Bud Williams
Well-Known Member
Frank's mind is open, there's plenty of room in there....:bwahaha:
Huckabee
- Thread starter Frank screwyourednecks
- Start date
Help Support Ford SportTrac Forum:
A funny thought I just had....It's been said that one should never argue about politics and religion, and here were are arguing about politics and religion, as we argue about religion in politics...:grin:
....Rich
....Rich
How should a person in an elected position set up a moral code to make decisions completely free from their religious beliefs?
The only alternative is that 100% of elected officials be 100% void of any values tied to religious conviction. Name one person who fits that mold.
Huckabee is honest about his religious convictions. It's the other 99.9% of the liars that scare me more. You can't compartmentalize your morals.
The only alternative is that 100% of elected officials be 100% void of any values tied to religious conviction. Name one person who fits that mold.
Huckabee is honest about his religious convictions. It's the other 99.9% of the liars that scare me more. You can't compartmentalize your morals.
Willie Anglin
Active Member
compartmentalize, word of for the day.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Hugh seems to get what I am saying.
I find it naive and unrealistic if we as a populace assume that our leaders are going to come into power and NOT pull on what it is that makes them who they are to help them make decisions. For some, it will be the values they got as a child by their parents; the state they grew up in (or in the case of BHO, the country...LOL), or, gasp, the religion that one follows or has followed.
People and therefore their actions are the sum of their experiences.
Expecting someone like Huckabee would be otherwise, or finding it wrong when Huckabee insinuates the same about Obama seems illogical, to me.
But, with all that said, discounting someone because of their background for the fear that they CANNOT "compartmentalize" that part of their makeup, when needed, and make the right decisions for the country, etc, seems rather narrow-minded and fearful as well. Not everyone can do that, true...but I have faith that most can if they need to.
TJR
I find it naive and unrealistic if we as a populace assume that our leaders are going to come into power and NOT pull on what it is that makes them who they are to help them make decisions. For some, it will be the values they got as a child by their parents; the state they grew up in (or in the case of BHO, the country...LOL), or, gasp, the religion that one follows or has followed.
People and therefore their actions are the sum of their experiences.
Expecting someone like Huckabee would be otherwise, or finding it wrong when Huckabee insinuates the same about Obama seems illogical, to me.
But, with all that said, discounting someone because of their background for the fear that they CANNOT "compartmentalize" that part of their makeup, when needed, and make the right decisions for the country, etc, seems rather narrow-minded and fearful as well. Not everyone can do that, true...but I have faith that most can if they need to.
TJR
Hugh and TJR,
Morals are not the same as Religion. You are implying that anyone who is not religious or was not given a religious upbringing must be immoral? There are plenty of people who have high moral standards who are not religious, and are you implying that Athiests or Agnostics cannot be moral people?
There are moral laws that transcend religion. Most of them stem from the 10 Commandments which are God's laws. God did not invent religioun man did and man used those Commandments in nearly all religions of the world. Even Atheists do not object to the 10 Commandments or the Golden Rule.
And like the Golden Rule, we are taught morality by sayings, stories, fables, and discipline. Some of this moral lessons come from religious stories, and many others we learn from life that come from our parents, other family members and our friends.
Remember, more people haved died simply because of Religious bliefs than died in all the wars since mankind began. Most of them were killed or ordered to be killed by religious zealots and leaders of the church. Kind of makes one wonder why we should think that religious people are so Moral?
I never said that Huckabee would be a bad President, or that he would attempt to force everyone to be Evangelical Christians, etc.. I just feel that there needs to be a very strong line separating Church and State, and I think that Huckabee is a bit too far to the Church side to get my vote. Of course you are welcome to vote for him if he runs again.
...Rich
Morals are not the same as Religion. You are implying that anyone who is not religious or was not given a religious upbringing must be immoral? There are plenty of people who have high moral standards who are not religious, and are you implying that Athiests or Agnostics cannot be moral people?
There are moral laws that transcend religion. Most of them stem from the 10 Commandments which are God's laws. God did not invent religioun man did and man used those Commandments in nearly all religions of the world. Even Atheists do not object to the 10 Commandments or the Golden Rule.
And like the Golden Rule, we are taught morality by sayings, stories, fables, and discipline. Some of this moral lessons come from religious stories, and many others we learn from life that come from our parents, other family members and our friends.
Remember, more people haved died simply because of Religious bliefs than died in all the wars since mankind began. Most of them were killed or ordered to be killed by religious zealots and leaders of the church. Kind of makes one wonder why we should think that religious people are so Moral?
I never said that Huckabee would be a bad President, or that he would attempt to force everyone to be Evangelical Christians, etc.. I just feel that there needs to be a very strong line separating Church and State, and I think that Huckabee is a bit too far to the Church side to get my vote. Of course you are welcome to vote for him if he runs again.
