Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - peter_speckhard

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 1085
1
Your Turn / Re: Recent Surpreme Court Decision Concerning Churches
« on: Yesterday at 10:07:58 PM »
You donít think his ďgreat lieĒ tactics of the past three weeks are damaging to our democracy. His actual efforts to get Republican leaders in the states to nullify the voting if it is against him?
I actually think your side is engaged in the great lie tactic by insisting the election is over and reacting with venom to anyone who simply wants to let it play out. Currently enough ballots are disputed in enough states to have swayed the election. More potential harm is done to peopleís faith in elections by shushing anyone with questions than is done by carefully investigating with full transparency.

2
Your Turn / Re: Recent Surpreme Court Decision Concerning Churches
« on: Yesterday at 09:52:38 PM »
Pastor Fienen, please pay attention. Iím not talking about a burden upon us, obviously the restrictions are a painful burden upon us. I am pointing out that in the minds of the ones at the top of our authority chain and making decisions, the burden on the economy is a gazillion times greater and more important to them than any burden upon you and I and our little churches. In the name of Aunt Gertieís Goat, if he thought putting restrictions on the churches would help the economy, he wouldnít hesitate for a second to do that.
At that point it is good that he does not have the authority to order things nationally. We are much better off with the governors who understand the situation in our states, except of course, for those who are made members of the Trump cult.
You are the only one in this forum displaying symptoms of cult behavior in your obsession with Trump. The people who support him support him as a politician whose policies they prefer. You treat him as an embodiment of evil who haunts your dreams and waking hours.

3
Your Turn / Re: Recent Surpreme Court Decision Concerning Churches
« on: Yesterday at 05:58:48 PM »
Yeah. I thought so.
You must have consulted a palmist to know that.

4
Your Turn / Re: Recent Surpreme Court Decision Concerning Churches
« on: Yesterday at 03:20:59 PM »
https://abcnews.go.com/US/minnesota-sees-rise-covid-19-cases-tied-protests/story?id=71393938

That story reports on testing in protest sites. It has this paragraph:
The results are "very encouraging," the health official told ABC News. The official attributed the low infection rate to "the fact that many or most protesters were wearing masks, the events were outside, people were often able to maintain a 6-foot distance, and any exposures were of relatively shorter duration, not several hours to the same people in the same place."

Conclusion: The protests were not necessarily spreader events. They were different in style from certain political rallies, which kept people close together in one place for a long time, usually unprotected.

Charles,

The problem with this reference/finding is that this came well after various political leaders gave their blessings to the protests throughout May and June.  This revealed an ideological bias on their part which is deeply problematic concerning the application of the 1st Amendment. What we witnessed was that according to them certain beliefs, certain ideological concerns, matter more than others. To later come back and say ďWell, they werenít necessarily spreader eventsĒ is deeply problematic.  Whatís more, I have read other findings that said there was a spike in July due to the protests.  These simply werenít reported on in the legacy media.  So who do we believe?

Peace,
Scott+
That, and some of the medical experts whose opinions we were all supposed to accept as Gospel openly admitted that the protests presented Covid-related problems but justified them on the grounds that systemic racism was also a public health crisis. Sort of tipped their hand that certain socio-political views were too important to be impeded by pandemic considerations. But only certain views.

5
Your Turn / Re: Recent Surpreme Court Decision Concerning Churches
« on: Yesterday at 10:18:06 AM »
And here is an example of an order closing schools being reinstated by a circuit court because church schools were treated equally with public and other private schools:

Sixth Circuit Reinstates Governor's Closure of Kentucky Schools
A district court had held the closure likely violated the Free Exercise Clause; no, says, the Sixth Circuit.

Treat religious organizations equally with non-religious organizations and restrictions are OK.  Treat them differently (as in NY) and restrictions are not OK.
But again, what if the school could so arrange the desks in the gymnasium or cafeteria that classes could continue? Why not issue the restrictions, equally and to all, and let people figure out how to abide by them and whether that means closing, rearranging, changing hours, or whatever? Then there is no chance of bias. But the minute the law says you can do x if this is your reason for doing it, but not if that is your reason for doing it, you're opening up a huge can of worms.

6
Your Turn / Re: Recent Surpreme Court Decision Concerning Churches
« on: Yesterday at 09:59:50 AM »
I find it beyond fascinating that the Supreme Court saying churches must be treated equally has somehow been received by some folks as "churches don't have to take any precautions or take the virus seriously."

