Protestantism

» Brother_Jones - Values

In response to Values posted by BrianTubbs:
My point in all this is....Evangelical, conservative Christians have as much right as anyone else to speak out, lobby, organize, and vote to impact the lawmaking and policymaking process as any other group. Does everyone agree with that?
Yea well, I guess so. If you put it like that, but it seems to be an easy shot for you to take. I know we haven't had much interaction with each other, but this is sort of a slow day and here goes. I wonder what approach you would take with your congregation if you woke up tomorrow and became a Senator. Would you resign your post as spokesperson for God?
That is sort of the dilemma that folks face with some of these televangelists who have national recognition and they are on the phone with the President, as in the case of James Dobson. I guess I can speak about the Doctor since in the Pink eye, I have given money and am considered a follower. Focus on the Family has taken a political turn in the eyes of many listeners and some feel that James Dobson is doing in the 90's what Billy Graham swore off of in the 60's and 70's. Some charge that he is using his radio pulpit for political gain and that he should rename his show Focus on the Republican Family.
Of course, he has every right to do what he and his board of directors choose to do. However, in the day of the Christian Right being considered a demon-nation and a heavy handed political movement, there are some who wonder when folk like Falwell and Dobson speak for God and when do they speak as a Republicans. We often make the same charge about Hollywood actors and Sports Stars, that they use their platform for political gain.
The rub comes when a true platform exists when a church is led by someone as powerful as a James Dobson. Little guys like me wonder if the Spirit of God which moved so powerfully in the work of the Pastor is truly represented when the Pastor gets on the phone with the President. I think Billy Graham has an insight in that area and the course he chose, was to spend the rest of his life off the phone with Presidents.
But you might be different. You might choose to be a Senator and Pastor, and maybe pull it off.
What think you?
i am just an oldtimer for the Lord.

-- posted by Brother_Jones

» pink101 - Huh?

In response to Huh? posted by BrianTubbs:
.
I understand the First Amerndment quite well and I'm familiar with the Danbury Baptists.
.
Personally, I see putting a focus on that aspect of Supreme Court rulings detracts from the amendment itself.
.
The point you're making is that the Supreme Court has extraordinary abilities to effect our rights. I know that is true and that is why I believe there must be a constant vigil to insure that ideologues don't end up as justices. We have a few of them in there now. That's three too many.
.
My point is that I don't need any stinking attorney to interpret the U.S.Constitution for me. I'm smart enough to understand it.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Answer to Brother Jones

In response to Values posted by Brother_Jones:

If I made a decision to run for US Senate, US House or even state legislature, I would resign my pastorate. I do not believe I can or should try to do both - not in this day and age. A local, part-time position like School Board or county supervisor or township trustee or something like that? I'm not sure. It would depend. Right now, though, I have no inclination, plan, or desire to go down that path. Been there, done that. I was politically active BEFORE I felt God calling me into pastoral ministry. I don't see myself going back.

» Brian Tubbs - First Amendment

In response to Huh? posted by pink101:

You say you can read it and understand it just fine yourself. Based on what standard? Your opinion? Your perspective? Not good enough. Not appropriate. A judge is supposed to take an OBJECTIVE, EXTERNAL standard and interpret a statute or law in question accordingly. In the case of the First Amendment, it must be interpreted as OBJECTIVELY as possible - and done so in light of the actual text and its original understanding.

The same Congress, Pink, that wrote the First Amendment (including the "Congress shall make no law" part) ALSO formally asked President Washington for a flagrantly RELIGIOUS and official proclmation of Thanksgiving - which Washington granted. You should read it. The same Congress appointed taxpayer-funded chaplains for the military and established the office of chaplaincy for each house of Congress. The same Congress printed Bibles for Native American tribes and did a host of other things that the Americans for Civil Liberties Union would today NOT approve of. I find it laughable that the authors of the First Amendment somehow had it wrong.

» paper_turtle - Values

In response to Values posted by BrianTubbs:

.
Brian wrote:
People vote their values.
.
The COURTS are different in that they are SUPPOSED to not vote their values, but rather apply the laws of the land.
.
The principal lawmaking branch of our government is supposed to be and - for the most part, still is - the legislative branch. The people elect their representatives to make laws. The legislative branch will, by and large, reflect the majority will of the populace
.
.
Yes, people vote their values, and yes the Supreme Court is *supposed* to interpret the law of the land.
.
Those elected to represent us are supposed to represent the values and intent of those who elected them--NOT their own agendas.
.
With regard to the Supreme Court, however, if this body were actually completely objective in its interpretation of law, then who a particular president appoints would not matter, since he/she would not be swayed by his/her own beliefs/values. This is, however, obviously not the case. Both Conservatives and Liberals have complained about certain justices and/or the opinions they rendered.
.
.
Brian wrote:
.
My point in all this is....Evangelical, conservative Christians have as much right as anyone else to speak out, lobby, organize, and vote to impact the lawmaking and policymaking process as any other group. Does everyone agree with that?
.
What I'm hearing from you is....No. They have the right to vote and take part in their society, but they should leave check parts of their religion at the door of public society. Keep their religion to their homes, churches, synagogues, etc. and only vote, speak out, lobby, organize, etc. in a way that is reflective of the overall diversity of society. That's what I'm hearing from you.
.
That is not exactly what I said; I would ask you to go back and re-read my posts from yesterday.
.
I expect politicians to be true to their principles/beliefs. Matter of fact, I would love to see more politicians actually *dare* to do this, rather than rolling over when they become afraid they might not get re-elected (this si true for Democrats and Republicans). At the same time, though, I also expect politicians to *accurately* represent their consitiuency. If the majority of voters tell Senator X they do not support measure 143, then I believe he has a duty to either respect his voter's wishes or be *very* public in supplying a good reason for not doing so.
.
This wariness about mixing politics and religion is not such a new thing. Many doubted JFK would get elected because he was a Catholic, and some people were afraid he would be unduly influenced by the Vatican.
.
peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle

» pink101 - First Amendment

In response to First Amendment posted by BrianTubbs:
.
You say you can read it and understand it just fine yourself. Based on what standard? Your opinion? Your perspective? Not good enough
.
It's good enough for me. I AM an AMERICAN!! I am not some twerp who runs around looking for a superior person to let me know what my rights are in this country. Lawyers and judges are no better than I am--in fact, they often are under someone else's thumb. I've been to court and I've been represented by counsel--I know what a conninving bunch those stinking lawyers are. So, I do know how they pervert things and figure out such details as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. I know about judicial mischief and I know how attorneys cut deals with each other. I know that every single item can be debated and run into the ground until hell freezes over and then some.
.
I am a Yankee. I'm sure you're read about us.
.
:)
.
I'm not the only one.
.
.

.
You can be a Constitutional originalist, a constructionist or you can think of it as a living document that adjusts itself with the times; but, as for me, I will take my liberty and interpret it the way I read it. NO LAW means NO LAW.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - Political Party Loyalties

In response to Values posted by paper_turtle:
.
When the Cosntitution was ratified by the States, America did not have political parties as we do now.
.
The president was elected as an individual as were the members of the congress. I don't think it was imagined then that there would be such a party affiliation as we have now. When a sitting president and the representatives and senators heavily represent a polarized political party, the appointments to any official position of government can be as biased as the party will allow. That is the danger we faced with President Bush when he served with a congress stacked with a majority of Republicans most of whom owed their office to the heavily Christian Right Red States. We knew--full well--that if the Supreme Court had the "right" justices, that Roe vs Wade, for example, would be overturned in a heart beat.
.
So, who is anyone trying to kid here that Christians are not given the same consideration as others when it comes to free speech? That's a ruse to gain special consideration when they come down with their so-called morality issues about values. If anyone wants to talk values we can compare apples to apples and oranges to oranges. Like universal health care compared to abortion which is apples to apples.
.
I'm not trying to say that Roe vs Wade is good or that it should or should not be overturned. My point is that, based on religious ideologies, a George W Bush appointed Supreme Court would act politically according to the ideologies of the percieved electorate--or according to their loyalties to Mr. Bush. Loyalty, as we all know, is the biggie with Mr. Bush. Not loyalty to the Constitution; but, loyalty to the party.
.
We need to be reasonable in our understandings about reality.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Migisi - First Amendment

In response to First Amendment posted by BrianTubbs:
.
You say you can read it and understand it just fine yourself. Based on what standard? Your opinion? Your perspective? Not good enough. Not appropriate.
.
It's not rocket science, Bri. A high school student can read it and understand it. As you know, in many high schools, it's required that they do just that.
.
A judge is supposed to take an OBJECTIVE, EXTERNAL standard and interpret a statute or law in question accordingly.
.
Yes, in a perfect world, the application of justice is objective. But note that on local ballots, judges are affiliated with one ~political~ party or the other. And as Paper aptly reported, Supreme Court justices (and the head of the Justice Department - the Attorney General) are appointed by a President - the leader of a ~political~ party. Do you really believe any of the above would be appointed to high level positions if they didn't reflect their party's platform? And once in those positions, do you think the people who put them there don't control them? Hang out in a lounge catering to attorneys for a while, or attend a political party fund-raiser, or go to a golf outing they sponsor. Watch who glad-hands and back-slaps whom.
.
I find it laughable that the authors of the First Amendment somehow had it wrong.
.
Times change, Brian. What was considered right for them in their time may be considered wrong for society today.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - And, Brian

In response to First Amendment posted by BrianTubbs:
.,
And, Brian, I don't mind one bit being associated with others who think in terms similar to the way I think. You and I think in similar terms quite often.
.
I don't appreciate the idea that my association with sisters Turtle and Migisi makes the three of us any less valid. It appears you think you gain something when you toss us in the same bag. Any one of us--including you--is as valid as anyone else--including me.
.
???
.
:)
.

-- posted by pink101

» paper_turtle - First Amendment

In response to First Amendment posted by pink101:

.
Brian wrote:
You say you can read it and understand it just fine yourself. Based on what standard? Your opinion? Your perspective? Not good enough
.

Phil responded:
It's good enough for me. I AM an AMERICAN!! I am not some twerp who runs around looking for a superior person to let me know what my rights are in this country.
.
I very strongly believe that there are three very important pieces of writing which every person can read, and understand, for himself. And these are: The Bible (or any scripture), The Constitution, The Declaration of Independence.
.
This is necessary. People must be able to learn the truth for themselves. They must be able to be informed about their rights. Any time a person says an "ordinary" citizen can't understand these foundational documents, this is one step backward.
.
.

Phil wrote:
I am a Yankee. I'm sure you're read about us.

ay-ah. We Yankees are extremely independent. We are also strongly egalitarian--each person is capable of doing it himself.

peace and love,
Paper Turtle

-- posted by paper_turtle