Re: KKKunich/Lafferty for president

[Jim Flom]

"Tom Paterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> The Reader's Digest? Excuse me, no offense meant, but an institution I see
as a
> tool for manipulation of the population. The "church" is being similarly
used.

I anticipated (& understand) the Reader's Digest concern -- pablum for the
populace. That's why I included the Board of Consultants. General concerns
about RD apply to this specific case only insofar as the scholarship of the
consultants on this project is faulty. Yes, the general editors are
marketing for a broad audience, but they not going to open themselves to
legitimate attacks on their credibility. If anything they skewed left (away
from religious conservatives). I didn't say this in my other post, but the
theological tradition the consultants come from is pretty different than
mine. Even so, we all use and have access to the same data, and on this
point (& as I said originally) the scholarship shares essential agreement.
The martyrdom of the apostles is not something people spend much time
disputing, especially in my own tradition, which doesn't see church fathers
as especially different than you or me. It wouldn't matter much how they
died. Their lives and deaths do lend support, if not in themselves prove
however, the fact of the resurrection.

Anyone can go to any graduate school (s)he wants and decide for him or
herself the realtive merits of any given "church," and choose their
affiliation, philosophy of religion or theological vocation or avocation
accordingly. The number of denominations in North America alone ought to
dispell conspiracy theory concerns about opiating the masses.

JF

 

[Tom Paterson]

From "Jim Flom":

>The number of denominations in North America alone ought to
>dispell conspiracy theory concerns about >opiating the masses.

We're occupying a country that has oil and didn't attack us. Forget the
"theory" business; there was a standing plan to invade Iraq which "the masses"
did not attempt to prevent. Or will you deny that Bush is in office again on
the coattails of his "faith"?

I went to a memorial service recently; the "opiating" mechanism is entirely
functional, in part by means of having attendees publicly swear allegiance to
"the faith" (e.g., "Creed of the Apostles"). IME the various "denominations",
now including Catholics, are just about all under the tent. The Christian
church that (really) promotes peace is rare in the USA today. "Support our
troops and our President" is the order of the day.

(OOO snip):
>General concerns
>about RD apply to this specific case only insofar as the scholarship of the
>consultants on this project is faulty.

Disagree. When there's an RD headliner on subverting the Constitution, let me
know.

>Their lives and deaths do lend support, if not in themselves prove
>however, the fact of the resurrection.

It can be said that the "resurrection" was tiny compared to "insurrection" in
the eyes of Rome. "It's all political". --TP

 

[Jim Flom]

"Tom Paterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> We're occupying a country that has oil and didn't attack us. Forget the
> "theory" business; there was a standing plan to invade Iraq which "the
masses"
> did not attempt to prevent. Or will you deny that Bush is in office again
on
> the coattails of his "faith"?

I sense your passion. I guess where you see conspiracy I see the open
involvement in public life of people of faith in a free society. And
frankly, many of "the masses" did attempt to prevent the war in Iraq, and it
is in fact a minority of Americans who attend church on Sunday. Most don't.
Of those who do, they are hardly monolithic in their political views,
although Evangelicals and liberals seem to bear their own distinctive (&
usually opposing) textures. FWIW, I opposed the war in Iraq and the US
stand-alone rebuilding process, so don't make the mistake of thinking I did
support it when I ask you if you can demonstrate that there is an
over-arching Big Brother of Religious Authority pulling Bush's strings. It's
very public engagement in public life. Not sure what you mean about Bush's
re-election being on the coattails of his faith. Did many people who share
his faith vote for him? Sure. Did many people of faith vote against him?
Yes (see also my remarks about religion and culture, below).

>
> I went to a memorial service recently; the "opiating" mechanism is
entirely
> functional, in part by means of having attendees publicly swear allegiance
to
> "the faith" (e.g., "Creed of the Apostles"). IME the various
"denominations",
> now including Catholics, are just about all under the tent. The Christian
> church that (really) promotes peace is rare in the USA today. "Support our
> troops and our President" is the order of the day.