The only effect of the Supreme Court's decision is that churches are now required to take the virus only as seriously as other similar establishments.  No more, no less.  Yet it seems too many believe that the effect of treating churches equally is to grant them special treatment, instead of what is real, which is they are not allowed to be arbitrarily treated as if they are higher risks than other similar gatherings.
It makes much more sense to issue guidelines, but if they have to be rules related to contagion they should be unrelated to the purpose of the gathering. That is, the government should recognize its own incompetence to determine people's values. If you the rule that people come no closer to each other than six feet for more than a minute, then they can do whatever they want as long as they only come closer than six feet for less than a minute. That is the sort of rule that could apply to everyone. But when they differentiate according to your purpose for getting together, playing favorites, so to speak, they invite trouble needlessly.   

7
Your Turn / Re: Recent Surpreme Court Decision Concerning Churches
« on: November 29, 2020, 10:59:36 PM »
How on earth is a pot luck any less sanitary than cooking for oneís own family at home? There is some sort of bizarre phobia about contagion involved with the idea that we need to so obsessive about having an antiseptic environment.

8
Your Turn / Re: Recent Surpreme Court Decision Concerning Churches
« on: November 29, 2020, 08:00:43 AM »
Look it up. Itís true.
I doubt the people who disagree are looking it up in the same places.

9
Your Turn / Re: Recent Surpreme Court Decision Concerning Churches
« on: November 28, 2020, 08:19:02 PM »
When the various powers that be utterly failed to condemn the mass protests, they forfeit the right to condemn worship services. All they really showed is that socio-political power is their religion, and their religion must have free reign even in a pandemic. Itís just everyone elseís that can be compromised, what with the health emergency and all.

10
Your Turn / Re: Recent Surpreme Court Decision Concerning Churches
« on: November 28, 2020, 05:56:29 PM »
Richard,

I may be wrong in this, but it seems to me it comes down to this: please let the adults and responsible family members make their own decisions and stop imposing your decisions upon them. If they believe it is important to be willing to risk this for that, let them risk it. Donít tell them: ďNo, it is not.Ē I think it is as simple as that.


If adults always did what was best for them, we wouldn't need most laws. They wouldn't use illegal drugs. They would get drunk. They wouldn't speed, etc. As Lutherans, we should know that humans cannot overcome sin. Our wills our bound to sin. Laws are a way God has give to help curb the evil our sin may inflict on others and self.


As much as parents may theorize that they will let their children make their own decisions, there always seems to come a point where a parent has to "lay down the law," because the child is unwilling or unable to make well-informed decisions for their own good.
A) free citizens are not children. B) individuals have a better track record than dictators of doing what is best. C) Parents treat their children differently because they know the child and the specific needs. Government is incapable of that degree of nuance. By your logic, the federally mandated bedtime, list of allowable snacks, and minutes spent brushing one's teeth would not be at all objectionable. 

11
Your Turn / Re: Recent Surpreme Court Decision Concerning Churches
« on: November 28, 2020, 05:49:42 PM »
Any decree that inhibits individual rights for the sake of public safety should, in order to be accepted, inhibit the rights (not the responsible chosen course of action, but the right to act) of the one making the proclamation as much or more than it does the rights of those expected to obey. Nobody who flies a private jet should ever be allowed to dictate what others can do regarding carbon emissions, for example.

Several mayors and governors have apologized this year for flagrantly violating their own edicts. I've been paying attention to such apologies. Note what it is they apologize for. They apologize for a lapse in judgment, for sending the wrong message or setting a bad example. But to my knowledge they never have apologized for knowingly endangering the lives of themselves or their loved ones, much less the general public. Gavin Newsome doesn't think he risked his old friend's life by going to that dinner. He thinks he made a bad impression and a political mistake. He wouldn't have gone if he really thought it was dangerous. The Denver mayor didn't apologize for the possibility that he might be responsible for the death of his family in Mississippi when he went there for Thanksgiving after telling everyone else to stay home. It isn't at all about what they really think, it is all about what they need other people to believe so as to keep order.

Imagine a governor flying a private jet while completely drunk and nearly crashing it. Wouldn't the apology be for the danger he posed to the public? If he apologized for setting a bad example or violating some air traffic regulation, people would say he just didn't get the true magnitude of his crime. What he did flying that plane was potentially lethal, not just a mistake about a rule. But when it comes to public officials gathering together during Covid, they don't apologize for potentially lethal crimes or manifest reckless endangerment. They apologize for understandable lapses in judgment and doing things that look bad. That's because the ones making the rules don't really believe they are putting anyone in genuine, mortal danger by doing these things. But they demand that we act like we believe we are putting people in mortal danger by gathering somewhere. It is really degrading.     

12
Your Turn / Re: Recent Surpreme Court Decision Concerning Churches
« on: November 28, 2020, 04:54:04 PM »
Richard,

I may be wrong in this, but it seems to me it comes down to this: please let the adults and responsible family members make their own decisions and stop imposing your decisions upon them. If they believe it is important to be willing to risk this for that, let them risk it. Donít tell them: ďNo, it is not.Ē I think it is as simple as that.
In general, this is a sound way to make decisions for a free society.  It gets a little murkier with infectious disease, though, where my decisions have the potential to impose risk on total strangers.  To take a non-COVID example, consider measles vaccination.  The measles vaccine is safe and highly effective, but it is not perfect.  Every few years, there is a measles outbreak somewhere in the US.  Invariably, the outbreak can be traced to one or more unvaccinated individuals, but occasionally, some fully-vaccinated children get sick as well, because the virus is highly transmissible, and the vaccine is not 100% effective.  If I had chosen not to vaccinate my kids against measles, most of the risk would have fallen on my own children, but I would also have needlessly imposed some risk on others in our community. 

Peace,
Jon
So the question becomes whether it is better to live with the occasional outbreak of measles in a free society or live 100% measles-free in a society where the government can inject things into your children against your will. Don't get me wrong, all my children are vaccinated. I simply think we too often solve problems at the expense of the big picture and then wonder why the big picture is so messed up. I believe it is in some writing regarding Screwtape Letters (but I could be wrong) where C.S. Lewis points to the fact as extremely tyrannical if not Satanic that some law in England forbade a man from cutting down his own tree on his own property. Lewis would be all in favor of leaving the tree there; that wasn't the point. The point is that when the collective imposes its will on the individual, every individual in the collective loses something without even knowing it. The defenders of liberty in principle will always appear to be the uncaring ones who can't see the obvious benefit of this or that (usually emergency) solution to this or that problem.

If the state took two or three billion dollars of Elon Musk's money and gave it to poverty-stricken people, it would seem like far more people would be better off. Musk would barely even notice. But suddenly 300+million people would be living in a country that didn't recognize private property or equal protection under the law. The people arguing against such a redistribution would not be opposed to poverty relief or pro-billionaire. They would be protecting an important principle that benefits all people.     

There can be problematic cases, especially as it relates to addiction, in which the strong can prey upon the freedom of the weak in such a way that it becomes problematic to figure out what should be legal. And contagion/public safety certainly presents conflicting principles. I simply think special circumstances require us to err on the side of principle rather than practical solutions because we are somewhat "bribed" in our deliberations by the promise of a solution to a pressing problem.

13
Your Turn / Re: Recent Surpreme Court Decision Concerning Churches
« on: November 28, 2020, 04:13:40 PM »
Public safety can justify pretty draconian executive orders. We have to assume nobody is trying to get sick or spread disease, and further assume that government is always trying to concentrate authority in itself. Recommendations are far safer than mandates when all the facets of public health are taken into account.

14
Your Turn / Re: Recent Surpreme Court Decision Concerning Churches
« on: November 28, 2020, 02:33:11 PM »
OK, Peter, and I owe "them" nothing in response to snipes at Obama or either of the Clintons, who, BTW are no longer in office and exert little influence over anything. Trump is still in office and still does and - if he gets his way and if the members of the sect shout loudly enough and if the sane Republicans cave in - will exert total control over the Republican party when he leaves office. Let us pray that people like Sasse and Romney and the 20 or so other Senators said to privately "despise" Trump keep speaking up or find the voices they lost in thrall to the leader of the sect.
    I do rejoice that Biden was elected, but the rejoicing was dampened by the crap thrown at the election by the President and his minions, crap now proven in the courts to be totally without merit.
   The rejoicing is tempered by sadness that we must now move into the administration ahead with the echoes of nutty allegations, dissembling and corruption having tainted the White House. I think President-Elect Biden should order a total fumigation before letting his family move in. Might be something in the air.
Precisely. You owe them nothing, so donít give them anything. Donít post on the topic. Donít post that you arenít going to respond. Donít post to pony out your refusal to post. Donít post some little dig and then add, ďBut we digress.Ē Just stop interacting with people you donít like on topics that bug you.

15
Your Turn / Re: Lutheran ethnic origins
« on: November 28, 2020, 02:26:37 PM »
My wifeís grandfather was Stephen Tuhy, who founded St. Lukeís in Oviedo, Fl. He was from a line of Stephen/Stefan Tuhys who were Lutheran clergy, including president of the Slovak Lutheran church in the early 20th century.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 1085