Messages

12496

Your Turn / Re: "De-radioactivizing" Yankee Stadium

« on: November 14, 2008, 11:43:26 AM »

"It is further more a problem because this is a country whose official language is English and we have English ancestry from our forefathers (most anyway) and "allah" is an Arabic term meaning god.  So it just simply would not make any sense for even a generic "allah" because we are not an arabic speaking people."

Yup, always thought that "E pluribus unum" had polytheistic undertones.

12497

Your Turn / Re: Wacky Prayer Petitions…

« on: November 14, 2008, 11:30:23 AM »

"...Debbie and I heard the local ELCA congregation go through their prayer litany (on the radio).  In discussing it, we came to the conclusion that a Hindu would be comfortable praying with that congregation and its multiplicity of gods... I'm sure people would argue with me that they were praying to the Triune God, but how would little children or the uninitiated hear those prayers?"

Hmmm, I don't know what your point is. Perhaps it's because I'm LC-MS, and we've never had to deal with that issue among ourselves.   

12498

Your Turn / Re: When to refrain from distributing the sacrament -or- No Christ for you!

« on: November 14, 2008, 11:22:21 AM »

How would he know?

It's irrelevant whether or not he knows. Read what is written:

"A South Carolina Roman Catholic priest has told his parishioners that they should refrain from receiving Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama ..."

So, what's the problem? Does it state anywhere that the priest is going to refrain from distributing the Sacrament to anyone?

I'm always amazed at the knee-jerk lib response to someone telling another that they shouldn't do something...as if it's an infringement on their "rights"...and then the Nazi card is played. ("No communion/Christ for you" ala "No soup for you!" by Seinfeld's Soup-Nazi.)

12499

Your Turn / Re: Exorcisms in the Baptismal Rite, cont'd

« on: November 13, 2008, 11:47:15 PM »

Thanks, Bill.

That is quite helpful and certainly argues that the exorcism extols baptism.

Pax,
Don

12500

Your Turn / Re: Things we appreciate about the PE

« on: November 13, 2008, 12:32:53 PM »

Jeff Ruby wrote:

"Suffice to say that to my response  that a person of President-Elect Obama's skin color may not have been able to vote 45 years ago was met with a post of the Emancipation Proclamation gave them the right to vote.

 Obviously incorrect. Certainly , not all African-Americans were disenfranchised 45 years ago, but many were, especially in the South. Even if one assumes I was posting literally about PE Obama not being able to vote (which of course meant he was two years old at the time and couldn't do it anyway), that answer was not correct in terms of which acts gave African-Americans the right to vote in this nation."

Mr. Ruby,

It's usually more helpful if one tells the truth, i.e., if one reiterates what was said rather than what was not said. Here is the sequence of the comments:


JR:  "I can't imagine what it must be like for people who could not vote to now have elected as leader someone who 45 years ago could not vote, much less be elected President of our nation. It is a historic night and I am glad my kids have seen it happen."

DK:  “Well, I guess I can imagine what it is like for us, the citizenry, to have elected as leader someone who could not vote when he was 2 years old. But sorry, I cannot get too excited about that.”

DK:  “BTW, could you tell me why 45 years ago, other than because of minimum age requirements, Obama would not have been able to vote?”

DK:  “You wrote:

‘I can't imagine what it must be like for people who could not vote to now have elected as leader someone who 45 years ago could not vote, much less be elected President of our nation.’

My question is: 45 years ago, other than because of minimum age requirements, why would Obama not have been able to vote?”

JR:  "A little something called the voting rights act?"

DK:  “Obama would not have been able to vote prior to that? And the voting rights act gave him that right?

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/treasures/images/vc89.1.jpg  (An image commemorating the 15th Amendment)”

So, please, start being truthful. If you didn't mean what you wrote, then simply tell us that, state that you were being hyperbolic, or at least be upfront about your backpedaling. And if I pointed to the 15th Amendment of 1870 as that which gave Barack Obama the right to vote (138 years ago, not 45,) please don't mischaracterize it as the Emancipation Proclamation and conclude, therefore, that I was obviously incorrect. A straw man is a logically invalid form of argument, and it is even worse when one is so blatantly untruthful about its creation.

