Prompted by Bernie Sanders’ questioning of Russell Vought.
At the heart of this is whether exclusionary beliefs such as some fundamental Christianities are, as Senator Sanders would have it, Islamophobe. I think this is perilous ground constitutionally but it does make one wonder if people who believe Muslims and others are heading for hell can be expected to treat them fairly as a public servant.
I’ll go with “no.” As much sneering contempt as I have for religion, I’m not comfortable with a religious test for holding office.
Personally, I have no problem saying that any person who earnestly holds the belief that the earth is 6000 years old is gullible or stupid enough to have no business running for public office. It’s not about it being religious; rather, it’s about the fact that it’s religious not excusing how fucking stupid it is.
Similarly, if you believe that non-christians are damned to an eternity of torture… Well, fuck. That’s an evil belief. I’m sorry.
What if one’s religious belief requires that person to harm the government she/he is supposed to serve? Can a belief that would normally stop most from getting the job not even be brought up during an interview if this belief is religious in nature?
This brings into clear relief the concept that one’s religious convictions (or lack of them) should have zero effect on the performance of one’s job in the government. You may believe what you wish about the alleged immortal souls of anyone, but those beliefs should be left at home when you are performing duties in the public sector.
So no, religious beliefs should never be a bar to public office, provided (and this is a very important proviso) that those beliefs will in no way interfere with the performance of your job. So that county clerk who thought her religion entitles her to pick and choose who is allowed to get married in her county should have been fired. The same should apply to every government employee at every level.
eta: If it isn’t clear from the above, I think Bernie’s questions were way out of line. He should retract and apologize.
Should and will are two totally different things. Congress should serve as a check and balance when the executive branch starts acting tyrannical, and we can all see how that’s going. In reality, anyone who seriously wants to tell me that religious affiliation has no effect on one’s performance in government first has to explain this, then this, and then this, and really, I could keep going basically as long as I felt the need to keep googling.
But if you blocked all the people in America who held that belief from office, you would be excluding tens of millions of people, probably well over 100 million.
I find myself wondering whether believing that people are damned necessarily means you’re going to try and abuse them somehow. I mean, most of the people I know think I’m damned, but they don’t go out of their way to blame me for terrorism or run me out of the country. I’d be much more concerned about whether the guy was a flaming racist or an overt bigot.
I guess what I’m saying is that I totally think you should be barred from your office if your religion makes you unqualified for it - like you shouldn’t be allowed to be attorney general if you enthusiastically believe that all crimes should be punished by stoning to death. But merely thinking that huge swaths of people are damned? Pheh. That’s probably not any more inherently harmful than my belief that huge swathes of people are idiots.
If you wish to be consistent, you must also believe that it’s evil to want criminals to go to jail for their crimes.
The two things are merely different expressions of the same concept.
Eternal damnation in hell vs. confinement for a pre-determined portion of a person’s life? How are these different expressions of the same belief?
I would have a go at establishing a principle about this. What matters most, when it comes to any belief or set of beliefs, is what a person DOES about them.
The question that someone such as Sanders SHOULD be asking, is whether or not the candidate for a position can, and vows to,* ignore* their beliefs as they do their appointed job. Will they carry out their tasks and duties *as specifically directed by their superiors*, and not by any outside authority of any kind. "Leave them at home" is one way of saying it, but I'd be more specific when asking questions of someone.
Whether they feel sorry for (or revulsion, etc) all the people they deal with who they think are doomed to Hell or not, isn’t pertinent.
Perhaps even a question such as "Do you believe it is up to YOU to carry out your God’s will, at all times, for him/her/it? " Anyone answers “yes,” should immediately be turned away (and perhaps remanded into the custody of appropriate caregivers).
Of course. Nothing in this world is perfect. But I am not willing to take an entire class of people and disqualify them from public service on the chance that some number of them might not be able to distinguish between their private beliefs and their public duty. These lapses should be handled after they happen and not presumed in advance.
There are lots of evil beliefs in the world. The idea to pre-judge people based on (what you would have to assume are) their private and most intimate feelings is one of them.
I admit to having a fairly limited understanding of Islam and Judaism, but do Muslims and Jews not have some analogous belief about non-believers and some concept of eternal damnation / punishment? Is that something that’s really unique to Christianity?
Here’s a question I’d like to ask Senator Saners who, as far as I know, is acJewish agnostic.
“Does Heaven exist? If not, what do you care whether I think you’re going there?”
Good grief.
I did not say the “same belief.” I said the “same concept.”
The concept in question – which SHOULD be immediately obvious – is that of being punished for wrong-doing.
Weak.
Unless Vought’s job duties as Deputy Director of the Office of Management and Budget involve deciding who goes to Hell then his belief that Muslims go there has no connection to his office.
Jesus (no pun intended)!!! Why does this shit ALWAYS come from the US?? C’mon guys, get with the program and grow the fuck up.
Nobody, and I mean NOBODY in the rest of the western world gives a shit about religious affiliations in public office. It’s only the US who go apeshit about the possibility of someone OMG, NOT BEING A CHRISTIAN being a pollie or holding a public appointment.
The rest of the world has figured it out, why is it taking you* retards so freakin’ long?
*Generic you, not directed at anyone in this thread JFTR.
Wouldn’t this religious test also ban a number of other religion adherents from seeking office - i.e., Muslims who believe the ‘unrighteous’ go to a Jahannam hell?
Except in this case, Sanders is opposing a Christian “being a pollie or holding a public appointment.”