On one hand, I understand that pandering to religious sentiment is pretty-much required to hold any amount of power in the US, let alone to be elected president.
On the other hand, Obama has now stepped over a line that I'd rather he not have crossed. I'm done compromising with idiots, and it saddens me that compromising with idiots is necessary to prevent other idiots from starting wars.
While I'll probably still vote for him, this alone has ensured that he will not receive another dime of my money, and has definitely put him a few steps closer to being just another politician.
This is all because recent polls have shown that evangelical Christians are looking to not vote republican this year....
Also this is directly tied in my opinion to all the rumors that Obama is a Muslim and his wacky church.
Obama is just another politician, you can't be elected to office any other way. If Obama started acting how some people want him to act he would just lose. We all know that our ideal candidate would never be elected. I still believe Obama in office will be much different. He will still get my money because I believe as president he will do things a bit different then these opening shots of the general election which always involve candidates drifting towards the middle.
Rym, you are too good. I hoped you would lean more heavily on the pandering for votes excuse, because I wanted point out the gigantic flaws in that excuse.
EDIT:
Apparently Cremlian is leaning on that excuse! Hooray!
Let's say I agree with most of what candidate A says, but I disagree with them on a few issues. Instead of criticizing the candidate's stance on those issues, I pretend the candidate doesn't actually mean what they are saying. I tell myself they are just lying to get votes. In other words, you construct a false image of the candidate in your mind that agrees with you 100%. Whenever they have a position you disagree with, you pretend they actually agree with you, and that they are just pandering for votes. You're just lying to yourself about what the candidate's true stance is to justify your support of the candidate.
This is no good. Using this logic you could justify voting for any candidate. Even if a candidate says they disagree with you on every issue, you can say they are actually lying to get votes, and they agree with you 100%.
You need to support candidates when they agree with you, and criticize them when they disagree with you. If you accuse them of lying, for good or bad, then you need some evidence. If you believe they are lying without evidence, then your only option is to take the Cnaiur route and not believe anything any candidate says. That's not a bad way to go, but it completely disenfranchises you in any representative form of government.
We all know that our ideal candidate would never be elected. I still believe Obama in office will be much different. He will still get my money because I believe as president he will do things a bit different then these opening shots of the general election which always involve candidates drifting towards the middle.
Oh, I agree, but he's crossed a very important line for me. Government funding of faith-based initiatives is a dealbreaker issue.
Rym, you are too good. I hoped you would lean more heavily on the pandering for votes excuse, because I wanted point out the gigantic flaws in that excuse.
EDIT:
Apparently Cremlian is leaning on that excuse! Hooray!
Let's say I agree with most of what candidate A says, but I disagree with them on a few issues. Instead of criticizing the candidate's stance on those issues, I pretend the candidate doesn't actually mean what they are saying. I tell myself they are just lying to get votes. In other words, you construct a false image of the candidate in your mind that agrees with you 100%. Whenever they have a position you disagree with, you pretend they actually agree with you, and that they are just pandering for votes. You're just lying to yourself about what the candidate's true stance is to justify your support of the candidate.
This is no good. Using this logic you could justify voting for any candidate. Even if a candidate says they disagree with you on every issue, you can say they are actually lying to get votes, and they agree with you 100%.
You need to support candidates when they agree with you, and criticize them when they disagree with you. If you accuse them of lying, for good or bad, then you need some evidence. If you believe they are lying without evidence, then your only option is to take the Cnaiur route and not believe anything any candidate says. That's not a bad way to go, but it completely disenfranchises you in any representative form of government.
Sorry Scott, the point I was making was towards Rym's removing a level of support comment, not that he should not be critized for having the view. Rym stated that Obama was on the road to being just another politician. My point was that he is just another politician. You are jumping on the wrong point.
There was a report on the radio this morning saying that more Americans are moving towards the "screw the environment, I want cheap gas" opinion. Will this lead towards a softening of Obama's position on oil drilling within the US?
All politicians move towards the center once the primaries are over. Yet, even I am surprised by this Obama news about expanding faith-based initiatives!
