immoral to your belief Just as they tried to pass legaslation that would make it legal for you to refuse service if it was in conflict with your beliefs. Immoral is used too often in the context of excluding a group for reasons that don't make much sense. I belief in not serving anyone religious, pray someone with my beliefs never makes it to an office you require help from.
I tend to agree. So now the question is, is there such a thing as a secular Muslim? The reluctance of Muslim leaders in this country to publicly denounce the extremists and say they are not true Muslims raises concern, fair or not.
the assumption that i'm getting out of this is that only a religious person can be truly moral- i don't know if that's what you meant or not. if it is, we don't agree. if it's not, then i'm not certain what your point in responding to me is unless you're expanding the context of 'devout' to encompass more than religious faith, my intended meaning. what am i missing, dj?
Swearing on the bible is called the sacred oath, by definition an oath is statement fact or promise with wording relating to a sacred sign of verity i.e. any religion can have an oath an atheist cannot. Just because it's called the oath of office it shouldn't be taken literally as having to be an oath, those who conscientiously object to making a sacred oath make an affirmation instead by the legal standard, thus somebody who is an atheist would take an affirmation of office instead an oath. It's just wording people use slang so liberally these days you shouldn't really take things at full face value. From my understanding there is nothing that prevents a Muslim from taking an oath swearing to Allah. If you want to be technical Allah and the Christian God are the same God just like the Hebrew God etc etc the teachings are different along with various other things that separate them, but they are supposed to be the same entity. Muslims for instance do recognize Christ, but rather than the son of God he's recognized as a profit like Muhammad. Long story short, yes a Muslim should be able to take AN oath of office, it wouldn't be the same one Christian denominations use, if it's considered sacrilege for a Muslim to swear on Allah, but again I'm fairly certain they can swear an oath to Allah, but if not then they'd take an affirmation of office which is the same effect.
Get all your religions on outta here! Article VI of the Constitution... "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Unassailable logic. Gracias. The law does NOT contain a religious test. As one sees above, such a test is unconstitutional. That is all.
i don't think a religious person can put their hand on their holy book and not take the oath seriously just because atheists get a pass. Muslims and Christians do worship the same God. True. But the religions have very different practical interpretations about what that God expects.
1) Of course immoral to my belief. I am responsible for living my life. Internal locus of control. Your are responsible for living your life. 2) Many different types of beliefs are protected by law right now, even in Europe. You already knew that though. 3) Your last sentence advocates for bigotry. It is also immoral and illegal. At least we know where you stand. Unvarnished truth.
Btw I think most of the the recent threads in off topic would have lasted about 5 mins under SOE. Hats off to DoG and mods for respecting our desire to speak our minds. It's very American of you.
Not a recent thing at all, actually, and very much a "rule": Age and Citizenship requirements - US Constitution, Article II, Section 1 No person except a natural born citizen, or a citizen of the United States, at the time of the adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the office of President; neither shall any person be eligible to that office who shall not have attained to the age of thirty-five years, and been fourteen years a resident within the United States. Personally, I probably wouldn't care too much, but the general fear (reason for this inclusion) is that someone with loyalties to another nation would gain command of the military/militias and such. Of course, recently, people have been questioning what "natural born" means and whether or not it matters. Particularly in reaction to the silly Birth Certificate thing with Obama (with which Obama did not help in his manner of dealing with it, and various jokes).
1) Anyone can be a wonderful and moral human being. I personally know plenty of agnostics and atheists that put me to shame. 2) Yes, I wanted to understand your definition of devout. Many use it only in a religious context. 3) Sorry for not clarifying that better in a prior post. My bad.
radar had a very practical approach to political threads in that he'd shut them down before anyone said anything remotely inflammatory. pretty sure that was SOE policy.
i mean, you gotta keep in mind that the forums were more densely populated at the time, and that those threads would get derailed very fast. threads going on for 14 pages that started "does anyone think x is a legitimate candidate" or similar would probably not make it past the first 2 pages before a flamefest started. but yeah, from what i've seen mod policy in large companies etc tends to be to completely avoid touchy subjects if possible. that'd be religion, politics, illegal stuff (going from torrenting to SMOKIN THAT DANK KUSH), the holocaust (go figure). probably more, but that's what comes to mind they've seemingly adopted a wait-and-see sort of policy with those things here, i have little doubt that if a conversation topic proves to consistently be too much of a moderatory burden that it would be up for removal. religion and politics are through for sure, and the discussion thus far has had few outright attacks or things that might necessitate moderation. illegal stuff is mostly out- companies of all sizes rarely want their forums to be a haven for people to discuss breaking laws. substance (marijuana/alcohol being the biggies) threads were moderated more under SOE too, iirc. the holocaust is still pretty much off limits. the problem with these things, all of them really (except maybe the illegal stuff), is that it's the internet. when someone adopts an extreme viewpoint, i have no frame of reference for them. they might believe it, they might think it's funny to troll around as. i have no clue what anonymous user x really means or thinks. even if they're identifiable- i know DJ's claim for political and religious allegiance, for example (not picking on you, just example). his words are mostly consistent, but i don't know if that's what he is. meanwhile, if someone wanted to troll left leaning people on a forum, they'd probably decide on leanings almost identical to his and do their best to mimic those, simply because the relative extremity of the views makes them more enticing as bait. this is hardly a unique situation. the reality is that given the emotional basis of these arguments and the impossibility of knowing whothe****iswhat (and vice versa), these sorts of discussions more often lend themselves to people solidifying their own views while lashing out, both without a solid basis. i got up in the middle of typing all this out; it's not quite right but i think the idea is there.
That was supposed to be clever and/or funny? I probably just missed it. Enlghten please. Clerk broke the law, went to jail, and will soon be punished again... unless she complies. System is working. Not sure what else peeps want? Meanwhile, no outcry by the Left on the 100s of sanctuary cities in Murica that have openly defied immigration laws for years to decades. Laws matter or not?
Which leaders are you referring to? I've personally met multiple community religious leaders who have publicly denounced extremist groups like ISIS as not following the teachings of the Prophet (pbuh). Actually, basically every Muslim I know believes that they practice a perversion of Islam that bends the idea of jihad to serve ideas of violence.
seems there is a wiki page about this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_attitudes_towards_terrorism Im glad to see there is progress being made but the media is doing a poor job of covering it.
It's not bigotry to vote against someone who represents an ideology you find contrary to what the country is about.
