# Jeff Session.. bigot.. racist..and now Anti-securlarist **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [January 13, 2017, 1:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031 "2017-01-13T13:11:40Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2017, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/41 "2017-01-14T19:29:22Z")
> [@Chicagojeff](#): > > So Sessions gets an ‘award’ from Craphead/Islamhater David Horowitz…then says… Secularist are unfit for government…because they don’t believe in an “absolute truth”. Ugh…as If I needed more reasons to despise this pointy eared devil.( Daily Beast 01-12-2017 Jay Michealson) This asshat will make Ashcroft look reasonable… and this piece of excrement wants to be Attorney General. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2017, 7:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/42 "2017-01-14T19:31:35Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > See my answer above: yes, this answer shows that Sessions holds a prejudice against atheists that is fairly described as bigotry. Just out of curiosity, if instead of talking about atheists this way, if he were talking about women or people with ethnic backgrounds other than white, would you be defending those positions as well? If not, what is the difference? ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2017, 7:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/43 "2017-01-14T19:32:04Z")
> [@Typo\_Negative](#): > > There is one absolute truth. It’s none of the government’s goddamned business what I believe. This. That is WHY we have that pesky first amendment and WHY the Fed has historically made it a permanent policy to never support or endorse any one religion. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2017, 7:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/44 "2017-01-14T19:37:37Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Just out of curiosity, if instead of talking about atheists this way, if he were talking about women or people with ethnic backgrounds other than white, would you be defending those positions as well? > > If not, what is the difference? I’m not getting the feeling **Bricker** is defending this attitude by Sessions. (he did say it was bigotry) It just looks like it because he’s disagreeing with some of the attacks. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2017, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/45 "2017-01-14T19:58:03Z")
_Ultimately, freedom of speech is about ascertaining the truth…_ Is this some doctrine of belief by evangelical Christians or something? I’m at a complete loss to understand why anyone would think that. Freedom of speech is about not allowing the Government to control the content of [political] speech. Even if I were to believe that there was some objective Truth to be found, I wouldn’t think Freedom of Speech was instituted in order to discover that truth. In fact, FoS allows for the circulation of complete nonsense. ---
**Author:** ![Procrustus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/procrustus/32/2994_2.png) [@Procrustus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Procrustus)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2017, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/46 "2017-01-14T20:04:44Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > _Ultimately, freedom of speech is about ascertaining the truth…_ > > Is this some doctrine of belief by evangelical Christians or something? I’m at a complete loss to understand why anyone would think that. Freedom of speech is about not allowing the Government to control the content of [political] speech. Even if I were to believe that there was some objective Truth to be found, I wouldn’t think Freedom of Speech was instituted in order to discover that truth. In fact, FoS allows for the circulation of complete nonsense. It’s part of the rationale for free speech. “If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.” Louis D. Brandeis ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2017, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/47 "2017-01-14T21:30:01Z")
> [@TriPolar](#): > > . . . Should the government not interfere with the right to freedom of speech but the public should? . . . [Tennessee conservatives actually experimented with that.](http://www.upi.com/Archives/1990/01/24/Dollar-fine-for-beating-flag-burner/2071633157200/) They proposed a law that would reduce the fine placed an anyone who beat up someone who was burning a U.S. Flag to the nominal amount of one dollar. ---
**Author:** ![Trinopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/2bfe46/32.png) [@Trinopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Trinopus)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2017, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/48 "2017-01-14T21:33:41Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > . . . I believe plenty of things SHOULD happen, but are not constitutionally mandated to happen. . . . And some of those things you believe would make me oppose confirming you as the Attorney General of the U.S., exactly as I believe what Session is saying makes him a bad choice for the job. Session would have the power to hire and fire on the basis of his “should,” and there is no indication that he would not exercise that power. He “should” be rejected for the job. ---
**Author:** ![clairobscur](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/839c29/32.png) [@clairobscur](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/clairobscur)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2017, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/49 "2017-01-14T21:36:22Z")
> [@marshmallow](#): > > In the Western tradition, religious people have historically been for secular government, since it ensures their hated rivals won’t control the levers of power. Conflating secularism with atheism is fundamentalist propaganda. Not in _western_ tradition. In most western countries, one religion had such an overwhelming majority that there was no risk any other would control those levers. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2017, 9:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/50 "2017-01-14T21:44:34Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Yes, that’s the commentary piece. Note that he says " it’s all about power, ideology, advancement, agenda". Emphasis added. Ideology is a very broad category and there are certain ideologies that can easily align with the what Sessions seems to think is the Truth (i.e., Christian ideology, or perhaps he’d say Judeo-Christian ideology), even though there are many that don’t. Given that he ends up with “not doing the public service”, and that he’s using each of those other categories at the usual anti-politics as usual language, I absolutely don’t think it’s reasonable to suggest that he is including ideologies he would consider _positive_ in there. Reading a neutral meaning into his use of “ideologies” would be ignoring the context of his remarks. > [@](#): > > He’s saying that he doesn’t believe our form of government could be created in an “utterly secular” environment, not that any given secularist is “unfit” to be part of the government as it exists now. There is no mention of any particular office, nor is the word “unfit” ever used. There is no mention of the word “environment” at any point, either. Nor “create”; he speaks in the present tense, not of times past at the beginning of your form of government. And, in fact, he doesn’t say “utterly secular”; he says “if you’re an utter secularist”. He is talking about a (hypothetical) utterly secular _person_, not an environment. There is no mention of any particular office, you’re quite correct; because he makes it quite clear that he considers his viewpoints on this to apply to “the government” and “a democracy” of the kind he’s thinking of in general, and not to one position. That he’s saying secularists are unfit for any government role and not, say, just President, is not a good mark on his records. And you’re correct; the word “unfit” is never used. He merely says that a secularist could not operate the government or the democracy he thinks of. I think it’s reasonable to use that word to describe that POV. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2017, 10:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/51 "2017-01-14T22:09:26Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Just out of curiosity, if instead of talking about atheists this way, if he were talking about women or people with ethnic backgrounds other than white, would you be defending those positions as well? > > If not, what is the difference? What position do you believe I am “defending,” here? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2017, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/52 "2017-01-14T22:17:22Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > And some of those things you believe would make me oppose confirming you as the Attorney General of the U.S., exactly as I believe what Session is saying makes him a bad choice for the job. > > Session would have the power to hire and fire on the basis of his “should,” and there is no indication that he would not exercise that power. > > He “should” be rejected for the job. That’s fine, but it’s not a constitutional argument. That’s an argument about your preferred staffing for the position of Attorney General. As a reminder, here is the post I responded to: > [@Euphonious\_Polemic](#): > > In the non-hyperbole contest, it is now apparent that the Republican nominee for attorney general has explicitly stated that anyone who is an atheist is unfit for government. He has basically said that he does not agree with the First Amendment to the constitution. And I pointed out that the summary was in fact hyperbole – the First Amendment is not implicated by what Sessions said. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2017, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/53 "2017-01-14T22:44:54Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What position do you believe I am “defending,” here? To be honest, never quite sure, you always seem to just pop in with contrary statements, but I believe you are defending the idea that someone with animosity towards a religious preference not his own is a good fit for high office. If this is the position that you are defending, would you also feel that a person is a good fit for high office if he made similar remarks about women or non-white ethnicities? If that is not what you are defending, sorry. What position do _you_ believe you are defending? ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2017, 10:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/54 "2017-01-14T22:54:30Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > To be honest, never quite sure, you always seem to just pop in with contrary statements, but I believe you are defending the idea that someone with animosity towards a religious preference not his own is a good fit for high office. I think this might be the crux of the problem; > [@Bricker](#): > > As a religious believer myself, I don’t agree that atheists are per se unfit. I regard those people who don’t understand the Constitution as unfit, however, in the sense that the public should not vote for such people. > > I include the current President-Elect, and you, in that group, but not Senator Sessions. Certainly **Bricker** says that he thinks Sessions isn’t unfit due to his perception of the man’s understanding of the Constitution (or lack of misunderstanding). That doesn’t necessarily preclude that he wouldn’t consider Sessions unfit for other reasons, including his bigotry, however. Much as with his point about the First Amendment; in **Bricker** ’s opinion, that’s not a bat with which Sessions can be beaten, but that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t think Sessions is bigot, just that that particular attack doesn’t fly. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2017, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/55 "2017-01-14T23:05:11Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I think this might be the crux of the problem; Certainly **Bricker** says that he thinks Sessions isn’t unfit due to his perception of the man’s understanding of the Constitution (or lack of misunderstanding). That doesn’t necessarily preclude that he wouldn’t consider Sessions unfit for other reasons, including his bigotry, however. Much as with his point about the First Amendment; in **Bricker** ’s opinion, that’s not a bat with which Sessions can be beaten, but that doesn’t mean that he doesn’t think Sessions is bigot, just that that particular attack doesn’t fly. Fair enough, I guess if all he is saying is that lambasting different religious preferences is okay by the first amendment, then I agree. And if he is saying that lambasting other religions does not mean that he himself does not believe in the first amendment, by itself I agree. However, if he is saying that someone like that, in office, is actually going to respect the first amendment in such a way as to not discriminate against those of other religious preferences, here I disagree. I think we will see a bit of over reach in denying people civil rights based on their religion, and depending on how the SC shakes out, it may all just be gravy. This concerns me, not as a lawyer, but as a citizen of the country. When people jump in to defend such actions, even if they are just nitpicking the terminology used to condemn reprehensibility, it does put them on the side of defending that reprehensibility. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2017, 11:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/56 "2017-01-14T23:12:21Z")
I think I’d disagree with that last part. Pointing out that a particular argument against something or someone reprehensible is faulty or unworkable can be a good idea, because it brushes aside methods that might well end up not working or even being self-harming. If I was going to fight a duel, and someone pointed out that my pistol’s sight was crooked, they aren’t defending my opponent by informing me of issues with my approach; to the contrary, by critiquing me they’re helping me in my goal. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2017, 11:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/57 "2017-01-14T23:24:28Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > I think I’d disagree with that last part. Pointing out that a particular argument against something or someone reprehensible is faulty or unworkable can be a good idea, because it brushes aside methods that might well end up not working or even being self-harming. If I was going to fight a duel, and someone pointed out that my pistol’s sight was crooked, they aren’t defending my opponent by informing me of issues with my approach; to the contrary, by critiquing me they’re helping me in my goal. If we are to follow your analogy, this advice comes at a time when we have already fired our bullet, and are now attempting to not be hit by the return fire. I do not see it as an attempt to help, but simply as an attempt to rub it in any time someone makes a pedantic mistake. Hopping in to disagree with EP’s statement “He has basically said that he does not agree with the First Amendment to the constitution.” Puts him on the side of defending that sessions does in fact agree with the first amendment. Now, I would disagree with that statement, without the “basically”, which word makes it into a matter of interpretation. While I have not seen any words from sessions that would inform me that he explicitly disagrees with the first amendment, his actions do inform me that he is not likely to hold in in higher regard than his personal ideology, so, IMHO, he “basically” doesn’t agree with the first amendment. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [January 14, 2017, 11:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/58 "2017-01-14T23:39:17Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > If we are to follow your analogy, this advice comes at a time when we have already fired our bullet, and are now attempting to not be hit by the return fire. Helpful for any future duels, then. > [@](#): > > I do not see it as an attempt to help, but simply as an attempt to rub it in any time someone makes a pedantic mistake. I don’t know enough about **Bricker** to ascribe motives to him one way or the other. He might mean well, or ill, who knows. But giving a critique is not inherently an act that defends an opponent, sometimes quite the opposite. > [@](#): > > Hopping in to disagree with EP’s statement “He has basically said that he does not agree with the First Amendment to the constitution.” Puts him on the side of defending that sessions does in fact agree with the first amendment. No, it doesn’t. Just that this doesn’t show anything one way or the other; as I understand **Bricker** ’s point, it is that the first amendment is not troubled by this particular point (though I’d still appreciate the clarification from him or another legal mind I asked about on the last page). Pointing out that Lee Harvey Oswald didn’t kill any Presidents in the whole of 1962 wouldn’t be defending that he isn’t a Presidential assassin. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2017, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/59 "2017-01-15T00:06:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > As a religious believer myself, I don’t agree that atheists are per se unfit. As an agnostic/atheist Right back at-cha. per se. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [January 15, 2017, 12:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031/60 "2017-01-15T00:15:25Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > To be honest, never quite sure, you always seem to just pop in with contrary statements, but I believe you are defending the idea that someone with animosity towards a religious preference not his own is a good fit for high office. > > If this is the position that you are defending, would you also feel that a person is a good fit for high office if he made similar remarks about women or non-white ethnicities? > > If that is not what you are defending, sorry. What position do _you_ believe you are defending? The position I am defending is: nothing about Sessions’ statements is correctly summarized as, “He has basically said that he does not agree with the First Amendment to the constitution.” [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/jeff-session-bigot-racist-and-now-anti-securlarist/777031.md?page=4)