speaking the truth

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

4 hours ago, Gnostic Bishop said:

So it is none of our business if our neighbor beats his wife and sells his daughter for a few cows after her sexual pleasures are destroyed by FGM.

For evil to grow, all good people need do is nothing.

You promote doing nothing and allowing evil to grow.

Regards

DL

As Brother Kamen observed -- these are actions which have legal remedies.  Nothing to do with correcting "belief."

[cuchulain]

correcting belief IS important, and here is why:  we live in a country ruled by laws created by those elected.  Those we elect often hold similar beliefs to us.  What if they are wrong?  They hold erroneous beliefs, and propagate those erroneous beliefs through the law whenever they can.  If their erroneous beliefs are corrected before they are elected, or possibly even after, then they may make better laws for us all to live by.  Sure, what they are doing now is within the law perhaps.  But what if they change the law to suit their beliefs?  They will still be acting within the law, but it may be immoral.  This is why I don't bang my head anymore with Gnostic Bishop about his correction of others.  He acts in accord with the greatest good as he sees it, and I couldn't ask for better from anyone.

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

9 hours ago, cuchulain said:

correcting belief IS important, and here is why:  we live in a country ruled by laws created by those elected.  Those we elect often hold similar beliefs to us.  What if they are wrong?  They hold erroneous beliefs, and propagate those erroneous beliefs through the law whenever they can.  If their erroneous beliefs are corrected before they are elected, or possibly even after, then they may make better laws for us all to live by.  Sure, what they are doing now is within the law perhaps.  But what if they change the law to suit their beliefs?  They will still be acting within the law, but it may be immoral.  This is why I don't bang my head anymore with Gnostic Bishop about his correction of others.  He acts in accord with the greatest good as he sees it, and I couldn't ask for better from anyone.

Not to my observation.  The people that I vote for seem to never share my beliefs or philosophy.  They don't need to.  The people that I vote for are there to do a job.  I don't care about their philosophy.  It would change nothing if I did.  All I can do is pick the best person who is on the ballot.

[cuchulain]

20 hours ago, Jonathan H. B. Lobl said:

Not to my observation.  The people that I vote for seem to never share my beliefs or philosophy.  They don't need to.  The people that I vote for are there to do a job.  I don't care about their philosophy.  It would change nothing if I did.  All I can do is pick the best person who is on the ballot.

I should have clarified, I believe.  I don't mean specifically us as individuals, rather us as a majority.  The majority of those elected represent the beliefs of the majority of those who elected them.  And I qualify that statement with often, since it is not the case every time.  I now further qualify the statement by saying I may of course be wrong.  Just seems like a majority of congress and the president are Christian, or at least claim the title if people wish to split hairs.  And the majority of the country is Christian, or at least claims to be.  That's what I meant by those we elect often hold similar beliefs to us.  

So when we elect someone with similar beliefs, they aren't exactly the same of course.  Maybe the person we as a people elect has beliefs that are very similar except...and maybe that one exception turns out not to get publicized, and ends up being something that this elected official pushes through, an agenda.  Maybe that agenda is detrimental in most of our minds, but we elected the person who passed through the law.  Now it's legal, but perhaps not moral and not something that the majority actually agree with.  

I can second not caring about their philosophy, to a point.  But their philosophy might affect how they pass, or uphold, laws.  Agreed, also, for electing the best person who is on the ballot.  They certainly don't share my beliefs, either.  Not any Atheists in congress that I am aware of, but I am not as current as I should be.  Not any in the supreme court that I can think of either.  

[Brother Kaman]

57 minutes ago, cuchulain said:

I should have clarified, I believe.  I don't mean specifically us as individuals, rather us as a majority.  The majority of those elected represent the beliefs of the majority of those who elected them.  And I qualify that statement with often, since it is not the case every time.  I now further qualify the statement by saying I may of course be wrong.  Just seems like a majority of congress and the president are Christian, or at least claim the title if people wish to split hairs.  And the majority of the country is Christian, or at least claims to be.  That's what I meant by those we elect often hold similar beliefs to us.  

So when we elect someone with similar beliefs, they aren't exactly the same of course.  Maybe the person we as a people elect has beliefs that are very similar except...and maybe that one exception turns out not to get publicized, and ends up being something that this elected official pushes through, an agenda.  Maybe that agenda is detrimental in most of our minds, but we elected the person who passed through the law.  Now it's legal, but perhaps not moral and not something that the majority actually agree with.  

I can second not caring about their philosophy, to a point.  But their philosophy might affect how they pass, or uphold, laws.  Agreed, also, for electing the best person who is on the ballot.  They certainly don't share my beliefs, either.  Not any Atheists in congress that I am aware of, but I am not as current as I should be.  Not any in the supreme court that I can think of either.  

There cannot be an "us" as a majority with out first being an "us" as individuals. There could be many A/atheists in congress. There are probably no professed atheist's in congress. I could, of course, be wrong but I think it very difficult to hold a federal elective office in this country without a professed belief in G/god.

[mererdog]

20 hours ago, Brother Kaman said:

I could, of course, be wrong but I think it very difficult to hold a federal elective office in this country without a professed belief in G/god.

It's been a few years since it was on my radar, but there is a poll they've been doing for decades where they ask voters if they would refuse to vote for a candidate based on religion. The last time I looked, Muslim had just passed atheist as the most likely religious label to disqualify a candidate in the eyes of American voters. 

Luckily, no politician would ever lie about what they believe in order to gain power, so we rest easy.

Edited February 24, 2017 by mererdog

[Jonathan H. B. Lobl]

23 hours ago, cuchulain said:

I should have clarified, I believe.  I don't mean specifically us as individuals, rather us as a majority.  The majority of those elected represent the beliefs of the majority of those who elected them.  And I qualify that statement with often, since it is not the case every time.  I now further qualify the statement by saying I may of course be wrong.  Just seems like a majority of congress and the president are Christian, or at least claim the title if people wish to split hairs.  And the majority of the country is Christian, or at least claims to be.  That's what I meant by those we elect often hold similar beliefs to us.  

So when we elect someone with similar beliefs, they aren't exactly the same of course.  Maybe the person we as a people elect has beliefs that are very similar except...and maybe that one exception turns out not to get publicized, and ends up being something that this elected official pushes through, an agenda.  Maybe that agenda is detrimental in most of our minds, but we elected the person who passed through the law.  Now it's legal, but perhaps not moral and not something that the majority actually agree with.  

I can second not caring about their philosophy, to a point.  But their philosophy might affect how they pass, or uphold, laws.  Agreed, also, for electing the best person who is on the ballot.  They certainly don't share my beliefs, either.  Not any Atheists in congress that I am aware of, but I am not as current as I should be.  Not any in the supreme court that I can think of either.  

When a candidate professes to be a Christian -- as President Trump does -- we are left to wonder if this is a good thing.  Maybe he is telling the truth.  Maybe he is lying through his teeth.  Maybe voters care.  Maybe voters don't care.   That is how Trump was elected ** Grabber 'N' Chief.  A marvel of Christian values.

I don't believe that an open, out of the closet, Atheist or Agnostic, can be elected to high office.  Not even low office.  Piety sells.  Much like sex.