ALPB Forum Online

ALPB => Your Turn => Topic started by: Charles Austin on July 17, 2018, 10:41:38 AM

Title: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on July 17, 2018, 10:41:38 AM
I doubt this topic will last long in this modest forum; for it is nowhere near "theological" enough, nor does it have to do with sexuality (at least not mostly) or abortion.
But, can anyone with any sense of morality not be shocked and outraged at the astonishing performance of our president this week?
He attacks our own intelligence agencies, and says he believes what the Russians tell him.
He blames our justice system for badly affecting relations with Russia, meanwhile suggesting that Russia's stellar "justice system" could help ours deal with his problem.
He brag about his "brilliant" election campaign and obsesses with Mrs. Clinton in a most inappropriate arena.
He refuses to confront Russia's aggression in the world.
His words, either lies, astonishingly stupid or actually treasonous, shock former CIA directors and agents and politicians from both parties.
He weakens NATO with his bombastic bluster, and falls prey to the sneaky dealings of North Korea's dictator. He angers our best friends in the world including - can you imagine? - Canada.
And Putin says he didn’t know Trump was in Moscow back in “those” days. Trump claims he had contact with Putin during those days. (But he waffled on that comment, too.)
This is a level of immorality or incompetence or stupidity or something worse that has to shock anyone with any sense of patriotism or decency.
Now close the meeting, moderators. This is not the kind of morality that anyone here cares about.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: James S. Rustad on July 17, 2018, 10:47:43 AM
Actually...

I care that our president is a clown.  However, I am still not convinced that I should have voted for Clinton.  Neither one was worth voting for.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Richard Johnson on July 17, 2018, 10:53:55 AM
I thought one of the most disturbing things was his tweet which referred to "MY intelligence people." The capital letters (in the original) suggest that he really does think like an autocrat.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Richard Johnson on July 17, 2018, 10:55:34 AM
Actually...

I care that our president is a clown.  However, I am still not convinced that I should have voted for Clinton.  Neither one was worth voting for.

I don't disagree. But I think this week's performance indicates he's gone beyond "clown."
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: RandyBosch on July 17, 2018, 10:56:40 AM
I thought one of the most disturbing things was his tweet which referred to "MY intelligence people." The capital letters (in the original) suggest that he really does think like an autocrat.

Perhaps, but note that he hasn't yet reached the "I" and "My" output of the previous holder of the office.
It seems that power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely, and no one reaches that level of authority without hubris, blind ambition and believe that they are personally entitled to the power.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: RandyBosch on July 17, 2018, 10:58:05 AM
Since the current President may likely not be re-elected, it explains why he didn't assure Putin that he would have more flexibility with the Russian leader after the next election.

I'm particularly miffed that he didn't get the "Reset" button back.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: gan ainm on July 17, 2018, 11:07:03 AM
It is indeed a roller coaster ride.  The only question is which presidents are at the top of the loop and which are at the bottom.  Or, are all at the top and bottom at various times during their terms?  And, who are we to judge top and bottom, those of us who live in glass houses should be careful about throwing stones.  Or if you prefer, the logs and specks version.  Until we vote, basically all comments and speculation are just that, idle speculation and comments and bloviating but that is what we sinners do so well.  Unless of course you happen to be a member of congress and can vote and bloviate in between election cycles.   ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: RandyBosch on July 17, 2018, 11:12:43 AM
It is indeed a roller coaster ride.  The only question is which presidents are at the top of the loop and which are at the bottom.  Or, are all at the top and bottom at various times during their terms?  And, who are we to judge top and bottom, those of us who live in glass houses should be careful about throwing stones.  Or if you prefer, the logs and specks version.  Until we vote, basically all comments and speculation are just that, idle speculation and comments and bloviating but that is what we sinners do so well.  Unless of course you happen to be a member of congress and can vote and bloviate in between election cycles.   ;D ;D ;D

William Howard Taft called, he wants his "bloviating" back....
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 17, 2018, 11:15:34 AM
I doubt this topic will last long in this modest forum; for it is nowhere near "theological" enough, nor does it have to do with sexuality (at least not mostly) or abortion.
But, can anyone with any sense of morality not be shocked and outraged at the astonishing performance of our president this week?
He attacks our own intelligence agencies, and says he believes what the Russians tell him.
He blames our justice system for badly affecting relations with Russia, meanwhile suggesting that Russia's stellar "justice system" could help ours deal with his problem.
He brag about his "brilliant" election campaign and obsesses with Mrs. Clinton in a most inappropriate arena.
He refuses to confront Russia's aggression in the world.
His words, either lies, astonishingly stupid or actually treasonous, shock former CIA directors and agents and politicians from both parties.
He weakens NATO with his bombastic bluster, and falls prey to the sneaky dealings of North Korea's dictator. He angers our best friends in the world including - can you imagine? - Canada.
And Putin says he didn’t know Trump was in Moscow back in “those” days. Trump claims he had contact with Putin during those days. (But he waffled on that comment, too.)
This is a level of immorality or incompetence or stupidity or something worse that has to shock anyone with any sense of patriotism or decency.
Now close the meeting, moderators. This is not the kind of morality that anyone here cares about.

Of all the smug, condescending posts, this one hits a new level.  It is in tone and attitude almost worthy to be a Trump Tweet, except that it is much longer.  Even Trump cannot bend the character limits on Twitter.  Only good and angry Progressives like Pr. Austin have any sense of honor, decency or morality.  Since the rest of us haven't jumped on the Progressive, "Ain't Trump Just the Most Awful" bandwagon, we are morally bankrupt.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 17, 2018, 11:29:32 AM
I doubt this topic will last long in this modest forum; for it is nowhere near "theological" enough, nor does it have to do with sexuality (at least not mostly) or abortion.
But, can anyone with any sense of morality not be shocked and outraged at the astonishing performance of our president this week?
He attacks our own intelligence agencies, and says he believes what the Russians tell him.
He blames our justice system for badly affecting relations with Russia, meanwhile suggesting that Russia's stellar "justice system" could help ours deal with his problem.
He brag about his "brilliant" election campaign and obsesses with Mrs. Clinton in a most inappropriate arena.
He refuses to confront Russia's aggression in the world.
His words, either lies, astonishingly stupid or actually treasonous, shock former CIA directors and agents and politicians from both parties.
He weakens NATO with his bombastic bluster, and falls prey to the sneaky dealings of North Korea's dictator. He angers our best friends in the world including - can you imagine? - Canada.
And Putin says he didn’t know Trump was in Moscow back in “those” days. Trump claims he had contact with Putin during those days. (But he waffled on that comment, too.)
This is a level of immorality or incompetence or stupidity or something worse that has to shock anyone with any sense of patriotism or decency.
Now close the meeting, moderators. This is not the kind of morality that anyone here cares about.

Of all the smug, condescending posts, this one hits a new level.  It is in tone and attitude almost worthy to be a Trump Tweet, except that it is much longer.  Even Trump cannot bend the character limits on Twitter.  Only good and angry Progressives like Pr. Austin have any sense of honor, decency or morality.  Since the rest of us haven't jumped on the Progressive, "Ain't Trump Just the Most Awful" bandwagon, we are morally bankrupt.


So, which type of disagreement are you posting? See Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement chart.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: D. Engebretson on July 17, 2018, 11:36:24 AM
I watch the morning news most days, and have to admit that some days I cringe more than others.  I don't pretend to understand how or why our president acts the way he does. Others wish to attached value judgments accusing the president of lying and stupidity.  Since there are more than enough to do that, I will refrain.  I see no purpose in it at my level. That said, I really wonder what impact the recent meeting with Putin will really have. 

We can be reasonably sure that....

--Our intelligence agencies are not going to stop doing what they do.  They will continue to investigate and protect the country.  Putin knows this. 
--The investigation by Robert Mueller will continue.  Putin knows this. 
--NATO will remain intact and despite our president's concerns we will continue to support it.  Putin knows this.
--We will be extra vigilant at future elections looking for possible Russian interference.  Putin knows this. 

Trump could have used the national stage to reprimand Putin and accuse him of all sorts of crimes against the US.  Some believe he should have, although I have to think that this would have offered little more than a political sign.  Putin has no plans to stop doing what he is doing regardless of what Trump says.  Trump knows this. 

At the least I suppose I wish Trump had said nothing rather than mutually accuse both countries, claiming that ours has engaged in foolishness.  I don't think this did anything to encourage our intelligence efforts at home, or our overall morale. 

Does anyone think that if Trump had confronted Putin in private and then berated him in public that anything would really change? Do we think that Putin would have thought twice about future espionage? Not that he didn't lose an opportunity to tell Putin what our own intelligence agencies are aware of and that his own people are indicted here and that we in no way approve of any interference on his countries part.  That should have been made clear.  Since the meeting was closed we will never know exactly what was said.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 17, 2018, 11:49:36 AM

Not to defend Trump, there really is little that can be defended, but some of the way he is dealing with Russia is the result of Left not being able to get over the presidential election.  If Trump obsesses with Hilary, the Left obsesses over the election that they lost.


Since Pres. Trump's stunning election, the Left have obsessed with delegitimizing his election win.  We've heard it all ad nauseum.  Yes, Trump did not win the popular vote.  But that has never been what decided presidential elections since George Washington was elected the first president under the new Constitution.  Change it if you like (fat chance) but that is the way our presidential elections operate, get over it.


Then there has been the Mueller investigation.  No matter what the actual mandate was and continues to be for the investigation, and no matter that indictments have result for a few Americans for charges at best peripherally connected with collusion between Trump and his campaign and the Russians to affect the election, and for Russians who meddled with the election and tried to sway the outcome, so far the investigation has found no such collusion and no evidence that the Russian meddling actually significantly affected the election result.  Yet from the start, the investigation has been pushed by the Left to produce evidence of collusion by Donald Trump and his campaign with the Russians and thereby cheating to win the election.  This investigation would prove, prove that Donald Trump's election as president was illegitimate.  That no such evidence has been forth coming has not slowed down the drum beat.
'
'Every time that the Left has argued that the election, Donald Trump's crowning achievement, was fake, he pushes back all the more.  If the Left is going to say that Russia got him elected, he is going to push back and say that they had nothing to do with it.  That both are likely wrong doesn't change the claims or emotions one bit.  Both the Left and Trump with their public statements are running less on the facts of the matter and much more on their emotional reactions.  That is not a good recipe for running the country.  If the Left would admit that by their miscalculation and misunderstanding of the American people they lost the election they could lower the emotional heat of the national conversation and also be more realistic about what it will take to win this Fall and in two years.  As it is, they just keep egging Pres. Trump on to defend what he achieved - a stunning victory over a well oiled and well healed political machine.  A cynic might suppose that some of them realize this and continue to push the illegitimate election meme despite the fact that it was not illegitimate by all the evidence brought to light so far just to try to get Pres. Trump to self destruct, never mind the harm that might do.  After all, what is more important, the good of the country or the good of their political future?  In their own way, they are being just about as short sighted as Trump.


Not that any of this speaks well for Pres. Trump.  A president needs to rise above the needs of his ego and pride to take a sober look at the evidence and the needs of the nation.  A president needs to refuse to be goaded.


History ultimately will decide where Pres. Trump succeeds and where he will fail.  It is certainly too early to tell that now.  If, and it remains a big if, he succeeds in bringing a formal end to the Korean War and effects the denuclearization of Korean Peninsula, that would be a great accomplishment.  Nobody knows yet if that will happen.  Pres. Nixon for all that he self-destructed had major accomplishments during his time in office.  Among them was the establishment of formal relations with the People's Republic of China.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: RandyBosch on July 17, 2018, 11:51:30 AM
Now close the meeting, moderators. This is not the kind of morality that anyone here cares about. 

Takes first word and demands last word.  What can you do about it?  Since you now reside in Minnesota, perhaps you could look at State politics there, current office holders, pretenders to the various thrones, and their immoralities or fabulous accomplishments (your mileage may vary).

Every day's news reveals yet another example of Minnesota as a microcosm of National politics and culture - and Minnesota almost went for Trump in 2016!  Work to be done!  People living in a Glass House throwing stones!
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: David Garner on July 17, 2018, 12:05:24 PM
This post epitomizes my general thoughts about leftist leanings in modern society.

You're going to think bad things about me anyway.  Why should I participate?

I'm not a Trump voter by any means, but the left's reaction to those who are only entrenches them further, and creates sympathy among people who would otherwise be fellow travelers in opposing him.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 17, 2018, 12:07:23 PM
Now close the meeting, moderators. This is not the kind of morality that anyone here cares about. 

Takes first word and demands last word.  What can you do about it?  Since you now reside in Minnesota, perhaps you could look at State politics there, current office holders, pretenders to the various thrones, and their immoralities or fabulous accomplishments (your mileage may vary).

Every day's news reveals yet another example of Minnesota as a microcosm of National politics and culture - and Minnesota almost went for Trump in 2016!  Work to be done!  People living in a Glass House throwing stones!

Why not open and close it in one post.  Charles has long demonstrated that he not only isn't interested in reading anyone who doesn't already agree with him, he does not.  He takes whatever anyone else writes and makes up a caricature that suits is argument and responds to that.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: peter_speckhard on July 17, 2018, 12:49:52 PM
I would say the president's behavior this week has been exactly like his behavior all along. But since in the last few years he has consistently turned out to know what he was doing when I was convinced he absolutely did not, I've learned to give him the benefit of the doubt.

What has changed? On another thread Charles blamed decades of American policy for problems in Central America. The same people who can't speak highly enough of our intelligence community now had no confidence in the intelligence leading up to the Iraq war. I think the people who are most outraged about Trump this week are the people most desperate to cling to the idea that there is some exceptional explanation for the outcome of the election in 2016. They want the accepted narrative to be that we all agree Russian tinkering, not the American electorate, made Trump president.

I think Trump is a game-changer in the same sense that someone who knocks all the pieces off the table has made a game-changing move in chess. That is what people love and hate about him.  The players in the old game think of him as a destroyer. Those who didn't like the old game think of him as the only one with the guts to do what needed to be done. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: pastorg1@aol.com on July 17, 2018, 01:24:36 PM
I’m with Pastor Speckhard. The only thing that bothers me more than Donald Trump are people who are bothered by Donald Trump
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dave Likeness on July 17, 2018, 01:38:07 PM
The hyperventilating of the liberal left continues with irrational rants about the foreign policy of our
current President Donald Trump.   They forget about the failed foreign policies of Barack Obama and
his two puppets Hillary Clinton and John Kerry.   It basically boils down to the fact  Hillary lost the
 Presidential election in 2016 and the Democrats cannot accept that fact.  Some of the hot air and
blathering nonsense recently  moved from New Jersey to Minnesota.

Bottom Line: Currently the Democrat Party leadership has a bigger void that the Grand Canyon.
It is now a tug of war between Maxine Waters and Nancy Peiosi.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Mike in Pennsylvania on July 17, 2018, 01:43:35 PM
Donald Trump is an amoral narcissistic boor.  And I didn't vote for him.
And I'd still rather have him than Hillary Clinton.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: D. Engebretson on July 17, 2018, 01:56:37 PM
Donald Trump is an amoral narcissistic boor.  And I didn't vote for him.
And I'd still rather have him than Hillary Clinton.

I know it's speculation, but I wonder how things might have looked with Russia and Putin IF Hillary had won.  Putin, as I understand it, did not like Hillary.  I can't imagine that the espionage and other issues would not have been there, along with the denials. Would anything essentially be different in this scenario? I also wonder if our relations with Russia would have been little more than they were during the Cold War era.  We would be on record as condemning them as the "evil empire," but unlike Regan I don't see that the condemnations under her leadership would have brought similar results. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 17, 2018, 01:59:52 PM
I am reminded of Ronald Reagan.  At the time he was dismissed as an intellectual featherweight who slept through meeting and had no idea what to do with foreign policy.  Now, while he doesn’t make the top of anybody’s list of best presidents, he is generally well respected and often credited with playing a major role in the end of the Cold War and the collapse of communism.  There is much that I don’t like and disagree with Donald but I’ll wait some for history to give a more dispassionate assessment of the results of his actions.  I remember the intellectuals who mid 20th Century visited Soviet Russian and returning reported, “We have seen the future and it works!”
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 17, 2018, 02:02:13 PM
Don’t forget, when Reagan called them the Evil Empire he was mocked.  Obama and Clinton strove to “reset” our relationship with Russia and Obama cozied up to Putin. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on July 17, 2018, 02:22:26 PM
This is no longer a matter of "left" (which the Democrats are not) or "right" (which Trump certainly is not). It is no longer a matter of what "the left" said about President Bush or what "the right" said about President Obama. Those days are over and gone.  It is no longer a matter of whatever the parties used to be.
It is not even a matter of whether the Mueller investigation finds the president personally guilty of anything, although it is almost certain that it will find criminal acts among his closest advisers.
The issue is a man, driven by ego and obsession; a man totally ignorant of the rule of law; a man blind and inept in operating on the world stage; an intentional liar who goes far beyond the partisan rhetoric of any "politician"; a man whose stupidity is more dangerous to the world that North Korea's nuclear weapons; and a man who stirs up the vilest passions in a small, but significant number of our fellow citizens.
I would gladly accept the leadership of Vice President Pence or any other Republican over the non-leadership and nut-case antics of Donald Trump.
I do not know how anyone who wants to be considered a patriotic American cannot stand up in clear and direct opposition to Trump. That means voting against anyone who will not stand up to him, making sure he does not get a second term and taking back the Republican Party from those who have turned it over to the weak-kneed fools currently leading it.
Today, I could support Republican Ben Sasse for President.
And, no, Pastor Fienen, I am not interested in dialogue on whether we cut Trump or the Republicans any slack or give them any grace. We cannot. We should not.
I am no more willing to do that than you are to grant a further discussion in your LCMS on ordination for women or married gays and lesbians.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: RandyBosch on July 17, 2018, 02:34:57 PM
Remember that the hacked e-mails of the DNC, John Podesta and Hillary Clinton were not hacked by their American political opponents but, apparently by agents for or Russian intelligence services themselves.  The foreign recipients of those hacked messages, including part of Ms. Clinton's 30,000+ stash not "bleached" off her personal hard drives, used some of them to try to influence the outcome of the 2016 American elections.  This was the finding of the Mueller group, and was the flipflop activity of the FBI under Mr. Comey.

Putin apparently didn't deny it - did anyone expect him to deny or affirm the action?
Obama worked hard to prevent the hacking and use of hacked materials, he said he told Putin to "stop it".

Everyone overlooks the known content of some of those e-mails:  The DNC and the Clinton campaign subverted the Democratic primary process with great damage to Mr. Sander's campaign.  Simply changed leadership when the leaked e-mails established their perfidy, and then hid/smashed/bleached hardware.  Contract Pakistani nationals without security clearance but with access to Congressional and DNC servers had a large role, virtually unadjudicated because of stonewalling.

Thus, the enablers of the Russians and clear perpetrators of negatively impacting the American elections were the DNC, its leadership, the DNCC, its leadership, the Clinton Campaign, and its leadership.
Nobody indicted there, just Russian GRU officers who will never see the light of American jurisprudence.

Can't dump that all on the incumbent President, regardless of the less than stellar performance in Helsinki. 
If only he had really taken it to Putin and retrieved the full, public text of all those DNC, DCCC, HC, JP e-mails.

To say "a pox on all of their houses" is probably not the best 8th Commandment approach, but some may do that.

Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: RandyBosch on July 17, 2018, 02:39:47 PM
This is no longer a matter of "left" (which the Democrats are not) or "right" (which Trump certainly is not). It is no longer a matter of what "the left" said about President Bush or what "the right" said about President Obama. Those days are over and gone.  It is no longer a matter of whatever the parties used to be.
It is not even a matter of whether the Mueller investigation finds the president personally guilty of anything, although it is almost certain that it will find criminal acts among his closest advisers.
The issue is a man, driven by ego and obsession; a man totally ignorant of the rule of law; a man blind and inept in operating on the world stage; an intentional liar who goes far beyond the partisan rhetoric of any "politician"; a man whose stupidity is more dangerous to the world that North Korea's nuclear weapons; and a man who stirs up the vilest passions in a small, but significant number of our fellow citizens.
I would gladly accept the leadership of Vice President Pence or any other Republican over the non-leadership and nut-case antics of Donald Trump.
I do not know how anyone who wants to be considered a patriotic American cannot stand up in clear and direct opposition to Trump. That means voting against anyone who will not stand up to him, making sure he does not get a second term and taking back the Republican Party from those who have turned it over to the weak-kneed fools currently leading it.
Today, I could support Republican Ben Sasse for President.
And, no, Pastor Fienen, I am not interested in dialogue on whether we cut Trump or the Republicans any slack or give them any grace. We cannot. We should not.
I am no more willing to do that than you are to grant a further discussion in your LCMS on ordination for women or married gays and lesbians.

Couldn't tell for sure which President you were really referring to until the paragraph after the bolded one.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: peter_speckhard on July 17, 2018, 02:43:54 PM
This is no longer a matter of "left" (which the Democrats are not) or "right" (which Trump certainly is not). It is no longer a matter of what "the left" said about President Bush or what "the right" said about President Obama. Those days are over and gone.  It is no longer a matter of whatever the parties used to be.
It is not even a matter of whether the Mueller investigation finds the president personally guilty of anything, although it is almost certain that it will find criminal acts among his closest advisers.
The issue is a man, driven by ego and obsession; a man totally ignorant of the rule of law; a man blind and inept in operating on the world stage; an intentional liar who goes far beyond the partisan rhetoric of any "politician"; a man whose stupidity is more dangerous to the world that North Korea's nuclear weapons; and a man who stirs up the vilest passions in a small, but significant number of our fellow citizens.
I would gladly accept the leadership of Vice President Pence or any other Republican over the non-leadership and nut-case antics of Donald Trump.
I do not know how anyone who wants to be considered a patriotic American cannot stand up in clear and direct opposition to Trump. That means voting against anyone who will not stand up to him, making sure he does not get a second term and taking back the Republican Party from those who have turned it over to the weak-kneed fools currently leading it.
Today, I could support Republican Ben Sasse for President.
And, no, Pastor Fienen, I am not interested in dialogue on whether we cut Trump or the Republicans any slack or give them any grace. We cannot. We should not.
I am no more willing to do that than you are to grant a further discussion in your LCMS on ordination for women or married gays and lesbians.
There is no evidence he is stupid. There is plenty of evidence he is instinctively shrewd. There is no evidence he is ignorant of the rule of law. There is plenty of evidence he is willing to force the issue and demand that the government go by the text of the law. (Obama's policy of not enforcing laws he didn't like was an overt rejection of the rule of law in favor of autocracy.) That he is driven by ego is largely irrelevant; it is what he does that affects anyone, and so far I can't see that he has actually done anything particularly horrible. That he is personally more dangerous than NK's nukes is a silly comment. That he stirs up the passions of the vilest passions of some Americans is evident to all, though the rest of the Americans probably disagree among themselves as to who is putting their vilest passions on display.

That he gets criticized for being driven by obsession is comically ironic.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: TERJr on July 17, 2018, 03:01:07 PM

We can be reasonably sure that....

--Our intelligence agencies are not going to stop doing what they do.  They will continue to investigate and protect the country.  Putin knows this. 
--The investigation by Robert Mueller will continue.  Putin knows this. 
--NATO will remain intact and despite our president's concerns we will continue to support it.  Putin knows this.
--We will be extra vigilant at future elections looking for possible Russian interference.  Putin knows this. 

Trump could have used the national stage to reprimand Putin and accuse him of all sorts of crimes against the US.  Some believe he should have, although I have to think that this would have offered little more than a political sign.  Putin has no plans to stop doing what he is doing regardless of what Trump says.  Trump knows this. 

At the least I suppose I wish Trump had said nothing rather than mutually accuse both countries, claiming that ours has engaged in foolishness.  I don't think this did anything to encourage our intelligence efforts at home, or our overall morale. 

Does anyone think that if Trump had confronted Putin in private and then berated him in public that anything would really change? Do we think that Putin would have thought twice about future espionage? Not that he didn't lose an opportunity to tell Putin what our own intelligence agencies are aware of and that his own people are indicted here and that we in no way approve of any interference on his countries part.  That should have been made clear.  Since the meeting was closed we will never know exactly what was said.

Don makes a good point here.  Despite it all, people will keep doing their jobs and I pray that they do.

Are we better off having elected Scylla than we would have been with Charybdis? It’s to the point that I’m reading Sallust and listening to Warren Zevon to cheer up . . . but despite it all, people will keep doing their jobs.  It may be time to dust off the ideas of office and vocation and pray for the people doing their jobs. 

Do I hope that the intel folks do a better job than they did in 2003?  Yes. Please, Jesus, yes. Do I wish Bush II and Rumsfeld hadn't repeated the mistakes of Viet Nam in the Gulf and Afghanistan? Yes. Do I wish President Clinton had approved the op to take out Bin Laden?  Yes. Do I hope Les Aspin has his own special circle in hell for the Mog?  Yes. You get the idea . . .

The President’s fitness to be CIC is in dispute from many sides but absent an indictment and/or invoking the 25th Amendment, only time will tell. However, he is not the first draft dodging serial adulterer to hold that particular office and we survived and people kept doing their jobs. We survived LBJ’s bathroom briefings, Nixon’s crimes (barely), Carter’s dithering, usw. . .

People doing their jobs and fulfilling their offices often find themselves in a Kipling-nesque situation.

If your officer’s dead and the sergeants look white,
Remember it’s ruin to run from a fight:
So take open order, lie down, and sit tight,
   And wait for supports like a soldier.
      Wait, wait, wait like a soldier.

(I won’t quote the last stanza because it’s truly horrible.)

Since I’m already grossly politically incorrect citing Kipling positively, Teddy Roosevelt’s 1910 speech in Paris is probably applicable here too.  In part, he said:

To-day I shall speak to you on the subject of individual citizenship, the one subject of vital importance to you, my hearers, and to me and my countrymen, because you and we are citizens of great democratic republics. A democratic republic such as each of ours—an effort to realize in its full sense government by, of, and for the people—represents the most gigantic of all possible social experiments, the one fraught with greatest possibilities alike for good and for evil. The success of republics like yours and like ours means the glory, and our failure the despair, of mankind; and for you and for us the question of the quality of the individual citizen is supreme. Under other forms of government, under the rule of one man or of a very few men, the quality of the rulers is all-important. If, under such governments, the quality of the rulers is high enough, then the nation may for generations lead a brilliant career, and add substantially to the sum of world achievement, no matter how low the quality of the average citizen; because the average citizen is an almost negligible quantity in working out the final results of that type of national greatness.

But with you and with us the case is different. With you here, and with us in my own home, in the long run, success or failure will be conditioned upon the way in which the average man, the average woman, does his or her duty, first in the ordinary, every-day affairs of life, and next in those great occasional crises which call for the heroic virtues. The average citizen must be a good citizen if our republics are to succeed. The stream will not permanently rise higher than the main source; and the main source of national power and national greatness is found in the average citizenship of the nation. Therefore it behooves us to do our best to see that the standard of the average citizen is kept high; and the average can not be kept high unless the standard of the leaders is very much higher.

It is well if a large proportion of the leaders in any republic, in any democracy, are, as a matter of course, drawn from the classes represented in this audience to-day; but only provided that those classes possess the gifts of sympathy with plain people and of devotion to great ideals. You and those like you have received special advantages; you have all of you had the opportunity for mental training; many of you have had leisure; most of you have had a chance for the enjoyment of life far greater than comes to the majority of your fellows. To you and your kind much has been given, and from you much should be expected. Yet there are certain failings against which it is especially incumbent that both men of trained and cultivated intellect, and men of inherited wealth and position, should especially guard themselves, because to these failings they are especially liable; and if yielded to, their—your—chances of useful service are at an end.

Let the man of learning, the man of lettered leisure, beware of that queer and cheap temptation to pose to himself and to others as the cynic, as the man who has outgrown emotions and beliefs, the man to whom good and evil are as one. The poorest way to face life is to face it with a sneer. There are many men who feel a kind of twisted pride in cynicism; there are many who confine themselves to criticism of the way others do what they themselves dare not even attempt. There is no more unhealthy being, no man less worthy of respect, than he who either really holds, or feigns to hold, an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty, whether in achievement or in that noble effort which, even if it fails, comes second to achievement. A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life's realities—all these are marks, not, as the possessor would fain think, of superiority, but of weakness. They mark the men unfit to bear their part manfully in the stern strife of living, who seek, in the affectation of contempt for the achievements of others, to hide from others and from themselves their own weakness. The rôle is easy; there is none easier, save only the rôle of the man who sneers alike at both criticism and performance.

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, and comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat. Shame on the man of cultivated taste who permits refinement to develop into a fastidiousness that unfits him for doing the rough work of a workaday world. Among the free peoples who govern themselves there is but a small field of usefulness open for the men of cloistered life who shrink from contact with their fellows. Still less room is there for those who deride or slight what is done by those who actually bear the brunt of the day; nor yet for those others who always profess that they would like to take action, if only the conditions of life were not what they actually are.

The man who does nothing cuts the same sordid figure in the pages of history, whether he be cynic, or fop, or voluptuary. There is little use for the being whose tepid soul knows nothing of the great and generous emotion, of the high pride, the stern belief, the lofty enthusiasm, of the men who quell the storm and ride the thunder. Well for these men if they succeed; well also, though not so well, if they fail, given only that they have nobly ventured, and have put forth all their heart and strength. It is war-worn Hotspur, spent with hard fighting, he of the many errors and the valiant end, over whose memory we love to linger, not over the memory of the young lord who "but for the vile guns would have been a soldier."



Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: RandyBosch on July 17, 2018, 03:50:20 PM

We can be reasonably sure that....

--Our intelligence agencies are not going to stop doing what they do.  They will continue to investigate and protect the country.  Putin knows this. 
--The investigation by Robert Mueller will continue.  Putin knows this. 
--NATO will remain intact and despite our president's concerns we will continue to support it.  Putin knows this.
--We will be extra vigilant at future elections looking for possible Russian interference.  Putin knows this. 

Trump could have used the national stage to reprimand Putin and accuse him of all sorts of crimes against the US.  Some believe he should have, although I have to think that this would have offered little more than a political sign.  Putin has no plans to stop doing what he is doing regardless of what Trump says.  Trump knows this. 

At the least I suppose I wish Trump had said nothing rather than mutually accuse both countries, claiming that ours has engaged in foolishness.  I don't think this did anything to encourage our intelligence efforts at home, or our overall morale. 

Does anyone think that if Trump had confronted Putin in private and then berated him in public that anything would really change? Do we think that Putin would have thought twice about future espionage? Not that he didn't lose an opportunity to tell Putin what our own intelligence agencies are aware of and that his own people are indicted here and that we in no way approve of any interference on his countries part.  That should have been made clear.  Since the meeting was closed we will never know exactly what was said.

Don makes a good point here.  Despite it all, people will keep doing their jobs and I pray that they do.

Are we better off having elected Scylla than we would have been with Charybdis? It’s to the point that I’m reading Sallust and listening to Warren Zevon to cheer up . . . but despite it all, people will keep doing their jobs.  It may be time to dust off the ideas of office and vocation and pray for the people doing their jobs. 

Do I hope that the intel folks do a better job than they did in 2003?  Yes. Please, Jesus, yes. Do I wish Bush II and Rumsfeld hadn't repeated the mistakes of Viet Nam in the Gulf and Afghanistan? Yes. Do I wish President Clinton had approved the op to take out Bin Laden?  Yes. Do I hope Les Aspin has his own special circle in hell for the Mog?  Yes. You get the idea . . .

The President’s fitness to be CIC is in dispute from many sides but absent an indictment and/or invoking the 25th Amendment, only time will tell. However, he is not the first draft dodging serial adulterer to hold that particular office and we survived and people kept doing their jobs. We survived LBJ’s bathroom briefings, Nixon’s crimes (barely), Carter’s dithering, usw. . .

People doing their jobs and fulfilling their offices often find themselves in a Kipling-nesque situation.

If your officer’s dead and the sergeants look white,
Remember it’s ruin to run from a fight:
So take open order, lie down, and sit tight,
   And wait for supports like a soldier.
      Wait, wait, wait like a soldier.

(I won’t quote the last stanza because it’s truly horrible.)

Since I’m already grossly politically incorrect citing Kipling positively, Teddy Roosevelt’s 1910 speech in Paris is probably applicable here too.  In part, he said:

To-day I shall speak to you on the subject of individual citizenship, the one subject of vital importance to you, my hearers, and to me and my countrymen, because you and we are citizens of great democratic republics. A democratic republic such as each of ours—an effort to realize in its full sense government by, of, and for the people—represents the most gigantic of all possible social experiments, the one fraught with greatest possibilities alike for good and for evil. The success of republics like yours and like ours means the glory, and our failure the despair, of mankind; and for you and for us the question of the quality of the individual citizen is supreme. Under other forms of government, under the rule of one man or of a very few men, the quality of the rulers is all-important. If, under such governments, the quality of the rulers is high enough, then the nation may for generations lead a brilliant career, and add substantially to the sum of world achievement, no matter how low the quality of the average citizen; because the average citizen is an almost negligible quantity in working out the final results of that type of national greatness.

But with you and with us the case is different. With you here, and with us in my own home, in the long run, success or failure will be conditioned upon the way in which the average man, the average woman, does his or her duty, first in the ordinary, every-day affairs of life, and next in those great occasional crises which call for the heroic virtues. The average citizen must be a good citizen if our republics are to succeed. The stream will not permanently rise higher than the main source; and the main source of national power and national greatness is found in the average citizenship of the nation. Therefore it behooves us to do our best to see that the standard of the average citizen is kept high; and the average can not be kept high unless the standard of the leaders is very much higher.

It is well if a large proportion of the leaders in any republic, in any democracy, are, as a matter of course, drawn from the classes represented in this audience to-day; but only provided that those classes possess the gifts of sympathy with plain people and of devotion to great ideals. You and those like you have received special advantages; you have all of you had the opportunity for mental training; many of you have had leisure; most of you have had a chance for the enjoyment of life far greater than comes to the majority of your fellows. To you and your kind much has been given, and from you much should be expected. Yet there are certain failings against which it is especially incumbent that both men of trained and cultivated intellect, and men of inherited wealth and position, should especially guard themselves, because to these failings they are especially liable; and if yielded to, their—your—chances of useful service are at an end.

Let the man of learning, the man of lettered leisure, beware of that queer and cheap temptation to pose to himself and to others as the cynic, as the man who has outgrown emotions and beliefs, the man to whom good and evil are as one. The poorest way to face life is to face it with a sneer. There are many men who feel a kind of twisted pride in cynicism; there are many who confine themselves to criticism of the way others do what they themselves dare not even attempt. There is no more unhealthy being, no man less worthy of respect, than he who either really holds, or feigns to hold, an attitude of sneering disbelief toward all that is great and lofty, whether in achievement or in that noble effort which, even if it fails, comes second to achievement. A cynical habit of thought and speech, a readiness to criticise work which the critic himself never tries to perform, an intellectual aloofness which will not accept contact with life's realities—all these are marks, not, as the possessor would fain think, of superiority, but of weakness. They mark the men unfit to bear their part manfully in the stern strife of living, who seek, in the affectation of contempt for the achievements of others, to hide from others and from themselves their own weakness. The rôle is easy; there is none easier, save only the rôle of the man who sneers alike at both criticism and performance.

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, and comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who know neither victory nor defeat. Shame on the man of cultivated taste who permits refinement to develop into a fastidiousness that unfits him for doing the rough work of a workaday world. Among the free peoples who govern themselves there is but a small field of usefulness open for the men of cloistered life who shrink from contact with their fellows. Still less room is there for those who deride or slight what is done by those who actually bear the brunt of the day; nor yet for those others who always profess that they would like to take action, if only the conditions of life were not what they actually are.

The man who does nothing cuts the same sordid figure in the pages of history, whether he be cynic, or fop, or voluptuary. There is little use for the being whose tepid soul knows nothing of the great and generous emotion, of the high pride, the stern belief, the lofty enthusiasm, of the men who quell the storm and ride the thunder. Well for these men if they succeed; well also, though not so well, if they fail, given only that they have nobly ventured, and have put forth all their heart and strength. It is war-worn Hotspur, spent with hard fighting, he of the many errors and the valiant end, over whose memory we love to linger, not over the memory of the young lord who "but for the vile guns would have been a soldier."

Thank you for posting Theodore Roosevelt's Paris extraordinarily insightful Paris speech.  Not known to many and virtually not taught to any, yet a key for conversation and understanding of the body civic and politic.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: TERJr on July 17, 2018, 04:02:23 PM
I have a new dean and I am being forced to pretend to be an Americanist for the summer. I guess I was given a choice—get paid or don’t get paid—but the girl child’s college’s bursars office has a weird hang up about paying tuition on time.

It also occurs to me that since it’s Tuesday and Psalm 146 was appointed for Matins, I just could have pointed to it!
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on July 17, 2018, 06:00:10 PM
In my opinion, a thoughtful response.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/17/liz-peek-trump-critics-predictably-melt-down-over-helsinki-summit.html

"President Trump bungled the Helsinki press conference. Of that there is no question. But were his comments treasonous, as former CIA chief John Brennan said? Or was it, as John McCain thundered, “one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president in memory?"

Trump’s critics responded with customary vitriol and excess, attacking the president in such extreme terms... [Good grief, a question of morality?!  :o ]
...
But really, did anyone really expect him to declare the Russian leader a liar on global TV? What would have been the point of traveling to Helsinki and arranging a summit between the world’s two biggest nuclear powers, only to scuttle the chance at a new and improved relationship? It wasn’t going to happen, and in fact Trump hinted at that beforehand, when he told reporters not to expect "a Perry Mason" moment."
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on July 17, 2018, 06:47:17 PM
It could have featured a Ronald Reagan moment. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on July 17, 2018, 07:03:53 PM
And how did Reagan's dealings with the Soviet Union work out for us?

 Oh, right, you don't pledge allegiance to the US flag.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on July 17, 2018, 07:39:20 PM
Pastor Kirchner writes:
But really, did anyone really expect him to declare the Russian leader a liar on global TV? What would have been the point of traveling to Helsinki and arranging a summit between the world’s two biggest nuclear powers, only to scuttle the chance at a new and improved relationship?

I comment:
Yeah, and it was a lousy idea for Reagan to say "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Or for Kennedy to stand with the people of Berlin. The simple, but dedicated words of those two presidents had a powerful effect on the world and - and effect for good, in the long run on our relations with Eastern Europe.
Were I a young Republican (or even an old one,) I would be working now with everyone in the party who remains sane (and there are many) to make sure Trump is not the candidate in 2020. I doubt that an indictment or impeachment would accomplish much (even though invoking the 25th Amendment ought to be considered). But enough strong Republicans with sense could hold us together until it is clear he will only have one term.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: PlainOldPastor on July 17, 2018, 07:50:51 PM
Yes, Trump is terrible. I didn’t vote for him, and I don’t foresee any circumstances under which I might do so in the future.

Aside from that uh, modest, contribution, WHAT AM I SUPPOSED TO DO ABOUT IT????

There isn’t one damn thing that stroking out over him is going to accomplish, other than leaving my husband a widower and newborn son motherless. So, the Hubs is making Cuban sandwiches for dinner for Bartolome de las Casas day while I cluster feed the babe and search online for cute baptism outfits.

Tomorrow I’m going to pay NICU bills, write baby shower thank you notes and look into getting newborn photos done.

#vocation #tendtheplotgiventoyou #everybodycalmdown
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: FrPeters on July 17, 2018, 07:59:26 PM
Trump is not my kind of guy, to be sure.  He is surely worthy of many of the complaints against him.  But he is not worthy of the constant attention his enemies lavish upon him and they seem intent upon not only magnifying him but proving some of his points and feeding his ego at the same time.  But immoral?  Really, this is about immorality?  How is it that we get to the point where Trump's performance in Helsinki rises to the level of immorality but the scandal of children routinely murdered is a political choice?  We knew what kind of guy Trump was from the beginning and people chose him over others decidedly more honorable.  When it came down to Hillary and the Donald, no one thought he would win but he did-- in spite of himself, probably.  He is not a great moral leader but if he can advance the cause of the unborn and extend protections for life until its natural end, then I will forgive him his personal moralities if only because he forced us to honestly admit that there is only one outcome of being pro-choice and that is death.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 17, 2018, 08:01:34 PM
Pastor Kirchner writes:
But really, did anyone really expect him to declare the Russian leader a liar on global TV? What would have been the point of traveling to Helsinki and arranging a summit between the world’s two biggest nuclear powers, only to scuttle the chance at a new and improved relationship?

I comment:
Yeah, and it was a lousy idea for Reagan to say "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" Or for Kennedy to stand with the people of Berlin. The simple, but dedicated words of those two presidents had a powerful effect on the world and - and effect for good, in the long run on our relations with Eastern Europe.
Were I a young Republican (or even an old one,) I would be working now with everyone in the party who remains sane (and there are many) to make sure Trump is not the candidate in 2020. I doubt that an indictment or impeachment would accomplish much (even though invoking the 25th Amendment ought to be considered). But enough strong Republicans with sense could hold us together until it is clear he will only have one term.

My historical memory may be off but as I think back, neither of those events or statements happened at a summit meeting with the current Russian leader so the situations are not exactly parallel.  But as you never let inconvenient facts get in the way of a good heartfelt rant and opportunity to feel superior over others who aren't sharing your spleen, carry on.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on July 17, 2018, 08:59:12 PM
Well, despite his "treasonous" acts, you've given up on the impeach mantra.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on July 17, 2018, 10:44:11 PM
I was always skeptical about impeaching the president.
But folks can choose their way. Make cookies. Take pictures. Roll your eyes. Paralyze with analysis. Say you didn't vote for him (or Mrs. Clinton, which means you did vote for him.) Mind your own business.
BTW, if you think he's really going to help the "pro-life" agenda, just wait.
If you think he's going to "drain the swamp," watch and wait and see the water is not going down.
Just sit back and chill. It's a free country (so far, and sort of).
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Linda on July 17, 2018, 11:16:13 PM
Looking forward to voting for Trump, again.

Linda
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: PlainOldPastor on July 18, 2018, 12:13:57 AM
ooh, cookies!
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on July 18, 2018, 03:48:24 AM
I don't understand what the "Morality" in your subject title has to do with the contents of your post. 

Pax, Steven+
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on July 18, 2018, 05:17:52 AM
Steven writes:
I don't understand what the "Morality" in your subject title has to do with the contents of your post. 

I comment:
It doesn't matter now.

Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: gan ainm on July 18, 2018, 07:57:01 AM
I can choose to be moral regardless of how the deplorable "others" choose to act.  I can also choose to be immoral and act just like the anti-Trump feeding frenzy crowd.  I believe we are to aim toward sanctification, not sanctimoniousness.  You gotta a problem with that?  ;D ;D ;D
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on July 18, 2018, 08:15:28 AM
I can choose to be moral regardless of how the deplorable "others" choose to act.  I can also choose to be immoral and act just like the anti-Trump feeding frenzy crowd.  I believe we are to aim toward sanctification, not sanctimoniousness.  You gotta a problem with that?  ;D ;D ;D
Your comment reminds me again that the people who talk about tolerance being the highest form of patriotism, or Christianity, just want to replace their morality with the incumbent morality.  All points of view are valid, unless you diagree with me, then the pharisee judgment appears.

Pastor Austin continuing conduct on this forum is continuing evidence of this phenomenon.  PlainOldPastor and Pr. Tibbets express that well.   There really is only one correct answer here:  agree with Pr. Austin's politics, civil and religious, or be branded as unclean.  I will note that none of the usual traditionalist suspects started this thread.  Pastor Austin did.  It's unclear to me what he hoped to accomplish, since he continues to show he is not interested in meaningful dialog, only haranguing those who disagree with him.  Like PlainOldPastor said, what does he expect some of us to do about it?  I have voted against Trump twice, and likely will again, unless shrill people like Austin drive me to do otherwise.  What I won't do is oppose Trump when he does things I agree with...which is most certainly not his Putin summit performance, but it is nominating another originalist Supreme Court justice.

I will hopefully spend the afternoon building sand castles to chillax from all this nonsense.

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on July 18, 2018, 08:28:16 AM
It could have featured a Ronald Reagan moment.
With all do respect, please don't think I'm trying to insult you by replying with this:

Ronald Reagan faced even larger protests in Europe than Donald Trump.  They (or at least the European Left which was sympathetic to the Soviet Union, huh, imagine that) branded him a cowboy warmonger who was going to end the world with nuclear war.  When all he did was get the Soviets to remove intermediate nuclear missiles from Europe, after putting American missiles there, something which caused huge protests.  And he ended the Cold War and caused the Berlin Wall to come down.

So no, I'm not going accept the street morality of European protests, any more than I accepted the wisdom of the Occupy Wall Street crowd.

Donald Trump is most certainly NOT Ronald Reagan, and I find any such comparisons by Trumpkins obnoxious.  But too many of his opponents beclown themselves with ridiculous behavior.  Like the political reporter yesterday on Twitter who posted pictures of a red headed woman who she suggested might be a Russian operative, but in fact was a National Security Council staffer.  Maybe Pr. Austin should be concerned with how far the standards of his secular profession have fallen, instead of lecturing the rest of us hear about morality.

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 18, 2018, 09:11:01 AM
I will stand by one comparison between Reagan and Trump.  Reagan in his day was dismissed as a stupid buffoon, a cowboy actor way out of his depth.  Yet as time has passed history has realized that he actually accomplished much as president.  The snap judgements of his day proved misguided.


Donald Trump is similarly scorned and dismissed.  I think that it is much too early to render judgement on him or his presidency.  It is far too early to determine what the results of his actions towards North Korea will be, for example.  It could result in an end to that war by treaty, it could result in the easing of tensions and the lessening of that threat.  If so, that would be a major victory for any president and worthy of a Nobel Peace Prize.  Maybe not, the cards are still in play on the table and way too early to rake in the chips or count them lost.


Trump is certainly capable of error, his behavior, words and actions in Brussels and Helsinki may well turn out to be thus.  He certainly has not shown the maturity and self control that I would want to see in a President.  (I haven’t seen that in his critics either.)  But it’s way too early to go all Chicken Little as many have, including our own Humble Correspondent, Pastor, Esteemed Journalist and Churchman the Reverend Charles Austin.


I much doubt that history will eventually judge the Trump a president even of the stature of Reagan.  Still early days.  But I also doubt that he’ll end up at the bottom of the heap - there’s plenty of competition for those slots.  A sober judgement is needed something that neither the smug Trumpites or hysterical never Trumpers seem capable of.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Matt Staneck on July 18, 2018, 09:47:43 AM
I completely understand why many people voted for Trump. What I completely do not understand is the need to make him out to be some kind of shrewd negotiator or politician setting down a new political order. He isn't doing any of that. He's an impulsive narcissist who happened to beat one of the worst candidates in living memory. There's no need to justify your vote if you voted for Trump. As annoying as people on the computer or cable news are to you they don't interact with you in your daily life. Let your vote be what it is and don't try to make Trump into something he isn't. Seems simple to me.

M. Staneck
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Steven W Bohler on July 18, 2018, 10:02:04 AM
Looking forward to voting for Trump, again.

Linda

I always enjoy your posts, Linda!
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: peter_speckhard on July 18, 2018, 10:11:14 AM
I was always skeptical about impeaching the president.
But folks can choose their way. Make cookies. Take pictures. Roll your eyes. Paralyze with analysis. Say you didn't vote for him (or Mrs. Clinton, which means you did vote for him.) Mind your own business.
BTW, if you think he's really going to help the "pro-life" agenda, just wait.
If you think he's going to "drain the swamp," watch and wait and see the water is not going down.
Just sit back and chill. It's a free country (so far, and sort of).
Do you regularly assure your pro-choice friends that this administration will do nothing to advance the pro-life cause? Because I don’t think they got the memo.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: RandyBosch on July 18, 2018, 10:13:00 AM
By inference, anyone who disagrees with Pr. Austin has caused the current and continuing Armageddon.

Similar reasoning would make Pr. Austin responsible for the continuing praise and adulation of NYT 1940's+ Icon Walter Duranty and their glowing reporting on the beauty and wonders of Stalin's USSR.  Pulitzer Prize stuff, still proudly displayed on the NYT wall, I have read.  No apologies.  Incredible damage done.  "5th Column" stuff.

I would never personally hold Pr. Austin responsible for the actions of fellow star reporters, and neither should anyone else.
However,...
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: D. Engebretson on July 18, 2018, 10:17:26 AM
The thread title concerns, it seems to me, a general concern for morality in the country as a whole.  However, the discussion is very focused on Trump as if he is the one thing that is corrupting the morals of this land above and beyond all else.  If that is the case we give Trump too much credit.  It is also out of focus. 

Morality is a broad topic, but from where all of us sit, what exactly does it mean?  Whether we voted for or against Trump at this point is meaningless, unless someone wants that fact to berate a person for being part of putting him in office.  I don't see any purpose in that either.

There is no doubt that civil discourse is at its lowest, both in the gilded halls of government down to the average citizen on the street.  We can blame Trump for that too, but this has been in decline well before he took office.  The rhetoric from one side of the political spectrum to the other is so polarized as to impede any real productive discussion.  We call for choice and freedom of expression, and then are screamed at as being immoral ourselves for holding positions against the enshrined 'rights' of certain classes of people.  Our rhetoric is inflammatory and in some cases designed to act like verbal Molotov Cocktails.  From the ground, where politics is far more personal since it directly affects my immediate neighbors, we learn to temper such rhetoric since we have to live close to these people, although that doesn't always work either. 

Morality?  Perhaps it starts with us, on the ground, with our neighbors.  I can't do anything about Trump or Congress or any of the national personalities except utilize my vote when that time comes again.  I can protest publicly, and in my denomination many choose to do that with the one immoral issue that we feel rises above all others: abortion and the legal killing of unborn children.  But if any feel so strongly about Trump as being the one, single force of immorality that is taking down the country, then I suspect you have your work cut out for you.  Protests will need to be organized, commercials launched, pressure applied to those in power to bring a sitting president down.  But then I believe all of that is already well in motion....
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: RandyBosch on July 18, 2018, 10:21:34 AM
The progressive chicken little crowd that rules the media in the USA is doing more damage to US polity and foreign policy than Trump's stumble at a press conference in Helsinki will ever cause. 

Trump stumbles enough without their help, they only hurt the USA.  To what end?  Power.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on July 18, 2018, 10:23:37 AM
In light of Pr. Fienen's comments, I want to clarify my prior post:

I did not mean to say that there are no similarities between Reagan and Trump.

Ronald Reagan spent a decade speaking and WRITING about his political philosophy in relation to contemporary current events, before he ever ran for office.  Yet his political opponents derided him as a know-nothing cowboy actor.   Reagan had a deep, consistent worldview which he developed over a long period of time, beginning with his break with FDR's New Deal.

Trump isn't that kind of deep thinker.  That doesn't mean he's dumb.  He's all about winning and ego.  That too is not absolutely a bad thing.  I think that diagnosis applies equally to Obama, and frankly most politicians.  Trump goes about it in an unfamiliar, unpolitician, non-Washington way, perhaps not unlike past populists like Huey Long of Louisiana who didn't give a damn what anyone in Washington thought of them (but my historical knowledge of him is a bit sketchy to be sure).

With regards to Obama's record, I think it was a great moral evil to send a billion dollars in cash on a pallet to the ayatollahs ruling Iran, but no one wants to talk about that.  In fact, some people outraged by Trump's summit performance laud returning that money as an unassailable good, since after all that money was frozen Iranian property.   Trump interaction with Putin was embarrassing, but does not actually change things in the world--he didn't give Russia anything of tangible value, only positive public relations points to be used for propaganda.  I can guarantee that pallet cash was used to kill people.  That's why I have issues with this sudden concern for "morality" in the age of Trump.

The Obama cult of personality, that everything he did was wonderful and good, is what taught Trump disciples how to act.   Enough Republican voters got tired of Democrats and the mainstream media (but I repeat myself) teaming up against presidential candidates (McCain, Romney) who wouldn't fight back.  But of course there's no such thing as media bias (especially most recently according to CNN's Chris Cizilla), except Fox News of course.

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on July 18, 2018, 10:40:06 AM
The thread title concerns, it seems to me, a general concern for morality in the country as a whole.  However, the discussion is very focused on Trump as if he is the one thing that is corrupting the morals of this land above and beyond all else.  If that is the case we give Trump too much credit.  It is also out of focus. 
[snip]
...Morality?  Perhaps it starts with us, on the ground, with our neighbors.  I can't do anything about Trump or Congress or any of the national personalities except utilize my vote when that time comes again.  I can protest publicly, and in my denomination many choose to do that with the one immoral issue that we feel rises above all others: abortion and the legal killing of unborn children.  But if any feel so strongly about Trump as being the one, single force of immorality that is taking down the country, then I suspect you have your work cut out for you.  Protests will need to be organized, commercials launched, pressure applied to those in power to bring a sitting president down.  But then I believe all of that is already well in motion....
Your entire post is well put.  I think you accurately describe that it is problematic to identify a particular political party as either moral or immoral.  The world is way too complicated for such simple thinking.  Yet what the opportunistic anti-Trumpers keep demanding.  One must repudiate the entire Republican Party because of Trump's alleged immorality.  Sorry, this small government conservative doesn't think, contra the recently repentant neocon Max Boot's of the world hectoring us (look him up on Twitter to understand), that our country's morality will be improved by making Nancy Pelosi speaker again.

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dave Likeness on July 18, 2018, 11:14:44 AM
Our previous President, Barack Obama, was nurtured by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's sermons
for over 15 years.   He sat in the church pew on Sundays and heard his pastor shout out the
words, "God Damn America".  The bigoted and racist Jeremiah Wright hollered his vile words
into the ears of Barack Obama.   This was a sad situation because Obama never refuted the
words of his mentor in Chicago.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on July 18, 2018, 11:33:45 AM
The anonymous one, maybe a Russian?, Says that it is immoral to be anti-Trump.
 I can’t figure that one out, but, you know those Russians!
Others continue their obsession with past evils, a convenient way to excuse or avoid facing today’s atrocities.
Oh, I forgot. The only real atrocity is our abortion laws. Everything doesn’t matter much.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: aletheist on July 18, 2018, 11:40:36 AM
He's an impulsive narcissist who happened to beat one of the worst candidates in living memory.
Indeed, and yet many of his opponents in politics and the media continually insist on giving him exactly what he wants--making him the center of attention, and fueling the populist outrage that got him elected in the first place.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: John_Hannah on July 18, 2018, 11:51:09 AM
He's an impulsive narcissist who happened to beat one of the worst candidates in living memory.
Indeed, and yet many of his opponents in politics and the media continually insist on giving him exactly what he wants--making him the center of attention, and fueling the populist outrage that got him elected in the first place.

 ;D 

Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 18, 2018, 12:06:06 PM
I completely understand why many people voted for Trump. What I completely do not understand is the need to make him out to be some kind of shrewd negotiator or politician setting down a new political order. He isn't doing any of that. He's an impulsive narcissist who happened to beat one of the worst candidates in living memory. There's no need to justify your vote if you voted for Trump. As annoying as people on the computer or cable news are to you they don't interact with you in your daily life. Let your vote be what it is and don't try to make Trump into something he isn't. Seems simple to me.


Was Hilary actually "one of the worst candidates in living memory," or did the Russian hacks and feeds to Facebook portray her as much worse than she actually was? She was one of the most qualified politicians to run for the office - having been in the White House, having been Secretary of State, having been a Senator.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on July 18, 2018, 12:09:04 PM
I completely understand why many people voted for Trump. What I completely do not understand is the need to make him out to be some kind of shrewd negotiator or politician setting down a new political order. He isn't doing any of that. He's an impulsive narcissist who happened to beat one of the worst candidates in living memory. There's no need to justify your vote if you voted for Trump. As annoying as people on the computer or cable news are to you they don't interact with you in your daily life. Let your vote be what it is and don't try to make Trump into something he isn't. Seems simple to me.

Was Hilary actually "one of the worst candidates in living memory," or did the Russian hacks and feeds to Facebook portray her as much worse than she actually was? She was one of the most qualified politicians to run for the office - having been in the White House, having been Secretary of State, having been a Senator.

 ;D ;D ;D  You must be paraphrasing from her book, "What Happened[?]"
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 18, 2018, 12:12:00 PM
I completely understand why many people voted for Trump. What I completely do not understand is the need to make him out to be some kind of shrewd negotiator or politician setting down a new political order. He isn't doing any of that. He's an impulsive narcissist who happened to beat one of the worst candidates in living memory. There's no need to justify your vote if you voted for Trump. As annoying as people on the computer or cable news are to you they don't interact with you in your daily life. Let your vote be what it is and don't try to make Trump into something he isn't. Seems simple to me.

Was Hilary actually "one of the worst candidates in living memory," or did the Russian hacks and feeds to Facebook portray her as much worse than she actually was? She was one of the most qualified politicians to run for the office - having been in the White House, having been Secretary of State, having been a Senator.

 ;D ;D ;D  You must be paraphrasing from her book, "What Happened[?]"


Nope. Don't have it. Never read it. It's not clear whether you agree with me or not. Did the Russians give a portrait of her that was worse than reality?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Matt Staneck on July 18, 2018, 12:13:31 PM
I completely understand why many people voted for Trump. What I completely do not understand is the need to make him out to be some kind of shrewd negotiator or politician setting down a new political order. He isn't doing any of that. He's an impulsive narcissist who happened to beat one of the worst candidates in living memory. There's no need to justify your vote if you voted for Trump. As annoying as people on the computer or cable news are to you they don't interact with you in your daily life. Let your vote be what it is and don't try to make Trump into something he isn't. Seems simple to me.


Was Hilary actually "one of the worst candidates in living memory," or did the Russian hacks and feeds to Facebook portray her as much worse than she actually was? She was one of the most qualified politicians to run for the office - having been in the White House, having been Secretary of State, having been a Senator.

I don't think a lot of Trump voters/Hillary haters appreciate what Russia did during the 2016 cycle. It's not a sample because it isn't scientific but I know several people from the midwest who had their votes altered by some sudden "wake up call" to the corruption of the Clintons in late summer '16. They were hooked in by the "pizzagate" pedophile ring and then went down the rabbit hole with the Depodesta/DNC emails. Scary stuff. People really do believe this kind of stuff. So yes, I think Russia played a pretty good part.

It can also be true - and it is - at the very same time that Hillary Clinton was an awful candidate. The 2016 cycle was a perfect storm wherein Russia could pull off what they pulled off. And part of what made Russia successful was Hillary Clinton. She was just plain awful.

M. Staneck
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on July 18, 2018, 12:16:31 PM
But she was 1) a Clinton, 2) a Washington "insider," 3) not "polite" to others, 4) tough on those around her and of course 5) female. Any one of those things is "b-a-a-d."  ::) ::)
Some kind of pathological hatred of the Clintons runs through the land and doomed her.
The issue is not whether the Russians changed the election outcome. The issue is they did try to change the outcome in favor of the Republican candidate. The issue may not even be whether the dread "collusion" took place between the candidate and his Putinesque acquaintances, but who in his inner circle wanted the Putinesca sauce on the pasta.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Steven W Bohler on July 18, 2018, 12:17:26 PM
I completely understand why many people voted for Trump. What I completely do not understand is the need to make him out to be some kind of shrewd negotiator or politician setting down a new political order. He isn't doing any of that. He's an impulsive narcissist who happened to beat one of the worst candidates in living memory. There's no need to justify your vote if you voted for Trump. As annoying as people on the computer or cable news are to you they don't interact with you in your daily life. Let your vote be what it is and don't try to make Trump into something he isn't. Seems simple to me.

Was Hilary actually "one of the worst candidates in living memory," or did the Russian hacks and feeds to Facebook portray her as much worse than she actually was? She was one of the most qualified politicians to run for the office - having been in the White House, having been Secretary of State, having been a Senator.

 ;D ;D ;D  You must be paraphrasing from her book, "What Happened[?]"


Nope. Don't have it. Never read it. It's not clear whether you agree with me or not. Did the Russians give a portrait of her that was worse than reality?

No.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on July 18, 2018, 12:20:10 PM
I completely understand why many people voted for Trump. What I completely do not understand is the need to make him out to be some kind of shrewd negotiator or politician setting down a new political order. He isn't doing any of that. He's an impulsive narcissist who happened to beat one of the worst candidates in living memory. There's no need to justify your vote if you voted for Trump. As annoying as people on the computer or cable news are to you they don't interact with you in your daily life. Let your vote be what it is and don't try to make Trump into something he isn't. Seems simple to me.


Was Hilary actually "one of the worst candidates in living memory," or did the Russian hacks and feeds to Facebook portray her as much worse than she actually was?

Sigh.  The intellectual dishonesty just never stops with you.   BOTH of these can be true, but you choose, dishonestly to serve your purposes, to make them an either/or proposition.

Plenty of people, on both ends of the political spectrum, came to the conclusion that she was terrible candidate long before the Russians "hacked" her.  She did after all lose the Democratic primary, which was supposed to hers by acclamation, to an upstart nobody named Barack Obama in 2008.

Once again, you claim there is no such thing as absolute/objective truth, only various points of view, yet assert one.  Please stop being dishonest and think before you post.
She was one of the most qualified politicians to run for the office - having been in the White House, having been Secretary of State, having been a Senator.
No, she was not one of the most qualified.  She had never been an executive (just like Obama never had been).  She only got elected to office the first time (U.S senator from New York) because of her last name, which she only took out of political expediency after years of clinging to "Rodham".  She was perhaps one of the most unqualified senators to be elected in years (rivaling Ted Kennedy, when he had to take over the family seat).  I stated as much when she ran in 2000, but of course she was going to win in New York.  Her only recent governing public service (obviously excluding being First Lady) was the Hillarycare debacle which helped hand control of Congress to Republicans after 40 years.  Just like Obamacare returned Congress to Republican control.

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on July 18, 2018, 12:27:24 PM
The anonymous one, maybe a Russian?, Says that it is immoral to be anti-Trump.
 I can’t figure that one out, but, you know those Russians!
Others continue their obsession with past evils, a convenient way to excuse or avoid facing today’s atrocities.
Oh, I forgot. The only real atrocity is our abortion laws. Everything doesn’t matter much.
Is that what the anonymous one said?  No.  But we know you can't be trusted, just like Pr. Stoffregen, to properly state other people's positions.

It's funny you, the Vietnam War dissident, complain about others obsessing about past evils.  Even as you criticize others for being pro-life.  It's A-Okay for you to put your Trump hate above all else, but not for others to do the same for unborn human life.  That's why you are such a flaming pharisaic hypocrite.

Of course, you and people like Presiding Bishop Mark Hanson were calling small government conservatives like me immoral for not supporting your utopian welfare state ideas, long before Donald Trump came on the scene. 

So you'll have to excuse me for not accepting at face value your concern for morality now.  Your tribalism runs so deep it blinds you to any reason.  If you don't like any of this criticism, just remember, YOU started this thread to preen your moral superiority over others.  But it does give you the opportunity once again to play the victim, something else you criticize others for doing.

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: RandyBosch on July 18, 2018, 12:38:18 PM
Speaking to "A Concern for 'Morality' in our Land, or Not?", in Michael Oakshott's  book "The Tower of Babel", the following excerpt appears to be specific to this discussion:

"When the guide of conduct is a moral ideal we are never suffered to escape from perfection. Constantly, indeed on all occasions, the society is called upon to seek virtue as the crow flies. It may even be said that the moral life, in this form, demands a hyperoptic moral vision and encourages intense moral emulation among those who enjoy it…. And the unhappy society, with an ear for every call, certain always about what it ought to think (though it will never for long be the same thing), in action shies and plunges like a distracted animal….

"Too often the excessive pursuit of one ideal leads to the exclusion of others, perhaps all others; in our eagerness to realize justice we come to forget charity, and a passion for righteousness has made many a man hard and merciless. There is indeed no ideal the pursuit of which will not lead to disillusion; chagrin waits at the end for all who take this path. Every admirable ideal has its opposite, no less admirable. Liberty or order, justice or charity, spontaneity or deliberateness, principle or circumstance, self or others, these are the kinds of dilemma with which this form of the moral life is always confronting us, making us see double by directing our attention always to abstract extremes, none of which is wholly desirable."

