ALPB Forum Online

ALPB => Your Turn => Topic started by: ghp on October 25, 2008, 02:28:52 AM

Title: Politics as cult
Post by: ghp on October 25, 2008, 02:28:52 AM
Not that politics isn't highly charged enough as a topic, but...

I'm not wanting to make this into a partisan discussion (honest!), but I'm interested to see if anyone else finds the quasi-deification of Barack Obama to be as interesting -- in a theologically troubling way -- as I do.

Here's a post at Dr. Gene Edward Veith's Cranach Blog - The emerging religion (http://www.geneveith.com/the-emerging-religion/_1020/) - that briefly deals with the topic. He's got some interesting insights on the topic.

And here's a link to Is Barack Obama the Messiah? (http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/) - The blog that Dr. Veith mentions in his post. At first, I thought that it had to be a spoof site, but now I'm not so sure. I still harbor a few doubts, but I actually think it's on the up-and-up.

Like I said earlier, I think Dr. Veith has some good insights on the topic. In a great many ways, there really does seem to be almost some cult-like trappings growing up around how some folks view Obama. IMO, the largely favorable (if not outright fawning) media coverage has not helped dispel that view. Neither has the candidate's style, nor his rhetoric.

What I also find fascinating about this meme, is the potential for how it will play out after the election, in both winning or losing scenarios.

What say y'all?

-ghp
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: anonymous on October 25, 2008, 08:01:20 AM
Obama is a politician. He changes when it is expedient though he sticks to his script with rigid discipline otherwise. He lied ot McCain about taking public funding, threw his grandmother and pastor under the bus in a single speech, used race to form a base and let's see what else...

Obama as Messiah? When a culture turns secular and embraces a politican (read "turns their back on God and embraces an idol/ideology") they always seems that way. And they are all anti-Christs when that happens. Read 1 John. 
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Jay on October 25, 2008, 08:32:32 AM
The whole "Jesus was a community organizer, Pontius Pilate was a governor" thing as well as some other statements have been picked up by the media trying to support its "Obamessiah" theory.  Beyond that, I don't hear anything about Obama that is much different than the way our 40th president, Ronald Wilson Reagan (that's 6 letters in each name for you anti-Christ speculators  ;D) was heralded (and still is by the Hannitys, the Limbaughs, etc.). 

 

Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on October 26, 2008, 06:52:38 AM
beyond any messianic attributions....  are not people both from the right and the left, Republ. and Democ. alike, looked at to some degree as "saviors" in the culture wars, at least when they get to push or restrain certain laws or appoint justices for or against positions?     Harvey Mozolak
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Richard Kidd, STS on October 26, 2008, 08:10:03 AM
Not that politics isn't highly charged enough as a topic, but...

I'm not wanting to make this into a partisan discussion (honest!), but I'm interested to see if anyone else finds the quasi-deification of Barack Obama to be as interesting -- in a theologically troubling way -- as I do.

Here's a post at Dr. Gene Edward Veith's Cranach Blog - The emerging religion (http://www.geneveith.com/the-emerging-religion/_1020/) - that briefly deals with the topic. He's got some interesting insights on the topic.

And here's a link to Is Barack Obama the Messiah? (http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/) - The blog that Dr. Veith mentions in his post. At first, I thought that it had to be a spoof site, but now I'm not so sure. I still harbor a few doubts, but I actually think it's on the up-and-up.

Like I said earlier, I think Dr. Veith has some good insights on the topic. In a great many ways, there really does seem to be almost some cult-like trappings growing up around how some folks view Obama. IMO, the largely favorable (if not outright fawning) media coverage has not helped dispel that view. Neither has the candidate's style, nor his rhetoric.

What I also find fascinating about this meme, is the potential for how it will play out after the election, in both winning or losing scenarios.

What say y'all?

-ghp


ROFL I get e-mails that Obama is the anti-christ. Come on the Right deifies Sarah Palin. To uplift and glorify any candidate from the Right or left is wrong.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: ghp on October 26, 2008, 02:23:22 PM
Not that politics isn't highly charged enough as a topic, but...

I'm not wanting to make this into a partisan discussion (honest!), but I'm interested to see if anyone else finds the quasi-deification of Barack Obama to be as interesting -- in a theologically troubling way -- as I do.

Here's a post at Dr. Gene Edward Veith's Cranach Blog - The emerging religion (http://www.geneveith.com/the-emerging-religion/_1020/) - that briefly deals with the topic. He's got some interesting insights on the topic.

And here's a link to Is Barack Obama the Messiah? (http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/) - The blog that Dr. Veith mentions in his post. At first, I thought that it had to be a spoof site, but now I'm not so sure. I still harbor a few doubts, but I actually think it's on the up-and-up.

Like I said earlier, I think Dr. Veith has some good insights on the topic. In a great many ways, there really does seem to be almost some cult-like trappings growing up around how some folks view Obama. IMO, the largely favorable (if not outright fawning) media coverage has not helped dispel that view. Neither has the candidate's style, nor his rhetoric.

What I also find fascinating about this meme, is the potential for how it will play out after the election, in both winning or losing scenarios.

What say y'all?

-ghp


ROFL I get e-mails that Obama is the anti-christ. Come on the Right deifies Sarah Palin. To uplift and glorify any candidate from the Right or left is wrong.

Well, I certainly agree with you that the deification of any candidate is wrong. That said, I'm not aware of anything being done on the Right that is equivalent to what can be found at the Is Barack Obama the Messiah? (http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/) site, and there's not been anyone referring to Palin as "The Messiah" like Farrakhan called Obama.

My point in starting this thread was to try and avoid the partisan rancor (ironic coming from me, I know... ;) ), and examine the larger issue of what it means that there's this messianic language being applied to him, and what it might mean that it's not being roundly denounced by a Christian candidate.

-ghp
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Jay on October 26, 2008, 03:35:16 PM


Well, I certainly agree with you that the deification of any candidate is wrong. That said, I'm not aware of anything being done on the Right that is equivalent to what can be found at the Is Barack Obama the Messiah? (http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/) site, and there's not been anyone referring to Palin as "The Messiah" like Farrakhan called Obama.

My point in starting this thread was to try and avoid the partisan rancor (ironic coming from me, I know... ;) ), and examine the larger issue of what it means that there's this messianic language being applied to him, and what it might mean that it's not being roundly denounced by a Christian candidate.

-ghp

http://saintsarahpalin.com/
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on October 26, 2008, 03:41:08 PM

Thanks Jay. It is important, as you noted, that Reagan and many others have been deified , as has Sarah Palin.

Glen, your thesis is that the media, or Democrats, or both, have deified Obama and made him into some sort of messianic figure.

What you neglect to mention is that politics is in and of itself all about "promises". It is simply the version of promises and what promises are important to you that make up the "messianic" aspect of this.

Finally, this is nothing new. See Jennings, William Bryan, and the "Cross of Gold" speech.

Jeff Ruby   


 



Well, I certainly agree with you that the deification of any candidate is wrong. That said, I'm not aware of anything being done on the Right that is equivalent to what can be found at the Is Barack Obama the Messiah? (http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/) site, and there's not been anyone referring to Palin as "The Messiah" like Farrakhan called Obama.

My point in starting this thread was to try and avoid the partisan rancor (ironic coming from me, I know... ;) ), and examine the larger issue of what it means that there's this messianic language being applied to him, and what it might mean that it's not being roundly denounced by a Christian candidate.

-ghp

http://saintsarahpalin.com/
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Richard Kidd, STS on October 26, 2008, 03:42:29 PM


Well, I certainly agree with you that the deification of any candidate is wrong. That said, I'm not aware of anything being done on the Right that is equivalent to what can be found at the Is Barack Obama the Messiah? (http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/) site, and there's not been anyone referring to Palin as "The Messiah" like Farrakhan called Obama.

My point in starting this thread was to try and avoid the partisan rancor (ironic coming from me, I know... ;) ), and examine the larger issue of what it means that there's this messianic language being applied to him, and what it might mean that it's not being roundly denounced by a Christian candidate.

-ghp

http://saintsarahpalin.com/

ROFL A good Reformation Sunday laugh
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: ghp on October 26, 2008, 04:00:43 PM
Aside from the title of the pro-Palin site, I didn't see any messianic or overtly religious imagery in use; rather, it was a straightforward political advocacy site. Pretty run of the mill, no?

Contrast that with the Is Barak Obama the Messiah? (http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/) site. The imagery in play at that site is much more overtly religious and messianic in nature. I'm not sure it's been the MSM that's driven this meme. In fact, I don't think it has been them. I think it's been more grass roots, fed by the rhetorical stylings of the candidate himself. While perhaps not purposefully done, his natural style, when combined with his vaguely outlined hope/change message, has easily lent itself to a charisma that has generated (among other things) the kinds of iconography that you can find at the pro-Obama website listed above.

Does a type of neo-Evangelical faith inform Sarah Palin, and thus her candidacy's popularity? Sure. But it hasn't developed the type of cult-of-personality that has sprung up around Obama. And it's that cult-of-personality that I'm trying to dig into here somewhat objectively (if that's even possible...). Besides, she's not at the top of the ticket...

-ghp
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: grabau14 on October 26, 2008, 04:57:41 PM
Now Glen, just because a politician told people that he was going to heal the earth, still the waters, and "cool" the earth down, that still doesn't make him the messiah.  He is just making speechs much like Sen. Edwards when he said that if you elect John Kerry Christopher Reeves was going to get out of chair and walk.

America will be getting what she deserves with an Obama presidency.  2012  Ron Paul !!!!!!
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on October 26, 2008, 09:15:20 PM

Matthew, that doesn't make it Obama claiming that....people call politicians lots of names, Messiah might be refreshing :). I find it interesting you noted Sen Edwards and Sen Obama but no one on the right is messianic? I kind of think that James Dobson and his ilk fit the bill quite well. When George W. Bush, according to Sandra Day O Connor's memoirs, had to consult Dobson before a SCOTUS pick, that is bit messianic to me, and not just in a campaign, but in practice. 

As the  OT writer said, nothing new under the sun...William Jennings Bryan, JFK, RFK, Ronald Reagan were all described in deified terms. They all just happened to live before the internet.

Is there really a point to this thread?   

Now Glen, just because a politician told people that he was going to heal the earth, still the waters, and "cool" the earth down, that still doesn't make him the messiah.  He is just making speechs much like Sen. Edwards when he said that if you elect John Kerry Christopher Reeves was going to get out of chair and walk.

America will be getting what she deserves with an Obama presidency.  2012  Ron Paul !!!!!!
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: ghp on October 27, 2008, 12:10:20 AM
Is there really a point to this thread?   


My point in initiating this thread was to, in as non-partisan a way as possible, examine the issue brought up by Dr. Veith in his blog posting (http://www.geneveith.com/the-emerging-religion/_1020/). It is perhaps best summarized by him:

Quote
I’m not saying Barack Obama intends this, but I think many Americans are actually devising a new religion around him as their savior. It’s a secular kind of salvation, yes, but that is all many people can conceive of. Nevertheless, this hope for salvation demands their faith, their adoration, and their service.

In earlier posts on this topic, some of you thought the people who say “Obama is my Jesus” and the like must be joking. I don’t think they are. I’m sure the readers of this blog who support Obama do so for his policies and because they are looking for some kind of alternative to the current administration. But he has supporters who have little idea of his policies who zealously are putting their faith in HIM.

This is natural, by the way, a tendency found in nearly all cultures throughout history, to think of their rulers as divine. When Obama gets elected, we may see again the figure of the divinized ruler. I don’t intend this as a political point, but as an observation about the reversion to a cultural paganism that can rush into a theological void.

This is not intended to be a political thread, although the putative subject of it seems to be that. No, the intended subject of this thread is theological. Perhaps it's too nuanced; I don't think it is.

-ghp
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on October 27, 2008, 05:13:45 PM

I just heard the ATF broke up a skinhead ring trying to kill Obama and many other African Americans.

Maybe not everyone thinks he is the Messiah.


AP Top News at 4:26 p.m. EDT



WASHINGTON (AP) — The ATF says it has broken up a plot to assassinate Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and shoot or decapitate 102 black people in a Tennessee murder spree. In court records unsealed Monday, agents said they disrupted plans to rob a gun store and target an unnamed but predominantly African-American high school by two neo-Nazi skinheads.








Is there really a point to this thread?   


My point in initiating this thread was to, in as non-partisan a way as possible, examine the issue brought up by Dr. Veith in his blog posting (http://www.geneveith.com/the-emerging-religion/_1020/). It is perhaps best summarized by him:

Quote
I’m not saying Barack Obama intends this, but I think many Americans are actually devising a new religion around him as their savior. It’s a secular kind of salvation, yes, but that is all many people can conceive of. Nevertheless, this hope for salvation demands their faith, their adoration, and their service.

In earlier posts on this topic, some of you thought the people who say “Obama is my Jesus” and the like must be joking. I don’t think they are. I’m sure the readers of this blog who support Obama do so for his policies and because they are looking for some kind of alternative to the current administration. But he has supporters who have little idea of his policies who zealously are putting their faith in HIM.

This is natural, by the way, a tendency found in nearly all cultures throughout history, to think of their rulers as divine. When Obama gets elected, we may see again the figure of the divinized ruler. I don’t intend this as a political point, but as an observation about the reversion to a cultural paganism that can rush into a theological void.

This is not intended to be a political thread, although the putative subject of it seems to be that. No, the intended subject of this thread is theological. Perhaps it's too nuanced; I don't think it is.

-ghp
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: ghp on October 27, 2008, 06:01:52 PM

I just heard the ATF broke up a skinhead ring trying to kill Obama and many other African Americans.

Maybe not everyone thinks he is the Messiah.


Fine and dandy. But that's not the point of the thread. Please keep on topic.

-ghp
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on October 27, 2008, 07:09:36 PM

The point of the thread is the cult of personality .I was simply pointing out that not everyone Thinks Obama is the messiah. It was relevant, you may think it is not. But don't lecture me.

Jeff Ruby 


I just heard the ATF broke up a skinhead ring trying to kill Obama and many other African Americans.

Maybe not everyone thinks he is the Messiah.


Fine and dandy. But that's not the point of the thread. Please keep on topic.

-ghp
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: ghp on October 27, 2008, 08:18:21 PM

The point of the thread is the cult of personality .I was simply pointing out that not everyone Thinks Obama is the messiah. It was relevant, you may think it is not. But don't lecture me.


I started the thread; I know the intent/focus. Given the thread drift that was happening, I'm just trying to keep it on track, not lecture, particularly as a moderator saw fit to sticky it.

In any event, it's a given that not everyone thinks he's the messiah. Heck, that should be a given on this forum, no? But does the fact that some do/seem to, and that a secular/pagan iconography/hagiography has sprung up around Obama have any bearing and/or meaning for Christians?

I think it does. A cult of personality is one thing (and is bad enough), but when it crosses over into overtly religious/Christian expressions, that's even more problematic. Thus, when a candidate is referred to as "The One", a "Messiah" come "to save the world/planet/country/economy/etc.", and there are beatific posters, votive candles, and the like, it starts to tweak my theological radar even more than my political radar.

-ghp
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on October 27, 2008, 09:21:16 PM
And I believe numerous posters have pointed out the following:

a) This is not unique to Obama. In fact, in a shorter period of time Palin made more magazine covers and inspired more women to buy her eyeglasses frame than Obama has had similar impact.

b) This is not unique to historical elections and politicians in terms of amassing followers. Remember the college kids who flocked to RFK (I was 6 at the time, but have read several histories about that era). Comparable situation. 

c) Both parties have figures they have beatified, both parties have politicians they are looked up to with idol like status.
    (Lincoln, FDR, JFK, RFK, Reagan ) to name a few.


As I said earlier, this is nothing new under the sun. If there is something of real substance here the thread will thrive. If not, it will die. Until there is something more interesting than "yes he is a celebrity and cultic personality" or "no, this really isn't an issue at all", it will die a swift death.

Jeff RUby   
 



The point of the thread is the cult of personality .I was simply pointing out that not everyone Thinks Obama is the messiah. It was relevant, you may think it is not. But don't lecture me.


I started the thread; I know the intent/focus. Given the thread drift that was happening, I'm just trying to keep it on track, not lecture, particularly as a moderator saw fit to sticky it.

In any event, it's a given that not everyone thinks he's the messiah. Heck, that should be a given on this forum, no? But does the fact that some do/seem to, and that a secular/pagan iconography/hagiography has sprung up around Obama have any bearing and/or meaning for Christians?

I think it does. A cult of personality is one thing (and is bad enough), but when it crosses over into overtly religious/Christian expressions, that's even more problematic. Thus, when a candidate is referred to as "The One", a "Messiah" come "to save the world/planet/country/economy/etc.", and there are beatific posters, votive candles, and the like, it starts to tweak my theological radar even more than my political radar.

-ghp
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Lutheran_Lay_Leader on October 27, 2008, 10:23:07 PM
I think too many people are confusing media hyerbole and rhetoric for what the actual man in the street really thinks. I can't believe how much over-the-top exaggeration I'm reading in this thread regarding how people "feel" about one candidate or another. I don't think I've ever met a sane person who truly loved or hated any political leader. About the strongest terms I've ever seen that were used accurately is "liked" and "disliked".

If there is too much hyperbole in referring to Obama in messianic terms, a more sensible explanation is that the news is often written by former sports reporters, to whom restraint and calm objectivity are unknown attributes.

I do not hate Obama. I do not love McCain (except in a vague sort of "we should love all mankind" sort of way). I don't think Obama could be a messiah. I don't think he's the (or an) anti-Christ.

The very idea of taking media hyperbole seriously is just plain silly.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Erme Wolf on October 27, 2008, 11:29:38 PM
      Glen, have you ever been to Washington, D.C.?  Go take the tour of our nation's Capitol building.  The guides proudly point out the painting on the ceiling of the rotunda.  It is of George Washington being received among the gods. 

      Abraham Lincoln was referred to as "Father Abraham" and close to deified after his assassination.  Many households had a picture of FDR in a prominent place during his lifetime, as he was (rightly or wrongly) viewed as their "savior" from the Depression.  There has been the cult of the Kennedys, and a movement to put Ronald Reagan on Mount Rushmore.

     There are folks who are getting way too caught up in misplaced "worship" of Sen. Obama. I can understand how he has become the object of this for some in our country.  But I do not see that Sen. Obama has encouraged this, and in fact he made a joke of it at the recent Al Smith Dinner in New York City.   
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: ghp on October 27, 2008, 11:45:47 PM

As I said earlier, this is nothing new under the sun. If there is something of real substance here the thread will thrive. If not, it will die. Until there is something more interesting than "yes he is a celebrity and cultic personality" or "no, this really isn't an issue at all", it will die a swift death.


True enough, Jeff. Given the lively comment thread over at Dr. Veith's blog (some/most of it even on topic with Dr. Veith's original post!  :o ;) ), I thought that it might spark some interesting discussion hereabouts. Problem is, it can be tough to separate it from the partisan politics swirling about (for me as much or more as anyone else...). Ah, well, if it dies, it dies...  :-\

-ghp
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: John_Hannah on October 28, 2008, 06:32:15 AM
To set up any presidential candidate as the Messiah is to replace the Christian faith with simple earthly politics.

To set up any presidential candidate as the counter-Messiah (anti-Christ) is to replace the Christian faith with simple earthly politics.

Republican Christians will want to be careful to avoid the second temptation.

Peace, JOHN HANNAH
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: anonymous on October 28, 2008, 08:25:12 AM
      Glen, have you ever been to Washington, D.C.?  Go take the tour of our nation's Capitol building.  The guides proudly point out the painting on the ceiling of the rotunda.  It is of George Washington being received among the gods. 

      Abraham Lincoln was referred to as "Father Abraham" and close to deified after his assassination.  Many households had a picture of FDR in a prominent place during his lifetime, as he was (rightly or wrongly) viewed as their "savior" from the Depression.  There has been the cult of the Kennedys, and a movement to put Ronald Reagan on Mount Rushmore.