While Mr. Obama opposes requiring religious tests for recipients of aid or use of federal money to proselytize, The Associated Press reported that he supports letting religious institutions -- in the non-federally funded parts of their activities -- hire and fire based on faith, according to a senior adviser to the campaign who the news agency said spoke on condition of anonymity.
Yet, even I am surprised by this Obama news about expanding faith-based initiatives!
He has to convince a surprising and frightening number of people that he's not a Muslim.
The entire "Obama is a Muslim" is based on a lot of assumptions.
1) Obama's dad was a Muslim so Obama is one because religion passes from father to son. - I might buy into this if his dad was around while he was growing up. My understanding is that Obama's dad was not around and he was instead raised by his mom's family.
2) Obama's middle name is Hussein. - Yeah? So? I know lots of people with middle names of the apostles from Christian mythology that are not Christians. Maybe someone on his dad's side was named Hussein? Isn't Hussein about as common as Scott, Tom, or Joe in the English speaking world?
3) Obama is a Muslim in disguise. - This is based on assumption #1 and the fact that Muslims are allowed to lie about their religion if it will result in good things happening for Islam. (I'm paraphrasing that from the writings of one of the head Iranian religious leaders. I don't recall which one because I read it several years ago but the guy had an "ask the Ayatollah" section to his website.)
If Obama is a Muslim I'd have to say he is doing one hell of a job hiding it.
While Mr. Obama opposes requiring religious tests for recipients of aid or use of federal money to proselytize, The Associated Press reported that he supports letting religious institutions -- in the non-federally funded parts of their activities -- hire and fire based on faith, according to a senior adviser to the campaign who the news agency said spoke on condition of anonymity.
Interesting.
So, some forms of discrimination are OK, even if they are clearly against the Constitution, as long as you don't use Federal money for it? The more I think about that the scarier it sounds.
Sorry Scott, the point I was making was towards Rym's removing a level of support comment, not that he should not be critized for having the view. Rym stated that Obama was on the road to being just another politician. My point was that he is just another politician. You are jumping on the wrong point.
Whatever. No animals fell into my trap, so I sprung it anyway, pretending you fell in. Of course, after the trap was sprung, Li_Akahi walked right into the open and visible pit. Way to go.
So, some forms of discrimination are OK, even if they are clearly against the Constitution, as long as you don't use Federal money for it? The more I think about that the scarier it sounds.
Why is that discriminatory? A private organization should be able to determine who they want to hire, apart from the protected things: gender, race, etc.
While that notion appeared controversial, it seems to find support in a 2000 case involving the Boy Scouts of America. The Supreme Court ruled that the group, as a private organization, had a First Amendment right to set its membership rules.
Apparently Cremlian is leaning on that excuse! Hooray!
Let's say I agree with most of what candidate A says, but I disagree with them on a few issues. Instead of criticizing the candidate's stance on those issues, I pretend the candidate doesn't actually mean what they are saying. I tell myself they are just lying to get votes. In other words, you construct a false image of the candidate in your mind that agrees with you 100%. Whenever they have a position you disagree with, you pretend they actually agree with you, and that they are just pandering for votes. You're just lying to yourself about what the candidate's true stance is to justify your support of the candidate.
This is no good. Using this logic you could justify voting for any candidate. Even if a candidate says they disagree with you on every issue, you can say they are actually lying to get votes, and they agree with you 100%.
If this was supposed to be some sort of logical "trap", it is only because the person laying the trap is too idealistic for his own good. It's not a trap, it's just idealism in the extreme. In some ways, it's admirable, but in most ways, it ignores reality and is just not practical.
If I was only going to vote for a candidate that I agreed with on 100% of the issues and who never made a move that I didn't like, then I would never be able to vote for anyone. I never thought I agreed with Obama 100%. That's impossible. This is reality, not Plato's realm of forms. In reality, I have to choose the candidate that I agree MOST of the time, not ALL the time. That's a ridiculous burden that I could understand from an idealistic movie character, like maybe Mary Poppins, but reality is flawed. Reality only offers compromise.