...Rich
TrainTrac
Well-Known Member
Really? How many lawsuits have been filed by or on behalf of Atheists to remove displays of the 10 Commandments from public venues? Betcha Michael Newdow has a problem with the 10 Commandments...
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
RichardL,
You don't have to tell me that morality and religion are two different things. I get that. Some confuse the two, and say that without the Bible, or "the word", we would have no morality, but I don't believe that...not at all.
I believe that our morality comes from an innate sense of right and wrong that is imprinted in most humans...call it genetics, whatever.
TJR
You don't have to tell me that morality and religion are two different things. I get that. Some confuse the two, and say that without the Bible, or "the word", we would have no morality, but I don't believe that...not at all.
I believe that our morality comes from an innate sense of right and wrong that is imprinted in most humans...call it genetics, whatever.
TJR
Nope, I never made that connection. I only recognized that Huckabee's morals are shaped by his religion. As most politicians claim a religion, they either lie about not allowing their religion to shape their values or they lie about actually practicing a religion. It would be impossible for Huckabee to claim to be Christian and then also claim that his Christianity would not influence his decision-making process. Those that make this claim are liars (and there is no shortage in Washington).
That is not at all the same as saying non-religious people are immoral.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Hugh, once again, gets it.
Simple. Read the constitution and realize that each person that lives in the country you run has the same rights as you do. I prefer not to hear a politition (I am having a spelling fart right now) say "God bless you and your family" or because the bible says gay people are bad, that we are not going to allow gay people to pursue happiness.
If what is best for the country is against your beliefs, you do what is best for this country. If a business owner decided that he was going to enforce his religous conviction on all employees by firing all employees that were not married but living with a person of the opposite sex and assumed that two people of the same sex are gay so he would fire them too, would be wrong.
Keep your religon at home and at church. When you get to work, do what is right for the country and realize that your faith is not always right for this country.
Tom
Last edited by a moderator:
Willie Anglin
Active Member
I understand that morals are not necessarily religion but where would morals be in America without the Bible. It appears to me in the 50+ years I have been alive that 2 things have went hand in hand, less knowledge of the Bible = less morals. You can spin it anyway you want but it is the truth. I know good moral people that do not go to church and bad moral people that go to church but on the whole less Bible = less morals. America is going down hill because our morals are going down hill, plain and simple.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Cayman, you responded to Hugh's question
That is am interesting question and I appreciate your response.
However, I think the more critical question which I would like you to consider is:
"Should we expect that a religious person in an elected position can really make decisions that are 100% free from any consideration of their religious beliefs?"
To me, the only real answer is "No!".
Just as you have life experiences and a set of values that will make you look at and make decisions on unions (for example) in a way that you probably are not always aware of and cannot easily change, so is the filter and makeup of a religious person as it affects their actions and decisions.
It is noble to say that a leader should simply "set aside" their religion when taking political office, and from all outside indicators some may actually do that. However, what those beliefs do to ones heart and mind may never actually be able to be "turned off", not totally, anyways.
TJR
That is am interesting question and I appreciate your response.
However, I think the more critical question which I would like you to consider is:
"Should we expect that a religious person in an elected position can really make decisions that are 100% free from any consideration of their religious beliefs?"
To me, the only real answer is "No!".
Just as you have life experiences and a set of values that will make you look at and make decisions on unions (for example) in a way that you probably are not always aware of and cannot easily change, so is the filter and makeup of a religious person as it affects their actions and decisions.
It is noble to say that a leader should simply "set aside" their religion when taking political office, and from all outside indicators some may actually do that. However, what those beliefs do to ones heart and mind may never actually be able to be "turned off", not totally, anyways.
TJR
Les
Well-Known Member
Gotta disagree, his business, his choice. Not saying it's smart, but if you own your own business, you can make your own rules.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Prchrman,
No spin here, but the presence of two perceived facts does not causality make.
I know plenty of Bible knowledgeable Christians today that lead lives that are less moral than atheists several decades ago.
I actually will challenge if America has become more immoral (become less moral) over the past 50 years. I ask, what indicators are you using? Rate of incident of violent crime, per capita? Perceived level of civility towards one another?
When I think back 50 year ago I don't necessarily think things were more moral. If your neighbor was black back then, how likely were you to treat them? Would you be more likely to be a draft dodger or supporter? (not talking specifically about you, here...asking these questions generally)
No spin here, but the presence of two perceived facts does not causality make.
I know plenty of Bible knowledgeable Christians today that lead lives that are less moral than atheists several decades ago.
