Voting your moral values.

[tango]

You are right, the expression "throw away your vote" means "did not vote for my candidate" whoever says it. The expression is used as a means of mustering as many votes for one's favoured candidate as possible.

Not really, I'd regard the notion of throwing away a vote as casting a vote for a candidate who not only has no chance of winning but splits the anti-the-other-side-vote. If you're naturally inclined to vote Democrat then voting Jill Stein is arguably throwing away your vote because it makes it more likely Trump will win. If you're a Republican then voting Gary Johnson is arguably throwing away your vote because it makes it more likely Clinton will win.

It does often get a bit silly when, for instance, a vote for Gary Johnson was apparently a vote for Trump and at the same time a vote for Clinton depending on the proclivities of those commenting but I'm sure you can see the picture here.

 

[tango]

I find it incomprehensible that so many Christians ignored their own moral values to vote for that man.

Why does voting for Trump mean abandoning Christian values? Perhaps people considered Trump to be a poor choice but a better choice than Hillary Clinton.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Why does voting for Trump mean abandoning Christian values? Perhaps people considered Trump to be a poor choice but a better choice than Hillary Clinton.

On the theory that if your "guy" did not get elected then you "threw away your vote" and that voting for somebody who is less than 50% likely to be elected is throwing away your vote it follows that moral values play no significant role in voting in the USA for people who subscribe to the "throw away your vote" philosophy. They may as well stay at home and never vote unless one of the 50%ers is an outstanding moral values candidate. But even then, if the "moral values" candidate doesn't win then the votes for him/her are "throw away votes". It's all very defeatist.

The USA ought to change its method of voting and remove that incredibly stupid electoral college.

:smirk:

PS: Donald is a "moral values" candidate if you think serial infidelity, constant lying, and being lazy about the performance of one's duties as President are good moral values in a President of the USA. But to think that you'd need to be rather disordered in your concept of moral values worth voting for.

 

[tango]

On the theory that if your "guy" did not get elected then you "threw away your vote" and that voting for somebody who is less than 50% likely to be elected is throwing away your vote it follows that moral values play no significant role in voting in the USA for people who subscribe to the "throw away your vote" philosophy. They may as well stay at home and never vote unless one of the 50%ers is an outstanding moral values candidate. But even then, if the "moral values" candidate doesn't win then the votes for him/her are "throw away votes". It's all very defeatist.

Not at all, the people who voted for Hillary Clinton because they thought she would be a better president didn't throw away their vote even though she lost. Going into the election just about every forecaster wasn't talking about whether she would win but by how large a margin. Nobody ever expected Gary Johnson, Jill Stein or Darrell Castle to win.

What would you expect a person who really wanted to support Jill Stein to do, given the simple fact that every vote for a candidate other than Hillary Clinton makes it more likely that Donald Trump would be elected (and making the assumption, that I don't think is unreasonable, that someone who supported Stein would support Clinton over Trump)? You could vote according to your strict moral code and support Stein, and risk getting Trump. Or you could accept that you really didn't care much for Clinton but you'd rather have her than Trump so support her.

The USA ought to change its method of voting and remove that incredibly stupid electoral college.

The electoral college is doing what it was designed to do, namely make sure a presidential candidate has wide appeal rather than merely concentrated appeal. Without the electoral college most of the less populated areas of the US (which is, geographically speaking, most of the country) might as well not bother voting at all because they would be outweighed by densely populated areas. Manhattan alone would carry enough voting weight to counter multiple states. The country wasn't designed to be a strict democracy for that very reason.

It would be good to have a transferable vote so that minor parties could be supported without it costing the chance to express a preference for the major parties.

PS: Donald is a "moral values" candidate if you think serial infidelity, constant lying, and being lazy about the performance of one's duties as President are good moral values in a President of the USA. But to think that you'd need to be rather disordered in your concept of moral values worth voting for.

