a thoughtful web.
Good ideas and conversation. No ads, no tracking.   Login or Take a Tour!
comment by goobster
goobster  ·  477 days ago  ·  link  ·    ·  parent  ·  post: Pubski: December 7, 2022

Now that the Texan Hershel Walker has lost his bid to be governor of Georgia (and how the hell is that even a viable candidacy?!?) ... can we talk about how problematic it is for REVEREND Raphael Warnock to be in public office?!? WTF?

Separation of church and state, anyone?!?





ThurberMingus  ·  477 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Separation of church and state is more about the Pope owning half of Italy and Kings deciding to be their own Pope and less about people voting for a pastor.

goobster  ·  475 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Agreed.

But a Pastor has already made his priorities known: God first, America second.

When push comes to shove and he needs to either represent his electorate or his god in some legislation, who is he going to choose?

That right there is my concern with religious officials holding office; they have to betray one or the other of their belief systems to do their daily job.

ThurberMingus  ·  475 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    God first, America second.

So we're back to 'murica first!'?

    he needs to either represent his electorate or his X in some legislation, who is he going to choose?

filter for X in ['religion', 'shareholders', 'finances', 'influence', 'celebrity', 'special interest group' ...]

Once we filter out the flawed candidates we will be left with the one pure, unblemished, sacrificial lamb to send to Washington to save democracy...

-------------

I'd argue insider trading and the churn between business/lobbying/legislating are conflicts of interest to fight.

goobster  ·  475 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    So we're back to 'murica first!'?

Wrong takeaway; electorate first. The entire premise of a representative democracy is that you vote for someone to care for your interests. The interests are - by definition - the democracy first, and all other considerations second.

But the religious don't even put the state above their god... so they are already compromised before assuming the role. Hence my worry about them serving in an elected role.

kleinbl00  ·  476 days ago  ·  link  ·  

What is your argument that a degree in divinity and employment as a pastor should disqualify you from holding office, out of curiosity?

goobster  ·  475 days ago  ·  link  ·  

The obvious?

It would seem that - in a functioning democracy based on the principles of religious freedom and liberalism (so, not America) - that a choice to take on a proselytizing role in a specific church would preclude you from serving in public office. You chose a position that stands in direct opposition to the established principles of the organization (and people) you want to be elected to represent.

BEING religious is not a disqualifying factor. Your belief system is yours, and should not eliminate you from running for office.

Choosing a role that specifically promotes one religion over others, shows you do not hold the core foundational values of this country as your highest guidepost, and therefore you should not be able to take on a role representing that set of values. The internal conflict should be obvious; Are you here for America or for God? At some point you will have to choose one over the other, and when in elected office representing a plurality of beliefs, you must ALWAYS put the American ideal over your religious beliefs.

And if you choose the American ideal over your religious belief when push comes to shove, then you are failing in your role as a promoter of your religious views. So you are failing your promise to your congregation.

A clear conflict of interest should be a precluding factor for running for office. The Emoluments Clause is just one of the better known principles that further reinforces the idea that an elected official needs to serve the office first, and other interests second.

"Well then, I'm a Communist/Nazi and want to destroy America. Can I run for office?" I hear you ask...

Sure! And no, I don't know why this is different. So sue me.

kleinbl00  ·  475 days ago  ·  link  ·  

None of that follows. If "being religious is not a disqualifying factor" then proselytization cannot be a disqualifying factor. "I want to exterminate redheads" is already problematic; "I want to exterminate redheads in the name of Yog-Sothoth" is no more problematic.

Arguing that at some point you will have to choose God over country doesn't make much sense in a country that added "Under God" to their pledge of allegiance over 50 years ago. There's a conflict you presume to exist that is in no way implied or demonstrated.

It's interesting to me that you're totally cool with "yeah, my parents have voted Republican forever, that's just who they are, they believe in the old Republicanism and the new Republicanism has them doubting" while simultaneously being "ohhhhhhhh shit Democrat said the G-word get out the smelling salts." Emoluments are compensation - that's about where your money is coming from, not about influence. NINETY FIVE PERCENT of Republicans running for national office in 2012 signed Grover Norquist's tax pledge. Grover Norquist has stated publicly that his goal is the destruction of the federal government.

Democrats elect shady fucks from time to time. A man whose career has been orating and spiritual advice should not, in my opinion, be disqualified.

goobster  ·  475 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    A man whose career has been orating and spiritual advice should not, in my opinion, be disqualified.

