NationStates Jolt Archive

In the light of recent whisperings about what Bush may or may not have said about divine inspiration, I'd like to propose that overly-religous people be excluded from all powerful positions of public office as a matter of policy.

The single reason?

No matter how intelligent or talented they may be (here's hoping!);
there will always remain a question mark over their skills of judgement and their ability to make sufficient reasonable sense of the world around them.


I don't think people like this should be given decision-making powers over any important matters of military, environment, economy, state, etc

What do you all think? C'mon let's make this a good'un!

I think this is a damn good idea, but ideally i'd reform all religious people into atheists who dont contradict themselves every time they open their mouth. I may sound harsh, but religious extremeists have left the biggest of stains on our history as humans. Look at the crusades for example, that was just fucked up.

Religious people are normal people too, no matter how... oddly they act in the eyes of others. They have every right to be in office, especially in religious societies. However, governments should be kept strictly secular, which the American government, unfortunately, isn't.

I don't think it would be wise to exclude all religious people from office, just make sure that they don't make laws or selectively enforce laws based on their religious affiliation. Also it's just not possible. Let's face it, if we banned religious people from holding public office in the USA we'd run out of qualified Atheists. Every single atheist would be busy in local, state and federal government. Could you really picture me as a senator or the ambassador to some shithole country?

Wrong. Completely wrong. If they are elected into office there is no reason why they should not be allowed to serve. In a cabernit situation (selecting which minsiters to which deparments) its up to the PM (at least in the UK system) to make up his mind on which is the best for the job.

In the light of recent whisperings about what Bush may or may not have said about divine inspiration, I'd like to propose that overly-religous people be excluded from all powerful positions of public office as a matter of policy.

The single reason?

No matter how intelligent or talented they may be (here's hoping!);
there will always remain a question mark over their skills of judgement and their ability to make sufficient reasonable sense of the world around them.


I don't think people like this should be given decision-making powers over any important matters of military, environment, economy, state, etc

What do you all think? C'mon let's make this a good'un!


So, are you saying that Abraham Lincoln was a mindless boob because he was religious? Because he let his religious beliefs affect his judgment?


So you're saying that some atheist chav would have the real scoop on how to make a decision compared to Abraham Lincoln?

I think this is a damn good idea, but ideally i'd reform all religious people into atheists who dont contradict themselves every time they open their mouth. I may sound harsh, but religious extremeists have left the biggest of stains on our history as humans. Look at the crusades for example, that was just fucked up.

I'm fairly religious. So far, I don't think I've contradicted myself.

In the light of recent whisperings about what Bush may or may not have said about divine inspiration, I'd like to propose that overly-religous people be excluded from all powerful positions of public office as a matter of policy.

The single reason?

No matter how intelligent or talented they may be (here's hoping!);
there will always remain a question mark over their skills of judgement and their ability to make sufficient reasonable sense of the world around them.


I don't think people like this should be given decision-making powers over any important matters of military, environment, economy, state, etc

What do you all think? C'mon let's make this a good'un!

it isn't really a free country if certain people are excluded from public office because of thier beliefs.

I kinda take offense to you implying that I am less intelligent because I am religious too.

It is intolerant not to allow religious people to run for public office.

I'm fairly religious. So far, I don't think I've contradicted myself.

I know i was very vague when i said religious, but by contradicting i meant christian. If you're not christian then i appologise for generalising, but if you are then you have contradicted yourself. There is no 'fairly' christian, you either are atheist/agnostic, metaphorical christian or literal christian as far as i'm concerned.

I know i was very vague when i said religious, but by contradicting i meant christian. If you're not christian then i appologise for generalising, but if you are then you have contradicted yourself. There is no 'fairly' christian, you either are atheist/agnostic, metaphorical christian or literal christian as far as i'm concerned.
Okay, I'll bite.... I am a Christian and I don't believe I have contradicted myself....

So who defines "overly-religious"? After all, most people, regardless of how religious they are, don't think that they are overly religious. And it's hard to quantify religious faith, so how can you legally define a threshold for too much of it? About the only objective quantitative distinction you can make is between "none" and "some", and if you rule out everyone who has some religious faith, you rule out most of the population of the US.

Or are you really just trying to suggest that people whose ideas differ from yours should be excluded from office?

:rolleyes:

I know i was very vague when i said religious, but by contradicting i meant christian. If you're not christian then i appologise for generalising, but if you are then you have contradicted yourself. There is no 'fairly' christian, you either are atheist/agnostic, metaphorical christian or literal christian as far as i'm concerned.

I'm a Pentacostal Christian. Show me where I contradict myself.

Hm, no. You may disagree with their beliefs, but you can't limit their rights in any way because of that. Sorry.

