• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Cory Booker to Trump judicial nominee: Do you believe gay relationships are a sin?

So if there was a Muslim SCOTUS appointee in the future, would it be wrong to ask him if he believed if it's a sin for women to walk outside without a burka or vote?

Yes. That would be an impermissible question, in my opinion.
 
No, it's not, as no particularly religion was specified.

So is it your contention that so long as no specific religion is asked about, any question touching on personal religious belief (what is "sinful" versus what is "righteous") is acceptable, Tanngrisnir?
 
If you believe the Trumpanzees, Sen. Booker embarrassed himself.

Neomi Rao, age 45, a darling of Conservative Interests, has yet to ever try a case.

During the hearing, Rao told senators that she cringes at some of the language she used as a college student in writing about sexual assault, race and equal rights for women.

Rao told the Senate Judiciary Committee that writings in which she criticized affirmative action and suggested that intoxicated women were partly responsible for date rape do not reflect her current thinking.

"I like to think I've matured as a thinker, writer and a person," she said
.

Maybe the GOP plans on ramming another nominee through on a Party Line vote.
 
Yes. That would be an impermissible question, in my opinion.

What if the Muslim appointee was asked if he believed all infidels to Allah should be killed (and there was good reason to think he did)?
 
Having once been religious, I find it important that distinctions need to be made. Believing (or acknowledging) that something is a sin and believing that public policy should be set against it are two different things. Most Christians agree that adultery is a sin under Bible. It literally is within the Ten Commandments. Very few Christians in the United States, to my knowledge, believe that there should be anti-adultery laws that imprison or execute people for cheating on their spouses.

Self interest?
 
So is it your contention that so long as no specific religion is asked about, any question touching on personal religious belief (what is "sinful" versus what is "righteous") is acceptable, Tanngrisnir?

In this case? I see no wrong with it.
 
Having once been religious, I find it important that distinctions need to be made. Believing (or acknowledging) that something is a sin and believing that public policy should be set against it are two different things. Most Christians agree that adultery is a sin under Bible. It literally is within the Ten Commandments. Very few Christians in the United States, to my knowledge, believe that there should be anti-adultery laws that imprison or execute people for cheating on their spouses.

Fair point.
 
So if there was a Muslim SCOTUS appointee in the future, would it be wrong to ask him if he believed if it's a sin for women to walk outside without a burka or vote?

You bet it would be wrong. And you know you would lose your **** if it happened. Right?
 
That fact that you are so close mined that thinking that something is a sin means that you are against a person and would be discriminate towards them shows that you are incapable of understanding the problem with the question posed by Booker

close minded or aware of any point in history in which an overtly religous person is making "unbiased" decisions.

I don't care if it's a religious test, I don't want the religious in government. At all. Period. I don't give a **** what the constitution says. Religion is a poison, a tool to justify bull**** done to the masses. You want to believe whatever you believe, fine. Doesn't mean I should consider you sane, smart, or qualified for anything other than a gas station attendant.
 
What if the Muslim appointee was asked if he believed all infidels to Allah should be killed (and there was good reason to think he did)?

Again, and to be clear ataraxia, I believe it would be utterly inappropriate for the Senate to be questioning this hypothetical Muslim jurist about his personal religious beliefs, whatever they are and however wicked I personally find them. However, depending on how he is asked, I think it would be appropriate to ask if he would advocate the legal system of the United States to be changed to strip certain peoples of their rights to life, liberty or property on the sole basis of their religious identity. That does not touch on his religion, but is instead a question of a policy he would wish to see instated that is derived from his suspected extremist beliefs.
 
Last edited:
Again, and to be clear ataraxia, I believe it would be utterly inappropriate for the Senate to be questioning this hypothetical Muslim jurist about his personal religious beliefs, whatever they are and however wicked I personally find them. However, depending on how he is asked, I think it would be appropriate to ask if he would advocate the legal system of the United States to be changed to strip certain peoples of their rights to life, liberty or property on the sole basis of their religious identity. That does not touch on his religion, but is instead a question of a policy he would wish to see instated that is derived from his suspected extremist beliefs.

