Religious Oaths

Religious Oaths (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

KenDckey -> Religious Oaths (9/24/2015 8:05:33 PM)
http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/09/constitution-check-are-people-who-follow-some-religious-faiths-barred-from-the-presidency/ Interesting article on religious oaths. I agree. I remember when Kennedy was being elected there was rampant fear in some that he would take orders from the Pope. Didn'thappen but it was a fear.

OsideGirl -> RE: Religious Oaths (9/24/2015 8:09:25 PM)
Also, when Lieberman was talking about running for President..."OMG! He'll do what Israel wants!"

DesideriScuri -> RE: Religious Oaths (9/24/2015 11:31:38 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/09/constitution-check-are-people-who-follow-some-religious-faiths-barred-from-the-presidency/ Interesting article on religious oaths. I agree. I remember when Kennedy was being elected there was rampant fear in some that he would take orders from the Pope. Didn'thappen but it was a fear. If your position in public office requires you to violate tenets of your faith, you should probably not be in that position. If you will have to choose to violate the US Constitution or tenets of your faith in a public office, you shouldn't be in that public office. IF (notice it's a big "if" lol) a Muslim will be required to violate the tenets of his/her faith when faithfully executing the position of President of the US, then Dr. Carson was correct, and a Muslim should never be in the position of President. But, what Dr. Carson didn't say - and he may not agree with - that applies to followers of any faith. If faithfully executing the office of the President violates Catholic tenets, then Catholics should never be President of the US. Let me repeat: If faithfully executing the office of the President violates (insert religion here) tenets, then followers of (insert religion here) should never be President of the US.

Greta75 -> RE: Religious Oaths (9/25/2015 12:04:59 AM)
Let's face it, religious affliation does matter. Is anybody gonna vote a Satanist to be President ever? He can run, but people will judge him by his religion. Because fact of the matter is, religion is a choice. And whatever religion you choose to stick by with, is all part of the person that you are. You choose to align yourselves with those beliefs because you believe in it!

DaddySatyr -> RE: Religious Oaths (9/25/2015 12:44:18 AM)
The U.S. Constitution says that there should be no litmus test regarding religion. I agree that that is a great ideal, but let's face it: we're all human and when it comes to people that are "true believers", that status (and to which "sect" they belong) *definitely* comes into play. If I didn't already hate the fact that he was a socialist, when Obama's Reverend Wright fiasco came to light, I had some serious doubts about his ability to truly be an American president. I do have to admit that when he could no longer defend the idiot (Wright) and he cut him loose, politically, I was able to despise Obama as "just another lying politician". He sat in Wright's church for 20 years and I'll bet Wright didn't just come to his "God damn America" preaching style two weeks before we found out about it. Sure, I've been in churches where I didn't agree with the message that was coming from the pulpit (but at that point, it was my last time there). That gets into a whole 'nother issue: the left likes to make a lot of noise about "churches are no longer churches, when they start taking political positions". Is Wright/his church paying taxes these days? No. Of course he/they aren't. Back to my first paragraph: It *does* matter if someone is a "true believer". True believers will always weigh the tenets of their faith heavier than the constitution. It happens in all faiths. Would a true Catholic vote for a pro-abortionist? Would a true "atheist" (That's pronounced: "American Liberal" for those of you in Poughkeepsie) ever vote for a pro life candidate? Whether the constitution says it or not, religion *does* matter (on a personal level). Michael

DaddySatyr -> RE: Religious Oaths (9/25/2015 1:49:40 AM)
I think this part is über important, given recent events: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri If your position in public office requires you to violate tenets of your faith, you should probably not be in that position. If you will have to choose to violate the US Constitution or tenets of your faith in a public office, you shouldn't be in that public office. What about if one is elected to an office where no part of their job requirement would violate their religious tenets and then ... the job (law) changes? The attitude coming from the left is: "Fuck them. Too bad. So sad." That's my issue with this whole Kentucky thing. Handle it at the ballot box and vote her out, next time. No? Michael

bounty44 -> RE: Religious Oaths (9/25/2015 2:15:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri IF (notice it's a big "if" lol) a Muslim will be required to violate the tenets of his/her faith when faithfully executing the position of President of the US, then Dr. Carson was correct, and a Muslim should never be in the position of President. But, what Dr. Carson didn't say - and he may not agree with - that applies to followers of any faith. If faithfully executing the office of the President violates Catholic tenets, then Catholics should never be President of the US. Let me repeat: If faithfully executing the office of the President violates (insert religion here) tenets, then followers of (insert religion here) should never be President of the US. yes, he didn't say that initially, but last night on o'reilly he said the very exact thing you just wrote and he inserted "Christian" into the equation.

