Antilogic wrote:... 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).
But, in your post, it was because the person in question had religious beliefs that they must come into question in regards to their ability to fulfill their duties.
You didn't put the person first and their "right" to have beliefs, you judged them first by their assumed beliefs.
I agree that if someone is using their religious beliefs as a political argument, that person is stepping outside of the boundaries of what we, Americans, would profess to believe is a legitimate government. They should not do that. And, as you offered, if they think that their religious beliefs will conflict with their official duties, they should step down.
..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...
We all must accept a certain amount of shared understanding in order to communicate. And, we must all exercise empathy in order to comprehend meaning. But, we don't all have to freely give reign to our own bias when discussing something with each other. We shouldn't just be posting our own opinions and neglecting those of others who are posting, should we? A "discussion" is an exchange of ideas. It's the "exchange" that is important.
And, when we examine anything around us, shouldn't we analyze it while recognizing where our own biases have the potential to mislead us? We can certainly have biases for or against something, but we need to be aware of them and avoid them when we're trying to judge the true value of something, especially when that value might apply to other people who don't share the same biases that we do.
...As for proof, evidence, we have entire national governments built on religion and serving their god above that of their human population...
Where is this?
[/quote]
This is causing quite a stir. It's such a manchild thing for him to do. He can't "reach" these people to punish them in any other way, at least legally... So, he lashes out with a public display of petulance that is so obvious it's pitiful.
This is one of the best responses I've heard about, yet:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/retired-ad ... -clearance
Retired Admiral William McRaven asks Trump to revoke his security clearance
...McRaven called Brennan "one of the finest public servants I have ever known," saying "his honesty and character have never been in question, except by those who don't know him."
"Therefore, I would consider it an honor if you would revoke my security clearance as well, so I can add my name to the list of men and women who have spoken up against your presidency," McRaven wrote. He also criticized the president, saying that he did not possess necessary qualities of a good leader.
"Through your actions, you have embarrassed us in the eyes of our children, humiliated us on the world stage and, worst of all, divided us as a nation," McRaven wrote. "If you think for a moment that your McCarthy-era tactics will suppress the voices of criticism, you are sadly mistaken."
A beautiful, dignified, example of standing up to tyranny.
. That they feel they needed to make an announcement like this is an interesting statement in itself.