(Thanks to Alan Jacobs for the excerpt.  I haven't read the whole essay yet, only a number of excerpts, and finding this one to be an chillingly accurate portrayal of post-Modern America, I plan to read it all.)
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Voelker on July 18, 2018, 12:38:57 PM
No, she was not one of the most qualified.  She had never been an executive (just like Obama never had been).  She only got elected to office the first time (U.S senator from New York) because of her last name, which she only took out of political expediency after years of clinging to "Rodham".  She was perhaps one of the most unqualified senators to be elected in years (rivaling Ted Kennedy, when he had to take over the family seat).  I stated as much when she ran in 2000, but of course she was going to win in New York.  Her only recent governing public service (obviously excluding being First Lady) was the Hillarycare debacle which helped hand control of Congress to Republicans after 40 years.  Just like Obamacare returned Congress to Republican control.
Bingo. The idea that someone is qualified because they managed to fall upwards, got all their boxes checked through sheer persistence, or keep their butt in a chair longer than other people, is not only outdated, it is dangerous. Such thinking leads to "safe" candidates who do only what will get them elected or which panders to their base, rewards nepotism and cronyism, and encourages a trend toward the consolidation of power rather than impetus to govern wisely. An inexperienced commoner with an ounce of horse sense is a better candidate than any of a thousand someones who "earned" their spot by Being There. Now we just have to find someone from either electable party with at least an ounce of horse sense.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: FrPeters on July 18, 2018, 12:42:24 PM
I am not at all condoning what Russia did in its attempt to influence and interfere with voting here in the US but the moral outrage shown against their efforts must be compared with our own efforts to prop up regimes and influence elections over the years. Of course, it is all good when we do it and terrible when others do it.  Again, I am NOT making equivalence an excuse for letting Russia off the hook.  Instead, I wonder how we could have been caught so off guard when we had been doing things like the things we accuse Russia of doing for years.  Perhaps we were simply so arrogant as to believe that they either did not have the will/expertise or the technology to do it.  In any case, we created the social media that others exploited and we have been masters of our master technology when it comes to promoting our causes.  Why were we so slow to awaken to the dangers of others doing the same things to us?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 18, 2018, 12:43:32 PM

Whatever you may think of Hilary Clinton as a person or as a governmental official, the campaign that she ran for president was inept.  She misjudged the mood of middle America and misjudged their importance.  Some of the states that ultimately cost her the election she didn't bother to campaign in.  Either she misjudged her support and simply assumed that if they had gone for Barack Obama they would support her with little effort on her part, or she misjudged their importance in the all important Electoral College count.  Clinton's thinly disguised disdain for blue collar workers in the rust belt also hurt her.


Although Donald Trump would fight to the death to deny it, the election was as much lost by Clinton as it was won by Trump.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: RandyBosch on July 18, 2018, 12:56:35 PM
But she was 1) a Clinton, 2) a Washington "insider," 3) not "polite" to others, 4) tough on those around her and of course 5) female. Any one of those things is "b-a-a-d."  ::) ::)
Some kind of pathological hatred of the Clintons runs through the land and doomed her.
The issue is not whether the Russians changed the election outcome. The issue is they did try to change the outcome in favor of the Republican candidate. The issue may not even be whether the dread "collusion" took place between the candidate and his Putinesque acquaintances, but who in his inner circle wanted the Putinesca sauce on the pasta.

You're overlooking the fact that it was the Clinton/DNC Team that acquired the so-called Dossier, assembled by a former foreign spy from information made available from Russian intelligence sources.  The Clinton/DNC Team weaponized the Dossier and fired it broadside at their opposition including via the DOJ, proud of the Russian intelligence sourced content.
It was intended to bring down their opponent, and may yet succeed, like one of those unexploded WWII bombs dug up while excavating for a new building somewhere in Europe or Japan.

Whatever the Russians thought they would get out of cobbling up the Dossier and delivering it to the Clinton/DNC Team, it was certainly used to try to impact the election.  Some might call it collusion on the other side - the Russians play a wide and deep game.

Perhaps the Russians duped the Clinton/DNC Team - part of that team's "too smart to win" strategy in the election?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dave Likeness on July 18, 2018, 02:02:31 PM
If Hillary Clinton looks in the mirror she will see the reason she lost the 2016 Presidential election.
She was overconfident, and lacked the energy for a vigorous campaign is states like Wisconsin,
Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Many times she was late and running behind schedule for her
rallies.

One of the factors in her lack luster campaign was her use of an SUV to travel around our nation.
The Democrat National Committee could not find for her a jet with 2 left wings.

Another factor was that Hillary is a cold and aloof person who does not connect with the average voter.
In the White House, she and husband Bill slept on a waterbed.  She was so cold and aloof that her
half of the waterbed was frozen.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Coach-Rev on July 18, 2018, 02:18:14 PM
It's amazing on this clearly biased thread (that IMO should have been shut down instantly) that so many of the "liberal" persuasion are so up in arms about the current POTUS meeting with Vladimir Putin. 

With this level of hysteria, you'd think he'd sold 20% of an American Uranium company to him, or something.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on July 18, 2018, 02:29:57 PM
"Marc Thiessen: Trump isn't the first president to embarrass America by cozying up to Putin

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing again and again and expecting to get a different result, which is one of the many reasons President Trump's news conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin seemed so insane. Trump is trying to do something that both of his immediate predecessors tried to do: turn over a new leaf with Russia. They both failed, and so will he...

Yet, as cringeworthy as Trump's news conference was, unlike Obama, he didn't throw U.S. allies under the bus to appease Putin or take any of the actions many feared -- such as lifting sanctions or recognizing Putin's annexation of Crimea. Unlike his rhetoric, Trump's Russia policy has actually been a dramatic improvement over that of his predecessor...

As always, Trump's critics bail him out by overplaying their hands. A news conference, however humiliating, is not an impeachable offense. And conspiracy theories aside, there is a simple explanation for Trump's performance in Helsinki: He is deeply wrong on Russia. He thinks he can charm Putin into behaving like a normal leader. He'll learn that Putin is KGB to his core, just as those before him learned.

When should we be worried? When Trump's actions match his rhetoric. Until then, Trump's summit was simply an embarrassment, not a disaster."

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2018/07/18/marc-thiessen-trump-isnt-first-president-to-embarrass-america-by-cozying-up-to-putin.html
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: FrPeters on July 18, 2018, 03:21:19 PM
Strangely, Trump has actually been rather hard on Russia and Putin in the areas of diplomats sent home, sanctions, and the like -- harder than even Obama.  Perhaps his words are at odds with the behavior of his administration but he would not be the first in this either.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on July 18, 2018, 03:35:22 PM
But she was ...  of course 5) female. Any one of those things is "b-a-a-d."  ::) ::)

Good grief, perhaps due to your Trump Derangement Syndrome, your statements have become unhinged, Charles.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: TERJr on July 18, 2018, 04:00:24 PM
Speaking to "A Concern for 'Morality' in our Land, or Not?", in Michael Oakshott's  book "The Tower of Babel", the following excerpt appears to be specific to this discussion:

"When the guide of conduct is a moral ideal we are never suffered to escape from perfection. Constantly, indeed on all occasions, the society is called upon to seek virtue as the crow flies. It may even be said that the moral life, in this form, demands a hyperoptic moral vision and encourages intense moral emulation among those who enjoy it…. And the unhappy society, with an ear for every call, certain always about what it ought to think (though it will never for long be the same thing), in action shies and plunges like a distracted animal….

"Too often the excessive pursuit of one ideal leads to the exclusion of others, perhaps all others; in our eagerness to realize justice we come to forget charity, and a passion for righteousness has made many a man hard and merciless. There is indeed no ideal the pursuit of which will not lead to disillusion; chagrin waits at the end for all who take this path. Every admirable ideal has its opposite, no less admirable. Liberty or order, justice or charity, spontaneity or deliberateness, principle or circumstance, self or others, these are the kinds of dilemma with which this form of the moral life is always confronting us, making us see double by directing our attention always to abstract extremes, none of which is wholly desirable."

(Thanks to Alan Jacobs for the excerpt.  I haven't read the whole essay yet, only a number of excerpts, and finding this one to be an chillingly accurate portrayal of post-Modern America, I plan to read it all.)

Hi Randy,
That looks fascinating. Do you happen to know if there is an electronic version of that essay anywhere? My google machine has come up with part of the chapter but not the whole thing and I’m too lazy to go into town if I don’t absolutely have to.
http://www.pierre-legrand.com/oakeshott.pdf
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 18, 2018, 05:01:32 PM
It’s a well know aphorism that you should never say you’re sorry, it’s a sign of weakness.  Unfortunately, that seems to be one piece of conventional wisdom that Pres. Trump has taken to heart.  Combine that with his unfortunate habit of shooting from the lip and a craving for shoe leather (how else can we explain the regularity with which he sticks his feet in his mouth?) he finds himself with annoying regularity in the situation he has this week.  He has spoken unwisely and is reduced to implausible “clarifications” to walk back what should not have been said to begin with.  If only he could bring himself to think things through to begin with, perhaps with a little help from his friends and aides, or at least come back and say that he was sorry, he misspoke and should have said. . .


Alas, his insecurities make that well nigh impossible, compounded that his enemies, growing increasingly shrill and hysterical, are waiting with eager anticipation to stick a knife in.  They, after all in the manner of all too many politicians, are more concerned that he fail than that the country win.


(And yes, I know that was the attitude of far too many Republicans under Obama.  That was bad then and has not been improved now by being continued by Democrats.)
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on July 18, 2018, 05:07:55 PM
But she was 1) a Clinton, 2) a Washington "insider," 3) not "polite" to others, 4) tough on those around her and of course 5) female. Any one of those things is "b-a-a-d."  ::) ::)
Some kind of pathological hatred of the Clintons runs through the land and doomed her.

Just like in 2008, the chief difference being the Super Delegates in 2016, being Democratic Party stalwarts, weren't about to abandon her (as they had quickly done 8 years earlier for the one Democratic Senator whose voting record was to the left of the socialist Independent Sen. Sanders) for someone who isn't actually a member of the Democratic Party.

As for Mr. Putin and Mrs. Clinton, remember not only that Putin was KGB, remember that he is Russian, and remember that President Clinton exposed a weak Russia via the collapse of Yugoslavia -- which for generations they have considered their rightful sphere of influence.  Putin wants no reminders of a weak Russia, and another "President Clinton" is precisely that.

Pax, Steven+
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on July 18, 2018, 05:39:49 PM
If only he could bring himself to think things through to begin with, perhaps with a little help from his friends and aides, or at least come back and say that he was sorry, he misspoke and should have said. . .


Alas, his insecurities make that well nigh impossible...

I thought that's what he just did, listen to friends and aides (including Gingrich) and come back and say that he misspoke and should have said...
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: RandyBosch on July 18, 2018, 05:54:01 PM
Speaking to "A Concern for 'Morality' in our Land, or Not?", in Michael Oakshott's  book "The Tower of Babel", the following excerpt appears to be specific to this discussion:

"When the guide of conduct is a moral ideal we are never suffered to escape from perfection. Constantly, indeed on all occasions, the society is called upon to seek virtue as the crow flies. It may even be said that the moral life, in this form, demands a hyperoptic moral vision and encourages intense moral emulation among those who enjoy it…. And the unhappy society, with an ear for every call, certain always about what it ought to think (though it will never for long be the same thing), in action shies and plunges like a distracted animal….

"Too often the excessive pursuit of one ideal leads to the exclusion of others, perhaps all others; in our eagerness to realize justice we come to forget charity, and a passion for righteousness has made many a man hard and merciless. There is indeed no ideal the pursuit of which will not lead to disillusion; chagrin waits at the end for all who take this path. Every admirable ideal has its opposite, no less admirable. Liberty or order, justice or charity, spontaneity or deliberateness, principle or circumstance, self or others, these are the kinds of dilemma with which this form of the moral life is always confronting us, making us see double by directing our attention always to abstract extremes, none of which is wholly desirable."

(Thanks to Alan Jacobs for the excerpt.  I haven't read the whole essay yet, only a number of excerpts, and finding this one to be an chillingly accurate portrayal of post-Modern America, I plan to read it all.)

Hi Randy,
That looks fascinating. Do you happen to know if there is an electronic version of that essay anywhere? My google machine has come up with part of the chapter but not the whole thing and I’m too lazy to go into town if I don’t absolutely have to.
http://www.pierre-legrand.com/oakeshott.pdf

"Tower of Babel" is an essay in a collection called "Rationalism in Politics and Other Essays", written early than the anthology of 30 articles.  I'm on the lookout for access to the full essay outside of the book, and will let you know if/when/where I find it!
Hopefully, someone else from this erudite group has a thumb on it!
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: TERJr on July 18, 2018, 06:00:29 PM
Thank you!
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: David Garner on July 18, 2018, 06:02:29 PM

Whatever you may think of Hilary Clinton as a person or as a governmental official, the campaign that she ran for president was inept.  She misjudged the mood of middle America and misjudged their importance.  Some of the states that ultimately cost her the election she didn't bother to campaign in.  Either she misjudged her support and simply assumed that if they had gone for Barack Obama they would support her with little effort on her part, or she misjudged their importance in the all important Electoral College count.  Clinton's thinly disguised disdain for blue collar workers in the rust belt also hurt her.


Although Donald Trump would fight to the death to deny it, the election was as much lost by Clinton as it was won by Trump.

Worse, she ignored the advice of her husband, James Carville and others.  Or, more to the point, her campaign did.  Bill Clinton was talking about the rust belt and blue collar white voters in the spring.  Brooklyn decided not only to not spend money there, but to double down on the stupidity by spending money to try and turn out the popular vote in Chicago and New Orleans.

Let's examine that for a moment.  She thought she had the EC in hand.  She wanted to deny Trump a claim to have out-gained her in the popular vote.  So she spent money in one state she could never lose (Illinois) and one she could never win (Louisiana) instead of putting money into the rust belt states which she ended up losing by the thinnest of margins.  While she understood the EC, she never believed she could lose it.  And believing you can't lose is usually the first step to actually losing.

On the upside, she did win the popular vote.  Which is something.  Mostly nothing, but something.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 18, 2018, 06:17:12 PM
Sigh.  The intellectual dishonesty just never stops with you.   BOTH of these can be true, but you choose, dishonestly to serve your purposes, to make them an either/or proposition.

"Both" is a perfectly acceptable answer to an "or" question. When I began learning computer programming back in 1967, "A OR B" was true if A was true, or B was true, or if A and B were true. "A AND B" was only true if A was true and B was true.

Quote
Once again, you claim there is no such thing as absolute/objective truth, only various points of view, yet assert one.

HOW CAN I ASSERT AN OBJECTIVE TRUTH BY ASKING A QUESTION? Again I ask, don't you know what "?" means at the end of a sentence? It is not an assertion.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 18, 2018, 06:29:36 PM

Whatever you may think of Hilary Clinton as a person or as a governmental official, the campaign that she ran for president was inept.  She misjudged the mood of middle America and misjudged their importance.  Some of the states that ultimately cost her the election she didn't bother to campaign in.  Either she misjudged her support and simply assumed that if they had gone for Barack Obama they would support her with little effort on her part, or she misjudged their importance in the all important Electoral College count.  Clinton's thinly disguised disdain for blue collar workers in the rust belt also hurt her.

Although Donald Trump would fight to the death to deny it, the election was as much lost by Clinton as it was won by Trump.


First of all, she did win the popular vote.


Secondly, the middle American she misjudged could have simply not wanted a woman to be their president. The #MeToo movement of 2017 has indicated how widespread and prevalent sexual harassment has been in our country. Some of our female clergy - even after 40+ years of female ordination, still run into people and congregations who don't believe women should be pastors. Sexism exists in America. It might not be as blatant as in the first 1st when women were considered imperfect human beings, but it still exists.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: aletheist on July 18, 2018, 06:49:46 PM
Once again, you claim there is no such thing as absolute/objective truth, only various points of view, yet assert one.
HOW CAN I ASSERT AN OBJECTIVE TRUTH BY ASKING A QUESTION? Again I ask, don't you know what "?" means at the end of a sentence? It is not an assertion.
No need to shout.  Of course, now you have asserted the objective truth that a sentence ending with a question mark is not an assertion. ;D

First of all, she did win the popular vote.
This has already been adequately (and accurately) acknowledged.
Which is something.  Mostly nothing, but something.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Fcdwyn on July 18, 2018, 06:53:15 PM
Looking forward to voting for Trump, again.

Linda

 :)
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 18, 2018, 07:59:47 PM

Whatever you may think of Hilary Clinton as a person or as a governmental official, the campaign that she ran for president was inept.  She misjudged the mood of middle America and misjudged their importance.  Some of the states that ultimately cost her the election she didn't bother to campaign in.  Either she misjudged her support and simply assumed that if they had gone for Barack Obama they would support her with little effort on her part, or she misjudged their importance in the all important Electoral College count.  Clinton's thinly disguised disdain for blue collar workers in the rust belt also hurt her.

Although Donald Trump would fight to the death to deny it, the election was as much lost by Clinton as it was won by Trump.


First of all, she did win the popular vote.


Secondly, the middle American she misjudged could have simply not wanted a woman to be their president. The #MeToo movement of 2017 has indicated how widespread and prevalent sexual harassment has been in our country. Some of our female clergy - even after 40+ years of female ordination, still run into people and congregations who don't believe women should be pastors. Sexism exists in America. It might not be as blatant as in the first 1st when women were considered imperfect human beings, but it still exists.

She did win the popular vote.  That win and $2.15 will buy her a 12 oz. coffee at Starbucks.  It gave her some bragging rights, but not a ticket to the White House.  And she knew that going in and should have taken account of that in her campaign strategy.  Or, if she forgot, she could have tuned into network news just about any evening during the campaign and been reminded of what the polls showed was the Electoral College trend.


The effect of sexism on the election can be debated.  Clinton also made a big deal of being a woman, that therefore she was entitled to being elected.  That also could have backfired.  Personally, while it didn't matter to me that she was a woman, I didn't like her politics, and I didn't like the extent that she put herself above the laws and rules (such a the handling of classified materials) that others were expected to follow.  I also resented her assumption that she should be elected BECAUSE she was a woman.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: RandyBosch on July 18, 2018, 08:14:05 PM

Whatever you may think of Hilary Clinton as a person or as a governmental official, the campaign that she ran for president was inept.  She misjudged the mood of middle America and misjudged their importance.  Some of the states that ultimately cost her the election she didn't bother to campaign in.  Either she misjudged her support and simply assumed that if they had gone for Barack Obama they would support her with little effort on her part, or she misjudged their importance in the all important Electoral College count.  Clinton's thinly disguised disdain for blue collar workers in the rust belt also hurt her.

Although Donald Trump would fight to the death to deny it, the election was as much lost by Clinton as it was won by Trump.


First of all, she did win the popular vote.


Secondly, the middle American she misjudged could have simply not wanted a woman to be their president. The #MeToo movement of 2017 has indicated how widespread and prevalent sexual harassment has been in our country. Some of our female clergy - even after 40+ years of female ordination, still run into people and congregations who don't believe women should be pastors. Sexism exists in America. It might not be as blatant as in the first 1st when women were considered imperfect human beings, but it still exists.

She did win the popular vote.  That win and $2.15 will buy her a 12 oz. coffee at Starbucks.  It gave her some bragging rights, but not a ticket to the White House.  And she knew that going in and should have taken account of that in her campaign strategy.  Or, if she forgot, she could have tuned into network news just about any evening during the campaign and been reminded of what the polls showed was the Electoral College trend.


The effect of sexism on the election can be debated.  Clinton also made a big deal of being a woman, that therefore she was entitled to being elected.  That also could have backfired.  Personally, while it didn't matter to me that she was a woman, I didn't like her politics, and I didn't like the extent that she put herself above the laws and rules (such a the handling of classified materials) that others were expected to follow.  I also resented her assumption that she should be elected BECAUSE she was a woman.

"Experts" clearly vastly underrated the effect on voters due to Hillary's work as SOS, key actions where she was the key cabinet member advising the President, unless someone wants to claim she was simply a placeholder while foreign policy and the DOS were run by the rest of that fine team.  A few highlights that clearly impacted people with whom I conversed as they occurred:
o  In the Libyan War, where she apparently pushed the President to "lead from behind", when Kadafi was caught, tortured and
    murdered, she was apparently filmed laughing while saying "We came, we saw, he died!".
o  In the Arab Spring, she was one who led the charge that all of the rioting was because of the video.
o  The Benghazi debacle and obfuscation that followed was on her watch.
o  The "reset" button (which didn't translate as "reset" as she thought) given to Russia.
o  The entire handling of the Iraq meltdown, abandoning a difficult Iraqi government which wouldn't do things "our way", and which
    largely led to precipitating the ISIS monstrosity.
o  Syria and the "Red Line".

Yup, "the most experienced person ever to run for President". People saw these and other clear signs of how her foreign policy leadership experience and decision-making would run when they went to the polls, and enough voted against her, not really for the other guy.  These issues went to the subject of her morality.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Eileen Smith on July 18, 2018, 08:37:11 PM

Whatever you may think of Hilary Clinton as a person or as a governmental official, the campaign that she ran for president was inept.  She misjudged the mood of middle America and misjudged their importance.  Some of the states that ultimately cost her the election she didn't bother to campaign in.  Either she misjudged her support and simply assumed that if they had gone for Barack Obama they would support her with little effort on her part, or she misjudged their importance in the all important Electoral College count.  Clinton's thinly disguised disdain for blue collar workers in the rust belt also hurt her.

Although Donald Trump would fight to the death to deny it, the election was as much lost by Clinton as it was won by Trump.


First of all, she did win the popular vote.


Secondly, the middle American she misjudged could have simply not wanted a woman to be their president. The #MeToo movement of 2017 has indicated how widespread and prevalent sexual harassment has been in our country. Some of our female clergy - even after 40+ years of female ordination, still run into people and congregations who don't believe women should be pastors. Sexism exists in America. It might not be as blatant as in the first 1st when women were considered imperfect human beings, but it still exists.

Going a bit off-thread to offer a corrective.  The #MeToo movement is a movement about sexual harassment and sexual assault.  Many of the women who have come forward, especially in high profile cases (such as Harvey Weinstein) have accused men of assault and rape, not of hiring practices.  Not wishing to call a female pastor is not what the #MeToo movement is about.  Nor is it always sexism.  In other Lutheran denominations and other faith bodies women are prohibited from serving as ordained clergy based on their church's understanding of scripture.  That isn't sexism, it is simply faithfulness to their faith tradition. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 18, 2018, 09:25:42 PM

Whatever you may think of Hilary Clinton as a person or as a governmental official, the campaign that she ran for president was inept.  She misjudged the mood of middle America and misjudged their importance.  Some of the states that ultimately cost her the election she didn't bother to campaign in.  Either she misjudged her support and simply assumed that if they had gone for Barack Obama they would support her with little effort on her part, or she misjudged their importance in the all important Electoral College count.  Clinton's thinly disguised disdain for blue collar workers in the rust belt also hurt her.

Although Donald Trump would fight to the death to deny it, the election was as much lost by Clinton as it was won by Trump.


First of all, she did win the popular vote.


Secondly, the middle American she misjudged could have simply not wanted a woman to be their president. The #MeToo movement of 2017 has indicated how widespread and prevalent sexual harassment has been in our country. Some of our female clergy - even after 40+ years of female ordination, still run into people and congregations who don't believe women should be pastors. Sexism exists in America. It might not be as blatant as in the first 1st when women were considered imperfect human beings, but it still exists.

Going a bit off-thread to offer a corrective.  The #MeToo movement is a movement about sexual harassment and sexual assault.  Many of the women who have come forward, especially in high profile cases (such as Harvey Weinstein) have accused him of rape, not of his hiring practices.  Not wishing to call a female pastor is not what the #MeToo movement is about.  Nor is it always sexism.  In other Lutheran denominations and other faith bodies women are prohibited from serving as ordained clergy based on their understanding of scripture.  That isn't sexism, it is simply faithfulness to their faith tradition.
👍🏼
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on July 18, 2018, 10:17:57 PM
Pastor Stoffregen writes:
 In other Lutheran denominations and other faith bodies women are prohibited from serving as ordained clergy based on their understanding of scripture.  That isn't sexism, it is simply faithfulness to their faith tradition(,)

I comment:
...that "faith tradition" heavily colored by sexism.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on July 18, 2018, 10:23:51 PM
Pastor Stoffregen writes:
 In other Lutheran denominations and other faith bodies women are prohibited from serving as ordained clergy based on their understanding of scripture.  That isn't sexism, it is simply faithfulness to their faith tradition(,)

I comment:
...that "faith tradition" heavily colored by sexism.

Flummery. As Dr. Nagel often stated, and I can verify by the strong women in my family, "Your grandmother never knew she was oppressed."
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on July 18, 2018, 11:26:06 PM
Pastor Kirchner writes:
As Dr. Nagel often stated, and I can verify by the strong women in my family, "Your grandmother never knew she was oppressed."
I comment:
I agree with that statement. But I think that it is sad.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 18, 2018, 11:28:12 PM
Pastor Stoffregen writes:
 In other Lutheran denominations and other faith bodies women are prohibited from serving as ordained clergy based on their understanding of scripture.  That isn't sexism, it is simply faithfulness to their faith tradition(,)

I comment:
...that "faith tradition" heavily colored by sexism.

Talk about a rush to judgement.


Once again you didn't try to correctly attribute the quotation to the proper poster.  It is not at all that difficult to do if you pay attention.  It was not Brian Stoffregen who wrote that, it was Eileen Smith in response to what Brian posted.  If you had carefully read the post you could easily have seen that but instead you were too eager to slam those who don't agree with you.  Naturally, they are not trying to be faithful to how they read scripture, they are being sexist and twisting Scripture to support their twisted ideas.  For shame that people would do that.


It must be nice to be so high and mighty that you can instantly judge others and dismiss their faith as not the product of careful and prayer study of the Bible but sexism.  How horrible when people judge you and call you wrong when you and yours have carefully and prayerfully studied the Bible and come to conclusion such as qualified women and partnered homosexuals should be ordained and serve as pastors.  How nice that you can judge others and dismiss their faith as the product of sexism.


And now, you may have the lest word.  No wonder you complain when I engage my betters like you in conversation on this Forum and marvel when I persist and don't just shut up.  Who wants to listen to people whose faith is heavily colored by sexism? >:( :'(
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on July 18, 2018, 11:42:25 PM
Pastor Kirchner writes:
As Dr. Nagel often stated, and I can verify by the strong women in my family, "Your grandmother never knew she was oppressed."
I comment:
I agree with that statement. But I think that it is sad.

Then you miss Dr Nagel's point entirely, Charles, and demean my grandmothers. Shame on you.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 19, 2018, 02:45:10 AM
Flummery. As Dr. Nagel often stated, and I can verify by the strong women in my family, "Your grandmother never knew she was oppressed."


My grandmother discovered how oppressed she was when my grandfather died. She didn't know how to write a check, pay the bills, drive a car - all the things the "man" did for his "woman". However, I'm sure that all six of her sons would say that she's the one who ran the household.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on July 19, 2018, 04:50:42 AM
My apologies for the incorrect citation. But I am not demeaning anyone's grandmother, for heaven's sake.
No one can deny that three generations or so ago, the "possibilities" for women were strictly limited. No profession, no work outside the home, everything under the control of the husband (and shame if you didn't have a husband). I had women in my parishes like those Brian mentioned, didn't know how to write a check (or where the family money was or if they had any), drive a car, or deal with anything much beyond the kitchen and bedroom. I hear many of them speak joyfully of what their daughters could do and were doing, and wistfully about what they might have done if it had been possible.-
Do not try to tell a (alright, a "liberal") woman of today that her grandmother or great-grandmother was not oppressed. Of course they didn't know it. Children working in factories for a few dollars a day didn't know they were being mistreated and oppressed either because the culture let it happen to them.

And in response Eileen's quote, my intention to say that those "faith traditions" which keep women from ordination or other activities are ofttimes grounded in what many of us consider cultural sexism rather than "faith" or God's words.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on July 19, 2018, 07:45:20 AM
My apologies for the incorrect citation. But I am not demeaning anyone's grandmother, for heaven's sake.
No one can deny that three generations or so ago, the "possibilities" for women were strictly limited. No profession, no work outside the home, everything under the control of the husband (and shame if you didn't have a husband). I had women in my parishes like those Brian mentioned, didn't know how to write a check (or where the family money was or if they had any), drive a car, or deal with anything much beyond the kitchen and bedroom. I hear many of them speak joyfully of what their daughters could do and were doing, and wistfully about what they might have done if it had been possible.-
Do not try to tell a (alright, a "liberal") woman of today that her grandmother or great-grandmother was not oppressed. Of course they didn't know it. Children working in factories for a few dollars a day didn't know they were being mistreated and oppressed either because the culture let it happen to them.

And in response Eileen's quote, my intention to say that those "faith traditions" which keep women from ordination or other activities are ofttimes grounded in what many of us consider cultural sexism rather than "faith" or God's words.

Let's see, how do you put it? What in the name of Aunt Gertie's goat does the above, except for the last paragraph, have to do with this?

Pastor Stoffregen writes [Although he did not write it. Ms. Smith did.]:
 In other Lutheran denominations and other faith bodies women are prohibited from serving as ordained clergy based on their understanding of scripture.  That isn't sexism, it is simply faithfulness to their faith tradition(,)

I comment:
...that "faith tradition" heavily colored by sexism.

Flummery. As Dr. Nagel often stated, and I can verify by the strong women in my family, "Your grandmother never knew she was oppressed."

A to your last paragraph referring to Ms. Smith's comment, flummery! But, a smaller portion than:

I comment:
...that "faith tradition" heavily colored by sexism.

Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on July 19, 2018, 07:58:38 AM
My grandmothers were oppressed. My wife’s grandmothers and mother were oppressed. My mother, born in 1901, broke free, and when she married my father in 1940, she kept personal freedom while still being a good mother to the kid born in 1941.
My wife’s father did not want her or her sister to go to college because they would “just get married and all that schooling would go to waste.”
Maybe your experiences were different. (And don’t forget, my mother, father, wife and I ended up “liberal”, so obviously that breaking free from oppression had bad consequences.)  ;)
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on July 19, 2018, 08:05:44 AM
My grandmothers were oppressed. My wife’s grandmothers and mother were oppressed. My mother, born in 1901, broke free, and when she married my father in 1940, she kept personal freedom while still being a good mother to the kid born in 1941.
My wife’s father did not want her or her sister to go to college because they would “just get married and all that schooling would go to waste.”
Maybe your experiences were different. (And don’t forget, my mother, father, wife and I ended up “liberal”, so obviously that breaking free from oppression had bad consequences.)  ;)

See the above regarding Aunt Gertie's goat, and try to focus on Ms. Smith's statement and the issue of "faith traditions," Charles.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on July 19, 2018, 08:16:46 AM
Pastor Fienen:
If you had carefully read the post you could easily have seen that but instead you were too eager to slam those who don't agree with you.  Naturally, they are not trying to be faithful to how they read scripture, they are being sexist and twisting Scripture to support their twisted ideas.  For shame that people would do that.
Me:
I believe they are trying to be faithful to how they read scripture. I do not believe the are unfaithfully trying to twist scripture to support their ideas. (That is what you believe about us.)

Pastor Fienen:
It must be nice to be so high and mighty that you can instantly judge others and dismiss their faith as not the product of careful and prayer study of the Bible but sexism.
Me:
See above. I do not do that.

Pastor Fienen:
How horrible when people judge you and call you wrong when you and yours have carefully and prayerfully studied the Bible and come to conclusion such as qualified women and partnered homosexuals should be ordained and serve as pastors.
Me:
See above. You and your cohort constantly say we twist scripture to support pre-determined views.

Pastor Fienen:
How nice that you can judge others and dismiss their faith as the product of sexism.
Me:
Again. See above. I do not dismiss their “faith.” I say they are wrong about some things.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 19, 2018, 08:29:37 AM
Pastor Fienen:
If you had carefully read the post you could easily have seen that but instead you were too eager to slam those who don't agree with you.  Naturally, they are not trying to be faithful to how they read scripture, they are being sexist and twisting Scripture to support their twisted ideas.  For shame that people would do that.
Me:
I believe they are trying to be faithful to how they read scripture. I do not believe the are unfaithfully trying to twist scripture to support their ideas. (That is what you believe about us.)

Pastor Fienen:
It must be nice to be so high and mighty that you can instantly judge others and dismiss their faith as not the product of careful and prayer study of the Bible but sexism.
Me:
See above. I do not do that.

Pastor Fienen:
How horrible when people judge you and call you wrong when you and yours have carefully and prayerfully studied the Bible and come to conclusion such as qualified women and partnered homosexuals should be ordained and serve as pastors.
Me:
See above. You and your cohort constantly say we twist scripture to support pre-determined views.

Pastor Fienen:
How nice that you can judge others and dismiss their faith as the product of sexism.
Me:
Again. See above. I do not dismiss their “faith.” I say they are wrong about some things.
Whatever.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on July 19, 2018, 08:35:58 AM
Pastor Fienen:
If you had carefully read the post you could easily have seen that but instead you were too eager to slam those who don't agree with you.  Naturally, they are not trying to be faithful to how they read scripture, they are being sexist and twisting Scripture to support their twisted ideas.  For shame that people would do that.
Me:
I believe they are trying to be faithful to how they read scripture. I do not believe the are unfaithfully trying to twist scripture to support their ideas. (That is what you believe about us.)

Pastor Fienen:
It must be nice to be so high and mighty that you can instantly judge others and dismiss their faith as not the product of careful and prayer study of the Bible but sexism.
Me:
See above. I do not do that.

Pastor Fienen:
How horrible when people judge you and call you wrong when you and yours have carefully and prayerfully studied the Bible and come to conclusion such as qualified women and partnered homosexuals should be ordained and serve as pastors.
Me:
See above. You and your cohort constantly say we twist scripture to support pre-determined views.

Pastor Fienen:
How nice that you can judge others and dismiss their faith as the product of sexism.
Me:
Again. See above. I do not dismiss their “faith.” I say they are wrong about some things.

Yes, Charles, you did the above. But, it is good to see you now backtracking. Did you misspeak?

Did you not mean to say,

"...that 'faith tradition' heavily colored by sexism."

But, rather, meant to say,

"I do not dismiss their 'faith.' I say they are wrong about some things."

Thank you for your clarification. As we've seen this past week, everyone misspeaks at times.   ;)
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: David Garner on July 19, 2018, 09:31:05 AM
Pastor Stoffregen writes:
 In other Lutheran denominations and other faith bodies women are prohibited from serving as ordained clergy based on their understanding of scripture.  That isn't sexism, it is simply faithfulness to their faith tradition(,)

I comment:
...that "faith tradition" heavily colored by sexism.

In which Pastor Austin demonstrates that the loudest defenders of tolerance are intolerant.  The loudest opponents of bigotry are bigots. 

And if you want him to prove that the loudest opponents of sexism are sexist, let literally any woman come in and tell him he's wrong about faith traditions that do not ordain women and watch what happens.

Pastor Austin, you are what you despise.  You are a walking incarnation of the psychological phenomenon known as "projection."
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: David Garner on July 19, 2018, 09:32:51 AM
Poor Mary had no idea she was oppressed, or she would have insisted that one of those lousy Apostles ordain her.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: readselerttoo on July 19, 2018, 09:37:02 AM
Pastor Stoffregen writes:
 In other Lutheran denominations and other faith bodies women are prohibited from serving as ordained clergy based on their understanding of scripture.  That isn't sexism, it is simply faithfulness to their faith tradition(,)

I comment:
...that "faith tradition" heavily colored by sexism.

In which Pastor Austin demonstrates that the loudest defenders of tolerance are intolerant.  The loudest opponents of bigotry are bigots. 

And if you want him to prove that the loudest opponents of sexism are sexist, let literally any woman come in and tell him he's wrong about faith traditions that do not ordain women and watch what happens.

Pastor Austin, you are what you despise.  You are a walking incarnation of the psychological phenomenon known as "projection."

heh heh.  Nice one, David Garner.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on July 19, 2018, 09:38:26 AM
Yes. They are wrong to believe too much of a faith system that is colored by cultural sexism. They should believe the right parts, and not be captive to the wrong parts.  ;D

So, Mr. Garner, are you saying that I am phenomenal?  ;D ;D

And it seems, from what we know from The biblical tradition, that Mary fulfilled her vocation. I am certainly not in favor of ordaining a woman who doesn’t have a call to be ordained. Some of our fellow Christians still prevent called women from fulfilling theirs. But that will change.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: readselerttoo on July 19, 2018, 09:38:42 AM
Poor Mary had no idea she was oppressed, or she would have insisted that one of those lousy Apostles ordain her.

  ;D
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: David Garner on July 19, 2018, 09:49:01 AM
Yes. They are wrong to believe too much of a faith system that is colored by cultural sexism. They should believe the right parts, and not be captive to the wrong parts.  ;D

So, Mr. Garner, are you saying that I am phenomenal?  ;D ;D

And it seems, from what we know from The biblical tradition, that Mary fulfilled her vocation. I am certainly not in favor of ordaining a woman who doesn’t have a call to be ordained. Some of our fellow Christians still prevent called women from fulfilling theirs. But that will change.

And, of course, her "calling" is defined by her.  Which is enthusiasm.  Or by your church body, which went against the well established tradition, which is merely the same writ larger.

Your triumphalist preening is boorish, Pastor Austin.  But you have never shied away from boorish behavior -- far be it from me to stop you now.  I would bet you the (canonical, least you try to pick nits using the examples of rogue heretics) Orthodox Church will not ordain women, but then, you lack the requisite time to find out, since the Orthodox Church doesn't do anything at all quickly. So whatever you might believe about the eschaton, you will not see it in any event during this lifetime.

I won't either, even as I possibly have more time left than you, but then I'm not pining for it, so this bothers me not in the slightest.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on July 19, 2018, 09:53:38 AM
Yes. They are wrong to believe too much of a faith system that is colored by cultural sexism.

"Oops…I Did It Again"

yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah
Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: David Garner on July 19, 2018, 09:55:56 AM
Isn't it amazing that Mary was fulfilling her calling by not being ordained, and in fact all women throughout Christian history were likewise fulfilling their callings by not being ordained.

I find it incredible (in the traditional sense of that word) that no women were called to ordination until the 17th century, and not by major church bodies until the 20th.  And it's not that I reject that some might wish to call and ordain women -- if one is honest and says "I think that tradition is wrong so we changed it," so be it.  What I object to is this silly charade where one pretends refusing to ordain women is sexism, but not in the case of the Theotokos, because she was just "fulfilling her calling," which all women in the Church did until some unspecified time when the entire Church became sexist, after which any Church that refuses to ordain women is sexist.

But not the Theotokos.  She's still an exception.

It's sophistry, which is to say, it's lying.  It's also slander.  It's also sin and therefore evil.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Coach-Rev on July 19, 2018, 10:01:04 AM
Isn't it amazing that Mary was fulfilling her calling by not being ordained, and in fact all women throughout Christian history were likewise fulfilling their callings by not being ordained.

I find it incredible (in the traditional sense of that word) that no women were called to ordination until the 17th century, and not by major church bodies until the 20th.  And it's not that I reject that some might wish to call and ordain women -- if one is honest and says "I think that tradition is wrong so we changed it," so be it.  What I object to is this silly charade where one pretends refusing to ordain women is sexism, but not in the case of the Theotokos, because she was just "fulfilling her calling," which all women in the Church did until some unspecified time when the entire Church became sexist, after which any Church that refuses to ordain women is sexist.

But not the Theotokos.  She's still an exception.

It's sophistry, which is to say, it's lying.  It's also slander.  It's also sin and therefore evil.

THIS. 

And this whole sidetrack on WO (or lack thereof) as sexism is amazing, especially coming from the likes of one Charles Austin.  Then again, I guess not.  It shows a galactic ignorance of history and doctrinal understanding, especially of the church of Rome, whose doctrinal understanding of the sacrament of the altar is what bars women from the priesthood, and NOT some silly/outdated/patriarchal latent sexism from the past.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Eileen Smith on July 19, 2018, 11:05:32 AM
Yes. They are wrong to believe too much of a faith system that is colored by cultural sexism. They should believe the right parts, and not be captive to the wrong parts.  ;D

So, Mr. Garner, are you saying that I am phenomenal?  ;D ;D

And it seems, from what we know from The biblical tradition, that Mary fulfilled her vocation. I am certainly not in favor of ordaining a woman who doesn’t have a call to be ordained. Some of our fellow Christians still prevent called women from fulfilling theirs. But that will change.

As my post has been expanded on a bit, perhaps I'll jump in here.  The denominations of the Lutheran church and other faith bodies such as Roman Catholic and Orthodox most likely will not change their position.  In fact, I'd say they won't change their position putting aside the adage to never say never.   They don't prevent women [from ordination] as preventing one fulling one's call rather their faith tradition (their interpretation of scripture) informs that this call is not extended [by God] to women. I've been a member of a congregation with an excellent woman pastor and know many others.  That said, I'm in a denomination that does ordain women.  I'm not entirely sure why we cannot honor the traditions of those outside the ELCA. 

There have been very (very) few on this Forum who have, in any way, defended Trump and we need to understand that every time we toss around labels such  sexist, misogynist, racist, homophobe etc. etc. etc. just because someone thinks differently than we do that's another vote for Trump. 

Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: David Garner on July 19, 2018, 11:29:53 AM
Yes. They are wrong to believe too much of a faith system that is colored by cultural sexism. They should believe the right parts, and not be captive to the wrong parts.  ;D

So, Mr. Garner, are you saying that I am phenomenal?  ;D ;D

And it seems, from what we know from The biblical tradition, that Mary fulfilled her vocation. I am certainly not in favor of ordaining a woman who doesn’t have a call to be ordained. Some of our fellow Christians still prevent called women from fulfilling theirs. But that will change.

As my post has been expanded on a bit, perhaps I'll jump in here.  The denominations of the Lutheran church and other faith bodies such as Roman Catholic and Orthodox most likely will not change their position.  In fact, I'd say they won't change their position putting aside the adage to never say never.   They don't prevent women [from ordination] as preventing one fulling one's call rather their faith tradition (their interpretation of scripture) informs that this call is not extended [by God] to women. I've been a member of a congregation with an excellent woman pastor and know many others.  That said, I'm in a denomination that does ordain women.  I'm not entirely sure why we cannot honor the traditions of those outside the ELCA. 

There have been very (very) few on this Forum who have, in any way, defended Trump and we need to understand that every time we toss around labels such  sexist, misogynist, racist, homophobe etc. etc. etc. just because someone thinks differently than we do that's another vote for Trump.

Thank you for this.  I would extend a touch further and suggest that for Rome and the East at least, ordination of women is not part of the received Tradition, and therefore cannot be changed without also departing from that Tradition.  That is likely unsatisfactory to most Lutherans and other Protestants, and I appreciate that fact.

My point in bringing it up is that triumphalism while begging the question is not helpful.  Saying others will ordain women, when some of those others literally cannot, is more pejorative than insightful.  And I think pejorative is exactly how Pastor Austin intends it.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on July 19, 2018, 12:38:08 PM
But I do honor those other traditions . I have no problem at all with being in fellowship with churches that do Not ordain women. But I hold to my belief, and who knows how long it will take, that someday they will. But it’s not the be-all and end-all. And I can wait.
 It is possible to alter the “received tradition.”  Because God can give us something new.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: David Garner on July 19, 2018, 12:42:30 PM
But I do honor those other traditions . I have no problem at all with being in fellowship with churches that do Not ordain women. But I hold to my belief, and who knows how long it will take, that someday they will. But it’s not the be-all and end-all. And I can wait.
 It is possible to alter the “received tradition.”  Because God can give us something new.

You "honor" them by calling them sexists.

Please refrain from honoring us.  We don't need your type of honor.

As far as God giving us something new, that also begs the question.  You assume the "something new" is from God.  And you ironically assume that because it comports with what you want to do.  I would suggest reviewing what Jesus says comes from the hearts of men.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: DeHall1 on July 19, 2018, 12:45:49 PM
My grandmother discovered how oppressed she was when my grandfather died. She didn't know how to write a check, pay the bills, drive a car - all the things the "man" did for his "woman". However, I'm sure that all six of her sons would say that she's the one who ran the household.
My wife pays all the bills in our household -- some electronically, some not.  How she maintains this is a complete mystery to me (she's holds a business degree, after all -- not me)...It's been this way since we married.  If I'd only known then that when she took on this role, she was oppressing me....  :(

Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: SomeoneWrites on July 19, 2018, 12:57:27 PM
My grandmother discovered how oppressed she was when my grandfather died. She didn't know how to write a check, pay the bills, drive a car - all the things the "man" did for his "woman". However, I'm sure that all six of her sons would say that she's the one who ran the household.
My wife pays all the bills in our household -- some electronically, some not.  How she maintains this is a complete mystery to me (she's holds a business degree, after all -- not me)...It's been this way since we married.  If I'd only known then that when she took on this role, she was oppressing me....  :(

She probably isn't.  I don't get the sense that you're not permitted to do those things because of your sex.  Brian Stoffregen's example sounds the other way. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: cssml on July 19, 2018, 01:01:35 PM
Yes. They are wrong to believe too much of a faith system that is colored by cultural sexism. They should believe the right parts, and not be captive to the wrong parts.  ;D

So, Mr. Garner, are you saying that I am phenomenal?  ;D ;D

And it seems, from what we know from The biblical tradition, that Mary fulfilled her vocation. I am certainly not in favor of ordaining a woman who doesn’t have a call to be ordained. Some of our fellow Christians still prevent called women from fulfilling theirs. But that will change.

As my post has been expanded on a bit, perhaps I'll jump in here.  The denominations of the Lutheran church and other faith bodies such as Roman Catholic and Orthodox most likely will not change their position.  In fact, I'd say they won't change their position putting aside the adage to never say never.   They don't prevent women [from ordination] as preventing one fulling one's call rather their faith tradition (their interpretation of scripture) informs that this call is not extended [by God] to women. I've been a member of a congregation with an excellent woman pastor and know many others.  That said, I'm in a denomination that does ordain women.  I'm not entirely sure why we cannot honor the traditions of those outside the ELCA. 

There have been very (very) few on this Forum who have, in any way, defended Trump and we need to understand that every time we toss around labels such  sexist, misogynist, racist, homophobe etc. etc. etc. just because someone thinks differently than we do that's another vote for Trump.

Thank you for this.  I would extend a touch further and suggest that for Rome and the East at least, ordination of women is not part of the received Tradition, and therefore cannot be changed without also departing from that Tradition. That is likely unsatisfactory to most Lutherans and other Protestants, and I appreciate that fact.

My point in bringing it up is that triumphalism while begging the question is not helpful.  Saying others will ordain women, when some of those others literally cannot, is more pejorative than insightful.  And I think pejorative is exactly how Pastor Austin intends it.

Thanks David, that is exactly how Catholics see this.  In fact pope St John Paul II ends his Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis.html) with such a statement:  "the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women"

We have received the sacraments from Christ, and have no power or authority to make new sacraments or change what has been given.

This will be seen by many, like Charles, as holding women to have lesser value, but one look at history would reveal that women have been powerful vital transmitters of the gospel and have been entrusted with more authority and influence in the Catholic Church than their surrounding cultures since the founding of the Church.  Almost every Catholic hospital has been founded by a small band of courageous sisters.  The built and administered these institutions.  The have founded, grown, and run religious orders that have given great light to our world.  They are theologians who have shaped our understanding of God.  They have died martyrs.  They have been papal counselors.  They have given their lives for Christ.  We honor and remember them, and we continue work along side them today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Siena
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_of_Ávila
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildegard_of_Bingen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa
https://www.sistersofmary.org/
http://www.sistersoflife.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Sisters_of_the_Poor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Cecilia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Stein
http://mentalfloss.com/article/53178/first-woman-earn-phd-computer-science-was-nun
    :

They were, and are, focused on Christ, evangelization, educating and serving the sick, poor, and dying, not on Charles imaginary battles for changing ordination.  They love the priesthood, and they love their calling, in all the many diverse ways that God has called them.

This month, we honor and recall the following heroic women

    4 July: Saint Elizabeth of Portugal
    6 July: Saint Maria Goretti, virgin and martyr
    16 July: Our Lady of Mount Carmel
    22 July: Saint Mary Magdalene
    23 July: Saint Birgitta, religious
    29 July: Saint Martha
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 19, 2018, 01:02:32 PM
But I do honor those other traditions . I have no problem at all with being in fellowship with churches that do Not ordain women. But I hold to my belief, and who knows how long it will take, that someday they will. But it’s not the be-all and end-all. And I can wait.
 It is possible to alter the “received tradition.”  Because God can give us something new.
In the words of the eminent jurist Judge Judy Sheindin, “Don’t pee on my leg and tell me it’s raining.”  You have an odd way of honoring other traditions.  It’s not enough for you to think that you’re right and we’re wrong, that happens all the time in discussions, you have to assure us that it’s OK, eventually we’ll come to see the light, see it your way.  And that we’ve come to the conclusions we have because we’re pathological, we’re sexist. 


Perhaps you are just afraid, afraid in the deepest darkest thoughts that you might be wrong and any voices that articulate a different viewpoint, a different interpretation is a threat that must be silenced.  It’s not enough to conclude that others have gotten it wrong, they must in the end be silenced lest they threaten your triumphalist security.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: David Garner on July 19, 2018, 01:05:26 PM
Yes. They are wrong to believe too much of a faith system that is colored by cultural sexism. They should believe the right parts, and not be captive to the wrong parts.  ;D

So, Mr. Garner, are you saying that I am phenomenal?  ;D ;D

And it seems, from what we know from The biblical tradition, that Mary fulfilled her vocation. I am certainly not in favor of ordaining a woman who doesn’t have a call to be ordained. Some of our fellow Christians still prevent called women from fulfilling theirs. But that will change.

As my post has been expanded on a bit, perhaps I'll jump in here.  The denominations of the Lutheran church and other faith bodies such as Roman Catholic and Orthodox most likely will not change their position.  In fact, I'd say they won't change their position putting aside the adage to never say never.   They don't prevent women [from ordination] as preventing one fulling one's call rather their faith tradition (their interpretation of scripture) informs that this call is not extended [by God] to women. I've been a member of a congregation with an excellent woman pastor and know many others.  That said, I'm in a denomination that does ordain women.  I'm not entirely sure why we cannot honor the traditions of those outside the ELCA. 

There have been very (very) few on this Forum who have, in any way, defended Trump and we need to understand that every time we toss around labels such  sexist, misogynist, racist, homophobe etc. etc. etc. just because someone thinks differently than we do that's another vote for Trump.

Thank you for this.  I would extend a touch further and suggest that for Rome and the East at least, ordination of women is not part of the received Tradition, and therefore cannot be changed without also departing from that Tradition. That is likely unsatisfactory to most Lutherans and other Protestants, and I appreciate that fact.

My point in bringing it up is that triumphalism while begging the question is not helpful.  Saying others will ordain women, when some of those others literally cannot, is more pejorative than insightful.  And I think pejorative is exactly how Pastor Austin intends it.

Thanks David, that is exactly how Catholics see this.  In fact pope St John Paul II ends his Ordinatio Sacerdotalis (https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_letters/1994/documents/hf_jp-ii_apl_19940522_ordinatio-sacerdotalis.html) with such a statement:  "the Church has no authority whatsoever to confer priestly ordination on women"

We have received the sacraments from Christ, and have no power or authority to make new sacraments or change what has been given.

This will be seen by many, like Charles, as holding women to have lesser value, but one look at history would reveal that women have been powerful vital transmitters of the gospel and have been entrusted with more authority and influence in the Catholic Church than their surrounding cultures since the founding of the Church.  Almost every Catholic hospital has been founded by a small band of courageous sisters.  The built and administered these institutions.  The have founded, grown, and run religious orders that have given great light to our world.  They are theologians who have shaped our understanding of God.  They have died martyrs.  They have been papal counselors.  They have given their lives for Christ.  We honor and remember them, and we continue work along side them today.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_of_Siena
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_of_Ávila
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hildegard_of_Bingen
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mother_Teresa
https://www.sistersofmary.org/
http://www.sistersoflife.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_Sisters_of_the_Poor
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joan_of_Arc
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Cecilia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edith_Stein
http://mentalfloss.com/article/53178/first-woman-earn-phd-computer-science-was-nun
    :

They were, and are, focused on Christ, evangelization, educating and serving the sick, poor, and dying, not on Charles imaginary battles for changing ordination.  They love the priesthood, and they love their calling, in all the many diverse ways that God has called them.

This month, we honor and recall the following heroic women

    4 July: Saint Elizabeth of Portugal
    6 July: Saint Maria Goretti, virgin and martyr
    16 July: Our Lady of Mount Carmel
    22 July: Saint Mary Magdalene
    23 July: Saint Birgitta, religious
    29 July: Saint Martha

Thank you for this.  For our part, just this past week we recognized St. Elizabeth the New Martyr, my eldest daughter's patron.  A friend of mine set forth her story as follows:

"This is the Princess Elisabeth Alexandra Luise Alix of the House of Hesse-Darmstadt. Soon after this photograph is taken, she will marry and become the Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna of Russia. Her marriage is a happy one, until it ends: a radical leftist murders her husband the Grand Duke. She visits her husband’s murderer and forgives him — and then campaigns for him to be spared execution. She does not remarry. The Grand Duchess becomes a nun, and with her sisters she ministers to the poor, the orphans, and the sick. Her hospital tends to the wounded of the World War. She remains royalty, but her life is one of humility and service.

The Bolsheviks want her dead. Lenin declares that 'virtue with the crown on it is a greater enemy to the world revolution than a hundred tyrant stars.' She is arrested and sent into internal exile — and then comes the order to kill her. Elizabeth and her companions are savagely beaten. They are thrown into a pit, and hand grenades are tossed in after them. After the explosions, there is silence. Then the men of the death squad hear a sound from the bottom of the dark pit. They strain to listen, and it becomes clear.

From the deep darkness, Elizabeth is softly singing hymns.

They pile in kindling and set it alight. Then they flee.

One hundred years ago today, the Grand Duchess Elizabeth Feodorovna of Russia — wife, sister, forgiver — died. But St Elizabeth the New Martyr lives."
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: D. Engebretson on July 19, 2018, 01:20:50 PM
My grandmother discovered how oppressed she was when my grandfather died. She didn't know how to write a check, pay the bills, drive a car - all the things the "man" did for his "woman". However, I'm sure that all six of her sons would say that she's the one who ran the household.
My wife pays all the bills in our household -- some electronically, some not.  How she maintains this is a complete mystery to me (she's holds a business degree, after all -- not me)...It's been this way since we married.  If I'd only known then that when she took on this role, she was oppressing me....  :(

She probably isn't.  I don't get the sense that you're not permitted to do those things because of your sex.  Brian Stoffregen's example sounds the other way.

Since we really don't know how his grandmother felt about it at the time, I am reticent to say she was in any way "oppressed."  She "discovered" this supposed oppression because later in life others said that every woman should know and do these things.  Yet did his grandmother want to drive, or did she enjoy being driven?  Was she specifically told: "No, this is a man's work, not a woman's"?  They may very well have been mutually accepted roles based on the culture of their era.  My wife takes care of the books and drives.  A hundred or 75 years ago, or maybe even more recently, this might have been different for her, and she may not even have felt herself "oppressed."
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: David Garner on July 19, 2018, 01:32:44 PM
My grandmother discovered how oppressed she was when my grandfather died. She didn't know how to write a check, pay the bills, drive a car - all the things the "man" did for his "woman". However, I'm sure that all six of her sons would say that she's the one who ran the household.
My wife pays all the bills in our household -- some electronically, some not.  How she maintains this is a complete mystery to me (she's holds a business degree, after all -- not me)...It's been this way since we married.  If I'd only known then that when she took on this role, she was oppressing me....  :(

She probably isn't.  I don't get the sense that you're not permitted to do those things because of your sex.  Brian Stoffregen's example sounds the other way.

Since we really don't know how his grandmother felt about it at the time, I am reticent to say she was in any way "oppressed."  She "discovered" this supposed oppression because later in life others said that every woman should know and do these things.  Yet did his grandmother want to drive, or did she enjoy being driven?  Was she specifically told: "No, this is a man's work, not a woman's"?  They may very well have been mutually accepted roles based on the culture of their era.  My wife takes care of the books and drives.  A hundred or 75 years ago, or maybe even more recently, this might have been different for her, and she may not even have felt herself "oppressed."

How much more is this true in the context of a marriage, where in our tradition the marrying couple is crowned as martyrs?

It seems odd indeed to think that the husband who takes care of all the finances, drives his wife around and otherwise looks after her is oppressing her.  As I see it, he is serving her.

Now, if he told her "you are not allowed to drive or have money -- I forbid it!" then that is oppression.  But it is unclear, to say the least, whether that is the case.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: LCMS87 on July 19, 2018, 01:36:49 PM
My grandmother discovered how oppressed she was when my grandfather died. She didn't know how to write a check, pay the bills, drive a car - all the things the "man" did for his "woman". However, I'm sure that all six of her sons would say that she's the one who ran the household.
My wife pays all the bills in our household -- some electronically, some not.  How she maintains this is a complete mystery to me (she's holds a business degree, after all -- not me)...It's been this way since we married.  If I'd only known then that when she took on this role, she was oppressing me....  :(

She probably isn't.  I don't get the sense that you're not permitted to do those things because of your sex.  Brian Stoffregen's example sounds the other way.

Since we really don't know how his grandmother felt about it at the time, I am reticent to say she was in any way "oppressed."  She "discovered" this supposed oppression because later in life others said that every woman should know and do these things.  Yet did his grandmother want to drive, or did she enjoy being driven?  Was she specifically told: "No, this is a man's work, not a woman's"?  They may very well have been mutually accepted roles based on the culture of their era.  My wife takes care of the books and drives.  A hundred or 75 years ago, or maybe even more recently, this might have been different for her, and she may not even have felt herself "oppressed."

This poor oppressed woman was so under the thumb of her husband that she could not write a check, pay the bills, drive a car--probably not even cut the lawn, shovel the snow, or hold a job that might cause an early death.  Nevertheless, 100% of her six sons attested "that she's the one who ran the household"!  Strange oppression, that. 

I'm reminded of the mother of the bride in the movie, My Big Fat Greek Wedding.  Her husband proudly proclaimed that he, the father, was the head of the family.  She didn't disagree, merely said that she was the neck, turning the head as she pleased. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: LCMS87 on July 19, 2018, 01:41:06 PM
Since we really don't know how his grandmother felt about it at the time, I am reticent to say she was in any way "oppressed."  She "discovered" this supposed oppression because later in life others said that every woman should know and do these things.  Yet did his grandmother want to drive, or did she enjoy being driven?  Was she specifically told: "No, this is a man's work, not a woman's"?  They may very well have been mutually accepted roles based on the culture of their era.  My wife takes care of the books and drives.  A hundred or 75 years ago, or maybe even more recently, this might have been different for her, and she may not even have felt herself "oppressed."

How much more is this true in the context of a marriage, where in our tradition the marrying couple is crowned as martyrs?

It seems odd indeed to think that the husband who takes care of all the finances, drives his wife around and otherwise looks after her is oppressing her.  As I see it, he is serving her.

Now, if he told her "you are not allowed to drive or have money -- I forbid it!" then that is oppression.  But it is unclear, to say the least, whether that is the case.

Mr. Garner's comment reminded me of a wedding sermon (https://weedon.blogspot.com/2018/06/wedding-homily.html) by Pr. Weedon.  "Marriage is an ongoing funeral ..."  Worth a read.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: James S. Rustad on July 19, 2018, 01:45:49 PM
My grandmother discovered how oppressed she was when my grandfather died. She didn't know how to write a check, pay the bills, drive a car - all the things the "man" did for his "woman". However, I'm sure that all six of her sons would say that she's the one who ran the household.
My wife pays all the bills in our household -- some electronically, some not.  How she maintains this is a complete mystery to me (she's holds a business degree, after all -- not me)...It's been this way since we married.  If I'd only known then that when she took on this role, she was oppressing me....  :(
My wife pays the bills and otherwise manages the finances.  I know how to do it, but she's right on top of things.  Her mother and my mother both performed this task.

I was watching a PBS show ten or fifteen years ago where the host was visiting a Norwegian farmstead and discussing the traditional Norwegian farm management methods.  He mentioned that the wife was traditionally in charge of finances.

My wife and I are both of predominantly Norwegian descent, so I guess our financial management practices are to be expected.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Voelker on July 19, 2018, 01:53:56 PM
My grandmother discovered how oppressed she was when my grandfather died. She didn't know how to write a check, pay the bills, drive a car - all the things the "man" did for his "woman". However, I'm sure that all six of her sons would say that she's the one who ran the household.
My wife pays all the bills in our household -- some electronically, some not.  How she maintains this is a complete mystery to me (she's holds a business degree, after all -- not me)...It's been this way since we married.  If I'd only known then that when she took on this role, she was oppressing me....  :(

She probably isn't.  I don't get the sense that you're not permitted to do those things because of your sex.  Brian Stoffregen's example sounds the other way.

Since we really don't know how his grandmother felt about it at the time, I am reticent to say she was in any way "oppressed."  She "discovered" this supposed oppression because later in life others said that every woman should know and do these things.  Yet did his grandmother want to drive, or did she enjoy being driven?  Was she specifically told: "No, this is a man's work, not a woman's"?  They may very well have been mutually accepted roles based on the culture of their era.  My wife takes care of the books and drives.  A hundred or 75 years ago, or maybe even more recently, this might have been different for her, and she may not even have felt herself "oppressed."
The past has become a useful tool in recent decades: rather than something to be learned from, perhaps respected, and something to be at least remembered if not honored, it is now that foul place to be used as a standard against which modern desires are to be judged. If there is a current barrier to someone getting what they want (to have, to do, to be), it is said to be retrograde, old-fashioned, or just like Bad Time X, Y, or Z — which gets many people (programmed as they have been with Pavlovian responses to this move) to say "Of course this thing is fine — better than fine: Right! Old Bad! New Good!" There is no need for understanding, no need for truth, no need for sound argumentation — all that is needed is a mob to bay loudly enough to drown out opposition, with perhaps a feast made of those who have had the temerity to disagree.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Weedon on July 19, 2018, 02:53:28 PM
I apologize in advance for the language, but seriously, folks, go listen to the discussion between Joe Rogan and Jordan Peterson. It’s long. It’s remarkably helpful.

https://youtu.be/9Xc7DN-noAc
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on July 19, 2018, 02:58:31 PM
I'm reminded of the mother of the bride in the movie, My Big Fat Greek Wedding.  Her husband proudly proclaimed that he, the father, was the head of the family.  She didn't disagree, merely said that she was the neck, turning the head as she pleased.

I was thinking of the same movie. My recollection, however, is that it was advice to her daughter: "Let me tell you something, Toula: 'The man is the head, but the woman is the neck, and she can turn the head any way she wants.'"  I.e., it's the norm. And this is how it works (watch to the end):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YelXdFhQxRQ
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: David Garner on July 19, 2018, 03:33:18 PM
Since we really don't know how his grandmother felt about it at the time, I am reticent to say she was in any way "oppressed."  She "discovered" this supposed oppression because later in life others said that every woman should know and do these things.  Yet did his grandmother want to drive, or did she enjoy being driven?  Was she specifically told: "No, this is a man's work, not a woman's"?  They may very well have been mutually accepted roles based on the culture of their era.  My wife takes care of the books and drives.  A hundred or 75 years ago, or maybe even more recently, this might have been different for her, and she may not even have felt herself "oppressed."

How much more is this true in the context of a marriage, where in our tradition the marrying couple is crowned as martyrs?

It seems odd indeed to think that the husband who takes care of all the finances, drives his wife around and otherwise looks after her is oppressing her.  As I see it, he is serving her.

Now, if he told her "you are not allowed to drive or have money -- I forbid it!" then that is oppression.  But it is unclear, to say the least, whether that is the case.

Mr. Garner's comment reminded me of a wedding sermon (https://weedon.blogspot.com/2018/06/wedding-homily.html) by Pr. Weedon.  "Marriage is an ongoing funeral ..."  Worth a read.

That is a fantastic homily indeed.  My own priest gave a similar one last Saturday at a friend's wedding.  He said (paraphrasing) "each of you will die today, and your one flesh is born."
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on July 19, 2018, 03:38:54 PM
It is said:
As far as God giving us something new, that also begs the question.  You assume the "something new" is from God.
I comment:
No, I do not. Things have to be tested by the faithful, by the thoughtful.
It is said:
And you ironically assume that because it comports with what you want to do.
I comment:
Do you not remember how I confessed that I did not want to do the “dirty deed” of ordaining women, how I was opposed to It?

It is said:
I would suggest reviewing what Jesus says comes from the hearts of men.
I comment:
I thought that from the hearts of faithful men (and women) come works of the Spirit.  Am I wrong about that?
But from another world, the related line I know is “who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The shadow knows!” That’s for anyone here who might remember radio.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: David Garner on July 19, 2018, 03:43:06 PM
It is said:
As far as God giving us something new, that also begs the question.  You assume the "something new" is from God.
I comment:
No, I do not. Things have to be tested by the faithful, by the thoughtful.
It is said:
And you ironically assume that because it comports with what you want to do.
I comment:
Do you not remember how I confessed that I did not want to do the “dirty deed” of ordaining women, how I was opposed to It?

It is said:
I would suggest reviewing what Jesus says comes from the hearts of men.
I comment:
I thought that from the hearts of faithful men (and women) come works of the Spirit.  Am I wrong about that?
But from another world, the related line I know is “who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The shadow knows!” That’s for anyone here who might remember radio.

Okay, I'll play -- how did you determine exactly that God had given you something new with regard to ordination of women?

As secondary questions, why did you consider it "new," and since it was "new," did it contradict what God had previously given?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 19, 2018, 04:22:21 PM
Yes. They are wrong to believe too much of a faith system that is colored by cultural sexism. They should believe the right parts, and not be captive to the wrong parts.  ;D

So, Mr. Garner, are you saying that I am phenomenal?  ;D ;D

And it seems, from what we know from The biblical tradition, that Mary fulfilled her vocation. I am certainly not in favor of ordaining a woman who doesn’t have a call to be ordained. Some of our fellow Christians still prevent called women from fulfilling theirs. But that will change.

And, of course, her "calling" is defined by her.  Which is enthusiasm.  Or by your church body, which went against the well established tradition, which is merely the same writ larger.

Your critique is only partially right. Our church body went against the well established patriarchal tradition. We believe we returned to the biblical tradition.

Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 19, 2018, 04:26:51 PM
It is said:
As far as God giving us something new, that also begs the question.  You assume the "something new" is from God.
I comment:
No, I do not. Things have to be tested by the faithful, by the thoughtful.
It is said:
And you ironically assume that because it comports with what you want to do.
I comment:
Do you not remember how I confessed that I did not want to do the “dirty deed” of ordaining women, how I was opposed to It?

It is said:
I would suggest reviewing what Jesus says comes from the hearts of men.
I comment:
I thought that from the hearts of faithful men (and women) come works of the Spirit.  Am I wrong about that?
But from another world, the related line I know is “who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The shadow knows!” That’s for anyone here who might remember radio.

Okay, I'll play -- how did you determine exactly that God had given you something new with regard to ordination of women?


Nothing new. As I stated above, we returned to the biblical tradition where there was no difference between baptized men and women - a drastic change from the cultural view. The biblical tradition where women prayed and prophesied (=proclaimed publicly the Word of God) within the church service. The biblical tradition where God commissioned women (and only women) to be the first to spread the news (which was good) about the resurrection of Christ - and in some traditions, they were the first to witness and experience the risen Christ. The whole idea of "ordination" for anyone came decades later.

Quote
As secondary questions, why did you consider it "new," and since it was "new," did it contradict what God had previously given?


See comments above: not "new". "Fulfills" what God had given us in scripture, before the later first century patriarchal culture imposed their wishes on the church.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on July 19, 2018, 04:29:06 PM
Yes. They are wrong to believe too much of a faith system that is colored by cultural sexism. They should believe the right parts, and not be captive to the wrong parts.  ;D

So, Mr. Garner, are you saying that I am phenomenal?  ;D ;D

And it seems, from what we know from The biblical tradition, that Mary fulfilled her vocation. I am certainly not in favor of ordaining a woman who doesn’t have a call to be ordained. Some of our fellow Christians still prevent called women from fulfilling theirs. But that will change.

And, of course, her "calling" is defined by her.  Which is enthusiasm.  Or by your church body, which went against the well established tradition, which is merely the same writ larger.

Your critique is only partially right. Our church body went against the well established patriarchal tradition. We believe we returned to the biblical tradition.
Ah yes, another absolute/objective truth asserted.  WE are the One True Church, those other guys have distorted its teaching with their patriarchy.  :P

The intellectual dishonesty never ends. Can't fairly describe the opposing argument without condescending. Of course you can't demonstrate HOW what you claim is returning to biblical teaching, because nowhere does the Bible support what you say. But that is the way you roll around here.

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 19, 2018, 04:37:30 PM
Yes. They are wrong to believe too much of a faith system that is colored by cultural sexism. They should believe the right parts, and not be captive to the wrong parts.  ;D

So, Mr. Garner, are you saying that I am phenomenal?  ;D ;D

And it seems, from what we know from The biblical tradition, that Mary fulfilled her vocation. I am certainly not in favor of ordaining a woman who doesn’t have a call to be ordained. Some of our fellow Christians still prevent called women from fulfilling theirs. But that will change.

And, of course, her "calling" is defined by her.  Which is enthusiasm.  Or by your church body, which went against the well established tradition, which is merely the same writ larger.

Your critique is only partially right. Our church body went against the well established patriarchal tradition. We believe we returned to the biblical tradition.
Ah yes, another absolute/objective truth asserted.  WE are the One True Church, those other guys have distorted its teaching with their patriarchy.  :P

The intellectual dishonesty never ends. Can't fairly describe the opposing argument without condescending


Yes, I am asserting this truth. (I didn't use "?" at the end of the sentence.) In other posts, I've quoted experts on the topic of male and female roles in the first century, i.e., females were incomplete males, second-class human beings. I've made references to scriptures about the equality that was present in the early church that was lost when they began ordaining only men - perhaps at the end of the first century. (Groups who had used female leaders were declared heretical.)


Your response is simply to assert, "You are wrong," without offering any evidence that the early church was not influenced by the patriarchal culture of the time. One of us is condescending, but it's not me.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: David Garner on July 19, 2018, 04:45:40 PM
Yes. They are wrong to believe too much of a faith system that is colored by cultural sexism. They should believe the right parts, and not be captive to the wrong parts.  ;D

So, Mr. Garner, are you saying that I am phenomenal?  ;D ;D

And it seems, from what we know from The biblical tradition, that Mary fulfilled her vocation. I am certainly not in favor of ordaining a woman who doesn’t have a call to be ordained. Some of our fellow Christians still prevent called women from fulfilling theirs. But that will change.

And, of course, her "calling" is defined by her.  Which is enthusiasm.  Or by your church body, which went against the well established tradition, which is merely the same writ larger.

Your critique is only partially right. Our church body went against the well established patriarchal tradition. We believe we returned to the biblical tradition.

Let's be honest -- you went against your own tradition.  I don't think you get to split those hairs now.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on July 19, 2018, 04:56:16 PM
Well it was “going against tradition” to say that this man Jesus was the Son of God. It was “going against tradition” to abandon the dietary laws. It was “going against tradition” to give people other than the apostles themselves apostolic authority.  Augustine and Luther went against tradition.
We were “going against traditional” when we abandoned German or Swedish or Norwegian or Danish as the language for worship.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Voelker on July 19, 2018, 05:04:17 PM
Well it was “going against tradition” to say that this man Jesus was the Son of God. It was “going against tradition” to abandon the dietary laws. It was “going against tradition” to give people other than the apostles themselves apostolic authority.  Augustine and Luther went against tradition.
We were “going against traditional” when we abandoned German or Swedish or Norwegian or Danish as the language for worship.
Apropos: https://imgflip.com/i/1eeklx
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on July 19, 2018, 05:36:31 PM
BS
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on July 19, 2018, 05:40:43 PM
Yes. They are wrong to believe too much of a faith system that is colored by cultural sexism. They should believe the right parts, and not be captive to the wrong parts.  ;D

So, Mr. Garner, are you saying that I am phenomenal?  ;D ;D

And it seems, from what we know from The biblical tradition, that Mary fulfilled her vocation. I am certainly not in favor of ordaining a woman who doesn’t have a call to be ordained. Some of our fellow Christians still prevent called women from fulfilling theirs. But that will change.

And, of course, her "calling" is defined by her.  Which is enthusiasm.  Or by your church body, which went against the well established tradition, which is merely the same writ larger.

Your critique is only partially right. Our church body went against the well established patriarchal tradition. We believe we returned to the biblical tradition.
Ah yes, another absolute/objective truth asserted.  WE are the One True Church, those other guys have distorted its teaching with their patriarchy.  :P

The intellectual dishonesty never ends. Can't fairly describe the opposing argument without condescending


Yes, I am asserting this truth. (I didn't use "?" at the end of the sentence.) In other posts, I've quoted experts on the topic of male and female roles in the first century, i.e., females were incomplete males, second-class human beings. I've made references to scriptures about the equality that was present in the early church that was lost when they began ordaining only men - perhaps at the end of the first century. (Groups who had used female leaders were declared heretical.)


Your response is simply to assert, "You are wrong," without offering any evidence that the early church was not influenced by the patriarchal culture of the time. One of us is condescending, but it's not me.
Mr. Garner was doing a fine job of responding with substance. But the substance of that was irrelevant to my point.

Which was how you are condescending with your dishonesty. I don't want to hear you ever again say there isn't such a thing as absolute/objective truth when someone has cornered you with facts that prove you wrong. You troll the forum with your word games, like the story Pr. Tibbetts recently reminded us about one your dictionary dishonesty with him, from years ago. You have no credibility, so no, I don't accept the handwave references offered above to equality in the early Church as supporting your actual position. That only works if you start by assuming you're right, then prooftexting to back it up. Of course that also requires an unreported patriarchal conspiracy to suppress true church teaching so that women can be oppressed, about which we have no authoritative proof. Just your enlightened speculation dressed up as "truth". None of that supports saying you are right and Mr. Garner is wrong. There is a tenuous argument to support ordaining women, but it is more substantial than claiming it once existed, of which there is no conclusive evidence, but was suppressed by misogynists.

I wouldn't care except your behavior is disruptive to real conversation. The turn this thread has taken is but another example.

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Voelker on July 19, 2018, 05:41:59 PM
BS
Such argumentation. Such wit. You have no case.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on July 19, 2018, 05:57:11 PM
Well, then, you could relax. And just let it go. For you believe I have no case.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Voelker on July 19, 2018, 06:11:12 PM
Well, then, you could relax. And just let it go. For you believe I have no case.
And you could find another board to haunt. And let this one go.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on July 19, 2018, 06:15:08 PM
Well it was “going against tradition” to say that this man Jesus was the Son of God. It was “going against tradition” to abandon the dietary laws. It was “going against tradition” to give people other than the apostles themselves apostolic authority.  Augustine and Luther went against tradition.
We were “going against traditional” when we abandoned German or Swedish or Norwegian or Danish as the language for worship.
Apropos: https://imgflip.com/i/1eeklx

Love the meme! And quite appropriate.   ;)
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: David Garner on July 19, 2018, 06:36:56 PM
Well it was “going against tradition” to say that this man Jesus was the Son of God. It was “going against tradition” to abandon the dietary laws. It was “going against tradition” to give people other than the apostles themselves apostolic authority.  Augustine and Luther went against tradition.
We were “going against traditional” when we abandoned German or Swedish or Norwegian or Danish as the language for worship.

Perhaps it is the case that the abandonment of Holy Tradition is what is at issue here.  But I rather doubt your brethren would agree with that. 

Your confessions say you introduce no new teachings into the Church Catholic.  And so when you say God is giving us new things, I am constrained to point out that these "new things" are against your own confession.  I think you know that, which is why I suggest your approach to this is sophistry.  I would have more respect for your approach if you would simply just admit that it is novelty and you introduced it because it is what you all wished to do (your own reservations at the time notwithstanding).  You don't seem to want to do that.  You want to pretend, and you ask us to pretend, that this is the Biblical approach, what the Church has always done, etc.

And the problem is we know better.  And the bigger problem is you do too.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: PlainOldPastor on July 19, 2018, 07:17:48 PM
Maybe an actual ordained woman could weigh in here?

The only time I find traditions who do not ordain women to be “oppressive” is when they assert that ordained women, by definition, are not Christian, but rather temple priestesses of Satan out to undermine both church and society. That’s not okay. Mis-discerning one’s vocation is not the sin against the Holy Spirit or evidence of damnation.

I am far, far more offended by male “feminists” who go about mansplaining TO WOMEN how “oppressed” we really are. Trust me, if I’m oppressed, I’ll know it, and you’ll hear about it. I don’t need somebody who doesn’t know me from Adam (or Eve, whatever) defending me from other people’s carefully considered reading of Scripture and Tradition. Please.

Instead, how about you defend to My Betters In Chicago my right to interpret Scripture regarding the use of the Sacraments or “God’s preferred pronouns”, my use of the received liturgical tradition in both Sunday worship and daily prayer, my confessional stance that preaching should focus more on what Christ has done for us than what on what we ought to be doing for Christ, and my ecclesial concern that Lutherans, of all people, consider leaving full-time parish ministry to tend to family concerns to have a time limit after which one will be kicked off the “list of people we let do pastor stuff”, even though those who leave parish ministry for the academic world are told that those vocations are ”calls” and therefore “count” to stay on the list.

Because let me tell you what, Charles and Brian, those are the ways I’m “oppressed” right now. Not by other traditions’ willingness (or not) to ordain women. Honest to Pete, how frail do you think we are?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: John_Hannah on July 19, 2018, 08:25:21 PM
Maybe an actual ordained woman could weigh in here?

The only time I find traditions who do not ordain women to be “oppressive” is when they assert that ordained women, by definition, are not Christian, but rather temple priestesses of Satan out to undermine both church and society. That’s not okay. Mis-discerning one’s vocation is not the sin against the Holy Spirit or evidence of damnation.

I am far, far more offended by male “feminists” who go about mansplaining TO WOMEN how “oppressed” we really are. Trust me, if I’m oppressed, I’ll know it, and you’ll hear about it. I don’t need somebody who doesn’t know me from Adam (or Eve, whatever) defending me from other people’s carefully considered reading of Scripture and Tradition. Please.

Instead, how about you defend to My Betters In Chicago my right to interpret Scripture regarding the use of the Sacraments or “God’s preferred pronouns”, my use of the received liturgical tradition in both Sunday worship and daily prayer, my confessional stance that preaching should focus more on what Christ has done for us than what on what we ought to be doing for Christ, and my ecclesial concern that Lutherans, of all people, consider leaving full-time parish ministry to tend to family concerns to have a time limit after which one will be kicked off the “list of people we let do pastor stuff”, even though those who leave parish ministry for the academic world are told that those vocations are ”calls” and therefore “count” to stay on the list.

Because let me tell you what, Charles and Brian, those are the ways I’m “oppressed” right now. Not by other traditions’ willingness (or not) to ordain women. Honest to Pete, how frail do you think we are?

 ;D ;D

Peace
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on July 19, 2018, 08:41:08 PM
Indeed! Thank you, POP!   :)
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 19, 2018, 09:05:45 PM
I would apologize for my fellow Missourians who refuse to treat ordained women decently, politely, and with the respect due the office into which they have been placed, except that it seems ineffective even offensive to apologize for the offenses of others especially if they aren’t inclined to do so.  I personally deplore that behavior.


I agree that the ordination of women is an unBiblical innovation in the church catholic.  But that is no reason, and improves nothing, to take it out on ordained women, it’s just rude and convinces no one.  Besides, generally women’s ordination would be a more minor point of disagreement if we wanted to discuss comparative theologies.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: cssml on July 19, 2018, 09:10:05 PM
Well it was “going against tradition” to say that this man Jesus was the Son of God. It was “going against tradition” to abandon the dietary laws. It was “going against tradition” to give people other than the apostles themselves apostolic authority.  Augustine and Luther went against tradition.
We were “going against traditional” when we abandoned German or Swedish or Norwegian or Danish as the language for worship.

Perhaps it is the case that the abandonment of Holy Tradition is what is at issue here.  But I rather doubt your brethren would agree with that. 

Your confessions say you introduce no new teachings into the Church Catholic.  And so when you say God is giving us new things, I am constrained to point out that these "new things" are against your own confession.  I think you know that, which is why I suggest your approach to this is sophistry.  I would have more respect for your approach if you would simply just admit that it is novelty and you introduced it because it is what you all wished to do (your own reservations at the time notwithstanding).  You don't seem to want to do that.  You want to pretend, and you ask us to pretend, that this is the Biblical approach, what the Church has always done, etc.

And the problem is we know better.  And the bigger problem is you do too.

From Papa Benedict in NY:

"Too often those who are not Christians, as they observe the splintering of Christian communities, are understandably confused about the Gospel message itself. Fundamental Christian beliefs and practices are sometimes changed within communities by so-called “prophetic actions” that are based on a hermeneutic not always consonant with the datum of Scripture and Tradition. Communities consequently give up the attempt to act as a unified body, choosing instead to function according to the idea of “local options”. Somewhere in this process the need for diachronic koinonia – communion with the Church in every age – is lost, just at the time when the world is losing its bearings and needs a persuasive common witness to the saving power of the Gospel (cf. Rom 1:18-23)."

http://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/speeches/2008/april/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20080418_incontro-ecumenico.html
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: PlainOldPastor on July 19, 2018, 09:16:28 PM
I would apologize for my fellow Missourians who refuse to treat ordained women decently, politely, and with the respect due the office into which they have been placed, except that it seems ineffective even offensive to apologize for the offenses of others especially if they aren’t inclined to do so.  I personally deplore that behavior.


I agree that the ordination of women is an unBiblical innovation in the church catholic.  But that is no reason, and improves nothing, to take it out on ordained women, it’s just rude and convinces no one.  Besides, generally women’s ordination would be a more minor point of disagreement if we wanted to discuss comparative theologies.

Thank you, Dan. I’ve always appreciated the kindness and respect you’ve shown on this board.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on July 19, 2018, 09:52:39 PM
I'm in a pickle of a middle.
   To my "liberal" "progressive" friends, I am a rat because I favor full fellowship and closer, decent relations with the LCMS, Roman Catholics and others who do not ordain women.
   To folks here I'm a rat because I dare to think that someday more churches - perhaps even all - will ordain women. (I'm not blasting them because they don't, I'm not hounding them to do so or telling them how to do it; I'm waiting for the Spirit to find ways to do that.)
   To some of my "liberal" "progressive" friends, I am a rat because I do consider our confessions, I do argue strongly for the "traditional" liturgy, I do believe our church body is a decent place to be, and I'm convinced we spend too much time trying to "change" society when we should be spending time trying to "change" ourselves and people.
   To folks here I'm a rat because they believe I have abandoned the confessions, am an ELCA loyalist and believe we should spend some time trying to change society or at least help people harmed by its ills.
   To some of my "progressive" "liberal" women friends, I bear the marks of the sexist beast and am heir to the oppressive patriarchy they see all around them because I am male and have grown up riding on male privilege.
   To folks here I am a rat because I speak about oppression of women, past and present.
   I am not trying to overturn David Garner's passionate support of his "Holy Tradition," nor do I think there would be a fruitful attempt to get a better definition of what is "Holy" and what is "Tradition" and what is something else. He apparently has absolutely, zero, no tolerance for how I see scripture, except to say he thinks I am being dishonest and lying about things. Don't know what to do about that.
   So I'm going to eat a cookie (maybe two), pet my cat and ponder the mysteries of the universe and human wisdom and folly.
   (But, anonymous WJV, I am not going away.)  ;D
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 19, 2018, 10:10:27 PM

Which was how you are condescending with your dishonesty. I don't want to hear you ever again say there isn't such a thing as absolute/objective truth when someone has cornered you with facts that prove you wrong.


Any truth that I assert is what I understand to be true. It is subjective. I expect some people to disagree with me. Sometimes I even discover that I have been wrong.



Quote
I don't accept the hand wave references offered above to equality in the early Church as supporting your actual position. That only works if you start by assuming you're right, then proof texting to back it up.


Nope. I studied the texts, then came to my conclusion. You are certainly welcome to offer your interpretation of those texts of how women were not speaking in worship: "No male or female;" "Women praying and prophesying;" "women being commissioned to tell the men about the resurrection." I assume that you know how to find the biblical references for these texts.


Quote
There is a tenuous argument to support ordaining women, but it is more substantial than claiming it once existed, of which there is no conclusive evidence, but was suppressed by misogynists.


I've never claimed that the church once ordained women. My references above occurred before there was any ordinations or even an established orthodoxy. "Proto-orthodox Christianity" is a phrase I've come across. There were believers before there the ecumenical councils that determined orthodoxy.



Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Voelker on July 19, 2018, 10:32:58 PM
I am not going away.
Bully for you.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: David Garner on July 19, 2018, 10:36:37 PM
I'm in a pickle of a middle.
   To my "liberal" "progressive" friends, I am a rat because I favor full fellowship and closer, decent relations with the LCMS, Roman Catholics and others who do not ordain women.
   To folks here I'm a rat because I dare to think that someday more churches - perhaps even all - will ordain women. (I'm not blasting them because they don't, I'm not hounding them to do so or telling them how to do it; I'm waiting for the Spirit to find ways to do that.)
   To some of my "liberal" "progressive" friends, I am a rat because I do consider our confessions, I do argue strongly for the "traditional" liturgy, I do believe our church body is a decent place to be, and I'm convinced we spend too much time trying to "change" society when we should be spending time trying to "change" ourselves and people.
   To folks here I'm a rat because they believe I have abandoned the confessions, am an ELCA loyalist and believe we should spend some time trying to change society or at least help people harmed by its ills.
   To some of my "progressive" "liberal" women friends, I bear the marks of the sexist beast and am heir to the oppressive patriarchy they see all around them because I am male and have grown up riding on male privilege.
   To folks here I am a rat because I speak about oppression of women, past and present.
   I am not trying to overturn David Garner's passionate support of his "Holy Tradition," nor do I think there would be a fruitful attempt to get a better definition of what is "Holy" and what is "Tradition" and what is something else. He apparently has absolutely, zero, no tolerance for how I see scripture, except to say he thinks I am being dishonest and lying about things. Don't know what to do about that.
   So I'm going to eat a cookie (maybe two), pet my cat and ponder the mysteries of the universe and human wisdom and folly.
   (But, anonymous WJV, I am not going away.)  ;D

What a load. You said people who disagree with you on ordination of women are sexists. You are the intolerant one.

That’s why you’re a rat. Playing the victim is cheap. Own your words or take them back.

Also, putting Holy Tradition in scare quotes is a nice touch. Perhaps from now on I’ll refer to you as “Pastor” Austin.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on July 19, 2018, 11:14:51 PM
Take a breath, Mr. Garner. My opinions aren’t worth nearly the fervor you’re putting in to responding to them. You and I are in different ecclesial worlds.  Yours doesn’t affect mine, and I have no influence on yours, although I have enjoyed some very Pleasant visits with Orthodox patriarchs in Istanbul, Europe and the United States.
I’m not attacking your holy tradition.  Blessings to you as you follow it. But you understand it is that not the only way one can be Christian.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 20, 2018, 12:18:32 AM
I am becoming increasingly convinced that Pr. Austin is correct about one thing, his opinions aren’t worth responding too.  He attacks and then when responded to feigns innocence.  Butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth.  The added touch of name dropping that he’s rubbed shoulders with Patriarchs around the world puts the cherry on top.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on July 20, 2018, 04:45:42 AM
I only note, Pastor Fienen, that while people in this modest forum pontificate about their "Holy Tradition" or "Confessionalism", and while they denounce, rail against, condemn and hurl "heterodox" or other word-bombs at those of us in the ELCA (or LCA or LWF) and tell us to get out of the room, we - that is, the ELCA and folks like me - are graciously welcomed into genuine dialogue, theological agreements (we even have some with the East), and fraternal relationships in the exciting world that stretches beyond the geographical, churchly and ideological walls built by people like you.
   Our brothers and sisters in the faith "out there" in the "real world" are more tolerant (even of my alleged "intolerance") than the rigid, defensive and fearful voices I often encounter here. I am not going to apologize for having some experience in that real world out there. Feel free to ignore what you think are my "opinions." I neither want, nor do I need your validation, Pastor Fienen or Mr. Garner, for my life and ministry.
  You want to get yourself all steamed up and outraged?
  Read the reports from our national and internationl ecumenical dialogues with Roman Catholics, Eastern Orthodoxy and other communions. Dare to study the publications from the LWF and its transition into a "communion" of churches. Try to cope with the real substance of our social statements, not just the decisions you don't like. Go deep into some of the sources Pastor Stoffregen mentions, not because they are all "correct," but because they are stimulating and interesting.
   Then spout your steam and vent your outrage those directions.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: John_Hannah on July 20, 2018, 06:59:15 AM
I read only random selections of this thread. It's no different than checking the news about our divided nation so it's really kind of dull reading.

I wonder though, is it possible that we have Russian hackers aboard? The pseudonymous ones? Or even those with Western sounding names that could be disguises?

Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: gan ainm on July 20, 2018, 07:10:40 AM
I read only random selections of this thread. It's no different than checking the news about our divided nation so it's really kind of dull reading.

I wonder though, is it possible that we have Russian hackers aboard? The pseudonymous ones? Or even those with Western sounding names that could be disguises?

Peace, JOHN

Where did that come from?  We do have a couple of trolls though.   ;D

Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on July 20, 2018, 07:58:01 AM
I’m not attacking your holy tradition. 

Yes, Charles, you are.

[Ms. Smith] writes:
 In other Lutheran denominations and other faith bodies women are prohibited from serving as ordained clergy based on their understanding of scripture.  That isn't sexism, it is simply faithfulness to their faith tradition(,)

I comment:
...that "faith tradition" heavily colored by sexism.

Yes. They are wrong to believe too much of a faith system that is colored by cultural sexism.

To make such a statement, feign innocence, repeat it, and when another is righteously angered by them, deny and condescendingly tell the other to take a breath...

That is a bully and a troll, whether the cause is pathological or not. You start a thread over concern about another's morality, then proceed like this...   ::)

How you keep getting away with this Is a mystery. If I did such a thing I'd be gone in a second. Heck, I'm publicly reprimanded for "pressing and pressing" an issue.

"[Many on this board] will continue to wonder if the only possible explanation for this [bullying] behavior is the possibility that [Charles] holds damaging information over [the moderators]."   ;)


Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: TERJr on July 20, 2018, 08:27:05 AM
I read only random selections of this thread. It's no different than checking the news about our divided nation so it's really kind of dull reading.

I wonder though, is it possible that we have Russian hackers aboard? The pseudonymous ones? Or even those with Western sounding names that could be disguises?

Peace, JOHN

Нет, это невозможно!
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: gan ainm on July 20, 2018, 08:31:57 AM
I’m not attacking your holy tradition. 

Yes, Charles, you are.

[Ms. Smith] writes:
 In other Lutheran denominations and other faith bodies women are prohibited from serving as ordained clergy based on their understanding of scripture.  That isn't sexism, it is simply faithfulness to their faith tradition(,)

I comment:
...that "faith tradition" heavily colored by sexism.

Yes. They are wrong to believe too much of a faith system that is colored by cultural sexism.

To make such a statement, feign innocence, repeat it, and when another is righteously angered by them, deny and condescendingly tell the other to take a breath...

That is a bully and a troll, whether the cause is pathological or not. You start a thread over concern about another's morality, then proceed like this...   ::)

How you keep getting away with this Is a mystery. If I did such a thing I'd be gone in a second. Heck, I'm publicly reprimanded for "pressing and pressing" an issue.

"[Many on this board] will continue to wonder if the only possible explanation for this [bullying] behavior is the possibility that [Charles] holds damaging information over [the moderators]."   ;)

Good grief and Aunt Gertie's goat, perhaps he is the Russian agent John Hannah eluded to!  All that time spent in Canada escaping his USA duty - the Ruskies converted him!  What a better place to hide than on an internet forum - far worse than merely being anonymous - hide in plain sight and attack from within.   You gotta a problem with that?  :o
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dave Benke on July 20, 2018, 09:08:17 AM
The Ruskies - right out of Dr. Strangelove, all-time top ten flick.  Is it possible that gan ainm is actually the son of the famous Slim Pickens, and therefore needs to shield his identity?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ynY5NvYsZY

Dave Benke
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: David Garner on July 20, 2018, 09:48:15 AM
I am becoming increasingly convinced that Pr. Austin is correct about one thing, his opinions aren’t worth responding too.  He attacks and then when responded to feigns innocence.  Butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth.  The added touch of name dropping that he’s rubbed shoulders with Patriarchs around the world puts the cherry on top.

Indeed. Dusting my sandals as we speak.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: gan ainm on July 20, 2018, 10:01:57 AM
The Ruskies - right out of Dr. Strangelove, all-time top ten flick.  Is it possible that gan ainm is actually the son of the famous Slim Pickens, and therefore needs to shield his identity?  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ynY5NvYsZY

Dave Benke

Shhhhh, I'm riding the bomb and waving my cowboy hat.  At least I am on the right side ( alert - double entendre ).   ;)
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Coach-Rev on July 20, 2018, 10:25:14 AM
   To folks here I'm a rat because I dare to think that someday more churches - perhaps even all - will ordain women. (I'm not blasting them because they don't, I'm not hounding them to do so or telling them how to do it; I'm waiting for the Spirit to find ways to do that.)
   

Not true.  I think you're a rat because you can rarely reply to those with whom you disagree without a condescending and belligerent (and dare I say it:  neognostic?) attitude. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on July 20, 2018, 10:27:33 AM
Never been in Canada for more than a few days at a time.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on July 20, 2018, 10:35:10 AM
I make no apologies for using strong words. I do not call people names, like “troll,” nor do I write them out of the Lutheran or Christian family. I challenge opinions, I do not denounce individuals.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: David Garner on July 20, 2018, 10:37:46 AM
That awkward moment when a troll objects to being called a troll.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 20, 2018, 10:56:39 AM
To some I'm considered a troll since I live in the lower peninsula of Michigan, under the (Mackinac) bridge.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: D. Engebretson on July 20, 2018, 11:29:58 AM
To some imI considered a troll since I live in the lower peninsula of Michigan, under the (Mackinac) bridge.

Does that make me an "Honorary Troll" since I spend 13 years in the Lower Peninsula? 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on July 20, 2018, 11:40:37 AM
I make no apologies for using strong words. I do not call people names, like “troll,” nor do I write them out of the Lutheran or Christian family. I challenge opinions, I do not denounce individuals.

You left off your spectacular lack of self-awareness. Does the name George Erdner ring any bells?

Once again moderators, his recurring pious denial of what got him banned previously should result in a reapplication of that punishment.

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 20, 2018, 11:51:00 AM
Is it kinder, gentler, more respectful to suggest that the LCMS, Eastern Orthodox and RCC in their refusal to ordain women are "heavily colored by sexism," and expect that inevitably the Holy Spirit will bring these churches around to embrace women's ordination than it is to suggest that the ELCA and others have been overly influenced by progressive culture in their justification for and embrace of women's and partnered homosexual's ordination?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Voelker on July 20, 2018, 11:58:23 AM
I read only random selections of this thread. It's no different than checking the news about our divided nation so it's really kind of dull reading.

I wonder though, is it possible that we have Russian hackers aboard? The pseudonymous ones? Or even those with Western sounding names that could be disguises?

Peace, JOHN

Нет, это невозможно!
да, товарищ!
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pasgolf on July 20, 2018, 11:59:02 AM
https://heterodoxacademy.org

This might be the source of a useful intervention for the forum's often demonstrated communication dysfunctions.  The Forum participants could start a group.  Who know?  Might actually work.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: gan ainm on July 20, 2018, 12:00:01 PM
Is this a picture of Lars, the Norwegian, or is it Swedish, Troll?

https://www.alamy.com/stock-photo-stained-glass-window-depicting-a-heretic-in-the-cathedral-of-saint-125143632.html?pv=1&stamp=2&imageid=F3B36359-AC50-4E62-ACB5-B3A36BF3C1F6&p=236932&n=0&orientation=0&pn=1&searchtype=0&IsFromSearch=1&srch=foo%3dbar%26st%3d0%26pn%3d1%26ps%3d100%26sortby%3d2%26resultview%3dsortbyPopular%26npgs%3d0%26qt%3dheretic%26qt_raw%3dheretic%26lic%3d3%26mr%3d0%26pr%3d0%26ot%3d0%26creative%3d%26ag%3d0%26hc%3d0%26pc%3d%26blackwhite%3d%26cutout%3d%26tbar%3d1%26et%3d0x000000000000000000000%26vp%3d0%26loc%3d0%26imgt%3d0%26dtfr%3d%26dtto%3d%26size%3d0xFF%26archive%3d1%26groupid%3d%26pseudoid%3d%26a%3d%26cdid%3d%26cdsrt%3d%26name%3d%26qn%3d%26apalib%3d%26apalic%3d%26lightbox%3d%26gname%3d%26gtype%3d%26xstx%3d0%26simid%3d%26saveQry%3d%26editorial%3d1%26nu%3d%26t%3d%26edoptin%3d%26customgeoip%3d%26cap%3d1%26cbstore%3d1%26vd%3d0%26lb%3d%26fi%3d2%26edrf%3d%26ispremium%3d1%26flip%3d0
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Coach-Rev on July 20, 2018, 12:32:09 PM
I make no apologies for using strong words. I do not call people names, like “troll,” nor do I write them out of the Lutheran or Christian family. I challenge opinions, I do not denounce individuals.

At least not by name.  But "dense," "obtuse," and other descriptors are used on a regular basis, directed at individuals.  ::)
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: TERJr on July 20, 2018, 12:33:53 PM
I read only random selections of this thread. It's no different than checking the news about our divided nation so it's really kind of dull reading.

I wonder though, is it possible that we have Russian hackers aboard? The pseudonymous ones? Or even those with Western sounding names that could be disguises?

Peace, JOHN

мы похороним слабых западных жителей, если они не соберутся сначала
Нет, это невозможно!
да, товарищ!
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Voelker on July 20, 2018, 12:36:20 PM
I read only random selections of this thread. It's no different than checking the news about our divided nation so it's really kind of dull reading.

I wonder though, is it possible that we have Russian hackers aboard? The pseudonymous ones? Or even those with Western sounding names that could be disguises?

Peace, JOHN

мы похороним слабых западных жителей, если они не соберутся сначала
Нет, это невозможно!
да, товарищ!
Они будут раздавлены противоречиями, присущими их системе. Будущее открыто!
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: TERJr on July 20, 2018, 01:17:38 PM
I read only random selections of this thread. It's no different than checking the news about our divided nation so it's really kind of dull reading.

I wonder though, is it possible that we have Russian hackers aboard? The pseudonymous ones? Or even those with Western sounding names that could be disguises?

Peace, JOHN

мы похороним слабых западных жителей, если они не соберутся сначала
Нет, это невозможно!
да, товарищ!
Они будут раздавлены противоречиями, присущими их системе. Будущее открыто!
Да здравствует наша славная родина!
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on July 20, 2018, 01:18:22 PM
Pastor Fienen asks (my numbers added):
Is it kinder, gentler, more respectful to suggest that 1 the LCMS, Eastern Orthodox and RCC in their refusal to ordain women are "heavily colored by sexism," and expect that inevitably the Holy Spirit will bring these churches around to embrace women's ordination than it is to suggest that 2 the ELCA and others have been overly influenced by progressive culture in their justification for and embrace of women's and partnered homosexual's ordination?

I respond:
Because the words following 1 are in my (meaningless) opinion, correct; and the words following 2 are, (Again in my meaningless opinion), incorrect.
And do not fret so much about the sexism comment. We were all influenced by sexism, and in many ways we still are. It is not condemnation to some circle of hell.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: TERJr on July 20, 2018, 01:24:23 PM
But seriously y’all, this is just ugly.  It may be time to give the article Randy suggested a while back some attention. I would commend the section on Auden and his suggested pairs for purgatory. I bet we could make up some really cute couples.


Not "pluralism", but the potential or actual existence of plurality within the household of God as elucidated by the Apostle Paul relative to the provision of the different spiritual gifts and the different parts of one body in the "Household of God", the Church - and culture.

The 2017 essay "Ecclesial Plurality" by Alan Jacobs ( .pdf linked at:   http://ayjay.org/JacobsEcclesialPlurality.pdf  ) raises and wanders about in these issues, which - perhaps not surprisingly to others - seem to parallel many of the, ahem, "discussions" on ALPB Forum, and the value of carefully tended relationships even among those with whom we disagree.

If you have read Alan's essay, please share your thoughts as they apply to the Church at large and to American Lutheranism (whatever that might entail)!  N.B. Alan comes at this from an Anglican foundation, a layperson, and a Distinguished Scholar or somesuch moniker at Baylor University.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dave Benke on July 20, 2018, 01:26:48 PM
https://heterodoxacademy.org

This might be the source of a useful intervention for the forum's often demonstrated communication dysfunctions.  The Forum participants could start a group.  Who know?  Might actually work.

If you can enlist RDPreus in the Heterodox Academy, you will, or at least should, receive an Academy Award.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: David Garner on July 20, 2018, 01:35:48 PM
I make no apologies for using strong words. I do not call people names, like “troll,” nor do I write them out of the Lutheran or Christian family. I challenge opinions, I do not denounce individuals.

At least not by name.  But "dense," "obtuse," and other descriptors are used on a regular basis, directed at individuals.  ::)

“Sexist,” let us all be reminded.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on July 20, 2018, 02:25:08 PM
I make no apologies for using strong words. I do not call people names, like “troll,” nor do I write them out of the Lutheran or Christian family. I challenge opinions, I do not denounce individuals.

At least not by name.  But "dense," "obtuse," and other descriptors are used on a regular basis, directed at individuals.  ::)

“Sexist,” let us all be reminded.

I do not believe I have ever said anything about Pastor Fienen’s character;

Character:  "the mental and moral qualities distinctive to an individual"

Pastor Fienen continues:
....

I comment:
That is a stupid overstatement...

Pastor Fienen:
...

Me:
Don't be dense...

Do we, as a nation, have an obligation to enact foreign policy in such a way as to benefit other nations at the expense of the citizens and residents of the USA?

That is not a very bright question. 

I am trying to be done with this, and Pastor Fienen has been given the last word. (To paraphrase Carl in "Casablanca," knowing who he is, he would take it anyway.)

Pastor Fienen, et al., rather than just harp-carping about my comments, why don't you truly engage and answer my questions?

I guess that is a response.

No. That is not right and is insulting and not very bright.

I don’t know about elephants but I believe some people make “sounds” online that are so dense that no one can hear them. Unfortunately, we can see them.

Whatever.

Do you know, Pastor Fienen, how dense that sounds?

That's in less than two weeks.   :o
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 20, 2018, 02:45:59 PM
https://heterodoxacademy.org (https://heterodoxacademy.org)

This might be the source of a useful intervention for the forum's often demonstrated communication dysfunctions.  The Forum participants could start a group.  Who know?  Might actually work.


heterodox < ἕτερος + δοκἐω = other thinking
orthodox < ὀρθός + δοκέω = correct thinking


A difficulty with believing my thinking is correct is that's precisely what condemned the Pharisees. It's the hard-heartedness of Pharaoh. It's the attitude that does not succumb to repentance (which is admitting, "I was wrong").


There is something to be said for having the ability to look at things from another (heteros) angle. Many, many years ago, when I was in high school, I took the Bethel Bible series. One of their slogans is: "Think Hebrew." In seminary, a professor illustrated Hebrew thinking by writing a big T on the board (for truth). Then said that Hebrews tell stories that all point to the T from different angles. He drew a Ss all around the T with arrows pointing to the T. We see this in the gospels where Jesus tells numerous "stories" that begin, "The Kingdom of God (or heaven) is like …." Greek thinking is more like writing an essay that tries to capture every aspect of Truth.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 20, 2018, 03:30:55 PM
Pastor Fienen asks (my numbers added):
Is it kinder, gentler, more respectful to suggest that 1 the LCMS, Eastern Orthodox and RCC in their refusal to ordain women are "heavily colored by sexism," and expect that inevitably the Holy Spirit will bring these churches around to embrace women's ordination than it is to suggest that 2 the ELCA and others have been overly influenced by progressive culture in their justification for and embrace of women's and partnered homosexual's ordination?

I respond:
Because the words following 1 are in my (meaningless) opinion, correct; and the words following 2 are, (Again in my meaningless opinion), incorrect.
And do not fret so much about the sexism comment. We were all influenced by sexism, and in many ways we still are. It is not condemnation to some circle of hell.

So, if Pr. Austin alleges that the positions of the LCMS et al. are based on prejudice, i. e. sexism, that is perfectly acceptable and respectful because he thinks that he is correct in his allegation.  If, on the other hand, I or anyone else alleges that the positions of the ELCA are based on prejudice, i. e. the prejudices of current progressive culture, that is disrespectful and totally unacceptable for this discussion because he disagrees with that.  Are we to take it that Pr. Austin has arrogated to himself the position of determiner of what is and what is not acceptable discourse based on whether or not he agrees with it?  Sure seems that way to me.


If, as he reassured me, saying that our position is "heavily colored by sexism" is essentially meaningless and should not be at all offensive because "We were all influenced by sexism," why say it all?  It would be like saying that we are all influenced by sin.  True enough but if it applies to everyone, it doesn't add any distinctions between opinions to the conversation.  If, on the other hand, as it seems he meant by saying that we all were influenced by sexism that some of us still are while others, he and his tribe, have thrown that off, then it is still an accusation and not a sign of respect.


If he wants, as I suspect he does, to say that our position on women's ordination is derived more from sexism imbedded in our culture than what we read in Scripture, own it.  Tell us that our Bible study is defective and show us how.  To be "heavily colored by sexism," may not condemn us to some circle of hell, but it does condemn our position as irrationally prejudiced and unworthy of consideration, just exposure and rejection.  Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.


A double standard whereby Pr. Austin gets to expect that we will respect and accept that their positions where we disagree were derived from careful and prayerful Bible Study, and that he can state that our positions were derived more from prejudice than prayerful and careful Bible Study is unacceptable.  Even if he thinks that is the case.  If he can be suspicious that we are influenced more by prejudice than Scripture and the Holy Spirit, why should those suspicions be out of bounds for us?  Seems to me that he wants to win our discussion not by evidence and reasoning but by simply ruling out of bounds our presenting a case at all.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dave Benke on July 20, 2018, 03:34:49 PM
https://heterodoxacademy.org (https://heterodoxacademy.org)

This might be the source of a useful intervention for the forum's often demonstrated communication dysfunctions.  The Forum participants could start a group.  Who know?  Might actually work.


heterodox < ἕτερος + δοκἐω = other thinking
orthodox < ὀρθός + δοκέω = correct thinking


A difficulty with believing my thinking is correct is that's precisely what condemned the Pharisees. It's the hard-heartedness of Pharaoh. It's the attitude that does not succumb to repentance (which is admitting, "I was wrong").


There is something to be said for having the ability to look at things from another (heteros) angle. Many, many years ago, when I was in high school, I took the Bethel Bible series. One of their slogans is: "Think Hebrew." In seminary, a professor illustrated Hebrew thinking by writing a big T on the board (for truth). Then said that Hebrews tell stories that all point to the T from different angles. He drew a Ss all around the T with arrows pointing to the T. We see this in the gospels where Jesus tells numerous "stories" that begin, "The Kingdom of God (or heaven) is like …." Greek thinking is more like writing an essay that tries to capture every aspect of Truth.

I think the Bethel Bible series and your professor are on the right track.  Ancient Hebrew was a compact language - Hebrew is even unto today.  Biblical Hebrew has under 10000 distinct words.  Classical Greek, and even Koine, are far more expansive in vocabulary.  What does this mean?  Hebrew poetry, which comprises a chunk of the Hebrew Scriptures, goes at it often in dyads with questions and sometimes answers - what is like unto an X?  Is it Y?  Is it Z?  How can it be expressed?

Language is the vehicle for describing what is known, seen, understood.  Underneath that is truth, like a diamond.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: JEdwards on July 20, 2018, 03:47:21 PM
A difficulty with believing my thinking is correct is that's precisely what condemned the Pharisees. It's the hard-heartedness of Pharaoh. It's the attitude that does not succumb to repentance (which is admitting, "I was wrong").

"Of course, God alone knows the mind of God, which is why humans, when speaking on matters of God's teaching, should always proceed with caution.  But to proceed with a healthy doubt about one's own moral rightness only means treating one's opponents with respect and granting the possibility of error.  It does not mean refraining from action.  The legal scholar Michael Perry, himself a Roman Catholic, has put the point nicely:  'Although we must resist infallibilism... at any given moment, our convictions are what they are.' "

--Stephen L. Carter, The Culture of Disbelief

As I read Dr. Carter, the problem is not with the belief that one is correct.  After all, how can anyone coherently believe himself to be incorrect?

Peace,
Jon
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 20, 2018, 03:49:09 PM
https://heterodoxacademy.org (https://heterodoxacademy.org)

This might be the source of a useful intervention for the forum's often demonstrated communication dysfunctions.  The Forum participants could start a group.  Who know?  Might actually work.


heterodox < ἕτερος + δοκἐω = other thinking
orthodox < ὀρθός + δοκέω = correct thinking


A difficulty with believing my thinking is correct is that's precisely what condemned the Pharisees. It's the hard-heartedness of Pharaoh. It's the attitude that does not succumb to repentance (which is admitting, "I was wrong").


There is something to be said for having the ability to look at things from another (heteros) angle. Many, many years ago, when I was in high school, I took the Bethel Bible series. One of their slogans is: "Think Hebrew." In seminary, a professor illustrated Hebrew thinking by writing a big T on the board (for truth). Then said that Hebrews tell stories that all point to the T from different angles. He drew a Ss all around the T with arrows pointing to the T. We see this in the gospels where Jesus tells numerous "stories" that begin, "The Kingdom of God (or heaven) is like …." Greek thinking is more like writing an essay that tries to capture every aspect of Truth.

I think the Bethel Bible series and your professor are on the right track.  Ancient Hebrew was a compact language - Hebrew is even unto today.  Biblical Hebrew has under 10000 distinct words.  Classical Greek, and even Koine, are far more expansive in vocabulary.  What does this mean?  Hebrew poetry, which comprises a chunk of the Hebrew Scriptures, goes at it often in dyads with questions and sometimes answers - what is like unto an X?  Is it Y?  Is it Z?  How can it be expressed?

Language is the vehicle for describing what is known, seen, understood.  Underneath that is truth, like a diamond.


In addition, Hebrew words, especially before the vowel pointing, were not read so much as to help the reader remember. How the three consonants were pronounced could change the meaning of the word. Remembering is much easier with stories and poems; not so much with essays.


Another difference I remember is that Greek tends to be noun based, e.g. God is love - so they explore the meaning of the noun, love, and how God fits that. Hebrew is verb based, God loves - so they tell stories to illustrate ways God loves the people - and sometimes God's loving actions were to discipline the wayward people - which may not have been experienced as love.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on July 20, 2018, 03:55:25 PM
Pastor Fienen persists:
If, on the other hand, I or anyone else alleges that the positions of the ELCA are based on prejudice, i. e. the prejudices of current progressive culture, that is disrespectful and totally unacceptable for this discussion because he disagrees with that. 
I wearily comment:
I did not say that, but folk who read things with a wooden literalness slathered with paranoia might think I did.

Pastor Fienen:
Are we to take it that Pr. Austin has arrogated to himself the position of determiner of what is and what is not acceptable discourse based on whether or not he agrees with it?  Sure seems that way to me.
Me:
See above.
Or ask yourself “why do I care what this progressive liberal pseudo-Lutheran nutcase says about anything?”
I ask myself a similarly-worded question all the time. Keeps the number of my postings down.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 20, 2018, 03:56:06 PM
A difficulty with believing my thinking is correct is that's precisely what condemned the Pharisees. It's the hard-heartedness of Pharaoh. It's the attitude that does not succumb to repentance (which is admitting, "I was wrong").

"Of course, God alone knows the mind of God, which is why humans, when speaking on matters of God's teaching, should always proceed with caution.  But to proceed with a healthy doubt about one's own moral rightness only means treating one's opponents with respect and granting the possibility of error.  It does not mean refraining from action.  The legal scholar Michael Perry, himself a Roman Catholic, has put the point nicely:  'Although we must resist infallibilism... at any given moment, our convictions are what they are.' "

--Stephen L. Carter, The Culture of Disbelief

As I read Dr. Carter, the problem is not with the belief that one is correct.  After all, how can anyone coherently believe himself to be incorrect?

Peace,
Jon


A meme on Facebook: "Discussion is always better than argument. Because argument is to find out who is right. Discussion is to find out what is right."
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 20, 2018, 04:25:35 PM
Pastor Fienen persists:
If, on the other hand, I or anyone else alleges that the positions of the ELCA are based on prejudice, i. e. the prejudices of current progressive culture, that is disrespectful and totally unacceptable for this discussion because he disagrees with that. 
I wearily comment:

I did not say that, but folk who read things with a wooden literalness slathered with paranoia might think I did.


The obvious question, which I will ask, is that if I misunderstood you, what did you mean  by what you wrote?  Apparently your meaning was not clear to me so I ask for clarification. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Norman Teigen on August 23, 2018, 06:58:20 AM

"The voters of the United States must now say to this Congress what Oliver Cromwell said to the Rump Parliament in 1653: 'Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government. . . . Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation. You were deputed here by the people to get grievances redressed, are yourselves become the greatest grievance. . . . Go, get you out! Make haste! . . . In the name of God, go!' ”  WAPO 8-23-2018
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on August 23, 2018, 08:37:25 AM

"The voters of the United States must now say to this Congress what Oliver Cromwell said to the Rump Parliament in 1653: 'Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government. . . . Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation. You were deputed here by the people to get grievances redressed, are yourselves become the greatest grievance. . . . Go, get you out! Make haste! . . . In the name of God, go!' ”  WAPO 8-23-2018

I saw someone (anti-Trump) highlighted this yesterday on Twitter.  I'll respond to you the same way I did to him:

You do realize that Cromwell was a military dictator who overthrew the legitimate government of England, right?  Why would you glorify the actions of someone who fits the caricature that you and your fellow Democrats have constructed for Trump?  This quotation could just as easily be adapted to celebrate Trump's dressing down of reporters for perpetrating fake news as a threat to our democracy.

I guess partisans gonna partisan.   :-\

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on August 23, 2018, 09:13:18 AM

"The voters of the United States must now say to this Congress what Oliver Cromwell said to the Rump Parliament in 1653: 'Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government. . . . Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation. You were deputed here by the people to get grievances redressed, are yourselves become the greatest grievance. . . . Go, get you out! Make haste! . . . In the name of God, go!' ”  WAPO 8-23-2018

I saw someone (anti-Trump) highlighted this yesterday on Twitter.  I'll respond to you the same way I did to him:

You do realize that Cromwell was a military dictator who overthrew the legitimate government of England, right?  Why would you glorify the actions of someone who fits the caricature that you and your fellow Democrats have constructed for Trump?  This quotation could just as easily be adapted to celebrate Trump's dressing down of reporters for perpetrating fake news as a threat to our democracy.

I guess partisans gonna partisan.   :-\

Sterling Spatz

Indeed, as well as an enemy of the Roman Catholic church, responsible for the Penal Laws passed against Roman Catholics, confiscating a substantial amount of their land, his actions deemed by some to be near-genocidal in Ireland. But Trotsky liked him.   ::)
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on August 23, 2018, 09:41:46 AM

"The voters of the United States must now say to this Congress what Oliver Cromwell said to the Rump Parliament in 1653:

This is why one ought not take the blather about "authoritarianism" seriously.

spt+
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on August 23, 2018, 12:00:27 PM

"The voters of the United States must now say to this Congress what Oliver Cromwell said to the Rump Parliament in 1653:

This is why one ought not take the blather about "authoritarianism" seriously.

spt+
Historical footnote, perhaps known to some here:  Before the English Commonwealth, English regents (who ruled in the stead of minority monarchs) governed as "Lord Protector".  After Cromwell tainted it, no subsequent regent has used it.  The stigma runs deep.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on August 23, 2018, 12:26:08 PM
The man who wanted to "drain the swamp" has been surrounded by alligators, felons, thieves and incompetents. There have been convictions and more will come. Senior Republicans are now advising that candidates distance themselves from the president.
The lies now approach proof of obstruction of justice, illegal use of campaign funds, illegal campaign donations, and actions directly traceable to "the candidate."
Approved laws are being disregarded or dismantled by executive order. Tariffs and other actions are done by royal fiat.
And when a tiny few of us here express our concern for the nation, what is the response?
Astonishingly it is,
I didn't vote for him.
Obama and Clinton were bad, too.
Hilary would have been worse? (Please explain that one.)
Your criticism is based on the wrong thing, he's not Cromwell.
The liberals are the enemies of the Church.
It's all a plot by the liberal media.
The immigrants are all illegal and should be jailed.
Tell me when, online folk, the level of misconduct will arise to a point where you express some concern for the office of the Presidency, for our nation, for the people hurt by his lies and actions.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on August 23, 2018, 12:48:22 PM
The immigrants are all illegal and should be jailed.
Tell me when, online folk, the level of misconduct will arise to a point where you express some concern for the office of the Presidency, for our nation, for the people hurt by his lies and actions.

As you can't be bothered to accurately represent what others say (the bolded sentence above), I once again can't take your second sentence seriously.

Show me where those in favor of immigration control want illegal immigrants "jailed".   They don't want them jailed, they want them deported.   The eighth commandment free discussion space continues.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on August 23, 2018, 12:55:43 PM
Your criticism is based on the wrong thing, he's not Cromwell.
And you miss the point:  someone from your tribe quoted Cromwell approvingly, as a critique of Republicans in Congress who aren't willing to stand up to the guy you hate.  Max Boot, self-declared former conservative who has a severe case of Trump Derangement Syndrome is the source of the Cromwell quote.  Again you can't be bothered to represent the conversation accurately.

Some of us conservatives are deeply troubled by the Trump presidency.  Some of us voted against him twice.  That doesn't mean I'm going to vote to re-elect my Democrat U.S. Senator Bob Casey Jr. this November.  (Not to mention he's an empty suit benefiting from the good feelings about this father, even as he repudiated one of this father's core beliefs.)  Why would I give my support to a candidate who doesn't share my beliefs and values?  That goes equally for Trump and Casey.  That's what principle looks like.  Not what Max Boot (or alas, George Will I note with regret) is peddling.  I'm not participating in a reality TV show.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: peter_speckhard on August 23, 2018, 12:58:18 PM
The man who wanted to "drain the swamp" has been surrounded by alligators, felons, thieves and incompetents. There have been convictions and more will come. Senior Republicans are now advising that candidates distance themselves from the president.
The lies now approach proof of obstruction of justice, illegal use of campaign funds, illegal campaign donations, and actions directly traceable to "the candidate."
Approved laws are being disregarded or dismantled by executive order. Tariffs and other actions are done by royal fiat.
And when a tiny few of us here express our concern for the nation, what is the response?
Astonishingly it is,
I didn't vote for him.
Obama and Clinton were bad, too.
Hilary would have been worse? (Please explain that one.)
Your criticism is based on the wrong thing, he's not Cromwell.
The liberals are the enemies of the Church.
It's all a plot by the liberal media.
The immigrants are all illegal and should be jailed.
Tell me when, online folk, the level of misconduct will arise to a point where you express some concern for the office of the Presidency, for our nation, for the people hurt by his lies and actions.
When it ceases to be of any political benefit to people like you, I might chime in with my real thoughts on the situation. Until then, your complaint about everyone else's lack of complaints is self-serving.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on August 23, 2018, 01:06:17 PM
Perhaps Pres. Trump should consult former Pres. Clinton for legal advise for legal advise in dealing with legal and political fallout from illicit sexual escapades.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on August 23, 2018, 01:43:22 PM
The man who wanted to "drain the swamp" has been surrounded by alligators, felons, thieves and incompetents. There have been convictions and more will come. Senior Republicans are now advising that candidates distance themselves from the president.

You sound just like Mr. Trump's opponents (including me) during the 2016 primaries.  You sound just like Mr. Trump's opponents (including me) before the nominating convention.  You sound just like Mr. Trump's opponents (including me) in the weeks leading up to the 2016 General Election.  You sound just like Mr. Trump's opponents (and I remain no fan) before his inauguration and throughout his presidency.

I woke up the morning after the 2016 election recognizing that Mr. Trump had been elected President of the United States, and I might as well live with that reality rather than deny it.  Every single time the experts and pundits have declared him done for, he has emerged on top.  You may indeed finally be right this time, Charles.  But I wouldn't bet on it.

Approved laws are being disregarded or dismantled by executive order. Tariffs and other actions are done by royal fiat.
And when a tiny few of us here express our concern for the nation, what is the response?

Perhaps we should find the responses of Charles Austin on this forum when other members said the same in 2009-2017, and quote them here.

Pax, Steven+
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on August 23, 2018, 01:46:29 PM
Perhaps Pres. Trump should consult former Pres. Clinton for legal advise for legal advise in dealing with legal and political fallout from illicit sexual escapades.
Yes.   Of course, perhaps the most current glaring irony is watching Lanny Davis, the Clinton lawyer and fixer (not unlike Cohen) who publicly defended Bill during the impeachment and said that the private sex life of the president didn't matter to the American people, now serving as Michael Cohen's attorney and telling us that the American people have a right to know the details about the president's sex life.

Of course this Babylon Bee headline says all you need to know about the current hypocrisy:

Evangelicals Confirm They Will Resume Preaching About Absolute Truth When Democrat Becomes President (https://babylonbee.com/news/evangelicals-confirm-they-will-resume-preaching-about-absolute-truth-when-democrat-becomes-president/)

Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on August 23, 2018, 02:02:02 PM
Approved laws are being disregarded or dismantled by executive order. Tariffs and other actions are done by royal fiat.
And when a tiny few of us here express our concern for the nation, what is the response?

Perhaps we should find the responses of Charles Austin on this forum when other members said the same in 2009-2017, and quote them here.

Before we look for such quotes, perhaps the current Charles Austin could identify which laws are being disregarded or dismantled by executive order.  Perhaps the Charles Ausin from 2009-2017 objected when sections of the Affordable Care Act, specifically the individual and employer mandates, were not enforced for a time by executive fiat, in the name of political expediency, with no waiver authorized by law.  Or perhaps my personal favorite, when the president attempted to make a recess appointment when the U.S. Senate was not in recess.  I'm eager to see where such transgressions were decried as imperiling our constitutional order.

Facts are not just stubborn things, they're helpful to a discussion.

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: jebutler on August 23, 2018, 02:34:54 PM
This is really hard. First, I think President Trump is a truly horrible human being. And I think he has done many terrible things, repeatedly cheating on his wives among them. On the other hand, I agree with some of his decisions (particularly his judicial choices) and I think its kind of interesting to watch the Democrats getting hoisted on their own petard. But let me try.

The man who wanted to "drain the swamp" has been surrounded by alligators, felons, thieves and incompetents. There have been convictions and more will come. Senior Republicans are now advising that candidates distance themselves from the president.

This morning the Boston Herald reported that, out of the 75 days until the mid-term elections, POTUS will spend 40 of them campaigning for Republican candidates. "In the month of September alone the president will travel to campaign in Montana, Missouri, both Dakotas, Nevada, Tennessee and Kentucky. Next week’s he’ll be in Indiana for Mike Braun’s Senate campaign. Trump will also campaign in competitive House races in districts in New York, Ohio, Montana and Pennsylvania, among others."

I don't know, but this doesn't sound like "Senior Republicans are now advising that candidates distance themselves from the president" to me. Maybe you have a different definition.

The lies now approach proof of obstruction of justice, illegal use of campaign funds, illegal campaign donations, and actions directly traceable to "the candidate."

1) There has been no evidence of obstruction of justice. I'm sure if there was, Robert Mueller would have released it. 2) According to Harvard University professor Alan Dershowitz (on MSNBC last night), "The president doesn't break the law if, as a candidate, he contributes to his own campaign. So if he gave $1 million to two women as hush money, there would be no crime. If he directed his lawyer to do it, and he would compensate the lawyer, he's committed no crime. If Cohen did it on his own then Cohen commits the crime." So, according to Dershowitz, if it's "traceable to the 'candidate'" then no law has been broken.

Personally, I think Trump should have a prime time broadcast and admit what he has done. Further, he should direct his campaign to talk to the FEC and arrange a large payment and put this behind him.

We should also try to simplify our campaign finance laws. They are very convoluted. I've read arguments on both sides that its very likely that every campaign breaks some of the laws; they are too hard to keep straight.

Approved laws are being disregarded or dismantled by executive order.  Tariffs and other actions are done by royal fiat.

This was also a common complaint of folks on the right during the Obama Administration. (See: DACA and DAPA, the "Dear Colleague" letter, Obamacare waivers, etc.) Here, both sides are right: the executive has become way too powerful and needs to be taken down a few notches--maybe more than a few. But both sides need to put aside tribalism and an "ends justifies the means" attitude. Justice Gorsuch is right: _Chevron_ needs to be overturned and Congress needs to be forced to make actual laws.

I've had this complaint since 1986. Where have you been?

And when a tiny few of us here express our concern for the nation, what is the response?
Astonishingly it is,
I didn't vote for him.

Well, I didn't! I sat out the last presidential race. I thought he was a poor choice--and I've been confirmed in that belief.

Obama and Clinton were bad, too.

If you are going to complain about the overuse of executive order, then yes, you need to take responsibility for what other presidents have done.

If you are going to complain about Trump cheating on his wife and lying about it, then yes, you have to deal with President Clinton.

It's called having a consistent argument/ethic and believing that the rules need to apply to everyone equally. If you didn't complain about Obama's abuse of executive orders, and if you excused Clinton's bedding of interns in the White House, then don't go complaining now. Welcome to being hoisted on your own petard.

Hilary would have been worse? (Please explain that one.)

Time doesn't allow me...

Your criticism is based on the wrong thing, he's not Cromwell.

You either misunderstand or deliberately misstate the argument: quoting Cromwell makes no sense. He's the very opposite of what those quoting him want to see happen. It's like the guy I argued with who quoted Woodrow Wilson on civil rights. Wilson was a racist who desegregated the government, bringing Jim Crow to Washington. Quoting him on civil rights made no sense at all.

The liberals are the enemies of the Church.

Just call it what it is: a red herring.

It's all a plot by the liberal media.

Who has been shouting "Russia! Russia! Russia!" and "Collusion! Collusion! Collusion!" for the past two years? Perhaps some self-reflection and humility from your colleagues in journalism might be in order.

The immigrants are all illegal and should be jailed.

Please substantiate this sentence. Who has said this and where?

Tell me when, online folk, the level of misconduct will arise to a point where you express some concern for the office of the Presidency, for our nation, for the people hurt by his lies and actions.

I can point out many on the right who have done this: David French, Richard Lowry, and  Jonah Goldberg have done so in _National Review_. (Which you probably haven't read). Ben Shapiro did so on Bill Maher. Michael Graham did so in his column this morning in the _Boston Herald_. Not to mention people like Michael Gershon and Bret Stephens in the _New York Times_.

It's out there in many journals and online places on the right. You just haven't read any of them.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: PlainOldPastor on August 23, 2018, 03:31:25 PM
Ok, Charles.

I’m “concerned for the Office Of the Presidency, our nation, and those who are hurt by his lies and actions”.

What, pray tell, aside from Voting Against Trump and Other Candidates Who Support Him, an action which you have already pooh-poohed, should I do about the situation? Go make up a tagboard sign and stand out in front of the White House, protesting him? Sorry, it’s too difficult to breastfeed a little one while standing. I’ve tried it, and we both get frustrated.  Call my congressman and tell him Trump’s a meanie? Yeah, I’ve already spent too much time on the phone with Portico of late, trying to make sure the claims filed during the Babe’s NICU stay were done correctly - I can’t handle more bureaucracy right now. Send strongly worded emails to local candidates about their support for Trump? Right. I’ve already got a sermon, newsletter, and stuff for Augsburg Fortress that needs to be written this week.

“Citizen” is only one of my many present vocations. At this moment in time, about all I can muster is paying taxes on time and in full, researching candidates, and voting. I’m sorry if that’s not good enough for you, but you’ll have to figure out how to get on with your life.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on August 23, 2018, 03:33:01 PM
The lies now approach proof of obstruction of justice, illegal use of campaign funds, illegal campaign donations, and actions directly traceable to "the candidate."

http://video.foxnews.com/v/5825546714001/?#sp=show-clips
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on August 23, 2018, 03:41:47 PM
What Trump does in his sex life is of no concern to me at all. What he does with his money and the power he has as president is of concern to me.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: James_Gale on August 23, 2018, 03:51:14 PM
What Trump does in his sex life is of no concern to me at all. What he does with his money and the power he has as president is of concern to me.


Based on what we know now, Trump’s actions were morally reprensible, politically fraught, and likely not in violation of any criminal laws.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: RandyBosch on August 23, 2018, 03:52:35 PM
What Trump does in his sex life is of no concern to me at all. What he does with his money and the power he has as president is of concern to me.

You think that will get you off the hook for looking the other way as former President Clinton did the same or worse.
Most people on this Forum are truly concerned about the immorality and divergence from Christian teachings that Trump's alleged sex life represent.

To say that you have no concern about that "at all" is a stunning indictment of your morality, and coming from a Christian Pastor (or are you The Reverend now?) is of concern to all of us.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on August 23, 2018, 04:11:48 PM
This morning the Boston Herald reported that, out of the 75 days until the mid-term elections, POTUS will spend 40 of them campaigning for Republican candidates. "In the month of September alone the president will travel to campaign in Montana, Missouri, both Dakotas, Nevada, Tennessee and Kentucky. Next week’s he’ll be in Indiana for Mike Braun’s Senate campaign. Trump will also campaign in competitive House races in districts in New York, Ohio, Montana and Pennsylvania, among others."

I don't know, but this doesn't sound like "Senior Republicans are now advising that candidates distance themselves from the president" to me. Maybe you have a different definition.


