ALPB Forum Online

ALPB => Your Turn => Topic started by: Charles Austin on February 28, 2019, 06:49:50 AM

Title: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on February 28, 2019, 06:49:50 AM
I wonder if anyone really cares, but I (and other observers smarter than this humble correspondent) noted some things during Mr. Cohen’s testimony about the president. We remember that Mr. Cohen is a man who for 10 years was close to Mr. Trump and his personal and business dealings.
   What do we who campaign for "morality" and integrity - whether of the conservative or progressive type - draw from these things?
   -Are they to be excused because the president might appoint judges favorable to "pro-life" issues?
   -Are they to be excused because we want to "defend our borders"?
   -Can a man whose character flaws are so much on display be trusted with national security?
   -Are there as yet unknown, and possibly even more dangerous things to be discovered by questioning the numerous people close to the president who have been indicted and convicted of various crimes?
   -Do these matters top the relatively narrow series of events which caused President Nixon to resign? 
   During the hours-long hearings this week, Republicans focused on Mr. Cohen’s past admissions of lying to Congress, ignored his confession and his declaration that he was attempting to make amends, and did not probe the substance of Mr. Cohen’s statements about the president.
   I wonder – in response to the concern about Mr. Cohen’s credibility – what people think he has to gain by dissembling now. He is going to jail. He has been disbarred. He will not be allowed to profit from his crimes. He repeatedly expresses concern for his family, even hinting that he fears he has put them in danger.
  We learned some things yesterday.
  Mr. Trump’s troubles might not yet be directly connected to Russia, but certain aspects of the alleged connection seem to be floating into view. The president and his company were indeed involved in business negotiations with Russia during the campaign. Mr. Cohen says he and the president both lied about it.
   The pay offs to Miss Daniels probably constitute a violation of campaign finance laws. And Mr. Trump’s denial of knowledge about the payoffs was a lie.
   The president used Mr. Cohen as a “fixer,” that is, someone who would do anything and use any method including threatening letters to squelch negative news stories or other actions damaging to the campaign.
   Mr. Cohen testified that Mr. Trump regularly lied to banks and other financial institutions, inflating his wealth when he wanted loans, devaluing his assets and properties when he thought it served him. The president also made frequent bigoted remarks about African-Americans and African countries.
  Mr. Cohen’s description of the president included the words, “con-man” and “cheat.”
  As for the medical deferment that kept him from military service, Mr. Cohen said Mr. Trump’s words were “You think I’m stupid? I wasn’t going to Vietnam.”
  (I know a man who did two one-year tours in that war and was both wounded and decorated. He is not given to profane language; but uttered some real nasty words when he heard of that comment.)
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: D. Engebretson on February 28, 2019, 09:10:29 AM
I normally try to avoid entering into political discussions here.  And I may well regret this moment...

Perhaps I'm a bit jaded, but the current issues playing out in Washington neither surprise me nor alarm me.  I think that if we are truly honest we will realize that agendas exist on both side of the aisle and that supposed corruption is by no means limited to one person or one party. It goes deep and wide in Washington, and if the same scrutiny were given to others on the Hill we would find multiple investigations going on simultaneously. We have debated this issue considerably, especially during the 2016 election, and the complaint that often arises is that it ultimately results in a kind of tou quoque debate in the end. 

The Democratic party now in control of the House has the power to investigate and probe into every aspect of the current president's life and work.  The fact that they used the opportunity to have a very well-publicized and public testimony of Cohen at the very same time as the president was involved in a high-stakes summit with another world leader demonstrated to me that the party spirit is alive and aimed at inflicting maximum injury on the president.  Often the issues are not played out in our legal system but in the court of public opinion.  Cohen's testimony was far less explosive than I think some predicted, at least from a legal point of view.  But the Democratic party will certainly push this issue to the maximum point, resulting, I believe, in eventual articles of impeachment.  Unless an actual crime against the country can eventually be proven beyond a doubt I am skeptical that the Senate will affirm that impeachment. 

I care about my country, but I see too much hypocrisy and duplicity in the halls of power to have much hope that what I often see played out on my TV is accomplishing much at all.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on February 28, 2019, 09:48:38 AM
I haven't been paying more than passing attention to Cohen, but can anyone say he said anything about the POTUS that virtually everyone in America didn't already know or suspect about him before he decided to run for office?

What is clear is that the ONLY interest people have in these proceedings is political. That is, they pretend to be terribly offended at this or that, but only if it increases the chances Trump will be replaced. If some guy did something terrible, they only think it relevant in so far as it can be linked to Trump. All the posturing and obsession with Trump's misdeeds is pure theater. The proof is that if anyone points out the selective nature of their outrage, they immediately accuse that person of changing the subject.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on February 28, 2019, 09:54:52 AM
I share your frustration, Pastor Engebretson; but I try not to fall into despair.
And the larger issue is not just what we do about the present circumstances or what justice will be required to do of present actors on the Washington stage.
The larger issue is how do we - the people, our friends, our neighbors - view those seeking office and what is the nature of our support.
No one is perfect. But all imperfections are not equal.
No one will attempt to, while in office, do everything we might like. But all political decisions and actions are not equal.
Sometimes, I believe, grave flaws of character can even flatten whatever good ideas or plans a person in office may have.
We have heard from those who accept the venality, personal failings and duplicity of the current president because they believe he will appoint certain types of federal judges. And there are those who despise him simply because he is in the Republican party.
If the president's words are deemed to be racist, xenophobic or just plain stupid; the larger issue is concern for our fellow citizens who share those views or don't care about honesty or character. And we will have work to do with regard to our neighbors who chant at his rallies and take his words and ideas into deeper hatreds and more dangerous actions.
And, should we find the current personnel and policies unacceptable, we must make sure the people do not continue in office.
And I find Peter's response here cynical and worrisome. But not surprising.

 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Eileen Smith on February 28, 2019, 10:03:31 AM
I normally try to avoid entering into political discussions here.  And I may well regret this moment...

Perhaps I'm a bit jaded, but the current issues playing out in Washington neither surprise me nor alarm me.  I think that if we are truly honest we will realize that agendas exist on both side of the aisle and that supposed corruption is by no means limited to one person or one party. It goes deep and wide in Washington, and if the same scrutiny were given to others on the Hill we would find multiple investigations going on simultaneously. We have debated this issue considerably, especially during the 2016 election, and the complaint that often arises is that it ultimately results in a kind of tou quoque debate in the end. 

The Democratic party now in control of the House has the power to investigate and probe into every aspect of the current president's life and work.  The fact that they used the opportunity to have a very well-publicized and public testimony of Cohen at the very same time as the president was involved in a high-stakes summit with another world leader demonstrated to me that the party spirit is alive and aimed at inflicting maximum injury on the president.  Often the issues are not played out in our legal system but in the court of public opinion.  Cohen's testimony was far less explosive than I think some predicted, at least from a legal point of view.  But the Democratic party will certainly push this issue to the maximum point, resulting, I believe, in eventual articles of impeachment.  Unless an actual crime against the country can eventually be proven beyond a doubt I am skeptical that the Senate will affirm that impeachment. 

I care about my country, but I see too much hypocrisy and duplicity in the halls of power to have much hope that what I often see played out on my TV is accomplishing much at all.

Well, it does accomplish furthering the divide.  I've read transcripts of the hearing but I find it hard to find credible a man about to go to prison for crimes that included lying.  One side now rejoices that he's come to the light and the other discredits his testimony based on his past (as it might be fair to say I'm doing here). 

I find far more worrisome to our country the new crop of progressives than the current president.  I have no doubt that if he runs and then loses the 2020 election there will be a peaceful exchange of power.  Please remember, Obama detractors made the same allegations about Obama even suggesting he's push for a change to a 3 term presidency. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on February 28, 2019, 10:24:08 AM

I have the CNN News app on my iPad.  Currently the top six items displayed on the "Top News" page are an analysis of the Hanoi summit as a failure because, "He needed a win and a distraction given a day-long congressional hearing at home . . . ", a clip of CNN's reporter Jim Acosta analyzing the closing news conference, three items about the congressional hearings with Michael Cohen and an ad for German hearing aids.  Apparently for CNN, attempts to defuse the nuclear threat of North Korea is of little importance next to the Michael Cohen hearing.


Going into this summit, grave fears were expressed that Trump would be so desperate for a win that he would "give away the store" to achieve a hollow win.  Instead, he refused to give North Korea everything they wanted in exchange for a relatively small concession.  For which he will, again, be criticized.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Eileen Smith on February 28, 2019, 10:41:58 AM

I have the CNN News app on my iPad.  Currently the top six items displayed on the "Top News" page are an analysis of the Hanoi summit as a failure because, "He needed a win and a distraction given a day-long congressional hearing at home . . . ", a clip of CNN's reporter Jim Acosta analyzing the closing news conference, three items about the congressional hearings with Michael Cohen and an ad for German hearing aids.  Apparently for CNN, attempts to defuse the nuclear threat of North Korea is of little importance next to the Michael Cohen hearing.


Going into this summit, grave fears were expressed that Trump would be so desperate for a win that he would "give away the store" to achieve a hollow win.  Instead, he refused to give North Korea everything they wanted in exchange for a relatively small concession.  For which he will, again, be criticized.

Again it would seem the sentiment that the more things change the more they stay the same.  I believe Reykjavík was also considered a failure (at that time).
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Rob Morris on February 28, 2019, 10:53:08 AM
Again it would seem the sentiment that the more things change the more they stay the same.  I believe Reykjavík was also considered a failure (at that time).

Andrew Johnson once said "Washington DC is 12 square miles bordered on all sides by reality." That would be in the 1860s.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: TERJr on February 28, 2019, 11:07:03 AM
Considering that Johnson escaped impeachment by one vote, are you sure he's the guy you want to cite?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on February 28, 2019, 11:30:12 AM
We drift almost immediately to the usual laments.
They're all crooks and rats, whether Republican or Democrat.
The communists/socialists/survivalists/right-wingers are on the march and theyre gonna win.
It's the system, not the people.
You (the one who doesn't agree with you) just hate Trump/Hilary/Obama/FoxNews/The New York Times.
Those laments just keep us from working on the situation.
And distract us from new things that arise. For example, why are we desirous of being so cozy with North Korea? Do they have anything we want? Do we not care that the leader is a brutal dictator, responsible for murders, oppressing his own people? Do we not care that the country has forced abortions?
For that matter, are distracted from the whole human rights concern world-wide?
But it's easy to lament and despair.
I wish we would stop that. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on February 28, 2019, 11:59:51 AM
Rereading your initial post I think I see your point, we’ve allowed ourselves to be distracted from the one, single most important point, lamenting how terrible, crooked and corrupt Donald Trump is.  Nothing else is of any importance for the nation.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on February 28, 2019, 12:07:34 PM
Once again, Pastor Fienen, you leap to an incorrect conclusions. If you’ll read carefully you will see my concern is for our future leadership.
If you like the current leadership, defend it. Try to re-elect it.
If you don’t like the current leadership, do not just oppose the current players. Consider what characteristics you want to have in the people you would choose to replace the ones currently in office. Consider matters of character. Look beyond your favorite issue.
And do not just reject labels, such as “socialist,” or “progressive.“
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on February 28, 2019, 12:33:19 PM

Do I want a future leadership for this country that believes that their opponents should be hounded from public places, confronted by mobs when they eat at a restaurant or (as has been suggested) prevented from peacefully fueling their vehicle at a gas station?  Do I want a future leadership for this country that proposes a plan that would force virtually every homeowner to undertake extensive and expensive renovations or simply rebuilding of their home to achieve an idealistic net zero in carbon emissions, that would undertake to build a fast rail network throughout the country so as to eliminate domestic air travel (for an example look at California's fast rail project)?  Do I want a future leadership for this country that when asked about how much their grandiose plans will cost or how they will be paid for dismiss those as unimportant and even offensive questions?


I could go on, but I think that illustrates some of my concerns.  I find it difficult to dismiss concerns about socialism in America since many of the Democrats are running with the promise of socialism if they succeed.  They have not even really explaining what they mean by socialism.  Socialism has turned a once prosperous Venezuela into an authoritarian basket case.  On the other hand, under Communist rule, Vietnam has turned into a country more prosperous than they were with a burgeoning economy.  Which model is being proposed?  Europe, despite claims otherwise, really does not have socialist countries, just countries with very generous social welfare programs.  However France, for example, is currently in turmoil as the government is finding that all those benefits are becoming unsustainable and they need to scale them back.  Not quite the socialist success story.


It seems unlikely that Roe v. Wade is going to be overturned no matter who is elected.  I recognize that.  However, the cutting edge of Democrats seem intent on extending unlimited abortion to the moment of birth (and possibly beyond?).  I'm supposed to be on board with that?


But as to the courts, they are the last line of defense of our rights.  Do I want the future leaders of our nation to be leaders who will place on the courts judges and justices who are more interested in effecting social change in the directions that they choose than in defending the rights of those who might be obstacles to their dreams of a rebuilt society?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: David Garner on February 28, 2019, 12:38:05 PM

Do I want a future leadership for this country that believes that their opponents should be hounded from public places, confronted by mobs when they eat at a restaurant or (as has been suggested) prevented from peacefully fueling their vehicle at a gas station?

I know people -- and quite a lot of them -- who have said openly they did not vote for Trump in 2016, but they plan to in 2020 because of this very thing.

When your platform is based in part on telling a group of people they are your enemy, don't be surprised when they believe you and act accordingly.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Rob Morris on February 28, 2019, 12:47:15 PM
Considering that Johnson escaped impeachment by one vote, are you sure he's the guy you want to cite?

I'm not even sure he should have escaped impeachment at all. Still like the quote, though.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: David Garner on February 28, 2019, 12:50:31 PM
Sorry to be the stickler, but impeachment is the process of bringing an accusation against a civil officer.  In that light, Andrew Johnson did not escape impeachment, but was in fact impeached.

What he escaped was conviction at his removal trial.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: TERJr on February 28, 2019, 12:51:44 PM
Fair enough then! (And I agree. The senator with the deciding vote ended up committing suicide too. It was tragic astound.)
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: D. Engebretson on February 28, 2019, 01:15:40 PM
For example, why are we desirous of being so cozy with North Korea? Do they have anything we want? Do we not care that the leader is a brutal dictator, responsible for murders, oppressing his own people? Do we not care that the country has forced abortions?
For that matter, are distracted from the whole human rights concern world-wide?
But it's easy to lament and despair.
I wish we would stop that.

I did not see the importance of the meeting with Kim Jong-un in the same light.  In the past North Korea was not only a country with nuclear weapons, but possibly an unstable one far more willing to use them.  To get Kim Jong-un to denuclearize will not occur quicker if we take the tactic of berating him in such a way that he feels demeaned in the eyes of the world.  The "carrot" that was offered was if he agreed to our terms oppressive sanctions could be lessened or dropped.  North Korea is suffering economically by being isolated and it is hoped that their dictator might see the value of saving his people internally even as he is assured of the protection of his own sovereignty.  There is no doubt that he and the regimes that preceded him are guilty of untold human rights violations.  It is certainly hoped that a more open country may in time move away from the worst of this. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on February 28, 2019, 02:26:34 PM

Concern over our relations with North Korea on the part of the USA is more important than the size or economic strength of the country might suggest.  They share a boarder with a US ally whom we have pledged to defend and has a history of invading, also they posses nuclear weapons and if not current means, the likely capability to deliver them in the near future to US allies in the Far East and US territory in the area and possibly the west coast of the continental US.  The North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un, is by all accounts a despicable person and tyrant and even less stable than Pres. Donald Trump.  Cozying up with this despicable person, lavishing him with praise is distasteful, but if that is the price of gaining a just peace and greater security for Korea, perhaps worth it.  I'm reminded of the story, perhaps apocryphal, of Winston's Churchill's rejoinder about criticism concerning allying with Stalin and Russia, "If Hitler invaded hell, I would at least make a favorable reference to the devil in the House of Commons."  Making nice to such a despicable person is preferable to lobbing nukes at each other.


All of this means that like it or not, we have a great deal of reason to have to deal with him.  To ignore him could well end up to be like ignoring a gangrenous toe because it is distasteful to look at or contemplate.  The difficult question is how best to deal with him.


To suggest that this second summit with Kim was timed to distract from the testimony of Michael Cohen is on the face of it ridiculous.  The timing and preparation that went into setting this up, I believe, predated the scheduling of Michael Cohen.  If anything, I suspect the timing went the other way, that Michael Cohen's testimony was timed to undercut this summit. 


Apparently, the summit ended in failure.  Pres. Trump did not reach a deal to denuclearize Korea, and cut the summit short after having praised and courted Kim Jung Un.  Most of the media also did not allow the summit to distract them from their favored story of Michael Cohen's testimony and the failure to produce the desired results meant that the summit could not be touted as such an overwhelming success as to eclipse Cohen.


So, is Trump's Korean diplomacy an abject failure?  Seems to me it is an abject failure only if we let it be so and stop trying to deal with North Korea.  If the summit was a failure for Trump, seems to me it was an even greater failure for Kim.  He came wanting to have all economic sanctions lifted and was prepared to give a little (and just a little) in order to achieve that.  Perhaps the last summit and the current political climate in Washington convinced him the Trump would be easy pickings, so eager and needy for the supposed win that he would make a disastrous deal to gain that "win."  Precisely what so many pundits feared going into the summit.  Instead, Trump walked away.  Tragic if this were the end instead of chapter 3 or 4 with more chapters to come in the story.  Kim lost also and found out that Trump is not a pushover.  It remains to be seen where we go from here, but as one step in a long process this might not turn out so bad in the end.  At least everybody has found out that Trump is not a sucker who will give away the store for a quick and essentially meaningless win.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on February 28, 2019, 06:12:40 PM
Sorry to be the stickler, but impeachment is the process of bringing an accusation against a civil officer.  In that light, Andrew Johnson did not escape impeachment, but was in fact impeached.

What he escaped was conviction at his removal trial.

In fact, two presidents have been impeached.  Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton.  Neither were convicted and removed from office by the Senate.


Richard Nixon was never impeached, he resigned before that could happen.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Linda on March 06, 2019, 11:30:08 AM
Since the thread head is the fate of the nation, I read on the internet (!) that Lutheran Relief receives $70k per refugee they bring in.  Is this true or a big fat lie?

Linda
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on March 06, 2019, 11:32:15 AM
I doubt it, but take the website where you read that and ask LIRS about it.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Linda on March 06, 2019, 11:43:12 AM
Maybe some one who knows will respond.

Linda
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: RDPreus on March 06, 2019, 12:22:02 PM
The penny ante corruption charges against Donald Trump pale into insignificance when considered in light of the vast majority of Democrats in both the House and the Senate voting to support legal killing of babies all the way to their birth.  What savagery!  How can any civilized Christian look at such barbarism and deem Trump's business practices and leadership style of more significance to the fate of our nation?  Donald Trump is no existential threat to America, but supporting politicians who vote for legal baby-killing and ordaining practicing homosexuals as pastors most certainly is an existential threat to the church.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on March 06, 2019, 01:28:13 PM
Apparently anti-Semitism is once again becoming respectable in the halls of Congress.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: MaddogLutheran on March 06, 2019, 02:39:24 PM
And that dastardly regressive Republican Party caucus in the House can't even agree to condemn its offending member, a self-righteous evangelical blowhard.  Oh wait, hold on a minute...
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Linda on March 09, 2019, 02:48:13 PM
Looks like lirs  gets the vast majority of its money from the taxpayers. 

Linda
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dave Benke on March 10, 2019, 11:15:06 AM
Looks like lirs  gets the vast majority of its money from the taxpayers. 

Linda

This is true.  And it has always been true, from LIRS' first days settling Germans and other Europeans in the aftermath of WWII.  There are nine agencies designated by the federal government to organize around migration/refugee and other such services in the US.  LIRS is one of the nine.

At the same time, LIRS has witnessed an extraordinary upturn in donations from individuals and congregations in the last two years.  Across the various Lutheran boundaries in this country, thousands of new individuals have seen the need for an immigration and refugee/asylum-seeker agency that represents the Lutheran biblical perspective on care, welcome and accompaniment for the stranger. 

Dave Benke
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Linda on March 10, 2019, 08:50:30 PM
Serious question:  are the refugees that lirs brings into this country people that respect and uphold our constitution?

Linda
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dave Likeness on March 10, 2019, 09:07:23 PM
When we observe the impact of Christianity on the daily life of Americans, it is necessary to take note
of various trends in our culture.  Life Way Research did a study of the 2018 statistics for Protestant
congregations in America.

57% of Protestant churches have fewer than 100 people attending worship each Sunday.
(This includes the 21% of parishes who average fewer than 50 people each Sunday)

At the other end of the spectrum, 11% of churches average 250 or more for their worship services.

Bottom Line: Weekly worship continues to be less important for many Christians in America.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on March 10, 2019, 09:22:17 PM
Some people are having President Trump sign their Bibles. What do you think that says?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on March 10, 2019, 09:32:35 PM
Some people are having President Trump sign their Bibles. What do you think that says?
A prominent member of the House not only bad mouths Pres. Trump (she’s a Democrat, that’s expected) but also. Dumps on Pres. Obama, Reagan and FDR.  Does she figure that there has ever been a good US President before she came on the scene to tell us all what we should do?  What do you think of that?


Back when Obama was running for office and newly elected some people portrayed him in Messianic terms and imagery.  What do you think of that?


People will think and do strange things.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on March 10, 2019, 09:39:30 PM
I think she has a lot to learn about being in Congress and public life. She is young, very young compared to the xenophobic, trash-talkers cheering for a wall and most House Republicans who won’t speak up.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Keith Falk on March 10, 2019, 10:19:41 PM
Some people are having President Trump sign their Bibles. What do you think that says?


Evidently - and I did not know this - having people sign Bibles in the South is not unusual.  Ed Stetzer tweeted about it.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven W Bohler on March 10, 2019, 10:52:04 PM
When I was a youngster, Carrol Dale and Mike McCoy (two players for the Green Bay Packers) spoke at a pan-Christian function.  I got their autographs.  In my little pocket New Testament.  What do you think that says, Rev. Austin? 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on March 11, 2019, 12:06:33 AM
I have no idea.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on March 11, 2019, 08:08:13 AM
Some people are having President Trump sign their Bibles. What do you think that says?
Serious question: why do you care?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on March 11, 2019, 08:41:33 AM
I wrote:
Some people are having President Trump sign their Bibles. What do you think that says?
Peter writes:
Serious question: why do you care?

I comment:
Serious answer: Call it an insatiable curiosity about cultural practices, pious rituals, political theater and local customs.
Call it a wondering about people's use of their Bibles. Carry them to a political rally? Desire to get the president's signature on the cover? Why is that? How many signatures are scrawled across these Bibles? Are rock stars there? Other politicos? Your girl- or boy-friend? Your English teacher or football coach?
Call it continual pondering about the way conservative Christians look at the president. (The current references to Cyrus strike me as particularly goofy.) This is a man who - when asked directly - cannot cite a favorite Bible verse; waffles on picking New Testament or Old Testament, and whose life has pretty much gone exactly not the way these conservative Christians believe one should live.
Call it another way of reminding myself that - as silly as signing a Bible might be - there are things going on in our land more important than whether a woman dares to read the Bible at a worship service.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven W Bohler on March 11, 2019, 08:54:58 AM
Rev. Austin,

The current president has nothing on the previous president when it comes to messianic expressions, hopes, and appellations.  Remember the school kids being drilled in singing their praises with "Barak Hussein Obama -- Mmmm"?  Can't think of any hymns written to President Trump.  Remember "We're the ones we're waiting for"?  Remember "...generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth"? 

Every politician, it seems, makes big promises and claims.  And each must be bigger than the last, to justify why HE should be elected in place of the other.  At least Trump was only promising to make America great again, rather than fix poverty and heal disease and change the course of nature.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on March 11, 2019, 10:29:26 AM
I wrote:
Some people are having President Trump sign their Bibles. What do you think that says?
Peter writes:
Serious question: why do you care?

I comment:
Serious answer: Call it an insatiable curiosity about cultural practices, pious rituals, political theater and local customs.
Call it a wondering about people's use of their Bibles. Carry them to a political rally? Desire to get the president's signature on the cover? Why is that? How many signatures are scrawled across these Bibles? Are rock stars there? Other politicos? Your girl- or boy-friend? Your English teacher or football coach?
Call it continual pondering about the way conservative Christians look at the president. (The current references to Cyrus strike me as particularly goofy.) This is a man who - when asked directly - cannot cite a favorite Bible verse; waffles on picking New Testament or Old Testament, and whose life has pretty much gone exactly not the way these conservative Christians believe one should live.
Call it another way of reminding myself that - as silly as signing a Bible might be - there are things going on in our land more important than whether a woman dares to read the Bible at a worship service.
There are no possible theological issues-- not women lectors, not how many angels can balance on the tip of a needle, not arguments about the color of the carpeting in the narthex-- less important than this story about "some people."
   
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Terry W Culler on March 11, 2019, 11:03:00 AM
I admit to being perturbed by people who would ask the President to sign their Bibles. I'm hopeful that no one who has ever sat under my teaching would do such a thing, but then again …. I do agree, the man knows as much about Christianity as I do about nuclear power stations and I find myself uncomfortable with the way some Christians idolize him.  There is, unfortunately,  a certain segment of American Christianity that confuses faith in Christ with national patriotism and conservative theology with conservative politics. Still, people do all sorts of things and I don't think anyone would have cared about this event had it not been for the nature of social media to turn every little thing into some kind of crisis. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on March 11, 2019, 11:37:33 AM
Pastor Bohler writes:
Every politician, it seems, makes big promises and claims.  And each must be bigger than the last, to justify why HE should be elected in place of the other.  At least Trump was only promising to make America great again, rather than fix poverty and heal disease and change the course of nature.
I comment:
So tell me when America became “not great” so “not great” that it needed to be made “great again.”
And surely you do not believe any candidate’s “promise” to “fix poverty” or “heal disease” or “end war.” So that is a non-responsive poof of a post.
And sometimes, these days, that politician is a SHE.
We have changed the course of nature, but maybe you are with the apocalyptic folk who say it’s all coming to an end soon, so why do anything. Do you believe the “course of nature” is such that the world is headed for extreme misery and destruction for everyone in it?

Peter writes:
There are no possible theological issues-- not women lectors, not how many angels can balance on the tip of a needle, not arguments about the color of the carpeting in the narthex-- less important than this story about "some people."
I comment:
Sure there are. What’s your point? Are you offended by the fact that I’m curious about Bible-signing?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on March 11, 2019, 11:48:49 AM

Curiosity I’ll buy, pointing out the apocalyptic implications of a president signing the Bibles of fans, not so much.  Celebrities out signing autographs typically will sign anything thrust at them for signing.  I certainly wouldn’t have Trump sing my Bible, would you have AOC the new darling and bellwether of the Democratic Party sign your Bible?

Why do some Evangelicals fawn over Trump with such religious fervor?  I don’t know, as a Christian he’s not much, I agree.  Why do liberal Protestants fawn over Democrats with such fervor?  Few of them are great shakes as Christians either.

Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dave Likeness on March 11, 2019, 11:52:59 AM
Some may have noticed some restraint in the migrant journalist who fled New Jersey and went to Minnesota.
For this calendar year of 2019, he has been placed on double probation by Dean Vernon Wormer of Faber College.
The removal of his "lifetime ban"  on the ALPB Forum has been challenged and his case could make it to the
U.S. Supreme Court.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven W Bohler on March 11, 2019, 12:16:59 PM
Pastor Bohler writes:
Every politician, it seems, makes big promises and claims.  And each must be bigger than the last, to justify why HE should be elected in place of the other.  At least Trump was only promising to make America great again, rather than fix poverty and heal disease and change the course of nature.
I comment:
So tell me when America became “not great” so “not great” that it needed to be made “great again.”
And surely you do not believe any candidate’s “promise” to “fix poverty” or “heal disease” or “end war.” So that is a non-responsive poof of a post.
And sometimes, these days, that politician is a SHE.
We have changed the course of nature, but maybe you are with the apocalyptic folk who say it’s all coming to an end soon, so why do anything. Do you believe the “course of nature” is such that the world is headed for extreme misery and destruction for everyone in it?

Peter writes:
There are no possible theological issues-- not women lectors, not how many angels can balance on the tip of a needle, not arguments about the color of the carpeting in the narthex-- less important than this story about "some people."
I comment:
Sure there are. What’s your point? Are you offended by the fact that I’m curious about Bible-signing?

1. I do not believe our nation is as "great" now as it was in the past.  That is, it has fallen in terms of morals, educational standards, culture, and a number of other areas.

2. It wasn't Trump (or any Republican) who promised to heal the planet or make the rising oceans fall.  That was Obama (for whom, I am guessing, you voted).  But, no, I do not believe candidates when they make such promises.  Did you believe it when Obama said it?

3. I used "he" in the accepted (at least, accepted when I was in school) sense of general (non-gender specific) pronoun.  I am aware that women are also candidates for political office.  By the way, I still use the words "mankind" and "chairman" and "postman".  Sorry if that offends your delicate sensibilities.  Hey, that is another way in which America is not as great as it used to be: many people seem to get worked up over things like using "he" as a general pronoun.

4. That is kind of the picture one gets from the Bible -- that things will deteriorate and get worse before Christ returns.  But then, again, I believe the Bible.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Eileen Smith on March 11, 2019, 01:19:49 PM
I haven't been on-line or connected to the news in a few days so when I first read a post about Trump signing Bibles I found it a bit odd.  A quick Google search allowed that the recipients of his autograph were victims of the tragic tornados in Alabama -- perhaps those who had lost a loved one or suffered injury to self or personal property.  Trump came to comfort them - a duty all presidents carry out.   Were something as awful to happen in my neck of the woods and a president came I wouldn't ask him to sign my Bible, but if it brought these people some comfort ... is it really so bad?   Perhaps some were family Bibles where the name of a deceased would now be printed and they wanted to put this into context of the time it happened.  Whatever the reason, it offered a momentary balm for their grief. 

In 9/11 grief counseling we were taught that unless a person to whom you are ministering threatens something harmful to him/herself, just be with them.  This seems one of those times. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on March 11, 2019, 02:12:52 PM
But it offends Charles’s delicate sensibilities and is a trigger to his paranoia concerning all things Trump and especially anyone who claims to be Christian and does not absolutely renounce and denounce Trump and all his works and all his wicked ways.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on May 14, 2019, 01:39:25 PM
I wonder if anyone really cares, but I (and other observers smarter than this humble correspondent) noted some things during Mr. Cohen’s testimony about the president. We remember that Mr. Cohen is a man who for 10 years was close to Mr. Trump and his personal and business dealings.
   What do we who campaign for "morality" and integrity - whether of the conservative or progressive type - draw from these things?
   -Are they to be excused because the president might appoint judges favorable to "pro-life" issues?
   -Are they to be excused because we want to "defend our borders"?
   -Can a man whose character flaws are so much on display be trusted with national security?
   -Are there as yet unknown, and possibly even more dangerous things to be discovered by questioning the numerous people close to the president who have been indicted and convicted of various crimes?
   -Do these matters top the relatively narrow series of events which caused President Nixon to resign? 
   During the hours-long hearings this week, Republicans focused on Mr. Cohen’s past admissions of lying to Congress, ignored his confession and his declaration that he was attempting to make amends, and did not probe the substance of Mr. Cohen’s statements about the president.
   I wonder – in response to the concern about Mr. Cohen’s credibility – what people think he has to gain by dissembling now. He is going to jail. He has been disbarred. He will not be allowed to profit from his crimes. He repeatedly expresses concern for his family, even hinting that he fears he has put them in danger.
  We learned some things yesterday.
  Mr. Trump’s troubles might not yet be directly connected to Russia, but certain aspects of the alleged connection seem to be floating into view. The president and his company were indeed involved in business negotiations with Russia during the campaign. Mr. Cohen says he and the president both lied about it.
   The pay offs to Miss Daniels probably constitute a violation of campaign finance laws. And Mr. Trump’s denial of knowledge about the payoffs was a lie.
   The president used Mr. Cohen as a “fixer,” that is, someone who would do anything and use any method including threatening letters to squelch negative news stories or other actions damaging to the campaign.
   Mr. Cohen testified that Mr. Trump regularly lied to banks and other financial institutions, inflating his wealth when he wanted loans, devaluing his assets and properties when he thought it served him. The president also made frequent bigoted remarks about African-Americans and African countries.
  Mr. Cohen’s description of the president included the words, “con-man” and “cheat.”
  As for the medical deferment that kept him from military service, Mr. Cohen said Mr. Trump’s words were “You think I’m stupid? I wasn’t going to Vietnam.”
  (I know a man who did two one-year tours in that war and was both wounded and decorated. He is not given to profane language; but uttered some real nasty words when he heard of that comment.)

We survived the eight years of this man, with God's help and grace. I don't think we need to worry about the fate of the nation under Donald Trump.
1. First President to be photographed smoking a joint.
2. First President to apply for college aid as a foreign student, then deny he was a foreigner.
3. First President to have a social security number from a state he has never lived in.
4. First President to preside over a cut to the credit-rating of the United States.
5. First President to violate the War Powers Act.
6. First President to be held in contempt of court for illegally obstructing oil drilling in the Gulf of Mexico.
7. First President to require all Americans to purchase a product from a third party.
8. First President to spend a trillion dollars on "shovel-ready" jobs when there was no such thing as "shovel-ready" jobs.
9. First President to abrogate bankruptcy law to turn over control of companies to his union supporters.
10. First President to by-pass Congress and implement the Dream Act through executive fiat.
11. First President to order a secret amnesty program that stopped the deportation of illegal immigrants across the U.S., including those with criminal convictions.
12. First President to demand a company hand-over $20 billion to one of his political appointees.
13. First President to tell a CEO of a major corporation (Chrysler) to resign.
14. First President to terminate America’s ability to put a man in space.
15. First President to cancel the National Day of Prayer and to say that America is no longer a Christian nation.
16. First President to have a law signed by an auto-pen without being present.
17. First President to arbitrarily declare an existing law unconstitutional and refuse to enforce it.
18. First President to threaten insurance companies if they publicly spoke out on the reasons for their rate increases.
19. First President to tell a major manufacturing company in which state it is allowed to locate a factory.
20. First President to file lawsuits against the states he swore an oath to protect (AZ, WI, OH, IN).
21. First President to withdraw an existing coal permit that had been properly issued years ago.
22. First President to actively try to bankrupt an American industry (coal).
23. First President to fire an inspector general of AmeriCorps for catching one of his friends in a corruption case.
24. First President to appoint 45 czars to replace elected officials in his office.
25. First President to surround himself with radical left wing anarchists.
26. First President to golf more than 150 separate times in his five years in office.
27. First President to hide his birth, medical, educational and travel records.
28. First President to win a Nobel Peace Prize for doing NOTHING to earn it.
29. First President to go on multiple "global apology tours" and concurrent "insult our friends" tours.
30. First President to go on over 17 lavish vacations, in addition to date nights and Wednesday evening White House parties for his friends paid for by the taxpayers.
31. First President to have personal servants (taxpayer funded) for his wife.
32. First President to keep a dog trainer on retainer for $102,000 a year at taxpayer expense.
33. First President to fly in a personal trainer from Chicago at least once a week at taxpayer expense.
34. First President to repeat the Quran and tell us the early morning call of the Azan (Islamic call to worship) is the most beautiful sound on earth.
35. First President to side with a foreign nation over one of the American 50 states (Mexico vs. Arizona).
36. First President to tell the military men and women that they should pay for their own private insurance because they "volunteered to go to war and knew the consequences."
37. Then he was the First President to tell the members of the military that THEY were UNPATRIOTIC for balking at the last suggestion.

Please note, those 37 statements are easily as honest and accurate as those in this thread's launch post. No more. No less.

Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 14, 2019, 02:50:53 PM
That ridiculous list of inaccuracies and outright lies has appeared  as a letter to the editor in several southern newspapers, each time supposedly with a different author. Some statements have long been proven false by Snopes.com. Others come from sources where they were obvious satire. .Unsubstantiated crap like that has no place in this forum. If you want to criticize someone, find an honest way to do it.

Mr Erdner wrote that his list of slanders was “easily as honest and accurate as those in this thread's launch post.”
I doubt he will accept my challenge to prove that bit of nonsense.
It’s probably time for the moderators to close down this thread. It has pretty much been destroyed.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on May 14, 2019, 04:13:54 PM
That ridiculous list of inaccuracies and outright lies has appeared  as a letter to the editor in several southern newspapers, each time supposedly with a different author. Some statements have long been proven false by Snopes.com. Others come from sources where they were obvious satire. .Unsubstantiated crap like that has no place in this forum. If you want to criticize someone, find an honest way to do it.

Mr Erdner wrote that his list of slanders was “easily as honest and accurate as those in this thread's launch post.”
I doubt he will accept my challenge to prove that bit of nonsense.
It’s probably time for the moderators to close down this thread. It has pretty much been destroyed.

Let's see, Chuck posts a pack of half-truths, lies, and sleazy innuendo about the President of the United States, in a near textbook example of how to shatter the 8th commandment, and that's OK. But if someone posts something negative about the previous President of the United States, whom Chuck believes ejects feces that lack any sort of aroma, then the thread needs to be closed down. Someone daring to throw Chuck's hyperbole right back at him has "destroyed" his carefully made, thoughtful, insightful, and caring thread. And of course, he calls on Snopes.com as "proof", despite the fact that the George Soros funded Snopes website is less reliable than Mexican tap water.

I see little has changed in my absence. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 14, 2019, 06:15:42 PM
I repeat what I said before. Mr. Erdner have you been to Mexico recently? I have. Drank the water and it was just fine.
But I will now try to leave this thread to others. Life is too short to let fools take it over.
I will ask the moderators and others here, do you want postings like that asinine, phony 37-point “list” to be part of the mega-data of this forum?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: James S. Rustad on May 14, 2019, 08:21:03 PM
I repeat what I said before. Mr. Erdner have you been to Mexico recently? I have. Drank the water and it was just fine.
But I will now try to leave this thread to others. Life is too short to let fools take it over.
I will ask the moderators and others here, do you want postings like that asinine, phony 37-point “list” to be part of the mega-data of this forum?

Umm...  What's "mega-data"?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: DeHall1 on May 15, 2019, 09:04:02 AM
I repeat what I said before. Mr. Erdner have you been to Mexico recently? I have. Drank the water and it was just fine.
But I will now try to leave this thread to others. Life is too short to let fools take it over.
I will ask the moderators and others here, do you want postings like that asinine, phony 37-point “list” to be part of the mega-data of this forum?

Umm...  What's "mega-data"?

...."When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.”
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Coach-Rev on May 15, 2019, 11:26:54 AM
Sigh.  Apparently the inadvertent deletion of a bunch of posts didn't go back far enough...   ??? 8)
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: DCharlton on May 15, 2019, 12:42:32 PM
Please note, those 37 statements are easily as honest and accurate as those in this thread's launch post. No more. No less.

George,

You forgot that President Obama:

1. Used drones to assassinate American citizens who were Muslim, without arrest or trial for their alleged crimes.
2. Separated children from parents in ICE detention facilities
3. Put children in "cages" in ICE detention facilities
4. Attempted to force Catholic nuns to pay for contraceptives

Signed, Recovering Obama Voter
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on May 15, 2019, 01:09:09 PM
Much in the news of late, several states have considered/enacted very restrictive abortion laws. These laws have worked their way through normal legislative processes (or are being considered by the regular process) and ultimately signed by duly elected governors. Thus the people have spoken through the officials whom they elected — the will of the people. Majority rules, yes?


We’ve been lectured on these pages how those of us with traditional views of sexuality, gender and marriage are in the minority, outside the mainstream of society, and obliged to follow the rules and laws that the majority enact in those areas or face the consequences and/or retreat to the margins of society and be excluded from regular public life. Pr. Stoffregen’s suggested that we would be like the Amish.


If that is what majority rule means with regard to same sex marriage et. al., why should majority not similarly rule with regard to abortion?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on May 15, 2019, 01:53:09 PM
Sigh.  Apparently the inadvertent deletion of a bunch of posts didn't go back far enough...   ??? 8)

To be "far enough", it would have to start with the initial launch post.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on May 15, 2019, 02:00:23 PM
Much in the news of late, several states have considered/enacted very restrictive abortion laws. These laws have worked their way through normal legislative processes (or are being considered by the regular process) and ultimately signed by duly elected governors. Thus the people have spoken through the officials whom they elected — the will of the people. Majority rules, yes?


We’ve been lectured on these pages how those of us with traditional views of sexuality, gender and marriage are in the minority, outside the mainstream of society, and obliged to follow the rules and laws that the majority enact in those areas or face the consequences and/or retreat to the margins of society and be excluded from regular public life. Pr. Stoffregen’s suggested that we would be like the Amish.


If that is what majority rule means with regard to same sex marriage et. al., why should majority not similarly rule with regard to abortion?

Majority rule? NO! The majority elects the legislators (or at least, that's the theory. Massive voter fraud in off-year elections, especially for state and local offices, is a different issue), but in our republic, the majority-elected legislators may not step on the rights of the minority. The simplest description of "majority rules" is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch.

But, when it comes to "rights", one of the basic common law principles we follow, even though unwritten but supported by many, many precedents, is that legally forbidding or permitting any action is measured against who benefits, who is hurt, and to what degree are the benefits and harms felt by the public. Anything that causes the death of a human being is to be avoided. Anything that offends some people's sensibilities, but that causes minimal, tangible harm need not be avoided. If two homosexuals want to play house and call their relationship a marriage, it might offend some people, but no one is likely to die because of it. But when a baby is aborted, the baby dies.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 15, 2019, 02:08:11 PM
Pastor Fienen writes:
These laws have worked their way through normal legislative processes (or are being considered by the regular process) and ultimately signed by duly elected governors. Thus the people have spoken through the officials whom they elected — the will of the people. Majority rules, yes?
I comment:
No. That is silly. Not always. See below.

Pastor Fienen:
If that is what majority rule means with regard to same sex marriage et. al., why should majority not similarly rule with regard to abortion?
Me:
What “rules” is the constitution. Even validly elected officials, even the majority of our people cannot put into force laws that go against the constitution. And if they try to do that, it is the job of the courts to sort it out.  A majority of our people could  “rule” that it is illegal to be Catholic, or Muslim, or gay. But if laws were put into effect declaring that, it would be up to the courts to declare them unconstitutional. But you know that.
In my not so humble opinion, “majority rules“ is often a mantra used by people who are not getting their own way.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: RDPreus on May 15, 2019, 02:14:35 PM
Pastor Fienen writes:
These laws have worked their way through normal legislative processes (or are being considered by the regular process) and ultimately signed by duly elected governors. Thus the people have spoken through the officials whom they elected — the will of the people. Majority rules, yes?
I comment:
No. That is silly. Not always. See below.

Pastor Fienen:
If that is what majority rule means with regard to same sex marriage et. al., why should majority not similarly rule with regard to abortion?
Me:
What “rules” is the constitution. Even validly elected officials, even the majority of our people cannot put into force laws that go against the constitution. And if they try to do that, it is the job of the courts to sort it out.  A majority of our people could  “rule” that it is illegal to be Catholic, or Muslim, or gay. But if laws were put into effect declaring that, it would be up to the courts to declare them unconstitutional. But you know that.
In my not so humble opinion, “majority rules“ is often a mantra used by people who are not getting their own way.

Are you seriously arguing that the Constitution of the United States guarantees a woman the "right" to have her unborn child killed and that therefore the states of the United States have no authority to pass laws protecting the lives of the unborn from the abortionists' knives?  Is this your argument, Rev. Austin?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on May 15, 2019, 03:02:37 PM
Pastor Fienen writes:
These laws have worked their way through normal legislative processes (or are being considered by the regular process) and ultimately signed by duly elected governors. Thus the people have spoken through the officials whom they elected — the will of the people. Majority rules, yes?
I comment:
No. That is silly. Not always. See below.

Pastor Fienen:
If that is what majority rule means with regard to same sex marriage et. al., why should majority not similarly rule with regard to abortion?
Me:
What “rules” is the constitution. Even validly elected officials, even the majority of our people cannot put into force laws that go against the constitution. And if they try to do that, it is the job of the courts to sort it out.  A majority of our people could  “rule” that it is illegal to be Catholic, or Muslim, or gay. But if laws were put into effect declaring that, it would be up to the courts to declare them unconstitutional. But you know that.
In my not so humble opinion, “majority rules“ is often a mantra used by people who are not getting their own way.

Are you asserting that there is a Constitutionally protected right to abortion?


Is there a Constitutional right to free exercise of religion?


You know that there is. In the promulgation of same sex marriage there are really two related but distinct questions.


1) Should same sex couples be able to enter into a legally recognized union that is in many ways analogous or equivalent to marriage with the attendant rights, privileges and benefits?


It would seem that we have majority agreement in the affirmative and a Supreme Court ruling to that effect. The religious beliefs of some do not necessarily over rule the will of the majority.


2) Should the rights of same sex couples to enter into such a union supersede the rights of individuals to freely practice their religion including declining to participate in ceremonies and celebrations of same sex unions by providing goods and services for such ceremonies and celebrations if their religion forbids such participation?


Note, it seems at least arguable (and is a different argument than what I am pursuing here) that same sex marriage cannot legally be prevented. But does that extend to forcing people to violate their religious beliefs by being conscripted into aiding and abetting such ceremonies?


It does not really matter here whether or not you or I agree that it is against Christian teaching and morality to create a wedding cake, flower arrangements, photographic representation and the like for same sex weddings. For some, their religious beliefs forbid it.


Just because apparently the majority of people approve of same sex marriage does not negate the Constitutionally protected right of free exercise of religion, any more than the will of the majority of the people of Alabama would negate the right of abortion.


Any rule or law that burdens the right of free exercise of religion should need to meet strict scrutiny of the necessity of that law.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 15, 2019, 03:19:55 PM
Go for it, Pastor Fienen.
Answer your own questions. But do so by citing the Constitution, the rulings that interpret it, and the laws that put its principles into action.
I don’t think you will do that. You will construct your own questions and settings in ways that produce the answers you desire.
But I will answer one of your questions, at least provisionally.
Yes, the rights of same-sex couples to marry exist under our constitution, even if those rights are not in line with your religious beliefs. That has nothing to do with “majority rules” as noted above.
And if your religious beliefs mean you must ban gay married couples from renting your hotel rooms, you are free to do that. But be prepared to pay the penalty.
Familiar territory, right? That’s why I don’t have any new answers to your questions.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 15, 2019, 03:39:16 PM
No, Pastor Preus, I am not making that argument. Nice try. I am not taking the bait.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Coach-Rev on May 15, 2019, 04:03:01 PM
two posts, both questioning you, Charles, and the apparent claim you conclude with that the constitution guarantees the right to an abortion.  In one, you dismiss it because the constitution, case law, and whatever else were not cited.  (I call BS on that, especially since you yourself did not cite such).

The second, you dismiss by claiming you "are not going to take the bait."

Can't have it both ways, Charles.  Either you as well cite case law, and we all know how that works since interpretation of law changes from generation to generation, or you withdraw your statements entirely.

Come to think of it, I'm with George on this one:  The whole thread was a shallow, tribalistic attempt at you trying to justify your beliefs once again, and to elicit negative responses so you could play your usual victim card as soon as someone calls BS.  Too bad the server error didn't wipe clean entire threads... 8)
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on May 15, 2019, 04:29:58 PM
Go for it, Pastor Fienen.
Answer your own questions. But do so by citing the Constitution, the rulings that interpret it, and the laws that put its principles into action.
I don’t think you will do that. You will construct your own questions and settings in ways that produce the answers you desire.
But I will answer one of your questions, at least provisionally.
Yes, the rights of same-sex couples to marry exist under our constitution, even if those rights are not in line with your religious beliefs. That has nothing to do with “majority rules” as noted above.
And if your religious beliefs mean you must ban gay married couples from renting your hotel rooms, you are free to do that. But be prepared to pay the penalty.
Familiar territory, right? That’s why I don’t have any new answers to your questions.

OK, refusing to rent hotel rooms to a same sex couple, not permitted no matter what the owner's religious beliefs. But what about a different situation. You are asked to exercise your artistic and culinary talents and expertise to bake a wedding cake and/or cater a same sex wedding celebration. Should the baker's religious beliefs and rights be considered or should he be simply free to refuse and have his business closed down as in violation of whatever laws govern that kind of business or fined into bankruptcy?


Or this, a group of churches band together to offer social services to their community. This ministry is supported by donations from church members and concerned citizens, volunteers donating their time, energy and expertise, and contracts with local governmental agencies to carry out social services in the community. Part of the religious beliefs of the consortium of churches who sponsor this agency is that children should not be place for fosterage or adoption with same sex couples. Is it a violation of their religious free exercise rights to a) refuse to renew their contract for providing these services unless they agree to equally serve same sex couples; or b) their license to provide these services (necessary legally to provide fosterage or adoption services at all, whether or not they receive governmental funding)?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on May 15, 2019, 04:41:47 PM

In my not so humble opinion, “majority rules“ is often a mantra used by people who are not getting their own way.

Agreed, and that also applies to progressives who use the weight of their perceived majority to try to steam roller those benighted traditionalists who claim their Constitutional rights even when the majority dismiss them and their concerns.  Aren't you often telling me that my side is on the wrong side of history, the majority of society are against us and our own children will reject our beliefs?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 15, 2019, 05:45:15 PM
Pastor Cottingham writes:
Two posts, both questioning you, Charles, and the apparent claim you conclude with that the constitution guarantees the right to an abortion.
I comment:
Read more carefully. And you will read that I do not make that claim.
To pastor Fienen:
You keep asking the same questions, expecting to trip me up, or find a way to get the Answer you desire. Not working very well, is it?
But I will say it one more time. If you use public funds, funds channeled to your organization through our government, then our government has the right to determine certain ways you may or may not use those funds.  If you want to run your adoption agency without using any government funds, then I will defend your right to say your agency will not place children in the homes of same-sex couples.
But it still may be that in order to protect children and deal with other concerns, your agency might require a license to operate. It may be that you do not have an absolute religious right to operate an adoption agency according to your religious principles. And surely you do not contend that to practice the Christian faith, one absolutely must operate an adoption agency?
Done here? After explaining this a hundred times? I hope so.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Coach-Rev on May 15, 2019, 06:29:00 PM
Read mine more carefully and you'll discover I never said you did.  Next time I will put it in quotations to make it easier for you to understand.  Now how about addressing the real subject of my post, which you fail to quote?

Pastor Cottingham writes:
Two posts, both questioning you, Charles, and the apparent claim you conclude with that the constitution guarantees the right to an abortion.
I comment:
Read more carefully. And you will read that I do not make that claim.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 15, 2019, 06:40:59 PM
OK. You referred to an “apparent claim.” I’m telling you the claim is only “apparent”, it is not true.  I do not make that claim. If you want, take it up with people who do.
That should be the end of the discussion.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: RDPreus on May 15, 2019, 07:42:49 PM
No, Pastor Preus, I am not making that argument. Nice try. I am not taking the bait.

I'm not trying to bait you, Rev. Austin.  I asked a question and you answered it.  Based on your response to a post from Rev. Fienen, it appeared to me that you believed the Constitution protected the "right" to kill an unborn baby.  I'm glad to see that I was wrong.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on May 15, 2019, 09:54:26 PM
The right to an abortion derives from an invented, extra-constitutional right to privacy, which, if it really were a human right, would prevent the workings of the IRS and the income tax.

The people who today think of Roe v. Wade as practically part of the constitution are also publicly worried that the SCOTUS might overturn it. If they did overturn it, of course, suddenly in the eyes of progressives SCOTUS rulings would become once again very fallible guides to the real meaning of the constitution, at least until a new ruling got it right.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Richard Johnson on May 15, 2019, 09:54:31 PM
Sigh.  Apparently the inadvertent deletion of a bunch of posts didn't go back far enough...   ??? 8)

I actually was sort of hoping it would go forward . . .
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on May 16, 2019, 12:14:29 AM
In March 1857, the Supreme Court issued a 7–2 decision against Dred Scott. In an opinion written by Chief Justice Roger Taney, the Court ruled that black people "are not included, and were not intended to be included, under the word 'citizens' in the Constitution, and can therefore claim none of the rights and privileges which that instrument provides for and secures to citizens of the United States." Taney supported his ruling with an extended survey of American state and local laws from the time of the Constitution's drafting in 1787 purporting to show that a "perpetual and impassable barrier was intended to be erected between the white race and the one which they had reduced to slavery." Because the Court ruled that Scott was not an American citizen, any federal lawsuit he filed automatically failed because he could never establish the "diversity of citizenship" that Article III of the U.S. Constitution requires for an American federal court to be able to exercise jurisdiction over a case.

Anyone who blindly accepts that the Supreme Court is inerrant, and its rulings are Holy Writ and above question or dispute, has to also accept Dredd Scott.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Eileen Smith on May 16, 2019, 09:04:41 AM
The right to an abortion derives from an invented, extra-constitutional right to privacy, which, if it really were a human right, would prevent the workings of the IRS and the income tax.

The people who today think of Roe v. Wade as practically part of the constitution are also publicly worried that the SCOTUS might overturn it. If they did overturn it, of course, suddenly in the eyes of progressives SCOTUS rulings would become once again very fallible guides to the real meaning of the constitution, at least until a new ruling got it right.

Wish there was a 'like' button.  Griswold v. Connecticut paved the way for a decision based on a flaws understanding of hte Constitution.  When no part of the Constitution could allow the right to privacy the justices used the argument that privacy fell into the penumbra of the Constitution; that is, if we can bear arms, have freedom of speech, of religion, etc. then we must have privacy. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on May 18, 2019, 12:26:10 PM
It does not really matter here whether or not you or I agree that it is against Christian teaching and morality to create a wedding cake, flower arrangements, photographic representation and the like for same sex weddings. For some, their religious beliefs forbid it.

Just because apparently the majority of people approve of same sex marriage does not negate the Constitutionally protected right of free exercise of religion, any more than the will of the majority of the people of Alabama would negate the right of abortion.

Any rule or law that burdens the right of free exercise of religion should need to meet strict scrutiny of the necessity of that law.


The government also has the responsibility of determining what constitute the "exercise of a religion." For example, what religious practices will be supported in federal and state prisons. We support kosher diets. We don't support providing doves or goats for sacrifices should adherents claim that such animals are necessary for the exercise of their religion. There was an issue some years ago about the use of peyote among Native Americans as part of their religious practices. As I recall, some Christian churches sided with the Natives lest the state apply the law against serving alcohol to minors to our communion practices.


An individual nor even a group of people cannot just decide to create a religion that uses cocaine as part of exercising their religion. The State will not see it as a protected exercise of their religion. Even though we know that it is an ancient religious practice that goes back to Old Testament times, the sacrifice of children, would not be accepted by our government as an exercise of religion no matter how many people believed that it was necessary to appease the anger of their god.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on May 18, 2019, 12:32:05 PM

In my not so humble opinion, “majority rules“ is often a mantra used by people who are not getting their own way.

Agreed, and that also applies to progressives who use the weight of their perceived majority to try to steam roller those benighted traditionalists who claim their Constitutional rights even when the majority dismiss them and their concerns.  Aren't you often telling me that my side is on the wrong side of history, the majority of society are against us and our own children will reject our beliefs?


I stated years ago, and confirmed my suspicion with my own children that among a vast majority of our children and grandchildren, homosexual relationships is basically a non-issue. That was even evident in the informal and flawed survey regarding our Social Statement on sexuality. Generally, the younger the respondents, the more likely they were to accept homosexual relationships. At least on that issue, children and grandchildren do not believe the same as the older generations.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on May 18, 2019, 01:12:40 PM

In my not so humble opinion, “majority rules“ is often a mantra used by people who are not getting their own way.

Agreed, and that also applies to progressives who use the weight of their perceived majority to try to steam roller those benighted traditionalists who claim their Constitutional rights even when the majority dismiss them and their concerns.  Aren't you often telling me that my side is on the wrong side of history, the majority of society are against us and our own children will reject our beliefs?


I stated years ago, and confirmed my suspicion with my own children that among a vast majority of our children and grandchildren, homosexual relationships is basically a non-issue. That was even evident in the informal and flawed survey regarding our Social Statement on sexuality. Generally, the younger the respondents, the more likely they were to accept homosexual relationships. At least on that issue, children and grandchildren do not believe the same as the older generations.

Since, if your impression is correct that a majority of the younger generation considers homosexuality a non issue, does that mean that the religious rights of others need not be even considered?


Or are you suggesting that we should put our doctrinal or moral teaching to a vote and if a supermajority of the younger generations vote to change what has been taught that we should change it?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on May 18, 2019, 01:28:18 PM

In my not so humble opinion, “majority rules“ is often a mantra used by people who are not getting their own way.

Agreed, and that also applies to progressives who use the weight of their perceived majority to try to steam roller those benighted traditionalists who claim their Constitutional rights even when the majority dismiss them and their concerns.  Aren't you often telling me that my side is on the wrong side of history, the majority of society are against us and our own children will reject our beliefs?


I stated years ago, and confirmed my suspicion with my own children that among a vast majority of our children and grandchildren, homosexual relationships is basically a non-issue. That was even evident in the informal and flawed survey regarding our Social Statement on sexuality. Generally, the younger the respondents, the more likely they were to accept homosexual relationships. At least on that issue, children and grandchildren do not believe the same as the older generations.

Since, if your impression is correct that a majority of the younger generation considers homosexuality a non issue, does that mean that the religious rights of others need not be even considered?


Or are you suggesting that we should put our doctrinal or moral teaching to a vote and if a supermajority of the younger generations vote to change what has been taught that we should change it?


Yup, that's what will happen in our democratic church systems. Who would've thunk 150 years ago that there would be women voting in our congregations? Or 100 years ago that there would be female ministers? Or 50 years ago that there would be openly homosexual clergy? The legislative bodies of our churches has voted to allow some things that previous generations wouldn't have thought possible.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on May 18, 2019, 01:50:24 PM

Once again I state that I do not affirm, suggest or say that the right to free exercise of religion recognized in the First Amendment always and in every case overrules every other right or consideration. What I do assert is that the First Amendment protects the rights of people to freely practice their religion even if it is a minority religion and even if the majority disagrees with what it teaches and practices. Thus, when a governmental rule burdens a person's free exercise of his religion, that burden should be subject to strict scrutiny and justification.  There will be times when that burden is justified, right and proper. But that justification cannot be simply assumed or asserted, it should be demonstrated.


A standard for such justification was enacted in the Religious Freedom Justification Act. In that Act a federal law or rule that imposes a burden on an individual or group's religious exercise must be for a compelling governmental interest and must be the least restrictive method for achieving that governmental interest. There are certainly cases where governmental rules and laws meet that standard and thus burdening the right of free exercise is justified. But that does not mean that every time a governmental entity asserts its right to burden religious exercise to further some particular goal or cause, religious rights should automatically lose.


Homosexuals have rights. So do people whose religion teaches that homosexual activity is sinful. Obviously those rights at times clash. Should an anti same sex marriage organization have the right to go to a homosexual baker who supports same sex marriage and demand that the baker bake for them a cake and decorate it with anti same sex marriage slogans? Should a homosexual couple have the right to go to a baker whose religion objects to same sex marriage and demand that the baker bake and decorate a cake for them to celebrate their same sex marriage. If the answer is different for these two scenarios, why?


That some rules that prohibit discrimination against homosexuals may be justified, does not automatically mean that every such rule is justified. If it is legal and justified to demand that a hotel owner rent rooms to homosexual couples even if he believes that such coupling is immoral, then would it be legal and justified to demand that a pastor and/or church where people are sometimes married must marry same sex couples? If not, then we have demonstrated that not every assertion of the rights of same sex couples overrules religious rights.


The question is where to draw the line between what is a compelling governmental interest and what does not meet that standard. I've heard many assertions that traditionally minded religious people must conform to our current legal recognition of same sex marriage or pay the penalty. What I hear less of is a recognition that religious people have rights that must be considered and reasons why in these cases those rights need to be overruled.


Religious rights should not automatically overrule the rights of homosexuals. But the rights of homosexuals should not automatically overrule the rights of religious people either.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on May 18, 2019, 01:52:00 PM

In my not so humble opinion, “majority rules“ is often a mantra used by people who are not getting their own way.

Agreed, and that also applies to progressives who use the weight of their perceived majority to try to steam roller those benighted traditionalists who claim their Constitutional rights even when the majority dismiss them and their concerns.  Aren't you often telling me that my side is on the wrong side of history, the majority of society are against us and our own children will reject our beliefs?


I stated years ago, and confirmed my suspicion with my own children that among a vast majority of our children and grandchildren, homosexual relationships is basically a non-issue. That was even evident in the informal and flawed survey regarding our Social Statement on sexuality. Generally, the younger the respondents, the more likely they were to accept homosexual relationships. At least on that issue, children and grandchildren do not believe the same as the older generations.

Since, if your impression is correct that a majority of the younger generation considers homosexuality a non issue, does that mean that the religious rights of others need not be even considered?


Or are you suggesting that we should put our doctrinal or moral teaching to a vote and if a supermajority of the younger generations vote to change what has been taught that we should change it?


Yup, that's what will happen in our democratic church systems. Who would've thunk 150 years ago that there would be women voting in our congregations? Or 100 years ago that there would be female ministers? Or 50 years ago that there would be openly homosexual clergy? The legislative bodies of our churches has voted to allow some things that previous generations wouldn't have thought possible.

So ultimately it is not Scripture or the Confessions that determine doctrine but majority vote? Get enough people to vote out Jesus as God and he is demoted.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on May 18, 2019, 01:52:51 PM

The government also has the responsibility of determining what constitute the "exercise of a religion."

Which government(s)?  Why?

Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on May 18, 2019, 01:57:03 PM
Generally, the younger the respondents, the more likely they were to accept homosexual relationships. At least on that issue, children and grandchildren do not believe the same as the older generations.


They younger the respondents, the more likely they believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.  And then most learn what was acceptable when they were younger is not as they had thought.

Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on May 18, 2019, 02:03:44 PM
The government also has the responsibility of determining what constitute the "exercise of a religion."

Ultimately, someone will need to determine what is a legitimate religion and what is a scam set up to try to gain an advantage by pretending to be a religion.


The danger is that if we too freely let government decide what is and what is not an exercise of a religion, then we end up with the government simply allowing those ideas and practices that those in power like or agree with and ruling out what does not meet their biases.


One of the function that religion serves in our liberal democracy is that of an alternative source of ideas and authority to that of those in governmental power. During the 60's, one of the major sources of dissent to the Viet Nam war was from religious people. That proved quite annoying to many in the government. Should they have been allowed to rule that dissent to the war was not a legitimate free exercise of religion and then silence them? Should the government now be allowed to decide that dissent to same sex marriage is not a legitimate free exercise of religion and silence dissent?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 18, 2019, 02:31:57 PM
Pastor Fienen persists:
Should the government now be allowed to decide that dissent to same sex marriage is not a legitimate free exercise of religion and silence dissent?
I comment:
Sigh! Dissent all you want, dissent by day, dissent by night, dissent in your sleep, and in every waking hour if your faith calls you to do
But same sex marriage exists in our society. And if you run a company offering benefits to your employees based on their marital status, you may not discriminate against those who are in same-sex marriages. This does not mean you religiously accept the validity of their marriage. And I don’t see how it in any sense violates your freedom of religion.
O what a Well-trampled and weary road this is!
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on May 18, 2019, 03:20:56 PM
Pastor Fienen persists:
Should the government now be allowed to decide that dissent to same sex marriage is not a legitimate free exercise of religion and silence dissent?
I comment:
Sigh! Dissent all you want, dissent by day, dissent by night, dissent in your sleep, and in every waking hour if your faith calls you to do
But same sex marriage exists in our society. And if you run a company offering benefits to your employees based on their marital status, you may not discriminate against those who are in same-sex marriages. This does not mean you religiously accept the validity of their marriage. And I don’t see how it in any sense violates your freedom of religion.
O what a Well-trampled and weary road this is!
OK, benefits for married people must be extended to same sex couples. Could an homosexual baker be permitted to discriminate against someone who dissents from same sex marriage by refusing to bake and decorate a cake with anti same sex marriage slogans for an anti same sex marriage rally?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 18, 2019, 04:03:25 PM
Good grief! Forget those tiresome bakers for a minute. Can that be possible for you, Pastor Fienen?
Tell me, in clear, specific, terms how the legality of gay marriage infringes on your religious rights?
In what way does the existence of gay marriage prohibit you from exercising your faith?
Is your faith compromised, if you sell gasoline to a gay couple on their honeymoon?
Is your faith compromised if they buy a donut at your 7–11?
Is Your faith compromised if you witness them signing the mortgage when buying a cabin at the lake?
Most importantly, Do you believe that the Christian faith requires anyone to deny goods or services to a gay couple?
If you do, Then I believe you have a warped view of the Christian faith. But I do not think you believe that way. So I do not understand why you are so absolutely obsessed in bringing up those tiresome bakers.
Let me put it as bluntly as possible. If a baker believes his faith means he cannot bake a cake for a gay wedding, and if the law says that by not making that cake you are violating the civil rights of the gay couple, then that Baker needs to face the full force of the law.
And you and I will support that, because we think his objection to baking a cake for a gay wedding is nuts.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on May 18, 2019, 05:33:36 PM
Good grief! Forget those tiresome bakers for a minute. Can that be possible for you, Pastor Fienen?
Tell me, in clear, specific, terms how the legality of gay marriage infringes on your religious rights?
In what way does the existence of gay marriage prohibit you from exercising your faith?
The existence and legality of gay marriage does not in itself infringe on my religious rights. I am entitled to hold and speak that I think granting the status of marriage to same sex couples is a bad idea for our nation, do I not? But the existence of gay marriage in itself does not infringe on my rights.
Is your faith compromised, if you sell gasoline to a gay couple on their honeymoon?
Is your faith compromised if they buy a donut at your 7–11?
Is Your faith compromised if you witness them signing the mortgage when buying a cabin at the lake?
Does a person who sells a legal item in any way participate in the purpose for which that item is used? Be careful how you answer. A person sets up an establishment to sell legal beverages to people who are by age qualified to buy such potent potables. He has also obtained the necessary permits to run such an establishment. Should that person have any legal responsibilities or liabilities as to the use that customers make of the item, say to drive drunk?

