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

[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.

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".

Point A, mongers' thread title and OP don't refer to banning people who think certain things, but to banning people who belong to certain groups, so the thread discussion isn't "how we should treat people who think X" in the first place. 

Point B, I was responding to a specific point that he doesn't know any Christians who believe that we are living in the end times, so go fuck yourself.

This does raise a question, though.  Mongers, are you equating "those from eschatological religions or groups" with "people who believe we are living in the end times"?  Because they are in no way the same people.  As Meri implied, almost all religions have eschatological views (the only exceptions I can think of offhand are some Eastern beliefs that some would say aren't actually religions, but then again, I'm no expert on those beliefs and maybe they do have eschatological views that I don't know about), but it doesn't follow at all that just because you hold to a faith that has views about the end of all things that you also believe that the end is nigh.

[Razgovory]

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?

And there have been countries where having a religious belief would disqualify you for office, what of it?  Could you list the nations where you can't hold office if you have a history of mental illness?  Just so we know.

[mongers]

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?

And there have been countries where having a religious belief would disqualify you for office, what of it?  Could you list the nations where you can't hold office if you have a history of mental illness?  Just so we know.

I think there's a big distinction between someone who's had a history of mental illness and someone believing the world/humanity is approaching it's end and might act, it they had access to modern technology, to try and promote/bring it on. 

Specially the person whose suffered with mental health in the past, might be assessed to see if they're now 'healthy', whereas someone truly believing in end times can appear and indeed be sane, but just wedded to an ideology or thought patterns that encourage them to seek and gain political power to further this future vision.

[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?

And there have been countries where having a religious belief would disqualify you for office, what of it?  Could you list the nations where you can't hold office if you have a history of mental illness?  Just so we know.

That's not what I claimed. Amendment 25 Section 4 of the US constitution

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

The US, your own country, allows the disqualification of a SITTING president even if he/she is not mentally sound.

You know I didn't say that. You know I didn't mean that. You intentionally misrepresented what I said to try and make a point. Virtually every western democracy requires candidates for office to be mentally sound. The US does so as well. Going to the point I made, if you think that allowing the religious crazy people to run for office why one shouldn't allow clinically crazy people as well.

The Suez crisis of 1956 almost certainly happened because Anthony Eden was suffering from paranoid delusions brought on by his benzadrine habit. The list of wars started by religious crazies is much longer. 

[dps]

And there have been countries where having a religious belief would disqualify you for office, what of it?  Could you list the nations where you can't hold office if you have a history of mental illness?  Just so we know.

That's not what I claimed. Amendment 25 Section 4 of the US constitution

Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

The US, your own country, allows the disqualification of a SITTING president even if he/she is not mentally sound.

You know I didn't say that. You know I didn't mean that. You intentionally misrepresented what I said to try and make a point. Virtually every western democracy requires candidates for office to be mentally sound. The US does so as well. Going to the point I made, if you think that allowing the religious crazy people to run for office why one shouldn't allow clinically crazy people as well.

I know exactly what you posted:

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).

And we don't ban any of those from running for President, so you're wrong about that.

As for the 25th Amendment, it was passed in the wake of President Eisenhower having suffered a heart attack while in office, and there were concerns about how the country would be governed if he had lapsed into a coma.  The 25th was passed so that if in the future a President became incapitated like that, the Vice President would have a clear legal basis for assuming the duties of the President.  Mental health issues really have nothing to do with it.

[CountDeMoney]

As for the 25th Amendment, it was passed in the wake of President Eisenhower having suffered a heart attack while in office, and there were concerns about how the country would be governed if he had lapsed into a coma.  The 25th was passed so that if in the future a President became incapitated like that, the Vice President would have a clear legal basis for assuming the duties of the President.  Mental health issues really have nothing to do with it.

Yeah, it simply constitutionally codified secession without having to deal with various presidential secession acts.

[Razgovory]

Yeah, Dps covered that.  Try again.  From where I am standing it appears you want people who hold certain beliefs to be labeled mentally ill and then have their civil rights taken away because of this.  Am I incorrect in this assessment?

[CountDeMoney]

Yeah, Dps covered that.  Try again.  From where I am standing it appears you want people who hold certain beliefs to be labeled mentally ill and then have their civil rights taken away because of this.  Am I incorrect in this assessment?

You talking to me, Rain Man?

[Razgovory]

Nope, talking to the zealot.