What i meant was that christians themselves are very contradictory, as in they worship an all loving diety who will have you burn in hell for eternity if you question his existance. You may not personally be a contradictory person, but it is sad to say that as christians you're in the minority.

www.venganza.org, pretty much sums up my views on mixing religion with science and government it its own ridiculous, sattirical way.

Also, i probably wont see this thread again so replying to this will achieve nothing.

What i meant was that christians themselves are very contradictory, as in they worship an all loving diety who will have you burn in hell for eternity if you question his existance. You may not personally be a contradictory person, but it is sad to say that as christians you're in the minority.

www.venganza.org, pretty much sums up my views on mixing religion with science and government it its own ridiculous, sattirical way.

Also, i probably wont see this thread again so replying to this will achieve nothing.


No, this was the topic of the sermon this last Sunday. The problem you have is that you are sadly misinformed.

And I find it interesting that you would want to throw it out there for all to see that you believe in something, and the moment someone challenges your viewpoint, you run off. Maybe you don't really have the conviction of your own beliefs.

Religious people are fine, it is the zealots that should be banned from public office.

What i meant was that christians themselves are very contradictory, as in they worship an all loving diety who will have you burn in hell for eternity if you question his existance. You may not personally be a contradictory person, but it is sad to say that as christians you're in the minority.

You are saying we are contradictory. That is your view. You're saying we should be excluded from public office because we hold a view separate from yours :rolleyes: .

Religious people are fine, it is the zealots that should be banned from public office.
and why is that?

Religious people are fine, it is the zealots that should be banned from public office.

Define "zealot".

There are plenty of pastors whom I've known over the years, and they have far, far better judgment than most people, especially when it comes to tough decisions. Should we then ban good judgment, just because of your idea of a "zealot"? Is a pastor a "zealot"?

Religious people are fine, it is the zealots that should be banned from public office.

I say nobody should be banned from office. It is up to the American majority to elect someone they think would rule them. If some wierdo decides to run for office, one is probably not going to vote for that person. Banning certain people from running for office is striking down the principles of democracy.

I say nobody should be banned from office. It is up to the American majority to elect someone they think would rule them. If some wierdo decides to run for office, one is probably not going to vote for that person. Banning certain people from running for office is striking down the principles of democracy.
exactly.

thank you.


*applause*

In the light of recent whisperings about what Bush may or may not have said about divine inspiration, I'd like to propose that overly-religous people be excluded from all powerful positions of public office as a matter of policy.

The single reason?

No matter how intelligent or talented they may be (here's hoping!);
there will always remain a question mark over their skills of judgement and their ability to make sufficient reasonable sense of the world around them.


I don't think people like this should be given decision-making powers over any important matters of military, environment, economy, state, etc

What do you all think? C'mon let's make this a good'un!

Thats a fantastic idea !
I would add another certain phrase, but ill probably get banned for expressing it.

I say nobody should be banned from office. It is up to the American majority to elect someone they think would rule them. If some wierdo decides to run for office, one is probably not going to vote for that person. Banning certain people from running for office is striking down the principles of democracy.
Honestly, democracy is a terrible idea, but sadly only as terrible as any other form of government.

Religious people are fine, it is the zealots that should be banned from public office.
Again, it's a matter of who defines "zealot". If you take me up against (oh, hmmm, let's see who I would disagree with in many arenas).....Ashmoria, to use a contemporary example, in a religious setting, Ash may well call me a Christian zealot, while I may go to the other extreme and claim he's an atheist zealot. Similarly, if you pitted me against The Atlantian islands in reference to my country, I'm sure the zealot card will be played at least once by one of us. Many people won't agree with the accusation on either side, so at what point can we unanimously say "That cat's too fucking crazy for politics"?

Note: Those that I used examples of, please don't take offense....I haven't got a THING against you, it's just the only two real debates I could pull up from my post history of the past few days. I lurve you.

Honestly, democracy is a terrible idea, but sadly only as terrible as any other form of government.
Communism is the key !

Communism is the key !

Communism has killed more of its own people than just about anything short of organized religion.

Honestly, democracy is a terrible idea, but sadly only as terrible as any other form of government.
Well democracy's what we're stuck with for now, so unless you wanna get that revolution off the ground......

Honestly, democracy is a terrible idea, but sadly only as terrible as any other form of government.

...And I bet you are going to quote Winston Churchill, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others"...

Communism has killed more of its own people than just about anything short of organized religion.
Religion is the criminal !
Communism is the best sort of goverment this planet has seen.

Communism is the key !
Hey, it works for ants. Why not for humans? Oh, right, our behavoir isn't genetically programmed to protect the queen and provide for the collony. We had to go and evolve as individuals. :(

exactly.

thank you.


