Then, they get people listening to them preach since they are toddlers, in extra Bible classes, camps, seminars, several times a week.
Total brainwashing of people than otherwise seem smart and sensible, until it comes to their religion.
Yeah that's right I don't know what I'm talking about. Hahaha! Way to discredit my knowledge with my own company. That paid the same miniscule fine for all years I was there. Your experience with giant conglomerates is much more sophisticated.
Are not you the one that says enforce what is already on the books? Oh not to mention these guys are also taking subsidized tax breaks. Yep gotta love those employers with integrity to do the right thing. LOL
It is indeed a shame that we live in a world which makes it hard for well regulated companies to compete against those whose products are cheap because they have moved their production to places which protect neither their people nor our planet from pollution and abuse. This is a difficult problem. I don't think getting rid of our regulations, eliminating collective bargaining rights, etc., are appropriate-- or moral-- solutions.
Immoral/moral-- seems to me that the difference is often a matter of short term and/or individual gains vs. long term common good.
While that I bolded is a consideration, it is but one more consideration in a very complex topic.
We are going to have some impact, good or bad or indifferent, no matter what we do.
The more we learn, the more we can control that impact.
That is what laws and regulations and inspections are providing, a road map to what is right and not.
When you tighten those laws and regulations where doing what we are doing becomes too hard to do, industries/business close.
There is no way we can live without some footprints.
What is ethical doesn't depend on short or long term goal and individuals or common goal alone.
Most decent humans want to do what is right.
There are some that don't care, will do anything to get what they want.
There are others that will throw the baby away with the bathwater, demanding impossible, utopian scenarios, where all is perfect and no compromise acceptable.
Running a country or industry or business or our lives is about compromises.
Most learn that once they become adults and realize we are not alone and we are in an already mature society and will have to live and thrive under what is there.
Each one of us works with what we have.
We have been a wildlife preserve since 1957, way before anyone in the general public had heard of such, before it was the PC thing to speak about.
The Department of Interior was evaluating wildlife needs and asked us to participate, as we were in a prime wildlife habitat for some species.
We could have gone with some government programs and be paid for that.
We went with the programs ourselves, with their help, as they have the specialist in wildlife management.
We could have been paid by hunters for our prime hunting habitat, but didn't because of the voluntary wildlife preserve designation.
That is what everyone we know around here has done, each one that manages land resources has to attend to all of them and some are money out of your pocket to do what is ethical and that is what you do.
I think that sound bites about how horrible everyone in business is and rapers of the earth and resources and all that is just that, misinformation from some examples of people not doing their jobs right.
That is what laws, regulations and inspections are for, to catch and fine and close down those that don't do what is prudent.
When those laws and regulations start interfering with those of us that do the best we can with more and more restrains, some senseless ones guided by agendas, then that is as unethical as when those managing break rules and regulations.
My point, yes, there will be an impact to anything we do.
Most people doing something are careful and trying to do their best.
Some are not, sadly.
We should not brand all for the few, much less overreact and then make it near impossible for all to do business, as some administrations have done and the current one is getting so close to doing, catering to some agendas.
However, this country was founded on the principles of the separation of church and state. I am pro-choice but definitely understand pro-life arguments and definitely think that it is a decision that cannot be made lightly. However, I would gag about a preacher telling his congregation to vote Republican because those nasty Democrats support abortion. You have religious beliefs against abortion? Fine, then don't get one -- but those are NOT my religious beliefs so the government better not be imposing YOUR religious beliefs on ME!!
You are free to practice your religion as you want, but it is NOT the government's responsibility to enforce your beliefs on everybody.
As for the government financing abortion, that I can understand being opposed to and it's your prerogative to fight/vote against that all you want, but abortion as a practice should be available to any who need/want it.
I think it's a very dangerous situation when religious beliefs start dictating the direction of politics. If anything it just makes us more like Iran (our favorite-ist country)!! And if the argument is "well that's difference, this is Christianity -- the RIGHT religion", well history should have already taught us that lesson already. There's a reason the papacy was pushed out of control eventually in Europe! It's BAD news for the economy and everything else!
Keep in mind the Civil Rights Movement was born and great in the Black Churches and migrated to the White Churches. The leaders of the Civil Rights Movement were/are largely religious/ leaders of their faith.
Most of the recent Democratic candidates and sitting Presidents have political rallies or "meetings" at Black Churches. Remember Hilary and BO talking like Southern Black Preachers?
This is true, and actually when you put it like that church's are still a major forum for communities and society. I guess my issue is more what Windsor1 described the preacher as saying:
"the pastor gave a little prelude to the sermon in which he referred to the upcoming election and talked about the need to vote according to biblical principles."
This gives me pause because you shouldn't vote according to biblical principles, you should vote on political principles. And of course the Civil Rights Movement was a movement to expand liberties to a disenfranchised group while the abortion issue is to constrict liberties. But yes I see your point about church's, however I still stand by religious beliefs not being imposed on a nation.
Name a religion that is trying to force its system on you. The catholics are merely seeking freedom to practice their religious belief free of Democrat sponsored gov't coercion.
Therefor the church is allied with the opposing side.
Lots of religious groups are trying to make it illegal for me to marry a woman if I so choose because THEIR religion is against it.
I'm not gay, but even so I would like to be able to choose who I marry without having religious groups try to legislate their religion for me.
A religious person acts according to their faith's principles in all ways. (human failure doesn't discredit a faith, just the person) honor, truth, etc are considered noble principles in most faiths. Deceit, murder, theft, can be a belief system too.
There is no separating voting to political principles. it is after all, an activity by choice.
You may have any relation with any of the above except minors. Don't redefine marriage.
Just as wrong is to make any church pay for abortions or marry gay people if they don't want to.
Still, that is a two way street.
You can't demand one side or the other be given rights only and that is what separation of church and state means.
I think Bruce says pretty much everything I think about the election:
The founders instead shackled the gov't by limiting its powers through the Constitution. Notice the Constitution usually is in the negative when speaking of gov't power.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."