And that's why I said I think it is problematic, and worthy of discussion.

There is a very real problem with the religious; they have vowed their fealty to another ungovernable, vague, and intangible being, whose desires and wants are unknown, and are only guessed at by adherents who choose to interpret those desires through their own lenses.

In short, there are no rules in religion.

But there are ample demonstrations of people using a widely disputed interpretation of religion, to legislate.

    If "being religious is not a disqualifying factor" then proselytization cannot be a disqualifying factor.

Incorrect. The goofy adage that religion is like a penis (fine in private, but not in public) stands as a sobering reminder of what religion does to those who promote it. Having belief is fine. Spreading or advocating for that belief system is problematic.

Especially for someone in public office.

I would NOT feel comfortable going into his office and taking a meeting on a topic I am concerned about, because I know he and I are not playing by the same set of rules. He has an extra set of secret rules and guidelines he keeps hidden under his desk, that I don't know or understand. So he is not a public servant for me; he's serving god, and me in his spare time as long as what I want follows along with his beliefs.

That's fucked up, and seriously worrying.

kleinbl00  ·  475 days ago  ·  link  ·  

I mean, dude. The slogan of the United States Marine Corps is "God, corps, country." Does that... disqualify Marines?

Without dragging penises into it (really?), the first amendment guarantees that if you wanna stand there and insist I worship the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the only thing I can do is walk away. I endorse that, 100%. If the Bible Belt wants to elect god-fearin' men to office, that's who they should vote for, and that perspective should absolutely 100% inform what their representatives seek in office.

I think what you're getting hung up on is the idea that men of the cloth must, at all times, 100%, put the interests of their religion ahead of all other considerations, and the idea that those religions are 100% of the time focused on goals and achievements that are detrimental to the country. And I don't know where you're getting that from.

Religion has been used as a justification for some truly heinous behavior. But it doesn't have to be. There are plenty of people in this country who derive a great deal of comfort in membership of something larger than themselves that serves as a framework to guide them to a more moral and spiritual existence. I'm not one of them? But I'll take Raphael Warnock over Raphael Cruz any day of the week.

goobster  ·  472 days ago  ·  link  ·  

... which is exactly why I say the RELIGIOUS are absolutely worthy of public office; those perspectives need to be represented to ensure a representative democracy.

It's when someone makes the PROMOTION of their religion over all others - aka, priests and their ilk - that the problem emerges, because they now have taken two conflicting vows: to represent everyone regardless of their faith, and to convert everyone to their faith.

I mean, dude literally signed on the dotted line that says, "thou shall have no god before me", and then ran for fucking public office for communities of Hindus, and Muslims, and Atheists, and ... everyone else.

How does an elected official properly represent communities they literally believe are inferior to them, due to their belief system?

Having religious beliefs is fine, and expected for the majority of the population.

A tiny minority of the religious, however, believe their role is to convert the "heathens" and help them see the light, and those people pledge a vow to bring those heathens "into the fold" and then... run for public elected office?

That's a problem - an absolute conflict of interest - plain and simple. He's lying to someone: god or his electorate.

kleinbl00  ·  472 days ago  ·  link  ·  

You're presuming, with no evidence to back it up, that:

1) All religious officials must choose between their religion and their country in all things

2) All public service is a zero-sum game between competing tribes

3) No one who makes a pledge to one entity can serve another entity

Why? Why are you doing that?

For starters, run your position through the First Amendment and tell me where you land. Then take a brief tour through Article 6. Finally, show me the budding theocracy.

    How does an elected official properly represent communities they literally believe are inferior to them, due to their belief system?

Just, for shits'n'giggles.

- Galatians 3.28

- Romans 2.11

- Proverbs 22.2

- John 13.16

- Romans 10.12

- Mark 12.31

- Colossians 3.11

- James 2.1-13

I want you to note that I, an atheist, son of a devout atheist, is sitting here throwing scripture at you. And I'm doing it because you know better. "You can't run for office because you work for God" is USSR shit. Cut it out.

goobster  ·  472 days ago  ·  link  ·  
This comment has been deleted.
user-inactivated  ·  476 days ago  ·  link  ·  

The question was already asked, so I won’t belabor it… but this is also his second term. His voting track record proves he’s a candidate worth having in the Senate from an otherwise historically red state.

Something else to consider… for both first and second term, a non-insignificant amount of people withstood voter suppression tactics to wait in line for hours to vote democratically for said candidate.

