Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Special Student Discount for WORLD!
Humility regarding what man does. Faith in what God does. That means skepticism about politicians' plans to run health care.
Click to Print
Include Comments
Whirled Views 7.4
Happy Independence Day!
Today’s quote is from an American president:
“Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the Democrats believe every day is April 15.”
Welcome to our daily (except Sundays) open thread, where you, the commenters, choose the topics of conversation.
Topic: Watercooler Chatter, WorldMagBlog
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
back to top100 Comments to “Whirled Views 7.4”
Sounds like Reagan.
Report comment to moderator
The quote has never been more true than it is now. The Democrats are busily spending like there’s no tomorrow. And the solution to paying for it? Well I’m sure it’s not lowering taxes…
Report comment to moderator
I agree MIM, but we can rest assured that they will go too far and the people will turn against them. I’m certain of that.
Anyway, Happy Birthday USA and all of you have a great time today celebrating the freedoms we have (or should I say the freedoms we have left?).
Report comment to moderator
Friends,
I was surprised by something Dr. Dave replied to me in a thread, 7/2. Protestants/evangelicals by nature, like Luther (the father of their tradition, the first reformer) feel out of communion against the Roman Church that Luther rebelled. They also, as far as I know, feel IN communion with the EARLY church (for instance, the one that gave us the Nicene Creed). The question I have is WHEN exactly did the Roman Church go wrong such that Protestants would argue they wouldn’t feel communion with it. Dr. Dave — I don’t know, perhaps he is not Reformed, but Anglican/Episcopal — surprised me by claiming communion with the overwhelming majority of the Roman Catholic Church’s history. He wrote:
Everyone in western civilization was a member of the church until late in the Reformation. When Luther posted his theses on the church door, he had no intention of leaving the church nor did any of the other reformers. They were either excommunicated or chose to leave with those who were. The catholic (universal) church saw serious corruption only in the several years before Luther posted his theses. Aquinas lived more than 300 years before the Reformation.
Is this the dominant view among evangelicals? Do you feel communion with Aquinas’ Church?
Report comment to moderator
Jon, some believe the church went wrong when they got too involved with the Roman government. When the church started using the government to for it’s agenda, the government started using the the church for it’s agenda. It got worse in the Middle ages. Bishops became politicians, politicians became bishops.
However, the church did provide much needed stability during the dark ages.
Report comment to moderator
A note about Sarah Palin leaving her post as governor: I am concerned about her saying she did not want to be a “lame duck”. Politically, I can see why she did this, as it will help her Lt. Governor get some time in office to prove himself before running on his own. What concerns me is, if she were elected President, would she do the same thing? Not a smart move, IMHO.
Report comment to moderator
#4
Jon Rowe,
In my experience, no, that is not the dominant view among evangelicals. Of course, in my experience evangelicals as a whole do not know all that much about church history, and would probably not know when Aquinas lived, if in fact they know who he was.
My impression is that the dominant view would be that the Roman church began to go wrong when it acquired political power. Back during the times of persecution, people would not become Christians unless they really believed. Once it became legal, and then the dominant religion of the empire, people would be tempted to convert to Christianity for the benefits it could bring them.
When the Roman church set about converting large groups of people, they ended up with lots of converts whose faith was not genuine, or if it was genuine faith it was in some misunderstanding of what it meant to be Christian because what was emphasized was outward conformity to certain rituals and creed rather than inward transformation.
Pagans were allowed to continue some of their former religious practices, simply changing the names or outward interpretation of those practices, such as praying to saints instead of pagan gods. This introduced all kinds of errors and misunderstandings.
There were of course true Christians in the church through all this time, but as a percentage they became smaller over the years.
Report comment to moderator
Good quote from Reagan, Mickey. I wish he were still around and able to run against Obama. America needs his kind of leadership and positive charisma. Great leaders like Reagan are rare. The results of his presidency were almost all good.
On the other hand, Obama’s presidency is already a disaster, and promises to get much, much worse. Economically, socially, culturally, constitutionally, internationally, militarily, and morally, he and his party are taking us over a cliff. However, he is like the majority of Americans who voted for him. I cannot help but think that the confluence of circumstances and his particular kind of appeal has been allowed by God to bring America to its knees. The majority of the American people are now getting what they want and the eventual results will not be what they anticipate—but it will be what we deserve. God help us all.
When we eventually survey the wreckage, perhaps Americans will come to their senses and return to the God who originally blessed us with this wonderful country. On this 4th of July, I pray that will be so.
Report comment to moderator
That quote (of Reagan’s, I’d wager), while a skillful use of rhetoric, is a prime example of the false dichotomy posited by conservative Republicans.
“We’re the party of the flag, Mom, apple pie and Chevrolet! OTOH, the Demoncrats are the party of godlessness, sexual perversion and oppressive taxation.”
What a load of horse dung.
Folks, do yourselves a favor in honor of Independence Day:Try to think outside the (false) “two-party” box, and check Ron Paul’s The Revolution: A Manifesto out of your local library. A quick read at 190 pages, it pokes holes aplenty in the unconstitutional programs and goals of both parties.
Report comment to moderator
Here’s a Fourth of July meditation from pastor Doug Wilson, re. the vital distinction between genuine American exceptionalism and its cheap imitation:
Thanks for the answers (so far; I’d like to hear from more re whether you feel communion with Aquinas’ medieval Roman Church).
Re Obama, I also vote my conscience — Libertarian — but as it stands the best bet is to turn him into Bill Clinton (remember, we actually had budget surpluses under Clinton, who, despite being a bit sleezy, ran the economy like a moderate Republican). Have Republicans take over the Congress and bring us divided govt, or gridlock.
Report comment to moderator
Jon, I hesitate to join this fray. It’s been some fifty years since I studied Church History. But there was likely no EVENT in which we say the Roman Church went wrong. But many discovered that they were, in fact, out of fellowship with the church.
The seminal event was likely Constantine’s “vision” in 313 and defeat of Maxentius at Milvian bridge near Rome. It is likely he had no vision, but used it as a rallying cry for his soldiers. After winning, he made Christianity a state religion. All of this was contrary to Scriptural teachings of Jesus and the entire NT. Some excerpts from A Summary of Christian History, by Robert A. Baker. P.24f.
“Constantine’s adoption of Christianity was more of a political than a religious decision…..”(He talks much about the declining state of Rome and need for unity.) “…Constantine did not divorce himself from religious support of pagan devotees;…”
“The effect of Constantine’s adoption of Christianity upon the movement itself has been widely debated. It led directly to the official declaration that Christianity was the state religion at the time of Emperor Theodosius, Constantine was not responsible for all the corruption of Christianity from the New Testament pattern, for these had developed long before his day. However, he did introduce may new elements of corruption and greately contributed to the rise of the Roman Catholic Church…..”
