That’s an extraordinarily weak inference. But you’re certainly welcome to hold it as your opinion.
Basically.
Many people here, including k9befriender, don’t really grasp that point. They seem to believe that bad is Bad, and any corrections of any attack against a target that’s Bad constitutes defense of Bad and abandonment of Good.
It’s seldom, “My mistake. Oswald’s murderous ways did not surface until November of 1963.” It’s seldom even, “You’re right, but the crux of my point was not the year.” Instead, it’s “I guess you think it’s fine for a President to be murdered!”
No. I just think that Oswald didn’t kill any Presidents in 1962.
Basically.
[QUOTE=Bricker]
As a religious believer myself, I don’t agree that atheists are per se unfit.
[/QUOTE]
Well, you guys need to keep in mind that Trump in his election victory speech did not bother to thank God for his victory nor to bless America, unlike other elected presidents for the past 3 decades. His God is really the prosperity kind one, that in reality is closer to Social Darwinism. And even conservative sources are critical of that.
Do you think it’s reasonable to oppose his confirmation based on this bigotry? If you were a Senator, would you vote for or against him – and would this bigotry (against atheists/secular people) be part of your consideration? If it were bigotry against Jews, or Catholics, or black people, would your answer change?
It seems to me there’s quite a lot of misunderstanding of Bricker’s use of the term “per se”. He was pointing out his disagreement with the opinion of Sessions that “unbelievers are per se unfit”.
The answer is that in my view it’s very reasonable to vote against him for this bigotry.
But I am not sure I would. Because the next nominee would be unlikely to be better, as long as Trump is making the nominations. As potential nominees go, Sessions is better than most. . . . even though he is flawed in many respects. So I’d have to weigh the utility of rejecting him against the likelihood that the second choice on Trump’s lust is better.
Monty, in a contest between facts and righteous indignation, which do you suppose controls most people? Here on the smartest place on the Internet?
And you’d say the same if this bigotry were against black people, or Jews, or Catholics? If he had said “I’m not sure” to a question about whether Jews (etc.) can understand and follow the law as well as Christians (etc.)? It seems to me like that’s certainly worth taking a stand on, and always voting against, even if the next guy is bigoted too.
I’m glad I could provide you with a point and metaphor you like, but I’d appreciate it even more if you could take a look at the point I asked you about in that paragraph you quoted from. I also had a question back in post #27, if that’s ok.
This deserves a longer response, but – if the next guy is equally bigoted, or worse, then what’s been gained?
I do think however, that as the issue of the Ethics Office that was attempted to be snuffed showed, is that Trump does respond to the people demanding better.
Not much, but a little bit.
If one bigot is rejected, it makes it slightly less likely that another bigot, let alone a worse one, would be nominated.
Given a President who understood and respected the ordinary political norms, yes.
Sorry, missed this.
It’s a straightforward sentence. There’s nothing “inside,” the phrase. “Per se,” means intrinsically, in itself, by itself.
Atheists are not intrinsically unfit to hold public office. There is nothing about being an atheist that is incompatible with fitness for public office. An individual atheist may for other reasons be unfit, of course, just as a person of religious faith may be unfit for other reasons. I can’t imagine a more clear cut statement.
27 is answered. I can’t find another unanswered question – can you direct me more precisely?
#29. Thanks for the answer, by the way; the reason I asked is that I’ve many times seen “per se” used as a precursor to a “but”, as in “I don’t dislike oranges per se, but they’re often too expensive to buy.” I see that, for example, dictionary.com also gives a “per se - but” example. Given that many things could potentially be hidden in that but (insert joke here), I was curious what if anything it was in your usage. “Atheists aren’t per se unfit, but they might be for reasons other than their atheism” makes sense to me.
I think in my case I probably would’ve gone with “Being an atheist doesn’t make someone unfit for office.” That seems a more clear-cut statement.
Vote him down too. Trump isn’t David Duke, but if Duke became president, and kept nominating KKK cronies to the cabinet, I would hope the Senate would keep voting them down. I don’t see why it’s different for Trump if he nominates a bigot. Vote against the bigot, and then the next one, and the next. At the very least you’re doing everything you can to prevent a bigot from stepping into an important office.
The problem is more intractable.
The Senate will readily vote down a KKK member, and almost no President – even (I think) Trump – would nominate one. This is because racial biogtry is widely reviled.
Biogtry against atheists is much more socially accepted.
For this reason, I would expect a heroic stand against a KKK nominee to produce a new nominee free from that taint. I would not expect the same result for an atheist nominee. And at some point, I would have to either be resigned to leaving the office empty, or compromising on this stance.
And even if I left the office empty, that merely means the #2 appointee acts as AG. The same problem now confronts me with respect to him.
Politics is the art of the possible. I might have to accept bigotry against atheists in recognition of the fact that apparently atheists are trusted on par with rapists by the public. This, again, is not a rational position for the public to take, but at present it has a very practical consequence: the public opprobrium that a KKK member’s nomination would earn is simply not present for a atheist’s nomination, and that changes the calculus of what types of actions a senator can expect to produce results.
But by speaking out against this bigotry, and treating it the same as other bigotries in terms of your vote, wouldn’t you be doing all you can to change public opinion and society for the better in terms of this form of bigotry?
Whenever anyone on the left says anything at all negative about guns, there are the second amendment defenders that come out and claim that the statement means that they are against the second amendment.
Yet, when a public official publicly endorses one religious preference while condemning another, that’s not in any way an indicator that they have little respect for the first.
Not looking it up, so I could be wrong, but I am pretty sure I have seen you defend the former, in that, even if the democrat didn’t say anything unconstitutional, you infer from their remarks that they would not respect it, rather than nutpicking when those claims are made.
But, it comes down to, do you (as senator who gets a chance to vote on the matter), feel that a person who would publicly condemn a religious preference would be able to apply the law in a non-prejudiced way. I feel not. This concerns me when this person is also the head of the justice department.