It’s ironic the lengths Georgians went to elect someone with such pronounced religious fervor at face value when compared to the similarly fervent religious opposition. Maybe religion wasn’t truly the key issue at stake, but the values Warnock upheld….

user-inactivated  ·  476 days ago  ·  link  ·  

In case this was a great joke I didn’t parse, though: lol.

Forgive any perceived rudeness. I’m proud of what I’m seeing in [the backyard of] my neck of the woods. Doesn’t happen often, so I’m a little defensive of the wins that occur… especially given how Warnock’s election helps the Senate committees (and how Warnock of all the Senators, he didn’t play the roles Sinema or Machin did last session’s disgraceful acts in Congress).

goobster  ·  475 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Oh totally... Warnock has been an effective legislator and has proven that he does good for the people of Georgia. I'm stoked he won, and hope some day Stacey Abrams finally gets her chance in the chair.

And yes, the electorate voted for him twice... the first time against an Illinois right wing Trumpist nutjob (Kelly Loeffler) who had served in the role for three weeks, after being appointed by the Governor when her predecessor got sick and was unable to complete his term.

So yeah, Georgians have voted twice for the born-and-bred Georgian moderate, than the ring-wing Trumpist lunatics from out of state.

What other option did they have?

(...Insert my usual comment about this is why we need ranked-choice voting and scroll on... pay no attention to the raving old man...)

NikolaiFyodorov  ·  476 days ago  ·  link  ·  

You prompted me to start reading up on Hershel Walker after seeing his name mentioned a lot lately. Upon my word, the man is a car crash. I'm not sure how we're going to solve this corrosion of political discourse.

goobster  ·  475 days ago  ·  link  ·  

The Republican party has a long history of just grabbing someone largely at random, and propping them up as The Next Big Thing and then throwing money at them.

John McCain was never consulted about Sarah Palin being his runningmate for President. They brought her in to meet him one day on his airplane, he thought she was a dipshit and said no way... but they'd already sent out the press release before the meeting ended.

Herschel Walker was a big name NFL player popular with Texas Boomer White Men, so they thought, "Let's make him Governor of... umm... GEORGIA!" And just slammed him into that open hole with no lube or even a kiss... someone just thought his name-recognition was an NFL player would be adequate to make him an excellent Governor for Georgia.

This happens over and over and over again, and shows what absolute contempt the Republican Party has for their voters.

And they fall for it every single time.... except now? It appears from exit polls that a LOT of Republican voters went for Warnock.

kleinbl00  ·  475 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    The Republican party has a long history of just grabbing someone largely at random

Go on...

    Herschel Walker was a big name NFL player popular with Texas Boomer White Men

How... random

What matters to Republicans is that they vote for Republicans. Who is or is not a Republican is a top-down decision. For people who view elections as superbowls, "name recognition" is most of it and for people who vote Republican, "Republican with name recognition" is 100% of it. This has been true since Eisenhower.

The difficulty the Republicans currently face is the top-down definition of "Republican" is increasingly toxic - it runs contrary to get-out-the-vote operations and tends to suppress the vote of all but the most partisan. A party that literally ran 2020 on "whatever Trump says" does not have a deep bench of qualified legislators eager to kiss the ring. Thus, Herschel Walker, who was still within 4 points. 4 points in a deeply-gerrymandered, formerly crimson-red state, yes... but that, again, speaks to the toxic trap the Republicans have gotten themselves into.

The best quote of this election cycle was that Republicans have a choice between embracing reason and losing in the primaries or embracing MAGA and losing in the general.

goobster  ·  472 days ago  ·  link  ·  

    Who is or is not a Republican is a top-down decision.

That is a wicked-smart observation. Love it!

c_hawkthorne  ·  477 days ago  ·  link  ·  

Don't forget the allegations from his ex-wife he ran over her foot with his car during an argument.

https://www.ajc.com/politics/warnocks-ex-wife-takes-legal-action-over-child-custody/UNI2QB7HQ5CVJMIIYSBGWD37FQ/

goobster  ·  475 days ago  ·  link  ·  

He's a brain damaged NFL player who hasn't been relevant in 25 years, and has run a sputtering chicken business ever since. Nobody in his family thought this was a good idea - for him to run - but he did anyway... with zero background check by the Republican Party.

It's astonishing.

c_hawkthorne  ·  474 days ago  ·  link  ·  

You didn't click on that link did you? Warnock's wife accused him of doing that. Like yeah Walker is a goddamn disaster, but it sure seems like Warnock isn't that great either. At least he'll vote to protect people's rights...