I think an assumption of bad samples isn’t far off in today’s world. The polls were rather off in the last election and when they’re asking loaded questions like that one does raise an eyebrow. I can’t count a single Republican among my friends who actually believe that Obama is a Muslim. I can count one former Democrat acquaintance voted for Trump and is swayed by conspiracy theories. While I live in my own bubble and this is clearly anecdotal, I’m familiar with people from quite a range of socieconomic backgrounds. Then again, I am seeing plenty of Democrats strongly believe that Trump conspired with the Russians even though there has been zero evidence presented to support that fact.
Going back to the poll, one does have to question the motives behind anyone performing such a poll. You think that group was inclined to be fair? It’s simply more of the Republicans are evil B.S. that I’ve heard for the last couple of decades. The Democrats have been very successful at taking over the indoctrination of youth in universities, and the press has been supporting this mantra all along, it’s not difficult to see why people have bought into it.
I need to know this information, because although I said I don’t have a problem with their ideologies, I have a problem with them voting their ideologies instead of what their constituents want.
And again, how do these questions disqualify them? What is the answer that prevents them from holding office? If there isn’t an answer that disqualifies them, it isn’t a test. Hard stop. If the people still appoint someone whether or not these questions exist, it’s not a test.
If any of them have enough power to influence my life in an above average way, then yes. That being said, EVERYONE that holds public office strongly influences someone’s life. Even if these questions don’t matter to me, I’m damn sure they matter to someone. Making an informed voting decision isn’t a bad thing.
The line is right next to the one where they bring it into the voting chamber with them.
Dems (or repubs) putting people through religious questions is the right thing regardless of what happened. Informed voters will always be the correct answer.
And I would love to do that, and only that. Since people keep bringing their ideologies into the voting chamber with them and ignoring the will of the people, their religion has become part of their policy.
As I said above, the Obama example was just pointing out the irony about the GOP trying to take the moral high ground here. Even if it had never happened, I’d still want the religious leanings of public officials to be actively spoke about, until such a day they’re able to leave their religion at the door and vote on behalf of their constituents at all times.
Again (and hopefully for the last time), what is the failing answer for these religious question? It cannot be a test if you cannot fail. What is the wrong answer when voters are no longer allowed to elect someone.
No one’s religious doctrine about hell should be used as a qualifier. Anyone with any religious background knows that “damned” has to do with damnation to hell. Muslim’s generally believe non-Muslims will go to hell and Christians generally believe that non-Christians are damned. Never mind my own atheism, I really don’t care about any of that. It’s simply not at all unusal, nor is it even remotely related to a role as deputy director of the OMB.
If one’s religion calls for actual discrimination or violence then it should be open to question because those break U.S. laws and it would be difficult for such a nominee to uphold the Constitution and laws (to the extent that applies to the OMB). The people are specificlly granted freedom of religion under the U.S. Constitution and Sander’s wading into this territory was disingenous and dangerous. Sanders’ questions are the real danger here, just as much as if a Christian started asking such questions of a Jew, a Muslim or Atheist. I can envision someone going after Jewish chosen people belief, and it would be universally condemned if that happened.
And here’s where the rub is for me. The GOP has been known to discriminate against what their constituents want and in favor of what their religion wants in regards to gay marriage. They’ve been known to discriminate against Muslims in regards to Trump’s travel ban. By your very definition it should be open to question.
I would wholeheartedly agree with you if politicians didn’t have such a long history of taking Jesus with them into the voting chamber.
I don’t know if he is the best, but he has motivated more than any other president. When I’m at the gym and I see a girl I want to talk to but I’m scared, I just ask myself what would Trump do
Again. Then would a Muslim or Jew be eligible for office given Sanders’ standard? Your argument is too easily reversed to support discrimination against many religious people. A religious test is against the US Constitution. And a specific question about doctrine regarding hell seems awfully irrelevant. And again, if it’s relevant and Constitutional then it’s one that would very well disqualify most Christians and Muslims.
A group has been known to do something . . . LOL. Bernie supporters have been know to shoot Republicans and incite violence. Whites have been know to join the Klan. Muslims have been known to be terrorists. Do you see where this train of thought can lead? It’s not productive.
Until recently gay marriage wasn’t recognized. These issues of interpretation need to be dealt with respectfully and cautiously. Society is constantly changing and those changes still need to occur within the context of cautious consideration and serious dialogue. Sanders showed his ass. He made thing worse not better.
Duh. Freedom from religion is totally the reason Europeans first settled in what is now the United States of America. Most of them quickly established secular communities, right? Then, they decided to limit the power of their secular communities to rule themselves, by amending the Constitution to allow national secularism to control local secular practices.
Possibly not. Depends on whether or not they’re willing to ignore their religion if it conflicts with their constituents. Ultimately, this stems from elected officials the people that put them in office. [quote=“sunnbeaches105, post:226, topic:231857”]
if it’s relevant and Constitutional then it’s one that would very well disqualify most Christians and Muslims.
[/quote]
Again, how are the disqualified? Is there an incorrect answer that causes the govt to ignore to will of the voters?[quote=“sunnbeaches105, post:226, topic:231857”]
Sanders showed his ass. He made thing worse not better.
[/quote]
Depends on your perspective. If you’re like me it’s undeniably better as dialogue has been created by Bernie’s actions. Dialogue that will hopefully shame politicians into obeying the voters or risking losing said votes.
Seems like a ton of people having issue with Bernie’s questions and very little issue with politicians spending years ignoring the will of the people.
Really? Was it not SCOTUS that took the decision to legalize gay marriage throughout the country rather than to leave it to the will of the people? The gay marriage issue is one that has seen a rapid shift in public opinion and even then it took a SCOTUS decision to legalize it. I’m actually arguing in favor of that decision in another thread, but you seem awfully caught up in partisanship.
