• smitty@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    176
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    There should be a religious test for politicians.

    If you’re too religious, you should not be a politician

    • Fades@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      arrow-down
      73
      ·
      1 year ago

      That is the opposite of what this country was built on; freedom of religion.

      Being religious should not disqualify anyone, but if you push past separation of church and state then and only then should you be disqualified

      • Fal@yiffit.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        35
        ·
        1 year ago

        Being too religious should absolutely disqualify you, just like believing the world is flat or any number of other complete nonsense should disqualify you.

      • FuglyDuck@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        25
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        So… you’re saying ….

        If they’re too religious… they should be disqualified…

        The line for you being that they try to force their beliefs on others. Which, personally, I view as a given when their campaign platform includes “Christian Values” (or any other religion’s values,)

        If you can’t make a secular argument…. It doesn’t belong in government.

      • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        The Puritans came here to seperate THEIR church from the state, after that it became them imposing their religion on natives.

        The actual country’s founding in 1776 was. Far from religious, and many of the founding fathers were not religious or outright anti religion

      • surewhynotlem@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        Bring religious should be a disqualification. You have a higher master you serve. You can’t be trusted to put the country and the citizens first.

      • ghostdoggtv@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Religious beliefs are not disqualifying, but if that’s your whole way of being, you should not hold public office. Render unto Caesar.

    • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      arrow-down
      65
      ·
      1 year ago

      There’s a Canadian politician I refuse to vote for because he’s seihk, wears the turban and religious regalia. Of course you get called racist, but I wouldn’t vote for a Jewish person in Orthodox garb, or a Christian carrying a Bible everywhere. It tells me that you put your religion above everything, even your constituents.

      Of course there’s an India/seihk scandal going on right now. Having a super religious seihk in power would have made that one a way bigger shit show.

      • Pips@lemmy.sdf.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        53
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        Perhaps start by learning how to spell Sikh before passing judgment on them.

      • Lemminary@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        I don’t understand what people think of when they read…

        If you’re too religious, you should not be a politician

        but it’s literally part of what you’re saying. Why the downvotes, because they’re naming specifics of what signals to them being too religious? Make it make sense, Lemmy.

  • EmpathicVagrant@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    1 year ago

    You know what? Yes. And if you’re found to be swayed by your religion while making law? You should be barred from office.

  • Daft_ish@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    68
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I’d like to test him about feeding the hungry. Sheltering the homeless. Comforting the widow. Coveting your neighbors goods. Doing to others as you would like have done to you. I’m not even fucking talking about religion, either.

    • WolfhoundRO@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I’d like to test him about the desire for control and dictatorial tendencies. He would fail every time

  • billwashere@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    56
    ·
    1 year ago

    I wish these chucklefucks would realize not all of us believe in god let alone the same one they pray to.

  • BeautifulMind ♾️@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    1 year ago

    There is a ‘no religious test’ bit in the constitution It turns out that the only religious test the constitution sanctions is DON’T PROPOSE RELIGIOUS TESTS

    That’s the one that tells us you can’t be trusted with secular authority

        • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          18
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Most “Christians” are also unaware of the extra ones, despite them being listed in black and white in the bible.

          In Exodus 20, Moses is given the tablets containing the ten commandments, which are listed off in the text of the bible in that chapter and are the ten that “everyone knows.”

          Then, in Exodus 32:19, Moses gets so pissed off at witnessing his people worshiping the golden calf that he breaks the tablets that have the commandments carved on them. In Exodus 33 he goes back up the mountain to ask god what to do about it. In Exodus 34, god goes as far as to say unto Moses, “Hew thee two tables of stone like unto the first: and I will write upon these tables the words that were in the first tables, which thou brakest.” Throughout the chapter he does so, listing off a screed that contains a couple of the original commandments (no other gods before me, and remember the sabbath) but the rest of his directions are quite different from the first list.

          Further, there is a recitation of the first ten commandments in Deuteronomy 5, where a different explanation for the sabbath day is given. In Exodus god claims the sabbath is holy because he created the world in six days and the seventh day is a day of rest, but in Deuteronomy he says the sabbath actually holy because the people of Israel were slaves in Egypt and god gave them rest in the form of their freedom. Moses further goes on to say after this recitation that these were the words god spoke and he “added no more,” which as we saw in Exodus 34 is bogus.

          I guess actually it’s 18 in total, then. We can treat it as a trick question for Mike Johnson.

          • kromem@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            There’s an interesting detail to the whole “Moses breaking the original tablets in response to the golden calf worship.”

            This parallels the alleged reforms of Josiah.

            Josiah “finds a new book of laws” and then suddenly carries out major religious reforms. He performed human sacrifice slaughtering the priests of the high places on their altars to defile them. He hides away the Ark, the anointing oil, the manna jar. He gets rid of the Asherah worship.

            And he gets rid of the golden calves in Bethel and Dan while getting rid of the old laws and bringing new ones.

            Oh, and he institutes the Passover narrative.

            So suddenly in the events around Moses, the central part of that Passover narrative, is a scene that has old laws being destroyed in response to golden calf worship and new laws taking their place.

            Very sus.

            Even more sus is that Josiah’s reforms appear to be anachronistic given the correspondence over a century later between Elephantine and Jerusalem.

            We should really be taking Hecataeus of Adbera’s claim that the scriptures of the Jews had recently been significantly altered around the Exodus narrative under the Persian and Macedonian conquests more seriously.

            Edit: Also if the Shapira scroll is legit, there was originally an 11th commandment.

