Politics Episode 7: Remake of Episode 4

[Hurlshort]

My problem is that Bernie Sanders basically turned that guy into a victim, which plays well into the persecution complex the Christian Right has been touting for years.

[Guard Dog]

 

OK, for those who are missing what he means by "condemned" what he is saying is that he believes when Muslims die they are going to hell. 

 

am preferring to watch rather than participate for the moment, but please observe your reading is based on assumption rather than what mr. vought said.  listen again to the actual quote. mr. vought specific distinguished the condemnation of non christians from their "deficient theology."  gd understanding is likely how mr. vought meant, but he did make ambiguous by removing taking theology outta the equation. 

 

question: is it appropriate to ask a devout catholic judge, who has public spoken 'bout immorality o' abortion, how she would have applied roe v. wade to specific past abortion cases? 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

In the parlance of christian thought "condemned" only has one meaning. The meaning I described. As to the question you posed it would be completely appropriate to ask said judge. Because unless she was on or a candidate for or on the Supreme Court the precedents are pretty clear. It would be a gage not of her religious ideals so much as a gage on how much she is willing to buck precedent, challenge the status quo, and risk successful appeals.

[Guard Dog]

My problem is that Bernie Sanders basically turned that guy into a victim, which plays well into the persecution complex the Christian Right has been touting for years.

The problem should be that because this man "thinks" wrong to Sanders and a lot of other people he is not qualified to serve as the Deputy Director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. A post pretty far down the trough of the DC power pigsty. Had he been a Muslim and answered that all Jews and Christians were "condemned" for their "deficient theology" and Sanders treated him as disrespectfully everyone would be howling for his head rather than the candidate's.

Edited June 11, 2017 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

You know the biggest difference between you guys and me? My response would be exactly the same whether the candidate were christian, muslim, or the lord high bishop of the church of Volurn. Who he prays to when he bows his head has exactly nothing, nothing what so ever to do with his ability to do his job. Sanders is the one who made this an issue. It was an ugly tactic by an angry little man.

 

So he "thinks" non-Christians are all going to hell. Are they? No? Then who cares what he thinks. Don't believe in hell? Then who cares what he thinks. Can he crunch numbers and will he report any wrongdoing he sees? That is really all that matters.

Edited June 11, 2017 by Guard Dog

[Gromnir]

 

 

OK, for those who are missing what he means by "condemned" what he is saying is that he believes when Muslims die they are going to hell. 

 

am preferring to watch rather than participate for the moment, but please observe your reading is based on assumption rather than what mr. vought said.  listen again to the actual quote. mr. vought specific distinguished the condemnation of non christians from their "deficient theology."  gd understanding is likely how mr. vought meant, but he did make ambiguous by removing taking theology outta the equation. 

 

question: is it appropriate to ask a devout catholic judge, who has public spoken 'bout immorality o' abortion, how she would have applied roe v. wade to specific past abortion cases? 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

In the parlance of christian thought "condemned" only has one meaning. The meaning I described. As to the question you posed it would be completely appropriate to ask said judge. Because unless she was on or a candidate for or on the Supreme Court the precedents are pretty clear. It would be a gage not of her religious ideals so much as a gage on how much she is willing to buck precedent, challenge the status quo, and risk successful appeals.

 

you see only one meaning, but a strict denotative reading doesn't support such. vought himself distinguished from theology in his quote, so why should only the christian understanding be applied, particular by a jewish senator?  clear folks in this thread alone were confused as to meaning and scope of "condemned."   

 

as to judges it would seems you see as wholly appropriate to question the impact religion would have on the fitness of an appointee to do their job. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

Edited June 11, 2017 by Gromnir

[Guard Dog]

 

 

 

OK, for those who are missing what he means by "condemned" what he is saying is that he believes when Muslims die they are going to hell. 