Should gun manufacturers be held liable for a death caused by the use of their product? One of the hot tactics of the gun control movement is to sue gun manufacturers and hold them liable when their product is used to kill people. Do you agree with that? If so, you are suggesting that people who provide goods or services should have an interest in how those goods and services should be used. Even if under current law they could not be held legally liable, would you say that gun manufacturers should have a moral concern about how their product is used? I know of no gun manufacturer who markets their weapon as an excellent tool to commit mass murder.

How much concern should a business person have for the use to which their product is used? Even if there were no legal liability to concern a barkeep about whom he serves drinks and how much, shouldn't he have a moral obligation to exercise reasonable care that patrons are not drinking detrimental amounts or driving away drunk? Wouldn't a barkeep who serves a customer until drunk and watches that customer take out the key to his car, be in a way participating in that immoral drunkenness or impaired driving and the consequences thereof?

It is a good question how far a person should feel obliged to be concerned about the use to which a product sold will be used, or to feel that in providing that product they are in a way participating in the use. But to say that a business person should have no concern, or feel no connection to the end use seems a bit extreme on the other side.

A motel owner rents out a room to a man who has a couple of women with him and observes more women coming and going and men coming to the room at regular intervals. Should it be of no concern to him that the room might be being used for prostitution, or the women coerced into servicing the clients? He only rented the room, what business is it of his to what use the room is put?

---------

A professional writer offers his services to people who want something written. Sometimes he might write on spec, writes and then offers it for sale to anyone who might want it.  Sometimes he might write on commission. Someone comes to him and wants something written and offers to pay the going rate for such writing. If a writer ever writes on commission, does he have a right to turn down a potential client because he does not like what the article he would be commissioned to write says. For example, a gay writer receives an offer to write an article opposing and denouncing gay marriage. Does he have the right to refuse the commission because he is opposed to what that commission says, or might be used for? Does he not have a responsibility to treat all potential customers in a nondiscriminatory manner, no matter what they want him to create?

Writers write, artists paint and sculpt, bakers create confections. There is a certain artistry to baking, especially when one is asked to bake and decorate for a particular occasion. Would it be wrong for a baker to refuse to bake and decorate in anti same sex decorations a cake for an anti same sex marriage gathering if he himself supports same sex marriage? If not why would it be wrong for a baker to refuse to bake and decorate in same sex decorations for a same sex marriage if he considers same sex marriage immoral?
Most importantly, Do you believe that the Christian faith requires anyone to deny goods or services to a gay couple?
If you do, Then I believe you have a warped view of the Christian faith. But I do not think you believe that way. So I do not understand why you are so absolutely obsessed in bringing up those tiresome bakers.
Let me put it as bluntly as possible. If a baker believes his faith means he cannot bake a cake for a gay wedding, and if the law says that by not making that cake you are violating the civil rights of the gay couple, then that Baker needs to face the full force of the law.
And you and I will support that, because we think his objection to baking a cake for a gay wedding is nuts.
Have you never heard the quotation by Evelyn Beatrice Hall,"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Apparently you disagree. If you disagree with what someone says or does, you will oppose with might and main their right to say or do it.

Charles, you have on occasion expressed your disagreement with, displeasure in and disapproval of the Fox News organization. You consider them not a good news organization. Perhaps you think them nuts. Would you say that because they are in your estimation such a lousy news organization that they should not have the same First Amendment rights of Freedom of the Press as are enjoyed by say, CNN, MSNBC or the NYT?  Who gets to decide who is nuts and therefore have no rights and who are sane and reasonable and so should enjoy the rights normally accorded to such people?
[/quote]
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 18, 2019, 06:55:34 PM
I give up. I am sorry I raised the question, and I think that, once again, I just give up in total frustration. Do you ever, ever, Pastor Fienen, Reach a conclusion?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on May 18, 2019, 08:19:36 PM
I long ago gave you my conclusions, naturally you rejected them since they didn’t agree with yours so I must be wrong. So I discuss the bases of my conclusions but you aren’t interested in discussing that, only that people agree with you.


My conclusion is this: both traditional Christians who oppose same sex marriage and homosexuals have rights that need to be recognized and considered. Finding was to reconcile these rights and strike an accommodation is difficult, ultimately likely a matter for the courts. Almost inevitably nobody is going to be completely satisfied.


Your conclusion seems to be that the rights of same sex couples needs to always dictate conclusions and those of Christians who do not agree with you will always have their rights disregarded if they conflict with those of same sex couples. No matter their nuts anyway so what’s the bother.


This is not as easy as “Christians (Muslims, Orthodox Jews) step aside and comply” but as some on this forum remind us, life is messy.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on May 18, 2019, 08:48:36 PM
I stated years ago, and confirmed my suspicion with my own children that among a vast majority of our children and grandchildren, homosexual relationships is basically a non-issue. That was even evident in the informal and flawed survey regarding our Social Statement on sexuality. Generally, the younger the respondents, the more likely they were to accept homosexual relationships. At least on that issue, children and grandchildren do not believe the same as the older generations.

Certainly a damning condemnation of the decay of our Sunday School system. When parents and church congregations refuse to teach children anything, no one should be surprised when those children grow up knowing nothing. I suspect that at the age of 67, I'm among the last generation to have been taught that there is right, and there is wrong. And as I recall, being taught right from wrong wasn't just a home or church thing. We were taught that in schools and even in entertainment media.

We don't do that any more. And haven't for decades. Now, we reap what we've sown.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on May 18, 2019, 10:26:26 PM
Religious rights should not automatically overrule the rights of homosexuals. But the rights of homosexuals should not automatically overrule the rights of religious people either.


There are also rights and responsibilities and rules for business people. While Christians may not see a great difference between their rights as Christians and their rights as business owners; the State does see distinctions. Religious organizations, like churches, can discriminate on religious grounds. The congregation will not consider anyone off the street to be called as their next pastor. They won't even consider every ordained person as candidates for their new pastor. Only those on the ELCA roster who are recommended by our synod. I don't believe a public bakery or flower shop can use such religious criteria in hiring new people. Job application forms for such non-religious businesses cannot ask about religious affiliations.


https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/inquiries_religious.cfm (https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/inquiries_religious.cfm)
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on May 18, 2019, 10:31:49 PM

The government also has the responsibility of determining what constitute the "exercise of a religion."

Which government(s)?  Why?


I gave an answer in the post with my example: federal and state governments so as to know what religious practices they will support in prison. When a friend went to work as a chaplain in a federal prison, she said that the government had guidelines to determine what was and wasn't religious practices. (She didn't share with me what they were.) Such issues as a kosher diet, or eating time during Ramadan, or allowing wine to be used for communion, or peyote for Native religious services, or turbans, or live chickens for sacrifices are issues that come up in prisons and the military - or any federal or state agency in regards to allowing time off for religious holidays.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on May 18, 2019, 10:35:51 PM
So ultimately it is not Scripture or the Confessions that determine doctrine but majority vote? Get enough people to vote out Jesus as God and he is demoted.


It is up to the President/Presiding Bishop of the assembly to rule "out of order" any resolutions that are in conflict with the Constitution and Bylaws of the organization. This includes, for our church bodies, the statements in those legal documents about our reliance on scriptures and our Confessions.


Roberts Rules state that even if it is a unanimous vote for something in conflict with the organization's constitution, it does not pass. The chair should have prevented a vote from ever happening.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on May 18, 2019, 10:36:57 PM
Generally, the younger the respondents, the more likely they were to accept homosexual relationships. At least on that issue, children and grandchildren do not believe the same as the older generations.


They younger the respondents, the more likely they believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy.  And then most learn what was acceptable when they were younger is not as they had thought.


No one that young responded to the questionnaire that was part of the draft study. I'm sure that you knew that.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on May 18, 2019, 10:40:08 PM
One of the function that religion serves in our liberal democracy is that of an alternative source of ideas and authority to that of those in governmental power. During the 60's, one of the major sources of dissent to the Viet Nam war was from religious people. That proved quite annoying to many in the government. Should they have been allowed to rule that dissent to the war was not a legitimate free exercise of religion and then silence them? Should the government now be allowed to decide that dissent to same sex marriage is not a legitimate free exercise of religion and silence dissent?


When those dissenting from the war for religious reasons broke civil laws, they were arrested. Those who refused to pay federal taxes because they didn't want their money going to support the war, were arrested, fined and had to pay their taxes. (A legal way of not paying taxes is to have incomes so low that there is no tax liability. Some did that. They were not arrested.)
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on May 18, 2019, 10:44:40 PM
Pastor Fienen persists:
Should the government now be allowed to decide that dissent to same sex marriage is not a legitimate free exercise of religion and silence dissent?
I comment:
Sigh! Dissent all you want, dissent by day, dissent by night, dissent in your sleep, and in every waking hour if your faith calls you to do
But same sex marriage exists in our society. And if you run a company offering benefits to your employees based on their marital status, you may not discriminate against those who are in same-sex marriages. This does not mean you religiously accept the validity of their marriage. And I don’t see how it in any sense violates your freedom of religion.
O what a Well-trampled and weary road this is!
OK, benefits for married people must be extended to same sex couples. Could an homosexual baker be permitted to discriminate against someone who dissents from same sex marriage by refusing to bake and decorate a cake with anti same sex marriage slogans for an anti same sex marriage rally?


It's been determined that bakers can refuse to write offensive things on a cake. A baker can refuse to bake a cake in the shape of a penis. (Although, apparently, there are some who will do that. There was such a cake on a reality show - although the camera didn't actually show the cake.)

Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on May 18, 2019, 11:00:42 PM
I stated years ago, and confirmed my suspicion with my own children that among a vast majority of our children and grandchildren, homosexual relationships is basically a non-issue. That was even evident in the informal and flawed survey regarding our Social Statement on sexuality. Generally, the younger the respondents, the more likely they were to accept homosexual relationships. At least on that issue, children and grandchildren do not believe the same as the older generations.

Certainly a damning condemnation of the decay of our Sunday School system. When parents and church congregations refuse to teach children anything, no one should be surprised when those children grow up knowing nothing. I suspect that at the age of 67, I'm among the last generation to have been taught that there is right, and there is wrong. And as I recall, being taught right from wrong wasn't just a home or church thing. We were taught that in schools and even in entertainment media.

We don't do that any more. And haven't for decades. Now, we reap what we've sown.


I'm 69. Over the decades of my life, I've learned that many of the rights we were taught were wrong; and what was wrong may not have been so wrong. I grew up before civil rights. We even had civil laws about what was right and wrong about the "coloreds". Those laws were wrong. We were taught that we had to wait until confirmation (and we knew enough) before receiving communion; a tri-panel of Lutherans (ALC, LCA, & LCMS) decided in 1968, that was wrong. First communion should be separated from confirmation. They recommended fifth grade for first communion. At seminary, they had decided that was wrong, and began communing about age two. Now, we are permitted, if we want, to offer communion at an infant's baptism (like the Orthodox do).


Even in our churches, we've seen the rules change. Woman were ordained. Divorced pastors were able to continue serving the congregation.


We might also consider the plethora of biblical translations. Growing up there was only the King James Version. Then then "liberal" churches used the Revised Standard Version. (It was a major debate with the SBH of 1958 whether to use RSV or KJV for the psalms. Olde English won.) We could more easily talk about the "right" translation. Today, there is no "right" translations. I've got a couple dozen of them on my shelf. I can find something good and something not so good about all of them.


A speaker noted this change in thinking: when he was growing up, the family bought a board game, they read the rules, then they played the game according to the rules. He said that his children play video games. Often there are no rules. They learn what works by trial and error. Then when they master one level, the next level may have new rules that they have to learn by trial and error. Talking about unchangeable rules probably doesn't make much sense to a video-game generation.

Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on May 18, 2019, 11:56:06 PM

The government also has the responsibility of determining what constitute the "exercise of a religion."

Which government(s)?  Why?

I gave an answer in the post with my example: federal and state governments so as to know what religious practices they will support in prison.


We're not prisoners, who having been convicted of crimes are being punished with limitations of their liberties.  We're free citizens.  You repeatedly fail to notice that distinction whenever you post on freedom of religion. 

And I hope you meant "permit" rather than "support."  The sloppiness with which you speak of civil liberties (and many other matters under this topic (https://alpb.org/Forum/index.php?topic=7167.msg458847#msg458847)) is astonishing -- and frightening.

Try again.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: readselerttoo on May 19, 2019, 07:50:53 AM
So ultimately it is not Scripture or the Confessions that determine doctrine but majority vote? Get enough people to vote out Jesus as God and he is demoted.


It is up to the President/Presiding Bishop of the assembly to rule "out of order" any resolutions that are in conflict with the Constitution and Bylaws of the organization. This includes, for our church bodies, the statements in those legal documents about our reliance on scriptures and our Confessions.


Roberts Rules state that even if it is a unanimous vote for something in conflict with the organization's constitution, it does not pass. The chair should have prevented a vote from ever happening.

Hopefully the confessional section of the constitution stands apart from the constitution itself.  Or, by your statement above, it sounds as if the ELCA has control over the confession.  It doesn't.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven W Bohler on May 19, 2019, 07:56:48 AM
One of the function that religion serves in our liberal democracy is that of an alternative source of ideas and authority to that of those in governmental power. During the 60's, one of the major sources of dissent to the Viet Nam war was from religious people. That proved quite annoying to many in the government. Should they have been allowed to rule that dissent to the war was not a legitimate free exercise of religion and then silence them? Should the government now be allowed to decide that dissent to same sex marriage is not a legitimate free exercise of religion and silence dissent?


When those dissenting from the war for religious reasons broke civil laws, they were arrested. Those who refused to pay federal taxes because they didn't want their money going to support the war, were arrested, fined and had to pay their taxes. (A legal way of not paying taxes is to have incomes so low that there is no tax liability. Some did that. They were not arrested.)

And did you applaud their arrests and fines?  Did you just shrug your shoulders and say, "Well, they had it coming to them for not following the laws"?  My guess is that you did not.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven W Bohler on May 19, 2019, 08:05:42 AM
Good grief! Forget those tiresome bakers for a minute. Can that be possible for you, Pastor Fienen?
Tell me, in clear, specific, terms how the legality of gay marriage infringes on your religious rights?
In what way does the existence of gay marriage prohibit you from exercising your faith?
Is your faith compromised, if you sell gasoline to a gay couple on their honeymoon?
Is your faith compromised if they buy a donut at your 7–11?
Is Your faith compromised if you witness them signing the mortgage when buying a cabin at the lake?
Most importantly, Do you believe that the Christian faith requires anyone to deny goods or services to a gay couple?
If you do, Then I believe you have a warped view of the Christian faith. But I do not think you believe that way. So I do not understand why you are so absolutely obsessed in bringing up those tiresome bakers.
Let me put it as bluntly as possible. If a baker believes his faith means he cannot bake a cake for a gay wedding, and if the law says that by not making that cake you are violating the civil rights of the gay couple, then that Baker needs to face the full force of the law.
And you and I will support that, because we think his objection to baking a cake for a gay wedding is nuts.

You ask: "Most importantly, Do you believe that the Christian faith requires anyone to deny goods or services to a gay couple?"

I perform weddings.  That is a service.  I believe the Christian faith requires me to deny that service to a homosexual couple. 

A couple of years ago, a neighboring LCMS pastor told our circuit pastors meeting that he had received a phone call from an organization that was "compiling a list" of churches that would -- or would not -- perform weddings for homosexual couples.  The implication was clear: sooner or later, there will be a challenge to churches that refuse to perform weddings for homosexual couples.  So, homosexual "marriage" DOES compromise -- even threaten -- the Christian faith.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on May 19, 2019, 12:04:56 PM

The government also has the responsibility of determining what constitute the "exercise of a religion."

Which government(s)?  Why?

I gave an answer in the post with my example: federal and state governments so as to know what religious practices they will support in prison.


We're not prisoners, who having been convicted of crimes are being punished with limitations of their liberties.  We're free citizens.  You repeatedly fail to notice that distinction whenever you post on freedom of religion. 

And I hope you meant "permit" rather than "support."  The sloppiness with which you speak of civil liberties (and many other matters under this topic (https://alpb.org/Forum/index.php?topic=7167.msg458847#msg458847)) is astonishing -- and frightening.


My point was to show that the government does decide what is an "exercise of religion" and what is not. The prisons is an example where they do this. Another example was when a man was fined for holding church services in his house, which was not zoned for such activities. The state determined that what he was doing was holding a church service, even if he argued against it.


I do mean "support". The prison provides kosher meals. They don't just "allow" some outside group to bring in the special meals for religious reasons.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 19, 2019, 12:06:34 PM
Pastor Bohler, how does the compiling of a list like that threaten you? Perhaps it was just to make a list.
   What was the "implication" that someone would come after you if you did not do same-gender weddings?
   What was said to indicate that?
   Are you failing to put the best construction on an effort which may actually be innocuous and may even be a service to you? (Oh, that church doesn't do these weddings; so we won't bother them.)
   It seems to me that since the Roman Catholic Church will not do same gender weddings; and since a huge numbers of Republican legislators are Roman Catholics of the conservative strip, government action against churches that won't marry same sex people is rather unlikely.
   But just in case, here's my promise. If any government agency ever comes after your congregation because it does not do same-gender weddings, I pledge to be among the first to write letters, lobby legislators and even come and take part in demonstrations of support.
   I'm ready to meet you on the picket line or outside the courtroom.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on May 19, 2019, 12:18:40 PM
So ultimately it is not Scripture or the Confessions that determine doctrine but majority vote? Get enough people to vote out Jesus as God and he is demoted.


It is up to the President/Presiding Bishop of the assembly to rule "out of order" any resolutions that are in conflict with the Constitution and Bylaws of the organization. This includes, for our church bodies, the statements in those legal documents about our reliance on scriptures and our Confessions.


Roberts Rules state that even if it is a unanimous vote for something in conflict with the organization's constitution, it does not pass. The chair should have prevented a vote from ever happening.

Hopefully the confessional section of the constitution stands apart from the constitution itself.  Or, by your statement above, it sounds as if the ELCA has control over the confession.  It doesn't.


Yes, the ELCA could in an assembly, vote to change the constitutional articles under our Confession of Faith. However, if such amendments are proposed by the church council they require 2/3 majority of those voting at a churchwide assembly. If the amendments come from at last 25 voting members at a churchwide assembly, it requires 2/3 majority at two separate churchwide assemblies.



Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on May 19, 2019, 12:20:58 PM
One of the function that religion serves in our liberal democracy is that of an alternative source of ideas and authority to that of those in governmental power. During the 60's, one of the major sources of dissent to the Viet Nam war was from religious people. That proved quite annoying to many in the government. Should they have been allowed to rule that dissent to the war was not a legitimate free exercise of religion and then silence them? Should the government now be allowed to decide that dissent to same sex marriage is not a legitimate free exercise of religion and silence dissent?


When those dissenting from the war for religious reasons broke civil laws, they were arrested. Those who refused to pay federal taxes because they didn't want their money going to support the war, were arrested, fined and had to pay their taxes. (A legal way of not paying taxes is to have incomes so low that there is no tax liability. Some did that. They were not arrested.)

And did you applaud their arrests and fines?  Did you just shrug your shoulders and say, "Well, they had it coming to them for not following the laws"?  My guess is that you did not.


I honestly thought, "That's the price they have to pay for their actions." I also looked at the legal ways one can protest and not face such consequences, such as reducing one's income so as to legally not pay taxes.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on May 19, 2019, 12:27:12 PM
I perform weddings.  That is a service.  I believe the Christian faith requires me to deny that service to a homosexual couple. 


Does your Christian faith require you to deny marriages services to heterosexual couples whom you don't believe are fit to be married? After a very poor response on Prepare/Enrich I was going to suggest to a couple that they needed to get to know each other better before getting married. Fortunately, they realized that before I said anything.



I've known other pastors will refuse to do weddings if the couple is not willing to go through their pre-marital classes. I've known pastors who will only do weddings if the bride or groom is a member of the congregation. They see themselves as the shepherd of their flock - not a "Marrying Sam" for the community.


I believe that we pastors have always had control over who we were willing to marry or not.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on May 19, 2019, 06:18:54 PM
You ask: "Most importantly, Do you believe that the Christian faith requires anyone to deny goods or services to a gay couple?"

Perhaps some common sense should apply here. A baker should bake cakes and sell them to anyone who wants to buy them. However, when asked to decorate said cake with offensive things like the name of two men (or two women), and place to little statues of two men (or two women) on top of the cake, then a line has been crossed. No baker should refuse to sell a "generic" cake to anyone. But, he should be free to honor his own personal religious scruples in turning a generic cake into an advertisement for something that falls outside of his personal scruples.

Why is such simple, common sense so rare nowadays?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on May 20, 2019, 01:06:06 PM
Moderator's note: I deleted a very annoying series of comments. Please do not respond to, refer to, or otherwise engage with people who get under your skin or whose opinions you consider beneath the possibility of taking seriously.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy
Post by: Charles Austin on May 20, 2019, 01:54:31 PM
Peter, if that suggestion were followed in our civil life, no one would ever be able to criticize the current Trump administration. Presidential campaigns would have to shut down. Late night talk show comics would have to go off the air. Editorial cartoonists would be out of work. Fox News would be off the air. (OK, so it wouldn’t be all bad.)
That’s because in public discussion, people can take a little rough and tumble.
If you think someone is a ridiculous fool, it’s OK to say so.
If you think that an idea stinks like a sewer, people don’t mind if you say that.
But here, in this supposedly I guess, “sacred” space, we are supposed to pretend that every idea has some kind of merit, and that every person has some “noble” status. (Except of course, For those of us called heretics, un-Biblical, liars, or non-Lutheran. Or for those one-line snarky dismissals of the comments of certain participants.)
OK.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy
Post by: peter_speckhard on May 20, 2019, 02:21:52 PM
Peter, if that suggestion were followed in our civil life, no one would ever be able to criticize the current Trump administration. Presidential campaigns would have to shut down. Late night talk show comics would have to go off the air. Editorial cartoonists would be out of work. Fox News would be off the air. (OK, so it wouldn’t be all bad.)
That’s because in public discussion, people can take a little rough and tumble.
If you think someone is a ridiculous fool, it’s OK to say so.
If you think that an idea stinks like a sewer, people don’t mind if you say that.
But here, in this supposedly I guess, “sacred” space, we are supposed to pretend that every idea has some kind of merit, and that every person has some “noble” status. (Except of course, For those of us called heretics, un-Biblical, liars, or non-Lutheran. Or for those one-line snarky dismissals of the comments of certain participants.)
OK.
Did the newspapers you worked for publish every letter to the editor they got in the mail? I doubt it. Sometimes it is not what one says but the vitriol with which one says it that makes a post problematic.

Nobody cares who you think is a ridiculous fool. Nobody logs on to to find the latest opinions about who is a ridiculous fool, not because there is a rule against thinking that about anyone (or we'd all be disqualified) but because this forum is not the place for expressing that kind of opinion, and it makes the discussions tedious to have to wade through the back and forth that you consistently get into with other people.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 20, 2019, 05:49:05 PM
Just a note, Peter, that I am not the only participant here who gets involved in “back-and-forth” chitchat of the sort that you seem to dislike.
But carry-on. I’ll find other ways to deal with my “ridiculous fool list.” ( which, by the way, isn’t really that long. )
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 22, 2019, 01:01:17 PM
The president says he will not negotiate with Democrats until they “quit investigating him.”
Is that responsible? Is it even legal? He is refusing to comply with valid subpoenas. What about that? Should a president be able to tell members of Congress what they must do before he will even talk to them? He came to what was supposed to be a discussion meeting, issued his ultimatum, and walked out to denounce and the other participants in the meeting to the media. The “staging” of the event suggests that he never intended to talk to the people at the meeting Even though he blamed his accident on something speaker Pelosi said just before the meeting.
Is this the action of a man we should respect?
Speaker Pelosi, At her news conference, Democrats were eager to discuss the issues that were supposed to be discussed at the meeting, calling the president’s actions  “very strange.” She says she will pray for the president. And that she feared for our country.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on May 22, 2019, 02:15:55 PM
The president says he will not negotiate with Democrats until they “quit investigating him.”
Is that responsible? Is it even legal? He is refusing to comply with valid subpoenas. What about that? Should a president be able to tell members of Congress what they must do before he will even talk to them? He came to what was supposed to be a discussion meeting, issued his ultimatum, and walked out to denounce and the other participants in the meeting to the media. The “staging” of the event suggests that he never intended to talk to the people at the meeting Even though he blamed his accident on something speaker Pelosi said just before the meeting.
Is this the action of a man we should respect?
Speaker Pelosi, At her news conference, Democrats were eager to discuss the issues that were supposed to be discussed at the meeting, calling the president’s actions  “very strange.” She says she will pray for the president. And that she feared for our country.

The question of complying with valid subpoenas is not quite so simple. Congress has powers, privileges, and areas of concern so to deal with those areas Congressional Committees may issue subpoenas. But the Executive Branch also has powers, privileges, and areas of concern. In our system of government the Congress is not superior in authority to the Executive or vice versa. Ultimately, it will be up to the Judiciary Branch to adjudicate the conflicting claims and it will no doubt end up on the docket of the Supreme Court.


As I understand it, a subpoena is not the same as a search warrant. If a police officer comes up to your door and demands to search your house, you do not have to comply. If he comes up to your door with a valid search warrant, that is an order that has been signed by a judge, then you must comply. A Congressional subpoena is stronger than an officer at the door with no papers, but it is still subject to appeal. That we will no doubt be seeing soon. But to expect the President and his staff to simply submit to Congressional subpoenas without question would be like expecting Congress to blindly obey the President's orders. As we have seen time and again with the current Congress, past Congresses, FBI, police, and other investigative bodies and agencies, being called in for questioning is not always just a neutral search for information, but can be a fishing expedition or an attempt to provoke with long questioning inconsistencies that can then be used to press charges if of nothing else of lying. People are well advised to have legal representation when being question even if (rather, especially if) innocent of the crimes being investigated.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on May 22, 2019, 02:58:37 PM
The president says he will not negotiate with Democrats until they “quit investigating him.”
Is that responsible? Is it even legal? He is refusing to comply with valid subpoenas. What about that? Should a president be able to tell members of Congress what they must do before he will even talk to them? He came to what was supposed to be a discussion meeting, issued his ultimatum, and walked out to denounce and the other participants in the meeting to the media. The “staging” of the event suggests that he never intended to talk to the people at the meeting Even though he blamed his accident on something speaker Pelosi said just before the meeting.
Is this the action of a man we should respect?
Speaker Pelosi, At her news conference, Democrats were eager to discuss the issues that were supposed to be discussed at the meeting, calling the president’s actions  “very strange.” She says she will pray for the president. And that she feared for our country.

The question of complying with valid subpoenas is not quite so simple. Congress has powers, privileges, and areas of concern so to deal with those areas Congressional Committees may issue subpoenas. But the Executive Branch also has powers, privileges, and areas of concern. In our system of government the Congress is not superior in authority to the Executive or vice versa. Ultimately, it will be up to the Judiciary Branch to adjudicate the conflicting claims and it will no doubt end up on the docket of the Supreme Court.


As I understand it, a subpoena is not the same as a search warrant. If a police officer comes up to your door and demands to search your house, you do not have to comply. If he comes up to your door with a valid search warrant, that is an order that has been signed by a judge, then you must comply. A Congressional subpoena is stronger than an officer at the door with no papers, but it is still subject to appeal. That we will no doubt be seeing soon. But to expect the President and his staff to simply submit to Congressional subpoenas without question would be like expecting Congress to blindly obey the President's orders. As we have seen time and again with the current Congress, past Congresses, FBI, police, and other investigative bodies and agencies, being called in for questioning is not always just a neutral search for information, but can be a fishing expedition or an attempt to provoke with long questioning inconsistencies that can then be used to press charges if of nothing else of lying. People are well advised to have legal representation when being question even if (rather, especially if) innocent of the crimes being investigated.

It should also be noted that not even Congress can issue a subpoena for an unredacted document if the redacted material must, by law, remain secret. When there is information on a document that is still subject to a Grand Jury investigation, and therefore MUST remain secret, it would be a violation of statute law, legally passed by Congress and signed by the President, to reveal that information. Not even a Congressional subpoena can overrule a legally passed law.

There is also a legal principle called "barratry". (https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/barratry (https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/barratry)) That refers to the use of repeated bogus lawsuits to harass someone. The never-ending stream of bogus accusations and investigations the "loyal opposition" is subjecting our President to is similar, though not quite identical, to barratry. So far, the only thing that the politically motivated investigations that House Democrats keep pushing for have only revealed serious, and even felonious, actions on the part of Democrat Party officials.

Frankly, when it comes to what politicians claim, one must look at their track record of honesty and consistency before believing anything that they say. If Nancy Pelosi says she was somewhere to accomplish some particular thing, I would not take her word for her motivation. She has too long of a history of lying to be automatically trusted. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. Attempt to fool me every time you've opened your mouth for decades, and I'm not going to listen to you. (And yes, I recognize I'm using the rhetorical tool of hyperbole. If anyone has a problem with that, they can sue me.)
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 22, 2019, 03:13:22 PM
Pastor Fienen, Ignoring the real issue, namely that the man in the oval office seems totally unhinged, writes:
But to expect the President and his staff to simply submit to Congressional subpoenas without question would be like expecting Congress to blindly obey the President's orders.
I comment:
He is surrounded by lawyers. And on television, we hear what scholars and lawyers not hired to protect Donald Trump say, which is “obey”!

Pastor Fienen:
As we have seen time and again with the current Congress, past Congresses, FBI, police, and other investigative bodies and agencies, being called in for questioning is not always just a neutral search for information, but can be a fishing expedition or an attempt to provoke with long questioning inconsistencies that can then be used to press charges if of nothing else of lying.
Me:
And we are back to recalling “those other guys“ again. And, by the way, lying to federal investigators is indeed a crime.

Pastor Fienen:
People are well advised to have legal representation when being question even if (rather, especially if) innocent of the crimes being investigated.
Me:
See above. He is surrounded by lawyers. Are you suggesting he doesn’t have “legal representation”?
Are you so eager to protect Donald Trump that you do not see the threats to our constitution and indeed to our nation’s most cherished legal principles that are being attacked and undermined here?
Or, if you are not protecting Donald Trump, what is your point in making these obvious and mostly irrelevant statements? Our nation’s top legislators, and some of our nation’s top legal experts are suggesting that the president is very very wrong. Why do you keep searching for ways to say that this is not true?  Or that they are wrong?
He says he will not cooperate with Congress until Congress stops doing what they are elected to do or until they stop investigating him which is their perfect right to do.
And I won’t even discuss the ridiculous and random “tweets” Or other actions that make him appear to be a spoiled and petulant preteen.
Mr. Erdner says he does not believe speaker Pelosi because he contends, without citing examples, that she has lied for decades. It would be interesting to hear if he believes the president, who has lied and lied and lied and lied to us constantly for the last two years. Somebody ask him.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: David Garner on May 22, 2019, 03:39:33 PM
Pastor Fienen, Ignoring the real issue, namely that the man in the oval office seems totally unhinged, writes:
But to expect the President and his staff to simply submit to Congressional subpoenas without question would be like expecting Congress to blindly obey the President's orders.
I comment:
He is surrounded by lawyers. And on television, we hear what scholars and lawyers not hired to protect Donald Trump say, which is “obey”!

Pastor Fienen:
As we have seen time and again with the current Congress, past Congresses, FBI, police, and other investigative bodies and agencies, being called in for questioning is not always just a neutral search for information, but can be a fishing expedition or an attempt to provoke with long questioning inconsistencies that can then be used to press charges if of nothing else of lying.
Me:
And we are back to recalling “those other guys“ again. And, by the way, lying to federal investigators is indeed a crime.

Pastor Fienen:
People are well advised to have legal representation when being question even if (rather, especially if) innocent of the crimes being investigated.
Me:
See above. He is surrounded by lawyers. Are you suggesting he doesn’t have “legal representation”?
Are you so eager to protect Donald Trump that you do not see the threats to our constitution and indeed to our nation’s most cherished legal principles that are being attacked and undermined here?
Or, if you are not protecting Donald Trump, what is your point in making these obvious and mostly irrelevant statements? Our nation’s top legislators, and some of our nation’s top legal experts are suggesting that the president is very very wrong. Why do you keep searching for ways to say that this is not true?  Or that they are wrong?
He says he will not cooperate with Congress until Congress stops doing what they are elected to do or until they stop investigating him which is their perfect right to do.
And I won’t even discuss the ridiculous and random “tweets” Or other actions that make him appear to be a spoiled and petulant preteen.
Mr. Erdner says he does not believe speaker Pelosi because he contends, without citing examples, that she has lied for decades. It would be interesting to hear if he believes the president, who has lied and lied and lied and lied to us constantly for the last two years. Somebody ask him.

I think I understand why Pastor Austin so often (falsely) attributes fear as a motivator to his interlocutors. 

Because Pastor Austin is scared right now.  And he thinks if this is how he approaches politics, then others must do the same.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: DeHall1 on May 22, 2019, 03:56:54 PM
....Are you so eager to protect Donald Trump that you do not see the threats to our constitution and indeed to our nation’s most cherished legal principles that are being attacked and undermined here?...
WRT President Trump, I pretty much take a Doug Adams' approach to him:
     "The President in particular is very much a figurehead — he wields no real power whatsoever. He is apparently chosen by the government, but the qualities he is required to display are not those of leadership but those of finely judged outrage. For this reason the President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character. His job is not to wield power but to draw attention away from it...."

With that said -- What "threats to our constitution and indeed to our nation’s most cherished legal principles"...are being "attacked and undermined" here?

Can you point to the section(s) that give congress power to investigate the executive branch?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on May 22, 2019, 04:17:18 PM
Pastor Fienen, Ignoring the real issue, namely that the man in the oval office seems totally unhinged, writes:
But to expect the President and his staff to simply submit to Congressional subpoenas without question would be like expecting Congress to blindly obey the President's orders.
I comment:
He is surrounded by lawyers. And on television, we hear what scholars and lawyers not hired to protect Donald Trump say, which is “obey”!

Pastor Fienen:
As we have seen time and again with the current Congress, past Congresses, FBI, police, and other investigative bodies and agencies, being called in for questioning is not always just a neutral search for information, but can be a fishing expedition or an attempt to provoke with long questioning inconsistencies that can then be used to press charges if of nothing else of lying.
Me:
And we are back to recalling “those other guys“ again. And, by the way, lying to federal investigators is indeed a crime.

Pastor Fienen:
People are well advised to have legal representation when being question even if (rather, especially if) innocent of the crimes being investigated.
Me:
See above. He is surrounded by lawyers. Are you suggesting he doesn’t have “legal representation”?
Are you so eager to protect Donald Trump that you do not see the threats to our constitution and indeed to our nation’s most cherished legal principles that are being attacked and undermined here?
Or, if you are not protecting Donald Trump, what is your point in making these obvious and mostly irrelevant statements? Our nation’s top legislators, and some of our nation’s top legal experts are suggesting that the president is very very wrong. Why do you keep searching for ways to say that this is not true?  Or that they are wrong?
He says he will not cooperate with Congress until Congress stops doing what they are elected to do or until they stop investigating him which is their perfect right to do.
And I won’t even discuss the ridiculous and random “tweets” Or other actions that make him appear to be a spoiled and petulant preteen.
Mr. Erdner says he does not believe speaker Pelosi because he contends, without citing examples, that she has lied for decades. It would be interesting to hear if he believes the president, who has lied and lied and lied and lied to us constantly for the last two years. Somebody ask him.
Yes, he is surrounded by lawyers. Do you suppose that those lawyers are telling him not to comply to the subpoenas? And yes some other lawyers, especially those serving as TV pundits, may disagree. Is it that strange that lawyers might disagree as to what the law demands? I’m sure eventually SCOTUS will be called upon to sort this out.


Meanwhile you are like the man who only has a hammer in his tool box. Everything is a nail equivalent or is irrelevant. The only thing that matters to you is demonstrating that Trump is an unhinged criminal occupant of the White House. Anything that does not demonstrate that is irrelevant, any opinion that does not support that is off the wall and anti-American, seeking the detriment of our country because it does not fostering the expulsion of Trump from the WH. There is no other facts, no other point of view that are worthy of being even considered if it does not support your conclusion.


I will leave you to have the last word as is your want.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on May 22, 2019, 04:18:53 PM
Can you point to the section(s) that give congress power to investigate the executive branch?


Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

The right to impeach requires the ability to investigate the charges.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on May 22, 2019, 05:19:04 PM
If one has followed politics for the past few decades, one either already knows the many, many lies Nancy Pelosi has told, or one is in a state of denial and refuses to believe that her lies were really lies. It is therefore a waste of time to provide "evidence" to someone who has demonstrated that he won't accept any evidence that conflicts with his personal perceptions. I have better things to do with my time than carry out a fool's errand like searching for citations to confirm what any knowledgeable person already knows.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 22, 2019, 05:39:00 PM
Pastor Fienen:
Meanwhile you are like the man who only has a hammer in his tool box. Everything is a nail equivalent or is irrelevant. The only thing that matters to you is demonstrating that Trump is an unhinged criminal occupant of the White House.
Me:
“I” don’t demonstrate that, but it is likely that the facts will. And I wish I did not believe it to be true.

Pastor Fienen:
Anything that does not demonstrate that is irrelevant, any opinion that does not support that is off the wall and anti-American, seeking the detriment of our country because it does not fostering the expulsion of Trump from the WH.
Me:
Never said that. Do not believe that.

Pastor Fienen:
There is no other facts, no other point of view that are worthy of being even considered if it does not support your conclusion.
Me:
And what facts are you considering? So far as I can tell, none.

Pastor Fienen:
I will leave you to have the last word as is your want.
Me:
No, I “want” a discussion where you express an informed opinion. (P.S. It’s “wont”.)
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on May 22, 2019, 05:46:22 PM
I try to express my opinion (I’m no lawyer but I don’t think that I am totally uninformed) but it is either ignored by you or dismissed as irrelevant. I could guess what you would consider a discussion of informed opinion but you wouldn’t like my guess.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: RPG on May 22, 2019, 09:07:23 PM
Can you point to the section(s) that give congress power to investigate the executive branch?


Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

The right to impeach requires the ability to investigate the charges.
As I understand it, a bill of impeachment must be officially in the works (i.e. a stated goal of the subpoena) before such investigative tools have real staying power and the ability to withstand legal scrutiny. That said, I am not a constitutional lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.

"High crimes and misdemeanors" means pretty much whatever the House of Representatives says it means. If that's the road they want to take, I say have at it--that's how the system is supposed to work. As of yet, though,  they haven't. Their leadership is (wisely, in my estimation of the *nationwide* political climate) holding such efforts at bay. For how long is another question. The cultural and political diviide is widening by the day and nearing the point of no return, I fear. I fervently hope I am wrong.

RPG+ 

 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: James S. Rustad on May 23, 2019, 09:08:13 AM
Can you point to the section(s) that give congress power to investigate the executive branch?


Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

The right to impeach requires the ability to investigate the charges.

Congress has no right to impeach.  Congress has the power to impeach.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on May 23, 2019, 11:51:55 AM
Can you point to the section(s) that give congress power to investigate the executive branch?


Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

The right to impeach requires the ability to investigate the charges.

Congress has no right to impeach.  Congress has the power to impeach.


Since they are given the power to impeach, they have the responsibility and right to exercise that power when appropriate.


According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "to impeach" means: "to call into question the integrity or validity of (a practice)." Thus, it is congress's responsibility to question the integrity or validity or practices of the executive branch. Or, as a subpost: "chiefly US to charge (the holder of a public office) with misconduct."


From others who have read it, the Mueller report includes acts of misconduct, namely, obstruction of justice. If Bill Clinton could be impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice in regards to the sexual misconduct charges by Paula Jones; it seems that the perjury and obstruction of justice in regards to the Russian involvement in the elections is a much more serious offense.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 23, 2019, 12:14:11 PM
And what do we make of a President who walks into a meeting of the leaders of Congress and announces "I won't work with you at all unless you stop investigating me" (which they have the authority and right to do)?
Add to this childish Twitter tantrums, name-calling, rambling discourses of irrelevancies, incredible lies or ignorance ("We're collecting billions in tariffs from China"), and obvious fear that full financial disclosures will hurt him.
It is something to worry about.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on May 23, 2019, 01:37:00 PM
From others who have read it, the Mueller report includes acts of misconduct, namely, obstruction of justice. If Bill Clinton could be impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice in regards to the sexual misconduct charges by Paula Jones; it seems that the perjury and obstruction of justice in regards to the Russian involvement in the elections is a much more serious offense.

But you can't impeach an ex-President for leading the "Deep State" project to use lies to obtain FISA warrants, or to orchestrate the systematic attack on the current President before he was even sworn in. And given the amount of hard evidence of the losing Democrat candidate accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes from Russia as part of her deal to sell the Russians American uranium, including half a million dollars to the losing candidate's husband, who is also an ex-President, one would think that at this point the Democrat Party would be striving to maintain a low profile, lest many of their leadership find themselves indicted, convicted, and incarcerated.

When it comes to Democrats attacking our duly elected President, perhaps they should all read John 8.7.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on May 23, 2019, 02:42:59 PM
From others who have read it, the Mueller report includes acts of misconduct, namely, obstruction of justice. If Bill Clinton could be impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice in regards to the sexual misconduct charges by Paula Jones; it seems that the perjury and obstruction of justice in regards to the Russian involvement in the elections is a much more serious offense.

But you can't impeach an ex-President for leading the "Deep State" project to use lies to obtain FISA warrants, or to orchestrate the systematic attack on the current President before he was even sworn in.


As I understand it: if ex-presidents committed crimes, they can be charged with the crime. The sitting president who commits crimes can only be impeached. Once removed from office, then criminal charges can be leveled against him.



Quote
And given the amount of hard evidence of the losing Democrat candidate …


I said nothing about Hilary Clinton. Why bring her into the discussion? Bill Clinton lied and obstructed justice while in office. The House voted to impeach him. The Senate did not remove him from office.


From what I've seen the lies and obstruction by the current present are over issues much more important than those that brought about the impeachment of President Clinton.


If Hillary broke the law, she can be charged with crimes and prosecuted. There is no need to impeach her.


Quote
… one would think that at this point the Democrat Party would be striving to maintain a low profile, lest many of their leadership find themselves indicted, convicted, and incarcerated.


If they are guilty of such crimes, they should be investigated and prosecuted; but perhaps Fox News is spreading fake news about them.


Quote
When it comes to Democrats attacking our duly elected President, perhaps they should all read John 8.7.


Based on John 8:7, no police officer should arrest any criminals, since the officers are also sinners; no judge should sentence criminals, since the judge is also a sinner, etc.



Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on May 23, 2019, 04:21:40 PM
I said nothing about Hilary Clinton. Why bring her into the discussion? Bill Clinton lied and obstructed justice while in office. The House voted to impeach him. The Senate did not remove him from office.

Because she's part of the "Deep State" conspiracy to bring down President Trump because she (and her followers) cannot accept the simple fact that it wasn't her turn, and she lost. I'm speaking of the entire Democrat Party leadership, which she is still a (small) part of. I bring her up because she was a participant in the witch hunt that could well turn against the Democrat Party. I mention her because if the Democrat Party insists on ineptly playing political games to destroy our President, and ruin the nation in the process, she and many of her co-conspirators are risking being sent to prison. She is just one example of the many, many prominent Democrats who would be well advised to just abandon their quioxitic quest to unseat the current President or they'll face a backlash that will not be pleasant.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 23, 2019, 05:02:32 PM
So on this modest forum we hear Threats and suggestions of purging certain people  from our society.
We hear crazy - really crazy  - allegations and dark reasons why leaders of a party should “look out. “
And do people here still wonder why I think President Trump and some his supporters are bat-crap crazy and dangerous?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on May 23, 2019, 05:20:48 PM
How about you guys stop interacting? There is no point in having an online discussion with someone you think is crazy it not worth taking seriously. And please don’t say that pointing out the craziness is a service to lurkers or that it is taking the other person seriously. Just stop.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: David Garner on May 23, 2019, 05:26:32 PM
And please don’t say that pointing out the craziness is a service to lurkers or that it is taking the other person seriously. Just stop.

Yes.  This.  Please.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 23, 2019, 05:27:33 PM
Tell me, Peter, if you think that stuff is worth taking seriously, or even The type of discourse we want on this forum?
How about a little censure for Mr. Erdner who posts that ridiculous nonsense?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on May 23, 2019, 05:35:42 PM
Tell me, Peter, if you think that stuff is worth taking seriously, or even The type of discourse we want on this forum?
How about a little censure for Mr. Erdner who posts that ridiculous nonsense?
There are several people in the forum I don’t take seriously. Nobody is obligated to interact here. Stop.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 23, 2019, 06:27:43 PM
I quote Mr. Erdner:
And given the amount of hard evidence of the losing Democrat candidate accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes from Russia as part of her deal to sell the Russians American uranium, including half a million dollars to the losing candidate's husband, who is also an ex-President, one would think that at this point the Democrat Party would be striving to maintain a low profile, lest many of their leadership find themselves indicted, convicted, and incarcerated.

And if you want comments like this one to go unchallenged on this forum, Peter, then I seriously question your competence as a moderator.
And if everyone else wants this forum to be demeaned in this way, then let it happen.
I do not understand why there was such an outlrage over the article about mobbing, and nothing about this kind of nuttiness.
But you rule, Peter, so carry-on.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: RPG on May 23, 2019, 07:00:09 PM
How does someone expressing an opinion demean a forum? Asking for a friend.  ::)
RPG+
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dave Likeness on May 23, 2019, 07:39:03 PM
Whether you live in New Jersey or have transplanted yourself to Minnesota, you are just a poster here.

Whether you live in New Jersey or have transplanted yourself to Minnesota, You cannot appoint yourself to be a moderator.

Whether you live in New Jersey or have transplanted yourself to Minnesota, your opinion is no greater than the next person.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: readselerttoo on May 23, 2019, 08:16:56 PM
Whether you live in New Jersey or have transplanted yourself to Minnesota, you are just a poster here.

Whether you live in New Jersey or have transplanted yourself to Minnesota, You cannot appoint yourself to be a moderator.

Whether you live in New Jersey or have transplanted yourself to Minnesota, your opinion is no greater than the next person.

 :)
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: RogerMartim on May 23, 2019, 08:38:26 PM
Mr. Erdner, it is "Democratic Party," not "Democrat Party." Democrat is a noun and democratic is its adjective. Not sure if it is an oversight on your part, but some people are supplanting the adjective with the noun in this case as an irritant.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Richard Johnson on May 23, 2019, 08:50:20 PM
but some people are supplanting the adjective with the noun in this case as an irritant.

Ya think?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on May 23, 2019, 10:15:35 PM
Maybe he dictates his posts and mumbled. Can’t expect people to proofread their posts can we?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 24, 2019, 05:28:02 AM
Yes, I am posting a column from Fox News
Opinion: Jon Summers – Fox News (emphasis added CA)
   This isn’t the first time we’ve seen President Trump have a temper tantrum. But Wednesday’s was one of epic proportions. Because it didn’t just play out in the Rose Garden where the cameras were, it started inside the White House where, just moments before, the president stormed out of a meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer. In doing so, Trump blew up a plan to put Americans to work by investing $2 trillion in America’s infrastructure including roads, bridges, and airports.
   Remember the last time Trump walked out of a meeting with these same people? The government shut down, small businesses were hurt, and 800,000 federal workers went without pay for more than a month. And while it probably felt good at the time, Trump came out the biggest political loser because he wanted credit for shutting down the government.
   So, here we are again. This time Trump has decided he is not going to work with Congressional Democrats unless they cease all investigations of him. In other words, only if they stop doing their constitutionally mandated job of conducting oversight. Unbelievable.
   Clearly, he doesn’t realize that everything he has done so far -- from stonewalling Congress to walking out of Wednesday’s meeting -- only highlights that he’s hiding something. And whatever he is hiding must be really, really bad.
   Why else would the president go to such extreme lengths? If he has nothing to hide and truly wants to be “the most transparent president in history” as he claims, then let the sun shine in.
   Make no mistake, Trump’s Herculean effort to conceal whatever he’s hiding is not only undermining the core of our democracy, with Wednesday’s tantrum it’s costing jobs and infrastructure. Specifically, the proposal Democrats had hoped to discuss includes $140 billion to fix roads and bridges, $115 billion to modernize America’s water and sewer systems, and $40 billion to improve our airports and make the airspace safer. And that is literally just the beginning.
   You know what $2 trillion in infrastructure spending means? Jobs, millions of them. In fact, the infrastructure plan Democrats proposed last year with half the price tag, would have created 15 million jobs. Imagine doubling that number. Sadly, because of Trump’s temper tantrum imagining is all we can do.
   So, was it ego, fear or his often touted fierce negotiating style that led him to slam the door shut on a good deal for America? If it was his negotiating style, we only need to look back at the government shutdown to see how well that worked for him and America’s working families.
   I get it. He’s mad. He doesn’t like being under investigation. Who would? If he wants to yell, scream, and throw things in private to get it out of his system, fine (just don’t hurt anyone). But when you are the president of the United States you have an obligation to rise above it for the good of the nation. Even Richard Nixon knew that; Bill Clinton too.
   If Trump refuses to rise to the occasion, the political calculation will have to come into play at some point because if he wants to achieve anything he campaigned on, including immigration reform, he’s going to have to work with Democrats even as investigations into his campaign and presidency continue.
   Regardless of where you stand on the issue, someone (or many people), will be ultimately exposed. If you are a Republican hardliner, you’re probably hoping it will be Democrats for “overreaching.” If it’s not the Democrats, then it will be the president. Regardless of what you believe, or fear, the truth will come out. In the meantime, the president and leaders in Congress must work together for the good of the nation.
   It’s time for the president to swallow hard, put on his big boy pants, and get to work.
   -0-
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on May 24, 2019, 09:01:27 AM
Mr. Erdner, it is "Democratic Party," not "Democrat Party." Democrat is a noun and democratic is its adjective. Not sure if it is an oversight on your part, but some people are supplanting the adjective with the noun in this case as an irritant.

But there is nothing "democratic" about that party at this point in time. One of the greatest Presidents of the United States, Ronald Reagan, referred to them as the "Democrat Party", and I follow his example out of respect and admiration for his accomplishments.

And rather than make two posts, I'll take this opportunity to provide some requested "evidence".

https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/russia-scandal-is-real-involves-hillary-clinton/ (https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/russia-scandal-is-real-involves-hillary-clinton/)

https://themarketswork.com/2017/10/17/russian-collusion-bribes-coverups-clinton-uranium-one/ (https://themarketswork.com/2017/10/17/russian-collusion-bribes-coverups-clinton-uranium-one/)

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2017/10/17/russiaclinton-hill-story-n2396220 (https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2017/10/17/russiaclinton-hill-story-n2396220)

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3054026/Mitt-Romney-says-Hillary-Clinton-s-latest-scandal-looks-like-BRIBERY-s-hammered-hiding-involvement-sweetheart-uranium-deal-Russian-company.html (https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3054026/Mitt-Romney-says-Hillary-Clinton-s-latest-scandal-looks-like-BRIBERY-s-hammered-hiding-involvement-sweetheart-uranium-deal-Russian-company.html)

https://townhall.com/columnists/wayneallynroot/2017/03/08/there-is-a-russian-scandal-but-its-hillarys-scandal-n2295391 (https://townhall.com/columnists/wayneallynroot/2017/03/08/there-is-a-russian-scandal-but-its-hillarys-scandal-n2295391)

https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/hillary-clintons-bribery-scandal/ (https://www.commentarymagazine.com/politics-ideas/campaigns-elections/hillary-clintons-bribery-scandal/)

There is a reason why one of the catchphrases of the current administration is "Drain the Swamp".
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: D. Engebretson on May 24, 2019, 09:20:13 AM
I know we have been down this road before, but it is obviously still in the news and getting more attention as the 2020 election approaches.  The subject is the Electoral College.  Below is a link to an editorial from USA Today. It highlights what is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.  As a rural citizen this greatly concerns me. I live in that very part of the country that would essentially be disenfranchised if such a movement is successful.  Not to mention it is a deliberate end run around the proper procedure put in place to change the constitution. But there was a purpose our founders had when they created the Electoral College. As the author notes: "The Electoral College requires more than just the most raw votes to win — it requires geographic balance. This helps to protect rural and small-town Americans."

I realize the comments on "serfs" may seem a bit over the top for some, but the author makes a valid point.  If the Electoral College is essentially ignored by the states it will have a fundamental impact on the country as a whole.  It will not only change how elections are conducted (forcing candidates to ignore whole parts of the country where the vote count is low), it will marginalize smaller mid-western and northern states in the process. 

I hope this is challenged in the courts.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/05/23/killing-electoral-college-means-rural-americans-would-be-serfs-column/3770424002/?fbclid=IwAR0Jp9NjEl0_DdqIFtxku0Sdn0-n7Qx0GdMqprSa4kgMG8OCbvkeCqsaeMY (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/05/23/killing-electoral-college-means-rural-americans-would-be-serfs-column/3770424002/?fbclid=IwAR0Jp9NjEl0_DdqIFtxku0Sdn0-n7Qx0GdMqprSa4kgMG8OCbvkeCqsaeMY)
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Coach-Rev on May 24, 2019, 10:11:20 AM
Your reply is a new low for even you, Charles.  Perhaps it's time to reinstate the lifetime ban   >:(

And FWIW, George's reply is supported by hard fact, but apparently facts only matter to you when they support your pet causes.  T.C. Chamberlin referred to such practices like yours as utter horse nonsense back in the early 1900's.  There's a reason the DOJ is now looking into the sources of the whole Mueller investigation:  because there's something rotten there as well. 

I quote Mr. Erdner:
And given the amount of hard evidence of the losing Democrat candidate accepting hundreds of thousands of dollars in bribes from Russia as part of her deal to sell the Russians American uranium, including half a million dollars to the losing candidate's husband, who is also an ex-President, one would think that at this point the Democrat Party would be striving to maintain a low profile, lest many of their leadership find themselves indicted, convicted, and incarcerated.

And if you want comments like this one to go unchallenged on this forum, Peter, then I seriously question your competence as a moderator.
And if everyone else wants this forum to be demeaned in this way, then let it happen.
I do not understand why there was such an outlrage over the article about mobbing, and nothing about this kind of nuttiness.
But you rule, Peter, so carry-on.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 24, 2019, 10:36:55 AM
Pastor Cottingham, do you not think that if there were a whiff, a tiny scent, a minute aroma, a nano-second smell of the Democratic party and its candidate truly getting "bribes" from Russia, there would be a media feeding frenzy on it like 600 starved Great Whites?
The so-called "Uranium One" hoo-hah was blasted through conservative media; but no one has found hard evidence of any of the allegations. And some of the investigations go back more than four years.
And - as I have noted O so often! - neither Mrs. Clinton nor any member of her family is in public office or has much influence; and if people want to go after her as a private citizen; there are legal ways to do so; other that howling about unproven allegations. There are no "hard facts."
As for investigating the Mueller investigation; it is another cry-baby tactic of our President, and giving Barr, the man acting as his personal lawyer, "total control" over the nation's secrets is scary; but what the heck. Go for it; it's probably less harmful than some other things he could do.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Coach-Rev on May 24, 2019, 10:55:08 AM
And there it is.  You dismiss contrary facts as unproven allegations (and a whole category of descriptors not worth repeating here) and will only accept information (factual or not) that supports your particular worldview.  Lest you forget the proven bias in the media (you don't forget, you WON'T even acknowlege).  Ask yourself this:  WHY would we sell 20% of American uranium assets to a foreign country in the first place? 

What is the name of your Tribe, Charles?   ::)

and since I know you'll howl about unsubstantiated claims, will Newsweek (https://www.newsweek.com/what-we-know-about-russian-uranium-scheme-involving-clinton-and-obama-693348) suffice as a source from "your side?"

I'm through with this, but I'm sure you will, true to character, have to reply again with your usual snark and Tribalistic POV.

Pastor Cottingham, do you not think that if there were a whiff, a tiny scent, a minute aroma, a nano-second smell of the Democratic party and its candidate truly getting "bribes" from Russia, there would be a media feeding frenzy on it like 600 starved Great Whites?
The so-called "Uranium One" hoo-hah was blasted through conservative media; but no one has found hard evidence of any of the allegations. And some of the investigations go back more than four years.
And - as I have noted O so often! - neither Mrs. Clinton nor any member of her family is in public office or has much influence; and if people want to go after her as a private citizen; there are legal ways to do so; other that howling about unproven allegations. There are no "hard facts."
As for investigating the Mueller investigation; it is another cry-baby tactic of our President, and giving Barr, the man acting as his personal lawyer, "total control" over the nation's secrets is scary; but what the heck. Go for it; it's probably less harmful than some other things he could do.

Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 24, 2019, 11:23:48 AM
No, Pastor Cottingham, it would be best if I did not reply to you at all, for if I did respond adequately, it would upset Moderator Peter.
Probably good that you, too, are “through with this,”  lest you encounter moderatorial censure. (Unlikely, but you never know.)
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: RogerMartim on May 24, 2019, 05:04:51 PM
Mr. Erdner, it still should be stated that there is no way that "Democrat Party" makes sense in the our language. Democrat is a noun and cannot modify another noun. Your "One of the greatest Presidents of the United States" (I think the jury is still out on that one) trickled down to bad grammar when he said it himself.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on May 24, 2019, 07:27:45 PM
I know we have been down this road before, but it is obviously still in the news and getting more attention as the 2020 election approaches.  The subject is the Electoral College.  Below is a link to an editorial from USA Today. It highlights what is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.  As a rural citizen this greatly concerns me. I live in that very part of the country that would essentially be disenfranchised if such a movement is successful.  Not to mention it is a deliberate end run around the proper procedure put in place to change the constitution. But there was a purpose our founders had when they created the Electoral College. As the author notes: "The Electoral College requires more than just the most raw votes to win — it requires geographic balance. This helps to protect rural and small-town Americans."

I realize the comments on "serfs" may seem a bit over the top for some, but the author makes a valid point.  If the Electoral College is essentially ignored by the states it will have a fundamental impact on the country as a whole.  It will not only change how elections are conducted (forcing candidates to ignore whole parts of the country where the vote count is low), it will marginalize smaller mid-western and northern states in the process. 

I hope this is challenged in the courts.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/05/23/killing-electoral-college-means-rural-americans-would-be-serfs-column/3770424002/?fbclid=IwAR0Jp9NjEl0_DdqIFtxku0Sdn0-n7Qx0GdMqprSa4kgMG8OCbvkeCqsaeMY (https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/05/23/killing-electoral-college-means-rural-americans-would-be-serfs-column/3770424002/?fbclid=IwAR0Jp9NjEl0_DdqIFtxku0Sdn0-n7Qx0GdMqprSa4kgMG8OCbvkeCqsaeMY)

Those arguments remind me of Br'er Rabbit begging Br'er Fox to do anything but throw him in the briar patch.

Here are two articles about the history of the Electoral College, focusing on when it changed from what the Founding Fathers intended into the "winner take all" system we have in 48 of the 50 states.

https://www.fairvote.org/how-the-electoral-college-became-winner-take-all (https://www.fairvote.org/how-the-electoral-college-became-winner-take-all)

https://electoralvotemap.com/winner-take-all-electoral-college/ (https://electoralvotemap.com/winner-take-all-electoral-college/)

The Constitution says nothing about how states are to pick their Electors. In the early days of the Republic, many states had their Legislatures pick their Electors. Some states elected their Electors by District. The Founding Fathers came up with the Electoral College system before anyone really realized how entrenched the two-party system would become. The assumption was that most states would pick Electors pledged to vote for a "favorite son" candidate, with no one winning a majority and the House picking the President.

Once the "winner-takes-all" system was adopted, and is still used by every state except Nebraska and Maine, all it takes to win a state's Electoral Votes is a sufficient voter turnout in a few major urban areas. It doesn't matter how the voters in rural upstate New York state vote, whoever wins in New York City determines who gets all of New York's Electoral Votes. The same goes for San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego in California, Philadelphia and Pittsburgh in Pennsylvania, Chicago in Illinois, etc.

If the states were to revert to one of the earlier systems, where Electors were elected by Congressional District, with the two extra Electors going to who won the overall statewide majority, then the Electoral College would be a force to keep rural voters enfranchised. Of course, that would mean candidates would have to campaign nationwide instead of just visiting big urban areas in "swing states". It means party platforms would have to address the needs of the entire nation, not just urbanites. It means that small town and rural voters might stop sitting out elections. It means that one party cannot stuff the ballot boxes (figuratively speaking) in a few urban precincts to capture entire states.

Wouldn't that last one be something? No more having the votes of illegal aliens and other non-citizens and the votes of the dead pushing urban vote counts higher stealing elections! I'd support that.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on May 24, 2019, 11:09:49 PM
Below is a link to an editorial from USA Today. It highlights what is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.  As a rural citizen this greatly concerns me. I live in that very part of the country that would essentially be disenfranchised if such a movement is successful. 

If it happens, and I agree that it is a terrible idea for the Republic, it will be the legislatures of the less-populated states that will have acted to disenfranchise themselves.  But we've been progressing in that direction, under both liberal and conservative patronage, already in most other respects for over a century.

spt+
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on May 25, 2019, 08:45:39 AM
Below is a link to an editorial from USA Today. It highlights what is called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.  As a rural citizen this greatly concerns me. I live in that very part of the country that would essentially be disenfranchised if such a movement is successful. 

If it happens, and I agree that it is a terrible idea for the Republic, it will be the legislatures of the less-populated states that will have acted to disenfranchise themselves.  But we've been progressing in that direction, under both liberal and conservative patronage, already in most other respects for over a century.

spt+

True, since the adoption of the "winner-takes-all" system of voting back in 1824. That's when both parties worked through the state legislatures to change to a "winner-takes-all" Elector election system.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 25, 2019, 11:28:41 AM
The electoral college currently gives more “power” to the relatively few people and their farm animals in North and South Dakota and Idaho than is held by people in the more populated states Like Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York and California. It warps the “one person-one vote” rule.
It should be abolished, say some.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven W Bohler on May 25, 2019, 11:31:20 AM
The electoral college currently gives more “power” to the relatively few people and their farm animals in North and South Dakota and Idaho than is held by people in the more populated states Like Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York and California. It warps the “one person-one vote” rule.
It should be abolished, say some.

Exactly what power do the farm animals in the Dakotas have under the Electoral College?  How exactly is it greater than that of the people of Ohio?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: RDPreus on May 25, 2019, 11:31:55 AM
The men who gave us the Constitution of the United States warped the "one person one vote" rule.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 25, 2019, 11:45:00 AM
Yes, and it’s time to fix that. The warping then was to protect the slave states.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: RDPreus on May 25, 2019, 11:45:51 AM
The electoral college currently gives more “power” to the relatively few people and their farm animals in North and South Dakota and Idaho than is held by people in the more populated states Like Ohio, Pennsylvania, New York and California. It warps the “one person-one vote” rule.
It should be abolished, say some.

Exactly what power do the farm animals in the Dakotas have under the Electoral College?  How exactly is it greater than that of the people of Ohio?

Don't underestimate the power of the cattle in the Dakotas.  I have it on good authority that their flatulence is a primary cause of the climate change that will destroy America unless we empower the Democrats on the coasts to usher in the Green New Deal that will relieve us of our money and educate us to live in harmony with nature.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 25, 2019, 12:45:10 PM
You midwesterners should know more about your animals. It’s not cow farts but cow belches that put most of the bad stuff into the air.
And, of course, it’s a lot easier to make fun of concerns for the environment and the future of our planet then it is to take the threats seriously.
We have come to expect that from certain segments of our population. Meanwhile it is not at all clear that our grandchildren will have enough breathable air and clean water in the latter decades of their life.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Voelker on May 25, 2019, 12:59:34 PM
A vote against limitations on majoritarian rule is a vote for tyranny.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: D. Engebretson on May 25, 2019, 01:06:53 PM
If we are going to abolish the Electoral College in order to shift to a strict majority representation, then the Senate's composition is also up for change.  The idea of each state, regardless of population, getting two senators, seems counter to the idea of majority vote rule.  California and New York should therefore get multiple senators and the small states only one, or the smaller states could be represented as a grouping. 

If this all should happen I think we will have a much different country in the end.  Larger metro areas will determine the course of the laws, and lower population areas, especially in the mid-west and deep south (which often lean in a more conservative direction), will be largely left out of this decision-making process.  The country will be shaped, ideologically, politically and economically by the coastal cities. 

Knowing that elections will be determined by gaining the majority of a few larger metro areas, what will motivate candidates to campaign in lower population areas?  And what will motivate those in Washington to give any priority to those in such areas? 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: pearson on May 25, 2019, 01:45:46 PM

Knowing that elections will be determined by gaining the majority of a few larger metro areas, what will motivate candidates to campaign in lower population areas?  And what will motivate those in Washington to give any priority to those in such areas?


And in that case, what will prevent states from asserting their constitutional authority, and seeking legal and political remedies for the current status quo interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment?