Did the report indicate if President Trump was invited to come and campaign by the Republican candidates, or if was that a unilateral decision on his part?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: peter_speckhard on August 23, 2018, 04:20:59 PM
I always love it when the articles add that whatever candidate Trump and his campaign managers were doing was, "with the intent to influence the outcome of an election."
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on August 23, 2018, 04:55:18 PM
Isn't that what campaigns and campaign managers are for, to influence the election in the direction of the candidate?  Of course, some tactics are illegal.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: scott9 on August 23, 2018, 04:56:54 PM
...illegal use of campaign funds, illegal campaign donations...

Wait, which president are we talking about? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-campaign-to-pay-375000-fine-for-omitting-some-donors-names-in-2008/2013/01/04/78973402-56bb-11e2-8b9e-dd8773594efc_story.html?utm_term=.619cd7df9a0e)

[[I'm re-posting this because I had accidentally quoted the wrong original post]]
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on August 23, 2018, 05:51:08 PM
Thinking as a citizen of this country, I'm not pastorally concerned about the president's sex life.
As a Christian, we have to go to that old trope, we're all sinners, right? Want to talk about morality? Mrs. Clinton stayed with her marriage. (How many marriages has Trump had?) Any charges about sexual misconduct pointed at President Obama? At President Carter?
It has been noted that Trump's sex life was probably not illegal. But some other things in his life, maybe partly connected to his sex life, could be.
But I shall try not to discuss the President in this modest forum. Can't seen any value in it and responses just make me sad.
 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: scott9 on August 23, 2018, 06:00:30 PM
But I shall try not to discuss the President in this modest forum.

Didn't you start this thread to do just that?

From your initial post that inaugurated the thread:

I doubt this topic will last long in this modest forum; for it is nowhere near "theological" enough, nor does it have to do with sexuality (at least not mostly) or abortion.
But, can anyone with any sense of morality not be shocked and outraged at the astonishing performance of our president this week?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: jebutler on August 23, 2018, 06:22:49 PM
This morning the Boston Herald reported that, out of the 75 days until the mid-term elections, POTUS will spend 40 of them campaigning for Republican candidates. "In the month of September alone the president will travel to campaign in Montana, Missouri, both Dakotas, Nevada, Tennessee and Kentucky. Next week’s he’ll be in Indiana for Mike Braun’s Senate campaign. Trump will also campaign in competitive House races in districts in New York, Ohio, Montana and Pennsylvania, among others."

I don't know, but this doesn't sound like "Senior Republicans are now advising that candidates distance themselves from the president" to me. Maybe you have a different definition.

Did the report indicate if President Trump was invited to come and campaign by the Republican candidates, or if was that a unilateral decision on his part?

No, it did not. But I would assume it would be a mutual decision.

My guess is that in those places, e.g. Tennessee and North Dakota, where they think Trump's appearance will be helpful, he'll go there. In places where they don't, he won't.

Some candidates will advertise their loyalty to the Trump agenda, others will distance themselves from it.

This is no different than other elections. Six years ago, Elizabeth Warren highlighted her close relationship to the Obama administration and he came to Massachusetts to campaign for her. Joe Machin in West Virginia put out an ad showing him putting a bullet through Obamacare and talking about his independence from him.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on August 23, 2018, 06:27:42 PM
And, Dr. Yak, it was a bad idea to do start this discussion in this place.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: D. Engebretson on August 23, 2018, 06:59:48 PM
Just out of curiosity, which president or presidents would members of this forum put forward as the best modern examples of morality? 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: James S. Rustad on August 23, 2018, 07:12:31 PM
"Now we can see the dilemma the Trump campaign faced. It could pay with funds from outside the campaign, risking prosecution for failing to use campaign funds or file reports. Or it could pay with campaign funds, risking prosecution for an illegal diversion of campaign funds to personal use. "Heads I win. Tails you lose." Such are our complex campaign finance laws."

http://reason.com/archives/2018/08/23/trumps-campaign-finance-catch-22
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on August 23, 2018, 07:27:54 PM
This morning the Boston Herald reported that, out of the 75 days until the mid-term elections, POTUS will spend 40 of them campaigning for Republican candidates. "In the month of September alone the president will travel to campaign in Montana, Missouri, both Dakotas, Nevada, Tennessee and Kentucky. Next week’s he’ll be in Indiana for Mike Braun’s Senate campaign. Trump will also campaign in competitive House races in districts in New York, Ohio, Montana and Pennsylvania, among others."

I don't know, but this doesn't sound like "Senior Republicans are now advising that candidates distance themselves from the president" to me. Maybe you have a different definition.

Did the report indicate if President Trump was invited to come and campaign by the Republican candidates, or if was that a unilateral decision on his part?

No, it did not. But I would assume it would be a mutual decision.


Ohio Gov. Kosich has stated that President Trump was not invited to the Ohio rally for Troy Balderson who is running for the House - that Balderson told him that he had no say in it.


A number of news articles have reported this specific case. I haven't research others.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: gan ainm on August 23, 2018, 07:59:08 PM
Just out of curiosity, which president or presidents would members of this forum put forward as the best modern examples of morality?

For President of the United States only the yet to be elected, hopefully.   ;) 

Realistically, I doubt that anyone who wishes to be in a higher secular (and possibly sacred) office would rank very high on a morality scale.  I personally only know of one elected secular representative who I would say is a model of moral behavior and that is a state representative.  A very big ego and exemplary morals do not go together very well, either in the secular or sacred realm, in my opinion. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: J.L. Precup on August 23, 2018, 08:46:30 PM
Just out of curiosity, which president or presidents would members of this forum put forward as the best modern examples of morality?

As an example of morality, I would say Jimmy Carter fits that.

Now don't argue with me regarding how good of president he was.  The question is about an example of morality, not presidential success.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: peter_speckhard on August 23, 2018, 08:51:04 PM
Just out of curiosity, which president or presidents would members of this forum put forward as the best modern examples of morality?

As an example of morality, I would say Jimmy Carter fits that.

Now don't argue with me regarding how good of president he was.  The question is about an example of morality, not presidential success.
I agree. He is and was s decent, principled, honorable man.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Weedon on August 23, 2018, 09:08:15 PM
Concur. I was going to mention Carter earlier. Machiavelli would say: “See, I told you so.”
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dave Likeness on August 23, 2018, 10:04:13 PM
Jimmy Carter said, "I believe Jesus Christ would approve gay marriage"

He would not be welcome as a Sunday School Teacher in any LCMS parish.
Deep down he is a liberal who parades as a devout Baptist. As an ex-President
he gained popularity  pounding nails for Habitat For Humanity.  As an inept
President he said, "The Presidency is too big a responsibility for one man."
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: jebutler on August 23, 2018, 10:15:56 PM
Jimmy Carter said, "I believe Jesus Christ would approve gay marriage"

He would not become welcome as a Sunday School Teacher in any LCMS parish.
Deep down he is a liberal who parades as a devout Baptist.

Why cannot Carter be both liberal and a devout Baptist? He's never hidden the fact that he, like Bill Moyers, is on the liberal side of the Southern Baptists.

I disagree with Carter on the issue of same sex marriage. I also disagree with many of political viewpoints. But there is no question that he is an honorable and moral man. I think the same of George H. W. Bush--another man of great honor and morality.

Besides, Carter was the president who signed the law allowing for beer to be home brewed which opened the door for all of wonderful craft breweries in America (H.R. 1337 in 1978). Anyone who signed that bill into law can't be all bad!
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 05, 2018, 06:59:15 AM
Lest one think that we who do not support the current man in the Oval Office are "joyful" over the revelations in the book by Bob Woodward, let me assure you we are not. I am - as I have been since last November - sad, disturbed and more than a little concerned for our nation. Even if some errors are found in the book (and I doubt that there will be any significant ones), the description of the White House and the president ought to be cause for grave reflection on our times.
The president's own lawyers do not want him to testify under oath because they - his own lawyers - believe he is incapable of telling the truth. The president's own staff has to resort to deception to keep him from some disastrous actions, including planning a pre-emptive air strike against North Korea. The president, despite the fact that the whole country knew otherwise, believed that John McCain took early release from the POW camp, offered because his father was an admiral, when he did the exact opposite - refused early release.
In a taped conversation with Woodward, the president apologized because his staff did not forward Woodward's request for an interview and said to Woodward "I think you've always been fair."
Now we know he has been mocking Southerners as stupid and making fun of their accent and snarking at Lt. Gen. H.R. McMAster for not wearing more expensive suits.
Now let us see what his supporters and the Republican toadies in Congress will have to say.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: PlainOldPastor on September 05, 2018, 09:03:33 AM
Lest one think that we who do not support the current man in the Oval Office are "joyful" over the revelations in the book by Bob Woodward, let me assure you we are not. I am - as I have been since last November - sad, disturbed and more than a little concerned for our nation. Even if some errors are found in the book (and I doubt that there will be any significant ones), the description of the White House and the president ought to be cause for grave reflection on our times.
The president's own lawyers do not want him to testify under oath because they - his own lawyers - believe he is incapable of telling the truth. The president's own staff has to resort to deception to keep him from some disastrous actions, including planning a pre-emptive air strike against North Korea. The president, despite the fact that the whole country knew otherwise, believed that John McCain took early release from the POW camp, offered because his father was an admiral, when he did the exact opposite - refused early release.
In a taped conversation with Woodward, the president apologized because his staff did not forward Woodward's request for an interview and said to Woodward "I think you've always been fair."
Now we know he has been mocking Southerners as stupid and making fun of their accent and snarking at Lt. Gen. H.R. McMAster for not wearing more expensive suits.
Now let us see what his supporters and the Republican toadies in Congress will have to say.

Ok.

Just a point of clarification, though. Do you think there are any Fepublicans in Congress who aren’t “toadies”? Yes or no?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: gan ainm on September 05, 2018, 09:47:47 AM
I particularly enjoyed the readings today in my Pray Now app.  The Ephesians entire passage 4:25-5:14 is great (particularly about Christians letting no corrupting talk come out of their mouths and  building up rather than tearing down).  It reminded me that for those whose goal is equality (in practice, not just in truth and spirit) there seems to be two distinct strategies in politics (yes, I'm stereotyping based on observation):

Republicans - build up (give a hand up not a hand out) those lower on the totem pole so they can enjoy some of what those better off have,

Democrats - tear down the well off (except for themselves of course) so they fall to the lowest common denominator by excessive distribution of wealth.

Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 05, 2018, 10:25:22 AM
 Yes, POP, there are Republicans in Congress who aren’t toadies. And now is the time for them to speak up.  They have been rather silent, or not active enough. I’m hearing interesting words from Ben Sasse of Nebraska.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Linda on September 05, 2018, 10:55:06 AM
Both Kelly and Mattis have disputed saying what's in Woodward's book.  If Woodward taped his interviews, he would do us all a service by publicly airing the actual interviews. 

Linda
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: D. Engebretson on September 05, 2018, 11:03:12 AM
Both Kelly and Mattis have disputed saying what's in Woodward's book.  If Woodward taped his interviews, he would do us all a service by publicly airing the actual interviews. 

Linda

The two men you mention are retired generals.  I would assume them to be men of honor and truthfulness.  With a choice between Woodward and Kelly/Mattis, are we now being asked to declare the generals liars? 

These are confusing and difficult times....
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 05, 2018, 11:12:17 AM
Lest one think that we who do not support the current man in the Oval Office are "joyful" over the revelations in the book by Bob Woodward, let me assure you we are not. I am - as I have been since last November - sad, disturbed and more than a little concerned for our nation. Even if some errors are found in the book (and I doubt that there will be any significant ones), the description of the White House and the president ought to be cause for grave reflection on our times.
The president's own lawyers do not want him to testify under oath because they - his own lawyers - believe he is incapable of telling the truth. The president's own staff has to resort to deception to keep him from some disastrous actions, including planning a pre-emptive air strike against North Korea. The president, despite the fact that the whole country knew otherwise, believed that John McCain took early release from the POW camp, offered because his father was an admiral, when he did the exact opposite - refused early release.
In a taped conversation with Woodward, the president apologized because his staff did not forward Woodward's request for an interview and said to Woodward "I think you've always been fair."
Now we know he has been mocking Southerners as stupid and making fun of their accent and snarking at Lt. Gen. H.R. McMAster for not wearing more expensive suits.
Now let us see what his supporters and the Republican toadies in Congress will have to say.
There is a an old sit-com starring Chris Elliot called Get a Life, and in one episode the main character goes to the Big City and thinks his wallet was stolen. A reporter writes an article about the heartlessness of the city, and the main character becomes an overnight media sensation and the toast of the town. Then it turns out he never did get his wallet stolen, he just accidentally left it at home. The press turns on him, and one of the great headlines is "Evil Moron Dupes City!" That's the headline I always see over these breathless recitations of how awful Trump is. 

At the end of the day it is not a question of what Trump and his supporters in congress are going to do. They're doing what they were elected to do, probably for first time in three decades. The real question is for you and your side, Charles. What are you going to do? Given that you lost an election to the biggest buffoon in the history of politics, what does that say about your side? How will you peel away Trump voters so that he loses in 2020? Right now it looks like your strategy is to keep shouting louder about how terrible Trump is. My guess is that strategy won't work.   
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Don Whitbeck on September 05, 2018, 11:22:07 AM
I doubt this topic will last long in this modest forum; for it is nowhere near "theological" enough, nor does it have to do with sexuality (at least not mostly) or abortion.
But, can anyone with any sense of morality not be shocked and outraged at the astonishing performance of our president this week?
He attacks our own intelligence agencies, and says he believes what the Russians tell him.
He blames our justice system for badly affecting relations with Russia, meanwhile suggesting that Russia's stellar "justice system" could help ours deal with his problem.
He brag about his "brilliant" election campaign and obsesses with Mrs. Clinton in a most inappropriate arena.
He refuses to confront Russia's aggression in the world.
His words, either lies, astonishingly stupid or actually treasonous, shock former CIA directors and agents and politicians from both parties.
He weakens NATO with his bombastic bluster, and falls prey to the sneaky dealings of North Korea's dictator. He angers our best friends in the world including - can you imagine? - Canada.
And Putin says he didn't know Trump was in Moscow back in “those” days. Trump claims he had contact with Putin during those days. (But he waffled on that comment, too.)
This is a level of immorality or incompetence or stupidity or something worse that has to shock anyone with any sense of patriotism or decency.
Now close the meeting, moderators. This is not the kind of morality that anyone here cares about.

Of all the smug, condescending posts, this one hits a new level.  It is in tone and attitude almost worthy to be a Trump Tweet, except that it is much longer.  Even Trump cannot bend the character limits on Twitter.  Only good and angry Progressives like Pr. Austin have any sense of honor, decency or morality.  Since the rest of us haven't jumped on the Progressive, "Ain't Trump Just the Most Awful" bandwagon, we are morally bankrupt.


So, which type of disagreement are you posting? See Graham's Hierarchy of Disagreement chart.

Brian, you should put this on some of your own posts!  Your use of it isn't warrented here, I don't think. Doesn't help matters in anyway or add to the discussion!

Thank You!

Don
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 05, 2018, 12:45:02 PM
Pastor Englebretson writes:
The two men you mention are retired generals.  I would assume them to be men of honor and truthfulness.  With a choice between Woodward and Kelly/Mattis, are we now being asked to declare the generals liars? 
I comment:
Why would you assume that? Have generals never ever lied? And why would you assume that Woodward, with two Pulitzer Prizes, his work really dependent upon him getting it right, is lying in this book? Why would he risk ruining his reputation, his livelihood, not to mention risking numerous lawsuits, by not getting things like this correct?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on September 05, 2018, 12:45:38 PM
The two men you mention are retired generals.  I would assume them to be men of honor and truthfulness.  With a choice between Woodward and Kelly/Mattis, are we now being asked to declare the generals liars? 
These are confusing and difficult times....

Well, are we being asked to assume the president of the US is a lot of the time, a liar?  We used to assume most presidents, mostly, to be truthful folks who corrected errors and had scads of people checking their statements before they tweeted (if they ever tweeted) them out unchecked.

One can probably assume that they are slicing the truth and what the newsman wrote with a fine tool... something that is not an exact truth, exact wording, has grammatical correction, whatever, is certainly not what I said.  Or they subscribe to the belief that they must say whatever they do to protect the country and so that they may remain near to keep on doing so.  That too is a possibility, the wisdom of which will only be known in the future. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on September 05, 2018, 12:50:00 PM
I’m hearing interesting words from Ben Sasse of Nebraska.

Indeed.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/04/sen-sasse-at-kavanaugh-hearing-tears-into-congress-over-politicized-circus.html
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on September 05, 2018, 12:52:37 PM
Why would you assume that? Have generals never ever lied? And why would you assume that Woodward, with two Pulitzer Prizes, his work really dependent upon him getting it right, is lying in this book? Why would he risk ruining his reputation, his livelihood, not to mention risking numerous lawsuits, by not getting things like this correct?

To sell books and make money?

Woodward never heard such things directly from the generals. He heard what folks like to call hearsay.

I'll go with the direct source, thank you.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 05, 2018, 01:17:30 PM
Why would you assume that? Have generals never ever lied? And why would you assume that Woodward, with two Pulitzer Prizes, his work really dependent upon him getting it right, is lying in this book? Why would he risk ruining his reputation, his livelihood, not to mention risking numerous lawsuits, by not getting things like this correct?

To sell books and make money?

Woodward never heard such things directly from the generals. He heard what folks like to call hearsay.

I'll go with the direct source, thank you.
This is an important point. What the generals think of the president can be ascertained by asking them, not by reporting second hand about what was shouted in heated discussions. People with an appetite for scandal prefer the juicy insider info to simply asking, but having an appetite for scandal is not an honorable thing in its own right.

I've seen lots of juicy accounts of election night that explain why Hillary Clinton did not make an appearance at her headquarters to thank her faithful supporters or publicly make any kind of concession speech. Apart from some explanation it was one of the most classless election nights on record in terms of the loser's behavior. But a mere appetite for scandal and savoring the humiliation of an enemy is not an impulse to be indulged.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 05, 2018, 03:09:35 PM
“Appetite for scandal “and “humiliation of the enemy”. So, that’s putting a pretty good construction on the work of a journalist.  So there’s no chance at all that he just wanted to find out the truth and tell it? So there’s no chance at all that someone, OMG!, a Journalist, might have the health of the nation in mind?
 How ironic! When I am always accused of thinking the worst of LCMS pastors. And now, sad to say, I’m beginning to do so.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Voelker on September 05, 2018, 03:25:46 PM
Pastor Englebretson writes:
The two men you mention are retired generals.  I would assume them to be men of honor and truthfulness.  With a choice between Woodward and Kelly/Mattis, are we now being asked to declare the generals liars? 
I comment:
Why would you assume that? Have generals never ever lied? And why would you assume that Woodward, with two Pulitzer Prizes, his work really dependent upon him getting it right, is lying in this book? Why would he risk ruining his reputation, his livelihood, not to mention risking numerous lawsuits, by not getting things like this correct?
Woodward hasn't been a journalist for decades. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on September 05, 2018, 03:40:28 PM
“Appetite for scandal “and “humiliation of the enemy”. So, that’s putting a pretty good construction on the work of a journalist.  So there’s no chance at all that he just wanted to find out the truth and tell it? So there’s no chance at all that someone, OMG!, a Journalist, might have the health of the nation in mind?
 How ironic! When I am always accused of thinking the worst of LCMS pastors. And now, sad to say, I’m beginning to do so.

Speaking of best construction, you won't assume the two retired generals to be men of honor and truthfulness, choosing instead to go with what folks call hearsay over public responses from those fine men.

The Syndrome is alive and well.

Pastor Englebretson writes:
The two men you mention are retired generals.  I would assume them to be men of honor and truthfulness.  With a choice between Woodward and Kelly/Mattis, are we now being asked to declare the generals liars? 
I comment:
Why would you assume that? Have generals never ever lied?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on September 05, 2018, 03:44:14 PM
If almost all that Woodward has written are lies, he will not only end up with a dozen eggs on his face but worse than that, end up being the laughing stock of journalism... now do you suppose he is taking a chance that might happen?  And if 25% of what he wrote is true... that is enough to be terrifying and testing of our nation.  And if it is a great deal more....  someone has to figure out how to safely transit the future with such a unstable president. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 05, 2018, 03:51:05 PM
“Appetite for scandal “and “humiliation of the enemy”. So, that’s putting a pretty good construction on the work of a journalist.  So there’s no chance at all that he just wanted to find out the truth and tell it? So there’s no chance at all that someone, OMG!, a Journalist, might have the health of the nation in mind?
 How ironic! When I am always accused of thinking the worst of LCMS pastors. And now, sad to say, I’m beginning to do so.
Where on earth did you get the idea that I was suggesting there was "no chance at all" he had the health of the nation in mind or simply wanted to report? I never said, implied, or suggested anything like that.

I said that if anyone wanted to know what these generals thought, they could ask the generals. We have one account that is hearsay from someone who stands to gain in every way by sensationalizing or selecting the most extreme interpretation, and a contrary version directly from the people involved, who stand to gain by downplaying or outright denying that sensational account. Generals sometimes lie. Journalists sometimes lie, exaggerate, mislead, or selectively report. Generals and journalists are sinners.

You, as a journalist, characterized my post as though I had suggested there was "no chance at all" Woodward was just being honest for honorable motives. So, given that you see the discrepancy between the obvious fact of my post and your characterization of it as tolerably within the bounds of decency, then I'm saying that perhaps what really transpired and how Woodward reported them could be as different as my post and your characterization of it without violating your sense of journalistic honor. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 05, 2018, 04:32:15 PM
I am not the subject of this discussion. What kind of dodge is it to avoid the biggest subject, and focus on whether I have it right or have stated it correctly or am relying on the right kind of information? Can anyone express a bit of concern about the state of our nation, the condition of our president, and what dangers lie ahead If the chaos and the madness in the Oval Office continues?
As for the comments from the general, let me tell you how this works. You hear that someone said something. You ask around about it. People who have no stake in lying to you tell you that the person said it. Then you ask the person. They either say they didn’t say it or that they were misunderstood. Then you make a decision as to which version you believe.
That’s how it works in the real world of reporting. And I make this observation, namely, that the “higher“ the person, the greater chance that he or she is lying to you. So when several persons said he said it, and he himself waffles, you make a decision.

Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 05, 2018, 04:56:21 PM

Whenever any of us have expressed concern over the direction that the United States is taken, you have always accused us of playing Chicken Little.  Perhaps you have simply taken over that role.  Your rule of thumb seems to be that proper regard for journalism demands that any journalistic accusation against Pres. Trump be simply believed with no question.  Any rebuttal is to be  ruled out of court, anyone who would deny any report against Pres. Trump is ipso facto a venial stooge.


For about two years now we have been told to expect that at any day the Trump administration is simply going to collapse in ruin.  I'm not holding my breath.  There is much not to be admired about Donald Trump, as there has been about many politicians.


So, once again you tell us that the sky is falling and excoriating us for asking if that information is right rather than focusing on the falling sky.  What do you suggest we do about that, other than praising you for your prescience?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Steven W Bohler on September 05, 2018, 05:23:27 PM
"Put not your trust in princes" -- unless they be of my party.  "All men are liars" -- except for those who report/write that which is in line with my beliefs.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dave Likeness on September 05, 2018, 05:24:00 PM
Concerning "Morality" in our Land, I believe Elvis Presley said it best:

"If you find your sweetheart in the arms of your best friend, that's when your heartaches begin.
Because you see love is a thing you never can share, and when you bring a friend into your love affair,
that's the end of a lifetime, that's the end of a dream, yeah, that's when your heartaches begin."
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: readselerttoo on September 05, 2018, 05:28:55 PM
"Put not your trust in princes" -- unless they be of my party.  "All men are liars" -- except for those who report/write that which is in line with my beliefs.

Heh heh.  Nice.   8)
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on September 05, 2018, 05:47:43 PM
with the latest op ed in mind I suppose we can suspect that the major news organization hired Charles to write the piece and are passing it off, fake news, as some appointed WH personage... or is it some janitor or part of the kitchen staff or could it be someone fairly knowledgeable stating something really sad and sick about your know who?  the odds are not good that major news outfits are taking a chance on a nobody who knows nothing or a completely fictional account written by a staff member... 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: scott9 on September 05, 2018, 05:50:14 PM
with the latest op ed in mind...

Yes -- a requiem for journalism is in order.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 05, 2018, 05:59:49 PM
It may be that once again, the sharing of information will actually save the Presidency and our nation From those who for personal gain or because of stupidity or madness would do it harm.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 05, 2018, 06:01:22 PM
I am not the subject of this discussion. What kind of dodge is it to avoid the biggest subject, and focus on whether I have it right or have stated it correctly or am relying on the right kind of information? Can anyone express a bit of concern about the state of our nation, the condition of our president, and what dangers lie ahead If the chaos and the madness in the Oval Office continues?
As for the comments from the general, let me tell you how this works. You hear that someone said something. You ask around about it. People who have no stake in lying to you tell you that the person said it. Then you ask the person. They either say they didn’t say it or that they were misunderstood. Then you make a decision as to which version you believe.
That’s how it works in the real world of reporting. And I make this observation, namely, that the “higher“ the person, the greater chance that he or she is lying to you. So when several persons said he said it, and he himself waffles, you make a decision.
I am not making you the subject. The subject is how people might interpret Woodward's book in light of the denials from people reputed to have said certain things. And I think it is quite relevant to that subject to point to the difference between my post and how you characterized my post, and how that difference might be within journalistic standards of integrity, and those standards might apply to Woodward's book.

In the real world of responsible reporting, Dan Rather went with a story he knew to be fake and did so for tor the purpose of hurting the Republican candidate's chances in an election. That isn't a disputable fact. Is there no chance, no chance at all that Bob Woodward might only have the same level of integrity as Dan Rather? 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 05, 2018, 06:20:15 PM
Was anyone supposed to be surprised by anything in the NYT op-ed? Was there anyone who didn't think Trump was at odds with the "steady state?" That he is a boorish person who is almost impossible to work with? That he is impetuous and generally hard to stomach? Everybody on the planet knew all of those things before the 2016 election. This may as well have been an article revealing that the stunning insider scoop that Trump's hair looks stupid, he wears really long ties, and his skin often appears to be a creepy orange color. Well, that changes everything!



 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: James_Gale on September 05, 2018, 06:24:31 PM
I am not the subject of this discussion. What kind of dodge is it to avoid the biggest subject, and focus on whether I have it right or have stated it correctly or am relying on the right kind of information? Can anyone express a bit of concern about the state of our nation, the condition of our president, and what dangers lie ahead If the chaos and the madness in the Oval Office continues?
As for the comments from the general, let me tell you how this works. You hear that someone said something. You ask around about it. People who have no stake in lying to you tell you that the person said it. Then you ask the person. They either say they didn’t say it or that they were misunderstood. Then you make a decision as to which version you believe.
That’s how it works in the real world of reporting. And I make this observation, namely, that the “higher“ the person, the greater chance that he or she is lying to you. So when several persons said he said it, and he himself waffles, you make a decision.
I am not making you the subject. The subject is how people might interpret Woodward's book in light of the denials from people reputed to have said certain things. And I think it is quite relevant to that subject to point to the difference between my post and how you characterized my post, and how that difference might be within journalistic standards of integrity, and those standards might apply to Woodward's book.

In the real world of responsible reporting, Dan Rather went with a story he knew to be fake and did so for tor the purpose of hurting the Republican candidate's chances in an election. That isn't a disputable fact. Is there no chance, no chance at all that Bob Woodward might only have the same level of integrity as Dan Rather?


That's possible.  It's also possible that Woodward is accurately quoting his anonymous sources.  In that event, Woodward likely believed those sources, although we can't know that for sure.  Nor can we evaluate the credibility of those sources because we don't know who they are, what biases they might harbor, or how they might know what they disclosed to Woodward.  Strong denials from Donald Trump alone wouldn't convince me of much.  Strong denials from Secretary Mattis are another matter.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on September 05, 2018, 06:26:20 PM
but Peter the things you list are quite another thing when compared to saying unhinged things about what we should do militarily or against allies or diplomatically...

and you asked if Woodward could be doing what Rather did... and of course we have the new OP ED tonight to add to the mix... but it is not one story that Woodward is putting forward, it is by all we hear... many peoples various accounts that do not relate to the way he cares for his hair... and the Op Ed indicates also that many at the top have serious concerns...   
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 05, 2018, 06:26:51 PM
One thing is for sure. This forum is in line with the highest standards of journalism by allowing anonymous posters. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on September 05, 2018, 06:31:47 PM
Peter, that is a diversionary argument...

I do not get to evaluate anonymous posters in any way.... nor am I assured that even you as moderators can do so... 

the assumption (I know that is an assumption) is that the anonymous poster to the NYT is known by several in that paper and it has been attested that he or she is who he or she has said they are in relationship to the WH. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 05, 2018, 06:34:04 PM
but Peter the things you list are quite another thing when compared to saying unhinged things about what we should do militarily or against allies or diplomatically...

and you asked if Woodward could be doing what Rather did... and of course we have the new OP ED tonight to add to the mix... but it is not one story that Woodward is putting forward, it is by all we hear... many peoples various accounts that do not relate to the way he cares for his hair... and the Op Ed indicates also that many at the top have serious concerns...
What about the op-ed surprises you? My point was that the sort of person Trump is was perfectly discernible before the 2016 election and nothing in this op-ed really adds anything new. My point was not to compare military discussions to hair styles but that Trump's bombastic, blowhard style of doing things is as visible to everyone as his tie, face, and hair. An anonymous op-ed from a high level, embedded member of the "resistance" should have been able to share something everyone didn't already know.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 05, 2018, 06:35:23 PM
Peter, that is a diversionary argument...

I do not get to evaluate anonymous posters in any way.... nor am I assured that even you as moderators can do so... 

the assumption (I know that is an assumption) is that the anonymous poster to the NYT is known by several in that paper and it has been attested that he or she is who he or she has said they are in relationship to the WH.
Sheesh Harvey, it was a joke, not a diversionary argument.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 05, 2018, 06:41:24 PM
I am not the subject of this discussion. What kind of dodge is it to avoid the biggest subject, and focus on whether I have it right or have stated it correctly or am relying on the right kind of information? Can anyone express a bit of concern about the state of our nation, the condition of our president, and what dangers lie ahead If the chaos and the madness in the Oval Office continues?
As for the comments from the general, let me tell you how this works. You hear that someone said something. You ask around about it. People who have no stake in lying to you tell you that the person said it. Then you ask the person. They either say they didn’t say it or that they were misunderstood. Then you make a decision as to which version you believe.
That’s how it works in the real world of reporting. And I make this observation, namely, that the “higher“ the person, the greater chance that he or she is lying to you. So when several persons said he said it, and he himself waffles, you make a decision.
I am not making you the subject. The subject is how people might interpret Woodward's book in light of the denials from people reputed to have said certain things. And I think it is quite relevant to that subject to point to the difference between my post and how you characterized my post, and how that difference might be within journalistic standards of integrity, and those standards might apply to Woodward's book.


The people who are denying that they said such things are working for a president whose lies and exaggerations are well documented, e.g., the largest crowd at his inauguration. Why wouldn't we expect the same from his hand-picked staff?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on September 05, 2018, 06:48:00 PM
sorry, Peter, I did not know it was merely a joke.  I understand it now as a joke.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on September 05, 2018, 06:49:53 PM
I am not the subject of this discussion. What kind of dodge is it to avoid the biggest subject, and focus on whether I have it right or have stated it correctly or am relying on the right kind of information? Can anyone express a bit of concern about the state of our nation, the condition of our president, and what dangers lie ahead If the chaos and the madness in the Oval Office continues?
As for the comments from the general, let me tell you how this works. You hear that someone said something. You ask around about it. People who have no stake in lying to you tell you that the person said it. Then you ask the person. They either say they didn’t say it or that they were misunderstood. Then you make a decision as to which version you believe.
That’s how it works in the real world of reporting. And I make this observation, namely, that the “higher“ the person, the greater chance that he or she is lying to you. So when several persons said he said it, and he himself waffles, you make a decision.
I am not making you the subject. The subject is how people might interpret Woodward's book in light of the denials from people reputed to have said certain things. And I think it is quite relevant to that subject to point to the difference between my post and how you characterized my post, and how that difference might be within journalistic standards of integrity, and those standards might apply to Woodward's book.


The people who are denying that they said such things are working for a president whose lies and exaggerations are well documented, e.g., the largest crowd at his inauguration. Why wouldn't we expect the same from his hand-picked staff?

Good grief! Does your absurdity (illogic) know no bounds?! Now the ad hominem against these two fine men?   ::)
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Robert Johnson on September 05, 2018, 06:53:36 PM
That's possible.  It's also possible that Woodward is accurately quoting his anonymous sources. 

Maybe.  But he has a checkered history about being truthful.

In 2016, https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/bob-woodwards-sins-omission/ (https://www.commentarymagazine.com/articles/bob-woodwards-sins-omission/) made this point (in the context of lies about Watergate):

Quote
The fact is that Woodward’s journalistic reputation has been under assault for some time, starting with the controversies surrounding his books about John Belushi (1985’s Wired) and Reagan-era CIA director William Casey (1987’s Veil), and most thoroughly in Silent Coup. But the worst hits have come in just the last few years.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 05, 2018, 07:22:12 PM
Pastor Kirchner writes:
Now the ad hominem against these two fine men?   

I muse:
And how do you know they are "fine"? Do you know anything about them except their rank? Does achieving that rank automatically make you among the "find men"? Sheesh!
As for the new Op-Ed:
Notice that it is written by someone who wants the president's agenda to succeed, who subscribes to the principles and platforms of the Republican Party. Notice that the person believes it is the erratic behavior, personal obsessions, and general ignorance of the president that is getting in the way of the "real" program and doing dangerous things.
As for the anonymity, I have said before that I believe there is a time and place for that. This ALPB forum is not the place and this is not the time.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on September 05, 2018, 07:27:37 PM
Pastor Kirchner writes:
Now the ad hominem against these two fine men?   

I muse:
And how do you know they are "fine"? Do you know anything about them except their rank? Does achieving that rank automatically make you among the "find men"? Sheesh!

They are fine men for having honorably served our country, Charles, with a code of honor, and in positions of integrity. Versus your anonymous sources, which you usually decry as gutless.

The Syndrome...
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 05, 2018, 07:58:51 PM
You do know, of course, but the military is not the only group in the country with a code of honor And integrity.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on September 05, 2018, 08:05:45 PM
You do know, of course, but the military is not the only group in the country with a code of honor And integrity.

Well, let’s hear it, Charles. For that to be relevant anonymous sources also would have a code of honor and integrity. Let’s hear it, Charles!
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 05, 2018, 08:49:41 PM
It is interesting to hear Pr. Austin defending anonymous sources.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 05, 2018, 10:20:51 PM
What is wrong with you people? I said, just this evening: As for the anonymity, I have said before that I believe there is a time and place for that. This ALPB forum is not the place and this is not the time.
Are you so interested in taking the shots at me that you can't read something I posted just a couple of hours ago?
Now, does anyone have anything to say on the real issue, which is not me, but the erratic, troublesome and potentially dangerous mentality of our president? How bad must it be when his staff - people who support his agenda, remember? - have to work around him and fear for what he might do unless they intervene? How bad must it be when his lawyers say he must not testify because he is incapable of understanding what he is saying or or telling teh truth? And these are not anti-Trump Democrats, these are his own people.

That is the issue, not whether I approve of anonymity - which I do, at times - or even whether the Woodward book is 190 percent accurate.
P.S. To those whose knee-jerk response is always to elevate and adulate those in uniform: Generals have lied, the "code of honor" in our military system is regularly and frequently violated (that being a sinner thing, you know). If that were not true, there would be no need for a JAG or any civil oversight.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on September 05, 2018, 10:40:47 PM
Translated, anonymity is good when it benefits and supports Charles' Syndrome. If it's an innocuous ALPB forum, then anonymity is gutless and a travesty.  ::)

So, how do you know that Trump's lawyers and others said any of the things your preferred anoms said? Oh, right, it fits into the Syndrome.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 05, 2018, 10:52:03 PM
Just can't face it, can you? Just can't own up to the crisis in our government. Why is that? Is it because we "liberals" (Oh, how awful!) believe the president is dangerous? Is it because the president wants to do things you want done? Is it because to admit the crisis you would have to admit that the real "Fake News" is from Fox and Breitbart and companies controlled by the hard-line right?
Do you still think this president, by Supreme Court nominations, can reverse Roe v. Wade? Even if that were to happen the issue would go back to the states and how many states do you think would place more restrictions on abortions than exist now?
And don't throw the folly of placing your trust in "princes" at me, for you know darn well that refers to eternity not to temporality. We cannot trust princes for our salvation, but we are to count on them for civil order and justice.
Why do you refuse to admit the crisis in our presidency? Good grief, if Pence were president, you'd have a much better chance of getting your way on things, because he knows how the system works, can get things done and is not a petty-minded fool with no knowledge of government or today's dangerous world.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on September 05, 2018, 11:06:00 PM
Wow! The Syndrome makes Charles type faster!    ;)

Listening to the Kavanaugh hearings the last couple of days as I worked in my office, as well as seeing the economy, unemployment, NAFTA replacement, N. Korea is again back in talks, etc,  I appreciate that the election of Trump over Clinton was a good thing.

But the Syndrome is relentless.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 06, 2018, 12:06:17 AM
If there is a crisis that requires an embedded spy to report on, is it really a crisis? I mean, what if they threw a crisis and nobody noticed?

Consider Judge Kavanaugh. Excellent, perfectly mainstream judge. Is his nomination a crisis? A good chunk of the populace appears to think so. I disagree. And the bizarre antics involved with trying to block his confirmation makes me realize that just because some people call something a crisis doesn’t make it so.

As for Trump, I lose no sleep over what he might tweet next. I think his little twitter spats are stupid. I’ll be happy when we have a different president, but unless the Dems do the impossible and repudiate their antifa, socialist, sjw base I will vote for Trump in 2020.

Btw, the merits of an elected official can only ever be evaluated by comparison to the other candidates. The incessant complaints that comparisons to Clinton are a dodge to avoid criticizing Trump are silly. How can you know whether something is acceptable without reference to the options? As the saying goes, no sense complaining about the weather, it is the best weather in town. Trump, driving sleet though he may be, is the best weather in town. There was no better alternative when he got elected and there is no alternative at all right now. So why obsess about how awful he is?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 06, 2018, 05:34:35 AM
Peter writes:
There was no better alternative when he got elected and there is no alternative at all right now. So why obsess about how awful he is?
I comment:
There are alternatives right now. They are hinted at in several circles. The 25th Amendment. Pence as President. Impeachment.
There is also the coming total paralysis of the Trump agenda and its effects on the Republican Party. The "successes" cited in the Op-Ed article cannot sustain themselves or the party.
Ross Douthat, hardly an alarmist, writes that he may be moving from his view that Trump is only "weak" and constrained by the ineptness of his appointees and his inability to handle the job to the opinion that the president may become more authoritarian and dangerous.
He says he still gives a "qualified yes" to the question whether Trump is a "hemmed-in weakling, a Twitter terror but otherwise constrained". Douthat says whether he remains a weakling or attempts to more strong-arm dictatorial tactics in the future is something to ponder.
"Trump Derangement Syndrome"? Go ahead and use that silly term to dismiss critics. Meanwhile, people who know much more about the "inside" of the Administration than this humble correspondent (or anyone in this modest forum) are more concerned about a Trump deranged. 
Douthat concludes that the more benign view is risky.
He writes: "It assumes that Trumpian weakness will never breed Trumpian desperation, and that this president will be content with his impotence even in the face of a Mueller indictment of someone in his inner circle or a Democratic House’s investigation that threatens disgrace and ruin for his family. It assumes that Trump will never, even in a desperate hour, put his party’s attempts to contain him gently to a firmer sort of test."
"It’s understandable that Republicans want to make this assumption. It’s understandable that they want to manage their way through this presidency, to prod and press and redirect rather than confronting and resisting. And so far that strategy has worked out better than one might reasonably have feared. But we still have two years and four months left of this administration. And before it ends, I suspect the harder test will come."
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Eileen Smith on September 06, 2018, 08:50:08 AM
Wow! The Syndrome makes Charles type faster!    ;)

Listening to the Kavanaugh hearings the last couple of days as I worked in my office, as well as seeing the economy, unemployment, NAFTA replacement, N. Korea is again back in talks, etc,  I appreciate that the election of Trump over Clinton was a good thing.

But the Syndrome is relentless.

Listening to the Kavanaugh hearings has been painful.   Americans have a right to protest but to disrupt hearings as we've seen over the past few days is unacceptable.  We ponder morality in our land on this thread and morality is defined as, "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."   We certainly have been a witness to bad behavior and it does speak to the continuing spiral of the morality of our country.  Our moral compass seems to allow that when we don't like someone or someone's ideas, civility goes out the window -- and that's okay.

Given our concern for morality in our land, we must be concerned that of all the issues which may come before the Supreme Court, Kavanaugh's perceived vote on issues of abortion (that is, against) is what seems to be a determining factor for his approval.  Nothing new but deeply disturbing.  In this vein, we have a gubernatorial election next door in NY with Andrew Cuomo running along with Kathy Hochul for lieutenant governor.  Both are running against Trump and specific to Ms. Hochul's ads are a woman's right to make decisions about her body and the hysteria that Trump is seeking to remove this right.  She speaks to the moral compass that she and Cuomo have against a background of Planned Parenthood signs and vowing to keep fighting for women's medical rights of choice.    Kamila Harris's question (in the hearings) regarding laws governing a man's body allows that those who continue to push the abortion agenda don't recognize that there are two lives involved, both deserving of equal protection under the law. 

We've lost respect for life from conception to death and I will continue to consider that the catalyst for the loss of morality in our country. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Terry Culler on September 06, 2018, 08:50:59 AM
Simply being a bad president is not grounds for impeachment (Jimmy Carter)  Being a bad person is not grounds for impeachment (Jackson, Wilson, Kennedy, Clinton etc)  I agree our president is maybe the most ignorant man ever to enter the White House.  He understands nothing of the ways of governance in a republican form of government.  I agree that VP Pence would be a much better president.  None of that means we should support what would amount to a coup undoing an election.  We will live through Trump.  The fundamental problem people like Charles have is that they can't admit they and their coastal elites are the reason Donald Trump is president.  The contempt these folks show toward many Americans is not unnoticed by those people.  Nor does the fact that the lack of jobs for very many Americans is a direct result of globalist policies.  Nor, indeed, is the contempt for Christianity by many of the so-called elites lost on those whose faith is derided.  Trump's presidency represents something far more than the Donald in Washington--it represents peasants picking up their pitchforks and charging the castles 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Eileen Smith on September 06, 2018, 08:56:02 AM
Peter writes:
There was no better alternative when he got elected and there is no alternative at all right now. So why obsess about how awful he is?
I comment:
There are alternatives right now. They are hinted at in several circles. The 25th Amendment. Pence as President. Impeachment.
There is also the coming total paralysis of the Trump agenda and its effects on the Republican Party. The "successes" cited in the Op-Ed article cannot sustain themselves or the party.
Ross Douthat, hardly an alarmist, writes that he may be moving from his view that Trump is only "weak" and constrained by the ineptness of his appointees and his inability to handle the job to the opinion that the president may become more authoritarian and dangerous.
He says he still gives a "qualified yes" to the question whether Trump is a "hemmed-in weakling, a Twitter terror but otherwise constrained". Douthat says whether he remains a weakling or attempts to more strong-arm dictatorial tactics in the future is something to ponder.
"Trump Derangement Syndrome"? Go ahead and use that silly term to dismiss critics. Meanwhile, people who know much more about the "inside" of the Administration than this humble correspondent (or anyone in this modest forum) are more concerned about a Trump deranged. 
Douthat concludes that the more benign view is risky.
He writes: "It assumes that Trumpian weakness will never breed Trumpian desperation, and that this president will be content with his impotence even in the face of a Mueller indictment of someone in his inner circle or a Democratic House’s investigation that threatens disgrace and ruin for his family. It assumes that Trump will never, even in a desperate hour, put his party’s attempts to contain him gently to a firmer sort of test."
"It’s understandable that Republicans want to make this assumption. It’s understandable that they want to manage their way through this presidency, to prod and press and redirect rather than confronting and resisting. And so far that strategy has worked out better than one might reasonably have feared. But we still have two years and four months left of this administration. And before it ends, I suspect the harder test will come."

Fortunately, or unfortunately depending one one's viewpoint, one cannot simply impeach a president one doesn't like.  If that were the case we would have far worse chaos than we may have now. 

As to the comments by Russ Douthat, I am not convinced he or any journalist is in a position to determine Trump's state of mind.  Having worked in media for a good number of years I'm afraid I don't have the high esteem for journalists that you do.  I read many newspapers a day and form my own opinions.  I don't look to journalists to form opinions for me although that is the role they've morphed into.   
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on September 06, 2018, 09:31:05 AM
Listening to the Kavanaugh hearings has been painful.   Americans have a right to protest but to disrupt hearings as we've seen over the past few days is unacceptable.  We ponder morality in our land on this thread and morality is defined as, "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior."   We certainly have been a witness to bad behavior and it does speak to the continuing spiral of the morality of our country.  Our moral compass seems to allow that when we don't like someone or someone's ideas, civility goes out the window -- and that's okay.
Indeed, as National Review's David French writes in a way I couldn't do better myself:

Before I continue, let me remind you that Kavanaugh is the opposite of a norm-violating, civility-straining, Trumpist jurist. He is the very definition of a GOP-establishment lawyer. He would be a front-runner for a SCOTUS nomination in any Republican administration. He is not only solidly within the mainstream of originalist legal thought, he’s so respected across the aisle that Elena Kagan hired him to teach at Harvard Law School.

In other words, throughout his career, Kavanaugh has helped maintain norms rather than violating them. He’s the living embodiment of the kind of person — and the kind of politics — that Democrats now claim they miss in the age of Trump.

Yet yesterday, from the top down, from senators to protesters to online trolls, the Democrats offered a preview of how they’d react to any Republican nominee, and it was a shining example of how and why conservatives don’t believe for one moment that Donald Trump is the sole source of American dysfunction.

......

The senators were outdone, of course, by the angry activists in the room. One of the first ways you can discern whether to dismiss a protester, pundit, or politician as a serious person is whether they pay any attention at all to The Handmaid’s Tale as some sort of allegory for our times. The president is a libertine philanderer who pays off porn stars and playmates, but somehow we’re about two steps from Gilead.  Yet sure as the night follows day, the Handmaids showed up to Kavanaugh’s hearing, and along with them the Mos Eisley cantina of shrieking protesters.

Let’s be clear, had angry Tea Party protesters caused the same scale of disruption at a Democratic hearing, news outlets would be shaking their heads at the dangerous lack of respect for a dignified nominee. Instead, all too many folks think this is what democracy looks like: serial attempts to exercise an incoherent, screaming heckler’s veto.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-confirmation-hearing-democrats-lack-civility/

The president is a problem.  But so is the self-titled Resistance.  They are not serious people, just opportunists looking to regain power.

(And lest anyone think these protester antics were decoupled from actual politicians, it looks like the Democratic Judiciary Committee members enabled their actions on the first day of hearings, as senators acknowledged there was a teleconference the day before to discuss how to disrupt the hearing.)

Sterling Spatz

Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on September 06, 2018, 09:56:48 AM
Before I continue, let me remind you that Kavanaugh is the opposite of a norm-violating, civility-straining, Trumpist jurist. He is the very definition of a GOP-establishment lawyer. He would be a front-runner for a SCOTUS nomination in any Republican administration. He is not only solidly within the mainstream of originalist legal thought, he’s so respected across the aisle that Elena Kagan hired him to teach at Harvard Law School.

In other words, throughout his career, Kavanaugh has helped maintain norms rather than violating them. He’s the living embodiment of the kind of person — and the kind of politics — that Democrats now claim they miss in the age of Trump.

As Senator Graham said on Tuesday (paraphrased): "Judge Kavanaugh is a conservative. Well, surprise, surprise!... If you want to choose a Supreme Court justice, you have to win an election."
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 06, 2018, 10:41:29 AM
Peter writes:
There was no better alternative when he got elected and there is no alternative at all right now. So why obsess about how awful he is?
I comment:
There are alternatives right now. They are hinted at in several circles. The 25th Amendment. Pence as President. Impeachment.

On what grounds? What would that precedent do? Don't Democrats ever learn from the negative consequences of going nuclear out of impatience to get their way? That is why they have no chance of resisting Kavanaugh; they, like Veruka Salt in Willy Wonka, wanted their way on judges and they wanted it NOW. They therefore threw out long standing precedents, and that tactic came back to bite them hard as soon as they lost power. Impeaching Trump would amount to upping the ante on a manifestly bad strategy.

There is no plausible narrative for Donald Trump's life, such as it is, in which he is an imbecile with the knowledge of maybe a grammar school child. He might not be a genius or even particularly bright, but he isn't a moron with a dangerously low IQ. I thought his candidacy was a joke. Literally, I thought he was running as a gag or publicity stunt, or maybe because being a candidate was on his bucket list and he had the time and money. Whatever. Then I thought he had no chance whatsoever. But he kept winning somehow despite his boorish behavior. When he finally defeated Ted Cruz in my home state of Indiana, I despaired of the whole thing and resigned myself to a Clinton presidency. But here is the thing. I was wrong a lot of times in a row before it dawned on me that maybe I was just wrong. Maybe the world won't end with this doofus in the White House. And it didn't.   

2020 will come. Time will pass. There is a process. If it is so manifestly obvious that he can't govern (yet somehow the country seems to be doing more or less fine) then he has no chance of winning. The impeachment process would last well into the next campaign season and, if successful, replace Trump with Pence maybe a few months before the next election. Aiding and abetting the antifa crowd, rewarding the condom-clad lunatics, and giving hope to every nutjob out there that making a big enough stink can get rid of the president NOW, before the next election, is a long term bad idea.

But since the Democrat party seems hellbent on doubling down on every bad decision they've made, it is quite possible that they'll lose the next election even with Trump on the ballot. Because being proven wrong repeatedly doesn't seem to shake their narrative. Cue the socialists.

Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 06, 2018, 12:42:19 PM

It will certainly be interesting to see what kinds of strategy and policy proposals that the Democrats pursue going forward.  If they win back control of the House, what will they do with their recovered position?  If they simply settle down to oppose and frustrate Trump as their primary goal, that will be a losing strategy for them.  If they push forward legislation to improve the economy and benefit other groups of forgotten Americans in addition to their core groups, such as blue color rust belt workers, white and black, they may have the start to building a strong coalition.  They also need to listen to all Blacks and Latinos, not just their approved progressive self-proclaimed Black and Latino leaders.


In 2020, who will they nominate?  Currently the Democratic party seems to be as much at war with itself as the Republicans are.  Will they continue to be driven by the hard left/socialist wing?  I'm still waiting to hear what the actual social programs of the Democratic Socialists will be, other than promising a bunch of free stuff without actually telling us how it will be paid for.  (And yes, the Republicans are also guilty of giving stuff away such as tax breaks without saying how those will be paid for either.)  Socialism suggests to me the nationalization of industries, is that what they have in mind?  Does anyone realize that the majority of stock in the publicly traded businesses in the US are owned not by a few fat cat 1%s but by the pension funds that most of us depend on, not to mention 401(k)s and other retirement savings plans?


And for the 2020 campaign will they run on the "We're not Trump" and stick it to the Basket of Deplorables that elected him band wagon, or will they address the concerns and frustrations that were crucial to his popularity?  If it is assumed that everyone who voted for Trump or supported Trump is a racist, misogynist, white supremacist, xenophobe who do not have a voice that needs to be heard, that is a losing proposition.  I am not saying that Donald Trump is really a good guy just misunderstood.  I am saying that he was able to tap into a pool of frustration and fear that needs to be heard.  Sometimes it seems that the assumption of the Progressive Democratic movement is that anyone who is not totally on board with their agenda does not deserve to be heard.  That also is authoritarian and anti-democratic.  Progressivism seems just as willing to trample freedoms and rights that don't support their agendas as any authoritarian Trumpist.  Donald Trump has been criticized and justly for hedging on freedom of the press.  But what about progressive groups, such as control the Colorado Civil Rights Commission willingness to trample on the rights of religion and free expression for those who do not support the groups they support while defending those rights when they agree with the message?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on September 06, 2018, 01:04:25 PM

It will certainly be interesting to see what kinds of strategy and policy proposals that the Democrats pursue going forward.

To some degree, we are seeing it, and that's the problem.  They are acting no better than what theY decry in Trump and Republicans who support him.  And in some cases of civility, actually worse.  But of course, the supporters in the "mainstream" media ignore or excuse this behavior.  When the transcript of Nina Totenberg's NPR "report" from this morning of yesterday's Kavanaugh hearing, I will post an example here.

If they actually moderated their politics, ala the Democratic Leadership Council of the 1990's which sought to save the party from the Michael Dukakis's of the world, I might be mildly interested.  Heck, even though I think he is a different sort of yet affable buffoon, I'd actually consider voting for the Joe Biden of 2008 for president in 2020.  But the trend is going hard left, embracing Bernie Sanders policies and his acolytes such as Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, who are talking about Medicare-for-all and free college tuition.  No thanks, not interested in the Kamala Harris or Corey Booker grandstanders on display during the Kavanaugh hearings.  Despite their rhetoric, Sweden doesn't consider itself "socialist" nor follow the policy prescriptions these people are championing.

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dave Likeness on September 06, 2018, 01:44:10 PM
The Democrat Party has been severely wounded by the loss of the "unbeatable" Hillary Clinton.
They have a deficit of leadership and it is clearly on display.  Bernie Sanders pushes a brand of
socialism that is alien to the principles of democracy.  Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters are the
face of the Democrats in the U.S. House who promise to repeal the Trump tax breaks.  In the
U.S. Senate you have Chuck Schumer who tries to obstruct the hearings for a Supreme Court
Nominee by staging chaos.  The Democrats are leaderless and everyone knows it but them.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on September 06, 2018, 03:03:37 PM
As for the new Op-Ed:
Notice that it is written by someone who wants the president's agenda to succeed, who subscribes to the principles and platforms of the Republican Party. Notice that the person believes it is the erratic behavior, personal obsessions, and general ignorance of the president that is getting in the way of the "real" program and doing dangerous things.

Well, I've read the anonymous (as opposed to pseudonymous) op-ed.  President Donald Trump is being accused of being just like Candidate Donald Trump, who was just like the Donald Trump the American people saw in the comfort of their living rooms for several years on his "reality" TV programs.  This is the Donald Trump that won the election.

Let that sink in: This is the Donald Trump that won the election. 





Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 06, 2018, 03:11:46 PM
Pastor Culler writes:
The fundamental problem people like Charles have is that they can't admit they and their coastal elites are the reason Donald Trump is president.

I comment:
Just to note; I am no longer "coastal" and have never been "elite." And I find - in my retirement community in Minnesota where I am surrounded by folks from Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa and South Dakota - quite a lot of people believe as I do. The Midwestern "prairie populism" of previous generations is still present and is nothing like the Southern/Coal Country populism of many Trumpers.
I also would expect that the "evangelicals," at least those who are not naïve or lusting to tread (but not have much influence in) the corridors of power, will have to consider the total amorality of their candidate and the people around him.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: David Garner on September 06, 2018, 03:16:23 PM
As for the new Op-Ed:
Notice that it is written by someone who wants the president's agenda to succeed, who subscribes to the principles and platforms of the Republican Party. Notice that the person believes it is the erratic behavior, personal obsessions, and general ignorance of the president that is getting in the way of the "real" program and doing dangerous things.

Well, I've read the anonymous (as opposed to pseudonymous) op-ed.  President Donald Trump is being accused of being just like Candidate Donald Trump, who was just like the Donald Trump the American people saw in the comfort of their living rooms for several years on his "reality" TV programs.  This is the Donald Trump that won the election.

Let that sink in: This is the Donald Trump that won the election.

I said elsewhere that the anonymous author is a problem, not because of anonymity, but because of cowardice and elitism.

This person thinks they are the adult in the room.  That's actually a quote.  And they think they know better than the President and those who voted for him.  And maybe they do, but it isn't their place to circumvent the Constitutional process for electing and governing. 

The problem is if they do this, if they circumvent the will of the electorate in this fashion, then there are no consequences, or at best muted consequences, to electing someone like President Trump.  And if there are no consequences, then what's to stop us from doing it again? And again?  And again?  Until we don't have a democratic government at all.  Our Constitutional republic becomes an oligarchy (to the extent it isn't already -- witness the fact that we're even having this discussion).

Beyond that, it's cowardly to accuse the President of being unfit and doing absolutely nothing to remove him.  Have the courage of your convictions and invoke the 25th Amendment or go to Congress and encourage impeachment.  But don't hide behind in the shadows tossing bombs with no risk to yourself and no benefit to the country.  That's the worst kind of cowardice.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: David Garner on September 06, 2018, 03:18:22 PM
Pastor Culler writes:
The fundamental problem people like Charles have is that they can't admit they and their coastal elites are the reason Donald Trump is president.

I comment:
Just to note; I am no longer "coastal" and have never been "elite." And I find - in my retirement community in Minnesota where I am surrounded by folks from Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa and South Dakota - quite a lot of people believe as I do. The Midwestern "prairie populism" of previous generations is still present and is nothing like the Southern/Coal Country populism of many Trumpers.
I also would expect that the "evangelicals," at least those who are not naïve or lusting to tread (but not have much influence in) the corridors of power, will have to consider the total amorality of their candidate and the people around him.

*squints at electoral map, adjusts glasses*

Yep -- Wisconsin, Iowa and South Dakota all went for Trump. 

But not like THOSE people.  Those southern and coal country people.  Those people -- how gauche.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: James_Gale on September 06, 2018, 03:27:04 PM
Pastor Culler writes:
The fundamental problem people like Charles have is that they can't admit they and their coastal elites are the reason Donald Trump is president.

I comment:
Just to note; I am no longer "coastal" and have never been "elite." And I find - in my retirement community in Minnesota where I am surrounded by folks from Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa and South Dakota - quite a lot of people believe as I do. The Midwestern "prairie populism" of previous generations is still present and is nothing like the Southern/Coal Country populism of many Trumpers.
I also would expect that the "evangelicals," at least those who are not naïve or lusting to tread (but not have much influence in) the corridors of power, will have to consider the total amorality of their candidate and the people around him.

*squints at electoral map, adjusts glasses*

Yep -- Wisconsin, Iowa and South Dakota all went for Trump. 

But not like THOSE people.  Those southern and coal country people.  Those people -- how gauche.


Trump also came within about 1.4% of Clinton in Minnesota, where Trump won 78 of 87 counties.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 06, 2018, 04:07:16 PM
I am not speaking of demographics. I’m speaking about the real, live, breathing, and speaking persons around me.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: James S. Rustad on September 06, 2018, 04:13:54 PM
I am not speaking of demographics. I’m speaking about the real, live, breathing, and speaking persons around me.
The plural of "anecdote" is not "data".
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on September 06, 2018, 04:16:41 PM
Pastor Culler writes:
The fundamental problem people like Charles have is that they can't admit they and their coastal elites are the reason Donald Trump is president.

I comment:
Just to note; I am no longer "coastal" and have never been "elite." And I find - in my retirement community in Minnesota where I am surrounded by folks from Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa and South Dakota - quite a lot of people believe as I do. The Midwestern "prairie populism" of previous generations is still present and is nothing like the Southern/Coal Country populism of many Trumpers.
I also would expect that the "evangelicals," at least those who are not naïve or lusting to tread (but not have much influence in) the corridors of power, will have to consider the total amorality of their candidate and the people around him.

*squints at electoral map, adjusts glasses*

Yep -- Wisconsin, Iowa and South Dakota all went for Trump. 

But not like THOSE people.  Those southern and coal country people.  Those people -- how gauche.

Trump also came within about 1.4% of Clinton in Minnesota, where Trump won 78 of 87 counties.

Actually, Charles lives in a NW Mpls suburb, so I do not doubt that he is surrounded by quite a lot of people who believe as he does. And yes, the "prairie populism" of the Floyd B. Olson era onward is alive and well in the DFL party of Minnesota. Read today's Mpls StarTribune cover story about the Kavanaugh hearings, Kavanaugh's "evasive" answers and the way it is colored favoring the Democratic  tough "grilling" and the Republican "fawning praise." (Actually, a NYT article that they used.) Their latest online headline: "Kavanaugh wanted 2001 sailing trip kept secret (He was a single guy on an annual trip with friends from Yale Law School, telling them to maintain "confidentiality.")  ::)

Lots of Charles's in MN. Remember, Mpls gave you Keith Ellison.   :o
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 06, 2018, 04:18:08 PM
Perhaps Pr. Austin, like some of the conservatives he's criticized, needs to get out more and meet more people who are not just like him. When we are surround people who think like us we can get parochial.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: gan ainm on September 06, 2018, 04:37:50 PM
Pastor Culler writes:
The fundamental problem people like Charles have is that they can't admit they and their coastal elites are the reason Donald Trump is president.

I comment:
Just to note; I am no longer "coastal" and have never been "elite." And I find - in my retirement community in Minnesota where I am surrounded by folks from Minnesota, Wisconsin, Iowa and South Dakota - quite a lot of people believe as I do. The Midwestern "prairie populism" of previous generations is still present and is nothing like the Southern/Coal Country populism of many Trumpers.
I also would expect that the "evangelicals," at least those who are not naïve or lusting to tread (but not have much influence in) the corridors of power, will have to consider the total amorality of their candidate and the people around him.

*squints at electoral map, adjusts glasses*

Yep -- Wisconsin, Iowa and South Dakota all went for Trump. 

But not like THOSE people.  Those southern and coal country people.  Those people -- how gauche.

Trump also came within about 1.4% of Clinton in Minnesota, where Trump won 78 of 87 counties.

Actually, Charles lives in a NW Mpls suburb, so I do not doubt that he is surrounded by quite a lot of people who believe as he does. And yes, the "prairie populism" of the Floyd B. Olson era onward is alive and well in the DFL party of Minnesota. Read today's Mpls StarTribune cover story about the Kavanaugh hearings, Kavanaugh's "evasive" answers and the way it is colored favoring the Democratic  tough "grilling" and the Republican "fawning praise." Their latest online headline: "Kavanaugh wanted 2001 sailing trip kept secret (He was a single guy on an annual trip with friends from Yale Law School, telling them to maintain "confidentiality.")  ::)

Lots of Charles's in MN. Remember, Mpls gave you Keith Ellison.   :o

Perhaps Jesse (the body) Ventura (Dellwood, MN - suburban Minneapolis) could provide some coaching lessons to the former NJ elite (who may have to undergo SEAL training first) on how to get real.  ;D
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Terry Culler on September 06, 2018, 04:39:07 PM
So Charles speaks about "real people" as opposed to the "false people" who voted for Trump???? Let's get this straight, it's the real people that Charles associates with who are responsible for Donald Trump--it's not the people who think Reagan was a good if not great president. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Richard Johnson on September 06, 2018, 04:40:20 PM
So Charles speaks about "real people" as opposed to the "false people" who voted for Trump????

I think you mean "fake people."  ;D
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 06, 2018, 05:05:58 PM
I just give up. We are in Crazytown.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on September 06, 2018, 05:07:11 PM
I just give up. We are in Crazytown.

You're in Mpls, Charles, not DC.

But yes, when I defend your statement, things have really gotten out-of-hand.   ;)

Which lake were you at? Gull?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Terry Culler on September 06, 2018, 07:35:22 PM
So Charles speaks about "real people" as opposed to the "false people" who voted for Trump????

I think you mean "fake people."  ;D


You're right.  I remembered something while looking at this.  In 1984 Ronald Reagan won a landslide election.  A friend told me that her mother, who lived in Manhattan, was flabbergasted.  She said she didn't know anyone who voted for Reagan.  Maybe Charles' circle of friends includes Laurie's mom.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on September 07, 2018, 09:23:35 AM
Before I continue, let me remind you that Kavanaugh is the opposite of a norm-violating, civility-straining, Trumpist jurist. He is the very definition of a GOP-establishment lawyer. He would be a front-runner for a SCOTUS nomination in any Republican administration. He is not only solidly within the mainstream of originalist legal thought, he’s so respected across the aisle that Elena Kagan hired him to teach at Harvard Law School.

In other words, throughout his career, Kavanaugh has helped maintain norms rather than violating them. He’s the living embodiment of the kind of person — and the kind of politics — that Democrats now claim they miss in the age of Trump.

As Senator Graham said on Tuesday (paraphrased): "Judge Kavanaugh is a conservative. Well, surprise, surprise!... If you want to choose a Supreme Court justice, you have to win an election."

As promised here is NPR's Nina Totenberg totally nonpartisan unbiased introduction to her report yesterday morning of day 2 of the Kavanaugh hearings:

"Nobody really disputes that Kavanaugh, if confirmed, will tip the Supreme Court in a decidedly hard-right direction. Nonetheless, the Democrats had a hard time getting answers that would prove that."

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/06/645140898/kavanaugh-day-2-recap

"Hard-right" sounds very scary, since such a direction is inherently bad.  It's always interesting to see what reporters, who claim to be objective, tell us everybody knows.  Of course, Totenberg has been at this a long time, doing this kind of thing all the way back to Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas.  The problem here is that "originalism" as practiced by the likes of Judge Kavanaugh does not necessarily lead to particular partisan outcomes.  Lest we forget, for example, that Justice Scalia voted on the court that flag burning was constitutionally protected speech.

But it's surprising that she would think it noteworthy that Democrats had difficulty proving that...it's almost like she's never heard of the "Ginsburg Rule".  About which partisans argue that it means their guy doesn't have to answer questions, but the other side's does.  And so we go round and round.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 07, 2018, 10:41:15 AM
Before I continue, let me remind you that Kavanaugh is the opposite of a norm-violating, civility-straining, Trumpist jurist. He is the very definition of a GOP-establishment lawyer. He would be a front-runner for a SCOTUS nomination in any Republican administration. He is not only solidly within the mainstream of originalist legal thought, he’s so respected across the aisle that Elena Kagan hired him to teach at Harvard Law School.

In other words, throughout his career, Kavanaugh has helped maintain norms rather than violating them. He’s the living embodiment of the kind of person — and the kind of politics — that Democrats now claim they miss in the age of Trump.

As Senator Graham said on Tuesday (paraphrased): "Judge Kavanaugh is a conservative. Well, surprise, surprise!... If you want to choose a Supreme Court justice, you have to win an election."

As promised here is NPR's Nina Totenberg totally nonpartisan unbiased introduction to her report yesterday morning of day 2 of the Kavanaugh hearings:

"Nobody really disputes that Kavanaugh, if confirmed, will tip the Supreme Court in a decidedly hard-right direction. Nonetheless, the Democrats had a hard time getting answers that would prove that."

https://www.npr.org/2018/09/06/645140898/kavanaugh-day-2-recap

"Hard-right" sounds very scary, since such a direction is inherently bad.  It's always interesting to see what reporters, who claim to be objective, tell us everybody knows.  Of course, Totenberg has been at this a long time, doing this kind of thing all the way back to Robert Bork and Clarence Thomas.  The problem here is that "originalism" as practiced by the likes of Judge Kavanaugh does not necessarily lead to particular partisan outcomes.  Lest we forget, for example, that Justice Scalia voted on the court that flag burning was constitutionally protected speech.

But it's surprising that she would think it noteworthy that Democrats had difficulty proving that...it's almost like she's never heard of the "Ginsburg Rule".  About which partisans argue that it means their guy doesn't have to answer questions, but the other side's does.  And so we go round and round.
The phrase "nobody really disputes x" is perfectly objective in a world where the people who dispute x are thereby confirmed to be a bunch of nobodies.

The two articles below offer very different takes, but both speak to the panic and desperation on the anti-Kavanaugh side.

Barnes makes the point that the stated objections to his voting record have all been based on WHO he sided with rather than on any point of law or justice. And Krugman agrees with him. They only disagree on the logical/legal/philosophical point of whether going by WHO is good or not. That is, the progressive way of viewing the law itself and justice itself in terms of identity politics is precisely what Kavanaugh doesn't go by. And shouldn't as far as I'm concerned. But it makes for an interesting sense of talking past one another.

Since the Left views this or that case in terms of which identity group deserves the judge's favorable ruling, they impute the same idea to the Right and see a ruling in favor of, say, a corporation against the worker on some disputed point of labor law as Kavanaugh's preference for corporations over workers, since the Left's preferred ruling would have represented exactly that-- their preference, though in their case it would have been for the worker over the corporation.
The idea of impartially applying the law as written and voted on is something the Left views as impossible in the abstract, which makes the pretense of it a tool of oppression in their view. The whole originalist view of the constitution depends on a view of language that progressives have rejected. The idea that a judge could rule impartially is to them like "separate but equal,"- a theoretically plausible idea that in practice favors the powerful. The only answer for them is for judges to rule based on WHO should win rather than on what the law technically said.

I think it is important that (not to switch gears too rapidly for the transmission) Atticus in Go Set a Watchman proved to be a racist himself and still defended the wrongly accused black man. To Kill a Mockingbird has always been about racial equality before the law, but the whole premise depends upon there being such a thing as equality before the law without regard to race. If their isn't, then within a generation we can expect progressives to start objecting to curricula that include To Kill a Mockingbird due to the book's radical, "hard-right" view of the nature of the law and justice.

Barnes (and Kavanaugh, the Federalist Society, and I would say the whole idea of constitutional government) depend upon justice being applied without regard to the WHO of the matter. Justice must be blind.

Krugman (and the progressive Left, and the whole progressive ideal) has to reject that idea. True justice, in their view, is hampered by the effort to be blind about it. They are perhaps most eloquently represented by the great poet Langston Hughes, who wrote:

  That Justice is a blind goddess
Is a thing to which we black are wise:
Her bandage hides two festering sores
That once perhaps were eyes.

 https://www.weeklystandard.com/fred-barnes/desperate-democrats

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/06/opinion/kavanaugh-supreme-court-partisan.html
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on September 07, 2018, 01:03:56 PM
"An anonymous anti-Trump opinion column published by The New York Times has managed to unite the president's supporters and critics, journalism watchdogs, pundits and scholars — who all seem to agree the piece wrapped neither its author nor the 'paper of record' in glory...

Critics [of Trump] say the piece is a breach by the Times of journalism ethics and Trump supporters say it justifies the president’s ongoing paranoia about the treachery of what he likes to call 'The Swamp.'"

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/09/07/anonymous-gutless-new-york-times-anti-trump-op-ed-draws-ire-from-critics-across-political-spectrum.html

And to all, Charles admonishes:

What is wrong with you people?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 07, 2018, 01:22:13 PM
I will listen to FOXNews talk about journalistic ethics the day after I hear the devil promoting the 10 Commandments.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 07, 2018, 01:27:51 PM
I will listen to FOXNews talk about journalistic ethics the day after I hear the devil promoting the 10 Commandments.
The devil, as the accuser, promotes them all the time. Just saying. I report, you decide.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on September 07, 2018, 01:34:20 PM
I will listen to FOXNews talk about journalistic ethics the day after I hear the devil promoting the 10 Commandments.

Again, you go with the ad hominem, Charles? How about the opinions of, e.g., Poynter Institute senior vice president and media ethics guru Kelly McBride, DePauw University professor and media analyst Jeffrey McCall, CNN host Chris Cuomo, CNN’s “Reliable Sources” newsletter, talk show host Stephen Colbert, and New Yorker magazine’s Masha Gessen?   
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: readselerttoo on September 07, 2018, 01:38:51 PM
I will listen to FOXNews talk about journalistic ethics the day after I hear the devil promoting the 10 Commandments.
The devil, as the accuser, promotes them all the time. Just saying. I report, you decide.

Nice one!
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 07, 2018, 01:40:18 PM
Peter writes:
There was no better alternative when he got elected and there is no alternative at all right now. So why obsess about how awful he is?
I comment:
There are alternatives right now. They are hinted at in several circles. The 25th Amendment. Pence as President. Impeachment.

On what grounds? What would that precedent do? Don't Democrats ever learn from the negative consequences of going nuclear out of impatience to get their way? That is why they have no chance of resisting Kavanaugh; they, like Veruka Salt in Willy Wonka, wanted their way on judges and they wanted it NOW. They therefore threw out long standing precedents, and that tactic came back to bite them hard as soon as they lost power. Impeaching Trump would amount to upping the ante on a manifestly bad strategy.

There is no plausible narrative for Donald Trump's life, such as it is, in which he is an imbecile with the knowledge of maybe a grammar school child. He might not be a genius or even particularly bright, but he isn't a moron with a dangerously low IQ. I thought his candidacy was a joke. Literally, I thought he was running as a gag or publicity stunt, or maybe because being a candidate was on his bucket list and he had the time and money. Whatever. Then I thought he had no chance whatsoever. But he kept winning somehow despite his boorish behavior. When he finally defeated Ted Cruz in my home state of Indiana, I despaired of the whole thing and resigned myself to a Clinton presidency. But here is the thing. I was wrong a lot of times in a row before it dawned on me that maybe I was just wrong. Maybe the world won't end with this doofus in the White House. And it didn't.   

2020 will come. Time will pass. There is a process. If it is so manifestly obvious that he can't govern (yet somehow the country seems to be doing more or less fine) then he has no chance of winning. The impeachment process would last well into the next campaign season and, if successful, replace Trump with Pence maybe a few months before the next election. Aiding and abetting the antifa crowd, rewarding the condom-clad lunatics, and giving hope to every nutjob out there that making a big enough stink can get rid of the president NOW, before the next election, is a long term bad idea.

But since the Democrat party seems hellbent on doubling down on every bad decision they've made, it is quite possible that they'll lose the next election even with Trump on the ballot. Because being proven wrong repeatedly doesn't seem to shake their narrative. Cue the socialists.

Quoting myself here, I realize, but I do it only to make the point that Eugene Robinson, writing in the Washington Post today, says basically the same thing. The only difference is that in typical progressive fashion he sees regularly scheduled elections as some desperate last line of defense when all the better ways a nation should govern itself have failed.

His article ends thusly:

After this week, however, it's clear that we're already in a constitutional crisis of frightening proportions. The Cabinet will not act. Congress, under GOP control, will not act. The internal "resistance" can only do so much.

Voters are the last line of defense. You must save the day.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: D. Engebretson on September 07, 2018, 05:06:13 PM
Of course we will have to wait for the midterm elections to see how it all turns out, but clearly this is the golden chance for the Democratic party to seize control of the legislative branch and push ahead with the impeachment some have been promoting (along with many other investigations).  If the concerns about Trump are as great and serious as the media reports (namely, that we are in a constitutional crisis), then this election should be a slam-dunk for the Democrats.  People from throughout the US should see this and vote in candidates who would take on Trump and help remove him.  In other words, there should be a significant "blue wave" come November. I suspect the nation will not falter too badly before the elections, so for those who feel the Trump crisis has reached unsustainable levels, this fall is the opportunity.  I will watch and see.  Perhaps it will all change after November....
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: D. Engebretson on September 07, 2018, 05:22:07 PM
I just opened today's paper and read the account by the AP: "Kavanaugh avoids hearing errors."  What caught my attention was the claim that he is a "foe of abortion rights and a likely defender of President Donald Trump."  This despite the fact that Kavanaugh has clearly noted that Roe v. Wade is "settled law," and that "no one is above the law."  What also caught my attention is the idea that Kavanaugh should give detailed descriptions about how he would rule on cases that might come before him.  Now I'm not a lawyer or very informed on the intricacies of the law, but it seems contrary to how the system is supposed to work.  Shouldn't a judge reserve judgement on future cases (that at this point are technically only theoretical) until evidence is heard and examined?  What judge would reveal ahead of time exactly how he would decide cases that are not even yet before him?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Voelker on September 07, 2018, 05:38:19 PM
I just opened today's paper and read the account by the AP: "Kavanaugh avoids hearing errors."  What caught my attention was the claim that he is a "foe of abortion rights and a likely defender of President Donald Trump."  This despite the fact that Kavanaugh has clearly noted that Roe v. Wade is "settled law," and that "no one is above the law."  What also caught my attention is the idea that Kavanaugh should give detailed descriptions about how he would rule on cases that might come before him.  Now I'm not a lawyer or very informed on the intricacies of the law, but it seems contrary to how the system is supposed to work.  Shouldn't a judge reserve judgement on future cases (that at this point are technically only theoretical) until evidence is heard and examined?  What judge would reveal ahead of time exactly how he would decide cases that are not even yet before him?
[sarcasm] Anyone who doesn't believe that the right to abortion — snatched out of thin air as it was — is written in stone,* while rejecting the right to bear arms, which is actually written down, is illegitimate, is a foe of all that is good, right, and proper — and they probably kick dogs, too.**[/sarcasm]

*Kavanaugh, while defending RvW as "settled law", also set out a clear path as to how "settled law" could and should be overturned. In his discussion of Brown vs. Board of Eductation he gave great praise to Marshall's long-term strategy of building a portfolio of court cases that undercut the foundation of the earlier decision(s) that allowed unjust practices to not only continue, but be considered constitutional. The fact that "settled law" is settled only to a certain extent understandably frightens those who hope for more rights to be snatched from the void.

**The slavish devotion to Precedent voiced by Kavanaugh in these hearings does not speak well for the judiciary as a whole. Precedent should not be overturned lightly, but when arguments are bad (whether because they rely on bad logic or bad premises) that support a precedent, the precedent should be overturned with prejudice. Allowing law to stand because it has been allowed to stand in the past is not sensible in the least, and tilts a society toward injustice.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: D. Engebretson on September 07, 2018, 05:44:14 PM
I just opened today's paper and read the account by the AP: "Kavanaugh avoids hearing errors."  What caught my attention was the claim that he is a "foe of abortion rights and a likely defender of President Donald Trump."  This despite the fact that Kavanaugh has clearly noted that Roe v. Wade is "settled law," and that "no one is above the law."  What also caught my attention is the idea that Kavanaugh should give detailed descriptions about how he would rule on cases that might come before him.  Now I'm not a lawyer or very informed on the intricacies of the law, but it seems contrary to how the system is supposed to work.  Shouldn't a judge reserve judgement on future cases (that at this point are technically only theoretical) until evidence is heard and examined?  What judge would reveal ahead of time exactly how he would decide cases that are not even yet before him?
Anyone who doesn't believe that the right to abortion — snatched out of thin air as it was — is written in stone,* while rejecting the right to bear arms, which is actually written down, is illegitimate, is a foe of all that is good, right, and proper — and they probably kick dogs, too.**

*Kavanaugh, while defending RvW as "settled law", also set out a clear path as to how "settled law" could and should be overturned. In his discussion of Brown vs. Board of Eductation he gave great praise to Marshall's long-term strategy of building a portfolio of court cases that undercut the foundation of the earlier decision(s) that allowed unjust practices to not only continue, but be considered constitutional. The fact that "settled law" is settled only to a certain extent understandably frightens those who hope for more rights to be snatched from the void.

**The slavish devotion to Precedent voiced by Kavanaugh in these hearings does not speak well for the judiciary as a whole. Precedent should not be overturned lightly, but when arguments are bad (whether because they rely on bad logic or bad premises) that support a precedent, the precedent should be overturned with prejudice. Allowing law to stand because it has been allowed to stand in the past is not sensible in the least, and tilts a society toward injustice.

I certainly would not argue that precedent should be overturned if it was poorly reasoned (including Roe v. Wade for sure). One of my points concerned the seeming bias in the report in concluding that Kavanaugh was convinced of certain things or determined to do certain things, even when his comments may have indicated the opposite.  My other was assuming that a candidate for the judiciary would predict ahead of time how he would rule even without a case and evidence before him, but merely out of the hypothetical.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Voelker on September 07, 2018, 06:05:37 PM
I just opened today's paper and read the account by the AP: "Kavanaugh avoids hearing errors."  What caught my attention was the claim that he is a "foe of abortion rights and a likely defender of President Donald Trump."  This despite the fact that Kavanaugh has clearly noted that Roe v. Wade is "settled law," and that "no one is above the law."  What also caught my attention is the idea that Kavanaugh should give detailed descriptions about how he would rule on cases that might come before him.  Now I'm not a lawyer or very informed on the intricacies of the law, but it seems contrary to how the system is supposed to work.  Shouldn't a judge reserve judgement on future cases (that at this point are technically only theoretical) until evidence is heard and examined?  What judge would reveal ahead of time exactly how he would decide cases that are not even yet before him?
Anyone who doesn't believe that the right to abortion — snatched out of thin air as it was — is written in stone,* while rejecting the right to bear arms, which is actually written down, is illegitimate, is a foe of all that is good, right, and proper — and they probably kick dogs, too.**

*Kavanaugh, while defending RvW as "settled law", also set out a clear path as to how "settled law" could and should be overturned. In his discussion of Brown vs. Board of Eductation he gave great praise to Marshall's long-term strategy of building a portfolio of court cases that undercut the foundation of the earlier decision(s) that allowed unjust practices to not only continue, but be considered constitutional. The fact that "settled law" is settled only to a certain extent understandably frightens those who hope for more rights to be snatched from the void.

**The slavish devotion to Precedent voiced by Kavanaugh in these hearings does not speak well for the judiciary as a whole. Precedent should not be overturned lightly, but when arguments are bad (whether because they rely on bad logic or bad premises) that support a precedent, the precedent should be overturned with prejudice. Allowing law to stand because it has been allowed to stand in the past is not sensible in the least, and tilts a society toward injustice.

I certainly would not argue that precedent should be overturned if it was poorly reasoned (including Roe v. Wade for sure). One of my points concerned the seeming bias in the report in concluding that Kavanaugh was convinced of certain things or determined to do certain things, even when his comments may have indicated the opposite.  My other was assuming that a candidate for the judiciary would predict ahead of time how he would rule even without a case and evidence before him, but merely out of the hypothetical.
Perhaps I should add the [sarcasm] tag. I agree with your analysis of the report — it is clearly taking sides. I'm hoping the next nominee silently holds up a little sign that says "POSSIBLE FUTURE CASE" every time a senator tries to dig past the line we all know won't be crossed. I'd also like better questions — rather than wasting time grandstanding with questions that can't and won't be answered, or taking up the time just to hear their own voice for a while, I'd love for senators to ask about the specific reasoning (and language used in decisions) in cases that the judge in question *did* decide, in papers they *did* publish, and the like. A few small questions like this came up, but the heat/light ratio was awfully high this time around.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: David Garner on September 08, 2018, 09:23:28 AM
I just opened today's paper and read the account by the AP: "Kavanaugh avoids hearing errors."  What caught my attention was the claim that he is a "foe of abortion rights and a likely defender of President Donald Trump."  This despite the fact that Kavanaugh has clearly noted that Roe v. Wade is "settled law," and that "no one is above the law."  What also caught my attention is the idea that Kavanaugh should give detailed descriptions about how he would rule on cases that might come before him.  Now I'm not a lawyer or very informed on the intricacies of the law, but it seems contrary to how the system is supposed to work.  Shouldn't a judge reserve judgement on future cases (that at this point are technically only theoretical) until evidence is heard and examined?  What judge would reveal ahead of time exactly how he would decide cases that are not even yet before him?

The biggest tell regarding the media's bias is they describe pro lifers on pro choice terms.  That is, Kavanaugh is not "opposed to abortion," he is a "foe of abortion rights."

While I share the complaints of many about the dangers of lack of respect for media institutions, I generally place the blame differently.  It would be a lot easier to defend the media as a trustworthy, honest and respectable institution if only the media were trustworthy, honest and respectable.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 08, 2018, 09:39:54 AM
David Garner writes:
It would be a lot easier to defend the media as a trustworthy, honest and respectable institution if only the media were trustworthy, honest and respectable.
I Comment:
And it would be a lot easier to defend the churches as spiritual, honest, respectable and relevant if the churches were spiritual, honest, respectable and relevant.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: David Garner on September 08, 2018, 10:26:31 AM
David Garner writes:
It would be a lot easier to defend the media as a trustworthy, honest and respectable institution if only the media were trustworthy, honest and respectable.
I Comment:
And it would be a lot easier to defend the churches as spiritual, honest, respectable and relevant if the churches were spiritual, honest, respectable and relevant.

Indeed it would.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 08, 2018, 10:27:30 AM
David Garner writes:
It would be a lot easier to defend the media as a trustworthy, honest and respectable institution if only the media were trustworthy, honest and respectable.
I Comment:
And it would be a lot easier to defend the churches as spiritual, honest, respectable and relevant if the churches were spiritual, honest, respectable and relevant.
Yes it would.  So?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: D. Engebretson on September 08, 2018, 11:18:29 AM
The biggest tell regarding the media's bias is they describe pro lifers on pro choice terms.  That is, Kavanaugh is not "opposed to abortion," he is a "foe of abortion rights."

Labeling is a frustrating part of how people are described in the media.  I understand that a certain amount of 'short hand' may be necessary, but the labels used so frequently seem deliberately chosen to cast a person in a very negative light.  Since many readers fail to go much beyond the simple labels the caricature sticks in their minds and takes on an image in the end that distorts the original truth. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dave Benke on September 08, 2018, 11:28:46 AM
The Labeler-in-Chief prevents the issue of labeling from being described as one-sided.

Dave Benke
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 08, 2018, 11:44:07 AM
The Labeler-in-Chief prevents the issue of labeling from being described as one-sided.

Dave Benke
Indeed, it is not one sided.  Pres. Trump’s labeling hardly rises above school yard taunts.  But for those who would claim to be the adults in the room or the impartial reporters of the news to engage in slightly more subtle labeling does not demonstrate their vaunted maturity and impartiality.  They demean themselves by engaging in the behavior that they are quick to deplore in others.  The tit for tat “He did it first” does not excuse.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: gan ainm on September 08, 2018, 12:21:55 PM
The Labeler-in-Chief prevents the issue of labeling from being described as one-sided.

Dave Benke

You toadie!   ;D
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on September 08, 2018, 12:23:31 PM
don't know how this will turn out... but someone could make a list of labels only from Trump (not even any of his fellow WH people or any Republicans) and then a parallel list from all others who have said things about or against Trump.  There may be arguments against who said what first and as a retort... but looking at the quality (rather lack of decency) in the labels...  whose will be so out of sync with anything close to our past civic discourse in general?  Someone prove me wrong that the weight will fall on Trump. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: RandyBosch on September 08, 2018, 12:38:42 PM
don't know how this will turn out... but someone could make a list of labels only from Trump (not even any of his fellow WH people or any Republicans) and then a parallel list from all others who have said things about or against Trump.  There may be arguments against who said what first and as a retort... but looking at the quality (rather lack of decency) in the labels...  whose will be so out of sync with anything close to our past civic discourse in general?  Someone prove me wrong that the weight will fall on Trump.

Great sarcasm, thank you! 
I imagine though that there are literally hundreds of people (perhaps only a few on ALPB, hopefully none) who would invest the scores of hours necessary to define terms, scour the internet, and complete such a task.

I imagine that most, including almost all on ALPB, would find it more beneficial to go out and share the Gospel with their neighbors, study scripture, and for those proclaiming the Word this Sunday, prayerfully preparing their messages.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Steven W Bohler on September 08, 2018, 01:03:37 PM
The Labeler-in-Chief prevents the issue of labeling from being described as one-sided.

Dave Benke

President Trump makes no pretense of being objective.  The media, however, are another story as they loudly claim they are NOT biased or slanted in their reports.  It's sort of like the difference between opposing players trash-talking one another vs the officials name-calling players.  We expect/accept it from the participants but not from those who supposed to be removed and non-partisan.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on September 08, 2018, 01:26:34 PM
or comment on what you perceive as sarcasm... I dare say, several in these parts could assemble such lists in about the time it takes most of us to read several posts and write one of our own...  come on...  if this is keeping you from your religious rounds, cease reading and go and do... 

Great sarcasm, thank you! 
I imagine though that there are literally hundreds of people (perhaps only a few on ALPB, hopefully none) who would invest the scores of hours necessary to define terms, scour the internet, and complete such a task.

I imagine that most, including almost all on ALPB, would find it more beneficial to go out and share the Gospel with their neighbors, study scripture, and for those proclaiming the Word this Sunday, prayerfully preparing their messages.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: RandyBosch on September 08, 2018, 01:29:00 PM
Where did the meme that the press is supposed to be removed and non-partisan originate?

To the best of my recollection, including admittedly decades ago study of Presidential elections from Adams to Nixon, the press has always been engaged and partisan.  Where non-engagement occurred, it was primarily for the purpose of not promoting a partisan viewpoint with which it disagreed.  Go back to the major "yellow journalism" wars between Hearst and Pulitzer, for example.

The degree of "removal" and "non-partisan" of any newspaper or organization is only in its own self-promotion and self-identification in the pursuit of the goals of its publishers, editors and contributors.  Everyone just needs to ID the standing of each one.  Compare it to others and it becomes very transparent.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: RandyBosch on September 08, 2018, 01:31:00 PM
or comment on what you perceive as sarcasm... I dare say, several in these parts could assemble such lists in about the time it takes most of us to read several posts and write one of our own...  come on...  if this is keeping you from your religious rounds, cease reading and go and do... 

Great sarcasm, thank you! 
I imagine though that there are literally hundreds of people (perhaps only a few on ALPB, hopefully none) who would invest the scores of hours necessary to define terms, scour the internet, and complete such a task.

I imagine that most, including almost all on ALPB, would find it more beneficial to go out and share the Gospel with their neighbors, study scripture, and for those proclaiming the Word this Sunday, prayerfully preparing their messages.

On my way, literally.  I'll check back later and see how you did.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on September 08, 2018, 02:36:58 PM
don't know how this will turn out... but someone could make a list of labels only from Trump (not even any of his fellow WH people or any Republicans) and then a parallel list from all others who have said things about or against Trump.  There may be arguments against who said what first and as a retort... but looking at the quality (rather lack of decency) in the labels...  whose will be so out of sync with anything close to our past civic discourse in general?  Someone prove me wrong that the weight will fall on Trump.

The first direction I would point you, Harvey, would only remind you of why you are no longer an ELCA pastor.   :(

Kyrie eleison, Steven+
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on September 08, 2018, 02:46:11 PM
Steven, with all due respect (as they say in political circles but I do mean it) what does my leaving the ELCA and being a member of the NALC have to do with my political opinions and observations, like-- thinking Trump is far afield and terrifying in his labeling of folks well beyond the usual pale even of politicians.  Or am I missing some point you make and I do not catch?


The first direction I would point you, Harvey, would only remind you of why you are no longer an ELCA pastor.   :(
Kyrie eleison, Steven+
[/quote]
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: JEdwards on September 08, 2018, 02:58:51 PM
The biggest tell regarding the media's bias is they describe pro lifers on pro choice terms.  That is, Kavanaugh is not "opposed to abortion," he is a "foe of abortion rights."

While I share the complaints of many about the dangers of lack of respect for media institutions, I generally place the blame differently.  It would be a lot easier to defend the media as a trustworthy, honest and respectable institution if only the media were trustworthy, honest and respectable.
Yes to all of this.  Another example:

A few weeks ago, I listened to an NPR correspondent discuss Attorney General Sessions' desire to work on issues surrounding "What the White House describes as religious liberty."  Then, a few days ago, there was discussion of the famous anonymous Op-Ed piece by "A high-ranking White House insider."  Not, mind you, "Someone the New York Times describes as a high-ranking White House insider," which might have been appropriate, since NPR doesn't claim to know the identity of the author.  So a label bestowed by the White House needs scare quotes or qualifiers, while a label bestowed by the NY Times is simply The Truth.

I don't make these observations out of the need to grind an ideological axe.  I think NPR does pretty good journalism, and I was a reluctant Hillary voter.  There is no way in Hades that I would ever vote to re-elect DJT.  But it must require incredible intellectual gymnastics to deny the bias that creeps into the reporting of many mainstream news outlets.

Peace,
Jon
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 08, 2018, 03:10:43 PM
To be nakedly partisan is no moral failing. You’re telling everybody how you see it. To be partisan while claiming neutrality is a moral flaw, an act of deception.

To what degree is it possible to be objective? I would say simply describing something is inherently subjective activity because you have to decide what include and what to emphasize. Answering a specific, well-defined question, on the other hand, allows one to be more objective. So telling someone to describe a football game is asking for a subjective reaction. Asking someone whether the runner’s foot went out of bounds is asking for an objective (albeit not infallible) opinion.

It seems to me progressives have this exactly backwards. An LA Times opinion piece the other day claimed that Kavanaugh’s claim that judges are like umpires is laughable. There is no way he could be impartial and not his personal views influence his calls. To the writer, that justified the inquiries into Kavanaugh’s personal views. But the LA Times would also, (I’m assuming here) not claim to be a partisan news source. They would bristle at accusations of bias. In other words, they would claim that it is possible simply to report the news without bias— the overwhelming statistical support for Democrats in the newsrooms does not make them a partisan source. But judges are incapable of that. I would say the opposite. Trying to describe what happened, i.e. tell the news, is inherently subjective. Ruling on a specific, well-define question, which is what judges do, us an area where it is possible to be objective, like an (imperfect) umpire.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on September 08, 2018, 03:56:58 PM
Shall I get into trouble over this?  Anyway, I do want Roe overturned; however, I have deep concerns which I do not know how they will or even can be answered.  What will happen to women who insist that it is their right (and once was their right if Roe is struck down) to have an abortion if they are faced with a situation in which they deem an abortion to be their only or at least best choice?  Is the country prepared to handle pregnancies of women who do not want to raise the children they must bring to birth?  Is the church ready?  How can the counseling field be brought to help what will be a whole change not only in the law but what people have come to believe is their right?  How will fathers (be forced?) to play a new role in pregnancy responsibility where the mother does not want to keep a child after birth?   What will happen if a significant (sad word in this topic) number of abortions start happening in ways and manners meant to escape prosecution for going against a new anti-abortion law?   What will be the punishments of people, upper class and those in poverty, for violation of a removal of Roe v Wade?  Is anyone concerned with what will happen if and when Roe is removed as a law?  Do you think it is right to be concerned with such things?  The Supreme Court will not be the ones to deal with the results.   You can laugh at me, but I have struggled with the question, is Trump worth it for getting pro-life justices in place?   It is a variation of the end justifying the means and perhaps the means has only been putting up with a foul-mouthed, erratic President... but if he would happen to start throwing around some unneeded missiles... how many would it take to call the means fully into question?  One nuclear device?  Or some other catastrophic action.   May God preserve us from those possibility.  I do think it is wrong to count war dead and compare that to aborted fetuses or try to decide who is more "innocent" and defenseless.  But I think that war dead do count as well as aborted human beings.  Rome has stated that more correctly than most of the rest of Christendom. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Jim Thacker on September 08, 2018, 04:03:47 PM
Harvey,
I have walked and continue to walk the same path you are following here. I agree with your thoughts and continue to struggle with this whole question.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Matt Hummel on September 08, 2018, 04:19:17 PM
Shall I get into trouble over this?  Anyway, I do want Roe overturned; however, I have deep concerns which I do not know how they will or even can be answered.  What will happen to women who insist that it is their right (and once was their right if Roe is struck down) to have an abortion if they are faced with a situation in which they deem an abortion to be their only or at least best choice?  Is the country prepared to handle pregnancies of women who do not want to raise the children they must bring to birth?  Is the church ready?  How can the counseling field be brought to help what will be a whole change not only in the law but what people have come to believe is their right?  How will fathers (be forced?) to play a new role in pregnancy responsibility where the mother does not want to keep a child after birth?   What will happen if a significant (sad word in this topic) number of abortions start happening in ways and manners meant to escape prosecution for going against a new anti-abortion law?   What will be the punishments of people, upper class and those in poverty, for violation of a removal of Roe v Wade?  Is anyone concerned with what will happen if and when Roe is removed as a law?  Do you think it is right to be concerned with such things?  The Supreme Court will not be the ones to deal with the results.   You can laugh at me, but I have struggled with the question, is Trump worth it for getting pro-life justices in place?   It is a variation of the end justifying the means and perhaps the means has only been putting up with a foul-mouthed, erratic President... but if he would happen to start throwing around some unneeded missiles... how many would it take to call the means fully into question?  One nuclear device?  Or some other catastrophic action.   May God preserve us from those possibility.  I do think it is wrong to count war dead and compare that to aborted fetuses or try to decide who is more "innocent" and defenseless.  But I think that war dead do count as well as aborted human beings.  Rome has stated that more correctly than most of the rest of Christendom.

Harvey- Here is the shocking truth. If Roe gets overturned (your lips to God's ears) then... Roe is overturned. That then means that the issue will be decided by each state. Abortion will not be eliminated from the US until we win over the the country. That campaign will need to be fought heart by heart. With the increase in 3D/4D sonograms, and with the spread of crisis pregnancy centers on the one hand, and the stridently murderous blatherings of the supporters of Big Abortion on the other (Sarah Silverman, Michelle Wolf, and others), the tide is going the way of Life.

A useful step would be getting Big Abortion's poleznye duraki to stop spreading the fallacious meme that "No one is pro-abortion." The statement is demonstrably false, but some people cling to it as bitterly as others apparently cling to their bibles and guns...
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 08, 2018, 04:28:51 PM

Much to many questions for a simply post to answer.


What happens if Roe v. Wade is overturned?  If one listens closely to what Trump's Supreme Court Justices have said (as opposed to what those who reject them say that they have said) they have not allowed themselves to be nominated to be Justices for the purpose of overturning Roe v. Wade.  What they would rule would depend on the merits of the case put before them.  They are probably less enthusiastic about the wonders and blessings of abortion on demand as their critics seem to be.  But even there, they profess more interest in enforcing the law than on seeing things go the way they wish they would go.  YMMV.


That said, if Roe v. Wade be overturned, abortion would not immediately become illegal.  The question would return to the various legislatures, federal and state, to enact the laws they choose to protect or restrict abortion.  It would be up for discussion, debate and regulation.  Ultimately it will be up to the people and especially the people they elect to represent them to decide what happens.  That should be a time to discuss the ramifications.


Something that has bothered me about this debate is the assumption that if most abortions should end up illegal (and even if RvW is overturned that is not a certainty) and many women will resort to abortion nonetheless, that we as a nation have a responsibility to make it safe for them to do so.  Any death is tragic.  The deaths of women undergoing illegal abortions because the procedures employed are unsafe would be tragic deaths.  So are the deaths of nascent human beings aborted.  It is troubling that in order to preserve the lives of women desiring abortions, the lives of their aborted offspring are to be cheerfully, gleefully consigned to the garbage dump or the transplant bank (still more profit for the abortion industry) with the rest of the medical waste.  Can't there be a better way to deal with problem pregnancies?


And yes I know, there are pro-choice people who also portray themselves as anti-abortion on demand.  For them cheerfully, gleefully may not be appropriate descriptions.  But that does not describe many abortion supporters, some of whom describe abortion in almost sacramental terms.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on September 08, 2018, 04:32:48 PM
Matt, since you mentioned it and I don't recall (I chose not to recall most of our writers positions on all things) you position on guns but there is a relationship between abortion and guns and the strange willingness to be anti-abortion but pro-gun... IMO.  Not in others' opinions I know.  But if everyone were required to carry a gun or no one was allowed to carry a gun... think of what that would be like in our country.  Everyone being allowed to have an abortion (although only women can undergo it in their own bodies) does not mean that all are required to have one or that some would never have an abortion because of their faith or belief.  I suspect (IMO) that guns will not go away as a right and the right will continue to be quite broad, even though I would be happy to give them all the the police types and military.  I also suspect that like ubiquitous weapons-- abortion, like gay marriage, gay ordinations, once come has come for good  (to quote Updike on cocoa's scum) but not so good in the long run parousia-wise.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on September 08, 2018, 04:34:23 PM
Steven, with all due respect (as they say in political circles but I do mean it) what does my leaving the ELCA and being a member of the NALC have to do with my political opinions and observations, like-- thinking Trump is far afield and terrifying in his labeling of folks well beyond the usual pale even of politicians.  Or am I missing some point you make and I do not catch?


The first direction I would point you, Harvey, would only remind you of why you are no longer an ELCA pastor.   :(
Kyrie eleison, Steven+


You accuse the President of being beyond the pale with regard to labeling his opponents.  I still participate in groups of fellow ELCA clergy and, alas, you ain't see "beyond the pale."  You really don't want to go there.

Pax, Steven+
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on September 08, 2018, 04:35:50 PM
"That should be a time to discuss the ramifications."

I do not agree. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on September 08, 2018, 04:53:45 PM
OK, Steven, I did not understand that.  I am sorry that you experience beyond-things.  In my days of objection to trends in worship-neuter stuff and the sexuality matters, some folks began to move some distance away from me and I am sure the Bishop and staff were not happy with the stances I took, what I said and my and later my parish's leaving... but no one was in my face nor said anything ugly or nasty or worse to me.  I know some were disappointed but even a few on the other side of things kept up personal friendships as best they could and several are still my friends though we now live a distance from each other.  I would urge you to get out...  the NALC and other groups are far from perfect and we may yet have our grinding moments over other matters and less than a greater future but it is much quieter.  I do miss some great minds, like yours, and people of special talents and more theologians.  All IMO, of course.  But do not take this as sheep stealing so much as letting you know the pasture fence is down in places and the flock has several groupings.  Smile. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 08, 2018, 05:09:35 PM
"That should be a time to discuss the ramifications."

I do not agree.

I think that some of our disagreement reflects a basic bifurcation on the role of the judiciary, especially the high courts, in the minds of Americans.  One school of thought is that the role of courts is to apply the law, as it has been written and as it has been judicially interpreted by stare decisis or precedent.  How does the law judge the facts put before the court?  What does this law mean in this particular case?  Does this law contradict a higher law that applies (such as Constitutional Law) and thus is an illegal law?  Under this philosophy of law, the judge is there to enforce the law not to rewrite the law according to what he believes is correct.


The other school of thought holds that while the judge or court does all that in applying the law, it also is to rewrite the law according to what the judge(s) think that it should say.  It is to be a activist court carrying out what it deems best for the people of the country.


Under this second philosophy of the court, what a Supreme Court nominee thinks or feels about an issue is important because it is assumed that whether or not it is actually in the law, that is how as a justice he will rule.  Thus if a nominee is opposed to abortion, he will work to make it illegal and being on the Supreme Court would not be answerable to the people.


What is more likely is the Gorsuch or Kavanaugh who at least claim to respect stare decisis and would vote to overturn RvW only if convinced that it was a bad decision to begin with (bad as in using improper legal reasoning) and thus the question of the legality of abortion would return to the state and perhaps federal legislatures who should then consider the ramifications of making abortion illegal.


If we must consider the ramifications of making abortion illegal before confirming a justice who personally dislikes abortion, that puts him in the role of making the law, not interpreting or applying the law.


Must a nominee for the Supreme Court  be an enthusiastic supporter of abortion on demand before he or she could be legitimately confirmed?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on September 08, 2018, 05:26:52 PM
well when one side says they want to put in a judge who will overturn RvW
and the other side says they want to put in a judge who will keep RvW...

and there is really no other side to be heard from...

no wonder no candidate can/should be trusted... unless they picked one from either side or a slew of qualified candidates and cast lots...

what I was saying, maybe not clearly, was that I don't think the time to talk about what are we going to do if abortions are outlawed is only after federal law is changed and states are forced to consider their positions...  it should be much sooner than that...  with enough votes any law can be changed... but what the law does to human beings (as abortion does and as stopping abortions will) should be studied and prepared for as best as can be in advance.

dumb illustration: if you pass a law to close all emergency rooms in all hospitals you should know or prepare for what is going to happen to accident victims and heart attack patients... will they be dumped in the parking lot, will they be brought to MD's offices, will someone be opening non-hospital emergency rooms, what?



Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 08, 2018, 05:43:18 PM
An "originalist" or a "strict constructionist" is simply someone who considers the text of the constitution to be almost as authoritative as progressives consider the text of the majority opinion of Roe v. Wade to be. 

Imagine the panic if Kavanaugh affirmed that Roe v. Wade was "settled law" and then added that of course we have to view it is a living document, subject to contextual application, and that states could ban abortion without Roe v Wade being overturned or ceasing to be settled law. Those who decry originalism and strict constructionism toward the constitution absolutely abide by and insist upon both doctrines as applied to this one (particularly ludicrous) SCOTUS ruling.

The amazing thing is that the constitution is amendable. Try to tinker with Roe v. Wade and you're messing with Sacred Scripture on the Left.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 08, 2018, 05:58:42 PM
An "originalist" or a "strict constructionist" is simply someone who considers the text of the constitution to be almost as authoritative as progressives consider the text of the majority opinion of Roe v. Wade to be. 

Imagine the panic if Kavanaugh affirmed that Roe v. Wade was "settled law" and then added that of course we have to view it is a living document, subject to contextual application, and that states could ban abortion without Roe v Wade being overturned or ceasing to be settled law. Those who decry originalism and strict constructionism toward the constitution absolutely abide by and insist upon both doctrines as applied to this one (particularly ludicrous) SCOTUS ruling.

The amazing thing is that the constitution is amendable. Try to tinker with Roe v. Wade and you're messing with Sacred Scripture on the Left.
Well, wouldn’t that be tinkering with one of the holy sacraments, one of God’s greatest gifts?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Matt Hummel on September 08, 2018, 09:17:57 PM
Matt, since you mentioned it and I don't recall (I chose not to recall most of our writers positions on all things) you position on guns but there is a relationship between abortion and guns and the strange willingness to be anti-abortion but pro-gun... IMO.  Not in others' opinions I know.  But if everyone were required to carry a gun or no one was allowed to carry a gun... think of what that would be like in our country.  Everyone being allowed to have an abortion (although only women can undergo it in their own bodies) does not mean that all are required to have one or that some would never have an abortion because of their faith or belief.  I suspect (IMO) that guns will not go away as a right and the right will continue to be quite broad, even though I would be happy to give them all the the police types and military.  I also suspect that like ubiquitous weapons-- abortion, like gay marriage, gay ordinations, once come has come for good  (to quote Updike on cocoa's scum) but not so good in the long run parousia-wise.

Gun control or being pro or anti gun is a red herring. People RIGHTLY bemoan the the number of (innocent) lives lost to gun violence each year. Especially in places like Chicago. Or Philadelphia. I am heartily sick of the fact that the leading cause of death amongst African American children in places like NYC  is abortion. Maybe the reason we have a generation of nihilistic killers is that they existentially comprehend that we as a society don't give a damn about them. We set up a system that kills over 50% of them before they draw breath. black lives do matter. And when people realize that Big Abortion takes far more lives than racist cops, gang bangers, and others using fire arms, then maybe actually we will have some common sense behavior regarding guns. Yes- for those who need the dots connected, it is my contention that if you want to curb gun violence, curb abortion violence.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Robert Johnson on September 09, 2018, 12:54:29 AM
Steven, with all due respect (as they say in political circles but I do mean it) what does my leaving the ELCA and being a member of the NALC have to do with my political opinions and observations, like-- thinking Trump is far afield and terrifying in his labeling of folks well beyond the usual pale even of politicians.  Or am I missing some point you make and I do not catch?

Probably it's because you reveal your personal politics so clearly in every post.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Robert Johnson on September 09, 2018, 01:01:54 AM
dumb illustration: if you pass a law to close all emergency rooms in all hospitals you should know or prepare for what is going to happen to accident victims and heart attack patients... will they be dumped in the parking lot, will they be brought to MD's offices, will someone be opening non-hospital emergency rooms, what?

What if you pass a law that says any illegal immigrant can get treatment at all emergency rooms, and the consequence of that law is that emergency rooms near the border are not viable because the demand outstrips the funding?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 09, 2018, 04:48:42 AM
Robert Johnson writes:
What if you pass a law that says any illegal immigrant can get treatment at all emergency rooms, and the consequence of that law is that emergency rooms near the border are not viable because the demand outstrips the funding?

I comment:
I don't know about a "law," but I believe any emergency room anywhere has to treat people who come in. And they are still around, near the border and elsewhere. Matter of fact, I think they are not allowed to ask about immigrant status before they treat.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on September 09, 2018, 07:30:41 AM
I think (hope I am correct and Steven can and should correct me) and I did respond that way already to Steven explanation... that Steven meant something else and it had to do with our church bodies.  And though his original statement to me may have little if nothing to do with politics...  others, perhaps you, do not reveal personal politics???

Steven, with all due respect (as they say in political circles but I do mean it) what does my leaving the ELCA and being a member of the NALC have to do with my political opinions and observations, like-- thinking Trump is far afield and terrifying in his labeling of folks well beyond the usual pale even of politicians.  Or am I missing some point you make and I do not catch?

Probably it's because you reveal your personal politics so clearly in every post.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on September 09, 2018, 07:39:48 AM
I also want to say-- yes, in self justification but also with some honesty IMO-- that to say I reveal my politics in every post is more than a justifiable overstatement... over the years I have been quit restrained in flying my political flags (mainly because I don't have much interest in patriotism... thankful for my freedoms and lovely land, yes... but keeping all that well below first commandment stuff). Restrained, actually leashed completely in parish life, but also here in these forum parts.   In recent days, I did feel a touch of patriotism with McCain's death... but for the last two years I have feared the patriotism that clots around our president, fear that our nation might tumble into what we despise in other autocratic nations.  That is my patriotism, not very positive I admit... but sincere. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on September 09, 2018, 07:45:21 AM
Perhaps I repeat myself, but I was slightly tempted to vote for Trump early on.  The thought of a change in the Washington gridlock and the new outsider arguments are enticing.  But I did not.  We all saw that which was not simply a streak of selfishness but a mother-load and the depth of his rejection of values and the surge toward monetary aggrandizement that should have warned us.  Now, no matter how one voted or did not vote... any Republican or Democrat who can help free us from him will be helpful and will be considered for my vote. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Steven W Bohler on September 09, 2018, 08:18:20 AM
I have to say that I don't get the negative views of President Trump here, basically from everyone.  Sure, he is loud and obnoxious.  But, we are told on this very forum, that such is the way of New Yorkers.  He is a braggart with an outsized ego.  But so was the previous president.  His sexual ethics are not in keeping with the commandments (but, during the Clinton years, we were told by the same folks who bash Trump for this that one's sexual and/or personal life is off-limits and that it does not affect his job performance). 

So, how IS that job performance?  The economy is racing along, jobs have returned (jobs, which the previous president assured us could NEVER come back), stock are booming.  Unemployment at historically low numbers.  Significant steps taken in dealing with the North Korea problem.  No new wars (which of our previous few presidents can say that?).  And more.

What exactly is he doing -- as president, not as a person (remember your defense of President Clinton, Democrats!) -- that is so terrible?  Why do even those here who see themselves as conservatives feel it necessary to preface any Trump-related posts with a denunciation of him?  I am mystified.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on September 09, 2018, 08:59:53 AM
if nothing else, Steven Bohler,
1. a President who lies everyday or if several are mistakes of speech, never corrects.
2. a President who favors or allows white supremacy, if even only slightly, beyond the edge of the allowable ambiguity.
3. a President who belittles and ridicules other human beings in the manner of a childish bully and threatens wildly.
4. a President, even allowing for the great possibility that he is not a Christian, boasts that he has never done anything for which he needs to receive forgiveness.
5. a President who espouses family morality and yet shows shame for wide sexual escapades with payoffs.
That is enough for me...   perhaps not for all here about.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Weedon on September 09, 2018, 11:49:15 AM
Harvey,

Just one note: I don’t understand at all the connection you apparently see between abortion and guns. I am indeed “pro gun” even while I don’t own one and have no plans to ever own one. But I’m from a good southern family, let the reader understand, and grew up around them and simply don’t see them as the problem you apparently do.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Steven W Bohler on September 09, 2018, 01:02:46 PM
if nothing else, Steven Bohler,
1. a President who lies everyday or if several are mistakes of speech, never corrects.
2. a President who favors or allows white supremacy, if even only slightly, beyond the edge of the allowable ambiguity.
3. a President who belittles and ridicules other human beings in the manner of a childish bully and threatens wildly.
4. a President, even allowing for the great possibility that he is not a Christian, boasts that he has never done anything for which he needs to receive forgiveness.
5. a President who espouses family morality and yet shows shame for wide sexual escapades with payoffs.
That is enough for me...   perhaps not for all here about.

1. I will stack Trump up against Obama, any day of the week, for truthfulness.
2. How does Trump favor or allow white supremacy?  I have heard him denounce it. 
3. Does "basket of deporables" ring any bells with you?  How about "those who cling to their Bibles and guns"?  Or "we won the election...they (Republicans) can sit in the back of the bus"?
4. I specifically asked about his performance as president; how does that claim of not needing forgiveness (as wrong as it is, from our Christian perspective) affect his job performance?
5. Let me answer this one with a question: did you support the impeachment of President Clinton?  Remember, his sexual escapades -- and they were legion -- were alleged to have been, on at least a number of occasions, non-consensual while all of Trump's (as far as I know) have been claimed to have been consensual. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 09, 2018, 02:27:26 PM
You are being most foolish, Pastor Bohler. And I don’t understand why, although I have my ideas. The Issue is not Trump against Obama. The issue is Trump against the constitution and the rule of law. The issue is not whether Trump has any “accomplishments“ as president.  the issue is his competence to be in the office, the way he is using the office, and if you don’t see any reason why that ought to be a matter of concern, then I think I have no hope for you either.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on September 09, 2018, 02:38:54 PM
Well Will, the connection between abortion and guns is not meant except to say as I was attempting to say  that we will not be able to rid ourselves of abortions as a needed right any more than we will be able to rid ourselves of those who clutch their guns as a needed right.

And alas, I come from a priestly immediate family and we never owned guns (BB gun or two literally and long gone).  Now I admit I do not live in an area where there is rampant violence... altho it might even be more dangerous to have a gun there.  I am something of a pacifist but I do have my fears and doubts if called on to defend others that pacifism would be my go to approach.  Although when confronted with real and practiced violence, not sure I could have much to defend others or myself with other than prayer and sacrificing myself as a shield-- if I were given enough courage to do so. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 09, 2018, 04:01:59 PM
You are being most foolish, Pastor Bohler. And I don’t understand why, although I have my ideas. The Issue is not Trump against Obama. The issue is Trump against the constitution and the rule of law. The issue is not whether Trump has any “accomplishments“ as president.  the issue is his competence to be in the office, the way he is using the office, and if you don’t see any reason why that ought to be a matter of concern, then I think I have no hope for you either.
I’m all about the constitution and the rule of law. What law has Trump broken that makes him unique or even unusual among presidents?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 09, 2018, 05:52:19 PM
I will not be drawn down that rabbit-hole, Peter. The issue is not whether laws are "broken," but the statements concerning the law and the attitude towards not only the law but our core values as a nation.
Matters clearly suggesting - according to some good legal minds - obstruction of justice are being investigated. The attacks on the press - even if the press is as evil as he contends - are worrisome. The hint at "loyalty oaths" for White House staff members. The fact that his own lawyers do not believe he is capable of telling the truth under oath. Financial matters which are still murky and more than a little suspicious. Erratic behavior that goes far beyond the sexual misconduct of President Clinton and in ways more dangerous to our republic.
Well, I am nearing the rabbit hole, so I am skidding to a stop.
Bottom line: I think anyone who says - today - "Well! I'm eager to vote for him again", is acting foolishly.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Terry Culler on September 09, 2018, 07:28:11 PM
I will not be drawn down that rabbit-hole, Peter. The issue is not whether laws are "broken," but the statements concerning the law and the attitude towards not only the law but our core values as a nation.
Matters clearly suggesting - according to some good legal minds - obstruction of justice are being investigated. The attacks on the press - even if the press is as evil as he contends - are worrisome. The hint at "loyalty oaths" for White House staff members. The fact that his own lawyers do not believe he is capable of telling the truth under oath. Financial matters which are still murky and more than a little suspicious. Erratic behavior that goes far beyond the sexual misconduct of President Clinton and in ways more dangerous to our republic.
Well, I am nearing the rabbit hole, so I am skidding to a stop.
Bottom line: I think anyone who says - today - "Well! I'm eager to vote for him again", is acting foolishly.


Yes, Trump hasn't been proven to have broken any laws at all, but some people think he has thought about doing so, therefore the best option is to impeach him now and worry about the legalities later.  I suppose the only way he could get a pass from the left is if he was a gay Muslim.  This is still a nation of laws even if Trump and Charles don't like that
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 09, 2018, 07:40:06 PM
Pastor Culler writes:
Yes, Trump hasn't been proven to have broken any laws at all, but some people think he has thought about doing so, therefore the best option is to impeach him now and worry about the legalities later.
I comment:
Heavens! What wiggy comments are blurted if certain insensibilities are poked!
The "best option" is to gather the evidence and impeach him through the legal process. (Actually, I do not favor impeaching the current occupant of the oval office, I would prefer that - by some miracle, and we "progressives" do believe in miracles - he would resign.) But the idiocy that folks such as I are not worrying about "legalities" is just batty.

Pastor Culler writes:
I suppose the only way he could get a pass from the left is if he was a gay Muslim.  This is still a nation of laws even if Trump and Charles don't like that
I comment:
See above. Or ponder what kind of a "pass" President Obama or President Clinton might get from the right or what Mrs. Clinton, neither charged or convicted of any crime, got from the Trumpers not too long ago.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Terry Culler on September 09, 2018, 07:50:17 PM
Charles, your response to Peter indeed indicates that you are not too concerned about whether the law has been broken but the fact that some so-called legal minds are thinking about it.  Obama frankly did more damage to constitutional government than Trump has been able to do so far--probably because Obama is brighter than Trump (remember--I don't need new laws, I have a phone and a pen?)

The strange thing really is that many conservatives would be just as happy to see the back of Mr. Trump as Charles and his friends are, we just think there should be some high crime and misdemeanor more serious than the fact that he's a loud mouthed jerk who suffers from the delusion of being intellectually and morally adequate.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: RandyBosch on September 09, 2018, 08:01:28 PM
[…] The attacks on the press - even if the press is as evil as he contends - are worrisome.

Definitely worrisome.
Lest we forget, under the previous administration, secret warrants were received to wiretap Associated Press, a known example; James Rosen, who allegedly received and transmitted insider information from the White House, was referred to the DOJ for prosecution (a reminder that the President directs the Attorney General to take specific actions on many occasions through many Presidential terms); White House staff members were sworn into office with stern readings of the Sedition act or some such, and some who were thought by the Oval Office to have leaked information were referred to DOJ for prosecution.  Those who weren't prosecuted because the DOJ didn't find cause (very few if any were prosecuted) were then given over to intelligence agencies with direction from the White House to find other ways to deliver extrajudicial consequences - apparently via the FBI, NSA, and the CIA (which cannot operate legally in the USA).

Pr. Austin might remember the LBJ days when the FBI and CIA were actively working with moles and under false colors to infiltrate and hopefully destroy the anti-Vietnam War movement, including by encouraging the resistance to perform illegal acts.

This would be a good time to stop all such malarkey (what a strangely benign word for dangerous, illegal activities...).
Just because the previous administration … and how many previously to that one … did these things, doesn't make it acceptable.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 09, 2018, 08:18:24 PM
Then now is the time to stop all this malarkey rather than sluff it off by saying “everyone has done this.”
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 09, 2018, 09:40:55 PM
Then now is the time to stop all this malarkey rather than sluff it off by saying “everyone has done this.”
Charles, you’re the one that said the issue wasn’t Trump’s personal behavior, it was the rule of law and the constitution. I see zero threat to either coming from Trump. It isn’t a rabbit hole, it is serious question. How is the constitution threatened? Where is the rule of law being threatened?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 10, 2018, 03:39:28 AM
Peter, I have no hope of getting you to grasp what it means when he calls for the justice department to put his enemies in jail, when he threatens and criticizes judges who rule against him, when he wants the Justice Department to be loyal to him and protect him, when he denounces legal investigations as witch hunts, when he constantly attacks the special counsel, when he relishes the idea that he can pardon anyone convicted of a federal crime (including himself), when his battle against immigrants overrides the law, when he tells Fox News that the government should close mosques “where a lot of things are happening,” when he would restore torture as an investigative technique or kill families of suspected terrorists, when the words of people around him would put the president above the law, when he attempts to overrule the rights of states, when he attempts to nullify the Affordable Care Act and other laws by executive order.
I know that you have work-arounds and excuses and minimizations of all these things. Heard them all. But the concerns I express come from some people with greater knowledge of the law and the Constitution that you or I or anyone on this modest forum.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 10, 2018, 08:45:18 AM
Then now is the time to stop all this malarkey rather than sluff it off by saying “everyone has done this.”

Why point out what other presidents and administrations have done and comparing their actions to Pres. Trump's actions?  The argument being put forth is that whether or not there is adequate evidence to indict and convict Pres. Trump of a crime, he is unfit for office and should either resign or somehow removed from office.  Suspicion of a crime is not (or at least should not) be enough to convict anyone of a crime, much less a sitting president.  Impeachment is to be for "high crimes and misdemeanors" not for being unpopular or differing politically from the majority of the House of Representatives.  Being unfit for office is much more of an opinion.  There it is reasonable to compare his actions with those of other presidents who served out their terms without having attempts to remove them for office for being unfit.  If "everyone has done this" then apparently "doing this" has not made one unfit for the office.



Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on September 10, 2018, 08:46:28 AM
Peter, I have no hope of getting you to grasp what it means when he calls for the justice department to put his enemies in jail, when he threatens and criticizes judges who rule against him, when he wants the Justice Department to be loyal to him and protect him, when he denounces legal investigations as witch hunts, when he constantly attacks the special counsel, when he relishes the idea that he can pardon anyone convicted of a federal crime (including himself), when his battle against immigrants overrides the law, when he tells Fox News that the government should close mosques “where a lot of things are happening,” when he would restore torture as an investigative technique or kill families of suspected terrorists, when the words of people around him would put the president above the law, when he attempts to overrule the rights of states, when he attempts to nullify the Affordable Care Act and other laws by executive order.
I know that you have work-arounds and excuses and minimizations of all these things. Heard them all. But the concerns I express come from some people with greater knowledge of the law and the Constitution that you or I or anyone on this modest forum.

How frustrating when one asks another to give specifics or otherwise explain another's wild and deranged speculations and, instead, gets a condescending "You wouldn't understand" ("I have no hope of getting you to grasp... ") response. Such belittling and patronizing responses appear to manifest a classic personality disorder.

So, we have no hope of getting you to change, Charles.  :(
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Coach-Rev on September 10, 2018, 09:07:23 AM
You are being most foolish, Pastor Bohler. And I don’t understand why, although I have my ideas. The Issue is not Trump against Obama. The issue is Trump against the constitution and the rule of law. The issue is not whether Trump has any “accomplishments“ as president.  the issue is his competence to be in the office, the way he is using the office, and if you don’t see any reason why that ought to be a matter of concern, then I think I have no hope for you either.

Charles, I respectfully suggest you flip the names "Trump" and "Obama" in your statement.  Then, and ONLY then, you might just begin to understand the other side's frustrations, along with the real reasons he got elected in the first place.

FWIW, you do yourself no favors by your labeling of Pastor Bohler. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on September 10, 2018, 09:09:23 AM
Then now is the time to stop all this malarkey rather than sluff it off by saying “everyone has done this.”
Charles, you’re the one that said the issue wasn’t Trump’s personal behavior, it was the rule of law and the constitution. I see zero threat to either coming from Trump. It isn’t a rabbit hole, it is serious question. How is the constitution threatened? Where is the rule of law being threatened?

It's not like Trump tried to make an unconstitutional recess appointment when the Senate was not in recess.  Or used the investigative powers of the federal government on a reporter in an attempt to uncover a leak.   Or changed immigration or health insurance laws via a pen and a phone.

As I keep saying:  tribalism.  Things are only bad when the other guys do it.  I assume Pr. Austin will you not answer you, and instead will keep trolling us with his sanctimony.

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on September 10, 2018, 09:10:29 AM
Then now is the time to stop all this malarkey rather than sluff it off by saying “everyone has done this.”

Why did you not speak up, as you are now, when "everyone" started doing it years ago?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Voelker on September 10, 2018, 09:14:50 AM
Peter, I have no hope of getting you to grasp what it means when he calls for the justice department to put his enemies in jail, when he threatens and criticizes judges who rule against him, when he wants the Justice Department to be loyal to him and protect him, when he denounces legal investigations as witch hunts, when he constantly attacks the special counsel, when he relishes the idea that he can pardon anyone convicted of a federal crime (including himself), when his battle against immigrants overrides the law, when he tells Fox News that the government should close mosques “where a lot of things are happening,” when he would restore torture as an investigative technique or kill families of suspected terrorists, when the words of people around him would put the president above the law, when he attempts to overrule the rights of states, when he attempts to nullify the Affordable Care Act and other laws by executive order.
I know that you have work-arounds and excuses and minimizations of all these things. Heard them all. But the concerns I express come from some people with greater knowledge of the law and the Constitution that you or I or anyone on this modest forum.

How frustrating when one asks another to give specifics or otherwise explain another's wild and deranged speculations and, instead, gets a condescending "You wouldn't understand" ("I have no hope of getting you to grasp... ") response. Such belittling and patronizing responses appear to manifest a classic personality disorder.

So, we have no hope of getting you to change, Charles.  :(
The reliance on anonymous sources is also notable.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 10, 2018, 09:48:55 AM
Mr. Spatz (ever concerned about this humble correspondent) writes:
Why did you not speak up, as you are now, when "everyone" started doing it years ago?

I comment:
Perhaps I did. Did you know me way back then? I don't think so.
Note to WJV: In the news business, anonymous sources are known to the writer of the article and to the editors of the publication. Often they confirm information obtained elsewhere or they are granted anonymity because the information they have is critical and cannot be obtained anywhere else. I can remember only one time, perhaps two times, when I used them. I tried to keep all my sources open and on the record and editors had long discussions about any source that wanted to be anonymous.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: RDPreus on September 10, 2018, 09:53:47 AM
I don't know how we can get the use of anonymous sources to jibe with the faithful application of the 8th Commandment. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 10, 2018, 10:16:21 AM
There are two reasons, Pastor Preus.
First, a strict, rigid, some might say fundamentalist approach to scripture is not the root of journalistic ethics; nor should it be.
Second, anonymous sources are not always critical nor do they always denounce the person or issue at hand. Sometime they just provide sensitive information or data or details in the rare situations when the origin of that information must be kept from the public.
Reporters also speak to people, usually people in high places, "on background,"  which means that the information can be published and attributed to some kind of unnamed source (although folks usually know or can figure out who that source is). It's sort of a diplomatic pas de deux; and we don't like it, but it's necessary.
Then we speak to people "off the record," which means that the information may not be published. This information is used to help us understand the issue or perhaps change the direction or focus of our investigations.
As I often say, life is complicated.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on September 10, 2018, 10:19:18 AM
Mr. Spatz (ever concerned about this humble correspondent) writes:
Why did you not speak up, as you are now, when "everyone" started doing it years ago?

I comment:
Perhaps I did. Did you know me way back then? I don't think so.
Okay, let me clarify...on this forum.  I believe my participation began at the end of the Bill Clinton presidency.  It certainly preceded George W. Bush's invasion of Iraq.  My observation of your tribalism is based on a large sample size.  The periodic silence remains deafening.

UPDATE:
Perhaps you can correct me:  I don't recall you ever expressing concern here that Obama's Justice Department subpoenaed phone records of AP reporters and particularly investigating Fox News reporter James Rosen supposedly for violations of the Espionage Act.  But maybe the latter was okay because it was Fox News.  I'd have thought that being in the profession such actions would have been of great concern to you.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 10, 2018, 10:36:15 AM
It might be informative for you to know, Mr. Spatz, that my life is not fully spent in protest or campaigns or various types of activist endeavors. In the past 25 years, I have been a full-time pastor (not one to engage in "political" activities), a newspaper reporter (not primarily, but partially covering politics and government), retired, an interim pastor for several congregations (again avoiding "political" activity), and a freelance writer for whatever publication will buy my work.
From time to time, through the ACLU, Religion Newswriters Association, or similar groups, I may have contributed to work on some "issue."
So you may not tar me with the brush of not being active or consistent enough in my concerns.
It's that complicated life thing again.
BTW if President Obama or any other president illegally subpoenas or threatens reporters, that stinks. OK?
(Someday I may tell of the Roman Catholic bishop who said my eternal salvation was in jeopardy if I did not agree with him on what was important for a news story.)
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Voelker on September 10, 2018, 10:47:44 AM
Mr. Spatz (ever concerned about this humble correspondent) writes:
Why did you not speak up, as you are now, when "everyone" started doing it years ago?

I comment:
Perhaps I did. Did you know me way back then? I don't think so.
Note to WJV: In the news business, anonymous sources are known to the writer of the article and to the editors of the publication. Often they confirm information obtained elsewhere or they are granted anonymity because the information they have is critical and cannot be obtained anywhere else. I can remember only one time, perhaps two times, when I used them. I tried to keep all my sources open and on the record and editors had long discussions about any source that wanted to be anonymous.
Thanks for the explanation of the blindingly obvious.

No, the anonymous sources I referred to were the "some people with greater knowledge of the law and the Constitution that you or I or anyone on this modest forum" to whom you referred above. For all we know they are figments of your imagination, authorities invented in order to give some believability to your assertions. In other words, "Charles Austin" claims that "some people" said "something."
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on September 10, 2018, 10:50:19 AM
It might be informative for you to know, Mr. Spatz, that my life is not fully spent in protest or campaigns or various types of activist endeavors. In the past 25 years, I have been a full-time pastor (not one to engage in "political" activities), a newspaper reporter (not primarily, but partially covering politics and government), retired, an interim pastor for several congregations (again avoiding "political" activity), and a freelance writer for whatever publication will buy my work.
From time to time, through the ACLU, Religion Newswriters Association, or similar groups, I may have contributed to work on some "issue."
So you may not tar me with the brush of not being active or consistent enough in my concerns.
It's that complicated life thing again.
BTW if President Obama or any other president illegally subpoenas or threatens reporters, that stinks. OK?
(Someday I may tell of the Roman Catholic bishop who said my eternal salvation was in jeopardy if I did not agree with him on what was important for a news story.)

I'm mainly concerned with the when and how often you troll this forum with your tribalism.  Even as you accuse others of lacking concern for morality in our land, the title of this very thread which YOU started.  I wouldn't object quite so much if you didn't accuse and condescend while signaling your virtue.

UPDATE:  random notion...maybe some forum participants who are mostly silent about Trump here are actually expressing their concerns outside this forum.   ::)
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 10, 2018, 10:52:59 AM
It might be informative for you to know, Mr. Spatz, that my life is not fully spent in protest or campaigns or various types of activist endeavors. In the past 25 years, I have been a full-time pastor (not one to engage in "political" activities), a newspaper reporter (not primarily, but partially covering politics and government), retired, an interim pastor for several congregations (again avoiding "political" activity), and a freelance writer for whatever publication will buy my work.
From time to time, through the ACLU, Religion Newswriters Association, or similar groups, I may have contributed to work on some "issue."
So you may not tar me with the brush of not being active or consistent enough in my concerns.
It's that complicated life thing again.
BTW if President Obama or any other president illegally subpoenas or threatens reporters, that stinks. OK?
(Someday I may tell of the Roman Catholic bishop who said my eternal salvation was in jeopardy if I did not agree with him on what was important for a news story.)

Whether or not Pr. Austin personally protested in public, on-line or private statements against possible abuses of position or power by previous presidents as he does vociferously against Donald Trump is of significance to his consistency and credibility but has little bearing on the public debate about Pres. Trump's fitness for office.  The fact is that other presidents have done things similar to what is being complained about from Pres. Trump and they remained in office.  That now such actions should result in his leaving office when previously they did not hints at a double standard being in play.


Double standards are generally considered to be unfair and illegitimate.  They should be illegitimate whether the double standard favors one's side or disadvantages it.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 10, 2018, 11:24:52 AM
"Standards" only work if everything to be "measured" is more or less equal.
So what "standard" might apply if one considers:
The first six months of the first FDR term.
Harry Truman's "fitness" for office (derided by FDR).
Eisenhower's generally apolitical approach.
Reagan. "Acting" like a president (under direction) or really being president?
The personalities of Nixon, Clinton, the Bushes and Obama. How does one compare or apply a "standard" to such diverse characters?
Historian Arthur Schlesinger traced growth of the "imperial presidency" and George Will wrote of how Nixon leaned more strongly that way than any previous occupant of the Oval Office.
"Standards" are not easy.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: RandyBosch on September 10, 2018, 11:29:17 AM
I have always found it sardonically amusing to see "anonymous" or "trusted" sources referenced for the disclosure of real or fictional information from government sources in those cases where the disclosure of that information does not just potentially jeopardize employment or advancement (thus only violating HR rules) and particularly in those cases "not authorized to speak" but speaking anyway, where the disclosure is in clear violation of someone's Civil Rights, or extant Laws and Regulations -- particularly in areas of national security.

One either has "skin in the game" or cannot be a trusted source, unless tribalism unilaterally voids all laws, regulations, employment agreements and ethics.

On the other hand, too many of the named and even speaking out/authoring sources have no higher standing than their reputation or "good name".  At least those folks aren't promoting hearsay in most cases (until they share "anonymous", "trusted", "not authorized to speak" alleged sources.

It moves beyond sardonic humor to a great irony that all of those foggy, obscured "sources" are seen to be of such unimpeachable value to some contributors to this modest forum by those who don't have "skin in the game".

Of course, the "get out of jail free" card for the decade seems the simple invocation of "Trump" or "Obama" or "Alt-right" or "Alt-left"--
the modern version of either Flip Wilson's "The Devil made me do it" or "the ends justify the means".  Lenin would be proud of such disciples.

Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: RandyBosch on September 10, 2018, 11:33:46 AM
"Standards" only work if everything to be "measured" is more or less equal.
So what "standard" might apply if one considers:
The first six months of the first FDR term.
Harry Truman's "fitness" for office (derided by FDR).
Eisenhower's generally apolitical approach.
Reagan. "Acting" like a president (under direction) or really being president?
The personalities of Nixon, Clinton, the Bushes and Obama. How does one compare or apply a "standard" to such diverse characters?
Historian Arthur Schlesinger traced growth of the "imperial presidency" and George Will wrote of how Nixon leaned more strongly that way than any previous occupant of the Oval Office.
"Standards" are not easy.

Please explain how you can validate your presumption that "'Standards' only work if everything to be 'measured' is more or less equal", particularly when you then set up a test for "standards" with line items that are in every case prejudicial to the people and their activities that you wish to judge.
Asking for an anonymous, but trusted source, friend. 
Thanks in advance.
Thank you.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 10, 2018, 11:37:48 AM
"Standards" only work if everything to be "measured" is more or less equal.
So what "standard" might apply if one considers:
The first six months of the first FDR term.
Harry Truman's "fitness" for office (derided by FDR).
Eisenhower's generally apolitical approach.
Reagan. "Acting" like a president (under direction) or really being president?
The personalities of Nixon, Clinton, the Bushes and Obama. How does one compare or apply a "standard" to such diverse characters?
Historian Arthur Schlesinger traced growth of the "imperial presidency" and George Will wrote of how Nixon leaned more strongly that way than any previous occupant of the Oval Office.
"Standards" are not easy.


If there are no "standards," double or otherwise, for judging fitness for office, then on what basis does one call on an individual to resign or be removed from office?  Is it all a subjective judgement that this person offends me enough that he/she should be out of office?  On what basis do you desire that Trump leave office?  If my standard is not the same as yours, on what would you base your judgement that my standard is defective since by my standard Pres. Trump has not reached the point at which he should be removed from office?


I object to double standards for presidents so you deny that there are standards.  But without standards, how is a judgement made much less justified?  If it is simply a matter that Pres. Trump has so offended your sensibilities that you want him gone, fair enough.  But that still gives me no reason why I should agree with you, or to consider my concern for the “Morality” in our land to be lacking because I’m not as outraged as you are. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Michael Slusser on September 10, 2018, 03:03:55 PM
"Standards" only work if everything to be "measured" is more or less equal.
So what "standard" might apply if one considers:
The first six months of the first FDR term.
Harry Truman's "fitness" for office (derided by FDR).
Eisenhower's generally apolitical approach.
Reagan. "Acting" like a president (under direction) or really being president?
The personalities of Nixon, Clinton, the Bushes and Obama. How does one compare or apply a "standard" to such diverse characters?
Historian Arthur Schlesinger traced growth of the "imperial presidency" and George Will wrote of how Nixon leaned more strongly that way than any previous occupant of the Oval Office.
"Standards" are not easy.
President Trump does not appeal to standards. He does not measure himself against any of his presidential predecessors, except favorably (particularly relative to Presidents Obama and Clinton). He has no presidential heroes, not even President Reagan. His living predecessors reciprocate: they do not respect President Trump.

He sometimes rather grudgingly admires "tough" strong men--autocrats who make all the decisions for their countries, like Kim, Putin, Erdogan--but while he considers them to be men he respects, I don't think he compares himself to them or regards them as a standard for himself. Whether they respect him is unclear.

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: James S. Rustad on September 10, 2018, 03:15:32 PM
Reagan. "Acting" like a president (under direction) or really being president?

I've always wondered at those who believe that Reagan was a puppet.  It's exactly the kind of conspiracy theory that those on the right are accused of, just coming from the left instead.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Terry Culler on September 10, 2018, 04:56:40 PM
Reagan. "Acting" like a president (under direction) or really being president?

I've always wondered at those who believe that Reagan was a puppet.  It's exactly the kind of conspiracy theory that those on the right are accused of, just coming from the left instead.


I worked in the Reagan Administration.  Pres. Reagan was anything but a puppet.  In fact he was a man with a strong set of core principles and a relatively small number of things on which he would never compromise. For any other issue compromise was a possibility.  He also operated in that framework as governor of Calif.  That is indeed "presidential" in the context of our system of government.  He was also a man who delegated those things which he could without endangering his core principles.  After the micromanaging Carter government worked much better. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 11, 2018, 03:26:37 PM
Peter, I have no hope of getting you to grasp what it means when he calls for the justice department to put his enemies in jail, when he threatens and criticizes judges who rule against him, when he wants the Justice Department to be loyal to him and protect him, when he denounces legal investigations as witch hunts, when he constantly attacks the special counsel, when he relishes the idea that he can pardon anyone convicted of a federal crime (including himself), when his battle against immigrants overrides the law, when he tells Fox News that the government should close mosques “where a lot of things are happening,” when he would restore torture as an investigative technique or kill families of suspected terrorists, when the words of people around him would put the president above the law, when he attempts to overrule the rights of states, when he attempts to nullify the Affordable Care Act and other laws by executive order.
I know that you have work-arounds and excuses and minimizations of all these things. Heard them all. But the concerns I express come from some people with greater knowledge of the law and the Constitution that you or I or anyone on this modest forum.
He's saying his political enemies have committed crimes. You're saying the same thing. One or both of you may be right. I'm simply asking what crimes have been committed and by whom. I'm all for prosecuting people who commit crimes, but I'm very opposed to prosecuting people because we don't like their attitude or politics.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 11, 2018, 06:55:52 PM
Peter, I have no hope of getting you to grasp what it means when he calls for the justice department to put his enemies in jail, when he threatens and criticizes judges who rule against him, when he wants the Justice Department to be loyal to him and protect him, when he denounces legal investigations as witch hunts, when he constantly attacks the special counsel, when he relishes the idea that he can pardon anyone convicted of a federal crime (including himself), when his battle against immigrants overrides the law, when he tells Fox News that the government should close mosques “where a lot of things are happening,” when he would restore torture as an investigative technique or kill families of suspected terrorists, when the words of people around him would put the president above the law, when he attempts to overrule the rights of states, when he attempts to nullify the Affordable Care Act and other laws by executive order.
I know that you have work-arounds and excuses and minimizations of all these things. Heard them all. But the concerns I express come from some people with greater knowledge of the law and the Constitution that you or I or anyone on this modest forum.
He's saying his political enemies have committed crimes. You're saying the same thing. One or both of you may be right. I'm simply asking what crimes have been committed and by whom. I'm all for prosecuting people who commit crimes, but I'm very opposed to prosecuting people because we don't like their attitude or politics.


Personal (and business benefits) from the presidential stays in Trump properties - not only for himself, but the whole entourage. I believe that such a benefit because of the office are illegal.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on September 11, 2018, 09:17:43 PM
As I've often told you, Brian, if you are going to practice law without a license, don't commit malpractice.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 11, 2018, 11:03:43 PM
Peter, I have no hope of getting you to grasp what it means when he calls for the justice department to put his enemies in jail, when he threatens and criticizes judges who rule against him, when he wants the Justice Department to be loyal to him and protect him, when he denounces legal investigations as witch hunts, when he constantly attacks the special counsel, when he relishes the idea that he can pardon anyone convicted of a federal crime (including himself), when his battle against immigrants overrides the law, when he tells Fox News that the government should close mosques “where a lot of things are happening,” when he would restore torture as an investigative technique or kill families of suspected terrorists, when the words of people around him would put the president above the law, when he attempts to overrule the rights of states, when he attempts to nullify the Affordable Care Act and other laws by executive order.
I know that you have work-arounds and excuses and minimizations of all these things. Heard them all. But the concerns I express come from some people with greater knowledge of the law and the Constitution that you or I or anyone on this modest forum.
He's saying his political enemies have committed crimes. You're saying the same thing. One or both of you may be right. I'm simply asking what crimes have been committed and by whom. I'm all for prosecuting people who commit crimes, but I'm very opposed to prosecuting people because we don't like their attitude or politics.


Personal (and business benefits) from the presidential stays in Trump properties - not only for himself, but the whole entourage. I believe that such a benefit because of the office are illegal.
Do you know how many politicians do things such as have their own secret service protection live in their properties? In other words, do you know what law is being broken or are you just going by the fact that it seems like that should be illegal? And if it is illegal, do you know whether or not it is incredibly common and not at all unique to Trump?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 11, 2018, 11:29:46 PM
Peter writes:
I'm all for prosecuting people who commit crimes, but I'm very opposed to prosecuting people because we don't like their attitude or politics.
I comment:
So am I. I’m Also in favor of finding out whether their attitudes or politics Led them to do things that ought to be prosecuted.  And I am in favor of getting their attitudes and politics out of places where they will have power. Vote.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on September 12, 2018, 01:48:24 AM
So am I. I’m Also in favor of finding out whether their attitudes or politics Led them to do things that ought to be prosecuted.  And I am in favor of getting their attitudes and politics out of places where they will have power. Vote.

Thought Police, anyone?

Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 12, 2018, 04:21:08 AM
Come on, Steven, you're not that dense!
You like civics lessons, so here's one.
So there's a guy or gal in public office whose attitudes and politics and actions I don't like. What should I do?
-First, find out as much as I can about the guy or gay and his or her attitudes, politics and actions.
-Then, if I still don't like that person; tell others why.
-Then, vote them out of office or hope that - if criminal activity is involved - the justice system deals properly with the offense.
That's not "thought police," that's democracy.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on September 12, 2018, 08:40:11 AM
-Then, vote them out of office or hope that - if criminal activity is involved - the justice system deals properly with the offense.
I've been doing that with Hillary Clinton, but I'm still waiting for her to be actually investigated (the way the Russia "collusion" is) for her mishandling of classified material.  (NB: It was never properly dealt with.)  I think we all know what people like you think of people like me for thinking this.

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: pearson on September 12, 2018, 09:29:22 AM

So there's a guy or gal in public office whose attitudes and politics and actions I don't like. What should I do?


Ah, but now you've changed the formula, Pr. Austin.  Earlier you said:


I’m Also in favor of finding out whether their attitudes or politics Led them to do things that ought to be prosecuted.
 

Pr. Tibbetts is right.  I honestly have no idea how we could determine "whether their attitudes or politics" (anyone's attitude or politics) led them to do things that ought to be prosecuted.  How would we assess that?  Speculation?  A good guess?  Actions can be prosecuted, but not "attitudes and politics."  So, when you added "actions" to "attitudes and politics," you substantially qualified your complaint.  "Finding out whether their attitudes or politics led them to do things that ought to be prosecuted" sounds exactly like the fabled "witch hunt," in 1692 Salem and in 2018 Washington, D.C.

And democracy in not an example of prosecution.  Is it?

Tom Pearson
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 12, 2018, 09:33:24 AM

So there's a guy or gal in public office whose attitudes and politics and actions I don't like. What should I do?


Ah, but now you've changed the formula, Pr. Austin.  Earlier you said:


I’m Also in favor of finding out whether their attitudes or politics Led them to do things that ought to be prosecuted.
 

Pr. Tibbetts is right.  I honestly have no idea how we could determine "whether their attitudes or politics" (anyone's attitude or politics) led them to do things that ought to be prosecuted.  How would we assess that?  Speculation?  A good guess?  Actions can be prosecuted, but not "attitudes and politics."  So, when you added "actions" to "attitudes and politics," you substantially qualified your complaint.  "Finding out whether their attitudes or politics led them to do things that ought to be prosecuted" sounds exactly like the fabled "witch hunt," in 1692 Salem and in 2018 Washington, D.C.

And democracy in not an example of prosecution.  Is it?


Well, the loss by Hillary was at least partly the result of people thinking she should be prosecuted and locked up.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on September 12, 2018, 09:39:27 AM
???   ::)

Due to her actions, Brian, not "attitudes and politics." Good grief...
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on September 12, 2018, 12:05:28 PM
Come on, Steven, you're not that dense!
You like civics lessons, so here's one.
So there's a guy or gal in public office whose attitudes and politics and actions I don't like. What should I do?
-First, find out as much as I can about the guy or gay sic and his or her attitudes, politics and actions.
-Then, if I still don't like that person; tell others why.
-Then, vote them out of office or hope that - if criminal activity is involved - the justice system deals properly with the offense.
That's not "thought police," that's democracy.

Indeed, Charles, that is republican democracy.  And I'm all for that.

But you lead off with "prosecution," and then go directly to attitudes, even to the point -- and you've done this, of you own free will without anyone trying to lead you, several times now in this thread -- of dismissing as unimportant what someone has actually done or not done

And that is not republican democracy, at least under the Common Law, but lawless tyranny. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on September 12, 2018, 12:31:35 PM
TDS seems to have no bounds. 

Washington Post column headline:

“Another hurricane is about to batter our coast. Trump is complicit.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/another-hurricane-is-about-to-batter-our-coast-trump-is-complicit/2018/09/11/ccaed766-b5fb-11e8-a7b5-adaaa5b2a57f_story.html?utm_term=.3925bfda7fc0

 :o
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 12, 2018, 01:38:47 PM

So there's a guy or gal in public office whose attitudes and politics and actions I don't like. What should I do?


Ah, but now you've changed the formula, Pr. Austin.  Earlier you said:


I’m Also in favor of finding out whether their attitudes or politics Led them to do things that ought to be prosecuted.
 

Pr. Tibbetts is right.  I honestly have no idea how we could determine "whether their attitudes or politics" (anyone's attitude or politics) led them to do things that ought to be prosecuted.  How would we assess that?  Speculation?  A good guess?  Actions can be prosecuted, but not "attitudes and politics."  So, when you added "actions" to "attitudes and politics," you substantially qualified your complaint.  "Finding out whether their attitudes or politics led them to do things that ought to be prosecuted" sounds exactly like the fabled "witch hunt," in 1692 Salem and in 2018 Washington, D.C.

And democracy in not an example of prosecution.  Is it?

Tom Pearson
This is the key. I know several people in this forum don't like my attitude or politics. But I would hope they would not support giving a federal prosecutor free reign to investigate every facet of my with unlimited funds, warrants, and subpoena power to investigate whether I had done anything illegal. This smacks of the sort of "We have to vote on the bill in order to find out what's in the bill," nonsense that always seems to prevail in Washington.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 12, 2018, 01:51:45 PM
 But Peter, you are not in public office. Does one have to be already guilty of a crime for the investigation to start? I don’t think so.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: pastorg1@aol.com on September 12, 2018, 01:59:10 PM
Presumed innocent... not assumed guilty.

Reread your posts and you can actually feel the trend that your posts contain.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 12, 2018, 02:10:23 PM
 I am not in court, so I don’t have to presume innocence. I can think that he’s guilty, and then a Court will prove me right or wrong.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on September 12, 2018, 02:12:51 PM
But Peter, you are not in public office. Does one have to be already guilty of a crime for the investigation to start? I don’t think so.

I do, in the sense that the investigator has reason to believe that the one he or she is investigating has committed a crime, i.e., has probable cause.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: RandyBosch on September 12, 2018, 02:13:31 PM
But Peter, you are not in public office. Does one have to be already guilty of a crime for the investigation to start? I don’t think so.

They're ganging up on you, Charles, but no criminal indictment is anticipated.
You have one powerful historical figure who agreed with you, Lavrently Beria, who stated (and took action)
"Show me the man and I’ll find you the crime."

 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 12, 2018, 02:23:29 PM
But Peter, you are not in public office. Does one have to be already guilty of a crime for the investigation to start? I don’t think so.

When a person holds a public office does he or she give up their Fourth Amendment Rights?  In order to start and investigation with search warrants and subpoena powers there needs to be probable cause that the person being investigated has in fact committed a crime.  If there is a crime, it can be investigated but that investigation does not extend to unlimited search warrants and subpoenaing everybody in sight without probable cause.  Suspicion is not enough.  Investigators need to show probable cause for invasive searches and subpoenas.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: readselerttoo on September 12, 2018, 02:40:33 PM
I am not in court, so I don’t have to presume innocence. I can think that he’s guilty, and then a Court will prove me right or wrong.

Yeah.  He's not in court.  Now that is laughable.   :P
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 12, 2018, 02:42:53 PM
It is definitely time for a “whatever” in this line of discussion. So here it is. Whatever.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: gan ainm on September 12, 2018, 02:44:18 PM
The ideology that promotes investigations without probable cause is frightening.  We have been down that road before and it never ends well.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: pearson on September 12, 2018, 02:54:08 PM

 I am not in court, so I don’t have to presume innocence. I can think that he’s guilty, and then a Court will prove me right or wrong.


Of course.  You can think whatever you want.  But in that case, no one needs to take at all seriously whatever you think.  Even if it's "whatever."

Tom Pearson
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 12, 2018, 02:57:40 PM
Oddly, the same people that are trying to smear Justice Kavanaugh in part for his role in Ken Starr's investigation, which was authorized to look into a potential illegal banking scheme and finally after countless months came up with a stained dress, are full-on for having another such free-wheeling, wide-ranging, unbounded investigation. At least Whitewater involved a specific allegation with plenty of probable cause evidence to start with. This prosecutor doesn't even have that.

By Charles' view, every powerful senator should be under full-time investigation and prosecution with the full force of the federal government, since all of them are very powerful and might have done (read, almost certainly did do) something illegal at some point.   
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 12, 2018, 04:09:25 PM
As I've often told you, Brian, if you are going to practice law without a license, don't commit malpractice.


I'm not a lawyer, so my legal opinions have no standing. I do know that an assistant to a bishop was fired when he was using his position to promote his own consulting business. I don't know if it was legal or not, but the bishop certainly thought it was immoral - and took action.


The question for this discussion is "morality," not "legalities".
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 12, 2018, 04:14:25 PM
Oddly, the same people that are trying to smear Justice Kavanaugh in part for his role in Ken Starr's investigation, which was authorized to look into a potential illegal banking scheme and finally after countless months came up with a stained dress, are full-on for having another such free-wheeling, wide-ranging, unbounded investigation. At least Whitewater involved a specific allegation with plenty of probable cause evidence to start with. This prosecutor doesn't even have that.

By Charles' view, every powerful senator should be under full-time investigation and prosecution with the full force of the federal government, since all of them are very powerful and might have done (read, almost certainly did do) something illegal at some point.


I've heard people state that they believe that anyone who is super-rich must have done something illegal - or ancestors who passed on the wealth did things illegally. I can't say if it's true or not, but it is a sentiment I've heard. It's also been seen on the news when a black person driving an expensive car is pulled over because he couldn't own a car like that - or when someone saw a black kid with two white women in the same car - he must be highjacking it. There are assumptions made about the rich and powerful - some of them might actually be true.

Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on September 12, 2018, 04:37:54 PM
The question for this discussion is "morality," not "legalities".

I know. I responded to your comment that you now imply was irrelevant, i.e.,

I believe that such a benefit because of the office are illegal.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 12, 2018, 05:04:51 PM
The question for this discussion is "morality," not "legalities".

I know. I responded to your comment that you now imply was irrelevant, i.e.,

I believe that such a benefit because of the office are illegal.


I confess: I did wrong. (It will probably happen again.)
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 12, 2018, 05:32:47 PM
Oddly, the same people that are trying to smear Justice Kavanaugh in part for his role in Ken Starr's investigation, which was authorized to look into a potential illegal banking scheme and finally after countless months came up with a stained dress, are full-on for having another such free-wheeling, wide-ranging, unbounded investigation. At least Whitewater involved a specific allegation with plenty of probable cause evidence to start with. This prosecutor doesn't even have that.

By Charles' view, every powerful senator should be under full-time investigation and prosecution with the full force of the federal government, since all of them are very powerful and might have done (read, almost certainly did do) something illegal at some point.


I've heard people state that they believe that anyone who is super-rich must have done something illegal - or ancestors who passed on the wealth did things illegally. I can't say if it's true or not, but it is a sentiment I've heard. It's also been seen on the news when a black person driving an expensive car is pulled over because he couldn't own a car like that - or when someone saw a black kid with two white women in the same car - he must be highjacking it. There are assumptions made about the rich and powerful - some of them might actually be true.

Some of them might actually be true, so therefore it should be legitimate to trash the Fourth Amendment, to use the investigatory powers of the government to take people's lives apart because we don't like them or their politics before there is actually any evidence beyond prejudice and suspicion?  We don't need no stinking evidence, no way they're not crooks, we just haven't found it yet so give us time and investigators, we'll find something.


Is this the kind of law enforcement that we really want?  It may suit our prejudice when done by Democrats and the Left to investigate Trump and his cronies.  But once that sort of investigatory hunt is let loose, what happens when someone you aren't in agreement with gets hold of the reigns?  We saw what kind of damage McCarthy and his gang did, and they did find some spies and agents intent on destroying the United States.  Are you or have you ever been a Conservative?  Could you name some names?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: David Garner on September 12, 2018, 07:00:55 PM
Oddly, the same people that are trying to smear Justice Kavanaugh in part for his role in Ken Starr's investigation, which was authorized to look into a potential illegal banking scheme and finally after countless months came up with a stained dress, are full-on for having another such free-wheeling, wide-ranging, unbounded investigation. At least Whitewater involved a specific allegation with plenty of probable cause evidence to start with. This prosecutor doesn't even have that.

By Charles' view, every powerful senator should be under full-time investigation and prosecution with the full force of the federal government, since all of them are very powerful and might have done (read, almost certainly did do) something illegal at some point.


I've heard people state that they believe that anyone who is super-rich must have done something illegal - or ancestors who passed on the wealth did things illegally. I can't say if it's true or not, but it is a sentiment I've heard. It's also been seen on the news when a black person driving an expensive car is pulled over because he couldn't own a car like that - or when someone saw a black kid with two white women in the same car - he must be highjacking it. There are assumptions made about the rich and powerful - some of them might actually be true.

Some of them might actually be true, so therefore it should be legitimate to trash the Fourth Amendment, to use the investigatory powers of the government to take people's lives apart because we don't like them or their politics before there is actually any evidence beyond prejudice and suspicion?  We don't need no stinking evidence, no way they're not crooks, we just haven't found it yet so give us time and investigators, we'll find something.


Is this the kind of law enforcement that we really want?  It may suit our prejudice when done by Democrats and the Left to investigate Trump and his cronies.  But once that sort of investigatory hunt is let loose, what happens when someone you aren't in agreement with gets hold of the reigns?  We saw what kind of damage McCarthy and his gang did, and they did find some spies and agents intent on destroying the United States.  Are you or have you ever been a Conservative?  Could you name some names?

Let it be noted -- someone he does disagree with does have hold of the reins.

This is, I have long said, the reason leftist went guano crazy (let the reader understand) when Trump was elected.  It wasn't that under our proper system of government, he can do that much to disrupt most of their lives.  It is that under their preferred system of government, where government is neck deep in our day-to-day lives -- he can.  And he has undone much that was put into place through executive fiat over the last 8 years.  Undoings that, let us remember, sent the left into orbit.

If Trump's election didn't teach the authoritarian left anything, I hold little hope that anything will.  Authoritarianism is great when you wield power over others.  Not so much when they wield power over you.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on September 12, 2018, 07:03:40 PM
It is definitely time for a “whatever” in this line of discussion. So here it is. Whatever.

"whatever
Used in an argument to admit that you are wrong without admitting it so the argument is over."

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Whatever
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Eileen Smith on September 12, 2018, 08:20:45 PM
Oddly, the same people that are trying to smear Justice Kavanaugh in part for his role in Ken Starr's investigation, which was authorized to look into a potential illegal banking scheme and finally after countless months came up with a stained dress, are full-on for having another such free-wheeling, wide-ranging, unbounded investigation. At least Whitewater involved a specific allegation with plenty of probable cause evidence to start with. This prosecutor doesn't even have that.

By Charles' view, every powerful senator should be under full-time investigation and prosecution with the full force of the federal government, since all of them are very powerful and might have done (read, almost certainly did do) something illegal at some point.


I've heard people state that they believe that anyone who is super-rich must have done something illegal - or ancestors who passed on the wealth did things illegally. I can't say if it's true or not, but it is a sentiment I've heard. It's also been seen on the news when a black person driving an expensive car is pulled over because he couldn't own a car like that - or when someone saw a black kid with two white women in the same car - he must be highjacking it. There are assumptions made about the rich and powerful - some of them might actually be true.

Is this an argument for profiling?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 12, 2018, 10:56:57 PM
No. "Whatever" means I really don't give a rat's rump what stuff is hurled my direction or what diversions, intentional ignorance or right-wing apologetics float to the top. It just ain't worth it.
There would be no special prosecutor if there were not probable cause to have one.
But I'm not hopping down that rabbit-hole either.
The "investigations" are not all judicial, some are by legislators, some are by journalists (a fully rotten bunch, I know, but they're there). And surely no one can object if legislators, journalists, or members of the public want to know what those in high office have done or are doing.
Why would anyone want that? We elected the man. Who cares who contributed to his campaign, illegally ran his campaign, mis-used campaign funds, made secret deals with foreign powers, made sure his business interests were served, and sold out U.S. policies or secrets for favors from people in other countries?
Did any of these things happen? Maybe, maybe not, but should the suspicions simply be dismissed?
Finally, though a few people here have contended they did not vote for or agree with the man in the White House, that man sure has a lot of defenders here. But then, (sarcasm alert), anything, even an incompetent fool is better than a liberal Democrat. I get that. (But I have been instructed that my opinions don't matter, so....)
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: DeHall1 on September 12, 2018, 11:45:08 PM
No. "Whatever" means I really don't give a rat's rump what stuff is hurled my direction or what diversions, intentional ignorance or right-wing apologetics float to the top. It just ain't worth it.
There would be no special prosecutor if there were not probable cause to have one.
But I'm not hopping down that rabbit-hole either.
The "investigations" are not all judicial, some are by legislators, some are by journalists (a fully rotten bunch, I know, but they're there). And surely no one can object if legislators, journalists, or members of the public want to know what those in high office have done or are doing.
Why would anyone want that? We elected the man. Who cares who contributed to his campaign, illegally ran his campaign, mis-used campaign funds, made secret deals with foreign powers, made sure his business interests were served, and sold out U.S. policies or secrets for favors from people in other countries?
Did any of these things happen? Maybe, maybe not, but should the suspicions simply be dismissed?
Finally, though a few people here have contended they did not vote for or agree with the man in the White House, that man sure has a lot of defenders here. But then, (sarcasm alert), anything, even an incompetent fool is better than a liberal Democrat. I get that. (But I have been instructed that my opinions don't matter, so....)
Whatever....
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Voelker on September 13, 2018, 12:03:05 AM
Oddly, the same people that are trying to smear Justice Kavanaugh in part for his role in Ken Starr's investigation, which was authorized to look into a potential illegal banking scheme and finally after countless months came up with a stained dress, are full-on for having another such free-wheeling, wide-ranging, unbounded investigation. At least Whitewater involved a specific allegation with plenty of probable cause evidence to start with. This prosecutor doesn't even have that.

By Charles' view, every powerful senator should be under full-time investigation and prosecution with the full force of the federal government, since all of them are very powerful and might have done (read, almost certainly did do) something illegal at some point.


I've heard people state that they believe that anyone who is super-rich must have done something illegal - or ancestors who passed on the wealth did things illegally. I can't say if it's true or not, but it is a sentiment I've heard. It's also been seen on the news when a black person driving an expensive car is pulled over because he couldn't own a car like that - or when someone saw a black kid with two white women in the same car - he must be highjacking it. There are assumptions made about the rich and powerful - some of them might actually be true.

Some of them might actually be true, so therefore it should be legitimate to trash the Fourth Amendment, to use the investigatory powers of the government to take people's lives apart because we don't like them or their politics before there is actually any evidence beyond prejudice and suspicion?  We don't need no stinking evidence, no way they're not crooks, we just haven't found it yet so give us time and investigators, we'll find something.


Is this the kind of law enforcement that we really want?  It may suit our prejudice when done by Democrats and the Left to investigate Trump and his cronies.  But once that sort of investigatory hunt is let loose, what happens when someone you aren't in agreement with gets hold of the reigns?  We saw what kind of damage McCarthy and his gang did, and they did find some spies and agents intent on destroying the United States.  Are you or have you ever been a Conservative?  Could you name some names?

Let it be noted -- someone he does disagree with does have hold of the reins.

This is, I have long said, the reason leftist went guano crazy (let the reader understand) when Trump was elected.  It wasn't that under our proper system of government, he can do that much to disrupt most of their lives.  It is that under their preferred system of government, where government is neck deep in our day-to-day lives -- he can.  And he has undone much that was put into place through executive fiat over the last 8 years.  Undoings that, let us remember, sent the left into orbit.

If Trump's election didn't teach the authoritarian left anything, I hold little hope that anything will.  Authoritarianism is great when you wield power over others.  Not so much when they wield power over you.
+++. The reaction you describe appears in many ways to be the reaction of Person A who is frightened because they fear that their opponent who won and now has power — Person B — will now treat Person A as they originally intended to treat Person B. For example, the deeply weird belief held by many on the Left that The Handmaid's Tale is the secret fever dream of the Right, and would be installed across the land if only the Right could gain enough power, is good evidence that there is something to this reading.

What I think could happen, however, is that the Left will learn, rather than humility and the need to appeal to voters and the need for workable and livable ideas, the necessity of locking up elections through extralegal means because The Future Depends On It, and they will feel absolutely right and justified in doing so because of the dangerous nightmare they are saving us from.

The rush to censorship of late via corporations is an example of this tendency. Yes, many of the people shut down by Reddit, Youtube, and others appear to be, or can easily be painted as, well toward the far ends of the political/social scales ("loons," some might say). But these appear to be tentative measures, perhaps trial runs taken only against a select few. Should they manage to squelch this brand of unpopular speech, more such brands will fall under the hammer. Perhaps including the speech of many here.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on September 13, 2018, 08:28:31 AM
No. "Whatever" means I really don't give a rat's rump what stuff is hurled my direction or what diversions, intentional ignorance or right-wing apologetics float to the top. It just ain't worth it.
Sigh.  More evidence that this thread was started to belittle and morally preen over the other tribe.   :P
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 13, 2018, 09:46:16 AM
I reject and refuse to use the language of "tribes." That is precisely what some in high office have done to us in the past three years, set people against one another based on things that will supposedly help those people reach or continue in high office.
"Left" and "right" are losing their meaning, since today's "left" is more "right" than the "left" of the 1960s; and today's "right" is a new creation unlike the "right" of a few decades ago. (I liked them better.)
It happens that today we have a particular focus, and it is on the one who drives the division-sowing machine.
The president now denies that 3,000 people died because of the hurricane Puerto Rico. He says the recovery was "A+," and an "incredible success" when it was a disaster.
He claims success in job growth when growth has actually slowed.
He lied about receiving a phone call from the head of U.S. Steel on opening new plants.
His "biggest tax cut in history" isn't.
The list goes on, but people don't care. The president's cabal has succeeded in convincing people that things are better. And, as noted upstream, a certain pathology among us believes that even a lying, cheating, immoral fool would be better than a moderate or liberal Democrat.
I don't have a "tribe." I often have coffee with a Trump voter and we share concerns for our nation, even though we would deal with them differently. I'm not shouting "Lock him up!" at anti-Trump rallies.
But we digress.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on September 13, 2018, 10:00:47 AM
I reject and refuse to use the language of "tribes." That is precisely what some in high office have done to us in the past three years, set people against one another based on things that will supposedly help those people reach or continue in high office.

You mean 2009-2016, right? For it was President Obama who "set people against one another based on things that will supposedly help those people reach or continue in high office."
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 13, 2018, 10:31:42 AM
Is lying by the president a moral failing? I think it is. That it seems acceptable by many folks "in our land" concerns me.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Terry Culler on September 13, 2018, 11:03:07 AM
Is lying by the president a moral failing? I think it is. That it seems acceptable by many folks "in our land" concerns me.

Yes it is, but so is lying by Kamala Harris, the Dems new "it girl", about the nominee for the SC.  So is Sen. Blumenthal's lying about his military service.  So is etc etc etc.  Let's be clear here, Donald Trump is not the only amoral person in Washington today.  Nor is this a new phenomenon, we have only to glance back during my lifetime (started in 1948) to see the ever increasing speed of cultural deterioration.  Ranting about Trump is fruitless in terms of dealing with immorality in our nation, immorality which is rampant among the governed just as much as it is among the governors.  We get the leaders we deserve.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on September 13, 2018, 11:34:12 AM
Is lying by the president a moral failing? I think it is. That it seems acceptable by many folks "in our land" concerns me.

Yes it is, but so is lying by Kamala Harris, the Dems new "it girl", about the nominee for the SC.  So is Sen. Blumenthal's lying about his military service.  So is etc etc etc.  Let's be clear here, Donald Trump is not the only amoral person in Washington today.  Nor is this a new phenomenon, we have only to glance back during my lifetime (started in 1948) to see the ever increasing speed of cultural deterioration.  Ranting about Trump is fruitless in terms of dealing with immorality in our nation, immorality which is rampant among the governed just as much as it is among the governors.  We get the leaders we deserve.

"[W]e will keep this promise to the American people: if you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period."
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: mariemeyer on September 13, 2018, 11:36:29 AM
Is lying by the president a moral failing? I think it is. That it seems acceptable by many folks "in our land" concerns me.

Yes it is, but so is lying by Kamala Harris, the Dems new "it girl", about the nominee for the SC.  So is Sen. Blumenthal's lying about his military service.  So is etc etc etc.  Let's be clear here, Donald Trump is not the only amoral person in Washington today.  Nor is this a new phenomenon, we have only to glance back during my lifetime (started in 1948) to see the ever increasing speed of cultural deterioration.  Ranting about Trump is fruitless in terms of dealing with immorality in our nation, immorality which is rampant among the governed just as much as it is among the governors.  We get the leaders we deserve.

I agree, we get the leaders we deserve.

Is there ever a time to say, "enough"?   What are the current moral issues that need attention?  If lying is one of them, and I think it is, is there any means by which to judge the nature of the lies, who is making them and how they impact upon our nation. Might we also need to examine why we have turned a blind eye to lying and consequently gotten the liars we deserve?

IMO calling attention to past liars and immoral actions is no excuse to avoid calling out lying and immorality as it exists now. I suspect others will recall how their children, when reprimanded for inappropriate action, responded, "But all the other kids are doing it" or "How come you don't say anything about your friends?"   Did that stop us from carrying our responsibilities as parents?  I think not. 

Nixon was called out for lying.  So was Clinton.   What if anything is our current responsibility as citizens? 

Marie Meyer   
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on September 13, 2018, 11:56:25 AM
Is lying by the president a moral failing? I think it is. That it seems acceptable by many folks "in our land" concerns me.

Yes it is, but so is lying by Kamala Harris, the Dems new "it girl", about the nominee for the SC.  So is Sen. Blumenthal's lying about his military service.  So is etc etc etc.  Let's be clear here, Donald Trump is not the only amoral person in Washington today.  Nor is this a new phenomenon, we have only to glance back during my lifetime (started in 1948) to see the ever increasing speed of cultural deterioration.  Ranting about Trump is fruitless in terms of dealing with immorality in our nation, immorality which is rampant among the governed just as much as it is among the governors.  We get the leaders we deserve.


IMO calling attention to past liars and immoral actions is no excuse to avoid calling out lying and immorality as it exists now.

Which is what Pr. Culler did, calling out lying and immorality as it exists now.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 13, 2018, 11:57:58 AM
Is lying by the president a moral failing? I think it is. That it seems acceptable by many folks "in our land" concerns me.

Yes it is, but so is lying by Kamala Harris, the Dems new "it girl", about the nominee for the SC.  So is Sen. Blumenthal's lying about his military service.  So is etc etc etc.  Let's be clear here, Donald Trump is not the only amoral person in Washington today.  Nor is this a new phenomenon, we have only to glance back during my lifetime (started in 1948) to see the ever increasing speed of cultural deterioration.  Ranting about Trump is fruitless in terms of dealing with immorality in our nation, immorality which is rampant among the governed just as much as it is among the governors.  We get the leaders we deserve.

"[W]e will keep this promise to the American people: if you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period."


I kept my doctor. I kept my health care plan. I don't see that as a lie. Did you have to change doctors and plans?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: RandyBosch on September 13, 2018, 12:06:22 PM
Is lying by the president a moral failing? I think it is. That it seems acceptable by many folks "in our land" concerns me.

Yes it is, but so is lying by Kamala Harris, the Dems new "it girl", about the nominee for the SC.  So is Sen. Blumenthal's lying about his military service.  So is etc etc etc.  Let's be clear here, Donald Trump is not the only amoral person in Washington today.  Nor is this a new phenomenon, we have only to glance back during my lifetime (started in 1948) to see the ever increasing speed of cultural deterioration.  Ranting about Trump is fruitless in terms of dealing with immorality in our nation, immorality which is rampant among the governed just as much as it is among the governors.  We get the leaders we deserve.

I agree, we get the leaders we deserve.

Is there ever a time to say, "enough"?   What are the current moral issues that need attention?  If lying is one of them, and I think it is, is there any means by which to judge the nature of the lies, who is making them and how they impact upon our nation. Might we also need to examine why we have turned a blind eye to lying and consequently gotten the liars we deserve?

IMO calling attention to past liars and immoral actions is no excuse to avoid calling out lying and immorality as it exists now. I suspect others will recall how their children, when reprimanded for inappropriate action, responded, "But all the other kids are doing it" or "How come you don't say anything about your friends?"   Did that stop us from carrying our responsibilities as parents?  I think not. 

Nixon was called out for lying.  So was Clinton.   What if anything is our current responsibility as citizens? 

Marie Meyer

Exactly!  We (at least Americans, if not much of the world) live in a "Post-Truth" society, including politics, media, science, and to a greater extent than we would like to admit, religion.  "Truth" is beyond Pontius Pilate's "What is truth?", it is now taught to mean "whatever one decides is truth for oneself is truth, anything else is not".

"Post-Truth" is described as whatever your team (yes, not "tribe" - that is too confining and demeaning) - whatever your team - needs to do in order to Win is claimed to be morally permissible, and winning is necessary for one thing - Power.  Therefore, being on a winning team is essential, and any ends justify the means.

"What if anything is our current responsibility as citizens?" is an excellent guide for discussion. 
It begins with insisting upon verifiable facts, separating opinions from facts, breaking the cycle of self-fulfilling/self-justifying spin, and - although history since the Fall has proven human nature incapable of it - stepping away from the blathering unthinking sheep mentality of "team is everything".

It starts with introspection, confession of personal complicity in the carnival of post-truth, repentance, and living as Christ would have us to live by recognizing what really matters to Him and to our family of humanity.

Sadly, such a discipline is beyond rare - almost extinct it seems, reading the news - and myopic, no willfully blind, to anything other than what wins one for "the team".

And that's my optimistic viewpoint for the day... :-\ 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 13, 2018, 12:10:31 PM
Is lying by the president a moral failing? I think it is. That it seems acceptable by many folks "in our land" concerns me.

Yes it is, but so is lying by Kamala Harris, the Dems new "it girl", about the nominee for the SC.  So is Sen. Blumenthal's lying about his military service.  So is etc etc etc.  Let's be clear here, Donald Trump is not the only amoral person in Washington today.  Nor is this a new phenomenon, we have only to glance back during my lifetime (started in 1948) to see the ever increasing speed of cultural deterioration.  Ranting about Trump is fruitless in terms of dealing with immorality in our nation, immorality which is rampant among the governed just as much as it is among the governors.  We get the leaders we deserve.

"[W]e will keep this promise to the American people: if you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period."


I kept my doctor. I kept my health care plan. I don't see that as a lie. Did you have to change doctors and plans?

Some did.  If I promise 100 people that I will do something for them and for 10 of them I did the opposite, was I being entirely truthful?  Not only that, what about the Little Sisters of the Poor, they were fine with their health care that did not provide for the contraceptives that went against their religious beliefs and were prosecuted for it.  Was that keeping the promise?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on September 13, 2018, 12:11:07 PM
Is lying by the president a moral failing? I think it is. That it seems acceptable by many folks "in our land" concerns me.

Yes it is, but so is lying by Kamala Harris, the Dems new "it girl", about the nominee for the SC.  So is Sen. Blumenthal's lying about his military service.  So is etc etc etc.  Let's be clear here, Donald Trump is not the only amoral person in Washington today.  Nor is this a new phenomenon, we have only to glance back during my lifetime (started in 1948) to see the ever increasing speed of cultural deterioration.  Ranting about Trump is fruitless in terms of dealing with immorality in our nation, immorality which is rampant among the governed just as much as it is among the governors.  We get the leaders we deserve.

"[W]e will keep this promise to the American people: if you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period."

I kept my doctor. I kept my health care plan. I don't see that as a lie. Did you have to change doctors and plans?

That's about the most myopic and self-centered comment I've read in quite a while.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2013/dec/12/lie-year-if-you-like-your-health-care-plan-keep-it/
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 13, 2018, 12:23:52 PM
Yes, Pres. Trump needs to be called out for his lies.  So do those who oppose him.  What about lying to a FISA court in order to gain surveillance warrants?  Should that be called out or is that justified because it might bring down Trump?  What about subverting security on classified material?  Is that acceptable because it made life a little easier for a Democrat?  Or destroying documents that you were supposed to turn over?  OK if Democrats do it?  I understand the indignation over Trump's sometimes casual relationship with the truth.  What I do not understand is the near hysterical indignation when Trump does it but calm acceptance when Democrats do it.  It has been alleged that Trump has profited from his time in office.  Not a passing qualm that the Clinton's may have used their position to profit themselves?  Shouldn't that be investigated is we are to root out corruption?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: David Garner on September 13, 2018, 12:28:52 PM
Is lying by the president a moral failing? I think it is. That it seems acceptable by many folks "in our land" concerns me.

Yes it is, but so is lying by Kamala Harris, the Dems new "it girl", about the nominee for the SC.  So is Sen. Blumenthal's lying about his military service.  So is etc etc etc.  Let's be clear here, Donald Trump is not the only amoral person in Washington today.  Nor is this a new phenomenon, we have only to glance back during my lifetime (started in 1948) to see the ever increasing speed of cultural deterioration.  Ranting about Trump is fruitless in terms of dealing with immorality in our nation, immorality which is rampant among the governed just as much as it is among the governors.  We get the leaders we deserve.

"[W]e will keep this promise to the American people: if you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period."


I kept my doctor. I kept my health care plan. I don't see that as a lie. Did you have to change doctors and plans?

I did.  4 times.  And I don't have coverage now because the prices are inflated beyond belief due to there only being 2 companies on the exchange in Georgia.

I'm glad you're doing well though.  Since we don't have to worry about the bad situations of others, I suppose I can go back to not giving a crap about the kids being separated from their parents at the border.  After all, I still have my kids here at home.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: David Garner on September 13, 2018, 12:36:57 PM
Oddly, the same people that are trying to smear Justice Kavanaugh in part for his role in Ken Starr's investigation, which was authorized to look into a potential illegal banking scheme and finally after countless months came up with a stained dress, are full-on for having another such free-wheeling, wide-ranging, unbounded investigation. At least Whitewater involved a specific allegation with plenty of probable cause evidence to start with. This prosecutor doesn't even have that.

By Charles' view, every powerful senator should be under full-time investigation and prosecution with the full force of the federal government, since all of them are very powerful and might have done (read, almost certainly did do) something illegal at some point.


I've heard people state that they believe that anyone who is super-rich must have done something illegal - or ancestors who passed on the wealth did things illegally. I can't say if it's true or not, but it is a sentiment I've heard. It's also been seen on the news when a black person driving an expensive car is pulled over because he couldn't own a car like that - or when someone saw a black kid with two white women in the same car - he must be highjacking it. There are assumptions made about the rich and powerful - some of them might actually be true.

Some of them might actually be true, so therefore it should be legitimate to trash the Fourth Amendment, to use the investigatory powers of the government to take people's lives apart because we don't like them or their politics before there is actually any evidence beyond prejudice and suspicion?  We don't need no stinking evidence, no way they're not crooks, we just haven't found it yet so give us time and investigators, we'll find something.


Is this the kind of law enforcement that we really want?  It may suit our prejudice when done by Democrats and the Left to investigate Trump and his cronies.  But once that sort of investigatory hunt is let loose, what happens when someone you aren't in agreement with gets hold of the reigns?  We saw what kind of damage McCarthy and his gang did, and they did find some spies and agents intent on destroying the United States.  Are you or have you ever been a Conservative?  Could you name some names?

Let it be noted -- someone he does disagree with does have hold of the reins.

This is, I have long said, the reason leftist went guano crazy (let the reader understand) when Trump was elected.  It wasn't that under our proper system of government, he can do that much to disrupt most of their lives.  It is that under their preferred system of government, where government is neck deep in our day-to-day lives -- he can.  And he has undone much that was put into place through executive fiat over the last 8 years.  Undoings that, let us remember, sent the left into orbit.

If Trump's election didn't teach the authoritarian left anything, I hold little hope that anything will.  Authoritarianism is great when you wield power over others.  Not so much when they wield power over you.
+++. The reaction you describe appears in many ways to be the reaction of Person A who is frightened because they fear that their opponent who won and now has power — Person B — will now treat Person A as they originally intended to treat Person B. For example, the deeply weird belief held by many on the Left that The Handmaid's Tale is the secret fever dream of the Right, and would be installed across the land if only the Right could gain enough power, is good evidence that there is something to this reading.

What I think could happen, however, is that the Left will learn, rather than humility and the need to appeal to voters and the need for workable and livable ideas, the necessity of locking up elections through extralegal means because The Future Depends On It, and they will feel absolutely right and justified in doing so because of the dangerous nightmare they are saving us from.

The rush to censorship of late via corporations is an example of this tendency. Yes, many of the people shut down by Reddit, Youtube, and others appear to be, or can easily be painted as, well toward the far ends of the political/social scales ("loons," some might say). But these appear to be tentative measures, perhaps trial runs taken only against a select few. Should they manage to squelch this brand of unpopular speech, more such brands will fall under the hammer. Perhaps including the speech of many here.

To further this a bit, let me say that it is the precise same concern I had when people called President Obama a "socialist," and the Tea Party began its shutting down of discussion by pushing the narrative from the right that the left, Obama, etc. were all complicit in basically running an illegitimate government.  So I don't think this started on the left.

But I will say that it is ever escalating, and no matter who wins in 2020, we either have to choose to be better people or this ever increasing suspicion of one another will continue.

I'll share this here -- Father Cassian Sibley posted this on FB yesterday.  It is phenomenally well said:

""One of the worst forms of deliberately self induced ignorance is the refusal to learn from people that one fundamentally disagrees with intellectually, morally, or religiously. A person who cannot learn from bigots, communists, white trash, gangsters, thugs, bounders, fundamentalists, knotheads, birchers, neo-conservatives, Republicans, neo-liberals, socialists, slavers, feminists, patriarchalists, chauvinists, Democrats, libertines, Muslims, Buddhists, Baptists, Episcopalians, Jews, Pagans, womanizers, luddites, techies, environmentalists, tea partiers, dishonest politicians, homosexuals, monarchists, fascists, druggies, criminals, fanatics, prostitutes, lechs, theives, bankers, pimps, squares, hipsters, snowflakes, fascists, militarists, pacifists, good old boys, and eggheads because - well - because they don't agree with him or her, and are deemed by him or her to be, in one way or another, "deplorables" - is a person who can no longer learn from anyone but him or herself. Humans are flawed, failed, immoral, and foolish, but everything we know flows forth from that same dirty well - and refusing to drink from it leaves us dying of thirst.

Mental hygiene is a lost cause. Heed wisdom wherever she may be found, and spurn no man, however mean, however mad, however wicked -past or present - who might offer you a nugget of that true gold.""
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 13, 2018, 12:49:59 PM
Is lying by the president a moral failing? I think it is. That it seems acceptable by many folks "in our land" concerns me.

Yes it is, but so is lying by Kamala Harris, the Dems new "it girl", about the nominee for the SC.  So is Sen. Blumenthal's lying about his military service.  So is etc etc etc.  Let's be clear here, Donald Trump is not the only amoral person in Washington today.  Nor is this a new phenomenon, we have only to glance back during my lifetime (started in 1948) to see the ever increasing speed of cultural deterioration.  Ranting about Trump is fruitless in terms of dealing with immorality in our nation, immorality which is rampant among the governed just as much as it is among the governors.  We get the leaders we deserve.

"[W]e will keep this promise to the American people: if you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period."

I kept my doctor. I kept my health care plan. I don't see that as a lie. Did you have to change doctors and plans?

That's about the most myopic and self-centered comment I've read in quite a while.


Ah, but those statements are true for me. I noticed that you didn't answer my question. Did you keep your doctor and your health care plan? Was that promise true for you?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on September 13, 2018, 12:57:56 PM
Ah, but those statements are true for me. I noticed that you didn't answer my question. Did you keep your doctor and your health care plan? Was that promise true for you?

Do you really mean to say that the measure of whether a politician is lying with whether his statements are true to an individual?  Because if that's the case, Trump is not a liar.   ???
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on September 13, 2018, 01:17:54 PM

"[W]e will keep this promise to the American people: if you like your doctor, you will be able to keep your doctor, period. If you like your health care plan, you'll be able to keep your health care plan, period."

I kept my doctor. I kept my health care plan. I don't see that as a lie. Did you have to change doctors and plans?

Indeed, Portico has been exceptional.  And I am reminded of that every fall when the Council reviews with envy our medical coverage and how mild the cost increases are compared to their own medical plans.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: mariemeyer on September 13, 2018, 01:47:32 PM
Yes, Pres. Trump needs to be called out for his lies.  So do those who oppose him.  What about lying to a FISA court in order to gain surveillance warrants?  Should that be called out or is that justified because it might bring down Trump?  What about subverting security on classified material?  Is that acceptable because it made life a little easier for a Democrat?  Or destroying documents that you were supposed to turn over?  OK if Democrats do it?  I understand the indignation over Trump's sometimes casual relationship with the truth.  What I do not understand is the near hysterical indignation when Trump does it but calm acceptance when Democrats do it.  It has been alleged that Trump has profited from his time in office.  Not a passing qualm that the Clinton's may have used their position to profit themselves?  Shouldn't that be investigated is we are to root out corruption?

Pr. Fienen:
 
By making this a Democrat/Republican issue we will endlessly go in circles trying to demonstrate who is the bigger liar.This leads to saying lying is the norm in both parties so don't call out one of my guys. 

The above singles out the Clinton's as the "other" guy who used their position to profit themselves.  If one is to address gaining wealth at the expense of others a moral issue, and I believe it is, the door is open to examining how Trump gained a significant amount of his wealth.  You raised the issue, I merely applied it to Trump.   

I  submit we need to get past the dead end futility of trying to determine who is the bigger liar or who is most morally corrupt in gaining wealth.   
Marie Meyer
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: scott9 on September 13, 2018, 01:57:31 PM
I'll share this here -- Father Cassian Sibley posted this on FB yesterday.  It is phenomenally well said:

""One of the worst forms of deliberately self induced ignorance is the refusal to learn from people that one fundamentally disagrees with intellectually, morally, or religiously. A person who cannot learn from bigots, communists, white trash, gangsters, thugs, bounders, fundamentalists, knotheads, birchers, neo-conservatives, Republicans, neo-liberals, socialists, slavers, feminists, patriarchalists, chauvinists, Democrats, libertines, Muslims, Buddhists, Baptists, Episcopalians, Jews, Pagans, womanizers, luddites, techies, environmentalists, tea partiers, dishonest politicians, homosexuals, monarchists, fascists, druggies, criminals, fanatics, prostitutes, lechs, theives, bankers, pimps, squares, hipsters, snowflakes, fascists, militarists, pacifists, good old boys, and eggheads because - well - because they don't agree with him or her, and are deemed by him or her to be, in one way or another, "deplorables" - is a person who can no longer learn from anyone but him or herself. Humans are flawed, failed, immoral, and foolish, but everything we know flows forth from that same dirty well - and refusing to drink from it leaves us dying of thirst.

Mental hygiene is a lost cause. Heed wisdom wherever she may be found, and spurn no man, however mean, however mad, however wicked -past or present - who might offer you a nugget of that true gold.""

I may use this in class.  Could you say a bit more about Father Cassian Sibley's biography so that I can introduce the quote with a sentence or two about the author?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on September 13, 2018, 02:06:35 PM
The Fr. Sibley quote paired with the reading from James for tomorrow.  If we are to learn from all such folks, that does make them teachers, doesn't it?

"Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness."

I do see a weakness in the quotation in that if we learn from the harshest and meanest in the listing (we may differ on some but not on all of them), we begin to treat them as teachers and then (even if deceased) begin perhaps to heap degrees and robes, honors and whatever on them... and what if they are truly rank!?  We can indeed learn something from Hitler but we better be dressed in a hazmat suit and be working in a garbage can sorting like crime scene personnel what rot does.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: mj4 on September 13, 2018, 02:17:14 PM
Could you say a bit more about Father Cassian Sibley's biography so that I can introduce the quote with a sentence or two about the author?

https://www.facebook.com/frcassian (https://www.facebook.com/frcassian)

https://www.blogger.com/profile/05076981033332066470 (https://www.blogger.com/profile/05076981033332066470)
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 13, 2018, 02:21:23 PM
Yes, Pres. Trump needs to be called out for his lies.  So do those who oppose him.  What about lying to a FISA court in order to gain surveillance warrants?  Should that be called out or is that justified because it might bring down Trump?  What about subverting security on classified material?  Is that acceptable because it made life a little easier for a Democrat?  Or destroying documents that you were supposed to turn over?  OK if Democrats do it?  I understand the indignation over Trump's sometimes casual relationship with the truth.  What I do not understand is the near hysterical indignation when Trump does it but calm acceptance when Democrats do it.  It has been alleged that Trump has profited from his time in office.  Not a passing qualm that the Clinton's may have used their position to profit themselves?  Shouldn't that be investigated is we are to root out corruption?

Pr. Fienen:
 
By making this a Democrat/Republican issue we will endlessly go in circles trying to demonstrate who is the bigger liar.This leads to saying lying is the norm in both parties so don't call out one of my guys. 

The above singles out the Clinton's as the "other" guy who used their position to profit themselves.  If one is to address gaining wealth at the expense of others a moral issue, and I believe it is, the door is open to examining how Trump gained a significant amount of his wealth.  You raised the issue, I merely applied it to Trump.   

I  submit we need to get past the dead end futility of trying to determine who is the bigger liar or who is most morally corrupt in gaining wealth.   
Marie Meyer

I'm not sure that I'm getting your point.  We've been hearing speakers and commentators saying that Pres. Trump is the worst president, biggest liar, most corrupt, most foolish etc.  Would you say that is something that must be gotten beyond?  Or is that what others have done should simply be ignored and only Trump be looked at since he is the sitting president?


What is the point that you would like to make?  You, along with many others, seem to want all our focus to be on Trump and his associates and that he should be condemned as immoral or worse by all who have a concern for morality in our land.  That the immorality of other presidents or other politicians, in office or now out of office, should be ignored.  Just agree on how awful Trump is and how he should not be in office.  Showing that others have been guilty does not excuse Pres. Trump.  It does suggest that the problem is more widespread than just this politician or just this political party.  I points that there needs to be better ways to hold our leaders accountable.


As it is though, with those who are opposed to Trump and his policies being the ones claiming concern for morality in denouncing Trump but also saying that we should focus only on Trump and his associates and forget about those from your party or ideology who transgressed it sounds less like a moral crusade and more like you've found what you think is a weapon that you can use and you want to limit its use to those you oppose.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: David Garner on September 13, 2018, 02:26:49 PM
Could you say a bit more about Father Cassian Sibley's biography so that I can introduce the quote with a sentence or two about the author?

https://www.facebook.com/frcassian (https://www.facebook.com/frcassian)

https://www.blogger.com/profile/05076981033332066470 (https://www.blogger.com/profile/05076981033332066470)

Thanks — I honestly don’t know all that much about him. He is a parish priest in Texas and is FB friends with a couple of people I respect. Alas, my friend request (based largely on this quote) is pending.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: scott9 on September 13, 2018, 02:32:42 PM
Could you say a bit more about Father Cassian Sibley's biography so that I can introduce the quote with a sentence or two about the author?

https://www.facebook.com/frcassian (https://www.facebook.com/frcassian)

https://www.blogger.com/profile/05076981033332066470 (https://www.blogger.com/profile/05076981033332066470)

Thanks!

I've always been partial to Aerosmith ("live and learn from fools and from sages"), but the Sibley quote is much more provocative.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 13, 2018, 02:46:29 PM


Is there ever a time to say, "enough"?   What are the current moral issues that need attention?  If lying is one of them, and I think it is, is there any means by which to judge the nature of the lies, who is making them and how they impact upon our nation. Might we also need to examine why we have turned a blind eye to lying and consequently gotten the liars we deserve?

I agree with this. I think it explains much of the reticence of Republicans to criticize Trump. None of his lies are adversely affecting the nation; they're just enraging people further who are more or less always enraged anyway whenever they don't get their way.

Consumer and small business confidence is at all all time high. Black unemployment is at an all time low. No wars are being started. Pro-life judges are being appointed. Ridiculous Title IX mandates to campuses are being revised, unnecessary regulations are being rolled back, etc. As one who never thought any of that would happen, I have to say that apart from the abject clownishness of Trump as a person, I'm pretty happy with him as president. Not ecstatic. Not saying everything is 100% great. But things are going pretty well. So I don't see his lies as having much impact on our nation, while I do see his policies as having a positive impact.

As long as every powerful politician who engages in Clintonian behavior with interns is treated the same, I'm all for denouncing and punishing it harshly. If Clinton was singled out for doing what other powerful politicians were known to be getting away with, I'd think it sully partisanship to care about his while not caring about everyone else. If there were uniform, bipartisan calls for investigations leading to impeachment of powerful politicians who lie, I'd be inclined to support the idea. Until then, I'm more inclined to treat it as partisan brawling and nothing more.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: David Garner on September 13, 2018, 03:03:38 PM
The Fr. Sibley quote paired with the reading from James for tomorrow.  If we are to learn from all such folks, that does make them teachers, doesn't it?

"Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness."

I do see a weakness in the quotation in that if we learn from the harshest and meanest in the listing (we may differ on some but not on all of them), we begin to treat them as teachers and then (even if deceased) begin perhaps to heap degrees and robes, honors and whatever on them... and what if they are truly rank!?  We can indeed learn something from Hitler but we better be dressed in a hazmat suit and be working in a garbage can sorting like crime scene personnel what rot does.

I think I disagree with the premise that learning from someone makes them "a teacher" in the sense James is discussing.  James is referring to teaching in the Church, in an official capacity.  The notion that being a teacher in that sense is taking souls into your hands and making yourself responsible for their safekeeping.

However, in a more general sense, I don't know a single teacher who would suggest they never learn from their students.  That doesn't make the student the teacher.  It simply means that being a teacher also involves discourse, dialogue and a love for learning.

Father Cassion, as I understand him, is suggesting that we view human beings not in accordance with how well their beliefs square with ours, but as fellow humans made in the image of God.  That we do not discount the entire human person based solely on our disagreement with them. 

I wrote a blog post about this recently:

http://forheisgoodandlovesmankind.blogspot.com/2018/08/anger-narcissism-politics-social-media.html

In part, I said:

"We as persons are defined first as being created in the image of God.  Those we disagree with, even vehemently, are created in God's image.  Those whose comments might cause strong offense are ultimately there for our salvation because they are sons of the Father.  They are our brothers and sisters.  They are not our enemies.  I fall short of this, often.  It is too easy to reduce people to arbitrary classifications.  And we know the evils that are borne of this -- racism, antisemitism, etc.  Every mass murderer in history has first reduced their targets to the level of subhuman."

I see this as being of a similar piece.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Voelker on September 13, 2018, 03:07:33 PM
Consumer and small business confidence is at all all time high. Black unemployment is at an all time low. No wars are being started. Pro-life judges are being appointed. Ridiculous Title IX mandates to campuses are being revised, unnecessary regulations are being rolled back, etc. As one who never thought any of that would happen, I have to say that apart from the abject clownishness of Trump as a person, I'm pretty happy with him as president. Not ecstatic. Not saying everything is 100% great. But things are going pretty well. So I don't see his lies as having much impact on our nation, while I do see his policies as having a positive impact.
Most, if not all, items on this list are probably what has kept the rage well-fueled. Such a list will suggest that other, better ways and approaches can and do exist. Examples like these, in turn, fuel dangerous thoughts and inspire hope that things can be different, even better; wrongthink such as that must be squelched.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Voelker on September 13, 2018, 03:08:06 PM
Oddly, the same people that are trying to smear Justice Kavanaugh in part for his role in Ken Starr's investigation, which was authorized to look into a potential illegal banking scheme and finally after countless months came up with a stained dress, are full-on for having another such free-wheeling, wide-ranging, unbounded investigation. At least Whitewater involved a specific allegation with plenty of probable cause evidence to start with. This prosecutor doesn't even have that.

By Charles' view, every powerful senator should be under full-time investigation and prosecution with the full force of the federal government, since all of them are very powerful and might have done (read, almost certainly did do) something illegal at some point.


