Messages

1

Your Turn / Re: The Church's Response to Government and Governing

« on: Today at 11:36:36 AM »

On my way to church yesterday morining. About 7:45 am, I had a local FM station on. (Later in the morning it broadcasts a local LCMS congregation's service and The Lutheran Hour.) The program "Christian Perspective" was being broadcast. 🙄 Some nut job preacher ranting on and on, telling listeners time after time to NOT take the vaccine, that there are permanent negative side effects, that he's seen videos of people shaking uncontrollably after getting the vaccine, telling the listeners to make sure they have enough food and supplies for the coming onslaught... And then closed with a prayer! A Christian perspective?!!   

And then there's this:

https://www.parkrapidsenterprise.com/opinion/columns/6840579-McFeely-Alexandria-pastors-lies-are-chilling-and-dangerous-and-nothing-less

Things are getting a bit weird up in these parts.

2

Your Turn / Re: Church and weddings...

« on: January 16, 2021, 12:16:13 PM »

Why is cohabiting okay for the purposes of pension law but remarriage is not?

Given your scenario, in the first instance, because they're not married.

Not to be obstinate, but it seems you have begged the question. Can you explain the rationale for why living together without a marriage license is fine for the purposes of a pension but living together with one ends your pension? To say, "Because in one case you have a marriage license," doesn't really answer anything.

Put it another way, you are saying: "It's the law." I am asking, "Why is it the law and should it continue to be the law?"

It's probably more of the pension contract rather than just "It's the law." Perhaps, over the years, there have been pensions that cease upon the death of the pensioner and others that continue benefits for a spouse even after a remarriage.

So, it's more by definition rather than question begging. IOW, what's the purpose of a husband's pension, deceased or not?

Or, if you wish, you can heed the advice of that great philosopher, Fly, to Babe: "That's just the way things are, dear."

3

Your Turn / Re: Church and weddings...

« on: January 16, 2021, 11:23:24 AM »

Why is cohabiting okay for the purposes of pension law but remarriage is not?

Given your scenario, in the first instance, because they're not married.

4

Your Turn / Re: Church and weddings...

« on: January 16, 2021, 09:30:15 AM »

A concern that I have about starting to marry people without their obtaining a state marriage license is the potential for fraud. Not only the fraud of trying to avoid the financial consequences of marriage on pensions and the like (which concern should really be addressed in some other way) but fraud against the spouse. Unscrupulous individuals could use this to obtain whatever benefits they could get by being "married" without contracting the obligations that a legal marriage demands or the purported spouse having any of the legal protections that a legal marriage could provide. This would probably be rare, but potentially devastating when it happens. I remember a couple of times when it seemed to me that a couple came to me for marriage without a marriage license that I suspected that one of the couple was trying to take advantage of the other, and I declined.


This does not mean that there may not be good reasons to give a church wedding without a legal marriage, but in those cases perhaps more care needs to be exercised that we do not end up aiding and abetting fraud.

Potential fraud? If for the purpose of, for example, retaining a pension or other benefit, it is fraud, and the one performing the marriage rite is a party.

Dan, I'm struggling to think of a good reason. Would you give me an example? Thanks.

BTW, the blanket assertion that a legal marriage does not need a ceremony to be valid is erroneous.

Minnesota Statute 517.01:
"A civil marriage, so far as its validity in law is concerned, is a civil contract between two persons, to which the consent of the parties, capable in law of contracting, is essential. A lawful civil marriage may be contracted only when a license has been obtained as provided by law and when the civil marriage is contracted in the presence of two witnesses and solemnized by one authorized, or whom one or both of the parties in good faith believe to be authorized, so to do. Marriages subsequent to April 26, 1941, not so contracted shall be null and void." [emphasis added]

"solemnize
1. to perform the ceremony of (marriage).
2. to hold or perform (ceremonies, rites, etc.) in due manner..."

dictionary.com/browse/solemnize

5

Your Turn / Re: Not about the election...

« on: December 17, 2020, 05:12:59 PM »

I can’t speak for Peter, but I (who voted for Trump) certainly accept Joe Biden as the next President of the United States. Do I believe that fraud was committed? Beyond shadow of doubt. Do I believe it would have turned the election? None of us has any way of knowing, but we should all have a vested interest in insuring that it does not happen so readily in elections of the future. May God bless President-Elect Biden and may He lead him in the way of truth and justice for all peoples. (Which, I cannot help but note, is far, far more than the left ever granted toward our current President...I doubt you’ll see any of us out there with chants of “not my president!”)

Ah yes, the call for unity and healing.   

https://politicalwire.com/2020/12/16/im-not-saying-theyre-not-a-bunch-of-fuckers/

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/530555-biden-spokeswoman-defends-incoming-deputy-chief-of-staffs-point-in-spicy

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hillary-clinton-defends-biden-deputy-chief-staff  (Why does it seem that Hillary nearly always misses the point?)

6

Your Turn / Re: Not about the election...

« on: December 17, 2020, 01:54:35 PM »

Pew research says more voters than not think there was election fraud

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/more-voters-agree-there-was-election-fraud

Peter:  Are you among those who think there was voter fraud?

Marie

Yes. But I can’t prove it...

But we will be able to prove it.

https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud

https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud/search

7

Your Turn / Re: Not about the election...

« on: December 17, 2020, 01:12:19 PM »

I still think "was there voter fraud" is the wrong question.  Literally everyone should agree there was, because there literally always is.

The question asked in the polling referenced above was “Do you believe there was election and voter fraud in the presidential election between Joe Biden and Donald Trump back in November?”

Well, you'd kind of be a fool to believe there wasn't, but that doesn't mean it was widespread, significant, and certainly not that it was outcome determinative.  If you ask the wrong question, it's hard to get the right answer.

What about the question: "Do you believe there was election and voter fraud in the president election between Donald Trump and Hilary Clinton back in 2016?" If there was fraud in 2020, which has been called "the most secure election," how much fraud was present four years ago?

Do I believe that there was voter fraud in the 2016 election? Of course. But, as Mr. Garner stated, you're asking the wrong question.

8

Your Turn / Re: Coronavirus news

« on: December 16, 2020, 10:48:39 PM »

Indeed!

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10225443910143723&id=1204350046&set=a.1554342977547&source=48

9

Your Turn / Re: Coronavirus news

« on: December 16, 2020, 05:32:10 PM »

I know jebutler, that what is reported one day might turn out to be corrected the very next day as new information comes to light. What’s reported on a given day may be the new thing based on what we have learned in the last 24 hours. That’s why we call it “news.”
The contention was that those news stories of 6 or 8 months ago were “wrong,“ or lies. I am explaining that they were not wrong, that  they were not lies.

Yes, Charles, comments from September and October took place "6 or 8 months ago."

Yes, LBJ quit running for President because he felt guilty about Vietnam.

You are right. Anonymous posting should be banned from this board.

(Don't try to correct him. It just makes him more upset. Just agree with him. It's easier that way.)

"Don't cross him, don't boss him
He's wild in his sorrow
He's ridin' an' hidin' his pain
Don't fight him, don't spite him
Just wait till tomorrow
Maybe he'll ride on again."  Maybe ...

10

Your Turn / Re: Coronavirus news

« on: December 16, 2020, 12:45:27 PM »

While the FDA approved the Pfizer vaccine, it's still dragging its feet on others.  The real issue is how many lives will be lost from delayed approvals vs. how many lives will be saved by slow, careful consideration of evidence?

Given the slow rollout of these vaccines (slow, at least, when considered against the number of people needing to be vaccinated), it's easy to think that the delay of a few days or weeks isn't all that consequential.

Not so, says George Mason University economist Alex Tabarrok, who deploys some back-of-the-envelope math to argue that a few thousand people will die for every day the FDA dawdles in approving new vaccines.

However, if people believe the FDA rushed the process millions might be unwilling to receive the vaccine.

This is America, Brian. It's one's constitutional right to be a fool.

Not when one's foolish acts endanger self or others. Some pursuits of happiness are illegal.

Well, you show me a case, Brian, where the government requires all citizens to be involuntarily vaccinated, and the courts will show you that it's a citizen's constitutional right to be a fool, i.e., to refuse the vaccine.

11

Your Turn / Re: Not about the election...

« on: December 16, 2020, 09:32:40 AM »

When I received my PhD., I specifically asked my parishioners not to call me doctor. But in the context of a seminary classroom, I asked them (at least if they asked) to call me Dr. (or Prof.). It's all about context.

I never told my students to refer to me as Dr. Johnson, always Professor Johnson. Most of my career was at Tier 1 universities, and virtually nobody at that level refers to themself as Doctor X.

Indeed. Doing my undergrad at the University of Minnesota, all the profs had PhDs. It was Professor ------. My law degree is a professional one of juris doctor. If I referred to myself as Doctor Kirchner, I'd be laughed out of the courthouse!

The LCMS is a totally different universe. Seems like anybody other than a lowly pastor is Dr -----. At Sem StL, all the profs were addressed as Dr ----. It irritates me or causes a chuckle every time I receive a letter from Synod addressed to Dr. Donald Kirchner.

The biggest joke, however, is that as soon as someone obtains a position in the District or Synodical hierarchy, he arranges to get an honorary doctorate, even a Doctor of Laws, so he can absurdly refer to himself as Rev Dr ------.   

https://locator.lcms.org/worker/4917

https://locator.lcms.org/worker/119053

https://locator.lcms.org/worker/7735

Maybe it's a German thing.  In Germany, if a prof has several doctorates, he or she is formally addressed as Dr Dr Dr ------. 

12

Your Turn / Re: Coronavirus news

« on: December 16, 2020, 08:56:03 AM »

While the FDA approved the Pfizer vaccine, it's still dragging its feet on others.  The real issue is how many lives will be lost from delayed approvals vs. how many lives will be saved by slow, careful consideration of evidence?

Given the slow rollout of these vaccines (slow, at least, when considered against the number of people needing to be vaccinated), it's easy to think that the delay of a few days or weeks isn't all that consequential.

Not so, says George Mason University economist Alex Tabarrok, who deploys some back-of-the-envelope math to argue that a few thousand people will die for every day the FDA dawdles in approving new vaccines.

However, if people believe the FDA rushed the process millions might be unwilling to receive the vaccine.

This is America, Brian. It's one's constitutional right to be a fool.

13

Your Turn / Re: Not about the election...

« on: December 15, 2020, 12:19:34 PM »

You do know, Pastor Fienen, that Ivanka Trump was not the first lady?

You are right, it was Melania Trump, I've corrected my post. In any case, Was the way Melania treated by the press any more warranted than Epstein's criticism of Dr. Jill Biden?

The media in general. Remember this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JvNwUGWXOaA

14

Your Turn / Re: 5 Year Study of Women in Abortion Clinics

« on: December 11, 2020, 03:10:41 PM »

Ex-NFL coach Tony Dungy skeptical about Warnock's faith after 'pro-choice pastor' tweet

https://www.foxnews.com/sports/nfl-coach-tony-dungy-warnock-faith

Trivia: Dungy was an MVP quarterback for the U of Minnesota in 75-76. His father was a WWII pilot with the Tuskegee Airmen.

15

Your Turn / Re: Life in Quarantine: One man's reflections

« on: December 10, 2020, 08:20:11 AM »

Well done!