The candidates are flawed humans trying to persuade other flawed humans to vote for them. Recognizing that candidates have to try to persuade different groups and, in so doing, pander to them is nothing terrible. It's certainly not a flaw in your reasoning to vote for a candidate. I might not like what Obama did in this particular case, but so far it racks up to one thing Obama did recently that I didn't like (three if you count FISA and war funding, both of which I find much more important, and both of which things make me much more likely to criticize him) compared with about a thousand things that McCain has done recently that I don't like. Obama still comes out way ahead.
There was a report on the radio this morning saying that more Americans are moving towards the "screw the environment, I want cheap gas" opinion.
Do you actually have any proof or are you shit-talking again?
Religious discrimination is treating individuals differently in their employment because of their religion, their religious beliefs and practices, and/or their request for accommodation (a change in a workplace rule or policy) of their religious beliefs and practices. It also includes treating individuals differently in their employment because of their lack of religious belief or practice. If you have been rejected for employment, fired, harassed or otherwise harmed in your employment because of your religion, your religious beliefs and practices, and/or your request for accommodation of their religious beliefs and practices, you may have suffered unlawful religious discrimination. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a federal law that protects individuals from discrimination based on religion. Title VII makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment, such as promotions, raises, and other job opportunities.
Title VII also requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee or prospective employee, unless to do so would create an "undue hardship" upon the employer. Flexible scheduling, voluntary substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, and lateral transfers are examples of ways of accommodating an employee's religious beliefs.
Yeah, Joe, that's why I didn't mention about not voting. It's just that some people won't criticize the candidate they support, even when that candidate does something they disagree with. Even if you think it is pandering, you still have to criticize it. Sure, you may still agree with them enough to give them their vote, but you shouldn't make excuses for them so that you end up believing you agree with them 100%.
Yeah, Joe, that's why I didn't mention about not voting. It's just that some people won't criticize the candidate they support, even when that candidate does something they disagree with. Even if you think it is pandering, you still have to criticize it. Sure, you may still agree with them enough to give them their vote, but you shouldn't make excuses for them so that you end up believing you agree with them 100%.
Why is that discriminatory? A private organization should be able to determine who they want to hire, apart from the protected things: gender, race, etc.
While that notion appeared controversial, it seems to find support in a 2000 case involving the Boy Scouts of America. The Supreme Court ruled that the group, as a private organization, had a First Amendment right to set its membership rules.
The problem with this is that the Boy Scouts receives public funding as well as free use of public land (such as Fort AP Hill) for meetings and organization. If they wish to maintain this quasi-status as a public organization, they should cease discrimination, period.
Steve, the problem I have with restricting private organizations from discriminating by religious preference is that religion is a choice that a person makes. It's not an inherent quality that one does not choose. Religious practice is a good metric to measure several qualities about a person.
Steve, the problem I have with restricting private organizations from discriminating by religious preference is that religion is a choice that a person makes. It's not an inherent quality that one does not choose. Religious practice is a good metric to measure several qualities about a person.
I look at this from the other direction. If you are not a member of the religion why would you want to work for that religion?
Which qualities do you measure about a person based on their choice of religion?
So, some forms of discrimination are OK, even if they are clearly against the Constitution, as long as you don't use Federal money for it? The more I think about that the scarier it sounds.
It's not unconstitutional at all. This is what you wrote:
The Associated Press reported that he supports letting religious institutions -- in the non-federally funded parts of their activities -- hire and fire based on faith.
If they are hiring and firing based on faith in the non-federally funded parts of their activities, there is no state action, and there is no constitutional problem.
As far as your Title VII argument, there is a well known "minister exception" for churches. Do you think a Catholic church is required under Title VII to hire a Voodoo priest? Andrew has the right argument against your boy scout case. The thing that makes your AP quote lack a problem is the stipulation that the hiring and firing be in non federally funded actions. The only possible problem would be if the Federal funding became commingled somehow with the rest of the church's actions, but that is a hypothetical beyond the scope of the quote.
Steve, the problem I have with restricting private organizations from discriminating by religious preference is that religion is a choice that a person makes. It's not an inherent quality that one does not choose. Religious practice is a good metric to measure several qualities about a person.
I look at this from the other direction. If you are not a member of the religion why would you want to work for that religion?
Which qualities do you measure about a person based on their choice of religion?