I've heard people state that they believe that anyone who is super-rich must have done something illegal - or ancestors who passed on the wealth did things illegally. I can't say if it's true or not, but it is a sentiment I've heard. It's also been seen on the news when a black person driving an expensive car is pulled over because he couldn't own a car like that - or when someone saw a black kid with two white women in the same car - he must be highjacking it. There are assumptions made about the rich and powerful - some of them might actually be true.

Some of them might actually be true, so therefore it should be legitimate to trash the Fourth Amendment, to use the investigatory powers of the government to take people's lives apart because we don't like them or their politics before there is actually any evidence beyond prejudice and suspicion?  We don't need no stinking evidence, no way they're not crooks, we just haven't found it yet so give us time and investigators, we'll find something.


Is this the kind of law enforcement that we really want?  It may suit our prejudice when done by Democrats and the Left to investigate Trump and his cronies.  But once that sort of investigatory hunt is let loose, what happens when someone you aren't in agreement with gets hold of the reigns?  We saw what kind of damage McCarthy and his gang did, and they did find some spies and agents intent on destroying the United States.  Are you or have you ever been a Conservative?  Could you name some names?

Let it be noted -- someone he does disagree with does have hold of the reins.

This is, I have long said, the reason leftist went guano crazy (let the reader understand) when Trump was elected.  It wasn't that under our proper system of government, he can do that much to disrupt most of their lives.  It is that under their preferred system of government, where government is neck deep in our day-to-day lives -- he can.  And he has undone much that was put into place through executive fiat over the last 8 years.  Undoings that, let us remember, sent the left into orbit.

If Trump's election didn't teach the authoritarian left anything, I hold little hope that anything will.  Authoritarianism is great when you wield power over others.  Not so much when they wield power over you.
+++. The reaction you describe appears in many ways to be the reaction of Person A who is frightened because they fear that their opponent who won and now has power — Person B — will now treat Person A as they originally intended to treat Person B. For example, the deeply weird belief held by many on the Left that The Handmaid's Tale is the secret fever dream of the Right, and would be installed across the land if only the Right could gain enough power, is good evidence that there is something to this reading.

What I think could happen, however, is that the Left will learn, rather than humility and the need to appeal to voters and the need for workable and livable ideas, the necessity of locking up elections through extralegal means because The Future Depends On It, and they will feel absolutely right and justified in doing so because of the dangerous nightmare they are saving us from.

The rush to censorship of late via corporations is an example of this tendency. Yes, many of the people shut down by Reddit, Youtube, and others appear to be, or can easily be painted as, well toward the far ends of the political/social scales ("loons," some might say). But these appear to be tentative measures, perhaps trial runs taken only against a select few. Should they manage to squelch this brand of unpopular speech, more such brands will fall under the hammer. Perhaps including the speech of many here.

To further this a bit, let me say that it is the precise same concern I had when people called President Obama a "socialist," and the Tea Party began its shutting down of discussion by pushing the narrative from the right that the left, Obama, etc. were all complicit in basically running an illegitimate government.  So I don't think this started on the left.

But I will say that it is ever escalating, and no matter who wins in 2020, we either have to choose to be better people or this ever increasing suspicion of one another will continue.

I'll share this here -- Father Cassian Sibley posted this on FB yesterday.  It is phenomenally well said:

""One of the worst forms of deliberately self induced ignorance is the refusal to learn from people that one fundamentally disagrees with intellectually, morally, or religiously. A person who cannot learn from bigots, communists, white trash, gangsters, thugs, bounders, fundamentalists, knotheads, birchers, neo-conservatives, Republicans, neo-liberals, socialists, slavers, feminists, patriarchalists, chauvinists, Democrats, libertines, Muslims, Buddhists, Baptists, Episcopalians, Jews, Pagans, womanizers, luddites, techies, environmentalists, tea partiers, dishonest politicians, homosexuals, monarchists, fascists, druggies, criminals, fanatics, prostitutes, lechs, theives, bankers, pimps, squares, hipsters, snowflakes, fascists, militarists, pacifists, good old boys, and eggheads because - well - because they don't agree with him or her, and are deemed by him or her to be, in one way or another, "deplorables" - is a person who can no longer learn from anyone but him or herself. Humans are flawed, failed, immoral, and foolish, but everything we know flows forth from that same dirty well - and refusing to drink from it leaves us dying of thirst.

Mental hygiene is a lost cause. Heed wisdom wherever she may be found, and spurn no man, however mean, however mad, however wicked -past or present - who might offer you a nugget of that true gold.""
Thank you; I appreciate your whole reply.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: mariemeyer on September 13, 2018, 05:17:55 PM
I'll share this here -- Father Cassian Sibley posted this on FB yesterday.  It is phenomenally well said:

""One of the worst forms of deliberately self induced ignorance is the refusal to learn from people that one fundamentally disagrees with intellectually, morally, or religiously. A person who cannot learn from bigots, communists, white trash, gangsters, thugs, bounders, fundamentalists, knotheads, birchers, neo-conservatives, Republicans, neo-liberals, socialists, slavers, feminists, patriarchalists, chauvinists, Democrats, libertines, Muslims, Buddhists, Baptists, Episcopalians, Jews, Pagans, womanizers, luddites, techies, environmentalists, tea partiers, dishonest politicians, homosexuals, monarchists, fascists, druggies, criminals, fanatics, prostitutes, lechs, theives, bankers, pimps, squares, hipsters, snowflakes, fascists, militarists, pacifists, good old boys, and eggheads because - well - because they don't agree with him or her, and are deemed by him or her to be, in one way or another, "deplorables" - is a person who can no longer learn from anyone but him or herself. Humans are flawed, failed, immoral, and foolish, but everything we know flows forth from that same dirty well - and refusing to drink from it leaves us dying of thirst.

Mental hygiene is a lost cause. Heed wisdom wherever she may be found, and spurn no man, however mean, however mad, however wicked -past or present - who might offer you a nugget of that true gold.""

I may use this in class.  Could you say a bit more about Father Cassian Sibley's biography so that I can introduce the quote with a sentence or two about the author?

The Father Cassian Sibley quote calls to mind how Bob Schnabel taught his 7th and 8th grade students to use resources that represent different views on a given subject.  While teaching in an LCMS parochial school he was working on his PhD in philosophy at Fordham University, a Jesuit school. Lessons learned then have been invaluable.  Schnabel later taught philosophy at Concordia Sr. College where Bill benefited from the wisdom Schnabel provided future pastors.

Marie Meyer
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: John_Hannah on September 13, 2018, 06:00:36 PM
I'll share this here -- Father Cassian Sibley posted this on FB yesterday.  It is phenomenally well said:

""One of the worst forms of deliberately self induced ignorance is the refusal to learn from people that one fundamentally disagrees with intellectually, morally, or religiously. A person who cannot learn from bigots, communists, white trash, gangsters, thugs, bounders, fundamentalists, knotheads, birchers, neo-conservatives, Republicans, neo-liberals, socialists, slavers, feminists, patriarchalists, chauvinists, Democrats, libertines, Muslims, Buddhists, Baptists, Episcopalians, Jews, Pagans, womanizers, luddites, techies, environmentalists, tea partiers, dishonest politicians, homosexuals, monarchists, fascists, druggies, criminals, fanatics, prostitutes, lechs, theives, bankers, pimps, squares, hipsters, snowflakes, fascists, militarists, pacifists, good old boys, and eggheads because - well - because they don't agree with him or her, and are deemed by him or her to be, in one way or another, "deplorables" - is a person who can no longer learn from anyone but him or herself. Humans are flawed, failed, immoral, and foolish, but everything we know flows forth from that same dirty well - and refusing to drink from it leaves us dying of thirst.

Mental hygiene is a lost cause. Heed wisdom wherever she may be found, and spurn no man, however mean, however mad, however wicked -past or present - who might offer you a nugget of that true gold.""

I may use this in class.  Could you say a bit more about Father Cassian Sibley's biography so that I can introduce the quote with a sentence or two about the author?

The Father Cassian Sibley quote calls to mind how Bob Schnabel taught his 7th and 8th grade students to use resources that represent different views on a given subject.  While teaching in an LCMS parochial school he was working on his PhD in philosophy at Fordham University, a Jesuit school. Lessons learned then have been invaluable.  Schnabel later taught philosophy at Concordia Sr. College where Bill benefited from the wisdom Schnabel provided future pastors.

Marie Meyer

And he later became president of Concordia, Bronxville, then Valparaiso, and then Wartburg College in Waverly, Iowa. Truly a great man. I did not have a chance to have him in class, although I did talk to him a number of times.

Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dave Likeness on September 13, 2018, 06:06:52 PM
Dr. Robert Schnabel indeed touched the lives of many pre-seminary students during his 14 years
at Concordia Senior College, Fort Wayne.  He also made a major contribution to Valpo University
during his 10 years as President from 1978 to 1988. Dr. Schnabel put an emphasis on recruiting stronger
academic students to enroll at Valpo.  He wanted students with high ACT or SAT scores  and they
started coming to Valpo.  As President of Valpo he also wanted a stronger academic faculty with
an emphasis on research in their chosen field.  He added some highly respected faculty members
to Valpo.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: mariemeyer on September 13, 2018, 07:17:18 PM
Yes, Pres. Trump needs to be called out for his lies.  So do those who oppose him.  What about lying to a FISA court in order to gain surveillance warrants?  Should that be called out or is that justified because it might bring down Trump?  What about subverting security on classified material?  Is that acceptable because it made life a little easier for a Democrat?  Or destroying documents that you were supposed to turn over?  OK if Democrats do it?  I understand the indignation over Trump's sometimes casual relationship with the truth.  What I do not understand is the near hysterical indignation when Trump does it but calm acceptance when Democrats do it.  It has been alleged that Trump has profited from his time in office.  Not a passing qualm that the Clinton's may have used their position to profit themselves?  Shouldn't that be investigated is we are to root out corruption?

Pr. Fienen:
 
By making this a Democrat/Republican issue we will endlessly go in circles trying to demonstrate who is the bigger liar.This leads to saying lying is the norm in both parties so don't call out one of my guys. 

The above singles out the Clinton's as the "other" guy who used their position to profit themselves.  If one is to address gaining wealth at the expense of others a moral issue, and I believe it is, the door is open to examining how Trump gained a significant amount of his wealth.  You raised the issue, I merely applied it to Trump.   

I  submit we need to get past the dead end futility of trying to determine who is the bigger liar or who is most morally corrupt in gaining wealth.   
Marie Meyer

I'm not sure that I'm getting your point.  We've been hearing speakers and commentators saying that Pres. Trump is the worst president, biggest liar, most corrupt, most foolish etc.  Would you say that is something that must be gotten beyond?  Or is that what others have done should simply be ignored and only Trump be looked at since he is the sitting president?


What is the point that you would like to make?  You, along with many others, seem to want all our focus to be on Trump and his associates and that he should be condemned as immoral or worse by all who have a concern for morality in our land.  That the immorality of other presidents or other politicians, in office or now out of office, should be ignored.  Just agree on how awful Trump is and how he should not be in office.  Showing that others have been guilty does not excuse Pres. Trump.  It does suggest that the problem is more widespread than just this politician or just this political party.  I points that there needs to be better ways to hold our leaders accountable.


As it is though, with those who are opposed to Trump and his policies being the ones claiming concern for morality in denouncing Trump but also saying that we should focus only on Trump and his associates and forget about those from your party or ideology who transgressed it sounds less like a moral crusade and more like you've found what you think is a weapon that you can use and you want to limit its use to those you oppose.

Please read my post again.  I intentionally did not mention the Republican party or Trump. I mentioned his name only after you introduced the Clintons.  My point was simply to point out that naming the Clintons or Trump only perpetuates the identity politics that prevents both parties from addressing moral lapses within their party. 

My original post was to point out why making morals, including lying, a Democrat vs Republican issue is stepping into a black hole. 

Marie Meyer
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: mariemeyer on September 13, 2018, 07:27:36 PM


Is there ever a time to say, "enough"?   What are the current moral issues that need attention?  If lying is one of them, and I think it is, is there any means by which to judge the nature of the lies, who is making them and how they impact upon our nation. Might we also need to examine why we have turned a blind eye to lying and consequently gotten the liars we deserve?

I agree with this. I think it explains much of the reticence of Republicans to criticize Trump. None of his lies are adversely affecting the nation; they're just enraging people further who are more or less always enraged anyway whenever they don't get their way.

Consumer and small business confidence is at all all time high. Black unemployment is at an all time low. No wars are being started. Pro-life judges are being appointed. Ridiculous Title IX mandates to campuses are being revised, unnecessary regulations are being rolled back, etc. As one who never thought any of that would happen, I have to say that apart from the abject clownishness of Trump as a person, I'm pretty happy with him as president. Not ecstatic. Not saying everything is 100% great. But things are going pretty well. So I don't see his lies as having much impact on our nation, while I do see his policies as having a positive impact.

As long as every powerful politician who engages in Clintonian behavior with interns is treated the same, I'm all for denouncing and punishing it harshly. If Clinton was singled out for doing what other powerful politicians were known to be getting away with, I'd think it sully partisanship to care about his while not caring about everyone else. If there were uniform, bipartisan calls for investigations leading to impeachment of powerful politicians who lie, I'd be inclined to support the idea. Until then, I'm more inclined to treat it as partisan brawling and nothing more.

"None of his (Trumps) lies are adversely affecting the nation; they're just enraging people further who are more or less always enraged anyway whenever they don't get their way."

IMO, to claim that lies made by a President of the USA, whoever that person may be, does not adversely affect the nation is to live in a state of denial.  If that means I am one of those people who are more or less always enraged anyway whenever I do not get my way, so be it.

Marie Meyer 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pasgolf on September 13, 2018, 09:03:44 PM
http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/13/the-systems-not-working-is-liberal-for-were-not-getting-what-we-want/
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 13, 2018, 09:40:38 PM


Is there ever a time to say, "enough"?   What are the current moral issues that need attention?  If lying is one of them, and I think it is, is there any means by which to judge the nature of the lies, who is making them and how they impact upon our nation. Might we also need to examine why we have turned a blind eye to lying and consequently gotten the liars we deserve?

I agree with this. I think it explains much of the reticence of Republicans to criticize Trump. None of his lies are adversely affecting the nation; they're just enraging people further who are more or less always enraged anyway whenever they don't get their way.

Consumer and small business confidence is at all all time high. Black unemployment is at an all time low. No wars are being started. Pro-life judges are being appointed. Ridiculous Title IX mandates to campuses are being revised, unnecessary regulations are being rolled back, etc. As one who never thought any of that would happen, I have to say that apart from the abject clownishness of Trump as a person, I'm pretty happy with him as president. Not ecstatic. Not saying everything is 100% great. But things are going pretty well. So I don't see his lies as having much impact on our nation, while I do see his policies as having a positive impact.

As long as every powerful politician who engages in Clintonian behavior with interns is treated the same, I'm all for denouncing and punishing it harshly. If Clinton was singled out for doing what other powerful politicians were known to be getting away with, I'd think it sully partisanship to care about his while not caring about everyone else. If there were uniform, bipartisan calls for investigations leading to impeachment of powerful politicians who lie, I'd be inclined to support the idea. Until then, I'm more inclined to treat it as partisan brawling and nothing more.

"None of his (Trumps) lies are adversely affecting the nation; they're just enraging people further who are more or less always enraged anyway whenever they don't get their way."

IMO, to claim that lies made by a President of the USA, whoever that person may be, does not adversely affect the nation is to live in a state of denial.  If that means I am one of those people who are more or less always enraged anyway whenever I do not get my way, so be it.

Marie Meyer
Indeed, the sinfulness of every president adversely affects the nation in some imperceptible way. At issue is what, exactly, is the negative impact on the nation of Trump's lies? If Trump stopped lying tomorrow, the people who oppose him would continue to oppose him for some other reason, but no particular metric-- budget deficit, military preparedness, inflation rate, unemployment rate, etc. etc. etc.--- would be affected in any way as far as I can tell. Most of the tangible measures are doing fairly well even with him lying.

Your point about lies was wanting to discuss "who is making them and how they impact upon our nation." I'm saying that in the case of Trump's lies, there is no measurable impact on the nation except that his lying enrages people, but mostly only people who were going to be enraged at him whether we lied or told the truth in any given instance. What do you see as the impact of Trump's lies that make his lying somehow exceptional? What are the examples of his lies you have in mind? What people would be pacified and happy with Trump if he didn't lie? What metric of our nation's health has been adversely affected by Trump's lies?     
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 13, 2018, 10:26:26 PM
Because, Peter, some in our land believe his lies and therefore act on false information. That is how his lying affects our country.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 13, 2018, 11:07:07 PM
I can see your point, Pr. Austin.  Governmental lies can lead to bad policy.  Pres. Obama’s lies about the affects of the ACA helped its passage and acceptance.  Oh wait, you like Obamacare so maybe those lies were OK.  Bush lied (or was lied to) about Iraqi WBD and we got mired in Iraq.  LBJ lies about the Gulf of Tonkin and we got deeper mired in Viet Nam.  Which lies of Trump do you see miring us in bad policy?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 14, 2018, 12:38:36 AM
Because, Peter, some in our land believe his lies and therefore act on false information. That is how his lying affects our country.
What lies are you talking about? Who acts on them? How do they act? What are the adverse effects of their actions? Yes, lying is immoral and in general has negative consequences. Agreed. What I'm asking is for someone to point out the national-scale negative consequences of Trump's lies. It hasn't seemed to affect any of the normal metrics by which administrations are typically judged. Things are going pretty well, much, much better than I thought they'd be going at this point. So while I remain more or less repulsed by the man, I am not panicked by his presidency the way I was when he won the primary here and I knew our next president would be Clinton or him.   
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 14, 2018, 03:39:58 AM
And, of course, any liberal or Democrat would have been worse. And that is a charge that folks can make because it can be all speculation and accusation and suspicion without the need for any reason, evidence or truth. I get that.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: gan ainm on September 14, 2018, 05:35:06 AM
The refusal (or inability) to describe the specific negative impact on our country of this presidents alleged lies (I'll use that word since I doubt those who post on this board have first hand information and are operating on emotion and/or hearsay and/or biased news commentary sources), reminds me of the saying "All hat and no cattle"
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 14, 2018, 07:06:49 AM
And, of course, any liberal or Democrat would have been worse. And that is a charge that folks can make because it can be all speculation and accusation and suspicion without the need for any reason, evidence or truth. I get that.
That is an accusation made without any evidence.  Donald Trump didn’t run against any and every liberal and Democrat but against a specific person who ran a specific campaign and had a specific history.  Enough voters in enough states decided that they thought that Clinton would be worse than Trump.  It is pure speculation that they, or even that just we who post on this forum, would decide the same without reason, evidence or truth given another candidate.  Clinton hardly reached out to anyone who wasn’t a liberal or a Democrat, lumping us together as deplorable.  She also ran a divisive campaign.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: D. Engebretson on September 14, 2018, 09:23:18 AM
I just jumped back in after being out of town for several days attending meetings, and am little surprised the thread I saw when I left is still going strong....

Truth has long been a pliable quality, especially in the world of politics.  Sometimes it is outright lying (and denial), and an equally dangerous situation is partial truth, or truth that is 'spun' to support a particular point of view. This happens on both sides of the aisle. To some degree I'm sure we all engage in this, often unaware of our own bias. 

I can see now why many voters become apathetic and check out.  They hear opposing versions of the truth and struggle to know which is accurate. Election time heightens this.  How can they evaluate the competing narratives? Whose point of view should they trust.  We are in a very contested gubernatorial race here in Wisconsin and every day we get a 'he said, she said' version of the past via political ads. I suppose getting news from a variety of sources helps, but each possess its own inherent bias and you still need to evaluate each one to determine the truth mixed inside. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: David Garner on September 14, 2018, 09:34:21 AM
http://thefederalist.com/2018/09/13/the-systems-not-working-is-liberal-for-were-not-getting-what-we-want/

Well, this hits the nail precisely on the head.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Eileen Smith on September 14, 2018, 10:16:18 AM
I just jumped back in after being out of town for several days attending meetings, and am little surprised the thread I saw when I left is still going strong....

Truth has long been a pliable quality, especially in the world of politics.  Sometimes it is outright lying (and denial), and an equally dangerous situation is partial truth, or truth that is 'spun' to support a particular point of view. This happens on both sides of the aisle. To some degree I'm sure we all engage in this, often unaware of our own bias. 

I can see now why many voters become apathetic and check out.  They hear opposing versions of the truth and struggle to know which is accurate. Election time heightens this.  How can they evaluate the competing narratives? Whose point of view should they trust.  We are in a very contested gubernatorial race here in Wisconsin and every day we get a 'he said, she said' version of the past via political ads. I suppose getting news from a variety of sources helps, but each possess its own inherent bias and you still need to evaluate each one to determine the truth mixed inside.

My mother-in-law worked for the Albany Times Union and was very involved in politics up until her death at age 84.  Albany was a rather political city in her day as it was the home of the Dan O'Connell Democratic machine.   I always remember her saying, most especially at election time, "politicians lie."  The difference is we now have them lying 24/7 on newscasts and social media, which only seems to fuel things.  Unfortunately, with social media, anyone (politician or not) can put out a sound bite and it grows legs.  Sadly elections are no longer based on accomplishments, but campaigns designed to denigate the opponent.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: pastorg1@aol.com on September 14, 2018, 10:20:14 AM
The saying is: “All hat and no horse.”
The alliteration and the mental image of a cowboy just standing there are the keys to the saying’s humor.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: gan ainm on September 14, 2018, 12:31:19 PM
The saying is: “All hat and no horse.”
The alliteration and the mental image of a cowboy just standing there are the keys to the saying’s humor.

In Texas, several decades ago when I lived there, it was "all hat, no cattle".  For a bit of humor and explanation of the term:  http://all-hat-no-cattle.blogspot.com 

I've heard several variations that also do a good job of describing the pretension's of the one to whom the term is applied.   ;)
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on September 14, 2018, 01:13:17 PM
I'm not sure that I'm getting your point.  We've been hearing speakers and commentators saying that Pres. Trump is the worst president, biggest liar, most corrupt, most foolish etc.  Would you say that is something that must be gotten beyond?  Or is that what others have done should simply be ignored and only Trump be looked at since he is the sitting president?


What is the point that you would like to make?  You, along with many others, seem to want all our focus to be on Trump and his associates and that he should be condemned as immoral or worse by all who have a concern for morality in our land.  That the immorality of other presidents or other politicians, in office or now out of office, should be ignored.  Just agree on how awful Trump is and how he should not be in office.  Showing that others have been guilty does not excuse Pres. Trump.  It does suggest that the problem is more widespread than just this politician or just this political party.  I points that there needs to be better ways to hold our leaders accountable.


As it is though, with those who are opposed to Trump and his policies being the ones claiming concern for morality in denouncing Trump but also saying that we should focus only on Trump and his associates and forget about those from your party or ideology who transgressed it sounds less like a moral crusade and more like you've found what you think is a weapon that you can use and you want to limit its use to those you oppose.
I've been mulling my agreement with these words over ever since they were posted, as they get to the heart of what is so objectionable about the origins of this thread.  It is demanded that everyone assent to the proposition that Trump is the worst ever, or you are not fit for polite company--more on that towards the end of this post.

Meanwhile in current events, we have what Senator Diane Feinstein of California tried to pull last night, making headlines about referring an deliberately unspecified (by her) allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of wrongdoing about something during his high school years, to the FBI for possible investigation, information about which she had before the hearings but never questioned him about it directly.

CNN: Democrats send 'information' concerning Kavanaugh nomination to FBI (https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/13/politics/kavanaugh-feinstein-letter-fbi/index.html)

As National Review's Charles Cooke writes today:

What Senator Feinstein is currently doing to Brett Kavanaugh is evil. Yes, it is evil. It is antediluvian. It is dangerous. It is illiberal. It sits well, well outside of the American tradition, harking back to a time in which the accused were simply carted off — or shunned by polite society — ten minutes after someone prominent offered up a vague claim about them. In America, we require that our accusers make themselves known, that their accusations be offered in detail and in public, and that the accused be appraised of everything that has been leveled against them — and we require this not just within formal legal environments, but in general. Within the American tradition, these requirements are considered a prerequisite to fairness — both inside and outside the courtroom. As has become fashionable lately within her party and her state, Senator Feinstein is stamping all over those traditions, and doing so for political advantage.

Worse still, Senator Feinstein is engaged a brazen attempt to have it both ways: She wants the consequences of an accusation without any of the attendant process. Or, put more bluntly, Senator Feinstein wants to be imbued with the power to point her finger at other people and to mark them as tainted, as unacceptable, as excommunicated. That will not stand — today, tomorrow, ever.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/dianne-feinstein-brett-kavanaugh-rank-illiberalism/

I agree with Cooke that Feinstein's actions are evil, but will we hear any of the so-called caring people denounce her?  No, of course not. This is but one more example of the sorry state of our public discourse today.  As a Lutheran I point to her actions as a gross violation of the Eighth Commandment, especially because it specifically defames a particular person, Judge Kavanaugh.  At least Justice Ginsburg had the integrity to speak out yesterday about the spectacle of Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing, even before Feinstein's latest dirty trick.  BTW, has anyone heard that Feinstein had a possible Chinese spy working in her office for over a decade, including when she was chair of the Senate intelligence committee?  (Google it)

What I have bolded above in the Cooke quote is what I think the likes of Pr. Austin are trying to accomplish with this thread.  And the tribalism it represents is deplorable.  I'm tired of being harangued by people who are silent in the face of their sides gross misconduct, the history of which predates Donald Trump's arrival on the national political scene.

Sterling Spatz



Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Eileen Smith on September 14, 2018, 02:13:11 PM
I'm not sure that I'm getting your point.  We've been hearing speakers and commentators saying that Pres. Trump is the worst president, biggest liar, most corrupt, most foolish etc.  Would you say that is something that must be gotten beyond?  Or is that what others have done should simply be ignored and only Trump be looked at since he is the sitting president?


What is the point that you would like to make?  You, along with many others, seem to want all our focus to be on Trump and his associates and that he should be condemned as immoral or worse by all who have a concern for morality in our land.  That the immorality of other presidents or other politicians, in office or now out of office, should be ignored.  Just agree on how awful Trump is and how he should not be in office.  Showing that others have been guilty does not excuse Pres. Trump.  It does suggest that the problem is more widespread than just this politician or just this political party.  I points that there needs to be better ways to hold our leaders accountable.


As it is though, with those who are opposed to Trump and his policies being the ones claiming concern for morality in denouncing Trump but also saying that we should focus only on Trump and his associates and forget about those from your party or ideology who transgressed it sounds less like a moral crusade and more like you've found what you think is a weapon that you can use and you want to limit its use to those you oppose.
I've been mulling my agreement with these words over ever since they were posted, as they get to the heart of what is so objectionable about the origins of this thread.  It is demanded that everyone assent to the proposition that Trump is the worst ever, or you are not fit for polite company--more on that towards the end of this post.

Meanwhile in current events, we have what Senator Diane Feinstein of California tried to pull last night, making headlines about referring an deliberately unspecified (by her) allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh of wrongdoing about something during his high school years, to the FBI for possible investigation, information about which she had before the hearings but never questioned him about it directly.

CNN: Democrats send 'information' concerning Kavanaugh nomination to FBI (https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/13/politics/kavanaugh-feinstein-letter-fbi/index.html)

As National Review's Charles Cooke writes today:

What Senator Feinstein is currently doing to Brett Kavanaugh is evil. Yes, it is evil. It is antediluvian. It is dangerous. It is illiberal. It sits well, well outside of the American tradition, harking back to a time in which the accused were simply carted off — or shunned by polite society — ten minutes after someone prominent offered up a vague claim about them. In America, we require that our accusers make themselves known, that their accusations be offered in detail and in public, and that the accused be appraised of everything that has been leveled against them — and we require this not just within formal legal environments, but in general. Within the American tradition, these requirements are considered a prerequisite to fairness — both inside and outside the courtroom. As has become fashionable lately within her party and her state, Senator Feinstein is stamping all over those traditions, and doing so for political advantage.

Worse still, Senator Feinstein is engaged a brazen attempt to have it both ways: She wants the consequences of an accusation without any of the attendant process. Or, put more bluntly, Senator Feinstein wants to be imbued with the power to point her finger at other people and to mark them as tainted, as unacceptable, as excommunicated. That will not stand — today, tomorrow, ever.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/dianne-feinstein-brett-kavanaugh-rank-illiberalism/

I agree with Cooke that Feinstein's actions are evil, but will we hear any of the so-called caring people denounce her?  No, of course not. This is but one more example of the sorry state of our public discourse today.  As a Lutheran I point to her actions as a gross violation of the Eighth Commandment, especially because it specifically defames a particular person, Judge Kavanaugh.  At least Justice Ginsburg had the integrity to speak out yesterday about the spectacle of Kavanaugh's confirmation hearing, even before Feinstein's latest dirty trick.  BTW, has anyone heard that Feinstein had a possible Chinese spy working in her office for over a decade, including when she was chair of the Senate intelligence committee?  (Google it)

What I have bolded above in the Cooke quote is what I think the likes of Pr. Austin are trying to accomplish with this thread.  And the tribalism it represents is deplorable.  I'm tired of being harangued by people who are silent in the face of their sides gross misconduct, the history of which predates Donald Trump's arrival on the national political scene.

Sterling Spatz

Thank you for this - and the piece from National Review.  I felt sick hearing this news last night.   I couldn't articulate why this bothered me so much but you get the heart of it.  It also speaks to something I touched on earlier today on this thread.  We can toss out anything and even if only for a while we can damage someone's reputation, family, career.   Innuendo, digging up dirt perhaps going back decades, telling half truths - all are acceptable and it is almost impossible for one to defend oneself given the cacophony of noise that the accusation carries.   What is also evil is that it would seem the biggest concern that some have with Kavanaugh is that he will tilt the court in a a direction that will make it more difficult for women to have an abortion.  That so much of our anger and effort is directed at thwarting anyone for whom the rights of the unborn child have merit should give us concern for the morality of our land.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: RandyBosch on September 14, 2018, 02:33:54 PM
So, at least 65 women who attended high school with Judge Kavenaugh attest that he was always a perfect gentleman.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/09/65-woman-say-kavanaugh-was-a-gentleman-in-high-school.php

This aligns with EVERY female intern and aide that he has worked with throughout his judicial career.

Now, he's certainly not a saint, yet it is likely that fewer unsaintly activities can be attested to than those that have accompanied his chief accuser, now Senator Feinstein as she carries forward the bilgewater of the alleged accusation of a childhood prank (if it ever happened) that caused no physical harm, was easily overcome by the alleged target of the prank, who alleged reported (via at least triple hearsay) that she was "afraid" or "concerned".

How far will the pro-murder abortion industry, its co-conspirators, apologists, and syncophants go to head off even the slightest chance that someone might be faced with a choice IF a relevant judicial case would make it as far as the Supreme Court?

Lenin was prescient in his identification of "useful tools" (or was it "useful fools"?) in his quest for absolute power.


Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: gan ainm on September 14, 2018, 02:45:08 PM
So, at least 65 women who attended high school with Judge Kavenaugh attest that he was always a perfect gentleman.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/09/65-woman-say-kavanaugh-was-a-gentleman-in-high-school.php

This aligns with EVERY female intern and aide that he has worked with throughout his judicial career.

Now, he's certainly not a saint, yet it is likely that fewer unsaintly activities can be attested to than those that have accompanied his chief accuser, now Senator Feinstein as she carries forward the bilgewater of the alleged accusation of a childhood prank (if it ever happened) that caused no physical harm, was easily overcome by the alleged target of the prank, who alleged reported (via at least triple hearsay) that she was "afraid" or "concerned".

How far will the pro-murder abortion industry, its co-conspirators, apologists, and syncophants go to head off even the slightest chance that someone might be faced with a choice IF a relevant judicial case would make it as far as the Supreme Court?

Lenin was prescient in his identification of "useful tools" (or was it "useful fools"?) in his quest for absolute power.

How far?  In the current creation, who knows, just follow the money.  In the new creation, after the last day, they will likely be somewhere in the absence of God for eternity based on their disregard for life now.  It is sad, but I doubt those who support/endorse/tolerate the pro-murder abortion industry even realize the consequences of their behavior - especially religious leaders and teachers who Scripture says will be judged more severely. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on September 14, 2018, 02:55:10 PM
Even liberal media like CNN are not jumping on this evil, fully and repeatedly explaining Kavanaugh's denial, the responsive letter by the 65 women, etc. Given that Feinstein had this letter back in July and springs the attack now puts this even more beyond the pale.   >:(
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Rev Geminn on September 14, 2018, 03:19:22 PM
Because, Peter, some in our land believe his lies and therefore act on false information. That is how his lying affects our country.
What lies are you talking about? Who acts on them? How do they act? What are the adverse effects of their actions? Yes, lying is immoral and in general has negative consequences. Agreed. What I'm asking is for someone to point out the national-scale negative consequences of Trump's lies. It hasn't seemed to affect any of the normal metrics by which administrations are typically judged. Things are going pretty well, much, much better than I thought they'd be going at this point. So while I remain more or less repulsed by the man, I am not panicked by his presidency the way I was when he won the primary here and I knew our next president would be Clinton or him.

I must confess that I feel the same way at this point.  I still believe that he is deeply problematic but not at the point of believing that Hillary Clinton would have been way better.  A guy who I found to have a great take on Trump is Slavoj Zizek.  If you do a Youtube search of him you'll come across some interesting stuff.  Fascinating dude. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: D. Engebretson on September 14, 2018, 05:58:29 PM
Even liberal media like CNN are not jumping on this evil, fully and repeatedly explaining Kavanaugh's denial, the responsive letter by the 65 women, etc. Given that Feinstein had this letter back in July and springs the attack now puts this even more beyond the pale.   >:(

Even the extremely liberal Rachel Maddow over at MSNBC failed to get any real traction interviewing a former FBI agent who worked with such things.  He readily admitted that Judge Kavanaugh has been vetted multiple times as a judge and the questions concerning this mysterious letter handed over to the FBI may very well have been "asked and answered" already.  In fact, he also said that the timing was "problematic" coming at this rather late stage in the confirmation process.  https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/groups-pressure-sen-collins-to-vote-against-kavanaugh-1317565507569 (https://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/watch/groups-pressure-sen-collins-to-vote-against-kavanaugh-1317565507569)
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: David Garner on September 15, 2018, 08:34:44 AM
David French hit the nail on the head -- what they are doing to Judge Kavanaugh is disgusting.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/brett-kavanaugh-good-character-is-used-against-him/

"It’s a simple fact that millions of partisans are primed to believe any allegation against a person on the other side, and then they’ll interpret the rest of their life against the backdrop of those claims. And no one knows the behavior of partisans better than politicians. Feinstein is achieving her intended purpose.

One does not toy with allegations of sexual assault. If there is substantial evidence that Brett Kavanaugh tried to rape a girl, then that’s disqualifying. Full stop. But an anonymous claim that the public hasn’t seen and that seems devoid of meaningful details is not how you establish guilt. It’s not how you even properly make allegations of wrongdoing. Time and again, we’ve seen courageous women stand up, endure the spotlight, and state their evidence. That courage is helping change this nation.

So far, however, these claims don’t belong in the same category. So far, we are still watching a terrible and profoundly immoral political dirty trick. It’s yet another sign of our low times that all too many partisans are willing to pile on."
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 15, 2018, 09:48:13 AM
Anonymous accusations known about for several months but only revealed at the last minute, putting the worst construction on every facet of a person's life, yep another win for morality in our land.  :(
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 15, 2018, 12:14:59 PM
David French hit the nail on the head -- what they are doing to Judge Kavanaugh is disgusting.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/brett-kavanaugh-good-character-is-used-against-him/

"It’s a simple fact that millions of partisans are primed to believe any allegation against a person on the other side, and then they’ll interpret the rest of their life against the backdrop of those claims. And no one knows the behavior of partisans better than politicians. Feinstein is achieving her intended purpose.

One does not toy with allegations of sexual assault. If there is substantial evidence that Brett Kavanaugh tried to rape a girl, then that’s disqualifying. Full stop. But an anonymous claim that the public hasn’t seen and that seems devoid of meaningful details is not how you establish guilt. It’s not how you even properly make allegations of wrongdoing. Time and again, we’ve seen courageous women stand up, endure the spotlight, and state their evidence. That courage is helping change this nation.

So far, however, these claims don’t belong in the same category. So far, we are still watching a terrible and profoundly immoral political dirty trick. It’s yet another sign of our low times that all too many partisans are willing to pile on."
I disagree that anything he did in high school, or even a long time ago as an adult, be it worshiping Satan, joining the communist party, beating up a weakling, selling cocaine, or even attempting to have sex with an unwilling girl at a party amounts to a lifetime disqualification for anything. People can and do change, mature, repent, and become better people. It is the accumulation of behavior over a lifetime that makes a person who he is.

   
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 15, 2018, 01:16:03 PM
David French hit the nail on the head -- what they are doing to Judge Kavanaugh is disgusting.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/brett-kavanaugh-good-character-is-used-against-him/ (https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/brett-kavanaugh-good-character-is-used-against-him/)

"It’s a simple fact that millions of partisans are primed to believe any allegation against a person on the other side, and then they’ll interpret the rest of their life against the backdrop of those claims. And no one knows the behavior of partisans better than politicians. Feinstein is achieving her intended purpose.

One does not toy with allegations of sexual assault. If there is substantial evidence that Brett Kavanaugh tried to rape a girl, then that’s disqualifying. Full stop. But an anonymous claim that the public hasn’t seen and that seems devoid of meaningful details is not how you establish guilt. It’s not how you even properly make allegations of wrongdoing. Time and again, we’ve seen courageous women stand up, endure the spotlight, and state their evidence. That courage is helping change this nation.

So far, however, these claims don’t belong in the same category. So far, we are still watching a terrible and profoundly immoral political dirty trick. It’s yet another sign of our low times that all too many partisans are willing to pile on."
I disagree that anything he did in high school, or even a long time ago as an adult, be it worshiping Satan, joining the communist party, beating up a weakling, selling cocaine, or even attempting to have sex with an unwilling girl at a party amounts to a lifetime disqualification for anything. People can and do change, mature, repent, and become better people. It is the accumulation of behavior over a lifetime that makes a person who he is. 

I agree with you, but there can also be an issue of secrecy - when those past foibles are kept hidden from the public. That seems to have been the major problem with the new, first, (and now fired) president of United Lutheran Seminary, Theresa Latini.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: RandyBosch on September 15, 2018, 01:41:20 PM
David French hit the nail on the head -- what they are doing to Judge Kavanaugh is disgusting.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/brett-kavanaugh-good-character-is-used-against-him/ (https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/brett-kavanaugh-good-character-is-used-against-him/)

"It’s a simple fact that millions of partisans are primed to believe any allegation against a person on the other side, and then they’ll interpret the rest of their life against the backdrop of those claims. And no one knows the behavior of partisans better than politicians. Feinstein is achieving her intended purpose.

One does not toy with allegations of sexual assault. If there is substantial evidence that Brett Kavanaugh tried to rape a girl, then that’s disqualifying. Full stop. But an anonymous claim that the public hasn’t seen and that seems devoid of meaningful details is not how you establish guilt. It’s not how you even properly make allegations of wrongdoing. Time and again, we’ve seen courageous women stand up, endure the spotlight, and state their evidence. That courage is helping change this nation.

So far, however, these claims don’t belong in the same category. So far, we are still watching a terrible and profoundly immoral political dirty trick. It’s yet another sign of our low times that all too many partisans are willing to pile on."
I disagree that anything he did in high school, or even a long time ago as an adult, be it worshiping Satan, joining the communist party, beating up a weakling, selling cocaine, or even attempting to have sex with an unwilling girl at a party amounts to a lifetime disqualification for anything. People can and do change, mature, repent, and become better people. It is the accumulation of behavior over a lifetime that makes a person who he is. 

I agree with you, but there can also be an issue of secrecy - when those past foibles are kept hidden from the public. That seems to have been the major problem with the new, first, (and now fired) president of United Lutheran Seminary, Theresa Latini.

Sometimes the issue isn't "secrecy" but that there was nothing evil or seditious to the served organization about what one of its members did years (and often even decades) ago.  You can probably now dredge up a former student's debate class position to use against them - even when the position was assigned by the instructor (often students learn better by being able to debate both sides of an issue).

In the "church", sadly but predictably, it is clear that "forgiveness" exists only between the alleged transgressor and God, for the "church" far, far too often never forgives, never forgets - when the alleged (or real!) past indiscretion/position/belief is a useful tool to derail a person's current life and positions.

Why is that, do you suppose, and what can be done to counter it, to differentiate "unforgivable sins" from forgiven sins or mere former differences of opinion.

I have a friend who moved from Minnesota to Arizona, and forsook their (to then) life-long rabid fandom for the Vikings to be replaced by allegiance to the Cardinals.  Traitor?  Never a "real" Vikings fan?  Never to be trusted as a Cardinals fan?  All of the above?

What about folks in your congregation who were previously Roman Catholics, or Baptists, or Methodists?  Would it be proper to distrust them for their participation in your congregation, dredge that up to prevent them from being placed in leadership positions, proclaim that they may not be "real" Lutherans now or ever -- particularly if the "secret" of their earlier affiliation was not known to other members?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 15, 2018, 03:39:57 PM
David French hit the nail on the head -- what they are doing to Judge Kavanaugh is disgusting.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/brett-kavanaugh-good-character-is-used-against-him/ (https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/brett-kavanaugh-good-character-is-used-against-him/)

"It’s a simple fact that millions of partisans are primed to believe any allegation against a person on the other side, and then they’ll interpret the rest of their life against the backdrop of those claims. And no one knows the behavior of partisans better than politicians. Feinstein is achieving her intended purpose.

One does not toy with allegations of sexual assault. If there is substantial evidence that Brett Kavanaugh tried to rape a girl, then that’s disqualifying. Full stop. But an anonymous claim that the public hasn’t seen and that seems devoid of meaningful details is not how you establish guilt. It’s not how you even properly make allegations of wrongdoing. Time and again, we’ve seen courageous women stand up, endure the spotlight, and state their evidence. That courage is helping change this nation.

So far, however, these claims don’t belong in the same category. So far, we are still watching a terrible and profoundly immoral political dirty trick. It’s yet another sign of our low times that all too many partisans are willing to pile on."
I disagree that anything he did in high school, or even a long time ago as an adult, be it worshiping Satan, joining the communist party, beating up a weakling, selling cocaine, or even attempting to have sex with an unwilling girl at a party amounts to a lifetime disqualification for anything. People can and do change, mature, repent, and become better people. It is the accumulation of behavior over a lifetime that makes a person who he is. 

I agree with you, but there can also be an issue of secrecy - when those past foibles are kept hidden from the public. That seems to have been the major problem with the new, first, (and now fired) president of United Lutheran Seminary, Theresa Latini.
How was anything she did kept secret from the public? Just because she didn't go out of her way to draw attention to something doesn't mean she had some dark secret. She even told the person who asked her straight up, and that person chose not to share the info with the rest of the committee.

I guarantee you aren't qualified for anything at all by that standard.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 15, 2018, 03:51:35 PM
David French hit the nail on the head -- what they are doing to Judge Kavanaugh is disgusting.

https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/brett-kavanaugh-good-character-is-used-against-him/ (https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/brett-kavanaugh-good-character-is-used-against-him/)

"It’s a simple fact that millions of partisans are primed to believe any allegation against a person on the other side, and then they’ll interpret the rest of their life against the backdrop of those claims. And no one knows the behavior of partisans better than politicians. Feinstein is achieving her intended purpose.

One does not toy with allegations of sexual assault. If there is substantial evidence that Brett Kavanaugh tried to rape a girl, then that’s disqualifying. Full stop. But an anonymous claim that the public hasn’t seen and that seems devoid of meaningful details is not how you establish guilt. It’s not how you even properly make allegations of wrongdoing. Time and again, we’ve seen courageous women stand up, endure the spotlight, and state their evidence. That courage is helping change this nation.

So far, however, these claims don’t belong in the same category. So far, we are still watching a terrible and profoundly immoral political dirty trick. It’s yet another sign of our low times that all too many partisans are willing to pile on."
I disagree that anything he did in high school, or even a long time ago as an adult, be it worshiping Satan, joining the communist party, beating up a weakling, selling cocaine, or even attempting to have sex with an unwilling girl at a party amounts to a lifetime disqualification for anything. People can and do change, mature, repent, and become better people. It is the accumulation of behavior over a lifetime that makes a person who he is. 

I agree with you, but there can also be an issue of secrecy - when those past foibles are kept hidden from the public. That seems to have been the major problem with the new, first, (and now fired) president of United Lutheran Seminary, Theresa Latini.

Sometimes the issue isn't "secrecy" but that there was nothing evil or seditious to the served organization about what one of its members did years (and often even decades) ago.  You can probably now dredge up a former student's debate class position to use against them - even when the position was assigned by the instructor (often students learn better by being able to debate both sides of an issue).

In the "church", sadly but predictably, it is clear that "forgiveness" exists only between the alleged transgressor and God, for the "church" far, far too often never forgives, never forgets - when the alleged (or real!) past indiscretion/position/belief is a useful tool to derail a person's current life and positions.

Why is that, do you suppose, and what can be done to counter it, to differentiate "unforgivable sins" from forgiven sins or mere former differences of opinion.

I have a friend who moved from Minnesota to Arizona, and forsook their (to then) life-long rabid fandom for the Vikings to be replaced by allegiance to the Cardinals.  Traitor?  Never a "real" Vikings fan?  Never to be trusted as a Cardinals fan?  All of the above?

What about folks in your congregation who were previously Roman Catholics, or Baptists, or Methodists?  Would it be proper to distrust them for their participation in your congregation, dredge that up to prevent them from being placed in leadership positions, proclaim that they may not be "real" Lutherans now or ever -- particularly if the "secret" of their earlier affiliation was not known to other members?


What do we, as pastors do, when a new prospect tells us of a sordid past, but has now been transformed by the Lord? How much of that do we share with the council or congregation? What if the past included prison for child molestation? Can we "forgive and forget"? As pastors we are bound to keep secrets as part of our confidentiality mandate. We cannot be open about everything we know about our members.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Richard Johnson on September 15, 2018, 09:10:35 PM


I agree with you, but there can also be an issue of secrecy - when those past foibles are kept hidden from the public. That seems to have been the major problem with the new, first, (and now fired) president of United Lutheran Seminary, Theresa Latini.

Right. In her younger days, she committed the unpardonable sin of believing homosexual behavior to be sinful. If you think that if she'd admitted that up front she'd have been OK, you're deluded.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 15, 2018, 10:06:43 PM
I wonder, could a student enroll in that seminary with that belief?  If enrolled could such a student graduate and be recommended for a call holding such a belief?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 16, 2018, 01:21:33 AM


I agree with you, but there can also be an issue of secrecy - when those past foibles are kept hidden from the public. That seems to have been the major problem with the new, first, (and now fired) president of United Lutheran Seminary, Theresa Latini.

Right. In her younger days, she committed the unpardonable sin of believing homosexual behavior to be sinful. If you think that if she'd admitted that up front she'd have been OK, you're deluded.


Many of us in our younger days believed that. Some of us have changed.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on September 16, 2018, 07:05:44 AM
And your point is... ? That you can be proud for not keeping that a secret? Or that you'll never be the president of a seminary?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Coach-Rev on September 16, 2018, 08:47:18 AM


I agree with you, but there can also be an issue of secrecy - when those past foibles are kept hidden from the public. That seems to have been the major problem with the new, first, (and now fired) president of United Lutheran Seminary, Theresa Latini.

Right. In her younger days, she committed the unpardonable sin of believing homosexual behavior to be sinful. If you think that if she'd admitted that up front she'd have been OK, you're deluded.


Many of us in our younger days believed that. Some of us have changed.

As she had.  And yet she was still excoriated, fired, (tarred and feathered, run out of town on a rail)...  all because she once held to the unpardonable sin of believing that homosexuality was  a sin.  By your own standard, you should also be disqualified as being a pastor then, since this is the first I hear of you once holding to the same position at some point in the distant past...  ::)
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 16, 2018, 10:49:23 AM
And your point is... ? That you can be proud for not keeping that a secret? Or that you'll never be the president of a seminary?


Many people change. All Christians should be going through changes. μετάνοια means "a change in thinking". Luther states that it should happen daily. I don't think it was her past life from which she had changed that did her in, but the secrecy about it - more, I think, from the board than from her.

Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 16, 2018, 11:03:18 AM


I agree with you, but there can also be an issue of secrecy - when those past foibles are kept hidden from the public. That seems to have been the major problem with the new, first, (and now fired) president of United Lutheran Seminary, Theresa Latini.

Right. In her younger days, she committed the unpardonable sin of believing homosexual behavior to be sinful. If you think that if she'd admitted that up front she'd have been OK, you're deluded.


Many of us in our younger days believed that. Some of us have changed.

As she had.  And yet she was still excoriated, fired, (tarred and feathered, run out of town on a rail)...  all because she once held to the unpardonable sin of believing that homosexuality was  a sin.  By your own standard, you should also be disqualified as being a pastor then, since this is the first I hear of you once holding to the same position at some point in the distant past...  ::)


No, I think that the issue was trying to keep that a secret. Or, at least, thinking that it was a non-issue since that was no longer her conviction. (There were also some other issues that didn't help, like not being a Lutheran.)


One's past becomes more of an issue the higher up one goes. Earlier this year our synod elected a new bishop. Presiding Bishop Eaton advised us before the election that if there are embarrassing things in our past, expect them to be revealed should you be elected bishop.


We might wonder what issues from the past should a candidate reveal in a interview with a Call Committee. Previous marriages? Illegal drug use? Prison? Or, from the other side, how much background information should the Call Committee seek to discover. A congregation called a pastor without checking his references, without fully knowing some important details. After being called and accepting, he was unable to get a mortgage because he was in arrears in child-support payments. They didn't know about the previous marriage or children! If the congregation wanted to keep him, they had to finance his mortgage. When he left after a few years, the house was in such bad shape that the congregation discussed whether it was worth fixing and selling or to just tear it down.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 16, 2018, 12:09:07 PM

No, I think that the issue was trying to keep that a secret. Or, at least, thinking that it was a non-issue since that was no longer her conviction. (There were also some other issues that didn't help, like not being a Lutheran.)



Her not being a Lutheran was or should have been well known by all involved long before she was elected president.  As I recall, Pr. Austin even pointed to that with a bit a pride to show how seriously the ELCA's ecumenical commitments were being taken.  Later when another excuse to dump her was handy it became more of an issue.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: mj4 on September 16, 2018, 01:06:39 PM

No, I think that the issue was trying to keep that a secret.

Perhaps you should reread Dr. Lose's letter regarding Dr. Latini's firing which you posted yourself:

David Lose has written an open letter to the Board. He raises a number of issues.

https://read.feedly.com/html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidlose.net%2F2018%2F04%2Fan-open-letter-on-united-lutheran-seminary%2F&theme=white&size=medium (https://read.feedly.com/html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidlose.net%2F2018%2F04%2Fan-open-letter-on-united-lutheran-seminary%2F&theme=white&size=medium)

It's not at all clear that Dr. Latini tried to keep her former views a secret. Let's remember the 8th Commandment here.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 16, 2018, 04:56:15 PM

The accuser of Judge Kavanaugh, Christine Ford, has come forward so we now have a chance of seriously evaluating her charges.  None of us are in a position to determine the credibility of her charges, that must be left to those with the authority and resources to do so.  It is also for others to decide whether or not these charges if found credible should derail his confirmation since at worst that seems to have been not a pattern of abuse but a one time occurrence.  It could be that if (and I repeat if since the credibility has yet to be seriously explored) it happened during Kavanaugh's high school years while he was drunk on sober reflection it scared him straight.  But all that is for us as yet speculation at best.  Won't keep any of us from having or expressing opinions.


One other facet of this developing story interests me.  Sen. Chuck Schumer in agreeing with Sen. Dianne Feinstein that the confirmation vote on Brett Kavanaugh should be delayed until these allegations are thoroughly investigated said: "For too long, when woman have made serious allegations of abuse, they have been ignored.  That cannot happen in this case."  What greatly interests me is that this, ignoring a woman who made serious allegations of abuse, is what Sen. Feinstein did for a number of months until the time was ripe for her to make maximum political gain from the allegations.  If the concern was justice for the woman, it would seem that when it was brought to her attention was the time to have it investigated.  Instead she sat on it until she could use it as a last minute delaying tactic for the confirmation vote.  If she had referred it for investigation when she received the letter, it could have been investigated by this time and either have disqualified Brett Kavanaugh or been deemed unsubstantiated and out of the way by now.  This way she gained maximum political drama and could delay the confirmation until after the mid-term elections.  As political strategy it's very effective.  As for gaining justice for an abused woman, less so.  It rather sounds like justice took a back seat to political gain. 


To me, Sen. Schumer's comment speaks to Sen. Feinstein's hypocrisy since refusing to bring her accusations to light but sitting on them until it would have the maximum political effect ignored Ford's need for justice and to have her complaint heard.  Christine Ford became a means to an end, her needs taking a back seat to a political agenda.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Matt Hummel on September 16, 2018, 05:03:11 PM

No, I think that the issue was trying to keep that a secret.

Perhaps you should reread Dr. Lose's letter regarding Dr. Latini's firing which you posted yourself:

David Lose has written an open letter to the Board. He raises a number of issues.

https://read.feedly.com/html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidlose.net%2F2018%2F04%2Fan-open-letter-on-united-lutheran-seminary%2F&theme=white&size=medium (https://read.feedly.com/html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidlose.net%2F2018%2F04%2Fan-open-letter-on-united-lutheran-seminary%2F&theme=white&size=medium)

It's not at all clear that Dr. Latini tried to keep her former views a secret. Let's remember the 8th Commandment here.

She didn't. The Board apparently knew of them. When the information leaked, certain individuals at LTSP  felt "endangered" and "threatened" so the revolution ate its own child. Good God. What are these weaklings going to do when they get out into the parish if someone sympathetic to their disordered worldview who once felt differently threatens them. We will need to rid congregations of those who are guilty of thoughtcrimes of a doubleplus ungood nature!
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Voelker on September 16, 2018, 05:33:12 PM

No, I think that the issue was trying to keep that a secret.

Perhaps you should reread Dr. Lose's letter regarding Dr. Latini's firing which you posted yourself:

David Lose has written an open letter to the Board. He raises a number of issues.

https://read.feedly.com/html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidlose.net%2F2018%2F04%2Fan-open-letter-on-united-lutheran-seminary%2F&theme=white&size=medium (https://read.feedly.com/html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidlose.net%2F2018%2F04%2Fan-open-letter-on-united-lutheran-seminary%2F&theme=white&size=medium)

It's not at all clear that Dr. Latini tried to keep her former views a secret. Let's remember the 8th Commandment here.

She didn't. The Board apparently knew of them. When the information leaked, certain individuals at LTSP  felt "endangered" and "threatened" so the revolution ate its own child. Good God. What are these weaklings going to do when they get out into the parish if someone sympathetic to their disordered worldview who once felt differently threatens them. We will need to rid congregations of those who are guilty of thoughtcrimes of a doubleplus ungood nature!
Keep following the logic of their position, and ask yourself: what is its intended end? The answer could may be standing out in the open, so obvious that the brain rejects it as a strong likelihood.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: mj4 on September 16, 2018, 05:36:04 PM
I wonder, could a student enroll in that seminary with that belief?  If enrolled could such a student graduate and be recommended for a call holding such a belief?

Good question. Last I heard, Luther is the only non-RIC seminary left in the ELCA. Correct me if I've heard wrong.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Matt Hummel on September 16, 2018, 05:52:36 PM

No, I think that the issue was trying to keep that a secret.

Perhaps you should reread Dr. Lose's letter regarding Dr. Latini's firing which you posted yourself:

David Lose has written an open letter to the Board. He raises a number of issues.

https://read.feedly.com/html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidlose.net%2F2018%2F04%2Fan-open-letter-on-united-lutheran-seminary%2F&theme=white&size=medium (https://read.feedly.com/html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidlose.net%2F2018%2F04%2Fan-open-letter-on-united-lutheran-seminary%2F&theme=white&size=medium)

It's not at all clear that Dr. Latini tried to keep her former views a secret. Let's remember the 8th Commandment here.

She didn't. The Board apparently knew of them. When the information leaked, certain individuals at LTSP  felt "endangered" and "threatened" so the revolution ate its own child. Good God. What are these weaklings going to do when they get out into the parish if someone sympathetic to their disordered worldview who once felt differently threatens them. We will need to rid congregations of those who are guilty of thoughtcrimes of a doubleplus ungood nature!
Keep following the logic of their position, and ask yourself: what is its intended end? The answer could may be standing out in the open, so obvious that the brain rejects it as a strong likelihood.

A pure church, wiped clean of any stain of cisgendered heteronormative patriarchy.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Voelker on September 16, 2018, 06:17:27 PM

No, I think that the issue was trying to keep that a secret.

Perhaps you should reread Dr. Lose's letter regarding Dr. Latini's firing which you posted yourself:

David Lose has written an open letter to the Board. He raises a number of issues.

https://read.feedly.com/html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidlose.net%2F2018%2F04%2Fan-open-letter-on-united-lutheran-seminary%2F&theme=white&size=medium (https://read.feedly.com/html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidlose.net%2F2018%2F04%2Fan-open-letter-on-united-lutheran-seminary%2F&theme=white&size=medium)

It's not at all clear that Dr. Latini tried to keep her former views a secret. Let's remember the 8th Commandment here.

She didn't. The Board apparently knew of them. When the information leaked, certain individuals at LTSP  felt "endangered" and "threatened" so the revolution ate its own child. Good God. What are these weaklings going to do when they get out into the parish if someone sympathetic to their disordered worldview who once felt differently threatens them. We will need to rid congregations of those who are guilty of thoughtcrimes of a doubleplus ungood nature!
Keep following the logic of their position, and ask yourself: what is its intended end? The answer could may be standing out in the open, so obvious that the brain rejects it as a strong likelihood.

A pure church, wiped clean of any stain of cisgendered heteronormative patriarchy.
That is the baseline, it appears.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 16, 2018, 08:47:56 PM

No, I think that the issue was trying to keep that a secret. Or, at least, thinking that it was a non-issue since that was no longer her conviction. (There were also some other issues that didn't help, like not being a Lutheran.)



Her not being a Lutheran was or should have been well known by all involved long before she was elected president.  As I recall, Pr. Austin even pointed to that with a bit a pride to show how seriously the ELCA's ecumenical commitments were being taken.  Later when another excuse to dump her was handy it became more of an issue.


In some other discussions, it was an issue from the beginning by some.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: scott9 on September 17, 2018, 10:33:18 AM

No, I think that the issue was trying to keep that a secret.

Perhaps you should reread Dr. Lose's letter regarding Dr. Latini's firing which you posted yourself:

David Lose has written an open letter to the Board. He raises a number of issues.

https://read.feedly.com/html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidlose.net%2F2018%2F04%2Fan-open-letter-on-united-lutheran-seminary%2F&theme=white&size=medium (https://read.feedly.com/html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidlose.net%2F2018%2F04%2Fan-open-letter-on-united-lutheran-seminary%2F&theme=white&size=medium)

It's not at all clear that Dr. Latini tried to keep her former views a secret. Let's remember the 8th Commandment here.

She didn't. The Board apparently knew of them. When the information leaked, certain individuals at LTSP  felt "endangered" and "threatened" so the revolution ate its own child. Good God. What are these weaklings going to do when they get out into the parish if someone sympathetic to their disordered worldview who once felt differently threatens them. We will need to rid congregations of those who are guilty of thoughtcrimes of a doubleplus ungood nature!
Keep following the logic of their position, and ask yourself: what is its intended end? The answer could may be standing out in the open, so obvious that the brain rejects it as a strong likelihood.

A pure church, wiped clean of any stain of cisgendered heteronormative patriarchy.
That is the baseline, it appears.

Remember that the new social statement on women labels patriarchy not just as a flawed system but as a sin, and a sin, moreover, in which we all participate.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on September 17, 2018, 10:41:01 AM
A pure church, wiped clean of any stain of cisgendered heteronormative patriarchy.
That is the baseline, it appears.

Remember that the new social statement on women labels patriarchy not just as a flawed system but as a sin, and a sin, moreover, in which we all participate.

Which of course is a crucial attack vector against those women who are not down with the patriarchy liberation agenda of blowing up whatever institutions the correct thinking people decide need detonating.  Their status as women doesn't protect them, as they are infected by the sin of the system and cannot free themselves.  If only they had a Savior...

Sterling Spatz

Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 17, 2018, 10:57:48 AM
There are a slew of recent articles, most of them unfortunately behind paywalls, that speak of the "patriarchy paradox." That is, many studies keep yielding the counter-intuitive result that the more men and women are considered equal in a society, the more differently they think, and the more they choose traditional stereotypical roles for themselves when they have the chance.

Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 17, 2018, 11:21:13 AM
I wonder, could a student enroll in that seminary with that belief?  If enrolled could such a student graduate and be recommended for a call holding such a belief?

Good question. Last I heard, Luther is the only non-RIC seminary left in the ELCA. Correct me if I've heard wrong.


No, I think that the issue was trying to keep that a secret.

Perhaps you should reread Dr. Lose's letter regarding Dr. Latini's firing which you posted yourself:

David Lose has written an open letter to the Board. He raises a number of issues.

https://read.feedly.com/html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidlose.net%2F2018%2F04%2Fan-open-letter-on-united-lutheran-seminary%2F&theme=white&size=medium (https://read.feedly.com/html?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.davidlose.net%2F2018%2F04%2Fan-open-letter-on-united-lutheran-seminary%2F&theme=white&size=medium)

It's not at all clear that Dr. Latini tried to keep her former views a secret. Let's remember the 8th Commandment here.

She didn't. The Board apparently knew of them. When the information leaked, certain individuals at LTSP  felt "endangered" and "threatened" so the revolution ate its own child. Good God. What are these weaklings going to do when they get out into the parish if someone sympathetic to their disordered worldview who once felt differently threatens them. We will need to rid congregations of those who are guilty of thoughtcrimes of a doubleplus ungood nature!
Keep following the logic of their position, and ask yourself: what is its intended end? The answer could may be standing out in the open, so obvious that the brain rejects it as a strong likelihood.

A pure church, wiped clean of any stain of cisgendered heteronormative patriarchy.


What better way to tell a group of people that they not only are welcome to remain in the church body but that their continued participation in the church and conversations is desired than to assure them that their beliefs are unwelcome in almost all of the church's seminaries, that the next generation of pastors will generally be educated to reject their beliefs, and someone who even at one time shared their beliefs but rejected them is still disqualified from leading a seminary.  Why might they question their welcome and might decide it was time to leave?  So sad, according to some in the ELCA, that they didn't stay when they had no real reason to leave.


We’ve been admonished repeatedly that what we do is usually more important than what we say.  We’ve heard what the ELCA has said, what are they doing?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Voelker on September 17, 2018, 11:38:09 AM
A pure church, wiped clean of any stain of cisgendered heteronormative patriarchy.
That is the baseline, it appears.

Remember that the new social statement on women labels patriarchy not just as a flawed system but as a sin, and a sin, moreover, in which we all participate.

Which of course is a crucial attack vector against those women who are not down with the patriarchy liberation agenda of blowing up whatever institutions the correct thinking people decide need detonating.  Their status as women doesn't protect them, as they are infected by the sin of the system and cannot free themselves.  If only they had a Savior...

Sterling Spatz
That's crazy talk. Surely that's on the list of things to excise in the quest for purification; the idea that there can be salvation and redemption, especially through one, and only one man, is surely oppressive, at best.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Michael Slusser on September 17, 2018, 12:18:35 PM
There are a slew of recent articles, most of them unfortunately behind paywalls, that speak of the "patriarchy paradox." That is, many studies keep yielding the counter-intuitive result that the more men and women are considered equal in a society, the more differently they think, and the more they choose traditional stereotypical roles for themselves when they have the chance.
. . . thereby increasing diversity, which is good. It's a win - win.  ;)

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: peter_speckhard on September 17, 2018, 01:22:42 PM
There are a slew of recent articles, most of them unfortunately behind paywalls, that speak of the "patriarchy paradox." That is, many studies keep yielding the counter-intuitive result that the more men and women are considered equal in a society, the more differently they think, and the more they choose traditional stereotypical roles for themselves when they have the chance.
. . . thereby increasing diversity, which is good. It's a win - win.  ;)

Peace,
Michael
I'm reminded of a Doonesbury cartoon from sometimes in the early 80's. Michael walks into the bathroom where his wife is bathing their son and says, "Hi can I help?" His wife replies, "No, you can't help. 'Help' implies that caring for our son is basically my responsibility and you're doing me a favor. Go out and try again." So Michael walks out of the bathroom and comes back in and says, "Hi, can I co-nurture?" And his wife says, "No. You always get water on the floor."

