Trump

[clakclak]

[...]

Prime example of bias likely against Christans

Just so you know that was fashionable nearly 10 years ago.

But seriously I doubt you apply this bias to Muslims Jews or Hindus or Sikh's nope

Its just Christians....

why is it then that religious views should get more scrutiny?

Because if you allow people to work to end secularism in favour of their religion, you end up with oppressiv governments run by garbage human people like you find them for example in Saudi-Arabia, who use relgion to justify every injustice you can think of.

EDTI: While we are at it, maybe I can use this moment to go of on a little rant.

F**k Muslim extremists.

F**k Christian extremists.

F**k Buddhist extremists.

F**k Jewish extremists.

F**k Hindu extremists.

F**k Sikh extremists.

F**k Atheist extremists.

F**k everyone who thinks that their religious views, or lack thereof, gives them the right to oppress or force change upon someone else for basic features of their identity, be it their religion, sexuality, gender, skin colour or "caste". (And just to make that clear, I don't see forbidding a Muslim from forcing his daughter to wear a hijab or a Christian from refusing service to a gay couple as them being supressed in their religious freedom, but as forbidding them from supressing someone else.)

[BugMeister]

- a clarion call for freedom of expression..!!

[Ezarkal]

-Random quote seen somewhere on facebook, real source unknown-

"Having a religion is like having a dick. It's okay to have one, and you have every right to be proud of it. But if you insist on showing it to me every 5 minutes, we will have a problem."

[BugMeister]

- history on Drumpf's grift.. this is from 18 months ago..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WX8dgbr5EI8

- step into this innocuous phone box, and take a trip back to the ancient past:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNX5OuKpWqA

- Replicant mischief is not a new phenomenon..
- they've been at it since the word go..
- they talk of "trickle-down", as though it were a magic charm..

- gotta get rid of this crud..
- it's blocking the swamp..
- smells awful..

[Observe]

Forget about religious preference. Most world religions and societies in general, have a common code of conduct, regardless of whether the person believes in God or not. Morality and ethics if you will.

There is nothing wrong with expecting our leaders to be adherents of integrity and decency. Ideally, our leaders would represent the best in us and be an inspiration for the people.

Meanwhile, back on Earth....

[Morkonan]

...Anyone who publicly expressed the delusion of religion and seeks public office should expect and welcome the scrutiny of how they practice their religion. If it is deemed that this delusion affects them in a way which will have a negative impact on their citizens I would hope, but am often disappointed, that voters would not allow them to be in office.

This is why your post fails. You immediately assume a biased view, demand that your stereotype is accepted in order for your argument to make sense, and then make conclusions based on things that are not in evidence.

As long as an elected political leader, empowered by the will of the people, truly adheres to the dictates of their office, performs their duties for the Greater Good, protects the rights of others by disallowing instances of the "tyranny of the majority" then... Where in the world does any of your argument make the slightest bit of sense? Why is your assumption completely resting on the fallacy that "personal religious beliefs" are fundamentally incompatible with "competent performance in a political office?"

We're risking going too "general" here in the whole "religion thing." To bring it back where it should be for this thread:

Pence's evangelical religious beliefs have been the subject of a lot of press. However, in trying to bring this subject back under control, I'm having difficulty finding where he specifically uses it to justify his political actions. When asked about some controversial subjects, like LGBT issues, Marriage, Abortion, etc, I can't find where he mentioned his religious beliefs as being justification for his position.

Anyone? Has he actually done that and, if so, can someone provide a link to a credible article with references in it?

The issue, as it appears to be unfolding in my various searches, is that a lot of articles have been written condemning Pence for his religious opinions, but I haven't come across where he has used anything but secular justification for his political opinions.

Is this a case of his political opponents inflaming his religious beliefs in order to invoke some sort of "fear response" in those that hold opposing views?

