Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think you're going to find that most Americans, even a majority of Christians, are getting a little tired of people using religion as an excuse to simply be a lousy human being.
Your posts are uniformly awesome, Shirina, but this one sentence seems to summarize the problem of religious bigotry concisely and cogently.
In her view she is violating her conscience. You can disagree if you want, but it's her choice to make.
That's how YOU view it--her conscience. Before fundamentalist religion began aping Nazism with regard to homosexuality there was no public view of defying the laws of the land regarding homosexuality.
Instead the people who listened to pulpit voices went out and beat and killed homosexuals--like those Nazis.
Are you willing to apply that logic to all laws, and not just the ones you agree with?
I left a job as an insurance compliance officer making $100k per year to take one making $10.50 an hour after I discovered over the last six or seven years of my career that insurance companies wanted me to tell them how to avoid following the law rather than just following it.
That is what one does if one has a CONSCIENCE. They don't claim "It's ungodly so I ought to keep my job, take your money, and do whatever I think is right."
Instead you pull up roots and move on--sometimes with devastating personal consequences.
You aren't encouraging "moral" behavior. You are encouraging "immoral" AND illegal behavior in action toward others.
I left a job as an insurance compliance officer making $100k per year to take one making $10.50 an hour after I discovered over the last six or seven years of my career that insurance companies wanted me to tell them how to avoid following the law rather than just following it.
That is what one does if one has a CONSCIENCE. They don't claim "It's ungodly so I ought to keep my job, take your money, and do whatever I think is right."
Instead you pull up roots and move on--sometimes with devastating personal consequences.
You aren't encouraging "moral" behavior. You are encouraging "immoral" AND illegal behavior in action toward others.
I've also turned down a job after finding out it would require me to work in an industry I'm morally opposed to. And in this case, if I were the clerk in question, I'd resign my position. I'm not suggesting that she is good or moral for refusing to do her job, either.
But the point needs to be made that she is not doing anything that has been done and has been allowed to be done by many other elected officials in this country.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,926,708 times
Reputation: 4561
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio
Marriage is till death do we part. But my argument isn't really based on her personal success with marriage. It's based on the fact that, as an elected official in this country, she apparently has a right to pick and choose what laws to enforce.
Please don't tell me you're serious that an elected official has the right to choose which laws to enforce?
The fact that it may happen doesn't give that or any official a right to pick and choose which laws to enforce and which ones not to. That is a terribly weak excuse.
But the point needs to be made that she is not doing anything that has been done and has been allowed to be done by many other elected officials in this country.
So your position is that two wrongs makes it right?
Please don't tell me you're serious that an elected official has the right to choose which laws to enforce?
The fact that it may happen doesn't give that or any official a right to pick and choose which laws to enforce and which ones not to. That is a terribly weak excuse.
I will give credit to the Marijuana laws in this case, though the voters are slowly changing the law at the state, and eventually federal level.
That being said, the use of pot only affects the user. In this case, it has an audience outside of the one violating the law.
Please don't tell me you're serious that an elected official has the right to choose which laws to enforce?
The fact that it may happen doesn't give that or any official a right to pick and choose which laws to enforce and which ones not to. That is a terribly weak excuse.
It's always a weak excuse when you admit someone is handling it poorly but rationalize that someone on the "other side" does it too, so nyah nyah.
Elected officials DO selectively enforce laws but it happens at two levels. One level is simply the level of triage. There is a limited budget and/or staffing and so you pick your priorities. In my community for example right now heroin is a particularly acute problem and I'm sure the focus is on that at the expense of, say, setting speed traps. This is not necessarily delinquent or nefarious, anymore than in the throes of a disaster when a hospital is flooded with emergencies, sometimes they have to give someone who is not likely to live a good stiff dose of morphine and a quiet corner to die in, and not really try to save their life. It is unfortunate but unavoidable sometimes.
The other level is the one Viz is implying, where an authority disagrees with the law and turns a blind eye to violations or operates counter to the law, or favors enforcing a law that produces revenue for the court or local government over those that don't. Of course it happens, but it's scarcely a justification or argument for overlooking it in any one case.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.