*applause*

Why thank you! :)

Hey, it works for ants. Why not for humans? Oh, right, our behavoir isn't genetically programmed to protect the queen and provide for the collony. We had to go and evolve as individuals. :(
...Sigh...I know...wretched isnt it...

What i meant was that christians themselves are very contradictory, as in they worship an all loving diety who will have you burn in hell for eternity if you question his existance. You may not personally be a contradictory person, but it is sad to say that as christians you're in the minority.

Christians are the single largest religious group on Earth. 1/3 of Earth's population (notice SINGLE largest)

Religion is the criminal !
Communism is the best sort of goverment this planet has seen.

If you consider that Stalin killed more of his own people during his tenure than were killed in WW II by the Germans, or if you consider the number killed by Communists during the Chinese Revolution, plus during its Cultural Revolution, and you add those up, that's a larger pool of dead bodies than any other cause in the 20th century - and I'm not counting the little Communist wars like Vietnam or Angola.

Yes, if killing people is the yardstick of good, then Communism is very good.

If you consider that Stalin killed more of his own people during his tenure than were killed in WW II by the Germans, or if you consider the number killed by Communists during the Chinese Revolution, plus during its Cultural Revolution, and you add those up, that's a larger pool of dead bodies than any other cause in the 20th century - and I'm not counting the little Communist wars like Vietnam or Angola.

Yes, if killing people is the yardstick of good, then Communism is very good.

But they weren't...bah.

I get sick of arguing that.

...Sigh...I know...wretched isnt it...
Does anybody else get the impression of "OMG C0munizm is teh ROXXORS" out of this?

Seriously, read a history book, dude.

If you consider that Stalin killed more of his own people during his tenure than were killed in WW II by the Germans, or if you consider the number killed by Communists during the Chinese Revolution, plus during its Cultural Revolution, and you add those up, that's a larger pool of dead bodies than any other cause in the 20th century - and I'm not counting the little Communist wars like Vietnam or Angola.

Yes, if killing people is the yardstick of good, then Communism is very good.
Those people wernt killed !
They fought for their country !

Those people wernt killed !
They fought for their country !

Oh noes, not some sort of Stalinist I hope.

What about the gulags?

But they weren't...bah.

I get sick of arguing that.

If they say they were Communists, they were Communists.

I could care less if they were Maoists, Leninists, etc. The results, regardless of the variation of "Communism" seems to be the same. Wholesale slaughter as a matter of revolutionary policy. Changing peoples' minds by blowing them out with a pistol.

Those people wernt killed !
They fought for their country !
Soviet citizens who starved because Stalin's pet pseudoscientist Lysenko couldn't vernalize wheat died fighting for their country?

Religious people are fine, it is the zealots that should be banned from public office.

So how do you, legally and objectively, define "zealot"? As I said earlier, there's no good quantitative measure of the amount of a person's religious faith, so there's no absolute way to determine if a person falls into the "zealot" or merely "religious" category. Even if there was a way to measure religious faith, you'd still have to pick an arbitrary division between "too much faith" and "allowed to run for office."

Why do people keep proposing ideas that can't possibly work? (Oh yeah, the explanation is in my sig. Silly me.)

:rolleyes:

*Looks both ways*
*Hurrys out*

Those people wernt killed !
They fought for their country !

You mean the people shot in the purges, condemned in absentia for crimes they never committed, were "fighting for their country"?

You know, when Stalin purged the military, he not only shot the generals, he shot everyone who happened to be in the buildings at the time. So, if a particular general was shot in his office, everyone in the building was killed.

Including the janitors.

There's an old phrase concerning the thoroughness of Communism: "Stalin even shot the janitors."

If they say they were Communists, they were Communists.

I could care less if they were Maoists, Leninists, etc. The results, regardless of the variation of "Communism" seems to be the same. Wholesale slaughter as a matter of revolutionary policy. Changing peoples' minds by blowing them out with a pistol.

I disagree. A turd by any other name still stinks like shit. I can call myself anything, but it doesn't have to be true.

However, if you have a look at all of the "communist" societies of the 20th century, none of them were exactly wealthy democracies pre-revolution, were they?

*Looks both ways*
*Hurrys out*
Predictable.

Why don't people ever stay to explain their points of view? I'd think the world was a TON less retarded if people gave it an attempt; otherwise it just seems like they're spouting this crap to sound cool.......

I disagree. A turd by any other name still stinks like shit. I can call myself anything, but it doesn't have to be true.

However, if you have a look at all of the "communist" societies of the 20th century, none of them were exactly wealthy democracies pre-revolution, were they?

Then it would appear that Communism only arises when the situation is so f-ing bad that nothing else short of killing everyone and starting over will do (a la Pol Pot).