Anyway, it's a serious question. From all the bruhaha over Pence's apparent, omewhat "Evangelical Catholic'ish," religious adherence that gets splattered across a lot of different sorts of news outlets, almost entirely liberal, Democrat, or vocally supportive of certain lifestyle choices, I'm finding it difficult to find one good reference to discuss where Pence has used his religious beliefs, or those of others, to justify even one political opinion.

IOW: Truly, where is the fire?

[Antilogic]

I don't think that applies to people who are just very religious. The ones who actually devote their lives in service to their god generally become priests, or monks, or whatever is appropriate for their beliefs--I doubt they become politicians.

Meh, argument over definition. We can use another word other then "devoted" if you prefer, I don't really care. What's important is the actions.

Ideally, but that doesn't seem to be the case on just about ... anything though, not just race. For example, the idea that after someone becomes a president, the should be the President of the U.S.A first, and the leader of their respective party a distant second - ideally. In this sense, the only good president will have to be one that has no party affiliation.

That would actually be nice yes.

If they weren't a hypocrite that is. Yes if you were truly to devote your life to God then you'd become a member of a religious order, which themselves have varying degrees of devotion.

If you asked a religious politician what his priorities top priority was they'd probably say "God", but they are lying (possibly to themselves as well as you) the real answer is "Myself" as explained by their lack of membership in a religious order.
The issue here is that "The people I was elected to serve" wouldn't be their answer in either their claims or reality.

Its also worth mentioning that there are religious orders that explicitly either encourage their members to become public officials to further the orders goals or focus recruitment efforts upon those already in office.

Agreed on all counts.

F**k everyone who thinks that their religious views, or lack thereof, gives them the right to oppress or force change upon someone else for basic features of their identity, be it their religion, sexuality, gender, skin colour or "caste".

<3

Forget about religious preference. Most world religions and societies in general, have a common code of conduct, regardless of whether the person believes in God or not. Morality and ethics if you will.

There is nothing wrong with expecting our leaders to be adherents of integrity and decency. Ideally, our leaders would represent the best in us and be an inspiration for the people.

Meanwhile, back on Earth....

Very true, agreed unlikely.

This is why your post fails. You immediately assume a biased view, demand that your stereotype is accepted in order for your argument to make sense, and then make conclusions based on things that are not in evidence.

Morkonan, sweetie.

1) Bias. Sure, I'm biased, not an issue with that. I do not like religion, any religion, I do not see the need for it's existence and I will quite happily watch it's elimination from this planet. However while I have no respect for the actual beliefs themselves, I do think that people should have the right to practice their belief, assuming that it doesn't harm others. They should have the right to hold public office assuming they put the rights of that office above those of their religion. (E.g. The Lib Dem leader standing down from leadership because he felt he could not do that).

Everyone has a bias, that's not the issue. Accepting someone is approaching from that perspective and viewing the conversation from that angle is required. Expecting everyone to be unbiased when debating a topic like this is ridiculous.

2) Stereotype is accepted in order for your argument to make sense.... uhhh I'm saying that if you hold very religious views you should expect your views, your public history and when in office your voting record to be examined and challenged to a high degree. You should put your citizens above your religion. As for proof, evidence, we have entire national governments built on religion and serving their god above that of their human population. Please.

On topic: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45203277

Instead the White House statement spoke of Mr Brennan's "erratic behaviour", "wild outbursts" and "frenzied commentary".

Pot, Kettle, Black.

[felter]

With all that has been going on in Trumpland the place formerly known as America, you guys are stuck talking about religion. The problem with pence is that no one likes the guy, both sides of the house do not want him to be in charge and he is probably Trumps trump card, the one that may save him from being impeached, as none of them want a religious zealot holding the top spot.

So we have also had Manaforts case going to the jury and what a defence he put on as far as I can gather his defence was it was everyone else that was at fault, and you can't prove otherwise. I think I was hearing about a different trial to what he was hearing.

