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

[garbon]

Most people haven't.

[Razgovory]

Yes because they are either crazy or lying; but then again you already knew I was going to say that.

Please expand on your view; I'm genuinely interested.

He's a bigot with an authoritarian steak.

[The Minsky Moment]

Yes because they are either crazy or lying; but then again you already knew I was going to say that.

So you propose to ban from office any politician who is crazy or lies?
Who exactly would that leave?

[mongers]

Yes because they are either crazy or lying; but then again you already knew I was going to say that.

So you propose to ban from office any politician who is crazy or lies?
Who exactly would that leave?

The gullible or clinically stupid ?

[dps]

No, but I'd never want one in office.

Most of modern history has had said individuals in charge.

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

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.

[Viking]

Yes because they are either crazy or lying; but then again you already knew I was going to say that.

So you propose to ban from office any politician who is crazy or lies?
Who exactly would that leave?

Those who don't tout their religion in political campaigns and use it to justify their policy.

[dps]

Yes because they are either crazy or lying; but then again you already knew I was going to say that.

So you propose to ban from office any politician who is crazy or lies?
Who exactly would that leave?

Those who don't tout their religion in political campaigns and use it to justify their policy.

Which pretty much means everybody would be banned except those that think exactly like you.  Which is of course your goal, and the exact opposite of real freedom and democracy.

[Viking]

Yes because they are either crazy or lying; but then again you already knew I was going to say that.

So you propose to ban from office any politician who is crazy or lies?
Who exactly would that leave?

Those who don't tout their religion in political campaigns and use it to justify their policy.

Which pretty much means everybody would be banned except those that think exactly like you.  Which is of course your goal, and the exact opposite of real freedom and democracy.

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

[citizen k]

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

I AM LEGION !!!ONEONEONE

Ho Ho Ho!

[Solmyr]

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.

[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).

[dps]

Yes because they are either crazy or lying; but then again you already knew I was going to say that.

So you propose to ban from office any politician who is crazy or lies?
Who exactly would that leave?

Those who don't tout their religion in political campaigns and use it to justify their policy.

Which pretty much means everybody would be banned except those that think exactly like you.  Which is of course your goal, and the exact opposite of real freedom and democracy.

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

Not in the US.  Heck, even the very few avowed atheists in politics tout their atheism.

[mongers]

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

Ahmadinejad would be a good example, some one who apparently subscribes to the 'hidden/last prophet' tendancy of Shia Islam, but hasn't as yet access to nuclear weapons.

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.

However, my 'my world' I'd certainly ban Jehovah witnesses, as they do genuinely believe we are at the end of history and so wouldn't trust one with access to nukes, large armies etc. 

[crazy canuck]

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.

[dps]

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).

I think that the reasoning for banning convicted felons would be self-evident, even if you don't agree with it.  I'm not aware of laws banning people with "certain diagnoses" from office, so I can't comment on that.

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: 

"No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States."

The 12th amendment imposes the same requirements on the Vice President (I think that it had been assumed before then that the VP had to meet the same requirements, but the amendment formalized it) and the 21st barred anyone from being elected to the Presidency more than twice.

The requirements to be a US Senator:

"No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen."

The requirements to be a member of the US House of Representatives:

"No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen."

That's it.  Age, citizenship, and residency requirements, nothing more (and a lot of people in Congress probably don't really meet the residency requirements, but the courts generally won't touch the issue, and it has proven to be not something that much influences voters).  Nothing legally bans prisoners, felons, or those diagnosed with certain diseases from office.  Of course very few people are likely to vote for a convicted rapist-murderer serving a life sentence to be their Senator, but legally they could do so.

Now, once you get past federal offices, it's hard to say what you'll find.