wide of the mark as usual (and failing to read the OP into the bargain). I would suggest you don't attempt to engage with her at all. The OP is still wrong, however.


Why is OP wrong?

Now you're doing what Vassenor did by not reading what has been said.
Platypus of the non-venomous, egg-laying variety
Platypus Bureaucracy wrote:I will never stop being a gay platypus.

The Huskar Social Union wrote:You glorifted ducking wanabe sea pheasant

Platapusses are not rel

Ostroeuropa wrote:"Can we just eat SOME of the rich?"

User avatar
Joohan
Minister
 
Posts: 2616
Founded: Jan 11, 2018
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Joohan » Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:56 pm

Platypus Bureaucracy wrote:
Joohan wrote:
Why is OP wrong?

Now you're doing what Vassenor did by not reading what has been said.


I read the OP though, what was wrong with it?

Did he retract some statement or something?

User avatar
Platypus Bureaucracy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1763
Founded: Jun 06, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Platypus Bureaucracy » Fri Jan 11, 2019 4:59 pm

Joohan wrote:
Platypus Bureaucracy wrote:Now you're doing what Vassenor did by not reading what has been said.


I read the OP though, what was wrong with it?

Did he retract some statement or something?

No, you weren't reading what I said:
Platypus Bureaucracy wrote:They're not religious tests. This is a religious test:
The Test Act wrote:I do declare that I do believe that there is not any transubstantiation in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper, or in the elements of the bread and wine, at or after the consecration thereof by any person whatsoever.

OP is wrong because he describes as religious tests things that are not religious tests.
Platypus of the non-venomous, egg-laying variety
Platypus Bureaucracy wrote:I will never stop being a gay platypus.

The Huskar Social Union wrote:You glorifted ducking wanabe sea pheasant

Platapusses are not rel

Ostroeuropa wrote:"Can we just eat SOME of the rich?"

User avatar
Joohan
Minister
 
Posts: 2616
Founded: Jan 11, 2018
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Joohan » Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:01 pm

Platypus Bureaucracy wrote:
Joohan wrote:
I read the OP though, what was wrong with it?

Did he retract some statement or something?

No, you weren't reading what I said:
Platypus Bureaucracy wrote:They're not religious tests. This is a religious test:

OP is wrong because he describes as religious tests things that are not religious tests.


If senators are denying candidates based upon their religiosity, as determined by the aforementioned question, then they would most certainly count as tests.

User avatar
Vassenor
Post Czar
 
Posts: 46246
Founded: Nov 11, 2010
Left-wing Utopia

Postby Vassenor » Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:03 pm

Joohan wrote:
Platypus Bureaucracy wrote:No, you weren't reading what I said:

OP is wrong because he describes as religious tests things that are not religious tests.


If senators are denying candidates based upon their religiosity, as determined by the aforementioned question, then they would most certainly count as tests.


So who is being denied on the basis of their religion?
Jenny / Sailor Astraea
WOMAN

MtF trans and proud - She / Her / etc.
100% Asbestos Free

Hufflepuff/Team Mystic

User avatar
Platypus Bureaucracy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1763
Founded: Jun 06, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Platypus Bureaucracy » Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:11 pm

Joohan wrote:
Platypus Bureaucracy wrote:No, you weren't reading what I said:

OP is wrong because he describes as religious tests things that are not religious tests.


If senators are denying candidates based upon their religiosity, as determined by the aforementioned question, then they would most certainly count as tests.

A question is not a denial, and it's certainly not a legal requirement to make a declaration of faith.
Platypus of the non-venomous, egg-laying variety
Platypus Bureaucracy wrote:I will never stop being a gay platypus.

The Huskar Social Union wrote:You glorifted ducking wanabe sea pheasant

Platapusses are not rel

Ostroeuropa wrote:"Can we just eat SOME of the rich?"

User avatar
Joohan
Minister
 
Posts: 2616
Founded: Jan 11, 2018
Authoritarian Democracy

Postby Joohan » Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:13 pm

Platypus Bureaucracy wrote:
Joohan wrote:
If senators are denying candidates based upon their religiosity, as determined by the aforementioned question, then they would most certainly count as tests.