          • cygnus@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            SMH. I can’t stand when fantasy authors have such shoddy and inconsistent worldbuilding. Doesn’t anyone proofread and run the manuscript by beta readers anymore?

            • Fun fact, the King James version (which wingnuts love to swear adherence to, maybe because of all the flowery language) was supposed to be the edit that fixed many of these worldbuilding gaffes. Obviously, it categorically failed to do so – it even still includes both mildly contradictory accounts of the creation of the world in Genesis, which another poster here already mentioned.

              • killeronthecorner@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                It also includes contradictions on pretty much every part of the gospels in relation to each other but, to be fair, that’s the case in all of them.

                Does beg the question of why they didn’t align them when they had the chance. Some times the word of God is more malleable than others I guess.

                • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  They did try to align them. Mark original ends at the Tomb, eventually scribes started adding details post-tomb to Mark. Which is why the Mark Gospel we have now reads like it has three separate endings.

                • 1024_Kibibytes@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  The original King James version included the apocrypha, which are found in the Catholic versions, but booksellers realized they could sell more copies if they left out the apocrypha. That’s why most copies today don’t have the apocrypha.

              • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                1 year ago

                No one reads the KJV except people seeking a doctrine in biblical studies. Everyone reads the revised KJV. The original version was plagiarized off an earlier English Bible instead of going directly to the source material. So even when it was first published it sounded like an old time way of speaking. Also it contained non-canon books that publishers would later take out to save on costs.

            • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Well to be fair none of these people knew they were writing the Bible. You are some ancient scribe. The local king/warlord wants you to take some old story or scroll and revamp it to argue how great he is. Can’t really refuse a guy with a throne of human bones especially since a. He is paying you b. This is your chance to write a fanfic, maybe it won’t suck this time.

              Over and over the translations and copies were altered. As each group tried to prove that they had it right and everyone before them had it wrong.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Which is part of the reason why it is thought that the final editors, prior to the 3rd century, were fusing two different narratives together. Same thing happens in Genesis and to a lesser extent in Mark.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      Start with “Which came first, people or animals?”

      Genesis 1:

      20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

      24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

      26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

      27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

      Genesis 2:

      7 And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

      19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

      21 And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;

      22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

      • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Indeed. Two stories from two regions mashed up into the Septuagint along with a number of other writings, much of it proven to be anachronistic, meant to unify a kingdom politically against its rivals under one religion and one god where before there were many of each. It’s also why you see god being named in different ways in different books.

        • jordanlund@lemmy.worldM
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          Yup. Genesis 1 is the Elohist creation myth, Genesis 2 is the Jawhist creation myth. But try telling that to biblical literalists.

          • agent_flounder@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            Thanks; I couldn’t recall the details of which was which.

            Biblical literalists are in for some disappointment or further self delusion if told this, I am guessing.

        • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          meant to unify a kingdom politically against its rivals

          Someone has been reading their Finkelstein, haha. I am not saying he isn’t right I remain on the fence about it as of this time.

  • ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    1 year ago

    I feel like a major lesson from the Trump era is that no one has to take American evangelicals seriously when they talk about how their faith informs their politics. They can and will justify anything so it’s just a waste of everyone’s time to pretend they’re sincere in their beliefs.

    • PeepinGoodArgs@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is it exactly. Start with what someone is trying to justify doing first and foremost. It doesn’t matter what they believe. A nihilist fascist should be exterminated all the same

  • CharlesDarwin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    8
    ·
    1 year ago

    Man, these guys just hate this country so very much. It’s so obvious because they keep ignoring and/or gaslighting about one of the most important things about this country, and that is that it is a SECULAR country.

  • Konala Koala@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    How about a religious test on this extra set of ten commandments and start by seeinh how the idiots in the House would even pass it.

    1. Thou shall send aid to Israel and Ukraine
    2. Thou shall vote not to shut down the government
    3. Thou shall vote for a Democratic House Speaker
    4. Thou shall ban assault weapons from the market
    5. Thou shall vote to expand, not cut, Social Security or Medicare
    6. Thou shall vote to tax the very rich since greed is a sin
    7. Thou shall vote to tear down border walls that don’t work
    8. Thou shall vote to invest in clean renewable energy
    9. Thou shall vote to stop drilling and clear cutting on natural reserves
    10. Thou shall vote to expand the Endangered Species List and fund the EPA.
    • Hyperreality@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      No need to invent new commandments. Use the holy book they claim to follow.

      James 5: 1-6:

      1 Now listen, you rich people, weep and wail because of the misery that is coming on you. 2 Your wealth has rotted, and moths have eaten your clothes. 3 Your gold and silver are corroded. Their corrosion will testify against you and eat your flesh like fire. You have hoarded wealth in the last days. 4 Look! The wages you failed to pay the workers who mowed your fields are crying out against you. The cries of the harvesters have reached the ears of the Lord Almighty. 5 You have lived on earth in luxury and self-indulgence. You have fattened yourselves in the day of slaughter. 6 You have condemned and murdered the innocent one, who was not opposing you.

      Not done your best to eliminate wage theft and tax the rich? Fail.

      Leviticus 19:34

      The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born. Love them as yourself, for you were foreigners in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.

      Not voted in favour of equal (voting, residence, labour, …) rights for migrants? Fail.

      Exodus 22:25

      “If you lend money to any of my people with you who is poor, you shall not be like a moneylender to him, and you shall not exact interest from him.

      Not voted in favour of mandating interest free loans to the poor? Fail.