But the question could be worded so that it would skirt around the issue of religion . If the Muslim was asked whether he believed women should be allowed to vote, he could protest he was being questioned about his religion and refused to answer.

Religious beliefs mean having certain beliefs, because of the religion. Is it wrong to ask about those beliefs because it touches upon that person‘s religion?
 
You bet it would be wrong. And you know you would lose your **** if it happened. Right?

No, to be honest, if his religion is making him have a belief which I might have concerns about, I think it’s OK to ask about the belief.
 
It was a leading question to determine whether or not he was homophobic. The reason people have a right to know whether or not he is homophobic is because he is a judicial nominee. It would be no different than asking a leading question to determine if he had racist beliefs. The very fact of a person being a homophobe or a racist makes their judicial nomination questionable.

It is your position that if a person has not hired gay people, that means they are scared of them?
 
Christian does not equal homophobe, unless you think all Christians are against homosexuality. If that's the case, then it is you to whom Christian = homophobe.

Here is the mistake you are making.

The word Homophobe has an exact meaning. It does not mean you are against gays, it means you are scared of gays.
 
No, to be honest, if his religion is making him have a belief which I might have concerns about, I think it’s OK to ask about the belief.

Well, no doubt you would think it is OK to ask about it. I certainly would be troubled if I had someone who I suspected of being an Islamist in front of me, and wanted to know more about his beliefs before making a decision about whether I would confirm him or not. But the question is whether it is permissible under presently-existing Constitutional norms. Presently it is not. If I had information that led me to strongly suspect that he believed the horrible things you presented in your hypothetical, I would not bother asking impermissible questions; I would simply not vote for him in the first place. Certainly, in the future there may be a push to limit or eliminate the protections given to religious people under the First Amendment. I hope that does not happen, but I would not discount the possibility of extreme anti-religious secular bigotry like the kind ThoughtEx would push becoming the order of the day.
 
In other words you admit that Christianity is homophobic?

Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk

If by homophobic you mean that homosexual behavior is characterized as "sinful" by practically any reasonable interpretation of the Christian Bible, then yeah. Christianity is homophobic. Just like Islam, and Judaism are homophobic. Because their foundational texts and how they have been interpreted for the past couple thousand years have definitely had an anti-homosexual acts bent.
 
In other words you admit that Christianity is homophobic?

Sent from my Honor 8X using Tapatalk

Sure don't and I know you don't know why, so I won't time asking if you do.
 
Badly phrased. Good question.
 
No, to be honest, if his religion is making him have a belief which I might have concerns about, I think it’s OK to ask about the belief.

You can be concerned about anything you want. That doesn't change the fact that religious tests are unconstitutional.
 
Clueless fool?

Doh! Booker, a Rhodes Scholar, has an impressive athletic pedigree, an undergraduate degree from Stanford and a Law Degree from Yale. Upon graduating Yale, he eschewed the prospect of beginning a career with a prestigious law firm, instead returning to the Newark area, serving on the city council, then Mayor of Newark, then as the junior Senator from NJ.

Disagree with Booker's politics all you want. But the man is anything BUT a "clueless fool". His resume is more impressive than the overwhelming majority of Congress and the White House, and more impressive than 99.99% of the country.
 
It is your position that if a person has not hired gay people, that means they are scared of them?

If they have deliberately chosen not to hire gay people because those people are gay, then I would say yes. I would argue that it is not possible to disapprove of a victimless lifestyle without harboring an irrational fear of it.
 
Here is the mistake you are making.

The word Homophobe has an exact meaning. It does not mean you are against gays, it means you are scared of gays.

I would argue that the only reason to be be against an activity that makes no one a victim is an irrational fear of it. Hence the word 'homophobia.'
 
Clueless fool?

Doh! Booker, a Rhodes Scholar, has an impressive athletic pedigree, an undergraduate degree from Stanford and a Law Degree from Yale. Upon graduating Yale, he eschewed the prospect of beginning a career with a prestigious law firm, instead returning to the Newark area, serving on the city council, then Mayor of Newark, then as the junior Senator from NJ.

Then he should act like it, and not like a ****ing idiot.
 
Back
Top Bottom