User Tag List

First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 61

  1. #21
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by EffEmDoubleyou View Post
    The same rules don't apply. Being a Protestant has pretty much been a requirement to be a U.S. President. JFK was an outlier as a Catholic, and the prevailing opinion leading up to the election was that he would govern as a Catholic first and an American second. Keep in mind this was before Vatican II, which made the prospect scarier to non-Catholics than it would be today. I think the point in bringing up JFK in the current Romney discussion is to point out that people will often express opinions in polls that don't correlate to how they vote.
    I know its been informal criteria for government in the US in the same way its mandatory criteria for government in the UK, were officially Catholics still cant hold office and Tony Blair, despite attending mass and receiving communion and being a defacto roman catholic did not formally join the church until he had left office.

    I didnt understand this for a long time and I've never understood the idea that someone would govern as a roman catholic first and whatever second. I always believed, from I was no age, that politicians governed on the basis of their mandate, usually whatever they'd promised before the election. I never saw religion coming into it.

    My understanding of Roman Catholicism has always been the same as Benedict has clarified lately, that the church is about forming conscience and not interfering with politics. A hell of alot of the violence here, which seems at some level to have linked with things like the CIA fact book, has been excused or rationalised on the basis that something called "political catholicism" existed, that there was a kind of conspiratorial nature to catholics who all take orders from a foreign power.

    To me that's bullshit and I dont understand how anyone ever believed it, no one worries that a president who is a southern baptist or methodist or presbytarian would govern as decided by the authorities of any of those churches.

    I dont think mormonism will come into it, for some fence sitting liberals maybe, a lot of people feel strongly enough about religion to never vote for anyone who has any religion. On the other hand like I said I think this is code, I think its about enticing the right wing fringe which never votes or refuses to into voting again. The US being polarised as it is both left and right fight for their "stay at home votes" as much as they do for any undecided.

  2. #22

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    I look forward to the day when this can be said about 100% of voters and about all cults/superstitions.
    +1
    Dirt Farmer

  3. #23
    Sweet Ocean Cloud SD45T-2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    1w2 so/sp
    Posts
    2,760

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mal+ View Post
    Why would the RNC nominate a presidential candidate who already has a 10% voter deficit?
    [pointing out the obvious]Because he came out on top in the primaries. That's how these things usually work.[/pointing out the obvious]

    On the other side of the coin, there are some people who won't vote for Obama because he's black and/or they think he's a Muslim. I'm a bit skeptical that Romney's religion will be the deciding factor.
    1w2-6w5-3w2 so/sp

    "I took one those personality tests. It came back negative." - Dan Mintz

  4. #24
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Those are acceptable political categories whereas religion is not.

    Religion isnt fairy tales. I know you think its clever to say that but it just highlights your own lack of understanding.
    We have every right, and I believe it is every responsible citizen's duty, to judge someone based upon their beliefs. If someone running for public office believes Noah's flood actually happened (a religious belief), it is perfectly legitimate to not vote for that person based upon that belief. If someone running for public office believes Jesus literally rose from the dead and ascended to heaven (another religious belief), it is perfectly legitimate to not vote for that person based upon that belief. If someone running for public office believes that native Americans are a lost tribe of Israel (another religious belief), it is perfectly legitimate to not vote for that person based upon that belief. Once you are running for public office, your beliefs (religious or not) are no longer private. No religious belief should be held beyond scrutiny. Religion has earned no privilege, but religious people constantly try to claim that privilege. It's a privilege everyone should fight.

    Not voting for someone because his or her skin color is black isn't even close to the same thing.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  5. #25
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    We have every right, and I believe it is every responsible citizen's duty, to judge someone based upon their beliefs. If someone running for public office believes Noah's flood actually happened (a religious belief), it is perfectly legitimate to not vote for that person based upon that belief. If someone running for public office believes Jesus literally rose from the dead and ascended to heaven (another religious belief), it is perfectly legitimate to not vote for that person based upon that belief. If someone running for public office believes that native Americans are a lost tribe of Israel (another religious belief), it is perfectly legitimate to not vote for that person based upon that belief. Once you are running for public office, your beliefs (religious or not) are no longer private. No religious belief should be held beyond scrutiny. Religion has earned no privilege, but religious people constantly try to claim that privilege. It's a privilege everyone should fight.

    Not voting for someone because his or her skin color is black isn't even close to the same thing.
    Sounds a lot like the Orwellian thought police.

    I'm religious and I've never believed it involved privileges, your characterisation of religious people, as always, is either mistaken or borne of bitterness and prejudice.

  6. #26
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    Sounds a lot like the Orwellian thought police.

    I'm religious and I've never believed it involved privileges, your characterisation of religious people, as always, is either mistaken or borne of bitterness and prejudice.
    Oh, you threw out Orwell. Sorry, but in Orwellian society, everyone's thoughts were policed. Scrutinizing the beliefs of people running for public office isn't even close to the same thing. I'd say nice try, but it really wasn't. It was a pretty lame response, but understandable given that your argument is so weak.

    As for privilege, you're a liar. You're asserting privilege is in this thread.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  7. #27
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lateralus View Post
    Oh, you threw out Orwell. Sorry, but in Orwellian society, everyone's thoughts were policed. Scrutinizing the beliefs of people running for public office isn't even close to the same thing. I'd say nice try, but it really wasn't. It was a pretty lame response, but understandable given that your argument is so weak.

    As for privilege, you're a liar. You're asserting privilege is in this thread.
    I appreciate not being called a liar.

  8. #28
    Senior Member Lateralus's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    3w4
    Posts
    6,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Lark View Post
    I appreciate not being called a liar.
    Well, you lied. I called you on it. Get over it.
    "We grow up thinking that beliefs are something to be proud of, but they're really nothing but opinions one refuses to reconsider. Beliefs are easy. The stronger your beliefs are, the less open you are to growth and wisdom, because "strength of belief" is only the intensity with which you resist questioning yourself. As soon as you are proud of a belief, as soon as you think it adds something to who you are, then you've made it a part of your ego."

  9. #29
    Was E.laur Laurie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    MBTI
    ENFP
    Enneagram
    7w6
    Socionics
    ENFp
    Posts
    6,075

    Default

    I have a friend who just lost his family because he left a high control cult and they mandate shunning. It's hard to think of a member in a high control cult as president. It is the same argument used against JFK but the Catholics I know are more tradition minded than cult minded.

  10. #30
    Senior Member Survive & Stay Free's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    ESTJ
    Enneagram
    9 so/sx
    Posts
    21,661

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Laurie View Post
    I have a friend who just lost his family because he left a high control cult and they mandate shunning. It's hard to think of a member in a high control cult as president. It is the same argument used against JFK but the Catholics I know are more tradition minded than cult minded.
    There's no cult mindedness in Roman Catholicism, there's nothing like that among the Mormons I know either.

    You know some of the views which are expressed by atheists and secularists in relation to religious when they were expressed by religious of other religious would have been, and rightly so I would say, labelled as prejudicial and sectarian. There's lots of shunning that I know of practiced against religious people by atheists, including the sort which Lateralous described as fine in his posts before I put him on ignore but its being treated as a different order of behaviour and fine.

    I'm not a fan of mixing religion and politics, definitely not a fan of politicised religion either because it combines the worst of all worlds together usually, but this sort of secular mindset is as bad as religious fundamentalism. I hate seeing the archive footage of how JFK was treated, I dislike just as much the positive coverage of evangelicals running for office in the Carter era and how association with the southern revivalism was a sure ticket. Although this secular mindset is just as bad, its even more insidious because its not seen for what it is.

    Orwell's whole point in trying to write about totalitarianism was that it wouldnt be recognisable by reference to its known shape or form from abroad or history, ie fascism in britain of his day wouldnt be German swastikas and salutes it'd be the lion and the unicorn instead, a lot of the people who think they're doing their best to fight oppression and represent underdogs or history's losers are instituting something remarkably like what they're suggesting they're against, or worse because its not obvious to them and people think the alternative is, well, not something good either.

Similar Threads

  1. I cannot and will not believe this...
    By The Ü™ in forum Arts & Entertainment
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 01-19-2016, 11:58 PM
  2. Mayan Calendar 2012 - the world will not end
    By Sniffles in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 105
    Last Post: 12-14-2012, 09:58 PM
  3. You will not get tired of watching this.
    By Magic Poriferan in forum The Fluff Zone
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 04-04-2010, 09:45 PM
  4. Why human activities will not cause the end on the world as we know it ?
    By Virtual ghost in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 05-11-2009, 11:52 AM
  5. Why I'm not voting for McCain
    By nightwatcher in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 06-09-2008, 03:15 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO