Also Peter Thiel.
its an evangelical boner, they conceptualize the rapture, and it has pervaded in media that portrays christians in anyways.
Because in the end of world situation it kinda pointless to ask for accountability , responsibility , or something related to those pos which they like because they do that every time.
The unknown is scary. Prophecy fills in that anxiety. Religion, especially the Abrahamic religion, is for the spiritually lazy. The jewish God (YHWH, God, Allah) is a usurper, a thief, and dominator of the material. We’re all spiritual beings and we don’t need lesser gods to connect with each other within this universe. I know it sounds kinda cheesy, but loving kindness should be our spiritual path in this material world.
A Gnostic in the wild?
Not quite. I prefer the word “source” than “monad”. I try to practice buddhist-like non-dualism in my meditations.
He is just playing to the base. This weasel will say anything and turn on a dime if it suits his purposes. Remember what he said about Trump before he became vice president…
I say let him meet his god early.
This is exactly why there needs to be a separation between church and state. How can you trust someone to run the country, when all their decisions are grounded in magical thinking?
Umm… we have that. What we lack is law enforcement.
Don’t you have to swear on the bible?
You can swear on anything you want.
Separation of church and state is different from separation of state and religious laymen. The majority of the population are religious so excluding them would be worse democratically than excluding women. What’s actually meant by separation of church and state is that people working in the church (priests, Bishops, popes) shouldn’t meddle with the running of the state. Nothing to do with religious laymen.
The down votes on this are insane to me. He just gave the original definition of the separation of church and state.
Every elected representative should only be bound by existing laws and their own conscience. That means that if someone chooses to listen to sky daddy or the flying spaghetti monster while in elected office, that’s up to them. It sucks, but you can’t have a democracy in which you tell people what the basis for their decisions must be. If the people elect an Astrologer to office that person should be free to base their decisions on the movement of Jupiter through Sagittarius or whatever.
Democracy is designed to empower the statistical average will of the people. Not produce “best” (by whatever measure) outcomes for the country. Just what people want.
Are you saying it’s fine for elected religious laymen to force religion into our government and onto its people because they’re not church officials?
If a religious layman is motivated by his religion to make policies that you don’t agree with you should not vote for that person. If anyone else agrees with his religiously motivated policies then they should be allowed to vote for that person. I don’t think this is too crazy of a concept. Now if that specific religiously motivated policy happens to be unconstitutional that is a totally different matter.
This is how you end up with religious persecution and pogroms.
Is religious persecution and pogroms allowed in the constitution? Also systematically disallowing religious people from office is a form of religious persecution.
Mmmm, no that’s what the First Amendment is partially for. The government shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. I have a right to be a Satanist in peace without yokels shoving their way of life down my throat
If a lawmaker bans satanism or enacts a law that otherwise discriminates against satanists. Then that’s not allowed. But what wouldn’t be a problem would be a religious lawmaker on a totally secular subject. Like the example I gave in another comment how one could in theory loosen immigration restriction by quoting the parable of the good Samaritan. That law would not be religious law, even if the law maker was motivated by his religious belief.
FUCKING LIES!
Separation of church and state is different from separation of state and religious laymen.
Fucking lies!. And it’s a bald faced lie that results in “In God We Trust” on our money.
There is either a separation or there is not. There is no in between. It is binary and that’s the end of it. Anyone who attempts to negotiate an in-between is a FUCKING LIAR
E PLERIBUS UNUM
And if you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with democracy
*E Pluribus Unum
And I agree, LIES!! But christians are hypocrites.
It’s not a lie. That’s how the very inventor of the term “separation of church and state” defined it and how it has been used for hundreds of years after. Roger Williams, who first used the term, was a puritan, later baptist, pastor. What you’re describing would be an innovation and expansion of what separation of church and state means. It seems what you really want is a separation between religion and state. That is a totally different issue. In the future it would be advantageous for you to be clear on that and explicitly say that it’s religion, not just church, that you want to exclude from the state.
I’m curious though. Which people would you want to exclude from the government. Church goers are obvious. But what about the “spiritual but not religious” people? Or people who believe in ghosts but not god? What about natives who believe their native religions? The non god believing buddhist? Who would define if someone is religious enough to be disallowed from running for office? Whoever that person was, that person would get immense power.
It’s not a lie.
lol, nice try, fuck bag. That bullshit doesn’t work here anymore.
I’m fine with you insulting me. However I’m still interested to learn where you would draw the line between the non religious and the religious in your proposed ban of religious people in political office.
