Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst ... 23
Results 71 to 77 of 77

Thread: Violating one's faith as one takes the oath of office

  1. #71
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    28,073

    Default Re: Violating one's faith as one takes the oath of office

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Wilkinson View Post
    They can hold those beliefs for themselves all they want. It's the forcing them upon others that I don't recall any religion doing. (at least not any mainstream us religion)

    Would someone that opposes abortion disown their own daughter were she to have an abortion or fall in love with a woman? Maybe, but I doubt it. Their religion should allow them to forgive the sin and move forward in some fashion from there, at least I would hope so.

    It's the my way or the highway approach that I have the issue with and I don't believe their are very many religions that actually have such a stance in their teachings. They nearly all have some allowance for non believers to co-exist peacefully.

    I guess my main issue with the first sentence is the assumption that Mr. Moore is "truly religious'. I actually find him to be an aberration of any religion I have known.
    Not sure that's the point. They will, and they do, pass laws against things based upon their religion. I'm sure you see this frequently. Then there's a lot of 'hate' that is the manifestation of religious beliefs, or religion is used as an excuse.

    I'm sure you can find your own examples. Remember the women who would not issue marriage licenses to gay couples? She held a public office.
    May be some rough water ahead. We're getting new captain.

  2. #72
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    28,073

    Default Re: Violating one's faith as one takes the oath of office

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Wilkinson View Post
    The fact that people are saying it does not make it so.
    Did not Hobby Lobby's religious beliefs trump our laws?
    May be some rough water ahead. We're getting new captain.

  3. #73
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    44,883

    Default Re: Violating one's faith as one takes the oath of office

    If Hobby Lobby as a corporation has a belief does it not follow that they will eventually apply to be tax free under the same decision?

  4. #74
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    2 states: NJ and confusion
    Posts
    28,073

    Default Re: Violating one's faith as one takes the oath of office

    May be some rough water ahead. We're getting new captain.

  5. #75
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    44,883

    Default Re: Violating one's faith as one takes the oath of office

    And as for the op-ed, do you really think that most of those taking these oaths actually believe the oath means diddley squat? Power and money trump angels on the head of a pin every time.

  6. #76
    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Location
    Kitty Hawk, NC
    Posts
    5,824

    Default Re: Violating one's faith as one takes the oath of office

    Quote Originally Posted by John Smith View Post
    Not sure that's the point. They will, and they do, pass laws against things based upon their religion. I'm sure you see this frequently. Then there's a lot of 'hate' that is the manifestation of religious beliefs, or religion is used as an excuse.
    I am sure the equal rights legislation was passed by people who had religious beliefs that reflected equal rights provisions.

    The only prohibition against following one's religious beliefs involves regulating religion - one of those provisions in the constitution and its amendments. There is no requirement for legislators to vote against their conscience or religious beliefs. They are even entitled to vote for legislation and actions that go against the constitution. (An example would be voting in favor of the parts of the ACA that were declared to be unconstitutional.)

    If "hate" is the standard, one only needs to look at the federal government's treatment of blacks prior to and since the civil rights laws form the 50's (or 60's). One need not have a religious motive.
    Life is complex.

  7. #77
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Portland, Oregon
    Posts
    42,011

    Default Re: Violating one's faith as one takes the oath of office

    Quote Originally Posted by David G View Post
    Of course you are entitled to have opinions... and express them. You are entitled to be as ignorant as you desire... and as vociferous as you like in sharing that ignorance.

    That doesn't mean, however, that those of us who have, perhaps, more experience in the topic at hand won't correct your mistakes.

    For instance. As a matter of logic and rhetoric, when you take a topic as broad, variable, and nuanced as religion, and start your analysis with the word 'all', I'm afraid I have to agree with Tom that what follows is liable to be cowflop. My word, not his. He's much too polite. But true in this instance.
    Quote Originally Posted by David G View Post
    I'm afraid I must take issue with your definition. As would most religious scholars. It's an easy enough impression to get, but it is - while not totally incorrect, at the very least... incomplete. And it is, btw, an example of the type of simplistic analysis that comes of getting your impressions only from the sort of hypocritical, self-aggrandizing, loudmouth, anything but truly religious, dingbats that make the news and who loudly and publicly proclaim their devout religious beliefs.

    Fact is... a ton of awfulness has been committed in the name of religion thru the centuries. Who on earth would try to defend the Spanish Inquisition, for just one notorious example. And a ton of good as well. Far less well known. It's the awful, however, that people remember. That makes the headlines and history books.