I don't think many people here are saying Donald is a fine upstanding example of good moral values, merely that he is better (even if only marginally) than Hillary.

 

[Albion]

I don't think many people here are saying Donald is a fine upstanding example of good moral values, merely that he is better (even if only marginally) than Hillary.

I'd say it's actually more than that. In addition to the point you make here, Trump voters who are Christian also would say that whatever his personal behavior, etc., he promised--and has begun to deliver--a change of policy away from the suppression of religious freedom, which characterized the Obama administration, back to Constitutional standards.

 

[tango]

I'd say it's actually more than that. In addition to the point you make here, Trump voters who are Christian also would say that whatever his personal behavior, etc., he promised--and has begun to deliver--a change of policy away from the suppression of religious freedom, which characterized the Obama administration, back to Constitutional standards.

Religious freedom is good, as long as it also applies to followers of other faiths who wish to peacefully go about their religious practises. Sometimes it seems that Christians are very quick to complain if their perceived freedoms come under threat but equally quick to seek to deny other faiths the right to the same freedoms.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I do not see how same-sex civil marriage adversely affects sacramental marriage or religious freedoms.

 

[Albion]

Religious freedom is good, as long as it also applies to followers of other faiths who wish to peacefully go about their religious practises. Sometimes it seems that Christians are very quick to complain if their perceived freedoms come under threat but equally quick to seek to deny other faiths the right to the same freedoms.

Well, it's always possible to say that there are some individuals somewhere who don't appreciate our Constitutional principles, but they don't define the issue.

 

[tango]

Well, it's always possible to say that there are some individuals somewhere who don't appreciate our Constitutional principles, but they don't define the issue.

Sure, it's just sad when the people who cry the loudest that their rights to practise their Christian faith are being suppressed have a tendency to have no problem if the rights of others to peacefully practise their Hindu/Muslim/Buddhist/whatever faith are restricted.

 

[Albion]

...and we all disagree with those people.

But as for which politician's policies support freedom of religious expression and which other ones do the opposite...?

 

[tango]

...and we all disagree with those people.

But as for which politician's policies support freedom of religious expression and which other ones do the opposite...?

Maybe we all do here, I couldn't say for sure just what everybody here believes. It's usually the most vocal ones who are the troublesome ones.

With regard to political support of freedom of expression it does seem that the more left-leaning tendency is to restrict Christian expression on the basis it is bigoted/homophobic/whatever-ist while doing nothing to rein in the same tendencies within Islam. The more right-wing tendency seems to be to promote a particular flavor of Christianity and expect other faiths to fall into line.

I remember a while back in England there was a big fuss about the Jewish method of slaughtering animals because it was considered inhumane, cruel, barbaric etc. Yet curiously the Islamic method of slaughtering animals was never questioned.

 

[Albion]

With regard to political support of freedom of expression it does seem that the more left-leaning tendency is to restrict Christian expression on the basis it is bigoted/homophobic/whatever-ist while doing nothing to rein in the same tendencies within Islam. The more right-wing tendency seems to be to promote a particular flavor of Christianity and expect other faiths to fall into line.

What I've observed is in accord with what you said about leftist politics--any religious expression offends them, unless it's Muslims, and then only because they are thought by the Left to be challenging our traditional way of life and laws. But as for Rightist politics, I don't see much that could be called favoritism towards any particular denomination. The rights of Protestants like Hobby Lobby or, on the other hand, for Catholic nuns not to pay for abortion is defended equally.

I remember a while back in England there was a big fuss about the Jewish method of slaughtering animals because it was considered inhumane, cruel, barbaric etc. Yet curiously the Islamic method of slaughtering animals was never questioned.

No one's afraid of what the Jews might do if the government were to rule against them, you know. :wink:

 

[tango]

What I've observed is in accord with what you said about leftist politics--any religious expression offends them, unless it's Muslims, and then only because they are thought by the Left to be challenging our traditional way of life and laws. But as for Rightist politics, I don't see much that could be called favoritism towards any particular denomination. The rights of Protestants like Hobby Lobby or, on the other hand, for Catholic nuns not to pay for abortion is defended equally.