Now you have also got Trump pulling the clearance from John Brennan, stating "erratic conduct and behaviour" as the reason for doing so. As far as I can gather, either Trump didn't like what he was saying about him and Russia, or Trump's boss Putin didn't like it.

OH yeah there was something else OH YEAH I remember Omarosa and the "N" word that she says he used but doesn't have the recording that she alleges he made. Trump meanwhile apart from calling her a dog insinuates that she was a bad worker, which leads me to ask, if she was such a bad employee why employ here four times while boasting that he only ever employs the best people. Omarosa meanwhile turns up the heat stating that Melania can't wait to divorce Trump and also that Ivanka wouldn't stop moaning about SNL portraying her as complicit.

AH SIGH, so much fun happening and you are all debating religion.

[brucewarren]

As far as I can tell the defence team didn't actually defend Mr Manafort. They rested without calling any witnesses at all.

Some possibilities occurred to me

a) Mr Manafort is so arrogant he thinks no defence is necessary.
b) Defence team thought "We got nuttin" and gave up.
c) Mr Manafort is expecting his boss to pardon him.
d) American justice system is simply weird and what's unintelligible to me is somehow a sensible course of action.

[felter]

As far as I can tell the defence team didn't actually defend Mr Manafort. They rested without calling any witnesses at all.

Some possibilities occurred to me

a) Mr Manafort is so arrogant he thinks no defence is necessary.
b) Defence team thought "We got nuttin" and gave up.
c) Mr Manafort is expecting his boss to pardon him.
d) American justice system is simply weird and what's unintelligible to me is somehow a sensible course of action.

Or all of the above.

[Mightysword]

Everyone has a bias, that's not the issue. Accepting someone is approaching from that perspective and viewing the conversation from that angle is required.

Yes it is an issue. Having a bias and not even realize is bad. Having a bias and believe that bias is justified is even worse.

Expecting everyone to be unbiased when debating a topic like this is ridiculous.

Then you understand the notion of something like "Be the American president first before being the leader of the party" is also ridiculous, but it's also something you just agreed on. It's about what is your 'goal'?

- Do you want to have a discussion about analyzing problems, finding potential solution than no, it's NOT ridiculous to expect people to set aside their difference and looks at things objectify.
- But if you want to have an argument just for the shake of having an argument, where everyone just hold onto their gun than yes, bias is expected and it doesn't matter. If anything it'll probably make the shouting match more colorful and entertaining.

In this context, an elected office like a President is a representative of a certain agenda. We love to sugar coat it with the idea that someone like the President should be the representative of "all America", but that's just an idealistic assumption. The fact is one doesn't become a president but just putting his name on a ballots, he needs the support of the party, he needed the vote of the people with an "agenda" (liberal or conservative), so it's actually ridiculous to expect him to just completely sideline that side of the country and become a president of all. Note that I'm not saying it is good, or it is how thing should be, I'm just taking issue with what you're calling ridiculous. Because in this situation it seems you hold yourself and the target of your criticism on two very different standards.

That is why I rarely can bring myself to get on the Trump basing wagon, because I always note that the very people who criticize Trump on certain things exhibit the same trait as Trump, sometime even worse. And before you justify it with "But trump is the president so ...." to me it doesn't matter, a poor man has no more right to steal than a rich man, just like someone who hold a strong religious belief has no reason to endure any more or less scrutiny than someone who doesn't have a strong religious belief. Only if that belief had directly influence the decision making on the job, and I believe Morkonan is specifically asking for that "proof". If you have the proof, give it to him ... preferably with no beating around the bush.

As for proof, evidence, we have entire national governments built on religion and serving their god above that of their human population. Please.

Please indeed. I'm no Christian, but I'm pretty sure it doesn't teach people to lie, to demonize others, to steal, greed, to corrupt, to trash talk others ...etc... if we truly have an entire national governments built on religion and serving their god above that of their human population, than while I'm sure we will have some other specific issue we wouldn't have MANY of the current problems. I mean ... if you characterize the state of our entire current government is due to it being a body dedicated to serve god, I would consider Trump as Jesus incarnation himself following that logic.

