Christians who don't make my skin crawl!

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Maeght,

It’s not a straightforward question though. It’s helpful sometimes to take an extreme example to test the proposition (that religious people should be allowed to hold public office). Most I think would agree for example that an evangelical “end of times” merchant probably shouldn’t be given the launch codes to nuclear weapons and the means to use them. After all, why not just accelerate what’s coming anyway?

OK, so there’s an example of when a religious person shouldn’t be allowed to hold public office precisely because of his religious beliefs. Anyone disagree? OK, let’s move on.

How about Theresa May who (from memory) when asked about a major decision like going to war told us that she’d pray for guidance. Good idea does anyone think?

And so it goes. Somewhere along the line – perhaps when the decisions made don’t matter much – no-one will care much about whether the official has an imaginary friend. In some case though it will matter – a lot – so what then should we think about those cases?

Do you support Walter IMHO you do.

And then there's Peter Singer and dear old Sam Harris.

Perhaps we should turn things on there head. Can we trust someone who thinks morality is the equivalent of liking marmite and not liking marmite.

Don't forget the wider secular world does not share your views Hillside.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I have no idea why you are asking this question!

Its a straightforward question.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Maeght,

It’s not a straightforward question though. It’s helpful sometimes to take an extreme example to test the proposition (that religious people should be allowed to hold public office). Most I think would agree for example that an evangelical “end of times” merchant probably shouldn’t be given the launch codes to nuclear weapons and the means to use them. After all, why not just accelerate what’s coming anyway?

In which Hillside reveals he has the James Bond 007 Boxset.

[Walter]

any oughts are simply beliefs

where do 'ought's' come into this ? who mentioned aught?

[Nearly Sane]

where do 'ought's' come into this ? who mentioned aught?

You are covering what should be done in politics. Those are oughts. So it was you that mentioned them

[Walter]

Do you support Walter IMHO you do.

And then there's Peter Singer and dear old Sam Harris.

Perhaps we should turn things on there head. Can we trust someone who thinks morality is the equivalent of liking marmite and not liking marmite.

Don't forget the wider secular world does not share your views Hillside.

have you learned nothing from your experience on  this MB

there is ignorance , then there is stupid .

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

Yes, you judge individuals on their suitability for office, rsther than ruling out anyone who is religious.

But what if their religious beliefs are themselves pertinent to that - praying for guidance for example re whether or not to go to war?

[Nearly Sane]

Maeght,

But what if their religious beliefs are themselves pertinent to that - praying for guidance for example re whether or not to go to war?

Is that relevant to saying that all people with religious beliefs shouldn't hold public office?

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Yes it is a straightforward question because it was ab absolute. Any belief in an ought can be taken to an extreme so the 'logic' of your post is no one should.

OK, I'll re-phrase - the question may be straightforward but the answer isn't. And no that's not the logic at all - there are plenty of people who believe in various gods but who leave those beliefs at the door for practical purposes (re taking contraception for example). Others though don't - those who would pray for guidance on matters of national importance for example. Do I think it's a bad idea for the latter group to hold public office? Yes, and for fairly obvious reasons I'd have thought.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Is that relevant to saying that all people with religious beliefs shouldn't hold public office?

Who has said that?

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

OK, I'll re-phrase - the question may be straightforward but the answer isn't. And no that's not the logic at all - there are plenty of people who believe in various gods but who leave those beliefs at the door for practical purposes (re taking contraception for example). Others though don't - those who would pray for guidance on matters of national importance for example. Do I think it's a bad idea for the latter group to hold public office? Yes, and for fairly obvious reasons I'd have thought.

So the answer to the actual statement/question is no but you want tolie about it.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

Who has said that?

Walter,

When he wrote

being religious should preclude anyone from being in any public office


Which is what the discussion here was about.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

So the answer to the actual statement/question is no but you want tolie about it.

Well that's weird. What I actually said was pretty clear I'd have thought - sometimes the religious beliefs (and practices) will themselves make the people who hold them unfit for public office in my opinion, sometimes they won't (essentially because they ignore them). How you draw the line between them is the difficult bit.

Incidentally, as you're fond of admonishing people for accusing others of lying you really need to be more careful about doing it yourself, especially when there's no evidence for it.

[bluehillside Retd.]