     There are folks who are getting way too caught up in misplaced "worship" of Sen. Obama. I can understand how he has become the object of this for some in our country.  But I do not see that Sen. Obama has encouraged this, and in fact he made a joke of it at the recent Al Smith Dinner in New York City.   

So you saw that? I had a real weird feeling. He was reading a joke written for him. Beyond that, seemed somehow inappropriate to even give voiceto it.

For those who didn't: "And no I wasn't born in a manger."
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: dfrazer on October 28, 2008, 09:22:39 AM
Notified that his grandmother was sick, he waited for four days to "rush" to her bedside.

I know of one other person, told his friend Lazarus was sick waited before going to Bethany. Hmm.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on October 28, 2008, 09:57:14 AM


We have had a man in the White House the past 8 years with a Messiah complex. It must  cut across party lines.

Jeff Ruby



      Glen, have you ever been to Washington, D.C.?  Go take the tour of our nation's Capitol building.  The guides proudly point out the painting on the ceiling of the rotunda.  It is of George Washington being received among the gods. 

      Abraham Lincoln was referred to as "Father Abraham" and close to deified after his assassination.  Many households had a picture of FDR in a prominent place during his lifetime, as he was (rightly or wrongly) viewed as their "savior" from the Depression.  There has been the cult of the Kennedys, and a movement to put Ronald Reagan on Mount Rushmore.

     There are folks who are getting way too caught up in misplaced "worship" of Sen. Obama. I can understand how he has become the object of this for some in our country.  But I do not see that Sen. Obama has encouraged this, and in fact he made a joke of it at the recent Al Smith Dinner in New York City.   

So you saw that? I had a real weird feeling. He was reading a joke written for him. Beyond that, seemed somehow inappropriate to even give voiceto it.

For those who didn't: "And no I wasn't born in a manger."
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: MaddogLutheran on October 28, 2008, 10:01:31 AM
We have had a man in the White House the past 8 years with a Messiah complex.
Really?  What's your evidence of that?  Let's be precise.  Misguided, mistaken, boneheaded, I could buy.

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on October 28, 2008, 10:28:11 AM


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

Jeff Ruby


We have had a man in the White House the past 8 years with a Messiah complex.
Really?  What's your evidence of that?  Let's be precise.  Misguided, mistaken, boneheaded, I could buy.

Sterling Spatz

Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: ghp on October 28, 2008, 10:40:20 AM
We have had a man in the White House the past 8 years with a Messiah complex.
Really?  What's your evidence of that?  Let's be precise.  Misguided, mistaken, boneheaded, I could buy.

Sterling Spatz


Yes. And there was none of the explicitly Christian religious imagery ascribed to GWB himself as a messianic healer. GWB is, to be clear (if not brutally so), a bumbling but well-meaning neo-evangelical, in that he gets carried away with the Law-driven (that he mistakenly thinks is Gospel) God-talk. As Sterling said, that's misguided, mistaken, and boneheaded. But I don't think it's messianic, in a personal sense.

Again, though, I'm drawn back to the fact that with Obama we have someone to whom there is directly being ascribed overt Christian messianic imagery on/as a personal level/characteristic. That's the key data point, and the focus of interest, imo.

-ghp
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: anonymous on October 28, 2008, 10:47:08 AM
And I am in wonder that Americans are sourcing far-left English newspapers period, much less as some sort of credible  thing to be pointing to!
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: MaddogLutheran on October 28, 2008, 11:04:40 AM


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

Jeff Ruby


We have had a man in the White House the past 8 years with a Messiah complex.
Really?  What's your evidence of that?  Let's be precise.  Misguided, mistaken, boneheaded, I could buy.
Thinking God is speaking to you and obeying Him makes you a Messiah?  Really?  Maybe an instrument of God or a prophet of the LORD, but I don't see anything messianic about this.  I'm not particularly comfortable with it, but that's something else entirely.  Seems to me the major difference between GWB and Jeremiah Wright is that the former had the power to act.

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on October 28, 2008, 01:29:31 PM


If you want, I can find 20 American papers on Google that quoted it, that happened to be one that came up first. He said it. The fact you don't find that disturbing and have to dismiss the multiple sources because they don't agree with your view of the world is not rational debate.

Jeff Ruby

And I am in wonder that Americans are sourcing far-left English newspapers period, much less as some sort of credible  thing to be pointing to!
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on October 28, 2008, 01:33:05 PM

If you look at Pastor's Wright's quotes in context, about 90 % of them are true-he goes wacko on the AIDS issue, but on everything else he is factual.

The quote "God d*** America" is the only thing people heard. Check the whole quote, and you will see something very similar to what the OT prophets said about Israel.

I would not have used his words, and I have my own beefs with his lifestyle of living above his people. However it actually disturbs me far more  that Pastor John Haggee endorsed John McCain, and that pastor believes we will end the world with nuclear war in the middle east and we have to support Israel at all costs is far more disturbing.

Jeff Ruby 
   




http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/oct/07/iraq.usa

Jeff Ruby


We have had a man in the White House the past 8 years with a Messiah complex.
Really?  What's your evidence of that?  Let's be precise.  Misguided, mistaken, boneheaded, I could buy.
Thinking God is speaking to you and obeying Him makes you a Messiah?  Really?  Maybe an instrument of God or a prophet of the LORD, but I don't see anything messianic about this.  I'm not particularly comfortable with it, but that's something else entirely.  Seems to me the major difference between GWB and Jeremiah Wright is that the former had the power to act.

Sterling Spatz

Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: anonymous on October 28, 2008, 01:40:15 PM


If you want, I can find 20 American papers on Google that quoted it, that happened to be one that came up first. He said it. The fact you don't find that disturbing and have to dismiss the multiple sources because they don't agree with your view of the world is not rational debate.

Jeff Ruby

And I am in wonder that Americans are sourcing far-left English newspapers period, much less as some sort of credible  thing to be pointing to!

So you knew the history of the Guardian? As to the rest I now have to run back and see what I was suposed to find so disturbing? I guess I'll be right back... (you really are turning into Brian S.)
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: anonymous on October 28, 2008, 01:47:39 PM
"We have had a man in the White House the past 8 years with a Messiah complex."

That is what you meant? My goodness, so in your mind if someone discerns that God wants them do something they have a Messiah complex?!?! Here I would have labeled that generally as "being obedient."

As to the point that Bush would say that, it is a little remarkable, in fact it is almost anachronistic, why it reminds me of almost every leader before secularization struck us.

My goodness, he's almost as deranged as FDR, Lincoln and all the founding fathers! Somebody form a committee and recommend a course of action and then let's get the legislators to write a law and forbid this before somebody is is victimized by the Christian terrorists! :)
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on October 28, 2008, 02:10:45 PM


Forget the paper..there are multiple sources. Do your own homework on those , I don't have the time.

If you don't find it disturbing God told the President to start a war, which has cost 4,000 American lives, countless billions, and lasted five years while destroying our economy, I can't help you.

If he started it on the basis of national security, or that he really believed in WMD (as he originally said), than fine. One can debate that, and call it great or a crock.

But to hear God whisper go start this?

Any leader  who has God whispering in his ear to start war is a concern. Read Mark Twain's War Prayer

Jeff Ruby



If you want, I can find 20 American papers on Google that quoted it, that happened to be one that came up first. He said it. The fact you don't find that disturbing and have to dismiss the multiple sources because they don't agree with your view of the world is not rational debate.

Jeff Ruby

And I am in wonder that Americans are sourcing far-left English newspapers period, much less as some sort of credible  thing to be pointing to!

So you knew the history of the Guardian? As to the rest I now have to run back and see what I was suposed to find so disturbing? I guess I'll be right back... (you really are turning into Brian S.)
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on October 28, 2008, 02:12:13 PM

So, just to clarify, in your view, God initiated this war through our President, he was obedient, is God's servant, and we are righteous in this?

Jeff Ruby

"We have had a man in the White House the past 8 years with a Messiah complex."

That is what you meant? My goodness, so in your mind if someone discerns that God wants them do something they have a Messiah complex?!?! Here I would have labeled that generally as "being obedient."

As to the point that Bush would say that, it is a little remarkable, in fact it is almost anachronistic, why it reminds me of almost every leader before secularization struck us.

My goodness, he's almost as deranged as FDR, Lincoln and all the founding fathers! Somebody form a committee and recommend a course of action and then let's get the legislators to write a law and forbid this before somebody is is victimized by the Christian terrorists! :)
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Lutheran_Lay_Leader on October 28, 2008, 02:14:22 PM
I'm drawn back to the fact that with Obama we have someone to whom there is directly being ascribed overt Christian messianic imagery on/as a personal level/characteristic. That's the key data point, and the focus of interest, imo.

I notice that sentence was written in passive voice. The real issue isn't whether or not Obama is "directly being ascribed overt Christian messianic imagery". The real issue is who is it that is doing the describing? Can you name any credible, believable sources who are truly referring to Obama as some sort of messiah? I'm not talking about listing alleged journalists engaged in sensationalism and hyperbole. I'm talking about any single credible source who is genuinely saying that Obama is some sort of messiah?

I recall back in the 1970's when the head coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers was often referred to as "The Emperor". Again, that was the media engaging in hyperbole. No one then truly believed that Chuck Noll was really an Emperor. And no one with any sense in 2008 truly believes that Obama is really a messiah, no matter how much media hyperbole there is using those terms.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: MaddogLutheran on October 28, 2008, 02:32:22 PM
If you look at Pastor's Wright's quotes in context, about 90 % of them are true-he goes wacko on the AIDS issue, but on everything else he is factual.
Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?  But seriously, other than being wrong about the current existence of WMD (and the implied threat they posed to us), how else was Bush wrong about the need to free Iraq of a tyrant (who was shooting at our planes almost every day, so it's not like we weren't there already)?  I don't mean to re-argue these things, I'm just trying to point out the selective forgiveness being applied here.

Quote from: jrubyaz
The quote "God d*** America" is the only thing people heard. Check the whole quote, and you will see something very similar to what the OT prophets said about Israel.
Hmmm, didn't I say/imply that last point?  Ah yes, I think I did, when I made the comparison between Wright and Bush.  So I wouldn't deny it...I'm saying why doesn't Bush get extended the same courtesy when he thinks God is speaking to/through him?  The orignal point was debunking Bush having a Messiah complex.  He's more Moses:  Let my those people go.

Quote from: jrubyaz
I would not have used his words, and I have my own beefs with his lifestyle of living above his people. However it actually disturbs me far more  that Pastor John Haggee endorsed John McCain, and that pastor believes we will end the world with nuclear war in the middle east and we have to support Israel at all costs is far more disturbing.
Ah, the moral equivalency with Pastor Haggee.  A mere endorsement, with no evidence he holds any sway over McCain's thinking, versus Obama who said that Wright was instrumental in his spiritual formation, with Wright a disciple of black liberation theology.  Judging from McCain's national political track record (think 2000 Republican primary), I think he detests these high profile Religious Right leaders.  But that's just me.

I hope you will note that I am not excusing Republican excesses, just trying to show they are not unique or even everything they are imagined to be.  As others have said, Republicans are far from pure.  But then politics ain't bean bag.
Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: MaddogLutheran on October 28, 2008, 02:35:30 PM
If you don't find it disturbing God told the President to start a war, which has cost 4,000 American lives, countless billions, and lasted five years while destroying our economy, I can't help you.
See, you keep saying things like this that are unsubstantiated.  The war is not responsible for destroying our economy.  Unless you can show that somehow it made the issuance and packaging of shoddy mortgages possible.

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: anonymous on October 28, 2008, 03:34:28 PM

So, just to clarify, in your view, God initiated this war through our President, he was obedient, is God's servant, and we are righteous in this?

Jeff Ruby

"We have had a man in the White House the past 8 years with a Messiah complex."

That is what you meant? My goodness, so in your mind if someone discerns that God wants them do something they have a Messiah complex?!?! Here I would have labeled that generally as "being obedient."

As to the point that Bush would say that, it is a little remarkable, in fact it is almost anachronistic, why it reminds me of almost every leader before secularization struck us.

My goodness, he's almost as deranged as FDR, Lincoln and all the founding fathers! Somebody form a committee and recommend a course of action and then let's get the legislators to write a law and forbid this before somebody is is victimized by the Christian terrorists! :)

If you truly wanted clarity I don't hink you would be going abou tit like this!

No, Jeff, what I thought you could understand is that nearly all leaders of nations who are at war have made the exact same statement. Do you want to go back and forth on that too?
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on October 28, 2008, 03:59:46 PM


YEs, I am a student of history. I know Lincoln, Washington, and many others believed this.

My point was that combining a command of God with a war is a dangerous thing. Certainly, who am I to question the Almighty? He could speak to leaders.  But my guess is our God is a God of love and justice, not a God who wants us to initiate wars.

And my point is at best it is shoddy theology. If God told Saddam Hussein the same thing, who is right? Or remove the Muslim equation, the Prods and RC's in Ireland.   

If Bush wanted to be Iraq's savior, or Democracy's savior, so be it. It certainly seems that there are not many people agreeing with him, either theologically or on the ground.

Jeff Rub y

 


So, just to clarify, in your view, God initiated this war through our President, he was obedient, is God's servant, and we are righteous in this?

Jeff Ruby

"We have had a man in the White House the past 8 years with a Messiah complex."

That is what you meant? My goodness, so in your mind if someone discerns that God wants them do something they have a Messiah complex?!?! Here I would have labeled that generally as "being obedient."

As to the point that Bush would say that, it is a little remarkable, in fact it is almost anachronistic, why it reminds me of almost every leader before secularization struck us.

My goodness, he's almost as deranged as FDR, Lincoln and all the founding fathers! Somebody form a committee and recommend a course of action and then let's get the legislators to write a law and forbid this before somebody is is victimized by the Christian terrorists! :)

If you truly wanted clarity I don't hink you would be going abou tit like this!

No, Jeff, what I thought you could understand is that nearly all leaders of nations who are at war have made the exact same statement. Do you want to go back and forth on that too?
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: anonymous on October 28, 2008, 04:04:50 PM


YEs, I am a student of history. I know Lincoln, Washington, and many others believed this.

My point was that combining a command of God with a war is a dangerous thing. Certainly, who am I to question the Almighty? He could speak to leaders.  But my guess is our God is a God of love and justice, not a God who wants us to initiate wars.

And my point is at best it is shoddy theology. If God told Saddam Hussein the same thing, who is right? Or remove the Muslim equation, the Prods and RC's in Ireland.   

If Bush wanted to be Iraq's savior, or Democracy's savior, so be it. It certainly seems that there are not many people agreeing with him, either theologically or on the ground.

Jeff Rub y

 


So, just to clarify, in your view, God initiated this war through our President, he was obedient, is God's servant, and we are righteous in this?

Jeff Ruby

"We have had a man in the White House the past 8 years with a Messiah complex."

That is what you meant? My goodness, so in your mind if someone discerns that God wants them do something they have a Messiah complex?!?! Here I would have labeled that generally as "being obedient."

As to the point that Bush would say that, it is a little remarkable, in fact it is almost anachronistic, why it reminds me of almost every leader before secularization struck us.

My goodness, he's almost as deranged as FDR, Lincoln and all the founding fathers! Somebody form a committee and recommend a course of action and then let's get the legislators to write a law and forbid this before somebody is is victimized by the Christian terrorists! :)

If you truly wanted clarity I don't hink you would be going abou tit like this!

No, Jeff, what I thought you could understand is that nearly all leaders of nations who are at war have made the exact same statement. Do you want to go back and forth on that too?

Yes, war is just not a good brand anymore... I just stuck a fork in this one. What do you say we stick to arguing just in one thread? Which one?
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on October 28, 2008, 04:15:41 PM


Like the labels of bleeding heart liberal, methinks you are given to hyperbole. I look on this as a friendly forum with earnest, sometimes even heated discussion among brothers and sisters in Christ. There is strong moderation, but freedom also granted.

If you chose to see this as a war, then label away. Over the past two years I have a lot of discussions, learned a lot, agreed a lot, and disagreed a lot as well.

Such is  faith and life.

Jeff Ruby   




YEs, I am a student of history. I know Lincoln, Washington, and many others believed this.

My point was that combining a command of God with a war is a dangerous thing. Certainly, who am I to question the Almighty? He could speak to leaders.  But my guess is our God is a God of love and justice, not a God who wants us to initiate wars.

And my point is at best it is shoddy theology. If God told Saddam Hussein the same thing, who is right? Or remove the Muslim equation, the Prods and RC's in Ireland.   

If Bush wanted to be Iraq's savior, or Democracy's savior, so be it. It certainly seems that there are not many people agreeing with him, either theologically or on the ground.

Jeff Rub y

 


So, just to clarify, in your view, God initiated this war through our President, he was obedient, is God's servant, and we are righteous in this?

Jeff Ruby

"We have had a man in the White House the past 8 years with a Messiah complex."

That is what you meant? My goodness, so in your mind if someone discerns that God wants them do something they have a Messiah complex?!?! Here I would have labeled that generally as "being obedient."

As to the point that Bush would say that, it is a little remarkable, in fact it is almost anachronistic, why it reminds me of almost every leader before secularization struck us.

My goodness, he's almost as deranged as FDR, Lincoln and all the founding fathers! Somebody form a committee and recommend a course of action and then let's get the legislators to write a law and forbid this before somebody is is victimized by the Christian terrorists! :)

If you truly wanted clarity I don't hink you would be going abou tit like this!

No, Jeff, what I thought you could understand is that nearly all leaders of nations who are at war have made the exact same statement. Do you want to go back and forth on that too?

Yes, war is just not a good brand anymore... I just stuck a fork in this one. What do you say we stick to arguing just in one thread? Which one?
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: anonymous on October 28, 2008, 04:23:22 PM


Like the labels of bleeding heart liberal, methinks you are given to hyperbole. I look on this as a friendly forum with earnest, sometimes even heated discussion among brothers and sisters in Christ. There is strong moderation, but freedom also granted.

If you chose to see this as a war, then label away. Over the past two years I have a lot of discussions, learned a lot, agreed a lot, and disagreed a lot as well.

Such is  faith and life.

Jeff Ruby   




YEs, I am a student of history. I know Lincoln, Washington, and many others believed this.

My point was that combining a command of God with a war is a dangerous thing. Certainly, who am I to question the Almighty? He could speak to leaders.  But my guess is our God is a God of love and justice, not a God who wants us to initiate wars.

And my point is at best it is shoddy theology. If God told Saddam Hussein the same thing, who is right? Or remove the Muslim equation, the Prods and RC's in Ireland.   

If Bush wanted to be Iraq's savior, or Democracy's savior, so be it. It certainly seems that there are not many people agreeing with him, either theologically or on the ground.

Jeff Rub y

 


So, just to clarify, in your view, God initiated this war through our President, he was obedient, is God's servant, and we are righteous in this?

Jeff Ruby

"We have had a man in the White House the past 8 years with a Messiah complex."

That is what you meant? My goodness, so in your mind if someone discerns that God wants them do something they have a Messiah complex?!?! Here I would have labeled that generally as "being obedient."

As to the point that Bush would say that, it is a little remarkable, in fact it is almost anachronistic, why it reminds me of almost every leader before secularization struck us.

My goodness, he's almost as deranged as FDR, Lincoln and all the founding fathers! Somebody form a committee and recommend a course of action and then let's get the legislators to write a law and forbid this before somebody is is victimized by the Christian terrorists! :)

If you truly wanted clarity I don't hink you would be going abou tit like this!

No, Jeff, what I thought you could understand is that nearly all leaders of nations who are at war have made the exact same statement. Do you want to go back and forth on that too?

Yes, war is just not a good brand anymore... I just stuck a fork in this one. What do you say we stick to arguing just in one thread? Which one?

What I call it an intervention, Jeff, I just can't get hold of your other friends and family :)

Go back. I said "argue". That's as in "arguing points. War was what we were talking about in the previous point.
 
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on October 28, 2008, 05:15:45 PM
 My apology if I misinterpreted. It was written a bit  vaguely , IMHO.

Jeff Ruby
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: ghp on October 28, 2008, 05:45:57 PM
I'm drawn back to the fact that with Obama we have someone to whom there is directly being ascribed overt Christian messianic imagery on/as a personal level/characteristic. That's the key data point, and the focus of interest, imo.

I notice that sentence was written in passive voice. The real issue isn't whether or not Obama is "directly being ascribed overt Christian messianic imagery". The real issue is who is it that is doing the describing? Can you name any credible, believable sources who are truly referring to Obama as some sort of messiah? I'm not talking about listing alleged journalists engaged in sensationalism and hyperbole. I'm talking about any single credible source who is genuinely saying that Obama is some sort of messiah?

I recall back in the 1970's when the head coach of the Pittsburgh Steelers was often referred to as "The Emperor". Again, that was the media engaging in hyperbole. No one then truly believed that Chuck Noll was really an Emperor. And no one with any sense in 2008 truly believes that Obama is really a messiah, no matter how much media hyperbole there is using those terms.

I hate it when I lapse in the passive voice.  >:(  As I said somewhere upstream, I don't think it's anyone in the MSM that's actively doing it -- they might propagate it, after a fashion, but they're not generating it. Farrakhan did it. This site (http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/) is chock-full of it. Dr. Veith's post (http://www.geneveith.com/the-emerging-religion/_1020/) talks about it (although he just points back to that same site that I just linked to in the previous sentence...). I've read quotes in various online & print articles, where folks talk of Obama in terms of "healing" and "delivering" and such. And I've seen various artwork/t-shirts/etc. that depicts him in rather angelic/holy fashion, e.g., with radiant halo/nimbus. As to their credibility? Well, that might be a/the question at hand, no? Dr. Veith seems convinced, and that goes a long way towards convincing me. I think that (too) many folks are buying/have bought into this particular cult of personality.

-ghp
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Lutheran_Lay_Leader on October 28, 2008, 07:12:57 PM
I hate it when I lapse in the passive voice.  >:(  As I said somewhere upstream, I don't think it's anyone in the MSM that's actively doing it -- they might propagate it, after a fashion, but they're not generating it. Farrakhan did it. This site (http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/) is chock-full of it. Dr. Veith's post (http://www.geneveith.com/the-emerging-religion/_1020/) talks about it (although he just points back to that same site that I just linked to in the previous sentence...). I've read quotes in various online & print articles, where folks talk of Obama in terms of "healing" and "delivering" and such. And I've seen various artwork/t-shirts/etc. that depicts him in rather angelic/holy fashion, e.g., with radiant halo/nimbus. As to their credibility? Well, that might be a/the question at hand, no? Dr. Veith seems convinced, and that goes a long way towards convincing me. I think that (too) many folks are buying/have bought into this particular cult of personality.

So you're basing this entire idea of people thinking of Obama in two blogs. You realize that the barriers to creating a blog are virtually nil, right? Anyone can start a blog and post anything. I've seen a website that claims that eating your own boogers is good for you. If I found a second such site, would that be evidence of some groundswell of endorsement of booger eating?

And as for making t-shirts, anyone with an ink jet printer, a graphics program, and an iron can make up a t-shirt.

I think that you have bought into a thinking that an obscure minority perception of a handful of misguided fools is something far bigger than it really is. The scary thing is that the more semi-credible people pay attention to this hogwash, the more that thoughtful people might start to think there's something to it.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on October 28, 2008, 07:31:20 PM


I would agree , George.

I have always had a problem using blogs for source quotes as well, or to buttress an argument. Blogs are not credible, on any side, political or theological . Give me good old source material and direct quotes anyday.

Jeff Ruby


I hate it when I lapse in the passive voice.  >:(  As I said somewhere upstream, I don't think it's anyone in the MSM that's actively doing it -- they might propagate it, after a fashion, but they're not generating it. Farrakhan did it. This site (http://obamamessiah.blogspot.com/) is chock-full of it. Dr. Veith's post (http://www.geneveith.com/the-emerging-religion/_1020/) talks about it (although he just points back to that same site that I just linked to in the previous sentence...). I've read quotes in various online & print articles, where folks talk of Obama in terms of "healing" and "delivering" and such. And I've seen various artwork/t-shirts/etc. that depicts him in rather angelic/holy fashion, e.g., with radiant halo/nimbus. As to their credibility? Well, that might be a/the question at hand, no? Dr. Veith seems convinced, and that goes a long way towards convincing me. I think that (too) many folks are buying/have bought into this particular cult of personality.

So you're basing this entire idea of people thinking of Obama in two blogs. You realize that the barriers to creating a blog are virtually nil, right? Anyone can start a blog and post anything. I've seen a website that claims that eating your own boogers is good for you. If I found a second such site, would that be evidence of some groundswell of endorsement of booger eating?

And as for making t-shirts, anyone with an ink jet printer, a graphics program, and an iron can make up a t-shirt.

I think that you have bought into a thinking that an obscure minority perception of a handful of misguided fools is something far bigger than it really is. The scary thing is that the more semi-credible people pay attention to this hogwash, the more that thoughtful people might start to think there's something to it.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: ghp on October 28, 2008, 07:58:25 PM
I had noted things from various places & sources over the past months on this topic. I read Dr. Veith's blog post. I respect Dr. Veith (http://www.geneveith.com/about/) greatly, both for his theological books (http://astore.amazon.com/cranach-20) and his regular column in WORLD Magazine (http://www.worldmag.com/). Frankly, that he says there's something to this carries quite a bit of weight with me.

Thus, I thought it interesting & worthwhile enough to start a thread here, given the intersection of the theological and the political.

That you and Jeff seem to find it so far from the bounds of respectability (the topic, that is), George, is all well and good. I'd prefer that you not think less of me for believing otherwise.

-ghp
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Lutheran_Lay_Leader on October 29, 2008, 12:18:11 AM
I had noted things from various places & sources over the past months on this topic. I read Dr. Veith's blog post. I respect Dr. Veith (http://www.geneveith.com/about/) greatly, both for his theological books (http://astore.amazon.com/cranach-20) and his regular column in WORLD Magazine (http://www.worldmag.com/). Frankly, that he says there's something to this carries quite a bit of weight with me.

Thus, I thought it interesting & worthwhile enough to start a thread here, given the intersection of the theological and the political.

That you and Jeff seem to find it so far from the bounds of respectability (the topic, that is), George, is all well and good. I'd prefer that you not think less of me for believing otherwise.

-ghp

First, regardless of Veith's credentials, he's still only making an observation basd on what he has seen of over-the-top hyperbole. No matter how good his other writings may be, he's been sucked into believing that a tiny little over-reaction by a few individuals constitutes some sort of trend. It's like attending a Star Trek convention and coming away thinking that everyone believes that the fate of the universe is in the hands of the crew of the Starship Enterprise.

As for respectability of this thread, I think it is very "respectable" to discuss how easy it is for anyone to get sucked into thinking that an irrelevant passing fad is some sort of bona-fide trend.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on October 29, 2008, 12:48:27 AM

Glenn,

It is a free country, and you are free to believe the trends or lack of them. George has his points, mine were centered around historical issues, and the fact that whether it was William Jennings Bryan and his "Cross of Gold" speech, JFK and Camelot, or FDR and Reagan, this has always been true.

Secondly, I think we did note that blogs don't carry the same weight as do respected periodicals and journals (left or right, doesn't matter). I can set up a blog tonight and make all sorts of prounouncements, it doesn't mean it is true or false, just my opinion. Dr. Veith has an opinion, it is fine you respect him, that doesn't make him equal to someone like the late Tim Russert in political observations or Martin Marty or Reinhold Niebuhr regarding faith and politics.

Jeff Ruby       

I had noted things from various places & sources over the past months on this topic. I read Dr. Veith's blog post. I respect Dr. Veith (http://www.geneveith.com/about/) greatly, both for his theological books (http://astore.amazon.com/cranach-20) and his regular column in WORLD Magazine (http://www.worldmag.com/). Frankly, that he says there's something to this carries quite a bit of weight with me.

Thus, I thought it interesting & worthwhile enough to start a thread here, given the intersection of the theological and the political.

That you and Jeff seem to find it so far from the bounds of respectability (the topic, that is), George, is all well and good. I'd prefer that you not think less of me for believing otherwise.

-ghp
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: ghp on October 29, 2008, 01:12:00 AM
Just because I like keeping an argument going...  ;)

I finally stopped being quite so lazy, and did a quick Google search, and found these two links to what are hopefully more "reputable" sources on this topic:

http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=55975 (http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=55975)

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/06/06/notes060608.DTL (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/06/06/notes060608.DTL)

I'll leave it at these two because I sense that the argument/debate at this point isn't necessarily about quantity, but really is rather about quality, as it were. I.e., y'all don't think there's much quality to the idea that there's a serious theological-type component to the cult of personality that's sprung up around Obama.

Fair enough.

I just don't think it can be dismissed as blithely out of hand as y'all do. No more than (for example) the current economic mess can be blithely pinned primarily on the Republicans, or than the big-government/socialism-style bailout can be pinned solely on the Dems.

-ghp
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Team Hesse on October 29, 2008, 10:34:56 AM
Welllll --
seems to me that nearly everybody is looking for a way, a truth, and a life.  So it really shouldn't come as a surprise when someone offers a way, a truth, and a better life (supposedly) that there are those willing to grant said person cult status.  It's happened allll down through history.  The real danger arises when the person this status is granted to starts to believe it themselves.  Then we get the Sodom and Gomorrah move where everybody has to be on the same page or you're harming the community; or we get the nation of Israel move where those who follow a different way (Nazarites) are made to follow the PC way and the voices who would speak a different message are silenced (prophets told not to prophesy).  At that point it's best not to look back as one leaves, if one can leave, lest you turn into a pillar of salt.  Or, at that point, we simply have to bear our cross and die to the world.

Lou
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: mariemeyer on October 30, 2008, 10:10:08 AM
" I've read quotes in various online & print articles, where folks talk of Obama in terms of "healing" and "delivering" and such. And I've seen various artwork/t-shirts/etc. that depicts him in rather angelic/holy fashion, e.g., with radiant halo/nimbus. As to their credibility? Well, that might be a/the question at hand, no? Dr. Veith seems convinced, and that goes a long way towards convincing me. I think that (too) many folks are buying/have bought into this particular cult of personality."

In my personal opinion Dr. Veith would do well not to use his reputation to lend credence to those who link Obama to the anti Christ or a messianic cult of personality.  Given that Veith is associated with Concordia Seminary, St. Louis I would have expected him not to allow his blog to become a place for persons to perpetuate questionable allegations.   

Dr.Veith's opinion may be convincing for Glen. They are not convincing for me. 

Marie Meyer



Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: ghp on October 30, 2008, 10:37:03 AM
Interesting subjective (though still valid) take on the subject, Marie.

I'm still curious to hear/read if there's any reaction from Jeff and/or George about the additional "respectable" sources that I found, and if they even make a difference in the calculus of the discussion...

-ghp
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on October 30, 2008, 10:51:19 AM

Well, a couple thoughts...both of those sources are biased, one to the far left (Chronicle), one to the far right (World Net)

I saw your point was to take two extremes and show they both mentioned it, but that doesn't prove that

a. Both are valid sources, just two representations of opposite points of view

b. Even assuming both were considered "respectable", does not validate the thesis.


Glen, I think the point was made by several this is nothing NEW in history. I don't think it is valid because it is not a major point of discussion or division in our nation. , nor  given creedence by most people. I could think Obama was an alien and John McCain the reincarnation of US Grant, it doesn't make it true.

   
Will some lunatic somewhere vote for him because they think he is the Anointed One? Sure,. the same will be true of McCain as well. That doesn't mean it is a major issue worth our time, because most rational people know it is simply not true.

Jeff Ruby   

Interesting subjective (though still valid) take on the subject, Marie.

I'm still curious to hear/read if there's any reaction from Jeff and/or George about the additional "respectable" sources that I found, and if they even make a difference in the calculus of the discussion...

-ghp
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Lutheran_Lay_Leader on October 30, 2008, 01:47:00 PM
Interesting subjective (though still valid) take on the subject, Marie.

I'm still curious to hear/read if there's any reaction from Jeff and/or George about the additional "respectable" sources that I found, and if they even make a difference in the calculus of the discussion...

-ghp

The "respectable" sources merely repeat the same hyperbole. When news (or pseudo news) happens, all the media outlets repeat the reportage of it. You can find several dozen sources that all repeat the story that there are some folks who are exaggerating about Obama and using excessive hyperbole in describing him. All the extra sources do is to confirm that there are some folks who are exaggerating about Obama and using excessive hyperbole in describing him. Nothing more.

Now, find some valid news stories that tell of thousands of people engaging in pilgrimages to worship him, or that there are sales of relics like his old neckties, or anything other than an excessive amount of hyperbole and exaggeration, and then I'll be impressed.

Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Dan Fienen on October 30, 2008, 02:19:39 PM
It seems to me that we must be very careful when we attribute to a candidate (or anyone for that matter) the more way out ideas of some who support them.  I do not doubt that some supporters of Obama see him in messianic terms.  As has been pointed out, that is not uncommon in American (and other) politics.  JFK basked in the glow of Camelot.  The problem comes when the candidate starts believing it himself, or starts intentionally fostering and exploiting it.  That you have not demonstrated. 

Dan
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on October 30, 2008, 06:34:21 PM
My point was that combining a command of God with a war is a dangerous thing.


Gee, and just the other day I was listening to the '40s channel on XM, singing along with "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition and we'll all stay free."  (I may be only 3 years older than you, Jeff, but a lot of my raising was as a child of the '40s.  Maybe -- to tie this with "politics as cult" -- I should write in Wendell Willkie next Tuesday...)

pax, spt+
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on October 30, 2008, 06:37:30 PM

LOL good one.


 By the way, I know you are a well read pastor,   read the "Plot Against America" by Philip Roth. Great book about Lindbergh getting elected instead of FDR and what it meant for Jewish Americans........I never knew Lindbergh was such a pro-Hitler guy.

Jeff Ruby

My point was that combining a command of God with a war is a dangerous thing.


Gee, and just the other day I was listening to the '40s channel on XM, singing along with "Praise the Lord and pass the ammunition and we'll all stay free."  (I may be only 3 years older than you, Jeff, but a lot of my raising was as a child of the '40s.  Maybe -- to tie this with "politics as cult" -- I should write in Wendell Willkie next Tuesday...)

pax, spt+
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Charles_Austin on October 30, 2008, 07:06:06 PM
Jeff Ruby writes:
I never knew Lindbergh was such a pro-Hitler guy.

I comment:
That explains a lot.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Richard Johnson on October 30, 2008, 07:35:23 PM
(I may be only 3 years older than you, Jeff, but a lot of my raising was as a child of the '40s. 

That explains a lot!  ;D
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Richard Johnson on October 30, 2008, 07:36:13 PM
Jeff Ruby writes:
I never knew Lindbergh was such a pro-Hitler guy.

I comment:
That explains a lot.

Well, it probably explains how much older you are than Jeff.  ::)
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: ghp on October 30, 2008, 07:43:05 PM
Jeff Ruby writes:
I never knew Lindbergh was such a pro-Hitler guy.

I comment:
That explains a lot.

Charles has arrived on the thread. 8)  This makes me happy. ;) ;D

-ghp
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: swbohler on October 30, 2008, 07:45:35 PM
A number of prominent Americans in the 1930's were "pro-Hitler", including Joseph Kennedy -- FDR's ambassador to Great Britain, and father of JFK, Robert and Ted.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Lutheran_Lay_Leader on October 30, 2008, 08:45:31 PM
A number of prominent Americans in the 1930's were "pro-Hitler", including Joseph Kennedy -- FDR's ambassador to Great Britain, and father of JFK, Robert and Ted.

Why would that surprise anyone? Look how many Americans today are still saying it was a mistake to remove Saddam Hussein from power.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Erme Wolf on October 31, 2008, 12:32:50 AM
A number of prominent Americans in the 1930's were "pro-Hitler", including Joseph Kennedy -- FDR's ambassador to Great Britain, and father of JFK, Robert and Ted.

Why would that surprise anyone? Look how many Americans today are still saying it was a mistake to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

Don't forget, it was the official policy of the U.S. government to be in favor of keeping Saddam Hussein in power.  In other words, we were for him before we were against him.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on October 31, 2008, 01:54:16 AM
Charles,

Just what exactly are your trying to say in your sarcasm? I don't appreciate the ad hominem.

Jeff Ruby

Jeff Ruby writes:
I never knew Lindbergh was such a pro-Hitler guy.

I comment:
That explains a lot.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Charles_Austin on October 31, 2008, 03:30:42 AM
Pastor Ruby should not take my remark personally. Pardon me for being surprised that he did not know one of the most widely known facts of the 20th Century.
And Pastor Wolf is right. We not only supported Saddam Hussein, we helped keep him in power as we did for the Shah in Iraq. And the way that the U.S., British and French, after World War I, carved up the Middle East into "countries" that would benefit western interests, is one of the root causes of today's troubles.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Lutheran_Lay_Leader on October 31, 2008, 08:39:22 AM
A number of prominent Americans in the 1930's were "pro-Hitler", including Joseph Kennedy -- FDR's ambassador to Great Britain, and father of JFK, Robert and Ted.

Why would that surprise anyone? Look how many Americans today are still saying it was a mistake to remove Saddam Hussein from power.

Don't forget, it was the official policy of the U.S. government to be in favor of keeping Saddam Hussein in power.  In other words, we were for him before we were against him.

Imagine that! Some people weren't able to prejudge how someone would turn out in life later on based on what they were like earlier. I'm sure you never have that problem. I'm sure that you can look at a person and know exactly what they'll be like later on with nothing more than a glance.

Besides, in the real world of international politics, there are times when one nation has to select the lesser of two evils. America supported Saddam Hussein when he opposed Iran, a nation which had just attacked our embassy and held 150 Americans hostage for a year, and which was seen as an even worse threat than Saddam's Iraq.

Tell me, if you and forums like this been around in the late 40's and early 50's, would you have made similar snarky comments about how America supported Josef Stalin against Nazi Germany when things changed during the Berlin Airlift and Korean War?

And the way that the U.S., British and French, after World War I, carved up the Middle East into "countries" that would benefit western interests, is one of the root causes of today's troubles.

Doesn't it fill you with joy and pride that you have perfect 20-20 hindsight? Isn't it such a blessing to be able to look back and blame dead people for the world's problems? And of course, that saves you the pesky problem of suggesting realistic and workable solutions, doesn't it?
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on October 31, 2008, 10:06:28 AM
Charles,

Excuse me, but it was snarky. I was a  history and poly sci double major at one of the Lutheran universities you love to vaunt. I KNEW Lindbergh sympathized with Hitler, I did not know the DEGREE to which he did. I would most likely wipe you out in any historical trivia game you would like to play, so game on if you ever decide to come out of your study and away from your computer and visit me in sunny Arizona. 

Maybe you would engender some more respect on this forum without bearing false witness and prejudging people.

Of course, I wasn't alive when Lindbergh was either, as you were, so excuse my ignorance.  ;)

Jeff Ruby 


Pastor Ruby should not take my remark personally. Pardon me for being surprised that he did not know one of the most widely known facts of the 20th Century.
And Pastor Wolf is right. We not only supported Saddam Hussein, we helped keep him in power as we did for the Shah in Iraq. And the way that the U.S., British and French, after World War I, carved up the Middle East into "countries" that would benefit western interests, is one of the root causes of today's troubles.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: anonymous on October 31, 2008, 10:20:06 AM
Please, Jeff! As your elder, you need show Charles more respect! :)

 (and I am 335 years old in case anyone is wondering)
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on October 31, 2008, 10:26:31 AM



    * 1 Timothy 4:12 NIV

      Don't let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in life, in love, in faith and in purity.

 ;D Jeff Ruby


Please, Jeff! As your elder, you need show Charles more respect! :)

 (and I am 335 years old in case anyone is wondering)
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Charles_Austin on October 31, 2008, 11:16:29 AM
Pastor Ruby says, (of this humble correspondent):
Of course, I wasn't alive when Lindbergh was either, as you were, so excuse my ignorance.

I comment:
There is no excuse for ignorance when one claims to be a history buff and doesn't know how pro-Nazi Lindberg was. And some simple calculations should have shown you that I was not alive during the 1930s either. But I can easily excuse ignorance of math, since I am numerically challenged and don't claim arithmetical expertise.

And Pastor Ruby posts:
I would most likely wipe you out in any historical trivia game you would like to play, so game on if you ever decide to come out of your study and away from your computer and visit me in sunny Arizona.

I comment:
I am frequently "out," having just spend three fascinating weeks in China, a couple of weeks in Germany last month, and 13 days in Alaska in July. Arizona is for the wussies who can't stand weather the way God intended it to be.

Pastor Ruby writes:
Maybe you would engender some more respect on this forum without bearing false witness and prejudging people.

I comment:
Not looking for respect, as I said to you in my response to your exceedingly disrespectful personal note. Hope everyone is having a better day than Pastor Ruby seems to be having.

 ;D ;D
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Team Hesse on October 31, 2008, 12:28:39 PM
And the way that the U.S., British and French, after World War I, carved up the Middle East into "countries" that would benefit western interests, is one of the root causes of today's troubles.
FWIW, this is a biased and over-simplification of a very complex topic.  I happen to believe most of what we are arguing about on the international scene (the Balkans, the Middle East, Islamic fascism, the states that were part of the former Russian Empire, the Indian sub-continent) have many root causes in the problems associated with WWI and its ending.  Wilsonian Idealism gave us the notion that all peoples are entitled to self-determination.  The problem is/was, as Wilson himself came to recognize, the sheer numbers of people who show up to self-determine in places like the Balkans, the Caucasus, and the Levant.  The added complication of the Balfour Declaration, which guaranteed the imposition of a foreign people (the Jews) into Palestine; the power vacuum of the final disintegration of the Ottoman Empire; and the failure to recognize the Nation-state status of the Kurds (Churchill said this was the biggest mistake made in the Middle East), in addition to other factors placed on the table in the early 20th century, is the recipe for the continuing sore known as the Middle East on the buttocks of our common humanity to this day.  Those who attempted a peace at that time did the best they could, but they were fallen sinners who should not be faulted for not seeing the future with 20/20 vision.

Lou
Welcome back Charles, missed your grist for the mill.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Charles_Austin on October 31, 2008, 02:04:50 PM
I shall end this ridiculous diversion, but, when Pastor Ruby says, "Well then I guess your faulty theology  which has been shown  many times on this forum is no excuse for one who claims to be a pastor and well versed in theology.", I just have to point out the twisted syntax of that sentence. And that's before we get to the facts.
And when he says, when I responded to his suggestion that I was locked in an office, "You are coming out?  I never would have guessed, except you are on that liberal ELCA wing," , I conclude that Pastor Ruby won't be writing jokes for Saturday Night Live in the near future.
And if mere growth of a state's population and the ability to spend time on a golf course is some kind of choice value... well, let's not go there.
Over and out.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on October 31, 2008, 02:11:58 PM
 ???


I shall end this ridiculous diversion, but, when Pastor Ruby says, "Well then I guess your faulty theology  which has been shown  many times on this forum is no excuse for one who claims to be a pastor and well versed in theology.", I just have to point out the twisted syntax of that sentence. And that's before we get to the facts.
And when he says, when I responded to his suggestion that I was locked in an office, "You are coming out?  I never would have guessed, except you are on that liberal ELCA wing," , I conclude that Pastor Ruby won't be writing jokes for Saturday Night Live in the near future.
And if mere growth of a state's population and the ability to spend time on a golf course is some kind of choice value... well, let's not go there.
Over and out.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: ghp on October 31, 2008, 02:13:48 PM
Before you go, Charles (and I can understand why you might want to take leave), would you mind my asking your opinion on the original focus/topic of the thread?

Many thanks...

-ghp
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Keith Falk on October 31, 2008, 11:21:30 PM
I shall end this ridiculous diversion, but, when Pastor Ruby says, "Well then I guess your faulty theology  which has been shown  many times on this forum is no excuse for one who claims to be a pastor and well versed in theology.", I just have to point out the twisted syntax of that sentence. And that's before we get to the facts.
And when he says, when I responded to his suggestion that I was locked in an office, "You are coming out?  I never would have guessed, except you are on that liberal ELCA wing," , I conclude that Pastor Ruby won't be writing jokes for Saturday Night Live in the near future.
And if mere growth of a state's population and the ability to spend time on a golf course is some kind of choice value... well, let's not go there.
Over and out.

Where in the world did Pastor Ruby say/post that?  Is it from a deleted post of his?  We have no way of knowing, since you did not use the "Quote" feature of the board.  If it was in a private message, it (his comment and your response) should've stayed private.  I realize I am not a moderator, and I will duly delete this response of mine if need be, but Pastor Austin, unless you can produce this quote done in/on the public forum... then your post is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay out of bounds.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Charles_Austin on October 31, 2008, 11:32:25 PM
Pastor Ruby made those comments in an open posting which he has apparently removed. Ask him. I'm done with this particular goofiness.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on October 31, 2008, 11:39:29 PM
Very strange comments. Very strange.

I did have a response to Charles I removed earlier, but it did have anything to do with what he wrote. That is why I went  ???  It pertained to the Lindbergh discussion, which Charles chose to make something monumental. I am done also. Time to move on, thread off track.

Jeff Ruby


Pastor Ruby made those comments in an open posting which he has apparently removed. Ask him. I'm done with this particular goofiness.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Charles_Austin on November 01, 2008, 03:24:20 AM
There's your answer, Kenneth Falk. Pastor Ruby openly made the comments about my "faulty theology  which has been shown many times on this forum is no excuse for one who claims to be a pastor and well versed in theology." After I responded, he removed them. I did not quote his more offensive personal comments to me, although I could have because a message belongs to the one who receives it, not the one who sent it.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Keith Falk on November 01, 2008, 09:03:50 AM
There's your answer, Kenneth Falk. Pastor Ruby openly made the comments about my "faulty theology  which has been shown many times on this forum is no excuse for one who claims to be a pastor and well versed in theology." After I responded, he removed them. I did not quote his more offensive personal comments to me, although I could have because a message belongs to the one who receives it, not the one who sent it.

For one who is so insistent on both sources and accuracy, there has been a terrible failure at both.  Again, by not using the Quote feature on the board, you have no proof that what you are alleging was actually stated by Pastor Ruby - and even if he acknowledges the quote you have above, which he has not confirmed or denied, there is still the pesky matter of the other offensive quote.  So the answer is that Pastor Ruby did make a post, which you may or may not have quoted accurately and/or may or may not have quoted in context, since we cannot see his original post and you refuse to use the Quote feature which at least provides another layer so shenanigans are less likely to take place (I fully acknowledge that one can edit the quote even while using the quote feature). 

Secondly, I am continually amazed at how often a prominent journalist can fail so miserably at names.  It seems as though one might either be forced to conclude that your mistakes are deliberate and mean-spirited, or else the journalistic edge has been lost.  I'm not sure either is a good option.   Were the mistakes about names less frequent, it would be easy to chalk it up to simple mistakes... but given the frequency... let the reader take note of what is not an infrequent occurrence.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: peter_speckhard on November 01, 2008, 09:58:42 AM
When someone deletes their own post, others ought to respect that the statement has been retracted. Also, it is customary "rules" of discussion that one cannot unilaterally end the discussion after getting in the last word. If you want to stop participating, simply post a private message to that effect and then stop posting. Please do not post to the effect that you won't be posting or that you find the conversation to be such a source of weariness that, after this one final point about how foolish the other party is, you'll be through. It is childish.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Charles_Austin on November 01, 2008, 10:45:54 AM
Peter Speckhard writes:
When someone deletes their own post, others ought to respect that the statement has been retracted.

I respond:
Who says deleting is "retracting"? Anyway, I responded before the note casting aspersions on my abilities was deleted. The confusion came after that.
     My apologies for getting a name wrong. This is not journalism; there is no editor here; I'm jet-lagged after a 15-hour flight from Hong Kong, and insomnial because of a number of things; so I shall admit that perhaps I should not try to take part.
But the comments, backed up by a personal note to me, required a response, especially because of the language used in the personal note.

Peter Speckhard writes:
Also, it is customary "rules" of discussion that one cannot unilaterally end the discussion after getting in the last word. If you want to stop participating, simply post a private message to that effect and then stop posting. Please do not post to the effect that you won't be posting or that you find the conversation to be such a source of weariness that, after this one final point about how foolish the other party is, you'll be through. It is childish.

I comment:
No. It is a regular part of online back-and-forth. People may want online discussion to mirror some idealistic image of genteel conversation, softly spoken while sipping tea from Dresden china, but much of the time, it doesn't.
Title: Re: Snarky posting as cult
Post by: Layman Randy on November 01, 2008, 11:02:54 AM
Seems lilke a good time to see the parallel between Politics as Cult and postings on numerous fora that occupy infest etherspace!

Snarky (informal) sarcastic and irreverent, usually out of irritation.  Often combined with ad hominems to create espescially non-literary/impolitic rhetoric. 
Often the subject of later, private prayers for forgiveness.

I'm not an expert in this arcane art, but note from scanning a few secular political sites (that are moderated by lesser talents than help maintain order at a state more sublime than "food fight" here), that there appears to be quite a chasm between postings thus ascribed herein and the true genius class of snarkers out in the world :'(.  Blessings abound!
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: swbohler on November 01, 2008, 11:10:16 AM
It doesn't happen very often, but I have to speak up for Rev. Austin here.  I also read Rev. Ruby's post before it had been deleted and understood him as did Rev. Austin; I also felt that the comments were inappropriate and so am glad that Rev. Ruby deleted them.  But, as Rev. Austin points out, his response to Rev. Ruby's post came before that post was deleted.  Additionally, there obviously were some (such as me) who had read that post before it had been deleted.  Just erasing the post does not undo the damage done; if Rev. Ruby felt that the post was inappropriate and thus deleted it, it would seem proper that he apologize to Rev. Austin. 
Title: Re: Snarky posting as cult
Post by: Layman Randy on November 01, 2008, 11:55:37 AM
I'm glad I did not see the apparantly offending post, given the results of its posting and "de-posting", but read the above discussions as yet again another, sadly, escalating series of "back at you's" hardly fitting the apparant intent of the ALPB.  Frank give and take (don't mean to pick on Frank :()?  Honest disagreement and passionate reply/defense of positions and information?  Great! 

This isn't tea time, but it is very embarrasing to see descent into mudwrestling (unless you like that sort of thing, then the perversion should be discussed on another site! :P) among fine folk claiming to share something in common so dear as the love and grace of Christ. 

As to protocol and demeanor, would that all would work to not exacerbate, prolong, play "tit for tat" or any other escalating comments.  Much of it seems to arise from long held grudges, bitter memories or experiences, bad World Series results, vapors or, goodness, human vanity.

It is fine and necessary to speak the truth - firmly and passionately, but in kindness, including not letting irritating or inaccurate postings stand without response, but firm response in truth and with kindness (o.k., I know, now we can discuss patronization, condescension, intellectual arrogance, curriculi vitae, titles, typos, grammar and syntax, etc., etc.).
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: peter_speckhard on November 01, 2008, 12:05:54 PM
Peter Speckhard writes:
When someone deletes their own post, others ought to respect that the statement has been retracted.

I respond:
Who says deleting is "retracting"? Anyway, I responded before the note casting aspersions on my abilities was deleted. The confusion came after that.
     My apologies for getting a name wrong. This is not journalism; there is no editor here; I'm jet-lagged after a 15-hour flight from Hong Kong, and insomnial because of a number of things; so I shall admit that perhaps I should not try to take part.
But the comments, backed up by a personal note to me, required a response, especially because of the language used in the personal note.

Peter Speckhard writes:
Also, it is customary "rules" of discussion that one cannot unilaterally end the discussion after getting in the last word. If you want to stop participating, simply post a private message to that effect and then stop posting. Please do not post to the effect that you won't be posting or that you find the conversation to be such a source of weariness that, after this one final point about how foolish the other party is, you'll be through. It is childish.

I comment:
No. It is a regular part of online back-and-forth. People may want online discussion to mirror some idealistic image of genteel conversation, softly spoken while sipping tea from Dresden china, but much of the time, it doesn't.
As one of the moderators, I will determine what constitutes regular, online back-and-forth for this forum. The standards could possibly be higher than the comments section of a typical political blog. Surely we all love nuance and fine distinction enough to admit to some middle ground between genteel tea-sipping and childish pouting, name-calling, put-downs, and general nuisance -making. Let's see if we can't maintain our reputation as a very readable, thoughtful, and engaging online forum. Thank you all for your help.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on November 01, 2008, 01:34:26 PM

For one who is so insistent on both sources and accuracy, there has been a terrible failure at both.  Again, by not using the Quote feature on the board, you have no proof that what you are alleging was actually stated by Pastor Ruby -

FWIW, the quote you and Pr. Austin are disputing was in a post by Pr. Ruby that I read.  That the post is no longer there suggests that the thought better of a heated, unhelpful comment, and had withdrawn it -- if not necessarily quickly enough for it to have gone unread.

pax, spt+
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Lutheran_Lay_Leader on November 01, 2008, 01:50:34 PM
xxxxx xxxxxxxxx writes:

I respond:


xxxxx xxxxxxxxx writes:

I comment:

For what it is worth, regardless of who uses the technique of inserting "so-and-so wrote" above cut & pasted (or re-typed) material from others, and "I respond" or "I comment" above the poster's own words, I shall ignore any and all such posts that use that format. I will not ignore any person or participant. I shall only ignore posts made in that manner. I strongly suggest that others who find that using that particular technique causes problems follow suit if they choose to.

However, no one should in any way, shape, or form construe my comment as being directed against any particular person. It is only about a technique for quoting others within a reply, not about any person or persons who might choose to use that technique.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on November 01, 2008, 04:28:30 PM


Thank you Pastor Tibbetts, that is the case. I was uncharitable to Charles and I did remove the post, however,  what he quoted was not  exactly what I had written. That is why I put the emoticon I did,   ??? .

 My apologies to anyone I offended, especially Charles. 

However, that is past tense. I do agree that in the future using the quote feature  would be helpful and avoid this type of situation. Those that post in the way Mr. Erdner stated run the risk of a lot of misquoting. Of course, it is also not proper etiquette.

Jeff Ruby

 

For one who is so insistent on both sources and accuracy, there has been a terrible failure at both.  Again, by not using the Quote feature on the board, you have no proof that what you are alleging was actually stated by Pastor Ruby -

FWIW, the quote you and Pr. Austin are disputing was in a post by Pr. Ruby that I read.  That the post is no longer there suggests that the thought better of a heated, unhelpful comment, and had withdrawn it -- if not necessarily quickly enough for it to have gone unread.

pax, spt+
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: JoshuaEM on November 02, 2008, 10:44:36 AM
So maybe this a non-starter or is just hopelessly out of context on this late page in this now well-worn thread, but I'm wondering, as per the 'Politics as Cult' subject, if anyone saw Senator McCain or Governor Palin on SNL and if so, what did y'all think? Funny, tacky, amusingly self-effacing, good campaign ploy?

Josh 'the election's decided before we left coasters even get to vote' E-M
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Lutheran_Lay_Leader on November 02, 2008, 02:45:04 PM
if anyone saw Senator McCain or Governor Palin on SNL and if so, what did y'all think? Funny, tacky, amusingly self-effacing, good campaign ploy?

All of the above. Though it has nothing to do with the "politics as cult" them, there is a strong sentiment that people should vote for the person rather than the party, platform, or ideology. In this day and age, coming across as likeable in a personal way seems to trump good ideas or strong qualifications. Look at the previous President. Whether one agreed or disagreed with his principles (or lack thereof), no one could deny that he was a likeable person. It seems that the America public will overlook felony perjury and selling military secrets to the Red Chinese in return for campaign contributions so long as the person doing those things seems like a nice, pleasant person. So, in 2008, the modern campaign equivalent of kissing babies is to demonstrate that you're a pleasant, nice person with a sense of humor by going on Saturday Night Live.

 
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: rcephd on November 02, 2008, 05:55:26 PM
No, the modern equivalent to kissing babies is to threaten, and intimidate, and wage personal destruction against anyone who dares so much as to  mention your middle name, or ask an embarrassing question. I have been lurking here for a long time and you people slay me. The world economic system is in meltdown, thanks to legislation pushed througn under Jimmy Carter, and gross malfeasance by democrat-ruled oversight committees. Civil liberties are under attack in a way never before seen in my 62 years of life (Which one of you children can cite the equivalent of the proposed  "Civilian Security Force" anywhere outside the Brownshirts). We have a presidential candidate who has announced for the record his intention to bankrupt the US energy system. And who has made clear by his own words that "If political winds turn ugly" he "will stand with the muslims" (re: Israel.). And you guys hyperventilate about trivia like SNL. Sheesh.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on November 02, 2008, 07:27:49 PM

Who are you and why don't you sign your name? Are you afraid to sign your name to your post because it is so outlandish?

I suppose the size of government increasing 40% in the last 7 years had nothing to do with the executive branch?

Jeff Ruby

No, the modern equivalent to kissing babies is to threaten, and intimidate, and wage personal destruction against anyone who dares so much as to  mention your middle name, or ask an embarrassing question. I have been lurking here for a long time and you people slay me. The world economic system is in meltdown, thanks to legislation pushed througn under Jimmy Carter, and gross malfeasance by democrat-ruled oversight committees. Civil liberties are under attack in a way never before seen in my 62 years of life (Which one of you children can cite the equivalent of the proposed  "Civilian Security Force" anywhere outside the Brownshirts). We have a presidential candidate who has announced for the record his intention to bankrupt the US energy system. And who has made clear by his own words that "If political winds turn ugly" he "will stand with the muslims" (re: Israel.). And you guys hyperventilate about trivia like SNL. Sheesh.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Lutheran_Lay_Leader on November 02, 2008, 09:19:08 PM
And you guys hyperventilate about trivia like SNL. Sheesh.

Hyperventilate? Hardly!

When I was being trained to prepare sermons, one of the best pieces of advice I received was to remember that one cannot cram every single detail about the Good News into every single sermon. That's why a preacher preaches at least 52 of them a year, year after year. That same principle applies in internet forums. I won't dispute that the serious issues you raise are important. Some of them have been discussed in this thread or others.

But a candidate's appearance on a television show is a valid thing to consider within the larger context of the election and politics in general. I believe that most of the problems this nation face that might be traced to having the wrong people elected to office are the direct result of people being guided by their emotions instead of their intellects in selecting who to vote for. Sadly, some of the Presidential candidates who would have possibly been the best leaders for this nation are those who failed to make it through more than a few early primary elections, and who never even got close to getting the nomination, let alone the getting elected President.

It also needs to be said that another probably more serious reason for the nation's problems is the constant erosion of the Church's position as a source of moral education and God's Grace. But given two problems, and the nature of forums such as these, the problem of the decline of the Church's influence is grist for other threads. This thread is about politics, specifically about the sad fact that too many people look to the state and political leaders for the things that they should look to God and God's church to find. The premise that one candidate is depicted as a quasi-mystical messiah figure is part of some sort of new pseudo religion is a gross exaggeration of reality, but it is based on a small kernel of reality.

No political leader can accomplish anything of importance without first getting elected. The tactics required to get elected in the United States in 2008 might appear trivial. Indeed, they often are trivial. But given how many people don't have a clue about how American politics works, especially those who are voters, the candidate who ignores such trivia ends up having the same amount of influence over America's future as people like Micheal Dukakis, Ross Perot, and Bob Dole. They end up on the outside, looking in, powerless to do much of anything.

This election, like most Presidential elections in recent years will be close. A few minor shifts in the opinions of undecided voters that convinces them to choose one candidate or the other, or a a lack of campaign ads to energize either candidate's solid support base and the results could be very different from what the polls currently predict.

If McCain's appearance on Saturday Night Live convinces a few percent of the conservative Republicans who planned to stay home next Tuesday that even though he's a RINO, he's still an affable enough person to warrant going to the polls to vote, then it was a tactical move that would help his chances of getting elected.

So please, remember that a long, long journey takes many steps. There's nothing wrong with discussing one or two of the steps along the way. I'm a student of history, especially military history. Generals might plan massive military campaigns, but often the success or failure of those campaigns hinge on whether or not some platoon sergeant makes the right tactical decisions in a minor fire-fight. It might seem trivial in the larger scheme of things when looking at the stakes involved in winning or losing a war. But that doesn't mean that such minor details aren't meaningful and worth considering.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Jay on November 02, 2008, 10:27:39 PM
And who has made clear by his own words that "If political winds turn ugly" he "will stand with the muslims" (re: Israel.).

That isn't even close to being true - it took me 5 seconds via a google search to find out the truth behind what you said. 

I think a modern application of the Eighth Commandment would include not repeating the ridiculous garbage that is spread through the internet and forwarded emails until checking the veracity of what is said. 

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_write_that_he_would_stand.html

Misleading e-mail: From Audacity of Hope: "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

Actual quote from "The Audacity of Hope" [pg. 261]: Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on November 02, 2008, 10:30:36 PM

Thanks for this Jay.  One of many in this campaign.

Jeff Ruby

And who has made clear by his own words that "If political winds turn ugly" he "will stand with the muslims" (re: Israel.).

That isn't even close to being true - it took me 5 seconds via a google search to find out the truth behind what you said. 

I think a modern application of the Eighth Commandment would include not repeating the ridiculous garbage that is spread through the internet and forwarded emails until checking the veracity of what is said. 

http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/did_obama_write_that_he_would_stand.html

Misleading e-mail: From Audacity of Hope: "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."

Actual quote from "The Audacity of Hope" [pg. 261]: Of course, not all my conversations in immigrant communities follow this easy pattern. In the wake of 9/11, my meetings with Arab and Pakistani Americans, for example, have a more urgent quality, for the stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: anonymous on November 03, 2008, 06:13:02 AM
factcheck.org huh? If one wants to "check veracity" why go to a site that belongs to the person under suspician.

One thing is true, we have never  seen such partisanship by so many before.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: anonymous on November 03, 2008, 06:15:58 AM
Not sure what Jeff reads into our reading into. Obama equates the "hard stares" after 9/11 with the Japanese internments. 
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Jay on November 03, 2008, 08:20:45 AM
factcheck.org huh? If one wants to "check veracity" why go to a site that belongs to the person under suspician.



Did you even bother to look to see who they are?

http://www.factcheck.org/about/

"The Annenberg Political Fact Check is a project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. The APPC was established by publisher and philanthropist Walter Annenberg in 1994 to create a community of scholars within the University of Pennsylvania that would address public policy issues at the local, state and federal levels.

The APPC accepts NO funding from business corporations, labor unions, political parties, lobbying organizations or individuals. It is funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation. "


Apparently you also didn't check to see that they have several articles debunking what has been said about McCain:

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_trade_trickery.html

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/out_of_context_on_health_care.html

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_social_security_whopper.html


In any event, are you saying that their quotation directly from Obama's book is not accurate?  Here's another site with the quote:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/ownwords.asp




Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: anonymous on November 03, 2008, 08:51:25 AM


Did you even bother to look to see who they are?

I remember the day they announced the beginning of the site. Even MSM said it was an Obama shadow.

Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: anonymous on November 03, 2008, 08:54:16 AM
By the way, "did you even bother" is no way to respond to someone-you had better deescalate or we are going to have the "getting testy" comments from moderators REAL quick.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on November 03, 2008, 09:28:38 AM

Hey Valentin,

Did you know that Annenberg was a great friend and buddy of Ronald Reagan's? That he was appointed ambassador to the UK by President Nixon? That he was a lifelong Republican?

There are some fact checks.  ;)

Jeff Ruby 



Did you even bother to look to see who they are?

I remember the day they announced the beginning of the site. Even MSM said it was an Obama shadow.


Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Lutheran_Lay_Leader on November 03, 2008, 09:58:54 AM
Did you know that Annenberg was a great friend and buddy of Ronald Reagan's? That he was appointed ambassador to the UK by President Nixon? That he was a lifelong Republican?

Did you know that Walter Annenberg died in 2002, and that his current active influence from beyond the grave on the foundation that bears his name is probably minimal.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: anonymous on November 03, 2008, 10:12:39 AM
Did you know that some former Republicans switch is so complete that they repeat every Dem talking point so that they sound like moveon.org?  :)
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Keith Falk on November 03, 2008, 11:07:05 AM
Did you know that I am looking forward to the day after Election Day with an almost giddy anticipation so we can talk about something else?
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: anonymous on November 03, 2008, 11:36:37 AM
Poor Keith. Someone want to explain to him that the election is going to be sliced and diced for days to come.... Oh, I once thought that the three year election period was going to end, but I am sure we will be discussing the ramifications.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Scott5 on November 03, 2008, 11:39:41 AM
Poor Keith. Someone want to explain to him that the election is going to be sliced and diced for days to come.... Oh, I once thought that the three year election period was going to end, but I am sure we will be discussing the ramifications.

I guess the answer to the thread, then, is quite obviously: "Yes."

Sigh.  Maybe afterwards we can take the theological discussions over the cult to other sites dedicated to the political theology philosophy?  Just sayin...
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on November 03, 2008, 11:42:35 AM

Valentin,

I don't appreciate that comment, and would ask for an apology but know I  won't get it. Google Walter Annenberg. Facts are facts. He was a lifelong GOP member, was involved in both the Nixon and Reagan administrations.

You many not like that , but facts are facts. And BTW, I have never visited the moveon.org site and am a registered independent. Cut out the nastiness.

Jeff Ruby 


Did you know that some former Republicans switch is so complete that they repeat every Dem talking point so that they sound like moveon.org?  :)
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: anonymous on November 03, 2008, 11:45:56 AM

Valentin,

I don't appreciate that comment, and would ask for an apology but know I  won't get it. Google Walter Annenberg. Facts are facts. He was a lifelong GOP member, was involved in both the Nixon and Reagan administrations.

You many not like that , but facts are facts. And BTW, I have never visited the moveon.org site and am a registered independent. Cut out the nastiness.

Jeff Ruby 


Did you know that some former Republicans switch is so complete that they repeat every Dem talking point so that they sound like moveon.org?  :)

It is not nastiness. I am simply saying you hit on all the Dem talking points. If you want an apology I'll take back moveon.org and say you sound like Chris Matthews. Better?
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on November 03, 2008, 11:47:50 AM

No, not better. Why don't you think a tad before hitting the send key. You must be hanging on the computer salivating to respond as your posts are seconds after mine. Might be time to get some fresh air.

The facts about Annenberg are for all to see. I can't help it if you didn't do your homework . And I don't watch MSNBC either.  ;)

Jeff Ruby


Valentin,

I don't appreciate that comment, and would ask for an apology but know I  won't get it. Google Walter Annenberg. Facts are facts. He was a lifelong GOP member, was involved in both the Nixon and Reagan administrations.

You many not like that , but facts are facts. And BTW, I have never visited the moveon.org site and am a registered independent. Cut out the nastiness.

Jeff Ruby 


Did you know that some former Republicans switch is so complete that they repeat every Dem talking point so that they sound like moveon.org?  :)

It is not nastiness. I am simply saying you hit on all the Dem talking points. If you want an apology I'll take back moveon.org and say you sound like Chris Matthews. Better?
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: anonymous on November 03, 2008, 11:57:57 AM

No, not better. Why don't you think a tad before hitting the send key. You must be hanging on the computer salivating to respond as your posts are seconds after mine. Might be time to get some fresh air.

The facts about Annenberg are for all to see. I can't help it if you didn't do your homework . And I don't watch MSNBC either.  ;)

Jeff Ruby


Valentin,

I don't appreciate that comment, and would ask for an apology but know I  won't get it. Google Walter Annenberg. Facts are facts. He was a lifelong GOP member, was involved in both the Nixon and Reagan administrations.

You many not like that , but facts are facts. And BTW, I have never visited the moveon.org site and am a registered independent. Cut out the nastiness.

Jeff Ruby 


Did you know that some former Republicans switch is so complete that they repeat every Dem talking point so that they sound like moveon.org?  :)

It is not nastiness. I am simply saying you hit on all the Dem talking points. If you want an apology I'll take back moveon.org and say you sound like Chris Matthews. Better?

I just want some logic. Salivating? Please. I want you to explain where you are coming from. I am trying to understand how someone who was a vocal opponent of the gay agenda is now puching for th ecnadidate who is going to oversee the normalization of the gay agenda.

So tell where get the Dem talking points?
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Lutheran_Lay_Leader on November 03, 2008, 12:12:43 PM
Did you know that I am looking forward to the day after Election Day with an almost giddy anticipation so we can talk about something else?

I didn't realize that all of the other threads in here were locked.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on November 03, 2008, 12:33:39 PM
Did you know that Annenberg was a great friend and buddy of Ronald Reagan's? That he was appointed ambassador to the UK by President Nixon? That he was a lifelong Republican?

Just one more example of a wealthy, principled conservative establishing a foundation that, a few years after death, becomes a force behind political efforts 180 degrees opposite of what he established it for in the first place.  The only thing unusual about the Annenberg Foundation is that the old man seems to have checked out of overseeing things while he was still living.

pax, spt+
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Layman Randy on November 03, 2008, 12:34:49 PM
Did you know that I am looking forward to the day after Election Day with an almost giddy anticipation so we can talk about something else?

I didn't realize that all of the other threads in here were locked.
In the extraordinary passion evidenced on this and other "political" threads on this site, I can hold the hope that such passion is multiplied a million times by everyone here as they serve Christ and teach His Word the other 99% of their existence!
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on November 03, 2008, 12:47:42 PM
Pastor Zip is friends with both Valentin Ernst Löscher and jrubyaz, and observes that each is posting in a tone that has pervaded U. S. Presidential since at least the 1800 Jefferson vs. Adams campaign. 

Alas, I'm thinking "Sally Hemmings" and "His Rotundity," etc., not the correspondence during their friendship (which was, uh, on hold during their respective presidencies).

Looking forward to the end of this election, and anticipating the beginning of the 2012 campaign -- that's Wednesday afternoon.

spt+ 
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on November 03, 2008, 01:08:01 PM

Maybe because Senator Obama is also against gay marriage, but supports  liberties for all Americans? I do not support gay marriage. I do believe that gay people have civil rights as all American people should. And marriage is different from civil rights for all people.

And I wish those who were as passionate about issues such as gay rights and abortion were just as passionate about issues concerning poverty, war and peace, and health care. No, I am not for universal health care either.

Many people are concerned with all these issues. Some are one issue voters. I have never been a one issue voter. And maybe being President also has to do with intelligence, being well read, and perceptive about issues in addition to the  issues one espouses. Hope that helps.

Jeff Ruby       


No, not better. Why don't you think a tad before hitting the send key. You must be hanging on the computer salivating to respond as your posts are seconds after mine. Might be time to get some fresh air.

The facts about Annenberg are for all to see. I can't help it if you didn't do your homework . And I don't watch MSNBC either.  ;)

Jeff Ruby


Valentin,

I don't appreciate that comment, and would ask for an apology but know I  won't get it. Google Walter Annenberg. Facts are facts. He was a lifelong GOP member, was involved in both the Nixon and Reagan administrations.

You many not like that , but facts are facts. And BTW, I have never visited the moveon.org site and am a registered independent. Cut out the nastiness.

Jeff Ruby 


Did you know that some former Republicans switch is so complete that they repeat every Dem talking point so that they sound like moveon.org?  :)

It is not nastiness. I am simply saying you hit on all the Dem talking points. If you want an apology I'll take back moveon.org and say you sound like Chris Matthews. Better?

I just want some logic. Salivating? Please. I want you to explain where you are coming from. I am trying to understand how someone who was a vocal opponent of the gay agenda is now puching for th ecnadidate who is going to oversee the normalization of the gay agenda.

So tell where get the Dem talking points?
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: SCPO on November 03, 2008, 01:35:12 PM

Maybe because Senator Obama is also against gay marriage, but supports  liberties for all Americans? I do not support gay marriage. I do believe that gay people have civil rights as all American people should. And marriage is different from civil rights for all people.

And I wish those who were as passionate about issues such as gay rights and abortion were just as passionate about issues concerning poverty, war and peace, and health care. No, I am not for universal health care either.

Many people are concerned with all these issues. Some are one issue voters. I have never been a one issue voter. And maybe being President also has to do with intelligence, being well read, and perceptive about issues in addition to the  issues one espouses. Hope that helps.

Jeff Ruby       


No, not better. Why don't you think a tad before hitting the send key. You must be hanging on the computer salivating to respond as your posts are seconds after mine. Might be time to get some fresh air.

The facts about Annenberg are for all to see. I can't help it if you didn't do your homework . And I don't watch MSNBC either.  ;)

Jeff Ruby


Valentin,

I don't appreciate that comment, and would ask for an apology but know I  won't get it. Google Walter Annenberg. Facts are facts. He was a lifelong GOP member, was involved in both the Nixon and Reagan administrations.

You many not like that , but facts are facts. And BTW, I have never visited the moveon.org site and am a registered independent. Cut out the nastiness.

Jeff Ruby 


Did you know that some former Republicans switch is so complete that they repeat every Dem talking point so that they sound like moveon.org?  :)

It is not nastiness. I am simply saying you hit on all the Dem talking points. If you want an apology I'll take back moveon.org and say you sound like Chris Matthews. Better?

I just want some logic. Salivating? Please. I want you to explain where you are coming from. I am trying to understand how someone who was a vocal opponent of the gay agenda is now puching for th ecnadidate who is going to oversee the normalization of the gay agenda.

So tell where get the Dem talking points?

    Where have you gone, Pastor Austin
    This Forum turns its lonely eyes to you
    Woo hoo hoo

    God Bless me please, Richard Johnson
    Paul McCain has left and gone away
    Hey hey hey
    Hey hey hey



   

   
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: anonymous on November 03, 2008, 01:36:27 PM
Pastor Zip is friends with both Valentin Ernst Löscher and jrubyaz, and observes that each is posting in a tone that has pervaded U. S. Presidential since at least the 1800 Jefferson vs. Adams campaign. 

Alas, I'm thinking "Sally Hemmings" and "His Rotundity," etc., not the correspondence during their friendship (which was, uh, on hold during their respective presidencies).

Looking forward to the end of this election, and anticipating the beginning of the 2012 campaign -- that's Wednesday afternoon.

spt+ 

It's all true. And in case anyone is wondering, I am Adams, down to being in New England and being supported by a fine, Christian wife. Wait, I'm taller than Adams. But not as tall as Jefferson. I bet Jeff is tall.

I just don't get the bit about being testy. I am merely trying to get to the bottom of things. And I use humor. Sorry not everyone gets mine. I thought the Chris Matthews reference was funny. No, Jeff deosn't get all goey like him but otherwise I stick to the Dem talking points characterization. I mean, I am wasting enough time on this so I really don't want to make a list but if someone who, say, was a journalist, or retired and with a lot of time on their hands, and was truly disinterested (ha!) could go through the posts and see who is using talking points and who is isn't.

I'm saying this is general, not aimed at anyone, "Say what you want but make sure it is responsible, respectful and they are your own thoughts." If not be sure to use a funny face. And, of course, if someone has accused you of something stupid, by all means throw all rules out and stick it to them good.  ;)
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on November 03, 2008, 01:51:16 PM

Now THAT was funny. LOL  :D


Maybe because Senator Obama is also against gay marriage, but supports  liberties for all Americans? I do not support gay marriage. I do believe that gay people have civil rights as all American people should. And marriage is different from civil rights for all people.

And I wish those who were as passionate about issues such as gay rights and abortion were just as passionate about issues concerning poverty, war and peace, and health care. No, I am not for universal health care either.

Many people are concerned with all these issues. Some are one issue voters. I have never been a one issue voter. And maybe being President also has to do with intelligence, being well read, and perceptive about issues in addition to the  issues one espouses. Hope that helps.

Jeff Ruby       


No, not better. Why don't you think a tad before hitting the send key. You must be hanging on the computer salivating to respond as your posts are seconds after mine. Might be time to get some fresh air.

The facts about Annenberg are for all to see. I can't help it if you didn't do your homework . And I don't watch MSNBC either.  ;)

Jeff Ruby


Valentin,

I don't appreciate that comment, and would ask for an apology but know I  won't get it. Google Walter Annenberg. Facts are facts. He was a lifelong GOP member, was involved in both the Nixon and Reagan administrations.

You many not like that , but facts are facts. And BTW, I have never visited the moveon.org site and am a registered independent. Cut out the nastiness.

Jeff Ruby 


Did you know that some former Republicans switch is so complete that they repeat every Dem talking point so that they sound like moveon.org?  :)

It is not nastiness. I am simply saying you hit on all the Dem talking points. If you want an apology I'll take back moveon.org and say you sound like Chris Matthews. Better?

I just want some logic. Salivating? Please. I want you to explain where you are coming from. I am trying to understand how someone who was a vocal opponent of the gay agenda is now puching for th ecnadidate who is going to oversee the normalization of the gay agenda.

So tell where get the Dem talking points?

    Where have you gone, Pastor Austin
    This Forum turns its lonely eyes to you
    Woo hoo hoo

    God Bless me please, Richard Johnson
    Paul McCain has left and gone away
    Hey hey hey
    Hey hey hey



   

   
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Lutheran_Lay_Leader on November 03, 2008, 05:17:13 PM

Maybe because Senator Obama is also against gay marriage, but supports  liberties for all Americans?

How do you know that? Was evidence found in his Senate voting record? Oh wait, I forgot, he wasn't in the Senate long enough to have a voting record.

Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: ghp on November 03, 2008, 05:19:23 PM

Maybe because Senator Obama is also against gay marriage, but supports  liberties for all Americans?

How do you know that? Was evidence found in his Senate voting record? Oh wait, I forgot, he wasn't in the Senate long enough to have a voting record.


Present!

 :P
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on November 03, 2008, 05:29:06 PM

Yes, George, here is the evidence. You might want to have your facts straight (pun intended) before you post.

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060605-floor_statement_5/ 


Maybe because Senator Obama is also against gay marriage, but supports  liberties for all Americans?

How do you know that? Was evidence found in his Senate voting record? Oh wait, I forgot, he wasn't in the Senate long enough to have a voting record.


Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on November 03, 2008, 05:29:41 PM


See my post to George. Ditto , Glen.


http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060605-floor_statement_5/

Jeff Ruby


Maybe because Senator Obama is also against gay marriage, but supports  liberties for all Americans?

How do you know that? Was evidence found in his Senate voting record? Oh wait, I forgot, he wasn't in the Senate long enough to have a voting record.


Present!

 :P

Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: anonymous on November 03, 2008, 05:34:56 PM
Obama Pledges 'Total Equality' for Same-Sex Marriages
By Black Christian News on August 8, 2008

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who has studiously avoided coming out in full support of same-sex marriage, may have finally tipped his hand on how he really feels. In recent letters written to homosexual activist groups, the presumed Democratic nominee said he supports homosexual couples adopting babies. Further, he said, he wants to repeal the federal Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defines marriage as being between one man and one woman - and forbids states from being forced to accept any other definition of marriage under the U.S. Constitution's Full Faith and Credit Clause.

In an Aug. 1 letter to a Boston-based homosexual rights group, the Family Equality Council, Obama specifically pledged to use the presidency to overturn DOMA - and pledged his support for homosexual "families" and efforts to totally redefine marriage.
 
He wrote: "... (W)e also have to do more to support and strengthen LGBT (Lesbian/Gay/Bisexual/Transgendered) families. Because equality in relationship, family, and adoption rights is not some abstract principle; it's about whether millions of LGBT Americans can finally live lives marked by dignity and freedom.
 
"That's why we have to repeal laws like the Defense of Marriage Act. That's why we have to eliminate discrimination against LGBT families. And that's why we have to extend equal treatment in our family and adoption laws," Obama wrote.
 
"I'll be a president that stands up for American families - all of them," he added.

http://www.blackchristiannews.com/news/2008/08/obama-pledges-total-equality-for-samesex.html
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: anonymous on November 03, 2008, 05:36:31 PM
http://pride.barackobama.com/page/content/lgbthome
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: ghp on November 03, 2008, 05:37:43 PM
http://pride.barackobama.com/page/content/lgbthome

Present!

 ::)
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Lutheran_Lay_Leader on November 03, 2008, 05:39:25 PM

Yes, George, here is the evidence. You might want to have your facts straight (pun intended) before you post.

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060605-floor_statement_5/ 


Sorry, that's evidence of him making a speech on the Senate floor. I'm talking about actually voting (or better yet sponsoring) a piece of legislation. Talk is cheap. But that's about the only thing Obama has done so far.

Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on November 03, 2008, 05:43:06 PM

That's Mr. President after tomorrow.  :)

Jeff Ruby 



Yes, George, here is the evidence. You might want to have your facts straight (pun intended) before you post.

http://obama.senate.gov/speech/060605-floor_statement_5/ 


Sorry, that's evidence of him making a speech on the Senate floor. I'm talking about actually voting (or better yet sponsoring) a piece of legislation. Talk is cheap. But that's about the only thing Obama has done so far.


Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: anonymous on November 03, 2008, 05:44:51 PM
http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2008/nov/08110309.html
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: anonymous on November 03, 2008, 05:45:45 PM

That's Mr. President after tomorrow.  :)

Jeff Ruby 


What is the point of saying that Jeff?
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on November 03, 2008, 05:46:00 PM
First of all, to one who doesn't sign his own name, no one knows who you are or what you stand for.  

Secondly, don't gay Americans deserve equal protection under the law? Or do you think their civil rights should be abridged?

If you took time to read your own post, you would note gay marriage is not mentioned anywhere. He is OPPOSED to gay marriage.

Next!

Jeff Ruby  

http://pride.barackobama.com/page/content/lgbthome
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on November 03, 2008, 05:46:43 PM
Because he was called Obama, not even given the appropriate title of Senator.

Jeff Ruby


That's Mr. President after tomorrow.  :)

Jeff Ruby 


What is the point of saying that Jeff?
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: anonymous on November 03, 2008, 05:52:34 PM
First of all, to one who doesn't sign his own name, no one knows who you are or what you stand for.  

Secondly, don't gay Americans deserve equal protection under the law? Or do you think their civil rights should be abridged?

If you took time to read your own post, you would note gay marriage is not mentioned anywhere. He is OPPOSED to gay marriage.

Next!

Jeff Ruby  

http://pride.barackobama.com/page/content/lgbthome

Actually, Pastor Zip knows who I am and he said he knows who you are too... Hey, lighten up. If I took the time to read my own posts. Sheesh. Listen, it says studiously avoids saying gay marriage but shows he supports it by the sum of his pledges.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Charles_Austin on November 03, 2008, 05:55:49 PM
Then why not let us all in on the deal? Use your real name.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: anonymous on November 03, 2008, 05:55:57 PM
As to your second point, No, I do not think anyone's civil rights should abridged.

And Senator has to be in from of his name? I'm going to log out and start removing those signs in my neighbors' yards that say "Obama"--you are right, they are disrespectful.

Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: anonymous on November 03, 2008, 05:56:57 PM
Then why not let us all in on the deal? Use your real name.

The main perk to using a nom de plumme is it bothers you  :)
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Charles_Austin on November 03, 2008, 06:00:37 PM
Someone writes:
The main perk to using a nom de plumme is it bothers you

I comment:
A mean-spirited and cynical view typical of much of what has been taking place in these circles recently.
BTW it's nom de plume.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: ptmccain on November 03, 2008, 06:14:03 PM
Nom de plume use is nearly as offensive to the perpetually offended one, as are typos.

 ;D

Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on November 03, 2008, 06:29:59 PM
So? Pastor Tibbets is my friend, he is a great man and a great pastor. He signs his name and is responsible for his posts, as do I. You don't.

As for the issue at hand with Senator Obama, it is perfectly consistent for many Americans and indeed many Christian Americans to say they are opposed to gay marriage, but understand that under civil law gays should be accorded civil rights, protection under hate crimes acts, and property and visitation rights.

If that makes me the far left liberal you and Glen  have consistently painted me out to be ,  simply because I seek to be compassionate to others and believe in civil rights,  than so be it. My wife, family, and friends are all amused that only on ALPB could I be seen as a  liberal.

Jeff Ruby

First of all, to one who doesn't sign his own name, no one knows who you are or what you stand for.  

Secondly, don't gay Americans deserve equal protection under the law? Or do you think their civil rights should be abridged?

If you took time to read your own post, you would note gay marriage is not mentioned anywhere. He is OPPOSED to gay marriage.

Next!

Jeff Ruby  

http://pride.barackobama.com/page/content/lgbthome

Actually, Pastor Zip knows who I am and he said he knows who you are too... Hey, lighten up. If I took the time to read my own posts. Sheesh. Listen, it says studiously avoids saying gay marriage but shows he supports it by the sum of his pledges.

Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: anonymous on November 03, 2008, 07:08:00 PM
Nom de plume use is nearly as offensive to the perpetually offended one, as are typos.

 ;D



Reminds me of a great insight I heard on foxbusiness. SENATOR Obama has a great economic plan...for France.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: anonymous on November 03, 2008, 07:10:07 PM
So? Pastor Tibbets is my friend, he is a great man and a great pastor. He signs his name and is responsible for his posts, as do I. You don't.

As for the issue at hand with Senator Obama, it is perfectly consistent for many Americans and indeed many Christian Americans to say they are opposed to gay marriage, but understand that under civil law gays should be accorded civil rights, protection under hate crimes acts, and property and visitation rights.

If that makes me the far left liberal you and Glen  have consistently painted me out to be ,  simply because I seek to be compassionate to others and believe in civil rights,  than so be it. My wife, family, and friends are all amused that only on ALPB could I be seen as a  liberal.

Jeff Ruby

First of all, to one who doesn't sign his own name, no one knows who you are or what you stand for.  

Secondly, don't gay Americans deserve equal protection under the law? Or do you think their civil rights should be abridged?

If you took time to read your own post, you would note gay marriage is not mentioned anywhere. He is OPPOSED to gay marriage.

Next!

Jeff Ruby  

http://pride.barackobama.com/page/content/lgbthome

Actually, Pastor Zip knows who I am and he said he knows who you are too... Hey, lighten up. If I took the time to read my own posts. Sheesh. Listen, it says studiously avoids saying gay marriage but shows he supports it by the sum of his pledges.


Jeff, to paraphrase your cnadidate, Ruby doesn't get it! No one is  painting you a liberal. We are razzing you for switching teams, that's all. Now, go and tell your wife and family...
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: swbohler on November 03, 2008, 07:13:58 PM
I do not think anyone is being elected president of the US tomorrow; the Electoral College will be the ones who elect him.  And even then he won't be president until he is inaugurated; until then he is only the president-elect.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on November 03, 2008, 07:14:10 PM
cnadidate? Is that a politician from Canada?  ;D

Jeff Ruby

So? Pastor Tibbets is my friend, he is a great man and a great pastor. He signs his name and is responsible for his posts, as do I. You don't.

As for the issue at hand with Senator Obama, it is perfectly consistent for many Americans and indeed many Christian Americans to say they are opposed to gay marriage, but understand that under civil law gays should be accorded civil rights, protection under hate crimes acts, and property and visitation rights.

If that makes me the far left liberal you and Glen  have consistently painted me out to be ,  simply because I seek to be compassionate to others and believe in civil rights,  than so be it. My wife, family, and friends are all amused that only on ALPB could I be seen as a  liberal.

Jeff Ruby

First of all, to one who doesn't sign his own name, no one knows who you are or what you stand for.  

Secondly, don't gay Americans deserve equal protection under the law? Or do you think their civil rights should be abridged?

If you took time to read your own post, you would note gay marriage is not mentioned anywhere. He is OPPOSED to gay marriage.

Next!

Jeff Ruby  

http://pride.barackobama.com/page/content/lgbthome

Actually, Pastor Zip knows who I am and he said he knows who you are too... Hey, lighten up. If I took the time to read my own posts. Sheesh. Listen, it says studiously avoids saying gay marriage but shows he supports it by the sum of his pledges.


Jeff, to paraphrase your cnadidate, Ruby doesn't get it! No one is  painting you a liberal. We are razzing you for switching teams, that's all. Now, go and tell your wife and family...
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Richard Johnson on November 03, 2008, 07:17:44 PM
Those of you who speak with such disdain about Senator Obama: if he is elected president of the United States, will you regularly pray for him in your liturgies? Will you speak of him with the respect that seems (at least to me) to be required by the 4th commandment? Just asking.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: ghp on November 03, 2008, 07:18:45 PM
So? Pastor Tibbets is my friend, he is a great man and a great pastor. He signs his name and is responsible for his posts, as do I. You don't.

As for the issue at hand with Senator Obama, it is perfectly consistent for many Americans and indeed many Christian Americans to say they are opposed to gay marriage, but understand that under civil law gays should be accorded civil rights, protection under hate crimes acts, and property and visitation rights.

If that makes me the far left liberal you and Glen  have consistently painted me out to be ,  simply because I seek to be compassionate to others and believe in civil rights,  than so be it. My wife, family, and friends are all amused that only on ALPB could I be seen as a  liberal.


The political views you've espoused of late have painted you more than I could have ever done, Jeff. Besides, I've been more focused on the leftist proclivities of Candidate Obama. You, unfortunately, merely seemed to have fallen prey to the talking points & rhetoric coming from Candidate Obama's camp. If you are seen as a "liberal" here, I'd wager it's because you've been talking like one in the context of this current campaign, something that's brought into even sharper, more ironic relief by your repeated protestations of having been "a lifelong Republican" until so very recently. Maybe you aren't a liberal, but you certainly have hitched your wagon to an über-liberal in this election...

-ghp
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Lutheran_Lay_Leader on November 03, 2008, 07:25:17 PM
As for the issue at hand with Senator Obama, it is perfectly consistent for many Americans and indeed many Christian Americans to say they are opposed to gay marriage, but understand that under civil law gays should be accorded civil rights, protection under hate crimes acts, and property and visitation rights.

Definitions of marriage are issues covered in the Bill of Rights under the 9th and 10th amendments. If Obama plans any action pro or con on the issue of gay marriage, then he doesn't understand our Federal system or respect the issue of states rights.

But then, there are so many reasons to choose anyone but the Socialist candidate that condemning Obama for his position on one rather petty issue (in the Federal, Presidential scheme of things) is rather pointless. Compared to his bad tax ideas, his redistribution of wealth ideas, and his total lack of experience, his position on gay marriage is irrelevant and insignificant.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Matt Staneck on November 03, 2008, 07:28:08 PM
Those of you who speak with such disdain about Senator Obama: if he is elected president of the United States, will you regularly pray for him in your liturgies? Will you speak of him with the respect that seems (at least to me) to be required by the 4th commandment? Just asking.


As disappointed as I will be if Senator Obama is elected to be the nest president I will not be like those who have threatened to leave the country (and are still here) over past elections and I also will not have goofy slogans like "Barack Obama: NOT My President!"  Just because I did not vote for him does not mean he is not my president.  I will pray for a President Obama the way I have prayed for President Bush, no doubt.

M. Staneck
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on November 03, 2008, 07:31:40 PM

Thank you. I have done the same with all Presidents of both parties.

Jeff Ruby

Those of you who speak with such disdain about Senator Obama: if he is elected president of the United States, will you regularly pray for him in your liturgies? Will you speak of him with the respect that seems (at least to me) to be required by the 4th commandment? Just asking.


As disappointed as I will be if Senator Obama is elected to be the nest president I will not be like those who have threatened to leave the country (and are still here) over past elections and I also will not have goofy slogans like "Barack Obama: NOT My President!"  Just because I did not vote for him does not mean he is not my president.  I will pray for a President Obama the way I have prayed for President Bush, no doubt.

M. Staneck
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on November 03, 2008, 07:35:05 PM

Lol. The Socialist candidate. I love that.    ::)

I guess this socialist candidate can succeed the current socialist President whose Treasury Secretary proposed billions in bailouts and nationalized our banks.

Maybe Sen Obama is secretly a Republican?  ;)

Jeff Ruby 


As for the issue at hand with Senator Obama, it is perfectly consistent for many Americans and indeed many Christian Americans to say they are opposed to gay marriage, but understand that under civil law gays should be accorded civil rights, protection under hate crimes acts, and property and visitation rights.

Definitions of marriage are issues covered in the Bill of Rights under the 9th and 10th amendments. If Obama plans any action pro or con on the issue of gay marriage, then he doesn't understand our Federal system or respect the issue of states rights.

But then, there are so many reasons to choose anyone but the Socialist candidate that condemning Obama for his position on one rather petty issue (in the Federal, Presidential scheme of things) is rather pointless. Compared to his bad tax ideas, his redistribution of wealth ideas, and his total lack of experience, his position on gay marriage is irrelevant and insignificant.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: anonymous on November 03, 2008, 07:37:43 PM
Those of you who speak with such disdain about Senator Obama: if he is elected president of the United States, will you regularly pray for him in your liturgies? Will you speak of him with the respect that seems (at least to me) to be required by the 4th commandment? Just asking.

Just asking, huh? I don't think you can ask that questiion without implying that they won't. Otherwise why ask. Just asking. :)
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on November 03, 2008, 07:54:54 PM
Ah, yes, I have fallen "prey" to those darned liberals.

Glen,

Thanks for that. Need a broader brush to paint with? 

 Gee, I am glad to know I have no mind, no thoughts of my own, no bachelors or master's degree, I don't read any periodicals (like Gov Palin) and never read any books.

 I am only fluent in English, and  I am simply an empy vessel that is filled up with MSNBC  which I  stare at 15 hours a day because as a socialist leftist I have no job and am on welfare. ::)

Give me a break. If there are any talking points here, I am not the one spouting them.  Now, quick , Olbermann is on !  ;)

(By the way, check the  vote count tomorrow night on how many Republicans who actually are thoughtful, intelligent conservatives  and are not simply social conservatives do vote for Sen Obama...I am proud to stand with Christopher Buckley, Gen Powell, and Peggy Noonan. )

Jeff Ruby



So? Pastor Tibbets is my friend, he is a great man and a great pastor. He signs his name and is responsible for his posts, as do I. You don't.

As for the issue at hand with Senator Obama, it is perfectly consistent for many Americans and indeed many Christian Americans to say they are opposed to gay marriage, but understand that under civil law gays should be accorded civil rights, protection under hate crimes acts, and property and visitation rights.

If that makes me the far left liberal you and Glen  have consistently painted me out to be ,  simply because I seek to be compassionate to others and believe in civil rights,  than so be it. My wife, family, and friends are all amused that only on ALPB could I be seen as a  liberal.


The political views you've espoused of late have painted you more than I could have ever done, Jeff. Besides, I've been more focused on the leftist proclivities of Candidate Obama. You, unfortunately, merely seemed to have fallen prey to the talking points & rhetoric coming from Candidate Obama's camp. If you are seen as a "liberal" here, I'd wager it's because you've been talking like one in the context of this current campaign, something that's brought into even sharper, more ironic relief by your repeated protestations of having been "a lifelong Republican" until so very recently. Maybe you aren't a liberal, but you certainly have hitched your wagon to an über-liberal in this election...

-ghp
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: grabau14 on November 03, 2008, 07:59:32 PM
http://www.alittleleaven.com/2008/11/barack-obama-the-messiah---part-1.html

http://www.alittleleaven.com/2008/11/barack-obama-the-messiah---part-2.html

Fascinating stuff

Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: ghp on November 03, 2008, 08:05:44 PM
http://www.alittleleaven.com/2008/11/barack-obama-the-messiah---part-1.html

http://www.alittleleaven.com/2008/11/barack-obama-the-messiah---part-2.html

Fascinating stuff


Most fascinating, indeed. Thank you for the on-thread-topic post, Fr. Uttenreither! Now, prepare to be told that you've just linked to fringe elements, that Candidate Obama is as non-threatening as a little lamb, and that no person could ever believe in the messianic hype...

-ghp
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: ghp on November 03, 2008, 08:14:31 PM
Ah, yes, I have fallen "prey" to those darned liberals.

Glen,

Thanks for that. Need a broader brush to paint with? 

 Gee, I am glad to know I have no mind, no thoughts of my own, no bachelors or master's degree, I don't read any periodicals (like Gov Palin) and never read any books.

 I am only fluent in English, and  I am simply an empy vessel that is filled up with MSNBC  which I  stare at 15 hours a day because as a socialist leftist I have no job and am on welfare. ::)

Give me a break. If there are any talking points here, I am not the one spouting them.  Now, quick , Olbermann is on !  ;)

(By the way, check the  vote count tomorrow night on how many Republicans who actually have some intelligence and are not simply social conservatives do vote for Sen Obama...I am proud to stand with Christopher Buckley, Gen Powell, and Peggy Noonan. )


Goodness, now who needs to chill, Jeff? I just called it like I saw it. I cast no aspersions on how you formed your opinion -- I think you formed it honestly and forthrightly. You're intelligent & well-read -- I've never said otherwise. I just think you're misguided in how you've interpreted that which you have read -- i.e., the political opinions that you have formed are mistaken. What you've been saying/arguing tracks with the talking points quite closely -- this is what I observed, not that you were an "empty vessel" filled by MSNBC. There's no need for you to engage in such hyperbole in your response.

Buckley's a turncoat, Powell's an independent, and Noonan's worried about her social calendar (I daresay that Reagan wouldn't be pleased with her, or with Ron, Jr. either...).

-ghp
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Richard Johnson on November 03, 2008, 09:08:25 PM
http://www.alittleleaven.com/2008/11/barack-obama-the-messiah---part-1.html

http://www.alittleleaven.com/2008/11/barack-obama-the-messiah---part-2.html

Fascinating stuff



I find this fascinatingly frightening.

But probably for different reasons than you.  ::)
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Richard Johnson on November 03, 2008, 09:09:40 PM
Those of you who speak with such disdain about Senator Obama: if he is elected president of the United States, will you regularly pray for him in your liturgies? Will you speak of him with the respect that seems (at least to me) to be required by the 4th commandment? Just asking.

Just asking, huh? I don't think you can ask that questiion without implying that they won't. Otherwise why ask. Just asking. :)

Oh, you're right. But you notice none of them have responded, so what am I to think?
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: ghp on November 03, 2008, 09:29:20 PM
Those of you who speak with such disdain about Senator Obama: if he is elected president of the United States, will you regularly pray for him in your liturgies? Will you speak of him with the respect that seems (at least to me) to be required by the 4th commandment? Just asking.

Just asking, huh? I don't think you can ask that questiion without implying that they won't. Otherwise why ask. Just asking. :)

Oh, you're right. But you notice none of them have responded, so what am I to think?

It wasn't a rhetorical question? Really?

Oh. Well, then...  Of course I will pray for the President, no matter who he is. Just as I currently pray for God to bless us with good government, and government officials with good judgment, etc.

-ghp
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Lutheran_Lay_Leader on November 03, 2008, 09:45:42 PM
http://www.alittleleaven.com/2008/11/barack-obama-the-messiah---part-1.html

http://www.alittleleaven.com/2008/11/barack-obama-the-messiah---part-2.html

Fascinating stuff


Yes, it is fascinating how a few people will listen to the hoopla and hyperbole, and treat it as something more than mere hoopla and hyperbole. And if a handful of those people who fall for the hoopla and hyperbole know enough HTML to create a website, then even more people will be tricked into thinking that the hoopla and hyperbole is something significant.


I especially liked the picture of the spray-paint graffito that parodied the similar 1960's graffito that proclaimed that Clapton was God. It seems all it takes is one fool with a can of spray paint to create a movement.

