ALPB Forum Online

ALPB => Your Turn => Topic started by: LutherMan on October 20, 2010, 05:08:48 PM

Title: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: LutherMan on October 20, 2010, 05:08:48 PM
http://www.caaction.com/pdf/Voters-Guide-Christian-English-1p.pdf

With the upcoming elections, how many here use this little gem?  I first found it in the narthex of St. Patrick's Catholic Church in San Diego around the turn of this century.
 This thread is intended to be a serious political discussion, so discuss away.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: LutherMan on October 21, 2010, 04:48:29 AM
Originally, the pamphlet was titled Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics.  I guess they re-issued it with an altered title for more general appeal.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: James Gustafson on October 21, 2010, 07:43:32 AM
The irony here is that anyone interested enough to read a 16 page pamphlet about voting as a Christian is likely already aware of the things in the pamphlet.  They need to summarize it better, for the people that aren't interested enough but should be.   When the pamphlet speaks of, How Not to Vote,  1, not by party, 2, looks, 3, not just because someone claims to be a Christian, 4, whats in it for me, or 5, not vote for candidates that are right on lesser issues but wrong on major moral issues, the reader was already required to have read ten pages of other stuff, they probably didn't get that far.  

I'm not arguing with any single point of the pamphlet, I'm sure other would, but I wonder about the effectiveness of such a thing when I think the only people who would read the entire thing are those that don't need it.  We need brightly colored and eye grabbing graphic posters and loud 15 second commercials or we'll loose their attention.  ;)  ;D
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Charles_Austin on October 21, 2010, 07:54:01 AM
Such pamphlets also assume that "serious Christians" will resonate to what is written in them. This, of course, enables those who do to feel righteous and superior to all those "non-serious Christians" who don't resonate to the pamphlet.
And, of course, it assumes that it presents the only "Christian" way to vote. We know that is not right.
Title: Has Conservatism Lost Its Soul?
Post by: LutherMan on October 21, 2010, 08:21:13 AM
http://www.religiousconsultation.org/NEWS/has_conservatism_lost_its_soul.htm

Has Conservatism Lost Its Soul?
The Tea Party passions are the rancid emissions of class-based greed disguised with flags and Christian symbols.

By Daniel C. Maguire
daniel.maguire@marquette.edu

"Conservative" can mean a lot of things, even good things, but today
"conservative" has sunk to the moral basement. Dwight Eisenhower was
being a good conservative when he warned that "the military-industrial
complex" would milk our economy dry if not stopped, as indeed it has.
Nelson Rockefeller was being a good conservative when he said pregnant
women should be in charge of their pregnancies and not the government.
Teddy Roosevelt was being a good conservative when he pioneered
ecological sanity. Abraham Lincoln was a good conservative when he took
on slavery and when he supported state-sponsored banks to encourage
development, improve infrastructure and public education. These true
conservatives did not embrace the currently ensconced dogmatic naiveté
that government is the root of all evil.
<snip>
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: cssml on October 21, 2010, 08:46:25 AM
Originally, the pamphlet was titled Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics.  I guess they re-issued it with an altered title for more general appeal.

Yes, I have seen this guide distributed at some parishes in previous elections.  The original version includes the sources (CDF docs, CCC, Evangelium Vitae, etc) for the many quotes in it.  These are not shown as 'quotes' in the version you've posted.  For example, compare page 3, 3rd paragraph from the bottom.

  http://www.caaction.com/pdf/Voters-Guide-Catholic-English-1.pdf
  http://www.caaction.com/pdf/Voters-Guide-Christian-English-1p.pdf
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Kurt Weinelt on October 21, 2010, 11:14:24 AM
I think liberalism has lost its soul. Consider the case of Juan Williams (noted liberal journalist), whom I admire because he speaks his mind regardless of political correctness, though I disagree with him more than I agree.
Full disclosure: I donate to my local NPR affiliate, but just to support its classical music programming.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/21/AR2010102101474.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/21/AR2010102101474.html)
Kurt
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: George Erdner on October 21, 2010, 11:22:40 AM
The irony here is that anyone interested enough to read a 16 page pamphlet about voting as a Christian is likely already aware of the things in the pamphlet.  They need to summarize it better, for the people that aren't interested enough but should be.   When the pamphlet speaks of, How Not to Vote,  1, not by party, 2, looks, 3, not just because someone claims to be a Christian, 4, whats in it for me, or 5, not vote for candidates that are right on lesser issues but wrong on major moral issues, the reader was already required to have read ten pages of other stuff, they probably didn't get that far.  

I'm not arguing with any single point of the pamphlet, I'm sure other would, but I wonder about the effectiveness of such a thing when I think the only people who would read the entire thing are those that don't need it.  We need brightly colored and eye grabbing graphic posters and loud 15 second commercials or we'll loose their attention.  ;)  ;D

That could be a good thing. Like it or not, when electing people to legislative bodies, most of the time all important issues are decided by votes that are along strict party lines. Though we do not have a parliamentary system in the US, our Congress does operate very similarly to the UK's Parliament in some ways. Most important is that the party leadership on both sides of the aisle tends to determine how their people will vote. I'm not speaking about races for executive or judicial offices, where the qualifications of the individual truly matter. But when it comes to voting for someone for the US Congress or your state legislature, your best choice is to vote for the party platform that you want to see implemented. 
Title: Re: Has Conservatism Lost Its Soul?
Post by: LutherMan on October 21, 2010, 12:05:33 PM
As for Nelson Rockefeller, I had to laugh when that Eastern establishment liberal was referred to as a true conservative.
Mike
Coffee spewed out of my nose and mouth as I read that one because I was laughing out loudly.  I hade to wipe down the hospital's public monitor.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: LutherMan on October 21, 2010, 04:30:09 PM
I think liberalism has lost its soul. Consider the case of Juan Williams (noted liberal journalist), whom I admire because he speaks his mind regardless of political correctness, though I disagree with him more than I agree.
Full disclosure: I donate to my local NPR affiliate, but just to support its classical music programming.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/21/AR2010102101474.html (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/21/AR2010102101474.html)
Kurt

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/10/21/juan-williams-npr-fired-truth-muslim-garb-airplane-oreilly-ellen-weiss-bush/
JUAN WILLIAMS: I Was Fired for Telling the Truth

Yesterday NPR fired me for telling the truth. The truth is that I worry when I am getting on an airplane and see people dressed in garb that identifies them first and foremost as Muslims.

This is not a bigoted statement. It is a statement of my feelings, my fears after the terrorist attacks of 9/11 by radical Muslims. In a debate with Bill O’Reilly I revealed my fears to set up the case for not making rash judgments about people of any faith. I pointed out that the Atlanta Olympic bomber --  as well as Timothy McVeigh and the people who protest against gay rights at military funerals -- are Christians but we journalists don’t identify them by their religion.
<snip>
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Charles_Austin on October 21, 2010, 04:40:42 PM
And the relevance of that to this thread?
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: LutherMan on October 21, 2010, 05:20:09 PM
Kurt brought up Williams, so I added that he was fired for speaking the truth.  Williams is a political commentator, thus the relevance to a political discussion.
Note: With the initial launch post I added this disclaimer: This thread is intended to be a serious political discussion, so discuss away.
When a journalist/commentator gets muzzled by the mainstream liberal media for speaking the truth, it deserves discussion.
I too, like and respect Williams.  Hardly ever agree with him, but he is likable and passionate about his liberal views.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Charles_Austin on October 22, 2010, 09:02:27 AM
Those of us who choose to work in the public media must be willing to set aside certain "freedoms" for the sake of our profession. When we do or say things that could compromise our integrity as journalists, our employers have the right to let us go.
And I shall now depart this particular theme, as I fully expect the usual denunciations concerning the media, journalism, objectivity, truth, fairness and the value of cabbage.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Kurt Weinelt on October 22, 2010, 09:35:40 AM
Those of us who choose to work in the public media must be willing to set aside certain "freedoms" for the sake of our profession. When we do or say things that could compromise our integrity as journalists, our employers have the right to let us go.
And I shall now depart this particular theme, as I fully expect the usual denunciations concerning the media, journalism, objectivity, truth, fairness and the value of cabbage.
True. However in this case it was not Juan Williams who compromised his integrity as a journalist, but NPR as an institution. Since they are publicly funded by our tax money, there is a recourse to discipline NPR for their censorship from the government's side of the equation. If NPR was a privately owned enterprise, then they could only hire journalists who promoted the "company line" and I'd have no problem with that.  But as a  taxpayer and an NPR contributor, I will register my disapproval by withholding my annual pledge, and writing my congressman and senators to express my view that NPR should no longer receive tax money.

Bad timing on NPR's part that they did this during their pledge drive, and during the peak of the political "silly season." ???
Kurt
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: BrotherBoris on October 22, 2010, 10:54:20 AM
After listening to my local Roman Catholic radio station, I think some Catholics think voting is now the 8th Sacrament. If some people want to think that way, that's their business and I won't criticize them.  But according to my thinking, Christianity need not be a religion of political activism and political causes, be they conservative or liberal causes.  I am very uneasy with the entire premise of a so-called "Voter's Guide for the Serious Christian."  If one is a Christian, and has a conscience, a sense of right and wrong, a sense of ethics based on Christ's teachings in the Gospels, I don't think a so-called "Voter's Guide" is needed. 

I used to be very involved in political causes.  I found it tiresome, draining, and never saw much (if any) positive change resulting from it.  I am now content to follow Our Lord's Summary of the Law: Love God above all things and your neighbor as yourself.  I still vote for in Federal and State elections, mainly out of a sense of duty.  I really don't think my vote matters, but I am not willing to totally give up on the system just yet.  But I no longer get involved in any political activism and have removed all the bumper stickers from my car.  I am so glad that politics isn't dogma and that ultimately, Christ's Kingdom, is not of this world.

Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: efretheim on October 22, 2010, 10:58:22 AM
Bad timing on NPR's part that they did this during their pledge drive, and during the peak of the political "silly season." ???
Kurt

This is good on their part as it emphasizes yet again that there is no reason for NPR to be government sponsored and receiving government money to push their liberal agenda on the public.  Even if they had no agenda whatsoever there is still no reason for them being government sponsored and funded.  There is an abundance of media available to the public, the rural areas are no longer limited to living and getting information from within a short radius of their homes, and there are plenty of outlets for every "artist" who wants to reach the public with their particular "artsy" style show.  The same goes for PBS.  The money could be better spent on meals in the homeless shelters - not that Federal money should be used for that.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Kurt Weinelt on October 22, 2010, 11:15:35 AM
How about not spending that money AT ALL, since we're borrowing it from China anyway? There is a biblical admonition to be good stewards, and being good stewards of our nation's resources means balancing the budget and not borrowing from future generations to feed our present appetite for government spending.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: memiller on October 22, 2010, 11:22:37 AM
I am extremely politically active - in fact, just taking a break from phone banking now; I've been out walking for candidates, and am a local elected official myself. I was an Obama delegate to the 2008 national convention in Denver.

I can sympathize with Brother Boris' thought that political involvement can be unsatisfying; I've had those moments too. But on the whole I have to say that the progressive change I have seen rewards the efforts I've expended.

But then, I need church to be a refuge from all that, and not more of the same. My secular political friends often question me about why I belong to such a theologically conservative church as the LC-MS, rather than (as some others in our circles) the UUs or UCC or Disciples of Christ. My answer is that I don't see my faith as an extension of my activism. I need to worship God and set my mind on eternal things; to receive forgiveness for my sins rather than get a heavenly blessing for my political activity.

This is not to say that my faith does not influence my politics. It does, and in a progressive direction. Some here would probably argue with me on that, but let's not. All I am saying is that I am very glad that our congregation does not allow voters guides in the narthex, that Pastor does not take on political issues from the pulpit, that my political enthusiasms can be put away for a time, while I concentrate on things above.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: BrotherBoris on October 22, 2010, 11:24:44 AM
I am extremely politically active - in fact, just taking a break from phone banking now; I've been out walking for candidates, and am a local elected official myself. I was an Obama delegate to the 2008 national convention in Denver.

