One step forward, maybe?

[Charles Austin]

Here's what I would like to see as - perhaps - a step forward.
First, in light of the chatter all around, some of it promising violence, about more demonstrations in Washington on Jan. 17, and on the 20th I would like every Republican, from the Top down, including those who have not yet acknowledged the legitimacy of the election, to go on national and local television and say: "Listen, friends, all you who supported the President and support us: Please stay home and stay away from Washington this week unless you are willing to cheer and applaud our new president and wish him well. If you cannot show respect for the electoral process and for the office, please stay home and curb your protesting energies for this week."
Second, I would like every Democrat to find someone - anyone! - from the Trump side of the political spectrum and say: "I will listen to you. If I disagree, it will not because I do not want to hear you or that I do not hear you. If I agree, or partly agree, I will say so. With you (I hope) I will denounce any action involving violence, destruction of property or use of weapons."
I would like to see that.

[Dave Benke]

I can't find the link, but Episcopal Bishop Michael Curry spoke this morning on MSNBC and gave a powerful Christian witness for reconciliation and the "hard work" of forgiveness.  It wasn't really an interview; he just preached on it for six or seven minutes.  And it represents what you're interested in seeing, not so much from political leaders only, but from Americans.

Dave Benke

[peter_speckhard]

I think the issue is a cultural rift being “settled” by declaring one side to have been morally in the wrong (as opposed to simply politically defeated). The mainstream media and social media being squarely and unabashedly on one side politically exacerbates it. People who descended on Washington to vow never to cooperate with the new administration were taken very seriously while literally wearing “pussy hats” on their heads. Such infantile foolishness was treated as
powerful resistance. That tells conservatives that their opponents have an incredible home field advantage in any national discussion. Hence alternative media. A clean admission of partisan bias by the NYT, CNN, NPR et al admitting that are to left what Fox used to be to the right, and some acknowledgment of culpability (willing, not accidental) for the they role played in the ludicrous Russia stuff, and a clear denouncement of any media or institution seeking to silence or deplatform Trump supporters would go a long way toward restarting a healthy, vibrant, if sometimes ugly national conversation. Absent that, I think conservatives are more likely to just keep developing alternative media.

[Chuck]

I can't find the link, but Episcopal Bishop Michael Curry spoke this morning on MSNBC and gave a powerful Christian witness for reconciliation and the "hard work" of forgiveness.  It wasn't really an interview; he just preached on it for six or seven minutes.  And it represents what you're interested in seeing, not so much from political leaders only, but from Americans.

Dave Benke

This may be what you're looking for:
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/episcopal-bishop-cites-christian-gospel-in-criticism-of-trump-84274757611?cid=sm_fb_maddow

[Dave Benke]

I can't find the link, but Episcopal Bishop Michael Curry spoke this morning on MSNBC and gave a powerful Christian witness for reconciliation and the "hard work" of forgiveness.  It wasn't really an interview; he just preached on it for six or seven minutes.  And it represents what you're interested in seeing, not so much from political leaders only, but from Americans.

Dave Benke

This may be what you're looking for:
https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/episcopal-bishop-cites-christian-gospel-in-criticism-of-trump-84274757611?cid=sm_fb_maddow

That's not the one - this was today, and was not only in context of Bad Wednesday, or as we call it, Epiphany.

Dave Benke

[Charles Austin]

My original intent, perhaps unclear, was to address the next 10 days. There is chatter about gathering in Washington for more rioting and violence. I had hoped that those who have some sway over those who might riot or do violence would agree to tell them to stop planning it. To stay home. To show some respect for those who will be our new leaders.
Republicans, from the Top Republican on down, are the only ones who can do this, who can address the potential rioters.

Peter writes:
A clean admission of partisan bias by the NYT, CNN, NPR et al admitting that are to left what Fox used to be to the right, and some acknowledgment of culpability (willing, not accidental) for the they role played in the ludicrous Russia stuff, and a clear denouncement of any media or institution seeking to silence or deplatform Trump supporters would go a long way toward restarting a healthy, vibrant, if sometimes ugly national conversation. Absent that, I think conservatives are more likely to just keep developing alternative media.
I say:
That’s not the issue close at hand.
If we do not ask those planning mischief in the next 10 days to stop it, I am very afraid about what might happen. We need clear, unequivocal words from Republican leadership. Now.