I don't have a cynical view on religion even though I'm not a religious type, rather I would think there is no bad religion, there are people who giving religions a bad name.

[Ketraar]

Having a bias and believe that bias is justified is even worse.

I dont really want to go into the rest and just need to explicitly state that this is an issue. Bias is INHERENT. There is no such thing as unbiased. The issue is that people expect other people to not be biased, its impossible. Once everyone realizes this, all we need to do is know and make our bias public, then everyone else know how to adjust.

I had a great analogy ready in my head about pizza and how that is the solution to everything, but then I realized I'm biased towards pizza, because I think its the solution to everything.

MFG

Ketraar

[Masterbagger]

Anyway, it's a serious question. From all the bruhaha over Pence's apparent, omewhat "Evangelical Catholic'ish," religious adherence that gets splattered across a lot of different sorts of news outlets, almost entirely liberal, Democrat, or vocally supportive of certain lifestyle choices, I'm finding it difficult to find one good reference to discuss where Pence has used his religious beliefs, or those of others, to justify even one political opinion.

IOW: Truly, where is the fire?

It's almost as if there is an orchestrated design behind articles like that to provoke outrage and a negative reaction without providing any substance. The audience for content like that is there. We do have people who desperately want something to be angry over if the subject is even remotely connected to Trump.

Two scoops. The man gets two scoops of ice cream when others get only one. I am so mad I am literally shaking.

[Mightysword]

I dont really want to go into the rest and just need to explicitly state that this is an issue. Bias is INHERENT. There is no such thing as unbiased. The issue is that people expect other people to not be biased, its impossible.

Absolutely. As someone who have to go through 2 discrimination/bias/stereotype training twice a year for the last 10 year or so, the very first thing the facilitators will make crystal clear that everyone have bias "whether they know about it or not". You don't have a bias, you're probably not human, and should be elevated to some kind of sainthood, god or 4D existence.

These training is always about making people realize their bias. It's something I often said here, you have to realize that you have a problem before you can start fixing it. And that the next step, after confronting your bias, realize it's not a good thing, you try to learn the root of that bias, and how you can improve, suppress or make it go away. You don't just throw it out there and call it a day, that's just ... silly. Because ...

Once everyone realizes this, all we need to do is know and make our bias public, then everyone else know how to adjust.

If I am getting this right, and I hope I'm not, it's ok for someone to say "hey I know I'm racist but so what, YOU deal with it".

[Observe]

If I am getting this right, and I hope I'm not, it's ok for someone to say "hey I know I'm racist but so what, YOU deal with it".

That brings up an interesting situation. Let's say there is a person who walks and talks as a racist. Practically everyone recognizes this person as being a racist. Yet, the person adamantly denies being such - while continuing racist behavior.

In some cases, I wonder if it would be 'better' for such a person to simply admit "I am a racist" and move on from there. That way, you don't have so much finger-pointing and denying muddying and dodging the real discussion.

Unless we can look at things 'as they are', we are working in the dark.

[Ketraar]

If I am getting this right, and I hope I'm not, it's ok for someone to say "hey I know I'm racist but so what, YOU deal with it".

Not quite, but if you know someone's bias, and here being a racist only categorizes as bias very slightly, like Observe pointed out, if the person doesn't "know", sure call it bias, but if they do I'm not sure it qualifies. Anyway, the idea is that if you know someone's bias, you can take what they say and know where they come from. For example, I know Breitbarts bias, so when they say something bad about a liberal I will go, meh its a Tuesday. But imagine if they went and gave a liberal some praise, that would make you go wtf.

Using the pizza analogy, if you know I LOOOVE pizza and some comes as said, what do think is best, this pizza or this burger and I tell you its the pizza, you wont be sure if I make the choice because its true or based on my bias, but if I tell you the burger is the better choice you can be absolutely sure it is.