A question is not a denial, and it's certainly not a legal requirement to make a declaration of faith.


If candidates are being denied because they answered that they would not renounce their religious beliefs ( not even to the extent of interfering with their jobs, just if they would renounce them or not ), the these would certainly be considered religious tests.

User avatar
Skarten
Senator
 
Posts: 4671
Founded: Dec 08, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Skarten » Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:16 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.

There may be a few isolated cases where someone takes it too far, same as there are isolated cases where some racial minority with a chip on their shoulder violates the rights of white people. But those cases are less common than the ones where someone is just overreacting when they are asked to respect others' rights.

Asking someone about their religious beliefs should not be off-limits when choosing judges. People shouldn't be rejected just because they go to church or identify as a particular denomination, but there are legitimate reasons to talk about someone's beliefs and their willingness to keep their religious beliefs separate from their application of the law.

EDIT: From your OP:

Hakons wrote:


Here's a case where someone was confirmed anyway. That's kind of what I mean, where you can discuss someone's religious beliefs and affiliations and how it might influence their rulings, but it shouldn't mean everyone that has a religion is disqualified.

I'm not American so i may be wrong, but when did catholics hold any Power like that in America?

User avatar
Hanga
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 5
Founded: Jan 08, 2019
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Hanga » Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:19 pm

Skarten wrote:
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.

There may be a few isolated cases where someone takes it too far, same as there are isolated cases where some racial minority with a chip on their shoulder violates the rights of white people. But those cases are less common than the ones where someone is just overreacting when they are asked to respect others' rights.

Asking someone about their religious beliefs should not be off-limits when choosing judges. People shouldn't be rejected just because they go to church or identify as a particular denomination, but there are legitimate reasons to talk about someone's beliefs and their willingness to keep their religious beliefs separate from their application of the law.

EDIT: From your OP:



Here's a case where someone was confirmed anyway. That's kind of what I mean, where you can discuss someone's religious beliefs and affiliations and how it might influence their rulings, but it shouldn't mean everyone that has a religion is disqualified.

I'm not American so i may be wrong, but when did catholics hold any Power like that in America?

The founding of Maryland before the Catholic elites were overthrown by Puritans.
A culturally Chinese and religiously Orthodox Christian Empire of Tibet and India. Based on a Crusader Kings 2 play through.

User avatar
Skarten
Senator
 
Posts: 4671
Founded: Dec 08, 2015
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby Skarten » Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:25 pm

Hanga wrote:
Skarten wrote:I'm not American so i may be wrong, but when did catholics hold any Power like that in America?

The founding of Maryland before the Catholic elites were overthrown by Puritans.

That really ain't a Lot, considering it was founded exactly to escape persecution from the english, and if i'm correct, wasnt It initially a fairly tolerant place?

User avatar
Hanga
Political Columnist
 
Posts: 5
Founded: Jan 08, 2019
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Hanga » Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:29 pm

Skarten wrote:
Hanga wrote:The founding of Maryland before the Catholic elites were overthrown by Puritans.

That really ain't a Lot, considering it was founded exactly to escape persecution from the english, and if i'm correct, wasnt It initially a fairly tolerant place?

Pretty much, it was the only example I could think of and as you pointed out it wasn't exactly oogie boogey scary for non-Catholics to my knowledge.
A culturally Chinese and religiously Orthodox Christian Empire of Tibet and India. Based on a Crusader Kings 2 play through.

User avatar
New haven america
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32866
Founded: Oct 08, 2012
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby New haven america » Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:30 pm

Yes, truly this is oppression of Christians in one of the mot heavily Christian countries in the world.
Human of the male variety
Will accept TGs
Char/Axis 2020

That's all folks~

User avatar
Platypus Bureaucracy
Ambassador
 
Posts: 1763
Founded: Jun 06, 2018
Ex-Nation

Postby Platypus Bureaucracy » Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:31 pm

Joohan wrote:
Platypus Bureaucracy wrote:A question is not a denial, and it's certainly not a legal requirement to make a declaration of faith.


If candidates are being denied because they answered that they would not renounce their religious beliefs ( not even to the extent of interfering with their jobs, just if they would renounce them or not ), the these would certainly be considered religious tests.