I actually will challenge if America has become more immoral (become less moral) over the past 50 years. I ask, what indicators are you using? Rate of incident of violent crime, per capita? Perceived level of civility towards one another?
When I think back 50 year ago I don't necessarily think things were more moral. If your neighbor was black back then, how likely were you to treat them? Would you be more likely to be a draft dodger or supporter? (not talking specifically about you, here...asking these questions generally)
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Les,
Though I agree with employment at will and the business owner's right to hire or fire based on whatever criteria they choose, there is one simple fact. The example given above is illegal In all states.
An employer cannot discriminate based on age, sex, sexual orientation, religion, or disability.
TJR
Though I agree with employment at will and the business owner's right to hire or fire based on whatever criteria they choose, there is one simple fact. The example given above is illegal In all states.
An employer cannot discriminate based on age, sex, sexual orientation, religion, or disability.
TJR
Les
Well-Known Member
TJR, as I said, your business your rules. Not saying it's legal, or smart, but it happens everywhere, all the time.
Preferences and rights are not the same.
That's exactly what I'm saying. The answer is absolutely not.
This is interesting (and the only reason I join into this guy's thread) because I am taking an administrative ethics class right now. As Tom mentioned (and was right about), the Constitution should be the guiding principle for any elected official or public service employee. An oath to do so is actually required before entering any public position. Unfortunately, that oath has not held the force it could (or should) because it has not been incorporated as a code of ethics, more of a ritual. There is an academic push to get this into everyday practice, but it's always a long road from academia to common use.
And this is the point most of you are missing. What is most interesting is how I can perfectly align my Constitutional values with my Christian values. There is nothing in the Constitution that in any way jeopardizes my Christianity, nor is there in anything in the Bible that jeopardizes my ability to uphold the Constitution. I can be as religious as I want to be and still maintain the oath to uphold the Constitution.
Just as many claim the Bible is up for interpretation, so is the Constitution. If you don't get that fundamental fact, then you are missing a big chunk of American history and constitutional law. So, based on my Christian beliefs, I interpret the Constitution in a matter that is shaped by my relationship with Christ. I cannot avoid that. Nobody can. But it is still constitutional. Your interpretation of the Constitution as a non-Christian is no more valid than mine or Mike Huckabees.
The ignorance that continues to spew about separation of church and state is disappointing. How can I take anyone seriously talking about constitutional matters, when they obviously do not know the constitution. Pulling it up on google is not the same as knowing it. Some of you need to actually read the Constitution. There is no mention of an entirely secular government. It is just a figment of many people's imaginations (also read: ignorance of the Constitution).
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ...."
Congress never has made a law respecting the establishment of religion. The phobia is an illness of the anti-Christian. That is very different from politicians speaking about God. That is different from the Ten Commandments being posted in a courthouse.
The President making decisions based on his Christian beliefs is entirely consistent with the Constitution. If you do like that prospect don't vote for him. But as a member of the executive branch, he CAN NOT violate the Establishment Clause. It's just not possible because he is not a member of Congress (the legislative branch). Some of you may also want to brush up on your separation of powers and the three branches of our government. If Mike Huckabee were to be elected and after swearing the Oath of Office, stated that he was going to "bring the country back for Christ" there is nothing unconstitutional about that. Attempting to bring impeachment for that would get little more than chuckles from the Supreme Court (if for some reason it even got close to their desks).
As a member of the executive branch, there is no way possible for the president to unconstitutionally step into a legislative role, make a law in respect to the Bible, and then as the chief executive enforce it. He can't get past that first step. He is in the executive branch. PRESIDENTS CANNOT MAKE LAW, THEREFORE THEY CANNOT INFRINGE UPON YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS BY ESTABLISHING A STATE RELIGION.
You're all worked up over nothing. Your fear is unfounded and actually only stems from your ignorance (or willful neglect) of the Constitution.
You know what...I'm not going to be a teacher (or preacher) here. Just read the Constitution, please. And it wouldn't hurt to crack the Bible every now and then, either.
Thomas Rogers
Well-Known Member
Les,
You can say "your business, your rules", but the reality is that for that particular situation, the rules aren't the business owners to define. The government defines those rules, and if you break them, you pay, big time.
When I think "my business, my rules", or "my house, my rules", (for example) I think implicitely what I can legally do.
We have a 15 yo son who is constantly pushing the boundaries (that's what teen boys do). I've told him time and time again, that "getting along" with Dad is really simple. There is only one rule:
1. If I or your mom tells you to do something and it isn't illegal, immoral, or will hurt you or someone else in any way THEN your only choice is to DO IT!
Essentially, I look at business owners having the ability to define the same rules, with the same basis. They can do whatever they want, and expect their employees to do whatever they want, following whatever rules they want, so long as (see 1 above).
