Political office

[Ken]

If these claims are true, why are you required to swear to "defend" the constitution instead of, say, "abide by" the constitution? And why are "enemies" mentioned at all if we're not actually expected to "defend"? Those claims by the legal counsel seem tantamount to completely redefining words.

Also in that legal counsel, they seem to brush away religion as a merely eternal concern which has no temporal aspect. Swearing allegience to the USA constitution only over "other temporal powers", implying that religion is just a thing reserved for eternity. But Jesus says that He has been given "all authority in heaven and on earth," and the apostolic church taught that Jesus' authority was both temporal and eternal, that the Kingdom of God had arrived in the person of Jesus and continued with the church. America has really taken great pains to insist that Christianity (and all other religions) amount to nothing more than a few truth claims you can hold in your heart, and which ought not to affect your earthly life whatsoever (except when they can coopt religion to coerse people into being better citizens of the empire).

I didn't write it. I'm just pointing out how the government interprets it. And you are not required to swear anything. You can simply affirm. Which is no different from signing an employment contract in which you are also affirming that you will abide by the law and the rules of the job. Explain to me the theological difference between an oral affirmation and written affirmation. Is there one?

Working for the Postal Service (or any other civilian job in the government) isn't coercive. If you ever find yourself objecting to something you are asked to do you are free to resign and walk away from the job. Just like any private sector job. It isn't like you are in the military and will be subject to court martial if you have a conscientious objection to some aspect of the job.

[Ken]

As far as working for the post office - I don't think I could feel that I am pleasing Jesus by delivering porn or other ungodly things into peoples' mailboxes.

Or critical medications for shut-ins?

Did I say something that made you think I would oppose this?

If you deliver the mail your job is to deliver it, not read other people's mail and judge it.

[Soloist]

It’s interesting how society doesn’t value the spoken word and has to have something binding on paper, yet insists on people affirming or vowing to these verbal contracts that mean apparently the same thing the paper does.
If it really means something other than what it says, then you should be able to say what it supposedly actually means instead of what it actually reads.
But you know that wouldn’t fly.

I could never affirm that I would defend the Constitution or that I would defend it against enemies foreign and domestic. If that meant that I would simply obey the laws, then why can’t I say I will obey the laws?

I don’t actually judge someone who thinks it’s OK to do this. It’s not like they’re joining the military to go shoot someone, but I could never do it.

[ken_sylvania]

Or critical medications for shut-ins?

Did I say something that made you think I would oppose this?

If you deliver the mail your job is to deliver it, not read other people's mail and judge it.

And that, my friend, is why I won't take a job as a mail carrier. Because part of the job involves delivering wicked material to people. I don't think Jesus would be pleased if I took a job delivering poison just because another part of the job involves delivering life-saving medication.

[Soloist]

Another objection of course is that they make you deliver on Sunday which of course we’ve heard before it doesn’t matter at all, but it does matter to conservatives.

[RZehr]

Or critical medications for shut-ins?

Did I say something that made you think I would oppose this?

If you deliver the mail your job is to deliver it, not read other people's mail and judge it.

You may not know this, but many would also refuse to work at certain retail stores. Why? Because of the handling, stocking, checking out, of beer and cigarettes.

Swearing allegiance to the constitution is not one problem, it is two.
1. Swearing. Can’t swear.
2. Allegiance belongs to God. So even with the accommodation of affirming instead of swearing, we could never affirm allegiance to any constitution.

[ken_sylvania]

The Postal oath of office is the same as for all other Federal employees. It is as follows:

‘‘I, ______do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that
I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter.

When challenged by applicants who did not want to make such an oath (or affirmation) on religious grounds, the Office of Legal Counsel produced the following explanation which you may or may not find compelling:

Weasel words from the Office of Legal Counsel.

[Heirbyadoption]

As far as working for the post office - I don't think I could feel that I am pleasing Jesus by delivering porn or other ungodly things into peoples' mailboxes.

Or critical medications for shut-ins?

Coming into this a bit behind the ball, but Ken, your comments to KenSylvania rings suspiciously like a hybrid between a Nuremburg Defense and the Greater Good fallacy...

Do I correctly understand you to be implying that the good things KenSylvania could accomplish by working for the postal service (ie. delivering critical meds to shut-ins) somehow trumps his convictions that certain things he would have to do in that employ would be morally wrong (knowingly delivering porn to others)...? Weren't these essentially the same justifications for dropping the atomic bomb?

[Ken]

It’s interesting how society doesn’t value the spoken word and has to have something binding on paper, yet insists on people affirming or vowing to these verbal contracts that mean apparently the same thing the paper does.
If it really means something other than what it says, then you should be able to say what it supposedly actually means instead of what it actually reads.
But you know that wouldn’t fly.

I could never affirm that I would defend the Constitution or that I would defend it against enemies foreign and domestic. If that meant that I would simply obey the laws, then why can’t I say I will obey the laws?

I don’t actually judge someone who thinks it’s OK to do this. It’s not like they’re joining the military to go shoot someone, but I could never do it.

It is not that society doesn't value the spoken word. Oral contracts can be binding.

It is that written contracts are much easier to enforce across time and space and multiple people because they can be copied and stored. And there is no future ambiguity about the terms.

It was no different in Biblical times. Written contracts existed back then as well.

[Ken]

As far as working for the post office - I don't think I could feel that I am pleasing Jesus by delivering porn or other ungodly things into peoples' mailboxes.

Or critical medications for shut-ins?

Coming into this a bit behind the ball, but Ken, your comments to KenSylvania rings suspiciously like a hybrid between a Nuremburg Defense and the Greater Good fallacy...

Do I correctly understand you to be implying that the good things KenSylvania could accomplish by working for the postal service (ie. delivering critical meds to shut-ins) somehow trumps his convictions that certain things he would have to do in that employ would be morally wrong (knowingly delivering porn to others)...? Weren't these essentially the same justifications for dropping the atomic bomb?

So delivering the mail is now tantamount to dropping the atomic bomb?

I'm simply pointing out that the mail service is a PUBLIC service and. The Post Office is, in fact, the only government agency that is actually authorized and mandated by name in the Constitution. Consequently it is up to the public (through their legislatures) to determine what is appropriate and inappropriate content that can be mailed. There are laws about what can and cannot be sent through the Postal Service. And if you choose to work for the Postal Service you are agreeing to abide by those laws and not substitute your own judgement as to what is appropriate and inappropriate to be sent by mail.

If that is something you can't do then clearly it is not the right job for you.