I can sympathize with Brother Boris' thought that political involvement can be unsatisfying; I've had those moments too. But on the whole I have to say that the progressive change I have seen rewards the efforts I've expended.

But then, I need church to be a refuge from all that, and not more of the same. My secular political friends often question me about why I belong to such a theologically conservative church as the LC-MS, rather than (as some others in our circles) the UUs or UCC or Disciples of Christ. My answer is that I don't see my faith as an extension of my activism. I need to worship God and set my mind on eternal things; to receive forgiveness for my sins rather than get a heavenly blessing for my political activity.

This is not to say that my faith does not influence my politics. It does, and in a progressive direction. Some here would probably argue with me on that, but let's not. All I am saying is that I am very glad that our congregation does not allow voters guides in the narthex, that Pastor does not take on political issues from the pulpit, that my political enthusiasms can be put away for a time, while I concentrate on things above.



Amen! My sentiments exactly.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: jpetty on October 22, 2010, 01:56:18 PM
Kurt brought up Williams, so I added that he was fired for speaking the truth.  Williams is a political commentator, thus the relevance to a political discussion.
Note: With the initial launch post I added this disclaimer: This thread is intended to be a serious political discussion, so discuss away.
When a journalist/commentator gets muzzled by the mainstream liberal media for speaking the truth, it deserves discussion.
I too, like and respect Williams.  Hardly ever agree with him, but he is likable and passionate about his liberal views.

Which "truth" are you talking about?  That people who dress like Muslims want to blow you up?
Title: Re: Has Conservatism Lost Its Soul?
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on October 22, 2010, 02:00:38 PM
LutherMan, nearly everything he has written could be titled, "Rancid Emissions of Class-based Greed Disguised with Christian Symbols by Daniel C. Maguire."

Now to go wash my eyes.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: James_Gale on October 22, 2010, 02:08:51 PM
Kurt brought up Williams, so I added that he was fired for speaking the truth.  Williams is a political commentator, thus the relevance to a political discussion.
Note: With the initial launch post I added this disclaimer: This thread is intended to be a serious political discussion, so discuss away.
When a journalist/commentator gets muzzled by the mainstream liberal media for speaking the truth, it deserves discussion.
I too, like and respect Williams.  Hardly ever agree with him, but he is likable and passionate about his liberal views.

Which "truth" are you talking about?  That people who dress like Muslims want to blow you up?

That's not what Williams said.  If you're going to criticize the man, you should at least criticize him for something that he actually did or said.  Not for something very different that you've made up.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Kurt Weinelt on October 22, 2010, 02:14:13 PM
Which "truth" are you talking about?  That people who dress like Muslims want to blow you up?
That's not what Williams said.  If you're going to criticize the man, you should at least criticize him for something that he actually did or said.  Not for something very different that you've made up.
But a straw man is much easier to attack in a one-line drive-by posting. ::)
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: pbnorth3 on October 22, 2010, 02:37:40 PM
To move this topic forward a bit, I would say that as a Christian I have become very wary of connecting myself to either "conservative" or "liberal" causes; for neither area (and neither party) really seeks the cause of Christ, but rather its own domination over things.

One thing I would say about the "conservative" side of things that I would mention. I cannot go along with Glenn Beck (who is actually a Mormon libertarian I think). While I agree that our country should get back to God, he seems to have a "pluralistic, American Civil Religion" view of God that I cannot accept. It is not enough that we acknowledge "a god," but rather give glory to the only God there is: The God of the Old and New Testament. Not Allah, not Vishnu, not Buddah, not the Dali Lama, etc.

At least the left is honest about the fact that they don't care about God at all and don't think any talk of him should be relevant to the political discussion. They embrace no god. Glenn Beck and his crowd embrace every notion of God or a god. Both are damnable and should be shunned by Christians, in my opinion.

In short, it is hard to vote for Christian values and beliefs when in actuality most politicians couldn't care less no matter how much they publically speak of God.

Peace in the Lord Jesus Christ!
Rob Buechler
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: George Erdner on October 22, 2010, 02:46:28 PM
Kurt brought up Williams, so I added that he was fired for speaking the truth.  Williams is a political commentator, thus the relevance to a political discussion.
Note: With the initial launch post I added this disclaimer: This thread is intended to be a serious political discussion, so discuss away.
When a journalist/commentator gets muzzled by the mainstream liberal media for speaking the truth, it deserves discussion.
I too, like and respect Williams.  Hardly ever agree with him, but he is likable and passionate about his liberal views.

Which "truth" are you talking about?  That people who dress like Muslims want to blow you up?

Actually, you have it slightly backwards. It's not that people who dress like Muslims want to blow people up. That implies that all people who dress like Muslims want to blow people up. It's more like people who want to blow people up dress like Muslims. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims, at least at this point in history.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Matt on October 22, 2010, 03:05:47 PM
As a life-long political conservative, I am concerned about the rise of American Civil Religion on the Right. Now I know that a large portion of god-talk has always been a part of political discourse in the U.S., but I think it is on the rise. The recent surprisingly large, surprisingly positive Glenn Beck rally in Washington is a case in point. What was on display there was a very different thing than the Tea Party anger that most people, especially in the media, expected. The left is working hard to play the same game as well, note the attention paid to the line up of prominent ministers offering prayers at inauguration events.

Why does this concern me? Generally I agree with Beck's positions, and appreciate patriotic sentiments and appreciation for the military and socially conservative ideas. It is not just the Mormon influence that bothers me, but that is part of it.

What bothers me is that all of this is fiercely unionistic and syncretistic. The lifeblood of this movement is most Americans deep ignorance about what they believe, teach and confess. I know many conservatives who really don't understand the distinction between their political and theological loyalties. People argue passionately that Beck and Limbaugh speak for American Christians when neither is a Christian. S.E. Cupp has written a book denouncing the liberal attack on Christianity though she is a self-described atheist. When non-Christians are able to sell themselves as leaders of American Christians than the sheep are following the wrong shepherds.

Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on October 22, 2010, 03:11:32 PM
What bothers me is that all of this is fiercely unionistic and syncretistic. The lifeblood of this movement is most Americans deep ignorance about what they believe, teach and confess. I know many conservatives who really don't understand the distinction between their political and theological loyalties. People argue passionately that Beck and Limbaugh speak for American Christians when neither is a Christian. S.E. Cupp has written a book denouncing the liberal attack on Christianity though she is a self-described atheist. When non-Christians are able to sell themselves as leaders of American Christians than the sheep are following the wrong shepherds.

I don't follow you, Mr. Jamison. Certainly Beck and Cupp can defend the rights of and speak for Christians as well as lead them- in the Kingdom of the Left- just as George W. Bush or Mike Huckabee could. By following their lead how are we (sheep) following the wrong leader (shepherd)?

Not only do I disagree with the idea that "most Americans [have a] deep ignorance about what they believe, teach and confess." Is that not also a confusion with the Kingdom of the Left from whence Beck and Cupp speak?
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: LutherMan on October 22, 2010, 03:53:06 PM
Kurt brought up Williams, so I added that he was fired for speaking the truth.  Williams is a political commentator, thus the relevance to a political discussion.
Note: With the initial launch post I added this disclaimer: This thread is intended to be a serious political discussion, so discuss away.
When a journalist/commentator gets muzzled by the mainstream liberal media for speaking the truth, it deserves discussion.
I too, like and respect Williams.  Hardly ever agree with him, but he is likable and passionate about his liberal views.

Which "truth" are you talking about?  That people who dress like Muslims want to blow you up?
"Yesterday NPR fired me for telling the truth. The truth is that I worry when I am getting on an airplane and see people dressed in garb that identifies them first and foremost as Muslims."

Uhh, did you even read his quote?
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: jpetty on October 22, 2010, 03:59:33 PM
Kurt brought up Williams, so I added that he was fired for speaking the truth.  Williams is a political commentator, thus the relevance to a political discussion.
Note: With the initial launch post I added this disclaimer: This thread is intended to be a serious political discussion, so discuss away.
When a journalist/commentator gets muzzled by the mainstream liberal media for speaking the truth, it deserves discussion.
I too, like and respect Williams.  Hardly ever agree with him, but he is likable and passionate about his liberal views.

Which "truth" are you talking about?  That people who dress like Muslims want to blow you up?

Actually, you have it slightly backwards. It's not that people who dress like Muslims want to blow people up. That implies that all people who dress like Muslims want to blow people up. It's more like people who want to blow people up dress like Muslims. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims, at least at this point in history.

Maybe so, but it doesn't justify freaking out over Muslims--unless you're a major nervous-nellie or work for Fox News, or both.

Besides, not all terrorists are Muslim.  Why, Timothy McVeigh looks almost...Lutheran. 
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: pbnorth3 on October 22, 2010, 04:11:01 PM
Kurt brought up Williams, so I added that he was fired for speaking the truth.  Williams is a political commentator, thus the relevance to a political discussion.
Note: With the initial launch post I added this disclaimer: This thread is intended to be a serious political discussion, so discuss away.
When a journalist/commentator gets muzzled by the mainstream liberal media for speaking the truth, it deserves discussion.
I too, like and respect Williams.  Hardly ever agree with him, but he is likable and passionate about his liberal views.

Which "truth" are you talking about?  That people who dress like Muslims want to blow you up?

Actually, you have it slightly backwards. It's not that people who dress like Muslims want to blow people up. That implies that all people who dress like Muslims want to blow people up. It's more like people who want to blow people up dress like Muslims. Not all Muslims are terrorists, but most terrorists are Muslims, at least at this point in history.

Maybe so, but it doesn't justify freaking out over Muslims--unless you're a major nervous-nellie or work for Fox News, or both.

Besides, not all terrorists are Muslim.  Why, Timothy McVeigh looks almost...Lutheran. 

And he freaked out over Muslims how? You didn't even read what he said or see what he said did you? If you did, you would have seen that Mr. Williams also said that not all Muslims are terrorists or support terrorism. You would have seen that he supported the absolute right of Muslims to live and be Muslim, as he supports that right for everyone. So did you actually listen to him or listen to what someone said about him?

Peace in the Lord Jesus Christ!
Rob Buechler
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: jpetty on October 22, 2010, 04:18:22 PM
Let's just say that he'll have a fine career with Fox.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: pbnorth3 on October 22, 2010, 04:21:02 PM
Let's just say that he'll have a fine career with Fox.

Fine. Oh by the way, say hello to Ralph Rohr when you see  him. I haven't seen him in a long time. He is at Trinity in Laramie.

Peace in the Lord Jesus Christ!
Rob Buechler
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: James_Gale on October 22, 2010, 04:37:56 PM
What bothers me is that all of this is fiercely unionistic and syncretistic. The lifeblood of this movement is most Americans deep ignorance about what they believe, teach and confess. I know many conservatives who really don't understand the distinction between their political and theological loyalties. People argue passionately that Beck and Limbaugh speak for American Christians when neither is a Christian. S.E. Cupp has written a book denouncing the liberal attack on Christianity though she is a self-described atheist. When non-Christians are able to sell themselves as leaders of American Christians than the sheep are following the wrong shepherds.

First, I think that the term "civil religion" is being used loosely and differently by different people in our society.  As a political science student, I learned about the "civil religions" of particular nations.  A particular civil religion might be tied to a particular religion (e.g., Saudi Arabia, Israel).  Or it might not be (e.g., the US).  The US civil religion is founded on the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the writings of Jefferson and of Lincoln, etc.  Many of these draw in some fashion on an assumption that there is a god, but almost never on the sectarian understanding of any particular religious group.

Some today seem to be using the term "civil religion" to mean something different; to mean a theistic religion.  I'm not arguing that this understanding is incorrect.  But it is not the same as the meaning taught in political science class.  So we need to take care in defining our terms lest we be misunderstood.

I think that Beck's "civil religion" falls mostly into the first category.  I don't watch his show.  He's way too melodramatic for my taste.  But I read enough of his writings to have some understanding of his arguments.  And I don't think that he is trying to say that all religion is the same or that the differences between religions don't matter.  He'd get in big trouble with the LDS leadership if he did argue that.  