Report comment to moderator
You couldn’t find a unifying quote for the fourth of July, but had to take another poke, Mickey?
I’m disappointed.
On the other matter, I’d agree with the above, the Roman Catholic Church strayed from the church fathers–even though some of them were the church fathers–when they aligned themselves with a government entity and focused more on temporal power than God/Jesus/the Holy Spirit. It’s a common temptation.
I’ve been reading about the early church and find some of their enthusiasms–excessive, shall we say–and wrong as well. Jesus did not call us to abandon the world and live in deserts away from everyone else. We were called to be lights to the world, and to love one another. You can’t do that if you never spend time with people who don’t know God.
Off to prepare for my six weeks of leading Sunday school: Your Money or Your Godly Life. First lesson tomorrow: The Perils of Money. I’m using Randy Alcorn’s book Money, Possessions and Eternity along with material from Crown Ministries and the late, great, Larry Burkett.
We saw fireworks last night.
Report comment to moderator
“I’d agree with the above, the Roman Catholic Church strayed from the church fathers–even though some of them were the church fathers….”
This is interesting because it lends itself to the RC argument that “we ARE the early Church.” For instance if it all went wrong in 313, the Nicene Creed was written 325 AD, arguably after this corruption happened. The Roman Catholics could then say “we gave you the Nicene Creed.”
BTW: This fits in with my study of Protestantism and the American Founding. The American Founding political theology definitely had a strong Protestant component, but not all in ways that reformed evangelicals might appreciate.
Many of these “Protestants” wishing to distance themselves from Roman Catholicism began associating the orthodox creeds (i.e., the Nicene Creed) with Roman Catholicism itself and that led them to theological unitarianism, denial of original sin, etc. Eventually these “Protestants” like Thomas Jefferson and John Adams rejected the concept of the biblical canon itself (though while continuing to believe that PARTS of the Bible were legitimate) because, hey it was just a bunch of corrupt Roman Catholics that compiled the Bible and gave us the Nicene Creed.
Here is a quote from John Adams that illustrates this dynamic:
“The Trinity was carried in a general council by one vote against a quaternity; the Virgin Mary lost an equality with the Father, Son, and Spirit only by a single suffrage.”
– John Adams to Benjamin Rush, June 12, 1812.
Report comment to moderator
A friend of mine always reads “A Christmas Carol” (by Dickens) to his family every Christmas and it enriches the whole holiday. I got to thinking about how imporant it is to sit down and make traditions like that. So here’s a rough draft of some readings to consider on various holidays. I welcome all suggestions in my effort to come up with a great list of options:
Recommended Readings
New Years Day –
* Isaiah 61 (the Year of the Lord’s Favor)
* Jeremiah 29:4-14 (Hope and a future)
* 2 Corinthians 5:11-21 (Mew Creation)
* Philippians 3 (Press forward)
* St. Francis of Assissi (Lord, make me an instrument of Your peace).
_________
Good Friday/Easter:
* Matthew 21-28
* Mark 11-16
* Luke 19-24
* John 12-21
_________
Mother’s Day:
* MOVIE: “I Remember Mama” (1948
* Proverbs 31
_________
Father’s Day:
* “If” by Rudyard Kipling
_________
Independence Day:
* The Declaration of Independence.
* Man Without a Country
* Longfellow’s Midnight Ride of Paul Revere
_________
Labor Day:
* Proverbs 6: 6-11
* Henry Wadsworth Longfellow (The Village Blacksmith).
_________
Reformation Day (October 31)
* (Any recommendations by Luther?)
_________
Thanksgiving:
* Edward Winslow, letter, Dec. 12, 1621.
* William Bradford’s Thanksgiving Proclamation, November 29, 1623
* George Washington’s Thanksgiving Proclamation
* Abraham Lincoln’s Thanksgiving Proclamation
_________
Christmas:
* Matthew 1:18 – 2:23.
* Luke 1-2
* Isaiah 9:1-7
* A Christmas Carol – Dickens.
_________
Other ideas?
Report comment to moderator
I agree with PAULINE”S post #7.
Thanks for the link in #10, FRANK.
Report comment to moderator
Recommended Independence Day reading:
Few can write like Sobran — he’s one of my all-time faves. Read the rest of “Patriotism or nationalism?” here.
Report comment to moderator
Great quote by Reagan. He nails a true dichotomy, and in general symbolic or hyperbolic terms. And Reagan had the courage to tell the truth creatively and with fitting humor.
Does anyone know when and where he said it? Search engines just send you to a hundred thousand quotation sites that don’t offer documentation.
Report comment to moderator
Frank (#9):
As far as you are concerned, there is little difference between the Republicans and Democrats. In a sense you are correct. The situation is like two overlapping, non-concentric, circles. I see the centers to be far apart and the overlap to be rather small, while you see the centers to be almost concentric and the overlap to be huge. If you cannot see the differences between Reagan Republicanism and Obama’s socialism, your vision is almost non-existent.
Your vision seems as myopic as Ron Paul’s. While I agree, in principle, with much of what he says, he is viewing the world from the perspective of the 18th century. We would not long survive if we adopted the kind of isolationism Ron Paul seems to advocate. Some aspects of isolationism were reasonable back then, but not now. The world has changed. However, even back in the days of our founding fathers, we found it necessary to reach half-way around the world to combat the Barbary Pirates. Today we are dealing with far more than sailing ships, muzzle loading cannons and Mediterranean pirates.
Even the most obtuse Americans recognize the realities of the 21st century that Ron Paul seems content to ignore. His presidential campaign never got to first base for that reason. While I question the moral judgment of Americans who voted for Obama, the practical judgment of Ron Paul and his supporters is not much better.
Report comment to moderator
One source had the quote this way:
* “Republicans believe that everyday is the 4th of July, while Democrats wish every day was April 15.” Ronald Reagan, on tax day, 1986.
Here’s another:
* “If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.” ~ Ronald Reagan, on the government’s view of the economy.
Report comment to moderator
MICHAEL MARTIN (19): We would not long survive if we adopted the kind of isolationism Ron Paul seems to advocate.
Frank: A mistaken perception at best. A malicious lie at worst.
Given that you phrased it “seems to advocate,” I assume the first in your case.
Breakfast is on … I’ll try to come back shortly and cite Dr. Paul’s distinction between the “isolationism” he’s often accused of, vs. the real isolationism practiced by his “national greatness” Neocon critics.
Report comment to moderator
Without one April Fifteenth there will be no Fourth of July, let alone 365 of them.
Report comment to moderator
The thing is, Jon, the church fathers who put together the Nicene Creed, and chose the books of the Bible about the same time, were not influenced by the religious nationalism of Rome. They were focused on truth, no matter who was in charge of the government. That’s what Christianity really is about–Jesus/God/The Holy Spirit, not how the three can be used for political gain.