A question is not a denial.
Platypus of the non-venomous, egg-laying variety
Platypus Bureaucracy wrote:I will never stop being a gay platypus.

The Huskar Social Union wrote:You glorifted ducking wanabe sea pheasant

Platapusses are not rel

Ostroeuropa wrote:"Can we just eat SOME of the rich?"

User avatar
The Rich Port
Post Czar
 
Posts: 35689
Founded: Jul 29, 2008
Inoffensive Centrist Democracy

Postby The Rich Port » Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:34 pm

Erm, kind of an obvious question about the candidate's biases.

There should be separation of church and state, and if the judge is going to rule against abortion, it should be for a legitimate reason, not because of religious beliefs.
LAUGH, AND GROW FAT
FIRE. IF IT TAKES YOU TO BURN.
FIRE. IF IT TAKES YOU TO LEARN.
FIRE. TO DESTROY ALL YOU'VE DONE.
FIRE. TO DESTROY ALL YOU'VE BECOME.
THOSE THAT SOW THORNS SHOULD NOT EXPECT FLOWERS.
YOU NEVER KNOW JUST HOW YOU LOOK THROUGH OTHER PEOPLE'S EYES.

Tracking | History | Factbook | Dharma
Economic Report | Regional Forum | Political Compass
CAPINTERN | OMSA | OZZY | PACT | APAC
Summary | Vanguard | The Book Of Sue
THE BILLION BIT BRONY
AHAHAHAHA PONY PONY PONY PONYYY


LOVEWHOYOUARE~


User avatar
Genivaria
Khan of Spam
 
Posts: 63297
Founded: Mar 29, 2011
Iron Fist Consumerists

Postby Genivaria » Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:52 pm

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.
General Sherman did nothing wrong, fact.
Liberal Social Democrat.

Proud denouncer of the Taliban.

User avatar
New haven america
Post Czar
 
Posts: 32866
Founded: Oct 08, 2012
Scandinavian Liberal Paradise

Postby New haven america » Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:57 pm

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.

But what about the oppression of Christians in the US?

They are the most abused demographic after all.
Last edited by New haven america on Fri Jan 11, 2019 5:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Human of the male variety
Will accept TGs
Char/Axis 2020

That's all folks~

User avatar
The Emerald Legion
Negotiator
 
Posts: 7193
Founded: Mar 18, 2011
Corporate Police State

Postby The Emerald Legion » Fri Jan 11, 2019 6:27 pm

Petrolheadia wrote:
Hakons wrote:
Is it a "real concern" if someone with a strict philosophy can separate their views from their legislation or ruling, because it seems that you're suggesting the dirty religious people are always suspect while the proud, noble secularists are impartial and without and philosophical bias. If it is a "real question" if religious people can be neutral but not a a real question if secular people can be neutral, that is a textbook example of discrimination.

Discrimination isn't always bad.

For example, blind people don't have much of a chance as marksmen, and people for whom the word of whichever god they believe in may override facts shouldn't have much of a chance as politicians.


Nonsensical. You could make the same argument about literally any point of view.
"I must play this game by my rules/ I will conquer the world with my tools/ All my machines are made for destruction/ I will build my empire/ I will succeed and you will see/ With my machines there is no retreat." ~ E.G.G.M.A.N.
I frequently lapse into self parody, that isn't to say that I don't have extreme views, just that I occasionally go over the top for comedic effect.
Genivaria wrote:The Emerald Legion is NSG's personal Reaper.

The Drone Empire wrote:"Enlighten the willing, enslave the conquered, eradicate the defiant."
A typical Legionary strategy meeting.
The appropriate pronoun for me is It.
Philosophically Biophobic.

PreviousNext

Advertisement

Remove ads

Return to General

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Alvecia, Austria-Bohemia-Hungary, Bear Stearns, Blueflarst, Cappuccina, Czechoslovakia and Zakarpatia, Dumb Ideologies, Ethel mermania, Evaropi, Google Adsense [Bot], Hurdergaryp, Ifreann, MSN [Bot], Sodoran Alesia, The Black Forrest, Vassenor, Venkara, World Anarchic Union, Xuloqoia

Advertisement

Remove ads

cron