Instead, I think that he is arguing that religious faith of many stripes provides an important foundation for good citizenship.  Why?  Religious people understand that there is a higher power.  They therefore must approach all issues -- religious and secular -- with humility.  They understand that rights are not a human construct.  Rather, they flow from natural law.  From Beck's perspective, a proper understanding of natural law leads people away from believing that humans can solve problems and advance humanity by forming a government of experts who are charged with imposing solutions and choices.  Because Beck is a man of faith, he understands all of this.  He believes that if others reflect on their religious faith -- whatever that might be -- they will reach the same political conclusions.  So he asks people to turn to faith, to pray, to reflect, and then to get involved politically in accord with their consciences.

He contrasts this approach with the "progressive" movement.  (He seems to paint progressives in the most ominous possible light, which is part of the reason I have a hard time watching his show.)  Progressives, he believes, put humans above any god, and believe that people can and should drive the world toward some utopian vision.  He traces back to times when "progressives" proposed eugenics as one possible method for moving humanity forward.  Progressivism for Beck ultimately is a cold, empty ideology.  While it purports to rest on "reason," Beck would argue that it ultimately does not.  Because once you've rejected natural law -- under which people know that they are not gods -- there is nothing left but a Hobbesian struggle for power.

One can certainly take issue with Beck's arguments.  (I may not have gotten them quite right.  Either way, one certainly can take issue with what I've described here.)  However, I don't think that one can fairly say that he is purporting to preach anything approaching unionism or syncretism.  I'm quite sure that he -- a practicing LDS -- still believes that the rest of us will spend eternity, not in the celestial kingdom with him, but in either the terrestrial or telestial kingdom.  And for him to even suggest otherwise would be in conflict with his religious beliefs as much as with ours.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: James_Gale on October 22, 2010, 04:59:03 PM
Let's just say that he'll have a fine career with Fox.

I'm sure that he will.  He will prove, as he has for years, that people on the left of the US political spectrum can thrive on that network.

Rather than being snide, which enlightens nobody while inflaming many, I ask that you consider the Eighth Commandment, read Mr. Williams's entire statement, and then offer any thoughtful comments you might have. 

You can do better, Pr. Petty.  Much better.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: LutherMan on October 22, 2010, 05:11:57 PM
Juan Williams is guest-hosting the O'Reilley Factor tonight, for those who are willing to watch FNC.   ;D ;D
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Revbert on October 22, 2010, 08:01:15 PM
Let's just say that he'll have a fine career with Fox.

I'm sure that he will.  He will prove, as he has for years, that people on the left of the US political spectrum can thrive on that network.

Rather than being snide, which enlightens nobody while inflaming many, I ask that you consider the Eighth Commandment, read Mr. Williams's entire statement, and then offer any thoughtful comments you might have. 

You can do better, Pr. Petty.  Much better.


I am no liberal, but I like Juan Williams a lot. He's a good man, from all I hear.

He was on Sean Hannity's radio show this afternoon. One comment he made was telling.  (paraphrasing here) "I always thought, like others, that those on the Right were monolithic and close-minded. What I have learned, and the events this week confirm, is that it is the Left that has no tolerance, except for those who agree with them."

Juan....use the Force....let the Force guide you <G>
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: LutherMan on October 23, 2010, 07:33:30 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/21/raw-data-npr-internal-memo-juan-williams/
Quote
The following is an internal memo sent on behalf of NPR President and CEO Vivian Schiller:

Dear AREPS,

Thank you for all of your varying feedback on the Juan Williams situation. Let me offer some further clarification about why we terminated his contract early.

First, a critical distinction has been lost in this debate. NPR News analysts have a distinctive role and set of responsibilities. This is a very different role than that of a commentator or columnist. News analysts may not take personal public positions on controversial issues; doing so undermines their credibility as analysts, and that’s what’s happened in this situation. As you all well know, we offer views of all kinds on your air every day, but those views are expressed by those we interview – not our reporters and analysts.

<snip>
We’re profoundly sorry that this happened during fundraising week. Juan’s comments were made Monday night and we did not feel it would be responsible to delay this action.

This was a tough decision and we appreciate your support.

Thanks,

Vivian

Vivian Schiller
I sincerely hope their fundraising efforts were seriously impacted by this decision.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Charles_Austin on October 23, 2010, 08:19:53 AM
"Lutherman" writes (re NPR):
I sincerely hope their fundraising efforts were seriously impacted by this decision.

I comment:
So do I. My own pledge is going up 10 percent. And I suspect other will increase their pledge as well. This has nothing to do directly with the Williams decision itself, but is to counter the effect of all the ridiculous comments that are being made about the decision. It is a burden some of us have to bear. What people like you say actually costs us money.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: LutherMan on October 23, 2010, 08:22:36 AM
Your bill may become even higher.  Good luck with the added burden...

Republicans to Add NPR Funding to 'You Cut' Budget Slashing Contest
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/10/22/republicans-add-npr-funding-cut-budget-slashing-contest/?test=latestnews
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on October 23, 2010, 09:35:21 AM
It is a burden some of us have to bear. What people like you say actually costs us money.

A burden that you choose to bear while complaining about those who voice their opinions that might not agree with yours.

"I used to think the right was the intolerant ones." [Juan Williams]
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Kurt Weinelt on October 23, 2010, 10:36:51 AM
It is a burden some of us have to bear. What people like you say actually costs us money.
A burden that you choose to bear while complaining about those who voice their opinions that might not agree with yours.
"I used to think the right was the intolerant ones." [Juan Williams]
In the spirit of the 1st amendment, it is a conflict of interest for the government to be funding a radio news outlet. If it does, the news outlet should not be enforcing speech codes, but allowing impartial debate on all sides of issues it considers. I used to listen to NPR programs, but in recent years I have grown tired of the increasingly one-sided news and opinion programming. I don't even listen to Prarie Home Companion anymore (and I raised my kids listening to it) due to Keillor's politicization of his program.  Better for the govenment to stop subsidizing NPR totally and allow it to be a liberal mouthpiece; I have absolutely no problem with NPR fulfilling this role as long as this unholy marriage between state and press is dissolved. I can choose to withhold my annual pledge this year (we have a classical music NPR affiliate here along with another station that airs NPR programming); but under force of law I must contribute my tax money to NPR.

Something to ponder: Williams was th ONLY prominent African-American on the air at NPR, by his own admission. I know this firing was political, and absolutely not racial. But if a conservative radio network only had one African-American on the air and fired him/her for political speech that annoyed the management, I think the press covereage would be entirely different.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Charles_Austin on October 23, 2010, 01:11:14 PM
dgkirch writes (to me, I think)
A burden that you choose to bear while complaining about those who voice their opinions that might not agree with yours.

I comment:
What a strange twist! I criticize and argue with those whose opinions I think might be wrong. That is called discussion and free speech, not "complaining."
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: George Erdner on October 23, 2010, 01:14:18 PM
dgkirch writes (to me, I think)
A burden that you choose to bear while complaining about those who voice their opinions that might not agree with yours.

I comment:
What a strange twist! I criticize and argue with those whose opinions I think might be wrong. That is called discussion and free speech, not "complaining."

"Discussion and free speech" describes what you say, "complaining" describes how you say it.

Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 23, 2010, 01:15:25 PM
Let's just say that he'll have a fine career with Fox.

Fine. Oh by the way, say hello to Ralph Rohr when you see  him. I haven't seen him in a long time. He is at Trinity in Laramie.

I know Ralph, too.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 23, 2010, 01:19:33 PM
"Yesterday NPR fired me for telling the truth. The truth is that I worry when I am getting on an airplane and see people dressed in garb that identifies them first and foremost as Muslims."

Uhh, did you even read his quote?

How do Muslims dress? See http://muslimswearingthings.tumblr.com/

I've read that about 80% of the men who wear turbans are Sikhs, not Muslim. (I used to live in an area with the second largest Sikh temple outside of India.) Just because a man is wearing a turban doesn't mean that he is Muslim. Don't we say that it is not good to judge a book by its cover?
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: George Erdner on October 23, 2010, 01:37:00 PM
"Yesterday NPR fired me for telling the truth. The truth is that I worry when I am getting on an airplane and see people dressed in garb that identifies them first and foremost as Muslims."

Uhh, did you even read his quote?

How do Muslims dress? See http://muslimswearingthings.tumblr.com/

I've read that about 80% of the men who wear turbans are Sikhs, not Muslim. (I used to live in an area with the second largest Sikh temple outside of India.) Just because a man is wearing a turban doesn't mean that he is Muslim. Don't we say that it is not good to judge a book by its cover?

Who said anything about turbans? Muslim men often wear a kufiya or taqiyah, a doppa, a kopiah, or sometimes a fez. Where did you come up with turbans?
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on October 23, 2010, 03:19:49 PM
"Yesterday NPR fired me for telling the truth. The truth is that I worry when I am getting on an airplane and see people dressed in garb that identifies them first and foremost as Muslims."

Uhh, did you even read his quote?

How do Muslims dress? See http://muslimswearingthings.tumblr.com/

I've read that about 80% of the men who wear turbans are Sikhs, not Muslim. (I used to live in an area with the second largest Sikh temple outside of India.) Just because a man is wearing a turban doesn't mean that he is Muslim. Don't we say that it is not good to judge a book by its cover?

Who said anything about turbans? Muslim men often wear a kufiya or taqiyah, a doppa, a kopiah, or sometimes a fez. Where did you come up with turbans?

How many of those define them as distinctly Muslim? A kufiya is worn by Arabs -- some could even be Christian. The taqihah dates from pre-Muslim times. The doppa is just a square or round cap worn by men in the Caucasus area. While most are Muslim, it is not a sign of being Muslim. A kopiah is also called a yarmulke and is frequently worn by Jewish men! A fez was the Turkish national headdress. (I've seen a lot of shriners wear them.)
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: George Erdner on October 23, 2010, 03:46:40 PM
How many of those define them as distinctly Muslim? A kufiya is worn by Arabs -- some could even be Christian. The taqihah dates from pre-Muslim times. The doppa is just a square or round cap worn by men in the Caucasus area. While most are Muslim, it is not a sign of being Muslim. A kopiah is also called a yarmulke and is frequently worn by Jewish men! A fez was the Turkish national headdress. (I've seen a lot of shriners wear them.)

None. I wouldn't attempt to define them. I was only pointing out that they are more appropriate for a red herring digression from the topic to the issue of Muslim headgear than turbans were.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: EarlOfOrmond on October 23, 2010, 08:53:57 PM
The day a church or pastor tells me how I have to vote to be a "good Christian" is the day I am no longer a member of that congregation.

I have voted in every Presidential election since 1984.

I voted for Reagan, Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton (almost Perot), Bush, Kerry and Obama.

It is fallacious to automatically equate theological "conservatism" with Republican Party policies.

It is equally fallacious to automatically equate someone who does not vote straight Republican with those who favour unrestricted abortion.

I have little time for the "Tea Party," but as long as what they do remains peaceful, I do not oppose them.

It is quite likely that some members of my congregation do not like the fact that our car has an Obama bumper sticker, but they've at least done the decent thing and not tried to tell us to remove it.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: George Erdner on October 23, 2010, 09:11:07 PM
The day a church or pastor tells me how I have to vote to be a "good Christian" is the day I am no longer a member of that congregation.

I have voted in every Presidential election since 1984.

I voted for Reagan, Dukakis, Clinton, Clinton (almost Perot), Bush, Kerry and Obama.

It is fallacious to automatically equate theological "conservatism" with Republican Party policies.

It is equally fallacious to automatically equate someone who does not vote straight Republican with those who favour unrestricted abortion.

I have little time for the "Tea Party," but as long as what they do remains peaceful, I do not oppose them.

It is quite likely that some members of my congregation do not like the fact that our car has an Obama bumper sticker, but they've at least done the decent thing and not tried to tell us to remove it.

