The Daily Wire: Moral Dictatorship - The Daily Wire

Jump to content

  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2

Moral Dictatorship

#1 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 11 November 2012 - 08:03 AM

Once again the Christian religions are openly and without fear attempting to impose it's moral values on the masses(e.g. I recently became aware that Christians in the USA do not regard Obama as the "flavor of the month" due to his policies which they regard is "immoral"). I am not against...moral values but, as an individualistic choice, not one which may be imposed on the masses. No one, including the Christian religions have the right to do so.Morals and politics do not mix.
They apparently do this in the misguided belief that it comes under the heading of religious freedom where all this means is that they have the freedom to practice their respective religion without fear of persecution.They have not the absolute right to oppose governments only on the basis of what they perceive it's moral or immoral policies. They have only the right like everyone else in the community to oppose it on the basis of it's political/social agenda. This practice by the Christian religions is not unlike that of the arrogant Nazi regime in the 30's in Germany where it's policies and quite successfully, were "pushed down the throats" of many Germans.
Religion and it's beliefs should be totally avoided in politics and any politician who does not should resign his/her commission. The banal notion of this practice is the following:
If we for example, take good moral conduct as a basis for employment, political affiliation,marriage, and a thousand other practices we human beings practice on this planet.....not one will become eligible for any of those occupations as all will be deemed as being immoral. In short there is not one of us who have never been immoral in our lifetime.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#2 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 11 November 2012 - 08:14 AM

It is generally considered immoral to steal therefore one's moral conduct/outlook could well be taken into account when applying for a job, from checkout operator to cashier at the local bank.
The moral outlook of those who have the care of other peoples children is also taken into account, even the gardener at a school is subject to a police check for suitability for the job.

Our society cannot function without morals being a criteria.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

#3 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 11 November 2012 - 05:30 PM

My post does not refer to criminal acts Roderick. Stealing is a criminal act. The rule of thumb therefore is this. Any behaviour which is not considered criminal should be the choice of the individual and that individual should not be open to any imposition and/or or judged upon it.Live and let live is the way to go
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#4 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 11 November 2012 - 06:24 PM

View Postdumbcluck, on 11 November 2012 - 05:30 PM, said:

My post does not refer to criminal acts Roderick. Stealing is a criminal act. The rule of thumb therefore is this. Any behaviour which is not considered criminal should be the choice of the individual and that individual should not be open to any imposition and/or or judged upon it.Live and let live is the way to go

But that's not what you said in the OP.
Womanizing is not a crime nor is seduction even when the seducer targets vulnerable women however it can have very adverse effects in the workplace and therefore a person's lack of morals in this regard could be a reason for not getting a job.

Hurtful gossip is not a crime but is morally wrong and a person with a reputation for gossip may well be rejected for a job because of the moral perspective.

Politicians who hide behind Parliamentary Privilege to lie about people are also judged on moral grounds.

Morals cannot be separated from politics.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

#5 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 12 November 2012 - 09:14 AM

Roderick tell me you are joking right? This is what I mean....if you deny employment to any person solely on the question of his/her morality ...there will be no employment available to anyone....'cause she sleeps around..so she is no good...he gambles (that is immoral) he is no good. Another is a womanizer...so he is no good....another has extra marital affairs so s/he is unemployable...another tells lies (that is immoral) so s/he is unemployable...and so on and so forth. You'd have to get a "perfect" employee......believe me an extremely hard task
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#6 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 12 November 2012 - 10:04 AM

View Postdumbcluck, on 12 November 2012 - 09:14 AM, said:

Roderick tell me you are joking right? This is what I mean....if you deny employment to any person solely on the question of his/her morality ...there will be no employment available to anyone....'cause she sleeps around..so she is no good...he gambles (that is immoral) he is no good. Another is a womanizer...so he is no good....another has extra marital affairs so s/he is unemployable...another tells lies (that is immoral) so s/he is unemployable...and so on and so forth. You'd have to get a "perfect" employee......believe me an extremely hard task


I once worked for a large international company and the final hurdle in the employment process for production staff was the Employees' Committee.
This consisted of 5 elected members of the 'rank and file' who would review managment's decision, if it was a favourable one.
They would ask the rest of the workers their opinions on the person and also inquire around the pubs and clubs that he/she may have frequented; if the committee's report was adverse then the job went to someone else.
Simple as that and I'm told the same practice is still in place and is used by other companies as well.