 

am preferring to watch rather than participate for the moment, but please observe your reading is based on assumption rather than what mr. vought said.  listen again to the actual quote. mr. vought specific distinguished the condemnation of non christians from their "deficient theology."  gd understanding is likely how mr. vought meant, but he did make ambiguous by removing taking theology outta the equation. 

 

question: is it appropriate to ask a devout catholic judge, who has public spoken 'bout immorality o' abortion, how she would have applied roe v. wade to specific past abortion cases? 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

In the parlance of christian thought "condemned" only has one meaning. The meaning I described. As to the question you posed it would be completely appropriate to ask said judge. Because unless she was on or a candidate for or on the Supreme Court the precedents are pretty clear. It would be a gage not of her religious ideals so much as a gage on how much she is willing to buck precedent, challenge the status quo, and risk successful appeals.

 

you see only one meaning, but a strict denotative reading doesn't support such. vought himself distinguished from theology in his quote, so why should only the christian understanding be applied, particular by a jewish senator?  clear folks in this thread alone were confused as to meaning and scope of "condemned."   

 

as to judges it would seems you see as wholly appropriate to question the impact religion would have on the fitness of an appointee to do their job. 

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

It depends on how you ask the question and to what end. You don't make the religion the point of the question so much as the willingness to check opinion at the door when the job requires it. Abortion, capital punishment, etc are legal. Unless you are on a high enough court to do something about that or a candidate for the legislature there is nothing to be done but apply the law no matter what you think of it. But I'd leave the religion aspect out of the question altogether. Judge Gromnir has publicly said he's Catholic. But that is irrelevant. Judge Gromnir opinions are what they are. Why or how he came by them is irrelevant. And none of it is relevant if it has nothing to do with the bench/office/position he is a candidate for.

[Gromnir]

*shrug*

 

sounds as if your hard opposition to the kinda religious questioning directed at mr. vought is getting a bit fuzzier.  unlike a judge, many a high-level member o' the executive is gonna be applying fed law and rules on a daily basis, often w/o the benefit o' a law school education and clear precedent to guide decisions.  the impact religion could have on day-to-day decisions o' mr. vought would be significant but it would be far more difficult to predict such points o' conflict than with a judge. difficulty to anticipate makes questioning less or more appropriate?

 

also, once again, in the quoted material mr. vought noted that muslims "do not simply have a deficient theology," immediate before he went on to explain how all non-christians were condemned.  like it or not, and regardless o' gd's christian reading o' the material, mr. vought created an ambiguity.  unlike gd, mr. vought did not choose to be as forthright in his clarification.  am understanding why mr. vought didn't wanna explain how in his estimation all non-christians were doomed to burn in hell.  

 

as an aside, we did chuckle when mr. vought defended self by saying all peoples is worthy o' "dignity and respect."  many hunters use same turn o' phrase to explain what kinda treatment game deserves.  phrase don't mean anything w/o context, and mr. vought clear didn't wish to offer more... not that he need have done so.

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

ps mr. vought does have a law degree.

Edited June 11, 2017 by Gromnir

[Bartimaeus]

You know the biggest difference between you guys and me? My response would be exactly the same whether the candidate were christian, muslim, or the lord high bishop of the church of Volurn. Who he prays to when he bows his head has exactly nothing, nothing what so ever to do with his ability to do his job. Sanders is the one who made this an issue. It was an ugly tactic by an angry little man.

 

So he "thinks" non-Christians are all going to hell. Are they? No? Then who cares what he thinks. Don't believe in hell? Then who cares what he thinks. Can he crunch numbers and will he report any wrongdoing he sees? That is really all that matters.

