Religious Persons Need Not . . . . The New PC Bigotry

[SMTA]

Hard core progressives will absolutely use or bend the law to work within their beliefs also. It cuts both ways.

I said nothing about political lean.
Learn how to read and understand English

 

[The Mark]

well religious litmus tests are unconstitutional.

Where is the line between judging someone based on their religion, and judging them based on the goals/actions of a religious group the belong to or belonged to?

As a somewhat extreme example, take all people who believe in one of the Islamic faiths/sects. It would be unconstitutional to judge them based on believing in that.

But if they were a current or former member of a religious organization with what are considered extremist views (and by that I mean what we commonly [and sometimes inaccurately] refer to as Islamic extremists or Islamic terrorists), it would seem perfectly reasonable to judge them because of their membership in that religious organization.

Not, of course, because that organization was religious, but rather based on it's actions and stated goals.

 

[ludin]

Where is the line between judging someone based on their religion, and judging them based on the goals/actions of a religious group the belong to or belonged to?

As a somewhat extreme example, take all people who believe in one of the Islamic faiths/sects. It would be unconstitutional to judge them based on believing in that.

But if they were a current or former member of a religious organization with what are considered extremist views (and by that I mean what we commonly [and sometimes inaccurately] refer to as Islamic extremists or Islamic terrorists), it would seem perfectly reasonable to judge them because of their membership in that religious organization.

Not, of course, because that organization was religious, but rather based on it's actions and stated goals.

i always thought you judged a person by their actions not a group.

sorry religious litmus tests are not constitutional.

 

[Waddy]

Since the chart from Scotusblog is quite specific about Ms. Barrett's decisions I sense your interest in this subject is refuting criticism of Ms Barrett and not "loving to see more direct evidence, writings, etc". All of the cases she has been involved in can be viewed on the internet if you are interested.

And where has she done wrong?

 

[Moi621]

well religious litmus tests are unconstitutional.

Can you reference that?

 

[pamak]

Can you reference that?

He is correct

U.S. Constitution | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

The original text of the United States Constitution and its Amendments.

constitution.congress.gov

Article VI

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

And it does not make sense to argue that this does not apply to judges

 

[The Mark]

i always thought you judged a person by their actions not a group.

sorry religious litmus tests are not constitutional.

Their act of joining and staying in a group, or joining and leaving it, seems a reasonable thing to judge them on, if the group in question does stuff that is questionable.

And to be clear, you're saying we can't judge someone for joining ISIS, but only judge their actions before, during, and possibly after their membership in it.

 

[Moi621]

He is correct

U.S. Constitution | Constitution Annotated | Congress.gov | Library of Congress

The original text of the United States Constitution and its Amendments.

constitution.congress.gov

Article VI

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

And it does not make sense to argue that this does not apply to judges

BRAVO!
Gave you a "Like" too

Yet how many times have I heard Senators ask questions of nominees
in violation of Article 6 ? Lots.



Moi

 

[weaver2]

And where has she done wrong?

Their act of joining and staying in a group, or joining and leaving it, seems a reasonable thing to judge them on, if the group in question does stuff that is questionable.
And to be clear, you're saying we can't judge someone for joining ISIS, but only judge their actions before, during, and possibly after their membership in it.

If your social group or the college you went to or your political party believes women are 2nd class citizens, believes abortion is murder, wants to repeal the Lily Ledbetter Law, Roe and Casey and thinks the perfect women obeys her husband it is fair to ask questions about your how those beliefs will impact on your decision making about women. How is it any different if your religion believes exactly the same way? Why can you ask about a the beliefs of a social group, a college, etc but not a religion. A law denying jobs or positions to those belonging to a specific religion is unconstitutional. Denying someone a job or position because of what their religion says they will do not unconstitutional. We do it all the time with with people that express faith int a group with a violent agenda.

 

[The Mark]

If your social group or the college you went to or your political party believes women are 2nd class citizens, believes abortion is murder, wants to repeal the Lily Ledbetter Law, Roe and Casey and thinks the perfect women obeys her husband it is fair to ask questions about your how those beliefs will impact on your decision making about women. How is it any different if your religion believes exactly the same way? Why can you ask about a the beliefs of a social group, a college, etc but not a religion. A law denying jobs or positions to those belonging to a specific religion is unconstitutional. Denying someone a job or position because of what their religion says they will do not unconstitutional. We do it all the time with with people that express faith int a group with a violent agenda.

I tend to agree.

 

[Waddy]

If your social group or the college you went to or your political party believes women are 2nd class citizens, believes abortion is murder, wants to repeal the Lily Ledbetter Law, Roe and Casey and thinks the perfect women obeys her husband it is fair to ask questions about your how those beliefs will impact on your decision making about women. How is it any different if your religion believes exactly the same way? Why can you ask about a the beliefs of a social group, a college, etc but not a religion. A law denying jobs or positions to those belonging to a specific religion is unconstitutional. Denying someone a job or position because of what their religion says they will do not unconstitutional. We do it all the time with with people that express faith int a group with a violent agenda.

So if you work for a liberal company we can all assume you share all their liberal beliefs.

 

[ludin]

Can you reference that?

common knowledge doesn't need to be referenced. the SCOTUS struck it down years ago.

 

[pamak]

common knowledge doesn't need to be referenced. the SCOTUS struck it down years ago.

Please do not say such things!

As I pointed out, it iss SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the Constitution, so SCOTUS never had to struck down anything!

 

[ludin]

Their act of joining and staying in a group, or joining and leaving it, seems a reasonable thing to judge them on, if the group in question does stuff that is questionable.

And to be clear, you're saying we can't judge someone for joining ISIS, but only judge their actions before, during, and possibly after their membership in it.

this folkai s what we call a projection and strawman fallacy.

this is where someone makes up your argument for you tells you what your argument is and then goes and argues what they just said then tells you that you are wrong after they must made up your argument.

lol honeatly you can't make this up.