"Secession" is an idea that is typically thought to belong to the hare-brained, eye-rolling, sneering-smirk category (and, probably, rightly so).  But a survey of Texans in 2009 showed that 1 in 3 citizens in this state believed Texas had the right to secede from the Union; and I suspect that number is higher today.  And a recent poll in the Rio Grande Valley where I live indicated that a little more than 50% of Latino/a registered voters said Texas should secede from the Union and establish its own diplomatic and political relations with Mexico.  Push Texans up against the Union a little harder in the future, and, well, who knows?

Besides, the ultimate issue here at the national level is not the ideology of "one person, one vote" -- that's not going away any time soon.  The issue is direct democracy vs. indirect ("representative") democracy.  The Electoral College is part of the fabric of our history of representational democracy in this country.  States elect Senators; local districts elect Congresspersons; the Electoral College elects the Executive.  That's the way representational democracy works, isn't it?

Tom Pearson
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven W Bohler on May 25, 2019, 02:09:24 PM
You midwesterners should know more about your animals. It’s not cow farts but cow belches that put most of the bad stuff into the air.
And, of course, it’s a lot easier to make fun of concerns for the environment and the future of our planet then it is to take the threats seriously.
We have come to expect that from certain segments of our population. Meanwhile it is not at all clear that our grandchildren will have enough breathable air and clean water in the latter decades of their life.

Believe it or not, but those of us who live with the animals know a little more about them than those who live in the metropolis (even though they often think they know everything about everything).
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Terry W Culler on May 25, 2019, 02:49:41 PM
My understanding is that when Texas entered the union it retained the right to leave if it so chose.  They tested that in the Civil War and lost.  A later SC decision (White vs. Texas, I believe) found against them and their right of secession.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on May 25, 2019, 03:16:06 PM
Yes, and it’s time to fix that. The warping then was to protect the slave states.

Whether it needs to be "fixed," and how, is subject to debate. 

But the "warping" protects each of the States -- from the national government, which under the Constitution has very limited powers, whether it be the executive branch, whose head is elected by the electors from the states, or the legislative branch, where the lower house represents the people (and keeping the House at 435 Representatives is very artificial) and the upper house represents the States, or the judicial branch, which is to settle disputes between the other branches and/or the states.

Pax, Steven+
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: D. Engebretson on May 25, 2019, 03:41:32 PM
Yes, and it’s time to fix that. The warping then was to protect the slave states.
Whether it needs to be "fixed," and how, is subject to debate. 

Which is still evident in the op-ed columns, although even those making the 'pro-slavery' argument do not automatically make an argument to abolish the Electoral College:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/opinion/electoral-college-slavery.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/06/opinion/electoral-college-slavery.html)
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/04/opinion/the-electoral-college-slavery-myth.html (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/04/opinion/the-electoral-college-slavery-myth.html)

Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on May 25, 2019, 04:00:13 PM
I find it interesting how people can be most insistent that majority rule should be strictly observed when it serves to support their position or side, but also be insistent on the checks and balances built into our governing system when the majority doesn't serve them. The Electoral College serves as a check on the rule of the majority by making Presidential elections not only a matter of majority of votes, but also regional votes so that at times the winner of the popular majority is not elected. Unfair, undemocratic, that system must be scrapped for a popular majority vote. In other cases, the majority of a state elected legislators and a governor who've been elected by majority votes enact restrictive abortion laws. Unfair, the tyranny of the majority must be checked by Constitutional Rights as enacted by the Judicial Branch. In this case, the majority cannot be allowed to prevail. Other examples could be offered. Whose ox is being gored?


Oh and lest it be pointed out that the right to abortion is a Constitutionally protected right, just what part of the Constitution does the Electoral College violate?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 25, 2019, 04:17:11 PM
It’s a good ploy to use, Pastor Fienen. Turn the topic to abortion, (for if we discuss the weather or the Twins game last night, sooner or later we will have to talk about abortion) and then the original topic is immediately lost, and I shall quietly withdraw from the discussion.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Keith Falk on May 25, 2019, 04:29:18 PM
It’s a good ploy to use, Pastor Fienen. Turn the topic to abortion, (for if we discuss the weather or the Twins game last night, sooner or later we will have to talk about abortion) and then the original topic is immediately lost, and I shall quietly withdraw from the discussion.


I am hopeful that this time it may be so, but I fear I shall be like Charlie Brown approaching the football being held by Lucy...
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 25, 2019, 04:52:02 PM
Only the discussion on abortion, Pastor Falk, only the discussion on abortion. But I understand your attitude.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on May 25, 2019, 05:14:44 PM
Ok, you don’t like our discussions on abortion being used as an illustration of anti-majoritarianism on the part of progressives, fine let’s find another. How often have you pointed out that some position that we conservatives have taken disagrees with what the majority of people believe as though that should matter and we need to get in line or be marginalized. That’s fine so long as you’re in the majority. When the majority is not in your favor, suddenly majorities don’t matter. If the majority rules that anyone who engages in anything resembling business have to do any business that a gay couple wants them to do an any claim of rights to the contrary is automatically ruled out. Majority rules absolutely.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on May 25, 2019, 05:17:23 PM

Oh and lest it be pointed out that the right to abortion is a Constitutionally protected right, just what part of the Constitution does the Electoral College violate?

It’s a good ploy to use, Pastor Fienen. Turn the topic to abortion, (for if we discuss the weather or the Twins game last night, sooner or later we will have to talk about abortion) and then the original topic is immediately lost, and I shall quietly withdraw from the discussion.

Then what part of the Constitution does the Electoral College violate?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on May 25, 2019, 05:32:21 PM
One more comment on abortion, the electoral college, same sex marriage and the rest. There are procedures for changing these laws if you care to try. Get a Constitutional amendment ratified. Good luck. It probably wouldn’t be much harder than getting the ELCA to rescind the adoption of ordinationof partnered homosexuals.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 25, 2019, 05:59:32 PM
I forgot, Pastor Fienen. The evil bias of the ELCA is right up there with abortion as the “trumpet” that will almost always be sounded early in any discussion.
BTW I’m not sure where I stand on the issue of retaining or abolishing the electoral college. And I don’t think the concern about it is going to gain much ground in our land.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: James S. Rustad on May 25, 2019, 06:46:59 PM
Can you point to the section(s) that give congress power to investigate the executive branch?


Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5: The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Article 1, Section 3, Clause 6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

The right to impeach requires the ability to investigate the charges.

Congress has no right to impeach.  Congress has the power to impeach.

Since they are given the power to impeach, they have the responsibility and right to exercise that power when appropriate.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary, "to impeach" means: "to call into question the integrity or validity of (a practice)." Thus, it is congress's responsibility to question the integrity or validity or practices of the executive branch. Or, as a subpost: "chiefly US to charge (the holder of a public office) with misconduct."

From others who have read it, the Mueller report includes acts of misconduct, namely, obstruction of justice. If Bill Clinton could be impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice in regards to the sexual misconduct charges by Paula Jones; it seems that the perjury and obstruction of justice in regards to the Russian involvement in the elections is a much more serious offense.

Nice misdirection there, Brian.  But since the subject is constitutional law, let's refer to the source material for some examples.

In the Constitution, the word "Right" appears once -- and then in referring to granting Congress the power to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;"  It does not grant a right to "Authors and Inventors", it secures (protects) that right.

In the Bill of Rights, the word "Right" appears six times.  In each case, it refers to a right held by individuals that is to be protected by the Federal Government.

A right is inherent in an individual.  A right is not granted by the government, it exists even without government.

In the Constitution, the word Power (or Powers) appears sixteen times.
- Once it is used when referring to a "foreign Power" -- that is, another government.
- Fifteen times is is used to refer to a power granted to a government body (the Legislative branch, the Judicial branch) or agent (the President or Executive branch).

In the Bill of Rights, the word "power" (or powers) appears twice.
- Once in the Preamble, which describes the reason for the Bill of Rights as being a limitation on misuse of the powers granted to the government by the Constitution.
- Once in the Tenth Amendment as "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

A power is something granted to a government body, or a government agent (such as a congressman), or even another individual.  Someone granted a power is not granted a right to that power. 

The Founders were very clear in differentiating between Rights and Powers.  Since then language usage by politicians and the public has gotten sloppy.  We've heard that something called "States Rights" exist -- even though no such thing appears in the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.  We've heard that "Congress has the right to Impeach", even though Congress has Powers, not Rights.  No member of Congress has the right to impeach.  Each member has the responsibility to exercise the power to impeach when appropriate.

And don't think I argue this because I support Trump.  I did not vote for him.  I will not vote for him.  If the evidence is sufficient (which it may well be), he should be impeached.  The recent tweets by Rep. Justin Amash (R-Michigan) may be an indication that Trump's Teflon is wearing thin.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on May 25, 2019, 07:47:12 PM
The men who gave us the Constitution of the United States warped the "one person one vote" rule.

The men who wrote the Constitution made no mention of "one man, one vote". That principle was enunciated by the Supreme Court in reynolds v. sims, 377 U.S. 533, 84 S. Ct. 1362, 12 L. Ed. 2d 506 (1964). The Court ruled that a state's Apportionment plan for seats in both houses of a bicameral state legislature must allocate seats on a population basis so that the voting power of each voter be as equal as possible to that of any other voter. Nowhere in the Constitution is there any reference to "one man, one vote" (or, to be politically correct, "one person,  one vote"). It is as mythical as the "right to privacy" applied to abortions. (Apologies to those who are offended by cross-referencing issues.)

This is the link I copied that from: https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/One+Person%2c+One+Vote (https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/One+Person%2c+One+Vote).

What the constitution does promise in Article IV, Section 4, "The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government". And yet, operating a state government as a "republic", with a bicameral legislature that has a lower House of Representatives elected from districts as evenly divided by population as possible, and an upper house consisting of a Senator from each county, was outlawed with no Constitutional justification. The Supreme Court pulled that ruling out of thin air.

This is the source for information from the US Constitution. I suggest that if anyone wants to claim that something is or isn't Constitutional, you follow that link and actually find where it's written. As a Lutheran Christian, I know that the ENTIRE Bible is the Word of God, and I can't pick and choose which parts to apply. As a conservative American, I believe that the Constitution is also something that should be followed in its entirety, not just the parts I like.

http://constitutionus.com/ (http://constitutionus.com/)

If we are going to abolish the Electoral College in order to shift to a strict majority representation, then the Senate's composition is also up for change.  The idea of each state, regardless of population, getting two senators, seems counter to the idea of majority vote rule.  California and New York should therefore get multiple senators and the small states only one, or the smaller states could be represented as a grouping. 

Since the concept of "one man, one vote" is a novelty, not found in the Constitution, I don't see any reason to make changes in our Republic to accommodate it. People keep forgetting that America is a Federal Republic. States within the United States are not merely administrative districts within the nation. Each state is a sovereign entity. The states surrendered to the Federal Government certain rights and powers, but the 9th and 10th amendments ensure that the states retain some authority.

If this all should happen I think we will have a much different country in the end.  Larger metro areas will determine the course of the laws, and lower population areas, especially in the mid-west and deep south (which often lean in a more conservative direction), will be largely left out of this decision-making process.  The country will be shaped, ideologically, politically and economically by the coastal cities. 

Knowing that elections will be determined by gaining the majority of a few larger metro areas, what will motivate candidates to campaign in lower population areas?  And what will motivate those in Washington to give any priority to those in such areas? 

You've just described the status quo today, thanks to the adoption of the "winner takes all" Electoral College system back in the early 1800s. I don't know how often I have to point out that winning the majority of votes in the big cities gives a candidate all of the Electoral Votes for the entire state.

How often must that fact be repeated?

Use any search engine to look up votes cast by county, and see how many states were carried by majorities in the cities, with the rural and suburban areas being totally disenfranchised? You worry about candidates not campaigning in "lower population areas". That's how things are right now! No matter how the farmers in rural California vote, the voters in San Diego, Los Angeles, and San Francisco determine which candidate gets all 55 of California's votes. Whoever wins in Dallas and Houston gets all 38 of the Electoral Votes from Texas. And candidate that carries just New York City gets all 29 of New York's Electoral votes.

Would someone, ANYONE, please explain to me how the non-Constitutional "winner-takes-all" Electoral College could possibly help to enfranchise voters from rural and suburban areas?

Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on May 25, 2019, 08:05:05 PM
I forgot, Pastor Fienen. The evil bias of the ELCA is right up there with abortion as the “trumpet” that will almost always be sounded early in any discussion.
BTW I’m not sure where I stand on the issue of retaining or abolishing the electoral college. And I don’t think the concern about it is going to gain much ground in our land.
The topic that I wanted to discuss was the varying attitudes toward majority rule verses protected rights. I was not arguing for or against abortion, for or against the Electoral College, for or against the ordination of partnered homosexuals. No matter what side on any of these issues people takes it seems to me people tend to point to majority decisions when the majority agrees with them and standing on the rights guaranteed in our founding documents to minorities when it does not. I also remember you suggesting that rather than complaining they should propose resolutions to over throw what they disagree with. Not bloody likely.


Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 26, 2019, 07:37:50 AM
Pastor Fienen:
No matter what side on any of these issues people takes it seems to me people tend to point to majority decisions when the majority agrees with them and standing on the rights guaranteed in our founding documents to minorities when it does not.
Me:
There is “majority opinion” and there is the law. And decisions on the law, made by our courts, may not always reflect “majority opinion.”
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Coach-Rev on May 26, 2019, 07:47:34 AM
Interesting comment, considering you attempted to turn the conversation toward slavery, cow farts and cow belches....   :o

It’s a good ploy to use, Pastor Fienen. Turn the topic to abortion, (for if we discuss the weather or the Twins game last night, sooner or later we will have to talk about abortion) and then the original topic is immediately lost, and I shall quietly withdraw from the discussion.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on May 26, 2019, 08:16:18 AM
The SCOTUS does not make the law, and it’s interpretations of the law are very fallible. If and when the SCOTUS makes a ruling on abortion that is as popular with progressives as Citizens United, suddenly the consensus of the major newspapers will be that the courts are out of control.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on May 26, 2019, 08:44:09 AM
There has been much hand wringing in the news media and on the political left that SCOTUS has gotten out of balance with the two latest appointments. No longer does the court have a solid liberal majority (balance) but now it has a conservative majority. Everybody knows that conservatives, especially the two latest justices do not have a proper judicial temperament but rather than decide cases on the merits, the facts and the law, decide things ideologically.


Interestingly, these two new Justices do not always agree with each other or what could be considered the conservative side of the case. In fact historically it is the liberals on the court that more often vote as a block and reliably decide things in a liberal fashion than the ideologues on the right of the court decide according to the conservative view.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on May 26, 2019, 05:04:11 PM
Interestingly, these two new Justices do not always agree with each other or what could be considered the conservative side of the case. In fact historically it is the liberals on the court that more often vote as a block and reliably decide things in a liberal fashion than the ideologues on the right of the court decide according to the conservative view.

That is an accurate observation.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: RDPreus on May 26, 2019, 05:56:56 PM
Interestingly, these two new Justices do not always agree with each other or what could be considered the conservative side of the case. In fact historically it is the liberals on the court that more often vote as a block and reliably decide things in a liberal fashion than the ideologues on the right of the court decide according to the conservative view.

That is an accurate observation.

That's because the advocacy of a political ideology is an essentially left wing concept.  The word is used nowadays to refer to one's political philosophy.  Traditional conservatives (as opposed to neoconservatives) have traditionally eschewed political ideology.  For example, as a traditional Republican, I favor individual liberties.  Except when I don't.  There is no political summum bonum.  That sort of thing belongs to ethics.  That last thing we need is a much of self-righteous ethicists running the country!
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 27, 2019, 12:29:08 PM
And I suppose it doesn’t bother anyone that 1) the president is bringing domestic politics into an overseas visit, which is normally done, 2) that he is Taking the word of the North Korean dictator over that of his own advisors, and even over  the concern of the leaders of the country he is visiting, and 3)  that rather than give real evidence that things are better now under him, which would be pretty hard to do, all he can do is giveincorrect information about how bad things were under the previous administration.
Then there’s the continuing concern about his style of attacking the mental capacity, even the mental health of his opponents rather than giving them a tiny amount of respect and discussing the issues.
He even repeats as true the criticisms leveled by the North Korean dictator against some of the leaders of our country.  Meanwhile he says of the North Korean missile test “maybe they violated the agreement  maybe they don’t “; he claims not know. But if his North Korean buddy says Joe Biden isn’t very smart, that he believes.
It remains a mystery to me by those who support him, or are eager to excuse his actions, do not pick up on some of these things.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: D. Engebretson on May 27, 2019, 12:37:30 PM
I do not excuse the inappropriate things the president does or says.  However, I'm not sure what is ultimately gained by spending much time noticing it.  We cannot change how he acts or what he says. The 2020 election looms just over the horizon.  If enough of the population decides they are embarrassed by his presence on the national and domestic stage they will certainly vote in another leader.  Or, perhaps those on Capital Hill will have him impeached and removed prior to November. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on May 27, 2019, 03:10:14 PM
I do not excuse the inappropriate things the president does or says.  However, I'm not sure what is ultimately gained by spending much time noticing it.  We cannot change how he acts or what he says. The 2020 election looms just over the horizon.  If enough of the population decides they are embarrassed by his presence on the national and domestic stage they will certainly vote in another leader.  Or, perhaps those on Capital Hill will have him impeached and removed prior to November.

I've been reading a lot lately about Harry Truman. If Twitter had existed, along with 24/7 news media dedicated to finding any fault with him, real or imagined, he would possibly be held in even worse regard than Donald Trump. For Lyndon Johnson, it would be even worse!
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 27, 2019, 04:57:47 PM
It was written:
I’ve been reading a lot lately about Harry Truman. If Twitter had existed, along with 24/7 news media dedicated to finding any fault with him, real or imagined, he would possibly be held in even worse regard than Donald Trump.
I comment:
Not bloody likely. Truman was an honest man, who spoke openly with reporters, taking walks with them on some days. He was also a humble man, knowing his own limitations, and with a good understanding of his job. He had no gigantic political career, neither did he have a huge financial empire to protect.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 28, 2019, 05:41:37 PM
TRUMP LIES AND Attempt to take credit for veteran’s health care benefits
in play beforemhe took office (emphasis added)
WASHINGTON (AP) — Boastful on the occasion of Memorial Day, President Donald Trump and his Veterans Affairs secretary are claiming full credit for health care improvements that were underway before they took office.
   Trump said he passed a private-sector health care program, Veterans Choice, after failed attempts by past presidents for the last “45 years.” That’s not true. The Choice program, which allows veterans to see doctors outside the government-run VA system at taxpayer expense, was first passed in 2014 under President Barack Obama.
   Trump’s VA secretary, Robert Wilkie, also is distorting the facts. Faulting previous “bad leadership” at VA, Wilkie suggested it was his own efforts that improved waiting times at VA medical centers and brought new offerings of same-day mental health service. The problem: The study cited by Wilkie on wait times covers the period from 2014 to 2017, before Wilkie took the helm as VA secretary. Same-day mental health services at VA were started during the Obama administration.
   The half-truths and exaggerations came in a week when selective accounting was a norm in Trump’s rhetoric, extending into his trip to Japan , where he inflated the drop in the U.S. unemployment rate for women.
I COMMENT:
    I Firmly believe we must keep pointing out these lies lest they make their way into public acceptance.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on May 28, 2019, 05:49:39 PM
TRUMP LIES AND Attempt to take credit for veteran’s health care benefits
in play beforemhe took office (emphasis added)
WASHINGTON (AP) — Boastful on the occasion of Memorial Day, President Donald Trump and his Veterans Affairs secretary are claiming full credit for health care improvements that were underway before they took office.
   Trump said he passed a private-sector health care program, Veterans Choice, after failed attempts by past presidents for the last “45 years.” That’s not true. The Choice program, which allows veterans to see doctors outside the government-run VA system at taxpayer expense, was first passed in 2014 under President Barack Obama.
   Trump’s VA secretary, Robert Wilkie, also is distorting the facts. Faulting previous “bad leadership” at VA, Wilkie suggested it was his own efforts that improved waiting times at VA medical centers and brought new offerings of same-day mental health service. The problem: The study cited by Wilkie on wait times covers the period from 2014 to 2017, before Wilkie took the helm as VA secretary. Same-day mental health services at VA were started during the Obama administration.
   The half-truths and exaggerations came in a week when selective accounting was a norm in Trump’s rhetoric, extending into his trip to Japan , where he inflated the drop in the U.S. unemployment rate for women.
I COMMENT:
    I Firmly believe we must keep pointing out these lies lest they make their way into public acceptance.

(Emphasis added)
Similarly, investigations into the origins of the Mueller investigation, and the actions by officials in the FBI and intelligence agencies against the Trump campaign and President Elect Trump are important to bring the truth into public knowledge.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: David Garner on May 28, 2019, 06:41:01 PM
The SCOTUS does not make the law, and it’s interpretations of the law are very fallible. If and when the SCOTUS makes a ruling on abortion that is as popular with progressives as Citizens United, suddenly the consensus of the major newspapers will be that the courts are out of control.

"There is a poignant aspect to today's opinion. Its length, and what might be called its epic tone, suggest that its authors believe they are bringing to an end a troublesome era in the history of our Nation and of our Court. "It is the dimension" of authority, they say, to "cal[l] the contending sides of national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution." Ante, at 24.
 
There comes vividly to mind a portrait by Emanuel Leutze that hangs in the Harvard Law School: Roger Brooke Taney, painted in 1859, the 82d year of his life, the 24th of his Chief Justiceship, the second after his opinion in Dred Scott. He is all in black, sitting in a shadowed red armchair, left hand resting upon a pad of paper in his lap, right hand hanging limply, almost lifelessly, beside the inner arm of the chair. He sits facing the viewer, and staring straight out. There seems to be on his face, and in his deep-set eyes, an expression of profound sadness and disillusionment. Perhaps he always looked that way, even when dwelling upon the happiest of thoughts. But those of us who know how the lustre of his great Chief Justiceship came to be eclipsed by Dred Scott cannot help believing that he had that case--its already apparent consequences for the Court, and its soon-to-be-played-out consequences for the Nation--burning on his mind. I expect that two years earlier he, too, had thought himself "call[ing] the contending sides of national controversy to end their national division by accepting a common mandate rooted in the Constitution."
 
It is no more realistic for us in this case, than it was for him in that, to think that an issue of the sort they both involved--an issue involving life and death, freedom and subjugation--can be "speedily and finally settled" by the Supreme Court, as President James Buchanan in his inaugural address said the issue of slavery in the territories would be. See Inaugural Addresses of the Presidents of the United States, S. Doc. No. 101-10, p. 126 (1989). Quite to the contrary, by foreclosing all democratic outlet for the deep passions this issue arouses, by banishing the issue from the political forum that gives all participants, even the losers, the satisfaction of a fair hearing and an honest fight, by continuing the imposition of a rigid national rule instead of allowing for regional differences, the Court merely prolongs and intensifies the anguish.
 
We should get out of this area, where we have no right to be, and where we do neither ourselves nor the country any good by remaining."

Planned Parenthood v. Casey, 505 U.S. 833, 1001-1002 (1992) (J. Scalia, dissenting) (emphasis added).
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 28, 2019, 11:58:20 PM
Why is it, Pastor Fienen, that you are always eager to look for suspected lies or misdeeds, while even more eager to avoid facing actual lies and misdeeds?
Sure. Investigate whatever you think needs investigating. But when an investigation turns up serious evidence of wrongdoing, what do you intend to do about it?  Your first response seems to be “well there was probably something wrong with the origin of the investigation.“
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Coach-Rev on May 29, 2019, 08:18:20 AM
Charles, why is it that you must dismiss PROVEN lies and misdeeds on your side, all the while oh-so-eager to point the finger at the other side of you?  FACT:  The Steele dossier was fabricated.  FACT:  It was this fabricated dossier that lead to the whole "Russian collusion" narrative and Mueller investigation in the first place.  FACT:  The Obama admin did indeed spy (illegally) on the Trump campaign.  And you have zero interest in knowing who was behind it all or why the whole collusion narrative began in the first place?  You are the quintessential epitome of hyperpartisan tribalism.

but yes, let's merely refer to them as "suspected" misdeeds.  Surely if the almighty Charles calls them that, then they must be so!   :o ::) >:(

Why is it, Pastor Fienen, that you are always eager to look for suspected lies or misdeeds, while even more eager to avoid facing actual lies and misdeeds?
Sure. Investigate whatever you think needs investigating. But when an investigation turns up serious evidence of wrongdoing, what do you intend to do about it?  Your first response seems to be “well there was probably something wrong with the origin of the investigation.“

Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on May 29, 2019, 08:34:06 AM
Charles, why is it that you must dismiss PROVEN lies and misdeeds on your side, all the while oh-so-eager to point the finger at the other side of you?  FACT:  The Steele dossier was fabricated.  FACT:  It was this fabricated dossier that lead to the whole "Russian collusion" narrative and Mueller investigation in the first place.  FACT:  The Obama admin did indeed spy (illegally) on the Trump campaign.  And you have zero interest in knowing who was behind it all or why the whole collusion narrative began in the first place?  You are the quintessential epitome of hyperpartisan tribalism.

but yes, let's merely refer to them as "suspected" misdeeds.  Surely if the almighty Charles calls them that, then they must be so!   :o ::) >:(

Why is it, Pastor Fienen, that you are always eager to look for suspected lies or misdeeds, while even more eager to avoid facing actual lies and misdeeds?
Sure. Investigate whatever you think needs investigating. But when an investigation turns up serious evidence of wrongdoing, what do you intend to do about it?  Your first response seems to be “well there was probably something wrong with the origin of the investigation.“


There aren't many things in the secular world more gratifying than seeing a self-righteous and highly partisan bully called out on his hypocrisy. When a fraudulent witch hunt turns up nothing other than gross misdeeds on the part of the accusers, shouldn't the accusers who were proven wrong simply shut up, move on, and hope no one notices?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 29, 2019, 09:48:58 AM
And we have a president who takes the side of a murderous dictator against a fellow American, taking national politics on the global scene. What a monumental embarrassment?
Meanwhile our government is in the process of deporting a student at the ELCA Chicago seminary, a refugee in this country who faced death in her homeland. Our government is sending her back there. The reason? All the bureaucratic niceties were not done perfectly.
If anyone cares, there’s more information online, but I doubt that many in this crowd Want to know about it.
And Pastor Cottingham, if there is proof that the Obama administration spied on the Trump campaign, why hasn’t that “proof” been presented to us? And why hasn’t anyone sought prosecution for the alleged crimes? I’ll tell you why, because it didn’t happen.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: JohannesKelpius on May 29, 2019, 10:07:05 AM
As someone who loathes everything Trump stands for, I think the promotion and obsession with the Russia collusion narrative has been a major blunder for the Democrats. I would also say it thoroughly discredits the major American media, except that they discredited themselves so many times before that this is superfluous (so many liberals seem to have forgotten the disgusting manipulation for the Iraq war).
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 29, 2019, 11:27:25 AM
Miller now says once again, that they did not consider bringing charges against the president as an option. And he says once again that Barr distorted the findings of his investigation.
And it seems more and more clear that there was an obstruction of justice, but the only way to seek prosecution and/or punishment is impeachment.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 29, 2019, 01:07:56 PM
Miller also said that if the investigation could have cleared the president, it would have done so.
It didn’t clear him.
So the “no collusion! No collusion!” Refrain sounds like it is on shaky ground.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: JohannesKelpius on May 29, 2019, 01:16:57 PM
A basic way the US justice system is supposed to work is that you don't have to prove you didn't do something, the prosecution has to prove you did.

Even before the Muller Report came out, the idea that Trump is a puppet of the Kremlin was disproved by his continuation or intensification of various stupid policies of antagonism toward Russia. This includes expanding NATO, arming the neo-Nazis in Ukraine, and supporting jihadists in Syria.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on May 29, 2019, 01:17:17 PM
FACT:  It was this fabricated dossier that lead to the whole "Russian collusion" narrative and Mueller investigation in the first place. 


Regardless of what started the investigation, it affirms the FACT that the Russians meddled in our election that has led to indictments. It was not an investigation into "Russian collusion," but should the Trump's campaign have participated in the Russian meddling, there would have been additional indictments.


The second issue is whether or not President Trump obstructed the investigation into the Russian meddling. The Mueller report does not clear the president of obstruction. The special council could not bring criminal charges against a sitting president, so they didn't. That doesn't mean that the president didn't commit crimes, just that the justice process for a president goes through congress, not through the Department of Justice.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on May 29, 2019, 01:21:51 PM
A basic way the US justice system is supposed to work is that you don't have to prove you didn't do something, the prosecution has to prove you did.


Ah, from what I've heard, the Mueller report does indicate that there was obstruction of justice; but the Department of Justice is forbidden to bring criminal charges against a sitting president. Mueller believed that he couldn't accuse the president of crimes in the report, so he didn't. He just laid out the evidence and turned it over the congress who can impeach a president for criminal activities.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: JohannesKelpius on May 29, 2019, 01:27:43 PM
Fair enough. It's very easy to believe that Trump is stupid enough to obstruct justice even if he is not actually guilty of Russian collusion. But the Democrats are still shooting themselves in the foot by putting so much weight into removing Trump in any way other than winning in 2020. The problem is there was such a ferment of apocalyptic anticipation surrounding the Muller report that, when it turned out to be a disappointment, the true believers felt compelled to recalculate and postpone the apocalypse, like doomsday preachers do on the morning of an uneventful doomsday. So now they hope in impeachment. They shouldn't. The only reasonably certain thing is that there will be an election in 2020 and the Democrats are not ready for it.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: James S. Rustad on May 29, 2019, 01:59:15 PM
A basic way the US justice system is supposed to work is that you don't have to prove you didn't do something, the prosecution has to prove you did.

Ah, from what I've heard, the Mueller report does indicate that there was obstruction of justice; but the Department of Justice is forbidden to bring criminal charges against a sitting president. Mueller believed that he couldn't accuse the president of crimes in the report, so he didn't. He just laid out the evidence and turned it over the congress who can impeach a president for criminal activities.

If what you have heard is correct, why has the House not started impeachment proceedings?  Could it be that what you have heard is not correct and the Mueller report lacks sufficient evidence to prove obstruction?

The Dems better start working on getting ready for the 2020 election, or they'll be grousing about President Trump for another four years.  (What a horrible thought!)
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 29, 2019, 02:05:19 PM
Johannes Kelpius writes:
It's very easy to believe that Trump is stupid enough to obstruct justice even if he is not actually guilty of Russian collusion.
I comment:
 Yes, it is easy to believe that. It is also true.

Johannes Kelpius writes:
But the Democrats are still shooting themselves in the foot by putting so much weight into removing Trump in any way other than winning in 2020.
I comment:
Yes, I agree. And removing him should be based more on his horrible policies rather than him being a horrible person.

Johannes Kelpius writes:
The only reasonably certain thing is that there will be an election in 2020 and the Democrats are not ready for it.
I comment:
Not yet, but they’re getting there. And are the Republicans ready? Has the backlash from women and minorities been calculated? Will some mainline Republicans suddenly grow a spine?  Will the lies and dissembling from the White House finally be recognized? Can Trump maintain a significant following with nothing more than his blustering lies, flashing ego and ridiculous posturings?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: D. Engebretson on May 29, 2019, 02:07:28 PM
A basic way the US justice system is supposed to work is that you don't have to prove you didn't do something, the prosecution has to prove you did.

Ah, from what I've heard, the Mueller report does indicate that there was obstruction of justice; but the Department of Justice is forbidden to bring criminal charges against a sitting president. Mueller believed that he couldn't accuse the president of crimes in the report, so he didn't. He just laid out the evidence and turned it over the congress who can impeach a president for criminal activities.

If what you have heard is correct, why has the House not started impeachment proceedings?  Could it be that what you have heard is not correct and the Mueller report lacks sufficient evidence to prove obstruction?

The Dems better start working on getting ready for the 2020 election, or they'll be grousing about President Trump for another four years.  (What a horrible thought!)

I suspect that one reason impeachment is not proceeding more quickly is the awareness that the actual trial must take place in the Senate, and given its Republican majority is not likely to entertain such an event. Obviously they have not come up with a good enough example of "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors" to sway enough Republicans to support such a trial.  Also, they cannot be unaware that the last time this was attempted by Republicans against Clinton it resulted in huge political losses for that party in the next election.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 29, 2019, 02:11:16 PM
Yes, I believe impeachment would probably be impractical and a wild goose chase, however satisfying it might be to nail the guy.
Spineless, cowardly Republicans  are not able to put the need of the nation over their own needs. And those are the Republicans would be voting on impeachment.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Coach-Rev on May 30, 2019, 08:33:03 AM
In this country, one has the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.  Mueller's words distort that fact.  He found no evidence (or even not enough) to prove guilt, therefore the president is indeed cleared, innocent, exonerated, and no collusion carried out on his part.  Not sure why this is so hard for you to grasp, other than you still wish him to be guilty because of your acute case of TDS. 

Miller also said that if the investigation could have cleared the president, it would have done so.
It didn’t clear him.
So the “no collusion! No collusion!” Refrain sounds like it is on shaky ground.

and by the way, it is "Mueller," not "Miller" or "Muller" as posted by another here.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: D. Engebretson on May 30, 2019, 09:09:58 AM
Given the relative nearness of the 2020 election this is going to be a tough call for Democrats.  If impeachment proceedings are initiated it will undoubtedly drag on into the election itself without any resolution prior to November.  The mere act of impeachment will fire up Trump's base. They will note that the Mueller Report itself was inconclusive.  On the other hand they can concentrate on the election. It seems as if Biden is a favored front-runner at this early stage, but many things can happens between now and then.  The field of candidates is huge at this point, but like with all election cycles it will thin out quickly after a while. The question will be whether their candidate can win over enough outside of Trump's base to tip the scales.  But what are most Americans looking for in a president?  They have enjoyed a strong economy and like it or not that is a driving force for many.  Bush 41 lost an election, in part, over the economy, while enjoying strong approval ratings for his handling of the Gulf War.  In a 2014 paper by Bindler and Watson it was determined that "presidential candidates operated with distinct advantages or disadvantages, depending on whether their party or their opponent’s party recently governed in a period of prosperity or economic hardship. In many instances the state of the economy appeared to make as much or more of an impact on the presidential race than the candidates’ personal attributes, campaign strategies, or debating skills." (https://historynewsnetwork.org/article/157825)  It will be hard for Democrats to argue against the economy in general since it has run a pretty strong course.

Many Americans are very aware that Trump falls far short of the personality and character they are accustomed to in presidents.  Even those who count themselves among his supporters are uneasy with his tweeting history and off-the-cuff statements.  But are Americans, in general, convinced that he is guilty of obstruction of justice?  Mueller's report is not conclusive.  He leaves it to congress to take it to the next step.  But can they find enough hard evidence to convince everyone that whatever he did rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors" as outlined so briefly in the constitution?

Personally I would think the Democrats strategically should concentrate more on the upcoming election, trying to find a viable candidate that can hold his own against Trump in the rough and tumble of the election.  From my vantage point I can't say I've seen one yet. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: David Garner on May 30, 2019, 09:25:05 AM
Something that should be considered -- and has been by the AG, and will be in any impeachment proceedings or other hearings on the matter -- is the difference between blathering and obstruction.  That is not to say blathering can never be obstruction, only that it is not necessarily so.

Angrily telling someone to fire the Special Counsel (for example) and having cooler heads prevail smacks of an attempt to obstruct before deferring to said cooler heads.  That is not enough to obtain a conviction in court, and I doubt it will be enough to obtain a removal vote in the Senate.  If there's more, perhaps someone can elaborate on what that "more" might entail.

Which is not to defend the president.  He just said today that Mueller asked for a job as FBI director, something that strikes me as wildly fantastic.  So he lies to smear his opponents, and in general is not a good person.  But he's the person we elected, and so absent actual high crimes and misdemeanors, we put up with him until the next election.  And as a strategic matter, pushing impeachment when you don't have sufficient evidence has historically backfired (history, to be fair, being very sparse on such matters, since impeachment is an extraordinary remedy, and therefore normally judiciously used).

I mean, Bill Clinton absolutely committed perjury and had his law license suspended as a result.  That is an actual felony offense, and yet he was not removed.  Why?  Because the underlying thing he lied about was seen as trivial.  In this case, what is being sought is the removal of the president for attempting to obstruct an investigation into crimes that do not exist.  I'm not sure that plays any better publicly. 

Of course, Pastor Austin's suggestion we impeach the president because he disagrees with him on policy is absurd on its face, and mostly what the push from Democratic partisans amounts to in any event. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 30, 2019, 09:41:37 AM
Pastor Cottingham writes:
In this country, one has the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
I comment:
True, but in some discussions the topic is not “legal” guilt.

Pastor Cottingham:
Mueller's words distort that fact.
Me:
LOL! Mueller is extremely careful with the words he uses. So I’ll take the distinguished federal lawyer’s interpretation over your opinion, nine days out of seven. LOL!

Pastor Cottingham:
He found no evidence (or even not enough) to prove guilt, therefore the president is indeed cleared, innocent, exonerated, and no collusion carried out on his part.
Me:
He did not say that. He said it was not his mission to prove guilt. He did say that Had it been been possible to completely exonerate the president, he would’ve done so. He didn’t.

Pastor Cottingham:
Not sure why this is so hard for you to grasp, other than you still wish him to be guilty because of your acute case of TDS. 
Me:
I’m not sure if your denseness on this topic is due to the fact that you couldn’t stand for me to be right on something or if, for some reason, you just don’t get it. The special prosecutor’s words are very clear. There is evidence Of wrong doing.  It may or may not be enough to get a conviction. It is not his job to prosecute. But it could be somebody’s job.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: David Garner on May 30, 2019, 09:59:15 AM
It is also not the mission of a prosecutor to exonerate.  It is his mission to gather evidence sufficient to charge or not charge.

The Special Counsel usually makes a recommendation to charge or not charge with regard to the president.  For example, the heading of the last portion of the Starr report was "There is Substantial and Credible Information that President Clinton Committed Acts that May Constitute Grounds for an Impeachment."  He outlined eleven potential areas that might be charged.  The sentence before those charges were outlined in the report read "there is substantial and credible information supporting the following eleven possible grounds for impeachment."

Mueller appears to want to have his cake and eat it too.  That is, he says he does not accuse, but he sure seems to have a great desire that the Congress would do his accusing for him.

The other odd thing about his presser yesterday is this -- he seems to greatly wish to avoid testifying before Congress, and yet calling that press conference seems to have had the opposite effect of his stated desire.  If anything, both parties are going to want to get him in front of the cameras to answer questions now.

It's bizarre, honestly.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on May 30, 2019, 10:18:37 AM
Pastor Cottingham writes:
In this country, one has the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.
I comment:
True, but in some discussions the topic is not “legal” guilt.

But, if the topic is impeachment of the president, it has all the trappings of a legal proceeding. The impeachment from the House serves as an indictment which is then taken to the Senate for trial. It is then up to the Senate to try the case and render a verdict.


While impeachment in practical terms is an intensely political act, it would be a disservice to the nation and contrary to the Constitution for it to be carried out as a political judgment. Do we really want to set the precedent that Congress has the final say over whether to person duly elected as president is allowed to serve as president? That if enough members of Congress dislike the one elected they can simply overturn the election by impeachment without demonstrating guilt? Should it be enough that the person has not been demonstrated to be innocent? That is a much lower standard of guilt than is accepted in court even in the matter of a civil suit. And surely removing a president demands a higher standard of proof of guilt than would be acceptable in a civil suit.



On the other hand, to say that by saying that there was not enough evidence to convict of a crime is not the same as exoneration. So Trump's cries of exoneration are an exaggeration. For some voters, Mueller's report will be enough of a reason to not vote for Trump. That is their privilege. Just as for some voters. Comey's statements that he felt that while Clinton should not be charged with mishandling classified materials she was very negligent in that handling was enough to suggest voting for someone else. All too often in the court of public opinion "innocent until proven guilty" is not applied. But except for actual elections, we do not run the government strictly by the court of public opinion.


If a governmental action is to be taken, even if it is removal from office or failure to confirm an appoint on the basis that the person has been guilty of a crime, then the "innocent until proven guilty" standard should be applied. Many governmental actions are taken, including removal from office or failure to confirm an appointment for reasons other than commission of a crime. Fine, those instances are laid out in law and established procedure. When Bret Kavanaugh was nominated to the Supreme Court, many in the Senate opposed him because he was conservative, or they thought that he lacked judicial temperament, or that he was appointed by President Trump. That was their privilege to do so, and while I might question their judgment, I would not question their right to oppose his nomination on those grounds. But when it turned to refusing to confirm his nomination because he was guilty of a sexual assault, then innocent until proven guilty should be applied.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on May 30, 2019, 10:25:20 AM
How many people who have later been proven innocent have been convicted of crimes because at the time police and prosecutors were convinced of their guilt, could not prove their innocence, and skewed the process?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Linda on May 30, 2019, 10:30:30 AM
Can only hope that Barr releases all documentation gathered from the various intelligence agencies (all that he is legally able to declassify) as directed by Trump.  What documents did the justice department rely on to get visa courts to sign off on warrants to monitor people involved in Trump's campaign and administration re colluding with Russia?

Linda
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 30, 2019, 11:41:09 AM
David Garner writes:
Of course, Pastor Austin's suggestion we impeach the president because he disagrees with him on policy is absurd on its face, and mostly what the push from Democratic partisans amounts to in any event.
I comment:
No, that was definitely not my suggestion, and is nowhere near close to what I think. I think we should defeat the president in 2020 on the basis of his horrible policies and horrible actions, not because he’s a horrible person. And I think we should make it clear that we have better policies and that we will act better.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: David Garner on May 30, 2019, 12:02:54 PM
David Garner writes:
Of course, Pastor Austin's suggestion we impeach the president because he disagrees with him on policy is absurd on its face, and mostly what the push from Democratic partisans amounts to in any event.
I comment:
No, that was definitely not my suggestion, and is nowhere near close to what I think. I think we should defeat the president in 2020 on the basis of his horrible policies and horrible actions, not because he’s a horrible person. And I think we should make it clear that we have better policies and that we will act better.

My apologies Pastor Austin.  I misread you -- you were indeed talking about voting the president out.

Please forgive me my haste.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 30, 2019, 12:29:03 PM
 And as noted upstream, I believe we should concentrate on voting him out, offering better policies and actions, rather than impeaching him out because of his horrible policies and actions.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on May 30, 2019, 01:35:05 PM
In this country, one has the presumption of innocence until proven guilty.  Mueller's words distort that fact.  He found no evidence (or even not enough) to prove guilt, therefore the president is indeed cleared, innocent, exonerated, and no collusion carried out on his part.  Not sure why this is so hard for you to grasp, other than you still wish him to be guilty because of your acute case of TDS. 


That is not what I heard him saying. Rather, they refused to pronounce Trump innocent; and they were forbidden to charge a sitting president with a crime. They can only present the evidence they uncovered that congress can use to impeach, if they so desire.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 30, 2019, 02:23:07 PM
Everybody, and I mean everybody except the most diehard Trump supporters agree that the Mueller report does not exonerate the president. It presents evidence. As noted upstream, that evidence might be enough to convict the president of something, and it might not. But evidence exists. And more specifically Mueller said the report does not exonerate him.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: John_Hannah on May 30, 2019, 02:32:03 PM
I believe I remember Chief Justice Rehnquist (a fellow Lutheran by the way) remark at the end of Clinton's trial in the Senate something to the effect that impeachment proceedings as envisioned in the constitution were always resolved politically (rather than forensically as in criminal court).

Anyone else remember that?

Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on May 30, 2019, 03:45:52 PM
Charles, your bizarre obsession is becoming morbid. We get it. You hate the guy. He's up for election next year. Vote hard against him.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on May 30, 2019, 04:16:34 PM
Charles, your bizarre obsession is becoming morbid. We get it. You hate the guy. He's up for election next year. Vote hard against him.

Since the person in question is a Democrat, he should move to Chicago, where he can vote early, and vote often.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dave Likeness on May 30, 2019, 04:23:45 PM
How morbid is Charles?    When he went to a movie theater to see the film "JAWS"......He cheered for the shark.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 30, 2019, 05:08:31 PM
Once again, Peter, and others, I do not hate him. I pity him. He is a man with a sad, little, ignorant Internal life, apparently without any gentle touchings of humanity. And his presidency has the potential to do great damage to this country and to the world.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: D. Engebretson on May 30, 2019, 06:10:39 PM
Not wanting to either prolong the conversation or appear as one of those dreaded "diehard supporters," I think that everyone - yes, even President Trump as per the 8th commandment -  deserves a bit of understanding, with an attempt to "explain everything in the kindest way."  Trump has characteristics and habits that I'd prefer were not in a president. He has not lived up to the moral standards I would have hoped for.  That said, in fairness, we should be able to find something of positive value to say in this man's defense. I do not think that the man is motivated entirely by pure ego or by a desire to tear everyone and everything down.  I also think we need to back away from "if Trump remains the country will fall" kind of rhetoric.  The economy has been strong. New wars have not been started under his leadership. And for some Christians what he has done to speak for and potentially protect unborn life is welcome.  He has also been very supportive of our military and the veterans who have served.  I do not expect a list of positives to now be put together, but it would be nice to treat him with a modicum of respect due the office, no less than we'd expect of our own in the public ministry. 

Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on May 30, 2019, 06:43:59 PM
it would be nice to treat him with a modicum of respect due the office, no less than we'd expect of our own in the public ministry.

For people who tend to share a particular perspective on the secular world, and the way things ought to be, respect for any elected office only counts when someone they approve of holds that office. I find it amusing that the individual who used to rake me over the coals because I did not kowtow to the previous Presiding Bishop of the ELCA because I was supposed to "respect the office" attacks the duly elected President of the United States with ignorant venom that doesn't begin to approach the things I said about the former ELCA Presiding Bishop.

I guess being an unrepentant hypocrite does not impede one from being a called and ordained minister in the ELCA.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 30, 2019, 08:37:24 PM
Mr. Erdner, of course, speaks nonsense. I have a good deal of respect for many Republican leaders, including both Presidents Bush, John McCain, Ronald Reagan, for example.
As noted above, the current occupant of the White House has my pity and my sympathy. I hope he finds someone to properly care for him. I cannot do that, of course.
Because he is not a king, we do have checks and balances against his errors and excesses. I pray that they will work as well as they were intended to work.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: JohannesKelpius on May 31, 2019, 09:34:16 AM
Trump has yet to pursue policies as destructive and evil as Bush or Reagan (key word being "yet"- if an invasion of Iran or Venezuela actually happens, that might no longer be true). If only he could maintain a veneer of "civility", he could do anything he wants and even centrist democrats would love him. I remember when Trump first bombed Syria and one of the MSNBC anchors declared how "presidential" a moment it was for him. It is very easy to please these people if you know how to smile for the camera, say the right comforting platitudes, and keep all your naughty stuff on the down low. In that regard Reagan was a true master.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 31, 2019, 09:37:45 AM
Yes, the Bush family gave us Mideast wars with horrendous consequences; but one could have some respect for them as people and - despite their war boondoggles - they did not demean and insult others nor did they show monumental ignorance of how our government works in ways that made their presidencies jokes.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: JohannesKelpius on May 31, 2019, 09:42:26 AM
I think their ability to put such a nice, congenial veneer on their horrors precisely makes them worse than Trump. Insofar as Trump is clumsy and boorish it can hinder his plans to some extent. That said there is also some method to Trump's madness, though I'm not sure how conscious he is of it. If he had been polite and well-spoken, the media would never have given him so much free campaign time and he would not be president.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 31, 2019, 09:44:55 AM
Ah, but an "old rule" in journalism was: If someone is speaking nonsense and no one is listening, there is no obligation to cover him. Trump was speaking nonsense and people were listening, so...
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: JohannesKelpius on May 31, 2019, 09:50:16 AM
I don't buy that. Mainstream media routinely ignore important events, nationally and globally, whether from ideological blinders or purely commercial motivations. They focused on Trump because they knew it would bring in viewers and ratings.

I think it's fair to say that the majority of people first heard about Trump's campaign through mainstream media sources highlighting his antics and supposed gaffes which turned out to appeal to an important segment of the electorate.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 31, 2019, 10:05:32 AM
As a long-time journalist in the secular world, I will try to say (although people never believe it) that newspapers do not make money on circulation. And what should we have done? Ignore a candidate running for the presidency in a major party who is moving upward almost every day?
And if the deciding number of our citizens are people who are not offended by his buffoonery, lies, soaring ego, stupidity and crimes, then I guess we deserve to have a president who will take us down.
Last week, people in Ohio complained loudly to a television station because the weatherman broke in - to deliver news about storms that could actually KILL PEOPLE - because he interrupted "The Bachelorette." If that is where we are as a people, we are doomed. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: JohannesKelpius on May 31, 2019, 10:21:05 AM
As a long-time journalist in the secular world, I will try to say (although people never believe it) that newspapers do not make money on circulation. And what should we have done? Ignore a candidate running for the presidency in a major party who is moving upward almost every day?

You mean like Bernie Sanders? Because they largely ignored him in 2016 while they were salivating over Trump. You are speaking as if American journalists, on principle, report things that are important but that is clearly not the case for most of them. It took years of death and destruction in Yemen before mainstream American journalists gave serious attention to the war there. Is it because that war wasn't important? No, but questioning US foreign policy and the House of Saud is decidedly unsexy.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 31, 2019, 10:25:19 AM
You say some smart things here, new guy. It’s a little unsettling.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Coach-Rev on May 31, 2019, 04:32:09 PM
Mr. Erdner, of course, speaks nonsense. I have a good deal of respect for many Republican leaders, including both Presidents Bush, John McCain, Ronald Reagan, for example.
As noted above, the current occupant of the White House has my pity and my sympathy. I hope he finds someone to properly care for him. I cannot do that, of course.
Because he is not a king, we do have checks and balances against his errors and excesses. I pray that they will work as well as they were intended to work.

Your words about him speak louder than your claims here, Charles.  I would have greater respect for you if you would just simply admit your hatred.  At the very least, you are the most uncharitable and unforgiving  person I've encountered within the church wrt the current President:  a title you cannot even bring yourself to grant, despite that he is duly elected to the office.

You know, I and others said that the previous president had potential to do great damage to this country, and  many of us believe he accomplished just that.  And yet I don't recall anyone either here on this forum or elsewhere who shows the levels of disrespect and - yes - hatred, for the man that you show on a consistent and daily basis.

shame on you.  SHAME.  ON.  YOU.

Once again, Peter, and others, I do not hate him. I pity him. He is a man with a sad, little, ignorant Internal life, apparently without any gentle touchings of humanity. And his presidency has the potential to do great damage to this country and to the world.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Coach-Rev on May 31, 2019, 04:35:56 PM
-You cannot be serious?  the MSM was "salivating over Trump" during the 2016 election cycle?  Yeah, only to demean him and report negatively on him, which most fairness-in-journalism reports show was upwards of 90% negative regarding Candidate Trump, either before or after winning the nomination.

You mean like Bernie Sanders? Because they largely ignored him in 2016 while they were salivating over Trump. You are speaking as if American journalists, on principle, report things that are important but that is clearly not the case for most of them. It took years of death and destruction in Yemen before mainstream American journalists gave serious attention to the war there. Is it because that war wasn't important? No, but questioning US foreign policy and the House of Saud is decidedly unsexy.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: JohannesKelpius on May 31, 2019, 04:57:05 PM
They were salivating over Trump the same way they salivate over train wrecks. Of course they had to declare how awful it all was but beneath it all they loved him.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on May 31, 2019, 05:31:29 PM
Ever since I got off Facebook I’ve noticed more and more how irrelevant the news of the day is. Longer, topical opinion pieces on current issues still interest me, but article length descriptions of what happened today (and certainly any talking heads telling me what happened) are apropo of nothing. Nearly all of it will soon be forgotten or shown to be false. And that sliver of enduring importance will make itself known without me having to be aware of it in real time.

The Inklings considered newspapers fit to be ignored. Being “up on current events” was not, for them, a mark of an educated person or sound thinker. I’m increasingly inclined to agree, though I never used to; I always thought they had a blind spot as to the importance of being informed. They didn’t. They had a better sense of what constitutes important information. Nothing that will be “yesterday’s news” as soon as tomorrow is anything I need to know today.

Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on May 31, 2019, 05:57:13 PM
Peter, I get your point. The exception to that I think would be when faced with significant decisions for which current events could make a difference, such as voting.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on May 31, 2019, 06:07:47 PM
If you think, Pastor Cottingham, that I cower under your denunciations, you are wrong.
I do not hate President Trump. I believe he was  validly elected, partly due to the dimness of some of our fellow citizens, and other factors which I dare not mention here.
But I despise what he has done and his attitudes.
And it is clear to me that some people in this modest forum have exactly the same view of Mrs. Clinton.
So there’s no need to go all Godzilla on me because of my views of President Trump.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Linda on May 31, 2019, 06:17:33 PM
Really looking forward to voting for Trump again.

Linda
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: J.L. Precup on May 31, 2019, 07:14:09 PM
Really looking forward to voting for Trump again.

Linda

There was a woman in my first congregation in Chicago.  She prayed for and contributed to Nixon's reelection and encouraged others to do so.  When Nixon was reelected, she was overjoyed.  She told everyone that this was God's doing. 

When Nixon stepped down, she said nothing.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: D. Engebretson on May 31, 2019, 07:36:14 PM
Personally I am not looking forward to the presidential election at all.  At one time it seemed easier to navigate.  No longer. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: readselerttoo on May 31, 2019, 07:58:14 PM
Ever since I got off Facebook I’ve noticed more and more how irrelevant the news of the day is. Longer, topical opinion pieces on current issues still interest me, but article length descriptions of what happened today (and certainly any talking heads telling me what happened) are apropo of nothing. Nearly all of it will soon be forgotten or shown to be false. And that sliver of enduring importance will make itself known without me having to be aware of it in real time.

The Inklings considered newspapers fit to be ignored. Being “up on current events” was not, for them, a mark of an educated person or sound thinker. I’m increasingly inclined to agree, though I never used to; I always thought they had a blind spot as to the importance of being informed. They didn’t. They had a better sense of what constitutes important information. Nothing that will be “yesterday’s news” as soon as tomorrow is anything I need to know today.

Nice.  :)
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Linda on May 31, 2019, 08:57:23 PM
As Nixon started the EPA, I can understand the woman's chagrin at having supported him. 

Linda
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on June 01, 2019, 12:11:25 AM
If you believe you live in a world where nothing in the news will ever affect your life, or the life of your children, or the lives of your grandchildren, then you can easily ignore anything in the news whether it is yesterday today or tomorrow.
But if you have some concerns for your life the day after tomorrow or the week after next or next year, or if you wonder whether your children will have clean air to breathe or water to drink, then you just might want to pay a little bit of attention to how we are handling things like air and water.
And if you believe in the founding and governing principles of our country, then I wonder how you can ignore things that are clear threats to those founding and governing principles.
But perhaps some people are “above” such things and have a world they can live in where things like that simply don’t matter.
Maybe they are like those people who create a “church” that only serves their needs, doesn’t do anything to bother them, and sticks to the narrow concerns and rigidly defined doctrines that suit their own View of what a church is, and separates itself From anything that might bother their “safe” little world.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: D. Engebretson on June 01, 2019, 09:01:00 AM
I think there are many of us who live in a tension with where the world is and where we might like it to be.  A tension that causes us to pull back at times lest we become overwhelmed.  Nevertheless, we continue to serve our communities in very local ways, even if we cannot at the moment impact events beyond our boarders in any meaningful way.  Even the most conservative among us can be found out there feeding the hungry, comforting the troubled, attending local school board meetings and town halls, finding ways to improve and protect the First Article gifts God has given to us as they exist in our immediate context. 

Voting allows us one opportunity to impact a wider world, and we are fools if we tell ourselves our vote does not count.  But while we wait for those opportunities to take part in a national system of decision making, we must be about our work in our local settings, loving God and loving our neighbor in whatever ways God has given.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on June 01, 2019, 09:46:27 AM
You are absolutely right, Pastor Engebretson. We do what we can in our local settings. But we are not just local.
My response was to those who seem to think they can be "above" the nastiness of news, politics and the allegedly sordid doings of the daily world.
Those Oxford Inklings had their literature, their public school classism, their brandy and cigars and heady discussion in club lounges. Many of their writings (Tolkien and Lewis, for example) created fantasy worlds or were on exotic philosophical subjects. Hmmm? Better than dealing with the gritty real world.
Meanwhile, Albert Camus is writing The Stranger, a novel with surprising portent. George Orwell pens 1984. John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath becomes popular. Others plunge into the reality and fast-changing challenges of the post-war world.
I just like those writers and their world better than I like fantasy worlds, even if there is a Jesus-Lion present.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Voelker on June 01, 2019, 10:16:53 AM
You are absolutely right, Pastor Engebretson. We do what we can in our local settings. But we are not just local.
My response was to those who seem to think they can be "above" the nastiness of news, politics and the allegedly sordid doings of the daily world.
Those Oxford Inklings had their literature, their public school classism, their brandy and cigars and heady discussion in club lounges. Many of their writings (Tolkien and Lewis, for example) created fantasy worlds or were on exotic philosophical subjects. Hmmm? Better than dealing with the gritty real world.
Meanwhile, Albert Camus is writing The Stranger, a novel with surprising portent. George Orwell pens 1984. John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath becomes popular. Others plunge into the reality and fast-changing challenges of the post-war world.
I just like those writers and their world better than I like fantasy worlds, even if there is a Jesus-Lion present.
And the writers you tout — well, Camus and Orwell — while they wrote useful, interesting books, fail to capture the imaginations of readers in such a way as to make them think and rethink their own lives and stay with them while generating more fruitful consideration as the years go on. You mistake fantasy settings for escapism, while it is those very settings that allow the reader to consider their own beliefs and feelings concerning nobility, sacrifice, duty, and responsibility toward the world and the neighbor. Tolkien's work, for instance, has had far more of an effect on society — and in a positive way — by affecting the minds of his readers, especially younger ones, for the better. A "serious", "real-life" book can be good, but can only go so far in bringing the reader along.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: D. Engebretson on June 01, 2019, 10:53:47 AM
Those Oxford Inklings had their literature, their public school classism, their brandy and cigars and heady discussion in club lounges. Many of their writings (Tolkien and Lewis, for example) created fantasy worlds or were on exotic philosophical subjects. Hmmm? Better than dealing with the gritty real world.

Imagining the horror that Tolkien and Lewis went through in WWI (Lewis was wounded, Tolkien suffered from trench fever, they both saw unbelievable carnage and loss), I don't blame them for looking for some reprieve in another world; although one, we might note, that often echoed and paralleled the evil they saw in their own.  Through a form of myth they attempted to explain the role of evil in our world and the true victory of good over it. One might see in their writings a kind of escapism via fantasy, but it can also be seen as a way to explain an almost unexplainable horror that mere reporting will never capture, and mere historical accounts can not provide the healing for the injured and scarred soul.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on June 01, 2019, 01:41:32 PM
Really looking forward to voting for Trump again.

Linda

There was a woman in my first congregation in Chicago.  She prayed for and contributed to Nixon's reelection and encouraged others to do so.  When Nixon was reelected, she was overjoyed.  She told everyone that this was God's doing. 

When Nixon stepped down, she said nothing.


The pastor's wife when I was in high school admitted that she had prayed against President Kennedy. When he was shot, she was sorry that she had uttered such prayers - lest God had heard them and answered in such a drastic way.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on June 01, 2019, 03:55:53 PM

Those Oxford Inklings had their literature, their public school classism, their brandy and cigars and heady discussion in club lounges. Many of their writings (Tolkien and Lewis, for example) created fantasy worlds or were on exotic philosophical subjects. Hmmm? Better than dealing with the gritty real world.
Meanwhile, Albert Camus is writing The Stranger, a novel with surprising portent. George Orwell pens 1984. John Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath becomes popular. Others plunge into the reality and fast-changing challenges of the post-war world.
I just like those writers and their world better than I like fantasy worlds, even if there is a Jesus-Lion present.

I've not read The Stranger, but I'm bewildered that someone would offer Camus to distinguish from "exotic philosophical subjects."  I have read 1984, which is set in a world no less imaginary (fantasy), or more grittily real (though the parallels with the West of today are strikingly prophetic), than Middle Earth or Narnia.  But it's okay for you to prefer the worlds created by Steinbeck (I read him, too, though I'll confess to having less sympathy for Okies afterwards), Camus, or Orwell over those of Lewis or Tolkien. 

Pax, Steven+
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on June 02, 2019, 08:37:55 AM
I never said I ignore the nitty gritty or think the nothing that happens affects me. I said keeping up in real time is unnecessary and counter-productive. It treats politics, celebrities, and strange goings-on like spectator sports. As a football fan, I might watch the pregame show predictions, the game, and the post-game interviews. Or I could read the final score in the paper a week later. The difference is strictly how interested I am. The outcome is the same.

So it is with Barr’s investigation. Whether I read fifty tweets a day about it, or ignore it entirely until he issues his findings, the results will be the same. And since I don’t find the pregame show interesting, I don’t watch.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: John_Hannah on June 09, 2019, 08:24:48 AM
As I have suspected and noted here before. Public opinion, the popular will is shifting and stereotypes of the parties are faulty. There is reason to hope.   :)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/08/upshot/politicians-draw-clear-lines-on-abortion-their-parties-are-not-so-unified.html?te=1&nl=morning-briefing&emc=edit_nn_20190609?campaign_id=9&instance_id=10078&segment_id=14130&user_id=05c867d2895d403ebffb754674621988&regi_id=4725168320190609

Peace, JOHN
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: TERJr on June 09, 2019, 03:01:10 PM
It might be interesting to read that side by side with this report from Barna: https://www.barna.com/research/post-christian-cities-2019/
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Matt Hummel on June 09, 2019, 04:16:30 PM
Those Oxford Inklings had their literature, their public school classism, their brandy and cigars and heady discussion in club lounges. Many of their writings (Tolkien and Lewis, for example) created fantasy worlds or were on exotic philosophical subjects. Hmmm? Better than dealing with the gritty real world.

Imagining the horror that Tolkien and Lewis went through in WWI (Lewis was wounded, Tolkien suffered from trench fever, they both saw unbelievable carnage and loss), I don't blame them for looking for some reprieve in another world; although one, we might note, that often echoed and paralleled the evil they saw in their own.  Through a form of myth they attempted to explain the role of evil in our world and the true victory of good over it. One might see in their writings a kind of escapism via fantasy, but it can also be seen as a way to explain an almost unexplainable horror that mere reporting will never capture, and mere historical accounts can not provide the healing for the injured and scarred soul.

All y’all need to read Tolkien’s On Fairy Stories. If you think the purpose of High Fantasy is escapism, then you are off base. High Fantasy is unrealistic in the ways the problems you solved in physics were unrealistic. By removing certain extraneous issues, you can focus on the real problem.

Interestingly enough, I read an essay a while back that juxtaposed Tolkien’s Mordor with Orwell’s Airstrip One. The argument was that Tolkien’s internecine squabbling between orcs, the limited information and rampant disinformation was in someways a more realistic portrayal of life in a totalitarian regime.

And so I leave you with a quote from Peter Kreeft:

“Those who love Tolkien are almost always good people, honest people. Some are Hobbit-like and some are Elvish, but none are Orcish.

Not all Tolkien haters are Orcs, but all Orcs are Tolkien haters.”
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on June 13, 2019, 04:33:50 AM
Not only do we have - from the Mueller report - evidence that the Trump campaign took support (the dreaded, and supposedly non-existant "collusion") from Russia, the man who will presumably run in 2020 says he would do it again:
From The New York Times today:
WASHINGTON — President Trump said on Wednesday that there would be nothing wrong with accepting incriminating information about an election opponent from Russia or other foreign governments and that he saw no reason to call the F.B.I. if it were to happen again.
   “It’s not an interference,” he said in an interview with ABC News, describing it as “opposition research.” “They have information — I think I’d take it.” He would call the F.B.I. only “if I thought there was something wrong.”
   His comments put him at odds not only with Democratic candidates who have made a point of forswearing help from foreign governments as they seek their party’s nomination to challenge him but also with his own F.B.I. director, Christopher S. Wray, who has said politicians in such circumstances should call his agency.
   When the interviewer, George Stephanopoulos, noted that the F.B.I. director has said a candidate should call, Mr. Trump snapped, “The F.B.I. director is wrong.”
   The president’s remarks came on the same day that his son Donald Trump Jr. appeared on Capitol Hill to answer questions from lawmakers. During the 2016 campaign, the younger Mr. Trump — along with Jared Kushner, the future president’s son-in-law, and Paul Manafort, then his campaign chairman — met with a Kremlin-connected lawyer after being told she would have “dirt” on Hillary Clinton as “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump.”
   In testimony to Congress last month, Mr. Wray, who was appointed by Mr. Trump, said campaigns should report it if they hear from foreign governments. “I think my view is that if any public official or member of any campaign is contacted by any nation state or anybody acting on behalf of a nation state about influencing or interfering with our election, then that’s something that the F.B.I. would want to know about,” Mr. Wray said.
   When pressed during the interview, Mr. Trump allowed that maybe he would call the F.B.I. but only after listening to the incriminating information first. “I think maybe you do both,” he said, adding: “There’s nothing wrong with listening. If somebody called from a country, Norway, ‘we have information on your opponent’ — oh, I think I’d want to hear it.”