Catholic School teachers, people who want to work for a charity. I happen to know lots of people involved in Jewish charity groups or funds that are not actually Jewish.
If you are not a member of the religion why would you want to work for that religion?
Here is a real life example. My husband is a secondary visual arts instructor and he is looking for employment. While he was raised Jewish and is now an atheist, he would be happy to get a job in a religious school (as long as it wasn't too crazy or instituted strange limitations on his ability to teach his subject) in order to get a few years of experience and transfer to a non-religious school (unless the situation worked out and he liked the school despite its religious affiliation). I am sure there are hundreds of other examples, but to me this seems equivalent to a not-for-profit company that promoted/worked on women's issues only hiring women, etc. It is simply wrong to hire/fire based on religion.
Even if you think it is pandering, you still have to criticize it. Sure, you may still agree with them enough to give them their vote, but you shouldn't make excuses for them so that you end up believing you agree with them 100%.
Mr. Cremlian is right. Just recognizing pandering is a pretty good criticism in and of itself.
I don't make excuses for a candidate to rationalize somehow that I agree with them 100%. I don't agree with ANYONE 100%. I never have and I I don't believe I ever will. That's just not a realistic burden. I will support and vote for a candidate who I agree with more than the other candidate, even if that just means that I agree with Candidate O 51% of the time and Candidate M 49% of the time.
I am sure there are hundreds of other examples, but to me this seems equivalent to a not-for-profit company that promoted/worked on women's issues only hiring women, etc. It is simply wrong to hire/fire based on religion.
When was the last time someone got to choose their gender (post-birth does not count ~_^)? When was the last time someone got to choose their religion? The whole point about discrimination based on race or gender is that it says nothing about a persons individual ideals and morals. Choice of religion, however, is a different matter.
Yeah, Even if you think it is pandering, you still have to criticize it. Sure, you may still agree with them enough to give them their vote, but you shouldn't make excuses for them so that you end up believing you agree with them 100%.
I do not think HungryJoe or Cremlian are making up excuses for Obama, nor do I think they agree with Obama 100%. I think the bigger issue is that some extremely naive people on the board expect to agree with ANY candidate 100% and are disproportionately disappointed when that candidate doesn't meet every personal expectation of that voter.
I'm actually fine with (non-governmental) employers being able to discriminate based on religion: it would mean that I also have the right to decide who I hire based on their logical abilities. ^_~
I do not think HungryJoe or Cremlian are making up excuses for Obama, nor do I think they agree with Obama 100%. I think the bigger issue is that some extremely naive people on the board expect to agree with ANY candidate 100% and are disproportionately disappointed when that candidate doesn't meet every personal expectation of that voter.
I am sure there are hundreds of other examples, but to me this seems equivalent to a not-for-profit company that promoted/worked on women's issues only hiring women, etc. It is simply wrong to hire/fire based on religion.
When was the last time someone got to choose their gender (post-birth does not count ~_^)? When was the last time someone got to choose their religion? The whole point about discrimination based on race or gender is that it says nothing about a persons individual ideals and morals. Choice of religion, however, is a different matter.
But those are personal issues, and should not be under scrutiny in professional situations. Also, people can and do change their gender.
Comments
Also this is directly tied in my opinion to all the rumors that Obama is a Muslim and his wacky church.
Obama is just another politician, you can't be elected to office any other way. If Obama started acting how some people want him to act he would just lose. We all know that our ideal candidate would never be elected. I still believe Obama in office will be much different. He will still get my money because I believe as president he will do things a bit different then these opening shots of the general election which always involve candidates drifting towards the middle.
EDIT:
Apparently Cremlian is leaning on that excuse! Hooray!
Let's say I agree with most of what candidate A says, but I disagree with them on a few issues. Instead of criticizing the candidate's stance on those issues, I pretend the candidate doesn't actually mean what they are saying. I tell myself they are just lying to get votes. In other words, you construct a false image of the candidate in your mind that agrees with you 100%. Whenever they have a position you disagree with, you pretend they actually agree with you, and that they are just pandering for votes. You're just lying to yourself about what the candidate's true stance is to justify your support of the candidate.
This is no good. Using this logic you could justify voting for any candidate. Even if a candidate says they disagree with you on every issue, you can say they are actually lying to get votes, and they agree with you 100%.
