Should We Shame Religious Politicians?

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Wee Flea? Is that Scottish slang for jerkin off?

... no.

The Free Church of Scotland (since 1900; I've just found out there was a splinter group by the same name that formed on the new millennium) is colloquially called the Wee Frees (I think it stems from the fact that as of the 2001 census, the Free Church had less adherents than the Jedi). The Rev's decision to associate himself with a flea is quite funny considering his stance on how Christianity should be able to feed off of Government like a parasite.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

We shouldn't shame them just for being religious, but we should run them out of office if they expect non-adherents to be bound by religious rules that do not apply to non-adherents.

 

[Wu Wei]

Nope.
100% agreement is required.
I don't make the rules....I just tell'm.

I partially agree with you

 

[Kori]

We shouldn't shame them just for being religious, but we should run them out of office if they expect non-adherents to be bound by religious rules that do not apply to non-adherents.

Well more than a few would cry shame, maybe even feel shame not at themselves but for the nation, if they were ran out of office for that reason. They think they rule all and they also think they have god's cell phone number. It's absurd.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Well more than a few would cry shame, maybe even feel shame not at themselves but for the nation, if they were ran out of office for that reason. They think they rule all and they also think they have god's cell phone number. It's absurd.

True. But, regardless, no one should be legally bound to adhere to the religious rules and practices of a religion they don't believe in. In the end, it tends to work out better that way for all, including religious people, if the church doesn't tell the state what to do and the state minimally tells the church what they can and can't do.

 

[ak.yonathan]

We shouldn't shame anybody. It's their right to believe whatever they want to. If you don't agree then just don't listen to them.

 

[Underhill]

Say no to shaming.
We may decry what we see as wrong with civility.
Anyone who disagrees with me admires Donald Trump.
It's a fact.

I agree. Sort of.

I've seen instances (with Trump as a prime example) where simply pointing out the truth could be construed as shaming. In those cases, I am all for it.

I listened to a speech the other night where Trump said he was "a good christian" to a bunch of christians at some convention. I'm no believer, but I do know a thing or two about the faith. It takes a leap of monumental proportions to consider Trump "a good christian".

 

[Revoltingest]

I agree. Sort of.
I've seen instances (with Trump as a prime example) where simply pointing out the truth could be construed as shaming. In those cases, I am all for it.

To be factual might cause shame at times, but this is not shaming.
Shaming would be to use a 'fact' to achieve that end.
Example:
Sally believes that it's a fact that Bob is a whore.
Sally calls Bob "whore", knowing fully that this is an insult designed to shame.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

We shouldn't shame anybody. It's their right to believe whatever they want to.

People aren't proposing they shouldn't have that right.

If you don't agree then just don't listen to them.

Kind of hard to ignore someone when they're handing down laws based on their religion's diktats, which will apply to you even if you're not of that religion. Do you think gay Americans who wanted to marry should have just "not listened" to the fact the Supreme Court kept violating the Constitution by allowing Christians to define the legal definition of marriage for everyone else - including non-Christians?

 

[ak.yonathan]

People aren't proposing they shouldn't have that right.




Kind of hard to ignore someone when they're handing down laws based on their religion's diktats, which will apply to you even if you're not of that religion. Do you think gay Americans who wanted to marry should have just "not listened" to the fact the Supreme Court kept violating the Constitution by allowing Christians to define the legal definition of marriage for everyone else - including non-Christians?

I was under the impression that this was about politicians who hold deeply-held religious beliefs. If they're trying to impose their values on others than of course it's wrong, just no shaming. No matter what shaming is unacceptable.

 

[Underhill]

To be factual might cause shame at times, but this is not shaming.
Shaming would be to use a 'fact' to achieve that end.
Example:
Sally believes that it's a fact that Bob is a whore.
Sally calls Bob "whore", knowing fully that this is an insult designed to shame.

So demonstrating bob is a whore with photo evidence or corroborating eye witness testimony is okay, but just calling him a whore is shaming. Got it.

 

[Revoltingest]

So demonstrating bob is a whore with photo evidence or corroborating eye witness testimony is okay, but just calling him a whore is shaming. Got it.

No...that example doesn't speak to intent & expected effect.
Moreover, the word "whore" is a value judgement which strongly suggests intent to shame.

 

[The Ardent Atheist]

I know some may say this belongs in General Debates but it is very heavy on Politics so I decided it should go here. I feel if someone with any political power says this and that about taking rights away because of a Holy Book they should be called out. And not in a weak way. If you take rights away from one group of people it becomes easy to do it to another. This is about Atheists and, to a degree, Homosexuals. But will it stop there? No. Pagans, Buddhists, Agnostics, and even Christians that are not Christian enough would get effected one day down the road. Oppression never ends unless people speak out.

I think you're a bit paranoid.

 

[Underhill]

No...that example doesn't speak to intent & expected effect.
Moreover, the word "whore" is a value judgement which strongly suggests intent to shame.

So if my intent is to make Bob feel bad I am shaming. If I am just trying to expose him for the whore he is, I'm okay?

 

[Revoltingest]

So if my intent is to make Bob feel bad I am shaming. If I am just trying to expose him for the whore he is, I'm okay?

Your example still poses problems.
Do you want to expose Bob's actions for some purpose other than shaming, eg, bring to light risky behavior?
This would offer material benefit to past partners, who would want to be checked for STDs.
There is a good goal, for which shame is an unintended side effect.
Or do simply want others to think he's a "whore" (the word you use to describe him, thereby implying intent.)?

 

[Sunstone]

I see nothing wrong in principle with publicly shaming politicians if the shaming is factually based. Shaming someone for something they didn't say or do is, of course, a tactic that should be out of bounds.

 

[Underhill]

Your example still poses problems.
Do you want to expose Bob's actions for some purpose other than shaming, eg, bring to light risky behavior?
This would offer material benefit to past partners, who would want to be checked for STDs.
There is a good goal, for which shame is an unintended side effect.
Or do simply want others to think he's a "whore" (the word you use to describe him, thereby implying intent.)?

How about both? (That is kind of what I am getting at in a horribly round about way.) The line is not black and white.

 

[Underhill]

I see nothing wrong in principle with publicly shaming politicians if the shaming is factually based. Shaming someone for something they didn't say or do is, of course, a tactic that should be out of bounds.

Unless they didn't say or do something when they should have...

 

[Revoltingest]

How about both? (That is kind of what I am getting at in a horribly round about way.) The line is not black and white.

If your goal is to cause shame, I call that wrong.
If your goal is to effect political change for the better, that's fine.
If both are your goals, then shaming is still wrong.

 

[Quintessence]

If your goal is to cause shame, I call that wrong.
If your goal is to effect political change for the better, that's fine.
If both are your goals, then shaming is still wrong.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you, perhaps?

We can ask ourselves "would you like it if someone publicly shamed and humiliated you, for any reason?" I think most of us would answer that with a "no."