The White House aims for Thursday signing if religious executive order

Michie

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Feb 5, 2002
165,519
55,217
Woods
✟4,586,097.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
President Donald Trump has invited conservative leaders to the White House on Thursday for what they expect will be the ceremonial signing of a long awaited-and highly controversial-executive order on religious liberty, according to multiple people familiar with the situation.

Continued below.
White House aims for Thursday signing of religious liberty executive order
 
  • Prayers
Reactions: Phil 1:21

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
President Donald Trump has invited conservative leaders to the White House on Thursday for what they expect will be the ceremonial signing of a long awaited-and highly controversial-executive order on religious liberty, according to multiple people familiar with the situation.

Continued below.
White House aims for Thursday signing of religious liberty executive order
That's the Pence influence, Trump is learning. The thing about religion is that Presidents have traditionally bought political capitol by honoring the cultural influence of religion, a fundamental principle Trump was unaware of when he disparaged Islam. Even George W. Bush called them people of the book saying Islam had been hijacked by terrorists, which I thought was a nice distinction in his political rhetoric.

This will cost Trump nothing and will court the favor of the religious right in a benign way. Personally I don't think it would be a bad idea to invite Muslims to join in the celebration along with other religious persuasions to honor their cultural traditions and encourage their prayers for peace and wise governance but that's just me.
 
Upvote 0

Genersis

Person of Disinterest
Sep 26, 2011
6,073
751
32
London
✟38,690.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
UK-Labour
Didn't this order crop up because Republicans can't get laws targeted at LGBT folk to stick? So instead they're going to legalise all discrimination as long as the person claims religious reasons?
Seems quite short sighted, it's wide reaching legislation, fertile ground for unintended consequences.

Also, what about atheists with strong discriminatory beliefs? Why aren't they deserving of this privileged status?

I guess many people could abuse this law and claim religious reasons when acting discriminatory...then courts may have to make judgements on who's beliefs are genuine, and who's aren't.
A road I don't think goes to good places. Perhaps the government will form of list of recognised religions of whom followers will get these privileges.
The more I think about this, the more of an awful idea it seems...

I just don't get it. Why is discriminating against entire groups of people so important to religions?
 
Upvote 0

MoonlessNight

Fides et Ratio
Sep 16, 2003
10,217
3,523
✟63,049.00
Country
United States
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Also, what about atheists with strong discriminatory beliefs? Why aren't they deserving of this privileged status?

The idea of religious liberty goes back to John Locke, and he does go into detail about why atheists shouldn't receive any privileged status.

Your mistake is thinking that "religion" (or even worse, the lack of it), is someone valuable to society or worth protecting to promote the common good. It isn't. Religion is good to the extent that it promotes the truth.
 
Upvote 0

Antigone

The Wrath of Whatever
Apr 20, 2006
12,023
1,324
De Boendoks
✟33,025.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Legal Union (Other)
The idea of religious liberty goes back to John Locke, and he does go into detail about why atheists shouldn't receive any privileged status.

Locke wrote this in the 17th century, when atheism was, as best, something conceptual, and even he changed his opinion on it. Locke's argument that there is nothing binding an atheist to oaths and promises has been proven to be false over time.

And if you're going to cite Locke, please also cite his anti-Catholic stance. To toss him in there as evidence is more than a little disingenuous.

Your mistake is thinking that "religion" (or even worse, the lack of it), is someone valuable to society or worth protecting to promote the common good. It isn't. Religion is good to the extent that it promotes the truth.

Which is the opposite of what Locke is saying.

Also, it doesn't matter that religion promotes truth. The constitution forbids inserting religion into the objective and unbiased legal system.

And if it didn't, you'd still be stuck with the fact that even amongst Christians there is no such thing as THE truth, except for some oblique generalities, because when was the last time Catholics and Evangelicals agreed on doctrine? This argument is both impractical and problematic.
 
Upvote 0