Religious Tests On The Rise

[Western Vale Confederacy]

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.

[Major-Tom]

I think Harris did go too far on her line of questioning, she was reaching for straws. That being said, I think it's perfectly acceptable to be devout, to be religious, and to be a federal or district judge. What bothers me are the cases where their religious opinions are more important to them than the rule of law. We see it in limited cases, and it is prudent to ensure that isn't the case when vetting and voting for/against judges.

[Petrolheadia]

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.

Unless it's actually not derived from "God said so".

[The Eternal Aulus]

The first critique I have is that opinions and beliefs of people change, therefore what belief may have been held in the past can have changed. Unless you are paranoid in the sense that a person never changes belief but only acts so.

Even then, a person is entitled to his/her belief and I don't think that it's a good thing to disallow people in certain positions based on belief. It seems more like virtue signalling than actual critique.

[Pagan Trapistan]

That being said, I think it's perfectly acceptable to be devout, to be religious, and to be a federal or district judge.

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

[The Eternal Aulus]

That being said, I think it's perfectly acceptable to be devout, to be religious, and to be a federal or district judge.

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.

[Pagan Trapistan]

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

That's exactly where Christianity says it belongs.

[The Eternal Aulus]

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

That's exactly where Christianity says it belongs.

That's debatable, but my point is that a religious person can perfectly be a public servant like a federal or district judge.

[Pagan Trapistan]

That's debatable, but my point is that a religious person can perfectly be a public servant like a federal or district judge.

Sure, if they keep it to themselves and their job doesn't require a judgement on justice that hasnt been totally warped.

[The Eternal Aulus]

Sure, if they keep it to themselves and their job doesn't require a judgement on justice that hasnt been totally warped.

Thank you for supporting my point.

[Pagan Trapistan]

Thank you for supporting my point.

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

[Salus Maior]

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.

Know Nothing Party, is that you?

[Salus Maior]

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.

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

[Salus Maior]

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

That's exactly where Christianity says it belongs.

No, it absolutely doesn't.

[Conserative Morality]

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.

[Conserative Morality]

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

Know Nothing Party, is that you?

Literally advocating for the Catholic Church and its apparatus to punish politicians who share their religion to vote how the Church wants them to is exactly what the Know-Nothings feared, which is why I said Hakons sounded like a mid-19th century Catholic caricature.

[Elysian Kentarchy]

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.

Those quotes are anti-clericalism not anti-religion since it is denouncing priests leading society... so the standard anti-organized church rhetoric that was popular at the time.

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?

They never did (Maryland was mentioned but that colony allowed for freedom of religion) but claiming that Catholics or "Papists" would sell America to the Pope (who is probably the Antichrist) or they are not real Americans and/or Christians was a favorite past time for certain groups (Protestants, the Klan, Republicans, Democrats, The Know Nothing Party, people who hate the Irish, etc. etc.) still is in certain groups.

[Elysian Kentarchy]

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

That's exactly where Christianity says it belongs.

"He said to them, 'Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.'" Mark 16:15

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Matthew 28: 19-20

"For this is what the Lord has commanded us: 'I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.'" - Acts 13:47

"Give praise to the Lord, proclaim his name; make known among the nations what he has done." - Psalm 105:1

"'Come, follow me,' Jesus said, 'and I will send you out to fish for people.'" - Matthew 4:19

So pretty much we say the exact opposite according to the scriptures.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

That's exactly where Christianity says it belongs.

"He said to them, 'Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.'" Mark 16:15

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Matthew 28: 19-20

"For this is what the Lord has commanded us: 'I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.'" - Acts 13:47

"Give praise to the Lord, proclaim his name; make known among the nations what he has done." - Psalm 105:1

"'Come, follow me,' Jesus said, 'and I will send you out to fish for people.'" - Matthew 4:19

So pretty much we say the exact opposite according to the scriptures.

Render Unto Caesar's.

There you go!

[Aellex]

"He said to them, 'Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation.'" Mark 16:15

"Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age." Matthew 28: 19-20

"For this is what the Lord has commanded us: 'I have made you a light for the Gentiles, that you may bring salvation to the ends of the earth.'" - Acts 13:47

"Give praise to the Lord, proclaim his name; make known among the nations what he has done." - Psalm 105:1

"'Come, follow me,' Jesus said, 'and I will send you out to fish for people.'" - Matthew 4:19

So pretty much we say the exact opposite according to the scriptures.

Render Unto Caesar's.

There you go!

That's... That's not what that quote is about tho. Not at all.

[Salus Maior]

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.

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?

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

[Salus Maior]

Render Unto Caesar's.

There you go!

That's gotta be one of the most misinterpreted verses of all time.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Render Unto Caesar's.

There you go!

That's gotta be one of the most misinterpreted verses of all time.

Misinterpreted verses? In the Bible?

It's pretty damn common.

[Sovaal]

That being said, I think it's perfectly acceptable to be devout, to be religious, and to be a federal or district judge.

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.

[Salus Maior]

Know Nothing Party, is that you?

Literally advocating for the Catholic Church and its apparatus to punish politicians who share their religion to vote how the Church wants them to is exactly what the Know-Nothings feared, which is why I said Hakons sounded like a mid-19th century Catholic caricature.

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.

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).

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.