To prevent a Communist revolution, then, you don't have to make your nation and government a paradise. You just have to keep it from sucking so damn bad.

If they say they were Communists, they were Communists.

I could care less if they were Maoists, Leninists, etc. The results, regardless of the variation of "Communism" seems to be the same. Wholesale slaughter as a matter of revolutionary policy. Changing peoples' minds by blowing them out with a pistol.

So all I have to do is call myself a Communist to be a Communist?

By that logic I could call myself a Christian without believing in God.

Back to topic: I don't think that religous people (or any other group) should be excluded from public office.

On second though, maybe Boygroups should be. ;)

Simonist']Predictable.

Why don't people ever stay to explain their points of view? I'd think the world was a TON less retarded if people gave it an attempt; otherwise it just seems like they're spouting this crap to sound cool.......

Didn't communism stop being "cool" about 10 years ago? I thought the current generation of young pseudo-intellectual wannabee radicals was more enamored of ecosocialism.

But then, I could be wrong. I haven't spent much time on college campuses lately.

:p

So all I have to do is call myself a Communist to be a Communist?


If it's in your official title, your official literature, you trace your organization's lineage to some "school" of "Communist thought", and the rest of the world in general accepts that you are "Communist" then you most certainly are.

Same for Christians, Muslims, and everyone else.

Just because I don't like the teachings of John Calvin doesn't mean he wasn't technically "a Christian".

Just because a lot of Muslims think Osama Bin Laden isn't too good for their public image doesn't mean Osama isn't technically "a Muslim".

Stalin, in most history books, is described as "a Communist leader". Among other things.

*Bribes guards, and is let in again*
Well, China is a country getting well by communism.

In the light of recent whisperings about what Bush may or may not have said about divine inspiration, I'd like to propose that overly-religous people be excluded from all powerful positions of public office as a matter of policy.

The single reason?

No matter how intelligent or talented they may be (here's hoping!);
there will always remain a question mark over their skills of judgement and their ability to make sufficient reasonable sense of the world around them.


I don't think people like this should be given decision-making powers over any important matters of military, environment, economy, state, etc

What do you all think? C'mon let's make this a good'un!

You already have this, it's called voting power. You don't want 'em; don't vote for 'em.

Then it would appear that Communism only arises when the situation is so f-ing bad that nothing else short of killing everyone and starting over will do (a la Pol Pot).

I think you could apply that to any totalitarian dictatorship without limiting it to the "Marxist" ones.

To prevent a Communist revolution, then, you don't have to make your nation and government a paradise. You just have to keep it from sucking so damn bad.

So it would seem. It all died down after the welfare state came in.

Didn't communism stop being "cool" about 10 years ago? I thought the current generation of young pseudo-intellectual wannabee radicals was more enamored of ecosocialism.

But then, I could be wrong. I haven't spent much time on college campuses lately.

:p

Heh. It's not about being "cool". Most (ugh, i'm generalising, but i'm afraid it's pretty much true) people my age are too apathetic to even know what Communism is.

*Bribes guards, and is let in again*
Well, China is a country getting well by communism.

If you knew anything about China, you would realize that it's hardly Communist anymore.

*Bribes guards, and is let in again*
Well, China is a country getting well by communism.
Yes, Chinese communism works great because they allow private owned businesses. Chinese communism is just strictly regulated capitalism.

If you knew anything about China, you would realize that it's hardly Communist anymore.
Ooops.
I meant North Korea.
(Its easy to confuse the two)

Ooops.
I meant North Korea.
(Its easy to confuse the two)
If starving several million of your own people to death is "doing well" then I suppose North Korea is "doing well".

Oh come on, theyve got a good military.
What else could you possible need ?
Theyre doing fine anyway...

Didn't communism stop being "cool" about 10 years ago? I thought the current generation of young pseudo-intellectual wannabee radicals was more enamored of ecosocialism.

But then, I could be wrong. I haven't spent much time on college campuses lately.

:p
I daresay it was probably never all that cool, really. At least not in my area.....but yeah, the campuses are all abuzz with the ideals of a socialist hippie utopia.

I thought of something while putting away my groceries, back to the original point. If we outlawed religious fanatics from office, to be fair we'd have to outlaw all sorts of OTHER fanatics from office. Misogynists, feminists, militant lesbians (you know the type I'm talking about, definitely NOT one of the chill laid-back lesbians), extreme liberals, extreme conservatives, homophobes, isolationists, expansionists.....the whole deal. You know what we'd end up with. An autonomous collective of non-thinking political lemmings voting whatever way the majority seems to be voting on ANY issue whatsoever.

So, y'know....kinda like the NationStates UN voting system....

Oh come on, theyve got a good military.
What else could you possible need ?
Theyre doing fine anyway...