My response is exactly the same regardless of whether the candidate is Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Satanist, or atheist: if the candidate is set on making a public statement condemning other groups on a total non-basis - if it's a Christian saying Muslims have a "deficient" theology or that all non-Christians are "condemned", or an atheist calling Christians "idiots" or "ignorant" and denouncing all religions, or a Muslim calling non-Muslims infidels or whatever - and then repeatedly reinforcing that statement when later questioned about it with the lame excuse of "Well, as a Christian...", it's going to raise some serious red flags for me on their ability to treat and serve all types of Americans equally. I one hundred percent agree with Bernie Sanders on his final statement: I'm not sure we need any more kinds of these candidates who evidently set on condemning and looking down upon entire groups of Americans for no other reason besides their stinking religion. As you literally just put it yourself a few posts ago, "[We] are heading down a dark road when [we] start judging people on what is going on in their heads." That's exactly what this candidate did, and it's why some of us would feel uncomfortable with him when it concerns a not insignificant amount of people on a total non-basis. He's the one that's making the public statements of condemnation, right? Maybe it actually doesn't have any bearing on his ability to do his job in a fair and competent manner...but nevertheless, it is rather gross and ill-appearing.

Edited June 11, 2017 by Bartimaeus

[Guard Dog]

 

You know the biggest difference between you guys and me? My response would be exactly the same whether the candidate were christian, muslim, or the lord high bishop of the church of Volurn. Who he prays to when he bows his head has exactly nothing, nothing what so ever to do with his ability to do his job. Sanders is the one who made this an issue. It was an ugly tactic by an angry little man.

 

So he "thinks" non-Christians are all going to hell. Are they? No? Then who cares what he thinks. Don't believe in hell? Then who cares what he thinks. Can he crunch numbers and will he report any wrongdoing he sees? That is really all that matters.

My response is exactly the same regardless of whether the candidate is Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Satanist, or atheist: if the candidate is set on making a public statement condemning other groups on a total non-basis - if it's a Christian saying Muslims have a "deficient" theology or that all non-Christians are "condemned", or an atheist calling Christians "idiots" or "ignorant" and denouncing all religions, or a Muslim calling non-Muslims infidels or whatever - and then repeatedly reinforcing that statement when later questioned about it with the lame excuse of "Well, as a Christian...", it's going to raise some serious red flags for me on their ability to treat and serve all types of Americans equally. I one hundred percent agree with Bernie Sanders on his final statement: I'm not sure we need any more kinds of these candidates who evidently set on condemning and looking down upon entire groups of Americans for no other reason besides their stinking religion. As you literally just put it yourself a few posts ago, "[We] are heading down a dark road when [we] start judging people on what is going on in their heads." That's exactly what this candidate did, and it's why some of us would feel uncomfortable with him when it concerns a not insignificant amount of people on a total non-basis.

 

I genuinely do not understand why everyone is up about this. So he thinks everyone who does not believe like he does is going to hell when they die. So f-----g what? Does it magically become true just because he thinks so? Does thinking that impede his ability to execute the duties of a mid level bureaucrat? Should people be denied employment in the public sector because of their religion? If he really believed Santa Claus was real and won't bring toys to bad children you might think he's a silly but he certainly would not deserve the treatment he got from Sanders.

[Guard Dog]

 

You know the biggest difference between you guys and me? My response would be exactly the same whether the candidate were christian, muslim, or the lord high bishop of the church of Volurn. Who he prays to when he bows his head has exactly nothing, nothing what so ever to do with his ability to do his job. Sanders is the one who made this an issue. It was an ugly tactic by an angry little man.

 

So he "thinks" non-Christians are all going to hell. Are they? No? Then who cares what he thinks. Don't believe in hell? Then who cares what he thinks. Can he crunch numbers and will he report any wrongdoing he sees? That is really all that matters.

saying that you don't care about the ideology pursuited by a politician is dumb (sorry) and you know why.

 

OK, this is a good point. He's not a politician. He's a political appointee and a pretty low one at that. The only thing this guy will ever do is help figure out how the White House staff spends it's budget. However if he were a politician running for a public office I would have no problem with a voter taking his religion into account when they are deciding to vote for him or not. But this is a man applying for a job that now a lot of people don't want him to get because he has a different opinion about something completely inconsequential than they do.