I comment:
Norway? Talk about a dodge!
I continue to wonder about Mr. Trump's love affair with the murderous dictator in North Korea, where possibly a hundred thousand or more citizens are imprisoned in labor camps for opposing him, where he has had his own relatives killed, and where the government threatens your family if you say the wrong thing. I wonder about his taking our national politics into his overseas jaunts to trash our own people - while trashing also the leaders in the countries he visits - on the world stage.
This humble correspondent still believes that it would be too much trouble to actually impeach the president, but I am beginning to strongly feel that there should be investigations that prove - if not proven already - that he could be impeached for high crimes against our country.
P.S. Sally, my cat, has another tuna treat bet on what the initial responses to this comment will be. 

Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: D. Engebretson on June 13, 2019, 09:03:18 AM
Molly Hemingway offers another perspective worth considering in all this: "Hillary Clinton took information from a foreign government," Hemingway said. "If it is such a huge problem to take information from a foreign government, he should be asking her and Democrats, and the Democratic National Committee secretly bought and paid for this dossier that by their own accounting was sourced to government officials in Russia."

A lot of attention is put on Trump here, but looking back at the previous election it should be noted that the Democrats are not innocent parties here.  Why is the Steele Dossier not placed in the same category? 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/06/12/mollie_hemingway_if_getting_info_from_a_foreign_government_is_a_problem_ask_democrats_about_steele_dossier.html
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on June 13, 2019, 10:15:44 AM
Darn it! My cat, Sally, gets another tuna treat. She bet me that one of the first responses would be either “well the other side did that too.”
I told her I thought people here were smart  enough to realize that there has been no investigation into those allegations, and that they apparently, even if true, had no effect.
Furthermore, as I said to my dear little cat, Mrs. Clinton did not win the election, and is not in the high office saying not only that she did accept help from a foreign government but that she would do it again. If this were the case I would have exactly the same opinion of her in this matter as I do of the current president.
Is there any chance, any slight chance, that we could focus on the current administration rather than on a campaign that lost and an administration that never came into existence?
Why this persistent reluctant to even discuss the possibility that the Trump administration is corrupt and perhaps treasonous?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on June 13, 2019, 10:30:28 AM
Darn it! My cat, Sally, gets another tuna treat. She bet me that one of the first responses would be either “well the other side did that too.”
I told her I thought people here were smart  enough to realize that there has been no investigation into those allegations, and that they apparently, even if true, had no effect.
Furthermore, as I said to my dear little cat, Mrs. Clinton did not win the election, and is not in the high office saying not only that she did accept help from a foreign government but that she would do it again. If this were the case I would have exactly the same opinion of her in this matter as I do of the current president.
Is there any chance, any slight chance, that we could focus on the current administration rather than on a campaign that lost and an administration that never came into existence?
Why this persistent reluctant to even discuss the possibility that the Trump administration is corrupt and perhaps treasonous?
Because your motivations for wanting that discussion are purely partisan.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on June 13, 2019, 11:23:14 AM
Peter, so let's assume Charles is a partisan Democrat as all Democrats are, for the sake of arguement... is the protection of the nation from a President who does and says what Trump does and says... is the protection of the nation only left up the Republicans since Democrats are partisan against Republicans?  And what are they doing about it, behind the scenes or overtly?  Is there absolutely no reason to think that the guardian Republicans need to be alert or concerned or proactive or even slightly reactive to any of the many things that seem to bother many folks at least some?  Why is it that many Democrats seem to have reached to the position of saying that any of the Republican presidents from Reagan on through both Bushes would be head and shoulders more a President  and much more desirable than the present occupant of the WH?  Why is it that there is fairly large clot of Republican figures (out of office) who do speak out on news shows against Trump, are their concerns all sour grapes and have they become partisans of the Democratic viewpoint?   
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on June 13, 2019, 11:28:18 AM
Darn it! My cat, Sally, gets another tuna treat. She bet me that one of the first responses would be either “well the other side did that too.”
I told her I thought people here were smart  enough to realize that there has been no investigation into those allegations, and that they apparently, even if true, had no effect.
Furthermore, as I said to my dear little cat, Mrs. Clinton did not win the election, and is not in the high office saying not only that she did accept help from a foreign government but that she would do it again. If this were the case I would have exactly the same opinion of her in this matter as I do of the current president.
Is there any chance, any slight chance, that we could focus on the current administration rather than on a campaign that lost and an administration that never came into existence?
Why this persistent reluctant to even discuss the possibility that the Trump administration is corrupt and perhaps treasonous?

The significance of "well the other side did that too" is not that if indeed the other side did that too then that excuses whatever the President has done. If, Hillary Clinton and her election campaign committed crimes, does the fact that apparently those crimes did not result in the effect that she sought excuse her crime? (If I were to break into a bank, hold the tellers at gun point and break into the vault, but end up walking out without any money mean that I committed no crime?) Is a crime a crime if no one investigates it?


Are the standards by which you judge the Republican President whom you despise the same kind of standards by which you judge Democrats? Double standards are as old as politics. But that does not make them any less hypocritical.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on June 13, 2019, 11:40:14 AM
Peter, so let's assume Charles is a partisan Democrat as all Democrats are, for the sake of arguement... is the protection of the nation from a President who does and says what Trump does and says... is the protection of the nation only left up the Republicans since Democrats are partisan against Republicans?  And what are they doing about it, behind the scenes or overtly?  Is there absolutely no reason to think that the guardian Republicans need to be alert or concerned or proactive or even slightly reactive to any of the many things that seem to bother many folks at least some?  Why is it that many Democrats seem to have reached to the position of saying that any of the Republican presidents from Reagan on through both Bushes would be head and shoulders more a President  and much more desirable than the present occupant of the WH?  Why is it that there is fairly large clot of Republican figures (out of office) who do speak out on news shows against Trump, are their concerns all sour grapes and have they become partisans of the Democratic viewpoint?
As for Democrats, they think Trump far worse than previous Republican presidents because Trump actually does the things those others said they would do but never did. As for Republicans who can’t stand Trump, some are neo-con internationalists and others just hate that Trump is so despicable personally and has an obnoxious and uncouth way of doing things.

Everything Trump has actually done, to my knowledge and whether I agree with it or not, has fallen well within the bounds of perfectly mainstream political opinion. I don’t see the country in need of protection from anything Trump has actually done, most of which has routinely been done by previous presidents. If you think the country needs protection from protectionist trade policies, stricter border enforcement, conservative judges, etc. then vote for someone else. That’s how our system works.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on June 13, 2019, 11:51:36 AM
Wow.  If you are not ashamed of the way he has acted publicly, that is really sad.  If you are not deeply troubled by one who praises the leaders of Russia and North Korea over against his own people dedicated to protecting our country... if you are not troubled by the way he humiliates those beyond the circle of politics... if you are not frightened at calling the press the enemy of the people...  Wow, that is beyond sad.  And all this living by the end justifies the means behavior is deeply troubling on the part of Christians and conservatives. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: David Garner on June 13, 2019, 11:52:03 AM
Some of us remember when Joe Biden said Mitt Romney wanted to put black people back in chains.

If you don't like the people not responding when you cry wolf, maybe don't cry wolf literally every four years.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on June 13, 2019, 11:52:23 AM
Peter, so let's assume Charles is a partisan Democrat as all Democrats are, for the sake of arguement... is the protection of the nation from a President who does and says what Trump does and says... is the protection of the nation only left up the Republicans since Democrats are partisan against Republicans?  And what are they doing about it, behind the scenes or overtly?  Is there absolutely no reason to think that the guardian Republicans need to be alert or concerned or proactive or even slightly reactive to any of the many things that seem to bother many folks at least some?  Why is it that many Democrats seem to have reached to the position of saying that any of the Republican presidents from Reagan on through both Bushes would be head and shoulders more a President  and much more desirable than the present occupant of the WH?  Why is it that there is fairly large clot of Republican figures (out of office) who do speak out on news shows against Trump, are their concerns all sour grapes and have they become partisans of the Democratic viewpoint?

Personally, I don't think that Trump is as bad a president as many, especially those who seek to oust or replace him think. I also think that he is not nearly as good a president as he thinks he is. Disagreeing with his decisions or his style is not the same as convicting him of crimes.


Part of his effectiveness is that he does not act the same as many other politicians have acted. His style is quite different which makes him unpredictable to foes and allies alike. Sometimes he gets things accomplished because he ends up intimidating people who don't know just what he might do and fear what he could. He also employs the carrot and stick much more than do standard politicians.


Look at how he's dealt with North Korea. He started by acting very belligerently towards the Kim government, so much so that Democrats and the press were afraid that we were moving towards war. Then when there was an opening for a summit suddenly he was "in love" talking nice claiming friendship. Then when at the Hanoi summit Kim started demanding too much he walked out. (Just when the Democrats and the press were pressing the panic button that Trump would give away the store just to get a deal.) Yes there was some inconsistency there, but it also looked like some canny manipulation on Trump's part. Will in the end this style of negotiation prove better than what presidents in the past have done? Too early to tell. We've had more and higher level talks with North Korea than we've had before so that is a positive. Whether or not that will in the end prove fruitful, only time will tell. Why simply assume that it will not?


Donald Trump is not the first president to try to play nice with the Russians. Nor the first to try to play nice with Vladimir Putin. Barack Obama tried to play up to and be accommodating towards Putin, reset our Russian relationship, even play down Russian efforts to interfere with American elections. That wasn't very successful either.


If Trump is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors,  lay out the evidence, try, and convict him. It seems to me that presidential power is considered a good thing, even a necessary thing when a Democrat inhabits the White House, especially if Republicans control one or both houses of Congress. (Which president stated that if Congress wouldn't cooperate that he would govern with a phone and a pen?) When a Republican is president, then presidential power is to be subservient to Congress.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on June 13, 2019, 11:59:05 AM
Molly Hemingway offers another perspective worth considering in all this: "Hillary Clinton took information from a foreign government," Hemingway said. "If it is such a huge problem to take information from a foreign government, he should be asking her and Democrats, and the Democratic National Committee secretly bought and paid for this dossier that by their own accounting was sourced to government officials in Russia."

A lot of attention is put on Trump here, but looking back at the previous election it should be noted that the Democrats are not innocent parties here.  Why is the Steele Dossier not placed in the same category? 

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/06/12/mollie_hemingway_if_getting_info_from_a_foreign_government_is_a_problem_ask_democrats_about_steele_dossier.html


I really don't care all that much about her obtaining information from foreign governments. Every Presidential candidate takes whatever information they can get from whatever source they can get it. This includes winners and losers. I'm far more concerned about Hillary taking huge cash bribes from the Russians, the Saudis, and other foreign countries. Her money laundering skills were good, but not good enough to totally conceal all the cash that flowed into the bogus "Clinton Foundation" charity. I suggest that those who continue to look for dirt on the duly elected President of the United States should consider how much worse the actions of his predecessor was, and how even more egregious the actions of the losing candidate in the last Presidential election were. Then, maybe those people can divert their time and energy into helping to make this nation great again.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on June 13, 2019, 12:00:11 PM
For heaven’s sake, Peter! Of course it’s “partisan” There are people here who are openly “Partisan” as Republicans. Why should that even be a point of discussion?
I already said that if the Democrats were doing this, I would be equally concerned. I have said that at least three times here. So stop asking that question over and over, Pastor Fienen.
And I am not speaking theoretically, or wondering what kind concern there would be if there were an investigation into wrongdoing by Democrats. I’m speaking about what we actually know, what has been found in an investigation of alleged wrongdoing by this administration. That is the topic.
Peter contends the president is no threat to anything. I strongly disagree and I have stated my reasons for believing that way. Quite a few other people, including prominent constitutional scholars, agree with me.
Peter’s response of “there’s nothing to see here, move along,” is not going to shut down my concerns.
I remain surprised that other people in this forum, people I consider possessing reasonable intelligence, just keep looking the other way as the actions of this current administration continue.
Except for Harvey, And I think it is his poet’s soul that puts him on the right track.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on June 13, 2019, 12:02:50 PM
And if the other candidate took bribes, that is still an actionable offense. Somebody explain to me why no action has been taken. Could it be because it’s not true?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: David Garner on June 13, 2019, 12:03:20 PM
If Trump is guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors,  lay out the evidence, try, and convict him. It seems to me that presidential power is considered a good thing, even a necessary thing when a Democrat inhabits the White House, especially if Republicans control one or both houses of Congress. (Which president stated that if Congress wouldn't cooperate that he would govern with a phone and a pen?) When a Republican is president, then presidential power is to be subservient to Congress.

This hits on something I've mentioned before, but perhaps not here.  The leftist push for ever-increasing federal power and influence in the lives of ordinary Americans is always considered a good thing, so long as leftists are in charge.  Once someone like Donald Trump takes the reins of all that power, suddenly the nation is in peril.

What if -- what if -- the Founders' way of dividing power between three co-equal branches and limiting their scope and authority to meddle in the lives of the states, and therefore ordinary Americans, acts as a mitigating force on this problem?  That is, it is easier to elect local officials who agree with you, and easier to leave and find another state in the event yours is run by people whose policies you find objectionable.  It is much harder to convince an entire nation that your way or the highway is the correct approach.  One reason our country is divided now is the push to have everything decreed from on high.  When people say "you can't legislate morality," those people are fools. All law is an exercise in morality, and the only question is whose morality will be imposed.  When the Supreme Court took abortion from the political realm in 1973, it did not end division on that issue.  It merely made sure that every presidential election would hinge on that issue.  Brett Kavanaugh wasn't opposed because useful idiots really cared about his supposed mistreatment of women.  After all, those same useful idiots cheered Bill Clinton, who was accused of many more instances of the same behavior, and worse.  No, they opposed Kavanaugh because they fear he will vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Centralized power is a necessity.  But it ought to be meted out judiciously.  If we had a Constitutional government where the federal government stayed in its lane and the Supreme Court did not meddle in the moral affairs of an entire country, it wouldn't matter one whit whether Trump or somebody far worse was the President.  It is precisely the leftist desire to have their vision imposed from on high that feeds their fears when someone who doesn't share it takes the reins of power they created.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: D. Engebretson on June 13, 2019, 12:14:54 PM
My posts usually don't elicit a whole lot of response (which is okay).  But I am pleased, being a cat lover, that this time Sally benefited by getting an actual extra treat. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on June 13, 2019, 12:21:29 PM
Well, this “leftist” longs for the days of Reagan and the two Bush administrations. I would even, sad to say (but I must speak honestly) be more comfortable with Vice President Pence in the oval office.
He is not an egotistical fool and he understands our rule of law.
P.S. to Pastor Engebretson: Sally thanks you, and I’m not making that bet with her again.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Terry W Culler on June 13, 2019, 12:46:47 PM
Donald Trump is not what any of us would call a "good" man.  I think we all agree with this.  The idea that he is a threat to constitutional government and the American way of life is, however, laughable.  What do you think he's going to do--send the army to Illinois now that it has enshrined abortion until birth?  Abolish the Congress?  Arrest Nancy Pelosi? Bomb Paris?  Maybe if the people who abominate the President would speak without spewing out nonsense we could have a reasonable discussion about his policies, which are, for the most part, policies Republican politicians have been advancing for years.  Until that time this thread is absolutely pointless and I will not read it again.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: aletheist on June 13, 2019, 12:54:19 PM
What if -- what if -- the Founders' way of dividing power between three co-equal branches ... acts as a mitigating force on this problem?
I am surprised that you would repeat this common misconception.  The Founders' way of dividing power was not to establish three co-equal branches; rather, they intended the legislative branch to be preeminent, precisely because it is designed to be the most responsive to the interests of the people (House of Representatives) and the states (Senate).  The problem is that for decades Congress has been abdicating its proper role and authority to the executive and judicial branches.  That is why the stakes are now so high not only in presidential elections, but also in Supreme Court appointments.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on June 13, 2019, 01:26:45 PM
Terry, just interested... I promise not to tear into your answer... what do you mean by saying that Trump is not a "good" man?  Obviously, in these parts I know you and I acknowledge that he like all of us are sinners and so you do not need to say that... but compared to others, apart from that, what makes him not a good man?  And if it is not too much, how NOT A GOOD MAN is he?  Is he a bad man?  I know lots of folks seem to be saying what you are saying, but I do not understand the concept. 

Maybe a for instance would help.  Say I have a neighbor who yells at kids and I have seen him kick at his own dog for barking.  I would say that he is not a good man.  Say I have another neighbor and he sells drugs to kids and abuses his wife.  I could also say that he is not a good man also.  But there would be a vast difference between the two.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: mj4 on June 13, 2019, 01:51:44 PM
And if the other candidate took bribes, that is still an actionable offense. Somebody explain to me why no action has been taken. Could it be because it’s not true?

A quick survey of the Clinton Foundation donors suggests some questionable sources. Saudi Arabia? Really?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/clinton-donors (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/clinton-donors)
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on June 13, 2019, 01:54:24 PM
For heaven’s sake, Peter! Of course it’s “partisan” There are people here who are openly “Partisan” as Republicans. Why should that even be a point of discussion?
I already said that if the Democrats were doing this, I would be equally concerned. I have said that at least three times here. So stop asking that question over and over, Pastor Fienen.
And I am not speaking theoretically, or wondering what kind concern there would be if there were an investigation into wrongdoing by Democrats. I’m speaking about what we actually know, what has been found in an investigation of alleged wrongdoing by this administration. That is the topic.
Peter contends the president is no threat to anything. I strongly disagree and I have stated my reasons for believing that way. Quite a few other people, including prominent constitutional scholars, agree with me.
Peter’s response of “there’s nothing to see here, move along,” is not going to shut down my concerns.
I remain surprised that other people in this forum, people I consider possessing reasonable intelligence, just keep looking the other way as the actions of this current administration continue.
Except for Harvey, And I think it is his poet’s soul that puts him on the right track.
You are simply deluding yourself when you say you'd be equally concerned by a Democrat president's shady dealing with foreign countries. When we literally (and secretly and possibly illegally) sent pallets of cash to the tyrannical regime of Iran and it became known, you never started a thread here about the fate of the nation. When it became clear that the administration was knowingly, repeatedly lying about Benghazi and falsely blaming a private American citizen for a tragedy caused by the administration's own gross incompetence, you never demanded such conversations as you demand here. When the president was caught acknowledging to Russia that what he was telling the American people publicly was a ruse, but that after the election he'd have more leeway to change his tune on Russia, you never batted an eye. When the Clinton foundation illegally accepted gobs of money from foreign sources, I don't recall your outrage. Why? Because whether or not those things bothered you, hyperventilating about them wasn't going to do any good and would only play into the political hands of people you thought would do an even worse job. You might have said something like, "I don't approve of that," but you never did anything like what you do in this thread. When our border security separated children from parents, kept immigrants in camps, and deported illegals under a Democrat, I don't think you said a word until the president was a Republican. And if anyone points out your obvious hypocrisy, you accuse them of changing the subject to deflect from Trump's impeachable, treasonous offenses.

When Trump DOES something illegal (not says something obnoxious, is alleged to have considered doing something that he didn't do, tweets something insulting, or in general acts like a buffoon) I'll have a problem with it.   
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on June 13, 2019, 01:54:54 PM
Harvey, I’m not even going to offer an opinion on the president’s morality in any “religious” way.
We know his history with regard to his sexual conduct, and his attitude towards women and marriage.
We know that he may be involved in some financial crimes, and that there are more than a few shady aspects to his business dealings.
I only contend that his life and/or intelligence suggest that he is not a “good man” to be sitting in the oval office. As president, he is indeed a bad man.
Waiting now, I am, for the usual…
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on June 13, 2019, 02:06:13 PM
Peter writes:
When Trump DOES something illegal (not says something obnoxious, is alleged to have considered doing something that he didn't do, tweets something insulting, or in general acts like a buffoon) I'll have a problem with it.   

I comment:
OK. The Mueller report makes it clear that he obstructed justice on numerous occasions. You got a problem with that?
And if I was lax in pointing out the errors of Democrats, and you have no way of knowing whether or not I was, you only know what I have chosen to say in this small insignificant forum, I apologize. But this little discussion group ain’t my whole world.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on June 13, 2019, 02:12:42 PM
Peter writes:
When Trump DOES something illegal (not says something obnoxious, is alleged to have considered doing something that he didn't do, tweets something insulting, or in general acts like a buffoon) I'll have a problem with it.   

I comment:
OK. The Mueller report makes it clear that he obstructed justice on numerous occasions. You got a problem with that?
And if I was lax in pointing out the errors of Democrats, and you have no way of knowing whether or not I was, you only know what I have chosen to say in this small insignificant forum, I apologize. But this little discussion group ain’t my whole world.
You constantly harp that few people in this forum seem interested in your latest tirade against Trump. Maybe this forum isn't their whole world, either. It is certainly a much larger part of your world than nearly anyone else's.

If I lived in your fantasy world, the parallel universe in which the Mueller report makes it clear that Trump obstructed justice on numerous occasions, I would have a problem with that. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on June 13, 2019, 02:16:23 PM
Harvey, I’m not even going to offer an opinion on the president’s morality in any “religious” way.
We know his history with regard to his sexual conduct, and his attitude towards women and marriage.
We know that he may be involved in some financial crimes, and that there are more than a few shady aspects to his business dealings.
I only contend that his life and/or intelligence suggest that he is not a “good man” to be sitting in the oval office. As president, he is indeed a bad man.
Waiting now, I am, for the usual…
You just love daring us to respond to you because that just confirms, in your mind, how clueless and hypocritical we are to even think of having a different viewpoint.


There are several ways for a person to be a bad president. One is that they do immoral things such as his sexual conduct and attitude toward women and marriage, or his business ethics skirting but not necessarily illegal. Those are certainly ground for disapproving of him as a person, but not necessarily grounds for removal from office. (I dare say that there have been fewer presidents in the 20th century when have lived chaste lives than otherwise.)


One can disagree with the policies and actions that a president has taken and consider them not wise or even a danger to the country. That is grounds for voting him out of office but not grounds for removal. Hopefully the one elected to replace e him will do better, but that is a consideration.


Finally there could be a president who has demonstrably committed high crimes and misdemeanors for whom impeachment and removal are indicated.


So, where do you stand
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on June 13, 2019, 02:19:40 PM
and I know everyone says, well when the President really does something criminal.... by the way, how will that be determined...  oh, that's right we can't until he a non-president unless the House and Senate get going and check out whether crimes have been committed and whether or not they want to remove him from office for doing these things if proven to their satisfaction... 

so when you all say that he has not done anything illegal it is just as fallacious as saying that he has done something illegal... that fact has yet to be determined... there is evidence and areas of concern or need for more work brought forward by Mueller but now more investigation must take place, determination by the body that does that and judgement be made... 

And all this well, Bush or Obama or Nixon or Clinton did this or that or worse or the same...  what defendant in court could say, well Judge, jury, prosecutor... you shouldn't hold me to the law because others before me have done the same or worse or what...  its on the plate now folks (or if need be it will be someday when he is out of office if that is the only recourse).... 

again I ask, how bad is bad or how not-good is not good?  All presidents have cursed (perhaps not Jimmy I say without being anything but complimentary), told injured truths and probably known lies but this guy is a record holder in every category there is for reasonably good leadership and gentlemanly, polite citizenship and conduct becoming the head executive of our country. 

Could any pastor among us who says: pray for the president to their eighth grade or so confirmation class with a straight soul say to the same kids-- and behave and have conduct and behavior publically and privately like him?  What a shame and shame.  Hidden sin is not better than  publically viewed sin but when a person boldly, blatantly says what he does with pride and shamelessness and no need for apology much less excuse or mistake... WOW.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on June 13, 2019, 02:26:05 PM
Peter writes:
You constantly harp that few people in this forum seem interested in your latest tirade against Trump. Maybe this forum isn't their whole world, either. It is certainly a much larger part of your world than nearly anyone else's.
I comment:
And how would you know that, Peter? You’re running very close, it seems to me, to the kind of personal attack that is not supposed to be permitted here. It seems to me you just don’t like to hear strong opinions from my part of the real world. Because in your world, everything is fine. Maybe it’s even better because a nasty old Democrat is not president.

Peter writes:
If I lived in your fantasy world, the parallel universe in which the Mueller report makes it clear that Trump obstructed justice on numerous occasions, I would have a problem with that.
I comment:
Hundreds of lawyers have signed statements saying the Mueller report presents evidence about obstruction of justice that they believe would hold up in court.

Note to Pastor Fienen:
For what it’s worth, I believe the president to be a bad person. That doesn’t disqualify him from being president, but I also believe him to be a bad president.
But carry on.

Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on June 13, 2019, 02:27:02 PM
I am disappointed in Christian pastors who do not publicly call the (even if they do no believe any act of the President is illegal) public things he says and the way he treats people-- wrong.  To say he is simply not good (excuse me Terry I do not mean this directed simply toward what you wrote, you did not get a chance to reply yet) is merely a hands off excuse like calling the three-fingered green thing growing on the tree in my backyard, the poison ivy--  not a good plant. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on June 13, 2019, 02:36:23 PM
Peter writes:
When Trump DOES something illegal (not says something obnoxious, is alleged to have considered doing something that he didn't do, tweets something insulting, or in general acts like a buffoon) I'll have a problem with it.   

I comment:
OK. The Mueller report makes it clear that he obstructed justice on numerous occasions. You got a problem with that?
And if I was lax in pointing out the errors of Democrats, and you have no way of knowing whether or not I was, you only know what I have chosen to say in this small insignificant forum, I apologize. But this little discussion group ain’t my whole world.
For whatever reason, Mueller did not conclude that President Trump obstructed justice in an actionable way. He was rather coy as to why he did not reach the conclusion of obstruction but he did not. To say otherwise is opinion not fact. Also for him to say that he cannot definitively state that Trump did not obstruct justice again does not state that he was guilty and should be prosecuted. What should matter when people are accused of crime is not whether the investigators can definitively exonerate the accused but whether they have gathered sufficient evidence to convict. As of yet, there has not been presented sufficient evidence to lead to conviction of Donald Trump of collusion with the Russians to fraudulently be elected president or to convict him of obstruction of justice. If such evidence can be presented then he should be impeached and if the evidence is sufficient convicted by the Senate and removed from office.


That the Mueller report makes clear that Trump obstructed justice is not what the report said, but what you have concluded. You are certainly welcome to your conclusions and opinions, but even from you an opinion does not count as a fact.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on June 13, 2019, 02:39:36 PM
Peter writes:
You constantly harp that few people in this forum seem interested in your latest tirade against Trump. Maybe this forum isn't their whole world, either. It is certainly a much larger part of your world than nearly anyone else's.
I comment:
And how would you know that, Peter? You’re running very close, it seems to me, to the kind of personal attack that is not supposed to be permitted here. It seems to me you just don’t like to hear strong opinions from my part of the real world. Because in your world, everything is fine. Maybe it’s even better because a nasty old Democrat is not president.

Peter writes:
If I lived in your fantasy world, the parallel universe in which the Mueller report makes it clear that Trump obstructed justice on numerous occasions, I would have a problem with that.
I comment:
Hundreds of lawyers have signed statements saying the Mueller report presents evidence about obstruction of justice that they believe would hold up in court.

Note to Pastor Fienen:
For what it’s worth, I believe the president to be a bad person. That doesn’t disqualify him from being president, but I also believe him to be a bad president.
But carry on.
Hundreds of lawyers also think otherwise. Let Congress vote to impeach him. Wouldn’t bother me if they did. 

What injustice did anyone get away with because justice was obstructed? What do you allege Trump actually did that was an act of treason?

To many of us, not all Trump supporters, it is the nakedly partisan and purely political aspect of all this that is the real issue. It is a fishing expedition, an investigation in search of something in need of investigating.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: RDPreus on June 13, 2019, 02:55:55 PM
I voted for Donald Trump in 2016 as the lesser of two evils and will vote for him again in 2020 for the same reason.  He wasn't my first choice, or my second, or my third.  But since he was elected, I have been pleased by his actions and policies.  He has done a pretty good job of keeping his promises.  His hardball approach to China is refreshing.  He's not afraid of imposing tariffs.  It's been a long time since a Republican took this position!  His colorful personality and frequent insults and jabs at opponents offend the delicate sensibilities of some, but things like partial-birth abortion are objectively much more offensive.  His attacks on the liberal media establishment endear him to people like me.  He's not afraid to shoot sacred cows.

I hope the Democrats impeach him.  It might result in reelecting Donald Trump and giving the House back to the Republicans.  I think the liberal Democrats live in a bubble that protects them from the real world.  In the real world, the liberal establishment in the media, arts, politics, academia, etc. is ~not~ respected and when Trump verbally assaults them day after day, people secretly cheer!
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on June 13, 2019, 03:12:37 PM
That the Mueller report makes clear that Trump obstructed justice is not what the report said, but what you have concluded. You are certainly welcome to your conclusions and opinions, but even from you an opinion does not count as a fact.


The report gives examples of obstruction of justice. In Mueller's opinion, he could not charge the sitting president with any crimes. (Others have said he was wrong about that opinion.) It has to be congress that brings charges of criminal behavior against the sitting president.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on June 13, 2019, 03:15:27 PM
I voted for Donald Trump in 2016 as the lesser of two evils and will vote for him again in 2020 for the same reason.  He wasn't my first choice, or my second, or my third.  But since he was elected, I have been pleased by his actions and policies.  He has done a pretty good job of keeping his promises.  His hardball approach to China is refreshing.  He's not afraid of imposing tariffs.  It's been a long time since a Republican took this position!  His colorful personality and frequent insults and jabs at opponents offend the delicate sensibilities of some, but things like partial-birth abortion are objectively much more offensive.  His attacks on the liberal media establishment endear him to people like me.  He's not afraid to shoot sacred cows.

I hope the Democrats impeach him.  It might result in reelecting Donald Trump and giving the House back to the Republicans.  I think the liberal Democrats live in a bubble that protects them from the real world.  In the real world, the liberal establishment in the media, arts, politics, academia, etc. is ~not~ respected and when Trump verbally assaults them day after day, people secretly cheer!


Remember that in the real world, more real people voted for Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump - even with the interference by the Russians. It may be that the bubble is really around the conservative Republicans.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on June 13, 2019, 03:28:28 PM
Everyone tends to live in their own bubble, people tend to preferentially read/listen/watch news that is presented with the slant that they prefer, talk with people with whom they generally agree, join together with like minded folk to scorn those that they already oppose/despise. This is true of those both on the right and the left.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: David Garner on June 13, 2019, 03:32:41 PM
Well, this “leftist” longs for the days of Reagan and the two Bush administrations. I would even, sad to say (but I must speak honestly) be more comfortable with Vice President Pence in the oval office.
He is not an egotistical fool and he understands our rule of law.
P.S. to Pastor Engebretson: Sally thanks you, and I’m not making that bet with her again.

Yes.  This is what Tom Bethel calls "strange new respect."
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on June 13, 2019, 03:42:46 PM
Pastor Fienen:
What should matter when people are accused of crime is not whether the investigators can definitively exonerate the accused but whether they have gathered sufficient evidence to convict. As of yet, there has not been presented sufficient evidence to lead to conviction of Donald Trump of collusion with the Russians to fraudulently be elected president or to convict him of obstruction of justice.
Me:
Evidence has been presented. It is just not yet been tried in court. And the issue is not whether he was fraudulently elected.

Pastor Fienen:
If such evidence can be presented then he should be impeached and if the evidence is sufficient convicted by the Senate and removed from office.
Me:
Maybe. Maybe not. My point is that evidence has been presented.

Pastor Fienen:
That the Mueller report makes clear that Trump obstructed justice is not what the report said, but what you have concluded. You are certainly welcome to your conclusions and opinions, but even from you an opinion does not count as a fact.
Me:
The Mueller report also did not clear him, which is what he has concluded, and apparently you agree with him. Or maybe you don’t, mugrumpery being a common disease in this forum When it comes to the president, but not when it comes to any Democrat.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on June 13, 2019, 04:11:32 PM
Pastor Fienen:
What should matter when people are accused of crime is not whether the investigators can definitively exonerate the accused but whether they have gathered sufficient evidence to convict. As of yet, there has not been presented sufficient evidence to lead to conviction of Donald Trump of collusion with the Russians to fraudulently be elected president or to convict him of obstruction of justice.
Me:
Evidence has been presented. It is just not yet been tried in court. And the issue is not whether he was fraudulently elected.

Pastor Fienen:
If such evidence can be presented then he should be impeached and if the evidence is sufficient convicted by the Senate and removed from office.
Me:
Maybe. Maybe not. My point is that evidence has been presented.

Pastor Fienen:
That the Mueller report makes clear that Trump obstructed justice is not what the report said, but what you have concluded. You are certainly welcome to your conclusions and opinions, but even from you an opinion does not count as a fact.
Me:
The Mueller report also did not clear him, which is what he has concluded, and apparently you agree with him. Or maybe you don’t, mugrumpery being a common disease in this forum When it comes to the president, but not when it comes to any Democrat.

Evidence has been presented. In every criminal case that has been brought to trial, evidence of guilt was presented, even in those cases where the defendant acquitted. Even in those cases where the convicted defendant was subsequently exonerated, evidence of guilt was presented. Evidence of guilt is not necessarily proof of guilt. It has long been a principle of American justice that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Apparently you have decided that does not apply to Trump, unless he can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be innocent, he must be assumed guilty and anyone who does not join you in that assessment simply does not care about America or morality.


By the by, it is mugwump that I think you want to call me, not mugrump.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on June 13, 2019, 04:28:01 PM
Sigh. Actually “mugwump” has a different meaning than I intended.
I was referring to those who sit with their mug on one side of the fence And their rump on the other side. Hence “mugrump.”
It was a semi-jocular reference to your frequent on-the-one-hand-but-on-the-other-hand postings.

By the way, in the eyes of the law, of course Mr. Trump is innocent until proven guilty. I might, should I choose to do so, have a different impression of him in my own eyes. It’s allowed.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dave Likeness on June 13, 2019, 04:47:09 PM
To briefly summarize this thread:

In 2016, the American voter was given a choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump
for the President of the United States.  For many citizens it was a choice between the lesser
of two evils and Trump defeated Clinton in the Electoral College.

When we look at Mt. Rushmore we see George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln,
and Teddy Roosevelt.  Today, if you go out to South Dakota and look at this national monument,
and look closely you will see tears gently flowing from the eyes of those four former Presidents.

They are disgusted with the caliber of leadership that America was given in the 2016 Presidential
election.  Both the GOP and the Democrats failed to provide an honest and wise leader for the
voters of our great nation.

Bottom Line: Time to get on your knees and pray that the 2020 Presidential election will give
the American voters a fresh choice of new leadership for our future.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on June 13, 2019, 04:54:13 PM
Everyone tends to live in their own bubble, people tend to preferentially read/listen/watch news that is presented with the slant that they prefer, talk with people with whom they generally agree, join together with like minded folk to scorn those that they already oppose/despise. This is true of those both on the right and the left.


Some of us join forums of differently-minded people so that our thoughts and ideas are challenged so that we learn. We don't learn anything from people who agree with us.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on June 13, 2019, 04:57:35 PM
Evidence has been presented. In every criminal case that has been brought to trial, evidence of guilt was presented, even in those cases where the defendant acquitted. Even in those cases where the convicted defendant was subsequently exonerated, evidence of guilt was presented. Evidence of guilt is not necessarily proof of guilt. It has long been a principle of American justice that the burden of proof is on the prosecution. Apparently you have decided that does not apply to Trump, unless he can be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to be innocent, he must be assumed guilty and anyone who does not join you in that assessment simply does not care about America or morality.


The process is quite different for a sitting president. There can be no criminal case. The president is not tried in the courts like the rest of us; but only by congress. If the Senate removes him from office, then he could face criminal charges.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on June 13, 2019, 05:00:21 PM
Sigh. Actually “mugwump” has a different meaning than I intended.
I was referring to those who sit with their mug on one side of the fence And their rump on the other side. Hence “mugrump.”
It was a semi-jocular reference to your frequent on-the-one-hand-but-on-the-other-hand postings.

By the way, in the eyes of the law, of course Mr. Trump is innocent until proven guilty. I might, should I choose to do so, have a different impression of him in my own eyes. It’s allowed.
Your reference to mugrump confused me, I looked on line but could find no references. Some of us find that life is messy which leads to one the one hand on the other. Others prefer it to be simple black and white.  People that I support have minor flaws, we all do, but nothing compared to those over there who are simply horrid. No need for nuance, just agree with the good guys, i.e. my side.


And I finally get it, your opposition to Trump has nothing to do with justice. You just oppose him and throw enough negative at him, enough charges, never mind if they are legally actionable, to turn people against him and that is adequate.  And if I don't have quite the same impression of him as you, well then I must not care about America or morality.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on June 13, 2019, 05:16:14 PM
And if the other candidate took bribes, that is still an actionable offense. Somebody explain to me why no action has been taken. Could it be because it’s not true?

A quick survey of the Clinton Foundation donors suggests some questionable sources. Saudi Arabia? Really?

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/clinton-donors (https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/projects/clinton-donors)

There is overwhelming evidence that it's true. There were also people prepared to testify in court, but they either committed suicide, or were killed in random acts of street crime, or otherwise became unavailable to testify. And, the person in question is widely quoted as saying that if she goes down, she's taking everyone with her. That is a credible threat. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on June 13, 2019, 05:21:53 PM
Since mugrump would appear to be your own neologism, it is asking an awful lot to expect people to pick up the arcane meaning you attached to it.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on June 13, 2019, 05:23:53 PM
Remember that in the real world, more real people voted for Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump - even with the interference by the Russians. It may be that the bubble is really around the conservative Republicans.

"People", yes. Live American citizens, no. Votes from illegal aliens, legal immigrants who aren't citizens, and votes from dead people don't count. Except in cities run by a Democrat Party Machine, that is.

This is only an anecdote, but it reveals some of the problem, and addresses the fact that there are more registered voters in the United States than there are live adults. My wife just got a phone call a day or two ago with a survey about her position on "fracking" in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. We've lived in Georgia for 11 years, and she's registered to vote here in Georgia. Yet her name was still on the Pennsylvania voter list. And, since Pennsylvania doesn't require photo ID to vote, though it does require it to buy liquor, there's no way to know if someone else showed up at the polls in Brookline where we used to live and cast a vote in my wife's name. I shudder to think that my mother, a staunch Republican, has been voting Democrat ever since she died.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on June 13, 2019, 05:27:44 PM
They are disgusted with the caliber of leadership that America was given in the 2016 Presidential
election.  Both the GOP and the Democrats failed to provide an honest and wise leader for the
voters of our great nation.

Bottom Line: Time to get on your knees and pray that the 2020 Presidential election will give
the American voters a fresh choice of new leadership for our future.

Donald Trump won the GOP nomination by winning the Primary elections. Republican VOTERS picked him. Hillary Clinton cheated to defeat socialist Bernie Sanders to gain the Democrat Party nomination.

America does not need a "fresh" choice. We need a leader who can accomplish what needs to be accomplished. I don't care if he wears rough clothing and lives in the wilderness eating locusts and honey. He needs to get the things done that need to be done.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dave Likeness on June 13, 2019, 07:55:51 PM
As the GOP and Democrats prepared for the 1952 Presidential election both parties wanted
Dwight D. Eisenhower as their candidate.  They both saw in Eisenhower a genuine leader with
gravitas.  Ike decided to run as a Republican and won 2 terms as President.

Bottom Line:  Party leaders do have influence for better or for worse on who their Presidential
candidate will be.  They have the opportunity to ask certain leaders if they would seek their
parties nomination through the state primaries.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on June 13, 2019, 08:03:24 PM
Pastor Fienen:
And I finally get it, your opposition to Trump has nothing to do with justice. You just oppose him and throw enough negative at him, enough charges, never mind if they are legally actionable, to turn people against him and that is adequate.
Me:
Yes, because I am not a prosecutor.
And yes, I do want to turn people against him. Even Moderator Peter has said I should try to vote him out of office.

Pastor Fienen:
And if I don't have quite the same impression of him as you, well then I must not care about America or morality.
Me:
Yeah, I mostly agree with that.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on June 13, 2019, 08:54:10 PM
Remember that in the real world, more real people voted for Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump - even with the interference by the Russians. It may be that the bubble is really around the conservative Republicans.

"People", yes. Live American citizens, no. Votes from illegal aliens, legal immigrants who aren't citizens, and votes from dead people don't count. Except in cities run by a Democrat Party Machine, that is.

This is only an anecdote, but it reveals some of the problem, and addresses the fact that there are more registered voters in the United States than there are live adults. My wife just got a phone call a day or two ago with a survey about her position on "fracking" in Beaver County, Pennsylvania. We've lived in Georgia for 11 years, and she's registered to vote here in Georgia. Yet her name was still on the Pennsylvania voter list. And, since Pennsylvania doesn't require photo ID to vote, though it does require it to buy liquor, there's no way to know if someone else showed up at the polls in Brookline where we used to live and cast a vote in my wife's name. I shudder to think that my mother, a staunch Republican, has been voting Democrat ever since she died.


Where do you get your figures? I just checked the internet and this is what they have:


"The Census Bureau estimated that there were 245.5 million Americans ages 18 and older in November 2016, about 157.6 million of whom reported being registered to vote."

From another site: "Around 138 million Americans voted in the 2016 presidential election."

This does not support your claim that there are more registered voters than live adults.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on June 13, 2019, 08:58:46 PM
They are disgusted with the caliber of leadership that America was given in the 2016 Presidential
election.  Both the GOP and the Democrats failed to provide an honest and wise leader for the
voters of our great nation.

Bottom Line: Time to get on your knees and pray that the 2020 Presidential election will give
the American voters a fresh choice of new leadership for our future.

Donald Trump won the GOP nomination by winning the Primary elections. Republican VOTERS picked him. Hillary Clinton cheated to defeat socialist Bernie Sanders to gain the Democrat Party nomination.

America does not need a "fresh" choice. We need a leader who can accomplish what needs to be accomplished. I don't care if he wears rough clothing and lives in the wilderness eating locusts and honey. He needs to get the things done that need to be done.


Do you care if he gets things done legally or illegally? Do you care what he does to America's reputation in the rest of the world? Do you care that what he does seems to promote himself more than America?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on June 13, 2019, 08:59:43 PM
Merriam-Webster:
Mugwump is an anglicized version of a word used by Massachusett Indians to mean "war leader." The word was sometimes jestingly applied in early America to someone who was the "head guy." The first political mugwumps were Republicans in the presidential race of 1884 who chose to support Democratic candidate Grover Cleveland rather than their own party's nominee.

Me:
So not quite the right word for my recent post..

Merriam-Webster:
Their independence prompted one 1930s humorist to define a mugwump as "a bird who sits with its mug on one side of the fence and its wump on the other."

Me:
And I, a 21st Century humorist, take normal editorial freedom and choose to make the latter part of the word conform more to the body part in question. Hence “mugrump.”
Yes, Peter, I expect people to pick up the not-so-arcane meaning. It ain’t that hard.
Easier, I believe, than comprehending some analogies I encounter here.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Richard Johnson on June 13, 2019, 10:26:33 PM
Sigh. Actually “mugwump” has a different meaning than I intended.
I was referring to those who sit with their mug on one side of the fence And their rump on the other side. Hence “mugrump.”
It was a semi-jocular reference to your frequent on-the-one-hand-but-on-the-other-hand postings.

So as an English major, you are coining a new word which you think is clever. As a historian, I tell you that "mugwump" means precisely what you intended and is an old and honorable usage in the American political lexicon.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: James S. Rustad on June 13, 2019, 10:56:09 PM
Remember that in the real world, more real people voted for Hillary Clinton than for Donald Trump - even with the interference by the Russians. It may be that the bubble is really around the conservative Republicans.

Remember that in the real world, the electoral college is what counts.  Both campaigns knew this -- and just a handful of states going for Clinton instead of Trump would have been enough.  The fact that the Clinton campaign was overconfident and chose to run up the score in states that they were going to win easily (like California) instead of concentrating on states that were in play (like Wisconsin) is their own fault.  No amount of "but the popular vote" is going to change that.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on June 13, 2019, 10:58:05 PM
We come from different directions, Richard. You as noble historian, this humble correspondent as lowly writer.
   I cited the coinage "The first political mugwumps were Republicans in the presidential race of 1884 who chose to support Democratic candidate Grover Cleveland rather than their own party's nominee" which did not fit the usage I intended, although the same citation said that the fence-straddling usage came into play sometime later.
   So I sought, as I noted, to make "rump" more noticeable and fiddle with the word a bit. That's the writer approach, not the historian approach.
   It occurs now to me - and everyone take a deep breath as whimsey approaches - that using "mugwump" to refer to a fence-straddler, might be taken as a slur against those of our brethren and sistern who have a speech defect making it difficult for them to pronounce an "r". This could weally, seem like a put down of those so afflicted. So, at least in the printed or digital usage of the word, that possible slur is avoided with "mugrump."
You're welcome.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Richard Johnson on June 13, 2019, 10:59:02 PM
So I got curious about who this "1930s humorist" might be, and found it ascribed to Congressman Milton Andrew "Andy" Ramjue of Missouri, who served (with one hiatus) from 1917 to 1943. It begins being quoted in newspapers in 1932. That earliest instance suggests that it was a fairly new usage at that time: "You know, of course, having been to shows and keeping up to date on your slang, that a mugwump is one of those cuckooish birds that sits with its mug on one side of the fence and its wump on the other, waiting to see which way victory will go so it can yes the winners."

The original meaning of the word seems to be the "war leader" or "head guy" but the Merriam-Webster dictionary Charles cites lists that as obsolete. Then it was used to describe Republicans who supported Grover Cleveland over James G. Blaine in the 1884 presidential election. The "mug on one side, wump on the other" has been the accepted political meaning for nearly 90 years.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on June 13, 2019, 11:14:32 PM
And now there is an alternate spelling, for those who choose to use it.
You will thank me later.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on June 14, 2019, 09:31:53 AM
They are disgusted with the caliber of leadership that America was given in the 2016 Presidential
election.  Both the GOP and the Democrats failed to provide an honest and wise leader for the
voters of our great nation.

Bottom Line: Time to get on your knees and pray that the 2020 Presidential election will give
the American voters a fresh choice of new leadership for our future.

Donald Trump won the GOP nomination by winning the Primary elections. Republican VOTERS picked him. Hillary Clinton cheated to defeat socialist Bernie Sanders to gain the Democrat Party nomination.

America does not need a "fresh" choice. We need a leader who can accomplish what needs to be accomplished. I don't care if he wears rough clothing and lives in the wilderness eating locusts and honey. He needs to get the things done that need to be done.


Do you care if he gets things done legally or illegally? Do you care what he does to America's reputation in the rest of the world? Do you care that what he does seems to promote himself more than America?

Not as much as I care that they are done to produce the best possible outcome. We saw what happened when a President ruled through illegal executive orders from January 2009 until January 2017. I was not nearly as concerned over how Obama ruined the country as I was with the fact that he ruined the country. Now, if President Trump were to start doing things illegally, as Obama did, then I would probably be concerned. But, as Teddy Kennedy said to Mary Jo Kopechne, we can cross that bridge when we come to it.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: RDPreus on June 14, 2019, 09:39:54 AM
In regard to the bubbles in which conservatives and liberal live (discussed above), there is a big difference between them.  The establishment orthodoxy is on the side of the liberals.  What Donald Trump calls fake news is not exactly fake.  It is selected and reported to conform to the ideological requirements of the liberal establishment.  The conservatives cannot but be exposed to this ideology inasmuch as it is promoted everywhere.  Liberals, on the other hand, can easily avoid contact with conservative views.  It is impossible to live in a conservative bubble unless you withdraw from most sources of information.  It is easy to live in a liberal bubble.  Just dismiss whatever conservatives say as racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.   
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on June 14, 2019, 10:02:44 AM
In regard to the bubbles in which conservatives and liberal live (discussed above), there is a big difference between them.  The establishment orthodoxy is on the side of the liberals.  What Donald Trump calls fake news is not exactly fake.  It is selected and reported to conform to the ideological requirements of the liberal establishment.  The conservatives cannot but be exposed to this ideology inasmuch as it is promoted everywhere.  Liberals, on the other hand, can easily avoid contact with conservative views.  It is impossible to live in a conservative bubble unless you withdraw from most sources of information.  It is easy to live in a liberal bubble.  Just dismiss whatever conservatives say as racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.   

I think I mentioned this before, but it might have been in the material lost in the software meltdown. When I took Journalism 101 in college, one of the earliest lessons compared the oath sworn on the witness stand in court with what a real journalist was supposed to strive for. That was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That saying has become a cliche, but it has real meaning. The first part, the truth, is easy. It means do not tell lies. But the whole truth means do not omit any details that are pertinent to the testimony. Cherry picking the truth to leave out the bits that damage your side's position is not telling the whole truth. Finally, nothing but the truth means to leave out commentary, opinion, and speculation. That's not to say that any media outlet cannot editorialize. When Pulitzer first came up with the concept of objective journalism as a gimmick to improve circulation over his rival, Hearst, opinions and editorials were to be clearly identified as such.

I'm afraid that Pulitzer's gimmick of "objective journalism" died and disappeared a long, long time ago. I fear residents of both sides of the political spectrum abuse the concept of objectivity and proof, unless it's cherry-picking random facts to proof-text their own opinions. One of the most despicable tactics is to demand "proof" from anyone who presents an idea or a fact one doesn't like, then condemn the proof because it comes from a source that doesn't conform to the proof-demander's personal bias.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: D. Engebretson on June 14, 2019, 10:25:32 AM
Do you care if he gets things done legally or illegally? Do you care what he does to America's reputation in the rest of the world? Do you care that what he does seems to promote himself more than America?

It is nigh near impossible for us, at our level of the game, to really know if matters are absolutely legal or illegal according to established law.  The Democrats in the House are in the unique position, if they choose to exercise it, to initiate impeachment investigations and proceedings.  This is the only means of dealing with this on a legal level.  It's their responsibility, along with the Senate, to use this means if they wish to 'legally' convict the president of illegal actions.  Unfortunately for them we are in a presidential election season and impeachment investigations appear to be less than politically useful for Democrats.  It would distract from the campaigns and possibly fuel Trump's base.  So do they choose to take the 'high road' and do their constitutional duty having become convinced in their own hearts that Trump has acted illegally, or do they do simply let political expediency rule the day? What they do will speak volumes.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on June 14, 2019, 10:37:04 AM
Do you care if he gets things done legally or illegally? Do you care what he does to America's reputation in the rest of the world? Do you care that what he does seems to promote himself more than America?

It is nigh near impossible for us, at our level of the game, to really know if matters are absolutely legal or illegal according to established law.  The Democrats in the House are in the unique position, if they choose to exercise it, to initiate impeachment investigations and proceedings.  This is the only means of dealing with this on a legal level.  It's their responsibility, along with the Senate, to use this means if they wish to 'legally' convict the president of illegal actions.  Unfortunately for them we are in a presidential election season and impeachment investigations appear to be less than politically useful for Democrats.  It would distract from the campaigns and possibly fuel Trump's base.  So do they choose to take the 'high road' and do their constitutional duty having become convinced in their own hearts that Trump has acted illegally, or do they do simply let political expediency rule the day? What they do will speak volumes.

The legal grounds for impeachment is ambiguously set at "high crimes and misdemeanors". In such a situation, with no specific statutes cited, the legal question of what constitutes a "high crime or misdemeanor" becomes an issue of common law, which is based on prior court rulings and non-rulings on precedents. The issue of "established law" is moot. The best common law defense against any charge that an action a President took was a "high crime" would be to cite precedents of when prior Presidents did the same thing with no objection or consequence. Bringing up every action taken by a prior President that was similar to what the impeached President was charged with would be totally germane to any trial. Any cooperation with a prior President on performing a similar action would discredit the testimony or accusations made by anyone who had cooperated with the prior President.

Does anyone think that the Democrat Party, in an election year, would want to see a trial held in the Republican controlled Senate in which anything and everything Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did which was slightly questionable and similar to what they've accused President Trump of brought to light to remind the voting public just how shaky prior Democrat administrations had been in terms of legal or illegal activity?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on June 14, 2019, 11:15:39 AM
In regard to the bubbles in which conservatives and liberal live (discussed above), there is a big difference between them.  The establishment orthodoxy is on the side of the liberals.  What Donald Trump calls fake news is not exactly fake.  It is selected and reported to conform to the ideological requirements of the liberal establishment.  The conservatives cannot but be exposed to this ideology inasmuch as it is promoted everywhere.  Liberals, on the other hand, can easily avoid contact with conservative views.  It is impossible to live in a conservative bubble unless you withdraw from most sources of information.  It is easy to live in a liberal bubble.  Just dismiss whatever conservatives say as racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.   

I think I mentioned this before, but it might have been in the material lost in the software meltdown. When I took Journalism 101 in college, one of the earliest lessons compared the oath sworn on the witness stand in court with what a real journalist was supposed to strive for. That was the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. That saying has become a cliche, but it has real meaning. The first part, the truth, is easy. It means do not tell lies. But the whole truth means do not omit any details that are pertinent to the testimony. Cherry picking the truth to leave out the bits that damage your side's position is not telling the whole truth. Finally, nothing but the truth means to leave out commentary, opinion, and speculation. That's not to say that any media outlet cannot editorialize. When Pulitzer first came up with the concept of objective journalism as a gimmick to improve circulation over his rival, Hearst, opinions and editorials were to be clearly identified as such.

I'm afraid that Pulitzer's gimmick of "objective journalism" died and disappeared a long, long time ago. I fear residents of both sides of the political spectrum abuse the concept of objectivity and proof, unless it's cherry-picking random facts to proof-text their own opinions. One of the most despicable tactics is to demand "proof" from anyone who presents an idea or a fact one doesn't like, then condemn the proof because it comes from a source that doesn't conform to the proof-demander's personal bias.


So, in regards to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth: where did you get your reported truth that there are more registered voters than adult citizens in the U.S.? That isn't the truth that I found reported on the internet.


When there are competing truths, such as this, how do we determine which is more accurate?


From the U.S. Census Bureau site (table attached):
Total population 18 and over in 2016: 245,502,000
Total citizen population 18 and over in 2016: 224,059,000
Registered voters in 2016: 157,596,000
Number of reported voted 2016: 137,537,000


According to this "truth," the number of registered voters does not exceed the adult population or adult citizens of the U.S.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on June 14, 2019, 12:02:29 PM
Mr. Erdner writes:
Does anyone think that the Democrat Party, in an election year, would want to see a trial held in the Republican controlled Senate in which anything and everything Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did which was slightly questionable and similar to what they've accused President Trump of brought to light to remind the voting public just how shaky prior Democrat administrations had been in terms of legal or illegal activity?
I muse:
How would what any past president is accused of doing be “brought to light” in an impeachment proceeding? It would generally be irrelevant. And I think that Mr. Erdner’s presentation of impeachment is somewhat flawed, but it’s not worth going there.

Mr. Erdner writes:
The best common law defense against any charge that an action a President took was a "high crime" would be to cite precedents of when prior Presidents did the same thing with no objection or consequence. Bringing up every action taken by a prior President that was similar to what the impeached President was charged with would be totally germane to any trial.
I comment:
Having spent a good deal of time in courtrooms watching trials, I seriously doubt this. But maybe a lawyer could advise us.

Mr. Erdner again:
When Pulitzer first came up with the concept of objective journalism as a gimmick to improve circulation over his rival, Hearst, opinions and editorials were to be clearly identified as such.
I comment:
Actually, Joseph Pulitzer was not the founder of, nor was he a practitioner of “objective journalism.” Pulitzer believed the news should serve the “truth” in ways that helped people who were oppressed or under-represented or in other ways victims of civil flaws.
In Pulitzer’s day and beyond, newspapers had “points of view” that were clearly represented in the news columns. And readers knew what they were getting if they bought a certain newspaper.

Mr. Erdner writes:
I'm afraid that Pulitzer's gimmick of "objective journalism" died and disappeared a long, long time ago.
I comment:
See above. Newspapers in our time are considerably more “objective” than in previous days. And I know this will not convince those who think the mere presentation of truths they don’t like is bias.

Mr. Erdner again:
I fear residents of both sides of the political spectrum abuse the concept of objectivity and proof, unless it's cherry-picking random facts to proof-text their own opinions. One of the most despicable tactics is to demand "proof" from anyone who presents an idea or a fact one doesn't like, then condemn the proof because it comes from a source that doesn't conform to the proof-demander's personal bias.
Me again:
Not every presentation of “proof” is equal. Is it “proof” because a Fox News person said it? Is it “proof” if it is a study from the American Enterprise Institute or the Brookings Institution? Is a “proof” about the value of a drug true if it comes from the manufacturer of the drug? Maybe. Maybe not.
And earlier Mr. Erdner wrote, in response to a question on caring about the legality of presidential actions that he didn’t care so much about the legality of the actions “as much as I care that they are done to produce the best possible outcome.”
This, of course, is horrible nonsense. We should let a president get away with something illegal just because it produces a desired outcome?
I surely hope not.

And BTW, everyone had eight years of President Obama's administration to assess whether his actions were legal and I don't recall any charges being brought or even discussed by the Congress or investigations into the legality of that administration.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on June 14, 2019, 12:17:40 PM
Pastor Preus writes:
In regard to the bubbles in which conservatives and liberal live (discussed above), there is a big difference between them.  The establishment orthodoxy is on the side of the liberals.
I laugh:
What "liberal" establishment orthodoxy? The Congress? The corporations that run the country? The conservative media moguls? The people who govern all those "red states"? The "Christian Evangelicals" who get all the media attention?
Furthermore, I have a higher regard for (most, not all) of the American populace and trust that they are not so easily brain-washed. Were they chained up and whip-driven into the acceptance of same-sex unions or did we come to an understanding, either of homosexuality or of marriage that we were willing to allow them and even celebrate them as new kinds of families and good for our civil order and society?

Pastor Preus writes:
What Donald Trump calls fake news is not exactly fake.  It is selected and reported to conform to the ideological requirements of the liberal establishment.
I comment:
See above.

Pastor Preus:
The conservatives cannot but be exposed to this ideology inasmuch as it is promoted everywhere.  Liberals, on the other hand, can easily avoid contact with conservative views.  It is impossible to live in a conservative bubble unless you withdraw from most sources of information.
Me:
And are you "conservatives" so weak of will and mind and spirit that exposure to "liberal" views sweeps you away and carries you off into the hell of "liberalism"? And of course there are "conservative bubbles". We've even seen them floating through this modest forum.

Pastor Preus:
It is easy to live in a liberal bubble.  Just dismiss whatever conservatives say as racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.
Me:
To quote a decent man, once president, "There you go again." It is far too easy for you to dismiss criticism by saying "O woe! They hate us! They think we are all racists!" No, that is not what we think, even though some of you are racists and homophobic.  It is very easy for conservatives to avoid the charges of racism, sexism and homophobia. Just don't act like a racist, sexist or homophobe. A lot of you know how to do this.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Coach-Rev on June 14, 2019, 01:16:07 PM
And BTW, everyone had eight years of President Obama's administration to assess whether his actions were legal and I don't recall any charges being brought or even discussed by the Congress or investigations into the legality of that administration.

yeah, and next I'll bet you'll try to tell us (along with Pres Obama and former Vpres Biden) that their 8 year administration was scandal free?   ::) ::) ::)
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on June 14, 2019, 01:58:25 PM
If you want to remind me of a scandal or a true constitutional crisis under the Obama administration, I’d be glad to hear about it. That
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: RDPreus on June 14, 2019, 02:38:49 PM
Pastor Preus writes:
In regard to the bubbles in which conservatives and liberal live (discussed above), there is a big difference between them.  The establishment orthodoxy is on the side of the liberals.
I laugh:
What "liberal" establishment orthodoxy? The Congress? The corporations that run the country? The conservative media moguls? The people who govern all those "red states"? The "Christian Evangelicals" who get all the media attention?
Furthermore, I have a higher regard for (most, not all) of the American populace and trust that they are not so easily brain-washed. Were they chained up and whip-driven into the acceptance of same-sex unions or did we come to an understanding, either of homosexuality or of marriage that we were willing to allow them and even celebrate them as new kinds of families and good for our civil order and society?

Pastor Preus writes:
What Donald Trump calls fake news is not exactly fake.  It is selected and reported to conform to the ideological requirements of the liberal establishment.
I comment:
See above.

Pastor Preus:
The conservatives cannot but be exposed to this ideology inasmuch as it is promoted everywhere.  Liberals, on the other hand, can easily avoid contact with conservative views.  It is impossible to live in a conservative bubble unless you withdraw from most sources of information.
Me:
And are you "conservatives" so weak of will and mind and spirit that exposure to "liberal" views sweeps you away and carries you off into the hell of "liberalism"? And of course there are "conservative bubbles". We've even seen them floating through this modest forum.

Pastor Preus:
It is easy to live in a liberal bubble.  Just dismiss whatever conservatives say as racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.
Me:
To quote a decent man, once president, "There you go again." It is far too easy for you to dismiss criticism by saying "O woe! They hate us! They think we are all racists!" No, that is not what we think, even though some of you are racists and homophobic.  It is very easy for conservatives to avoid the charges of racism, sexism and homophobia. Just don't act like a racist, sexist or homophobe. A lot of you know how to do this.

The political bias of Fox News is obvious.  Anybody with any kind of discernment can discern it.  When I get tired of the "rah, rah for our side" propaganda, I switch the channel to CNN or MSNBC and find equally obvious political bias on the other side.  You can't watch these networks without hearing attacks on President Trump that invariably put the worst construction on everything he says and does.

I see the bias on both sides, Rev. Austin.  Do you?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: DeHall1 on June 14, 2019, 03:14:10 PM
If you want to remind me of a scandal or a true constitutional crisis under the Obama administration, I’d be glad to hear about it. That
Operation Fast and Furious

Does putting some 2,000 weapons into the hands of criminals south of the border (some of which have been used to kill hundreds of Mexicans and at least one American) count?

If not, I'm sure we can find more....Benghazi?  IRS targeting conservative 501(c)3 nonprofits?

Or....Maybe these aren't scandals in your eyes, because...You know. Obama.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on June 14, 2019, 03:50:29 PM
If you want to remind me of a scandal or a true constitutional crisis under the Obama administration, I’d be glad to hear about it. That

The ATF's Operation Fast and Furious (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scanda), which led not only to the murder of a US Border agent and a few hundred Mexicans, but also to President Obama's Attorney General being held in contempt of Congress, strained relations between the US and Mexico, and a lawsuit filed by Congress over Exective Privilege that remains in the courts.

The IRS' targeting of conservative groups (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy) applying for tax exemption.

The Justice Department's seizure of Associated Press reporters' phone records (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/us/phone-records-of-journalists-of-the-associated-press-seized-by-us.html) and those of other reporters (https://slate.com/technology/2013/05/ap-reporters-allegedly-spied-on-by-the-justice-department-aren-t-alone.html), too.

The CIA's spying on US Senate (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/10/cia-senate-investigation-constitutional-crisis-daniel-jones) investigators.  The FBI investigating members of the House of Representatives.

Etc., etc., etc.

Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on June 14, 2019, 04:31:44 PM
Pastor Preus:
I see the bias on both sides, Rev. Austin.  Do you?
I comment:
Perhaps. But not nearly as much as you do.
And perhaps it was wrong not to seek legal action on some of these other alleged scandals. I’m not able to judge that, I only note that they didn’t reach the level Of today, where we have a long special prosecutor’s report full of evidence and where we have people on varying sides of varying aisles crying for action.
I suppose I should try to be a little kinder and say maybe we can we should have been harsher on President Obama, because he knew the law and the constitution and cared about it. Whereas the current occupant of the White House does not know the law, does not know the constitution and obviously cares nothing for either. Then there are the thousands of lies, and the raging ego, but no one cares about that.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: DeHall1 on June 14, 2019, 04:51:53 PM
Pastor Preus:
I see the bias on both sides, Rev. Austin.  Do you?
I comment:
Perhaps. But not nearly as much as you do.
And perhaps it was wrong not to seek legal action on some of these other alleged scandals. I’m not able to judge that, I only note that they didn’t reach the level Of today, where we have a long special prosecutor’s report full of evidence and where we have people on varying sides of varying aisles crying for action.
I suppose I should try to be a little kinder and say maybe we can we should have been harsher on President Obama, because he knew the law and the constitution and cared about it. Whereas the current occupant of the White House does not know the law, does not know the constitution and obviously cares nothing for either. Then there are the thousands of lies, and the raging ego, but no one cares about that.

That Obama knew the law and The Constitution isn't really debatable (he did teach Constitutional Law at UIC Law School, after all)....That he cared about it is a different matter.

And as far as legal action, as Pastor Tibbetts pointed out, at least one of President Obama's actions led to legal action that remains in the courts to this day. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on June 14, 2019, 05:39:43 PM
If you want to remind me of a scandal or a true constitutional crisis under the Obama administration, I’d be glad to hear about it. That

The ATF's Operation Fast and Furious (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scanda), which led not only to the murder of a US Border agent and a few hundred Mexicans, but also to President Obama's Attorney General being held in contempt of Congress, strained relations between the US and Mexico, and a lawsuit filed by Congress over Exective Privilege that remains in the courts.

The IRS' targeting of conservative groups (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IRS_targeting_controversy) applying for tax exemption.

The Justice Department's seizure of Associated Press reporters' phone records (https://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/14/us/phone-records-of-journalists-of-the-associated-press-seized-by-us.html) and those of other reporters (https://slate.com/technology/2013/05/ap-reporters-allegedly-spied-on-by-the-justice-department-aren-t-alone.html), too.

The CIA's spying on US Senate (https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/sep/10/cia-senate-investigation-constitutional-crisis-daniel-jones) investigators.  The FBI investigating members of the House of Representatives.

Etc., etc., etc.

Some of the Etc. I took the entire list from one source. A simple search found several similar articles, but this one was easiest to trim down to just the names of the scandals. And it's not a complete list.