Thanks,

Don Kirchner

12501

Your Turn / Re: Things we appreciate about the PE

« on: November 12, 2008, 06:27:02 PM »

Hey, let's look at the positive side of things. An erroneous statement that, 45 years ago, Obama would not have been able to vote has morphed into a more plausible statement that, 45 years ago, in five southern states some African-Americans would not have been able to vote.

Showing us that we can appreciate the president-elect for leading us to a corrected view of history.  And giving us the opportunity to correct the mischaracterization of the office to which he is elected as one of executive power run amok.

And, thanks to the media coverage and discussion of the P-E, I now know that it is appropriate to say "person of color" but not "colored person."

12502

Your Turn / Re: Things we appreciate about the PE

« on: November 12, 2008, 05:52:22 PM »

"I really can't help you with the fact you are still working out the difference between the Emancipation Proclamation, which had nothing to do with voting rights, and the 15th and 24th Amendments to the US Constitution, which do speak to those voting rights. Wow, I didn't know you held onto week old threads so much."

Hey, I'm simply trying to figure out how your mind works!

So, let's see...the 15th Amendment...passed in 1870...so that relates to an absolute statement that Obama would not have been able to vote 45 years ago...how?

The 24th Amendment prohibits both Congress and the states from conditioning the right to vote in federal elections on payment of a poll tax or other types of tax.  Poll taxes had been enacted in eleven Southern states after Reconstruction as a measure to prevent African Americans from voting, and at the time of this amendment's passage, only five states still retained a poll tax: Virginia, Alabama, Texas, Arkansas, and Mississippi.

So, since Obama was not a resident of any of those five states, it relates to an absolute statement that Obama would not have been able to vote 45 years ago...how?

Your reading of history and how it applies to an individual is something I've not been able to figure out just as in your current examples of cases that do not support a purported history of executive power running amok.

12503

Your Turn / Re: Things we appreciate about the PE

« on: November 12, 2008, 05:41:10 PM »

Ah, the murky rules of political correctness.

It's perfectly permissible to use the term "person of color," but just try using the term "colored person" and <gasp!> the headlines will read, "You said the C- word!"  

12504

Your Turn / Re: Things we appreciate about the PE

« on: November 12, 2008, 05:11:39 PM »

Jeff Ruby wrote:

"Congress isn't the only one violating the Constitution" then goes on to speak of a history of executive power running amok. I support thereof he then cites two cases, neither which specifically rule that the executive branch violated the Constitution.

Hamdan v. Rumsfeld was a case in which the Court held that the administration did not have authority to set up certain military commissions without congressional authorization, because they did not comply with the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the Geneva Convention.

There was no violation of the Constitution.

Boumediene v. Bush was a case in which The United States Military Commissions Act of 2006, an Act of Congress, was found to be unconstitutional. Is following a legitimately passed Congressional law of the land, that is later found to be unconstituional, a violation of the Constitution? Oh, I suppose it is an example of Congress not being the only one since someone else followed their unconstitutional law, but hardly a definitive example of executive power running amok because it followed a law passed by Congress.

As in conclusions such as Obama not being able to vote 45 years ago, quite a stretch and playing fast and loose with the facts. A real reaching to find fault with the Bush Administration.

Signs of someone with an agenda

12505

Your Turn / Re: A Blessed All Saints Day to All

« on: November 11, 2008, 12:03:24 PM »

Jeremy Loesch wrote:

"We have Lessons [in the Divine Service], since God's Word is instructive."

To which edoughty responded:

"So then here's what I wonder:  God's word instructs us, but do we go to church to sit in the pews and learn lessons like students?  I sure don't."

Lutherans do.

Lessons teach, and students are taught.  The Divine Service teaches.

"After all, the chief purpose of all ceremonies is to teach the people what they need to know about Christ."  [AC XXIV, The Mass, 3]

Such a Lutheran view is carried forth to contemporary times. For example, from Manual on the Liturgy, Lutheran Book of Worship, Philip H. Pfatteicher, Carlos R. Messerli, Inter-Lutheran Commission on Worship, p. 217-218

"The Liturgy of the Word of God

The focus now shifts to the lectern or pulpit from which the lessons are read.

On Sundays and festivals all three lessons are read."

So yes, Lutherans go to church to sit in the pews and learn lessons like students.

12506

Your Turn / Re: Things we appreciate about the PE

« on: November 10, 2008, 08:54:50 AM »

"Not to mention that he can actually pronounce the word "nuclear" instead of saying "noo-kew-lar".  That's change I can believe in."

Yeah, whatever.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nuclear

"Though disapproved of by many, pronunciations ending in \\-kyə-lər\\ have been found in widespread use among educated speakers including scientists, lawyers, professors, congressmen, United States cabinet members, and at least two United States presidents and one vice president. While most common in the United States, these pronunciations have also been heard from British and Canadian speakers."

12507

Your Turn / Re: A Blessed All Saints Day to All

« on: November 07, 2008, 06:34:18 PM »

A cage match!    What an appropriate metaphor.

That's a good one, right up there with Karl Rove's "circular firing squad" to describe the back-biting and blaming going on among the McCain-Palin staff. 

Oops, there goes that drift again...

12508

Your Turn / Re: A Blessed All Saints Day to All

« on: November 07, 2008, 06:24:19 PM »

For good order, I've started a new thread.

Pax,
Don

12509

Your Turn / Exorcisms in the Baptismal Rite, cont'd

« on: November 07, 2008, 05:48:51 PM »

Bill Weedon wrote:

"I assume you mark with the sign of the cross to 'mark you as one redeemed by CHrist the crucified.'  But this is BEFORE Baptism - but it's not a problem because we all understand that it is referring to the act that is at the center of all the rejoicings."

It is interesting that you bring that up.  Ironically, from Luther's Baptismal Booklet:

The baptizer shall say:
“Depart, you unclean spirit, and make room for the Holy Spirit.”
Then he shall make the sign of the cross on both the forehead and the breast and say:
“Receive the sign of the holy cross upon the forehead and the breast.
“Let us pray.
“O almighty and eternal God..."
 
Kolb, Wengert: The Book of Concord: The Confessions of the Evangelical Lutheran Church (Minneapolis : Fortress Press, 2000), p.373.

Therein, the sign of the cross is an exorcism, no? So when was the statement "to mark you as one redeemed by Christ the crucified" added and why? (There's a master's thesis topic for someone. Or maybe it's been done. I'd appreciate any citations anyone might have.) The addition of the statement seems to change the character from an exorcism to a statement of what is being done in baptism. As you correctly observe, temporally we can't do everything at once.

I certainly have no problem with the statement and action, for it extols baptism, and it is part of the rite just as is placing one's hand upon the child and speaking the Prayer of the Church- the Lord's Prayer- prior to the actual baptism.

The exorcisms, however, tend to confuse as I stated above. In my opinion, they do not extol baptism, which is the only "exorcism" needed. For baptism rescues from the devil, where the Holy Spirit enters unclean spirits must flee, and the Holy Spirit might be a gentleman, but He goes wherever He wishes.   In baptism, the Lord puts His name on us and proclaims, "Not this one, Satan! This one is mine!"

Oh wait, I think I've heard you say that...  

"[Norman Nagel] will always remain my most beloved and revered teacher."

Mine too. You walked out of every one of his classes thinking, "Wow! What a Jesus!"

12510

Your Turn / Re: A Blessed All Saints Day to All

« on: November 07, 2008, 03:51:32 PM »

Thanks for the discusion, Pastor Weedon. if you wish to continue it perhaps we should start a new thread. The author of this one about All Saints Day seems a bit miffed by the thread drift, and I can understand that.