Should Those From Eschatological Religions or Groups Be Banned From High Office?

[celedhring]

Most of modern history hasn't been too great.

It's generally been a whole heck of a lot better than medieval or ancient history.

And one of the reasons (just one, mind) is that religion has progressively played a lesser role in public life and the relations between nations. Chiefs of Government may still be religious persons, but at least we don't have civil wars revolving around whether or not it is allowed to build icons of saints.

I'm not going to play the anti-religious zealot (pun),  but on my own personal level I prefer to support politicians who won't use "faith" to guide their decisions. Other qualities, of course, will also apply. To be frank I don't even know the religious beliefs of most of the people I have voted, which on itself is a good thing.

[Viking]

No. Those who don't use religion to claim personal integrity or theology to justify policy are quite numerous.

I cant think of a single politican, other than athiests, would would not claim that their personal integrity is not in some way bound up in their religious belief.  Indeed they would say it was integral part of it.

Well, that is part of the problem then. Given the continual flow of religious charlatans who are found to be criminals or scoundrels in the US where this is case; including politicans.

[dps]

Just to be clear I'm talking about genuinely held views of an eschatological character.

Most born again Christians, including ones I have know, would get a pass as whilst they subscribe to a particular interpretation of the bible, I haven't met any that genuinely believe we are living in the end times, they get on with their lives and aren't actively planning for rapture etc.

I don't know if it's a majority or not, but a lot of Christians I know (including a lot who wouldn't describe themselves as fundamentalist and/or born-again) do think we're living in the end times.   I tend to think that those who do don't know the Bible as well as they think.

[Sheilbh]

There's never been a US President (or, AFAIK, a British PM) who wasn't at least nominally a member of such a religion.

I think Clem Attlee was openly agnostic.  His view on Christianity was 'I like the ethics, but not the mumbo jumbo' and said he was 'incapable of religious feeling'.  I think Jim Callaghan was openly atheist.

It's generally been a whole heck of a lot better than medieval or ancient history.

I'm not so sure.  I think the story's much the same and the devastation of genocide and industrial murder makes the bad worse.

I cant think of a single politican, other than athiests, would would not claim that their personal integrity is not in some way bound up in their religious belief.  Indeed they would say it was integral part of it.

This may be a cultural difference but over here it's, if anything been the opposite.  In some cases that's probably because they were nominally Anglican and the Church of England is a very thin reed on which to place your personal integrity.  Most others were only nominally religious but not CofE - I don't think Wilson was a great believer - and our most religious PM (Blair) for most of the time didn't discuss his religion.  As Alastair Campbell, his press secretary, put it 'we don't do God'.

Currently Cameron describes himself as Church of England, but says his faith's like Boris Johnson's, 'as Boris once said, his religious faith is a bit like the reception for Magic FM in the Chilterns: it sort of comes and goes.'

[dps]

No. Those who don't use religion to claim personal integrity or theology to justify policy are quite numerous.

I cant think of a single politican, other than athiests, would would not claim that their personal integrity is not in some way bound up in their religious belief.  Indeed they would say it was integral part of it.

Well, that is part of the problem then. Given the continual flow of religious charlatans who are found to be criminals or scoundrels in the US where this is case; including politicans.

I don't see how that has anything directly to do with professing a religion, though.  An honest and religious person is going to modestly and sincerely claim to be honest and religious, and a scoundrel is going to emulate that.  Taking the religion out of it doesn't change the equation;  political candidates are hardly going to start brag publicly about cheating retirees out of their life savings and raping underage girls (and boys).

[Grallon]

No. Those who don't use religion to claim personal integrity or theology to justify policy are quite numerous.

To be fair, faith can elevate certain individuals by promoting desirable behaviors.  A devout <insert creed> can genuinely become better by following the tenets of his/her creed.  But those individuals are few are far between.  They are the exception to the proverbial rule.  Most humans simply use their favored religion as a justification/rationalization for their least desirable traits - but that is human nature.  And so the safest course of action is to clearly define - and enforce - a separation between Church and State - without actually banning any specific theology from public office.

That is why most Muslims are irrational scum - since there's no place in Islam for this essential distinction.

How much better this world would be without the ingrained irrationality of human nature!




G.

[dps]

There's never been a US President (or, AFAIK, a British PM) who wasn't at least nominally a member of such a religion.

I think Clem Attlee was openly agnostic.  His view on Christianity was 'I like the ethics, but not the mumbo jumbo' and said he was 'incapable of religious feeling'.  I think Jim Callaghan was openly atheist.

Callaghan didn't tell a reporter that he was an atheist until after he was no longer PM and party leader. 

Didn't know Atlee was an agnostic.

At any rate, it's clear that British politicians are much less public about their religious views than US politicians.

[Viking]

Everyone should be perfectly free to tout their religion, or atheism, or Cthulhu, in their political campaigning. It's the same as touting everything else, and shouldn't be a particular reason for banning anything.

How can you justify that in a society which bans prisoners and convicted felons and people with certain diagnoses from running for office? (I am referring to multiple countries with various bans, so don't go on the "we don't ban that here" red herring).

BTW, as far as federal offices go, "we don't ban that here" isn't a red herring in the US.  Here's the legal requirements to hold the office of President: 

It's a red herring because the issue I was raising was asking why, when many countries quite legitimately ban traintors, felons, criminals and clinically insane from running for office, shouldn't that country ban people advocating insane religion. Why does one disqualify and why does the other not.