[Dave Benke]

I think the issue is a cultural rift being “settled” by declaring one side to have been morally in the wrong (as opposed to simply politically defeated). The mainstream media and social media being squarely and unabashedly on one side politically exacerbates it. People who descended on Washington to vow never to cooperate with the new administration were taken very seriously while literally wearing “pussy hats” on their heads. Such infantile foolishness was treated as
powerful resistance. That tells conservatives that their opponents have an incredible home field advantage in any national discussion. Hence alternative media. A clean admission of partisan bias by the NYT, CNN, NPR et al admitting that are to left what Fox used to be to the right, and some acknowledgment of culpability (willing, not accidental) for the they role played in the ludicrous Russia stuff, and a clear denouncement of any media or institution seeking to silence or deplatform Trump supporters would go a long way toward restarting a healthy, vibrant, if sometimes ugly national conversation. Absent that, I think conservatives are more likely to just keep developing alternative media.

Something I read today fits in here.  The Parler removal thing (and I had not heard of Parler before this week personally) by Apple/Amazon is subsequent to Parler having lost a lot of its ultra-conservative base because it had become an echo chamber, with no one participating who was on the other side on issues, until a bounty of like $20000 was raised by Parler to bring others - Democrats? - onto the site so it would be more interesting.  Being paid to have arguments seems to me a sign of the times, no?  "I know what I believe, and I know it's right, but I don't have anyone to shout at."  So somebody pays people to bring people to provide the shouting match. 

Which goes to a point for alpb forum online.  I think we should pay people to argue for let's say a fifteen post back and forth, and then vote on who won.  The alpb board would set up the arguments based on polls and surveys - wearing masks, nuclear war, acceptable pronouns, etc.   We would publish the results, go on talk TV of any kind, and make a good deal of money for ALPB.  Our claim would be that in the 21st century, this is how we do evangelical theology.

[John_Hannah]

Something I read today fits in here.  The Parler removal thing (and I had not heard of Parler before this week personally) by Apple/Amazon is subsequent to Parler having lost a lot of its ultra-conservative base because it had become an echo chamber, with no one participating who was on the other side on issues, until a bounty of like $20000 was raised by Parler to bring others - Democrats? - onto the site so it would be more interesting.  Being paid to have arguments seems to me a sign of the times, no?  "I know what I believe, and I know it's right, but I don't have anyone to shout at."  So somebody pays people to bring people to provide the shouting match. 

Which goes to a point for alpb forum online.  I think we should pay people to argue for let's say a fifteen post back and forth, and then vote on who won.  The alpb board would set up the arguments based on polls and surveys - wearing masks, nuclear war, acceptable pronouns, etc.   We would publish the results, go on talk TV of any kind, and make a good deal of money for ALPB.  Our claim would be that in the 21st century, this is how we do evangelical theology.

 

[D. Engebretson]

I am sure, given the events last week, that security will be exceptionally tight and heavy.  If protestors arrive for the inauguration (and I'm sure there will be some), they will be kept a long, long ways back, and given that the media covering the event will not want to have it upstaged in any way by a loud and negative protest, they will probably not be covered in any significant way, save a passing note in the news that they were there, if even that. 

I don't think it will require the Republicans to do or say anything.  No one will want a repeat of what they saw last week, and security, to some degree, seems to have a bit of 'mud on its face' for failure to either anticipate the eventual surge, or to contain it, or both. Some leaders of law enforcement, including the sergeant-at-arms of the House and others have already resigned.  You can be sure there will be a visible military presence to back up law enforcement. If protestors are there, and they are shouting, they will hardly be heard anywhere near the White House.  And given the control of this event I highly doubt that any violence will be evident near the event. 

[Brian Stoffregen]

Which goes to a point for alpb forum online.  I think we should pay people to argue for let's say a fifteen post back and forth, and then vote on who won.  The alpb board would set up the arguments based on polls and surveys - wearing masks, nuclear war, acceptable pronouns, etc.   We would publish the results, go on talk TV of any kind, and make a good deal of money for ALPB.  Our claim would be that in the 21st century, this is how we do evangelical theology.