As to the nationalism/patriotism discussion–that’s an interesting one and it can be quite surprising to Americans when they visit other countries and learn their natives think their country is the best on earth. You may intellectually understand many people around the globe don’t like the US, but it’s another thing to chat with folks who know the US isn’t the best thing that’s ever happened in the history of the world.
How do the two mix? American Christianity is too connected to American government and power. It has damaged how Jesus/God/The Holy Spirit are seen by some people in the world. Disentangling ourselves from mammon is the best thing we can do to “improve” the “image” of Jesus in the world.
We need to figure out how to separate our political beliefs from our religious truths. Some are better at this than others.
Back to work . . .
Report comment to moderator
Labor Day — Proudhon “Property is Theft”
Marx “Communist Manifesto”
Orwell “Road to Wigan Pier”
As much as I find American libertarianism appealing, it corrects the social statism of the American right, Ron Paul’s vision for American is more precisely his vision for small town Texas. Despite his years spent in Washington, he has stubbornly clung to this narrow vision, which explains his electoral success. Proof romanticism is not dead.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop Moth, #22, American citizens work as pure slaves for the US gov’t nearly through the end of May, maybe longer. After that, we get to keep the money they work for through December. This is far too much time as slaves. Reagan’s point is that independence (symbolized by July 4)is far more worth celebrating and emphasizing than dependence (symbolized by April 15), and it is the go’t that depends on us in the private sector and the dependence is far far far too burdensome.
The Republican Party came to prominence by opposing slavery. In calling for tax relief, we are still standing smack dab in the center of our original anti-slavery convictions.
Report comment to moderator
Scroop, wasn’t “income tax” first inflicted upon us around 1913? (if my memory serves, that’s close), and we had a lot of great July 4th celebrations before that.
And today, if the government gouges too much from the private sector (its only real money and life source), then whatever it builds cannot be anything but a house of cards. The pirvate sector must be empowered for any gov’t to actually work.
Report comment to moderator
#17 Frank, He admires England because she is strong, not because she is English.” In the same way, many Americans admire America for being strong, not for being American.
Sobran overlooks one important point. For every other country, nationalism celebrates the superiority of their national “race” or ethnicity. But there is no American race.
In America, nationalism and Patriotism are a celebration of the superiority of ideals. Are all ideals the same? Are not some superior to others? To say that America is the greatest nation on earth is not necessarily jingoism. If we are rubbing other country’s faces in it, then it is arrogance. But it is a fact denied only by our enemies or the envious and resentful.
You may complain that the result is the same, but is it? Is freeing an oppressed people under a brutal dictatorship the same as imperialism? Is celebrating liberty and democracy somehow a superiority complex? Is flexing military muscle around the world to keep brutal dictators in check and prevent the deaths of the oppressed somehow militaristic?
Report comment to moderator
Jon, first off forgive me for how I am about to write. I may misstakenly say one thng and mean something else. Like Chas I has been many years since I studied Church History. I think 1988 was the last time….
If you want a true picture of the early church I would recommend attending a Greek Orthodox service and only focusing on the liturgy not all of the ornamentation.
In my opinion where the church took a wrong turn is when ambitious peopel had no choice but to join the church. What I mean by this is to look at it in historical context. A man of nobility only had a certain amount of “assets” The oldest male took the lions share of the inheritance. That left the younger sons to join the church or not have any standing at all. “Poorer” men who could not afford a large dowery for each of their daughters, married off one to form an alliance and sent the rest to the convent with a small dowery. These men and women were not called to serve God, this was their best chance of having some standing in the community or the world at large. In early Catholicism you see some of the priests married. I believe their was even a Pope or two who had children until the church realized they could not hold onto the wealth they had amassed this way.
As the church grew and gained more and more power it became more and more corrupt. Yu see this time and again with anything. Luther did not intend to leave the Roman Catholic Church, he intended to fix it. The selling of indulgences, etc only lined the coffers of the church. No where in the Bible do you find anything like this. Conquering a people and “making” them Christians does not change their hearts. Admittedly I love to decorate for Christmas and I love Easter and all it brings, but deep down I understand that they probably didn’t have holly in the Middle East when Christ was born and if you actually read the scriptures He was probably born in March or April, not December. Also just exactly WHAT does an egg laying rabbit have to do with the Resurrection of Christ?
Going back to the Greek Orthodox Church (which only separated in 1054(?) with the Great Schism) you see that they put more emphasis on Easter than “protestants” do. Easter is the fulfillment of the scripture NOT Christmas. As a matter of fact my favorite church service is the Easter Vigil on Saturday night before Easter Sunday. Most Orthodox go to church Saturday night and are also away most of Saturday night awaiting the day of the resurrection.
Anyway, I do realize I have rambled a bit. I hope I have made some sense. You have to look at anything in the historical context in which it happened.
Report comment to moderator
Most Eastern Orthodox are AWAKE on the Saturday night before Easter Sunday.
Report comment to moderator
American citizens work as pure slaves for the US gov’t nearly through the end of May, maybe longer.
An other example to use when instructing students on the concept of hyperbole.
Report comment to moderator
Frank, I enjoyed the post by Douglas Wilson. It is very true. Both parties have been guilty of excessive spending for sure and therefore, both have forced taxes to go up. We need to be aware of that and reject the 20 second sound bites. We also need to be aware of people using Christianity for their purposes.
I am thanking God today for founders who knew their own weakness and propensity for sin and set up checks and balances for our government. I am thanking him for making this nation great and asking him to forgive us for squandering much of that greatness. And I am praying he will open our eyes to the truth and what we must do to be good citizens in his eyes.
Report comment to moderator
From American Thinker http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/07/a_poem_for_sarah.html
A Poem for Sarah
Mimi Evans Winship
There is ranting and shrieking on the Left.
The timid Right has gotten the vapors.
I’m sipping champagne in red, white and blue
And nibbling salmon canapés with capers!
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark: I Remember Mama is “Mama’s Bank Account” in book form. Very readable – probably not (or not much) longer than A Christmas Carol. Check it out…
Report comment to moderator
XION (27): Sobran overlooks one important point. For every other country, nationalism celebrates the superiority of their national “race” or ethnicity.
Frank: I think if you read the rest of the piece, you’ll see that such is not the case. Nationalism can focus unduly on one’s nation as well as one’s race.
XION (27): But there is no American race.
Frank: No, but there is a hubris surrounding Americanist ideology, the conceit that our system of governance is without question the best in the world. So much so, that we have almost a divine mission to spread it — by force, if necessary. Witness your next remark …
XION (27): In America, nationalism and Patriotism are a celebration of the superiority of ideals. Are all ideals the same? Are not some superior to others? To say that America is the greatest nation on earth is not necessarily jingoism. If we are rubbing other country’s faces in it, then it is arrogance. But it is a fact denied only by our enemies or the envious and resentful.