The reason I remember that cartoon was because of how it struck me. (It was in a book we had in our house, so I read it more than once.) The supposedly egalitarian wife reserved for herself the right to say yes or no. She didn't want her husband saying, "Move over, I'm doing this too," she wanted him to and her to be equal, but her to be the one who was more equal, as they say, and call the shots as to who would do what. Which is actually how it happens and has always happened in traditional homes. The man is king of his castle, but everything in the castle just happens to be exactly wherever the queen wants it, and all the rules, norms, and schedules of the castles and its inhabitants are also determined by the queen. The cartoon seemed to be reinforcing deeply traditional beliefs even in order to try to tear them down.

Also, I remember thinking whether it would possible to write a similar cartoon on some topic besides bathing children and have the sexes reversed, such that the man said to his wife, "Go out and try it again," and his wife dutifully did so. I didn't think so then, and I still don't think so. The traditional assumption that the man is actually in charge but not practically in charge underlies the whole thing; if you reverse the sexes the whole tenor and tone changes.

I think the patriarchy paradox has always been intuitively known because there really is a built-in, designed way for humans to interact and procreate, and  that reality (not construct, but reality) is better expressed by Christian marriage than anything else that has ever been on the market.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 17, 2018, 02:00:14 PM

Back in the 30s and 40s there were the Ditzy Blonde comedies.  Foremost among them were George Burns and Gracie Allen.  George was the straight man with Gracie as the addle headed blonde who somehow always wound up on top of the situation.  Another example was Nick and Nora Charles.  Again, Nora was portrayed as ditzy Blonde that still somehow usually came out on top of situations.  Even so, the women were shown as less competent and dependent upon their men.


This was turned around in the late 70s with shows like the Sonny and Cher Show and Donnie and Marie.  Here it was the male who was pretentious, vain and totally incompetent and the female who was cool, collected totally in charge.  The pattern of nincompoop male and super competent female was repeated in many sitcoms.  One difference is that in the earlier Ditzy Blonde comedies, there was a degree of playfulness and affection shown for the females who often somehow ended up having successes, in the later hopeless male comedies there was little affection for the males, they were simply incompetent buffoons who had to be grudgingly endured or gotten around or out of the way.  One exception was the Tim Allen show, "Home Improvement" that basically did an effective role reversal of the Ditzy Blonde while allowing Tim Taylor to have a few redeeming characteristics and moments.


Nowadays the condescension of the Ditzy Blonde grates.  It was stereotypic and condescending.  But so also should the condescension of the buffoonish male.  Why couldn't we move away from the ditzy blonde without having to replicate it with the sexes reversed?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on September 17, 2018, 02:15:12 PM
The reason I remember that cartoon was because of how it struck me. (It was in a book we had in our house, so I read it more than once.) The supposedly egalitarian wife reserved for herself the right to say yes or no. She didn't want her husband saying, "Move over, I'm doing this too," she wanted him to and her to be equal, but her to be the one who was more equal, as they say, and call the shots as to who would do what. Which is actually how it happens and has always happened in traditional homes. The man is king of his castle, but everything in the castle just happens to be exactly wherever the queen wants it, and all the rules, norms, and schedules of the castles and its inhabitants are also determined by the queen. The cartoon seemed to be reinforcing deeply traditional beliefs even in order to try to tear them down.

Also, I remember thinking whether it would possible to write a similar cartoon on some topic besides bathing children and have the sexes reversed, such that the man said to his wife, "Go out and try it again," and his wife dutifully did so. I didn't think so then, and I still don't think so. The traditional assumption that the man is actually in charge but not practically in charge underlies the whole thing; if you reverse the sexes the whole tenor and tone changes.

Any comic worth his weight will tell you that for a joke to work, it has to be grounded in truth.  It's why Phil Hartman's Saturday Night Live skit of Bill Clinton in a McDonald's explaining his political program (https://rare.us/rare-humor/this-snl-skit-roasted-bill-clinton-and-became-one-of-the-funniest-political-skits-they-ever-put-on/)* by stealing/eating food off of other patrons' trays worked.  It's also why the punchline to a different joke of a feminist telling you that's not funny also works.

Sterling Spatz

*I'm old enough to remember when a president obsessively eating McDonald's fare was cool
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 17, 2018, 04:50:16 PM
Which of course is a crucial attack vector against those women who are not down with the patriarchy liberation agenda of blowing up whatever institutions the correct thinking people decide need detonating.  Their status as women doesn't protect them, as they are infected by the sin of the system and cannot free themselves.  If only they had a Savior...


… who saves them from what? What are the bonds from which Jesus frees them?


One of my theology professors had quite an eye-opening experience when his wife decided to go to seminary and be ordained. He learned from her and other female students that their basic perception of sinfulness was quite different than what he had been teaching from his male perspective.


Simply stated: he saw sinfulness as humans trying to become like God - to think and act bigger than they actually are. His wife shared that that had never been her experience. Rather, she always felt less than human - to think and act smaller than she actually was.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 17, 2018, 04:58:20 PM
Also, I remember thinking whether it would possible to write a similar cartoon on some topic besides bathing children and have the sexes reversed, such that the man said to his wife, "Go out and try it again," and his wife dutifully did so. I didn't think so then, and I still don't think so. The traditional assumption that the man is actually in charge but not practically in charge underlies the whole thing; if you reverse the sexes the whole tenor and tone changes.


The man is in the garage working on his hotrod. The wife comes out and asks, "Can I help?" "Go out and try it again." She leaves. She comes back. "Here's your beer." Then leaves.

Quote
I think the patriarchy paradox has always been intuitively known because there really is a built-in, designed way for humans to interact and procreate, and  that reality (not construct, but reality) is better expressed by Christian marriage than anything else that has ever been on the market.


I've known a number of households where the husband did all the cooking. In one case, he had been a chef in the Navy. They both agreed (and I would, too, having eaten with them,) that he is a much better cook. Another family, the husband did the house cleaning. His standards were higher than his wife's. (That's not the case in our household.) The "roles" I see is centered on understanding and valuing each other's gifts. There are things I do better than my wife and things she does better than me. We divide our responsibilities along those lines - not traditional male/female distinctions. I think that's the picture we are given in scriptures - having and using the different gifts God has given us for the good of the whole.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 17, 2018, 05:02:13 PM
Nora Charles was not a ditzy blonde. She was a wealthy, sophisticated woman who was equal to her husband in smarts, style and the ability to solve crimes. I do not believe we ever saw her as a blonde, and certainly not as a ditzy one. "Dependent upon men"? No 23-skidooing way!
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on September 17, 2018, 05:07:46 PM
Also, I remember thinking whether it would possible to write a similar cartoon on some topic besides bathing children and have the sexes reversed, such that the man said to his wife, "Go out and try it again," and his wife dutifully did so. I didn't think so then, and I still don't think so. The traditional assumption that the man is actually in charge but not practically in charge underlies the whole thing; if you reverse the sexes the whole tenor and tone changes.


The man is in the garage working on his hotrod. The wife comes out and asks, "Can I help?" "Go out and try it again." She leaves. She comes back. "Here's your beer." Then leaves.

Quote
I think the patriarchy paradox has always been intuitively known because there really is a built-in, designed way for humans to interact and procreate, and  that reality (not construct, but reality) is better expressed by Christian marriage than anything else that has ever been on the market.


I've known a number of households where the husband did all the cooking. In one case, he had been a chef in the Navy. They both agreed (and I would, too, having eaten with them,) that he is a much better cook. Another family, the husband did the house cleaning. His standards were higher than his wife's. (That's not the case in our household.) The "roles" I see is centered on understanding and valuing each other's gifts. There are things I do better than my wife and things she does better than me. We divide our responsibilities along those lines - not traditional male/female distinctions. I think that's the picture we are given in scriptures - having and using the different gifts God has given us for the good of the whole.

It's disappointing, but not surprising, that you failed to grasp Pr. Speckhard's point--maybe because you're trying to answer a completely different set of questions.  His point had nothing to do how some people might be buck traditional gender roles around the house, and everything to do with universal truths and long-standing cultural understandings about how men and women, husbands and wives relate.

For a very quirky reason (I happen to see on the UK Daily Mail website that Justin Bieber of all people was reading it), out of curiosity I checked out of my local library Timothy Keller's book on marriage (The Meaning of Marriage:Facing the Complexities of Commitment with the Wisdom of God (https://www.amazon.com/Meaning-Marriage-Facing-Complexities-Commitment/dp/1594631875/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1537218230&sr=8-1&keywords=timothy+keller+marriage))  I can say that Keller tracks Pr. Speckhard point of view very well.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 17, 2018, 05:23:48 PM
Which of course is a crucial attack vector against those women who are not down with the patriarchy liberation agenda of blowing up whatever institutions the correct thinking people decide need detonating.  Their status as women doesn't protect them, as they are infected by the sin of the system and cannot free themselves.  If only they had a Savior...


… who saves them from what? What are the bonds from which Jesus frees them?


One of my theology professors had quite an eye-opening experience when his wife decided to go to seminary and be ordained. He learned from her and other female students that their basic perception of sinfulness was quite different than what he had been teaching from his male perspective.


Simply stated: he saw sinfulness as humans trying to become like God - to think and act bigger than they actually are. His wife shared that that had never been her experience. Rather, she always felt less than human - to think and act smaller than she actually was.

My understanding of sin is a bit different.  I understand sin to be a distortion or corruption of something good into something bad.  So, someone (often men but sometimes women) might take their  abilities and insights and play God.  Or someone (often women but sometimes men) take humbleness and humility to a distorted degree and perceive themselves as less than they really are.  And also other kinds of sins.  At the heart of every sin, sometimes buried really deeply and twisted beyond ordinary recognition, is some good, some gift from God that has been corrupted and twisted.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 17, 2018, 06:16:04 PM
Which of course is a crucial attack vector against those women who are not down with the patriarchy liberation agenda of blowing up whatever institutions the correct thinking people decide need detonating.  Their status as women doesn't protect them, as they are infected by the sin of the system and cannot free themselves.  If only they had a Savior...


… who saves them from what? What are the bonds from which Jesus frees them?


One of my theology professors had quite an eye-opening experience when his wife decided to go to seminary and be ordained. He learned from her and other female students that their basic perception of sinfulness was quite different than what he had been teaching from his male perspective.


Simply stated: he saw sinfulness as humans trying to become like God - to think and act bigger than they actually are. His wife shared that that had never been her experience. Rather, she always felt less than human - to think and act smaller than she actually was.

My understanding of sin is a bit different.  I understand sin to be a distortion or corruption of something good into something bad.  So, someone (often men but sometimes women) might take their  abilities and insights and play God.  Or someone (often women but sometimes men) take humbleness and humility to a distorted degree and perceive themselves as less than they really are.  And also other kinds of sins.  At the heart of every sin, sometimes buried really deeply and twisted beyond ordinary recognition, is some good, some gift from God that has been corrupted and twisted.


I don't disagree.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 18, 2018, 04:06:54 PM
Mr. Spatz writes:
...everything to do with universal truths and long-standing cultural understandings about how men and women, husbands and wives relate.
I muse:
And whether we confuse those two things.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: readselerttoo on September 18, 2018, 09:22:40 PM
Which of course is a crucial attack vector against those women who are not down with the patriarchy liberation agenda of blowing up whatever institutions the correct thinking people decide need detonating.  Their status as women doesn't protect them, as they are infected by the sin of the system and cannot free themselves.  If only they had a Savior...


… who saves them from what? What are the bonds from which Jesus frees them?


One of my theology professors had quite an eye-opening experience when his wife decided to go to seminary and be ordained. He learned from her and other female students that their basic perception of sinfulness was quite different than what he had been teaching from his male perspective.


Simply stated: he saw sinfulness as humans trying to become like God - to think and act bigger than they actually are. His wife shared that that had never been her experience. Rather, she always felt less than human - to think and act smaller than she actually was.


Both conceptions are inaccurate.  Self-interest drives human action whether he be male or she be female.  Look at Genesis 3.  Sin is rebellion against God whether male or female.  Humans taking into their own hands the management of what God has given to them as a gift and they fail at it always and miserably.  Otherwise Jesus' redemptive death would have no force in any situation.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: SomeoneWrites on September 18, 2018, 11:44:23 PM
Mr. Spatz writes:
...everything to do with universal truths and long-standing cultural understandings about how men and women, husbands and wives relate.
I muse:
And whether we confuse those two things.

I strongly agree with your musing.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on September 19, 2018, 11:18:49 AM
Which of course is a crucial attack vector against those women who are not down with the patriarchy liberation agenda of blowing up whatever institutions the correct thinking people decide need detonating.  Their status as women doesn't protect them, as they are infected by the sin of the system and cannot free themselves.  If only they had a Savior...


… who saves them from what? What are the bonds from which Jesus frees them?


One of my theology professors had quite an eye-opening experience when his wife decided to go to seminary and be ordained. He learned from her and other female students that their basic perception of sinfulness was quite different than what he had been teaching from his male perspective.


Simply stated: he saw sinfulness as humans trying to become like God - to think and act bigger than they actually are. His wife shared that that had never been her experience. Rather, she always felt less than human - to think and act smaller than she actually was.
I appreciate you attempting to answer this from a theological perspective.  Unfortunately the people pushing this view do not, and it was within that context that I (and I believe others) were commenting.  I will say that your theology by anecdote is thoroughly unhelpful, because your generalizing a single individual's bad theology or behavior is an unfair representation of an entire group, in this case "men".

Any woman who does not believe she is being oppressed by the patriarchy is suspect, an "Uncle Tom".  Those who have politicized this are, as others have observed, quite willing to withhold "forgiveness" (whatever that means in the context) until their political demands have been met.  Which in other contexts (same sex relationships for example) we are told is just people being stingy with God's grace.

Being freed from patriarchy doesn't involve any Savior, it means doing specifics (political) works to achieve righteousness apart from any divine grace.  This should be a problem for any Lutheran.  Of course, only the Right politicizes religion.  The Left is just doing God's work to achieve social justice.

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on September 19, 2018, 11:22:17 AM
Mr. Spatz writes:
...everything to do with universal truths and long-standing cultural understandings about how men and women, husbands and wives relate.
I muse:
And whether we confuse those two things.
I'm not sure what to make of this, especially since I am one here who has consistently objected to the penumbras of "orders of creation" thinking.  None of my objections to that (as a matter of "law") has anything to do with studies about whether men and women, left to their own devices of freedom, choose to partake in what some might judge stereotypical behavior (as Pastor Speckhard referenced).  Recognizing that there are historical norms is not the same thing as requiring everyone to conform to them today.  Or, in the case of radical feminism, insist that women (and men) do not under any circumstances conform to them.

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 19, 2018, 02:10:36 PM
I appreciate you attempting to answer this from a theological perspective. Unfortunately the people pushing this view do not, and it was within that context that I (and I believe others) were commenting.  I will say that your theology by anecdote is thoroughly unhelpful, because your generalizing a single individual's bad theology or behavior is an unfair representation of an entire group, in this case "men".


It wasn't just any "single individual," nor "bad theology." It came from, Richard Jensen, Lutheran seminary professor with a Ph.D. in theology, who had also spent years as a Missionary in Africa, who was the speaker for Lutheran Vespers radio show.


He also taught a class and wrote a book on Story Telling preaching. One of the best ways of communicating the gospel is by telling stories - like Jesus did. Anecdotes just might be one of the most effective ways of proclaiming the gospel.

Quote
Any woman who does not believe she is being oppressed by the patriarchy is suspect, an "Uncle Tom".  Those who have politicized this are, as others have observed, quite willing to withhold "forgiveness" (whatever that means in the context) until their political demands have been met.  Which in other contexts (same sex relationships for example) we are told is just people being stingy with God's grace.


Just because a black man wasn't a slave doesn't mean that slavery didn't exist and, as a general rule, white people oppressed black people.

Quote
Being freed from patriarchy doesn't involve any Savior, it means doing specifics (political) works to achieve righteousness apart from any divine grace.  This should be a problem for any Lutheran.  Of course, only the Right politicizes religion.  The Left is just doing God's work to achieve social justice.


The first use of the law requires us to work for social justice. God gives us civil laws - and processes for changing civil laws - so that we might create a society that is more just and loving - more like the Kingdom of God that is coming.

Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 19, 2018, 03:08:47 PM

Distorting what God has said in order to make it seem that God is on my side in whatever cause I advocate and that proper faith and service is the pursuit of the goals that I have chosen is both tragic and very common.  It is characteristic of both right and left, traditional and progressive.  I have heard it observed that every heresy is at heart taking a portion of the Gospel and God's Word that has been underemphasized and overemphasizing it until it also becomes a distortion and heretical.


Good theology abounds with paradoxes and combined contraries.  We are saved by grace through faith and not by works, yet it is also true that faith is never along and faith without works is dead.  Leave either part of that out and you end up with an eviscerated Gospel that is either antinomian or Pelagian.


The mission of Christians, and of the Church, is both to offer the Gospel of Jesus Christ to people that they come to faith in Him and be saved and to show God's love and care for their lives here and now.  To proclaim the Gospel of salvation and care nothing for what is happening in people's lives, to care nothing for present human need, social justice, or how people are mistreated presents a truncated Gospel.  But to make the Gospel all about caring for the present human needs of people and ignoring or underemphasizing the love that God showed in sending Jesus as the Savior is also a truncated Gospel, and no Gospel at all.  That is a danger in so many of the "liberation" theologies.  The implications of the Gospel for current ills are considered but in the process, the eternal is ignored and Jesus becomes at best another freedom fighter, an example for us to follow.


A different danger is making a vital part of the Gospel, the most important part of the Gospel, the promotion of traditional morals, especially those emphasized by the political movement one belongs to.  Thus again, the Gospel is politicized but in the other direction.  Both are wrong and neither should be accepted.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Coach-Rev on September 19, 2018, 03:17:39 PM

The first use of the law requires us to work for social justice. God gives us civil laws - and processes for changing civil laws - so that we might create a society that is more just and loving - more like the Kingdom of God that is coming.

Are you making this up as you go along?  'Restraining evil' is a far cry from requiring "us to work for social justice." 

It's not nicknamed the "curb" because we are compelled to work for social justice.  A curb lets us know when we've gone off the road, i.e. to maintain order in society.  Theoretically, God's law and civil law should be the same.  Of course today, this is increasingly not true in reality.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on September 19, 2018, 03:18:46 PM
I appreciate you attempting to answer this from a theological perspective. Unfortunately the people pushing this view do not, and it was within that context that I (and I believe others) were commenting.  I will say that your theology by anecdote is thoroughly unhelpful, because your generalizing a single individual's bad theology or behavior is an unfair representation of an entire group, in this case "men".


It wasn't just any "single individual," nor "bad theology." It came from, Richard Jensen, Lutheran seminary professor with a Ph.D. in theology, who had also spent years as a Missionary in Africa, who was the speaker for Lutheran Vespers radio show.
Sigh.  Your name dropping aside, it was you who applied this story more broadly.  I have no doubt this was true in the context you shared (which he shared).  It's your generalization that is really beside the point.  Note that I'm not disagreeing that different people have different perspectives.  I'm saying "so what?" to that.  Telling me that doesn't prove anything.  I haven't denied that perspectives vary.

He also taught a class and wrote a book on Story Telling preaching. One of the best ways of communicating the gospel is by telling stories - like Jesus did. Anecdotes just might be one of the most effective ways of proclaiming the gospel.
To be absolutely clear, I was not speaking negatively about anecdotes.  I'm objecting to using that to prove something is generally true.  An anecdote can be used to disprove that something is universally true, if that something actually makes a claim to be 100% always true.  If you are suggesting that I have made such a claim earlier, that is wrong.

Quote
Any woman who does not believe she is being oppressed by the patriarchy is suspect, an "Uncle Tom".  Those who have politicized this are, as others have observed, quite willing to withhold "forgiveness" (whatever that means in the context) until their political demands have been met.  Which in other contexts (same sex relationships for example) we are told is just people being stingy with God's grace.


Just because a black man wasn't a slave doesn't mean that slavery didn't exist and, as a general rule, white people oppressed black people.
Except that's nothing like anything I said.  You've started talking about something completely different.  But addressing this, your proof by anecdote might attempt to say that all whites are oppressors.  That's what feminist try to do with talk of patriarchy.  Both are simply not true.

Quote
Being freed from patriarchy doesn't involve any Savior, it means doing specifics (political) works to achieve righteousness apart from any divine grace.  This should be a problem for any Lutheran.  Of course, only the Right politicizes religion.  The Left is just doing God's work to achieve social justice.


The first use of the law requires us to work for social justice. God gives us civil laws - and processes for changing civil laws - so that we might create a society that is more just and loving - more like the Kingdom of God that is coming.
And here at last, we have the confusion about law and gospel.  Not necessarily by you, unless you are disagreeing with my objection that follows.  Previously we were talking above about those "feminists" in the church who want to withhold forgiveness unless the sinners repent in a particular way.  That's the social justice to which I'm objecting.  They've weaponized God's grace, threatening to withhold it unless a particular political action is taken not unlike wicked bishops pre-Reformation.  That's abhorrent.  At least that's what I understand several of us to be discussing and objecting to.  If you wish to talk about something else, by all means please do so.  Just don't pretend that's what we were discussing, and tell us we're wrong because you are referencing something else entirely.  Now I don't think this instinct is widespread or a great danger, but this a vocal minority (Bolsheviks if you will) which are eager to pursue this if given the chance.  At any rate, they are not interested in what a Savior has already done for them, but what they can do next on earth now, to enforce their understanding of "law".  And they're willing to use the coercion of withholding God's grace of forgiveness until they get what they want.  That's immoral and extremely un-Lutheran.

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: readselerttoo on September 19, 2018, 03:32:37 PM
I appreciate you attempting to answer this from a theological perspective. Unfortunately the people pushing this view do not, and it was within that context that I (and I believe others) were commenting.  I will say that your theology by anecdote is thoroughly unhelpful, because your generalizing a single individual's bad theology or behavior is an unfair representation of an entire group, in this case "men".


It wasn't just any "single individual," nor "bad theology." It came from, Richard Jensen, Lutheran seminary professor with a Ph.D. in theology, who had also spent years as a Missionary in Africa, who was the speaker for Lutheran Vespers radio show.


He also taught a class and wrote a book on Story Telling preaching. One of the best ways of communicating the gospel is by telling stories - like Jesus did. Anecdotes just might be one of the most effective ways of proclaiming the gospel.

Quote
Any woman who does not believe she is being oppressed by the patriarchy is suspect, an "Uncle Tom".  Those who have politicized this are, as others have observed, quite willing to withhold "forgiveness" (whatever that means in the context) until their political demands have been met.  Which in other contexts (same sex relationships for example) we are told is just people being stingy with God's grace.


Just because a black man wasn't a slave doesn't mean that slavery didn't exist and, as a general rule, white people oppressed black people.

Quote
Being freed from patriarchy doesn't involve any Savior, it means doing specifics (political) works to achieve righteousness apart from any divine grace.  This should be a problem for any Lutheran.  Of course, only the Right politicizes religion.  The Left is just doing God's work to achieve social justice.


The first use of the law requires us to work for social justice. God gives us civil laws - and processes for changing civil laws - so that we might create a society that is more just and loving - more like the Kingdom of God that is coming.

To work for social justice is to seek justice under the law.  This has nothing to do with the Christian unique gospel of the New Testament which is the church's primary responsibility.  The Christian church will lose its way (as I believe it has already in the ELCA) if its focus is on working for justice under the law.  Even Jesus is not required for one to work for social justice.  Christian Social Justice Warriors (CSJW) confuse what they are doing with the gospel.  There is no affinity between matters that happen under the law with those that happen under grace or in Christ.  The turn is in how one views what Christian freedom is all about and how God administers that freedom.  What is clear and should be emphasized in the ELCA is that Jesus makes the law extremely valid along with its retributive  force.  He then is put to death along with which goes the law.  Jesus' death brings the law both to its full voice and then renders it into silence on the cross.  Then on the Third Day Jesus is raised from the dead into something new and not at all relatable to what life was like under the law.  Call it life in forgiveness or life in the Holy Spirit what-have-you.  Because as Paul says in Romans 3:  "Apart from law a righteousness of God has appeared..."   This "apart from" has no relation with retribution or justice under the law.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on September 19, 2018, 04:08:42 PM
Back to the morality of our politicians and feminism, yesterday we have a female United States senator saying this:

Washington (CNN) (https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/senator-mazie-hirono-men-shut-up-brett-kavanaugh-sexual-assault/index.html) Sept 18 -- Sen. Mazie Hirono (HI) said her message to men in this country is to "just shut up and step up. Do the right thing for a change" following the sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Of course, that was yesterday, and her comments have not aged well considering the speed at which this story is moving.

Imagine the outcry if a prominent male politician (oh say, like President Trump) had said the women of this country should "just shut up".

I've agreed with what Senator Susan Collins has been saying, being outspoken about giving Kavanaugh's accuser the opportunity to be heard, and the way Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley has been accommodating to make that possible.  But it is not President Trump who is forbidding the FBI from investigating, as Senator Hirono accuses:

"It's shocking, but not surprising, that President Trump is not OK'ing the FBI investigation so that there's at least some attempt at corroboration," she said.

Of course that is untrue but it's become a popular talking point over the last 24 hours, and now a shield being wielded by the accuser's attorney to possibly not testify before the Judiciary Committee on Monday.  But it was the FBI's internal decision (not coming from the president) and for a very good reason--it has no jurisdiction, for a matter of local law enforcement for which the statue of limitations probably has expired anyway.  Nota Benne:  the FBI did have jurisdiction for the Anita Hill accusation against Clarence Thomas, because both were federal employees and the alleged conduct occurred in a government office.

And so some (and many in the news business, and perhaps the originator of this thread) continue to tolerate some of our elected leaders lying to us, but not others.  Sigh.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on September 19, 2018, 04:37:25 PM
And if you want to really despair about morality in this country, read the comments on this post at Jezebel.com (a former Gawker now Gizmodo website), a hot bed of secular feminist social justice righteousness:

Attorneys for Christine Blasey Ford Demand an FBI Investigation: 'Any Talk of a Hearing on Monday Frankly Is Premature' (https://theslot.jezebel.com/attorneys-for-christine-blasey-ford-demand-an-fbi-inves-1829164215)

As I wrote above, an FBI investigation preceding any testimony by Ford has quickly become a core principle among this crowd (as it has for her too according to her lawyer).  Especially, as one commentator writes:

"(Ford) wants a neutral third party to conduct the basic fact-finding before she testifies, which seems like a perfectly reasonable request. Of course, the Senate GOP doesn’t want this because they either know or highly suspect that neutral fact-finder will corroborate her statements, which impugn Kavanaugh’s candor and veracity and cast further doubt on his fitness to serve a lifetime appointment on the highest judicial authority in the nation."

Except that's not the case at all.  Leaving aside there's nothing for the FBI to find, majority and minority Judiciary Committee staff could jointly perform this exact same function by taking depositions, and indeed, from the Republican perspective, they would definitely want to, so that the accuser is on the record and can held accountable if any of her prior interview is contradicted by subsequent questioning by senators.  (Judge Kavanaugh has been and would continue to be under oath as well.)  That's standard operating procedure for congressional committee investigations.  Of course, Senator Feinstein has not been cooperating with Chairman Grassley on any joint investigation--probably to avoid giving any such work the credibility of bipartisanship, the very thing this comment thinks is only possible from the FBI.

From my partisan perspective, it's becoming increasingly obvious the Senate Democrats are not interested, despite their early claims to the contrary, in getting the accuser to be heard.  For their political purposes she's been heard enough, and more would actually be counterproductive.  This is all a delaying action for reasons I don't wish to further speculate about for fear of sounding too partisan--but some on their side will openly admit a desire for payback over Merrick Garland.  That may be justified in the abstract, but not at the expense of a real individual's reputation and livelihood, as it is in this case now.

I will say again that Senator Feinstein's conduct here has been egregiously reprehensible.  Yet we only fixate on the current President of the United States for his boorish behavior as the rest of our Republican crumbles.

Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: David Garner on September 19, 2018, 04:57:50 PM
Back to the morality of our politicians and feminism, yesterday we have a female United States senator saying this:

Washington (CNN) (https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/senator-mazie-hirono-men-shut-up-brett-kavanaugh-sexual-assault/index.html) Sept 18 -- Sen. Mazie Hirono (HI) said her message to men in this country is to "just shut up and step up. Do the right thing for a change" following the sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Of course, that was yesterday, and her comments have not aged well considering the speed at which this story is moving.

Imagine the outcry if a prominent male politician (oh say, like President Trump) had said the women of this country should "just shut up".

I've agreed with what Senator Susan Collins has been saying, being outspoken about giving Kavanaugh's accuser the opportunity to be heard, and the way Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley has been accommodating to make that possible.  But it is not President Trump who is forbidding the FBI from investigating, as Senator Hirono accuses:

"It's shocking, but not surprising, that President Trump is not OK'ing the FBI investigation so that there's at least some attempt at corroboration," she said.

Of course that is untrue but it's become a popular talking point over the last 24 hours, and now a shield being wielded by the accuser's attorney to possibly not testify before the Judiciary Committee on Monday.  But it was the FBI's internal decision (not coming from the president) and for a very good reason--it has no jurisdiction, for a matter of local law enforcement for which the statue of limitations probably has expired anyway.  Nota Benne:  the FBI did have jurisdiction for the Anita Hill accusation against Clarence Thomas, because both were federal employees and the alleged conduct occurred in a government office.

And so some (and many in the news business, and perhaps the originator of this thread) continue to tolerate some of our elected leaders lying to us, but not others.  Sigh.

It's worse -- if they believe what her attorney have said, that it is "attempted rape," then the statute of limitations has NOT expired.

Raising the question, why hasn't she pressed charges?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on September 19, 2018, 05:13:11 PM
It's worse -- if they believe what her attorney have said, that it is "attempted rape," then the statute of limitations has NOT expired.

Raising the question, why hasn't she pressed charges?
Probably, as I was just reading by National Review's Andrew McCarthy (former federal prosecutor).  I quote 3 of the 4 points he made in this column (https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/09/brett-kavanaugh-accuser-must-testify/):

First, in no case does even the most sympathetic, convincing victim of a crime get to dictate the terms of the investigation.

Second, in any sexual-assault investigation, an interview of the alleged victim is among the first things that must be done. Here, moreover, it would be the first thing, since after 36 years a forensic investigation is not possible. Because the alleged victim’s version of events would dictate the course of the rest of the investigation, it would be absurd to delay an interview.

Third, as long as Ford’s counsel want to talk about regular, independent investigations, we should note that there is not a police organization in America that would entertain her allegation, in light of the lapse of time and the long-ago exhaustion of the statute of limitations. Professional investigators understand only too well the inherent unreliability of allegations raised in the manner Ford’s have been raised. The only relevance of this alleged incident is to a Senate function, so it is for the Senate committee to decide how to proceed.

I mention that it was from McCarthy that I got the idea that the statue of limitations had expired, but I have seen elsewhere that for attempted rape that is not the case in Maryland.  I assume he's just wrong on that point, but it's not really material to his overall one--that lacking physical evidence or even a specific time and place, no police department would investigate this.  This is not a federal crime, it's local, and the accuser has never pursued that avenue.

It is also apparently the case that she claims not to have remembered this until 2012, but the fact remains for even the short span of 6 years she never went to the police.  That's not proof of anything one way or the other, but it remains one of several inexplicable facts.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: James_Gale on September 19, 2018, 06:38:31 PM
Back to the morality of our politicians and feminism, yesterday we have a female United States senator saying this:

Washington (CNN) (https://edition.cnn.com/2018/09/18/politics/senator-mazie-hirono-men-shut-up-brett-kavanaugh-sexual-assault/index.html) Sept 18 -- Sen. Mazie Hirono (HI) said her message to men in this country is to "just shut up and step up. Do the right thing for a change" following the sexual assault allegation against Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh.

Of course, that was yesterday, and her comments have not aged well considering the speed at which this story is moving.

Imagine the outcry if a prominent male politician (oh say, like President Trump) had said the women of this country should "just shut up".

I've agreed with what Senator Susan Collins has been saying, being outspoken about giving Kavanaugh's accuser the opportunity to be heard, and the way Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley has been accommodating to make that possible.  But it is not President Trump who is forbidding the FBI from investigating, as Senator Hirono accuses:

"It's shocking, but not surprising, that President Trump is not OK'ing the FBI investigation so that there's at least some attempt at corroboration," she said.

Of course that is untrue but it's become a popular talking point over the last 24 hours, and now a shield being wielded by the accuser's attorney to possibly not testify before the Judiciary Committee on Monday.  But it was the FBI's internal decision (not coming from the president) and for a very good reason--it has no jurisdiction, for a matter of local law enforcement for which the statue of limitations probably has expired anyway.  Nota Benne:  the FBI did have jurisdiction for the Anita Hill accusation against Clarence Thomas, because both were federal employees and the alleged conduct occurred in a government office.

And so some (and many in the news business, and perhaps the originator of this thread) continue to tolerate some of our elected leaders lying to us, but not others.  Sigh.

It's worse -- if they believe what her attorney have said, that it is "attempted rape," then the statute of limitations has NOT expired.

Raising the question, why hasn't she pressed charges?


I could understand a person deciding not to press for criminal charges.  A conviction after all these years is extremely unlikely.  And I'm sure that it would not be fun to fly across country--probably several times--to give interviews and then to testify one or more times.  Given what we know of the record, cross-examination would be particularly unpleasant; if she appears before the Judiciary Committee, senators will be very gentle compared to what defense lawyers might do.


That said, I'm not sure what Dr. Ford was hoping to accomplish when she wrote the letter that Senator Feinstein has had since July.  Was she hoping for revenge?  Vindication? To block the appointment of someone whom she believes to be morally unfit?  We don't know.


We do know that if Senator Feinstein wanted to raise this issue, she should have done so months ago so that it could have been investigated and considered with everything else.  But Senator Feinstein did not do so, perhaps because she herself questioned the truthfulness of the allegations.  Whatever happened close to 40 years ago, this looks very much like a Feinstein-driven charade designed not to get to the truth of anything, but rather (i) to delay the confirmation process until after the election (to the relief of red-state Democrats saved from having to vote before the election), at which time the nomination might fail and (ii) in case the nomination succeeds, to leave Justice Kavanaugh stigmatized among certain population segments.  (That's what happened to Justice Thomas.  You all may recall that at the time of his hearings, people believed his account over Anita Hill's by about a 2-1 margin.  Even so, shameless interest groups have continued to this day to laud her in order to call into question Justice Thomas's character and legitimacy.  More recent polls suggest that these efforts have had some success.  Justice Thomas is stuck.  If he were to try to defend himself now it likely would just make matters worse for him.)     
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on September 19, 2018, 09:24:42 PM
Good grief! Has the nation gone nuts?! A neighbor at the lake, a retired principal, a thoughtful guy, and good ELCA guy who brought my mother-in-law to church in her last years, a very nice man, has signed and posted this on his FB timeline:

https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/stop-sexual-predator?source=petitionshomepage

I responded to Bob that even the ultra-liberal firebrand Joy Behar has only called him "probably guilty."

 TDS seems quite contagious.   :-[
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 19, 2018, 10:31:20 PM
I don't know about your guy, Pastor Kirchner, but I have been listening to women speak. We may not like their attitude, we may think they are condemning without trial, we may think all kinds of things. But we should listen to them, hear their pain and try to get a grip on what motivates them to think and speak this way. (Maybe your principal was moved by what he was hearing.)
This case, these days, is not just a "simple," legalistic matter of law and procedure and statutes of limitation. It is about how women have been perceived, misused, badly treated, held back and generally put down by our society for a very long time.
It may not be "fair" to the nominee, it may not be "fair" to men who have probably not done awful things to women; but we must listen to them.
To not listen, or to dismiss what we hear or to let actions of decades ago, even by an alcohol-fueled sexually-charged stupid teenager get passed by without consequence simply perpetuates the abuse and tells women we don't care or aren't listening. They will find more ways to tell their stories and seek to end what they have suffered.
I suspect the nominee will be confirmed, increasing the anger of many women.
If he is not confirmed, then he will be taking the hit not for what he did or didn't do, but for the misdeeds of generations of men.
Nope, it ain't fair. But what was done to women for decades wasn't fair either. My Beloved Spouse remembers when we were newly married and stores would not put her name on our charge account. A small thing? Yes, but the small things begin to add up.
Yes, guys, sometimes we should just shut up and listen. Really listen.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on September 19, 2018, 10:42:23 PM
I think it's more basic, Charles. 8th commandment is lost. On the secular side, guilty on an accusation.

The excuse? We should listen to women. I do, every day.  ::)
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: DeHall1 on September 19, 2018, 10:48:14 PM
I don't know about your guy, Pastor Kirchner, but I have been listening to women speak. We may not like their attitude, we may think they are condemning without trial, we may think all kinds of things. But we should listen to them, hear their pain and try to get a grip on what motivates them to think and speak this way. (Maybe your principal was moved by what he was hearing.)
This case, these days, is not just a "simple," legalistic matter of law and procedure and statutes of limitation. It is about how women have been perceived, misused, badly treated, held back and generally put down by our society for a very long time.
It may not be "fair" to the nominee, it may not be "fair" to men who have probably not done awful things to women; but we must listen to them.
To not listen, or to dismiss what we hear or to let actions of decades ago, even by an alcohol-fueled sexually-charged stupid teenager get passed by without consequence simply perpetuates the abuse and tells women we don't care or aren't listening. They will find more ways to tell their stories and seek to end what they have suffered.
I suspect the nominee will be confirmed, increasing the anger of many women.
If he is not confirmed, then he will be taking the hit not for what he did or didn't do, but for the misdeeds of generations of men.
Nope, it ain't fair. But what was done to women for decades wasn't fair either. My Beloved Spouse remembers when we were newly married and stores would not put her name on our charge account. A small thing? Yes, but the small things begin to add up.
Yes, guys, sometimes we should just shut up and listen. Really listen.
Whatever...
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: James_Gale on September 19, 2018, 10:52:04 PM
I don't know about your guy, Pastor Kirchner, but I have been listening to women speak. We may not like their attitude, we may think they are condemning without trial, we may think all kinds of things. But we should listen to them, hear their pain and try to get a grip on what motivates them to think and speak this way. (Maybe your principal was moved by what he was hearing.)
This case, these days, is not just a "simple," legalistic matter of law and procedure and statutes of limitation. It is about how women have been perceived, misused, badly treated, held back and generally put down by our society for a very long time.
It may not be "fair" to the nominee, it may not be "fair" to men who have probably not done awful things to women; but we must listen to them.
To not listen, or to dismiss what we hear or to let actions of decades ago, even by an alcohol-fueled sexually-charged stupid teenager get passed by without consequence simply perpetuates the abuse and tells women we don't care or aren't listening. They will find more ways to tell their stories and seek to end what they have suffered.
I suspect the nominee will be confirmed, increasing the anger of many women.
If he is not confirmed, then he will be taking the hit not for what he did or didn't do, but for the misdeeds of generations of men.
Nope, it ain't fair. But what was done to women for decades wasn't fair either. My Beloved Spouse remembers when we were newly married and stores would not put her name on our charge account. A small thing? Yes, but the small things begin to add up.
Yes, guys, sometimes we should just shut up and listen. Really listen.


The Judiciary Committee, the Senate, and the public have been available to listen to anything that anyone might have to say about Judge Kavanaugh.  Many have testified, including a large number of liberal women who have worked as clerks for the judge.  They adore him in large part because he treats women so well.  But Dr. Ford chose not to speak. 


She did send a letter to a House member who gave the letter to Senator Feinstein a couple months back. She chose not to share it with anyone and still has not shared it with her committee colleagues.  How can we listen to what nobody is willing to say?  Dr. Ford, through her attorney, initially said that she was willing, even eager, to testify before the committee.  The committee has made clear that it is willing to listen; she may testify either in public or by giving a confidential interview--her choice.  Now it seems that she may not want to tell her story.  If that proves true, it will be impossible for us to listen.

I think that the obligation to listen applies to us all.  A number of senators had drafted their statements opposing the current nominee before he even was named.  Those senators were not willing to listen to Judge Kavanaugh and those who know him and his work well.  Unless it is well proved, one uncorroborated allegation from 40 years ago should not be enough to outweigh an otherwise stellar record.  If it is, we all are in trouble. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: James_Gale on September 19, 2018, 10:56:38 PM
I think it's more basic, Charles. 8th commandment is lost. On the secular side, guilty on an accusation.

The excuse? We should listen to women. I do, every day.  ::)


Remember during the last election campaign when Pr. Austin argued similarly that we should listen to and believe Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick?  Neither do I. 


That is not a reason to refuse to listen to Dr. Ford (which the Judiciary Committee is prepared to do).  It is a reason to question whether Pr. Austin really means what he says.  If he does, I presume he is campaigning in Minnesota against Congressman Ellison. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 19, 2018, 11:00:37 PM
Good grief! It is worse than I thought.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on September 19, 2018, 11:06:00 PM
I guess, when one has no substantive response, one responds with an inane comment.   ::)
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: James_Gale on September 19, 2018, 11:19:12 PM
Good grief! It is worse than I thought.


Indeed it is.  But recognizing the problem is the first step.  I'm glad you've taken it.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 20, 2018, 07:51:32 AM
I don't know about your guy, Pastor Kirchner, but I have been listening to women speak. We may not like their attitude, we may think they are condemning without trial, we may think all kinds of things. But we should listen to them, hear their pain and try to get a grip on what motivates them to think and speak this way. (Maybe your principal was moved by what he was hearing.)
This case, these days, is not just a "simple," legalistic matter of law and procedure and statutes of limitation. It is about how women have been perceived, misused, badly treated, held back and generally put down by our society for a very long time.
It may not be "fair" to the nominee, it may not be "fair" to men who have probably not done awful things to women; but we must listen to them.
To not listen, or to dismiss what we hear or to let actions of decades ago, even by an alcohol-fueled sexually-charged stupid teenager get passed by without consequence simply perpetuates the abuse and tells women we don't care or aren't listening. They will find more ways to tell their stories and seek to end what they have suffered.
I suspect the nominee will be confirmed, increasing the anger of many women.
If he is not confirmed, then he will be taking the hit not for what he did or didn't do, but for the misdeeds of generations of men.
Nope, it ain't fair. But what was done to women for decades wasn't fair either. My Beloved Spouse remembers when we were newly married and stores would not put her name on our charge account. A small thing? Yes, but the small things begin to add up.
Yes, guys, sometimes we should just shut up and listen. Really listen.
So, Brett Kavanaugh is to be treated as guilty not because it can be demonstrated that he committed this crime against this woman, but because he is a man and men have treated women badly, and so while his actual guilt may not be able to be established he is symbolically guilty.  Some man needs to be punished and if we cannot definitively establish who, Kavanagh will do as a stand in.  It may not be fair but neither was what happened to Ford, and the way to balance unfairness is to be unfair to someone else.  Am I getting your point?


Certainly Ford deserves to be listened to and taken seriously.  What she says happened to her was terrible and should not be brushed off.  But who in the Senate is unwilling to listen to her?  The old white male Republican (quadruply quilty) head of the Judiciary Committe invited her to tell her story, tell what happened to her, in open session, closed session, privately, by deposition and they’d send aides to her.  Her choice, whatever would be more comfortable for her.  They delayed the vote on the nomination and reopened the hearing.  About the only Senator who seems not to be taking what happened to her seriously has been Senator Feinstein who when she learned of this crime did not pursue justice for this woman but sat on her cry for justice and ignored her until she could best use her distress for political gain.


Men have behaved badly, no dispute there.  Therefore all men are guilty and if Kavanaugh happens not to be guilty of this particular crime his symbolic guilt as a man is enough that he should be punished for it anyway?  This is the moral way to handle this?  This will promote “morality” in our land?
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 20, 2018, 08:44:22 AM
Pastor Fienen writes (still missing the point):
So, Brett Kavanaugh is to be treated as guilty not because it can be demonstrated that he committed this crime against this woman, but because he is a man and men have treated women badly, and so while his actual guilt may not be able to be established he is symbolically guilty.
I comment:
If you are speaking from the point of "law" - which you usually are - no, he is not to be treated as "guilty."
But as I am trying to say, it is not always "the law" or "rules" which determine what is happening. This may not be "right" in terms of the law, but it is reality in terms of real, day-to-day life.

Pastor Fienen writes:
Some man needs to be punished and if we cannot definitively establish who, Kavanagh will do as a stand in.
I comment:
No again, but see above.

Pastor Fienen:
It may not be fair but neither was what happened to Ford, and the way to balance unfairness is to be unfair to someone else.  Am I getting your point?
Me:
No, you are not; because all you can do is to balance "fair" against "unfair," which is just another way of applying the law. You respond from a idealized world or mindset which just does not exist.

Pastor Fienen:
Certainly Ford deserves to be listened to and taken seriously.  What she says happened to her was terrible and should not be brushed off.  But who in the Senate is unwilling to listen to her?  The old white male Republican (quadruply quilty) head of the Judiciary Committe invited her to tell her story, tell what happened to her, in open session, closed session, privately, by deposition and they’d send aides to her.  Her choice, whatever would be more comfortable for her.  They delayed the vote on the nomination and reopened the hearing.
Me:
In a well-ordered, totally logical, completely sane, perfectly balanced and everyone-trusts-everyone-else setting you would be right. But this is not that, and the logical, balanced, sane, trust-driven world you posit does not exist.

Pastor Fienen:
About the only Senator who seems not to be taking what happened to her seriously has been Senator Feinstein who when she learned of this crime did not pursue justice for this woman but sat on her cry for justice and ignored her until she could best use her distress for political gain.
Me:
I have no way of assessing why the senator did what she did, and neither do you.

Pastor Fienen:
Men have behaved badly, no dispute there.  Therefore all men are guilty and if Kavanaugh happens not to be guilty of this particular crime his symbolic guilt as a man is enough that he should be punished for it anyway?
Me:
See above.

Pastor Fienen:
This is the moral way to handle this?  This will promote “morality” in our land?
Me:
Who knows? But "promoting morality in our land" is not the issue here.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on September 20, 2018, 09:06:00 AM
I think it's more basic, Charles. 8th commandment is lost. On the secular side, guilty on an accusation.

The excuse? We should listen to women. I do, every day.  ::)


Remember during the last election campaign when Pr. Austin argued similarly that we should listen to and believe Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick?  Neither do I. 


That is not a reason to refuse to listen to Dr. Ford (which the Judiciary Committee is prepared to do).  It is a reason to question whether Pr. Austin really means what he says.  If he does, I presume he is campaigning in Minnesota against Congressman Ellison.
Amen.  Which is why I believe his concern for morality in the thread he started is a sham, for reasons I've stated here repeatedly, and his subsequent posts keep confirming.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on September 20, 2018, 09:12:58 AM
If he is not confirmed, then he will be taking the hit not for what he did or didn't do, but for the misdeeds of generations of men.
Nope, it ain't fair. But what was done to women for decades wasn't fair either. My Beloved Spouse remembers when we were newly married and stores would not put her name on our charge account. A small thing? Yes, but the small things begin to add up.
Yes, guys, sometimes we should just shut up and listen. Really listen.
I wonder how your Dear Spouse would feel if you were accused of something heinous in the same manner as Judge Kavanaugh.

No, we guys should not just shut up.  Paraphrasing a dead white guy, evil will triumph if good men keep silent.

Speaking up is not the same thing as dismissing the accusation against Judge Kavanaugh.  I want to know the truth here, even if it is not to my political advantage.  But for that to happen, his accuser must actually follow through with the facts as she can recall them.  You don't get to make such an accusation and leave it hanging unexplained in the air.  Maybe she thought she could do that anonymously.  But I'm sorry, as the National Review story I posted above makes clear, that is both un-American and un-Christian.

I want to listen, but Ford has yet to speak.  So your admonition to silence is premature.  It's her silence that is the problem.

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Voelker on September 20, 2018, 09:23:32 AM
Pastor Fienen:
This is the moral way to handle this?  This will promote “morality” in our land?
Me:
Who knows? But "promoting morality in our land" is not the issue here.
Right. But promoting justice ought to be the issue — and seems to be for the others in this discussion — instead of encouraging people to get their pound of flesh from someone from an approved target group. We might say that there would be justice that there would be consequences for him if he is guilty (no longer up for appointment, legal, social, etc.), but that if he is not, then he (and no one else) should be smacked around without grounds, no matter how aggrieved some others might be. Feelings matter politically, but they should never matter when it comes to justice; we are at a dangerous tipping-point where feeling overtakes justice in the courtroom, and not just at the polling booth (where it pretty much always has).
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: D. Engebretson on September 20, 2018, 09:28:39 AM
If one has ever been on the receiving end of legal accusations the perspective might be a bit different.  Some years ago I was sued for libel and slander. At church. In a sermon and public meeting. Yet no evidence.  No witnesses to corroborate the accusations.  Yet my life was tied up in that mess for nearly three years. Thousands of dollars and countless hours consumed to feed the need of a plaintiff who wanted her pound of flesh. Because someone needed a target. 

I am afraid that these 'new rules' of engagement will make it not only increasingly difficult (if not impossible) for some to run for high public office, but there will be many more who simply look at the likely future of a confirmation process and decide it is no longer worth it.  One accusation is all it takes.  It does not have to be corroborated. No real 'evidence' is required. No witnesses needed. It only has to sound 'credible' to the right people.  One accusation, no matter how many years in the past the alleged 'crime' occurred.  No matter how faded people's memories are on the most basic details of time and place.  That's all it takes.  I shudder when I think of the implications of these 'new rules.' 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 20, 2018, 09:47:55 AM

The first use of the law requires us to work for social justice. God gives us civil laws - and processes for changing civil laws - so that we might create a society that is more just and loving - more like the Kingdom of God that is coming.

Are you making this up as you go along?  'Restraining evil' is a far cry from requiring "us to work for social justice." 


Not if the 1st use includes peace and harmony among people, or promote order where there would be chaos, which I believe it does. Traffic laws are not so much to restraining evil, but to promote the smooth and safe movement of traffic. If there were no traffic laws, if people did whatever they wanted at intersections, it would be chaos.

Quote
It's not nicknamed the "curb" because we are compelled to work for social justice.  A curb lets us know when we've gone off the road, i.e. to maintain order in society.  Theoretically, God's law and civil law should be the same.  Of course today, this is increasingly not true in reality.


"Curb" doesn't paint the whole picture. God's 1st use encourages us towards civil righteousness. I even say that it is where our moral behavior lies.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 20, 2018, 10:12:05 AM
Sigh.  Your name dropping aside, it was you who applied this story more broadly.  I have no doubt this was true in the context you shared (which he shared).  It's your generalization that is really beside the point.  Note that I'm not disagreeing that different people have different perspectives.  I'm saying "so what?" to that.  Telling me that doesn't prove anything.  I haven't denied that perspectives vary.


It's a generalization that I have found quite true in my 42 years of ministry. Nearly always when I have brought that up, women agree with it.

Quote
To be absolutely clear, I was not speaking negatively about anecdotes.  I'm objecting to using that to prove something is generally true.  An anecdote can be used to disprove that something is universally true, if that something actually makes a claim to be 100% always true.  If you are suggesting that I have made such a claim earlier, that is wrong.


When there are enough anecdotes that are the same, the stories paint a general picture, and lead to conclusions. Isn't that what we do in trials? We ask people to tell their stories - what they witnessed. At some point, the number of stories shifts from being individual anecdotes to a general truth, e.g., the person is guilty (or innocent) of the crime.

Quote
Except that's nothing like anything I said.  You've started talking about something completely different.  But addressing this, your proof by anecdote might attempt to say that all whites are oppressors.  That's what feminist try to do with talk of patriarchy.  Both are simply not true.


True, there might be individual, white men who are not oppressive; but I think that they are right that we live in a culture that elevates white men above all other categories. When a federal committee on women's health includes no women, that speaks volumes. Granted, American society has improved, women can now vote! The wage difference still exists but it's not as great as it used to be.


I have seen a male pastor turn their backs to a female pastor sitting next to him. I have seen a male pastor ignore the female in a small group, answering her questions by looking and talking to the other men who were standing there.

Quote
And here at last, we have the confusion about law and gospel.  Not necessarily by you, unless you are disagreeing with my objection that follows.  Previously we were talking above about those "feminists" in the church who want to withhold forgiveness unless the sinners repent in a particular way.  That's the social justice to which I'm objecting.  They've weaponized God's grace, threatening to withhold it unless a particular political action is taken not unlike wicked bishops pre-Reformation.  That's abhorrent.  At least that's what I understand several of us to be discussing and objecting to.  If you wish to talk about something else, by all means please do so.  Just don't pretend that's what we were discussing, and tell us we're wrong because you are referencing something else entirely.  Now I don't think this instinct is widespread or a great danger, but this a vocal minority (Bolsheviks if you will) which are eager to pursue this if given the chance.  At any rate, they are not interested in what a Savior has already done for them, but what they can do next on earth now, to enforce their understanding of "law".  And they're willing to use the coercion of withholding God's grace of forgiveness until they get what they want.  That's immoral and extremely un-Lutheran.


I have never in the ELCA seen anyone withhold forgiveness. All are invited and included in Holy Communion. All receive absolution. Certainly, I can't claim to know what happens in every congregation or at every synod assembly worship; but I have worked in many of them, and not experienced what you say is happening. It becomes an individual's anecdote that you are generalizing.



Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on September 20, 2018, 10:23:19 AM
I think that the obligation to listen applies to us all.  A number of senators had drafted their statements opposing the current nominee before he even was named.  Those senators were not willing to listen to Judge Kavanaugh and those who know him and his work well.  Unless it is well proved, one uncorroborated allegation from 40 years ago should not be enough to outweigh an otherwise stellar record.  If it is, we all are in trouble. 


I think that they learned that from the treatment of President Obama's appointee.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 20, 2018, 10:36:58 AM
Pastor Stoffregen:
…..the treatment of President Obama's appointee.

Me:
Who could not even get a hearing.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Dan Fienen on September 20, 2018, 10:50:12 AM
Pastor Fienen writes (still missing the point):
So, Brett Kavanaugh is to be treated as guilty not because it can be demonstrated that he committed this crime against this woman, but because he is a man and men have treated women badly, and so while his actual guilt may not be able to be established he is symbolically guilty.
I comment:
If you are speaking from the point of "law" - which you usually are - no, he is not to be treated as "guilty."
But as I am trying to say, it is not always "the law" or "rules" which determine what is happening. This may not be "right" in terms of the law, but it is reality in terms of real, day-to-day life.




Given the number of "see above" referrals in your response, this seems to be the heart of your response to me, so I'll deal with that.


There are more ways to be treated as guilty than in a court of law with legal consequences.  It is highly doubtful that Brett Kavanaugh will be found guilty of sexual abuse in a court of law even if he is actually guilty of the crime of which he stands accused.  The lack of detail as to time and place and the length of time that the crime went unreported make the gathering of evidence as well as corroborating witnesses for either side exceedingly difficult.  Not to mention that the matter has not been referred to the law enforcement agencies that would have jurisdiction and would bring such charges.  This is not a matter for the FBI under the law to handle.


But then, this was never about bringing legal proceedings against Brett Kavanaugh or obtaining a "guilty" verdict against him in a court of law.  If it had been it would have been handled much differently from the beginning.  The event would have been brought to the attention of law enforcement who had jurisdiction of this and then depending on their actions be brought as part of the background of Kavanaugh to this confirmation hearing.


No, since Senator Feinstein received the letter alerting her to this matter and she decided what to do about it, this has been about the court of public opinion, about not judging Brett Kavanaugh's legal guilt or innocence but his fitness for public office, and about how he should be regarded as a man by the public, by his peers and by his family.  His legal liability has never really been in question.  Ruining his life and branding him in the eyes of the public and his family and friends as a sexual predator has been the issue.  Is that "real life consequences" enough for you?  Since he is a man, should he simply suffer those real life consequences whether he is actually guilty or not as a symbol and stand in for the man who did this to Dr. Ford and for all men.  Is he to be punished, not by a fine or jail time or other law based penalties, but by having his career ended, his good name besmirched, the good will of his family and friends damaged, not to mention the hurt to his wife and daughters as being branded as having been married to or fathered by a sexual predator?  That seems to be what you are advocating.  Defense against a law based indictment would have been child's play compared to what he faces.  The difficulties the both Dr. Ford and Judge Kavanaugh are likely inevitable in real life, but does that mean that we should simply stand by and acquiesce to injustice either to Dr. Ford or Judge Kavanaugh?  Should we simply tell Judge Kavanaugh that he should simply accept that now that he has been accused that since he is a man he will be treated by society as guilty and to simply take it and accept that his professional life is over and accept the damage to his family as his due as a man?


Women have been badly treated and great injustices have been done.  What are we as a society to do about it?  New laws have been written, procedures to take seriously and sensitively reports of sexual abuse and assault.  We as a society can, should, and to a measure have, changed how victims of sexual predation are treated regarded and treated.  Compare how the Republicans are treating Dr. Ford to how Democrats treated Paula Jones and Juanita Broaddrick.  Credit laws have been changed so that what happened to Beloved Spouse would not happen now.  (Should we now arbitrarily refuse to add a number of men to credit accounts as retribution for past injustices, would that make her feel better?)  Is this procedure with Kavanaugh to be not about determining his fitness for high office, or obtaining a measure of justice for someone who has been wronged but retribution against men for what some men have done in the past?  That is not about law, but about getting even and striking out at symbolic targets.  Brett Kavanaugh's life is not symbolic but real.


It is perhaps unfortunate (I'm not so sure you consider it unfortunate but men getting their just deserts) that given the climate today, past injustices and all the rest that guilty or innocent Brett Kavanaugh will suffer real life consequences for being accused.  How great those consequences will be have yet to be determined.  I understand that.   But do you have to be pleased with what he going through, guilty or innocent?  You seem to rather relish Brett Kavanaugh's potential destruction as a symbol for what real men have done, whether or not his was one of them.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: gan ainm on September 20, 2018, 10:52:33 AM
Just imagine for a moment, only a moment, if all Senate, House, Supreme Court, President and Vice President positions were staffed with 546 "Charles types".  Ok, your prayers should pause now after a few hours of intense sweating.  Take a break - drink a couple quarts of water before resuming prayers of thanksgiving.    ;)
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: James_Gale on September 20, 2018, 11:12:30 AM
Pastor Stoffregen:
…..the treatment of President Obama's appointee.

Me:
Who could not even get a hearing.


That showed how broken the system has become since the Bork hearings (a point made last week by Justice Ginsburg). At least Judge Garland, whose nomination had Judge Kavanaugh’s public support, did not face the current Thomas-like process. If the real concern were the alleged sexual assault, Senator Feinstein had ways of handling this that would have honored Dr. Ford’s request for anonymity and prevented any unfair blows against Judge Kavanaugh’s reputation. Senator Feinstein, for her own political reasons, chose a different path that sacrificed both.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: JEdwards on September 20, 2018, 11:41:20 AM
It's a generalization that I have found quite true in my 42 years of ministry. Nearly always when I have brought that up, women agree with it.
...
When there are enough anecdotes that are the same, the stories paint a general picture, and lead to conclusions. Isn't that what we do in trials? We ask people to tell their stories - what they witnessed. At some point, the number of stories shifts from being individual anecdotes to a general truth, e.g., the person is guilty (or innocent) of the crime.

I studied statistics in college. The JTFII survey wouldn't have passed mustard in the class. It was not a scientific sampling of members of the ELCA.

You really like arguing with yourself, don't you?

Peace,
Jon
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on September 20, 2018, 11:46:58 AM
Pastor Stoffregen:
…..the treatment of President Obama's appointee.

Me:
Who could not even get a hearing.
So you two don't see a difference between a man denied a hearing, and one accused of attempted rape?  I continue to despair for the morality in our land.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 20, 2018, 11:49:21 AM
Pastor Fienen writes:
 But do you have to be pleased with what he going through, guilty or innocent?  You seem to rather relish Brett Kavanaugh's potential destruction as a symbol for what real men have done, whether or not his was one of them.

I comment:
Where, in the name of Aunt Gertie's Goat, do you get the idea that I am "pleased" or that I "relish" what the judge is experiencing? I do not. This is painful for everyone and a sign of the dysfunction that mires so many of our judicial and political processes. And the judge is not facing "potential destruction." He has his career which will continue, no matter what happens. He is unlikely to be disbarred or unseated from his court. He has much to be proud of if he looks back on his life.
I am not pleased that nominees to the court are considered - it appears - only on one or two particular political or social issues. I remain suspicious that his nomination was partly motored by his previous rulings or discussions or writings that would seem to give the President extraordinary powers and possibly lift the president above some of our laws.
But I am not pleased with the totality of the events and the atmosphere they are creating. But we must live and act in consideration of the totality of those events and the atmosphere. In my not so humble opinion, Senator Feinstein has been in office too long, as have many of those with influence on today's activities in Washington.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on September 20, 2018, 11:51:49 AM
When there are enough anecdotes that are the same, the stories paint a general picture, and lead to conclusions. Isn't that what we do in trials? We ask people to tell their stories - what they witnessed. At some point, the number of stories shifts from being individual anecdotes to a general truth, e.g., the person is guilty (or innocent) of the crime.
No, that is most certainly NOT what we do at trials to determine guilt.  We do not tell anecdotes about situations which do not involve the defendant, just because he (or the victim) might be "like" those in your irrelevant stories.  That's what you have done above, which is the opposite of relevant.  That's what people condemning Judge Kavanaugh are doing, by talking about a "rape culture".  My God, sometimes you truly frighten me.   :'(

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Charles Austin on September 20, 2018, 11:53:15 AM
P.S. to Mr. Spatz:
Of course there is a difference; and I do not understand why every comment I make, however small, seems to put acid in your gut and lead you to believe (and fear) that my little words actually have any effect on anything.
"OMG!! Austin said something; so morality in our land takes another hit and sinks lower."
Thank you, but I ain't that important.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on September 20, 2018, 12:01:29 PM
By my checking current news reporting, it's become clear that today's Democrat talking points have been agreed to and are being deployed, judging by the public statement of some politicians and their media allies.  In case anyone hasn't noticed, we've gone from the demand on Monday (starting with Ford's lawyer) that the accusations be heard (I presume that's why she agreed to be interviewed by the Washington Post), to today that having them heard by the one relevant competent body to which they matter (the Senate Judiciary Committee) is now silencing her.  This is some serious chutzpah.

Someone I follow on Twitter has taken it upon himself to track all these public statements of both politicians and media types uninterested in any actual evidence, in case anyone is interested:

https://agconservative.wordpress.com/2018/09/19/sentencing-kavanaugh-before-a-trial/
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: MaddogLutheran on September 20, 2018, 12:03:23 PM
P.S. to Mr. Spatz:
Of course there is a difference; and I do not understand why every comment I make, however small, seems to put acid in your gut and lead you to believe (and fear) that my little words actually have any effect on anything.
"OMG!! Austin said something; so morality in our land takes another hit and sinks lower."
Thank you, but I ain't that important.
If there's a difference, why do you (and Pr. Stoffregen) attempt to link them?  Remember, I didn't start this thread...you did, apparently because you thought you were important here.  You were calling out others who did not stand up to the malevolence of Donald Trump.   Good for you!
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on September 20, 2018, 12:27:37 PM

Pastor Fienen:
This is the moral way to handle this?  This will promote “morality” in our land?
Me:
Who knows? But "promoting morality in our land" is not the issue here.

Thus posts the one who entitled this topic, "A Concern for 'Morality' in our Land, or not?".

 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: peterm on September 20, 2018, 12:30:09 PM
Party politics aside, it is time for us to take a larger stand to say such behavior is unacceptable, some of the messages I'm hearing from multiple sources are that teenage boys will be teenage boys, and this is WRONG (certainly not the standards to which I hold my own teenage boys.)  Should this cost the nominee the position? Perhaps. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: James_Gale on September 20, 2018, 12:45:07 PM
Party politics aside, it is time for us to take a larger stand to say such behavior is unacceptable, some of the messages I'm hearing from multiple sources are that teenage boys will be teenage boys, and this is WRONG (certainly not the standards to which I hold my own teenage boys.)  Should this cost the nominee the position? Perhaps.


I’ve not heard that from anyone. Judge Kavanaugh has flatly denied the allegations under oath. This all turns on the strength of the evidence, not on whether the alleged conduct is excusable. The passage of nearly 40 years is relevant, not because Kavanaugh was young then, but only because it renders memory of those days and testimony about them much less reliable.
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: peterm on September 20, 2018, 12:51:41 PM
I've known pastors and other professionals who have been removed under similar circumstances.  Part of the challenge these days is the double standards of behavior for those in power and those not in power.  If we are serious about making the changes that need to be made then the same standards should apply to all. 
Title: Re: A Concern for "Morality" in our Land, or not?
Post by: Pr. Don Kirchner on September 20, 2018, 01:02:29 PM
Just imagine for a moment, only a moment, if all Senate, House, Supreme Court, President and Vice President positions were staffed with 546 "Charles types".  Ok, your prayers should pause now after a few hours of intense sweating.  Take a break - drink a couple quarts of water before resuming prayers of thanksgiving.    ;)