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 - Michael Slusser

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 357
1
Your Turn / Re: Coronavirus news
« on: Yesterday at 02:07:17 PM »
There is a Fauci Derangement Syndrome out there:
Quote
Lara Logan, once a lauded foreign correspondent for CBS News’s “60 Minutes” and now a boundary-pushing Fox News guest commentator and streaming show host, drew fierce condemnation for on-air comments Monday night comparing the nation’s top infectious-disease expert, Anthony S. Fauci, to Nazi doctor Josef Mengele.

Her comments came during a segment in which Fox host Pete Hegseth, a frequent critic of coronavirus vaccine mandates and masking politics, accused the Biden administration of overhyping the new omicron variant.

Logan’s response, though, went well beyond.

“What you see on Dr. Fauci — this is what people say to me: that he doesn’t represent science to them. He represents Josef Mengele,” she said. “Dr. Josef Mengele, the Nazi doctor who did experiments on Jews during the Second World War and in the concentration camps. And I am talking about people all across the world are saying this, because the response from covid, what it has done to countries everywhere, what it has done to civil liberties, the suicide rates, the poverty, it has obliterated economies. The level of suffering that has been created because of this disease is now being seen in the cold light of day.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/media/2021/11/30/media-lara-logan-fox-fauci-mengele-comparison/

Peace,
Michael

2
Your Turn / Re: Changing Lifestyles Of American Adults
« on: November 29, 2021, 11:39:01 AM »
The desire to control / resistance to being controlled are involved here.  "Common Law" marriage left the matter of life together and bearing of children to the man and woman. It was open to abuse and was abused, but by and large may have worked about as well as our formalized, legalized marriages. Extended families had something to do with that.

I think we are at a point where formality and documentation are meeting "we don't need your interference."

Peace,
Michael

3
Your Turn / Re: New University
« on: November 27, 2021, 02:34:42 PM »
https://spectatorworld.com/topic/university-austin-meteor-higher-education/

Still in the news based on reactions to the announcement.

And here is an interesting take on the logistics, social and financial, of the new project.

https://www.thenation.com/article/culture/university-austin/
Thanks. Those were fun reads. I have yet to see any comment on the fact that the major element missing from the UATX project is any explicit mention of the role of religion, much less Christianity, in building a critical institution of higher education.

Peace,
Michael

4
Your Turn / Re: Fascinating black LCMS history at the Federalist
« on: November 22, 2021, 09:45:46 PM »
https://thefederalist.com/2021/11/22/history-making-african-american-eulogized-in-a-church-that-turned-her-away-82-years-ago/

What a poignant story of redemption. She went to a Lutheran church and was not allowed to be seen, and since there were no other Lutheran churches around, she started one that is still active today. The church that turned her away all those years ago, though, was honored to host her funeral.
Wonderful story, wonderful woman!

Peace,
Michael

5
Your Turn / Re: A home for used theological books
« on: November 20, 2021, 02:37:18 PM »
Seriously, I donated several boxes of books to the North American Lutheran Church seminary in Pennsylvania. I sent a list first to see if they were interested, and they were; also said that anything they couldn't use, they'd put out for students to take. They are trying to build their library.

That's what I had hoped Oak Hills would do. Perhaps I'll pick out the current, best volumes and contact Luther or even Concordia and haul them down the next time I go down to see my parents in the St Paul area. The numerous translations of Bibles I can drop off at the 7th Day Adventist thrift store in town. They have shelves of them. I would think that most if not all students use online resources.

Thanks for the suggestion!

Sincerely,

Brandon
If you are looking at seminaries in Minnesota, there is also the Lutheran Brethren seminary in Fergus Falls and the AFLC seminary in Medicine Lake, on the NE edge of Minneapolis.

Peace,
Michael

6
Your Turn / Re: Christian response to Rittenhouse trial
« on: November 20, 2021, 11:32:14 AM »
Wisconsin law:

"939.49  Defense of property and protection against retail theft.
(1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with the person's property. Only such degree of force or threat thereof may intentionally be used as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. It is not reasonable to intentionally use force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm for the sole purpose of defense of one's property.
(2) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person's property from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend his or her own property from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such as would give the 3rd person the privilege to defend his or her own property, that his or her intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person's property, and that the 3rd person whose property the person is protecting is a member of his or her immediate family or household or a person whose property the person has a legal duty to protect, or is a merchant and the actor is the merchant's employee or agent. An official or adult employee or agent of a library is privileged to defend the property of the library in the manner specified in this subsection.
(3) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both.

939.48  Self-defense and defense of others.
(1)  A person is privileged to threaten or intentionally use force against another for the purpose of preventing or terminating what the person reasonably believes to be an unlawful interference with his or her person by such other person. The actor may intentionally use only such force or threat thereof as the actor reasonably believes is necessary to prevent or terminate the interference. The actor may not intentionally use force which is intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless the actor reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
(1m) 
(a) In this subsection:
1. “Dwelling" has the meaning given in s. 895.07 (1) (h).
2. “Place of business" means a business that the actor owns or operates.
(ar) If an actor intentionally used force that was intended or likely to cause death or great bodily harm, the court may not consider whether the actor had an opportunity to flee or retreat before he or she used force and shall presume that the actor reasonably believed that the force was necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself if the actor makes such a claim under sub. (1) and either of the following applies:
1. The person against whom the force was used was in the process of unlawfully and forcibly entering the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that an unlawful and forcible entry was occurring.
2. The person against whom the force was used was in the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business after unlawfully and forcibly entering it, the actor was present in the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business, and the actor knew or reasonably believed that the person had unlawfully and forcibly entered the dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business.
(b) The presumption described in par. (ar) does not apply if any of the following applies:
1. The actor was engaged in a criminal activity or was using his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business to further a criminal activity at the time.
2. The person against whom the force was used was a public safety worker, as defined in s. 941.375 (1) (b), who entered or attempted to enter the actor's dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business in the performance of his or her official duties. This subdivision applies only if at least one of the following applies:
a. The public safety worker identified himself or herself to the actor before the force described in par. (ar) was used by the actor.
b. The actor knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter his or her dwelling, motor vehicle, or place of business was a public safety worker.
(2) Provocation affects the privilege of self-defense as follows:
(a) A person who engages in unlawful conduct of a type likely to provoke others to attack him or her and thereby does provoke an attack is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense against such attack, except when the attack which ensues is of a type causing the person engaging in the unlawful conduct to reasonably believe that he or she is in imminent danger of death or great bodily harm. In such a case, the person engaging in the unlawful conduct is privileged to act in self-defense, but the person is not privileged to resort to the use of force intended or likely to cause death to the person's assailant unless the person reasonably believes he or she has exhausted every other reasonable means to escape from or otherwise avoid death or great bodily harm at the hands of his or her assailant.
(b) The privilege lost by provocation may be regained if the actor in good faith withdraws from the fight and gives adequate notice thereof to his or her assailant.
(c) A person who provokes an attack, whether by lawful or unlawful conduct, with intent to use such an attack as an excuse to cause death or great bodily harm to his or her assailant is not entitled to claim the privilege of self-defense.
(3) The privilege of self-defense extends not only to the intentional infliction of harm upon a real or apparent wrongdoer, but also to the unintended infliction of harm upon a 3rd person, except that if the unintended infliction of harm amounts to the crime of first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless homicide, homicide by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, first-degree or 2nd-degree reckless injury or injury by negligent handling of dangerous weapon, explosives or fire, the actor is liable for whichever one of those crimes is committed.
(4) A person is privileged to defend a 3rd person from real or apparent unlawful interference by another under the same conditions and by the same means as those under and by which the person is privileged to defend himself or herself from real or apparent unlawful interference, provided that the person reasonably believes that the facts are such that the 3rd person would be privileged to act in self-defense and that the person's intervention is necessary for the protection of the 3rd person.
(5) A person is privileged to use force against another if the person reasonably believes that to use such force is necessary to prevent such person from committing suicide, but this privilege does not extend to the intentional use of force intended or likely to cause death.
(6) In this section “unlawful" means either tortious or expressly prohibited by criminal law or both."