I conducted a funeral service Friday for a cyclist who wasn't wearing a
helmet and came up on the short end with a car (fractured skull, back of
skull). He was fourteen. There were probably more Wiccans among the 300 in
attendance than Christians. No creeds, no hymns, even, as the family
wished. Sounds like yours was a Christian funeral, so what do you expect?
Recitation of the creed is voluntary. We haven't done it yet in my church.
I do it privately as an affirmation of a faith that has united Christians
since the earliest days of the church. I am hoping you're not judging my
practice as religious self-medication to woo me into submission into some
earthly power center. It is possible to be religious and sincere. Nobody's
holding a gun to your head to say the creed at a funeral. Heck everyone
knows that funerals and weddings draw a mixed bag. If you went to a funeral
at a synagogue and they recited the Shema, would you fault them for it?

If you are looking for a superior example of a conservative Christian voice
calling out for justice and peace, check out Sojourners at
http://www.sojo.net/ Jim Wallace is increasingly finding a voice for peace
AND justice in the public arena. He and his have been quietly going about
their business in the shadow of the White House for more than twenty years.

About religion and culture. Interesting this all should come up. I just
spoke Sunday on the unhealthy marriage of Christianity and culture, and the
imperative of maintaining the integrity of the Christian gospel without
either 1) absorbing uncritically elements of the surrounding pagan society
(see Rome under Constantine), or on the other hand 2) creating a legalistic,
isolationistic subculture. You can already sense one American error among
evangelicals -- that of an uncritical accommodation of Christian faith to
patriotism and the Republican party, and a focus on moral issues like
abortion and homosexuality to the point that concern for the poor is
marginalized and tokenized. Urban churches are less prone to that
particular error, but they often lack the resources that their suburban
counterparts have.

JF

 

[Tom Paterson]

From "Jim Flom":

(lots snipped. welcome)
>About religion and culture. Interesting this all should come up. I just
>spoke Sunday (snip)

For the first time?

>on the unhealthy marriage of Christianity and culture, and the
>imperative of maintaining the integrity of the Christian gospel without
>either 1) absorbing uncritically elements of the surrounding pagan society
>(see Rome under Constantine), or on the other hand 2) creating a legalistic,
>isolationistic subculture. You can already sense one American error among
>evangelicals -- that of an uncritical accommodation of Christian faith to
>patriotism and the Republican party, and a focus on moral issues like
>abortion and homosexuality to the point that concern for the poor is
>marginalized and tokenized.

Already sense? This is just a rhetorical exercise for you, isn't it?

Homosexuality is a "moral issue"? Are you one of those who believe or profess
to believe in "livestyle choices" or "curing" gays? --TP

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On 14 Dec 2004 23:36:51 GMT, [email protected]ospam (Tom Paterson)
wrote:

>Already sense? This is just a rhetorical exercise for you, isn't it?

And an exercise in polemic for you. Ever try a discussion where you
don't judge and condemn halfway through a post? Even more radical,
ironically especially for you, is a comment made in Triangle an issue
or two ago about holding out the possibility that you may be wrong
when talking with those you disagree with the most. Not as an
expectation, but a method to listen better to those you are talking
to.

As a Unitarian Universalist, I don't think homosexuality is a moral
issue. Making that the salient point doesn't make for much headway in
discussions with many people. Or understanding.

OTOH, that isn't really what you're reaching for anyway, is it?

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

 

[B. Lafferty]

"Curtis L. Russell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>> As a Unitarian Universalist, I don't think homosexuality is a moral
> issue. Making that the salient point doesn't make for much headway in
> discussions with many people. Or understanding.

As a UU, I have no issue with homosexuality although, for me, it is a moral
issue in the sense that all should be free, morally, to be who they are.

>
> OTOH, that isn't really what you're reaching for anyway, is it?
>
> Curtis L. Russell
> Odenton, MD (USA)
> Just someone on two wheels...

 

[Jim Flom]

"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> As a UU, I have no issue with homosexuality although, for me, it is a
moral
> issue in the sense that all should be free, morally, to be who they are.

Thanks fellas. I not so much stating my position on homosexuality or
abortion as I was saying that those are two issues many evangelicals get
preoccupied with, to the exclusion of what in the New Testament is a
weightier issue -- poverty and oppression of the poor.

 

[Tom Paterson]

From Curtis L. Russell:

>Ever try a discussion where you
>don't judge and condemn halfway through >a post?

Yup.

>Even more radical,
>ironically especially for you, is a comment made in Triangle an issue
>or two ago about holding out the possibility that you may be wrong
>when talking with those you disagree with >the most.

If you want to disagree with something I said...

>Not as an
>expectation, but a method to listen better to those you are talking
>to.

