Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

Religious litmus test for American politics?

Page 1 of 1 [ 9 posts ] 

Previous topic | Next topic

pgd
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 16 Jul 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,624

20 Aug 2010, 8:17 am

Moderator doesn't like me so post deleted.



Last edited by pgd on 20 Aug 2010, 5:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.

ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

20 Aug 2010, 9:58 am

religious tests as a precondition for holding office is specifically banned by the U.S. Constitution and the fact that the courts hold the privileges and immunities must be respected by both the States and the central government. If there were ordinances requiring candidates for office or applicants for civil service to have religious affiliations, the courts would come done on it like a sledge-hammer.

However it is perfectly legal to refuse to vote for someone if his religious views are at odds with that of the voter. There is no law against being a bigot. There are laws against discrimination.

ruveyn



Exclavius
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 May 2010
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 632
Location: Ontario, Canada

20 Aug 2010, 12:45 pm

The unfortunate and fatal flaw of democracy will always be that the minority opinion will be outruled and stomped upon, destroying diversity, and thus destroying humanity's chance for progress.

Luckily, even though we call ourselves democratic we aren't really. Though in my opinion we are too close.

Whether religious litmus tests are permissible in law/theory, doesn't affect if they are permissible in practice, which they are.



ruveyn
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 21 Sep 2008
Age: 87
Gender: Male
Posts: 31,502
Location: New Jersey

20 Aug 2010, 1:06 pm

Exclavius wrote:
The unfortunate and fatal flaw of democracy will always be that the minority opinion will be outruled and stomped upon, destroying diversity, and thus destroying humanity's chance for progress.

Luckily, even though we call ourselves democratic we aren't really. Though in my opinion we are too close.

Whether religious litmus tests are permissible in law/theory, doesn't affect if they are permissible in practice, which they are.


The United States of America is constituted as a republic, not a democracy. Do you know what democracy is? It is two wolves and a lamb sitting at the table and voting for what to have for dinner.

ruveyn



Exclavius
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 May 2010
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 632
Location: Ontario, Canada

20 Aug 2010, 1:51 pm

ruveyn wrote:
Exclavius wrote:
The unfortunate and fatal flaw of democracy will always be that the minority opinion will be outruled and stomped upon, destroying diversity, and thus destroying humanity's chance for progress.

Luckily, even though we call ourselves democratic we aren't really. Though in my opinion we are too close.

Whether religious litmus tests are permissible in law/theory, doesn't affect if they are permissible in practice, which they are.


The United States of America is constituted as a republic, not a democracy. Do you know what democracy is? It is two wolves and a lamb sitting at the table and voting for what to have for dinner.

ruveyn


Exactly, but what the US (republic) and Canada and the Uk (Parliament) have is close enough to democracy to suffer it's fatal flaws. They have their advantages in the short run, but are not sustainable in the long run.



Ichinin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,653
Location: A cold place with lots of blondes.

20 Aug 2010, 2:11 pm

You know, i eat alot of food made by Hindus, at the weekends i sometimes visit a restaurant which is owned by a Muslim, i have had at least one college that were a Catholic, A family member married a wife that was Jewish and my martial arts instructors wife were a Shinto-Buddist.

What is the point this Atheist is making? Me and lots of other people do not CARE about which religion someone believes in, as long as they're not trying to blow things up or force their pseudosciense into schools.


As for religion:

Would i vote for a publicly proclaimed Christian if that person had some really good ideas on how to run a country? Sure. Would i vote for an Atheist that wanted to dismount society and remove all forms of social security? Not bloody likely.


_________________
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" (Carl Sagan)


Exclavius
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 May 2010
Age: 50
Gender: Male
Posts: 632
Location: Ontario, Canada

20 Aug 2010, 2:34 pm

Ichinin wrote:
You know, i eat alot of food made by Hindus, at the weekends i sometimes visit a restaurant which is owned by a Muslim, i have had at least one college that were a Catholic, A family member married a wife that was Jewish and my martial arts instructors wife were a Shinto-Buddist.

What is the point this Atheist is making? Me and lots of other people do not CARE about which religion someone believes in, as long as they're not trying to blow things up or force their pseudosciense into schools.


As for religion:

Would i vote for a publicly proclaimed Christian if that person had some really good ideas on how to run a country? Sure. Would i vote for an Atheist that wanted to dismount society and remove all forms of social security? Not bloody likely.


You make a mistake.
It is the Christians that wish to tear down the social structures currently in place. Not the Atheists and Agnostics.



Ichinin
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 3 Apr 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,653
Location: A cold place with lots of blondes.

21 Aug 2010, 7:34 am

Exclavius wrote:
You make a mistake.
It is the Christians that wish to tear down the social structures currently in place. Not the Atheists and Agnostics.



No, you made the mistake of ASSuming that i was making a statement about religion, which i am not, i am making a point about INDIVIDUALS. The idea is that even a religious INDIVIDUAL can be good and an atheist can be bad.


As an atheist, i'm only negative against religious fanatics. People who mind their own business and NOT trying to impose their fascist ideals onto others by NOT blowing up abortion clinics and NOT killing innocent civilians in Afghanistan are not the problem.

Religious fanatics who resort to violence to change politics, regardless of what country they are in, are by definition terrorists.

The rest i don't have a problem with. I think they are wasting their lives going to churches, but it's their life to waste.


_________________
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" (Carl Sagan)


Kraichgauer
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 12 Apr 2010
Gender: Male
Posts: 47,796
Location: Spokane area, Washington state.

23 Aug 2010, 3:34 am

Exclavius wrote:
Ichinin wrote:
You know, i eat alot of food made by Hindus, at the weekends i sometimes visit a restaurant which is owned by a Muslim, i have had at least one college that were a Catholic, A family member married a wife that was Jewish and my martial arts instructors wife were a Shinto-Buddist.

What is the point this Atheist is making? Me and lots of other people do not CARE about which religion someone believes in, as long as they're not trying to blow things up or force their pseudosciense into schools.


As for religion:

Would i vote for a publicly proclaimed Christian if that person had some really good ideas on how to run a country? Sure. Would i vote for an Atheist that wanted to dismount society and remove all forms of social security? Not bloody likely.


You make a mistake.
It is the Christians that wish to tear down the social structures currently in place. Not the Atheists and Agnostics.


Not this Christian guy here. Though I readily admit most insane people on the right tend to make a big public show about their so called faith.

-Bill, otherwise known as Kraichgauer