    It rather reminds me of those who look at the period we're in, where capitalism has malfunctioned thru loosening the regulation of the greedy instead of keeping them firmly in harness driving the economy in productive directions, and decide that 'capitalism is the problem, and an abomination'. Capitalism, like religion, has its flaws, its built-in dangers, and yet... and yet... it serves a purpose. In fact... for all its flaws, it remains the best mechanism humans have invented for arranging the economics of life. And - as for religion - it serves a purpose as well. Just ask yourself, 'why does religion even exist?'. Don't allow yourself the swift, cheeky, or cynical answer. Insist on an earnest, carefully considered answer.

    Or ask Voltaire what he meant when he said, "If God didn't exist, we'd have to invent him".
    Quote Originally Posted by RFNK View Post
    How arrogant and defensive you are David! For goodness' sake - grow up!

    Rick
    Quote Originally Posted by David G View Post
    Well... neither of those is correct. But for the sake of argument... let's say they were. How does that comment address the points I raised? Is this a case of having nothing of substance to respond with, yet feeling the need to say something? Or are you attempting, in rather obvious fashion, to influence the discussion with an ad hominem attack? If you regard logical fallacies as legitimate arguments... then it's no wonder your thinking regarding religion is a bit muddled.

    Would you like to attempt to recover from this false step with some actual facts/data/logic?
    Quote Originally Posted by RFNK View Post
    Very happy to hear your case for the accusations you made. I suspect you don't actually have one, hence my comment.

    Rick
    Quote Originally Posted by RFNK View Post
    Also keen to hear which of my comments are 'logical fallacies'?

    Rick
    Quote Originally Posted by David G View Post
    #26 didn't make that clear to you? When you chose not to address the topic, and instead chose to address my personal failings (even if your conclusion were inaccurate)... it was an example of this fallacy --

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem



    Just to be clear... what exactly are you referring to when you say 'the accusations you made'? A specific quote (or more, if necessary) would be helpful. I'm happy to answer your question... as soon as I know what it is.
    Quote Originally Posted by RFNK View Post
    Sure. You said I was ignorant and vociferous. You also said you were more experienced in this topic (?) than I. What do you base any of that on?

    I suggest some of you stop frothing at the mouth and actually read what I wrote. But if this is some sort of closed discussion group to which only a select group are invited to participate in, I'm happy to bugger off and let you continue whatever it is you wish to discuss without dissenting views!

    I haven't attacked anyone! I have attacked religion because after more consideration than any of you, I suspect, I've concluded that it's pretty much all nonsense! Worthy of study but little else. You can tell me I'm wrong - that's fine! If you care to show me how I'm wrong or demonstrate how religion is actually contributing to a better world, I'd be happy to hear it! But you can't, I suspect.

    Getting back to John's original query - I'm with those who see politicians claiming to have God on their side and then proceed to behave disgracefully, and have learned not to trust those.

    I also think some of you might have a fairly convenient view of religion. If you tweak it so much to avoid the ridiculous and inconvenient, and to match contemporary values etc., is it still that religion or even a religion? I mean, if it comes down to a belief that there's something out there/in there that's pretty ill-defined, is that religion? If you're a Catholic but don't agree with much of what the Catholic Church has been up to for the last millenium or so, are you actually a Catholic? I think these are valid questions.

    Rick
    Quote Originally Posted by RFNK View Post
    Using the term `all' earlier caused an unintended problem and I regret it. However, the point I was clumsily trying to make was that in so many religions, there are `get out of gaol clauses' that allow bad members of that faith to do bad things and carry on regardless. US politicians are just a few of many. Sticking to Christianity, groups that have tried truly to operate along biblical principles have generally not been popular and have not lasted. The tweaking of religion to suit desired outcomes is common. For someone who does not believe that there is any real substance to these belief systems, it is galling to see laws about abortion, marriage, taxation, school funding, education, euthanasia, medicine, medical research etc. imposed (yes, imposed) by, often, hypocritical adherents of these religions. I'm confident that many religious people feel the same way, by the way.

    Rick
    Nice to see.
    David G
    Harbor Woodworks
    http://www.harborwoodworking.com/boat.html

    "It was a Sunday morning and Goddard gave thanks that there were still places where one could worship in temples not made by human hands." -- L. F. Herreshoff (The Compleat Cruiser)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •