Political office

[Ken]

I forgot about the post office. My grandfather was a rural mail carrier for 30 years.

I have a hard time visualizing how being a postal worker (employed by the state) is any different from being a UPS or FedEx worker doing the same exact thing but employed by a multi-national corporation.

[Soloist]

I forgot about the post office. My grandfather was a rural mail carrier for 30 years.

I have a hard time visualizing how being a postal worker (employed by the state) is any different from being a UPS or FedEx worker doing the same exact thing but employed by a multi-national corporation.

I have to admit I didn’t think about the delivering of things…
Outside of delivering though one major difference is the oath whatever it might say…

[Ken]

I forgot about the post office. My grandfather was a rural mail carrier for 30 years.

I have a hard time visualizing how being a postal worker (employed by the state) is any different from being a UPS or FedEx worker doing the same exact thing but employed by a multi-national corporation.

I have to admit I didn’t think about the delivering of things…
Outside of delivering though one major difference is the oath whatever it might say…

An oath is really nothing more than an oral contract.

I promise that both UPS and FedEx require written employment contracts that are much more extensive than the oral oath expected of postal workers.

It seems to me like a distinction without a difference. Whether one affirms one's agreement with the terms of employment orally or by written signature.

[Soloist]

An oath is really nothing more than an oral contract.

I promise that both UPS and FedEx require written employment contracts that are much more extensive than the oral oath expected of postal workers.

It seems to me like a distinction without a difference. Whether one affirms one's agreement with the terms of employment orally or by written signature.

I disagree with you.

[Ken]

An oath is really nothing more than an oral contract.

I promise that both UPS and FedEx require written employment contracts that are much more extensive than the oral oath expected of postal workers.

It seems to me like a distinction without a difference. Whether one affirms one's agreement with the terms of employment orally or by written signature.

I disagree with you.

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:



Here is the FedEx code of conduct that all employees agree to by signature when they sign their employment contracts. It is 35 pages long. In it you are agreeing to comply with all applicable laws including the Constitution, no different than the Postal Oath: https://s21.q4cdn.com/665674268/files/d ... sh-(1).pdf

[Soloist]

Yeah that path is very subjective and has been misused several times before particularly in the military when individuals try to resist unlawful military action…

[Ken]

Yeah that path is very subjective and has been misused several times before particularly in the military when individuals try to resist unlawful military action…

The Post Office has been around since Benjamin Franklin.

How often have postal workers been asked to take up arms to "Defend the Constitution?"

[Soloist]

Yeah that path is very subjective and has been misused several times before particularly in the military when individuals try to resist unlawful military action…

The Post Office has been around since Benjamin Franklin.

How often have postal workers been asked to take up arms to "Defend the Constitution?"

Doesn’t matter. That’s missing the point and objection of conservatives.

[Ken]

Yeah that path is very subjective and has been misused several times before particularly in the military when individuals try to resist unlawful military action…

The Post Office has been around since Benjamin Franklin.

How often have postal workers been asked to take up arms to "Defend the Constitution?"

Doesn’t matter. That’s missing the point and objection of conservatives.

If you don't want to work for the Post Office that's fine. I just fail to see the difference between making an oral promise to follow the law in the case of the Post Office or making a written promise to follow the law in the case of a FedEx employee.

[Gene]

Why are you limiting your question to statewide legislative offices? Is there anything remotely Biblical that makes a distinction between elective office and other forms of public office?

For example, here in Washington State the legislature is composed of 98 Representatives and 49 Senators for a total of 147 state legislators.

By contrast there are approximately 124,000 state employees in Washington serving in some sort of public office. Everything from state police, highway maintenance workers, state ferry employees, fish and game wardens, social workers, state Medicaid workers, etc. etc. etc.

All of them work for the "state" and all of them have varying degrees of state authority. A social worker employed by CPS actually has more coercive authority to wield the power of the state than a legislator does. As does a game warden checking fishing licenses.

I get the use of force objection extending to the federal legislature appropriating money for military purposes. That objection seems not to apply at some level of governance. Town councils don't generally maintain a standing army or finance aggression against neighboring municipalities. Local school boards do not seem particularly militaristic. HOAs, VFCs, and ditch committees seem fairly innocuous but involve some level of governance. On the basis of what biblical principle would one object?