Their military is largely a tightly packed, neatly ordered assembly of 1950s technology that in today's world only makes excellent targets for target practice.

Oh come on, theyve got a good military.
What else could you possible need ?
Theyre doing fine anyway...
You really don't deal well with rejection, do you?

There's more to a great nation than just a good military.

Their military is largely a tightly packed, neatly ordered assembly of 1950s technology that in today's world only makes excellent targets for target practice.
*Snigger*
Erm...Im going to miss my...um...flight, so im...um...
*Runs*

*Snigger*
Erm...Im going to miss my...um...flight, so im...um...
*Runs*
You really don't deal well with rejection, do you?
Proven :eek:

Their military is largely a tightly packed, neatly ordered assembly of 1950s technology that in today's world only makes excellent targets for target practice.

Ehhh, not all of it. Their elite units are a bit better equipped and could pose a threat.

Wow, we're off topic :p

Ehhh, not all of it. Their elite units are a bit better equipped and could pose a threat.

Wow, we're off topic :p

*screeeeeeeeeeech*

Ehhh, not all of it. Their elite units are a bit better equipped and could pose a threat.

Wow, we're off topic :p
Yeah, I tried to bring it back around at like, post 59, but......I think we were too busy railing on OutpostCommand (you totally asked for it).

On another note: I thought of another group that, in fairness, shouldn't be allowed to hold office: post-whoring prats who AIM to threadjack, then blatantly admit it.

Simonist']Yeah, I tried to bring it back around at like, post 59, but......I think we were too busy railing on Communism.
Sniggers to himself while on shuttle to outer space.
Mission acomplished.

Hehe. So, uh...to bring it back on-topic...

What about fundamentalists that seek to abolish the democratic process? Should they be barred from public office? (It's a serious issue in some middle-eastern nations especially)

Hehe. So, uh...to bring it back on-topic...

What about fundamentalists that seek to abolish the democratic process? Should they be barred from public office? (It's a serious issue in some middle-eastern nations especially)

I believe that in any form of elected government, you get the government the people deserve.

So, if they vote for some idiot who wants to become dictator, then they deserve what happens to them.

Probably why complete loonies aren't elected to office - or people with very extreme plans. Most people don't like severe change unless they view it as necessary.

In the light of recent whisperings about what Bush may or may not have said about divine inspiration, I'd like to propose that overly-religous people be excluded from all powerful positions of public office as a matter of policy.

The single reason?

No matter how intelligent or talented they may be (here's hoping!);
there will always remain a question mark over their skills of judgement and their ability to make sufficient reasonable sense of the world around them.


I don't think people like this should be given decision-making powers over any important matters of military, environment, economy, state, etc

What do you all think? C'mon let's make this a good'un!

I think the first and fourteenth amendments disagree with this idea. The establishment clause of the first amendment pretty much rules this out -- by disallowing religious individuals, you're promoting nonreligion (using the Lemon test shows that it would definitely advance or inhibit a religion).

It would also violate Equal Protection under the 14th Amendment - religion is a suspect class (See US v. Carolene Products, J. Stone's footnote 4) and therefore strict scrutiny of this law would be applied....so it would be quashed immediatly.

I believe that in any form of elected government, you get the government the people deserve.

So, if they vote for some idiot who wants to become dictator, then they deserve what happens to them.

Probably why complete loonies aren't elected to office - or people with very extreme plans. Most people don't like severe change unless they view it as necessary.
Much as it hurts me, I agree in a way. Not so much that the people always get what they deserve, but look at it this way: if we only had the people who were actually informed and cared voting, the government would be a more true representation of what they thought was important and how they wanted it run (ideally speaking, that is). Instead, you get these people who play games in the voting booth like "Oooh, that guy has nicer hair" or "I like his name better" or "I don't even know who these people are or what office this is, but I sure as hell don't want a/an (insert racial or religious prejudice here) in office". I mean, Jesus, my friend Adam did a write-in of a bunch of comic book characters for a majority of the ballot in the 2004 election.

It seems to me that, if only the people to whom it really mattered would vote, things wouldn't be as crappy as they frequently are. And THAT, Mr. P.Diddy, is why the Vote or Die campaign has some SERIOUS flaws.
[/soapbox]

I believe that in any form of elected government, you get the government the people deserve.

So, if they vote for some idiot who wants to become dictator, then they deserve what happens to them.

Hmm, but what about all those that didn't vote for him? What of the children born after he takes control? Could the rights of an innocent minority justify putting restrictions on who can run for office?

Probably why complete loonies aren't elected to office - or people with very extreme plans. Most people don't like severe change unless they view it as necessary.

Oh, it happens....take Iran...they held a referenda on what model their revolutionary society should take in 1979, and fundamentalism won.

