FanboyOf91 Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 this ****ing guy is going to cost us a carrier group Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 3 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said: Well, answer me this then. How will that belief influence your ability to offer equal representation and protection to those who do not believe? Do you recognize and abide by the separation of church and state and equal treatment of all, despite them having beliefs that might run contrary to yours? If I am "condemned" in your eyes, as are others who may be gay, or believe in a different deity, or none at all, will you represent my and their interests without prejudice? This is part of the goodness of America (despite all the bad), that is diverse opinions and representation is allowed. We may not agree on everything, especially with policy, but we can work together on what we do agree on. Some of us may even change our minds on things. And there is no such thing as "without prejudice". It doesn't exist, you don't even adhere to it. But I think that you confuse presupposition with prejudice. I don't believe Muslims or Jews or atheists are any less of a person, but you also can't operate in a vacuum, because there is no such thing in politics. Secular mindset is in itself prejudice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh8686 Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 3 minutes ago, Zguy28 said: This is part of the goodness of America (despite all the bad), that is diverse opinions and representation is allowed. We may not agree on everything, especially with policy, but we can work together on what we do agree on. Some of us may even change our minds on things. And there is no such thing as "without prejudice". It doesn't exist, you don't even adhere to it. But I think that you confuse presupposition with prejudice. I don't believe Muslims or Jews or atheists are any less of a person, but you also can't operate in a vacuum, because there is no such thing in politics. Secular mindset is in itself prejudice. Why didn't you answer the questions? According to dictionary.com Prejudice is "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason". Condemning people or ascribing guilt to someone based purely on allegiance to Jesus Christ and not their actual actions and behaviors meets the criteria of that definition. We can have a prejudicial impulse, refrain from acting on it, get the necessary information we need to make a decision, and then act in a way that is without prejudice. To have that capability is a mark of maturity. It is possible, occurs often, and does indeed exist. What is the issue with making sure an appointed official has the mental and emotional maturity to carry out such a process? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 25 minutes ago, Fresh8686 said: Why didn't you answer the questions? According to dictionary.com Prejudice is "an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason". Condemning people or ascribing guilt to someone based purely on allegiance to Jesus Christ and not their actual actions and behaviors meets the criteria of that definition. We can have a prejudicial impulse, refrain from acting on it, get the necessary information we need to make a decision, and then act in a way that is without prejudice. To have that capability is a mark of maturity. It is possible, occurs often, and does indeed exist. Sorry, since you define prejudice as "unfavorable", then yes, I could represent you. (We recently had a long thread on prejudice here where it was determined that all are prejudiced in at least some way). I don't have an unfavorable opinion of anybody as a person, that is not based on individual prior experience. I choose to see the best in people (at least I try to in most cases) unless they show me otherwise. But I'm not perfect. Quote What is the issue with making sure an appointed official has the mental and emotional maturity to carry out such a process? No issue. Are you able to judge the man from one statement that paraphrased an essential theological doctrine held essential by billions of Christians? Don't you think you have a prejudiced opinion of this man? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 Another liar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fresh8686 Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 1 hour ago, Zguy28 said: Sorry, since you define prejudice as "unfavorable", then yes, I could represent you. (We recently had a long thread on prejudice here where it was determined that all are prejudiced in at least some way). I don't have an unfavorable opinion of anybody as a person, that is not based on individual prior experience. I choose to see the best in people (at least I try to in most cases) unless they show me otherwise. But I'm not perfect. No issue. Are you able to judge the man from one statement that paraphrased an essential theological doctrine held essential by billions of Christians? Don't you think you have a prejudiced opinion of this man? I never voiced my opinion about the specific dude in question. From the get-go my argument has been about the separation of church and state and safe-guarding the representatives of an elected official from prejudice that he/she may ascribe to for religious reasons. I'm not into superiority/inferiority paradigms, whether it be religious or racial supremacists, or anything else. I know most humans are not developed enough to have divested themselves completely from most of those paradigms, but I think it is reasonable for me to apply a level of standard to my elected officials that expects that they won't operate and legislate along those paradigms. That's what I said back in my first post to you " You can believe what you want, but if you believe and operate from the position that a percentage of a population is automatically "condemned" for no fault other then not being in allegiance to a historical figure, then you shouldn't be in a political position that involves the representation of those very same people." Notice I said "if", which intimates judgement reserved, not given, based on the meeting of additional criteria. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 3 hours ago, Zguy28 said: Aw, thanks, you ol' Christophobe. I've got no problem with Christianity. Some of the individuals who claim to be Christian, sure. Not the religion by itself though. I certainly would never say that all Christians are doomed to hell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Wiggles Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 Wonder why Trumps administration is canceling the Falwell Jr. educational task force? Falwells not qualified IMO to be in charge of such a task. Guessing its just not a priority for this administration at the moment. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 1 minute ago, Sacks 'n' Stuff said: I've got no problem with Christianity. Some of the individuals who claim to be Christian, sure. Not the religion by itself though. I certainly would never say that all Christians are doomed to hell. You sound like some of my old pastors. ....intolerant lot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 3 minutes ago, clietas said: Wonder why Trumps administration is canceling the Falwell Jr. educational task force? Falwells not qualified IMO to be in charge of such a task. Guessing its just not a priority for this administration at the moment. Clearly he didn't pass Bernie's test. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Wiggles Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 6 minutes ago, visionary said: Clearly he didn't pass Bernie's test. Purity test? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sacks 'n' Stuff Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 41 minutes ago, twa said: You sound like some of my old pastors. ....intolerant lot I'm the most tolerant person in the world. Nobody does tolerance like me and I'll fight anyone who doesn't think so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FanboyOf91 Posted June 8, 2017 Share Posted June 8, 2017 Here's to the future bailout, y'all! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LadySkinsFan Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 Hahaha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinsmarydu Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 1 minute ago, LadySkinsFan said: Hahaha I was gonna post a , but thought I was being too silly this early. Thanks for that! I'm completely and totally vindicated! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 16 hours ago, Fresh8686 said: I never voiced my opinion about the specific dude in question. From the get-go my argument has been about the separation of church and state and safe-guarding the representatives of an elected official from prejudice that he/she may ascribe to for religious reasons. I'm not into superiority/inferiority paradigms, whether it be religious or racial supremacists, or anything else. I know most humans are not developed enough to have divested themselves completely from most of those paradigms, but I think it is reasonable for me to apply a level of standard to my elected officials that expects that they won't operate and legislate along those paradigms. That's what I said back in my first post to you " You can believe what you want, but if you believe and operate from the position that a percentage of a population is automatically "condemned" for no fault other then not being in allegiance to a historical figure, then you shouldn't be in a political position that involves the representation of those very same people." Notice I said "if", which intimates judgement reserved, not given, based on the meeting of additional criteria. You realize that if you exercise your criteria, you would disqualify millions of Muslims and Christians from serving in public office right? And separation of church and state is a two way street. The state shouldn't be disqualifying them from office based on theological statement of religious doctrine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan T. Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 17 hours ago, visionary said: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGoodBits Posted June 9, 2017 Share Posted June 9, 2017 If someone were to photoshop the Keebler elf in a white robe, burning a cross... that's Jefferson (Davis PGT) Beauregard Sessions III Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.