Kyle Rittenhouse had the legal right to be where he was, helping the owner protect his business,  and when attacked had the legal right to use the necessary force in self-defense as stated above.
Thanks for digging this out and making it available to us.
Do we know if this statute was brought up, read and explained in the trial?
The part about helping the owner to protect his business doesn't apply to the shootings, since at the time Rittenhouse shot the people he perceived as attacking him, he had left the business location and was striding down the middle of the public street like any other citizen.
The parts about how provocation relates to the implementation of action in self-defense is really complicated. I don't envy the jury's having to parse that and apply it to the case. IMO the defense was probably shrewd to put the young man on the stand--the jury took him seriously.

Peace,
Michael

7
Your Turn / Grace and Thanksgiving
« on: November 20, 2021, 09:37:44 AM »
Just in time for the Sunday before Thanksgiving, I saw this piece on the practice of grace before meals:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/food/2021/11/18/saying-grace-thanksgiving/
It is a bit of a fluff piece, but it makes me wonder about the practices of the people around me, whether like the Commissioner's family in the TV show "Blue Bloods" they say grace formally before Sunday dinner, or whether the don't even sit down together. I wonder if meal-time grace may be one of the residual expressions of faith (usually Christian) that remains, even when the act of corporate thanksgiving (Eucharist) has dropped from people's lives.

May it also be a starting point for people to look for the overarching meaning and direction that acknowledging the promises and blessings of God gives to human life and to the world? Conviction of sin may not be the only way in. The Washington Post article emphasizes the mindfulness aspects of grace before meals, but it seems to me the practical effects of the ritual only touch the beginning of the changed attitude to life that it brings to mind.

Peace,
Michael

8
Your Turn / Re: Christian response to Rittenhouse trial
« on: November 19, 2021, 02:46:06 PM »
Quote
Within seconds of the verdict, far-right chat forums erupted in jubilation, with prominent extremists praising the defense attorneys and jury.
     Since the shootings, a broad cross-section of extremist factions have cheered on Rittenhouse, tying his case to their own racial and political grievances. “NOT (expletive) GUILTY!!!” the Proud Boys celebrated in their public Telegram channel.
     Dozens of others posted congratulations, along with memes showing Rittenhouse as a hero. In one, a play on a Leonardo DiCaprio meme, Rittenhouse was depicted in a tuxedo, toasting with a champagne glass.
     “Kyle Rittenhouse is the most prudent young man I’ve ever seen in controversy,” Ali Alexander, one of the organizers of the Jan. 6 “Stop the Steal” rallies of Trump supporters, wrote on Telegram. “He has God’s favor and has been delivered from the gallows,” Alexander added.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/11/19/rittenhouse-verdict-live-updates/#link-EIGAFB2HQBAETBQ3QVZDAOWBXU

Something here for everyone.

Peace,
Michael

9
Your Turn / Re: Christian response to Rittenhouse trial
« on: November 19, 2021, 12:35:20 PM »
I believe that Kyle Rittenhouse shot more people in Kenosha than were shot in an entire week of rioting and demonstrations in Minneapolis and St. Paul after George Floyd's murder.

Okay. Why not say that the Minneapolis rioters committed more illegal violence and destruction than the Capitol rioters? The Capitol police shot more unarmed protesters on Jan. 6 than protesters shot by police in all the Floyd protests put together. Is that unarguable fact helpful? Or is it just pushing an agenda with selective and false comparisons?
Because that is not relevant to the topic of this thread. If you wish to start a thread on that topic, it will have to get past the moderators.  :P
That was my point—  comparing number of shots fired here or there is not relevant to the topic. Comparing the number of people shot by Rittenhouse to the number of people shot in the Floyd protests was not relevant but somehow was supposed to seem relevant. Why bring it up?
It's a matter of who brings the violence to a situation. The rioters and the demonstrators in the Twin Cities, for all the property damage that some of them caused, apparently did not bring violence against persons. Therefore the police and the Guard did not need to shoot to protect themselves and others. The police in Kenosha also did not feel the need to shoot at the rioters and demonstrators there. Possibly they had a better grasp of the situation than did the Rittenhouse boy.

And if you will talk about Jan. 6 at the US Capitol, who brought the violence to the situation?

Peace,
Michael

10
Your Turn / Re: Christian response to Rittenhouse trial
« on: November 19, 2021, 11:46:03 AM »
I believe that Kyle Rittenhouse shot more people in Kenosha than were shot in an entire week of rioting and demonstrations in Minneapolis and St. Paul after George Floyd's murder.