The great “stimulus” heist
Operation Fast and Furious
Eric Holder held in contempt of Congress
ObamaCare
Spying on journalists
Benghazi
Hillary Clinton’s secret server
The Pigford scandal
NSA spying scandal
Bowe Bergdahl
Iran nuclear deal and ransom payment
Polluting the Colorado river
The GSA scandal
The VA death-list scandal
Solyndra
Secret Service gone wild
Shutdown theater

Source: https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/01/02/18-major-scandals-obama-presidency/ (https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2017/01/02/18-major-scandals-obama-presidency/)

Every one of those scandals, and more that aren't on the list, can be used in an impeachment defense as legal precedents for not rising to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors".
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on June 14, 2019, 05:43:13 PM

So, in regards to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth: where did you get your reported truth that there are more registered voters than adult citizens in the U.S.? That isn't the truth that I found reported on the internet.


Ghost Voters
By DEROY MURDOCK
August 11, 2017 7:52 PM

Some 3.5 million more people are registered to vote in the U.S. than are alive among America’s adult citizens. Such staggering inaccuracy is an engraved invitation to voter fraud.

The Election Integrity Project of Judicial Watch — a Washington-based legal-watchdog group — analyzed data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2011–2015 American Community Survey and last month’s statistics from the federal Election Assistance Commission. The latter included figures provided by 38 states. According to Judicial Watch, eleven states gave the EAC insufficient or questionable information. Pennsylvania’s legitimate numbers place it just below the over-registration threshold.

My tabulation of Judicial Watch’s state-by-state results yielded 462 counties where the registration rate exceeded 100 percent. There were 3,551,760 more people registered to vote than adult U.S. citizens who inhabit these counties.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/08/election-fraud-registered-voters-outnumber-eligible-voters-462-counties/
 (https://www.nationalreview.com/2017/08/election-fraud-registered-voters-outnumber-eligible-voters-462-counties/)

There were other sources, but I only picked one.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on June 14, 2019, 09:35:39 PM
MSNBC just ran a l-o-n-g list of occasions when the president- THIS president - openly told people to disobey the law. These people included, among others, police officers, border patrol agents, Native American leaders, and others. After his blurting out his “go ahead and do it,” others had to send out orders telling their people “no, you cannot do what he said because it’s against the law.”
And it is clear that accepting campaign aid from a foreign power is illegal, according to the head of the FBI. The president (who says he would take such aid) declares “The FBI is wrong.”
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: RDPreus on June 15, 2019, 12:30:29 AM
MSNBC just ran a l-o-n-g list of occasions when the president- THIS president - openly told people to disobey the law. These people included, among others, police officers, border patrol agents, Native American leaders, and others. After his blurting out his “go ahead and do it,” others had to send out orders telling their people “no, you cannot do what he said because it’s against the law.”
And it is clear that accepting campaign aid from a foreign power is illegal, according to the head of the FBI. The president (who says he would take such aid) declares “The FBI is wrong.”

Did President Trump say he would accept campaign aid from a foreign power?  Did he use the word aid?  Or did you put that word into his mouth?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on June 15, 2019, 06:01:59 AM
Watch the news, Pastor Preus. Read a newspaper. He said it, and and an army of lawyers, lawmakers, constitutional scholars, election law overseers and even a few Republicans are concerned.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on June 15, 2019, 06:44:17 AM
P.S. I have just read that the president is now trying to back off from his words, but not completely. I would explain what he is saying now, but it is such an example of his twisted understanding of right and wrong, that I can’t quite sort it out. I’m not sure even he knows what he is saying.
And I am reminded of the times when his own lawyers said that they didn’t want him to testify under oath because they (his lawyers) could not be sure he would not perjure himself, due to his warped grasp of truth and right and wrong.
I think what are he is saying now is that he would take information and/or aid from a foreign government but maybe he would tell our law-enforcement people about it, depending upon...and clarity disappears again.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on June 15, 2019, 09:20:39 AM
MSNBC just ran a l-o-n-g list of occasions when the president- THIS president - openly told people to disobey the law. These people included, among others, police officers, border patrol agents, Native American leaders, and others. After his blurting out his “go ahead and do it,” others had to send out orders telling their people “no, you cannot do what he said because it’s against the law.”
And it is clear that accepting campaign aid from a foreign power is illegal, according to the head of the FBI. The president (who says he would take such aid) declares “The FBI is wrong.”

Did President Trump say he would accept campaign aid from a foreign power?  Did he use the word aid?  Or did you put that word into his mouth?

Too bad that list from MSNBC wasn't shared. I trust MSNBC about as much as I trust Mexican tap water.

Now, watch those who disagree with me condemn me for questioning a source when they almost ALWAYS condemn sources that aren't carrying water for the DNC. 

Of course, as I pointed out earlier (and several times) since the ground from impeachment are the ambiguously defined "high crimes and misdemeanors", common law would prevail, and any occasion where a previous President did the same thing without being charged would be a legal precedent that the action was not a "high crime or misdemeanor". That means Obama's instructions to illegal aliens to go ahead and vote would be a comparable legal precedent.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on June 15, 2019, 09:40:04 AM
"Constitutional crisis" is a term that is being much bandied about. Just what is a Constitutional crisis and what makes a situation a Constitutional crisis. Turf battles are as old as politics. Is every time that Congress and the president butts heads a Constitutional crisis?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Coach-Rev on June 15, 2019, 09:47:03 AM
Reading your responses yet again Charles, I would say it's time for you to simply shut up and admit that you hate (yes, HATE), this president.  You've been challenged repeatedly (my question upstream on Obama's and Biden's scandals immediately comes to mind) and you then ignore when you are pointed out to be wrong.  Then, you seem to take the opposite position that you ridicule others on: "Just because past presidents have done "x" doesn't mean this one should be allowed to."

You are a glaring example of everything dividing this country. 

I respectfully ask that the moderators shut this thread down as it sure seems to have been beaten and left for dead at this point.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on June 15, 2019, 09:54:03 AM
Pastor Cottingham ( would not like it if I said everyone should love their mother)
Reading your responses yet again Charles, I would say it's time for you to simply shut up and admit that you hate (yes, HATE), this president. 
Me:
 No, you are still wrong, I pity him. I pray for him. I hope he will not be reelected.

Pastor Cottingham:
You've been challenged repeatedly (my question upstream on Obama's and Biden's scandals immediately comes to mind) and you then ignore when you are pointed out to be wrong.
Me:
No one thought prosecution in any of those alleged scandals. Those people are not in office.

Pastor Cottingham:
Then, you seem to take the opposite position that you ridicule others on: "Just because past presidents have done "x" doesn't mean this one should be allowed to."
Me:
You conveniently, and intentionally avoided the “if” factor in that.

Pastor Cottingham:
You are a glaring example of everything dividing this country. 
I respectfully ask that the moderators shut this thread down as it sure seems to have been beaten and left for dead at this point.

Me:
No, what will damage this country  is trying to end all further discussion 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on June 15, 2019, 10:41:02 AM
Pastor Cottingham ( would not like it if I said everyone should love their mother)
Reading your responses yet again Charles, I would say it's time for you to simply shut up and admit that you hate (yes, HATE), this president. 
Me:
 No, you are still wrong, I pity him. I pray for him. I hope he will not be reelected.

Similarly, I very much suspect that you would find some fault in President Trump if he said that everyone should love their mother.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Voelker on June 15, 2019, 11:22:52 AM
Pastor Cottingham ( would not like it if I said everyone should love their mother)
Reading your responses yet again Charles, I would say it's time for you to simply shut up and admit that you hate (yes, HATE), this president. 
Me:
 No, you are still wrong, I pity him. I pray for him. I hope he will not be reelected.

Similarly, I very much suspect that you would find some fault in President Trump if he said that everyone should love their mother.
Connecting the dots is easy on that --- Mother Russia. Q.E.D.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on June 15, 2019, 12:36:45 PM
The people I pity and pray for tend not to be people whose foibles and misdeeds I obsess over and want everyone discussing endlessly.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on June 15, 2019, 02:28:42 PM
Tell me, Peter, what you find wrong about discussing the leadership of our country during these critical times.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: DeHall1 on June 15, 2019, 03:35:05 PM
Tell me, Peter, what you find wrong about discussing the leadership of our country during these critical times.

Just a quick aside, Charles....I'd seriously consider doing a little more research regarding Amy Klobuchar (from a Feb 2019 Vanity Fair article):
"Though rumors about Klobuchar’s conduct have circulated for years, one staffer told BuzzFeed they were coming forward now out of a sense of public duty in advance of her 2020 announcement. “The reason it matters is when I hear the descriptors of our current president and how he lacks responsibility and everyone is to blame, and there’s erratic behavior, name-calling,” said the staffer. “It’s unfortunate, but you’re also describing her.” "

Read the whole article here: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/02/senator-klobuchar-temper-rumors

Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: RDPreus on June 15, 2019, 05:11:31 PM
Watch the news, Pastor Preus. Read a newspaper. He said it, and and an army of lawyers, lawmakers, constitutional scholars, election law overseers and even a few Republicans are concerned.

He did not say what you said he said, Rev. Austin.  You used the word "aid" as in "aid from a foreign power."  You said that Donald Trump said he would accept aid from a foreign power.  You put the word "aid" into his mouth.  He did not use that word.  Why do you attribute to him a word he did not use?  Is it not because you want to interpret everything he says in such a way as to make him look bad or foolish or ignorant?  You can argue that information is aid.  Make the argument.  But you cannot put the word aid into Trump's mouth without bearing false witness against him.

Have you ever read Reinhold Niebuhr's Moral Man and Immoral Society?  The immoral society has judged Trump to be a lawless autocrat who poses a threat to democracy.  This judgment trumps (no pun intended) the divine law that requires us to explain what our neighbor does in the kindest way.  I've see this happen in Christian congregations, families, and other groups where passion replaces reason and the desire to join the crowd in judging overwhelms the obligation to put the best construction on what our neighbor does.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on June 15, 2019, 05:36:49 PM
For heaven sake! He said he would except help from a foreign power. If you think “aid” is something different than help, then I don’t know what to say to you.
And I do not understand this knee-jerk response to defend him at every single point.
Furthermore, the issue is not the words he used; the issue is that the actions he said he would perform is deemed to be illegal.
But carry-on. I know where we are here.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on June 15, 2019, 05:43:38 PM

Sometimes the words that are used are important. I believe that there have been court rulings as to whether a gyro or a taco can legally be called sandwiches.


"Aid" in normal discourse is a synonym for help. But in this discussion about what Trump said and what it legally can mean, "aid" could be simply any kind of help, but it can also be taken to mean, specifically monetary aid, as in a donation or a donation in kind, giving something for which a monetary price could be applied. It is illegal for a campaign to accept foreign monetary donations or donations in kind. Whether that would include dealing dirt on an opponent is subject to judicial interpretation.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on June 15, 2019, 05:47:42 PM
For heaven sake! He said he would except help from a foreign power. If you think “aid” is something different than help, then I don’t know what to say to you.
And I do not understand this knee-jerk response to defend him at every single point.
Furthermore, the issue is not the words he used; the issue is that the actions he said he would perform is deemed to be illegal.
But carry-on. I know where we are here.
There is no knee-jerk response to defend him. There is a knee-jerk impulse to attack him, an impulse you display repeatedly. The motivation that everyone else calls hatred but that you refer to as pity has become an obsession to you. You pity him to distraction.

The election is over. A new one is on the horizon. Vote for anyone but Trump if that’s what floats your boat. “Now look what he said! Isn’t he awful? Let’s all talk about how awful he is!” seems to be a daily exercise for you. Maybe turn off the tv. Stop reading the articles. He’ll still be awful in November of 2020 and your vote against him will count the same whether you counted six or six million examples of his awfulness in the mean time.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on June 15, 2019, 05:56:30 PM
Pastor Fienen writes:
Whether that would include dealing dirt on an opponent is subject to judicial interpretation.
I comment:
Actually, it is not. But if it’s OK with you that a candidate for the presidency seeks help from foreign powers, especially our enemies, then I’m glad I know that about you.
Peter, there are people here who post example after example of how awful the ELCA is, and they aren’t even members. I happen to be a citizen of this country and concerned for its future.
But so as not to disturb the know-nothings here, I’ll probably take that concern elsewhere.
Pastor Preus, Do you really mean that I am not to be so decisively critical of a public official? That I am obligated to find something nice about all his foolishness? That if a public official becomes lawless, I need to find the best construction on that? Nonsense!
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on June 15, 2019, 06:06:33 PM
Pastor Fienen writes:
Whether that would include dealing dirt on an opponent is subject to judicial interpretation.
I comment:
Actually, it is not. But if it’s OK with you that a candidate for the presidency seeks help from foreign powers, especially our enemies, then I’m glad I know that about you.
Peter, there are people here who post example after example of how awful the ELCA is, and they aren’t even members. I happen to be a citizen of this country and concerned for its future.
But so as not to disturb the know-nothings here, I’ll probably take that concern elsewhere.
Pastor Preus, Do you really mean that I am not to be so decisively critical of a public official? That I am obligated to find something nice about all his foolishness? That if a public official becomes lawless, I need to find the best construction on that? Nonsense!
Surely you’re not justifying the behavior under consideration by pointing out that other people do it, too, about the ELCA. That would be changing the subject.  ::)

At any rate, the ELCA is a natural topic for the reason this board exists. Trump is tangential at best.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on June 15, 2019, 06:12:29 PM
OK, Peter. Go back to discussing who ought to be allowed to commune, and whether women should be allowed to read the lessons at worship.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: RDPreus on June 15, 2019, 06:37:29 PM
For heaven sake! He said he would except help from a foreign power. If you think “aid” is something different than help, then I don’t know what to say to you.
And I do not understand this knee-jerk response to defend him at every single point.
Furthermore, the issue is not the words he used; the issue is that the actions he said he would perform is deemed to be illegal.
But carry-on. I know where we are here.

I believe the word he used was information. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven W Bohler on June 15, 2019, 09:02:33 PM
Pastor Fienen writes:
Whether that would include dealing dirt on an opponent is subject to judicial interpretation.
I comment:
Actually, it is not. But if it’s OK with you that a candidate for the presidency seeks help from foreign powers, especially our enemies, then I’m glad I know that about you....

You mean like a dossier written by a British agent, using information provided by Russian agents?  Bought by a a political party and campaign to damage its opponent?  I am glad to learn that you are outraged by Mrs. Clinton and the Democrats.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on June 16, 2019, 08:27:30 PM
Pastor Fienen writes:
Whether that would include dealing dirt on an opponent is subject to judicial interpretation.
I comment:
Actually, it is not. But if it’s OK with you that a candidate for the presidency seeks help from foreign powers, especially our enemies, then I’m glad I know that about you....

You mean like a dossier written by a British agent, using information provided by Russian agents?  Bought by a a political party and campaign to damage its opponent?  I am glad to learn that you are outraged by Mrs. Clinton and the Democrats.

Or what about accepting a few million dollars from the Russian government, laundered through an alleged "charitable foundation"? Or paying a huge bribe speaking fee to a candidate's husband?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on June 19, 2019, 03:59:22 PM

Pr. Austin, I agree that President Trump is a poor excuse of a human being and that he has made some poor policy and diplomatic choices. During the 2016 primary season, he was the Republican that I least wanted as the nominee.


Some of his actions and decisions have turned out to be not so bad. It is much too soon to see all the results. Still, the state of the economy over all is better than it was when he took office. Unemployment is down, even for minorities which is not a bad thing. Whether or not it has been his actions that resulted in these gains in economic growth and employment will be debated. Traditionally, presidents take credit for good things that happen nationally during their term of office and get blamed for the bad.


Still, I understand that it is likely therapeutic for you to vent about the president. It does get tiresome when you rant about the moral deficiencies of those who do not enthusiastically join in your venting.


But, and here is the point I most want to make, when I contemplate the president or government in general, I do not just want to complain about the incumbents but consider the alternatives. Nobody, and I do mean nobody is asking me how the country should be run, or who should run it. We're coming up on another election cycle when I do get a sliver of a say in these matters. I am not just concerned with how bad the incumbent is but what is the alternative? There will be no blank on the ballot to simply vote out an incumbent or vote "None of the Above." A vote will need to be cast for somebody. If I am not to vote for Trump I must vote for somebody else or wash my hands of voting all together.


So, Trump. He was legitimately elected. For all that the Russians tried to affect our election process, after a couple of years of diligent effort there has come to light no actionable evidence that Trump or his campaign actively conspired or colluded with them. There is very little evidence that the Russians had a significant effect at all. And yes, they do bear watching in the future.


For all there is to dislike about Trump (and there is plenty) he's president, so those opposed to him either need to come up with sufficient evidence to successfully indict (impeach) and convict and remove him from office or get back to the work of governance.


That leaves the next election. But for this voter, it will not be enough to tell me in exhausting detail just how bad you think that Trump is, what all you think that has been wrong, unwise or criminal (see above), they have to give me an alternative that appears to me to be better. Not just a better person (that would not be that hard) but with better ideas and better proposed policies and plans. From where I sit, some of the proposals being put out there by especially some of the far left among the Democrats and paid lip service to by most of the rest are potentially more destructive to our nation than anything Trump has done. The future of our nation is too important to entrust to just anybody who isn't Trump. When the proposed policies of the various candidates are much the same, personality and personal ability factors are more important. But when, as now, the proposed policies are so different, personal issues are for some of us less important.


You may resume your venting, I hope it helps. You might also pet Sally some more, even play with her and exercise her more what with the extra treats we've been winning her. You live in the Land of 10,000 Lakes, perhaps you can find a beach to build sand castles on during the couple, three weeks of summer. (My Dad, at the tail end of his first Minnesota Winter after retiring there plaintively complained, "People shouldn't have to live this way!")
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on June 20, 2019, 03:02:25 AM
That leaves the next election. But for this voter, it will not be enough to tell me in exhausting detail just how bad you think that Trump is, what all you think that has been wrong, unwise or criminal (see above), they have to give me an alternative that appears to me to be better. Not just a better person (that would not be that hard) but with better ideas and better proposed policies and plans. From where I sit, some of the proposals being put out there by especially some of the far left among the Democrats and paid lip service to by most of the rest are potentially more destructive to our nation than anything Trump has done. The future of our nation is too important to entrust to just anybody who isn't Trump. When the proposed policies of the various candidates are much the same, personality and personal ability factors are more important. But when, as now, the proposed policies are so different, personal issues are for some of us less important.


Best paragraph posted on a non-religious topic in here so far this month.

I wish someone would explain to me why Christianity is defined by our Bible, our teachings, and our theology. No one attempts to define the Christian religion by pointing to the behaviours of some members, not even if they are a majority. Christianity is what God says it is.


It is precisely the behaviors - the fruit - that lets the world know we are followers of Christ. Most clearly, according to Jesus, is the way we love one another. He never said that we are known by the Bible, or our teachings, or our confessions; but how we love one another - how our lights shine out in the dark world that leads others to glorify our Father in heaven.

Quote
Islam is no different. It is not defined by what people who claim to be Muslims do. It is defined by the words written in the Koran. The very word "Islam" means "to submit". It is a religion totally and completely based on Law, with no Gospel. It describes Allah as judge and punisher, not redeemer or savior. In short, it describes God using the description we understand to be what Satan is.


It would be helpful if you would actually give the references where the Quran says what you say it says. There was such a list posted on Facebook; but when I actually looked up the references; they didn't say at all what the poster thought they said.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on June 20, 2019, 08:13:47 AM
Excuse the repetition, but Mr. Erdner's rant got posted in this thread as well, so...
As I said over there (slightly adapted)....
And we need to stop characterizing Islam as a "religion of the sword," unless we want to let others characterize Christianity as a "religion of the crusades," or of the Spanish Inquisition, or of the pastor who wants gays rounded up and killed, or of the St. Bartholomew's day massacre, or the Salem Witch Trials or the religiously intolerant and theocratic Massachusetts Bay Colony.
This is not the place for an in-and-out on Mr. Erdner's errors - for we have no competent student of Islam here to lead us, but everything he has posted is exactly the kind of thing that says we need to know a lot more - a LOT more - about the origins and history of Islam than we do.
I did a lot of reading in the last couple of years, and am convinced that virtually everything I thought I "knew" about Islam and the world needs correction. (And I'm not talking about "Islam" as the social policies of Saudi Arabia or the politics of Isis or any attempt to establish a global caliphate.)
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 03, 2019, 12:09:27 PM
And now we haul out our military equipment and politicize the Fourth of July celebration in Washington. Is there no limit to the outrages that we must experience under this president?
The Republican national committee And big donors get VIP seats to his show.
Even our military leaders aren’t comfortable with how they are being used by this president.
Republicans, please! Speak.
Are there any Republicans left with a sense of propriety? Are there any Republicans left with guts and a backbone?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on July 03, 2019, 12:56:00 PM
I add, Charles:

just a couple, over a couple of issues... maybe not even condemning but just saying, "this might not be the best idea, or the best time or could we do things a bit differently"... just some sense that this is way out of the usual manner not of Washington politics but out of the orderly, decent, gentlemanly, care for and respect of people and the whole country and human dignity... just a tinge here and there of question or advice or hoped correction...  the silence is deadly to more than opposition...

Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: RDPreus on July 03, 2019, 01:01:39 PM
I'm a Republican.  I guess.  I didn't vote for McCain.  Or Romney.  I did vote for Trump.  It was either him or Hillary Clinton.  I think I made the right decision.  I oppose the display of military hardware planned by Trump for tomorrow's Fourth of July celebration.  I don't believe that patriotism should be confused with militarism.  Trump campaigned against our getting involved in elective wars.  An air show would have been sufficient, but to display tanks looks more like something done in a nation with a military government.  On the one side you have Nike backing down on marketing a shoe with the original U.S. flag on it and on the other side you have a celebration of our military power.  In between, I believe, are the vast majority of Americans who respect the flag and are grateful that we have a civilian, not a military government and who don't want American military force projected all over the world.  But who speaks for them? 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on July 03, 2019, 01:10:49 PM
"But who speaks for them?"    Yes, that is one way of putting it.  To me it seems, perhaps I am wrong, that between the extremes of left and right on almost all issues is this vast space that has been filled in with Trump and silence.  I hope I am wrong.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on July 03, 2019, 01:43:20 PM
And now we haul out our military equipment and politicize the Fourth of July celebration in Washington. Is there no limit to the outrages that we must experience under this president?
The Republican national committee And big donors get VIP seats to his show.
Even our military leaders aren’t comfortable with how they are being used by this president.
Republicans, please! Speak.
Are there any Republicans left with a sense of propriety? Are there any Republicans left with guts and a backbone?
It is bizarre rants like this that make me less likely to speak up. I’d rather deal with the socialist-style indignity of a weird martial display than aid and abet the  anti-Americanism that now seems to be at the heart of the “resistance.”
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on July 03, 2019, 01:55:04 PM
I would not call the bizarre rants... but a cry for some leashes on the unleashed indecency visited on us in the name of great progress.   
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on July 03, 2019, 03:05:58 PM
I would not call the bizarre rants... but a cry for some leashes on the unleashed indecency visited on us in the name of great progress.   
I think Trump plays the media like a fiddle. He deliberately does things such that people who reflexively oppose him find themselves on the unpopular side. He doesn't care if there are tanks. He wants the issue/visual of tanks in the news and for all to know that whatever actually happens, he was on the side of having tanks. That way, when all the details fade, the news of the day moves on to some other outrage du jour, and there is a just a vague, general impression of what went on, people will know at a psychological and even emotional level that Trump was for America and our military and his opponents weren't.

If the exact same display of tanks happened under a Democrat administration, the president would justify it as saving taxpayers millions by using tank instead of fighter jets for a military display, and leaving a much smaller carbon footprint, Charles would either say nothing or offer tentative approval of the decision, or at least defend the president from attack, and people on the Right would bemoan the Soviet Mayday aesthetic of a tank parade, which was my impulse anyway until Charles started pleading for people on the Right to denounce Trump again.

At a deeper level, this divides elites from the populace, the people who would say, "I am a responsible citizen of the republic," from those who, meaning the exact same thing, would be more likely to say, "Yeah, baby! U-S-A! U-S-A!" The shear disdain elites have for the latter plays right into Trump's hands. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 03, 2019, 03:08:41 PM
And now we haul out our military equipment and politicize the Fourth of July celebration in Washington. Is there no limit to the outrages that we must experience under this president?
The Republican national committee And big donors get VIP seats to his show.
Even our military leaders aren’t comfortable with how they are being used by this president.
Republicans, please! Speak.
Are there any Republicans left with a sense of propriety? Are there any Republicans left with guts and a backbone?
It is bizarre rants like this that make me less likely to speak up. I’d rather deal with the socialist-style indignity of a weird martial display than aid and abet the  anti-Americanism that now seems to be at the heart of the “resistance.”

Peter, agreed. Perhaps since some are offended when anyone anywhere says anything nice about the USA we should ban all celebrations, remove all flags from public spaces or at least ban individuals from flying flags lest someone be offended. Yes, the planned parade seems over the top and excessively militaristic and I get it that Charles and others resent their tax dollars being used for things of which they do not approve (only conservatives should be ashamed at complaining how their tax dollars are used) but to be honest, being offended at presidents is not anything new and quite frankly if I got all worked up and vented all over the landscape every time something is said or done in public that offends me, my blood pressure would be even worse than it already is.


OK, I get it that the planned 4th of July celebration in Washington D.C. offends your delicate sensibilities. Nike's pulling the shoe with the Betsy Ross flag also offends me. I'll join in your rant, since it seems so important to you that we join your rant or we are morally deficient if you'll join me in a rant about those who disrespect our flag.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: pastorg1@aol.com on July 03, 2019, 03:35:48 PM
I would not call the bizarre rants... but a cry for some leashes on the unleashed indecency visited on us in the name of great progress.   
I think Trump plays the media like a fiddle. He deliberately does things such that people who reflexively oppose him find themselves on the unpopular side. He doesn't care if there are tanks. He wants the issue/visual of tanks in the news and for all to know that whatever actually happens, he was on the side of having tanks. That way, when all the details fade, the news of the day moves on to some other outrage du jour, and there is a just a vague, general impression of what went on, people will know at a psychological and even emotional level that Trump was for America and our military and his opponents weren't.

If the exact same display of tanks happened under a Democrat administration, the president would justify it as saving taxpayers millions by using tank instead of fighter jets for a military display, and leaving a much smaller carbon footprint, Charles would either say nothing or offer tentative approval of the decision, or at least defend the president from attack, and people on the Right would bemoan the Soviet Mayday aesthetic of a tank parade, which was my impulse anyway until Charles started pleading for people on the Right to denounce Trump again.

At a deeper level, this divides elites from the populace, the people who would say, "I am a responsible citizen of the republic," from those who, meaning the exact same thing, would be more likely to say, "Yeah, baby! U-S-A! U-S-A!" The shear disdain elites have for the latter plays right into Trump's hands.

Well, exactly.
And, God forefend, any trouble comes to the USA, folks will unite behind their President. We’re spoiled right now.

Cassandra
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: MaddogLutheran on July 03, 2019, 04:02:18 PM
OK, I get it that the planned 4th of July celebration in Washington D.C. offends your delicate sensibilities. Nike's pulling the shoe with the Betsy Ross flag also offends me. I'll join in your rant, since it seems so important to you that we join your rant or we are morally deficient if you'll join me in a rant about those who disrespect our flag.

A minor quibble:  I don't think it's quite accurate to be ranting "about those who disrespect our flag".  In the case of Nike, they're not disrespecting it, they're offended and insisting it be removed from the public square. 

I don't recall anyone being concerned about people being offended when Obama lit up the White House in the rainbow colors of the gay pride flag, on the evening the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage.  That symbol does not represent the nation, merely a partisan faction, yet anyone who dared object would surely have been shouted down.  Perhaps if there's a big Second Amendment Supreme Court decision before he leaves office, Trump can have the the image of an assault rifle projected onto the White House.

The tanks and the flag belong to the entire nation.  What's the difference between the Betsey Ross flag and the rainbow flag?  I know, I know, a tiny white supremacist group has adopted the Ross flag, and therefore our moral superiors are declaring it out of bounds.  I dissent--a group trying to misappropriate it will not take it away from me.  If I'm not allowed to tell other people who they can love, they can't tell me I can't also love that flag.

Today is the stupidest day of 2019.  Tomorrow is another day, another opportunity.

Sterling Spatz
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on July 03, 2019, 05:15:44 PM
I'm a Republican.  I guess.  I didn't vote for McCain.  Or Romney.  I did vote for Trump.  It was either him or Hillary Clinton.  I think I made the right decision.  I oppose the display of military hardware planned by Trump for tomorrow's Fourth of July celebration.  I don't believe that patriotism should be confused with militarism.  Trump campaigned against our getting involved in elective wars.  An air show would have been sufficient, but to display tanks looks more like something done in a nation with a military government.  On the one side you have Nike backing down on marketing a shoe with the original U.S. flag on it and on the other side you have a celebration of our military power.  In between, I believe, are the vast majority of Americans who respect the flag and are grateful that we have a civilian, not a military government and who don't want American military force projected all over the world.  But who speaks for them?

Didn't one of the Presidents who appears on Mount Rushmore once say, "Talk softly and carry a big stick"? And hasn't history demonstrated that other nations have usually tended to not cause military problems with nations that followed that advice? I mean, it's no secret that we have a lot of really powerful tanks. How is it not a good idea to remind potential enemies that they are risking the wrath of an opponent that they cannot defeat, and that can severely hurt them if they start trouble?

I'm also reminded that when someone asks "What would Jesus do?", making a whip out of cords and using it, and turning over tables is one option.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 03, 2019, 05:17:39 PM
Peter writes:
If the exact same display of tanks happened under a Democrat administration, the president would justify it as saving taxpayers millions by using tank instead of fighter jets for a military display, and leaving a much smaller carbon footprint, Charles would either say nothing or offer tentative approval of the decision, or at least defend the president from attack, and people on the Right would bemoan the Soviet Mayday aesthetic of a tank parade, which was my impulse anyway until Charles started pleading for people on the Right to denounce Trump again.
I comment:
Peter, it is an incredible dodge to avoid the issue by speculating a great fantasy on what a Democrat might’ve done or how Democrats might’ve responded. That is not the issue.
And for you to change your impulse to oppose this just because I happen to oppose it and the one who presents it is beyond comprehension.
“Delicate sensibilities”? The usual phrase is “delicate sensitivities.” But no matter. Neither my sensibilities or my sensitivities are delicate.
Do you think I am the only one outraged by this? Do you question the Loyalty or the patriotism of people who oppose the things that come from the White House today?
But in a way, Peter is right. The man is a phony, without any real policy or passion except to be the center of attention and to enrich his family.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on July 03, 2019, 05:19:02 PM
It would be helpful if you would actually give the references where the Quran says what you say it says. There was such a list posted on Facebook; but when I actually looked up the references; they didn't say at all what the poster thought they said.

No, it wouldn't be "helpful". People who are aware of what has been done in the name of Islam in the past half century, and what is still being done in the name of that Satan-worshipping pedophile they call the "prophet", even as I type these words, doesn't need to see references. And those who deny reality wouldn't be impressed or convinced, and would come up with some clever excuse to "prove" the words didn't really mean what they said.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 03, 2019, 05:27:05 PM
Do we really want language like this in this forum? People left here because of the things said in the “mobbing” discussion. This is worse. Shouldn’t we object? I do.
But don’t get your hopes up. I’m not leaving. I’ll just continue to call out this kind of rhetoric that brings dishonor to ALPB.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on July 03, 2019, 05:40:40 PM
I’ve been reading about tanks for the Independence Day parade off-and-on for months, ever since it seems President Trump first mentioned it after being impressed by them at a parade presided over by the President of that mighty military power where liberties are ignored, France. 

And every time the nattering nabobs of negativism whine about the militarism of such symbolism, I’m a little boy in the 1960s watching Army tanks roll up Owensmouth Avenue as part of my community’s Memorial Day parade sponsored by the Canoga Park Kiwanis club.  Or seeing them on TV as part of the Inauguration Day Parade in D.C.  Granted, this was in a day and age when we all applauded our men in uniform without having the guilt of having to try to make up for having spat upon or ignored those returning from VietNam. 

And I wonder what the hell is the big deal.

spt+
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on July 03, 2019, 06:02:52 PM
Peter writes:
If the exact same display of tanks happened under a Democrat administration, the president would justify it as saving taxpayers millions by using tank instead of fighter jets for a military display, and leaving a much smaller carbon footprint, Charles would either say nothing or offer tentative approval of the decision, or at least defend the president from attack, and people on the Right would bemoan the Soviet Mayday aesthetic of a tank parade, which was my impulse anyway until Charles started pleading for people on the Right to denounce Trump again.
I comment:
Peter, it is an incredible dodge to avoid the issue by speculating a great fantasy on what a Democrat might’ve done or how Democrats might’ve responded. That is not the issue.
And for you to change your impulse to oppose this just because I happen to oppose it and the one who presents it is beyond comprehension.
“Delicate sensibilities”? The usual phrase is “delicate sensitivities.” But no matter. Neither my sensibilities or my sensitivities are delicate.
Do you think I am the only one outraged by this? Do you question the Loyalty or the patriotism of people who oppose the things that come from the White House today?
But in a way, Peter is right. The man is a phony, without any real policy or passion except to be the center of attention and to enrich his family.
"Dodging" is easily accomplished by ignoring silly posts. You very consistently cut and paste what I say such that a supporting point appears to be the main point of what I said. In this case, the post was about the media being played, and to make that point I speculated about what would happen if the political parties were switched. It was in no way a " great fantasy" (your wordsmithery having fallen off quite a bit), nor is it off point.

You, Charles, are the one constantly demanding that everyone pick a side by pointing out whatever objectionable thing Trump does. My easily comprehensible point is that when things are divided thus, it is giving comfort and aid to the enemy to latch on to criticism of one's own side.

I didn't say anything about sensibilities or sensitivities. But both of your are way, way, to delicate.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 03, 2019, 06:15:10 PM
And for you to change your impulse to oppose this just because I happen to oppose it and the one who presents it is beyond comprehension.
“Delicate sensibilities”? The usual phrase is “delicate sensitivities.” But no matter. Neither my sensibilities or my sensitivities are delicate.
Do you think I am the only one outraged by this? Do you question the Loyalty or the patriotism of people who oppose the things that come from the White House today?
But in a way, Peter is right. The man is a phony, without any real policy or passion except to be the center of attention and to enrich his family.

No, I do not question the loyalty or patriotism of people just because they oppose what President Trump does or wants to do. I may if they give other grounds for suspicion, but not just for that. Do you question the loyalty, patriotism, or morality of people just because they do not join in your rants or oppose anything and everything that comes from the White House today as much as you do? Is yours the only vision for America that is at all reasonable or moral? I know that there are plenty of others who are outraged by this. So what, plenty of people are not, do they not have a right to have a say or be heard? Or are only those who agree with you worthy of expressing an opinion?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Voelker on July 03, 2019, 06:52:10 PM
“Delicate sensibilities”? The usual phrase is “delicate sensitivities.” But no matter. Neither my sensibilities or my sensitivities are delicate.
Point of fact: not so. A simple google hit search shows that "sensibilities" (https://www.google.com/search?safe=active&client=safari&ei=uzAdXYm8Mo6rtQa79LuIBw&q=%22delicate+sensibilities%22&oq=%22delicate+sensibilities%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0j0i7i30l7j0l2.2937.3679..5017...0.0..0.113.224.0j2......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i22i30.sllLBQMRIH0) (~180,000 hits) easily trumps "sensitivities" (https://www.google.com/search?safe=active&client=safari&ei=wTAdXZWxJ8KutQbS_KOABg&q=%22delicate+sensitivities%22&oq=%22delicate+sensitivities%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i30.56396.62733..62953...0.0..0.130.2282.3j18......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71j0i67j0j0i22i30.DEkvsQr70Y8) (~21,000 hits).
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: D. Engebretson on July 03, 2019, 06:57:16 PM
I noticed in passing a reference to the Kaepernick dust-up regarding the "Betsy Ross" flag on the new Nike running shoe.  Okay, I'm confused.  Which symbols of our country are now 'off bounds' and too offensive to show publicly? In the AP article in my local paper it mentioned that "the Anti-Defamation League does not include it [the Betsy Ross Flag] n its database of hate symbols."  Apparently it's offensive because it supposedly represents a time when slave ownership was still practiced. So how much of our history's symbols should be banished from public use because they are associated with our early history?  It is claimed that at the time of Washington's death in 1799 he had a slave population as high as 317 people, including 143 children. Of that number, he owned 124, leased 40 and controlled 153 dower slaves.  Yet his image is on the One Dollar Bill.  Why has no one launched a petition to remove his picture from this bill?  Or why do people still use and exchange this bill since Washington participated in the slave trade?  It seems inconsistent, at best.

BTW, has anyone ever seen the ADL database of hate symbols?  You can find it here: https://www.adl.org/hatesymbolsdatabase (https://www.adl.org/hatesymbolsdatabase)
Quite an education.  Never realized that all those numbers had special significance to white supremacists.  Also, they have a version of the celtic cross that is considered a hate symbol.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on July 03, 2019, 07:09:48 PM
I noticed in passing a reference to the Kaepernick dust-up regarding the "Betsy Ross" flag on the new Nike running shoe.  Okay, I'm confused.  Which symbols of our country are now 'off bounds' and too offensive to show publicly? In the AP article in my local paper it mentioned that "the Anti-Defamation League does not include it [the Betsy Ross Flag] n its database of hate symbols."  Apparently it's offensive because it supposedly represents a time when slave ownership was still practiced. So how much of our history's symbols should be banished from public use because they are associated with our early history?  It is claimed that at the time of Washington's death in 1799 he had a slave population as high as 317 people, including 143 children. Of that number, he owned 124, leased 40 and controlled 153 dower slaves.  Yet his image is on the One Dollar Bill.  Why has no one launched a petition to remove his picture from this bill?  Or why do people still use and exchange this bill since Washington participated in the slave trade?  It seems inconsistent, at best.

BTW, has anyone ever seen the ADL database of hate symbols?  You can find it here: https://www.adl.org/hatesymbolsdatabase (https://www.adl.org/hatesymbolsdatabase)
Quite an education.  Never realized that all those numbers had special significance to white supremacists.  Also, they have a version of the celtic cross that is considered a hate symbol.
Plus, Barack Obama's inauguration featured huge flag banners, two of which (on each side) were the Betsy Ross flag. So it wasn't hateful a few years ago. The problem is when people are trained to be offended at things that they otherwise wouldn't be offended by, which is the essence of being woke.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 03, 2019, 07:23:48 PM
Saw the other day that Charlottesville, VA, birthplace of Thomas Jefferson will no longer celebrate his birthday.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on July 03, 2019, 10:48:57 PM
Matthew 23
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 03, 2019, 11:05:25 PM
It is my hope and prayer that there is left in our land enough concern for constitutionality, justice, fairness and decency that the assaults on the constitution, the injustice perpetuated by current practice, the nepotism and favoritism and self-aggrandizing and the sexism, racism and xenophobia oozing from our nation's highest office, along with the undermining of our national security apparatus will be rejected either by action in Congress, in our courts or by the electorate.
It is also my hope and prayer that those experienced and dedicated people in Congress, in our Courts, in our government service and our national security agencies and our armed forces have enough ways to shunt aside or delay or otherwise minimize the effect of crazy things that may emanate from the current occupant of the White House.

Pastor Fienen writes (re my concern, I think, for the White House hijack of July Fourth):
I know that there are plenty of others who are outraged by this.
I comment:
Good. Very Good. May their tribe increase.

Pastor Fienen:
So what, plenty of people are not, do they not have a right to have a say or be heard? Or are only those who agree with you worthy of expressing an opinion?
Me:
Of course they have a right to be heard. They are heard, They go to His rallies and shout slogans; they sit in their enclaves and take His words as encouragement for more racism, more xenophobia, more dismantling of our Constitution. The "lock her up" shouts at Trump rallies were obscene. His name-calling and smirking at the foibles of his opponents is disgusting. Is he governing by "Tweets"? His lies mount. 
And I have a right to tell the shouters and the Trump supporters how wrong they are. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 03, 2019, 11:17:51 PM
As some of us have the right to keep reminding people of the hundreds and thousands of babies that are aborted each year not to save the life of mothers with a medical condition that could kill the mother if carried to term, or even conceived by rape or incest, but because they are inconvenient or don't fit into plans or the wrong cis gender or unwanted. But of course you're tired of hearing about that and would like that topic dropped.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 03, 2019, 11:33:56 PM
Having repeated heard how racist this nation is,  how oppressive the government has become under Donald Trump, how dominated by the super rich who care nothing for the poor but to further exploit them, and especially how oppressed the Hispanic community is under the Trump regime, I'm surprised at the emigration crisis at our border. Usually when one has as oppressive a country as Trump is apparently turning America into, one needs the Border Patrol to keep people from escaping.


I am under no illusion that everything is just fine in America. But too much hyperbole does not strengthen the case. How many journalists have been rounded up, arrested, and jailed for speaking out against the president? How many political opponents have been jailed?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 03, 2019, 11:38:51 PM
Pastor Fienen snarks:
But of course you're tired of hearing about that and would like that topic dropped.
I comment:
Once again, cheap shot and unfair. You can talk about abortion all you want. I just choose not to engage in that discussion in this form. I can take my concerns elsewhere, knowing that “out there” [in the general society I am among the majority of people who tend to agree with me on the need for preserving our current laws concerning abortion.
I will say that it bothers me a good bit but this seems to be the only moral issue that some of you are concerned about. You will put up with racism, classism, sexism, and corruption so long as someone is seen to be “pro life,“ or willing to do some things that will benefit that particular cause.
If that is the only issue that concerns you, the only issue that seems to have a role in deciding who you support or don’t support, then you have a warped view of citizenship.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 03, 2019, 11:43:31 PM
Pastor Fienen persists:
Having repeated heard how racist this nation is,  how oppressive the government has become under Donald Trump, how dominated by the super rich who care nothing for the poor but to further exploit them, and especially how oppressed the Hispanic community is under the Trump regime, I'm surprised at the emigration crisis at our border. Usually when one has as oppressive a country as Trump is apparently turning America into, one needs the Border Patrol to keep people from escaping.
I comment:
No. The fact that people want to come here and will risk their lives to do so is more of a testimony to how terrible things are in their homeland.

Pastor Fienen :
I am under no illusion that everything is just fine in America. But too much hyperbole does not strengthen the case. How many journalists have been rounded up, arrested, and jailed for speaking out against the president? How many political opponents have been jailed?
Me:
None. Yet. But he talks about it. Has called reporters “traitors.”
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on July 03, 2019, 11:45:59 PM
What is anybody’s actual evidence that Trump is a racist, sexist, or homophobe? The charge seems to stem from taking the assumptions of his political foes at face value. He was for gay marriage long before the DNC or Obama or Clinton, and waved a huge rainbow flag at one of his massive campaign rallies. Yes, he is a womanizing philanderer, but he doesn’t seem to be biased against women at a professional level. 

It seems to me his “America first” approach happens to resonate also with the very few people who actually are racists, and he gets tarred by that for reasons entirely unrelated to racism. It is similar to Biden, who is not a racist but whose willingness to work with people he disagreed with back in the day allows his foes to lambast him. Basically, Trump is always treated by the press the way Kamala Harris treated Biden in the debate— with a flagrant disregard for facts or fairness in service of finding a charge of racism.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on July 03, 2019, 11:48:30 PM
Oh dear, he called reporters traitors? On any given day they call him a traitor several times before breakfast. Antifa not only threatens but actually beats the snot out of reporters they disagree with.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 04, 2019, 12:05:08 AM
As usual, I guess I’m sorry I brought it up. And more than ever convince you that this is not a place for serious discussion.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 04, 2019, 12:35:50 AM
Pastor Fienen snarks:
But of course you're tired of hearing about that and would like that topic dropped.
I comment:
Once again, cheap shot and unfair. You can talk about abortion all you want. I just choose not to engage in that discussion in this form. I can take my concerns elsewhere, knowing that “out there” [in the general society I am among the majority of people who tend to agree with me on the need for preserving our current laws concerning abortion.
I will say that it bothers me a good bit but this seems to be the only moral issue that some of you are concerned about. You will put up with racism, classism, sexism, and corruption so long as someone is seen to be “pro life,“ or willing to do some things that will benefit that particular cause.
If that is the only issue that concerns you, the only issue that seems to have a role in deciding who you support or don’t support, then you have a warped view of citizenship.
Also a cheap shot. Since we don't focus as intensely as you do on the perfidy ofall things Trump, you judge us as unconcerned.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 04, 2019, 12:41:50 AM
As usual, I guess I’m sorry I brought it up. And more than ever convince you that this is not a place for serious discussion.
Ofcourse it isn't! In a place for serious discussion once you've explained how wrong other people are, they immediately see the error of their ways and agree  with you.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 04, 2019, 04:56:01 AM
And Pastor Fienen gets the last word.
.....he thinks.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 04, 2019, 09:50:37 AM
As some of us have the right to keep reminding people of the hundreds and thousands of babies that are aborted each year not to save the life of mothers with a medical condition that could kill the mother if carried to term, or even conceived by rape or incest, but because they are inconvenient or don't fit into plans or the wrong cis gender or unwanted. But of course you're tired of hearing about that and would like that topic dropped.


But what we often don't hear are ways to reduce these unwanted pregnancies. Free contraceptives, better sex education including the proper use of contraceptives, free health care for mothers-to-be, adequate pay that would cover the costs of day care, or employers who provide daycare centers, etc. As long as abortion is seen as "the problem" I believe that you are missing the mark - shooting arrows at the wrong target. For those women who seek it, abortion is seen as the "solution" to their problem of an unwanted pregnancy.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: D. Engebretson on July 04, 2019, 10:04:17 AM
"Sexism, racism and xenophobia...."

I hear these accusations with great frequency in one form or another.  But I think they are leveled indiscriminately.  Biden, for example, as was mentioned.  Now I'm not a Democrat, but I think that he was unfairly accused of racism during the recent debate.  But it seems, if I understand it correctly, that if we agree to work civilly with those who may be racist while still disagreeing with their views, we are racist.  Or was it the way he described his relationship with them?  I'm not sure.  But I think it was an unfair attack.  Biden is anything but a racist and they know that.

When my daughter attended the University of Wisconsin - Eau Claire they used to hand out fact sheets at every class that explained the various terms of the LGBTQ+ community.  On the one hand we are absolutely meticulous about exactly what word we must use and how we use it and anyone who refuses to is a sexist or worse yet a "homophobe".  On the other hand we are quite general in accusations when people violate the use of these terms. 

A racist may be one in his heart only, but when he/she openly discriminates against people of other races by what they say or do (disparaging them by what they say or treating them unfairly), then, yes, you have a racist.

Sexism is prejudice or discrimination based on a person's sex or gender.  Not believing that homosexual behavior is morally right is not sexism.  It is a statement of belief.  Here is where some people of faith are unfairly labeled.  But perhaps that is what must be enduring in this new climate.  I do not openly disparage or mistreat people who have lifestyles different than my own.  I believe that heterosexual unions are the biblical ones, but I treat gay couples with respect. 

Finally, xenophobia.  This is defined as "dislike of or prejudice against people from other countries."  I know where some of the accusations of this come from.  The boarder dispute and immigration seems right at the top of the list.  Most countries have boarder restrictions and limit the number of people who immigrate into their country.  I'm sure the breakdown by country probably will always seem disproportionate to some.  But can't we have a reasonable debate about these things without being labeled xenophobic if we believe that there should be limits?  I suspect that in the coming months the idea that anyone opposed to an open boarder where people from any country are allowed access without limits will be debated hotly.  Several Democratic candidates and others want ICE abolished. 

These labels are convenient to use.  But like everything else they fail to further the debate and discussion of the real issues. 

Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: D. Engebretson on July 04, 2019, 10:09:54 AM
As some of us have the right to keep reminding people of the hundreds and thousands of babies that are aborted each year not to save the life of mothers with a medical condition that could kill the mother if carried to term, or even conceived by rape or incest, but because they are inconvenient or don't fit into plans or the wrong cis gender or unwanted. But of course you're tired of hearing about that and would like that topic dropped.


But what we often don't hear are ways to reduce these unwanted pregnancies. Free contraceptives, better sex education including the proper use of contraceptives, free health care for mothers-to-be, adequate pay that would cover the costs of day care, or employers who provide daycare centers, etc. As long as abortion is seen as "the problem" I believe that you are missing the mark - shooting arrows at the wrong target. For those women who seek it, abortion is seen as the "solution" to their problem of an unwanted pregnancy.

There is no doubt that there are issues underlying the reasons why people seek abortions and that these should be addressed.  But if you believe that abortion is murder, then you can't simply allow the practice while you work to address the other issues.  For example - Gun violence is brought up frequently.  We should address the issues that underlie why people shoot and kill other people.  But would most who oppose guns want them to remain legal while we work to solve the other internal and systemic issues within our society?

Now I know that the counter argument is that for some people abortion is not murder.  So we get into a debate about what constitutes protected human life.  That's not my point.  Those of us who believe it is murder treat it the same as any murder: the wrongful taking of innocent human life.  Until you understand that conviction you will naturally see the focus on this as misplaced. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 04, 2019, 10:15:54 AM
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is kicking off a flag-waving week with the false statement that he gave troops their first raise in a decade.
TRUMP: “You also got very nice pay raises for the last couple of years. Congratulations. Oh, you care about that. They care about that. I didn’t think you noticed. Yeah, you were entitled. You know, it was close to 10 years before you had an increase. Ten years. And we said, ‘It’s time.’ And you got a couple of good ones, big ones, nice ones.” — remarks Sunday to service members at Osan Air Base, South Korea.
THE FACTS: He’s been spreading this falsehood for more than a year, soaking up cheers from crowds for something he didn’t do. In May 2018, for example, he declared to graduates of the United States Naval Academy: “We just got you a big pay raise. First time in 10 years.”
U.S. military members have received a pay raise every year for decades .
Trump also boasts about the size of the military pay raises under his administration, but there’s nothing extraordinary about them.
Several raises in the last decade have been larger than service members are getting under Trump — 2.6% this year, 2.4% last year, 2.1% in 2017.
Raises in 2008, 2009 and 2010, for example, were all 3.4% or more.
I comment: Knowingly lying to our troops. What a leader!

Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 04, 2019, 10:43:42 AM
Pastor Engebretson writes:
Most countries have boarder restrictions and limit the number of people who immigrate into their country.  I'm sure the breakdown by country probably will always seem disproportionate to some. countries have boarder restrictions and limit the number of people who immigrate into their country.  I'm sure the breakdown by country probably will always seem disproportionate to some. countries have boarder restrictions and limit the number of people who immigrate into their country.  I'm sure the breakdown by country probably will always seem disproportionate to some.
I comment:
Actually not. Twenty-six European countries, thanks to the Schengen agreement, have virtually open borders. And people who are citizens of any country in the agreement have the right to work in any other country in the agreement. The last time I was in Europe, I drove or rode across Borders from Switzerland to France or Switzerland to Germany and Germany to Austria and it was as if there were no borders.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on July 04, 2019, 11:20:15 AM
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump is kicking off a flag-waving week with the false statement that he gave troops their first raise in a decade.
TRUMP: “You also got very nice pay raises for the last couple of years. Congratulations. Oh, you care about that. They care about that. I didn’t think you noticed. Yeah, you were entitled. You know, it was close to 10 years before you had an increase. Ten years. And we said, ‘It’s time.’ And you got a couple of good ones, big ones, nice ones.” — remarks Sunday to service members at Osan Air Base, South Korea.
THE FACTS: He’s been spreading this falsehood for more than a year, soaking up cheers from crowds for something he didn’t do. In May 2018, for example, he declared to graduates of the United States Naval Academy: “We just got you a big pay raise. First time in 10 years.”
U.S. military members have received a pay raise every year for decades .
Trump also boasts about the size of the military pay raises under his administration, but there’s nothing extraordinary about them.
Several raises in the last decade have been larger than service members are getting under Trump — 2.6% this year, 2.4% last year, 2.1% in 2017.
Raises in 2008, 2009 and 2010, for example, were all 3.4% or more.
I comment: Knowingly lying to our troops. What a leader!
Do you think the troops don't notice their own paychecks? That they are so stupid that they cheer a man for lying to them when they get regular, definitive proof of whether he is lying to them? Do you think they need to be rescued from their own stupidity by the likes of the Associated Press? 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 04, 2019, 11:38:47 AM
And do you believe Him rather than the researchers? Furthermore, many of the troops are short term, and their memories of a raise this may not go back more than three or four years. But the point is, He lied to them.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: D. Engebretson on July 04, 2019, 11:42:38 AM
Pastor Engebretson writes:
Most countries have boarder restrictions and limit the number of people who immigrate into their country.  I'm sure the breakdown by country probably will always seem disproportionate to some. countries have boarder restrictions and limit the number of people who immigrate into their country.  I'm sure the breakdown by country probably will always seem disproportionate to some. countries have boarder restrictions and limit the number of people who immigrate into their country.  I'm sure the breakdown by country probably will always seem disproportionate to some.
I comment:
Actually not. Twenty-six European countries, thanks to the Schengen agreement, have virtually open borders. And people who are citizens of any country in the agreement have the right to work in any other country in the agreement. The last time I was in Europe, I drove or rode across Borders from Switzerland to France or Switzerland to Germany and Germany to Austria and it was as if there were no borders.

Yet there are a number of European countries with some form of boarder wall or barrier.  Even Norway has one separating itself from Russian at the only official boarder crossing.  In 2015 Macedonia began building one between itself and Greece.  Denmark built one along its boarder with Germany. Hungary constructed a barrier between itself and Serbia.  Other countries have barriers, too, such as India with walls between them and Bangladesh and Burma. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 04, 2019, 12:08:44 PM
Pastor Engebretson writes:
Most countries have boarder restrictions and limit the number of people who immigrate into their country.  I'm sure the breakdown by country probably will always seem disproportionate to some. countries have boarder restrictions and limit the number of people who immigrate into their country.  I'm sure the breakdown by country probably will always seem disproportionate to some. countries have boarder restrictions and limit the number of people who immigrate into their country.  I'm sure the breakdown by country probably will always seem disproportionate to some.
I comment:
Actually not. Twenty-six European countries, thanks to the Schengen agreement, have virtually open borders. And people who are citizens of any country in the agreement have the right to work in any other country in the agreement. The last time I was in Europe, I drove or rode across Borders from Switzerland to France or Switzerland to Germany and Germany to Austria and it was as if there were no borders.

I experienced these open borders this year when I went to Italy. Our tour group flew from JFK to Frankfort, Germany and then from Frankfort to Venice, Italy. Flying between Frankfort to Venice we didn't have to go through border control or customs control. Nor when we flew from Rome back to Frankfort for the flight back to JFK. That was an open border. However when we deplaned from JFK in Frankfort we did have to go through border control and get our passport stamped. Europe has open intraEuropean borders but definitely has borders with the rest of the world.


Recently on NPR they were doing a story about Libya and the refugee crisis of Libya and especially Italy. Italy, and I think the rest of Europe, definitely has borders that refugee from the south across the Mediterranean must negotiate and they definitely do not simply open the door for those seeking admission. Their open border definitely is limited.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven W Bohler on July 04, 2019, 01:42:35 PM
A nice start to my Independence Day: my dog got me up at 4:55 AM and then I waited for my wonderful wife to wake and get up.  After breakfast, we went out to the gun club and spent a couple hours target practicing (she got a new handgun last weekend for concealed carry -- a SIG P238 -- love that gun!).  A few adjustments for her in her form and she was good to go.  Then to Walmart and the grocery store.  Then home to cut the lawn (and, no, the church does NOT pay me to do that!).  A nice leisurely shower, then lunch and a baseball game this afternoon on TV -- Twins vs. Angels, I believe.  Probably a nap somewhere in all that, I hope.  What a country!  Thanks be to God!!!
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Coach-Rev on July 04, 2019, 01:50:30 PM
I carry the P938.  Same frame, different calibur.  Which of course the mere mention of it I am sure will drive a certain loudmouth in this forum absolutely bat-shit crazy with a stern warning to take it to another thread or another forum.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 04, 2019, 02:14:57 PM
Congratulations, Pastor Bohler, on your progress with weapons. I have no doubt that it makes you feel very good.
And I suppose it even pleases me a bit that your wife thinks she must have her own concealed weapon. That means, I guess, at least she’s not some poor woman who has to depend upon a man for her protection.
And I’m sorry that things are that dangerous in your part of the country.  I might’ve thought that Pastor/Bishop Benke would’ve considered carrying a weapon because I know something about his parts of Brooklyn. But I don’t think he or his wife are carrying.
Nonetheless, congratulations on keeping your weapon skills sharp.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on July 04, 2019, 02:32:46 PM
As some of us have the right to keep reminding people of the hundreds and thousands of babies that are aborted each year not to save the life of mothers with a medical condition that could kill the mother if carried to term, or even conceived by rape or incest, but because they are inconvenient or don't fit into plans or the wrong cis gender or unwanted. But of course you're tired of hearing about that and would like that topic dropped.


But what we often don't hear are ways to reduce these unwanted pregnancies. Free contraceptives, better sex education including the proper use of contraceptives, free health care for mothers-to-be, adequate pay that would cover the costs of day care, or employers who provide daycare centers, etc. As long as abortion is seen as "the problem" I believe that you are missing the mark - shooting arrows at the wrong target. For those women who seek it, abortion is seen as the "solution" to their problem of an unwanted pregnancy.

You left out "Not being promiscuous sluts".
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on July 04, 2019, 02:54:38 PM
A racist may be one in his heart only, but when he/she openly discriminates against people of other races by what they say or do (disparaging them by what they say or treating them unfairly), then, yes, you have a racist.

I must disagree with that to a degree. Too many people claim that even legitimate discrimination is "racism" if the person being discriminated against is part of what is legally termed a "protected minority". In the 1970's, I was often pulled over by the police when driving my cargo van because I looked like one of the members of Grand Funk Railroad. Sure, I was obviously a White Caucasian. But I was also a "hippie freak", so I got singled out a lot. I was "profiled". But because I was a White Caucasian, it wasn't racism.

When you discriminate against any person because of their actions or what they say, because of what they do or say, that is not racism. It doesn't matter if the person who is engaged in the deplorable action or making the deplorable statements happens to also belong to any particular race, or pseudo-race, or has a slightly darker suntan than pale Scandinavians. To be racist, the action must be because of the person's race.  One of the most evil and loathsome practices in modern society, one that demolishes the Eighth Commandment, is claiming that anything and everything negative that is done or said about a person of a different race is automatically "racist".

There are neighborhoods in America were I cannot live, despite the fact that I'm about as White as any Caucasian can be. It's because I cannot afford to live there. But if a "person of color" (which is a totally BS description of "race") cannot afford to live there, then it's "racism".  There are restaurants I cannot eat in for the same reason.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on July 04, 2019, 03:06:02 PM
I only went to the European Union once, back in the 90's. So, I cannot claim to be an expert. But what I observed on that one visit was that the border security personnel were careful about checking anyone who entered into the EU from outside the EU, but once inside, treated moving from one nation of the EU to another much the same way we Americans treat moving from Georgia into Florida or Alabama. Though my brother from Colorado, where marijuana is semi-legal, said that when he crossed into Kansas, there was some serious security at the Kansas State line.

Therefore, I do not think that examples of the "open borders" between member nations of the EU are valid examples of nations that allow anyone to just wander into their country and set up permanent residence.

And far more important that issues of non-citizens invading the United States is illegal aliens being given so much welfare and other benefits at the expense of American taxpayers. Even worse is the fact that some states permit non-citizens, including illegal aliens, to register to vote in state and local elections, which is permitted by the US Constitution, but then do not prevent those non-citizens from voting in Federal Elections which is a felony. The "Deep State" sedition conspiracy subjected our President to a massive witch hunt over the non-issue of him allegedly "colluding" with the Russians, while uncounted thousands of non-citizens cast illegal ballots in the 2016 and 2018 elections. That's "foreign interference" in our elections.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: James S. Rustad on July 04, 2019, 03:09:03 PM
I've been considering how I might celebrate Gun Pride Month.  Aside from going target shooting, I'm also considering purchasing a new firearm.  I've somewhat settled on a pistol (perhaps a Ruger EC9s), but I'm still considering other firearms as well.  I've noticed that modern sporting rifles seem to be pretty practical, but I already own a few more traditional-appearing semi-automatic rifles.  They're functionally identical, so I'm not sure that there is enough difference to make another rifle purchase worthwhile.  On the other hand, just talking about an MSR seems to send certain people into apoplexy, so there is that benefit to consider.

How are the rest of you celebrating Gun Pride Month?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Jim Butler on July 04, 2019, 04:25:07 PM
A nice start to my Independence Day: my dog got me up at 4:55 AM and then I waited for my wonderful wife to wake and get up.  After breakfast, we went out to the gun club and spent a couple hours target practicing (she got a new handgun last weekend for concealed carry -- a SIG P238 -- love that gun!).  A few adjustments for her in her form and she was good to go.  Then to Walmart and the grocery store.  Then home to cut the lawn (and, no, the church does NOT pay me to do that!).  A nice leisurely shower, then lunch and a baseball game this afternoon on TV -- Twins vs. Angels, I believe.  Probably a nap somewhere in all that, I hope.  What a country!  Thanks be to God!!!

I got up later than you did, but then ran a four mile race that benefits cancer research. The young woman who inspired the race a decade ago is an alumnus of our preschool. This was the sixth time I've run it. My time was 36:18 for a pace of 9:05/mile. Not bad considering the heat and that I didn't start running until I was 51.

Came home and cleaned up the house. Helped the wife do some repairs (she's the handi-person in our house). Now to make dinner--and celebrate with some beer.

Hope you all have a wonderful day. God has blessed our country.

Aside to Charles: I would think that as a retired newspaper professional you would know that politicians and the truth tend to be far from each other. Donald Trump definitely tells some whoppers, as the AP noted, but please tell me which president hasn't? Remember: I'm from the home of Elizabeth "I'm Native American" Warren.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 04, 2019, 04:36:15 PM
 The issue with this president is the number of lies, the repetition of the lies, and the seriousness of the things about which he is lying. Add to that the fact that he doesn’t seem to care that he’s lying. Remember his lawyers did not want him to testify under oath because his lawyers, repeat his lawyers, didn’t believe he could tell the truth.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 04, 2019, 04:38:49 PM
By the way, here’s another way the current nonsense in Washington totally perverts the Fourth of July celebration. The Fourth of July is not about our military power, the Fourth of July is about the principles upon which the nation was founded. We have Memorial Day and we have Veterans Day to take note of our military.
And if it is supposedly for everyone and about everyone why are VIP tickets given to the biggest Republican donors.

Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Jim Butler on July 04, 2019, 04:48:38 PM
The issue with this president is the number of lies, the repetition of the lies, and the seriousness of the things about which he is lying. Add to that the fact that he doesn’t seem to care that he’s lying. Remember his lawyers did not want him to testify under oath because his lawyers, repeat his lawyers, didn’t believe he could tell the truth.

And that's unique because...?

Seriously, there are a lot of tales in Obama's books that are not true. Hillary Clinton told stories that were not true. Heck, Joe Biden just got saying things that were not true.

And if it comes to not telling the truth under oath, Bill Clinton clearly committed perjury (he was disbarred for it).

Not to mention the stories Reagan told.

There's a reason people like me say that you always know when a politician is lying: his/her/its lips are moving.

Are you sure it's not the issue of truth, but the person in the White House that's bugging you?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Jim Butler on July 04, 2019, 04:54:34 PM
By the way, here’s another way the current nonsense in Washington totally perverts the Fourth of July celebration. The Fourth of July is not about our military power, the Fourth of July is about the principles upon which the nation was founded. We have Memorial Day and we have Veterans Day to take note of our military.
And if it is supposedly for everyone and about everyone why are VIP tickets given to the biggest Republican donors.

I'm sure inauguration day is a bad day to have tanks going down the road as well, but Eisenhower did it. Have you ever complained about it? (I think the answer is: No.)

I'm sure the Super Bowl has nothing to do with our military power, but every year the Blue Angels fly in formation over the game. Have you ever complained about that? (I think the answer is: No.)

As it is, my son spent 15 months riding around in a tank in Iraq. He was in the battle of Sadr City. I think its pretty awesome that people get to see what he rode around in while he served his country.

As to your last sentence, I agree. The RNC should not be handing out tickets for the celebration. The best they can say is that the DNC has done the same (which, for all I know, they have). But two wrongs do not make a right and this practice should end.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 04, 2019, 05:02:12 PM
jebutler writes:
I'm sure inauguration day is a bad day to have tanks going down the road as well, but Eisenhower did it. Have you ever complained about it? (I think the answer is: No.)
I comment:
Had i been older than 11, I might have. on the other hand, Eisenhower was best known as a general

Jebutler:
I'm sure the Super Bowl has nothing to do with our military power, but every year the Blue Angels fly in formation over the game. Have you ever complained about that? (I think the answer is: No.)
Me:
It’s a silly waste of funds, but not a big deal.

Jebutler:
As it is, my son spent 15 months riding around in a tank in Iraq. He was in the battle of Sadr City. I think its pretty awesome that people get to see what he rode around in while he served his country.
Me:
Me, too, but not on this holiday and not as a prop for a political campaign.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 04, 2019, 05:05:21 PM
As some of us have the right to keep reminding people of the hundreds and thousands of babies that are aborted each year not to save the life of mothers with a medical condition that could kill the mother if carried to term, or even conceived by rape or incest, but because they are inconvenient or don't fit into plans or the wrong cis gender or unwanted. But of course you're tired of hearing about that and would like that topic dropped.


But what we often don't hear are ways to reduce these unwanted pregnancies. Free contraceptives, better sex education including the proper use of contraceptives, free health care for mothers-to-be, adequate pay that would cover the costs of day care, or employers who provide daycare centers, etc. As long as abortion is seen as "the problem" I believe that you are missing the mark - shooting arrows at the wrong target. For those women who seek it, abortion is seen as the "solution" to their problem of an unwanted pregnancy.

There is no doubt that there are issues underlying the reasons why people seek abortions and that these should be addressed.  But if you believe that abortion is murder, then you can't simply allow the practice while you work to address the other issues.  For example - Gun violence is brought up frequently.  We should address the issues that underlie why people shoot and kill other people.  But would most who oppose guns want them to remain legal while we work to solve the other internal and systemic issues within our society?

Now I know that the counter argument is that for some people abortion is not murder.  So we get into a debate about what constitutes protected human life.  That's not my point.  Those of us who believe it is murder treat it the same as any murder: the wrongful taking of innocent human life.  Until you understand that conviction you will naturally see the focus on this as misplaced.


When the U.S. dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were we committing murder? What about the less lethal bombs we dropped in Germany? Innocent people were killed. There are times when the killing of human life is tragic, but not classified as murder. As an earlier post argued, (mis)labelling things and people is not usually helpful.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: D. Engebretson on July 04, 2019, 05:10:53 PM
I'm not sure exactly where I stand with regard to the military parade.  Part of me thinks it would have been better to avoid it for any number of reasons. 

And not that I'm advocating one way or the other, but on this Independence Day we cannot forget that the adoption of the Declaration of Independence was preceded by and followed by war.  Democratic freedom often comes with a price.  Seldom does one power peacefully relinquish its control to another opposing government.  Our forefathers felt strongly enough about the higher principal of freedom that they were willing to put military force behind that conviction.  They did not have the heavy armaments that we now have, but they were equipped to exact destruction and bloodshed on their enemy.  I suspect that we sometimes want to forget all this and pretend that freedom just happened. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 04, 2019, 05:11:00 PM
As some of us have the right to keep reminding people of the hundreds and thousands of babies that are aborted each year not to save the life of mothers with a medical condition that could kill the mother if carried to term, or even conceived by rape or incest, but because they are inconvenient or don't fit into plans or the wrong cis gender or unwanted. But of course you're tired of hearing about that and would like that topic dropped.


But what we often don't hear are ways to reduce these unwanted pregnancies. Free contraceptives, better sex education including the proper use of contraceptives, free health care for mothers-to-be, adequate pay that would cover the costs of day care, or employers who provide daycare centers, etc. As long as abortion is seen as "the problem" I believe that you are missing the mark - shooting arrows at the wrong target. For those women who seek it, abortion is seen as the "solution" to their problem of an unwanted pregnancy.

You left out "Not being promiscuous sluts".


That's included under "better sex education."
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Jim Butler on July 04, 2019, 05:30:28 PM
jebutler writes:
I'm sure inauguration day is a bad day to have tanks going down the road as well, but Eisenhower did it. Have you ever complained about it? (I think the answer is: No.)
I comment:
Had i been older than 11, I might have. on the other hand, Eisenhower was best known as a general

Jebutler:
I'm sure the Super Bowl has nothing to do with our military power, but every year the Blue Angels fly in formation over the game. Have you ever complained about that? (I think the answer is: No.)
Me:
It’s a silly waste of funds, but not a big deal.

Jebutler:
As it is, my son spent 15 months riding around in a tank in Iraq. He was in the battle of Sadr City. I think its pretty awesome that people get to see what he rode around in while he served his country.
Me:
Me, too, but not on this holiday and not as a prop for a political campaign.

I see the tanks sitting on the sideline as a "silly waste of funds, but not a big deal."

I think the issue here--as in many other things--is that, for some people, whatever Donald Trump does is wrong, bad, and evil. Any other president could have done the same thing and no one would have thought twice about it, but because Trump does it...!

The really ironic thing is that I find myself defending someone that I don't think should be president, that I didn't vote for, and that I refuse to vote for. Donald Trump is one of the few times that I'm glad I live in Massachusetts where Francis the Talking Mule could be elected if he had a "D" behind his name, so I felt free to leave the space blank.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on July 04, 2019, 06:19:36 PM
And do you believe Him rather than the researchers? Furthermore, many of the troops are short term, and their memories of a raise this may not go back more than three or four years. But the point is, He lied to them.
Charles, we both know the same thing can be said in many ways. For example, when one party screams that the other party is proposing "cuts" to some part of the federal budget but the other party says they're actually proposing an increase, that is, their budget calls for more to be spent on it next year than this year, well, they both call each other liars when in reality what they're disagreeing about is the nature of baseline budgeting. So a "fact-checker" can easily prove either side is lying; it is all a question of which side's assumptions the fact-checker accepts.

The real issue is that you think he (not sure why you keep capitalizing references to Trump) lied to them about their own salaries and they cheered him for it. Your unintentional insult is toward the cheering troops.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: D. Engebretson on July 04, 2019, 06:27:00 PM
As some of us have the right to keep reminding people of the hundreds and thousands of babies that are aborted each year not to save the life of mothers with a medical condition that could kill the mother if carried to term, or even conceived by rape or incest, but because they are inconvenient or don't fit into plans or the wrong cis gender or unwanted. But of course you're tired of hearing about that and would like that topic dropped.


But what we often don't hear are ways to reduce these unwanted pregnancies. Free contraceptives, better sex education including the proper use of contraceptives, free health care for mothers-to-be, adequate pay that would cover the costs of day care, or employers who provide daycare centers, etc. As long as abortion is seen as "the problem" I believe that you are missing the mark - shooting arrows at the wrong target. For those women who seek it, abortion is seen as the "solution" to their problem of an unwanted pregnancy.

There is no doubt that there are issues underlying the reasons why people seek abortions and that these should be addressed.  But if you believe that abortion is murder, then you can't simply allow the practice while you work to address the other issues.  For example - Gun violence is brought up frequently.  We should address the issues that underlie why people shoot and kill other people.  But would most who oppose guns want them to remain legal while we work to solve the other internal and systemic issues within our society?

Now I know that the counter argument is that for some people abortion is not murder.  So we get into a debate about what constitutes protected human life.  That's not my point.  Those of us who believe it is murder treat it the same as any murder: the wrongful taking of innocent human life.  Until you understand that conviction you will naturally see the focus on this as misplaced.


When the U.S. dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were we committing murder? What about the less lethal bombs we dropped in Germany? Innocent people were killed. There are times when the killing of human life is tragic, but not classified as murder. As an earlier post argued, (mis)labelling things and people is not usually helpful.

Some people see the actions of war as murder.  The Geneva Conventions established standards of international law for humanitarian treatment in war. These protocols did not label the act of war which involves bullets and bombs as being against these conventions.  They sought to protect the wounded and those not directly involved in the conflict.  Soldiers are not tried for murder if they take a life in their normal actions in war. 

At the time of the Reformation Luther addressed whether it was okay for a Christian to serve as a soldier.  He did not condemn it.  John the Baptist instructed the soldier who approached him not to cease doing what he was trained to do as a combatant, but rather not to exploit his position. 

But abortion is yet another issue.  The unborn are not combatants.  They are not condemned criminals. They theoretically pose no threat to anyone.  With modern medical advances most difficult deliveries can be safely performed without a risk to the mother's life.  The reasons for abortion vary, but there is no denying that many are done for the emotional sake of the mother, not to save her life.  The life of the mother is usually placed before the life of the unborn child. The most popular reasons are that having a baby would dramatically interfere with their education, work or ability to care for their dependents, or they could not afford a baby at the time.

Now we get into where we will differ as not all of us define 'viable human life' the same way. That was not my point at this juncture.  My point is that you need to at least understand that those of us who consider ourselves "pro-life" see abortion as murder because there is no scriptural justification for the taking of that life. The unborn pose no threat. Yet they are human in every way that you and I are. You may disagree.  But at least you know where we are coming from.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven W Bohler on July 04, 2019, 07:08:15 PM
I carry the P938.  Same frame, different calibur.  Which of course the mere mention of it I am sure will drive a certain loudmouth in this forum absolutely bat-shit crazy with a stern warning to take it to another thread or another forum.

I have the P938 SAS as one of my carry guns.  But my wife likes the lesser recoil of the .380.  But what I think she especially likes is the color scheme of this model: teal frame with white pearlized grips.  She had been carrying my P238 in flat dark earth — she shot it well but really liked having a “girl gun” as she calls it.  She had a Kimber Micro 380 but it was not reliable, with failures to feed and or failure to eject.  I am much happier that she has a reliable gun that she likes to shoot.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Eileen Smith on July 04, 2019, 07:13:04 PM
As some of us have the right to keep reminding people of the hundreds and thousands of babies that are aborted each year not to save the life of mothers with a medical condition that could kill the mother if carried to term, or even conceived by rape or incest, but because they are inconvenient or don't fit into plans or the wrong cis gender or unwanted. But of course you're tired of hearing about that and would like that topic dropped.


But what we often don't hear are ways to reduce these unwanted pregnancies. Free contraceptives, better sex education including the proper use of contraceptives, free health care for mothers-to-be, adequate pay that would cover the costs of day care, or employers who provide daycare centers, etc. As long as abortion is seen as "the problem" I believe that you are missing the mark - shooting arrows at the wrong target. For those women who seek it, abortion is seen as the "solution" to their problem of an unwanted pregnancy.

You left out "Not being promiscuous sluts".

A definition of slut is a woman who has many indiscriminate sexual encounters.  I gather men are exempt from any such name-calling as they are innocent victims of lascivious women.   It does take two, George.

To this and bringing in Pastor Stoffregen's comment:  Women from all socio-economic backgrounds find themselves in a place where pregnancy poses a problem.  They are not sluts, they are women in need of guidance and care. There are many not-for-profit agencies that are willing to help these women during the pregnancy and after they give birth -- for years.  There are government funds to help them.  It is disingenuous to suggest that those who oppose abortion simply neglect these women during pregnancy and after.   We've been through this issue time and again on this site but apparently yet needs repeating.  Perhaps what really needs to be done is to have the men responsible for fathering children have some responsibility given to them. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven W Bohler on July 04, 2019, 07:22:14 PM
Congratulations, Pastor Bohler, on your progress with weapons. I have no doubt that it makes you feel very good.
And I suppose it even pleases me a bit that your wife thinks she must have her own concealed weapon. That means, I guess, at least she’s not some poor woman who has to depend upon a man for her protection.
And I’m sorry that things are that dangerous in your part of the country.  I might’ve thought that Pastor/Bishop Benke would’ve considered carrying a weapon because I know something about his parts of Brooklyn. But I don’t think he or his wife are carrying.
Nonetheless, congratulations on keeping your weapon skills sharp.

1. Thank you.  It does make me feel good to go shooting.
2. It does please me that my wife takes responsibility for herself but even more, that she is willing to make herself better able to protect others.  When we did our most recent permit to carry class, she shot better than did I.
3. Believe it or not, even here in rural America people are sinners and so there is crime. In fact, the impetus for her learning to shoot a handgun was when she kept receiving threatening phone calls from a homeless person seeking assistance when I was away.  But the bigger reason is when we visit metro areas, like the Twin Cities.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: D. Engebretson on July 04, 2019, 08:24:22 PM
On the occasion of this national holiday I notice that the culture wars continue. 
--Just read that they burned the American Flag near the White House today.
--President Thomas Jefferson's birthplace (Charlottesville, Va.) has decided no longer to celebrate his birthday. As a slave owner apparently he's too toxic now to acknowledge.  No other redeemable feature apparently.

Regarding the flag burning CNN reported:
Led by activist Joey Johnson, a group from the Revolutionary Communist Party, USA, linked arms and set an American flag on fire outside as they chanted, "America was never great." The Secret Service intervened quickly to extinguish the fire.
"Burn, baby, burn," the protesters chanted.

I guess its a growing trend to denounce the nation and its past as well as its symbols.  Sad.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on July 04, 2019, 08:34:32 PM
this is very anecdotal and of course far from scientific... but I was a PK and knew a fair amount of other pastors while growing up... most of them for a time from the old Slovak Synod now an SELC District...  and of course I was not privy to all their lives... but none that I can recall talked with Dad and Mom about having, using, collecting and carrying handguns...  've know a few inner city pastors well enough to know that they did not keep weapons with which to defend themselves.    It really bothers me, not that pastors target shoot or hunt game... but that they have to talk so much about weaponry and the need to defend themselves with guns...  and do so quite so publicly...  of course, I feel the same way about clergy talking about how much alcohol plays a part of their life.... 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 04, 2019, 08:51:34 PM
Amen, Harvey. I hope it doesn’t hurt your reputation that I agree with you.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 04, 2019, 09:13:11 PM
But abortion is yet another issue.  The unborn are not combatants. They are not condemned criminals. They theoretically pose no threat to anyone.


Neither were the citizens in Japan and Germany who were killed.



Quote
The reasons for abortion vary, but there is no denying that many are done for the emotional sake of the mother, not to save her life.  The life of the mother is usually placed before the life of the unborn child. The most popular reasons are that having a baby would dramatically interfere with their education, work or ability to care for their dependents, or they could not afford a baby at the time.


Yes, most abortions are not performed to save the life of the mother. Rather than just oppose abortion, why not work for policies that help provide education (e.g., free college,) work opportunities (e.g., livable wages,) better ways for working/student mothers to care for their children (e.g., day care centers at places of employment and at colleges,) and ways to make giving birth and raising children affordable (e.g., universal health care for the mother and her child)?

Quote
My point is that you need to at least understand that those of us who consider ourselves "pro-life" see abortion as murder because there is no scriptural justification for the taking of that life. The unborn pose no threat. Yet they are human in every way that you and I are. You may disagree.  But at least you know where we are coming from.


And yet, God killed children in the flood story. God called for the killing of children with the destruction of Jericho and Ai. Who killed the first born sons in Egypt? There are plenty of biblical illustrations of God taking the life of someone who was no threat to his people, who were not combatants.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 04, 2019, 09:18:25 PM
As some of us have the right to keep reminding people of the hundreds and thousands of babies that are aborted each year not to save the life of mothers with a medical condition that could kill the mother if carried to term, or even conceived by rape or incest, but because they are inconvenient or don't fit into plans or the wrong cis gender or unwanted. But of course you're tired of hearing about that and would like that topic dropped.


But what we often don't hear are ways to reduce these unwanted pregnancies. Free contraceptives, better sex education including the proper use of contraceptives, free health care for mothers-to-be, adequate pay that would cover the costs of day care, or employers who provide daycare centers, etc. As long as abortion is seen as "the problem" I believe that you are missing the mark - shooting arrows at the wrong target. For those women who seek it, abortion is seen as the "solution" to their problem of an unwanted pregnancy.

You left out "Not being promiscuous sluts".

A definition of slut is a woman who has many indiscriminate sexual encounters.  I gather men are exempt from any such name-calling as they are innocent victims of lascivious women.   It does take two, George.

To this and bringing in Pastor Stoffregen's comment:  Women from all socio-economic backgrounds find themselves in a place where pregnancy poses a problem.  They are not sluts, they are women in need of guidance and care. There are many not-for-profit agencies that are willing to help these women during the pregnancy and after they give birth -- for years.  There are government funds to help them.  It is disingenuous to suggest that those who oppose abortion simply neglect these women during pregnancy and after.   We've been through this issue time and again on this site but apparently yet needs repeating.  Perhaps what really needs to be done is to have the men responsible for fathering children have some responsibility given to them.


Yes, there are pro-life people who are caring for mothers and children. That normally is not what the pro-life arguers talk about. More often we hear, "Abortion is murdering a human. Don't do it." Or, "It should be illegal." Or, "The mother (and/or the doctor) should go to prison for murder." Where's the concern for the mother-to-be in such rhetoric? Where's the concern for the child who they want to see born in such rhetoric?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on July 04, 2019, 10:24:59 PM

Yes, there are pro-life people who are caring for mothers and children. That normally is not what the pro-life arguers talk about. More often we hear, "Abortion is murdering a human. Don't do it." Or, "It should be illegal." Or, "The mother (and/or the doctor) should go to prison for murder." Where's the concern for the mother-to-be in such rhetoric? Where's the concern for the child who they want to see born in such rhetoric?

Most of the things pro-life people talk about you don't want to hear and so, since it doesn't fit the narrative you and the abortion industry have concocted, you pretend they don't say such things.  If you bothered to actually listen, you'd discover otherwise.

But we've been saying this to you (directly) for years now, so I'm not building up any hopes.

Kyrie eleison, Steven+
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Matt Hummel on July 04, 2019, 10:25:31 PM
As some of us have the right to keep reminding people of the hundreds and thousands of babies that are aborted each year not to save the life of mothers with a medical condition that could kill the mother if carried to term, or even conceived by rape or incest, but because they are inconvenient or don't fit into plans or the wrong cis gender or unwanted. But of course you're tired of hearing about that and would like that topic dropped.


But what we often don't hear are ways to reduce these unwanted pregnancies. Free contraceptives, better sex education including the proper use of contraceptives, free health care for mothers-to-be, adequate pay that would cover the costs of day care, or employers who provide daycare centers, etc. As long as abortion is seen as "the problem" I believe that you are missing the mark - shooting arrows at the wrong target. For those women who seek it, abortion is seen as the "solution" to their problem of an unwanted pregnancy.

You left out "Not being promiscuous sluts".

A definition of slut is a woman who has many indiscriminate sexual encounters.  I gather men are exempt from any such name-calling as they are innocent victims of lascivious women.   It does take two, George.

To this and bringing in Pastor Stoffregen's comment:  Women from all socio-economic backgrounds find themselves in a place where pregnancy poses a problem.  They are not sluts, they are women in need of guidance and care. There are many not-for-profit agencies that are willing to help these women during the pregnancy and after they give birth -- for years.  There are government funds to help them.  It is disingenuous to suggest that those who oppose abortion simply neglect these women during pregnancy and after.   We've been through this issue time and again on this site but apparently yet needs repeating.  Perhaps what really needs to be done is to have the men responsible for fathering children have some responsibility given to them.


Yes, there are pro-life people who are caring for mothers and children. That normally is not what the pro-life arguers talk about. More often we hear, "Abortion is murdering a human. Don't do it." Or, "It should be illegal." Or, "The mother (and/or the doctor) should go to prison for murder." Where's the concern for the mother-to-be in such rhetoric? Where's the concern for the child who they want to see born in such rhetoric?


Brian- You are either incredibly ignorant of the work done within the the Prolife community or you are deliberately ignoring the work. Which is it? Have you ever taken the time to speak wth the folks at the New Life Pregnancy Center located in Yuma? Or do you dodge that opportunity in fear that it will shake your participation in the ELCA’s Culture of Death? I recall Charles’ refusal to visit one near him when I made the invitation.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Coach-Rev on July 04, 2019, 10:54:51 PM
Jebutler:
I'm sure the Super Bowl has nothing to do with our military power, but every year the Blue Angels fly in formation over the game. Have you ever complained about that? (I think the answer is: No.)
Me:
It’s a silly waste of funds, but not a big deal.


so then why are you so obsessed with a military parade, which is actually somewhat common throughout this country's history?  I think we all know the answer to that...  ::) ::) ::)
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Coach-Rev on July 04, 2019, 10:57:39 PM
I have two 938's and the second one was purely to annoy liberals:  it has a pewterized grip with 50 stars (25 per side) and has the opening to the US constitution on the slide.

I carry the P938.  Same frame, different calibur.  Which of course the mere mention of it I am sure will drive a certain loudmouth in this forum absolutely bat-shit crazy with a stern warning to take it to another thread or another forum.

I have the P938 SAS as one of my carry guns.  But my wife likes the lesser recoil of the .380.  But what I think she especially likes is the color scheme of this model: teal frame with white pearlized grips.  She had been carrying my P238 in flat dark earth — she shot it well but really liked having a “girl gun” as she calls it.  She had a Kimber Micro 380 but it was not reliable, with failures to feed and or failure to eject.  I am much happier that she has a reliable gun that she likes to shoot.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven W Bohler on July 04, 2019, 11:34:10 PM
I have two 938's and the second one was purely to annoy liberals:  it has a pewterized grip with 50 stars (25 per side) and has the opening to the US constitution on the slide.

I carry the P938.  Same frame, different calibur.  Which of course the mere mention of it I am sure will drive a certain loudmouth in this forum absolutely bat-shit crazy with a stern warning to take it to another thread or another forum.

I have the P938 SAS as one of my carry guns.  But my wife likes the lesser recoil of the .380.  But what I think she especially likes is the color scheme of this model: teal frame with white pearlized grips.  She had been carrying my P238 in flat dark earth — she shot it well but really liked having a “girl gun” as she calls it.  She had a Kimber Micro 380 but it was not reliable, with failures to feed and or failure to eject.  I am much happier that she has a reliable gun that she likes to shoot.

Nice!  Now, if only we had a way to share pictures here...
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 05, 2019, 12:09:13 AM
Sigh. Given the current state of things, it just seems wrong for the president to make this Fourth of July celebration His event.  Normally, presidents do not “lead“ like this or orchestrate a particular way. I believe He did because He has been longing for a military parade since He saw the Bastille day parade in France, and since he knows that some of his friends around the world in Russia and North Korea, for example, have these kind of parades.
So the event satisfied one of His longings.
And generally trashed the better part of the Fourth of July.
BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY!
I am worried about Smokey the Bear.
The National Park Service budget, already very small, is required to spend unexpected big bucks as the President re-makes the Washington July Fourth celebration into a Presidential showpiece.
Will Smokey be able to afford food?
Could he get laid off if funds get tighter?
Will he not be able to go on television to warn us about forest fires?
Will he be able to buy a new hat?
Protest and lobby for more funds for the National Park service.
Save Smokey.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 05, 2019, 12:47:12 AM
Brian- You are either incredibly ignorant of the work done within the the Prolife community or you are deliberately ignoring the work. Which is it? Have you ever taken the time to speak wth the folks at the New Life Pregnancy Center located in Yuma? Or do you dodge that opportunity in fear that it will shake your participation in the ELCA’s Culture of Death? I recall Charles’ refusal to visit one near him when I made the invitation.


Much of what I learn about the pro-life community comes from what folks post here; as well as many conservative "friends" on Facebook. If I appear ignorant, it's because you've been poor teachers.

No, I haven't spoken to the folks at the New Life Pregnancy Center in Yuma. I didn't speak with the folks at the Planner Parenthood office when they had one in Yuma. I have spoken often with the director of an immigration agency whose offices are on our property. I have spoken often with the Navajo pastor who was in town, and another pastor who serves a native congregation on a nearby reservation. Abortions are not one of my major concerns. Our nation's poor treatment of immigrants and Natives is a much more pressing concern in our area. In addition, the congregation I served had very few women of child-bearing age. In the last five years, I had one infant who was baptized. I officiated at his parent's wedding two years earlier. That was only the third wedding with a church member in 11 years. Abortion was not an issue with the flock I was called to serve.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on July 05, 2019, 01:41:59 AM
As some of us have the right to keep reminding people of the hundreds and thousands of babies that are aborted each year not to save the life of mothers with a medical condition that could kill the mother if carried to term, or even conceived by rape or incest, but because they are inconvenient or don't fit into plans or the wrong cis gender or unwanted. But of course you're tired of hearing about that and would like that topic dropped.


But what we often don't hear are ways to reduce these unwanted pregnancies. Free contraceptives, better sex education including the proper use of contraceptives, free health care for mothers-to-be, adequate pay that would cover the costs of day care, or employers who provide daycare centers, etc. As long as abortion is seen as "the problem" I believe that you are missing the mark - shooting arrows at the wrong target. For those women who seek it, abortion is seen as the "solution" to their problem of an unwanted pregnancy.

You left out "Not being promiscuous sluts".


That's included under "better sex education."

ROTFLMAO!!! Sometimes you really make me laugh. This was one of those times.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on July 05, 2019, 01:44:45 AM
As some of us have the right to keep reminding people of the hundreds and thousands of babies that are aborted each year not to save the life of mothers with a medical condition that could kill the mother if carried to term, or even conceived by rape or incest, but because they are inconvenient or don't fit into plans or the wrong cis gender or unwanted. But of course you're tired of hearing about that and would like that topic dropped.


But what we often don't hear are ways to reduce these unwanted pregnancies. Free contraceptives, better sex education including the proper use of contraceptives, free health care for mothers-to-be, adequate pay that would cover the costs of day care, or employers who provide daycare centers, etc. As long as abortion is seen as "the problem" I believe that you are missing the mark - shooting arrows at the wrong target. For those women who seek it, abortion is seen as the "solution" to their problem of an unwanted pregnancy.

You left out "Not being promiscuous sluts".

A definition of slut is a woman who has many indiscriminate sexual encounters.  I gather men are exempt from any such name-calling as they are innocent victims of lascivious women.   It does take two, George.


You may call promiscuous men "sluts" or any epithet you prefer. The bottom line is that men do not get pregnant and therefore have abortions, but women do. You do not have to like the fact that God created humankind that way. But if you have objections to how He designed the human race, take it up with Him.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on July 05, 2019, 01:47:17 AM
this is very anecdotal and of course far from scientific... but I was a PK and knew a fair amount of other pastors while growing up... most of them for a time from the old Slovak Synod now an SELC District...  and of course I was not privy to all their lives... but none that I can recall talked with Dad and Mom about having, using, collecting and carrying handguns...  've know a few inner city pastors well enough to know that they did not keep weapons with which to defend themselves.    It really bothers me, not that pastors target shoot or hunt game... but that they have to talk so much about weaponry and the need to defend themselves with guns...  and do so quite so publicly...  of course, I feel the same way about clergy talking about how much alcohol plays a part of their life....

Luke 22.36
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on July 05, 2019, 02:11:58 AM
some of his friends around the world in Russia

Apparently you haven't been paying attention to US-Russia relations under this administration...

Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on July 05, 2019, 02:17:04 AM

Much of what I learn about the pro-life community comes from what folks post here; as well as many conservative "friends" on Facebook. If I appear ignorant, it's because you've been poor teachers.


Perhaps if you tried to read and comprehend what others on this forum write before you hit the "quote" button attached to our posts and post your own (frequently non-responsive) response.

 >:(
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 05, 2019, 04:08:54 AM
Steven writes:
Apparently you haven't been paying attention to US-Russia relations under this administration...
I comment:
Yes, I have. It almost seems as if He trusts them more than our own diplomats and intelligence agencies. And considers their interference in our elections a joking matter.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 05, 2019, 05:28:05 AM
Apparently the immediate inspiration for this parade was France's Bastille Day celebration. Does France'z president count as one of those authoritarian strongmen tyrannts?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 05, 2019, 05:50:32 AM
No. But Bastille day is not July Fourth.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Eileen Smith on July 05, 2019, 06:40:30 AM
As some of us have the right to keep reminding people of the hundreds and thousands of babies that are aborted each year not to save the life of mothers with a medical condition that could kill the mother if carried to term, or even conceived by rape or incest, but because they are inconvenient or don't fit into plans or the wrong cis gender or unwanted. But of course you're tired of hearing about that and would like that topic dropped.


But what we often don't hear are ways to reduce these unwanted pregnancies. Free contraceptives, better sex education including the proper use of contraceptives, free health care for mothers-to-be, adequate pay that would cover the costs of day care, or employers who provide daycare centers, etc. As long as abortion is seen as "the problem" I believe that you are missing the mark - shooting arrows at the wrong target. For those women who seek it, abortion is seen as the "solution" to their problem of an unwanted pregnancy.

You left out "Not being promiscuous sluts".

A definition of slut is a woman who has many indiscriminate sexual encounters.  I gather men are exempt from any such name-calling as they are innocent victims of lascivious women.   It does take two, George.


You may call promiscuous men "sluts" or any epithet you prefer. The bottom line is that men do not get pregnant and therefore have abortions, but women do. You do not have to like the fact that God created humankind that way. But if you have objections to how He designed the human race, take it up with Him.

George, you are smart than that and know what I meant.  Please don't make my words seem foolish.  Simply put, it takes two and sometimes the woman doesn't have much say - even in a marriage.   My husband and I volunteer in a shelter for women who are pregnant (and live there after the child is born as well as support given up to age 19).  These women aren't sluts but found themselves in very difficult circumstances.  Look at women seeking an abortion as humans in trouble -- let's not start name-calling in the worst sense.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on July 05, 2019, 07:49:25 AM
Has anyone ever heard a Lutheran pastor/theologian preach on Luke 22.36 and indicate that the Lord wanted disciples to buy swords and then translate that as guns of some sort?  Oh, that was said, whispered into Malchus ear, eh?  Give me a break from the absurd.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 05, 2019, 08:55:15 AM
And I hold three Trump-as-king cards and two Russia-interfering cards. Therefore my full house beats your pair of abortion-is-awful cards.
Therefore… Get back on topic. This thread is not about abortion.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 05, 2019, 09:04:32 AM
As for the whoop-dee-doo about guns or our country’s military power, Matthew 26:52.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on July 05, 2019, 09:06:01 AM
As some of us have the right to keep reminding people of the hundreds and thousands of babies that are aborted each year not to save the life of mothers with a medical condition that could kill the mother if carried to term, or even conceived by rape or incest, but because they are inconvenient or don't fit into plans or the wrong cis gender or unwanted. But of course you're tired of hearing about that and would like that topic dropped.


But what we often don't hear are ways to reduce these unwanted pregnancies. Free contraceptives, better sex education including the proper use of contraceptives, free health care for mothers-to-be, adequate pay that would cover the costs of day care, or employers who provide daycare centers, etc. As long as abortion is seen as "the problem" I believe that you are missing the mark - shooting arrows at the wrong target. For those women who seek it, abortion is seen as the "solution" to their problem of an unwanted pregnancy.

You left out "Not being promiscuous sluts".

A definition of slut is a woman who has many indiscriminate sexual encounters.  I gather men are exempt from any such name-calling as they are innocent victims of lascivious women.   It does take two, George.


You may call promiscuous men "sluts" or any epithet you prefer. The bottom line is that men do not get pregnant and therefore have abortions, but women do. You do not have to like the fact that God created humankind that way. But if you have objections to how He designed the human race, take it up with Him.

George, you are smart than that and know what I meant.  Please don't make my words seem foolish.  Simply put, it takes two and sometimes the woman doesn't have much say - even in a marriage.   My husband and I volunteer in a shelter for women who are pregnant (and live there after the child is born as well as support given up to age 19).  These women aren't sluts but found themselves in very difficult circumstances.  Look at women seeking an abortion as humans in trouble -- let's not start name-calling in the worst sense.

I believe that what you meant was to broaden and deepen a very simple exchange that was limited to only the exact specific post I was replying to by dragging some accurate, but nevertheless beside the point issues in. In the big picture, the issue of abortion and unwanted pregnancies is incredibly complex. There could be entire books written on the subject, and there have been. In the context of my response, it was ONLY about a very clear and obvious omission from Brian's laundry list of solutions.

Also, and reference to "name calling" automatically produces a negative, visceral response from me. That's one of the most useless terms in any sort of discussion, grossly overused to the point of being meaningless. There are words in the English language that identify things. Those words are called nouns, and sometimes are referred to as "names". Referring to something by a correct and accurate name is, technically "name calling", but there is absolutely nothing wrong with using the correct name of something to identify it
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on July 05, 2019, 09:11:11 AM
Has anyone ever heard a Lutheran pastor/theologian preach on Luke 22.36 and indicate that the Lord wanted disciples to buy swords and then translate that as guns of some sort?  Oh, that was said, whispered into Malchus ear, eh?  Give me a break from the absurd.

I don't know if it was a Lutheran pastor/theologian or if it was a Christian of another faith tradition. I have heard many learned Christians observe that references to antique technologies in the Bible carry over to those item's modern counterparts. "Sandals" can be interpreted as "footwear of any sort". References to igniting an oil lamp can also be applied to turning on an electrical light. References to chariots can be applied to all sorts of wheeled conveyances, from carts to trucks. I do not think it a theological stretch of language to equate the most common defensive/offensive weapon of Biblical times with the modern technology replacement.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on July 05, 2019, 09:13:59 AM
Could anyone explain to us all how Russia allegedly revealing and publicizing illegal activities carried out by the candidate and national committee chairman of one political party is "foreign interference", while allowing (and even encouraging) thousands of non-citizens to illegally vote in our elections is not?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 05, 2019, 09:26:23 AM
Mr Erdner writes (re, I think, to Eileen’s objection on language):
but there is absolutely nothing wrong with using the correct name of something to identify it.

I comment:
OK. Reply #444 - utter nonsense, ignorant, absurd.
(Moderators relax.  I promise not to do this again.)
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: D. Engebretson on July 05, 2019, 09:29:55 AM
But abortion is yet another issue.  The unborn are not combatants. They are not condemned criminals. They theoretically pose no threat to anyone.


Neither were the citizens in Japan and Germany who were killed.



Quote
The reasons for abortion vary, but there is no denying that many are done for the emotional sake of the mother, not to save her life.  The life of the mother is usually placed before the life of the unborn child. The most popular reasons are that having a baby would dramatically interfere with their education, work or ability to care for their dependents, or they could not afford a baby at the time.


Yes, most abortions are not performed to save the life of the mother. Rather than just oppose abortion, why not work for policies that help provide education (e.g., free college,) work opportunities (e.g., livable wages,) better ways for working/student mothers to care for their children (e.g., day care centers at places of employment and at colleges,) and ways to make giving birth and raising children affordable (e.g., universal health care for the mother and her child)?

Quote
My point is that you need to at least understand that those of us who consider ourselves "pro-life" see abortion as murder because there is no scriptural justification for the taking of that life. The unborn pose no threat. Yet they are human in every way that you and I are. You may disagree.  But at least you know where we are coming from.


And yet, God killed children in the flood story. God called for the killing of children with the destruction of Jericho and Ai. Who killed the first born sons in Egypt? There are plenty of biblical illustrations of God taking the life of someone who was no threat to his people, who were not combatants.

1.)  I am not excusing or condoning the killing of innocent people at the time of war.  The military often calls this "collateral damage," which means that it was unintended damage.  But, this is not the point and you deflect.  Abortion is an intentional taking of human life. Even if we can show that somehow these military strikes were intentional taking of human life, it still doesn't take away from what abortion is.
2.) We do work for ways to assist mothers in addition to ending abortion.  Policy-wise, I think we differ as to what are the most effective ways to solve society problems, or better yet to get at the root of the perceived problems.  Simply providing "free education" does not get to the problem.  Simply raising wages does not get to the problem.  Universal health care does not get to the ultimate problem.  Providing conditions that make it easier for a person to succeed and get ahead are good.  But are we really addressing the systemic issues underneath it all?  Even where I live I see it all the time.  A breakdown in stable family units is a problem.  Drug and alcohol abuse is a problem.  We can provide cheaper or free health care, but when do we address the life-damaging lifestyles in which people engage?  Obesity rates in our country have soared over the last almost two decades.  In my state it is in the 30 - 34.9% rage.  Obesity contributes to a host of health problems.  So do we simply provide health care and ignore the epidemic facing us? As to education I think we would do best to look deeper as well.  Free university and tech school education helps few if the school system that feeds it is broken and under-performing.  Too many of the children entering these post-high school institutions are ill-prepared for higher education.  Where are the policies to fix the public school system?  But, wait, even if we fix that we still have the broken families feeding that. 
3.)  God has the right to give and take life.  He has permitted us to take life in limited ways (e.g.: capital punishment and war [don't argue this, I know you oppose this view]).  But has God authorized us to take unborn life?  I do not believe He has.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: D. Engebretson on July 05, 2019, 09:39:56 AM
And generally trashed the better part of the Fourth of July.

I actually did not watch the parade in D.C.  I didn't even attend our local parade, partly because I was busy and the humidity was unbearable. 

But I watched the local fire works and enjoyed it a lot.  I think that for a lot of people the "better pat of the Fourth of July" was rather local. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on July 05, 2019, 10:39:18 AM
Fine.  Define sword in 22.37 and later in  v 38 as a gun. The Lord says it is enough that they in fact have two swords or two handguns or I suppose if you want to truly modernize from Roman short swords to longer range swords, they have two completely automatic rifles with extended ammunition things. Although that is textually difficult because our Lord had access to the terms for javelins and archery I assume.   Then why in the world would our Lord object to their use a little over ten verses later, is it that they forgot their night sights or that they were outnumbered... or that God doesn't need weaponry but we do and that is the point?  And so if we are being crucified in some way, we are to defend ourselves against our enemies... seems there may be some texts about enemies and all that.   And if the latter is the whole point of the several closely related texts... where do we have such continuing commands to his followers to arm themselves not with the weapons of the Spirit but with breastplates of kevlar and swords made of 38 caliber iron?  Or is the earlier verses meant only to guard only against Judean mountain lions... silly. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dave Benke on July 05, 2019, 10:39:22 AM
And generally trashed the better part of the Fourth of July.

I actually did not watch the parade in D.C.  I didn't even attend our local parade, partly because I was busy and the humidity was unbearable. 

But I watched the local fire works and enjoyed it a lot.  I think that for a lot of people the "better pat of the Fourth of July" was rather local.

The 4th is one of those occasions where our "local" is also the national, with the Macy's Grucci Fireworks, which were off the charts this year utilizing the immigrant German-American talents of John Roebling as manifested in the Brooklyn Bridge as the jump-off for many of the special effects.  Since 125000 of us drive our vehicles over it every day and 7500 cross on foot or by bike, I believe it was closed to general traffic last night.

Anyway, when we moved to NYC in the 70s, our neighborhood was so replete with fireworks that the casings came up to the height of the curb through the whole block - so say 8 inches high worth of spent fireworks casings x 2 x 250 feet - a lot.  The noise was not in the City but in the outer boroughs.  Last night, since we are now in a predominantly Asian neighborhood with long fireworks traditions in the homelands, we felt as though we were back in Bklyn in the 70s.  Bang, boom and lots of lights in the skies right there in Queens, America the Beautiful!

Dave Benke
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: James S. Rustad on July 05, 2019, 11:09:47 AM
As for the whoop-dee-doo about guns or our country’s military power, Matthew 26:52.
"Then said Jesus unto him, Put up again thy sword into his place: for all they that take the sword shall perish with the sword."

I note that Jesus did not say "Peter, I told you to get rid of that sword."  Why?  Because it is not recorded that Jesus ever told his disciples or anyone else that they should not own or carry a sword.

I further note that Jesus did not tell the Centurion who asked him to heal his servant to quit his job.  Matthew 8:5–13

Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven W Bohler on July 05, 2019, 11:21:00 AM
And I hold three Trump-as-king cards and two Russia-interfering cards. Therefore my full house beats your pair of abortion-is-awful cards.
Therefore… Get back on topic. This thread is not about abortion.

And what if one believes that our abortion policy is a greater threat to America than Donald Trump or the alleged collusion?  That would certainly fit under the heading for this thread.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Matt Hummel on July 05, 2019, 11:40:07 AM
Brian- You are either incredibly ignorant of the work done within the the Prolife community or you are deliberately ignoring the work. Which is it? Have you ever taken the time to speak wth the folks at the New Life Pregnancy Center located in Yuma? Or do you dodge that opportunity in fear that it will shake your participation in the ELCA’s Culture of Death? I recall Charles’ refusal to visit one near him when I made the invitation.


Much of what I learn about the pro-life community comes from what folks post here; as well as many conservative "friends" on Facebook. If I appear ignorant, it's because you've been poor teachers.

No, I haven't spoken to the folks at the New Life Pregnancy Center in Yuma. I didn't speak with the folks at the Planner Parenthood office when they had one in Yuma. I have spoken often with the director of an immigration agency whose offices are on our property. I have spoken often with the Navajo pastor who was in town, and another pastor who serves a native congregation on a nearby reservation. Abortions are not one of my major concerns. Our nation's poor treatment of immigrants and Natives is a much more pressing concern in our area. In addition, the congregation I served had very few women of child-bearing age. In the last five years, I had one infant who was baptized. I officiated at his parent's wedding two years earlier. That was only the third wedding with a church member in 11 years. Abortion was not an issue with the flock I was called to serve.

Brian- the correct answer to my question then is a simple, "No." Or a more in depth, "No, I haven't actually ever engaged in seeing or participating first hand in the work of a Crisis Pregnancy Center. I prefer to make up my own facts."

So abortion is not that big a whoop for you or other cheerleaders for the ELCA. Which I find interesting. You all are down to make the ELCA more inclusive and to decolonize Lutheranism (whatever that means). And yet a leading cause of death in the African American community is abortion. You can't reach out to and include those who have been murdered. In some cities in this country where the ELCA is represented, abortion IS the leading cause of death for African Americans. And yet your Synods and your Presiding Bishop remain silent. Were I African American, I would find the silence most interesting.

And, as someone who works  closely with inner city black youth, I can tell you they are becoming more and more aware of the the war in the womb being waged by Sanger's ideological descendants against those "human weeds."

Charles has said "This thread is not about abortion." Well, I would point out to him and to others, Frederick Douglas' words about the Fourth of July and celebration. (http://masshumanities.org/files/programs/douglass/speech_abridged_med.pdf)
 And I would say that which could be said with respect to enslaved people and their barbaric treatment can be said of unborn people as well. Shame. Shame on you. Shame on your Church for silence and indifference in the face of monstrous evil.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 05, 2019, 12:33:06 PM
And shame on you for declaring yourself the victor in what you sometimes but not always admit is a complex matter. I am willing to let judgment belong to a merciful God rather than to your merciless harangue.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on July 05, 2019, 12:42:48 PM
Steven writes:
Apparently you haven't been paying attention to US-Russia relations under this administration...
I comment:
Yes, I have. It almost seems as if He trusts them more than our own diplomats and intelligence agencies. And considers their interference in our elections a joking matter.

Uh, increasingly imposing sanctions is not a sign of friendly relations.

 ::)
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on July 05, 2019, 12:51:28 PM
So what reason, apart from chopping fish or defending oneself against a snapping turtle (if they exist in that part of the world) did the disciples have, or Peter in particular, for walking around for a couple of years armed with a sword, accompanying the King of the Universe?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on July 05, 2019, 12:54:47 PM
Tis funny again, in my 76 years, never once heard a pastor or prof in the LMCS ministerial system defend the pastoral bearing of arms or swords, not one ever refer to these passages as wonderful statements of how the disciples of the Prince of Peace ought to be prepared in their discipleship and mission... well, not until the last decade or so....   an unholy hmmmm.....
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on July 05, 2019, 01:02:53 PM
I am willing to let judgment belong to a merciful God rather than to your merciless harangue.


You don't read your posts under this (or any other) topic on this forum, do you.

Pax, Steven+
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 05, 2019, 01:27:53 PM
Steven, I am not declaring anyone here a murderer nor am I saying they were involved in a “monstrous evil,” nor do I denounce their church body, (by the way, which  I might find reasons to do - hint:  decades of covering up pedophillia).
Mr. Hummel only comes here to denounce his former church body and those of us who are still in it.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: DeHall1 on July 05, 2019, 02:06:12 PM
At this point, Charles is basically the Anti-Trump version of the Wu-Tang name generator.

Plug in some piece of data, and he will spit out some (sometimes funny, sometimes "how did he come up with that?") anti-Trump break down of that data.

So treat him as such.  Honestly.  Otherwise, any comment you make is just feeding the generator.

On a side note, Charles' Wu-Tang name?  "Wacko Prophet".

DeHall (Tha Beggar - AKA, Tha Drunken Swami).
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 05, 2019, 02:20:39 PM
Tis funny again, in my 76 years, never once heard a pastor or prof in the LMCS ministerial system defend the pastoral bearing of arms or swords, not one ever refer to these passages as wonderful statements of how the disciples of the Prince of Peace ought to be prepared in their discipleship and mission... well, not until the last decade or so....   an unholy hmmmm.....
I cannot remember being taught in seminary or having it discussed at pastor's conferences that pastors under no circumstances should carry a handgun for protection. The topic basically doesn't come up for or against..


Are you basically suggesting that pastors should be pacifists? If pastors, what about Christian's in general?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 05, 2019, 02:42:06 PM
I don’t believe everyone is called to be a pacifist, although some people are.
I remain concerned about the obsession with guns in this country generally, and among some of my clergy acquaintances.
I do not oppose hunting. I do not oppose target-shooting sports.
Personally, I could not consider a gun as a method of protection, because I do not think I could lay  down for myself the foundational principle of that, namely: if someone comes at me or a family member or another person, I am going to kill the attacker. Because I believe that when you carry a weapon for protection, that is what you have decided to do.
Furthermore, there are many people in our society to champion the “rights” of gun fanciers.  There are, unfortunately, not so many people who say we should not put our trust either as a persons or as a nation in weaponry.
Again, I do not oppose the military nor do I denounce those who are called to public service in that way. But I strongly object to the idea that our best defense, either as persons or as a nation, is weaponry.  I object to the glorification of weaponry, as if we are proud of it, and proud of our use of it.
And I continue to hope that those who follow the Prince of Peace will continue to speak up for another way, and it makes me a little sad to see pastors join the militaristic side of things.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 05, 2019, 03:11:06 PM
So, if it came to a kill or be killed situation, you would choose the be killed side of things?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on July 05, 2019, 03:18:08 PM
Steven, I am not declaring anyone here a murderer nor am I saying they were involved in a “monstrous evil,” nor do I denounce their church body, (by the way, which  I might find reasons to do - hint:  decades of covering up pedophillia).
Mr. Hummel only comes here to denounce his former church body and those of us who are still in it.

I am in his former church body, and Mr. Hummel does not denounce me.  He even appreciated when, several years ago, I was able to demonstrate that (at least some of) our ELCA political advocacy folk were not chiming in with the Religious Coaltion for Reproductive Choice in lobbying for laws that limited late-term abortions, but instead said what the ELCA Social Statement says.  He notes, as do I, that ELCA pastors are usually found among the leaders of local ministers' public expressions of support for unlimited abortion license, which is contrary to what our Social Statement teaches. 

Meanwhile you regularly denounce other church bodies on this forum, particularly the LCMS and sometimes the NALC (and you personalize your denunciations with former ELCA clergy).  And when congregations of elderly Roman Catholic women were being forced to provide for abortions for themselves you heartily endorsed the Presidential administration's exercise of that force.  You don't like declarations of murder?  Then stop going out of your way to defend it.

And get off your high horse, and instead offer posts the actually follow the parenthetical portion of subject title you gave this thread by seriously engaging in the conversation here.  Otherwise you continue to demonstrate yourself to be an even bigger blowhard than Mr. Trump, who at least is able to show actions that are considerably calmer, cooler, and more collected than his late-night Tweets that seem to drive you mad.

 >:(

Fraternally, Steven+
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 05, 2019, 04:11:37 PM
Steven, I am not declaring anyone here a murderer nor am I saying they were involved in a “monstrous evil,” nor do I denounce their church body, (by the way, which  I might find reasons to do - hint:  decades of covering up pedophillia).
Mr. Hummel only comes here to denounce his former church body and those of us who are still in it.

I am in his former church body, and Mr. Hummel does not denounce me.  He even appreciated when, several years ago, I was able to demonstrate that (at least some of) our ELCA political advocacy folk were not chiming in with the Religious Coaltion for Reproductive Choice in lobbying for laws that limited late-term abortions, but instead said what the ELCA Social Statement says.  He notes, as do I, that ELCA pastors are usually found among the leaders of local ministers' public expressions of support for unlimited abortion license, which is contrary to what our Social Statement teaches. 

Meanwhile you regularly denounce other church bodies on this forum, particularly the LCMS and sometimes the NALC (and you personalize your denunciations with former ELCA clergy).  And when congregations of elderly Roman Catholic women were being forced to provide for abortions for themselves you heartily endorsed the Presidential administration's exercise of that force.  You don't declarations of murder?  Then stop going out of your way to defend it.

And get off your high horse, and instead offer posts the actually follow the parenthetical portion of subject title you gave this thread by seriously engaging in the conversation here.  Otherwise you continue to demonstrate yourself to be an even bigger blowhard than Mr. Trump, who at least is able to show actions that are considerably calmer, cooler, and more collected than his late-night Tweets that seem to drive you mad.

 >:(

Fraternally, Steven+



(http://s3.amazonaws.com/pix.iemoji.com/images/emoji/apple/ios-11/256/thumbs-up.png)


Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Coach-Rev on July 05, 2019, 04:15:42 PM
it makes me a little sad to see pastors join the militaristic side of things.

Guessing you'll be a lot more than just teary eyed  in knowing that we have a security team of members that includes the pastor, who have a plan of action and who regularly (and legally) conceal carry in church?  And yes, lethal force is on the table in defending this congregation from would-be attackers, and this is in part due to discussions with law enforcement agencies who have jurisdiction here.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: J.L. Precup on July 05, 2019, 04:31:43 PM
Tis funny again, in my 76 years, never once heard a pastor or prof in the LMCS ministerial system defend the pastoral bearing of arms or swords, not one ever refer to these passages as wonderful statements of how the disciples of the Prince of Peace ought to be prepared in their discipleship and mission... well, not until the last decade or so....   an unholy hmmmm.....
I cannot remember being taught in seminary or having it discussed at pastor's conferences that pastors under no circumstances should carry a handgun for protection. The topic basically doesn't come up for or against..


Are you basically suggesting that pastors should be pacifists? If pastors, what about Christian's in general?

When I began in the ministry, an older pastor (maybe my circuit counselor?) advised me that it was not a good idea even to have a wallet on my person while conducting worship.  That was adiaphora advice, I'm sure, but it stuck with me.  Then as a Navy chaplain, I never carried a weapon even when with Marines (it was prohibited).  Ah, but chaplains had assistants who could be armed, right?  Yes, and during an exercise in which play actors were painted with fake blood, my assistant immediately fainted.  If my being unarmed today makes me a pacifist, so be it.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on July 05, 2019, 04:43:40 PM
I don't think it came up in discussions and classes and so forth because it was assumed that the church was a different place and clergy different folks who diid not rely on swords to defend the Lord and the Lord's people.  Certainly, there have been shootings in churches, probably more in recent years than ever before... but that does not change the way we ought to look at God's house and how pastor's ought to look at their ministry and lives.  I recall the story, coming from my early years in ministry (I will not name the place or person)... a pastor called to work in a difficult and dangerous urban place whose young daughter was seriously and threateningly propositioned on the way to school by someone (this is 50 years ago also)....  he had to make a decision, leave with his family or send his family away to his relatives several states away who lived in what was then assumed to be a safer situation.  He chose to continue his work and send his family away.  How long this separation forced ministry went on, I do not know.  Whether it was the right decision, I cannot say.  I do know that one of the options for this pastor did not involve the buying and use of guns.  Celibate and single clergy have not necessarily been given a greater degree of courage by the Holy Spirit but they don't have to face the above situation.  But each of us has our challenges.  I am not sure at all that arming ourselves with bullets is better or equal to arming ourselves with the Holy Spirit.  Some have spoken of having to face persecution as being a new and real threat....  are some thinking of facing persecution fully locked and loaded also?  Like Charles, I believe that pacifism is a special gift and it too has special challenges and nuances that some must take into consideration, such as welcoming or enhancing our enemies ability to hurt, not to ourselves who might be pacifists, but others whose care we have been given....  But when I hear folks (and I know have heard more in the last 10 years than in the previous 40 of my ministry) speak about defending the worshipping congregation with gun power, I do not hear much nuance, concern and care in the descriptions and plans of what ifs.   When, once, I had to speak to the police about concern for a worshipping congregation, the chief had lots of concerns beyond how to take down any perceived threat to tranquility.   I would consider it to be a sin and an affront to reverence for a pastor to pray Luther's Sacristy prayer or the traditional vesting petitions while putting on alb, stole, cincture, chasuble if before the white palling he seated a sidearm under his vesture.  The only sign of death we wear is the cross on the yoke of stole, chest or back of chasuble, pectoral cross or pendant or neck cross we wear daily near our hearts. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 05, 2019, 05:10:45 PM
Pastor Fienen:
So, if it came to a kill or be killed situation, you would choose the be killed side of things?
Me:
I am saying clearly, that I will not make the advance decision to kill. Maybe I would kill. Maybe even with my bare hands. Maybe with a club. Maybe with a chair. Maybe with my car.
Or maybe I would dare to put my trust into something else. God, for example. Power of negotiation, for example. Words about Jesus, for example. Words directly to the potential assailant, if possible.
I don’t know for certain what I would do.
But I do know that I will not make the advance decision that if attacked I will kill.
Any of you recall the scene in the movie, “the apostle,“ starring Robert Duvall? The Billy Bob Thornton character comes to his little church with the murderous intent of bulldozing down the church. Duval, “the apostle” stands in front of him, speaks calmly, and lays a Bible down in front of his bulldozer.
The intemperate wrath is turned aside.
Yes, I know it’s a movie scene. But don’t we believe that the Word has power? If confronted, I hope, though I cannot be certain, that this is the first “weapon” I would use.
Or maybe, like Washington during the revolutionary war, according to our president, I would call on our air power.
( I feel an obligation to keep this thread on topic. )
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 05, 2019, 05:18:57 PM
Tis funny again, in my 76 years, never once heard a pastor or prof in the LMCS ministerial system defend the pastoral bearing of arms or swords, not one ever refer to these passages as wonderful statements of how the disciples of the Prince of Peace ought to be prepared in their discipleship and mission... well, not until the last decade or so....   an unholy hmmmm.....
I cannot remember being taught in seminary or having it discussed at pastor's conferences that pastors under no circumstances should carry a handgun for protection. The topic basically doesn't come up for or against..


Are you basically suggesting that pastors should be pacifists? If pastors, what about Christian's in general?

When I began in the ministry, an older pastor (maybe my circuit counselor?) advised me that it was not a good idea even to have a wallet on my person while conducting worship.  That was adiaphora advice, I'm sure, but it stuck with me.  Then as a Navy chaplain, I never carried a weapon even when with Marines (it was prohibited).  Ah, but chaplains had assistants who could be armed, right?  Yes, and during an exercise in which play actors were painted with fake blood, my assistant immediately fainted.  If my being unarmed today makes me a pacifist, so be it.
Being unarmed does not make one a pacifist, chosing to be unarmed does not make one a pacifist. Asserting that in order to be a good pastor, or Christian, or person one must be unarmed does.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on July 05, 2019, 05:46:07 PM
Fine.  Define sword in 22.37 and later in  v 38 as a gun. The Lord says it is enough that they in fact have two swords or two handguns or I suppose if you want to truly modernize from Roman short swords to longer range swords, they have two completely automatic rifles with extended ammunition things. Although that is textually difficult because our Lord had access to the terms for javelins and archery I assume.   Then why in the world would our Lord object to their use a little over ten verses later, is it that they forgot their night sights or that they were outnumbered... or that God doesn't need weaponry but we do and that is the point?  And so if we are being crucified in some way, we are to defend ourselves against our enemies... seems there may be some texts about enemies and all that.   And if the latter is the whole point of the several closely related texts... where do we have such continuing commands to his followers to arm themselves not with the weapons of the Spirit but with breastplates of kevlar and swords made of 38 caliber iron?  Or is the earlier verses meant only to guard only against Judean mountain lions... silly.

Ecclesiastes 3.8

Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Matt Hummel on July 05, 2019, 06:04:49 PM
Charles- If I have calumniated the ELCA, please show me where, so that I may repent of my sin.

But to put it in an image with which you might resonate- Given the 65 million children killed by abortion, to say nothing big the lives of the women and men damaged or destroyed by their "choice," you would have to fight the war in Viet Nam 48 times to reach that death toll. That includes the dead combatants of all involved, and all civilians, South and North. 48 wars to get where we are now. Remember that war? I know you do because you love to tell us all of your moral courage in opposing it. And I will concede that indeed it took courage to do what you and others did. Which is why I am surprised that a slaughter that is nearly 50 times greater gets a "Meh."

Does it not bother you that in NYC the most dangerous place for Black people to be is in their mother's womb? Where is the voice of my home Synod, MNYS, on this? Where is the voice of PB Eaton, who has spoken about other issues with clarity and force?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on July 05, 2019, 06:41:41 PM
Ecclesiastes 3.8

what kind of war, what kind of peace?

Oh, OT kind of war, not spiritual, one that wipes out completely... or, at least is supposed to.  Come on, cite a site that is a sedes doctrina.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 05, 2019, 06:42:19 PM
Has anyone ever heard a Lutheran pastor/theologian preach on Luke 22.36 and indicate that the Lord wanted disciples to buy swords and then translate that as guns of some sort?  Oh, that was said, whispered into Malchus ear, eh?  Give me a break from the absurd.


One should look at all the verses and contexts in Luke that use μάχαιρα.

The Destruction of Jerusalem (21:24)

20 “When you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then you will know that its destruction is close at hand. 21 At that time, those in Judea must flee to the mountains, those in the city must escape, and those in the countryside must not enter the city. 22 These are the days of punishment, when everything written will find its fulfillment. 23 How terrible it will be at that time for women who are pregnant or for women who are nursing their children. There will be great agony on the earth and angry judgment on this people. 24 They will fall by the edge of the sword and be taken away as captives among all nations. Jerusalem will be plundered by Gentiles until the times of the Gentiles are concluded. [CEB]

The sword is what the enemy of God's people use to destroy them.

Prior to the arrest of Jesus (22:36, 38)

35 Jesus said to them, “When I sent you out without a wallet, bag, or sandals, you didn’t lack anything, did you?”

They said, “Nothing.”

36 Then he said to them, “But now, whoever has a wallet must take it, and likewise a bag. And those who don’t own a sword must sell their clothes and buy one. 37 I tell you that this scripture must be fulfilled in relation to me: And he was counted among criminals.  Indeed, what’s written about me is nearing completion.”

38 They said to him, “Lord, look, here are two swords.”

He replied, “Enough of that!” [CEB]


Jesus tells them to buy swords, but two is enough. Their purpose: to have them count him among the criminals.

At Jesus' arrest (22:49, 52)

49 When those around him recognized what was about to happen, they said, “Lord, should we fight with our swords?” 50 One of them struck the high priest’s servant, cutting off his right ear.

51 Jesus responded, “Stop! No more of this!” He touched the slave’s ear and healed him.

52 Then Jesus said to the chief priests, the officers of the temple guard, and the elders who had come to get him, “Have you come with swords and clubs to arrest me, as though I were a thief? 53 Day after day I was with you in the temple, but you didn’t arrest me. But this is your time, when darkness rules.”

To the question, "Shall we fight with our swords?" Jesus actions give the answer, "No!" It is his enemies who come ready to use swords and clubs. That is the way of darkness.






 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 05, 2019, 06:53:35 PM
So, if it came to a kill or be killed situation, you would choose the be killed side of things?


Wasn't that the way of Jesus?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: James S. Rustad on July 05, 2019, 07:41:10 PM
To the question, "Shall we fight with our swords?" Jesus actions give the answer, "No!" It is his enemies who come ready to use swords and clubs. That is the way of darkness.

You're taking a few events and stretching them into a general rule.  So it is only the enemies of God who come ready to use swords and clubs?

Romans 13:4
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 05, 2019, 07:46:47 PM
Pastor Fienen tries again:
Being unarmed does not make one a pacifist, chosing to be unarmed does not make one a pacifist. Asserting that in order to be a good pastor, or Christian, or person one must be unarmed does.

I comment:
Why do you even say that? I have never even suggested that to be a good pastor, Christian or person on must be unarmed. I am only saying that I would hope that pastors, or at least many pastors, would be examples of those who choose not to be armed.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 05, 2019, 07:58:09 PM
To the question, "Shall we fight with our swords?" Jesus actions give the answer, "No!" It is his enemies who come ready to use swords and clubs. That is the way of darkness.

You're taking a few events and stretching them into a general rule.  So it is only the enemies of God who come ready to use swords and clubs?

Romans 13:4
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.


Well, in Revelation 13, the same Roman government that Paul is talking about is seen as the beast that is given power by the dragon to blaspheme God and God's people. It was not executing wrath about evil-doers, but upon the faithful people of God.


Take your pick: scriptures can be used to describe the government as a servant of God to take up the sword against evil-doers; or to describe the government as a servant of Satan who persecutes God's faithful people.


In addition, Hippolytus of Rome included these following professions that made one unfit for baptism into the Christian faith.

A soldier who is in a position of authority is not to be allowed to put anyone to death; if he is ordered to, he is not to do it, he is not to be allowed to take an oath. If he does not accept these conditions, he is to be sent away.

A man who has the power of the sword, or magistrate of a city who wears the purple; let him give it up or be sent away.

Catechumens or believers who want to enlist as soldiers are to be sent away, for they have treated God with contempt.
 (The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome, compiled and edited by Lucien Deiss, C.S.Sp., (1963), translated by Benet Weatherhead, in Early Sources of the Liturgy, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 1967, second edition 1975.)
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 05, 2019, 09:10:01 PM
Pastor Fienen tries again:
Being unarmed does not make one a pacifist, chosing to be unarmed does not make one a pacifist. Asserting that in order to be a good pastor, or Christian, or person one must be unarmed does.

I comment:
Why do you even say that? I have never even suggested that to be a good pastor, Christian or person on must be unarmed. I am only saying that I would hope that pastors, or at least many pastors, would be examples of those who choose not to be armed.
One of the benefits of using the quote function is that it indicates what and who one is responding to. It's not only about you Charles. I was primarily responding to Prs. Precip and Mozolak, whose posts seemed to point in this direction. Unlike a certain other poster in these precincts I try to respond to what people actually post rather than picking just anyone who regularly annoys me and might possibly have said something like that and pretend that they said whatever just ticked me off.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven W Bohler on July 05, 2019, 09:45:57 PM
I believe I have mentioned this story before, but here it is again.  Years ago, I received a phone call at home one night from a local policeman.  He said they had received a credible threat from someone who said he was planning on shooting in a school in Crookston or East Grand Forks (about 25 miles away).  The policeman, knowing that I shot at the gun range, asked if I had my concealed carry permit (which I did not have at that time) and, if so, if I would consider being armed at the school the next day -- the local police did not have the resources to put an officer at all the schools in town.  The next day was my day off, but I parked myself in the teachers' lounge, next to the entrance of the school (without weapons).  I was glad when, in a couple of hours, one of the town's off-duty policemen came -- in full uniform, including service pistol -- and remained the rest of the day.  The person who made the threat was eventually located, dead by suicide.

Is it wrong or unChristian for a pastor to arm to protect the children of his school?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: readselerttoo on July 05, 2019, 10:12:22 PM
To Pr. Stoffregen:  Would it not be as prudent to prevent someone who prepares to break the the 5th commandment for me to be armed and ready?  The way of Jesus would not prevent me from protecting my child. son or daughter, from being murdered.  Or are you saying that across the board being unarmed and allowing someone to murder my son or daughter is okay?  That's crazy. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 05, 2019, 10:13:53 PM
Perhaps rather than trying to protect the children we should just leave that to God. By that argument, shouldn't we just trust God to protect us from an infection rather than use an antibiotic that could help the germ mutate into a super bug?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 05, 2019, 10:36:19 PM
Pastor Bohler writes:
Is it wrong or unChristian for a pastor to arm to protect the children of his school?

I comment:
Maybe.
Maybe not.
But the power of the sword belongs to the state, not to the church. You can decide whether you want to act as the called and ordained minister of one or the armed servant of the other or the armed agent of both church and state.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 05, 2019, 10:46:36 PM
To Pr. Stoffregen:  Would it not be as prudent to prevent someone who prepares to break the the 5th commandment for me to be armed and ready?  The way of Jesus would not prevent me from protecting my child. son or daughter, from being murdered.  Or are you saying that across the board being unarmed and allowing someone to murder my son or daughter is okay?  That's crazy.


It's not OK to take a life. Since it's not OK for someone to murder your son or daughter, why does it become OK to murder someone who threatens your son or daughter?


I imagine that your response would be: It's not murder when it is in self-defense. (Although killing someone who threatens your children is not really self-defense.) The outcome is: you've killed someone who hasn't killed anyone. Who seems to be the more evil person?


Let's assume that someone did murder your son or daughter, are you then justified in killing him? The Bible does tell us a life for a life.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 05, 2019, 11:20:06 PM
So, someone armed with a gun or guns enters school and threatens to shoot students. Until that person actually shoots and kills someone, they should not be harmed? Perhaps if someone tries to physically restrain the person and is killed in the process then shoot? Any volunteers? But then just because the gun an killed one is no proof he will do it again, and shouldn't shoot in revenge, so, even then. Maybe hope gets tired or funs out of ammo?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 05, 2019, 11:56:29 PM
Pastor Fienen persists:
So, someone armed with a gun or guns enters school and threatens to shoot students. Until that person actually shoots and kills someone, they should not be harmed?
I comment:
Talk to a cop about protocols of a situation like this. I don’t believe you’re allowed to kill somebody just because they’re holding a gun. You have to make the determination whether or not they intend to or close to harming someone. Cops are taught these things.
Pastor Fienen again:
Perhaps if someone tries to physically restrain the person and is killed in the process then shoot? Any volunteers? But then just because the gun an killed one is no proof he will do it again, and shouldn't shoot in revenge, so, even then. Maybe hope gets tired or funs out of ammo?
Me again:
Make up all the scenarios you want. They are utterly meaningless. Again, I suggest you talk to a cop especially an urban cop who has had special training in the use of deadly force.
I’ve interviewed one cop who killed someone, and a couple other cops who were involved in situations where the use of deadly force might’ve been required, might even have been justified, but where deadly force was not used. It ain’t simple.
Risks? Yes, goes with the job.
Any time you think about deadly force, equip yourself for deadly force or use deadly force there are risks.
Risk and uncertainty and the peril of making instantaneous life/death decisions are normal parts of planning to defend yourself with a gun.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 06, 2019, 02:36:41 AM
Those risks are the reason that concealed  carry permits are issued (or should only be issued) after people have passed firearm safety classes. But I was responding to Brian's suggestion that use of deadly force to prevent one person  killing another cannot be justified because they haven't killed anyone yet and afterwards would be revenge which isn't justified either.
To Pr. Stoffregen:  Would it not be as prudent to prevent someone who prepares to break the the 5th commandment for me to be armed and ready?  The way of Jesus would not prevent me from protecting my child. son or daughter, from being murdered.  Or are you saying that across the board being unarmed and allowing someone to murder my son or daughter is okay?  That's crazy.


It's not OK to take a life. Since it's not OK for someone to murder your son or daughter, why does it become OK to murder someone who threatens your son or daughter?


I imagine that your response would be: It's not murder when it is in self-defense. (Although killing someone who threatens your children is not really self-defense.) The outcome is: you've killed someone who hasn't killed anyone. Who seems to be the more evil person?


Let's assume that someone did murder your son or daughter, are you then justified in killing him? The Bible does tell us a life for a life.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 06, 2019, 10:02:00 AM
Pastor Fienen again:
I was responding to Brian's suggestion that use of deadly force to prevent one person  killing another cannot be justified because they haven't killed anyone yet and afterwards would be revenge which isn't justified either.

I comment:
Well, "justified" is a word that must have context and meaning. I was commenting on what I think I know about "official," that is, police use of force and I was bringing up the moral and ethical decisions any of us must make when carrying or handling weapons.
1. To carry a weapon for protection, you must have made a decision to use it.
2. To use it you must have made a decision that says you are ready to kill with it.
3. Should the occasion arise that causes you to use that weapon, you may be required to make an instant, nano-second life-or-death judgment as to when (and whom) to shoot.
4. On that occasion you must be willing to live with the consequences, which include the fact that you have taken a life, or perhaps put more people in danger because you have used a weapon and may include a civil determination as to whether or not your use of that weapon was "justified."
I have no serious objections to properly regulated permissions that allow people to carry guns. But...
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 06, 2019, 10:04:17 AM
I really don't think that we are disagreeing that much, even though that might pain you.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Matt Hummel on July 06, 2019, 10:11:55 AM
FWIW- Apparently this is not the first time a US president has thought that having a little armor would kick things up a notch. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/07/03/trump-4th-july-tanks-have-rumbled-through-nations-capital-before/1642869001/
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on July 06, 2019, 10:16:32 AM
And if one points out that folks need special training before being issued permits to buy, carry, conceal and use weapons... I think that the training for buying a gun by the average citizen in most states is quite different from the special training that police and law enforcement personnel receive.  Look at how many police today, noted in the news, are being challenged by authorities of their own and the courts on the decisions they make in the line of duty.  And the differences the public has for and against such findings. 

And then we have the whole issue of countries like England.... where the police do not wear guns regularly (much less the public) and where they are not as often used to commit or restrain or contain crime. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 06, 2019, 10:35:46 AM
So, someone armed with a gun or guns enters school and threatens to shoot students. Until that person actually shoots and kills someone, they should not be harmed? Perhaps if someone tries to physically restrain the person and is killed in the process then shoot? Any volunteers? But then just because the gun an killed one is no proof he will do it again, and shouldn't shoot in revenge, so, even then. Maybe hope gets tired or funs out of ammo?


At what point can you be reasonably certain that a person with a gun intends to kill and injure people? What is deadly force required to stop him?


With some schools using armed security or teachers; just seeing a person with a gun in a school is not cause to kill them.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 06, 2019, 10:37:50 AM
Pastor Fienen again:
I was responding to Brian's suggestion that use of deadly force to prevent one person  killing another cannot be justified because they haven't killed anyone yet and afterwards would be revenge which isn't justified either.

I comment:
Well, "justified" is a word that must have context and meaning. I was commenting on what I think I know about "official," that is, police use of force and I was bringing up the moral and ethical decisions any of us must make when carrying or handling weapons.
1. To carry a weapon for protection, you must have made a decision to use it.
2. To use it you must have made a decision that says you are ready to kill with it.
3. Should the occasion arise that causes you to use that weapon, you may be required to make an instant, nano-second life-or-death judgment as to when (and whom) to shoot.
4. On that occasion you must be willing to live with the consequences, which include the fact that you have taken a life, or perhaps put more people in danger because you have used a weapon and may include a civil determination as to whether or not your use of that weapon was "justified."

I have no serious objections to properly regulated permissions that allow people to carry guns. But...
A comment about the highlighted section. I fully agree with what you state. Police are rigorously trained in the use of firearms and are more likely to be in such life and death situations than ordinary people who have concealed carry permits. I don't pack heat myself, have never been inclined to do so and have never really seen the need to do so. But I understand the thinking that might prompt some to do so.

Shooting by police has been much in the news and much protested. As we consider those tragic incidents we need to keep your points in mind. Police are put into such split second, life or death decision situations. That some police officers have been trigger happy, racially biased, even racist in their treatment of minority individuals is a reality, is deplorable, and deserves the full condemnation of the law and the community. But that is not the case in every case when a police officer shoots at a suspect.

But police officers are also charged with protecting the public, and themselves, from those who pose a dangerous threat to public safety. In that nano-second shoot/don't shoot decision the officer risks much if he is wrong. If he or she hesitates it may mean some of the public gets shot, even killed. It may mean the officer him/herself being shot or killed. But a wrong decision to shoot may mean ending an innocent life. (Shooting the gun out of the hand of an assailant is a trick for the movies, if even possible it would need ideal conditions and a patient careful aim, not a split second decision.) A decision by its very nature rushed and often made under poor conditions and visibility. Such decisions will always be second guessed, But it needs to be judged not by a standard that only 100% certainty of its necessity is acceptable. A mistake made to fire when really not needed will be tragic and possibly deadly. But so will a mistake to not fire when needed be at times tragic and possibly deadly. Not the least for the office involved.

Too many police officers die in the line of duty, sometimes quite frankly ambushed. Dare we simply brush those deaths off as, "Well, that's what they signed up for"? If the racist words and actions of some, not nearly the majority, officers is deplorable, what of the reaction of some of the public? Such as the hecklers who taunted the police officers investigating the shooting of a female rookie officer (https://news.yahoo.com/hecklers-taunt-sacramento-police-officers-124006803.html).
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 06, 2019, 10:39:32 AM
Pastor Fienen persists:
I’ve interviewed one cop who killed someone, and a couple other cops who were involved in situations where the use of deadly force might’ve been required, might even have been justified, but where deadly force was not used. It ain’t simple.
Risks? Yes, goes with the job.
Any time you think about deadly force, equip yourself for deadly force or use deadly force there are risks.
Risk and uncertainty and the peril of making instantaneous life/death decisions are normal parts of planning to defend yourself with a gun.


Not long ago a city cop shot and killed a suspect. It was considered justifiable. At a worship afterwards, the former chief of police of Yuma, and a former Sheriff in Montana both commented that they were thankful that they never had to take a life. It's a situation they try very hard to avoid. More and more, non-lethal weapons are being used, e.g., taser.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 06, 2019, 10:41:34 AM
Those risks are the reason that concealed  carry permits are issued (or should only be issued) after people have passed firearm safety classes. But I was responding to Brian's suggestion that use of deadly force to prevent one person  killing another cannot be justified because they haven't killed anyone yet and afterwards would be revenge which isn't justified


I never said that it can't be justified. I asked questions. When does it become justifiable to kill someone who has only made threats?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 06, 2019, 10:41:56 AM
So, someone armed with a gun or guns enters school and threatens to shoot students. Until that person actually shoots and kills someone, they should not be harmed? Perhaps if someone tries to physically restrain the person and is killed in the process then shoot? Any volunteers? But then just because the gun an killed one is no proof he will do it again, and shouldn't shoot in revenge, so, even then. Maybe hope gets tired or funs out of ammo?


At what point can you be reasonably certain that a person with a gun intends to kill and injure people? What is deadly force required to stop him?


With some schools using armed security or teachers; just seeing a person with a gun in a school is not cause to kill them.
Do you think that there might be some point at which deadly force is justified short of having already shot and killed someone? Carrying a gun, probably not. What about pointing a gun at people, or pointing and refusing to lower the weapon when challenged?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven W Bohler on July 06, 2019, 10:43:21 AM
And if one points out that folks need special training before being issued permits to buy, carry, conceal and use weapons... I think that the training for buying a gun by the average citizen in most states is quite different from the special training that police and law enforcement personnel receive.  Look at how many police today, noted in the news, are being challenged by authorities of their own and the courts on the decisions they make in the line of duty.  And the differences the public has for and against such findings. 

And then we have the whole issue of countries like England.... where the police do not wear guns regularly (much less the public) and where they are not as often used to commit or restrain or contain crime.

Yeah, England.  Where they now want to outlaw knives because of the epidemic of stabbings.  Where acid attacks have been more-or-less common.  Where broken beer bottles and fists were all that could be used to defend against terroristic attacks. 

http://surrenderyourknife.co.uk

https://www.mrctv.org/blog/uk-police-install-roadside-knife-surrender-bin-are-shocked-when-its-raided-criminals

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4016850/acid-attacks-uk-london-statistics-westbourne-grove/

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/london-bridge-attack-isis-terrorists-fight-back-victims-chairs-inquests-a8924226.html
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 06, 2019, 10:45:38 AM
Pastor Fienen persists:
I’ve interviewed one cop who killed someone, and a couple other cops who were involved in situations where the use of deadly force might’ve been required, might even have been justified, but where deadly force was not used. It ain’t simple.
Risks? Yes, goes with the job.
Any time you think about deadly force, equip yourself for deadly force or use deadly force there are risks.
Risk and uncertainty and the peril of making instantaneous life/death decisions are normal parts of planning to defend yourself with a gun.


Not long ago a city cop shot and killed a suspect. It was considered justifiable. At a worship afterwards, the former chief of police of Yuma, and a former Sheriff in Montana both commented that they were thankful that they never had to take a life. It's a situation they try very hard to avoid. More and more, non-lethal weapons are being used, e.g., taser.
Please be more careful in using the quote function. You edited the post that you quoted, which is fine, I often do that myself to cut down on space. But in editing you implied that I wrote the section that you quoted. I did not. The portion of the post you quoted was actually written by Pr. Austin.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on July 06, 2019, 10:48:26 AM
Quote:
Yeah, England.  Where they now want to outlaw knives because of the epidemic of stabbings.  Where acid attacks have been more-or-less common.  Where broken beer bottles and fists were all that could be used to defend against terroristic attacks. 

Now, I am not up on the stats... but is there a real chance of outlawing table knives or is it two foot ones, like you cannot have at an airport here too and if you walked into a mall carrying one, not in a box, a somewhat wimpy looking guard would at least report you to the office secretary?  Are acid attacks more or less common, as common as a broken beer bottle?  The above is certainly tongue in cheek, right?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: David Garner on July 06, 2019, 10:48:55 AM
But the power of the sword belongs to the state, not to the church. You can decide whether you want to act as the called and ordained minister of one or the armed servant of the other or the armed agent of both church and state.

What nonsense.  As with most nonsense, it starts from a foundation that is superficially defensible, but proceeds to pervert that foundation into something unrecognizable.

First, it is true that killing, even in war or self-defense, is sin, and is something one must repent of.  That much is well and good.  And we in the Orthodox Church proscribe our priests from owning weapons and from killing, even in self-defense. I'm honestly not sure if this is seen as a dogmatic thing or just a pious practice we hold, but since we hold to a much more sacerdotal view of the priesthood than you do, it certainly has zero bearing on what Lutheran pastors may do.  And I know quite a lot of Lutheran pastors who have no compunction about bearing arms in defense of their flock.

Were they wrong, that would be one thing, but they are not.  In our country, the government governs only with the consent of the governed, and per the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution, we do not -- I repeat, we DO NOT -- cede the power of the sword to the state, but rather retain it for ourselves.  This is both for common defense and self-defense, as our history, the text of our Constitution, and the texts of the state constitutions that existed at the time of ratification make clear.  So legally, your claim is absurd.  No United States citizen relinquishes his or her right of self-defense to the state.  Not one.  And those who relinquish their right to certain forms of self-defense (for example convicted felons who cannot legally own guns) still may bear actual swords in their own defense, or baseball bats, or whatever implements they may find.

Historically and theologically, it's far worse.  It is true that there were some Fathers who proscribed the sword to Christians, even in military.  They were in the minority.  Tertullian, as one example, is not normative on the entire history of the Church.  As if it were not enough that Our Lord Himself told His disciples to buy swords, and used a scourge to drive moneychangers from the Temple, we have a long line of Patristic witness on self-defense, use of the sword by Christians, etc.  Our priests -- again, forbidden to own or use weapons themselves -- nonetheless bless weapons used by military and police.  This is not a new practice either -- it has deep roots in both Christian and Jewish history.  There is no moral distinction being made here, as if one who assumes the Office must then renounce violence.  We bless violence, when done in defense of home, country and person.  The soldier may need to repent of his killing, but we nonetheless bless the weapons he uses to mete it out, because we know it prevents a far worse sin -- the killing of innocents.

In your case, the killing of innocents with your tacit approval, unless and until the state-approved killers show up.  Because as I've noted before, you really don't have a problem with violence.  You're just too much of an elitist to do it yourself.  So you pretend to sit on your high horse thumbing your nose at people who are not in your privileged position, as if having the state do your killing for you is a morally superior position.  It isn't.  It just makes you a self-righteous coward.  Not because you choose to renounce violence.  That would be admirable, were it so.  No, because you have no problem with violence, as long as you don't have to get your hands dirty.  But you still have the gall to condemn people who do what you leave to others -- protect their families and children, in ugly ways if necessary.

That doesn't make you pretty.  It makes you a hypocrite.  The proverbial whitewashed tomb.  And you should repent of it.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on July 06, 2019, 10:53:50 AM
There is a lot of violence, physical, verbal and heart-held, against the non-violent.

The non-violent, who can bite their tongues well-enough and clench their fists hidden in their pockets, also face the sin of holding hate within and leashed but biting against their souls.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven W Bohler on July 06, 2019, 11:14:00 AM
But the power of the sword belongs to the state, not to the church. You can decide whether you want to act as the called and ordained minister of one or the armed servant of the other or the armed agent of both church and state.

What nonsense.  As with most nonsense, it starts from a foundation that is superficially defensible, but proceeds to pervert that foundation into something unrecognizable.

First, it is true that killing, even in war or self-defense, is sin, and is something one must repent of.  That much is well and good.  And we in the Orthodox Church proscribe our priests from owning weapons and from killing, even in self-defense. I'm honestly not sure if this is seen as a dogmatic thing or just a pious practice we hold, but since we hold to a much more sacerdotal view of the priesthood than you do, it certainly has zero bearing on what Lutheran pastors may do.  And I know quite a lot of Lutheran pastors who have no compunction about bearing arms in defense of their flock.

Were they wrong, that would be one thing, but they are not.  In our country, the government governs only with the consent of the governed, and per the 2nd Amendment to our Constitution, we do not -- I repeat, we DO NOT -- cede the power of the sword to the state, but rather retain it for ourselves.  This is both for common defense and self-defense, as our history, the text of our Constitution, and the texts of the state constitutions that existed at the time of ratification make clear.  So legally, your claim is absurd.  No United States citizen relinquishes his or her right of self-defense to the state.  Not one.  And those who relinquish their right to certain forms of self-defense (for example convicted felons who cannot legally own guns) still may bear actual swords in their own defense, or baseball bats, or whatever implements they may find.

Historically and theologically, it's far worse.  It is true that there were some Fathers who proscribed the sword to Christians, even in military.  They were in the minority.  Tertullian, as one example, is not normative on the entire history of the Church.  As if it were not enough that Our Lord Himself told His disciples to buy swords, and used a scourge to drive moneychangers from the Temple, we have a long line of Patristic witness on self-defense, use of the sword by Christians, etc.  Our priests -- again, forbidden to own or use weapons themselves -- nonetheless bless weapons used by military and police.  This is not a new practice either -- it has deep roots in both Christian and Jewish history.  There is no moral distinction being made here, as if one who assumes the Office must then renounce violence.  We bless violence, when done in defense of home, country and person.  The soldier may need to repent of his killing, but we nonetheless bless the weapons he uses to mete it out, because we know it prevents a far worse sin -- the killing of innocents.

In your case, the killing of innocents with your tacit approval, unless and until the state-approved killers show up.  Because as I've noted before, you really don't have a problem with violence.  You're just too much of an elitist to do it yourself.  So you pretend to sit on your high horse thumbing your nose at people who are not in your privileged position, as if having the state do your killing for you is a morally superior position.  It isn't.  It just makes you a self-righteous coward.  Not because you choose to renounce violence.  That would be admirable, were it so.  No, because you have no problem with violence, as long as you don't have to get your hands dirty.  But you still have the gall to condemn people who do what you leave to others -- protect their families and children, in ugly ways if necessary.

That doesn't make you pretty.  It makes you a hypocrite.  The proverbial whitewashed tomb.  And you should repent of it.

OUCH!  But so true.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: readselerttoo on July 06, 2019, 11:29:44 AM
To Pr. Stoffregen:  Would it not be as prudent to prevent someone who prepares to break the the 5th commandment for me to be armed and ready?  The way of Jesus would not prevent me from protecting my child. son or daughter, from being murdered.  Or are you saying that across the board being unarmed and allowing someone to murder my son or daughter is okay?  That's crazy.


It's not OK to take a life. Since it's not OK for someone to murder your son or daughter, why does it become OK to murder someone who threatens your son or daughter?


I imagine that your response would be: It's not murder when it is in self-defense. (Although killing someone who threatens your children is not really self-defense.) The outcome is: you've killed someone who hasn't killed anyone. Who seems to be the more evil person?


Let's assume that someone did murder your son or daughter, are you then justified in killing him? The Bible does tell us a life for a life.


If I remain unarmed and someone kills my son hasn't that person broken the commandment?  Why should I let him both kill my son and break the commandment at the same time?  Life under the law comes with responsibility. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: readselerttoo on July 06, 2019, 11:36:42 AM
Those risks are the reason that concealed  carry permits are issued (or should only be issued) after people have passed firearm safety classes. But I was responding to Brian's suggestion that use of deadly force to prevent one person  killing another cannot be justified because they haven't killed anyone yet and afterwards would be revenge which isn't justified


I never said that it can't be justified. I asked questions. When does it become justifiable to kill someone who has only made threats?


Making threats create a fearful environment.  The threat-maker chooses to operate under the law of retribution by creating such an environment with their threats.  What is the appropriate response?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: readselerttoo on July 06, 2019, 11:43:13 AM
There is a lot of violence, physical, verbal and heart-held, against the non-violent.

The non-violent, who can bite their tongues well-enough and clench their fists hidden in their pockets, also face the sin of holding hate within and leashed but biting against their souls.

This is why I do not believe in non-violence.  It ends up being a form of self-righteousness.  Worse it masks the hatred that comes from within.  Really there is no one who is truly non-violent.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven W Bohler on July 06, 2019, 11:45:03 AM
Quote:
Yeah, England.  Where they now want to outlaw knives because of the epidemic of stabbings.  Where acid attacks have been more-or-less common.  Where broken beer bottles and fists were all that could be used to defend against terroristic attacks. 

Now, I am not up on the stats... but is there a real chance of outlawing table knives or is it two foot ones, like you cannot have at an airport here too and if you walked into a mall carrying one, not in a box, a somewhat wimpy looking guard would at least report you to the office secretary?  Are acid attacks more or less common, as common as a broken beer bottle?  The above is certainly tongue in cheek, right?

Did you read the linked articles?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 06, 2019, 11:50:01 AM
David Garner writes:
And we in the Orthodox Church proscribe our priests from owning weapons and from killing, even in self-defense. I'm honestly not sure if this is seen as a dogmatic thing or just a pious practice we hold, but since we hold to a much more sacerdotal view of the priesthood than you do, it certainly has zero bearing on what Lutheran pastors may do.  And I know quite a lot of Lutheran pastors who have no compunction about bearing arms in defense of their flock.
I comment:
Good for your part of the Church, Although I wonder if the prohibition against clergy carrying weapons comes from the time when the church in the East was willing to use the power of the sword against the state.
Or because the church considered the power of the state to be absolutely and totally ordained by God.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Marshall Hahn on July 06, 2019, 12:01:28 PM
I watched a portion of the "Salute to America" yesterday.  It brought to mind the trip I took with our youth group to St. Louis in 2000 for the ELCA Youth Gathering.  We were registered to go to the July 5 - 9 event, so we decided to go early and catch the 4th of July celebration at the Arch.  Before the fireworks there was an air show over the river which was spectacular - not quite as impressive as the one over the Lincoln Memorial perhaps, but quite a show.   There was a Stealth fighter; 2 or 3 F-15's - that left a "wake" in the river when they passed over; and several others.  The most memorable was the Harrier "jump jet" that came in and hovered over the river, dipping down, turning from side to side, and then "launched" from the air away from the Arch.  Even as far back as we were seated, we could feel the exhaust of its "afterburners."  (I am not sure if I get the terminology right, correct me if I am wrong.) 

Along with seeing Desmond Tutu and hearing Ken Medema, it was the highlight of our trip.  And I do not recall anyone suggesting that this demonstration of military hardware was somehow an inappropriate display for a 4th of July celebration.  And I also do not recall anyone expressing the fear that these military aircraft presented a imminent threat to the city of St. Louis.  There are a number of things one can criticize President Trump for, but this year's 4th of July celebration was not one of them.  It may not be everyone's cup of tea, but from the little I saw of it, there was nothing nefarious about it.

Marshall Hahn
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 06, 2019, 01:08:12 PM
I remember a story from the days of Nixon. Nixon famously had problems with the Press being against him. He decided one day to make one more attempt to win them over and invited the press to meet him on the banks of the Potomac behind the Lincoln Center. He then proceeded to walk across the Potomac on the surface of water. After reaching the other side he turned around and walked back. The headline the next day in The Washington Post read: "Nixon Can't Swim." No matter what Trump says or does, critics will find a reason for criticizing him. It's too bad, all too often he doesn't need any help in putting his foot in his mouth, but he always has plenty of critics to help. They end up at times over-egging the pudding and diminishing the credibility of their criticisms.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: James S. Rustad on July 06, 2019, 01:13:37 PM
To the question, "Shall we fight with our swords?" Jesus actions give the answer, "No!" It is his enemies who come ready to use swords and clubs. That is the way of darkness.

You're taking a few events and stretching them into a general rule.  So it is only the enemies of God who come ready to use swords and clubs?

Romans 13:4
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.


Well, in Revelation 13, the same Roman government that Paul is talking about is seen as the beast that is given power by the dragon to blaspheme God and God's people. It was not executing wrath about evil-doers, but upon the faithful people of God.


Take your pick: scriptures can be used to describe the government as a servant of God to take up the sword against evil-doers; or to describe the government as a servant of Satan who persecutes God's faithful people.


In addition, Hippolytus of Rome included these following professions that made one unfit for baptism into the Christian faith.

A soldier who is in a position of authority is not to be allowed to put anyone to death; if he is ordered to, he is not to do it, he is not to be allowed to take an oath. If he does not accept these conditions, he is to be sent away.

A man who has the power of the sword, or magistrate of a city who wears the purple; let him give it up or be sent away.

Catechumens or believers who want to enlist as soldiers are to be sent away, for they have treated God with contempt.
 (The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome, compiled and edited by Lucien Deiss, C.S.Sp., (1963), translated by Benet Weatherhead, in Early Sources of the Liturgy, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 1967, second edition 1975.)

Governments can be good, bad, or in-between.  A good government can go bad.  Having a sword (or other weapon) does not mean that a person intends to do evil.  Having a sword (or other weapon) is not incompatible with being a Christian.  There is no command from Jesus to get rid of our swords and as has been mentioned before, Jesus even commanded his disciples to purchase swords.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on July 06, 2019, 01:28:52 PM

And then we have the whole issue of countries like England.... 

Which is, of course, precisely why we have just celebrated our Independence Day holiday and the 2nd amendment was included in the Bill of Rights.

Pax, Steven+
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: D. Engebretson on July 06, 2019, 01:44:48 PM
I know the running subject of the moment is guns.....

But something else appeared in my paper that impacts the broader topic of "the fate of the nation," at least in the sense of how we deal with our history.  We have already noted the dust up with the Nike shoe and the Betsy Ross flag.  Now we have a school in San Francisco that is going to paint over a mural recognizing the life and achievements of George Washington.  The project will cost $600,000. It was painted by Victor Arnautoff, one of the foremost muralists in the San Francisco area during the Depression.

See: https://www.apnews.com/9f3037c7ec9d48a286059ac8f9975afe (https://www.apnews.com/9f3037c7ec9d48a286059ac8f9975afe)

The south has been busy for sometime removing statues that are deemed offensive.  I realized it was only a matter of time before our founding fathers faced censure. 

So what art is now considered acceptable and non-offensive?  Obviously some artwork will offend some and inspire others.  How do we choose who to offend and who to 'protect' from offense? 

We were noting before the big parade in D.C. on the 4th.  Very prominent in the National Mall is the Washington Monument.  Do we need to rename it now that Washington, a slave-owning founding father, is guilty of an unforgivable sin?  Or what about the state of Washington or Washington, D.C.? Actually those ideas have been floated. 

https://pjmedia.com/blog/video-d-c-residents-say-take-down-jefferson-memorial-rename-washington-d-c/ (https://pjmedia.com/blog/video-d-c-residents-say-take-down-jefferson-memorial-rename-washington-d-c/)

At least with the saints of the church we are willing to admit they are sinners, but still saints by grace and acknowledge how God used them despite their sins.   
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: James S. Rustad on July 06, 2019, 01:46:28 PM
So, someone armed with a gun or guns enters school and threatens to shoot students. Until that person actually shoots and kills someone, they should not be harmed? Perhaps if someone tries to physically restrain the person and is killed in the process then shoot? Any volunteers? But then just because the gun an killed one is no proof he will do it again, and shouldn't shoot in revenge, so, even then. Maybe hope gets tired or funs out of ammo?


At what point can you be reasonably certain that a person with a gun intends to kill and injure people? What is deadly force required to stop him?


With some schools using armed security or teachers; just seeing a person with a gun in a school is not cause to kill them.

You've put your finger on the hard question that needs to be determined at the scene in a very short time.  But before you decide that CCW holders (an armed teacher or parent?) are incapable of making the correct decision, consider a few more things.

When a CCW holder has to make the shoot/don't shoot decision, he is often in a familiar location surrounded by familiar faces.  He is often already in the location.  A police officer is more likely to be entering the location in response to a call and may not know anyone there.  These facts give the CCW holder an advantage in making the right choice.

The average CCW holder shoots better than police.  For police, shooting is a small part of the job and they practice much less than the average CCW holder.  Shooting is such a small part of police training that the FBI has found that even criminals shoot better than police!

I'm satisfied that those gun owners willing to take on the responsibility are able to make the decision correctly and are competent to carry out their decision.

https://www.forcescience.org/2006/12/new-findings-from-fbi-about-cop-attackers-their-weapons/
https://havokjournal.com/nation/the-average-civilian-pistol-permit-holder-is-a-better-shot-than-most-cops/
https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2016/2/22/on-the-front-lines/

Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on July 06, 2019, 01:52:07 PM
Perhaps since "the fate of the ....." church/parish may be at stake from time too time, a pastor's ability to shoot and possess the proper Occasional Service Revolver ought to be part of the call committee's discussion and part of the call itself. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 06, 2019, 04:59:30 PM
As if it were not enough that Our Lord Himself told His disciples to buy swords, and used a scourge to drive moneychangers from the Temple, … .


The whip, φραγέλλιον, in the temple is only mentioned by John (2:15). There is a translation/interpretation issue if the whip was only used to drive out all the sheep and cattle and he just poured out the tills and overturned the tables of the people; or if the whip was used on both animals and people.


The verbal form, "to beat with a whip," φραγελλόω, is only used against Jesus (Matthew 27:26; Mark 15:15).
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 06, 2019, 05:04:01 PM
To Pr. Stoffregen:  Would it not be as prudent to prevent someone who prepares to break the the 5th commandment for me to be armed and ready?  The way of Jesus would not prevent me from protecting my child. son or daughter, from being murdered.  Or are you saying that across the board being unarmed and allowing someone to murder my son or daughter is okay?  That's crazy.


It's not OK to take a life. Since it's not OK for someone to murder your son or daughter, why does it become OK to murder someone who threatens your son or daughter?


I imagine that your response would be: It's not murder when it is in self-defense. (Although killing someone who threatens your children is not really self-defense.) The outcome is: you've killed someone who hasn't killed anyone. Who seems to be the more evil person?


Let's assume that someone did murder your son or daughter, are you then justified in killing him? The Bible does tell us a life for a life.


If I remain unarmed and someone kills my son hasn't that person broken the commandment?  Why should I let him both kill my son and break the commandment at the same time?  Life under the law comes with responsibility.


Is it your responsibility to kill the commandment-breaker? If you kill in retribution, are you breaking the commandment?


Life under grace also comes with responsibility. It calls us to forgive the one who murdered our children; not to kill them.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 06, 2019, 05:07:00 PM
Those risks are the reason that concealed  carry permits are issued (or should only be issued) after people have passed firearm safety classes. But I was responding to Brian's suggestion that use of deadly force to prevent one person  killing another cannot be justified because they haven't killed anyone yet and afterwards would be revenge which isn't justified


I never said that it can't be justified. I asked questions. When does it become justifiable to kill someone who has only made threats?


Making threats create a fearful environment.  The threat-maker chooses to operate under the law of retribution by creating such an environment with their threats.  What is the appropriate response?


So, if you then enter into the law of retribution by threatening or killing him; he's brought you into his world.


A deputy sheriff told me that they are trained to be a calming presence when they are threats being made - most notably in a domestic dispute. They are trained to not enter into the world the threat-maker is creating; but to try and draw them into the calming world they are creating.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 06, 2019, 05:14:10 PM
To the question, "Shall we fight with our swords?" Jesus actions give the answer, "No!" It is his enemies who come ready to use swords and clubs. That is the way of darkness.

You're taking a few events and stretching them into a general rule.  So it is only the enemies of God who come ready to use swords and clubs?

Romans 13:4
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.


Well, in Revelation 13, the same Roman government that Paul is talking about is seen as the beast that is given power by the dragon to blaspheme God and God's people. It was not executing wrath about evil-doers, but upon the faithful people of God.


Take your pick: scriptures can be used to describe the government as a servant of God to take up the sword against evil-doers; or to describe the government as a servant of Satan who persecutes God's faithful people.


In addition, Hippolytus of Rome included these following professions that made one unfit for baptism into the Christian faith.

A soldier who is in a position of authority is not to be allowed to put anyone to death; if he is ordered to, he is not to do it, he is not to be allowed to take an oath. If he does not accept these conditions, he is to be sent away.

A man who has the power of the sword, or magistrate of a city who wears the purple; let him give it up or be sent away.

Catechumens or believers who want to enlist as soldiers are to be sent away, for they have treated God with contempt.
 (The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome, compiled and edited by Lucien Deiss, C.S.Sp., (1963), translated by Benet Weatherhead, in Early Sources of the Liturgy, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 1967, second edition 1975.)

Governments can be good, bad, or in-between.  A good government can go bad.  Having a sword (or other weapon) does not mean that a person intends to do evil.  Having a sword (or other weapon) is not incompatible with being a Christian.  There is no command from Jesus to get rid of our swords and as has been mentioned before, Jesus even commanded his disciples to purchase swords.


Lest you forget, two swords was enough among 12 disciples. And, by his actions in the garden, Jesus indicated that they were not to use those two swords to attack those who came to arrest him. Jesus' mission was to be arrested, tried, and executed as a criminal. The presence of swords on his side helped indicate that he was an enemy to those who came to arrest him. There was no intentions of using those swords to defend himself. As another text indicates, Jesus could have called down 12 legions of angels to defend him if that's what he wanted to do (Matthew 26:53). One legion was about 6000 soldiers.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 06, 2019, 05:21:12 PM
So, someone armed with a gun or guns enters school and threatens to shoot students. Until that person actually shoots and kills someone, they should not be harmed? Perhaps if someone tries to physically restrain the person and is killed in the process then shoot? Any volunteers? But then just because the gun an killed one is no proof he will do it again, and shouldn't shoot in revenge, so, even then. Maybe hope gets tired or funs out of ammo?


At what point can you be reasonably certain that a person with a gun intends to kill and injure people? What is deadly force required to stop him?


With some schools using armed security or teachers; just seeing a person with a gun in a school is not cause to kill them.

You've put your finger on the hard question that needs to be determined at the scene in a very short time.  But before you decide that CCW holders (an armed teacher or parent?) are incapable of making the correct decision, consider a few more things.

When a CCW holder has to make the shoot/don't shoot decision, he is often in a familiar location surrounded by familiar faces.  He is often already in the location.  A police officer is more likely to be entering the location in response to a call and may not know anyone there.  These facts give the CCW holder an advantage in making the right choice.

The average CCW holder shoots better than police.  For police, shooting is a small part of the job and they practice much less than the average CCW holder.  Shooting is such a small part of police training that the FBI has found that even criminals shoot better than police!

I'm satisfied that those gun owners willing to take on the responsibility are able to make the decision correctly and are competent to carry out their decision.

https://www.forcescience.org/2006/12/new-findings-from-fbi-about-cop-attackers-their-weapons/ (https://www.forcescience.org/2006/12/new-findings-from-fbi-about-cop-attackers-their-weapons/)
https://havokjournal.com/nation/the-average-civilian-pistol-permit-holder-is-a-better-shot-than-most-cops/ (https://havokjournal.com/nation/the-average-civilian-pistol-permit-holder-is-a-better-shot-than-most-cops/)
https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2016/2/22/on-the-front-lines/ (https://www.americas1stfreedom.org/articles/2016/2/22/on-the-front-lines/)


In talking with the former police chief, and his wife, who worked for the sheriff's department, those who carried guns were tested every quarter. Because of budget cuts, the departments didn't provide ammunition for shooting practice; but they still practiced - buying their own ammunition to make sure they qualified each quarter to carry their firearm.


An officer at another police department was going through practice drills at the shooting range in the basement of the police station when he accidentally shot himself.


From these reports, it seems to me that law enforcement folks are continually in training and being tested on the accuracy of their shooting.


These were at larger police forces. In another town, the police department was two people. The chief had been a rancher in the area (and was a member of my congregation). There it might be true that someone who wanted to kill the police might be better trained and had more practice than the local police.


Another police officer in another town, was part of the police shooting team that went to competitions on shooting accuracy. He admitted that not all officers were as proficient as he was; but I doubt that there are many criminals who could shoot was well as he did. (He also admitted that the first time he shot at the target, he missed the whole target. He had to practice a lot to become as proficient as he became.)
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: readselerttoo on July 06, 2019, 05:26:19 PM
To Pr. Stoffregen:  Would it not be as prudent to prevent someone who prepares to break the the 5th commandment for me to be armed and ready?  The way of Jesus would not prevent me from protecting my child. son or daughter, from being murdered.  Or are you saying that across the board being unarmed and allowing someone to murder my son or daughter is okay?  That's crazy.


It's not OK to take a life. Since it's not OK for someone to murder your son or daughter, why does it become OK to murder someone who threatens your son or daughter?


I imagine that your response would be: It's not murder when it is in self-defense. (Although killing someone who threatens your children is not really self-defense.) The outcome is: you've killed someone who hasn't killed anyone. Who seems to be the more evil person?


Let's assume that someone did murder your son or daughter, are you then justified in killing him? The Bible does tell us a life for a life.


If I remain unarmed and someone kills my son hasn't that person broken the commandment?  Why should I let him both kill my son and break the commandment at the same time?  Life under the law comes with responsibility.


Is it your responsibility to kill the commandment-breaker? If you kill in retribution, are you breaking the commandment?


Life under grace also comes with responsibility. It calls us to forgive the one who murdered our children; not to kill them.

"Eye for an eye, etc." comes from the scriptures.  Again, instead of allowing my son to be killed by the law-breaker I need to defend my son and if needs be, kill the law-breaker.  Retribution hurts.  Retribution is also the way under the law.   "...with the law comes the knowledge of sin."   It is what it is...we all fall down.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: readselerttoo on July 06, 2019, 05:28:30 PM
Those risks are the reason that concealed  carry permits are issued (or should only be issued) after people have passed firearm safety classes. But I was responding to Brian's suggestion that use of deadly force to prevent one person  killing another cannot be justified because they haven't killed anyone yet and afterwards would be revenge which isn't justified


I never said that it can't be justified. I asked questions. When does it become justifiable to kill someone who has only made threats?


Making threats create a fearful environment.  The threat-maker chooses to operate under the law of retribution by creating such an environment with their threats.  What is the appropriate response?


So, if you then enter into the law of retribution by threatening or killing him; he's brought you into his world.


A deputy sheriff told me that they are trained to be a calming presence when they are threats being made - most notably in a domestic dispute. They are trained to not enter into the world the threat-maker is creating; but to try and draw them into the calming world they are creating.

And it is our world too or are you exempt from life under the law?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven W Bohler on July 06, 2019, 05:29:14 PM
To the question, "Shall we fight with our swords?" Jesus actions give the answer, "No!" It is his enemies who come ready to use swords and clubs. That is the way of darkness.

You're taking a few events and stretching them into a general rule.  So it is only the enemies of God who come ready to use swords and clubs?

Romans 13:4
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.


Well, in Revelation 13, the same Roman government that Paul is talking about is seen as the beast that is given power by the dragon to blaspheme God and God's people. It was not executing wrath about evil-doers, but upon the faithful people of God.


Take your pick: scriptures can be used to describe the government as a servant of God to take up the sword against evil-doers; or to describe the government as a servant of Satan who persecutes God's faithful people.


In addition, Hippolytus of Rome included these following professions that made one unfit for baptism into the Christian faith.

A soldier who is in a position of authority is not to be allowed to put anyone to death; if he is ordered to, he is not to do it, he is not to be allowed to take an oath. If he does not accept these conditions, he is to be sent away.

A man who has the power of the sword, or magistrate of a city who wears the purple; let him give it up or be sent away.

Catechumens or believers who want to enlist as soldiers are to be sent away, for they have treated God with contempt.
 (The Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus of Rome, compiled and edited by Lucien Deiss, C.S.Sp., (1963), translated by Benet Weatherhead, in Early Sources of the Liturgy, The Liturgical Press, Collegeville, Minnesota, 1967, second edition 1975.)

Governments can be good, bad, or in-between.  A good government can go bad.  Having a sword (or other weapon) does not mean that a person intends to do evil.  Having a sword (or other weapon) is not incompatible with being a Christian.  There is no command from Jesus to get rid of our swords and as has been mentioned before, Jesus even commanded his disciples to purchase swords.


Lest you forget, two swords was enough among 12 disciples. And, by his actions in the garden, Jesus indicated that they were not to use those two swords to attack those who came to arrest him. Jesus' mission was to be arrested, tried, and executed as a criminal. The presence of swords on his side helped indicate that he was an enemy to those who came to arrest him. There was no intentions of using those swords to defend himself. As another text indicates, Jesus could have called down 12 legions of angels to defend him if that's what he wanted to do (Matthew 26:53). One legion was about 6000 soldiers.

Jesus was there to die, or we would be lost forever.  He neither needed, nor wanted, anyone to protect/defend Him. The little 6 year old in my wife's classroom is not there to die. She needs and wants others to protect/defend her.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 06, 2019, 05:31:53 PM
Those risks are the reason that concealed  carry permits are issued (or should only be issued) after people have passed firearm safety classes. But I was responding to Brian's suggestion that use of deadly force to prevent one person  killing another cannot be justified because they haven't killed anyone yet and afterwards would be revenge which isn't justified


I never said that it can't be justified. I asked questions. When does it become justifiable to kill someone who has only made threats?


Making threats create a fearful environment.  The threat-maker chooses to operate under the law of retribution by creating such an environment with their threats.  What is the appropriate response?


So, if you then enter into the law of retribution by threatening or killing him; he's brought you into his world.


A deputy sheriff told me that they are trained to be a calming presence when they are threats being made - most notably in a domestic dispute. They are trained to not enter into the world the threat-maker is creating; but to try and draw them into the calming world they are creating.

And it is our world too or are you exempt from life under the law?


We are not exempt from life under the law; but that's not all that there is for us. We also live under the gospel. We are to be witnesses of that gospel. That's what the world cannot get right. If we aren't living differently than the world's folks, we are no different than the pagans who only live under the law.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on July 06, 2019, 05:35:35 PM
Quote:
"Jesus was there to die, or we would be lost forever.  He neither needed, nor wanted, anyone to protect/defend Him. The little 6 year old in my wife's classroom is not there to die. She needs and wants others to protect/defend her."

Protection is locked doors and folks looking out for her.  We were talking about arming folks during worship.  How many Christian Churches have been attacked during the last five years in the US during worship?  Attacked during worship with folks using guns or bombs?  Are Lutheran churches really under some new threat?  Give me stats, please.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 06, 2019, 05:38:19 PM
And if it falls upon us to kill a law-breaker, is that the “retribution” of God?
Maybe. Maybe not.
And so if that task appears to fall upon us, and should we choose  to accept it, we should do so with fear and trembling and a sense of our own sinfulness and of the darkness of the task we take upon ourselves.
But we live in a gun culture and the romance of the gun seems a part of our being. So sometimes I fear that we approach these situations with this sentence in our minds: “I’m ready for this!” - BANG! “Got you, you son of a bitch!”
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 06, 2019, 05:39:19 PM
Jesus was there to die, or we would be lost forever.  He neither needed, nor wanted, anyone to protect/defend Him. The little 6 year old in my wife's classroom is not there to die. She needs and wants others to protect/defend her.


Jesus' prayer in the garden indicates that he would have preferred not to die. Even so, he was not willing to do anything to stop it.


The little 6-year-old should also not be living in fear all her waking hours. Security wearing combat gear all around school and at home are not likely to make her less afraid. Making her wear body armor every time she leaves the house will help her not be killed; but at what cost to living a normal life?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: readselerttoo on July 06, 2019, 05:43:16 PM
Those risks are the reason that concealed  carry permits are issued (or should only be issued) after people have passed firearm safety classes. But I was responding to Brian's suggestion that use of deadly force to prevent one person  killing another cannot be justified because they haven't killed anyone yet and afterwards would be revenge which isn't justified


I never said that it can't be justified. I asked questions. When does it become justifiable to kill someone who has only made threats?


Making threats create a fearful environment.  The threat-maker chooses to operate under the law of retribution by creating such an environment with their threats.  What is the appropriate response?


So, if you then enter into the law of retribution by threatening or killing him; he's brought you into his world.


A deputy sheriff told me that they are trained to be a calming presence when they are threats being made - most notably in a domestic dispute. They are trained to not enter into the world the threat-maker is creating; but to try and draw them into the calming world they are creating.

And it is our world too or are you exempt from life under the law?


We are not exempt from life under the law; but that's not all that there is for us. We also live under the gospel. We are to be witnesses of that gospel. That's what the world cannot get right. If we aren't living differently than the world's folks, we are no different than the pagans who only live under the law.

I never said that was all there is to it.  Yes, "Apart from law a righteousness of God has appeared..."  However when defense of others comes into play my choice to live without defense is to put others in danger by not coming to their assistance.  To live non-violently is to hide from the real world and forget that there are others who need protection.  W can't seek that protection for them outside the law but right where God has placed us with God's gift of the law as to help maintain relative peace...
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: readselerttoo on July 06, 2019, 05:46:17 PM
And if it falls upon us to kill a law-breaker, is that the “retribution” of God?
Maybe. Maybe not.
And so if that task appears to fall upon us, and should we choose  to accept it, we should do so with fear and trembling and a sense of our own sinfulness and of the darkness of the task we take upon ourselves.
But we live in a gun culture and the romance of the gun seems a part of our being. So sometimes I fear that we approach these situations with this sentence in our minds: “I’m ready for this!” - BANG! “Got you, you son of a bitch!”

It is not a "Maybe. Maybe not."  It is always God's retribution that occurs.  There is no "maybe or maybe not" about it.  You and Pr. Stoffregen seem to be living apart from reality with the "Maybe. Maybe not" stuff.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Eileen Smith on July 06, 2019, 05:47:52 PM
I know the running subject of the moment is guns.....

But something else appeared in my paper that impacts the broader topic of "the fate of the nation," at least in the sense of how we deal with our history.  We have already noted the dust up with the Nike shoe and the Betsy Ross flag.  Now we have a school in San Francisco that is going to paint over a mural recognizing the life and achievements of George Washington.  The project will cost $600,000. It was painted by Victor Arnautoff, one of the foremost muralists in the San Francisco area during the Depression.

See: https://www.apnews.com/9f3037c7ec9d48a286059ac8f9975afe (https://www.apnews.com/9f3037c7ec9d48a286059ac8f9975afe)

The south has been busy for sometime removing statues that are deemed offensive.  I realized it was only a matter of time before our founding fathers faced censure. 

So what art is now considered acceptable and non-offensive?  Obviously some artwork will offend some and inspire others.  How do we choose who to offend and who to 'protect' from offense? 

We were noting before the big parade in D.C. on the 4th.  Very prominent in the National Mall is the Washington Monument.  Do we need to rename it now that Washington, a slave-owning founding father, is guilty of an unforgivable sin?  Or what about the state of Washington or Washington, D.C.? Actually those ideas have been floated. 

https://pjmedia.com/blog/video-d-c-residents-say-take-down-jefferson-memorial-rename-washington-d-c/ (https://pjmedia.com/blog/video-d-c-residents-say-take-down-jefferson-memorial-rename-washington-d-c/)

At least with the saints of the church we are willing to admit they are sinners, but still saints by grace and acknowledge how God used them despite their sins.   

Except for those misogynistic Church Fathers who seem to offend some women.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: readselerttoo on July 06, 2019, 05:49:16 PM
Jesus was there to die, or we would be lost forever.  He neither needed, nor wanted, anyone to protect/defend Him. The little 6 year old in my wife's classroom is not there to die. She needs and wants others to protect/defend her.


Jesus' prayer in the garden indicates that he would have preferred not to die. Even so, he was not willing to do anything to stop it.


The little 6-year-old should also not be living in fear all her waking hours. Security wearing combat gear all around school and at home are not likely to make her less afraid. Making her wear body armor every time she leaves the house will help her not be killed; but at what cost to living a normal life?

Well then seems to me you have discovered what God's real retribution is all about.  lesser of two evils...if there really is a lesser of the two.  Whose standard of measurement are you living with?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: readselerttoo on July 06, 2019, 05:52:31 PM
Christian nonviolence (if there is such a thing) is Christian idealism at its worst. 


Then from afar I hear a voice:   "Apart from law a righteousness of God has appeared..."  (Hint: read Romans 3)
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Pilgrim on July 06, 2019, 06:22:21 PM
And if it falls upon us to kill a law-breaker, is that the “retribution” of God?
Maybe. Maybe not.
And so if that task appears to fall upon us, and should we choose  to accept it, we should do so with fear and trembling and a sense of our own sinfulness and of the darkness of the task we take upon ourselves.
But we live in a gun culture and the romance of the gun seems a part of our being. So sometimes I fear that we approach these situations with this sentence in our minds: “I’m ready for this!” - BANG! “Got you, you son of a bitch!”


Me thinks you’re a product of watching too many of the “Dirty Harry” movies. Out here in the real world of gun ownership it really is quite different.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on July 06, 2019, 07:49:07 PM
When taking my test to get my CCW permit, the issue of when lethal force is legal and when it is not was covered in some death. To legally use lethal force, the armed citizens needed to be reasonably sure (as determined afterwards by a jury), that either the shooter or an innocent bystander was in imminent risk of being killed. This reasonableness covered the facts as the shooter knew them at the time, even if subsequently they turned out to be in error. For example, if an armed perpetrator had fired his last bullet and his gun was therefore empty, but the armed citizen did not know that, then the armed citizen could legally use lethal force against the armed perpetrator. If an armed perpetrator has fired a shot, even if they missed, or threatened to shoot, then the armed citizen can legally believe the armed perpetrator is telling the truth, and may render the armed perpetrator incapable of taking offensive action. Dead armed perpetrators cannot take any offensive action.

If someone murders your child, but then drops their weapon and runs away, you cannot track them down to exact vengeance.  But if someone has murdered your child and is still standing there with a weapon in hand, you may legally use deadly force to make sure that the armed perpetrator harms no one else.

Using lethal force to end someone's life, even if the person needed to be killed in order to prevent even more deaths, is a violation of God's Law, and is therefore an act of sin. But, permitting someone to murder even more people when one has the means to prevent them is aiding and abetting murder. I do not wish to speculate on what God's reaction would be to someone choosing to end one life, or to aid and abet someone who is taking many lives. But, I have no doubt that God's mercy would prevail.

Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven W Bohler on July 06, 2019, 08:49:07 PM
Jesus was there to die, or we would be lost forever.  He neither needed, nor wanted, anyone to protect/defend Him. The little 6 year old in my wife's classroom is not there to die. She needs and wants others to protect/defend her.


Jesus' prayer in the garden indicates that he would have preferred not to die. Even so, he was not willing to do anything to stop it.


The little 6-year-old should also not be living in fear all her waking hours. Security wearing combat gear all around school and at home are not likely to make her less afraid. Making her wear body armor every time she leaves the house will help her not be killed; but at what cost to living a normal life?

Your second paragraph seems to argue for concealed carry as the better option, does it not? The armed teacher surely does not tell her class that she has a gun.  She does not brandish it or wear it openly.  But it is there, out of sight of the children, to protect them.  And they, God willing, never have to know about it.  The same of the concealed carry permit holders attending the worship service.  Or the concealed carry bus driver, or store clerk, or busboy.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 06, 2019, 09:05:12 PM
Pilgrim writes:
Me thinks you’re a product of watching too many of the “Dirty Harry” movies. Out here in the real world of gun ownership it really is quite different.
I comment:
No. It is what I am hearing in what gun enthusiasts say and write. If you were are not “that way,” then you need to understand that “that way” is how you come across.
George Rahn speaks of gun violence as “God’s real retribution,” and even questions the possibility of “Christian non-violence,” thereby insulting a significant segment of Christian history, including Mennonites, Quakers, some Lutherans and Dr. King.
What am I to think? You have not convinced me that the “romance of the gun,” is not a significant factor here.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: James S. Rustad on July 06, 2019, 09:57:27 PM
Pilgrim writes:
Me thinks you’re a product of watching too many of the “Dirty Harry” movies. Out here in the real world of gun ownership it really is quite different.
I comment:
No. It is what I am hearing in what gun enthusiasts say and write. If you were are not “that way,” then you need to understand that “that way” is how you come across.
George Rahn speaks of gun violence as “God’s real retribution,” and even questions the possibility of “Christian non-violence,” thereby insulting a significant segment of Christian history, including Mennonites, Quakers, some Lutherans and Dr. King.
What am I to think? You have not convinced me that the “romance of the gun,” is not a significant factor here.

You've made it clear over the years that you believe guns are bad.  About the only change I've seen from you is a hardening of your position.  You've made it clear that your mind is closed on this subject and I suspect that the only reason anyone replies to your posts is for the benefit of newcomers.  We don't want them to think that your arguments are strong just because no one bothers to challenge them.

Your portrayal of gun owners does not fit with those I've met.  But as long as you attempt to portray us as knuckle-dragging, violence-loving, war-like brutes, the more you set yourself up to lose.  Keep it up.  Meanwhile, those of us who own guns will keep behaving as the normal, peace-loving, law-abiding people we are.  Those who might initially buy your portrayal of us will eventually realize that you have led them into deception.  That bodes ill for the success of your arguments.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 06, 2019, 11:48:40 PM
James Rustad:
You've made it clear over the years that you believe guns are bad. 
Me:
No, I do not believe that guns are universally bad. I just set upStream that I do not disapprove of hunting or target shooting sports. I have cheered on my grandson as he shot with his high school team.
James Rustad:
About the only change I've seen from you is a hardening of your position.
Me:
Actually, I think it has softened a bit. I sort of, only sort of understand why people enjoy target shooting with high power weapons. I think it’s silly but…

James Rustad:
Your portrayal of gun owners does not fit with those I've met.  But as long as you attempt to portray us as knuckle-dragging, violence-loving, war-like brutes, the more you set yourself up to lose.
Me:
Where have I ever done that? Show me. I have said here that I think some enthusiasts are Romanced by the “gun culture,” And like enthusiasts of many things, are a bit too much in love with their weapons. And frankly, I think some people who believe they have guns for “protection,” are kidding themselves. I’m not sure the guns would really give them protection.

James Rustad:
 Keep it up.  Meanwhile, those of us who own guns will keep behaving as the normal, peace-loving, law-abiding people we are.  Those who might initially buy your portrayal of us will eventually realize that you have led them into deception.  That bodes ill for the success of your arguments.
Me:
I’m not looking for “success“ in any argument. I do not believe I will win over anyone here to my way of thinking. But I do feel obliged to let people know how some of us Christians look at the gun issue.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: DeHall1 on July 07, 2019, 12:07:45 AM
Pilgrim writes:
Me thinks you’re a product of watching too many of the “Dirty Harry” movies. Out here in the real world of gun ownership it really is quite different.
I comment:
No. It is what I am hearing in what gun enthusiasts say and write. If you were are not “that way,” then you need to understand that “that way” is how you come across.
George Rahn speaks of gun violence as “God’s real retribution,” and even questions the possibility of “Christian non-violence,” thereby insulting a significant segment of Christian history, including Mennonites, Quakers, some Lutherans and Dr. King.
What am I to think? You have not convinced me that the “romance of the gun,” is not a significant factor here.

“Dr. King”?  You mean Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr?  The gun-owning, applied for a concealed-carry license, Dr. King?  And you do know both Quakers and Mennonites can (and do) own guns, right? With regards to the Quakers and Mennonites, guns are primarily used for hunting, but also for sport.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 07, 2019, 12:23:49 AM
Jesus was there to die, or we would be lost forever.  He neither needed, nor wanted, anyone to protect/defend Him. The little 6 year old in my wife's classroom is not there to die. She needs and wants others to protect/defend her.


Jesus' prayer in the garden indicates that he would have preferred not to die. Even so, he was not willing to do anything to stop it.


The little 6-year-old should also not be living in fear all her waking hours. Security wearing combat gear all around school and at home are not likely to make her less afraid. Making her wear body armor every time she leaves the house will help her not be killed; but at what cost to living a normal life?

Your second paragraph seems to argue for concealed carry as the better option, does it not? The armed teacher surely does not tell her class that she has a gun.  She does not brandish it or wear it openly.  But it is there, out of sight of the children, to protect them.  And they, God willing, never have to know about it.  The same of the concealed carry permit holders attending the worship service.  Or the concealed carry bus driver, or store clerk, or busboy.


Agreed. The policy my (old) congregation council decided was to have no policy. If someone were to carry a concealed weapon to church, we wouldn't know. We trusted those who might do that. The council president was an MP in Vietnam. The recording secretary had worked for the sheriff's department. Her husband had been a police officers for 33 years. Many members were retired Marines. (There's a Marine air station in town.)
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on July 07, 2019, 12:58:58 AM
Now we have a school in San Francisco that is going to paint over a mural recognizing the life and achievements of George Washington.  The project will cost $600,000. It was painted by Victor Arnautoff, one of the foremost muralists in the San Francisco area during the Depression.

See: https://www.apnews.com/9f3037c7ec9d48a286059ac8f9975afe (https://www.apnews.com/9f3037c7ec9d48a286059ac8f9975afe)

A couple of things worth noting:

1) The murals themselves are a rather subversive take on the "life and achievements" of George Washington, showing his participation in slavery and the Indian wars in a very negative light.  This covering up is one more example of today's Progressives rejection of Depression-era Progressives.

2) The $600,000 is being set aside for "a required environmental review and expected legal challenges."  Imagine what $600,000 could be used for to actually teach students at Washington High.

Perhaps our young Progressives ought to be reading Orwell's 1984, which I read in high school more than 40 years ago.

Christe eleison, Steven+
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on July 07, 2019, 01:18:50 AM

The little 6-year-old should also not be living in fear all her waking hours. Security wearing combat gear all around school and at home are not likely to make her less afraid. Making her wear body armor every time she leaves the house will help her not be killed; but at what cost to living a normal life?

Your inability to seriously reflect on the situations people find themselves in our nation and your uncritical dependence upon gross stereotypes of those whose life experience is different from yours -- both keys to your numerous posts under this subject -- frighten me even more than your applications of scripture to this subject.

Kyrie eleison, Steven+
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay cle
Post by: Charles Austin on July 07, 2019, 06:08:14 AM
Just an observation, I draw no profound conclusions from it:
In 1971, when urban violence was certainly “a topic,” I moved from Iowa to New York/New Jersey.
   I had numerous occasions to be in Newark, Brooklyn, the Bronx and rough parts of Manhattan. Sometimes I would give a kid $5 to “watch my car” (or me) while I was on his street.
   Almost everyone I knew or met who lived in those areas told of hearing gunshots with what seemed to this immigrant from Iowa alarming frequency. (I heard a shot only once -three actually- 10 p.m. on a Summer night on 110th street, Manhattan.) Some people I knew had been mugged, occasionally more than once. Hospitals dealt with gunshot wounds every day.
   But back then, I never heard or read of anyone in those neighborhoods - except for gang members - talk about wanting a gun for “protection.”
   Some pastors I encountered worked to decrease the numbers of guns in their neighborhoods rather than add to those numbers by buying one.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay cle
Post by: Steven W Bohler on July 07, 2019, 06:49:35 AM
Just an observation, I draw no profound conclusions from it:
In 1971, when urban violence was certainly “a topic,” I moved from Iowa to New York/New Jersey.
   I had numerous occasions to be in Newark, Brooklyn, the Bronx and rough parts of Manhattan. Sometimes I would give a kid $5 to “watch my car” (or me) while I was on his street.
   Almost everyone I knew or met who lived in those areas told of hearing gunshots with what seemed to this immigrant from Iowa alarming frequency. (I heard a shot only once -three actually- 10 p.m. on a Summer night on 110th street, Manhattan.) Some people I knew had been mugged, occasionally more than once. Hospitals dealt with gunshot wounds every day.
   But back then, I never heard or read of anyone in those neighborhoods - except for gang members - talk about wanting a gun for “protection.”
   Some pastors I encountered worked to decrease the numbers of guns in their neighborhoods rather than add to those numbers by buying one.

So, apparently:
1. You paid for protection from others, rather than doing it yourself.  Much like Mr. Garner wrote in Post #499.
2. You never heard of anyone wanting/having a gun for protection in those days; therefore it must not have happened.  Or, maybe, might those people have wanted -- even had -- guns but did not talk about it because it was illegal to carry them?
3. There was plenty of crime, including violent crime, in those days.  But it was better that innocent people suffer rather than allow them the means to defend themselves.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 07, 2019, 10:57:53 AM

The little 6-year-old should also not be living in fear all her waking hours. Security wearing combat gear all around school and at home are not likely to make her less afraid. Making her wear body armor every time she leaves the house will help her not be killed; but at what cost to living a normal life?

Your inability to seriously reflect on the situations people find themselves in our nation and your uncritical dependence upon gross stereotypes of those whose life experience is different from yours -- both keys to your numerous posts under this subject -- frighten me even more than your applications of scripture to this subject.

Kyrie eleison, Steven+


We just had dinner with a long, long-time friend who interviews refugee children to see what benefits they can receive. She has numerous horror stories of what it's like for these children to live in constant fear; some have seen their parents executed by the gangs in Central America. She works with them to try to establish trust again. What you call a gross stereotype is the reality for some people.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: James S. Rustad on July 07, 2019, 11:14:07 AM

The little 6-year-old should also not be living in fear all her waking hours. Security wearing combat gear all around school and at home are not likely to make her less afraid. Making her wear body armor every time she leaves the house will help her not be killed; but at what cost to living a normal life?

Your inability to seriously reflect on the situations people find themselves in our nation and your uncritical dependence upon gross stereotypes of those whose life experience is different from yours -- both keys to your numerous posts under this subject -- frighten me even more than your applications of scripture to this subject.

Kyrie eleison, Steven+


We just had dinner with a long, long-time friend who interviews refugee children to see what benefits they can receive. She has numerous horror stories of what it's like for these children to live in constant fear; some have seen their parents executed by the gangs in Central America. She works with them to try to establish trust again. What you call a gross stereotype is the reality for some people.

So we've been discussing gun ownership in the US and you describe a six-year-old who is frightened by combat gear in her school and at home, who is also scared by being made to wear body armor.  In the context of the discussion this is obviously ridiculous and you are called on it.  You then switch to your story about a refugee from Central America.  Yes, the gross stereotype is reality for some, but NOT in the US.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 07, 2019, 04:30:09 PM
Pastor Bohler:
So, apparently:
1. You paid for protection from others, rather than doing it yourself.  Much like Mr. Garner wrote in Post #499.
Me:
If you’re referring to the five dollars, I guess so. But that was life in New York and Newark in those days. That kid on the street in the ironbound section of Newark was sort of a freelance “parking lot operator.”

Pastor Bohler;
2. You never heard of anyone wanting/having a gun for protection in those days; therefore it must not have happened.  Or, maybe, might those people have wanted -- even had -- guns but did not talk about it because it was illegal to carry them?
Me:
Oh yeah, New Yorkers, particularly people in those parts of New York and New Jersey, never talk about the laws are breaking, no never. In truth, they are more likely to brag about the laws they are breaking than to be silent about them.

Pastor Bohler:
3. There was plenty of crime, including violent crime, in those days.  But it was better that innocent people suffer rather than allow them the means to defend themselves.
Me:
You really don’t get it. Do you think that people casually carrying guns, even with a minimum of “training,” Are going to be any match for people who are likely to assault them? (For that matter, are you? )
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven W Bohler on July 07, 2019, 04:37:17 PM
Pastor Bohler:
So, apparently:
1. You paid for protection from others, rather than doing it yourself.  Much like Mr. Garner wrote in Post #499.
Me:
If you’re referring to the five dollars, I guess so. But that was life in New York and Newark in those days. That kid on the street in the ironbound section of Newark was sort of a freelance “parking lot operator.”

Pastor Bohler;
2. You never heard of anyone wanting/having a gun for protection in those days; therefore it must not have happened.  Or, maybe, might those people have wanted -- even had -- guns but did not talk about it because it was illegal to carry them?
Me:
Oh yeah, New Yorkers, particularly people in those parts of New York and New Jersey, never talk about the laws are breaking, no never. In truth, they are more likely to brag about the laws they are breaking than to be silent about them.

Pastor Bohler:
3. There was plenty of crime, including violent crime, in those days.  But it was better that innocent people suffer rather than allow them the means to defend themselves.
Me:
You really don’t get it. Do you think that people casually carrying guns, even with a minimum of “training,” Are going to be any match for people who are likely to assault them? (For that matter, are you? )

1. You make New York/New Jersey sound so attractive. 

2. You make New Yorkers and New Jerseyites sound so wonderful.

3. Yes.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Pilgrim on July 07, 2019, 06:49:57 PM
Pilgrim writes:
Me thinks you’re a product of watching too many of the “Dirty Harry” movies. Out here in the real world of gun ownership it really is quite different.
I comment:
No. It is what I am hearing in what gun enthusiasts say and write. If you were are not “that way,” then you need to understand that “that way” is how you come across.

Charles, Am I to assume the “you” is singular or plural? Otherwise your “that way” is arrogant and insulting and is slamming me into a large group of people and you don’t even know me. Shame on you. This is apparently the “who” you come across as in this forum that you are ardently blind to.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 07, 2019, 06:53:12 PM
They are indeed wonderful people for the most part. Tough, know how to get things done, know how to live with others in difficult situations, most of the time.
And the variety! Walk the street you’ll hear six or seven different languages if you walk far enough and you don’t have to walk that far.
Elegant Fifth Avenue ladies on one block  and on another hardhat guys taking a lunch break and eating giant sandwiches.
Sometimes however these days in Manhattan, too many tourists.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 07, 2019, 06:58:22 PM
Sorry if I wasn’t precise enough, pilgrim. The “you” is plural and refers to gun enthusiasts in general.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Eileen Smith on July 07, 2019, 07:25:41 PM
Pastor Bohler:
So, apparently:
1. You paid for protection from others, rather than doing it yourself.  Much like Mr. Garner wrote in Post #499.
Me:
If you’re referring to the five dollars, I guess so. But that was life in New York and Newark in those days. That kid on the street in the ironbound section of Newark was sort of a freelance “parking lot operator.”

Pastor Bohler;
2. You never heard of anyone wanting/having a gun for protection in those days; therefore it must not have happened.  Or, maybe, might those people have wanted -- even had -- guns but did not talk about it because it was illegal to carry them?
Me:
Oh yeah, New Yorkers, particularly people in those parts of New York and New Jersey, never talk about the laws are breaking, no never. In truth, they are more likely to brag about the laws they are breaking than to be silent about them.

Pastor Bohler:
3. There was plenty of crime, including violent crime, in those days.  But it was better that innocent people suffer rather than allow them the means to defend themselves.
Me:
You really don’t get it. Do you think that people casually carrying guns, even with a minimum of “training,” Are going to be any match for people who are likely to assault them? (For that matter, are you? )

1. You make New York/New Jersey sound so attractive. 

2. You make New Yorkers and New Jerseyites sound so wonderful.

3. Yes.

1.  it is!

