Well, that settles it then!
**Should a belief that non-Christians are damned be a bar to public office in US?
**In a just world, this would result in achieving zero votes. Alas, I live in America where the restrictions for running for office are impressively lenient, free even. (Witness the current President. Have you heard about that shit??) But that is as it should be, and it should remain, by the way, as lenient and free for the people to vote.
The onus is on Americans to be decent people, and not vote for shitwads. We could easily doom ourselves.
That doesn’t clear things up at all. It just says that you classify certain religious beliefs as signs of mental instability. What would you call the belief that a piece of bread can literally be transformed into the flesh of Jesus? Not figuratively, but literally? What would you call the belief that there even is a place called “hell” that certain people will end up after they die? Why is that a test of mental stability, but not other beliefs in supernatural events?
The question about what someone believes happens to someone’s soul after that person dies is not relevant to whether they can serve in government or not. What matters is if they are willing to uphold the constitution, independent of what their religious beliefs might be. As someone upthread noted, fully 1/3 of Americans at least have a belief similar to Vaught’s. And yet most of them are able to function and lead perfectly normal lives.
Not unless one can demonstrate that the immigrant is going to take realistic actions with an expectation to succeed to actually force that belief on society. Immigration should not be based on litmus tests of belief.
I do not see Sanders making a “religious test,” but simply trying to come up with a rationalization to issue a “No” vote upon which he had already decided. Since Wheaton College’s actions came under a lot of unfavorable scrutiny, he used Vought’s defense of Wheaton as a gateway test to justify a “No” vote.
Just to be clear, I didn’t say it was a religious test-- I said I’d like to hear what our resident legal experts had to say. What I did say is that I don’t think the fact that it was applied to just one individual makes in not one, which is what you said. It may very well not be a religious test, but I don’t think that’s the reason.
Having said that, I would support whatever sanctioning the Senate was able to do to prevent Bernie (or anyone) from doing this in the future. I wonder how this debate would proceed on this MB if some immigration official had asked the same question of a Muslim immigrant. I suspect this thread would be in the Pit rather than GD (not directed at you, tom).
I don’t dispute that there are a great many religious people, some of whom are extremely thoughtful and intelligent. Religion has long had an uneasy relationship with rationality, however, and most people deal with it by implicitly or explicitly compartmentalizing the supernatural aspect of religious belief and keeping it isolated from their rational approach to the everyday world. The danger of fundamentalists is the risk that their beliefs may be so uncompromising, blind, and absolute that this compartmentalization breaks down, and their beliefs prevail over reason and drive irrational real-world actions. My impression of Vaught’s statements and beliefs is that they’re a good deal more extreme than the mainstream, at least to the point that questions should be asked to establish whether such risks exist, which is what Sanders was doing.
For instance, if someone believes that global warming is not a problem, because daddy god will clean up our mess for us.
Or someone who is looking forward to the end times, because he and those he likes will go to heaven, and he can watch all his enemies burn in hell.
Those sorts of beliefs can influence the secular positions that someone holds in a way that will effect those who do not hold those beliefs.
Now, I would not say that holding those beliefs should disqualify one for office, but those beliefs can certainly be taken into account when you vote.
Seems to me fairly clear that by his questioning Sen Sanders has violated Mr. Vought’s civil rights. Can you imagine if an private employer started asking such questions? As a member of Congress Sen Sanders is constitutionally forbidden from considering a person’s religious beliefs as a condition of office and he should be censured by the Senate for his actions.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
Can you imagine if a private employer started asking half the questions that candidates running for public office are routinely asked? Running for elected public office is not a private job interview. At the first presidential debate last year, all the candidates were asked to tell the audience whether they’d heard from God recently, and what God was telling them their policies should be. Is that a pretty good question for a job interview, in your opinion?
If that’s your interpretation of the constitution, then how come none of the Republicans freaked out at the God question above? How would a response like “I don’t believe in God” have gone over? Moreover, establishing whether someone is capable of fairly and competently carrying out the duties his nominated position requires is not a religious test. ISTM that all this fake outrage has a lot to do with siding with Christian religious dogma and the political right, and very little to do with principle.
It would be unconstitutional to bar him from office for his beliefs, but I do not think that you can insist that someone not take someone’s beliefs into account when they vote for or against.
The relevant question is not whether you think people are damned, but whether or not your views impact whether you can treat said damned people equally in this life. Asking about the former question can, by the precise answer given, give insight to the latter. And that is insight not gained by asking the question directly, because most people would say yes, knowing that’s what they are supposed to say.
I know Christians who, despite thinking homosexuality is wrong, treat LGBT people exactly the same as everyone else. I still think what they are doing is wrong, but I can’t see how it would be relevant to their job.
But I also know Christians who treat LGBT people as second-class citizens, and that would impact the ability to do these types of jobs.
At least in modern Christianity, its understood that even if you believe someone to be “damned” you are expressly forbidden to help them to that end. I acknowledge that that hasn’t been the case for a large number of people throughout history.
Yes, of course. As should a belief that non-Christians are blessed and destined to spend eternity in whatever heaven they choose to believe in. This is not a religious test, it’s an intelligence test. People who believe such things lack the critical thinking skills I’d like to see present in people making important decisions that affect the lives of millions.
This view is woefully one-dimensional. I’m an atheist, but I don’t automatically think that every god-botherer is unintelligent and (therefore, presumably) incompetent at their job. The relevant factor is whether the nominee can separate his private beliefs from his public, job-related behavior.
Your argument condemns an entire group of people for what is, for many of them at any rate, an entirely unrelated factor.
I am entirely comfortable with that. I also think people who listen to the dust-bunnies under their beds for advice on how to deal with environmental issues or run your educational system are not fit to govern.
How about we ban anyone who thinks all religious people are idiots from political office in a country with 90% believers.
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
To answer the OP, I’d say no. Banning someone for a particular belief is in effect establishing an “official” line of religion.
Religion is losing importance and impact steadily in our society. Within a few generations, religion as it has been commonly known will no longer exist in any meaningful way. Organized religion, that is. Some people may believe in god but not have any interest in the institution of religion.
Do you think you’d get a better government if you did so?
I do. But I’m not interested in banning anyone based on their beliefs or lack thereof. For starters, democracy is a bitch, and when “we” start banning people, you an I are not the ones who are going to be making that decision.