350
Mike Johnson urged a religious test for politicians (www.motherjones.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/politics@lemmy.world
82 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 177 points 2 years ago (2 children)

There should be a religious test for politicians.

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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [+] -47 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 14 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] 48 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I'm pretty sure that was the point of the original comment.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    Who decides what is too religious?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 21 points 2 years 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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 13 points 2 years 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

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [+] -49 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 7 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 31 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    It’s because adherence to religious dress codes is not a clear indicator of fundamentalism or evangelism. Women who choose to wear burkas, niqabs headscarves etc are not immediately downtrodden and subservient women who agree with religious sexism. A Sikh man choosing to wear a turban and not shave his body hair is not a clear indicator that he’s a fundamentalist in any way.

    Judge politicians by their words and actions, not by how they look. There are many religious zealots who wear simple suits and dresses.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [+] -19 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You took the ACTION of putting on garb that says your religion is above everything else. I will judge you for that on the political field

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You took the ACTION of putting on garb that says your religion is above everything else

    Incorrect assumption. A dominant religion in any given society will influence cultural and societal norms. Sometimes, perhaps even more often than not, the reason for wearing religious clothing is social conformity. That doesn't necessarily mean that the wearer is a fundamentalist or even religious at all. There are even atheists who wear religious clothing just because the community they belong to excepts them to do so and they don't want to stand out (applies to all genders). And that's just one of several possible reasons other than the one you assumed to be the only possible explanation.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    At the end of the day my argument is that I want politicians of any stripe or religion to leave their religion at the door. Anyone who puts their god's will into their decision making process (which all religious people do) has no business in politics

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    That's reasonable and I agree with that. I'm just pointing out that religious clothing doesn't necessarily mean that that person will do what you fear. As Instigate points out, their words and actions are what matters and what we should be paying attention to.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent