Bush declares National Sanctity of Human Life Day

[esskreemr]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

So you'd prefer a man with no firmly held beliefs? Or just one that would not act on them?

I don't care for the religious right's moralizing myself, and I am pro-choice, but honestly, how can you fault a person for acting on their convictions?

Because when you are supposedly representing America as its chief figurehead and spokesperson, you should weigh your convictions against the fact that America is deeply divided on the issue. The self-proclaimed 'Uniter' continues to draw lines in the sand and dares any dissenting Americans to step across. When they do, they are attacked as being partisan and unAmerican...

This isn't just affected at the National level, but is spreading to the International level as well. Guess what topic unites us with Sudan, China, Iran, Zimbabwe and other frequent abusers of human rights: homophobia and bigotry.

The US signed onto the Iranian backed initiative to "to deny United Nations consultative status to organizations working to protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people."

[jeff]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

It's not about preference. It's about disliking a person because he acts on his convictions. The convictions are debatable, but I don't think acting on them is, is it?

What has been repeatedly stated on this thread is that acting on objectionable beliefs is objectionable. Nobody suggested that acting upon ones beliefs is ipso facto objectionable, as a general principle, which makes this a distraction to the question under discussion.

Or, to put it differently, were you really under the impression that people were advocating insincerity as a general principle?

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by esskreemr

Because when you are supposedly representing America as its chief figurehead and spokesperson, you should weigh your convictions against the fact that America is deeply divided on the issue.

Why?

There are two schools of thought regarding the role of elected representatives. One school sees the representative as merely a proxy for his constituents: he should vote according to the majority opinion of his constituents, no matter what his own feelings on the issue. The rules, in King James' famous words, by the common will.

The other school sees him as the agent of his constituency: he is chosen for his abilities and wisdom to go and exercise his best judgement on their behalf. HE rules not by the common will but for the common weal.

The former school has long been abandoned, to all intents and purposes. It is home to owls and mice; the wind whistles through its broken windows, and the grass grows long between the flagstones of its courtyards.

The self-proclaimed 'Uniter' continues to draw lines in the sand and dares any dissenting Americans to step across. When they do, they are attacked as being partisan and unAmerican...

Nice turn of phrase, but to what is it relevant?

This isn't just affected at the National level, but is spreading to the International level as well. Guess what topic unites us with Sudan, China, Iran, Zimbabwe and other frequent abusers of human rights: homophobia and bigotry.

Passion draws you far afield of the question at hand. Which is: why is acting on his convictions another, separate, additional reason to dislike a person?

The US signed onto the Iranian backed initiative to "to deny United Nations consultative status to organizations working to protect the rights of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people."

Well, you have now gone not only afield but over the river and through the woods, and lost me entirely.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

Nobody suggested that acting upon ones beliefs is ipso facto objectionable, as a general principle

I invite you to go back and examine Amadeus' last post again.

Or, to put it differently, were you really under the impression that people were advocating insincerity as a general principle?

I asked why acting on ones convictions should be an additional cause for disliking a person with whom one already agrees. No more, no less.

[jeff]

Forcing one's beliefs on another (to Amadeus's point) is certainly an example of somebody acting objectionably upon their beliefs, but your initial foray into these weeds was "So you'd prefer a man with no firmly held beliefs?" Quite a different proposition (and the set of people who have firm convictions far exceeds the subset of those who feel they should force them on others). The next several posters responded to this before I climbed upon the bus. We've arrived exactly at the bus stop at which this began. I'm getting off this particular bus, as it's become repetitive.

Given the "additional cause...no more, no less" I'm willing to give the benefit of a doubt, though that's not how it read to me - it appeared an invitation to argue the merits of insincerity instead of the principles behind proclamation

I did enjoy the metaphors with the borzois, owls, mice, and broken glass.

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by jeff

Forcing one's beliefs on another (to Amadeus's point) is certainly an example of somebody acting objectionably upon their beliefs,

And the proclamation in question forces nothing on anyone. It is a toothless photo op. I fail to see how your point applies to it...

but your initial foray into these weeds was "So you'd prefer a man with no firmly held beliefs?"

Selective quotation, tsk! My "initial foray" in its entirety was "So you'd prefer a man with no firmly held beliefs? Or just one that would not act on them? " One querying paragraph, offering achoice of possible alternatives. ( If you can think of another viable one, please feel free to point it out. )

I'm getting off this particular bus, as it's become repetitive.

I advise against it, the neighborhood looks decidely sketchy to me.

I did enjoy the metaphors with the borzois, owls, mice, and broken glass.

I am no Captain Slo-Mo, but I try.