The issue of abortion is one that doesn't seem to fit very well with the idea of freedom. If you are a business and required by law to provide health insurance for your staff, why should you as the business owner get to impose his religious viewpoints upon your staff? Abortion is a handy controversial topic, especially given some regard it as morally equivalent to murder while others regard it as morally equivalent to cutting your fingernails. But if we allow an employer to impose their religious viewpoints upon their staff, where do we draw the line? Should staff who happen to work for a Jehovah's Witness be left to die because their boss considers a blood transfusion to be morally unacceptable and refuses to fund insurance that might pay for it? What if the best material for reconstructive surgery was bovine cartilage but your Hindu boss objected to the use of anything taken from a cow? For that matter if employers are allowed to pick and choose which medical procedures it is acceptable for their staff to have, why stop there? What if an employer was vehemently opposed to, say, mixed-race marriages - should you be denied the right to marry someone of another race because your boss is opposed to that sort of thing?

Perhaps a better solution would be to break healthcare away from employers completely so that people could choose a product that was right for them, rather than the policy their boss selected.

No one's afraid of what the Jews might do if the government were to rule against them, you know. :wink:

Of course.

 

[Albion]

The issue of abortion is one that doesn't seem to fit very well with the idea of freedom. If you are a business and required by law to provide health insurance for your staff, why should you as the business owner get to impose his religious viewpoints upon your staff?

No one's imposing his religious values on anyone else simply because he doesn't violate his own religious beliefs by paying for a murder.

Abortion is a handy controversial topic, especially given some regard it as morally equivalent to murder while others regard it as morally equivalent to cutting your fingernails.

Very few fingernails clippings are capable of living as complete human beings outside of the womb. But that's actually irrelevant to this discussion since the point is whether or not one person should be forced to violate his religious convictions by paying for someone else's. It's not as though the employees who think that a fetus is a fingernail clipping are being prohibited by their employer from having an abortion, you know.

But if we allow an employer to impose their religious viewpoints upon their staff, where do we draw the line?

No one is doing that and it would be illegal if tried.

Should staff who happen to work for a Jehovah's Witness be left to die because their boss considers a blood transfusion to be morally unacceptable and refuses to fund insurance that might pay for it?

No one is just left to die because they don't have insurance through an employer-paid health plan.

However, before we work on a dozen more examples of the same thing here, keep in mind that the issue is freedom of religion--a Constitutionally guaranteed right. It's not solely or even mainly about health insurance.

And in none of these cases you've cited is the employee prevented from having whatever legal procedure is called for simply because his insurance comes from some other policy. If he wants coverage that one plan doesn't offer, he can seek another--just as is the case with any of us and, for that matter, with the federal health plans under ACA.

 

[tango]

No one's imposing his religious values on anyone else simply because he doesn't violate his own religious beliefs by paying for a murder.

Except the business owner isn't paying for a murder, he is paying an insurance company. He is no more paying for a murder than if he hands over a salary to a member of staff who in turn uses the money to fund their own abortion.

Very few fingernails clippings are capable of living as complete human beings outside of the womb. But that's actually irrelevant to this discussion since the point is whether or not one person should be forced to violate his religious convictions by paying for someone else's. It's not as though the employees who think that a fetus is a fingernail clipping are being prohibited by their employer from having an abortion, you know.

This line of thinking is still seriously muddled. Paying an insurance company who may, at some point, fund a member of your staff having an abortion isn't the same as paying for an abortion. If people are so concerned about indirectly funding something they would need to know just what their staff were doing with the money they earned - if paying an insurance company who later funded an abortion counts as paying for an abortion, why is paying a member of staff who later funded their own abortion any different? How is paying a member of staff who then went and spent their salary on pornography and maybe a prostitute or two any more morally acceptable? At some point we have to accept that once money leaves our hands we are no longer responsible for it because if we do anything else we end up in an endless tangle of fussing over where that money is going and how it might be misused.