Noone advocated for banning religious people. We want to prevent religious policy
If I’m fine with having religious laymen in government and you’re also fine with having religious laymen in government then I’m not sure on what we disagree.
I have no problem with people having religious beliefs…in private. But, as far as I’m concerned, as soon as those religious beliefs start dictating your policy priorities…you have lost your ability to make objective decisions on behalf of the rest of us. That goes equally for “laymen” as well as “professionals”.
This case is a perfect example. Anyone openly saying that they’re just going to “follow their faith”, even if it leads us all to total destruction, needs to be removed from office. Yesterday. I wouldn’t even trust that person to drive a city bus, let alone guide policy for the entire population.
I agree that if a religious laymen uses religion to make bad policies then he shouldn’t be in office. However democracy is supposed to represent the people and if the people want to elect a religious nutjob then that’s a failure of the people, not the democratic system. You can’t make a law that says religious people can’t run for office as that would be extremely undemocratic and go against religious freedom.
You can’t make a law that says religious people can’t run for office…but you can make a law that says they can’t make policy based on their religious beliefs.
That’s what the 1st amendment is supposed to prevent.
I’m not American so correct me if I’m wrong. But wasn’t the first amendment about disallowing the government from establishing or favoring a specific religious establishment. Meaning it would be illegal to say make a law that favors or teaches baptism in school at the expense of another Christian flavor. What I understand of the history behind freedom of religion in the US was that people were sick of the UK mandating the very specific theology of the Anglican church and instead wanting a system where people were allowed to practice any flavor of Christianity that they wanted. From this it would be no problem being a religious person in office but it would not be okay for that person to give benefits or favor to their specific church while in office.
Not making policy based on religious belief would be impossible however. One’s religion would impact one’s entire morality and value system. So one could say we should enact policy X because the bible says so. But one couldn’t say we should enact policy X because the southern baptist Convention just made a ruling that policy X should be enacted and now we have to make a law that matches that ruling.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
It is as you said…primarily as a freedom to practice whatever religion you want…but this also effectively prohibits any government official from enacting any policy or legislation that promotes their own religious beliefs over any other, since it may conflict with the free practice of someone else’s religion.
In essence, it prevents the state from getting involved in religious matters altogether.
But I could in theory promote a secular policy based on my theoretical religious belief. Say I want to lower barriers to immigration and as motivation I quote the parable of the good Samaritan saying that even foreigners should be treated as ones neighbour. Now in doing this I’m letting my religious belief affect my policy making. However I’m not inhibiting anyone else’s free practice of religion since this is secular policy.
I see what you’re saying. You can’t exclude everyone from every religion from running for office.
Are you sure? I think maybe we should try that and see how it goes.
You know your administration is doing a bad job when you use the end of the world as a selling point.
According to the Bible, there will be some sort of ultimate showdown between good and evil when the world ends. “Good” is preordained to win. Therefore, some religious nuts think that by helping the world to end, they’re helping fulfill god’s plan.
In my opinion, they’re just giving themselves license to be cruel, hateful bastards.
I don’t know the motivation of nuts who don’t claim to follow the Bible, but I suspect the previous sentence still applies.
Don’t have to preserve the environment for future generations either if you think you’re getting raptured out of it.
Doesn’t the Bible also say that there’s nothing you can do to bring the end times around faster?
So why not do objectively good things until then, instead?
Maybe it’s one of gods tests, and he wants to see if you’re a good person even in the face of inevitability.
I can’t with these religious people.
they’re helping fulfill god’s plan.
Weird that an all-powerful god needs so much help…
I find it interesting that humans need to “fulfill gods plan”. Clearly that god is not all powerful or it would not need a plan, it would just do as it pleases. That’s what being a god is. And this is why religion is so stupid, it’s all made up and most of it is violence, suppression, repression, discrimination, hate & ignorance.
Rarely is there “love” or compassion coming from a religion.
But murica are the badys
Main-charactering. Obviously it has to happen during their lifetime because otherwise it would mean they’re just as unimportant as the rest of us.
Which is ironic because Vance is basically that NPC whose dialog everyone skips all the time because it’s so poorly written.
Is end times what evangelicals call anal?
Sort of, it’s thst time when all false prophets get tortured.
yeah so I was helping the antichrist to start the end times for jesus so im totally going to heaven.
The best time to leave was a while ago. The next best time to leave is now.
Obviously because The Almighty can’t do their own job.
Careful not to misgender God. It might bring about the end times. (Big old /s)
Because the end of the world means that if they die then it’s get out jail free card and they get their gold ticket to heaven.
Very the onion like
