Doing the Founding Fathers Damage

that it isn't religion but church that counts. Church in the sense that it is not a building but a community.

Strong local communities are the bedrock of social stability and responsibility. This differs from the all embracing Democratic concept of strong centralized govt.

You have managed to propose the exact obverse of tolerance -- and, thereby, the complete opposite of one of our most cherished American ideals -- as a fundamental qualifying test for holding public office! We'll bear that in mind, should you ever decide to run for office.

Apparently for you, anyone who is a believer in any faith should be automatically disqualified from being able to run for any public office whatsoever.

You say:

[P]ersonally, I think that anyone who professes belief in a noumenal world and spirits is per se delusional (mentally defective) and should not be permitted to seek and hold an office of public trust on that account alone (see, for example, George W. Bush, et. als.)[sic].

The only political ideology I am aware of that has held that official view -- that professed atheism should be a without which test for holding office -- is communism. 

Tell us Bullhorn. What do you call your ideology?

by Trochilus

Truly delusional, Bullhorn?

I would note that there certainly have been a few examples of mildly "delusional" folks who have cropped up in modern New Jersey politics, but for the most part they have been more entertaining than really harmful. One exception, perhaps -- a legislator whose insistent and undue influence on insurance issues stifled, in my opinion, any sort of reform for years.

But you have also strongly -- and wrongly, I would add -- suggested that anyone with faith in God, or belief in a spiritual power beyond us, is by your definition, delusional. That is patently absurd.

Tell us, Bullhorn, by what specific test or standard would you judge someone as per se delusional, in order to "qualify" them for disqualification from holding any public office? Ask them if they believe in God? Or have reporters do it as per your first comment here?

What a silly and downright dangerous notion!

Now, I will agree that we do not want criminals -- serious offenders against the public weal -- to hold any office or position of public trust.

But they keep creeping in, now don't they?

For example, one would have thought that when the Joint Legislative Ethics Committee caught then-Assemblyman Wayne Bryant some 17 or 18 years ago with his grubby fingers in the public till (the Woodcrest Pavilion sweetheart lease deal), that the idea of subsequently putting him in charge of the entire legislative appropriations process, was a very, very poor idea indeed!

But, that was precisely what the Democrats, including Senator Codey, did! As a result, Bryant loaded up his pockets (along with those of a considerable number of his clan) all at our public expense. Gee, what a surprise! We were shocked . . . SHOCKED!

At least here in New Jersey, both in terms of sheer numbers, and as a measure of the most predacious of offenders, it seems to me that the real crooks are far more likely to be Democrats. At least, they seem to be the ones who are inclined to feed their unconstrained acquisitive natures right at the public trough.

Actual competition in the private sector is a considerable check on unconstrained acquisitiveness that works to the detriment of others.

But the more that goods and services are provided by, or controlled by the public sphere (e.g., monopoly), the more opportunity there is for corrruption. That's because there is no competition within the public sector. And that's why P. J. O'Rourke sardonically notes that if you think health care is expensive now, just wait until it's free!

An alarming number of those in our public sector who go bad, seem to be little more than avaricious sociopaths, people without any real conscience, or grounding in any belief system that serves as a personal guide that in any meaningful way informs their behavior.

I would suggest that there is a good reason that avarice is recognized as a mortal sin by major religions. It is not just acquisitiveness, or even greed -- it is having a predacious nature to accumulate wealth and power all of which works to the detriment of others.

But in your last paragraph you instead say you perceive a connection between believers and public criminals, i.e., that all the criminal politicians must also be believers, and visa-versa. But you offer no basis whatsoever for that conclusion -- only an obvious personal distaste, if not outright personal contempt for anyone who holds a belief in a higher power.

I say rubbish to that!  It's the avarice.

by Trochilus