NS,

Walter,

When he wrote

being religious should preclude anyone from being in any public office


Which is what the discussion here was about.

So not me then.

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

gabriella

Your apparent, to me anyway, assumption that your posts are superior to bluehillside's and that yours should be, or are assumed by you to be, admired by the rest of us has an air of arrogance, especially as you have included a derisory comment or two.

If you had the confidence of your convictions and ideas   you would be able to express them in a way that would be assertive enough in themselves.

ETA And having now read your latest post, I will add to my last sentence: ... and you would not have to add the derisive, verging on sneering, comments.'

That's very sweet of you Susan. It's always interesting when people come on here and feel safe enough to share their beliefs.

Did you particularly like the bit where I said "you can post such spectacular drivel that I actually feel quite embarrassed for you."

I wanted to put "unmitigated drivel" but "spectacular drivel" seemed to cause less of a curl to my upper lip so I thought I could sneak that by you - but clearly nothing gets past you Susan.

[Maeght]

Maeght,

But what if their religious beliefs are themselves pertinent to that - praying for guidance for example re whether or not to go to war?

Judge the individual.

[Nearly Sane]

NS,

So not me then.

Didn't say it was you. Just that that was the straightforward question/issue raised. And your answer seemed to say that you don't think May should be PM because she us religious.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Maeght,

Judge the individual.

When someone in public office says she'd pray for guidance on very serious issues are we judging her or her religious beliefs?

[The Accountant, OBE, KC]

Gabriella,

Savlon half price at Boots this week. Just thought you'd like to know.

Some evidence would be useful....

[Maeght]

NS,

Well that's weird. What I actually said was pretty clear I'd have thought - sometimes the religious beliefs (and practices) will themselves make the people who hold them unfit for public office in my opinion, sometimes they won't (essentially because they ignore them). How you draw the line between them is the difficult bit.

Incidentally, as you're fond of admonishing people for accusing others of lying you really need to be more careful about doing it yourself, especially when there's no evidence for it.

The question was should having religious beliefs preclude someone from holding public office.  So wasn't NS right in saying that the,answer to that question is no?

[Nearly Sane]

Maeght,

When someone in public office says she'd pray for guidance on very serious issues are we judging her or her religious beliefs?

Since you don't want religious beliefs , as you have shown here, how could one tell?

[ProfessorDavey]

Do you agree with Walter that religious people should not hold public office?

Of course religious people should be able to hold public office - and that should include from top to bottom of religious organisations. So, for example, priests should be able to stand for election and if successful should hold public office in exactly the same manner as anyone else.

However the appointment or election process should be the same for everyone, regardless of their religion or lack thereof and all positions should be open to those of any religion and those of none. There cannot be special places reserved for religious people only and likewise there shouldn't be places reserved for non religious people only.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Maeght,

When someone in public office says she'd pray for guidance on very serious issues are we judging her or her religious beliefs?

Atheists such as Stalin and Pol Pot did not pray for guidance and look what they got up to.
I'm wondering why Atheists, some of whom who have managed to get to the highest positions of state and killed millions have been given a pass and yet we are to fear what is bad caricature theology even for evangelicals but foremost an appeal to the fictional world dominating villain.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Of course religious people should be able to hold public office - and that should include from top to bottom of religious organisations. So, for example, priests should be able to stand for election and if successful should hold public office in exactly the same manner as anyone else.

However the appointment or election process should be the same for everyone, regardless of their religion or lack thereof and all positions should be open to those of any religion and those of none. There cannot be special places reserved for religious people only and likewise there shouldn't be places reserved for non religious people only.

Practically though all the roles available only take the secular into account. In other words unless there are positions based on spirituality as there are say for LGBTQ issues in local government only atheist, materialistic interests will be served.

[ippy]

Practically though all the roles available only take the secular into account. In other words unless there are positions based on spirituality as there are say for LGBTQ issues in local government only atheist, materialistic interests will be served.

There's none so blind as those that don't want to see Vlad.

You're determined to not understand and reject secularism, no matter how even handed or fair minded the secular approach, after this set of posts even the thickest among us would have got it by now, you're not that thick so it must be some kind of misguided determination you have driving you to reject secularism, just put up your hands and admit secularism is an ideal, it would be putting everyone on a level pegging as you must know by now, secularism has been fully explained to you.

Regards ippy