Simonist'] And THAT, Mr. P.Diddy, is why the Vote or Die campaign has some SERIOUS flaws.
Not to mention the fact that Puffy and his crew will personally kill everyone who didn't vote!

Hmm, but what about all those that didn't vote for him? What of the children born after he takes control? Could the rights of an innocent minority justify putting restrictions on who can run for office?

Oh, it happens....take Iran...they held a referenda on what model their revolutionary society should take in 1979, and fundamentalism won.

Natural byproduct of any elective process. Tyranny of the majority.

Natural byproduct of any elective process. Tyranny of the majority.

Yup. Doesn't make it right, though. Then again, is there any way to stop it?

Yup. Doesn't make it right, though. Then again, is there any way to stop it?

I've heard various game theory methods. Not sure if everyone would think they were fair.

I've heard various game theory methods. Not sure if everyone would think they were fair.

Heheh.

Well, I guess democracy is screwed.

In the light of recent whisperings about what Bush may or may not have said about divine inspiration, I'd like to propose that overly-religous people be excluded from all powerful positions of public office as a matter of policy.

The single reason?

No matter how intelligent or talented they may be (here's hoping!);
there will always remain a question mark over their skills of judgement and their ability to make sufficient reasonable sense of the world around them.


I don't think people like this should be given decision-making powers over any important matters of military, environment, economy, state, etc

What do you all think? C'mon let's make this a good'un!

Bigotry at it's finest.

Regards,

JMayo

Bigotry at it's finest.

Regards,

JMayo
Is bigotry ever fine (I know its not what you meant) wither it be this tripe or banning homosexual marriages

To me its all repugnant

Heheh.

Well, I guess democracy is screwed.

Democracy was screwed from its inception. The same is true for just about anything humans get involved in, though, so it's nothing new.

Is bigotry ever fine (I know not what you meant) wither it be this tripe or banning homosexual marriages

To me its all repugnant
I'm pretty sure it was pure, unadulterated sarcasm on his part.

Six points for "repugnant", though. And another one because a distant part of me was pleasantly surprised that you think this whole idea is rubbish as well.

Simonist']I'm pretty sure it was pure, unadulterated sarcasm on his part.

Six points for "repugnant", though. And another one because a distant part of me was pleasantly surprised that you think this whole idea is rubbish as well.
I know hence the whole (I know that’s not what you meant) part …

I know hence the whole (I know that’s not what you meant) part …
Actually, if you look at your post, you said "I know not what you meant"

In the light of recent whisperings about what Bush may or may not have said about divine inspiration, I'd like to propose that overly-religous people be excluded from all powerful positions of public office as a matter of policy.

The single reason?

No matter how intelligent or talented they may be (here's hoping!);
there will always remain a question mark over their skills of judgement and their ability to make sufficient reasonable sense of the world around them.


I don't think people like this should be given decision-making powers over any important matters of military, environment, economy, state, etc

What do you all think? C'mon let's make this a good'un!
What do you mean "whisperings"? It was reported on in the news.

I totally disagree that religious people should be excluded from public office. That is an unfair bias against them, and contrary to the principle of representation in government.

Being religious is not a statement of mental health or competence. Fanaticism is, though.

Simonist']Actually, if you look at your post, you said "I know not what you meant"
Lol that’s an AWSOME typo lol

Not going to lie, that is quite possibly the worst public policy idea I have ever heard spewed out yet. The idea denying religious peoples from being in public office opens a giant can of worms so to speak. So that means that nobody on this board can be elected to office, for everyone adheres to some form of religion, whether it is Chrisitianity, Agnosticism, Atheism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Islam, or another religious sect. This idea shows simple contempt for the current administration, which is understandable. However, it also shows a distinct lack of thinking on your part. Honestly, this idea just plain sucks in my professional opinion.
- David Rau
Resident Rabble Rouser, Tyslan

Not going to lie, that is quite possibly the worst public policy idea I have ever heard spewed out yet. The idea denying religious peoples from being in public office opens a giant can of worms so to speak. So that means that nobody on this board can be elected to office, for everyone adheres to some form of religion, whether it is Chrisitianity, Agnosticism, Atheism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Islam, or another religious sect. This idea shows simple contempt for the current administration, which is understandable. However, it also shows a distinct lack of thinking on your part. Honestly, this idea just plain sucks in my professional opinion.
- David Rau
Resident Rabble Rouser, Tyslan
You are confusing “Belief” with “Religion”

Not going to lie, that is quite possibly the worst public policy idea I have ever heard spewed out yet. The idea denying religious peoples from being in public office opens a giant can of worms so to speak. So that means that nobody on this board can be elected to office, for everyone adheres to some form of religion, whether it is Chrisitianity, Agnosticism, Atheism, Buddhism, Sikhism, Hinduism, Islam, or another religious sect. This idea shows simple contempt for the current administration, which is understandable. However, it also shows a distinct lack of thinking on your part. Honestly, this idea just plain sucks in my professional opinion.
- David Rau
Resident Rabble Rouser, Tyslan
Ok, I think it's AWESOME that you referred to it as your professional opinion. Normally, I swear to God I'd be breaking down your post on the same merits that UpwardThrust started to, but geez, that takes balls, dude.