[Guard Dog]

*shrug*

 

sounds as if your hard opposition to the kinda religious questioning directed at mr. vought is getting a bit fuzzier.  unlike a judge, many a high-level member o' the executive is gonna be applying fed law and rules on a daily basis, often w/o the benefit o' a law school education and clear precedent to guide decisions.  the impact religion could have on day-to-day decisions o' mr. vought would be significant but it would be far more difficult to predict such points o' conflict than with a judge. difficulty to anticipate makes questioning less or more appropriate?

 

No I'm still opposed to questioning someone about who they pray to, if anyone, when they bow their head at night. You can be an atheist and be opposed to abortion. It does not matter how someone arrived at the positions they hold. It IS fair to ask if the post you are applying for requires you to do something counter to those positions will you be able to do it?

[Bartimaeus]

No, you already said it: in our heads vs. not in our heads. If you make a point to insult and condemn groups of people for no other reason besides that you can, I'm sorry, but I'm naturally (and I think pretty darned justifiably) going to have concerns about your character. No, if he believed Santa Claus was real, I wouldn't have the same type of concern, because it doesn't actually concern anyone but himself (...unless he started announcing to the world that all people who didn't similarly believe in Santa Claus were ignorant fools that weren't going to ever get any presents on Christmas, I guess). The reality of the matter, though, is that he's being appointed to a public sector job, where he's supposed to deal with and treat everyone with the same amount of respect, including the types of people he's called as having a "deficient theology" and "being condemned to hell" - the latter might literally be one of tenants of his faith, but you don't see every other Christian candidate making a point of it to announce it to the world. I just don't know, man - why wouldn't this concern you? If you're saying that you wouldn't be concerned with a candidate who is a militant atheist that publicly announces that all Christians are ignorant, then O.K., that's fair: clearly you're much more concerned about them doing just their job competently rather than any beliefs or ideology they may or may not have that may or may not affect how they look at and treat people on a basic level, and I can respect that. For me, this theoretical candidate would appear ill-intentioned and no, I don't want them anywhere near a public sector job where they're supposed to treat all Americans equally. Their previous treatment of certain types of Americans (even if it's just verbal!) calls that part of their job into question for me. Can you explain to me why it wouldn't for you? That is not a sarcastic question: I'm genuinely curious.

 

(e): various fixes

Edited June 11, 2017 by Bartimaeus

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Looking into this, the statement on question comes from defending a school for firing a professor for wearing a hijab and saying "muslims and christians worship the same god". The professor is a christian as well, in case any one was wondering. Now I would wager this wouldn't be an issue with the school or the guy we're talking about if you replaced hijab with the funny jew hat and muslims with jews, but maybe I'm just assuming zionism is standard for christian republicans for lack of a better term.

 

With all that bull**** out of the way, I'm gonna agree (I think) with gromnir and barti on this. Sure this guy doesn't believe in stuff like polygamy or virgin sacrifice and he's got a fairly minor role, but it would seem he holds beliefs that would cause him to favor christians over others and that could be an issue. Bernie certainly didn't come over well, but Vought was awful at explaining his position and there is some doubt about his neutrality.

[Bartimaeus]

