Ken wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2024 6:50 pm
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
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).
Soloist wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2024 3:23 pm
I have never actually met any Mennonites that worked for CPS, and I wouldn’t be surprised if conservative groups would consider that a branch of law enforcement/wielding he sword, a lot like jury duty. Game warden would not be allowed in conservative circles, and Pete Lewis (Unconditional Surrender) used to be a park ranger and had to carry a weapon.
If we’re going to go down that route we might as well ask if there’s anything wrong with being a commission officer in the medical wing of any military group.
Ultimately I think there are one to two problems with most government jobs, as Barnhart identified there is a coercion aspect to many government jobs. Secondly there is the allegiance aspect.
Let’s say for example my example with the commissioned officer in the medical wing. Nothing intrinsically is wrong with medicine, but then we run into issues when it comes to the ability to coerce patients.
Then you also have the oath of allegiance basically. Sure you affirm that you will obey the orders of those above you…
Both of those two issues are still applicable in the non-military medical Corps.
Perhaps you could argue the post office is acceptable and then you go back to the oath, which I have no idea what the oath actually says for the post office I can’t necessarily come up with some strong reason why being in the post office is wrong but I don’t believe affirming something that you can’t do is correct. For us, if I say “yes I will” and then I don’t, then I have broken my word. I don’t see the promise or an oath as being any more significant than me saying yes or no. I think the point Jesus is making is that to have to say some special word should not be necessary to be taken at our word.
Basically any government job could end up being in a coercive position or potentially have to deal with an oath of allegiance.
If you’re a GS worker or in the military, you’re dealing with an oath.
According to my highly informed sources (google), the mail service does take an oath. The actual page is blocked by my filter so I have no idea what the oath actually says. I’m not sure maybe it’s blocking it under “justice” or because it has GOV it’s considered adult content
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?
Ken wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2024 2:38 pm
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?
In the early days of the public school program it was not uncommon for Mennonites and Amish to hold positions on the school boards and township boards. You might imagine their horror when the state passed mandatory attendance laws and they found themselves required to take action including fines and arrests of fellow Amish and Mennonites who were conscientiously opposed to complying with these new laws. I am under the impression that this was a significant factor leading the conservative Mennonites in PA to forswear participation in local government.
From a practical standpoint, political office including such things a school boards requires a willingness to compromise. I simply can't imagine anyone lasting long at all in such an office if they refuse to check their religion at the door before they join each meeting.
Our local township meetings start with a pledge of allegiance to the flag.
Yea, he was responsible for a lot of grief among the conservative Mennonites, Amish and some Brethren. Either he didn't know or else he didn't care that his policies would send numbers of them to jail, and that among those who acquiesced his policies would help to precipitate a language change that separated a new generation of Mennonites from the literature and preaching of their elders and made them more vulnerable to the influences of the surrounding Protestants.
Ken wrote: ↑Sun Apr 28, 2024 2:38 pm
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?
In the early days of the public school program it was not uncommon for Mennonites and Amish to hold positions on the school boards and township boards. You might imagine their horror when the state passed mandatory attendance laws and they found themselves required to take action including fines and arrests of fellow Amish and Mennonites who were conscientiously opposed to complying with these new laws. I am under the impression that this was a significant factor leading the conservative Mennonites in PA to forswear participation in local government.
From a practical standpoint, political office including such things a school boards requires a willingness to compromise. I simply can't imagine anyone lasting long at all in such an office if they refuse to check their religion at the door before they join each meeting.
Our local township meetings start with a pledge of allegiance to the flag.
That is good, ken_sylvania.
Objections as understand it... for serving as officials in local government
1. Being forced to compromise on various things
2. Needing to enforce the will of the majority against the minority.
3. Oaths, pledges of allegiance, etc.
4. Being unequally yoked with folks who are not following the example and teachings of Jesus.
5. Using coercion on others. ("kingdom Christians" are ok with using coercion on children and mentally handicapped. Just not on other adults.)
Yea, he was responsible for a lot of grief among the conservative Mennonites, Amish and some Brethren. Either he didn't know or else he didn't care that his policies would send numbers of them to jail, and that among those who acquiesced his policies would help to precipitate a language change that separated a new generation of Mennonites from the literature and preaching of their elders and made them more vulnerable to the influences of the surrounding Protestants.
That brief article includes a number of (unexpected to me) points, esp about conflation of politics with religion.
That is, with lines recognized today, maybe not in his day.
Making your response understandable.
.. A conservative and religious but usually apolitical man, ..
^^This suggests he didn’t realize what he was doing, or all of what he was doing.
He didn’t realize he was a SJW?
Quite an eyeful.
Last edited by temporal1 on Mon Apr 29, 2024 9:43 am, edited 2 times in total.