[Now, prepare to be told that you've just linked to fringe elements, that Candidate Obama is as non-threatening as a little lamb, and that no person could ever believe in the messianic hype...


That should be "that no sane person could ever believe in the messianic hype..." and that no thoughtful person should take the rantings of the loonies seriously.



Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on November 03, 2008, 09:58:35 PM

Sure, I will engage in hyperbole  if only to prove a point.

It seems very fascinating that we can't even argue anymore...i.e. point by point, with substance, without someone saying you are using "talking points" or parroting "Fox/ MSNBC".

I supposed years ago people blamed newspapers or editors, but I would prefer to be judged by the merits of an argument, such as the good back and forth Peter and I had about hunger, or the discussion of SCOTUS that many had on this forum, rather than be accused of being part of the vast liberal media conspiracy.  ;)

There is also something going on that is quite interesting , and that is that the moderates or so called liberals on this forum are not saying that conservatives are mindless automons of Fox or Rush Limbaugh. However,  MSNBC and Keillor and others have been lambasted from the right.

I think that the vast majority, probably 70- 80% of Americans, give a lot of thought to their positions. The remaining  percentage are  listening to media of either fringe and form their opinions around those personalities.

One thing is sure, I am guessing that Hannity, Limabaugh, O'Reilly  and their kind will win either way...if Sen Obama is elected, they have four years of hating, if Sen McCain gets in they will be happy.


Jeff Ruby       


Ah, yes, I have fallen "prey" to those darned liberals.

Glen,

Thanks for that. Need a broader brush to paint with? 

 Gee, I am glad to know I have no mind, no thoughts of my own, no bachelors or master's degree, I don't read any periodicals (like Gov Palin) and never read any books.

 I am only fluent in English, and  I am simply an empy vessel that is filled up with MSNBC  which I  stare at 15 hours a day because as a socialist leftist I have no job and am on welfare. ::)

Give me a break. If there are any talking points here, I am not the one spouting them.  Now, quick , Olbermann is on !  ;)

(By the way, check the  vote count tomorrow night on how many Republicans who actually have some intelligence and are not simply social conservatives do vote for Sen Obama...I am proud to stand with Christopher Buckley, Gen Powell, and Peggy Noonan. )


Goodness, now who needs to chill, Jeff? I just called it like I saw it. I cast no aspersions on how you formed your opinion -- I think you formed it honestly and forthrightly. You're intelligent & well-read -- I've never said otherwise. I just think you're misguided in how you've interpreted that which you have read -- i.e., the political opinions that you have formed are mistaken. What you've been saying/arguing tracks with the talking points quite closely -- this is what I observed, not that you were an "empty vessel" filled by MSNBC. There's no need for you to engage in such hyperbole in your response.

Buckley's a turncoat, Powell's an independent, and Noonan's worried about her social calendar (I daresay that Reagan wouldn't be pleased with her, or with Ron, Jr. either...).

-ghp
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: anonymous on November 03, 2008, 10:29:02 PM
One thing is sure, I am guessing that Hannity, Limabaugh, O'Reilly  and their kind will win either way...if Sen Obama is elected, they have four years of hating, if Sen McCain gets in they will be happy.


Jeff Ruby       


Oh, come on, Jeff. I said you hit on all the Dem talking points. And we have also been arguing points I thought. But, really, stand back and look at this. You sound like you think you are a martyr or something. Relax.

And why did I quote the above? Do you really think Foxnews has a corner on "hate"? Please. So anyway, you said, "One thing is sure," and I say that is questionable.

What do you mean by "their kind"?
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Erme Wolf on November 03, 2008, 10:30:52 PM
Looking forward to the end of this election, and anticipating the beginning of the 2012 campaign -- that's Wednesday afternoon.
 

Or to the discussion on candidates for President of the LCMS in 2010.   (Not!  :-[)
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: ghp on November 03, 2008, 11:19:17 PM

Sure, I will engage in hyperbole  if only to prove a point.

It seems very fascinating that we can't even argue anymore...i.e. point by point, with substance, without someone saying you are using "talking points" or parroting "Fox/ MSNBC".

I supposed years ago people blamed newspapers or editors, but I would prefer to be judged by the merits of an argument, such as the good back and forth Peter and I had about hunger, or the discussion of SCOTUS that many had on this forum, rather than be accused of being part of the vast liberal media conspiracy.  ;)

There is also something going on that is quite interesting , and that is that the moderates or so called liberals on this forum are not saying that conservatives are mindless automons of Fox or Rush Limbaugh. However,  MSNBC and Keillor and others have been lambasted from the right.

I think that the vast majority, probably 70- 80% of Americans, give a lot of thought to their positions. The remaining  percentage are  listening to media of either fringe and form their opinions around those personalities.

One thing is sure, I am guessing that Hannity, Limabaugh, O'Reilly  and their kind will win either way...if Sen Obama is elected, they have four years of hating, if Sen McCain gets in they will be happy.


Let's be clear about one thing, Jeff:  You were the first one to use the "talking points" brush -- http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=1294.msg71800#msg71800 (http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=1294.msg71800#msg71800) -- when you used it on me. That you now decry it so bitterly is ironic at best. In that same linked-to post, you also likened me to O'Reilly and/or Hannity in spouting FOX talking points, so your contention above (wherein you state that such has not been done by the "moderates or so called liberals on this forum" is not true.

And, as for your final sentence, why are you being so one-sided? All the pundits will still be in business no matter who wins. To paint with an overly-broad brush, if McCain wins, MSNBC/CNN get to "hate", while if Obama wins FOX gets to "hate". But in reality, the pundits will bloviate & spew forth no matter who is in the Oval Office.

-ghp
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: grabau14 on November 03, 2008, 11:30:40 PM
So Pr. Johnson, you don't find it disturbing that there are people who view Obama as a "messiah"?  Or do you believe him when he says that when he's elected the earth will cool and the planet will heal?  Anyway, I find it disturbing that Christians support a man who defends infanticide.   >:(

Jeff,
 Hannity, Rush, Mark Levin and the rest will not be allowed to have a radio program with Obama as president.  If Pelosi and her ilk get a super-majority, the so-called "fairness doctrine" will get passed and Obama will sign.  Also, Pelosi has a "hate crime" bill on her desk that deals with the church and homosexuality (I forget the bill number).  This bill will be passed and Obama will sign.  Pelosi and Reed have a 100 day plan.  So you can be happy with your victory, but the country will suffer for it.

Obama will make me long for the Clinton years because Clinton at least had Newt to reign him in.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on November 03, 2008, 11:54:41 PM

Yes, but I am not a liberal or a moderate....lol  ;) Besides, Hannity and O'Reilly and Limbaugh  are wrong.  ;D


Sure, I will engage in hyperbole  if only to prove a point.

It seems very fascinating that we can't even argue anymore...i.e. point by point, with substance, without someone saying you are using "talking points" or parroting "Fox/ MSNBC".

I supposed years ago people blamed newspapers or editors, but I would prefer to be judged by the merits of an argument, such as the good back and forth Peter and I had about hunger, or the discussion of SCOTUS that many had on this forum, rather than be accused of being part of the vast liberal media conspiracy.  ;)

There is also something going on that is quite interesting , and that is that the moderates or so called liberals on this forum are not saying that conservatives are mindless automons of Fox or Rush Limbaugh. However,  MSNBC and Keillor and others have been lambasted from the right.

I think that the vast majority, probably 70- 80% of Americans, give a lot of thought to their positions. The remaining  percentage are  listening to media of either fringe and form their opinions around those personalities.

One thing is sure, I am guessing that Hannity, Limabaugh, O'Reilly  and their kind will win either way...if Sen Obama is elected, they have four years of hating, if Sen McCain gets in they will be happy.


Let's be clear about one thing, Jeff:  You were the first one to use the "talking points" brush -- http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=1294.msg71800#msg71800 (http://www.alpb.org/forum/index.php?topic=1294.msg71800#msg71800) -- when you used it on me. That you now decry it so bitterly is ironic at best. In that same linked-to post, you also likened me to O'Reilly and/or Hannity in spouting FOX talking points, so your contention above (wherein you state that such has not been done by the "moderates or so called liberals on this forum" is not true.

And, as for your final sentence, why are you being so one-sided? All the pundits will still be in business no matter who wins. To paint with an overly-broad brush, if McCain wins, MSNBC/CNN get to "hate", while if Obama wins FOX gets to "hate". But in reality, the pundits will bloviate & spew forth no matter who is in the Oval Office.

-ghp
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on November 04, 2008, 12:00:49 AM
Matthew,

If you followed this whole thread, you will know there is a difference between a fringe element who thinks Sen Obama is the messiah and HE believing in that himself. He has not evidenced that at all.

Also, as usual the quote is taken out of context. He was referring to environmental policies that will stop global warming (cool) and heal the earth from environmental disdain. I am not a big believer in global warming myself, but who can argue against helping the environment? I believe it is called stewardship.

Please don't indicate that Sen Obama will be a censor. He has given no indication of that.  Fears will run rampant , but he may just give everyone some pleasant surprises. I don't believe if Sen McCain wins he will shut down the liberal outlets, so spare us the exaggerations.

Jeff Ruby

So Pr. Johnson, you don't find it disturbing that there are people who view Obama as a "messiah"?  Or do you believe him when he says that when he's elected the earth will cool and the planet will heal?  Anyway, I find it disturbing that Christians support a man who defends infanticide.   >:(

Jeff,
 Hannity, Rush, Mark Levin and the rest will not be allowed to have a radio program with Obama as president.  If Pelosi and her ilk get a super-majority, the so-called "fairness doctrine" will get passed and Obama will sign.  Also, Pelosi has a "hate crime" bill on her desk that deals with the church and homosexuality (I forget the bill number).  This bill will be passed and Obama will sign.  Pelosi and Reed have a 100 day plan.  So you can be happy with your victory, but the country will suffer for it.

Obama will make me long for the Clinton years because Clinton at least had Newt to reign him in.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: grabau14 on November 04, 2008, 12:14:09 AM
Jeff,

Has he done anything to stop this "messiah worship"?  It also seems that you have turned him into a "cult" figure, after all how can you justify supporting a man who defends infanticide?  Oh, that's right, it's just one issue among many.  Have you ever stopped and considered that the reason why our society has stopped caring for the poor is because we have stopped caring for the unborn? 

Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on November 04, 2008, 12:18:50 AM

Matthew,

I have never voted for someone on the basis of popularity. I have voted for some winners and losers since 1980.

Your sarcastic comment adds nothing.....I clearly stated abortion is an important issue. I also think there are many important issues in this election. You are free to disagree. There are many Christians who are voting for both candidates. Making it seem you can only vote for one is part of the polarization our nation has undergone in the past 20 years or so . I don't appreciate being told , as some are, that are damned for their vote. That began with the far right saying if you voted for Gore or Kerry you are not a Christian.  That does not reflect anything remotely Christ-like to me. 

Jeff Ruby

Jeff,

Has he done anything to stop this "messiah worship"?  It also seems that you have turned him into a "cult" figure, after all how can you justify supporting a man who defends infanticide?  Oh, that's right, it's just one issue among many.  Have you ever stopped and considered that the reason why our society has stopped caring for the poor is because we have stopped caring for the unborn? 


Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on November 04, 2008, 12:20:49 AM

I don't know, has Gov Palin done anything to counter her goddess worship from some conservatives?

Jeff Ruby

Jeff,

Has he done anything to stop this "messiah worship"? 


Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: grabau14 on November 04, 2008, 12:29:21 AM
For the record, I am for Ron Paul (talk about a messiah complex amongst his followers)  ;D

Anyway

You know that he will appoint justices that will make it harder to overturn Roe v. Wade.  You can kiss parental notification goodbye.  You can kiss partial birth abortion ban goodbye.  It's not just the man in the office, it is those who he appoints to life-long positions.   It is a congress that will have all the votes needed to push their agenda with a willing signer.

You still haven't explained how you can support a man who voted 4 times to kill a baby that was born from a botched abortion?   Apparently, this was an important issue for him since he did not vote "present" in the state legislature.

Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on November 04, 2008, 12:44:17 AM
Matthew,

On election eve I am not going to delve into the history of Sen Obama's votes that were discussed ad nauseam on several threads. Suffice to say,  I don't believe he has the reckless disregard for life you make him out to have , even while not agreeing completely with where he stands.

My rationale is as follows, which you may or may not agree with. I believe he is the leader  who is the most intelligent, forward looking and innovative. I believe his youth is a good thing. I think he presents a calmness in crisis.I also believe he knows we need to be strong and forceful while also communicating with other nations, something we have been sadly lacking. He will surround himself with intelligent people .He asks good questions. He is not a cowboy.

But to the question you asked, I am comforted by a system of checks and balances. The three justices most likely to retire from SCOTUS are all liberal. Liberals will not gain under Obama, neither will conservatives. I don't think it is a bad thing to have a SCOTUS that is somewhat split in ideology, I would be scared to have them all far left or far right.

It does concern me having a Congress and President of the same party, but the GOP had it for a number of years and flunked, I can't see how the Democrats can do a whole lot worse. And in two years we can throw them out. However, they may surprise us. And , I think Barack will move hard center. He has to.

As a hopefully thoughtful fiscal conservative and moderate to conservative on social issues, I am certainly not the only one who is voting for Barack . I do so with some questions, but I can't bring myself to vote for my home state Senator. He was a different man in 2000. Now he was captured by Rovian aides and the very man who destroyed him in 2000 has now destroyed him again.

 I know my home state senator  quite well, have even voted for him before.  He is a  great patriot and soldier but should have been President 8 years ago, not now. However, if he is elected, I will honor him and pray for him, as I would for anyone. The fact it is dead even in Arizona and he might lose his home state, something even Walter Mondale did not have happen to him in 1984, is telling.

Jeff Ruby
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on November 04, 2008, 01:12:39 AM
Secondly, don't gay Americans deserve equal protection under the law?

Gay Americans already have equal protection under the law. 

Sen. Obama's speech is loaded with red herrings. 

And the moment a same-sex couple files a tax return as "married," or a same-sex "spouse" files for Social Security benefits, the definition of marriage has become a federal matter.  These are benefits and privileges that have been granted specifically to assist husbands and wives and their children.  They are not rights and "protections" for every individual citizen

spt+
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on November 04, 2008, 01:32:01 AM
Those of you who speak with such disdain about Senator Obama: if he is elected president of the United States, will you regularly pray for him in your liturgies? Will you speak of him with the respect that seems (at least to me) to be required by the 4th commandment?

Yes,  And given that at Zion we pray for the President of the United States, the Governor of Illinois, and the Mayor of Peoria every Sunday by name, I can actually point to a long record of regularly praying for elected officials regardless of whether I hold any one of them in great respect, deep contempt, a combination of the two, or somewhere in-between.

pax, spt+
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Lutheran_Lay_Leader on November 04, 2008, 07:06:26 AM
So Pr. Johnson, you don't find it disturbing that there are people who view Obama as a "messiah"? 

Should not the level to which one feels "disturbed" by such a think be proportional to the number of people who actually think that way? Should one be equally disturbed if a very few people in the tin foil hat set believe something that outrageous as one would be if one out of every four people believe that?

If a few misguided souls fall for such hogwash, then isn't our duty as Christians to see that tiny handful of people as being in need of the same sort of care and healing as the people who believe they are the reincarnation of Napoleon or suffer from some other similar mental disconnect with reality? Is the proper reaction to a few people suffering from a form a madness to pray that they return to good mental health or should it be to exploit and repeat their delusions in hopes of getting others to share in the delusion?

Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: LCMS87 on November 04, 2008, 12:04:19 PM
For the record, I am for Ron Paul (talk about a messiah complex amongst his followers)  ;D

Now that's a Theology of the Cross!
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Layman Randy on November 04, 2008, 12:27:28 PM
For the record, I am for Ron Paul (talk about a messiah complex amongst his followers)  ;D

Now that's a Theology of the Cross!
Exit polls as of this hour (not that exit polls are very precise) are showing Ron Paul at 4% in Montana (where he won the Republican presidential primary) and therefore Barack Obama several points ahead of John McCain in the race for Montana's electoral votes.

Could continue the interesting series of third party or populist candidates with cult-like followings (not saying the candidates held themselves up as Messiahs) that has changed national results over the years -- If I recall correctly, didn't Ross Perot's results put Bill Clinton over the top in enough states to win, and didn't  Ralph Nader's percentage in one or two states push GWBush over the top?  Did Strom Thurmond's results in 1948 put Truman over Dewey? 

How has/does/might the "vote of conviction" for a candidate who will most assuredly not win, but could prove to be a spoiler, affect the governance of our nation?

Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: swbohler on November 04, 2008, 12:28:59 PM
Rev. Uttenreither writes: "Have you ever stopped and considered that the reason why our society has stopped caring for the poor is because we have stopped caring for the unborn?"

A most profound comment.  Thank you, Rev. Uttenreither.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Lutheran_Lay_Leader on November 04, 2008, 12:37:30 PM
It does concern me having a Congress and President of the same party, but the GOP had it for a number of years and flunked,

Sadly, that's a very misleading semi-fact. Though for a while there were a majority of people in Congress with an "R" after their names, there were enough RINOs who sided with the Democrats on some issues to make the GOP majority almost an illusion. It was a situation very similar to back in the 40's and 50's when the "Dixiecrat" Democrats sided with the Republicans often enough to make the majority of people in Congress labeled with a "D" an illusion.

Anyone who simply glanced at the surface of issues would never notice what I just mentioned, but anyone who paid attention to stories of what bills got stalled in committees and what bills had major compromises before going to the floor for a vote would see the impact of the Dixiecrats in the 40's and 50's and the impact of the RINO's in the 90's and 00's.

How has/does/might the "vote of conviction" for a candidate who will most assuredly not win, but could prove to be a spoiler, affect the governance of our nation?

It's one of the most damaging aspects of how our electoral system functions. There are simply too many people who are just clueless about how politics actually work, and who'll throw their votes away on candidates like Ron Paul or Ralph Nader to effective vote for that which they oppose the most.

Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on November 04, 2008, 01:03:44 PM

George,

Wouldn't you agree that this would have been the perfect year to have a major third party candidate?  Ross Perot proved it could be effective, and even though his percentages were not big, they were larger than a Nader or Paul.

I hear a lot of dissatisfaction with the two choices we have, and I think someone with a great message and backing could have gone pretty far this year.

I don't agree it is a wasted vote..obviously there will come a time when we might vote for that candidate in even numbers to win.

Jeff Ruby 

I
How has/does/might the "vote of conviction" for a candidate who will most assuredly not win, but could prove to be a spoiler, affect the governance of our nation?

It's one of the most damaging aspects of how our electoral system functions. There are simply too many people who are just clueless about how politics actually work, and who'll throw their votes away on candidates like Ron Paul or Ralph Nader to effective vote for that which they oppose the most.


Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Layman Randy on November 04, 2008, 01:09:32 PM

George,

Wouldn't you agree that this would have been the perfect year to have a major third party candidate?  Ross Perot proved it could be effective, and even though his percentages were not big, they were larger than a Nader or Paul.

I hear a lot of dissatisfaction with the two choices we have, and I think someone with a great message and backing could have gone pretty far this year.

I don't agree it is a wasted vote..obviously there will come a time when we might vote for that candidate in even numbers to win.

Jeff Ruby 

I
How has/does/might the "vote of conviction" for a candidate who will most assuredly not win, but could prove to be a spoiler, affect the governance of our nation?

It's one of the most damaging aspects of how our electoral system functions. There are simply too many people who are just clueless about how politics actually work, and who'll throw their votes away on candidates like Ron Paul or Ralph Nader to effective vote for that which they oppose the most.


Of course its not a wasted vote.  If a third-party candidate can be seen to be on one side of the political "middle" between two main party candidates, votes for him/her will help the candidate on the opposite side of the divide.  Now, as to a competitive "third party", since pundits have already declared the death of the Republican party via this election, the bigger worry might be a "one party" country.  This, of course, was claimed after 2004 in the other direction - and look how well that prediction work out -- not!
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Lutheran_Lay_Leader on November 04, 2008, 01:47:59 PM

George,

Wouldn't you agree that this would have been the perfect year to have a major third party candidate?  Ross Perot proved it could be effective, and even though his percentages were not big, they were larger than a Nader or Paul.