KenDckey -> RE: Religious Oaths (9/25/2015 2:22:51 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2015/09/constitution-check-are-people-who-follow-some-religious-faiths-barred-from-the-presidency/ Interesting article on religious oaths. I agree. I remember when Kennedy was being elected there was rampant fear in some that he would take orders from the Pope. Didn'thappen but it was a fear. If your position in public office requires you to violate tenets of your faith, you should probably not be in that position. If you will have to choose to violate the US Constitution or tenets of your faith in a public office, you shouldn't be in that public office. IF (notice it's a big "if" lol) a Muslim will be required to violate the tenets of his/her faith when faithfully executing the position of President of the US, then Dr. Carson was correct, and a Muslim should never be in the position of President. But, what Dr. Carson didn't say - and he may not agree with - that applies to followers of any faith. If faithfully executing the office of the President violates Catholic tenets, then Catholics should never be President of the US. Let me repeat: If faithfully executing the office of the President violates (insert religion here) tenets, then followers of (insert religion here) should never be President of the US. No No My oath to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic didn't include anything about religion. I have spent my entire life since I was 17 serving that oath both on active duty, retirement and municipal service. I do believe that oath takes precedence over religion. It was the comment by Bernie Sanders last weekend that triggered the thought in my mind. And even tho I was a republican I am and continue to be a strong Kennedy supporter.

joether -> RE: Religious Oaths (9/25/2015 12:40:23 PM)
If the President is a good person, whom makes good decisions and has good people around them; does their religious beliefs really matter? Conservatives in this nation demand one not only be christian, but their definition of christian. Given that they are pseudo-christians, they demand that person ALSO be a pseudo-christian. A pseudo christian is one that picks and chooses which parts of the bible they will follow and the rest are ignored. Often mean, hate-filled, ignorant, and super distrusting of anything and anyone. If some non-christian were running for office that not only had good things to say, but an actual plan to accomplish them; we would be dumb not to listen.

Kirata -> RE: Religious Oaths (9/25/2015 12:58:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether A pseudo christian is one that picks and chooses which parts of the bible they will follow and the rest are ignored. It's impossible not to choose, and your definition would include someone who followed the teachings of Christ above all else. K.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Religious Oaths (9/25/2015 4:38:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr The U.S. Constitution says that there should be no litmus test regarding religion. I agree that that is a great ideal, but let's face it: we're all human and when it comes to people that are "true believers", that status (and to which "sect" they belong) *definitely* comes into play. If I didn't already hate the fact that he was a socialist, when Obama's Reverend Wright fiasco came to light, I had some serious doubts about his ability to truly be an American president. I do have to admit that when he could no longer defend the idiot (Wright) and he cut him loose, politically, I was able to despise Obama as "just another lying politician". He sat in Wright's church for 20 years and I'll bet Wright didn't just come to his "God damn America" preaching style two weeks before we found out about it. Sure, I've been in churches where I didn't agree with the message that was coming from the pulpit (but at that point, it was my last time there). That gets into a whole 'nother issue: the left likes to make a lot of noise about "churches are no longer churches, when they start taking political positions". Is Wright/his church paying taxes these days? No. Of course he/they aren't. Back to my first paragraph: It *does* matter if someone is a "true believer". True believers will always weigh the tenets of their faith heavier than the constitution. It happens in all faiths. Would a true Catholic vote for a pro-abortionist? Would a true "atheist" (That's pronounced: "American Liberal" for those of you in Poughkeepsie) ever vote for a pro life candidate? Whether the constitution says it or not, religion *does* matter (on a personal level). Michael The US Constitution is also a binding on Government. While it's fine for you, me, Dr. Carson, Ben Greeley (no idea who that is or why it popped into my head - LOL), Hilary, etc. to vote for a person based on that person's religious affiliation. Government, however, can not do that. I guarantee you there were people who voted for President Obama for no reason other than he is black. I guarantee you there were people who voted against President Obama for no reason other than he is black. Is that illegal? Absolutely not. Is it racist and stupid? Yes, and yes. Is Government allowed to make decisions based on a person's skin color (outside of any affirmative action decisions)? No. I don't know the rationale behind Dr. Carson's belief that a Muslim can't uphold the US Constitution, simply because the religion. He may have solid reasons behind it. However, much of what is likely to be the rationale also applies to most other mainstream religions.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Religious Oaths (9/25/2015 4:46:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr I think this part is über important, given recent events: quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri If your position in public office requires you to violate tenets of your faith, you should probably not be in that position. If you will have to choose to violate the US Constitution or tenets of your faith in a public office, you shouldn't be in that public office. What about if one is elected to an office where no part of their job requirement would violate their religious tenets and then ... the job (law) changes? The attitude coming from the left is: "Fuck them. Too bad. So sad." That's my issue with this whole Kentucky thing. Handle it at the ballot box and vote her out, next time. No? Michael I think it falls on her to step down from the office she can no longer execute properly, or, somehow, make changes in the office such that she's not required to choose one or the other. If there was another person that could discharge her duties, then she wouldn't have to act opposite to her religious beliefs.