Frank: Hmm. Funny, I don’t see France, Germany, New Zealand, Mexico, Switzerland, Poland, Singapore, or any of our other non enemies beating a path to our doorway to enquire as to how they may implement “American ideals.”
XION (27): You may complain that the result is the same, but is it? Is freeing an oppressed people under a brutal dictatorship the same as imperialism?
Frank: It can certainly be a facet of it. Regardless, I would ask you two questions in response:
• Where does the US Constitution either charge — or even permit — the government of the United States to militarily “free an oppressed people under a brutal dictatorship “?
• What foundational principle of our nation is sympathetic with the idea that America should free an oppressed people under a brutal dictatorship?
XION (27): Is celebrating liberty and democracy somehow a superiority complex?
Frank: It doesn’t have to be, by any means. But it certainly can be. Just watch and see how many references are typically made to American military might at public Fourth of July fireworks shows and other celebrations.
Just yesterday, I saw the following bumper sticker:
“If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you can read this in English, thank a soldier.”
What? Why?! How?!
XION (27): Is flexing military muscle around the world to keep brutal dictators in check and prevent the deaths of the oppressed somehow militaristic?
Frank: Anytime a nation uses its military to promote/enforce its own vision of how the world should be, rather than merely to defend itself, it is militaristic.
Hear John Quincy Adams on the mattter.
Report comment to moderator
XION,
BTW, have you read Doug Wilson’s meditation “Ordinary as Brown Dirt,” linked at (10) yet?
I’d like to know your thoughts/objections re. it.
Report comment to moderator
Thanks AKMOM for the book suggestion in place of the movie. The only problem is that the book does not have Irene Dunne as the mom!!!! (smile).
Report comment to moderator
HRW, it’s not hyperbole when it’s literally true. Those who do the work simply do not to keep a fair share of the fruit of their own labor any more. That’s not hyperbole and you do your students a disservice to instruct them incorrectly. Grasp the meaning of a statement before you just label it.
Report comment to moderator
JOEL – Youre right about 1913 but not about “inflicted.” Today of all days you should celebrate American self-determination. We ourselves made our concept of a franchise (income tax) a constitutional foundation of our culture.
But thanks for the correction. Without one April Fifteenth there would have been no Fourth of July, let alone 365 of them a year, after 1913. That’s better. Also, I have to admit that Ronald Reagan was partly right about us. One April Fifteenth is not enough. But we don’t need 365. That’s a lie! Envious as we are, we’re satisfied with four. And three of them can be estimates — 1040ES.
Report comment to moderator
Joel Mark,
My father always read Henry Van Dyke’s “The Story of the Other Wise Man” to us at Christmastime. It’s also quite short. I don’t read it every year, but I try to read it every few years.
I would suggest perhaps the Gettysburg Address for Memorial Day.
For both Christmas and Easter, there is Handel’s Messiah, both to listen to (or join a community sing!) and look up the corresponding Scripture passages.
Report comment to moderator
Frank (#34) writes:
“Funny, I don’t see France, Germany, New Zealand, Mexico, Switzerland, Poland, Singapore, or any of our other non enemies beating a path to our doorway to enquire as to how they may implement “American ideals.”
Of course their government leaders don’t beat a path to our doors, but their citizens certainly do. They realize that, historically, and in terms of human freedom, the ideals of our Constitution and the system of government it defines has been the best in the world.
I once talked for many hours with a friend from Switzerland about the glories of his homeland. But then it occurred to me to ask him why he came to America if Switzerland was so wonderful. His reply was that basically, Switzerland was a police state and that he came here for the freedom. Of course he did not mean “police state” in the sense of Stalin or Mao. But after many examples, he effectively illustrated the Germanic mindset of forced conformity that pervades their society. That’s fine for some, but the picturesque uniformity of Swiss villages is created at a price he was no longer willing to pay.
And Switzerland is a bastion of freedom compared to the others on your list, Frank. People from all over the world don’t just say that America is the best, they vote with their feet and even die trying to get here. That is not jingoism or nationalism. It is a fact! Or, at least it has been.
Unfortunately, Obama and his gang of socialists are doing their best to change all that.
Report comment to moderator
Does anyone else watch that Revolution series the History Channel runs on the 4th of July? I’ve seen parts of it before, I’m watching a bit of it again this year (interspersed with catching up on some housework). It’s long, goes all day I think.
Report comment to moderator
Michael,
I have received the same sort of replies when people speak of the joys and beauty of ‘back home’ wherever that might be outside the U.S. – It matters little what country they come from, the bottom line is FREEDOM, we are so blessed to live here – I am so grateful for what I have been given.
Report comment to moderator
The Reformation was long in coming and didn’t start with Luther. Read up on Savonarola.
Report comment to moderator
At Conservative Views, they are calling this Happy Upside-Down Day: “It’s Independence Day, but only for those of us who refuse to be eaten by Fedzilla.”
I like the word “Fedzilla.” Sums it up perfectly.
Report comment to moderator
41. I’ve seen it I think. If it is the one narrated by Edward Herrmann it’s pretty good?
Report comment to moderator
#11(Jon Rowe): Thanks for the answers (so far; I’d like to hear from more re whether you feel communion with Aquinas’ medieval Roman Church).
Jon, The reformers were all “Catholics” before they were “Protestants.” None of them wanted to leave the church (it was, after all, the body of Christ despite the corruption); they were reformers, not rebels. Their reforms focused initially on the carnal corruption of the clergy and the clerical hierarchy (see Luther’s 95 theses). It is worth noting at this point that Luther in his 95 theses made free use of Thomas Aquinus’ reliance on “reason” (common revelation) and “scripture” (special revelation).
Leaving aside the disgust of Luther and the reformers with the church’s carnal corruption, there were theological disputes dating back to the Church Fathers. Within the reformers, these disputes slowly evolved into the final theological position of the Reformers (Luther, Calvin, Zwingli, Hus, and others) which was summarized in the five sola’s: sola scriptura, sola fide, sola Gratia, solus Christos, and soli Deo gloria. The theological treatises of Augustine and Aquinas are deeply embedded in all five sola’s. Below are the definitions of the five sola’s and their similarities and differences with the theology of Thomas Aquinas:
1. Sola scriptura (scripture alone is the final authority): Totally consistent with Aquinas (see his distinction between common or general revelation and special or divine revelation. According to Aquinas, the latter always trumps the former.
2. Sola fide (salvation by faith alone and not by works): Totally consistent with Thomist theology.
3. Sola Gratia (salvation is by God’s Grace alone and not by any human merit or will): Here Aquinas departs from the reformers slightly. He would argue that it is roughly 99% grace and 1% human will. Note that the Armenians and today’s Roman Catholics would put the percent of human will even higher.
