Languish.org

By High Office I mean presidents, prime minister and cabinet post of high rank, with the emphasis on those who have access to policy tools that could seriously set back human progress, think nukes etc.

No.

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

Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 02:43:41 PM
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.

Quote from: mongers on November 07, 2012, 02:48:33 PM

Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 02:43:41 PM
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.

I refer you to the many religion bashing thread I have partaken in her on languish.

I'm a bit curious what the *special* Jaron option is.  :hmm:

Quote from: Peter Wiggin on November 07, 2012, 02:56:51 PM
I'm a bit curious what the *special* Jaron option is.  :hmm:

It's the "There is no God but God and Jaron is his Prophet" option.

I voted no but I really meant to vote yes if I had complete unfettered discretion as to who should be banned - ie having just one vote doesnt seem enough sometimes.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 07, 2012, 03:05:32 PM
I voted no but I really meant to vote yes if I had complete unfettered discretion as to who should be banned - ie having just one vote doesnt seem enough sometimes.

Soo.. ban all members of eschatological religions other than my own?

Religion shouldn't matter so long as the person is white and monolingually English.

Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 03:10:32 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 07, 2012, 03:05:32 PM
I voted no but I really meant to vote yes if I had complete unfettered discretion as to who should be banned - ie having just one vote doesnt seem enough sometimes.

Soo.. ban all members of eschatological religions other than my own?

You dont pay much attention do you?  I dont have one.  But I do defend those who do from some of your rants.

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

Is there a religion that doesn't have Eschatological Views? :unsure:

I voted no, because I don't believe in limiting for the sake of limiting. Individuals, not groups, are what's important to me. Being a member of a religion or group doesn't necessarily follow that that person is insane about how they follow the edicts of said group or religion.

Quote from: celedhring on November 07, 2012, 04:23:01 PM
No, but I'd never want one in office.

Most of modern history has had said individuals in charge.

Quote from: garbon on November 07, 2012, 04:28:48 PM

Quote from: celedhring on November 07, 2012, 04:23:01 PM
No, but I'd never want one in office.

Most of modern history has had said individuals in charge.

Most of modern history hasn't been too great.

Most people haven't.

Quote from: mongers on November 07, 2012, 02:48:33 PM

Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 02:43:41 PM
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.

Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 02:43:41 PM
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?

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 07, 2012, 05:44:58 PM

Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 02:43:41 PM
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 ?

Quote from: garbon on November 07, 2012, 04:28:48 PM

Quote from: celedhring on November 07, 2012, 04:23:01 PM
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.

Quote from: celedhringMost of modern history hasn't been too great.

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

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 07, 2012, 05:44:58 PM

Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 02:43:41 PM
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.

Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 06:49:27 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 07, 2012, 05:44:58 PM

Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 02:43:41 PM
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.

Quote from: dps on November 07, 2012, 06:52:37 PM

Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 06:49:27 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 07, 2012, 05:44:58 PM

Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 02:43:41 PM
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.

Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 06:59:54 PM
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!

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.

Quote from: Solmyr on November 07, 2012, 07:09:13 PM
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).

Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 06:59:54 PM

Quote from: dps on November 07, 2012, 06:52:37 PM

Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 06:49:27 PM

Quote from: The Minsky Moment on November 07, 2012, 05:44:58 PM

Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 02:43:41 PM
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.

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. 

Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 06:59:54 PM
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.

Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 07:16:21 PM

Quote from: Solmyr on November 07, 2012, 07:09:13 PM
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.

Quote

Quote from: celedhringMost 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.

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 07, 2012, 07:32:06 PM

Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 06:59:54 PM
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.

Quote from: mongers on November 07, 2012, 07:17:21 PM
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.

Quote from: dps on November 07, 2012, 06:39:49 PM
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.

QuoteIt'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.

QuoteI 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.'

Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 07:40:14 PM

Quote from: crazy canuck on November 07, 2012, 07:32:06 PM

Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 06:59:54 PM
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).

Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 06:59:54 PM


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.

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 07, 2012, 07:48:27 PM

Quote from: dps on November 07, 2012, 06:39:49 PM
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.

Quote from: dps on November 07, 2012, 07:32:16 PM

Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 07:16:21 PM

Quote from: Solmyr on November 07, 2012, 07:09:13 PM
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?

Quote from: dps on November 07, 2012, 07:45:41 PM

Quote from: mongers on November 07, 2012, 07:17:21 PM
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.

Quote from: Grallon on November 07, 2012, 07:54:30 PM

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.

QuoteAnd 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.

QuoteThat 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".

Quote from: dps on November 07, 2012, 07:58:50 PM

Quote from: Sheilbh on November 07, 2012, 07:48:27 PM

Quote from: dps on November 07, 2012, 06:39:49 PM
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. 

Quote from: dps on November 07, 2012, 07:58:50 PM
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.

Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 08:07:59 PM

Quote from: dps on November 07, 2012, 07:45:41 PM

Quote from: mongers on November 07, 2012, 07:17:21 PM
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.

Quote from: dps on November 07, 2012, 08:15:21 PM

Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 08:07:59 PM

Quote from: dps on November 07, 2012, 07:45:41 PM

Quote from: mongers on November 07, 2012, 07:17:21 PM
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".

Quote from: dps on November 07, 2012, 08:10:36 PM
...

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.

Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 08:21:47 PM

Quote from: dps on November 07, 2012, 08:15:21 PM

Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 08:07:59 PM

Quote from: dps on November 07, 2012, 07:45:41 PM

Quote from: mongers on November 07, 2012, 07:17:21 PM
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.

Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 08:06:43 PM

Quote from: dps on November 07, 2012, 07:32:16 PM

Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 07:16:21 PM

Quote from: Solmyr on November 07, 2012, 07:09:13 PM
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.

Quote from: Razgovory on November 07, 2012, 08:52:06 PM

Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 08:06:43 PM

Quote from: dps on November 07, 2012, 07:32:16 PM

Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 07:16:21 PM

Quote from: Solmyr on November 07, 2012, 07:09:13 PM
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.

Quote from: Razgovory on November 07, 2012, 08:52:06 PM

Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 08:06:43 PM

Quote from: dps on November 07, 2012, 07:32:16 PM

Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 07:16:21 PM

Quote from: Solmyr on November 07, 2012, 07:09:13 PM
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

QuoteSection 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. 

Quote from: Viking on November 07, 2012, 09:56:02 PM

Quote from: Razgovory on November 07, 2012, 08:52:06 PM

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

QuoteSection 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:

QuoteHow 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.

Quote from: dps on November 07, 2012, 10:06:46 PM
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.

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?

Quote from: Razgovory on November 07, 2012, 10:52:40 PM
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?

Nope, talking to the zealot.