re: Gianforte (R) doesn't believe in retirement 'cuz Moses built Ark at 600 y/o

Valid points.
I sense as much agreement between us as disagreement.

There's a big difference between shouldn't and can't. For example: I often hear people use the f-word in public and even in the presence of children. I don't think they SHOULD do that, but I don't want a law that fences in the right of free speech to pass a law that makes it illegal so that they CAN'T legally do it.

Should and shouldn't is an individual thing. When one agrees with something, one usually advocates it and declares that others should also do it. Conversely, one says that others shouldn't do things they disagree with.

Can't is a legal status imposed upon all.

So if you say Gianforte shouldn't govern based upon his religious beliefs, I'm with you. But, if you say Gianforte can't govern based upon his religious beliefs, that violates the establishment clause and I'm not with you.

I don't think Sanders should govern based upon his social and economic beliefs, but he absolutely can and should be able to!

quote:

---

But our politicians don't need to cram their religion down the throats of citizens.

---

I agree that they don't need to and SHOULDN'T. I agree that it isn't right. But they can and should be able to. Example: I'm a small government guy. Obama is a big government guy who advocates social salvation in his religious view. Obamacare embraces both of these! I don't think it's right, he shouldn't have made it law, but he legally could and should have been able to.

In this particular case where Gianforte speaks against retirement, there could be many reasons including religious. Maybe he's a secret communist who believes that retirement is bypassing economic and social requirements of the "from each" portion of the manifesto. Maybe he's a workaholic looking for God's approval. Maybe he thinks that we are reducing the value and contributions of the individual retirees. Or, maybe he read a Bible passage and interpreted it as retirement = evil.

As an individual in or out of office, he has the right to think and promote any belief religious or otherwise. He has the right to propose and vote for passage of anti retirement legislation for any reason including religious.

quote:

---

In no way has anything I've said been anti religious or bigoted. Please let me know if you think otherwise and I will gladly clarify.

---

Public proclamation and individual evangelical attempts are key components of many religions. Prohibition of this would be an anti religious action and a reflection of bias. I don't like Marmons and Jahovah Witnesses knocking on my door, but they should have that right. I do not like when other Christians try to evangelize me out of my Christian beliefs! I tolerate them, but strongly defend their right to do so.

You claim to be Christian, and I have no reason to doubt you! But in this thread and others you appear to have a propensity to attack some Christian sects. In particular you seem to target the Evangelicals the most. Now I'm not evangelical, but I believe they deserve more tolerance since they are moral people.

This is not an attack, but a request for clarification. Religion is a delicate subject and I hope no insult was taken, because none were intended.