2.  We are! 

 :)
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: David Garner on July 08, 2019, 06:21:14 AM
Quote:
"Jesus was there to die, or we would be lost forever.  He neither needed, nor wanted, anyone to protect/defend Him. The little 6 year old in my wife's classroom is not there to die. She needs and wants others to protect/defend her."

Protection is locked doors and folks looking out for her.  We were talking about arming folks during worship.  How many Christian Churches have been attacked during the last five years in the US during worship?  Attacked during worship with folks using guns or bombs?  Are Lutheran churches really under some new threat?  Give me stats, please.

I actually think this is a fine question, and it dovetails into an unpopular question, but one with equally true answers.  The answer is, not many.  Same as school shootings.  Not many schools have been targeted by school shooters.  And of those who have, not many have been committed with so-called "assault rifles." 

So yes, the "need" for parishioners and pastors to arm themselves is likely hyper-sensationalized.  Just like the "need" to ban under-powered rifles whose appearance scares ignorant people.  A dose of facts is usually helpful in situations like this.  Thank you for highlighting the need for perspective.

Now, someone here is going to get a case of the vapors and start breathlessly pretending to be ever so offended at me minimizing school shootings with some "one is too many" rhetoric, or some such.  Before they do, let me suggest that the same breathless pretense can be applied to church shootings, so please -- for the sake of us all -- just don't.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 08, 2019, 08:10:34 AM
One murderous shooting in any place is too many, indeed, but every shooting is not a “call to arms.”
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: David Garner on July 08, 2019, 08:12:50 AM
One murderous shooting in any place is too many, indeed, but every shooting is not a “call to arms.”

Nor a call to ban arms.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 08, 2019, 10:28:58 AM
To Pr. Stoffregen:  Would it not be as prudent to prevent someone who prepares to break the the 5th commandment for me to be armed and ready?  The way of Jesus would not prevent me from protecting my child. son or daughter, from being murdered.  Or are you saying that across the board being unarmed and allowing someone to murder my son or daughter is okay?  That's crazy.


It's not OK to take a life. Since it's not OK for someone to murder your son or daughter, why does it become OK to murder someone who threatens your son or daughter?


I imagine that your response would be: It's not murder when it is in self-defense. (Although killing someone who threatens your children is not really self-defense.) The outcome is: you've killed someone who hasn't killed anyone. Who seems to be the more evil person?


Let's assume that someone did murder your son or daughter, are you then justified in killing him? The Bible does tell us a life for a life.

Since the topic has been the carrying of concealed handguns for the purpose of protection, my comments are specifically directed at that.


I would say that that nobody should go armed without having had at least proper training in the proper use of firearms and specifically the use of firearms for protection. Nobody should think that a concealed carry permit is a license to take pot shots at people for the least provocation. Proper training should include the principle that use of deadly force is a last resort to be employed only where there is a clear and present imminent danger of serious injury or death being inflicted. When possible other, nonlethal action should be taken to defuse the situation.


With that understood, I have questions about Pr. Stoffregen's core statement:
Quote
I imagine that your response would be: It's not murder when it is in self-defense. (Although killing someone who threatens your children is not really self-defense.) The outcome is: you've killed someone who hasn't killed anyone. Who seems to be the more evil person?


By this I take it Brian, that you considers taking a life, no matter what the situation or how clear the threat to oneself or others, is morally unjustifiable, that it is murder pure and simple. To be clear, is this a) your personal conclusion for yourself and how you would conduct yourself but not making an a priori judgement on others, or b) this is what you believe should be the Christian position and you believe that all Christians should conduct themselves this way, or c) this is what you believe should be enacted into laws concerning the ownership and use of firearms?


Might it be morally justifiable to use deadly force after the attacker has shot and possibly killed someone and continues to act in a way to endanger others to prevent further carnage or would that fall under retribution which you also (and I for that matter) consider immoral?


A further comments on guns. Guns are not toys, they are always serious, even when used for recreation (target practice, etc.). Even toy guns are not only toys. Those who would play with toy guns need to recognize that in ambiguous situations a toy (especially the current trend to make toys look realistic) can be mistaken for real and so ambiguous situations need to be avoided. There has also been incidents where toy guns have been altered (the orange tip usually put on otherwise realistic toy guns to mark them as toys being cut off for example) to make them more realistic looking such that play could be mistaken for a serious threat. Those who would use toy guns also have a responsibility to use the toys responsibly lest they be taken as a real threat.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 08, 2019, 10:52:45 AM
Surveys indicate that around a quarter of police officers will actually fire their weapons at someone during their career. Not just during an average year, but throughout their active service. Police shootings are news just because they are rare. (And when it is unjustifiable, it is tragic and deserves consequences and prosecution even if rare.) Since most police officers do not fire their weapons in the line of duty, does that mean that we should disarm the police?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Michael Slusser on July 08, 2019, 11:36:25 AM
Surveys indicate that around a quarter of police officers will actually fire their weapons at someone during their career. Not just during an average year, but throughout their active service. Police shootings are news just because they are rare. (And when it is unjustifiable, it is tragic and deserves consequences and prosecution even if rare.) Since most police officers do not fire their weapons in the line of duty, does that mean that we should disarm the police?
They may be unique, but police in the UK generally do not carry firearms: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/why-london-won-t-arm-all-police-despite-severe-terror-n737551 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/why-london-won-t-arm-all-police-despite-severe-terror-n737551)

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 08, 2019, 11:49:11 AM
Do you know of any statistics concerning the number of British police officers who are killed in the line of duty and how that compared to America? Or what percentage of crimes are committed with guns compared to America? Britain is a different culture.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Michael Slusser on July 08, 2019, 12:04:10 PM
Do you know of any statistics concerning the number of British police officers who are killed in the line of duty and how that compared to America? Or what percentage of crimes are committed with guns compared to America? Britain is a different culture.
Britain certainly is a different culture. As for statistics, the NBC report I linked doesn't answer your questions, but I'm sure other sources will. It does have facts like who and why, and nuggets like
Quote
In the year up to March 2016, police in England and Wales only fired seven bullets. (Although these government figures do not include accidental shots, shooting out tires, or killing dangerous or injured animals.)
These officers fatally shot just five people during that period, according to British charity Inquest, which helps families after police-related deaths.
I don't think the United States of America can change its culture regarding guns by any process of legislation, and it's probably a waste of effort to try.
HTH

Peace,
Michael
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 08, 2019, 12:36:40 PM
To Pr. Stoffregen:  Would it not be as prudent to prevent someone who prepares to break the the 5th commandment for me to be armed and ready?  The way of Jesus would not prevent me from protecting my child. son or daughter, from being murdered.  Or are you saying that across the board being unarmed and allowing someone to murder my son or daughter is okay?  That's crazy.


It's not OK to take a life. Since it's not OK for someone to murder your son or daughter, why does it become OK to murder someone who threatens your son or daughter?


I imagine that your response would be: It's not murder when it is in self-defense. (Although killing someone who threatens your children is not really self-defense.) The outcome is: you've killed someone who hasn't killed anyone. Who seems to be the more evil person?


Let's assume that someone did murder your son or daughter, are you then justified in killing him? The Bible does tell us a life for a life.

Since the topic has been the carrying of concealed handguns for the purpose of protection, my comments are specifically directed at that.


I would say that that nobody should go armed without having had at least proper training in the proper use of firearms and specifically the use of firearms for protection. Nobody should think that a concealed carry permit is a license to take pot shots at people for the least provocation. Proper training should include the principle that use of deadly force is a last resort to be employed only where there is a clear and present imminent danger of serious injury or death being inflicted. When possible other, nonlethal action should be taken to defuse the situation.


With that understood, I have questions about Pr. Stoffregen's core statement:
Quote
I imagine that your response would be: It's not murder when it is in self-defense. (Although killing someone who threatens your children is not really self-defense.) The outcome is: you've killed someone who hasn't killed anyone. Who seems to be the more evil person?


By this I take it Brian, that you considers taking a life, no matter what the situation or how clear the threat to oneself or others, is morally unjustifiable, that it is murder pure and simple. To be clear, is this a) your personal conclusion for yourself and how you would conduct yourself but not making an a priori judgement on others, or b) this is what you believe should be the Christian position and you believe that all Christians should conduct themselves this way, or c) this is what you believe should be enacted into laws concerning the ownership and use of firearms?


Might it be morally justifiable to use deadly force after the attacker has shot and possibly killed someone and continues to act in a way to endanger others to prevent further carnage or would that fall under retribution which you also (and I for that matter) consider immoral?


A further comments on guns. Guns are not toys, they are always serious, even when used for recreation (target practice, etc.). Even toy guns are not only toys. Those who would play with toy guns need to recognize that in ambiguous situations a toy (especially the current trend to make toys look realistic) can be mistaken for real and so ambiguous situations need to be avoided. There has also been incidents where toy guns have been altered (the orange tip usually put on otherwise realistic toy guns to mark them as toys being cut off for example) to make them more realistic looking such that play could be mistaken for a serious threat. Those who would use toy guns also have a responsibility to use the toys responsibly lest they be taken as a real threat.


The moral murkiness, in my opinion, in any eye-for-eye type of responses, are:


(1) the second person becomes just like the first person. "You poked out my eye, so I will poke out your eye." "You hate me, so I must hate you." "You took a life, I'll take your life." Gandhi: "An eye-for-an-eye ends up making the whole world blind."


(2) while I might be willing to suffer myself without retaliating, it's different when other people are the one's suffering. Stopping their suffering is different than getting even for my suffering.


I recently heard Kristen Bell talk about a moral dilemma in two parts they pose on The Good Place. Part One: If you saw that a train was heading down a track and would kill five people, and you could divert the train to another track and kill only one person; do you change tracks and kill only one? The usual answer is that it is better to sacrifice the one for the many.


Part 2: Five people are in need of different organ transplants or they will die. Should we kill one healthy person and use the good organs to save the lives of the five people? Now the answer is, "No."


There are times when it is morally justified to protect others by lethal force. It is not always so clear when those times are.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on July 08, 2019, 12:59:20 PM
I would say that that nobody should go armed without having had at least proper training in the proper use of firearms and specifically the use of firearms for protection. Nobody should think that a concealed carry permit is a license to take pot shots at people for the least provocation. Proper training should include the principle that use of deadly force is a last resort to be employed only where there is a clear and present imminent danger of serious injury or death being inflicted. When possible other, nonlethal action should be taken to defuse the situation.


Is any of this really a big problem?  Is there an epidemic of armed citizens with no training in the use of firearms?  Of concealed-carry permit holders taking pot shots at people with no provocation?  Are people being taught that pulling a gun and firing is the first response when you think someone might be in danger?

Pax, Steven+
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 08, 2019, 01:55:44 PM
I would say that that nobody should go armed without having had at least proper training in the proper use of firearms and specifically the use of firearms for protection. Nobody should think that a concealed carry permit is a license to take pot shots at people for the least provocation. Proper training should include the principle that use of deadly force is a last resort to be employed only where there is a clear and present imminent danger of serious injury or death being inflicted. When possible other, nonlethal action should be taken to defuse the situation.


Is any of this really a big problem?  Is there an epidemic of armed citizens with no training in the use of firearms?  Of concealed-carry permit holders taking pot shots at people with no provocation?  Are people being taught that pulling a gun and firing is the first response when you think someone might be in danger?

Pax, Steven+
I don't know that it is a real problem, people with CCPs acting as trigger fingered vigilantes, it just has sounded to me that some here seem to want to characterize those who arm themselves for protection as such. Just wanted to get this on record as being assumed when talking about those who arm themselves for protection or to protect others.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on July 08, 2019, 02:13:12 PM
well, since we understand that attacks on churches are rare and the phenomena of armed members is a fairly recent thing and more wide spread than what....  we don't know how folks will react when confronted with .... again what?   A terrorist with gun or bomb or whatever, a mentally ill person doing something for some unknown reason but apparently armed, a person threatening without visible weaponry...   just some strange thing...

we do know that when sometimes folks act odd in church (like the occasional street person entering a suburban church or a mentally ill member who has somehow found freedom from an institution or home setting) ushers who are to help with decorum, often are no where to be found... and only the senior women's guild members seem to be able to come up with a caring plan to defuse whatever.  At least that is my experience a few times. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: David Garner on July 09, 2019, 11:07:41 AM
Surveys indicate that around a quarter of police officers will actually fire their weapons at someone during their career. Not just during an average year, but throughout their active service. Police shootings are news just because they are rare. (And when it is unjustifiable, it is tragic and deserves consequences and prosecution even if rare.) Since most police officers do not fire their weapons in the line of duty, does that mean that we should disarm the police?
They may be unique, but police in the UK generally do not carry firearms: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/why-london-won-t-arm-all-police-despite-severe-terror-n737551 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/why-london-won-t-arm-all-police-despite-severe-terror-n737551)

Peace,
Michael

I have long said, and will continue to say, that the push in this country to ban self-loading weapons with military cosmetics "except for police" is absurd.

If they are truly "weapons of war" and "only suited for the battlefield" (they aren't, but that's the lie being told), then why should the police have them?

Disarm the police first.  Then we can talk about my rifles.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on July 09, 2019, 12:13:52 PM
Do you also have body armor, rubber bullets, stun guns, shock grenades, a swat vehicle, bomb removing devices... of course not... the police and military are both a rank above you and we can and should ban the stuff you mentioned as things for the battlefield and for tough police work. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on July 09, 2019, 12:30:21 PM
...the police and military are both a rank above you...
My guess is that this cuts close to the heart of the argument on both sides.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 09, 2019, 12:47:40 PM
Surely people here have heard that the militarization of police forces with combat and assault gear has been a matter of some concern.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: David Garner on July 09, 2019, 12:50:48 PM
Do you also have body armor, rubber bullets, stun guns, shock grenades, a swat vehicle, bomb removing devices... of course not... the police and military are both a rank above you and we can and should ban the stuff you mentioned as things for the battlefield and for tough police work.

Well, which is it?

Are they "weapons of war" meant "only for the battlefield" or is that a lie?

I mean, we all know it's a lie, but it would be refreshing if you'd just come out and say it so we can discuss it better.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: David Garner on July 09, 2019, 12:51:07 PM
...the police and military are both a rank above you...
My guess is that this cuts close to the heart of the argument on both sides.

Indeed.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: David Garner on July 09, 2019, 12:58:01 PM
For the record, I'm not saying it's YOUR lie, Pastor Mozolak.  I know you haven't said that, or at least I haven't seen you say it.

I'm simply suggesting the discussion goes better if we can shine some light on the fact that the common refrain about so-called "assault weapons" is nonsense, so we can have a reasonable discussion about who might find them useful.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on July 09, 2019, 03:37:51 PM
for clarity sake.... an assault weapon (I am not expert on all the names and nuances but one that shoots automatically and has large annunciation capacity for instance, silencers, night sights probably, adaptation for launching grenades) should not be owned or used by folks (other than the military or police types).  They should not be used for target shooting or hunting of animals.  Now whether a given weapon is proper for large police forces or should be restricted to military use is another issue and for instance a rocket launcher should not be in the police arsenal but brought in specially from/thru/by the military if there is some unique need. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: scott9 on July 09, 2019, 03:53:07 PM
for clarity sake.... an assault weapon (I am not expert on all the names and nuances but one that shoots automatically and has large annunciation capacity for instance, silencers, night sights probably, adaptation for launching grenades) should not be owned or used by folks (other than the military or police types).  They should not be used for target shooting or hunting of animals.  Now whether a given weapon is proper for large police forces or should be restricted to military use is another issue and for instance a rocket launcher should not be in the police arsenal but brought in specially from/thru/by the military if there is some unique need.

Automatic weapons are already banned (for those manufactured after 1986) and highly, highly regulated for automatic weapons manufactured before then.  That one can just walk in and purchase an automatic weapon is a myth that just won't die.  Here's an article (https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/02/actual-federal-laws-regulating-machine-guns-u-s/) that will help you understand the distinctions in the gun control debate as to what current law already says regarding automatic weapons.  I've yet to hear someone argue for changing it or making automatic weapons easier to purchase.

Which is to say, that if an assault weapon is an automatic weapon per your description -- good news.  It is already illegal to own (outside of a small, very tightly regulated subset of people).
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: David Garner on July 09, 2019, 03:59:55 PM
for clarity sake.... an assault weapon (I am not expert on all the names and nuances but one that shoots automatically and has large annunciation capacity for instance, silencers, night sights probably, adaptation for launching grenades) should not be owned or used by folks (other than the military or police types).  They should not be used for target shooting or hunting of animals.  Now whether a given weapon is proper for large police forces or should be restricted to military use is another issue and for instance a rocket launcher should not be in the police arsenal but brought in specially from/thru/by the military if there is some unique need.

99% of the problem with these discussions is people just don't know what they don't know.  To wit, Dr. Yakimow is correct:

Automatic weapons are already banned (for those manufactured after 1986) and highly, highly regulated for automatic weapons manufactured before then.  That one can just walk in and purchase an automatic weapon is a myth that just won't die.  Here's an article (https://thefederalist.com/2017/10/02/actual-federal-laws-regulating-machine-guns-u-s/) that will help you understand the distinctions in the gun control debate as to what current law already says regarding automatic weapons.  I've yet to hear someone argue for changing it or making automatic weapons easier to purchase.

For the record, police don't usually have those either.  They use self-loaders.  With the possible exception of SWAT teams.

Now, the semi-automatic version of these rifles are used frequently in patrol cars.  That is because they are light, modular, have low recoil, do not penetrate as much as even a shotgun with buckshot, accept implements such as forend lights and a wide variety of glass, and are generally great for defensive use.  I'm a little surprised to see you list "night sights" among your list of frightening things, though, Pastor Mozolak.  Every pistol in my house has those, and I'm not exactly sure why they are a bad idea.  Not to be rude, but I don't think you're sure either.

Suppressors are already controlled in the exact same way as automatic weapons, which is to say, it's very, very difficult to get one.  I'm honestly not sure how easy it is to get a grenade launcher, but I'd wager it's awfully difficult to get grenades, so if someone wants a glorified potato cannon on the front of their rifle for some reason, I'm also not sure I'm really opposed to that.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on July 09, 2019, 04:28:20 PM
I do not think ordinary folks ought to have guns.  OK.  Certainly not troves of them.  And while you may be perfectly correct in what you say... I am going to guess that those who collect bunches of them have calibers other features that they do not need to kill a fox on the farm. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: David Garner on July 09, 2019, 04:46:23 PM
I do not think ordinary folks ought to have guns.  OK.  Certainly not troves of them.  And while you may be perfectly correct in what you say... I am going to guess that those who collect bunches of them have calibers other features that they do not need to kill a fox on the farm.

The first rule of discussing issues when you don't know what you're talking about is stop.  If you don't like guns, that's your prerogative.  Just saying "I don't like guns and I don't think anyone should own them" is good enough.  I mean, I disagree, but I won't quarrel with you for disagreeing.  But trying to justify it with nonsense doesn't help things at all.

For example, if I had to kill a fox on a farm, an AR-15 would be among the most ideal weapons to use for that purpose. There is a reason people out west call them "ranch rifles."
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on July 09, 2019, 05:22:45 PM
Surely people here have heard that the militarization of police forces with combat and assault gear has been a matter of some concern.

That’s putting it mildly, Charles.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on July 09, 2019, 05:51:24 PM
I am sorry to have tread in the territory of your expertise on all things to do with weapons, their kinds and calibers and nuances. But your expertise does not make you any more an expert on who should have them and how they are used, and that is your opinion. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: David Garner on July 09, 2019, 05:55:48 PM
I am sorry to have tread in the territory of your expertise on all things to do with weapons, their kinds and calibers and nuances. But your expertise does not make you any more an expert on who should have them and how they are used, and that is your opinion.

Nor you any more of one, but that's neither here nor there.  I can support my opinions with facts.  I would encourage you to consider attempting the same.  Because honestly, you come across as someone just grasping at straws for reasons why you don't like guns.  It needs no justification, and yet you attempt to justify.

You don't like guns. That's fine.  They aren't for everyone.  But people who do know what they're talking about on the subject tend to get annoyed being lectured to by people who don't.  As I said, it would be better to just say "I don't like guns and I'd like to see them all banned" and be done with it.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Pilgrim on July 09, 2019, 06:12:11 PM
for clarity sake.... an assault weapon (I am not expert on all the names and nuances but one that shoots automatically and has large annunciation capacity for instance, silencers, night sights probably, adaptation for launching grenades) should not be owned or used by folks (other than the military or police types).  They should not be used for target shooting or hunting of animals.  Now whether a given weapon is proper for large police forces or should be restricted to military use is another issue and for instance a rocket launcher should not be in the police arsenal but brought in specially from/thru/by the military if there is some unique need.

FYI, down here we are being overrun with feral hogs. AK-47s equipped with night vision scopes are extremely helpful in curtailing a significant environmental threat, since the hogs are generally nocturnal. I understand your perspective and am not unsympathetic, but where your feet happen to be planted (your cultural environment) has a lot to say about what you say and when your feet are planted elsewhere, perhaps you don't know as much as you think you do. Shades of a scene from "Smokey and the Bandit"!!!
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on July 09, 2019, 07:05:14 PM
many people have guns, often many, and they really value them...  and I don't think I have ever said that I am in any way shape or form an expert on guns or their equipment...  I am, as much as anyone, an expert on the human sinful nature and that forms my low opinion of guns....  if I protest too much, seems like others from the other side do, at least, equally ....     
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dave Likeness on July 09, 2019, 07:19:12 PM
Some of us had fathers and uncles who fought in WWII.   My father was in a tank division
under General Patch.  General George Patton was over the entire tank operation.

When my father came home from the war, he had seen the devastation that war can bring.
Yet he never talked about it. He never taught me how to hunt or fish.  Instead, he encouraged
me to play sports like he did in grade school and high school.

My point is that I followed my father's example.  I never owned a gun or ever shot one.
By example he demonstrated that I did not need a gun.  For Christmas during my senior
year in high school he gave me a new set of golf clubs.  For the rest of my life I played golf
with my father, but I never hunted with him.  Some of us become what our fathers were.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: James S. Rustad on July 09, 2019, 10:10:54 PM
James Rustad:
You've made it clear over the years that you believe guns are bad. 
Me:
No, I do not believe that guns are universally bad. I just set upStream that I do not disapprove of hunting or target shooting sports. I have cheered on my grandson as he shot with his high school team.
James Rustad:
About the only change I've seen from you is a hardening of your position.
Me:
Actually, I think it has softened a bit. I sort of, only sort of understand why people enjoy target shooting with high power weapons. I think it’s silly but…

James Rustad:
Your portrayal of gun owners does not fit with those I've met.  But as long as you attempt to portray us as knuckle-dragging, violence-loving, war-like brutes, the more you set yourself up to lose.
Me:
Where have I ever done that? Show me. I have said here that I think some enthusiasts are Romanced by the “gun culture,” And like enthusiasts of many things, are a bit too much in love with their weapons. And frankly, I think some people who believe they have guns for “protection,” are kidding themselves. I’m not sure the guns would really give them protection.

James Rustad:
 Keep it up.  Meanwhile, those of us who own guns will keep behaving as the normal, peace-loving, law-abiding people we are.  Those who might initially buy your portrayal of us will eventually realize that you have led them into deception.  That bodes ill for the success of your arguments.
Me:
I’m not looking for “success“ in any argument. I do not believe I will win over anyone here to my way of thinking. But I do feel obliged to let people know how some of us Christians look at the gun issue.

Hmmm...  Quite a fisking there.  I'll restrict myself to just two points.

Repeal the second amendment. It has served its purpose.
Sporting or not, outlaw "those kind" of weapons.
Break the political power of the NRA.
Find sensible ways to protect hunters.

Repealing the second amendment seems pretty hard to me, as does your apparent belief that hunting is the only acceptable purpose for guns.

Harvey, I appreciate he concern. I deleted many comments over many days from Charles and others in this thread. The others wanted to talk about guns. Charles wanted to ridicule them for it, so the comments I deleted had nothing to do with the topic or any topic but were just sarcastic insults and complaints about the sarcastic insults. I don't care about guns and wasn't checking the thread except to deal with complaints about Charles. So I told Charles to quit posting on gun threads, which he continued to do anyway because that's just the kind of guy he is. So I started deleting his comments on gun threads. I know that you and many others share Charles' general view of guns, yet somehow none of you manage to get into incessant little petty spats with everyone else the way Charles does. He ruins more threads than pretty much everyone else put together. He thinks he is treated differently because of his views, but that is observably false. He is treated differently, though, by being allowed to keep posting at all when others with his track record of disruptive posting have long been banned from the forum entirely. He started his own thread on guns, which is fine; that means he doesn't have to post on other gun threads and people who don't want to deal with him can ignore his thread on the subject.

I don't think you've changed much, if at all since then, in the level of invective that you level at gun owners.

On the other hand, I continually disagree with Brian on this subject, but he never makes me disgusted in the way you do.  It's you, not your positions.



Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: David Garner on July 10, 2019, 07:18:21 AM
I’m a hunter. If it please the crown, I’d prefer to speak for myself instead of leaving it to Pastor Austin to defend my rights. Because I’m going to bet he’s not a hunter, and therefore isn’t a very good authority on how to best protect us. The desire of the modern left to tell us peons what’s best for us is Why Trump Won (TM).
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 10, 2019, 07:44:14 AM
I have long thought that the Left is both more optimistic and more pessimistic than I am. More optimistic in that they believe that they can really create a good approximation of heaven on earth if only allowed to arrange things. And more pessimistic in that they also believe that nothing good can happen unless they are in charge. People simply cannot be trusted to manage their own affairs but need the Leff to rule everything.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 10, 2019, 10:42:00 AM
I have long thought that the Left is both more optimistic and more pessimistic than I am. More optimistic in that they believe that they can really create a good approximation of heaven on earth if only allowed to arrange things. And more pessimistic in that they also believe that nothing good can happen unless they are in charge. People simply cannot be trusted to manage their own affairs but need the Leff to rule everything.


Shouldn't our doctrine of original sin cause all of us to believe that people cannot be trusted to manage their own affairs? Won't sinful human nature cause them to decide and act with selfish and self-centered interests?


Our government steps in when a corporation gets too big and powerful (a monopoly) to divide it into smaller, less powerful corporations. White collar crimes are usually about a powerful person finding ways to get himself more money through questionable means. Some VA administrators lied on their forms so that they received the bonuses for the number of patients served in the proper manner of time. Their concern was their bonus, not better patient care.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on July 10, 2019, 10:47:23 AM
I have long thought that the Left is both more optimistic and more pessimistic than I am. More optimistic in that they believe that they can really create a good approximation of heaven on earth if only allowed to arrange things. And more pessimistic in that they also believe that nothing good can happen unless they are in charge. People simply cannot be trusted to manage their own affairs but need the Leff to rule everything.


Shouldn't our doctrine of original sin cause all of us to believe that people cannot be trusted to manage their own affairs? Won't sinful human nature cause them to decide and act with selfish and self-centered interests?


Our government steps in when a corporation gets too big and powerful (a monopoly) to divide it into smaller, less powerful corporations. White collar crimes are usually about a powerful person finding ways to get himself more money through questionable means. Some VA administrators lied on their forms so that they received the bonuses for the number of patients served in the proper manner of time. Their concern was their bonus, not better patient care.
No, our doctrine of original sin should cause us to believe that we cannot be trusted to manage other people's affairs, nor they ours. Furthermore, original sin means people can't make themselves right with God, not that they can't manage their temporal affairs as competently as anyone else.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: James S. Rustad on July 10, 2019, 10:51:22 AM
Shouldn't our doctrine of original sin cause all of us to believe that people cannot be trusted to manage their own affairs? Won't sinful human nature cause them to decide and act with selfish and self-centered interests?

Our government steps in when a corporation gets too big and powerful (a monopoly) to divide it into smaller, less powerful corporations. White collar crimes are usually about a powerful person finding ways to get himself more money through questionable means. Some VA administrators lied on their forms so that they received the bonuses for the number of patients served in the proper manner of time. Their concern was their bonus, not better patient care.

So if "people cannot be trusted to manage their own affairs", how can they be trusted to manage other people's affairs?

Glad to see that your examples of the abuses of power includes the VA - a government agency.  There's hope for you yet!
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: pearson on July 10, 2019, 11:06:25 AM

Shouldn't our doctrine of original sin cause all of us to believe that people cannot be trusted to manage their own affairs? Won't sinful human nature cause them to decide and act with selfish and self-centered interests?


Absolutely.  And when the tendencies of sinful human nature are concentrated in the collective form of a central human government, allied with the power of legal coercion to force compliance, we have simply escalated the problem to monstrous proportions.

Tom Pearson
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 10, 2019, 11:07:03 AM
Shouldn't our doctrine of original sin cause all of us to believe that people cannot be trusted to manage their own affairs? Won't sinful human nature cause them to decide and act with selfish and self-centered interests?

Our government steps in when a corporation gets too big and powerful (a monopoly) to divide it into smaller, less powerful corporations. White collar crimes are usually about a powerful person finding ways to get himself more money through questionable means. Some VA administrators lied on their forms so that they received the bonuses for the number of patients served in the proper manner of time. Their concern was their bonus, not better patient care.

So if "people cannot be trusted to manage their own affairs", how can they be trusted to manage other people's affairs?

Glad to see that your examples of the abuses of power includes the VA - a government agency.  There's hope for you yet!


An individual or a group is likely to have some selfish motives when they are making decisions for themselves; e.g., congress voting themselves raises. A group with oversight, e.g., Security and Exchange Commission, who does not benefit themselves with their decisions, is less likely to be influenced by selfish motives. Or a group deciding for the benefit of the whole group, e.g., a coop; may make decisions that benefit the majority, but do not help some of the individuals - and they are willing to give up some personal benefits for the sake of the group.


Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 10, 2019, 11:39:22 AM
I have long thought that the Left is both more optimistic and more pessimistic than I am. More optimistic in that they believe that they can really create a good approximation of heaven on earth if only allowed to arrange things. And more pessimistic in that they also believe that nothing good can happen unless they are in charge. People simply cannot be trusted to manage their own affairs but need the Leff to rule everything.


Shouldn't our doctrine of original sin cause all of us to believe that people cannot be trusted to manage their own affairs? Won't sinful human nature cause them to decide and act with selfish and self-centered interests?


Our government steps in when a corporation gets too big and powerful (a monopoly) to divide it into smaller, less powerful corporations. White collar crimes are usually about a powerful person finding ways to get himself more money through questionable means. Some VA administrators lied on their forms so that they received the bonuses for the number of patients served in the proper manner of time. Their concern was their bonus, not better patient care.

Does that mean that you would support the Left taking an Anti-Choice position since people cannot be trusted to manage their own affairs and need government to direct them to proper choices. Also, does it matter whether the government is dominated by people on the Left or the Right? Is Left leaning authoritarianism inherently more benign than Right leaning authoritarianism? Why? In the current discussion on gun control, is it better for some government agency that may or may not actually know much about hunting to determine what hunters need for hunting and what they should be permitted to own and use?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on July 10, 2019, 11:55:31 AM
The church deals in the spiritual by faith, in which self-centeredness is deadly. The government deals with the temporal, in which one's motives are immaterial. It is in no way the government's job to combat selfishness as a motive, only destructive actions.

If three people redevelop blighted areas into low income housing complexes, one doing it purely for the business opportunity to make a profit, one to make a show of being altruistic and be praised for it, and one because it was a good thing to do, the church might condemn the first two and praise the third. The government ought not even try to distinguish them; all that matters temporally is that houses got built. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: pearson on July 10, 2019, 12:05:20 PM

An individual or a group is likely to have some selfish motives when they are making decisions for themselves; e.g., congress voting themselves raises. A group with oversight, e.g., Security and Exchange Commission, who does not benefit themselves with their decisions, is less likely to be influenced by selfish motives. Or a group deciding for the benefit of the whole group, e.g., a coop; may make decisions that benefit the majority, but do not help some of the individuals - and they are willing to give up some personal benefits for the sake of the group.


Pr. Stoffregen, you seem to be particularly hung up on identifying "selfishness" as the singular essential component in describing original sin, or our sinful human nature.  You also seem hung up on the notion that such "selfishness" is concentrated in some individuals and collectives, and less likely to show up in other individuals and collectives.  But there is neither empirical evidence nor any theological construct to support this.  It seems pretty obvious to me that all human judgment and performance is motivated in some way by self-interest (i.e., there is really no such thing as "altruism," in the classical sense).  I can't think of anything I've ever done (or that anyone has ever done, save for Christ) that was not in some fashion motivated by self-interest.  But to reduce self-interest to "selfishness" is a serious mistake.  I am convinced that self-interest can be channeled, and expressed, in ethically appropriate ways; I don't have the same confidence with regard to "selfishness."

So how shall we define "selfishness"?  Yes, I know there is a theological trajectory that investigates the meaning of concepts like incurvatus in se.  But I would define "selfishness" in a more general ethical sense (instead of a more murky psychological sense) as the human motivation that moves toward the aggrandizement of power.  So why should we believe that the Security and Exchange Commission is less motivated by "selfishness" than the individuals and corporations toward whom they issue their commands?  There have been lots of examples over the last half-century of the SEC rendering decisions that reek of "selfishness."  Administrative and regulatory agencies of the federal government are have, for a long time, been out of control in their aggrandizement of power (don't take my word for it: read Philip Hamburger's Is Administrative Law Unlawful? or Emmett McGroarty et al., Deconstructing the Administrative State or even the recent classic, James C. Scott's Thinking Like a State).

So, are you suggesting that some individuals and collectives are less possessed by "selfishness" (sinful human nature) than other individuals and collectives?

Tom Pearson
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: mariemeyer on July 10, 2019, 12:12:03 PM

Shouldn't our doctrine of original sin cause all of us to believe that people cannot be trusted to manage their own affairs? Won't sinful human nature cause them to decide and act with selfish and self-centered interests?


Absolutely.  And when the tendencies of sinful human nature are concentrated in the collective form of a central human government, allied with the power of legal coercion to force compliance, we have simply escalated the problem to monstrous proportions.

Tom Pearson

What about about human tendencies when spiritual authority is concentrated in the collective form of one group?  Might the problem become more confounded when the Bible is quoted to claim God intends that spiritual authority is concentrated (given) to one group, class, position, or sex?

Just asking....
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: NGB on July 10, 2019, 12:27:34 PM
Administrative and regulatory agencies of the federal government are have, for a long time, been out of control in their aggrandizement of power (don't take my word for it: read Philip Hamburger's Is Administrative Law Unlawful? or Emmett McGroarty et al., Deconstructing the Administrative State or even the recent classic, James C. Scott's Thinking Like a State).

Slight correction: Scott’s book is Seeing Like a State. An excellent read.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: pearson on July 10, 2019, 12:35:35 PM

Slight correction: Scott’s book is Seeing Like a State. An excellent read.


Right.  Thanks.

Tom Pearson
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: David Garner on July 10, 2019, 01:55:43 PM

Shouldn't our doctrine of original sin cause all of us to believe that people cannot be trusted to manage their own affairs? Won't sinful human nature cause them to decide and act with selfish and self-centered interests?


Absolutely.  And when the tendencies of sinful human nature are concentrated in the collective form of a central human government, allied with the power of legal coercion to force compliance, we have simply escalated the problem to monstrous proportions.

Tom Pearson

What about about human tendencies when spiritual authority is concentrated in the collective form of one group?  Might the problem become more confounded when the Bible is quoted to claim God intends that spiritual authority is concentrated (given) to one group, class, position, or sex?

Just asking....

Who really says that though?  Mothers have spiritual authority over themselves and their children.  They certainly have spiritual influence, if not power, over their husbands.  I am an Orthodox Christian today because my wife moved me out of complacency.  I thank her for that.

I would suggest the Theotokos has spiritual authority.  She is the pre-eminent example of what a Christian should be.  So I would further suggest that "authority" is not quite the same thing as ordination.  We can order things such that women cannot be priests or bishops, and yet still have them exert a high degree of influence.  I know when our Khouria speaks, I listen.  Carefully.  My daughters teach me constantly.  They are examples to me. They don't have to be priests to do so.

My wife wrote this on FB a few days ago.  It seems appropriate to this discussion.

"I’ve heard many a feminist say that Christian churches that do not allow women to serve in an official capacity are devaluing women. If these feminists actually came to one of these services they may see a woman not serving the Eucharist or giving the homily, but what they will see is also a service to the church and to God. They would see a mother making her children behave, a mother making their teen children get up out of bed and be in church where they belong instead of in the world. They would see a mother faithfully bringing her baby to Holy Baptism. They would see a mother preparing her son to serve as an acolyte, a subdeacon, a deacon or praise be to God, a Priest (or Pastor). They would see women helping each other with their children. They would see women organizing community service programs....yes, we may not serve in an 'official' capacity but we are a valuable member of our churches and I can assure these feminists that our men would be the first to tell them that. And as I was once told by a family member that 'my weird husband brought me to the Orthodox Church,' I would say to them....no, it was me that brought my husband to the Orthodox Church. And thank God for it. And thank God for the men that tirelessly serve our churches each week. You all are a true blessing."

We had two teenage boys -- both of them just graduated from high school -- ordained as subdeacons in the past year.  After congratulating them on their ordination, the first people I went to next were their parents.  I made sure to thank their mothers for faithfully bringing them to this point, and raising them to serve the Church.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on July 10, 2019, 02:05:53 PM
see  there is a bump in the road... plenty of conservative Lutherans might really like your assertions on the spiritual authority of mothers altho your emphasis is on on women who are mothers but not so much about women who happen not to be mothers...
and the bump is the BVM whom many Lutherans do not treat with much more than a certain usefulness but not much spiritual authority.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on July 10, 2019, 02:48:14 PM
The secular answer, based on human reason, is to de-concentrate and diffuse coercive authority. The spiritual answer, based on divine revelation, is to understand all authority, wherever God or mankind might concentrate it (most essentially in parents per the 4th commandment) as a call to selfless service, not as a mandate to lord it over others. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: mariemeyer on July 10, 2019, 02:52:17 PM

Shouldn't our doctrine of original sin cause all of us to believe that people cannot be trusted to manage their own affairs? Won't sinful human nature cause them to decide and act with selfish and self-centered interests?


Absolutely.  And when the tendencies of sinful human nature are concentrated in the collective form of a central human government, allied with the power of legal coercion to force compliance, we have simply escalated the problem to monstrous proportions.

Tom Pearson

What about about human tendencies when spiritual authority is concentrated in the collective form of one group?  Might the problem become more confounded when the Bible is quoted to claim God intends that spiritual authority is concentrated (given) to one group, class, position, or sex?

Just asking....

Who really says that though?  Mothers have spiritual authority over themselves and their children.  They certainly have spiritual influence, if not power, over their husbands.  I am an Orthodox Christian today because my wife moved me out of complacency.  I thank her for that.

I would suggest the Theotokos has spiritual authority.  She is the pre-eminent example of what a Christian should be.  So I would further suggest that "authority" is not quite the same thing as ordination.  We can order things such that women cannot be priests or bishops, and yet still have them exert a high degree of influence.  I know when our Khouria speaks, I listen.  Carefully.  My daughters teach me constantly.  They are examples to me. They don't have to be priests to do so.

My wife wrote this on FB a few days ago.  It seems appropriate to this discussion.

"I’ve heard many a feminist say that Christian churches that do not allow women to serve in an official capacity are devaluing women. If these feminists actually came to one of these services they may see a woman not serving the Eucharist or giving the homily, but what they will see is also a service to the church and to God. They would see a mother making her children behave, a mother making their teen children get up out of bed and be in church where they belong instead of in the world. They would see a mother faithfully bringing her baby to Holy Baptism. They would see a mother preparing her son to serve as an acolyte, a subdeacon, a deacon or praise be to God, a Priest (or Pastor). They would see women helping each other with their children. They would see women organizing community service programs....yes, we may not serve in an 'official' capacity but we are a valuable member of our churches and I can assure these feminists that our men would be the first to tell them that. And as I was once told by a family member that 'my weird husband brought me to the Orthodox Church,' I would say to them....no, it was me that brought my husband to the Orthodox Church. And thank God for it. And thank God for the men that tirelessly serve our churches each week. You all are a true blessing."

We had two teenage boys -- both of them just graduated from high school -- ordained as subdeacons in the past year.  After congratulating them on their ordination, the first people I went to next were their parents.  I made sure to thank their mothers for faithfully bringing them to this point, and raising them to serve the Church.

Who said anything about ordination?????

marie
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven Tibbetts on July 10, 2019, 03:10:11 PM

What about about human tendencies when spiritual authority is concentrated in the collective form of one group?  Might the problem become more confounded when the Bible is quoted to claim God intends that spiritual authority is concentrated (given) to one group, class, position, or sex?

Just asking....

Who really says that though?  Mothers have spiritual authority over themselves and their children.  They certainly have spiritual influence, if not power, over their husbands.  I am an Orthodox Christian today because my wife moved me out of complacency.  I thank her for that....

Who said anything about ordination?????

marie

I saw in his response to you a witness that spiritual authority is not concentrated (given) to one group, class, position, or sex.

Pax, Steven+
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: JDB on July 10, 2019, 03:41:16 PM
Under this topic of fate of the nation, I was wondering what it means for us when we play fast and loose with the truth. Sec. of State Mike Pompeo spoke recently regarding U.S- Israel relations https://www.state.gov/the-u-s-and-Israel-a-friendship-for-freedom/ .  In this this speech he notes the decimation of the Christian Church in Iraq, but puts the blame almost completely on ISIS, without noting the horrid role played by the 2003 American invasion. About 2.1 million Iraqis had to flee, about 1.7 million into Syria. Hundreds of thousands have been killed- not all by ISIS- not even close. Now it appears the Sec. of State wants to get support for more intervention.

One might also note that the Secretary states that anti- Zionism is now considered a form of anti- Semitism. Really? Is it anti-Semitic to disagree with Israeli public policy?

Finally, his use of Scriptural imagery is clearly dangerous and shows how he wants to wrap his idea in the cloak of Christianity. He clearly sees. Himself in the role of bringing about an end- time kingdom.

Jeff Berndt
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on July 10, 2019, 03:57:18 PM
Under this topic of fate of the nation, I was wondering what it means for us when we play fast and loose with the truth. Sec. of State Mike Pompeo spoke recently regarding U.S- Israel relations https://www.state.gov/the-u-s-and-Israel-a-friendship-for-freedom/ .  In this this speech he notes the decimation of the Christian Church in Iraq, but puts the blame almost completely on ISIS, without noting the horrid role played by the 2003 American invasion. About 2.1 million Iraqis had to flee, about 1.7 million into Syria. Hundreds of thousands have been killed- not all by ISIS- not even close. Now it appears the Sec. of State wants to get support for more intervention.

One might also note that the Secretary states that anti- Zionism is now considered a form of anti- Semitism. Really? Is it anti-Semitic to disagree with Israeli public policy?

Finally, his use of Scriptural imagery is clearly dangerous and shows how he wants to wrap his idea in the cloak of Christianity. He clearly sees. Himself in the role of bringing about an end- time kingdom.

Jeff Berndt
Jeff, I just read the speech and didn't take away at all what you ascribe to it. Anti-Zionism is not the same thing as disagreement with Israeli public policy; if it were, nobody could ever have any platform to run against an incumbent Israeli official. And the thing about the end-time kingdom-- where do you see that so "clearly"? He praised a Democrat president, Truman, and likened him to Trump, and differentiated the religious freedom in Israel to elsewhere in the region.

It was a tad rah-rah for my tastes, and clearly a pro-Trump campaign speech, but certainly was unremarkable for such a speech in terms of playing fast and loose with the truth.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: JDB on July 10, 2019, 04:38:50 PM
Peter, I guess I see the anti- Zionism aspect in that it is coupled with comments regarding the annexation of the Golan Heights. It also has to do with the context of this administration's current policies against Iran, policies which are in line with the Israelis. Really? Did we need to unilaterally break the JCPOA, impose sanctions, etc.?

Moreover, I find his of blame for the reduction of Christians in Iraq being placed solely on ISIS to be in error, unless other "nefarious actors" include the U.S. This goes right along with statements by this administration that Iranian revolutionary guard was responsible for destabilizing Syria, rather than a combination of the U. S. invasion of Iraq coupled by U.S. sales of weapons to dissident groups in Syria. Again, there were statements regarding the downing of the drone that would have one believe that the Iranians were goading us into a response when clearly we are the ones doing the goading. The Secretary's words must be taken within that context.

Finally, he is playing to the dispensational/ Christian millennialist crowd- at least in part. One has to consider how they will take his words.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on July 10, 2019, 06:15:42 PM
Peter, I guess I see the anti- Zionism aspect in that it is coupled with comments regarding the annexation of the Golan Heights. It also has to do with the context of this administration's current policies against Iran, policies which are in line with the Israelis. Really? Did we need to unilaterally break the JCPOA, impose sanctions, etc.?

Moreover, I find his of blame for the reduction of Christians in Iraq being placed solely on ISIS to be in error, unless other "nefarious actors" include the U.S. This goes right along with statements by this administration that Iranian revolutionary guard was responsible for destabilizing Syria, rather than a combination of the U. S. invasion of Iraq coupled by U.S. sales of weapons to dissident groups in Syria. Again, there were statements regarding the downing of the drone that would have one believe that the Iranians were goading us into a response when clearly we are the ones doing the goading. The Secretary's words must be taken within that context.

Finally, he is playing to the dispensational/ Christian millennialist crowd- at least in part. One has to consider how they will take his words.
I think reading his words through the lens of how you think dispensationalists will hear them is a fallacy. It is like the people who point out dog whistles, which is really just a way to read their own pre-conceived opinions of others into the text.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 10, 2019, 07:56:33 PM
I have long thought that the Left is both more optimistic and more pessimistic than I am. More optimistic in that they believe that they can really create a good approximation of heaven on earth if only allowed to arrange things. And more pessimistic in that they also believe that nothing good can happen unless they are in charge. People simply cannot be trusted to manage their own affairs but need the Leff to rule everything.


Shouldn't our doctrine of original sin cause all of us to believe that people cannot be trusted to manage their own affairs? Won't sinful human nature cause them to decide and act with selfish and self-centered interests?


Our government steps in when a corporation gets too big and powerful (a monopoly) to divide it into smaller, less powerful corporations. White collar crimes are usually about a powerful person finding ways to get himself more money through questionable means. Some VA administrators lied on their forms so that they received the bonuses for the number of patients served in the proper manner of time. Their concern was their bonus, not better patient care.

Does that mean that you would support the Left taking an Anti-Choice position since people cannot be trusted to manage their own affairs and need government to direct them to proper choices. Also, does it matter whether the government is dominated by people on the Left or the Right? Is Left leaning authoritarianism inherently more benign than Right leaning authoritarianism? Why? In the current discussion on gun control, is it better for some government agency that may or may not actually know much about hunting to determine what hunters need for hunting and what they should be permitted to own and use?


The independent overseer does not need to be the government. Our pro-choice statement argues that the decision for an abortion should not be an individual one; but one made in consultation with others.


Of course the oversight group should include knowledgable people from all sides. I appreciated my time in Wyoming when nearly every male in the congregation was a hunter. Our church cookbook had a "wild game" section. Certainly hunters should be included in discussions and decisions about gun control; but also include parents who lost a child at Sandy Hook or Columbine or Las Vegas, etc. Throw in parents who lost a son through suicide by gun or through an accidental shooting in the home.


The group would have to be committed to listening and respect each other. That allows those who hunt to have access to the firearms they wish; those who want protection have access to weapons designed for protection; and those who have suffered the pain of gun violence have been heard and safeguards are in place to try and prevent the use of guns in violent ways; children can feel safe going to school; worshipers can feel safe going to church, etc.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 10, 2019, 08:01:36 PM
The church deals in the spiritual by faith, in which self-centeredness is deadly. The government deals with the temporal, in which one's motives are immaterial. It is in no way the government's job to combat selfishness as a motive, only destructive actions.

If three people redevelop blighted areas into low income housing complexes, one doing it purely for the business opportunity to make a profit, one to make a show of being altruistic and be praised for it, and one because it was a good thing to do, the church might condemn the first two and praise the third. The government ought not even try to distinguish them; all that matters temporally is that houses got built.


An old saying: They are so heavenly minded that they are no earthly good.


The church seeks to follow Jesus, not just through death to an eternal resurrection; but also in ways of loving our neighbors in the temporal world.


Making a profit is not necessarily bad, but exploiting others for one's own benefit is.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on July 10, 2019, 08:09:22 PM
The church deals in the spiritual by faith, in which self-centeredness is deadly. The government deals with the temporal, in which one's motives are immaterial. It is in no way the government's job to combat selfishness as a motive, only destructive actions.

If three people redevelop blighted areas into low income housing complexes, one doing it purely for the business opportunity to make a profit, one to make a show of being altruistic and be praised for it, and one because it was a good thing to do, the church might condemn the first two and praise the third. The government ought not even try to distinguish them; all that matters temporally is that houses got built.


An old saying: They are so heavenly minded that they are no earthly good.


The church seeks to follow Jesus, not just through death to an eternal resurrection; but also in ways of loving our neighbors in the temporal world.


Making a profit is not necessarily bad, but exploiting others for one's own benefit is.
But there is no way for a secular law to distinguish someone making a profit with good motives from someone making the same profit from bad motives.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 10, 2019, 08:14:30 PM
So, are you suggesting that some individuals and collectives are less possessed by "selfishness" (sinful human nature) than other individuals and collectives?


I'm stating that when making decision or critiquing decisions as an "outsider" - that is, someone who receives no benefit regardless of the decision, they are not as likely to be motivated by "selfishness" or "self-centeredness". Judges recuse themselves when they might have a personal stake in the decision they have to render.


I'm also not saying that every decision motivated by selfishness are necessarily bad. Many people do many good things for others because of the good feelings they get from such behaviors.


However, selfishness can easily turn into greed, which is always seen as a sin to be avoided in scriptures.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: David Garner on July 11, 2019, 08:42:41 AM

Shouldn't our doctrine of original sin cause all of us to believe that people cannot be trusted to manage their own affairs? Won't sinful human nature cause them to decide and act with selfish and self-centered interests?


Absolutely.  And when the tendencies of sinful human nature are concentrated in the collective form of a central human government, allied with the power of legal coercion to force compliance, we have simply escalated the problem to monstrous proportions.

Tom Pearson

What about about human tendencies when spiritual authority is concentrated in the collective form of one group?  Might the problem become more confounded when the Bible is quoted to claim God intends that spiritual authority is concentrated (given) to one group, class, position, or sex?

Just asking....

Who really says that though?  Mothers have spiritual authority over themselves and their children.  They certainly have spiritual influence, if not power, over their husbands.  I am an Orthodox Christian today because my wife moved me out of complacency.  I thank her for that.

I would suggest the Theotokos has spiritual authority.  She is the pre-eminent example of what a Christian should be.  So I would further suggest that "authority" is not quite the same thing as ordination.  We can order things such that women cannot be priests or bishops, and yet still have them exert a high degree of influence.  I know when our Khouria speaks, I listen.  Carefully.  My daughters teach me constantly.  They are examples to me. They don't have to be priests to do so.

My wife wrote this on FB a few days ago.  It seems appropriate to this discussion.

"I’ve heard many a feminist say that Christian churches that do not allow women to serve in an official capacity are devaluing women. If these feminists actually came to one of these services they may see a woman not serving the Eucharist or giving the homily, but what they will see is also a service to the church and to God. They would see a mother making her children behave, a mother making their teen children get up out of bed and be in church where they belong instead of in the world. They would see a mother faithfully bringing her baby to Holy Baptism. They would see a mother preparing her son to serve as an acolyte, a subdeacon, a deacon or praise be to God, a Priest (or Pastor). They would see women helping each other with their children. They would see women organizing community service programs....yes, we may not serve in an 'official' capacity but we are a valuable member of our churches and I can assure these feminists that our men would be the first to tell them that. And as I was once told by a family member that 'my weird husband brought me to the Orthodox Church,' I would say to them....no, it was me that brought my husband to the Orthodox Church. And thank God for it. And thank God for the men that tirelessly serve our churches each week. You all are a true blessing."

We had two teenage boys -- both of them just graduated from high school -- ordained as subdeacons in the past year.  After congratulating them on their ordination, the first people I went to next were their parents.  I made sure to thank their mothers for faithfully bringing them to this point, and raising them to serve the Church.

Who said anything about ordination?????

marie

I did.  In drawing a distinction between not allowing the ordination of women to Holy Orders versus not allowing them to have any authority whatsoever.  Your suggestion was that someone thinks "spiritual authority" ought to be "concentrated in the collective form of one group," and specifically that "spiritual authority is concentrated (given) to one group, class, position, or sex" in the Bible (according to such persons).  My point is I don't think very many people really think that.

I grant there are the hardcore people who think that women cannot exercise any authority at all over any man, but I think those are the vast minority.  They certainly aren't representative of views I've encountered in the LCMS, much less in the Orthodox Church.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 11, 2019, 08:47:25 AM
David Garner writes:
I grant there are the hardcore people who think that women cannot exercise any authority at all over any man, but I think those are the vast minority.
I comment:
I’d still worry about any minority that gets “vast.” ;)
But I guess they would remain a minority, so those totally against spiritual authority for women would be, what? - half-vast?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: David Garner on July 11, 2019, 08:59:17 AM
Well, as one example, and perhaps I've missed it, but I haven't seen such sentiments here.  I've never heard any pastor I've been with or encountered in the LCMS stating anything remotely like that.  Oddly, the WELS pastors I've encountered took the full-blown functional view and said things like "a woman could be a pastor over a congregation comprised only of women," prompting me to reply "well, since Lutherans don't have monasticism, what sort of congregation would that be?"

The point is -- I don't think this is anywhere near a widespread view.  At least not in the circles we all run in.  I'll leave the radical fundies to speak for themselves, but I don't think any of them are here.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: pastorg1@aol.com on July 11, 2019, 09:42:57 AM
I was surprised where misogyny creeps in the church.

Our Episcopal Diocese, as is traditional, has male church musicians and male choir.

Our superb church musician, a female, has been jostled around logistically in order to frustrate her skill and planning during important liturgical celebrations.

And this, in San Francisco...
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 11, 2019, 07:34:37 PM
Some have suggested that at least a few in the LCMS are turning it into a "purity cult." Maybe so, maybe not, neither is it clear how successful the effort will be. However, I suggest that elements of the Demo ratic Party are making a similar move there, specifically AOC and her compatriots. When Republicans tried this it benefitted neither the Republican Party, nor the nation. You can still hear the cries about Rinos, Republicans In Name Only. How long before they bemoan the Dinos?


For those who dream of President Trump being elected out of the White House in 2020, AOC's temper tantrums cannot be good news. Her purity cultus will not win the general election but screaming about it and efforts to enforce it on the Democratic Party could hurt whoever the eventual candidate turns out to be. I doubt that her wing of the party will be satisfied with dictating elements of the platform as her tantrum over Democats voting for the border funding bill that SHE had rejected demonstrates.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: George Erdner on July 12, 2019, 11:20:48 AM
Adolf Hitler's regime rounded up 6,000,000+ Jews, and millions of other people that the Nazis declared to be subhumans or undesirable, and hauled them in boxcars to death camps where they were slaughtered in wholesale lots. But first, the Nazis made sure no one had any sort of weapons for self-defense.

Ask anyone who was alive in Germany in the 1920's if they believed, at the time, that the German government would ever undertake a program of mass murder.

The Second Amendment is not about people being able to go hunting, or shoot at targets.

If you don't want to own a gun, don't own a gun. And if you are ever in danger from a criminal, do NOT call the police, because the police will have guns. Just make your peace with God and die.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 12, 2019, 01:20:08 PM
George, I don't entirely agree with your post. I don't own a gun and don't want to own a gun. My assessment of my and my family's danger is low, based on where I live, I'm not interested in hunting, and don't have the skills or wish to invest the time and money to develope the skills to be a good responsible gun owner. But I certainly will call the police if threatened and hope they bring guns. I don't object to guns, just don't want to own one myself.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on July 12, 2019, 01:52:35 PM
while it is an expression... as you must know... with or with guns we do not make peace with God... he makes peace with us.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven W Bohler on July 12, 2019, 05:39:54 PM
while it is an expression... as you must know... with or with guns we do not make peace with God... he makes peace with us.

Has anyone here said otherwise?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 12, 2019, 08:14:38 PM
while it is an expression... as you must know... with or with guns we do not make peace with God... he makes peace with us.

Has anyone here said otherwise?


Yes.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven W Bohler on July 12, 2019, 09:14:49 PM
while it is an expression... as you must know... with or with guns we do not make peace with God... he makes peace with us.

Has anyone here said otherwise?


Yes.

I must have missed it.  Whom?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on July 12, 2019, 09:51:03 PM
614
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven W Bohler on July 12, 2019, 10:27:15 PM
614

Rev. Fienen?
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Dan Fienen on July 12, 2019, 11:37:50 PM
My post #614 was to explain why I don't own a gun even though I don't object to guns per se. I don't see how that applies to making peace with God or God making peace with me. There is hardly anything that we can do in life without risk. I did something dangerous yesterday and today, I drove over 450 miles to attend my brother in law's committal service. Have you seen the statistics on driving fatalities? I was safer in March flying to Europe (thankfully not in a 737 Max.) But the benefit of being there for my wife and her family was worth risking the danger of driving. Even so, when I bought my last  car I paid extra to get one with extra safety features (besides, they were gadgets and I love gadgets.) In my estimation my risk in not packing heat is not as great as the cost and risk of going tooled up.


Meanwhile, God has in Jesus reconciled me to Himself for which I am eternally grateful.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Brian Stoffregen on July 13, 2019, 01:07:36 AM
614


Actually #613 boldface added
Adolf Hitler's regime rounded up 6,000,000+ Jews, and millions of other people that the Nazis declared to be subhumans or undesirable, and hauled them in boxcars to death camps where they were slaughtered in wholesale lots. But first, the Nazis made sure no one had any sort of weapons for self-defense.

Ask anyone who was alive in Germany in the 1920's if they believed, at the time, that the German government would ever undertake a program of mass murder.

The Second Amendment is not about people being able to go hunting, or shoot at targets.

If you don't want to own a gun, don't own a gun. And if you are ever in danger from a criminal, do NOT call the police, because the police will have guns. Just make your peace with God and die.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on July 13, 2019, 09:19:40 AM
614


Actually #613 boldface added
Adolf Hitler's regime rounded up 6,000,000+ Jews, and millions of other people that the Nazis declared to be subhumans or undesirable, and hauled them in boxcars to death camps where they were slaughtered in wholesale lots. But first, the Nazis made sure no one had any sort of weapons for self-defense.

Ask anyone who was alive in Germany in the 1920's if they believed, at the time, that the German government would ever undertake a program of mass murder.

The Second Amendment is not about people being able to go hunting, or shoot at targets.

If you don't want to own a gun, don't own a gun. And if you are ever in danger from a criminal, do NOT call the police, because the police will have guns. Just make your peace with God and die.
That refers to the standard “prepare to meet your maker,” chaplain before the noose, last rites kind of thing, not a statement on justification.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Harvey_Mozolak on July 13, 2019, 03:38:29 PM
and Peter this is standard what?  "If you don't want to own a gun, don't own a gun. And if you are ever in danger from a criminal, do NOT call the police, because the police will have guns."  Immediately preceding words. 
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on July 13, 2019, 04:43:51 PM
and Peter this is standard what?  "If you don't want to own a gun, don't own a gun. And if you are ever in danger from a criminal, do NOT call the police, because the police will have guns."  Immediately preceding words.
His point was somewhat ironic-- if you're against guns to confront criminals, the last thing you want to do is call the police, because they for sure will confront the criminal and almost certainly be carrying guns. Just let the criminal kill you instead.

From a theological standpoint, guns for self-defense are simply an extension of the doctrine that the left hand kingdom validly uses force. In the absence of an officer of the state, the citizen is allowed to do what the officer would (or should) do if he were present, which is to protect people from criminals even to the point of using lethal force as a last resort. Such protection is a first article gift from God, a means of the protection He provides. Just as Luther justified ordaining without bishops if the bishops refused to do their job, and just as any layman can baptize in the absence of the pastor should it be necessary, so anyone can, in extreme circumstances, defend themselves the way an officer would defend them if the officer were present.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Charles Austin on July 13, 2019, 05:33:52 PM
It is interesting to me, Peter, how are your language - and another of your often disturbing analogies -  now sacramentalizes the uses of weapons for protection.
   I’m not sure that the use of weaponry is, especially in our time and circumstance, a God-given right. If we need to use weapons, it is a failure of human community, a failure  to use or trust the weapons of the spirit, brotherhood, love, self denial, even sacrifice.
   “No bishop will give us pastors, so we ordain our own,” or “no Pastor nearby, so I will baptize,“ Is not a foundation for or a parallel with “there’s no cop nearby, so I’ll shoot this guy.”
   To sanctify the use of weapons for self-protection seems really strange.
   I may be pushing it, but I’m at the point where I’m almost ready to dare to say that even my death, or the death of a loved one because I will not make that prior decision to kill might be a witness to the gospel and perhaps - We can’t really know, I suppose -  a witness I may be called upon to make.
   I wish people were as avid about finding reasons why we should not use guns as they seem to be for finding reasons why we should.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: pearson on July 13, 2019, 05:39:54 PM

From a theological standpoint, guns for self-defense are simply an extension of the doctrine that the left hand kingdom validly uses force. In the absence of an officer of the state, the citizen is allowed to do what the officer would (or should) do if he were present, which is to protect people from criminals even to the point of using lethal force as a last resort. Such protection is a first article gift from God, a means of the protection He provides. Just as Luther justified ordaining without bishops if the bishops refused to do their job, and just as any layman can baptize in the absence of the pastor should it be necessary, so anyone can, in extreme circumstances, defend themselves the way an officer would defend them if the officer were present.


Another way to frame this same argument is to rely on the Natural Law "principle of forfeiture."  That principle says that, if someone threatens a fundamental human value (or a basic human good; check out Natural Law theory to see what those might be) in you, and that threat is immediate and direct -- that part is immensely important in Natural Law -- then the person making the threat forfeits their entitlement to that same fundamental human value (or basic human good).  So, if someone threatens the fundamental human value of life in you, and the threat is immediate and direct, then that person forfeits their entitlement to that same fundamental human value (i.e., life).  In such cases, ideally it is the public institution whose vocation it is to protect others from such threats (the police?) that then enforces the "forfeiture" on the person making the threat.  But it is not necessary that the designated public institution do the job; since the person making the threat has forfeited (in this example) their entitlement to the value of life, anyone can function in that role -- as long as the threat to life is immediate and direct.

As far as moral philosophers can figure out, by sorting through the history within western thought, this principle of forfeiture goes back to pre-Hellenic times, and was the basis for the development of the corollary ethical principle of self-defense.  It is also used to justify the political state's use of capital punishment: the argument goes that, once an immediate and direct threat is made on your life, the one doing the threatening has forfeited her entitlement to the value of life, and you could have justifiably stopped her agression and defended yourself by taking her life, except that you were not able to defend yourself adequately and were killed by your aggressor; so the state can step in and do what you could justifiably have done, and take the life of the aggressor (since she had already foreited her own).  In a sense, the state becomes your self-defense surrogate.

If all this "principle of forfeiture" stuff makes you cranky, take it up with Natural Law theory, whose influence saturates the legal and moral systems of western thought, not me.

Tom Pearson

Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: pearson on July 13, 2019, 05:46:14 PM

If we need to use weapons, it is a failure of human community, a failure  to use or trust the weapons of the spirit, brotherhood, love, self denial, even sacrifice.


Well, I guess it's not just Pr. Speckhard any more-- it appears that you and I don't live in the same world, either, Pr. Austin.

Tom Pearson
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: peter_speckhard on July 13, 2019, 06:18:23 PM
It is interesting to me, Peter, how are your language - and another of your often disturbing analogies -  now sacramentalizes the uses of weapons for protection.
   I’m not sure that the use of weaponry is, especially in our time and circumstance, a God-given right. If we need to use weapons, it is a failure of human community, a failure  to use or trust the weapons of the spirit, brotherhood, love, self denial, even sacrifice.
   “No bishop will give us pastors, so we ordain our own,” or “no Pastor nearby, so I will baptize,“ Is not a foundation for or a parallel with “there’s no cop nearby, so I’ll shoot this guy.”
   To sanctify the use of weapons for self-protection seems really strange.
   I may be pushing it, but I’m at the point where I’m almost ready to dare to say that even my death, or the death of a loved one because I will not make that prior decision to kill might be a witness to the gospel and perhaps - We can’t really know, I suppose -  a witness I may be called upon to make.
   I wish people were as avid about finding reasons why we should not use guns as they seem to be for finding reasons why we should.
I don’t own a gun. In my circumstances I think the risks would outweigh any benefits. And I realize I or my loved ones might be victimized by crime when I could have protected them with a gun. But I view that as a practical assessment on my part. If guns are not justified to prevent crimes, then it goes back to the original post— don’t call the police then; they will bring guns and a willingness to fire them. It is a copout of the highest, most self-righteous degree to think an agent of the state should do for you what is spiritually beneath you to do for yourself.
Title: Re: The fate of the nation (A topic as serious as female lectors or gay clergy)
Post by: Steven W Bohler on July 13, 2019, 07:08:30 PM
It is interesting to me, Peter, how are your language - and another of your often disturbing analogies -  now sacramentalizes the uses of weapons for protection.
   I’m not sure that the use of weaponry is, especially in our time and circumstance, a God-given right. If we need to use weapons, it is a failure of human community, a failure  to use or trust the weapons of the spirit, brotherhood, love, self denial, even sacrifice.
   “No bishop will give us pastors, so we ordain our own,” or “no Pastor nearby, so I will baptize,“ Is not a foundation for or a parallel with “there’s no co