I mean.....ARE you a political analyst?

And DO you have a sister named Laura? (Seriously, do you?)

You don't want Christians in public office? Amend the Constitution.

Good luck! :D

I think this is a damn good idea, but ideally i'd reform all religious people into atheists who dont contradict themselves every time they open their mouth. I may sound harsh, but religious extremeists have left the biggest of stains on our history as humans. Look at the crusades for example, that was just fucked up.

How about Stalin's purges? That was an atheistic crusade, if you will, and it happened a lot more recently!

Actually, I made a grave error in my original proposal.

I think all religious people should be banned from office, not just the zealots.

A person's religion is his or her very private thing. Believe, don't, whatever, who cares?

But if you have a public office, lead your office with the will of the PEOPLE who put you there in mind, not some god's desire. The PEOPLE voted you in, not your god.

I get very, very wary when someone tells him some god said he should do something. That's usually the way lunatics and terrorists argument.

Actually, I made a grave error in my original proposal.

I think all religious people should be banned from office, not just the zealots.

Yes, alot of people have acted to exclude people based upon religion.

Stalin
Hitler
Mussolini
King James I
Queen Mary (Bloody Mary)

Seems you've placed yourself into an ideological position with a lot of well known historical personalities....

You won't be just famous... You'll be infamous!

Actually, I made a grave error in my original proposal.

I think all religious people should be banned from office, not just the zealots.

So, I was right. You really just want to ban people from office if they don't think the way you do. Down that road lies totalitarianism. Excuse me if I don't want to travel that road with you.

:rolleyes:

How about Stalin's purges? That was an atheistic crusade, if you will, and it happened a lot more recently!
No that was an anti religous crusade there is a difference

Actually, I made a grave error in my original proposal.

I think all religious people should be banned from office, not just the zealots.
Ah, bigotry and prejudice at its finest. By all means, let's turn this into a witch hunt of sorts to get those poor religious bastards out of office. God knows (oh, sorry, that's right.....God no longer factors into this) that their religious inclinations are the problems here, not their individual political beliefs.

Thank you, Valdania, you just set your cause back even further.

Are there that many qualified athiests in the U.S.?

Are there that many qualified athiests in the U.S.?
Do you really think Valdania's put that much thought into it? :rolleyes:

Simonist']Do you really think Valdania's put that much thought into it? :rolleyes:

Hmmm... point taken.

Are there that many qualified athiests in the U.S.?

There will be if you disqualify all the religious people.

There will be if you disqualify all the religious people.
"Disqualifying" religious people does not in and of itself automatically "qualify" non-religious folks. It's not like a raffle, dude.

Simonist']"Disqualifying" religious people does not in and of itself automatically "qualify" non-religious folks. It's not like a raffle, dude.

Personally, I don't want an athiest garbage man running my city.

There will be if you disqualify all the religious people.

Most people in the US have at least a limited form of religious belief of one sort or another. A very small percentage characterize themselves as pure atheists.

I doubt that this would be the cream of the crop of American leadership. If that were true, then it would be demonstrably true that the vast majority of US leaders at any level (in public, corporate, or military service) were known atheists. People would universally recognize and associate atheism with stellar leadership.

Too bad for you that they don't.

I think the first and fourteenth amendments disagree with this idea. The establishment clause of the first amendment pretty much rules this out -- by disallowing religious individuals, you're promoting nonreligion (using the Lemon test shows that it would definitely advance or inhibit a religion).

It would also violate Equal Protection under the 14th Amendment - religion is a suspect class (See US v. Carolene Products, J. Stone's footnote 4) and therefore strict scrutiny of this law would be applied....so it would be quashed immediatly.
Wait a minute...Did you just cite precedent? In a NS forum? Who do you think you are?

Anyway, I agree completely. Disqualifying someone based on religious belief would be no different than disqualifying someone who chose to wear black. Or live in New Hampshire. Or drive a Toyota. Or play NS.

My point was: If you make a law saying that religious people were not allowed to hold office, then you'll suddenly get a whole lot of new atheists. Or, at least, professed atheists.

Politicians will change their spots.

And how are you going to determine who, exactly, is religious? If I hadn't posted in the "what belief do you have" thread, how would you determine whether I was fit to hold elected office or not?