4. Solus Christos (through Christ alone; He is the only mediator between God and a person): Totally consistent with the theology of Thomas Aquinas.
5. Soli Deo gloria (to God alone belongs the glory): Again, totally consistent with the theology of Thomas Aquinas.
Just in case you have trouble believing all this, I refer you to the lecture on Thomas Aquinas by Dr. David Calhoun in his course on Ancient and Medieval Church History at Covenant Theological Seminary:
http://worldwidefreeresources.com/upload/CH310_T_29.pdf
Report comment to moderator
Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Larry Burkett and, today, Dennis Beaman–wonderful American men who died on the fourth of July.
You probably didn’t know Dennis, but we did. A wise judge, loving father, terrific husband to his first grade sweetheart, elder in our church, and good friend. He fell into a coma today and a friend called, suggesting we stop by–we hadn’t visited since his prostrate cancer required hospice.
My husband had gotten “a word” while at the hardware store that he should visit today, so when he returned home and I told him about the phone call, we went.
It was a laughing, story telling time around the hospital bed in his dining room, Dennis’ labored breathing served as the background as we caught up with the family. I kept watching him, thinking, “it’s getting harder and harder.”
It didn’t feel right to be there anymore. I hugged everyone good-bye, rubbed Denny’s arm to say, “well done, good and faithful servant,” and left the room.
Before I was even done drying my tears, my husband joined me. “He’s gone.”
The last time I spoke with Denny was about three months ago, when he came to the book club discussion of The Shack. They’re going to give away copies of the book at the funeral–they’ve already got them. Denny wrote out a letter to his friends that will appear on the back of the bulletin. He went to his maker praising God and content. It was a most excellent death, except Denny died too soon– he only got 63 years-old. We’re all going to miss him, a lot.
Report comment to moderator
#43(NJLawyer): The Reformation was long in coming and didn’t start with Luther. Read up on Savonarola.
Savonarola was born in 1452 and was martyred in 1498. Luther nailed his 95 theses to the church door in 1517–not that long after Savonarola died. I myself date the beginnings of the reformation to the first reform-minded person, John Wycliffe, who died in 1383. So the winds of reform were blowing about 125 years before Luther nailed the theses to the door.
Report comment to moderator
So sorry Michelle.
Report comment to moderator
Jon, here is an additional article that you will find useful. It is a brief biography of Peter Lombard (1095-1160 AD) and his four books of “Sentences” which are a distillation of the theological controversies in the church at that time. Thomas Aquinas wrote his major treatise on theology as a commentary on the “Sentences.” The link is: http://www.iep.utm.edu/l/lombard.htm.
The important thing about the article is that it summarizes the theological issues debated at that time in the church. It clearly shows the continuity of church theology from Augustine through Aquinas to the Reformers. Have fun.
Report comment to moderator
Michelle,
What a beautiful tribute. I’m glad you got that chance to visit and love him one more time. May God comfort his wife and family, and you his friends.
Report comment to moderator
Hugs, Michelle
Report comment to moderator
Michelle, by the time I finished your post, my eyes were moist. He’s teaching to the end and even beyond. My condolences on the loss of your friend.
Dr. Dave, my point in mentioning Savonarola was only to say that others within the RCC had preceded Martin Luther. People have always been seeking the truth, even if others call it reform. To me, it isn’t following Luther, Savonarola, Wycliffe or Acquinas — they were but men. Jesus made following him very simple. All we have to do is take up our cross and follow him. All we have to do is say yes to him. When everything is said and done that’s what matters. I suspect that Jon Rowe focuses on men because he just can’t deal with Jesus himself.
Report comment to moderator
Michelle, I got tears in my eyes reading this. Don’t you feel priviledged to have witnessed this. It reminded me of my father in law’s death. We had a “party” that day with friends and relatives visiting and talking to him and all of us talking about when he did what. He died with my cross around his neck and his head on his son’s shoulder.
At his funeral his brother (a retired Methodist minister) told about the “Green Hornet”. As children they helped their teach paint in the classroom. King came home covered in green paint. Mam Maw scrubbed him down with turpentine. Later that day the teacher came by the house and found out. She laughed and said “Oh, Mrs. Cotten, the paint wasn’t oil based it would have washed out with water.” Mam Maw replied that he DESERVED turpentine.
Thank you so very much for sharing your friends story. Please let us know how the Celebration of Life Service goes.
Report comment to moderator
Michelle – Condolences to all who loved him.
When my Aunt Gert was dying of cancer, she decided to give a “block party” for her neighbors, who had all been good friends to her. She was quite weak by that time, so she basically supervised my mom & their cousin in the prep. Everyone had a lovely time.
Aunt Gert died 2 weeks later. Shortly before she died I found out that she had surrendered herself to the Lord.
Report comment to moderator
Lineup changes on the Christian Right?
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/undergod/2009/07/the_new_old_christian_right.html
Seems like a decent summary of who’s who these days. Who’s missing?
Report comment to moderator
#35 Frank “XION, BTW, have you read Doug Wilson’s meditation “Ordinary as Brown Dirt,” linked at (10) yet? I’d like to know your thoughts/objections re. it.”/i>
Yes, I did and I mostly agree, except he keeps talking about a fictional strawman, these mythical neo-cons whom he detests, saying they argue not for the superiority of American ideals but of Americans themselves. That’s ridiculous!
Here is the part I agree with:
“I agree that America’s founders were exceptional men, and they established our form of government on an exceptional document, unlike anything in the history of the world up to that point. So I do believe in a form of American exceptionalism.”
That pretty much describes the thoughts of every conservative. His detestable neocons exist only in his mind.
Report comment to moderator
More hugs Michelle.
NJL, you’re right. There have been men through the centuries. John Huss was killed a hundred years earlier for doing what Luther did.
But in the fulness of time (1517), Martin Luther wanted to debate indulgencies, among other thing, and nailed his thesis on the door of the Wittenburg Chapel.
The fulness of time includes the invention of the printing press. Some students at Wittenburg copied them and distributed them everywhere. This caused a big ruckus.
And started a Protestant Reformation.
Report comment to moderator
Dr. Dave,
Thanks for the sources.
Report comment to moderator
#34 Frank “No, but there is a hubris surrounding Americanist ideology, the conceit that our system of governance is without question the best in the world.”
Americanist? Can you name a system of government that is better?
Even so, the American system isn’t perfect by any stretch. And it has been getting progressively worse through the centuries. And only a people who can govern themselves are equipped to handle a limited form of government. If the people can’t rule themselves, then the American system will not work for them. Our form of government won’t work in Iraq.
The heart of man is inherently corrupt. Neither unbridled capitalism nor socialism nor any other form of government can fix that.
The ideal of the American system was to diffuse power, not centralize it, and provide checks and balances to limit the amount of corruption which occurs naturally.
Socialism takes a different approach. It wants to empower government to force people to behave well. Sounds good on paper, but what always happens is that it becomes heavy handed and corrupt and ultimately ends in failure. Unfortunately, this fact never dissuades Statists from trying again and again.
Both Bush and Obama increased the size and power of government. Bush with his billions, Obama with his trillions. Both of them are to the left. Both parties are to the left. It is weird that leftists hated Bush since he was one of their own. I think they just hate everyone who isn’t on their team.
Report comment to moderator
Well, that was a fantastic Wimbledon final. Roger Federer defeated Andy Roddick in five incredible sets – there were two tiebreakers, and the score of the last set was 16-14 (so really they played the equivalent of two additional sets).
I was pulling for Roddick, really hoping that he’d pull through and win his first Wimbledon. He was really disappointed. Federer passed Sampras and now holds the all-time record for Major titles at 15. He is a great champion.
Report comment to moderator
Xion: It wants to empower government to force people to behave well.
Sounds more like a theocracy to me. What could be better than everybody living according to your god’s rules?
Report comment to moderator
Thanks for all your comments–I had never been at someone’s death before. A worship service–not really a memorial– is planned in his honor for Saturday.
I looked at Arcadia’s link and I wondered why a coalition of Christians feels the need to support gun ownership. I’m not being political, just curious how that plays into Scripture. The rest of the list looks like standard application of Judeo-Christian principles to me–and makes sense for people who actually look into the Scripture for truth, rather than hunting through Scripture trying to find something to back up their opinions.
My God’s rules–not killing your children, paying your debts, staying married to you spouse, not stealing, honoring your parents, not coveting your neighbor’s goods or spouse, loving God before all others, and so forth–has provided many people with an emotionally rich and satisfying life for–ever. Sin is the corrupting force and is responsible for all the ails of the world, not Jesus.
We just know following God’s teachings is a better way to a contented, fulfilling existence. It’s certainly been true in my life. I’m sorry you don’t see it that way.
Report comment to moderator
Well, I dunno what’s better, but what could be worse is you imposing your godless set of morals upon me.
Despite your narrow perspective Arcadia, you shouldn’t think your set of morals is the only one there is.
Report comment to moderator
How ever we group together or whatever we call ourselves, we are not going away, Arcadia, and we are not going to give up on the country we love in which our children will have to live.
Michelle, just a guess on the second amendment thing, it seems to be one most in danger at the moment. If that one goes what’s next Freedom of Religion?
Report comment to moderator
As a Christian Believer, I believe we have the right to buy and own guns -
Report comment to moderator
Victoria:
Can I express an element of discomfort at your statement? It can be read as if gun ownership were somehow part of what it means to be a Christian Believer, and I’m pretty sure that’s not what you meant. Rights would seem to be more a national characteristic.
Were the sentence something like “As an American citizen and CB….” I don’t see much problem with it. (My qualm is not with Second Amendment, but with the entangling of belief).
Report comment to moderator
Harris,
I could have worded my comment differently – I emphasized the “Christian” part because a segment of Christians do not believe in gun ownership. Sorry if anyone misunderstood what I was posting.
Report comment to moderator
Did I win the quote?
Do I get a coffee of some sort?
I’ve never won the quote before.
Some sort of celebration, huh?
Report comment to moderator
#39, Pauline,
Thank you kindly. Those are wonderful suggestions. I have long enjoyed Henry Van Dyke’s works. Have you read “The Greatest Thing in the World?” (recalling the title from memory).
Joel
Report comment to moderator
CONGRATULATIONS, CHAS (assuming you were right).
Report comment to moderator
What, Chas, the fireworks weren’t enough for you? (they were for you weren’t they?
)
Report comment to moderator
#70
Joel Mark,
I don’t recognize the title, and don’t remember having read anything else by Henry Van Dyke. Is that a short story or another “novella” length work? (My father’s copy was a very slim book, mine is part of a not-quite-as-slim volume also containing “A Christmas Carol” and “The Gift of the Magi.”)
Report comment to moderator
39. “My father always read Henry Van Dyke’s “The Story of the Other Wise Man” to us at Christmastime.”
Back when I worked for a religious TV Network at Christmas time we would air a movie of that title starring Martin Sheen I think.
Report comment to moderator
Michelle (63): I was with other family members at the bedside of one of my aunts when she died 8 or 9 years ago from complications of a series of strokes. There is just something so momentous and deep about going through that.
I found myself just repeating the Lord’s prayer silently, over and over — her family was Roman Catholic and while my aunt continued to go to Mass and was (I believe) a believer, the entire rest of the family had fallen away and seem to have no particular religious faith. I can’t say I was the only believer at the bedside, but I may have been.
Report comment to moderator
Harris (67): Rights would seem to be more a national characteristic.
… (My qualm is not with Second Amendment, but with the entangling of belief).
Frank: Rights must come from someplace — they must be bestowed upon men by some manner of authority.
It seems to me that authority can ultimately be one of two possible choices: man or God.
If man (in the form of a national government) bestows rights upon men, then rights are neither universal nor unalienable.
If our rights come from God, then they are universal and unalienable, and it then becomes the job of governments to protect those rights, not to bestow them.
You may have guessed that I hold to the latter view. So does the Bible, in that our “rights” really arise from our bearing God’s image, and out of God’s various commands re. how we ought to treat one another. E.g., “thou shalt not murder” corresponds to the right to life, and “thou shalt not steal” corresponds to the right to private property. Also, the right to bear arms stems primarily from the first: If I enjoy a right to my life and nobody may unjustly threaten it, then I also enjoy the right to use force to defend it. And of course, the OT and NT both support the right to use violence in self defense.
The Founders also held to the latter view:
Lastly, please note: One doesn’t have to be a believer in order to enjoy the rights that God bestows upon him. His rights come from God, even if he doesn’t believe in God.
Conversely, if he seeks to define rights as coming from governments, or as a “national characteristic,” then no rights are inviolable, but rather are ultimately subject to the whims of the government.
Report comment to moderator
Well said Frank… very well said.
Report comment to moderator
Jon Rowe,
I would recommend that you spend some time reading the articles on the site Societas Christiana. The author is a Reformed Protestant, but challenge both the typical RC and Protestant interpretations of church history. There are tons of good articles that might interest you.
Report comment to moderator
Frank (#21):
Are you back from breakfast yet?
Report comment to moderator
In my estimation there would be many Christians who responsibly own guns. I certainly do. I am permitted in every state in which I own a house plus a couple more. Plus two other countries. I go to a firing range once a month and can still be assured that I will hit what I aim at. I wholeheartedly support the NRA and their classes which I recommend to everyone even if you never intend on owning a gun.
Report comment to moderator
Ree,
Thanks!
Report comment to moderator
#73 and 74 Pauline and Kbells.
Van Dyke also wrote the lyrics to “Joyful Joyful , we adore Thee.”
The Other Wise Man is available free from several places . http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/10679
The movie version was “The Fourth Wise Man” with Sheen and Alan Arkin.
I particularly enjoy “The littlest Wise Man” which is performed at the Scott Theater in Fort Worth ,Texas. It is wonderful and you have to get tickets at least six months in advance.
Report comment to moderator
FRANK IN SPOKANE (21): Breakfast is on … I’ll try to come back shortly and cite Dr. Paul’s distinction between the “isolationism” he’s often accused of, vs. the real isolationism practiced by his “national greatness” Neocon critics.
MICHAEL MARTIN (79): Are you back from breakfast yet?
Frank: Oops … thanks for the reminder! (Sorry … I’m busy in Billings, visiting family the last few days … )
Frank (#83):
Ron Paul writes nice conservative rhetoric, but as for practical application he scores close to zero in my opinion. Apparently, from his first paragraph, the last legitimate application of U.S. military force occurred in WWII. However, I suspect that, had he been in politics on 7 Dec 1941, he would have opposed our entry into that conflict. That is, if he would be consistent with his current stand vis-a-vis 9/11.
Joel Mark made an observation on another thread concerning the Al Franken debacle in Minnesota. He won in part because of the practical “stupidity” [my word, not his] of the Ron Paul supporters in that state. I don’t know the details, but his contention was that the Ron Paul supporters, in their intransigent conservative “purity,” somehow weakened the Coleman side and allowed Franken his slim victory. Thank you, Ron Paul fans. They have given us Al Franken, just as Ross Perot gave us Bill Clinton in 1992.
Ron Paul lives in an impractical ivory tower of conservative theory and rhetoric. He fails to grasp the realities of this 21st century where evil can triumph in a “heartbeat” if not quickly opposed, often by force. Diplomacy, to work itself out, often needs the time and space that only military action can provide in keeping evil at bay.
In my opinion, Ron Paul’s brand of conservatism brings us political defeat and, if implemented, would also bring us military defeat. Politically, he divides conservative strength. Militarily, his policies would bring ineptitude and fatal delays that would allow the enemy to triumph as we essentially do nothing.
Report comment to moderator
Michael,
First off, where’d all your accusations of Ron Paul’s “isolationism” go?
Vapor?
Report comment to moderator
MM (84): I suspect that, had he been in politics on 7 Dec 1941, he would have opposed our entry into that conflict.
Frank: Can’t you make a simple distinction between declaring war on a nation that attacked us (Japan), and our utterly unjustifiable, aggressive action against Iraq, who had neither attacked nor posed an imminent threat against us?
For the record, Dr. Paul voted for our action against the Taliban in Afghanistan, since they had a direct connection to the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11. But to “suppose” that he would have opposed declaring war against Japan because of his principled position on Iraq is unfounded.
MM (84): That is, if he would be consistent with his current stand vis-a-vis 9/11.
Frank: Can you even objectively, dispassionately describe Paul’s “current stand vis-a-vis 9/11″? I’m betting not.
MM (84): [Franken] won in part because of the practical “stupidity” … of the Ron Paul supporters in that state.
Frank: You clearly do not understand the principles that motivate most Ron Paul supporters. We abandoned your false “lesser-of-two-evils” voting paradigm a long, long time ago.We see little difference between most candidates from Socialist Party A and Socialist Party B, and would rather cast a principled vote for a man who takes the Constitution seriously than settle for, “Well, at least Al Franken didn’t get in.”
Contrary to Joel Mark’s and your presuppositions, Ron Paul voters do not “owe” their votes to “the less bad candidate who has a chance of winning.”
Your gall is simply amazing! Trying to blame Ron paul for Coleman’s defeat!
MM (84): [Paul] fails to grasp the realities of this 21st century where evil can triumph in a “heartbeat” if not quickly opposed, often by force. Diplomacy, to work itself out, often needs the time and space that only military action can provide in keeping evil at bay.
Frank: Please remind me again: What “evil” were we “keeping at bay” by invading a nation ruled by a penned in, toothless tyrant who had neither attacked nor threatened us, under the false pretense that he possessed WMDs?
Rather than make the US safer, Bush’s war against Iraq has demonstrably only served to whip up further anti-American frenzy, mush of it coming from the very people we purport to have “liberated.” (Maybe “liberty” isn’t such a great thing when the “liberators” have displaced or killed you or members of your family … )
Report comment to moderator
Michael Martin and/or Joel Mark:
Please elaborate further on your assertion that Ron Paul and/or his supporters are to blame for Franken’s win?
Report comment to moderator
Frank (#85):
See #84. My comments on his isolationism are there in brief, general terms, as I addressed the issue of military action and his aversion to using that avenue of national power.
Report comment to moderator
Frank (#87):
Joel will have to speak for himself, if he is following this thread and cares to do so. As I said before, I don’t know the details of his assertion that Ron Paul supporters contributed to Frankens victory, but I am inclined to take his word for it. He lives in Minnesota, knows the details, and I trust his judgment. However, I used his comments as merely a current example to illustrate an undeniable truth: division weakens your forces and can, and has caused, electoral defeat. Joel is convinced this was the case in Minnesota, and I know it was the case in 1992 with Ross Perot splitting the Republicans and conservatives and allowing Cllinton to win with only 43% of the vote.
You and I have much in common in our conservative views. However, your assertion that, instead of uniting in a common cause, you would rather cast a “principled vote” demonstrates my point. As you see it, you must do this In order to maintain your principles and your conscience. In practical terms, this means that you are unwilling to unite in a common cause against a greater enemy for the sake of your principles. You isolate yourself in your own “principled” cocoon and let the world pass you by. Personally, I think that is foolish. In the national election for instance, you had to know that Ron Paul had absolutely no chance of winning. So in practical terms, if you voted for Ron Paul, you just wasted your vote and contributed to Obama’s win. That is an undeniable fact.
If we had followed that mode of operation in WWII we would never have aided the Soviet Union against the Nazis, and we might have lost the war because of it. Similarly, in a political sense, Ron Paul supporters isolate themselves and contribute to the “divide and conquer” tactics of our enemy.
Report comment to moderator
Michael,
It is your view that my principled support of men like Ron Paul or Howard Phillips permits men like Barack Obama to win against the likes of Bob Dole or John McCain.
It is my view that your pragmatic support of men like Bob Dole or John McCain is only delaying the victory of the movement to replace men like them them with Ron Paul or Howard Phillips.
George Washington is reported to have said, “If, to please the people, we offer what we ourselves disbelieve, how can we afterwards defend our work? It is our task to raise a standard to which the wise and honest may repair, recognizing that the event is in the hands of God.”