Okay. Why not say that the Minneapolis rioters committed more illegal violence and destruction than the Capitol rioters? The Capitol police shot more unarmed protesters on Jan. 6 than protesters shot by police in all the Floyd protests put together. Is that unarguable fact helpful? Or is it just pushing an agenda with selective and false comparisons?
Because that is not relevant to the topic of this thread. If you wish to start a thread on that topic, it will have to get past the moderators.  :P

Peace,
Michael

11
Your Turn / Re: Christian response to Rittenhouse trial
« on: November 19, 2021, 11:25:50 AM »
I believe that Kyle Rittenhouse shot more people in Kenosha than were shot in an entire week of rioting and demonstrations in Minneapolis and St. Paul after George Floyd's murder.

Peace,
Michael

12
Your Turn / Re: Could we be seeing a return to one-earner families?
« on: November 16, 2021, 08:02:22 PM »
I read the article and looked at the charts. Only one of the cities specifically listed on the charts had mort than 50% dual income households. What I did not find to be clear was how the overall more than 50% figure was arrived at. Apparently it was not simply the average from the cities listed but I suppose an average nation-wide. What I found to be of more significance was the assertion that the % of two income families had risen over the last decade which would suggest that there is not a return to one-earner families. The trend in the report seems to point to the opposite.


It could be that those opting for one-earner are being more vocal and less intimidated by those who tend to denigrate women who are homemakers as their primary vocation.
You're quite right. But the data end in 2019, pre-pandemic. The very speculative and hypothetical column with which I started the thread was talking about the implications of the sudden drop in labor-market participation during the last nearly 2 years.

Peace,
Michael

13
Your Turn / Re: Could we be seeing a return to one-earner families?
« on: November 16, 2021, 10:50:48 AM »
Then find statistics to refute these, Pastor Bohler. I gave you a set of statistics and I gave their source. You take it from there.
I know it’s very hard for you, but sometimes we all encounter things that don’t fit our picture of the world.
Go to the website. Study the data. And gather your refutation. I would enjoy reading it if you can present one.
As Pastor Bohler observed, the statistics from that article don't add up. One would have to suppose that nearly all households outside the cities were two-earner households. The author used various sources of data (see "Methodology") which may themselves have been calculated on different bases.

Peace,
Michael

14
Your Turn / Re: Could we be seeing a return to one-earner families?
« on: November 14, 2021, 03:33:26 PM »
Two observations.

The author Olsen doesn't say whether the single-earner in the family will be male or female.

At least some second-earners may have been working to pay parochial-school tuition. Anecdotally, I've know that to happen.

Peace,
Michael

15
Your Turn / Could we be seeing a return to one-earner families?
« on: November 13, 2021, 11:02:22 PM »
An opinion piece in the Washington Post yesterday struck me. It asked whether the increasing shortage of workers may be the result of families deciding that they could (and would rather) now live on one income instead of both parents working. That would be a major change, and not necessarily a bad one. The writer (unfamiliar to me) is Henry Olsen.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2021/11/12/are-americans-starting-embrace-one-earner-households-again/
Quote
It’s telling, however, that elites who drive our public policy have not seemed to mention another possibility that would have been obvious to prior generations: families deciding that one-earner families are better.

Last year’s enforced idleness and economic slowdown surely pushed many families into a one-earner status — even if unwillingly. It’s not unreasonable to assume that some liked the subsequent work-life balance. Rather than struggle to care for children and satisfy bosses, not to mention carve out time for one another, some couples surely found that they could make do with one wage and have a better quality of life.

It wouldn’t take many people to decide this to throw the labor market out of whack. Government data show that the overall labor force participation rate is down from a pre-pandemic 63.4 percent to 61.6 percent today. That seemingly small 1.8 percentage point drop is the equivalent of about 5 million people. That’s slightly larger than the 4.2 million fewer jobs available today compared with February 2020. Suppose only 1 percent of the pre-pandemic labor force decided to embrace a one-earner lifestyle. That would reduce the labor force by 1.6 million people, explaining roughly one-third of the total labor force drop and more than 40 percent of the employment gap.
Is this change, IF it is occurring, something that the churches should welcome as enhancing family life?

Peace,
Michael

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 357