Quote:
Originally Posted by DrModern
Okay? You're saying it's morally bad to be skeptical of an exclusivist Christian's fitness for office in a nation that upholds free exercise of religion, even when said exclusivist has expressly stated that he believes all Muslims "stand condemned" before God?
No, that's not what I mean. Let me try again.
Imagine that Bernie Sanders had said, "Vought, I see you're a Yankees fan. I hate the Yankees and don't think they're what our country is about, so I'm going to vote no." Now, I don't think it is particularly immoral to hate the Yankees. I don't think it is illegal or unconstitutional for a US Senator to use their hatred of the Yankees as the reason for rejecting a nominee for office. But I also don't think that is the kind of reason a US Senator
should use to decide whether to vote for a nominee. The reasons why this is the wrong kind of reason can vary. For instance, there are a lot of Yankee fans out there - shouldn't they have a part in running the country as much as anyone else? Or, being a Yankees fan doesn't have anything to do with the position. Or, Senators should abstract from their own private allegiances and interests when making decisions on behalf of their state.
In a similar fashion, I am arguing that Vought being an exclusivist Christian is not the kind of reason Senators should use to vote no on a nominee. The general principle I'm appealing to is that we should not use a religious test for public office and I'm arguing that this reason is in effect a religious test. This is true regardless of Bernie Sander's motivations or beliefs in putting forward this reason. It is the reason itself on which I am focused.
Quote:
A government where all representatives were weak agnostics would probably do a good job preserving neutrality with respect to religions while allowing all to practice their faiths. As you acknowledge, it's very difficult to put faith aside. It's not that such a person can never have a role in a secular government, especially as a democratically elected representative, but I think fairness in adjudicating among faiths is easiest when you have no prior commitment to any. (I think this answers your Southern Baptist hypothetical--I'd be skeptical of most if not all.)
I don't agree. In my experience weak agnostics often exhibit the same lack of neutrality you seem to exhibit here: a suspicion of especially dogmatic or devout religious people and a bias towards casual or more liberal (in the religious sense) religious people. I would instead prefer a government with religious diversity, so that each faith or lack of faith has a voice in setting policy.
EDIT: To clarify, by "faith or lack faith has a voice" I mean people of those faiths, not the institutions of the religions themselves.
Last edited by Original Position; 06-30-2017 at 09:10 PM.
Reason: added text