My point was: If you make a law saying that religious people were not allowed to hold office, then you'll suddenly get a whole lot of new atheists. Or, at least, professed atheists.

Politicians will change their spots.

And how are you going to determine who, exactly, is religious? If I hadn't posted in the "what belief do you have" thread, how would you determine whether I was fit to hold elected office or not?
Whether or not that law would pass (which it wouldn't, considering how many religious are already in office, so as long as we all recognize how absolutely retarded it is to even hope for that....), there's more to political fitness than atheism. Furthermore, you'd have the religious backrounds of the PEOPLE who, in all hopes, would either revolt or just leave.

America wouldn't be nearly as strong with the work force and population as a whole severely cut, now would it? Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that it would ONLY make a mark on politics, or that it would indeed be a positive shift.

Simonist']Whether or not that law would pass (which it wouldn't, considering how many religious are already in office, so as long as we all recognize how absolutely retarded it is to even hope for that....), there's more to political fitness than atheism. Furthermore, you'd have the religious backrounds of the PEOPLE who, in all hopes, would either revolt or just leave.

America wouldn't be nearly as strong with the work force and population as a whole severely cut, now would it? Let's not fool ourselves into thinking that it would ONLY make a mark on politics, or that it would indeed be a positive shift.

Even if some (forgive the term) miracle caused the law to pass... Would it really stand up to scrutiny...

Especially given the last clase of Article VI "...but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

The Guy would need to do alot more than attempt to get a Bill (that automatically is unconstitutional) accross the legislature.... He would need to get three-quarters of the State legislatures to ammend this out of the Constitution....

The chance of this person actually getting anywhere, is slightly lower than a snow-balls chance in hell....

It's primarily because of Religious Intollerance of similtude to this persons, why such a clause was added in the first place.... If it weren't for his differing religious convictions; he'd get along right well with the old Puritanical Judges of Salem, Massachusetts.

This persons secularism has itself reached a level of similtude to a form of religious fundamentalism.

Unless these people amended the constitution.

Unless these people amended the constitution.

That would require that they have the support of either 2/3-rds of Congress, or 34 states to even propose such a measure... And then would require 3/4-ths (38) states to ratify so as to bring into effect.... And this just to create an enviroment where imposition of such a test could be applied.

He can't even get 2% of Jolt Forum Atheists to agree with him... So, it's a pointless idea in the first place (let alone trying to get a VERY significant portion of the US population to do so, where it would even get consideration)...

Not to mention it fails the Paine test (illustrated in my sig)... That is, it could back-fire on himself, by creating a precedent whereby HE could be excluded...

I think this is a damn good idea, but ideally i'd reform all religious people into atheists who dont contradict themselves every time they open their mouth. I may sound harsh, but religious extremeists have left the biggest of stains on our history as humans. Look at the crusades for example, that was just fucked up.
And what about the stains on human history left by douchebags who happened to be atheist, or are you willing to turn a blind eye towards Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot?

And what about the stains on human history left by douchebags who happened to be atheist, or are you willing to turn a blind eye towards Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot?

It would be a better idea to prohibit douchebags and assholes from entering politics, but it seems to attract them.

It would be a better idea to prohibit douchebags and assholes from entering politics, but it seems to attract them.
I say we just build politibots for every major debate, each programmed with one side's beliefs, and pit them all against each other gladiator-style. Whichever dies LAST, that side should win.

Wait, ooh.....national debt......nevermind.

Simonist']I say we just build politibots for every major debate, each programmed with one side's beliefs, and pit them all against each other gladiator-style. Whichever dies LAST, that side should win.

Wait, ooh.....national debt......nevermind.

Actually... I have an idea!

Since such a normal operation as that would cause an increase in debt. We combine the idea, merging BattleBots and Junkyard wars...

We will form teams, and built the bots out of junk-material (all covered on T.V. with the normal advertisement support)... And in the end, the bots with politically duke it out, on national T.V. for the winner....

Heck, we may even curb some profitt whereby some of the overal debt could be releaved! It could be the newest reality-TV show... And we could even sell rights to all the major educational stations in the process!.... It's brilliant!

Actually... I have an idea!

Since such a normal operation as that would cause an increase in debt. We combine the idea, merging BattleBots and Junkyard wars...

We will form teams, and built the bots out of junk-material (all covered on T.V. with the normal advertisement support)... And in the end, the bots with politically duke it out, on national T.V. for the winner....

Heck, we may even curb some profitt whereby some of the overal debt could be releaved! It could be the newest reality-TV show... And we could even sell rights to all the major educational stations in the process!.... It's brilliant!
Splendid. Let's draw up a contract and do the go-sees. Washington or TV first? Maybe we could even get it on C-SPAN.....