 

[ludin]

Please do not say such things!

As I pointed out, it iss SPECIFICALLY mentioned in the Constitution, so SCOTUS never had to struck down anything!

i will say such things. stop me ol yea you can't.
yes the SCOTUS deemed litmus tests for office unconstitutional it has been that way for years.
don't like it argue before the SCOTUS.

 

[The Mark]

this folkai s what we call a projection and strawman fallacy.

this is where someone makes up your argument for you tells you what your argument is and then goes and argues what they just said then tells you that you are wrong after they must made up your argument.

lol honeatly you can't make this up.

That is your argument though.
You're saying that we cannot judge a person (in this case the SCOTUS nominee) based on the religious groups they are a member of.

ISIS is a religious group.

 

[pamak]

i will say such things. stop me ol yea you can't.
yes the SCOTUS deemed litmus tests for office unconstitutional it has been that way for years.
don't like it argue before the SCOTUS.

Then you do not know what you are talking about since the prohibition of a religious test for appointing judges has been in the US Constitution since the beginning.

.

 

[ludin]

That is your argument though.
You're saying that we cannot judge a person (in this case the SCOTUS nominee) based on the religious groups they are a member of.

ISIS is a religious group.

your strawman is running away.

what i am saying is litmus tests are unconstitutional.

don't like it too bad. quit being a religious bigot.
that or prove that it has any affect on her judgeship.

you can't. she has excellent ratings from pretty much every group out there.

 

[ludin]

Then you do not know what you are talking about since the prohibition of a religious test for appointing judges has been in the US Constitution since the begining.

.

we know you don't thanks for admitting it. have a nice night.

 

[pamak]

we know you don't thanks for admitting it. have a nice night.

Read your constitution in bed because I, as a permanent resident, seem to know more about it than you!

 

[The Mark]

your strawman is running away.

what i am saying is litmus tests are unconstitutional.

don't like it too bad. quit being a religious bigot.
that or prove that it has any affect on her judgeship.

you can't. she has excellent ratings from pretty much every group out there.

I'm attempting to point out that examining the groups a person is a member of, even including religious groups, is not the same as a religious litmus test.

The example given is to make that point.

We probably wouldn't want a former member of ISIS to be on the SCOTUS, but technically that is also a religious group. Simply being a member of that group would bring into question the judgement of the person being interviewed.
Of course, a fair interview would involve asking them why they were a member and if they still agreed with that group's goals.
If not, and they explain why and how they stopped being a member, it may not be an issue.

In the case at hand, the group (so far as I am aware) this current SCOTUS nominee was/is a member of is not comparable to ISIS, apart from being religious in nature.
Nevertheless, an examination of what that group stands for, and subsequent questions about her membership in it, seem perfectly reasonable.

That does not by any means equate to a religious litmus test, so far as I can tell.

Now, if someone said "I won't vote to confirm this person because they were a member of that group", without explaining the actions of that person and/or the group which they disagree with, would be questionable.


tl;dr - it seems unreasonable to me that everything in any way related to religion would be blocked from consideration.

 

[pamak]

That is your argument though.
You're saying that we cannot judge a person (in this case the SCOTUS nominee) based on the religious groups they are a member of.

ISIS is a religious group.

In reality, there will be a litmus religious test, but nobody would have to admit it in public. . And this applies not only with the extreme and obvious case of an Islamist terrorrist. I can think of a more realistic sceenario of a Muslim jurist who has expressed his desire to see Sharia law in the US. Even if such desire is based on convincing peaefully Americans to accept radically new amendments (which is perfectly legal), there is no chance to see such person ever enter any list of candidates for the Supreme (or any other) court.

 

[Phys251]

No, you've got it exactly backwards.

Just like the political left, Islam is anti-America, anti-Christian, anti-capitalism, anti-free speech, and pro big government. As a nice bonus, Islam's hatred of the West dovetails nicely with the white guilt and self-loathing of the modern progressive.

You are correct that the political right in America despises Islam, while the left luvs it. If Islam were right wing then the opposite would be the case.

 

[skeptic llc]

I can't respond to the poll because I don't understand it. However, I struggle with how to respond to religious affiliation among pols. On the one hand, I think it is weird to believe in invisible superheroes in the sky. Like, crazy weird ... no way you can be qualified to run anything if you are that nuts. On the other hand, many people I respect feel otherwise, and there are some very good reasons to think religious convictions can greatly improve a society. So I have to put religion in a black box, not look inside, and try to just evaluate candidates without reference to their religious beliefs. Even when they involve magical underwear. Which is hard to ignore, not sure I succeed, but I try.

 

[HangLow]

The New, PC Approved, Bigotry.
Religious persons.

No Longer about Jews, Buddhist, but now inclusive of
TOO CHRISTIAN. Regardless of branch.
Too Catholic. Too Mormon. Too . Too. Too. and so we witness.

https://www.yahoo.com/news/high-court-nominee-served-handmaid-180254678.html

High court nominee served as 'handmaid' in religious group


WASHINGTON (AP) — Supreme Court nominee Amy Coney Barrett served as a “handmaid,” the term then used for high-ranking female leaders in the People of Praise religious community, an old directory for the group's members shows.

Barrett has thus far refused to discuss her membership in the Christian organization, which opposes abortion and, according to former members, holds that men are divinely ordained as the “head” of both the family and faith, while it is the duty of wives to submit to them. . . . . .


Hasn't religious affiliation gone too far?
One's religious affiliations use to be private in :usflag:
What happened?


I remember there was concern the first
Roman Catholic President would leak secrets to The Vatican


Has the media gone too far?


Moi

View attachment 67298518​