Should Religious People Be Allowed To Hold Public Office?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by macUser2007, Aug 6, 2010.

?

Should Religious People Be Allowed To Hold Public Office?

  1. Yes

    41 vote(s)
    64.1%
  2. No

    23 vote(s)
    35.9%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. macUser2007 macrumors 65832

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    #1
    Should Religious People Be Allowed To Hold Public Office?

    I ask this, because by definition, truly religious people are delusional. They communicate with voices in their heads. They live in fantastical worlds created by and populated with imaginary beings, and abide by moral and social codes defined by such delusions.

    Most importantly, in situations where there are contradictions between reality and public (secular) interests, and private religious delusions, a truly religious person's will chose to follow such delusions.

    (For a real life example, remember former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore, who stated that regardless of what the US Supreme Court decided, he (Roy Moore) answered to a "higher authority").
     
  2. kavika411 macrumors 6502a

    kavika411

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2006
    Location:
    Alabama
    #2
    I guess my browser is broken, because I can't find a cite/link that says "truly religious people are delusional." I'm using the latest build of Safari. What are you using? I'll try on Chrome next, then maybe Firefox. (I think the new tabbing system on Firefox is highly overrated.)
     
  3. macUser2007 thread starter macrumors 65832

    Joined:
    May 30, 2007
    #3
    It's not your browser, it's just that you may have missed the following sentence, which explains my reasoning: "...They communicate with voices in their heads. They live in fantastical worlds created by and populated with imaginary beings, and abide by moral and social codes defined by such delusions...."

    Basically, if someone believed that the world was created by a mythical Dog, who responds to prayer, and built a giant doghouse where he prayed to a rawhide bone, society would force them to be on medication.

    Why is it different just because someone believes that the world was created by a mythical God?
     
  4. flopticalcube macrumors G4

    flopticalcube

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2006
    Location:
    In the velcro closure of America's Hat
    #4
    As long as the majority of voters believe in the same or similar delusions, I see no problem with it. Its really down to what the voters want, not to a particular persons view of reality.
     
  5. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #5
    I suppose you suggest we appoint a high inquisitor, who is of course impartial and incapable of being coerced in any manner, who judges how fervent a potential candidate's beliefs are in order to determine their impact on his or her ability to faithfully serve the public without bias?

    Of course, the idea that we separate certain types of people as being capable of performing the duties of public office based on personal beliefs that violate no law in any way other than by the measure of public vote is a very progressive stance.
     
  6. northy124 macrumors 68020

    northy124

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2007
    #6
    You seem to be missing a polling option called "Who cares so long as they do their job", personally that is what I think and if they are doing their job then why should we say they cannot? as I am sure if they were to be refused on the basis they are religious then that is discrimation and your violating their rights (I think you are anyway).
     
  7. MattSepeta macrumors 65816

    MattSepeta

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Location:
    375th St. Y
    #7
    Should...

    Should religious people be allowed to study science?

    Oh yeah, we already had this question posted and the consensus seemed to be something along the lines of "What a moronic question."
     
  8. Gelfin macrumors 68020

    Gelfin

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2001
    Location:
    Denver, CO
    #8
    OP, atheist though I may be, this thread seems a bit trollish. Was it necessary?

    As for "hearing voices" and "delusions" and such, you probably know very well that religious people don't believe believe those things in the same way they believe in the world conveyed to them by their senses. In a religious context "believe" means something more like "accept." There are most certainly crazy people who do camouflage their insanity with religion, but the overwhelming majority are doing something more like acting out a cultural script.

    As my grandmother used to say, when you talk to God, that's prayer, but when God talks back, that's crazy.

    As far as Roy Moore, he is a repugnant blight on his state and his former profession, and it is noteworthy that even Alabama will not come close to indulging his recent political aspirations, which seems to me the proper way for situations such as his to resolve themselves. Plenty of people with religious beliefs are also able to conduct themselves appropriately in other contexts.

    Besides which, has it occurred to you that the Constitution's "no religious test" clause cuts both ways?
     
  9. belvdr macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2005
    #9
    I propose the question is changed to:

    "Should people be allowed to hold public office?"

    Because it's just as good as the original.
     
  10. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #10
    I think this question is delusional by definition.:rolleyes:
     
  11. Dagless macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Fighting to stay in the EU
    #11
    What if that delusional part of their personality is what makes them a great leader? I don't care if someone wants to do great things for the country if it's a personal thing, if they're fulfilling a deity's wish or what. So long as they do a good job.
     
  12. Rt&Dzine macrumors 6502a

    Rt&Dzine

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #12
    You can't get elected unless you pretend to be somewhat religious.
     
  13. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #13
    [​IMG]
     
  14. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #14
    I think it should be strictly a matter of DADT.
     
  15. MattSepeta macrumors 65816

    MattSepeta

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Location:
    375th St. Y
    #15
    Agreed.

    I cant stand it when I hear people throw around "God" during their campaign. Its pandering at it's worst.
     
  16. Rt&Dzine macrumors 6502a

    Rt&Dzine

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
    #16
    Aw, not as cute as lolcats.
     
  17. appleguy123 macrumors 603

    appleguy123

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2009
    Location:
    15 minutes in the future
    #17
    This. I can't believe how this is still an issue in 2010. When someone is not an evangelical Christian(no telling what thread do with an atheist) he's slandered to no end by people.
     
  18. Jaro65 macrumors 68040

    Jaro65

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2009
    Location:
    Seattle, WA
    #18
    Hopefully an age of reason will arrive to American electorate in the not too distant future.
     
  19. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #19
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pete_Stark

    edit: As an aside, I find it unfortunate that a third of people have voted no so far. Perhaps they are trying to be funny, but it is really interesting what people's apparent views on separation of church and state as well as discrimination entail.
     
  20. ucfgrad93 macrumors P6

    ucfgrad93

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2007
    Location:
    Colorado
    #20
    Excellent observation. I wonder how many people that voted no, which is discriminatory, rejoiced at the ruling that found Prop 8 unconstitutional.
     
  21. MattSepeta macrumors 65816

    MattSepeta

    Joined:
    Jul 9, 2009
    Location:
    375th St. Y
    #21
    lol

    Giving atheists everywhere a bad name. This guy is just as crazy as Palin, IMO.

    Possibly many of the same people that are about to chastise you for "stereotyping?"

    The discrimination and prejudice cuts both ways, and it is getting pretty silly.
     
  22. mcrain macrumors 68000

    mcrain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Location:
    Illinois
    #22
    I think there shouldn't be a ban, but I think a candidate who exhibits overtly religious tendencies, or indicates that religion would guide them as opposed to their fiduciary duties to their consituents should not be elected. I have no problem with people of faith, but they must put their civil obligations first when they are a civil servant. Otherwise, by voting for someone who is overtly religious, their pastor, priest, or whatever is really the one calling the shots.
     
  23. djellison macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2007
    Location:
    Pasadena CA
    #23
    I agree with Mcrain. I found GWB's behaviour in this regard, frankly, terrifying.
     
  24. Rt&Dzine macrumors 6502a

    Rt&Dzine

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2008
  25. chrmjenkins macrumors 603

    chrmjenkins

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    CA
    #25
    This guy is American :confused::confused:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page