I have no problem with his beliefs, per se. If he thinks Islam is barbaric, if he believes all non-Christians are condemned to an eternity of hell - that's all more or less fine. Many people think those sorts of things already, including probably a majority of the people elected throughout this country. The difference, I feel, is when it begins to seep into your actual behavior, how you treat people, and the things you say to them. Biases, prejudices, and stereotypes - moral or immoral, rational or irrational, justified or unjustified - are all things we're subject to, and subconsciously (or consciously) subject other people to. If you stick around certain people or groups/types of people for too long, there's a certain tendency to unconsciously notice patterns with those or other types of people, and that's exactly what biases, prejudices, and stereotypes are born from. I can't blame people for doing that, especially when I know it's something that I struggle with myself. So where I draw the line, personally, is when people start treating people differently as a result of them: in other words, when it stops becoming a matter of "just" thinking and a matter of actually discriminating against or between people in a patently unfair manner. If you're elected/appointed to a position in the public sector, I'm not going to feel particularly comfortable with you if you've previously done things that support the notion of you possibly unfairly discriminating against or between others when you're supposed to be serving a large variety - all varieties, actually - of Americans equally. I feel as though publicly announcing a certain religion as being, again, "deficient" kind of qualifies for that: for me, it clearly signals that it's no longer something that you merely think, but is now instead a prejudice that you're actually acting upon and modifying your behavior as a result of - otherwise, why would you be telling the whole world about it?

 

I don't think we should be subject to a thoughtpolice, but I don't know, this entire sort of public and denigrating proclamation stinks of unfairness to me. (e): Additionally, I think people would be better served by criticizing specific issues involving groups of people, not the entire group in a blanket statement overall, particularly when there are so many different sub-groups who may not even be party to the things that you think are wrong with them. This guy did the latter. I think Bernie put it best when he was running for president: let's focus on the issues.

Edited June 11, 2017 by Bartimaeus

[Gromnir]

 It IS fair to ask if the post you are applying for requires you to do something counter to those positions will you be able to do it?

 

so, just 'bout every position?  after same-sex marriages were made legal nationally, a woman whose job it were to provide marriage licenses refused to do so... on religious freedom basis. christian. is many religions, including christianity, which appear to condone or even demand otherwise illegal misogyny and/or bigotry.  like it or not, the bible is filled with wackiness if folks read everything literal, and deciding what to read literal as 'posed to metaphor seems to be subjective art rather than science.

 

would be different if were klu klux klan or crips membership which were being questioned? why? such memberships is similar constitutional protected.  same Amendment in fact. have an appointee need explain away seeming bigotry or religious intolerance. tell us instead his views were first amendment protected KKK views, but while he nevertheless saw blacks and jews as "deficient," he would nevertheless treat such peoples with "dignity and respect." is different 'cause those groups is not religious?  is different 'cause gd sees those groups as bad, but christianity as good? 

 

once again, mr. vought espoused a belief which arguable demanded for secular condemnation of muslims as he specific distinguished from theology.  coulda' easily clarified.  didn't wanna clarify.  

 

btw, am not suggesting bernie were right.  am not offering our own pov.  am suggesting that gd position, whether he will admit or not, appears to be on shaky logical ground.

 

HA! Good Fun! 

[Guard Dog]

My position is untenable if his use of the word "condemned" is taken in a literal way. Maybe Sanders believes he will use the awesome political power of the White House Office of Management and Budget to round up all non believers and burn them at the stake. Or maybe he's never heard of the EEOC. I remember Enoch once or twice criticizing me for automatically assuming that a public figure's words should be construed in the worst conceivable way. Perhaps there is a bit of that going on here. You are correct, he did let the conversation end with ambiguity over the comment. But I look at it this way. This is a man applying for a job that has nothing to do with religion who was told during the interview process that his religious convictions disqualify him.

 

Hurlshot pointed out how this will only feed the growing Christian persecution complex. And he's right. But it also bears keeping in mind that complex didn't just spring up from thin air.

 

For the record, he's wrong. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam do all stem from the same beginning. Abraham.

Edited June 12, 2017 by Guard Dog

[Gromnir]

My position is untenable if his use of the word "condemned" is taken in a literal way. Maybe Sanders believes he will use the awesome political power of the White House Office of Management and Budget to round up all non believers and burn them at the stake. Or maybe he's never heard of the EEOC. I remember Enoch once or twice criticizing me for automatically assuming that a public figure's words should be construed in the worst conceivable way. Perhaps there is a bit of that going on here. You are correct, he did let the conversation end with ambiguity over the comment. But I look at it this way. This is a man applying for a job that has nothing to do with religion who was told during the interview process that his religious convictions disqualify him.

