Printable View
I agree completely with Bernie. This is a pluralistic country. It never has been a "Christian nation," and personal religious belief/superstition/mythology has no place in it. I found Vought's initial commentary appalling. I have no doubt he'll carry this attitude with him into his position.Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
I find it funny that this underlying meme of "personal responsibility" that is always applied to any individual receiving government benefits is never applied to the financier class.
E.g., when AIG had to be rescued by our federal tax dollars, the shareholders recouped every penny they had invested. Where is the "personal responsibility" there?
I think that people holding "traditional values" are still a significant element of the GOP base. They're just not the decisive element they used to be, else a sleaze like Mr. Trump would not have done as well as he did in the primaries.Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1
Yeah, that baffles me, too. The grifting that goes on within that demographic is epic--just look at the Trump family--yet people go on endlessly about the hardscrabble class like it's their job.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lainey
I'm a bit moderate when it comes to the government staying out of faith issues. I think The Atlantic did a good job of explaining how his belief that Jesus is the only path to salvation is not an attack on the dignity of other believers. He was working for a Christian college at the time. I truly don't believe that this argument is relevant for his position, or a reason to disqualify him.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
Whether or not we personally feel repulsed by the "superstition" of Christian salvation or by any other religious dogma, I think we have to keep the context in mind, and I think Bernie overstepped his bounds on this count. Otherwise, he's perfect. :)
Maybe I feel the way I do because I spent to much time as a devout Catholic. Even though I no longer subscribe to the cornerstone belief that's in question here, I still find myself a "defender of the faith" on occasion.
I think that's true, although different people have different views on what constitutes both "oppression" and "freedom". The people who made anonymous death threats against that pizzeria that gave the wrong answer to a theoretical question about catering gay weddings are not, I think, in the same category as the people who held Little Round Top or waded ashore at Omaha Beach.Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
Would you have the same objection to a believing Muslim who professed similar beliefs?Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
The whole kerfuffle reminded me of the Seinfeld episode where Elaine had to grapple with the situation of having a boyfriend who believed she was going to Hell. I can work with people whose moral bookkeeping system classifies me as "damned". I don't see why a theological litmus test needs to be applied to the Director of OMB.
Yup. Money as a yardstick of personal worth and entitlement is just plain wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by JaneV2.0
There's a moral statement that I'll gladly take to the bank.
I'm sure my ancestors--an inordinate amount of whom were Christian clergy--would disapprove, but religious beliefs like the kind expressed by Vought seem as antiquated to me as torchlight. That they were uttered before a like-minded audience makes no difference to me. I'm on the rolls of the Catholic Church through no agency of my own.Quote:
Originally Posted by catherine
"Traditional values" are arguable, I guess. I believe in the traditional values of honesty, kindness, charity--and yes, self-reliance--but not in the persecution of people for their sexuality or for their reproductive decisions. Or for their religion, for that matter, though I believe religion is best practiced, as Jesus suggested, alone in a closet (Matthew 6:6).
Makes you wonder is the assistance for the people receiving it? Or for the employers so they can pay low wages?Quote:
Originally Posted by jp1