Long story short, if you know people's bias you can expose yourself to different types depending of your needs. But only works if you are aware of your own.

MFG

Ketraar

PS.: alternatively watch this to get my point https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lG2dXobAXLI (strong language)

[Mightysword]

The thing is, it's less about us looking at the bias, but more about the individual behavior. I mean, we can see if someone have a bias or not, the question is how the individual see it themselves.

Person A: racist, but don't think he's being racist.
Person B: racist, know that he's racist, and proud of it.

Both of these are bad, but I believe B is must worse than A. In both case, an outsider can see that they're both racist, that's not the issue here.

I would assume that at least A, on a conscious or subconsciously level know racism is "bad", and thus don't want to be associated as such. This would give some "hope" that if this person realize his action is indeed racism, he can change. Person B already know exactly what it is, he simply believed it's justified which is something a lot harder to change. Framing it into the context of this discussion, I'm not saying anyone who participate in a debate must not have a bias, but have to keep it under control for the shake of a resolution. If you simply just throw your bias out there and say "what of it?", then I would argue there is nothing to argue to begin with.

Long story short, if you know people's bias you can expose yourself to different types depending of your needs. But only works if you are aware of your own.

Interesting you said that, because if you look at the original quote that started this:

Expecting everyone to be unbiased when debating a topic like this is ridiculous.

This implies that the belief here hold not only to the individual who said it, but also assumed it for other participants as well, what good does that make to the debate itself. If we take this and expand it to the context of larger problems in society, what good does it do to any dialogue in general?

[RegisterMe]

Apparently more than 200 newspapers are going to publish editorials today criticising Trump's repeated attacks on the media.

Has anything like that ever happend before?

EDIT: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-45204397

[Bishop149]

Anyway, it's a serious question. From all the bruhaha over Pence's apparent, omewhat "Evangelical Catholic'ish," religious adherence that gets splattered across a lot of different sorts of news outlets, almost entirely liberal, Democrat, or vocally supportive of certain lifestyle choices, I'm finding it difficult to find one good reference to discuss where Pence has used his religious beliefs, or those of others, to justify even one political opinion.

So that fact that his political views align completely with the espoused morality of his professed faith is what? Sheer coincidence?
Has the era of Trump already led you to the belief that unless a politician is flagrantly stupid (or as we'd call it these days "Presidential") enough to be honest about their motivations said motivations are spotless and entirely above board? Please?

[Usenko]

So that fact that his political views align completely with the espoused morality of his professed faith is what? Sheer coincidence?
Has the era of Trump already led you to the belief that unless a politician is flagrantly stupid (or as we'd call it these days "Presidential") enough to be honest about their motivations said motivations are spotless and entirely above board? Please?

There are two different issues here.

Is it okay to express any view in politics, including views congruent with one's particular religious stances? Yes. As long as one is prepared to accept that the public may well disagree with it, and you follow normal democratic processes (which means that some of those ideas will be popular and will become law, and others will not). A Christian, a Muslim, a Jew and an Atheist all have the same rights to campaign politically for whatever they believe is right, and whilst some of what people believe is right will be the result of their religious views, they are not duty bound to disclose their motivations[1].

Is it okay to demand that everyone follow the morality of the Molvanian Fifth Day Snorkeler church, regardless of their religious affiliation? No, it is not. But it's fine for politicians who are Fifth Day Snorkelers to campaign piecemeal for issues that their religion has a stance on (accepting that others won't automatically agree, and in a democracy ultimately the majority rules).

If one has a religion with a moral stance[2], it is quite reasonable to argue that integrity may well force them to favour that stance.

[1] Although 1) sometimes, as in the case of Pence, the source of one's views will be obvious; and 2) If one chooses not to disclose their reasoning, it may well affect their power to persuade others (and hence may prevent such views from being accepted widely).

[2] Some religions do not express a moral code - Scientology for example - and therefore there is no requirement on members to remain consistent with any moral code.