We could make the arguments even more interesting and make it like formal competitive debates. Both sides would have to prepare pro and con arguments; and from week to week they wouldn't know which side they would have to present.

[peter_speckhard]

My original intent, perhaps unclear, was to address the next 10 days. There is chatter about gathering in Washington for more rioting and violence. I had hoped that those who have some sway over those who might riot or do violence would agree to tell them to stop planning it. To stay home. To show some respect for those who will be our new leaders.
Republicans, from the Top Republican on down, are the only ones who can do this, who can address the potential rioters.

Peter writes:
A clean admission of partisan bias by the NYT, CNN, NPR et al admitting that are to left what Fox used to be to the right, and some acknowledgment of culpability (willing, not accidental) for the they role played in the ludicrous Russia stuff, and a clear denouncement of any media or institution seeking to silence or deplatform Trump supporters would go a long way toward restarting a healthy, vibrant, if sometimes ugly national conversation. Absent that, I think conservatives are more likely to just keep developing alternative media.
I say:
That’s not the issue close at hand.
If we do not ask those planning mischief in the next 10 days to stop it, I am very afraid about what might happen. We need clear, unequivocal words from Republican leadership. Now.

It seems to me that has already happened. The capitol thing had no support from any conservative voice, at not anyone anyone listens to. Whom do you hear encouraging more violence and/or unrest?

[Charles Austin]

The “Capitol thing“, that is, the violent insurrection and attempt to halt  the processes of our government, had lots of supporters. And they are listening to somebody. Since Wednesday, a lot more conservative voices have spoken up, and apparently some people are listening to them. And these voices might not be directly in the halls of Congress, but they are out there. And it is the voices of those in the halls of Congress and in the oval office that could be a big help in stopping what may lie ahead.
A strong statement telling potential demonstrators to stay home and not protest on the day of inauguration, that statement coming from every Republican member of Congress and every Republican senator, would be a terrific gesture.
And we also learned today that the vice president has not ruled out using the 25th amendment to stop further “difficulties.”

[peter_speckhard]

The “Capitol thing“, that is, the violent insurrection and attempt to halt  the processes of our government, had lots of supporters. And they are listening to somebody. Since Wednesday, a lot more conservative voices have spoken up, and apparently some people are listening to them. And these voices might not be directly in the halls of Congress, but they are out there. And it is the voices of those in the halls of Congress and in the oval office that could be a big help in stopping what may lie ahead.
A strong statement telling potential demonstrators to stay home and not protest on the day of inauguration, that statement coming from every Republican member of Congress and every Republican senator, would be a terrific gesture.
And we also learned today that the vice president has not ruled out using the 25th amendment to stop further “difficulties.”

That gesture would clearly elevate this administration’s behavior way above that of the last losing party. What would be a similarly conciliatory gesture by Democrats?

[Charles Austin]

The Democrats could consider not progressing with the articles of impeachment.

[Dave Benke]

Which goes to a point for alpb forum online.  I think we should pay people to argue for let's say a fifteen post back and forth, and then vote on who won.  The alpb board would set up the arguments based on polls and surveys - wearing masks, nuclear war, acceptable pronouns, etc.   We would publish the results, go on talk TV of any kind, and make a good deal of money for ALPB.  Our claim would be that in the 21st century, this is how we do evangelical theology.

We could make the arguments even more interesting and make it like formal competitive debates. Both sides would have to prepare pro and con arguments; and from week to week they wouldn't know which side they would have to present.

This is a good side hustle worth exploring.  Because the way this goes to market is:
21st Century Disputation:  Lutherans Debate the Divisions

It's a three year gig, and must be monetized to produce at least $1 million for the ALPB coffers.  Disputants apply from any walk of life (Randy Bosch/sem theologians/interesting deaconesses, etc) and must be able to debate both sides of any issue with both passion and reason.

So it could go PPV in the mid-term, but needs something out of the ordinary to get it going.  I would suggest
person a plays Tucker Carlson as a Lutheran arguing against X
person b plays Joe Scarborough as a Lutheran arguing for X

Then we put it on You Tube, and wait for the invites.  Begin and end with prayer.  And/or beer.

Dave Benke