DesideriScuri -> RE: Religious Oaths (9/25/2015 4:50:17 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey No No My oath to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic didn't include anything about religion. I have spent my entire life since I was 17 serving that oath both on active duty, retirement and municipal service. I do believe that oath takes precedence over religion. It was the comment by Bernie Sanders last weekend that triggered the thought in my mind. And even tho I was a republican I am and continue to be a strong Kennedy supporter. If you put your oath to defend the Constitution above the tenets of your faith, if your faith requires you to hold God above all, then you aren't faithfully attending the tenets of your faith.

KenDckey -> RE: Religious Oaths (9/25/2015 7:53:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri quote: ORIGINAL: KenDckey No No My oath to defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic didn't include anything about religion. I have spent my entire life since I was 17 serving that oath both on active duty, retirement and municipal service. I do believe that oath takes precedence over religion. It was the comment by Bernie Sanders last weekend that triggered the thought in my mind. And even tho I was a republican I am and continue to be a strong Kennedy supporter. If you put your oath to defend the Constitution above the tenets of your faith, if your faith requires you to hold God above all, then you aren't faithfully attending the tenets of your faith. Actually I don't see it that way but it is ok if you do

Greta75 -> RE: Religious Oaths (9/25/2015 7:59:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether If the President is a good person, whom makes good decisions and has good people around them; does their religious beliefs really matter? Again this depends on his religious beliefs. If he believes women should be beaten by their husbands legally. I don't care how great he is fiscally! As a woman, I am threatened by his beliefs of support of violence towards my gender. If he was a buddhist, I would have no objections. No beating of women there.

Aylee -> RE: Religious Oaths (9/25/2015 8:49:51 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether If the President is a good person, whom makes good decisions and has good people around them; does their religious beliefs really matter? Conservatives in this nation demand one not only be christian, but their definition of christian. Given that they are pseudo-christians, they demand that person ALSO be a pseudo-christian. A pseudo christian is one that picks and chooses which parts of the bible they will follow and the rest are ignored. Often mean, hate-filled, ignorant, and super distrusting of anything and anyone. If some non-christian were running for office that not only had good things to say, but an actual plan to accomplish them; we would be dumb not to listen. And here I thought that it was Gd that would know his own. Blessed be the twit! Gd whispers in his ear about who is a Christian and who is not. So tell us all. . . do you use a seance? Ouija board? Table knocking? Which creed does Gd prefer? Nicaean? Apostle's? Athanasian? What else has Gd told you twit? Crazy people tell the BEST stories.

bounty44 -> RE: Religious Oaths (9/26/2015 6:42:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether If the President is a good person, whom makes good decisions... ...A pseudo christian is one that picks and chooses which parts of the bible they will follow and the rest are ignored. Often mean, hate-filled, ignorant, and super distrusting of anything and anyone. its "WHO makes good decisions" comrade. "who" is a subject, that is, it acts. in this case, the "makes" is the action. "whom" is an object; it is something that is acted upon. maybe someday you'll get it. in the meantime: your thoughts might carry weight if you actually understood Christianity, the bible, what being Christian means---you clearly don't---and didn't hate them as much as you do. on the whole, I think many people come here for an exchange of ideas, thought provoking conversations and legitimate collegial expression. you seem to be on here entirely to spew venom and as it is, you perpetually come off as a bitter, yapping partisan, ignorant fool, who (not WHOM) unfortunately invites abuse.

Lucylastic -> RE: Religious Oaths (9/26/2015 8:13:30 AM)
all that venom over an "m"

Hillwilliam -> RE: Religious Oaths (9/26/2015 8:17:29 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic all that venom over an "m" I was thinking more that the 'b" in "Bible" should have been capitalized in the post you were replying to.

Lucylastic -> RE: Religious Oaths (9/26/2015 8:28:17 AM)
brain is fried today...one grammar/capitalization and punctuation nasty is bad enough on a good day.

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125