People whose records bespeak hostility to core values such as 1st Amendment should not get lifetime judgeships.
Not saying this applies to Trainor, but do you agree someone expressing animus toward some religions shouldn't be appointed to gov't office?https://twitter.com/Joseph_La_Rue/status/908341331428175872 …
-
-
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I believe anyone with deep tribalism that overrides their humanity and objectivity should be denied gov positions.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
What do you mean by animus? Several religions contend theirs is the only true path, and that belief in that faith is required for salvation.
-
Some religions also make epistemology a matter of morality; not believing in the faith is seen as sinful or immoral.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I don't agree, Rick, and here's why. Most religions are exclusivist in nature. (1/?)
-
If we exclude those who hold exclusivistic views (which their religious faith teaches), then we are practicing religious tests. (2/2)
-
let's say I'm a racist; POTUS decides not to nominate me. Seems okay. But wait. My racism is inspired by God. POTUS should nominate now?
-
Joe, you're reversing issue. "No religious test" doesn't mean Pres. must nominate the religious. It means religious views don't disqualify.
-
You said such and such should be a "non-issue." So, I'm trying to see what is a legitimate "qualification" for POTUS or Congress.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.