 

Hurlshot pointed out how this will only feed the growing Christian persecution complex. And he's right. But it also bears keeping in mind that complex didn't just spring up from thin air.

 

For the record, he's wrong. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam do all stem from the same beginning. Abraham.

you aren't being reasonable.  same as those prospective judges you see no issue with confronting 'bout religion, is it less reasonable to ask the public figures you mention 'bove what they meant by asking them questions?  bernie asked mr. vought questions and mr. vought had a chance to clarify his meaning o' "condemned." mr. vought chose not to do so. 

 

be honest.  have same quote made by mr. smith, a prospective appointee with a kkk affiliation. would you be rushing to defend? got equal valid Constitutional protections o freedom o' expression and association.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

[213374U]

If you make a point to insult and condemn groups of people for no other reason besides that you can, I'm sorry, but I'm naturally (and I think pretty darned justifiably) going to have concerns about your character.

 

But that's not how it went down at all. He's neither insulting nor condemning anyone by himself, "because he can". He was simply restating what's a pretty central tenet of Christianity: you don't believe in JC, you are ****ed. I mean, it's right there in the name. By definition, any theology that acknowledges the One God but not the Trinity and JC is deficient, from the point of view of Christianity.

 

I think it pays to read the original piece the guy wrote to understand what's he really talking about: http://theresurgent.com/wheaton-college-and-the-preservation-of-theological-clarity/

 

He was making those statements in the context of a theological discussion, in response to *someone else's* re-interpretation of Christian dogma. In a broader sense, he was supporting a private, Christian school's motion to fire her over her statements and heterodox views. "Islamophobia" was only introduced in the matter by Sanders' contextomy.

Edited June 12, 2017 by 213374U

[Bartimaeus]

Thanks. That would've been very good context to have about 2 pages ago, so thank you for digging it up. I still stand by my previously stated general position, but given that what he said was at the very least in a mostly theological context, it would be extremely silly to hold those statements to that general standard, and I am disappointed that Sanders did, especially providing virtually no context for it as he did (just a nondescript footnote at the beginning).

 

(e: context context context)

Edited June 12, 2017 by Bartimaeus

[Guard Dog]

 

you aren't being reasonable.  same as those prospective judges you see no issue with confronting 'bout religion, is it less reasonable to ask the public figures you mention 'bove what they meant by asking them questions?  bernie asked mr. vought questions and mr. vought had a chance to clarify his meaning o' "condemned." mr. vought chose not to do so. 

 

 

be honest.  have same quote made by mr. smith, a prospective appointee with a kkk affiliation. would you be rushing to defend? got equal valid Constitutional protections o freedom o' expression and association.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I didn't say it would be ok to ask the judges about their religion. I said it would be ok to ask them if their personal opinions, however they came by them, could be checked if their responsibilities required them to rule in a contrary way. For example, suppose you had chosen to be a prosecutor but were opposed to capital punishment. It would be fair for a DA to ask if you could set that aside and pursue the DP for defendants when appropriate because California has the DP. If you were opposed to the DP because of your religious back ground or for any other reason makes no difference. Being Catholic should be a non-issue even if that is the reason why you oppose the DP. It should not even come up in the context of a job interview.

 

In Mr. Smith's case under the same circumstances if he posted his words in a KKK publication then yes I would still say "so what, it's a non-issue". The practice of Mr. Smith's religion is his own affair as long as he does no harm to anyone else. Of course his association with the Klan in the first place is wide open for question. No anti-discrimination law I've ever heard of protects people from the consequences of freely associating with groups like the Klan, or Aryan Nation, or whatever.

 

I suspect I'm doing a poor job getting the ideas in my head onto the screen today. To me this just makes sense.