And John Quincy Adams reportedly wrote, “Duty is ours, consequences are God’s.”
People like me cast our votes for men like Ron Paul — and we do it in faith — because we are bone tired of supporting “less bad” men like McCain who only end doing the same things to our nation as bad men like Obama.
We vote for men like Paul because we consider it our duty.
Report comment to moderator
Your vote DID NOT COUNT – you won nothing, our country is worth more than your tiny island.
Isolation doesn’t consider the facts – our enemies understand this only too well. If men don’t get off their islands, we might not have a country to worry about, victory will be lost to the likes of Ron Paul and those who follow –
Is it your duty to lose the victory and stand firm on an isolated island that has lost most of its strength?
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
You and Michael and Joel have a different view of “victory” than I and other Ron Paul supporters.
You all think it is sufficient to merely elect a Republican statist in order to keep the Democratic statist from getting in. If you succeed, you still end up with statism, albeit perhaps at a slightly slower pace.
People like me are through with false alternatives. We would rather vote for the man who we believe most closely represents the vision our Founders had for this country.
By all means, keep voting for your McCains, Doles and Bushes. I think you’re wrong, but I don’t begrudge you your vote. I don’t blame McCain and Dole supporters for Howard Phillips, Michael Peroutka or Ron Paul losing.
Quit your sour-grapes whining how our support for constitutionalists is the reason your Republican statists lose!
News flash: WE DON’T CARE!
Report comment to moderator
To paraphrase R.L Dabney:
Republican “conservatism” is a party which never conserves anything. Its history has been that it gives in to each aggression of the Democratic party, then aims to save face by a respectable amount of growling, but always gives in to the progressive innovation.
What was the resisted novelty of yesterday is today one of the accepted principles of “conservatism”; it is now “conservative” only in pretending to resist the next innovation, which will tomorrow be forced upon its timidity and will be succeeded by some third revolution, also to be denounced and then adopted in its turn.
Republican “conservatism” is merely the shadow that follows Radicalism as it moves forward towards perdition. It remains behind it, never impedes it, and always advances near its leader. This pretended salt has utterly lost its saltiness; how then shall it be salted?
Its impotency is not hard to explain. It is worthless because it is the “conservatism” of expediency only, and not of sturdy principle. It intends to risk nothing serious for the sake of the truth, and has no idea of being guilty of the folly of martyrdom. When about to enter a protest, it always very blandly informs the wild beast whose path it purposes to stop that its “bark is worse than its bite,” and that it only means to save face by enacting its decent role of resistance. The only practical purpose which it now serves in American politics is to give progressivism enough exercise to keep it fit, and to prevent its becoming winded and lazy from having nothing to whip.
You can keep that kind of “conservatism,” sister. I’ll continue to vote for constitutionalists who may lose rather than statists who might win — every time.
Report comment to moderator
Frank
When the debates took place Ron Paul was a disaster, however when the polls came in after the debate, Ron Paul had won – no one could understand how that happened since he did so poorly – then we all FOUND OUT that Ron Paul’s supporters had called in repeatedly to vote for him – it’s that sort of dishonesty which made his position, his running for President a bigger joke -
Report comment to moderator
Frank (#90):
Your quotes from Washington and Adams demand some context for a proper evaluation. Being a Christian, a student of history and having also been in the military, I know that there are times when “duty” in a supposedly “lost cause” is the appropriate course of action. The Alamo or the principled stands of many Christian martyrs, being cases in point. Were Washington and Adams referring to circumstances like that? I don’t know.
However, I know that there are other times when a blind and unreasoning adherence to a mistaken sense of duty can lead one seriously astray. There have been some Christians, for example, who adhered so rigidly to their interpretation of the 9th Commandment that they have revealed information to predators that cost innocent people their lives. “Is there a Jew hiding upstairs?” asks the Gestapo agent. “Yes sir,” replies the dutiful Christian. Was that pleasing to God? You can answer that for yourself, but I don’t think so.
Consider this in regard to elections, our particular electoral system, and our support for political candidates: our Constitution and the electoral college system it mandates results in a two-party system. That is what we have to work with, like it or not. The time for wide ranging debate and absolutely rigid, “100% principled” stands is in the primaries before the major candidates are chosen. After that, sensible and practical people of like mind put their differences aside and unite behind the major candidates.
That is, of course, unless both major candidates are so bad that you can vote for neither. That is your contention, but I think you are wrong. I see major differences between the parties and their candidates. We are not being forced to choose between a Stalin and a Putin or a Hitler and a Goebbels. That is a ridiculous contention and it reveals, in my opinion, a political ignorance that is simply astounding.
John McCain was not ideal, but he certainly would not be leading us down the road that the Obama gang is following. McCain was someone that conservatives could work with. We would have been able to achieve some gains with him. Now, under Obama, we are virtually shut out from almost everything. His bipartisanship promises are now revealed as the deceitful lies they were from the very first day he uttered them. The Democrat programs and policies, founded on principles of atheism and Marxism, are being rammed down our throats with virtually no way to effectively oppose them.
Realistically, I doubt that Ron Paul supporters would have made the difference for Republicans in the last election. His defectors from the conservative ranks were not of the same magnitude as those of Perot in 1992. Nevertheless, the principle of “divide and conquer” is wielded by our enemy with your misguided assistance. If you can’t have everything exactly the way you want it, you take your ball and go home. This “my way or the highway” approach, in practical terms, amounts to desertion, not the “principled stand” you make it out to be.
We would do well to keep in mind the words of Patrick Henry, “United we stand, divided we fall.”
Report comment to moderator
Victoria,
“We all FOUND OUT” nothing of the kind.
After the debates, the system only allowed one vote per phone number. The allegation that “the Paulians are stuffing the phone-poll ballot boxes” was unfounded.
Regardless, I still stand by my statement at (93).
Suppose you interact with that rather than regurgitating tired and bogus old allegations that have nothing to do with Paul’s constitutional positions!
Report comment to moderator
MM (95): This “my way or the highway” approach, in practical terms, amounts to desertion …
Frank: Once again you seem to be saying that constitutionalist conservatives and libertarians somehow owe their votes to whichever Republican is running against whichever Democrat!
Sorry, no sale!
Report comment to moderator
Frank – I don’t agree with you, the call in votes were a joke, everyone was laughing –
I post and interact as I wish, just as you do -
Report comment to moderator
Michael – 95
Outstanding points!
Report comment to moderator
Frank (#93):
In some ways your paraphrase of Dabney makes sense. But the time to effectively make your case must coincide with the realities of our political system. Fight for your man with all your might before the major candidates are chosen. After that close ranks.
To refuse to unite with those of like mind in the general election is to fall on your sword for no purpose other than to demonstrate your own supposed moral superiority. That is just foolish pride and stubbornness, not something to proud of as Dabney seems to suggest.
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!