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.
Advertisement
by Pagan Trapistan » Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:47 pm
El-Amin Caliphate wrote:Which Roman festivals? And why should Catholics be discriminated against?
by El-Amin Caliphate » Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:53 pm
https://americanvision.org/948/theonomy-vs-theocracy/ wrote:God’s law cannot govern a nation where God’s law does not rule in the hearts of the people
Plaetopia wrote:Partly Free / Hybrid regime (score 4-6) El-Amin Caliphate (5.33)
by The Alma Mater » Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:56 pm
by Publica » 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.
by Camelone » 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?
by Pagan Trapistan » 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.
by Pagan Trapistan » 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.
by Publica » 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.
by Camelone » 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.
by Pagan Trapistan » Sat Jan 12, 2019 2:07 pm
Camelone wrote:Okay whatever Julian.
by Jakker » 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.
The Bruce wrote:Mostly I feel sorry for [raiders], because they put in all this effort and at the end of the day have nothing to show for it and have created nothing.
by Conserative Morality » 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?
You realize that you're repeating the same thing that Islamophobes and 19th century anti-immigration parties did, right?
by Conserative Morality » 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.
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.
by Salus Maior » Sat Jan 12, 2019 8:21 pm
by Salus Maior » 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.
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?
by Conserative Morality » 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.
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.
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.
by Longweather » 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.
by The Black Forrest » Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:44 pm
by Kowani » Sun Jan 13, 2019 11:55 pm
by Meikaii » Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:02 am
by Pronalle » Mon Jan 14, 2019 12:10 am
by Vassenor » 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.
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Cerula, Fauxia, Google [Bot], Great Eddy, Haganham, Ineva, La Paz de Los Ricos, Lunayria, Repreteop, Statesburg, Zurkerx
Advertisement