Out in the real world, moral behaviour is important.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

#7 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 13 November 2012 - 08:36 AM

Why would a company inquire what their prospective employees do outside working hours in pubs and clubs? Who was the president of this company, Fred Nile?
The truth is Roderick that these are "human flaws" as portrayed by the obsessive Christian religions as "sins"
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#8 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 13 November 2012 - 08:55 AM

View Postdumbcluck, on 13 November 2012 - 08:36 AM, said:

Why would a company inquire what their prospective employees do outside working hours in pubs and clubs? Who was the president of this company, Fred Nile?
The truth is Roderick that these are "human flaws" as portrayed by the obsessive Christian religions as "sins"

The truth is, mate, that the workers didn't want people who were liars, cheats, secret drinkers, stirrers or who couldn't get along with others to be part of their teams in the workplace.
The workers wanted a smooth working day, pleasant workmates and a good production bonus which was also the aim of the company.
The company that I had personal experience with also didn't have special places in the car park for executives, everyone ate together, the office was open plan and no special room for the manager.
What's more everyone, including the management/office staff had to be able to take any position on the production line. If the Shift Supervisor stuck his/her head in the office door and yelled "I want one", then whoever was not busy went out onto the line while the normal operator was away for a while, also all production staff could and did do all jobs on the line.
You don't get that sort of teamwork where there are disruptive elements.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

#9 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 13 November 2012 - 09:40 PM

I'd say that this issue is one of privacy. Currently no one has the right to do what this company did as privacy laws have changed now to cover private industry as well
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#10 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 14 November 2012 - 06:19 AM

View Postdumbcluck, on 13 November 2012 - 09:40 PM, said:

I'd say that this issue is one of privacy. Currently no one has the right to do what this company did as privacy laws have changed now to cover private industry as well

Companies still do it, it has nothing to do with privacy but everything to do with the moral outlook of the prospective employee.
If the company's employees don't want him/her in their midst then it's their decision that counts, management wants harmony.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

#11 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 14 November 2012 - 08:22 AM

Have you any evidence of this? If so it would be interesting to challenge this practice at one of the privacy statutory authorities as set up by the State/Federal Governments. It does not matter what private companies believe...state laws prevails over any company policy
Of course they may not agree as we have an example of this currently on this child abuse issue where the Roman Catholic Cardinal stated that no priest who had heard the confession of child abuse of another priest will be compelled to reveal that information.
This is pure hindrance by the Catholic Church as it knows very well that state laws prevail over any company/institution/s policy and state law compels the perpetrator/s to tell the truth especially if they are questioned under oath in a Royal Commission
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#12 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 14 November 2012 - 08:28 AM

View Postdumbcluck, on 14 November 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

Have you any evidence of this? If so it would be interesting to challenge this practice at one of the privacy statutory authorities as set up by the State/Federal Governments. It does not matter what private companies believe...state laws prevails over any company policy

Any amount as I was on the employee's committee at one company.
I don't really think that reporting what is said down at the pub, in the public bar, is a breach of privacy.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

#13 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 14 November 2012 - 07:20 PM

...it would be if it is used by a "third party" for their own ends....in this case a private company.This may be discriminatory as well I'll still challenge it....what can happen you can only lose....no one is going to shoot you are they?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#14 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 14 November 2012 - 08:51 PM

View Postdumbcluck, on 14 November 2012 - 07:20 PM, said:

...it would be if it is used by a "third party" for their own ends....in this case a private company.This may be discriminatory as well I'll still challenge it....what can happen you can only lose....no one is going to shoot you are they?


Whatever, but morals do play a part in ordinary life.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

#15 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 15 November 2012 - 06:29 PM

Moral judgements in fact are extremely unfair and the Christian religions can take the whole credit for this. Here is an example:
A single unmarried mother would be considered an immoral person under the Christian religious doctrine. Under the law she is not.However due to the fact that millions of people around the world have been "brainwashed" into the former(not the latter) they permanently look at these unmarried mothers as being immoral.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#16 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 15 November 2012 - 07:01 PM

View Postdumbcluck, on 15 November 2012 - 06:29 PM, said:

Moral judgements in fact are extremely unfair and the Christian religions can take the whole credit for this. Here is an example:
A single unmarried mother would be considered an immoral person under the Christian religious doctrine. Under the law she is not.However due to the fact that millions of people around the world have been "brainwashed" into the former(not the latter) they permanently look at these unmarried mothers as being immoral.

The Ten Commandments are full of moral judgments and they're Jewish.
Credit where it's due.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

#17 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 16 November 2012 - 07:16 AM

Alright..whatever the Christian religions say....is not only true but infallible.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#18 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 16 November 2012 - 07:18 AM

View Postdumbcluck, on 16 November 2012 - 07:16 AM, said:

Alright..whatever the Christian religions say....is not only true but infallible.

Wrong again, no Christian religion claims infallibility for what they say.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

#19 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 16 November 2012 - 08:02 AM

So you agree then that if the Christian religions are not claiming infallibility....they can be wrong in their teachings?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#20 User is offline   Roderick 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 2748
  • Joined: 15-April 12
  • LocationNew England, NSW, Australia

Posted 16 November 2012 - 09:13 AM

View Postdumbcluck, on 16 November 2012 - 08:02 AM, said:

So you agree then that if the Christian religions are not claiming infallibility....they can be wrong in their teachings?

Only one Christian religion claims any infallibility and then only in special circumstances; that they can all be wrong in some of their teachings goes without saying, given that some teachings of some religious groups are diametrically opposed to the teachings of others.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Self-defence is not only a Right, it is an Obligation.
0

Share this topic:


  • 2 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2


Fast Reply