Religious Tests On The Rise

[Hakons]

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.

[Platypus Bureaucracy]

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"

[Petrolheadia]

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.

[Joohan]

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?

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Ooh boy, as a hardline secularist...

[Platypus Bureaucracy]

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:

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.

[Joohan]

... 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:

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?

[Vassenor]

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.

[Platypus Bureaucracy]

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.

[Joohan]

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?

[Platypus Bureaucracy]

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:

They're not religious tests. This is a religious test:

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.

[Joohan]

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:

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.

[Vassenor]

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?

[Platypus Bureaucracy]

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.

[Joohan]

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.

[Skarten]

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?

[Hanga]

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.

[Skarten]

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?

[Hanga]

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.

[New haven america]

Yes, truly this is oppression of Christians in one of the mot heavily Christian countries in the world.

[Platypus Bureaucracy]

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.

[The Rich Port]

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.

[Genivaria]

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.

[New haven america]

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.

[The Emerald Legion]

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.