I totally would not agree. The only time that it would be a good to have a major third party candidate would be if there ever was a major third party. And my that, I mean a third party that has at least two seats in the Senate and at least ten seats in the House. And maybe a Governor or two. To my way of thinking, that would be a minimum requirement for any party to be able to call itself "major".

There's a reason why America has never had a successful "third" party campaign since 1864. The way our political system works requires compromise and deal-making. That requires some sort of leadership and organization within separate factions, and that means political parties.

If there were any "third" parties in America that weren't either jokes or a means for someone to boost their value as a paid speaker on the lecture circuit (ie. Nader), then maybe it might be good if a candidate from that party had a shot at becoming President. But I won't hold my breath. The last thing this nation needs is for two candidates to split the votes of the majority of voters to hand the election to the candidate favored by the minority of the voters.

However, I could be convinced to favor a system of multiple candidates going through a series of elimination votes, similar to the ecclesiastical ballots the ELCA uses to select Bishops.
Title: Re: ALPB as cult
Post by: Keith Falk on November 04, 2008, 01:50:47 PM
sorry, I can't resist this one... at the moment, the latest member of the ALPB Online Forum has "Son of Man" as the screen name... we have moved from "Politics as cult" to "ALPB as cult" 

Where's a moderator when you need one?   ;D
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Richard Johnson on November 04, 2008, 01:55:37 PM
I'm leaving that one to Peter. Wouldn't presume to judge the Son of Man.  ::)
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: racin_jason on November 04, 2008, 02:25:06 PM
Last night at dinner, my six year old daughter announced that Obama shouldn't be president because he makes women kill babies in their stomachs.  We send our kids to a private Chistian school and like it there very much. My wife and I have been fine not explaining what abortion is to our kids at this stage in life, though we are pro-life. Apparently another parent in my daughter's class thought otherwise, and the news shot through the first grade class very quickly.

This wasn't shocking, since there is only one candate of choice at the school, even the african american family in my son's class supports McCain. But we've had to explain to our kids that we don't go around the church where daddy is a pastor saying that Obama is a bad person. 

Our church is a polling place, and this morning, one of the (Baptist) election officials was speaking with me in the kitchen (as I raided their cookie supply) about the election.  She asked if I thought Obama might be the anti-Christ. She wondered if Christ's return was soon to come. 

Sure Glen, there are some who cast Obama in a messianic light. He is the latest in a long line of candidates that have promised to lead America into the promised land.  As with about every previous president, if elected he will leave his office under less heralding and pagentry than he received when he was a candidate. That is the nature of presidencies (as well as most pastorale calls).

The more one dislikes Obama, the more troubling s/he will find the messianic light he is cast in to be.

But let's make no mistake about it: there is plenty of demonizing of Obama going on as well. And in my case, If Obama is elected, I have to figure out a way to convey to my daughter that we as Christians pray for our president, even though we disagree with him on mamas killing babies in their stomachs. This kind of nuance is lost on most first graders. We will have to wait and see about how some adults might be in handling this.   
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Richard Johnson on November 05, 2008, 07:19:12 PM
Kind of surprised that none of you cult-watchers out there have seen the sinister implications of President-elect Obama offering the chief of staff job to Rep. Emanuel . . .   ::)
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on November 05, 2008, 09:03:22 PM
funny, well that's not the word, one of my grade school kids came up with almost the exact same phrase in weekday church school tonight as he was telling another kid about the election... almost sounds like like some kind of stock line for kids... and there is a sadness to that in addition to whatever we might think of abortions...  what I mean is that another kid I know came home with this line, if O. is elected in Ohio he will change the state buckeye to an acorn... and the funny thing about that line is that the grade school kid had no idea what acorn was beyond a tree seed... are we making our children carry our griefs and sorrows before they have the wisdom to do so???  Just think not only of the ugliness of abortion as sin but the ugliness of saying "he makes women kill babies."   One may deal with the Fifth cmmandment, the other the eighth.   The right has to have higher standards than the wrong.    Harvey Mozolak


Last night at dinner, my six year old daughter announced that Obama shouldn't be president because in their stomachs.  (end quote)
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: anonymous on November 10, 2008, 09:54:23 AM
This is too rich: the two messiahs meet today. That is, the one who is being spoken of as such used just that language to describe his first encounter with the other. They can of course relive the moment if one of them reads foxnews:

"Suddenly it felt as if somebody in a back room had flipped a switch," Obama wrote. "The president's eyes became fixed; his voice took on the agitated, rapid tone of someone neither accustomed to nor welcoming interruption; his easy affability was replaced by an almost messianic certainty. As I watched my mostly Republican Senate colleagues hang on his every word, I was reminded of the dangerous isolation that power can bring, and appreciated the Founders' wisdom in designating a system to keep power in check."

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/09/bush-obama-meeting-hard-feelings-hand-sanitier/

Hope they, and you, have a good day! :)
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: TravisW on November 10, 2008, 05:53:15 PM
This is too rich: the two messiahs meet today. That is, the one who is being spoken of as such used just that language to describe his first encounter with the other. They can of course relive the moment if one of them reads foxnews:

"Suddenly it felt as if somebody in a back room had flipped a switch," Obama wrote. "The president's eyes became fixed; his voice took on the agitated, rapid tone of someone neither accustomed to nor welcoming interruption; his easy affability was replaced by an almost messianic certainty. As I watched my mostly Republican Senate colleagues hang on his every word, I was reminded of the dangerous isolation that power can bring, and appreciated the Founders' wisdom in designating a system to keep power in check."

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/09/bush-obama-meeting-hard-feelings-hand-sanitier/

Hope they, and you, have a good day! :)

Did Jerry Jenkins help him write that?
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on November 10, 2008, 10:00:23 PM
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 2006 that the Bush Administration had violated the UCMJ and the Geneva Convention. This year,  SCOTUS ruled again in Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S, 2008, that the Military Commissions Act  (MCA) established in 2006 by the current administration violated  prisoners  right to habeas corpus .

Given that track record, the Senator was right to be concerned about  keeping executive power in check.

Jeff Ruby   


This is too rich: the two messiahs meet today. That is, the one who is being spoken of as such used just that language to describe his first encounter with the other. They can of course relive the moment if one of them reads foxnews:

"Suddenly it felt as if somebody in a back room had flipped a switch," Obama wrote. "The president's eyes became fixed; his voice took on the agitated, rapid tone of someone neither accustomed to nor welcoming interruption; his easy affability was replaced by an almost messianic certainty. As I watched my mostly Republican Senate colleagues hang on his every word, I was reminded of the dangerous isolation that power can bring, and appreciated the Founders' wisdom in designating a system to keep power in check."

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/09/bush-obama-meeting-hard-feelings-hand-sanitier/

Hope they, and you, have a good day! :)
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: peter_speckhard on November 10, 2008, 10:37:19 PM
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 2006 that the Bush Administration had violated the UCMJ and the Geneva Convention. This year,  SCOTUS ruled again in Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S, 2008, that the Military Commissions Act  (MCA) established in 2006 by the current administration violated  prisoners  right to habeas corpus .

Given that track record, the Senator was right to be concerned about  keeping executive power in check.

Jeff Ruby   

But anyone who worries about keeping the power of the SCOTUS in check is just a nut case, because after all, what are the odds they would go on a power trip, ignore the constitution, and allow a massive slaughter in violation of all basic human rights? Given that the presidents directly prior to and following GW Bush support taxpayer funded abortions at home and abroad, the concern about terrorists not being read their rights is, well, nice, I guess. Sort of like concern for the hangnail victim in triage.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on November 11, 2008, 12:25:44 AM
Peter,

All valid points.   However, you forgot one thing. The SCOTUS that allowed Roe V. Wade was much more liberal than the current court, which is a conservative majority. If a conservative majority finds that a President of like mind on social agendas  has violated the constitution, then it must be pretty serious. Indeed, he appointed two of them, if I am not mistaken. 

I also don't think that violation of the law on one hand allows violation of law on the other. You can argue that   Roe V Wade is wrong, a mis-interprteation of the law, or reading into the Constitution something that is not there. You can certainly argue it is unconstitutional or  usurping of powers. However, it is the law of the land. 

 However, that does not mean on another legal issue the Court should rule in ignorance of the Constitution. You argument would hold more water if this was the Warren court or a more liberal court. Then you could say it was all politics.  But a conservative court taking a conservative President to task is something interesting.

   It is is difficult for me to see how you can argue a conservative majority is correct  on most issues but on basic rights like habeas corpus it is somehow wrong.  There  are reasons for majority and dissenting opinions. In this case the majority found a violation of law in these decisions and the administration lost.




Jeff Ruby


The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 548 U.S. 557, 2006 that the Bush Administration had violated the UCMJ and the Geneva Convention. This year,  SCOTUS ruled again in Boumediene v. Bush, 553 U.S, 2008, that the Military Commissions Act  (MCA) established in 2006 by the current administration violated  prisoners  right to habeas corpus .

Given that track record, the Senator was right to be concerned about  keeping executive power in check.

Jeff Ruby   

But anyone who worries about keeping the power of the SCOTUS in check is just a nut case, because after all, what are the odds they would go on a power trip, ignore the constitution, and allow a massive slaughter in violation of all basic human rights? Given that the presidents directly prior to and following GW Bush support taxpayer funded abortions at home and abroad, the concern about terrorists not being read their rights is, well, nice, I guess. Sort of like concern for the hangnail victim in triage.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on November 12, 2008, 05:07:43 PM

I don't agree it is a wasted vote..

A week ago Sunday, I finally decided that, as much as I like Gov. Palin, as an Illinois elector, my vote for John McCain would be wasted.  So, I voted for Bob Barr, as that would increase the likelihood of Illinois Libertarians qualifying for the 2010 ballot.

As for whether or not 3rd party votes are a waste, take a look at the platforms of the Populist Party from the 1880s and '90s, or the Socialist Party platform from Mr. Debs' era. 

Looking for a Henry Clay, Daniel Webster, or John Quincy Adams,
Steven+
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Michael_Rothaar on November 13, 2008, 03:58:09 PM
I finally decided that, as much as I like Gov. Palin, as an Illinois elector, my vote for John McCain would be wasted.  So, I voted for Bob Barr, as that would increase the likelihood of Illinois Libertarians qualifying for the 2010 ballot.

You too? So how many votes did Barr get? (The Trib's so trimmed down and graphics-heavy now that if they published the actual total election results I missed it. Certified vote totals don't seem to be available on the Election Commission site.)
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: peter_speckhard on November 13, 2008, 04:22:22 PM
Peter,

All valid points.   However, you forgot one thing. The SCOTUS that allowed Roe V. Wade was much more liberal than the current court, which is a conservative majority. If a conservative majority finds that a President of like mind on social agendas  has violated the constitution, then it must be pretty serious. Indeed, he appointed two of them, if I am not mistaken. 

I also don't think that violation of the law on one hand allows violation of law on the other. You can argue that   Roe V Wade is wrong, a mis-interprteation of the law, or reading into the Constitution something that is not there. You can certainly argue it is unconstitutional or  usurping of powers. However, it is the law of the land. 

 However, that does not mean on another legal issue the Court should rule in ignorance of the Constitution. You argument would hold more water if this was the Warren court or a more liberal court. Then you could say it was all politics.  But a conservative court taking a conservative President to task is something interesting.

   It is is difficult for me to see how you can argue a conservative majority is correct  on most issues but on basic rights like habeas corpus it is somehow wrong.  There  are reasons for majority and dissenting opinions. In this case the majority found a violation of law in these decisions and the administration lost.


Jeff Ruby

All that happened in both cases is that the executive and judicial branches disagreed, which is not unusual. It isn't that it is weird for the court to be wrong-- the courts as fallible as the congress of the president, both of which also I agree with sometimes and disagree with sometimes. Is there really no institution which you would say is correct on most issues but wrong on this or that issue? The bigger issue is the nature of modern warfare. The Clinton adminstration opted to treat terrorism as a crime/law enforcement issue, which manifestly did not work. The Bush administration opted to treat it as a warfare issue, but that rendered all kinds of prior categories and definitions useless, meaning that to what degree terrorists were enemy combatants or merely criminals became a matter of dispute that needed to be worked out with congress and the courts. Some of the time everyone agreed, some of the time they didn't. But to characterize a disagreement in classification of people who represent a new category in a new kind of warfare as a dangerous power-grab by the president seems a bit sensationalized. And anyway, as I understand it the new administration will be keeping the Bush guidelines on these matters in place in order to give the PE sufficient flexibility to take up the matter as he sees fit. If it were so manifestly an atrocity, it would be no trouble to promise now that the policies would change on day one of the new administration. Armchair quarterbacks so often gain a new appreciation for the game when they face a pass rush.   
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on November 13, 2008, 04:34:57 PM

I guess I am trying to understand how closing Gitmo, which is not a done deal but something that is being looked at seriously, is "keeping the Bush guidelines" in place.

Jeff Ruby 




And anyway, as I understand it the new administration will be keeping the Bush guidelines on these matters in place in order to give the PE sufficient flexibility to take up the matter as he sees fit. If it were so manifestly an atrocity, it would be no trouble to promise now that the policies would change on day one of the new administration. Armchair quarterbacks so often gain a new appreciation for the game when they face a pass rush.   
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: grabau14 on November 20, 2008, 12:10:11 AM
Lord, have mercy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8&eurl=http://www.howobamagotelected.com/
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on November 20, 2008, 12:30:56 AM
Yes, a nice unbiased source  ::)

I like the rap music playing too in the background.

Let me tell you how these work. Interview 25 or 50 or 100 people, you are bound to find some ignorant folks.  Why, gosh, even some people who can't name any books they have read recently  or  name one newspaper or magazine they have read in the past few months , and  not  being able to come up with one title at all!  ;)

In meantime, in case you didn't notice, the election is over. Ignorant voters abound on all sides, in all parties. I am sure you could have made a film about McCain, Nader, Barr, or Paul and come up with the same thing.

I thought we had put the election threads to rest for a while until January 20th. Or at least the Cabinet being named.

Jeff Ruby

Lord, have mercy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm1KOBMg1Y8&eurl=http://www.howobamagotelected.com/
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: ghp on November 20, 2008, 12:43:53 AM
Yes, a nice unbiased source  ::)

I like the rap music playing too in the background.

In meantime, in case you didn't notice, the election is over. Ignorant voters abound on all sides, in all parties. I am sure you could have made a film about McCain, Nader, Barr, or Paul and come up with the same thing.

I thought we had put these threads to rest for a while until January 20th.


As other denizens of this fine establishment have pointed out on other threads (IIRC,AITID), there is no such thing as unbiased sources or reporting. (and if they haven't pointed it out, they should have...)

Yes, let's not do a post mortem, not while there's a coronation, er, inauguration to count down to. And remember, don't be critical of the PE, because to do so now is unpatriotic according to Joy Behar (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/justin-mccarthy/2008/11/19/pot-calling-kettle-joy-behar-labels-sarah-palin-airhead), and we wouldn't want to get on the bad side of the political/ethical thinkers of The View roundtable...  ::)

Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on November 20, 2008, 12:59:19 AM
You can do all the post mortems you want. Never said anyone was above critique. Interesting you didn't comment on how videos like these are done.

 Just remember I was right   ;D (sorry, I was actually too low with my 324 electoral vote  count  predication five days before the election,my error ).

And I am most concerned you are watching  The View    :o  . Peter and I agree on one thing, I  quit the talking heads and screamers on all sides, a long time ago, I like the Newshour with Jim Lehrer or CSPAN.


Jeff Ruby


Yes, a nice unbiased source  ::)

I like the rap music playing too in the background.

In meantime, in case you didn't notice, the election is over. Ignorant voters abound on all sides, in all parties. I am sure you could have made a film about McCain, Nader, Barr, or Paul and come up with the same thing.

I thought we had put these threads to rest for a while until January 20th.


As other denizens of this fine establishment have pointed out on other threads (IIRC,AITID), there is no such thing as unbiased sources or reporting. (and if they haven't pointed it out, they should have...)

Yes, let's not do a post mortem, not while there's a coronation, er, inauguration to count down to. And remember, don't be critical of the PE, because to do so now is unpatriotic according to Joy Behar (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/justin-mccarthy/2008/11/19/pot-calling-kettle-joy-behar-labels-sarah-palin-airhead), and we wouldn't want to get on the bad side of the political/ethical thinkers of The View roundtable...  ::)


Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Darrell Wacker on November 20, 2008, 08:33:31 AM
You can do all the post mortems you want. Never said anyone was above critique. Interesting you didn't comment on how videos like these are done.

 Just remember I was right   ;D (sorry, I was actually too low with my 324 electoral vote  count  predication five days before the election,my error ).

And I am most concerned you are watching  The View    :o  . Peter and I agree on one thing, I  quit the talking heads and screamers on all sides, a long time ago, I like the Newshour with Jim Lehrer or CSPAN.


Jeff Ruby


Oh, and Jim Lehrer is certainly straight down the middle  :D
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: jrubyaz on November 20, 2008, 09:16:54 AM
More so than either Fox, CNN, or MSNBC , from right to left. ;D

Jeff Ruby

You can do all the post mortems you want. Never said anyone was above critique. Interesting you didn't comment on how videos like these are done.

 Just remember I was right   ;D (sorry, I was actually too low with my 324 electoral vote  count  predication five days before the election,my error ).

And I am most concerned you are watching  The View    :o  . Peter and I agree on one thing, I  quit the talking heads and screamers on all sides, a long time ago, I like the Newshour with Jim Lehrer or CSPAN.


Jeff Ruby


Oh, and Jim Lehrer is certainly straight down the middle  :D
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: Darrell Wacker on November 20, 2008, 09:37:10 AM
More so than either Fox, CNN, or MSNBC , from right to left. ;D

Jeff Ruby

You can do all the post mortems you want. Never said anyone was above critique. Interesting you didn't comment on how videos like these are done.

 Just remember I was right   ;D (sorry, I was actually too low with my 324 electoral vote  count  predication five days before the election,my error ).

And I am most concerned you are watching  The View    :o  . Peter and I agree on one thing, I  quit the talking heads and screamers on all sides, a long time ago, I like the Newshour with Jim Lehrer or CSPAN.


Jeff Ruby


Oh, and Jim Lehrer is certainly straight down the middle  :D

Not sure I agree with your assertion here, but it's really hard to argue either way given the subjective nature of it.
Title: Re: Politics as cult
Post by: hillwilliam on November 20, 2008, 01:02:12 PM
Yes, a nice unbiased source  ::)

I like the rap music playing too in the background.

In meantime, in case you didn't notice, the election is over. Ignorant voters abound on all sides, in all parties. I am sure you could have made a film about McCain, Nader, Barr, or Paul and come up with the same thing.

I thought we had put these threads to rest for a while until January 20th.


As other denizens of this fine establishment have pointed out on other threads (IIRC,AITID), there is no such thing as unbiased sources or reporting. (and if they haven't pointed it out, they should have...)

Yes, let's not do a post mortem, not while there's a coronation, er, inauguration to count down to. And remember, don't be critical of the PE, because to do so now is unpatriotic according to Joy Behar (http://newsbusters.org/blogs/justin-mccarthy/2008/11/19/pot-calling-kettle-joy-behar-labels-sarah-palin-airhead), and we wouldn't want to get on the bad side of the political/ethical thinkers of The View roundtable...  ::)



I'm amazed that you know about the brilliant political/ethical thinkers of 'The View', I certainly wasn't aware of them. However, I have seen some outtakes on CNN with the blond woman singing the praises of Sarah Palin.

Once again my pet peeve, extreme partisanism, has reared it's ugly head. I would have to disagree with Ms Behar but seem to remember similar assertions being made about criticism of President  Bush prior to our invasion of Iraq.