It is cultural that religious insanity gets a pass from the psychiatric profession and it is a Niemöllerian fear of the ban on crazy religions moving on the less crazy ones that keeps the freedom of religion so absolute.

Why is it if you hear Jesus speaking in your head you can be a politician while if you hear anybody else you are bipolar?

[Viking]

Just to be clear I'm talking about genuinely held views of an eschatological character.

Most born again Christians, including ones I have know, would get a pass as whilst they subscribe to a particular interpretation of the bible, I haven't met any that genuinely believe we are living in the end times, they get on with their lives and aren't actively planning for rapture etc.

I don't know if it's a majority or not, but a lot of Christians I know (including a lot who wouldn't describe themselves as fundamentalist and/or born-again) do think we're living in the end times.   I tend to think that those who do don't know the Bible as well as they think.

This is the other red herring. We are talking about the fundamentalists who believe in the end times. I refer you to monger's clarification.

[dps]

Most humans simply use their favored religion as a justification/rationalization for their least desirable traits - but that is human nature. 

I am forced to sadly agree with G. on this.

And so the safest course of action is to clearly define - and enforce - a separation between Church and State - without actually banning any specific theology from public office.

I also agree with this, though I think it's fairly likely that Grallon and I would not agree on exactly where that separation should be drawn, or on how it should be enforced.

That is why most Muslims are irrational scum - since there's no place in Islam for this essential distinction.

This, though, I have a bit of a problem with.  I don't have a problem with saying that most Muslims are irrational, but I would say the same about most Christians, most Jews, most Hindus, most atheists, etc.  I do agree that Islam has special difficulties with the idea of separation of church and state, but I'm not sure that they are as insurmountable as sometimes portrayed, and I don't care for the characterization of Muslims, as a group, as "scum".

[Viking]

There's never been a US President (or, AFAIK, a British PM) who wasn't at least nominally a member of such a religion.

I think Clem Attlee was openly agnostic.  His view on Christianity was 'I like the ethics, but not the mumbo jumbo' and said he was 'incapable of religious feeling'.  I think Jim Callaghan was openly atheist.

Callaghan didn't tell a reporter that he was an atheist until after he was no longer PM and party leader. 

Didn't know Atlee was an agnostic.

At any rate, it's clear that British politicians are much less public about their religious views than US politicians.

This applies to all non-US western nations. Professing religiosity is usually a bad thing, electorally speaking. It is only done by politicians targeting niche electorates or poles. 

[Sheilbh]

Callaghan didn't tell a reporter that he was an atheist until after he was no longer PM and party leader. 

I didn't know that.  But he never, to my knowledge, pretended to be even nominally religious.  In fact I think Callaghan was generally a very honest and open politician.  His lack of belief was probably why he reformed Church appointments (previously a power of the PM in the name of the Sovereign) so that the CofE basically appointed their own Bishops and (to an extent Archbishops) and the PM (in the name of the Sovereign) just approves them.

[dps]

Just to be clear I'm talking about genuinely held views of an eschatological character.

Most born again Christians, including ones I have know, would get a pass as whilst they subscribe to a particular interpretation of the bible, I haven't met any that genuinely believe we are living in the end times, they get on with their lives and aren't actively planning for rapture etc.

I don't know if it's a majority or not, but a lot of Christians I know (including a lot who wouldn't describe themselves as fundamentalist and/or born-again) do think we're living in the end times.   I tend to think that those who do don't know the Bible as well as they think.

This is the other red herring. We are talking about the fundamentalists who believe in the end times. I refer you to monger's clarification.

??? What's a red herring here?  Mongers says that he doesn't know any Christians who genuinely believe that we are living in the end times.  I responded that I do know Christians who genuinely belive that we are living in the end times, including some that would not identify as fundamentalist.  I further stated that I, personally, don't think we are living in the end times, and that those who do are mistaken.  I didn't question their sincerity.

[Viking]

Just to be clear I'm talking about genuinely held views of an eschatological character.

Most born again Christians, including ones I have know, would get a pass as whilst they subscribe to a particular interpretation of the bible, I haven't met any that genuinely believe we are living in the end times, they get on with their lives and aren't actively planning for rapture etc.

I don't know if it's a majority or not, but a lot of Christians I know (including a lot who wouldn't describe themselves as fundamentalist and/or born-again) do think we're living in the end times.   I tend to think that those who do don't know the Bible as well as they think.

This is the other red herring. We are talking about the fundamentalists who believe in the end times. I refer you to monger's clarification.

??? What's a red herring here?  Mongers says that he doesn't know any Christians who genuinely believe that we are living in the end times.  I responded that I do know Christians who genuinely belive that we are living in the end times, including some that would not identify as fundamentalist.  I further stated that I, personally, don't think we are living in the end times, and that those who do are mistaken.  I didn't question their sincerity.

It is a red herring simply because the argument "not all Christians think X" means nothing when we are discussing "how should we treat people who think X".

[Grallon]

...

I do agree that Islam has special difficulties with the idea of separation of church and state, but I'm not sure that they are as insurmountable as sometimes portrayed, and I don't care for the characterization of Muslims, as a group, as "scum".

The fact of the matter is that Islam does not allow for any distinction between the Law of Man and the Law of God - they must coincide in the sense that Man's law *must* reflect God's law if it is to be legitimate/valid.  If it isn't then it invites all kinds of punitive actions - including terrorism. 

That sort of mindset simply has no place in the modern world.




G.