No one is doing that and it would be illegal if tried.

Except that if an employer insists they won't fund a policy that might in turn fund something they dislike, they are imposing their views on others. And as I mentioned before, if a Christian is allowed to refuse to fund an insurance policy because they disapprove of abortion, should a Jehovah's witness be allowed to refuse to fund another policy because they disapprove of blood transfusions? What happens if your boss is from some strange sect or cult who disapproves of all sorts of modern medicine - should he be allowed to refuse to fund policies because he considers modern medicine to be morally unacceptable?

No one is just left to die because they don't have insurance through an employer-paid health plan.

No, but if they don't have health insurance they may find the bill difficult to pay.

In none of these cases is the employee prevented from having whatever legal procedure is called for simply because his insurance comes from some other policy. If he wants coverage that one plan doesn't offer, he can seek another--just as is the case with any of us and, for that matter, with the federal health plans under ACA.

... which ultimately goes back to the idea of separating healthcare from employment, no? If your boss is willing to fund an insurance policy but not a policy that covers your needs, aren't you better off taking a salary increase instead of an insurance policy so you can buy your own plan? And wouldn't the market become far more transparent when costs were clearly visible, instead of being hidden away in corporate expenses such that most employees never see them?

 

[Albion]

Except the business owner isn't paying for a murder, he is paying an insurance company.

...to finance a murder.

He is no more paying for a murder than if he hands over a salary to a member of staff who in turn uses the money to fund their own abortion.

You've missed the point, I think. If such an employer were to do that, it obviously would not be done in order to make possible the abortion and it would not be violation of the employer's religious beliefs to pay the salary owed.

This line of thinking is still seriously muddled. Paying an insurance company who may, at some point, fund a member of your staff having an abortion isn't the same as paying for an abortion.

Well, the Supreme Court has decided that it's unconstitutional to force an employer to violate his own religious conscience in this way and the Republicans supported the Court in that decision while the Democrats were opposed. So if we were to get back to the matter of which political force is on which side of the matter, this is it.

 

[tango]

...to finance a murder.

Whether or not abortion is murder is kind of the whole point of the discussion. I personally find abortion morally unacceptable but in the eyes of the law it is not murder.

Even taking the stance that abortion is murder the employer is not funding it at all. If the employer pays MegaCorp insurance who then funds the abortion how can they claim to be any more or less culpable for the moral implications of the abortion than if they pay Elaine Employee who then funds the exact same abortion? The money came from the employer and passed through one middle stage before being used to fund the act the employer deems unacceptable. How is the employer culpable in one scenario but not the other? It makes no sense.

You've missed the point, I think. If such an employer were to do that, it obviously would not be done in order to make possible the abortion and it would not be violation of the employer's religious beliefs to pay the salary owed.

I don't see how I'm missing the point. If the employer funds an insurance policy that may pay for an abortion how is that any different to funding a member of staff who may pay for the exact same abortion, or indeed to fund a member of staff who would then buy the insurance policy the employer wouldn't buy on her behalf?

Well, the Supreme Court has decided that it's unconstitutional to force an employer to violate his own religious conscience in this way and the Republicans supported the Court in that decision while the Democrats were opposed. So if we were to get back to the matter of which political force is on which side of the matter, this is it.

If this is unconditional it could lead to all sorts of interesting consequences that go far beyond just what route money takes between leaving the hands of an employer and ending up in the hands of an abortion clinic. I wonder how long it will be before someone claims it violates their religious conscience to pay minimum wage for a job they consider to be worth less than minimum wage.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Has anybody investigated Donald's history with abortions?

 

[Albion]

I don't think he's had any.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I don't think he's had any.

I imagine he is incapable of having an abortion for obvious reasons. That was not what was asked.