You need to support candidates when they agree with you, and criticize them when they disagree with you. If you accuse them of lying, for good or bad, then you need some evidence. If you believe they are lying without evidence, then your only option is to take the Cnaiur route and not believe anything any candidate says. That's not a bad way to go, but it completely disenfranchises you in any representative form of government.
Gas prices change views on energy
Offshore oil drilling comes back to the surface
Obviously I can't link to a radio report.
All politicians move towards the center once the primaries are over. Yet, even I am surprised by this Obama news about expanding faith-based initiatives!
1) Obama's dad was a Muslim so Obama is one because religion passes from father to son. - I might buy into this if his dad was around while he was growing up. My understanding is that Obama's dad was not around and he was instead raised by his mom's family.
2) Obama's middle name is Hussein. - Yeah? So? I know lots of people with middle names of the apostles from Christian mythology that are not Christians. Maybe someone on his dad's side was named Hussein? Isn't Hussein about as common as Scott, Tom, or Joe in the English speaking world?
3) Obama is a Muslim in disguise. - This is based on assumption #1 and the fact that Muslims are allowed to lie about their religion if it will result in good things happening for Islam. (I'm paraphrasing that from the writings of one of the head Iranian religious leaders. I don't recall which one because I read it several years ago but the guy had an "ask the Ayatollah" section to his website.)
If Obama is a Muslim I'd have to say he is doing one hell of a job hiding it. So, some forms of discrimination are OK, even if they are clearly against the Constitution, as long as you don't use Federal money for it? The more I think about that the scarier it sounds.
If I was only going to vote for a candidate that I agreed with on 100% of the issues and who never made a move that I didn't like, then I would never be able to vote for anyone. I never thought I agreed with Obama 100%. That's impossible. This is reality, not Plato's realm of forms. In reality, I have to choose the candidate that I agree MOST of the time, not ALL the time. That's a ridiculous burden that I could understand from an idealistic movie character, like maybe Mary Poppins, but reality is flawed. Reality only offers compromise.
The candidates are flawed humans trying to persuade other flawed humans to vote for them. Recognizing that candidates have to try to persuade different groups and, in so doing, pander to them is nothing terrible. It's certainly not a flaw in your reasoning to vote for a candidate. I might not like what Obama did in this particular case, but so far it racks up to one thing Obama did recently that I didn't like (three if you count FISA and war funding, both of which I find much more important, and both of which things make me much more likely to criticize him) compared with about a thousand things that McCain has done recently that I don't like. Obama still comes out way ahead. Do you actually have any proof or are you shit-talking again?
As to the Boy Scouts of America v. Dale case did you happen to notice who voted in favor of the Boy Scouts and who did not?
Unless pandering suddenly became a good thing?
Steve, the problem I have with restricting private organizations from discriminating by religious preference is that religion is a choice that a person makes. It's not an inherent quality that one does not choose. Religious practice is a good metric to measure several qualities about a person.
Which qualities do you measure about a person based on their choice of religion?
As far as your Title VII argument, there is a well known "minister exception" for churches. Do you think a Catholic church is required under Title VII to hire a Voodoo priest? Andrew has the right argument against your boy scout case. The thing that makes your AP quote lack a problem is the stipulation that the hiring and firing be in non federally funded actions. The only possible problem would be if the Federal funding became commingled somehow with the rest of the church's actions, but that is a hypothetical beyond the scope of the quote.
I am sure there are hundreds of other examples, but to me this seems equivalent to a not-for-profit company that promoted/worked on women's issues only hiring women, etc. It is simply wrong to hire/fire based on religion.
I don't make excuses for a candidate to rationalize somehow that I agree with them 100%. I don't agree with ANYONE 100%. I never have and I I don't believe I ever will. That's just not a realistic burden. I will support and vote for a candidate who I agree with more than the other candidate, even if that just means that I agree with Candidate O 51% of the time and Candidate M 49% of the time.
This is a criticism: "Hey, he's just pandering to get votes. He doesn't really support that position!"
This is an excuse: "Oh, it's alright. He doesn't really support that position. He's just doing what you have to do to win."