Which is kinda my point. The GOP was ignoring the will of the people so extensively that SCOTUS had to intervene. Perhaps by getting clarity on these stances voters will enforce their will on the people they vote for. [quote=“sunnbeaches105, post:229, topic:231857”]
but you seem awfully caught up in partisanship.
[/quote]
I feel the exact same way about dems, as I’ve said probably 5 times upthread. Not sure how I’m being partisan given I’ve acknowledged it’s a problem worth fixing on both sides.
And yet, you’re supporting Sanders’ unforgiving test. Interesting.
Are you seriously not understanding this? Are you so blinded by your disdain for Christians that you cannot see a Muslim’s view of hell barring Muslims from office under the same test? Or Jews? Or hell, Atheists because the Constitution protects “freedom of religion” and Atheists have a history of opposing public displays of religion.
[quote=“pfury, post:228, topic:231857”]Depends on your perspective. If you’re like me it’s undeniably better as dialogue has been created by Bernie’s actions. Dialogue that will hopefully shame politicians into obeying the voters or risking losing said votes.
Seems like a ton of people having issue with Bernie’s questions and very little issue with politicians spending years ignoring the will of the people.
[/quote]
So if the will of the people was in favor of banning gay marriage then that would be okay? What governs here, the U.S. Constitution or the will of the people? I’m not convinced that you even remotely understand the basics of how our Constitution and the will of the people intersect.
If it was a matter of polling rather than law it would have been completely illegal before 2011 and completely legal after 2011. At least if one believes the Pew data. Of course, that’s not at all how our legal system works. It is fascinating though in terms of how quickly views changed, and I think it’s shining example of how our Constitution and legal system works. The arguments against it eventually failed in light of othe SCOTUS decisions, and the majority of the court recognized that if we view marriage as fundamentally important to couples and the stability of society then there is not reason to bar it. Of course, given time the legislatures would likely have legalized it based on those polls, but they weren’t given the chance to allow that part of the system to work. Nothing ever happens fast enough or slow enough I suppose.
Is Bernie ignoring the will of his constituents by asking his questions? I’m not sure how these 2 things contradict one another.
If any religious member answers No to the question of “will the choices of your voters override your religion” I see that as failing a basic job question. Akin to a doctor who refuses to take the Hippocratic oath.
“okay” is a matter of perspective. If it was the will of the people, it would be at minimum the majority consensus.
Neither. Politicians govern. Since they spent years ignoring the Constitution that we are all created equal, and years ignoring the people’s will in favor of their party’s religious leanings, it’s hard to say anyone other than politicians governed.
Congressmen aren’t to vote on national majorities, they’re to vote on the will of their constituents. I’m not saying ALL of them ignored the will of their people, just a lot of them. Quite a few congressmen represent areas that I’m totally sure still don’t believe in gay marriage.
FFS. He didn’t just ask the questions. He disqualified the appointee based on his answers regarding the belief that one only enters the Kingdom of Heaven through Christ. That question and answer seems incredibly irrelevant to an OMB position. Or hell, any governmental position. Maybe I’m not making this clear but he created a religious litmus test which arguably violates the U.S. Constitution. The “will of the people” isn’t very relevant in that context.
See my response above. That wasn’t the question. And again, if the will of the people involved interning certain relgious groups should the politicians’ better moral compas override that will or not? [quote=“pfury, post:234, topic:231857”]
Neither. Politicians govern. Since they spent years ignoring the Constitution that we are all created equal, and years ignoring the people’s will in favor of their party’s religious leanings, it’s hard to say anyone other than politicians governed.
[/quote]
Years? Really? It took the bloodiest war in our nation’s history and the 13th Amendment to make all men equal. You might want to read the Constitution. And again, how many years ignorning constituents? Which constiuents exactly?
Generally speaking you’re closer with this answer, but again, we are a constitutional republic not a direct democracy. Based on your arguments is it okay to ban gay marriage in Mississippi if the poll numbers support it?
He disqualified the appointee because he’s a Democrat and Vought is a Republican. Pure party partisanship semantics. I don’t at all agree with Bernie’s decision to vote No on Vought. For the real reason of partisanship or the backup reason of the Muslim stuff.
I don’t believe a politician’s moral compass should ever override the will of the people.
Just because past failures were worse doesn’t make current day failures better overall. Just better by comparison.
From your numbers, in a national sense, 4 years. 2011 to 2015. In a politician by politician sense, I don’t have a list of names for you. If you compare the numbers in support of gay marriage with the amount of Nos that have been submitted, it’s statistically improbable that everyone’s hands are clean.
No, because I believe strongly in the Fed govt’s ability to override the state govt.
It looks dangerously like a religious litmus test to me and many other qualified commentators.
Seems like a great justification for genocide.
I wish there was some objective measure, but better by comparison is about as good as it gets in the real world.
But if the will of the people governs and politicians only represent their constiuents then it’s very relevant as to what state and district we are discussing. It’s not right or wrong, it’s either the will of the contituents or not.
So the will of constiuents don’t matter? Is your argument to be viewed in the context of Article VI and the 10th Amendment or is this just an argument that the federal government generally wins?
I agree. I just don’t have a problem with a religious litmus test. In a world where politicians don’t actively vote for religious reasons, I like to think I’d feel differently.
Lesser of 2 evils imo.
Does this mean we shouldn’t/can’t have objections of negative issues unless it’s worse than slavery?
And as long as those states subscribe to membership of the United States of America, the will of the national people will override the will of the local people. [quote=“sunnbeaches105, post:238, topic:231857”]
So the will of constiuents don’t matter? Is your argument to be viewed in the context of Article VI and the 10th Amendment or is this just an argument that the federal government generally wins?
[/quote]