Why do you only list Presidential elections? Do you not vote in State or local elections? Do you live in a state with no referendums? What if there was a referendum on the ballot to either legalize or outlaw something or other that definitely was counter to a clear and undisputed Christian teaching?
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: EarlOfOrmond on October 24, 2010, 02:42:57 AM
Why do you only list Presidential elections? Do you not vote in State or local elections? Do you live in a state with no referendums? What if there was a referendum on the ballot to either legalize or outlaw something or other that definitely was counter to a clear and undisputed Christian teaching?

Yes, I vote in State and local elections as well, but I didn't list them because I cannot say with any surety that I have voted in all of them since 1984, the year I turned 18 and became eligible to vote.

Referenda - I was born in Indiana and lived there 41 years of my life.  I cannot say that there was ever a referendum on any issue on the ballot during my time there as an eligible voter.  There may have been but I do not remember.

I live in Michigan and have for the past three years.  My first time voting here (2008) there was a referendum question that I think falls under your listing of "clear and undisputed Christian teaching," George.  Proposal 08-2 would have addressed expansion of embryonic stem cell research in Michigan.  I voted "no," as I do not see why this must be done when research can be done on umbilical cords without destroying embryonic human life.

This year the only referendum I know of has to do with rewriting the State Constitution, which to me falls under Luther's "kingdom of the left hand."
Title: Conn.: Voters should ditch WWE garb at the polls
Post by: LutherMan on October 24, 2010, 07:20:26 AM
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20101023/ap_on_el_se/us_connecticut_senate_wwe_5

Conn.: Voters should ditch WWE garb at the polls


By PAT EATON-ROBB, Associated Press Writer

HARTFORD, Conn. – Local election officials in Connecticut are being told they can ask people wearing World Wrestling Entertainment garb to cover it up while voting because it could be considered political advertising for Republican Senate candidate Linda McMahon, the company's former CEO.

State election law prevents political advertising within 75 feet of the polls.

Av Harris, spokesman for the secretary of the state's office, said the state's advice doesn't mean that voters wearing WWE apparel will not be allowed to vote.

"But if the local officials feel it's becoming an issue, they can tell someone to cover that up or come back wearing something else. It will be handled on a case-by-case basis," Harris said.

McMahon stepped down as WWE's chief executive officer last fall to run for Senate.
<snip>
Title: NPR Affiliate Managers Voice Discontent with Firing of Juan Williams
Post by: LutherMan on October 25, 2010, 06:40:23 PM
NPR Affiliate Managers Voice Discontent with Firing of Juan Williams

Executives at NPR affiliate stations across the United States have begun publicly voicing discontent in the aftermath of the network's dismissal of news analyst Juan Williams, with several station managers openly questioning the actions and judgment of NPR President and CEO Vivian Schiller.

Some station executives said Williams should not have been fired, while others said the firing should have been more professionally handled. Still others questioned whether NPR is fairly administering its own ethics rules, and suggested Williams was fired purely because he appears on Fox News.

The statements by NPR affiliate managers come in the wake of Schiller's issuance late Sunday of a written apology to them for her handling of the incident, which has generated more flak for NPR than any other event in the network's forty-year history of operations


Read more: http://politics.blogs.foxnews.com/2010/10/25/npr-affiliate-managers-voice-discontent-firing-juan-williams#ixzz13PfXrAn9
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: ptmccain on October 25, 2010, 06:42:31 PM
Aside from the validity of her decision, the decision to can a popular NPR personality during the Fall fund drive *should* raise a whole host of questions about this woman's competence. I hope she ends up getting fired.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: LutherMan on October 25, 2010, 06:44:23 PM
I hope she ends up getting fired.
You and me both.  And I also hope if we get a Republican majority in the House & Senate, they will end taxpayer subsides to NPR.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: LutherMan on October 25, 2010, 07:13:36 PM
An O'Rielley Factor producer caught up with her for a street interview.  It airs in about 45 minutes.  Should be interesting...
 ;D
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: George Erdner on October 25, 2010, 07:30:32 PM
I live in Michigan and have for the past three years.  My first time voting here (2008) there was a referendum question that I think falls under your listing of "clear and undisputed Christian teaching," George.  Proposal 08-2 would have addressed expansion of embryonic stem cell research in Michigan.  I voted "no," as I do not see why this must be done when research can be done on umbilical cords without destroying embryonic human life.


So, does that make you reconsider your statement, "The day a church or pastor tells me how I have to vote to be a 'good Christian' is the day I am no longer a member of that congregation."? What if a pastor recommended voting "no" on the stem cell referendum?
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: EarlOfOrmond on October 26, 2010, 01:44:03 AM
So, does that make you reconsider your statement, "The day a church or pastor tells me how I have to vote to be a 'good Christian' is the day I am no longer a member of that congregation."? What if a pastor recommended voting "no" on the stem cell referendum?

It does not make me reconsider my statement.

A "recommendation" from a pastor is quite different from a peremptory directive.

I refer to the Roman Catholic priest who queried his parishioners on whether or not they voted for Obama and if they did they were refused Communion.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Donald_Kirchner on October 26, 2010, 10:02:29 AM

I refer to the Roman Catholic priest who queried his parishioners on whether or not they voted for Obama and if they did they were refused Communion.

Oh, did he deem them to be of insufficient mental capacity?
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: jpetty on October 26, 2010, 05:51:44 PM
I hope she ends up getting fired.
You and me both.  And I also hope if we get a Republican majority in the House & Senate, they will end taxpayer subsides to NPR.

Possibly the House, not the Senate.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Richard Johnson on October 26, 2010, 06:22:28 PM
Somebody mark this, so it can be quoted back to him later.  ;D

From what I read, certainly the House, possibly the Senate.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: LutherMan on October 26, 2010, 06:40:40 PM
I hope she ends up getting fired.
You and me both.  And I also hope if we get a Republican majority in the House & Senate, they will end taxpayer subsides to NPR.

Possibly the House, not the Senate.
I know one thing, Fiorini could unseat Sen. Ma'am Boxer.
The entire thirteen years that Boxer was my senator, I never sent her Republican opponent a dime, considering it a lost cause.  This year, ironically no longer a CA resident, I have donated to Sen. Ma'am's opponent.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: James_Gale on October 26, 2010, 06:42:22 PM
Somebody mark this, so it can be quoted back to him later.  ;D

From what I read, certainly the House, possibly the Senate.

And according to PPP (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/10/hickenlooper-lead-down-to-3.html), a Democratic-leaning polling firm, American Constitution Party candidate Tom Tancredo has pulled into a statistical tie with Democratic Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper in the race for Colorado governor.  Hickenlooper remains the favorite, from what I hear.  But it could be an interesting election night in the Colorado.  
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: James_Gale on October 26, 2010, 06:45:28 PM
I hope she ends up getting fired.
You and me both.  And I also hope if we get a Republican majority in the House & Senate, they will end taxpayer subsides to NPR.

Possibly the House, not the Senate.
I know one thing, Fiorini could unseat Sen. Ma'am Boxer.
The entire thirteen years that Boxer was my senator, I never sent her Republican opponent a dime, considering it a lost cause.  This year, ironically no longer a CA resident, I have donated to Sen. Ma'am's opponent.

Have you seen this video (http://vimeo.com/16072732), produced by David Zucker of Airplane fame?
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: LutherMan on October 26, 2010, 06:50:36 PM
I hope she ends up getting fired.
You and me both.  And I also hope if we get a Republican majority in the House & Senate, they will end taxpayer subsides to NPR.

Possibly the House, not the Senate.
I know one thing, Fiorini could unseat Sen. Ma'am Boxer.
The entire thirteen years that Boxer was my senator, I never sent her Republican opponent a dime, considering it a lost cause.  This year, ironically no longer a CA resident, I have donated to Sen. Ma'am's opponent.

Have you seen this video (http://vimeo.com/16072732), produced by David Zucker of Airplane fame?
No, I hadn't, James!   :D
Thanks for directing me to it.  Hope it is getting lot's of airplay in CA. ;D
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: James_Gale on October 26, 2010, 06:58:39 PM
I hope she ends up getting fired.
You and me both.  And I also hope if we get a Republican majority in the House & Senate, they will end taxpayer subsides to NPR.

Possibly the House, not the Senate.
I know one thing, Fiorini could unseat Sen. Ma'am Boxer.
The entire thirteen years that Boxer was my senator, I never sent her Republican opponent a dime, considering it a lost cause.  This year, ironically no longer a CA resident, I have donated to Sen. Ma'am's opponent.

Have you seen this video (http://vimeo.com/16072732), produced by David Zucker of Airplane fame?
No, I hadn't, James!   :D
Thanks for directing me to it.  Hope it is getting lot's of airplay in CA. ;D

The actors include Clint Howard (brother of Ron) as the other senator, Nick Searcy as the major general, Ed Ames as the chief, and the very talented Alfonzo "Zo" Rachel as the police captain.  They were all volunteers.  I guess that there are a smattering of conservatives in Hollywood.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: LutherMan on October 26, 2010, 07:01:04 PM
Mother Superior, who worked very hard for that title, looked familiar to me too.  ;D
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: James_Gale on October 26, 2010, 07:02:47 PM
What bothers me about the quote from Mr. Williams is the fact that he is uncomfortable with people for identifying first and foremost as Muslim, thus according to their faith.  Are we not as Christians to identify first and foremost by our faith?  I know I do.  First I'm a Christian, and somewhere later I'm an American.  Why should our identification first and foremost with our faith be somehow benign when other faith traditions are somehow sinister?  I'm not arguing that these faiths are legitimate.  As far as I'm concerned, they're not.  What I am concerned about in this situation is the hypocrisy that is implied here that when someone does something, it's wrong, but when I do the same thing, it's somehow perfectly acceptable and perhaps even right.

Mr. Williams made clear that he also was uncomfortable with his feelings.  I suspect that he'd agree with much or all of your statement.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: peter_speckhard on October 27, 2010, 12:19:26 AM
So, does that make you reconsider your statement, "The day a church or pastor tells me how I have to vote to be a 'good Christian' is the day I am no longer a member of that congregation."? What if a pastor recommended voting "no" on the stem cell referendum?

It does not make me reconsider my statement.

A "recommendation" from a pastor is quite different from a peremptory directive.

I refer to the Roman Catholic priest who queried his parishioners on whether or not they voted for Obama and if they did they were refused Communion.
I'd be amazed if that were true.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Charles_Austin on October 27, 2010, 04:45:06 AM
Have you not read of bishops who said that Catholic should be denied communion if they voted for "pro-choice" candidates?
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: George Erdner on October 27, 2010, 08:23:07 AM
Have you not read of bishops who said that Catholic should be denied communion if they voted for "pro-choice" candidates?

Care to refresh every one's memory on this? Did they say that Catholics who voted for "pro-choice" candidates should be excommunicated, or did they actually do it? I do recall when John Kerry was denied communion at a Midwestern Roman Catholic Church because of his pro-abortion stand, but I also recall that he was given communion at his wife's church in Sharpsburg, PA. I was shooting the Catholics at St. Sylvester at the time that happened.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Charles_Austin on October 27, 2010, 08:32:43 AM
 ;)  >:(  ::) ::)
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: jpetty on October 27, 2010, 01:32:05 PM
Pastor Buechler is quite likely to be disappointed by the returns from California and Mr. Gale is likely to be disappointed by the returns from Colorado.

One of the bishops, incidentally, who said Catholics who vote Democratic shouldn't receive communion was Michael Sheridan in Colorado Springs, 2004.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: James_Gale on October 27, 2010, 01:57:00 PM
Pastor Buechler is quite likely to be disappointed by the returns from California and Mr. Gale is likely to be disappointed by the returns from Colorado.

One of the bishops, incidentally, who said Catholics who vote Democratic shouldn't receive communion was Michael Sheridan in Colorado Springs, 2004.

I'm sure that some election results will disappoint me and some will not.  So it goes in a democracy.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Richard Johnson on October 27, 2010, 01:59:38 PM
And according to PPP (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/10/hickenlooper-lead-down-to-3.html), a Democratic-leaning polling firm, American Constitution Party candidate Tom Tancredo has pulled into a statistical tie with Democratic Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper in the race for Colorado governor.  Hickenlooper remains the favorite, from what I hear.  But it could be an interesting election night in the Colorado. 

Pastor Buechler is quite likely to be disappointed by the returns from California and Mr. Gale is likely to be disappointed by the returns from Colorado.

What, you think it isn't going to be interesting election night in Colorado?
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: jpetty on October 27, 2010, 03:40:25 PM
Yes, it will be interesting, but a Tancredo win is extremely unlikely.  If the GOP nominee, Dan Maes, gets under 10%, the GOP is relegated to minor party status in Colorado until 2014.

The real question, in my view, is whether or not John Salazar holds his seat in western Colorado.  If he loses, it will be a very bad night for the Democrats.  If he wins, it's likely to be only a mildly bad night for Dems.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: pr dtp on October 27, 2010, 03:54:22 PM
Have you not read of bishops who said that Catholic should be denied communion if they voted for "pro-choice" candidates?

Care to refresh every one's memory on this? Did they say that Catholics who voted for "pro-choice" candidates should be excommunicated, or did they actually do it? I do recall when John Kerry was denied communion at a Midwestern Roman Catholic Church because of his pro-abortion stand, but I also recall that he was given communion at his wife's church in Sharpsburg, PA. I was shooting the Catholics at St. Sylvester at the time that happened.

Wasn' there something similar when the pope visited New York regarding Giuliani?
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Charles_Austin on October 27, 2010, 04:17:42 PM
No, that story was about whether Guliani should have received communion because he supports abortion rights, not because he was divorced. Being divorced does not excommunicate one; being remarried sans annulment does.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Richard Johnson on October 27, 2010, 04:20:29 PM
Yes, it will be interesting, but a Tancredo win is extremely unlikely.  If the GOP nominee, Dan Maes, gets under 10%, the GOP is relegated to minor party status in Colorado until 2014.

You miss the point. All Mr. Gale said is that it will be interesting. He did not anticipate or favor a Tancredo win.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: jpetty on October 27, 2010, 04:34:55 PM
Yes, it will be interesting, but a Tancredo win is extremely unlikely.  If the GOP nominee, Dan Maes, gets under 10%, the GOP is relegated to minor party status in Colorado until 2014.

You miss the point. All Mr. Gale said is that it will be interesting. He did not anticipate or favor a Tancredo win.

I read his remark as looking kindly on a possible Tancredo win.  I make no judgment about this incidentally.  If you let yourself get worked up over another individual's politics, you're probably going to be mad at about half the people of the country, and, to paraphrase a great movie, "Angry and worked up is no way to go through life, son."  Like everybody else, I do have my own preferences and hopes for the country, but as to who my neighbor votes for, that's not my concern.

That said, I'll happily argue with him for awhile if that's what he wants to do.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Richard Johnson on October 27, 2010, 04:55:12 PM
I read his remark as looking kindly on a possible Tancredo win. 

I think the proper thing to say would be that you read INTO his remark. What he said was:

And according to PPP (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/10/hickenlooper-lead-down-to-3.html), a Democratic-leaning polling firm, American Constitution Party candidate Tom Tancredo has pulled into a statistical tie with Democratic Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper in the race for Colorado governor.  Hickenlooper remains the favorite, from what I hear.  But it could be an interesting election night in the Colorado. 

It would be appropriate for you simply to acknowledge that you misread what he said.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: pr dtp on October 27, 2010, 05:12:27 PM
No, that story was about whether Guliani should have received communion because he supports abortion rights, not because he was divorced. Being divorced does not excommunicate one; being remarried sans annulment does.

Your right - but it was Pelosi at the same service that was the abortion issue.

by the way - the proper voter's guide is Psalm 2.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: jpetty on October 27, 2010, 05:21:20 PM
I read his remark as looking kindly on a possible Tancredo win. 

I think the proper thing to say would be that you read INTO his remark. What he said was:

And according to PPP (http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2010/10/hickenlooper-lead-down-to-3.html), a Democratic-leaning polling firm, American Constitution Party candidate Tom Tancredo has pulled into a statistical tie with Democratic Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper in the race for Colorado governor.  Hickenlooper remains the favorite, from what I hear.  But it could be an interesting election night in the Colorado. 

It would be appropriate for you simply to acknowledge that you misread what he said.

I hereby apologize to James Gale for supposing that he was a supporter of Tom Tancredo.
Title: Swing Voters Are Flocking to GOP
Post by: LutherMan on October 30, 2010, 09:42:43 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304879604575582472322281134.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond
The Democrats' final push to woo undecided voters appears to have fizzled, potentially putting dozens of competitive House races beyond reach and undermining the party's chances in at least four toss-up Senate seats, according to party strategists and officials.

Independents, a crucial swing bloc, seem to be breaking sharply for Republicans in the final days of the campaign.

One nonpartisan prognosticator, Stuart Rothenberg, said Friday he thought the Republicans could pick up as many as 70 House seats—something no party has achieved since 1948. The Republicans need 39 seats to take the majority. Fading Democratic support among independents is also keeping alive the GOP's longer-shot hopes of taking the Senate.
<snip>
Title: Bachmann wants Constitution classes for lawmakers
Post by: LutherMan on October 30, 2010, 10:06:40 AM
I just love Michele Bachmann.  She is also a WELSian.   :)
For the Tea Party soldiers worried that the young upstarts they’re poised to send to Congress will lose their constitutional druthers once they get to congress, Rep. Michele Bachmann has a message: fear not, she’s going to set up constitutional classes.

Bachmann spokesman Sergio Gor says, “It was something she’s always wanted to do. There’s so many folks that come to Capitol Hill to discuss obscure and mundane topics, but no one coming regularly to discuss bill of rights or the role of government.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44418.html#ixzz13qoZy1Xj
Title: Re: Bachmann wants Constitution classes for lawmakers
Post by: jpetty on October 30, 2010, 11:09:54 AM
I just love Michele Bachmann.  She is also a WELSian.   :)
For the Tea Party soldiers worried that the young upstarts they’re poised to send to Congress will lose their constitutional druthers once they get to congress, Rep. Michele Bachmann has a message: fear not, she’s going to set up constitutional classes.

Bachmann spokesman Sergio Gor says, “It was something she’s always wanted to do. There’s so many folks that come to Capitol Hill to discuss obscure and mundane topics, but no one coming regularly to discuss bill of rights or the role of government.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44418.html#ixzz13qoZy1Xj

She's going to teach Constitution?  For all the talk about the Constitution, it appears that relatively few of the people invoking it actually have read it.
Title: Re: Bachmann wants Constitution classes for lawmakers
Post by: LutherMan on October 30, 2010, 11:12:48 AM
She's going to teach Constitution?  For all the talk about the Constitution, it appears that relatively few of the people invoking it actually have read it.
Didn't bother reading the linked article again, eh?  Just shooting from the hip, I see...  ::)
Quote
Bachmann won’t be teaching the classes, Gor says, but will help organize sessions with constitutional scholars, experts, and judges likely to be held in one of the committee rooms on the Capitol Hill complex. The classes will be open to any members—not just freshman—looking to continue their study of America’s founding documents. They will not be open, however, to staff or members of the press, and the list of speakers won’t be made public.
Title: Re: Bachmann wants Constitution classes for lawmakers
Post by: James_Gale on October 30, 2010, 11:25:02 AM
I just love Michele Bachmann.  She is also a WELSian.   :)
For the Tea Party soldiers worried that the young upstarts they’re poised to send to Congress will lose their constitutional druthers once they get to congress, Rep. Michele Bachmann has a message: fear not, she’s going to set up constitutional classes.

Bachmann spokesman Sergio Gor says, “It was something she’s always wanted to do. There’s so many folks that come to Capitol Hill to discuss obscure and mundane topics, but no one coming regularly to discuss bill of rights or the role of government.”


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/44418.html#ixzz13qoZy1Xj

She's going to teach Constitution?  For all the talk about the Constitution, it appears that relatively few of the people invoking it actually have read it.

It's clear that some members of Congress have not:  Phil Hare (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgh-q4t0kzM).
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Richard Johnson on October 30, 2010, 12:03:28 PM
Astonishing.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: jpetty on October 31, 2010, 09:44:10 AM
Which part is astonishing?  That people are quizzing a Congressman on something they themselves obviously don't understand?
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: George Erdner on October 31, 2010, 09:58:49 AM
Which part is astonishing?  That people are quizzing a Congressman on something they themselves obviously don't understand?

Who are you referring to who you claim do not understand the Constitution?
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: jpetty on October 31, 2010, 11:33:41 AM
Which part is astonishing?  That people are quizzing a Congressman on something they themselves obviously don't understand?

Who are you referring to who you claim do not understand the Constitution?

Most of the people invoking it these days apparently haven't read it.  I don't know what salience it has at all in health care reform, but some people seem to think it does.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: LutherMan on October 31, 2010, 02:22:32 PM
I have a feeling Obama's not gpoing to be a happy camper Tues night.    ;)
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: jpetty on October 31, 2010, 02:38:20 PM
Probably not. 

I'm wondering about this though.  I keep hearing people hollering "constitution!  constitution!" but the specifics are mighty few and far between.  What about the Constitution is currently being abrogated, in your opinion?  (Not a question for you, just a general one.)  At that point, there's usually some hemming and hawing. 

In reference to this snippet of "conversation" between Cong. Hale and his constituents, I'm gathering it was about health care reform and some feeling on the part of someone that something about it is un-constitutional.  What exactly?  Maybe these folks would make a convert if they would make a case.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: George Erdner on October 31, 2010, 03:54:17 PM
Which part is astonishing?  That people are quizzing a Congressman on something they themselves obviously don't understand?

Who are you referring to who you claim do not understand the Constitution?

Most of the people invoking it these days apparently haven't read it.  I don't know what salience it has at all in health care reform, but some people seem to think it does.

Read the 9th amendment.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: jpetty on October 31, 2010, 03:59:59 PM
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And?
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: George Erdner on October 31, 2010, 04:09:28 PM
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And?

My mistake, I meant Amendment 10.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The power to provide universal health care is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states. Therefore, the authority (power) to create any sort of government health care system is reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Still, it was good that you read the 9th amendment, on general principles.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Richard Johnson on October 31, 2010, 04:41:34 PM
Which part is astonishing?  That people are quizzing a Congressman on something they themselves obviously don't understand?

Whether the questioners themselves understand the constitution is an interesting question, and I would tend to agree with you that they are constitutionally simple-minded.

What is astonishing is a Congressman who publicly speaks the words, "I don't care about the Constitution," and who, when pressed, quotes from the Declaration of Independence claiming it is from the Constitution. At the very least, it suggest to me that he's not bright enough to serve in Congress.

Though I admit that, historically speaking, the bar is pretty low.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: jpetty on October 31, 2010, 06:58:25 PM
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And?

My mistake, I meant Amendment 10.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The power to provide universal health care is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states. Therefore, the authority (power) to create any sort of government health care system is reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Still, it was good that you read the 9th amendment, on general principles.


So Medicare is unconstitutional?
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: James_Gale on October 31, 2010, 07:59:36 PM
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And?

My mistake, I meant Amendment 10.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The power to provide universal health care is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states. Therefore, the authority (power) to create any sort of government health care system is reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Still, it was good that you read the 9th amendment, on general principles.


So Medicare is unconstitutional?

Pr. Petty --

As you probably know, a number of states have brought lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of some provisions of the health care law.  The issues raised are not easy.  Lawyers on both sides are making non-frivolous arguments.  Many believe that the Supreme Court ultimately will decide these lawsuits.  But first, several district courts and courts of appeals will weigh in.  

You may or may not be concerned about Rep. Hare's response to questions about the constitutional basis for the health care law.  However, his critics base their argument on the fact that the federal government is permitted to act only in the exercise of the powers enumerated in the constitution.  A member of Congress, like all federal officials, takes an oath to uphold the constitution.  Thus, those criticizing Rep. Hare are arguing that members of Congress have a duty to vote only for legislation that is constitutional; that falls within one of the enumerated powers.  To do otherwise would be to violate a member's oath to uphold the constitution.  In the video, Rep. Hare admitted that he "doesn't know" whether the health care law falls within any of the federal government's enumerated powers.  Moreover, by saying that the constitution protects "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," he showed that he is not very familiar even with what's in the constitution.

Now, you obviously aren't obligated to think that any of this matters.  Rep. Hare's point seems to be that the health care law is important enough that he supports it irrespective of what the constitution says.  If that's your position, fine.  It's a free country.  However, if this "ends-justify-the-means" argument were to prevail, the constitution's limits on federal power would become a nullity.  (Some believe that expansion of the use of the Commerce Clause already has led us there already.  But that's a discussion we don't particularly need to tackle here.)  
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: George Erdner on October 31, 2010, 08:05:21 PM
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And?

My mistake, I meant Amendment 10.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The power to provide universal health care is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states. Therefore, the authority (power) to create any sort of government health care system is reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Still, it was good that you read the 9th amendment, on general principles.


So Medicare is unconstitutional?

Tell you what, below are the powers and limitations on what Congress is permitted to do. It's from Article 1, sections 9 and 10. You tell me (and everyone else) where the Constitution gives Congress the authority to create Medicare.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section 9 - Limits on Congress

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.


The fact that there are unconstitutional laws on the books that were never challenged in court is no excuse for passing additional unconstitutional laws.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: jpetty on October 31, 2010, 08:08:01 PM
If you want to go on a campaign to declare Medicare unconstitutional, go right ahead.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: George Erdner on October 31, 2010, 08:15:04 PM
If you want to go on a campaign to declare Medicare unconstitutional, go right ahead.

Where the hell did that come from? Have you been taking red herring lessons from Stoffregen?
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: jpetty on October 31, 2010, 08:46:27 PM
You implied pretty strongly that you considered Medicare unconstitutional.  Fine, it's a free country.  If you want to get the rest of the country to agree with you so you can get rid of this tyrannical unconstitutional program, then, as Voltaire said, "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."  (That Voltaire, such a drama queen.)
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Richard Johnson on October 31, 2010, 09:11:45 PM
You implied pretty strongly that you considered Medicare unconstitutional.  Fine, it's a free country.  If you want to get the rest of the country to agree with you so you can get rid of this tyrannical unconstitutional program, then, as Voltaire said, "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."  (That Voltaire, such a drama queen.)

Though these words are regularly attributed to Voltaire, they were first used by Evelyn Beatrice Hall, writing under the pseudonym of Stephen G Tallentyre in "The Friends of Voltaire" (1906), as a summation of Voltaire's beliefs on freedom of thought and expression. --answers.com
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: LutherMan on October 31, 2010, 09:32:16 PM
If the dems lose control of both the House and the Senate, does anyone here expect Obama to go to a more centrist position à la Clinton?
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: George Erdner on October 31, 2010, 10:04:32 PM
You implied pretty strongly that you considered Medicare unconstitutional.  Fine, it's a free country.  If you want to get the rest of the country to agree with you so you can get rid of this tyrannical unconstitutional program, then, as Voltaire said, "I disagree with what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it."  (That Voltaire, such a drama queen.)

That's correct. But where did you get the idea that I had any intention or desire to do anything about it? There are enough unconstitutional laws on the books to keep an army of lawyers busy for decades. The first step in the process is replacing the people currently in Congress with people who have actually read the Constitution and understand it. Then, we need to elect a President how believes in and honors the Constitution and keep that President in office long enough to get a majority on the Supreme Court who actually respect the law. Then, and only then, will the time be right to start worrying about all of the many unconstitutional laws on the books.

To put that in church terms, for the ELCA to be brought back to Scriptural integrity, most of the bishops need to be replaced, especially the Presiding Bishop. Until then, any attempts to restore the church to faithfulness to scripture and the confessions is an exercise in futility.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on November 01, 2010, 01:18:04 AM

So Medicare is unconstitutional?

Yes.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Charles_Austin on November 01, 2010, 07:48:40 AM
Drinking tea these days, Steven? Or planning to move to the mountains of Montana?  ;D ;)
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: jpetty on November 01, 2010, 12:26:41 PM

So Medicare is unconstitutional?

Yes.

Please specify the grounds.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: George Erdner on November 01, 2010, 12:38:03 PM

So Medicare is unconstitutional?

Yes.

Please specify the grounds.

That was already done. Amendment 10, remember? And did you forget this post?

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

And?

My mistake, I meant Amendment 10.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The power to provide universal health care is not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states. Therefore, the authority (power) to create any sort of government health care system is reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Still, it was good that you read the 9th amendment, on general principles.


So Medicare is unconstitutional?

Tell you what, below are the powers and limitations on what Congress is permitted to do. It's from Article 1, sections 9 and 10. You tell me (and everyone else) where the Constitution gives Congress the authority to create Medicare.

Section 8 - Powers of Congress

The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

To borrow money on the credit of the United States;

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

To establish an uniform Rule of Naturalization, and uniform Laws on the subject of Bankruptcies throughout the United States;

To coin Money, regulate the Value thereof, and of foreign Coin, and fix the Standard of Weights and Measures;

To provide for the Punishment of counterfeiting the Securities and current Coin of the United States;

To establish Post Offices and Post Roads;

To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court;

To define and punish Piracies and Felonies committed on the high Seas, and Offenses against the Law of Nations;

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings; And

To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.

Section 9 - Limits on Congress

The Migration or Importation of such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by the Congress prior to the Year one thousand eight hundred and eight, but a tax or duty may be imposed on such Importation, not exceeding ten dollars for each Person.

The privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.

No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.

(No capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in Proportion to the Census or Enumeration herein before directed to be taken.) (Section in parentheses clarified by the 16th Amendment.)

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.

No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.


The fact that there are unconstitutional laws on the books that were never challenged in court is no excuse for passing additional unconstitutional laws.


Are you planning on having separate conversations with each person who attempts to refute what you say?
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Kurt Weinelt on November 01, 2010, 12:56:20 PM
Medicare obviously violates the 10th Amendment. Just as obviously, any politico (D,R,or I) who tries to address medicare's unconstitutionality will be hit with "mediscare" tactics from his political opposition, so there's really not much point in addressing this breach of constitutional intent.  It is the beast that cannot be killed.
Kurt
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: George Erdner on November 01, 2010, 01:12:15 PM
Medicare obviously violates the 10th Amendment. Just as obviously, any politico (D,R,or I) who tries to address medicare's unconstitutionality will be hit with "mediscare" tactics from his political opposition, so there's really not much point in addressing this breach of constitutional intent.  It is the beast that cannot be killed.
Kurt

I think it could be eliminated. It would require that all of these things be accomplished:

The first step in the process is replacing the people currently in Congress with people who have actually read the Constitution and understand it. Then, we need to elect a President how believes in and honors the Constitution and keep that President in office long enough to get a majority on the Supreme Court who actually respect the law. Then, and only then, will the time be right to start worrying about all of the many unconstitutional laws on the books.


I'm not optimistic about those things happening in my lifetime, but then I don't have that many years left.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Kurt Weinelt on November 01, 2010, 02:04:51 PM
George, if all you say happens then the function of Medicare would belong to the states as the Constitution intends. But Mediscare tactics trump all attempts at reform.  I'm not cynical, just realistic--medicare (and social security) reform efforts are forms of political suicide. Wish it were't so..... :(
Kurt
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: miss daisy on November 01, 2010, 02:30:21 PM
If SS and medicare are discontinued then I guess I'd become a welfare recipient! My husband had his own business so always paid the maximum in
SS payements. I also worked and paid into it....So were we just contibutors to the retired at that time?
So is welfare illegal too? Then guys you'd better start taking a collection for me to survive.
Yes my husband had a retirement policy which I have been collecting...but it was for only 10 years. That stops in December.
I'll be 80 in June...guess according to Oboma it's euthanasia for me then anyway.
But hey there's a bright side, shouldn't be to many years before I'm one of those saints we celebrate today!
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Kurt Weinelt on November 01, 2010, 03:06:25 PM
If SS and medicare are discontinued then I guess I'd become a welfare recipient! My husband had his own business so always paid the maximum in
SS payements. I also worked and paid into it....So were we just contibutors to the retired at that time?
So is welfare illegal too? Then guys you'd better start taking a collection for me to survive.
Yes my husband had a retirement policy which I have been collecting...but it was for only 10 years. That stops in December.
I'll be 80 in June...guess according to Oboma it's euthanasia for me then anyway.
But hey there's a bright side, shouldn't be to many years before I'm one of those saints we celebrate today!
Miss Daisy, no one is going to discontinue medicare or social security. No one will even reform it, for that matter. It certainly needs reform, because as you point out every dollar we paid into social security was spent the same year the government took it from us---on current retirees.  Every social security dollar collected each year is spent that year, and the "Social Security Trust Fund" is a nice-sounding myth. 

The issue that being discussed was the constitutionality of Medicare, when the 10th Amendment leaves things such as the regulation of health care,  education, weddings, divorces, births/deaths, etc. to the states.  But Medicare is a now sacred cow (maybe even a Golden Calf? ;)), and no politician who stands for elections will dare touch it.  Ever.
Kurt 
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Bergs on November 01, 2010, 04:00:29 PM
If SS and medicare are discontinued then I guess I'd become a welfare recipient! My husband had his own business so always paid the maximum in
SS payements. I also worked and paid into it....So were we just contibutors to the retired at that time?

In short, yes.  If you go back and look you will see them termed as SSI "taxes."  They were not contributions.  That was the lie that was perpetuated on the American electorate by both parties.

Social Security and Medicare were designed as a Ponzi scheme. 

This is part of the reason people love Social Security so much.  So far the beneficiaries have been at the top and middle of the scheme.  Those people made money or broke even.  We at the bottom have to pay the piper.  Unless we can keep borrowing from the Chinese.  They have been a pretty good ATM so far. 

Brian J. Bergs
Minneapolis, MN

Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Kurt Weinelt on November 01, 2010, 04:07:49 PM

In short, yes.  If you go back and look you will see them termed as SSI "taxes."  They were not contributions.  That was the lie that was perpetuated on the American electorate by both parties.

Social Security and Medicare were designed as a Ponzi scheme.  

This is part of the reason people love Social Security so much.  So far the beneficiaries have been at the top and middle of the scheme.  Those people made money or broke even.  We at the bottom have to pay the piper.  Unless we can keep borrowing from the Chinese.  They have been a pretty good ATM so far.
Brian J. Bergs
Minneapolis, MN
Please indulge me if I tinker with your analogy some. Rather than Red China being an "ATM machine", it is more of a payday loan business at a cheesy strip center. Easy to get cash, nearly impossible to pay off the finance charges.
Kurt
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: jpetty on November 01, 2010, 04:28:29 PM
Medicare obviously violates the 10th Amendment. Just as obviously, any politico (D,R,or I) who tries to address medicare's unconstitutionality will be hit with "mediscare" tactics from his political opposition, so there's really not much point in addressing this breach of constitutional intent.  It is the beast that cannot be killed.
Kurt

If it was so obviously unconstitutional, then the "tenthers" should take it to the Supreme Court.  As presently constituted, the Court would probably agree with you--if that's what their corporate masters wanted anyway.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: miss daisy on November 01, 2010, 05:00:09 PM
Thanks to all of you for clearing that up for me. yes it is taxes! Oldtimers disease on my part? ;-)
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Charles_Austin on November 01, 2010, 05:05:03 PM
Anyone who believes that medicare is unconstitutional or somehow violates their conscience is perfectly free to reject it as a witness to their beliefs.  ;)
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: mariemeyer on November 01, 2010, 05:12:37 PM
I'll be 80 in June...guess according to Oboma it's euthanasia for me then anyway.  

You do President Obama an injustice!

Marie Meyer
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: miss daisy on November 01, 2010, 05:21:34 PM
I honor the Office of President! I pray for our President that he may lead our country in a God Pleasing manner.
Beyond that I go to other sources than the media news for my information. I check my material with snoops. He hasn't
impressed me yet!
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: James_Gale on November 01, 2010, 05:25:49 PM
As presently constituted, the Court would probably agree with you--if that's what their corporate masters wanted anyway.

What hope do we have of civil discourse in this country if our Lutheran pastors seem unable to abide by the Eighth Commandment?  How can we hope to elevate the debate when our moral leaders eschew substantive debate, choosing instead simply to demonize those with whom they disagree?  
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Kurt Weinelt on November 01, 2010, 05:25:58 PM
Quote
If it was so obviously unconstitutional, then the "tenthers" should take it to the Supreme Court.  As presently constituted, the Court would probably agree with you--if that's what their corporate masters wanted anyway.
No one touches medicare or SS because it's political suicide. Like I said, the discussion is moot because no politician will touch it, regardless of the obvious constitutional violations.

Corporate masters?  ;D Haven't heard that one since the 60s-70s. Thanks for the trip down memory lane, though.

BTW, all ten amendments constitute the Bill of Rights, not just the 1st, 4th, 5th , and 6th.  I am sworn to protect and defend them all (along with the rest of the Constitution), whether I like 'em or not.

Kurt
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Kurt Weinelt on November 01, 2010, 05:38:31 PM
What hope do we have of civil discourse in this country if our Lutheran pastors seem unable to abide by the Eighth Commandment?  How can we hope to elevate the debate when our moral leaders eschew substantive debate, choosing instead simply to demonize those with whom they disagree?

I'll give him some slack....tomorrow will be unpleasant for him as voters register their approval or disapproval of his political philosophy.  I was pretty cranky myself two years ago, though I didn't accuse anybody of being a puppet of some imaginary left-wing puppetmaster. I thought some pretty uncharitable things I never voiced, however! :-X
Kurt
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: LutherMan on November 01, 2010, 05:40:51 PM
Amen, brother!  I cannot wait for the results.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: jpetty on November 01, 2010, 06:14:24 PM
Quote
If it was so obviously unconstitutional, then the "tenthers" should take it to the Supreme Court.  As presently constituted, the Court would probably agree with you--if that's what their corporate masters wanted anyway.
No one touches medicare or SS because it's political suicide. Like I said, the discussion is moot because no politician will touch it, regardless of the obvious constitutional violations.

Corporate masters?  ;D Haven't heard that one since the 60s-70s. Thanks for the trip down memory lane, though.

BTW, all ten amendments constitute the Bill of Rights, not just the 1st, 4th, 5th , and 6th.  I am sworn to protect and defend them all (along with the rest of the Constitution), whether I like 'em or not.

Kurt

Are you currently serving in the military?
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Kurt Weinelt on November 01, 2010, 06:20:12 PM
Are you currently serving in the military?
Standby reserves--I go if called. However, until that happens I am free to engage in political activity. I can even run for elected office, and have even considered it---but it turns out I have a conscience, so I decided against it. ;D
Kurt
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: George Erdner on November 01, 2010, 06:24:22 PM
What hope do we have of civil discourse in this country if our Lutheran pastors seem unable to abide by the Eighth Commandment?  How can we hope to elevate the debate when our moral leaders eschew substantive debate, choosing instead simply to demonize those with whom they disagree?

I'll give him some slack....tomorrow will be unpleasant for him as voters register their approval or disapproval of his political philosophy.  I was pretty cranky myself two years ago, though I didn't accuse anybody of being a puppet of some imaginary left-wing puppetmaster. I thought some pretty uncharitable things I never voiced, however! :-X
Kurt

Perhaps you should have made that accusation. Though the puppet metaphor can be seen as containing an element of hyperbole, the truth is that for centuries the political leadership of all modern nations has been more of a committee effort than that of individuals. Individuals do not become candidates for major office without the support and guidance of the collective leadership of major political parties. Sometimes the individual selected by the party leadership to be their candidate is the person who exerts the most influence and therefore leads the party. Sometimes the individual selected by the party leadership is the most attractive and charismatic vote-getter who is still influenced to the point of being controlled by the party leadership. There is a fine line between an elected official being "advised" by the leadership of his party and being "controlled" by the leadership of his party.

It might make us feel better to think that a President of the United States is a self-made individual who rose to the top by his own efforts. The reality is that every President (and state governor, US Senator or Representative, or other elected official in an important office) going back at least a century owes his position to those who supported him and got him elected. And that debt of gratitude must be repaid in direct proportion to the amount of support needed to reach the office he occupies.

Can anyone honestly believe that the current US President doesn't owe many, many favors to the party leadership and supporters who backed him in the Democrat Party primaries against the former Senator from New York? Or that the candidate who lost in 2008 wouldn't also have owed similar political debts had he been elected?
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on November 01, 2010, 07:20:41 PM

So is welfare illegal too?


That part paid by federal tax dollars.  Separation of powers (and responsibilites) and all that.  Welfare (or relief) is the realm of townships, cities, counties, and states.  And, of course, private charity.

Pax, Steven+
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: jpetty on November 01, 2010, 07:24:47 PM

So is welfare illegal too?


That part paid by federal tax dollars.  Separation of powers (and responsibilites) and all that.  Welfare (or relief) is the realm of townships, cities, counties, and states.  And, of course, private charity.

Pax, Steven+

You favor nullification?
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: James_Gale on November 01, 2010, 07:29:46 PM
What hope do we have of civil discourse in this country if our Lutheran pastors seem unable to abide by the Eighth Commandment?  How can we hope to elevate the debate when our moral leaders eschew substantive debate, choosing instead simply to demonize those with whom they disagree?

I'll give him some slack....tomorrow will be unpleasant for him as voters register their approval or disapproval of his political philosophy.  I was pretty cranky myself two years ago, though I didn't accuse anybody of being a puppet of some imaginary left-wing puppetmaster. I thought some pretty uncharitable things I never voiced, however! :-X
Kurt
Perhaps you should have made that accusation. Though the puppet metaphor can be seen as containing an element of hyperbole, the truth is that for centuries the political leadership of all modern nations has been more of a committee effort than that of individuals.

The "puppet metaphor" is not "hyperbole."  It is wrong and demeaning.  Political leaders most assuredly are subject to different pressures and influences.  But they almost always are very powerful participants in the political process.  Puppets are not participants at all.  They are inert, subject entirely to the whims of their masters.

Ultimately, therefore, this post falls into the same category as Pr. Petty's.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Kurt Weinelt on November 01, 2010, 07:41:38 PM
You favor nullification?
That's an interesting issue that constitutional scholars still debate today. It's not a simple issue, for sure, and goes to the very heart of Federalism.  When states try to assume delegated federal powers, the federal government always takes precedence.  

On the other hand, when the federal (national) goverment usurps powers reserved for the people and the states, some scholars believe there is a valid constitutional argument for nullification.

BTW, In our Colorado travels (most of CO being a region on the former Republic of Texas ;)), it seems like I have run into quite a few folks who are not enamored of the federal government, or the two political parties either. Of course, since we camp and hike we avoid cities at all costs, so our impression may be skewed.  Anyhow, beautiful landscape you have there, and colorful political landscape as well!
Kurt
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: jpetty on November 01, 2010, 07:45:52 PM
You favor nullification?
That's an interesting issue that constitutional scholars still debate today. It's not a simple issue, for sure, and goes to the very heart of Federalism.  When states try to assume delegated federal powers, the federal government always takes precedence.  

On the other hand, when the federal (national) goverment usurps powers reserved for the people and the states, some scholars believe there is a valid constitutional argument for nullification.

BTW, In our Colorado travels (most of CO being a region on the former Republic of Texas ;)), it seems like I have run into quite a few folks who are not enamored of the federal government, or the two political parties either. Of course, since we camp and hike we avoid cities at all costs, so our impression may be skewed.  Anyhow, beautiful landscape you have there, and colorful political landscape as well!
Kurt

Not very much of it was Texas.  In fact, believe it or not, a good chunk of Colorado was actually in Kansas.  (Denver is named for a territorial Kansas governor.)  Kansas let them take the western counties, however, because the Kansas GOP legislature thought (mistakenly) that eastern CO had a lot of Democrats in it.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Kurt Weinelt on November 01, 2010, 08:28:17 PM
Quote
Not very much of it was Texas.  In fact, believe it or not, a good chunk of Colorado was actually in Kansas.  (Denver is named for a territorial Kansas governor.)  Kansas let them take the western counties, however, because the Kansas GOP legislature thought (mistakenly) that eastern CO had a lot of Democrats in it.
OK, what I meant was the part of Colorado WE like and visit frequently. I even had an assignment to teach history at the AFA all lined up when Saddam invaded Kuwait and ruined that (among other things).  We've been to E. Colorado and have met lots of nice folks there. Went through on a TLU choir tour in the late 1970s, enjoyed the hospitality.  But my family came from Germany and Austria, and being in hills/mountains is in my blood. So if we secede and re-establish the Republic, watch out. I already have a "Ski Texas" bumper sticker ready to go! ;D
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: George Erdner on November 01, 2010, 08:36:05 PM

So is welfare illegal too?


That part paid by federal tax dollars.  Separation of powers (and responsibilites) and all that.  Welfare (or relief) is the realm of townships, cities, counties, and states.  And, of course, private charity.

Pax, Steven+

You favor nullification?

Does that pithy little telegram mean, "Do you favor nullification or not?", or does it mean, "So that means you favor nullification, right?"? When you're too lazy to actually express yourself in a complete sentence, it makes understanding what you actually mean difficult.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: jpetty on November 01, 2010, 11:14:32 PM

So is welfare illegal too?


That part paid by federal tax dollars.  Separation of powers (and responsibilites) and all that.  Welfare (or relief) is the realm of townships, cities, counties, and states.  And, of course, private charity.

Pax, Steven+

You favor nullification?

Does that pithy little telegram mean, "Do you favor nullification or not?", or does it mean, "So that means you favor nullification, right?"? When you're too lazy to actually express yourself in a complete sentence, it makes understanding what you actually mean difficult.

"You favor nullification?" IS a complete sentence.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Richard Johnson on November 01, 2010, 11:19:31 PM
Old English major Austin should weigh in here, but my opinion would be that it is not a complete sentence. It would have been a complete sentence had you changed the question mark to a period. Otherwise, you would need to add the word "do" to make it a complete sentence.

But then I was a philosophy major . .  .  ;D
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: George Erdner on November 01, 2010, 11:27:06 PM

So is welfare illegal too?


That part paid by federal tax dollars.  Separation of powers (and responsibilites) and all that.  Welfare (or relief) is the realm of townships, cities, counties, and states.  And, of course, private charity.

Pax, Steven+

You favor nullification?

Does that pithy little telegram mean, "Do you favor nullification or not?", or does it mean, "So that means you favor nullification, right?"? When you're too lazy to actually express yourself in a complete sentence, it makes understanding what you actually mean difficult.

"You favor nullification?" IS a complete sentence.

First, you are mistaken. But the important thing is that sentence or not, your pithy little telegram is ambiguous and unclear.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: LutherMan on November 01, 2010, 11:28:53 PM
But then I was a philosophy major . .  .  ;D
Ahhhh, that explains things....
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Richard Johnson on November 01, 2010, 11:44:08 PM
Well, not much . . .

Or a lot.

It just depends.   ???
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: LutherMan on November 01, 2010, 11:48:43 PM
Your pietisim.   ;)
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Charles_Austin on November 02, 2010, 06:07:34 AM
Richard writes:
Old English major Austin should weigh in here, but my opinion would be that it is not a complete sentence. It would have been a complete sentence had you changed the question mark to a period. Otherwise, you would need to add the word "do" to make it a complete sentence.

I weigh in:
Philosopher moderator Richard, like most decently educated folk, has it right.
"You favor nullification?" is not a complete sentence.
"You favor nullification." is a complete sentence.
It's something one learns, or should have learned in eighth-grade/middle school English classes.

CMA (Once an English Major always an English Major. Proud member of Garrison Keillor's P.O.E.M., the Profession Organization of English Majors.)
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: FatherWilliam57 on November 02, 2010, 07:48:29 AM
But then I was a philosophy major . .  .  ;D

Philosophy majors of the world, unite!  (After four years of college and a bachelor's degree, I didn't have a job...but at least I knew WHY.  ;))
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: jpetty on November 02, 2010, 10:28:46 AM
Richard writes:
Old English major Austin should weigh in here, but my opinion would be that it is not a complete sentence. It would have been a complete sentence had you changed the question mark to a period. Otherwise, you would need to add the word "do" to make it a complete sentence.

I weigh in:
Philosopher moderator Richard, like most decently educated folk, has it right.
"You favor nullification?" is not a complete sentence.
"You favor nullification." is a complete sentence.
It's something one learns, or should have learned in eighth-grade/middle school English classes.

CMA (Once an English Major always an English Major. Proud member of Garrison Keillor's P.O.E.M., the Profession Organization of English Majors.)

Ok, help me out here.  Why is the former not a sentence? 
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: DeHall on November 02, 2010, 10:40:57 AM
Richard writes:
Old English major Austin should weigh in here, but my opinion would be that it is not a complete sentence. It would have been a complete sentence had you changed the question mark to a period. Otherwise, you would need to add the word "do" to make it a complete sentence.

I weigh in:
Philosopher moderator Richard, like most decently educated folk, has it right.
"You favor nullification?" is not a complete sentence.
"You favor nullification." is a complete sentence.
It's something one learns, or should have learned in eighth-grade/middle school English classes.

CMA (Once an English Major always an English Major. Proud member of Garrison Keillor's P.O.E.M., the Profession Organization of English Majors.)

Ok, help me out here.  Why is the former not a sentence? 

IIRC, it's a "dependent clause"...It has a subject and verb, but doesn't express a complete thought.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Lutheranistic on November 02, 2010, 10:45:07 AM
Pr. Austin majored in Old English?
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Richard Johnson on November 02, 2010, 11:13:15 AM
But then I was a philosophy major . .  .  ;D

Philosophy majors of the world, unite!  (After four years of college and a bachelor's degree, I didn't have a job...but at least I knew WHY.  ;))

Well, I didn't really have much of an education. But I new why--I went to a California state university. In seminary at Yale, I used to play a game that went like this: "I was a philosophy and religion major at a California state university. Your challenge is to name five philosophers I've actually read. One point for each one, and if you get to five, you win." Nobody ever won.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Richard Johnson on November 02, 2010, 11:13:50 AM
Pr. Austin majored in Old English?

Verily.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: George Erdner on November 02, 2010, 11:20:41 AM
Richard writes:
Old English major Austin should weigh in here, but my opinion would be that it is not a complete sentence. It would have been a complete sentence had you changed the question mark to a period. Otherwise, you would need to add the word "do" to make it a complete sentence.

I weigh in:
Philosopher moderator Richard, like most decently educated folk, has it right.
"You favor nullification?" is not a complete sentence.
"You favor nullification." is a complete sentence.
It's something one learns, or should have learned in eighth-grade/middle school English classes.

CMA (Once an English Major always an English Major. Proud member of Garrison Keillor's P.O.E.M., the Profession Organization of English Majors.)

Ok, help me out here.  Why is the former not a sentence?  

Instead of pointless bickering over whether or not your puny little post was a complete sentence or not, why not answer the question I asked about it? What the hell did you mean by it?

To refresh your memory?

Does that pithy little telegram mean, "Do you favor nullification or not?", or does it mean, "So that means you favor nullification, right?"?

Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: James_Gale on November 02, 2010, 11:36:08 AM
Richard writes:
Old English major Austin should weigh in here, but my opinion would be that it is not a complete sentence. It would have been a complete sentence had you changed the question mark to a period. Otherwise, you would need to add the word "do" to make it a complete sentence.

I weigh in:
Philosopher moderator Richard, like most decently educated folk, has it right.
"You favor nullification?" is not a complete sentence.
"You favor nullification." is a complete sentence.
It's something one learns, or should have learned in eighth-grade/middle school English classes.

CMA (Once an English Major always an English Major. Proud member of Garrison Keillor's P.O.E.M., the Profession Organization of English Majors.)

Ok, help me out here.  Why is the former not a sentence? 

Pastor Petty's construction is permissible.  

According to Section 6.66 of The Chicago Manual of Style (16th Edition), a question mark may be used "at the end of a declarative or imperative sentence in order to express surprise, disbelief, or uncertainty."  It gives this as an example: "This is your reply?"

Pastor Petty's response also is arguably a sentence.  After all, The Chicago Manual of Style says that a question mark may be used at the end of a "declarative or imperative sentence" (emphasis added).

In addition, Gardner's Modern American Usage -- a decidedly conservative usage guide -- notes that "incomplete" sentences can indeed be "sentences."  Incomplete sentences are also "fragments."  But when used judiciously -- when its meaning is clear -- an incomplete sentence may be used.  

The definitional discussions could go on for days, I suppose.  Wouldn't that be fun!  But in all events, whether or not Pr. Petty's -- uh -- sentence is a sentence, it is an example of proper usage.

(I express no opinion regarding any implications that might reasonably flow from the fact that The Chicago Manual of Style addresses this matter in Section 6.66.)
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: George Erdner on November 02, 2010, 11:48:55 AM
Pastor Petty's construction is permissible.  

But what does it mean?
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on November 02, 2010, 11:53:51 AM
Pastor Petty's construction is permissible.  

But what does it mean?

I think it means they are ignoring you.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Mike Bennett on November 02, 2010, 11:56:05 AM
Pastor Petty's construction is permissible.  

But what does it mean?

Whichever meaning he intended of the two possible meanings you suggested, your "Yes" would mean "Yes," and your "No" would mean "No."  So if you want to answer, then answer.  Why do you insist on torturing everybody by behaving like an ass a silly goose?

Mike Bennett
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: James_Gale on November 02, 2010, 12:05:56 PM
Pastor Petty's construction is permissible.  

But what does it mean?

Whichever meaning he intended of the two possible meanings you suggested, your "Yes" would mean "Yes," and your "No" would mean "No."  So if you want to answer, then answer.  Why do you insist on torturing everybody by behaving like an ass a silly goose?

Mike Bennett

Indeed.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: James_Gale on November 02, 2010, 12:07:08 PM
But then I was a philosophy major . .  .  ;D

Philosophy majors of the world, unite!  (After four years of college and a bachelor's degree, I didn't have a job...but at least I knew WHY.  ;))

Well, I didn't really have much of an education. But I new why--I went to a California state university. In seminary at Yale, I used to play a game that went like this: "I was a philosophy and religion major at a California state university. Your challenge is to name five philosophers I've actually read. One point for each one, and if you get to five, you win." Nobody ever won.

Bob Dylan?
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: James_Gale on November 02, 2010, 12:16:52 PM
Is President Obama a Keynesian?  Watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_23Nt5XumaU&feature=player_embedded#!) for some amusing responses from those whose sanity was restored over the weekend.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Kurt Weinelt on November 02, 2010, 12:26:44 PM
Is President Obama a Keynesian?  Watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_23Nt5XumaU&feature=player_embedded#!) for some amusing responses from those whose sanity was restored over the weekend.
;D ;D ;D I have GOT to work that into one of my economics classes!
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Bergs on November 02, 2010, 01:06:45 PM
Is President Obama a Keynesian?  Watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_23Nt5XumaU&feature=player_embedded#!) for some amusing responses from those whose sanity was restored over the weekend.

Thank you thank you thank you for posting this.  This is the funniest yet.  The passion of the one woman displaying total stupidity was so precious, I almost cried.

Brian J. Bergs
Concordia College - Moorhead, Mn
B.A. 1980
Majors:  History, Economics
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Mike Bennett on November 02, 2010, 02:16:30 PM
Is President Obama a Keynesian?  Watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_23Nt5XumaU&feature=player_embedded#!) for some amusing responses from those whose sanity was restored over the weekend.

Absolutely amazing.  Funniest thing since I heard a guy maligned for the loosness of his family's morals, because of rumors that his wife had been a thespian and his daughter had matriculated.

Mike Bennett
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Richard Johnson on November 02, 2010, 02:39:11 PM
But then I was a philosophy major . .  .  ;D

Philosophy majors of the world, unite!  (After four years of college and a bachelor's degree, I didn't have a job...but at least I knew WHY.  ;))

Well, I didn't really have much of an education. But I new why--I went to a California state university. In seminary at Yale, I used to play a game that went like this: "I was a philosophy and religion major at a California state university. Your challenge is to name five philosophers I've actually read. One point for each one, and if you get to five, you win." Nobody ever won.

Bob Dylan?

Who reads Bob Dylan? He's for singing.  ;)
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Richard Johnson on November 02, 2010, 02:47:50 PM
Is President Obama a Keynesian?  Watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_23Nt5XumaU&feature=player_embedded#!) for some amusing responses from those whose sanity was restored over the weekend.

They are certainly qualified to serve in Congress . . . 
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: George Erdner on November 02, 2010, 03:05:58 PM
Pastor Petty's construction is permissible.  

But what does it mean?

Whichever meaning he intended of the two possible meanings you suggested, your "Yes" would mean "Yes," and your "No" would mean "No."  So if you want to answer, then answer.  Why do you insist on torturing everybody by behaving like an ass a silly goose?

Mike Bennett

Indeed.

I see. So jpetty acts like a jerk, and I get slammed for calling him on it.

Typical.

I can't answer for jpetty. Only he can. And he won't. So, if you're going to bitch kvetch about it, bitch kvetch at him.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: jpetty on November 02, 2010, 03:37:12 PM
Pastor Petty's construction is permissible.  

But what does it mean?

Whichever meaning he intended of the two possible meanings you suggested, your "Yes" would mean "Yes," and your "No" would mean "No."  So if you want to answer, then answer.  Why do you insist on torturing everybody by behaving like an ass a silly goose?

Mike Bennett

Indeed.

I see. So jpetty acts like a jerk, and I get slammed for calling him on it.

Typical.

I can't answer for jpetty. Only he can. And he won't. So, if you're going to bitch kvetch about it, bitch kvetch at him.

How was I a jerk?  I asked you a simple question.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Richard Johnson on November 02, 2010, 03:38:31 PM
All right children. Stop it right now, or there will be consequences.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: ptmccain on November 02, 2010, 04:11:01 PM
Don't make Richard pull the car over!!

 ;D
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: LutherMan on November 02, 2010, 04:42:55 PM
Is President Obama a Keynesian?  Watch this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_23Nt5XumaU&feature=player_embedded#!) for some amusing responses from those whose sanity was restored over the weekend.

LMBOROF!!   :D  Too, funny!
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Richard Johnson on November 02, 2010, 09:46:16 PM
I've just removed six or eight consecutive posts from Lutherman giving us blow by blow descriptions of the results first in one place, then another, first from one commentator, then another. If we are interested, Lutherman, we are watching or listening to the TV or radio ourselves. Please don't clutter things up here with your breathless reports.
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on November 03, 2010, 03:21:32 AM
But I new why--I went to a California state university.


You "new why," eh?

Pax, Zip+
BS, Bus. Admin, Cal. State U, Northridge, 1981 "I didn't get an education; I have a business degree!"
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on November 03, 2010, 03:50:05 AM

You favor nullification?

If you mean of federal laws by individual States (ala South Carolina and the Tariff of Abominations), I go back and forth. 

Pax, Steven+
Title: Re: Voter's Guide for Serious Christians
Post by: Richard Johnson on November 03, 2010, 11:56:52 AM
But I new why--I went to a California state university.


You "new why," eh?

Pax, Zip+
BS, Bus. Admin, Cal. State U, Northridge, 1981 "I didn't get an education; I have a business degree!"

It's California. We spell fonetikly.