Edited June 12, 2017 by Guard Dog

[Guard Dog]

My own opinion on this is a little complicated. As I posted earlier I am a Christian of no particular denomination. It's been a very long time since I was sighted near a church. I was raised Baptist but drifted away from it when I left home for the military. But there have been two incidents in my life separated by more than 10 years that convinced me beyond doubt that God, and Jesus, are real. I have read the Bible probably more than once piecemeal. To be honest besides the four gospels and six of the letters that make up the New Testament none of it was written by anyone who actually knew Jesus or spoke to God personally. So while there may be value in finding truth in allegory they only parts of the Bible I take at face value as literal truth are the four gospels. That is a rather unorthodox way to look at it I know.

 

I do believe there is a heaven and a hell. I have no idea who get's into each and thank God it's not up to me. I don't think I'm up to that task. For one person to tell another they are going to hell is absurd. You don't know that. No one does. And it's not up to them either. Jesus told us to "love one another as I have loved you". Step 1: Don't tell people they are going to hell.

 

Someday I will meet God I expect. Maybe I'll find out then my own interpretation is all wrong. Well, at least I stuck with it. I wasn't a hypocrite.

[Bartimaeus]

It sounds like you may be a form of Christian agnostic (not what you might think it would be if you're looking only at the "agnostic" part). I'd say I'm halfway between that and just agnostic.

[Volourn]

No one is 'going' to hell. We're already there.

[Gromnir]

 

 

you aren't being reasonable.  same as those prospective judges you see no issue with confronting 'bout religion, is it less reasonable to ask the public figures you mention 'bove what they meant by asking them questions?  bernie asked mr. vought questions and mr. vought had a chance to clarify his meaning o' "condemned." mr. vought chose not to do so. 

 

 

be honest.  have same quote made by mr. smith, a prospective appointee with a kkk affiliation. would you be rushing to defend? got equal valid Constitutional protections o freedom o' expression and association.  

 

HA! Good Fun!

 

I didn't say it would be ok to ask the judges about their religion. I said it would be ok to ask them if their personal opinions, however they came by them, could be checked if their responsibilities required them to rule in a contrary way. For example, suppose you had chosen to be a prosecutor but were opposed to capital punishment. It would be fair for a DA to ask if you could set that aside and pursue the DP for defendants when appropriate because California has the DP. If you were opposed to the DP because of your religious back ground or for any other reason makes no difference. Being Catholic should be a non-issue even if that is the reason why you oppose the DP. It should not even come up in the context of a job interview.

 

In Mr. Smith's case under the same circumstances if he posted his words in a KKK publication then yes I would still say "so what, it's a non-issue". The practice of Mr. Smith's religion is his own affair as long as he does no harm to anyone else. Of course his association with the Klan in the first place is wide open for question. No anti-discrimination law I've ever heard of protects people from the consequences of freely associating with groups like the Klan, or Aryan Nation, or whatever.

 

I suspect I'm doing a poor job getting the ideas in my head onto the screen today. To me this just makes sense.

 

bernie didn't actual ask 'bout mr. vought's religion.  review the video.  'course is a silly distinction, 'cause just as the hypothetical catholic judge is facing a moral dilemma regarding abortion in large part 'cause o' his religion, so too is mr. vought's views regarding muslims having, 'ccording to his own admission, religious origins. 

 

and actually, the first amendment very much protects your right to be associated with the kkk.  is some situations where the Court has decided strict scrutiny test is met when police keep records o' associations with various gangs AND fringe christian groups, but is same level of protection.  christianity don't get a free pass.  for the purposes o' the Constitution, christianity is no more special than the kkk.

 

HA! Good Fun!

[Chilloutman]

Well according to all 3 Abrahamic religions we all going to hell, depends who you ask What I found most funny is that even people who never heard about these religions going to hell. Pretty bad plan to put billions of people who doesn't got chance to get converted if you ask me xD