1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

President Biden: The NEW one and only politics thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Moderator1, Jan 20, 2021.

  1. garrow

    garrow Well-Known Member


     
  2. Azrael

    Azrael Well-Known Member

    Of course. I made the comment as a philosophical sidebar.

    But in a time of rising "Christian Nationalism" it's worth exploring how religion is expressed through our politics and policy.
     
  3. DanOregon

    DanOregon Well-Known Member

    It is funny how these business people - "under oath" - now say they know nothing about how the business operates.
     
  4. Baron Scicluna

    Baron Scicluna Well-Known Member

    True. But voters didn’t consider the issue that important enough to punish Republicans. It’s easy to vote up or down on felons voting, but unless you’re a felon, or know someone close to you who is, the issue is not going to directly affect you,

    Abortion, though, is different because the issue directly affects them. They’ll likely, at some point in their lives, become pregnant or know someone close who will.
     
    maumann likes this.
  5. garrow

    garrow Well-Known Member

    But he's not old, so.....

     
  6. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    So ... pursuing a Constitutionally prescribed procedure for modifying the Constitution is attempting to "gut" the Constitution. Got it.
     
    justgladtobehere likes this.
  7. doctorquant

    doctorquant Well-Known Member

    I like you, but I think you were clearly in the wrong there. Also ... "Dour"? "Smug"? A modern-day "Pharisee"? Come on, man.
     
  8. Hermes

    Hermes Well-Known Member

    It’s always difficult separating.

    A line I have to use when talking to people who had more “normal” childhoods.

    I thank God you weren't brought up like me, with all that shame and certainty
     
    FileNotFound likes this.
  9. Alma

    Alma Well-Known Member

    Where have I acted like the Shell Answer Man? And what is a Pharisee in your mind? My primary argument about Christianity is that Jesus makes exclusive claims about his divinity.
    Which, is true. It’s not legalism to make that argument.

    Nor is it legalism to say “everybody worships something, and effectively embrace some religion - whether they’d call it that or not - as a result.”
     
  10. Slacker

    Slacker Well-Known Member

    Legislators are, of course, free to make their political arguments based on their religious beliefs, but they also can do it without dragging "Because the Church says it shall be thus" into it. Whose church? "My church." OK, thanks. What else ya got?

    In a free society, there are many different churches, many different beliefs, many different cultures. "Because the Church says so" isn't good enough. Politicians have a responsibility to have a broader vision to respect and serve the masses.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2023
    Driftwood and outofplace like this.
  11. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    People can state moral reasons for political actions all they want, but if they can't argue for a particular law or policy without invoking their chosen deity, they should automatically lose the argument.
     
    Driftwood and 2muchcoffeeman like this.
  12. Neutral Corner

    Neutral Corner Well-Known Member

    I have no problem with elected officials having a spiritual life. I have a problem when they hold their personal beliefs above the will of the people as expressed by the laws our representatives pass.

    To pick an easy example, there was Kim Davis in Kentucky, who refused to grant marriage licenses to same sex couples because of her religious beliefs. I'm certain that if this were a problem for her, she could have found someone else in that office to issue it instead. I doubt that Rowan County, Kentucky was overrun with gay couples wanting to get married. Instead she turned these couples away and refused to issue, after the Supreme Court had ruled on gay marriage.

    I don't find this to be substantially different from the Ohio GOP refusing to honor the clear will of the state's voters with regard to reproductive rights. That's the sort of thing that I was talking about. Again, the views of your church are not legally binding on people who do not share your beliefs unless those beliefs are in accordance with the law and the will of the voters. If it were Jewish politicians banning the sale of pork or Moslem pols requiring women wear headscarves and burkas there would not be any debate on this stance at all.

    Whether it's state blue laws or right to life activists, if you have the votes to pass such a law you can do so. If others feel that their rights are being unfairly limited, they can appeal to the courts all the way to the Supremes. What you can't do is cram your religious stance down everyone else's throats and insist that your views be followed. If you feel that you must do so as a moral imperative of your religious beliefs, it is my opinion that you have no business in office serving the population of your district, particularly when your religion's position has been voted down by your fellow citizens and constituents.
     
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2023
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page