So, our difference of opinion here is that for the scenario given, the whole "my business, my rules" doesn't apply, because it is trumped by the "illegal" clause.
It's kind of like the old saying: "If it feels good, do it!"
Well, that's not an absolute. It would feel really good to slap some people around sometime... but that's doesn't mean we can or should. Which means the saying (like your saying) doesn't apply carte-blanche.
TJR
You can say "your business, your rules", but the reality is that for that particular situation, the rules aren't the business owners to define. The government defines those rules, and if you break them, you pay, big time.
When I think "my business, my rules", or "my house, my rules", (for example) I think implicitely what I can legally do.
We have a 15 yo son who is constantly pushing the boundaries (that's what teen boys do). I've told him time and time again, that "getting along" with Dad is really simple. There is only one rule:
1. If I or your mom tells you to do something and it isn't illegal, immoral, or will hurt you or someone else in any way THEN your only choice is to DO IT!
Essentially, I look at business owners having the ability to define the same rules, with the same basis. They can do whatever they want, and expect their employees to do whatever they want, following whatever rules they want, so long as (see 1 above).
So, our difference of opinion here is that for the scenario given, the whole "my business, my rules" doesn't apply, because it is trumped by the "illegal" clause.
It's kind of like the old saying: "If it feels good, do it!"
Well, that's not an absolute. It would feel really good to slap some people around sometime... but that's doesn't mean we can or should. Which means the saying (like your saying) doesn't apply carte-blanche.
TJR
Hugh,
Perhaps I said it wrong, so let me clarify.
The 10 Commandments have a religious origin and that most people understand and accept them as a moral code of life even if they are not, or never where religious. Yes, some Athiests object to DISPLAYING the Ten Commandments in on government property, but it does not mean they feel that the Ten Commandments are immoral or that they should not be followed. Even the laws of our nation are based on the Ten Commandments. Athiests just don't want the government to show or imply any symbols with a strong religious connotation.
Most Americans have some level of religious beliefs and most of those people align themselves with one of the Christian faiths. I think we all realize that we are predominately a Christian nation and therefore sprinklings of Christianity will suface in our politicians, their actions and in our governments by laws. Since most Americans are Christians, we find that to be acceptable, Jewish Americans tend to be more tolerant of America's Christianity, as do the sprinkling of Buddist, and other religions. Of course, some Athiests object to various degrees, and will file law suits if they detect any trace of religion in our government.
So, yes God has always been part our politics and government, but I think we must be vigilant and not let any specific religion become dominant. I think people with extreme religious beliefs will use their specific religious doctrines to influence their judgements rather than use universally accepted moral judgements. and they might not know exactly when and where they unintentionally crossed the line.
I also believe that some candidates play up their religious beliefs to imply they are more moral, and to gather more political support from the Christian majority in America. That's why I am cautious about candidates who bring their religion to the forefront of their campaign.
Les,
It is against the law to fire someone based on sex, race, religion, handicap, age, or sexual orientation, or if he/she is a Union worker..lol (of course that does not completely apply to our government) :grin:
...Rich
Perhaps I said it wrong, so let me clarify.
The 10 Commandments have a religious origin and that most people understand and accept them as a moral code of life even if they are not, or never where religious. Yes, some Athiests object to DISPLAYING the Ten Commandments in on government property, but it does not mean they feel that the Ten Commandments are immoral or that they should not be followed. Even the laws of our nation are based on the Ten Commandments. Athiests just don't want the government to show or imply any symbols with a strong religious connotation.
Most Americans have some level of religious beliefs and most of those people align themselves with one of the Christian faiths. I think we all realize that we are predominately a Christian nation and therefore sprinklings of Christianity will suface in our politicians, their actions and in our governments by laws. Since most Americans are Christians, we find that to be acceptable, Jewish Americans tend to be more tolerant of America's Christianity, as do the sprinkling of Buddist, and other religions. Of course, some Athiests object to various degrees, and will file law suits if they detect any trace of religion in our government.
So, yes God has always been part our politics and government, but I think we must be vigilant and not let any specific religion become dominant. I think people with extreme religious beliefs will use their specific religious doctrines to influence their judgements rather than use universally accepted moral judgements. and they might not know exactly when and where they unintentionally crossed the line.
I also believe that some candidates play up their religious beliefs to imply they are more moral, and to gather more political support from the Christian majority in America. That's why I am cautious about candidates who bring their religion to the forefront of their campaign.
Les,
It is against the law to fire someone based on sex, race, religion, handicap, age, or sexual orientation, or if he/she is a Union worker..lol (of course that does not completely apply to our government) :grin:
...Rich