What is it you thought I didn't "listen to"?

>As a Unitarian Universalist, I don't think homosexuality is a moral
>issue. Making that the salient point doesn't make for much headway in
>discussions with many people. Or >understanding.

The "belonging to a belief group" was part of this IMS.

>OTOH, that isn't really what you're >reaching for anyway, is it?

In this case I was reaching for something a little more real.

This, from Jim Flom:

< I guess where you see conspiracy I see the open
involvement in public life of people of faith in a free society. And
frankly, many of "the masses" did attempt to prevent the war in Iraq, and it
is in fact a minority of Americans who attend church on Sunday. Most don't.
Of those who do, they are hardly monolithic in their political views,
although Evangelicals and liberals seem to bear their own distinctive (&
usually opposing) textures.>

I didn't find to be very real. "Textures"? Give me a break.

If you find the statement "we are repeating the mistakes of the Vietnam era,
aided by 'religion'" polemical, so be it. Calling it as I see it. Further, the
tone of your post shows in part why it was so easy for Bushco to proceed with
the plan. When I see Christian churches of different denominations denouncing
Falwell and Robertson and Janet Partial with the same vigor they use against
abortion and homosexuality, I'll be happy to change my tune.

One more:>I don't think homosexuality is a moral
>issue. Making that the salient point doesn't make for much headway in
>discussions with many people.

I didn't bring up the subject of homosexuality. I disagreed with the idea that
being gay is a "moral issue". IOW, not a "sin" or an "attack on the family".
Polemic, indeed. --Tom Paterson

 

[Jim Flom]

"Tom Paterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In this case I was reaching for something a little more real.
> <snip>
> I didn't find to be very real. "Textures"? Give me a break.

Maybe this'll help. By textures I was referring to the respective errors
often made by each of two wings of professing Christians: Evangelicals, as
described (co-mingling patriotism, Republican politics, neglect of the
poor). Liberals often accommodate their theology to currently vogue
relativistic values. The positive side is that they are better on the poor
and the stewardship of the environment (both being issues that Christians
should be passionate about). The downside involves accommodation to some
cultural values that contradict Christian teaching.

> If you find the statement "we are repeating the mistakes of the Vietnam
era,
> aided by 'religion'" polemical, so be it. Calling it as I see it.

Curtis was not using the term polemical in a derisive way.

> I didn't bring up the subject of homosexuality. I disagreed with the idea
that
> being gay is a "moral issue". IOW, not a "sin" or an "attack on the
family".

You couched your disagreement by using a rhetorical question that
stereotyped me.

One point of clarification: When I said, "You can already sense one American
error..." I was saying that you, Tom, had already correctly alluded to one
of the errors some Christians can make regarding culture -- the wedding of
God's plan with the American flag, with all the trimmings. It wasn't
rhetoric; it was an attempt to affirm you.

JF

 

[Tom Paterson]

From: "Jim Flom"

>Maybe this'll help

Saying what you mean, with a little more substance, so I don't have to play
mindreader... that might "help".

>Curtis was not using the term polemical >in a derisive way.

I said you were rhetorical in purpose, he said I was polemical. Not a kiss on
the cheek, more like a chiding, esp. in context with the rest of that post. You
know, accusing me of not listening, etc. I don't know why you took Curtis'
place to speak when his criticism was so obvious.

>You couched your disagreement by using a rhetorical question that
>stereotyped me.

Whether the stereotype sticks depends on your beliefs (opinions, feelings, blah
blah) concerning the subject. Moral/homosexuality juxtaposed, that's church
work. The question is if you subscribe or not. As I said early on, the "in for
a dime" church mentality is a problem-- at least, I have a problem with it.
"Did he recite the prayer (or Apostles' Creed) with conviction???" People are
watching, you know what I mean?

>One point of clarification: When I said, "You can already sense one American
>error..." I was saying that you, Tom, had already correctly alluded to one
>of the errors some Christians can make regarding culture -- the wedding of
>God's plan with the American flag, with all the trimmings. It wasn't
>rhetoric; it was an attempt to affirm you.

I wondered at the term "already", since this wave of mixing God and Country has
been swelling since the Reagan years. The "some" Christians are mighty vocal,
and politically powerful. They just elected a really bad choice for
President... and that's where I came in on this. --TP

 

[Jim Flom]

"Tom Paterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> I wondered at the term "already", since this wave of mixing God and
Country has
> been swelling since the Reagan years. The "some" Christians are mighty
vocal,
> and politically powerful. They just elected a really bad choice for
> President... and that's where I came in on this. --TP

On the other hand...
"As a non-religious Jew who sternly opposes religious bigotry of all forms,
I'm displeased that Christianity is under attack again..."
http://www.christianity.ca/news/international/2004/12.000.html
(originally published in the Toronto Sun, Nov 5, 2004

 

[Tom Paterson]

From "Jim Flom":

>On the other hand...
>"As a non-religious Jew who sternly opposes religious bigotry of all forms,
>I'm displeased that Christianity is under attack again..."
>http://www.christianity.ca/news/international/2004/12.000.html
>(originally published in the Toronto Sun, Nov 5, 2004

I read the article. Where are you going with this, Jim?

Most interesting NPR interview with Richard Viguerie concerning the use of fear
and anger in service of furtherance of the "conservative cause":

<http://www.npr.org/dmg/dmg.php?prgCode=FA&showDate=15-Dec-2004&segNum=1&N
PRMediaPref=WM&getAd=1>

I hear textures of conspiracy. Vigorous ones. It seems Ol' Rich, well, he and
his just aren't satisfied with the progress they've made so far in righting the
injustices aimed against them.

When faced with accusations that "homosexual recruitment" was used as a
fear-mongering tool, it was revealing to hear RV claim that "the homosexuals"
want to destroy marriage-- "very few homosexuals actually want to get married";
that "homosexuals are mean-spirited", that conservatives are tolerant,
"homosexuals are desecrating the holy sacrament" at behest of their leadership.
And so on and so on.

Conspiracy in forming the Moral Majority outlined: "The Moral Majority did as
much as anything to bring conservatives to power as anything". "We had two legs
of the stool-- opposition to Communism, lower taxes; it was only when we added
the third leg (religion) that we began to win elections".

"Jimmy Carter had a conspiracy to destroy Christian schools". (Segregation
issues, i.e. private schools being started in order to have separate facilities
for whites, I believe was more likely the target, given Carter's religious
stance that he took oh-so-much heat from especially from "conservatives" inre
the Iranian hostage situation. Falwell was up to his eyebrows in this one, and
you've no doubt seen his early statements regarding racial equality).

"Rush Limbaugh, godsend". I guess that's why he's not in jail. --TP















--TP

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On 17 Dec 2004 17:11:55 GMT, [email protected]ospam (Tom Paterson)
wrote:

>
>I hear textures of conspiracy. Vigorous ones. It seems Ol' Rich, well, he and
>his just aren't satisfied with the progress they've made so far in righting the
>injustices aimed against them.

There may be conspiracies, but normally a conspiracy isn't the term
for known, public relationships of long standing between people that
have common cause and the causes are also public - and legal. Your
definition makes both the Republican and Democratic Parties
'conspiracies'.

None of what you related is news or new to anyone that reads something
other than the sports page for the last 8 - 12 years. It isn't hidden,
it isn't illegal, it doesn't use illegal means to accomplish a legal
act. It isn't a conspiracy.

Are you equally bothered by the union/Democratic Party cross funding
from the 1996 and 2000 elections? Or is it only conservatives that
have conspiracies?

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

 

[Tom Paterson]

From Curtis L. Russell:

>None of what you related is news or new to anyone that reads something
>other than the sports page for the last 8 - >12 years.

(Wrong)

IOW, you didn't bat an eye when you saw that millions upon millions of USA
citizens believe that a supernatural force is going to intervene in the affairs
of man "soon" (really soon, not in the 2000 year Biblical gap)?

Ok with you that our President has strong links to these people? That our lack
of attending to a sensical resolution-- or at least attempting same-- in the
Middle East is based on scriptural ("man written") references to an evil
supernatural being standing in a certain temple to make declarations?

You believe in that "tolerance" or "reaching out" stuff, in light of the
"you're either with us or against us" quotes? (Listen to the Viguerie
interview, there isn't any "tolerance".)

I'll just come back to the "we're repeating the mistakes of the Vietnam era"
idea, with "religion" is playing a large role, as then. Historical reference:
Billy Grahams' "This is a Holy War". Delivered from the right hand of Richard
Nixon, if you'll remember. There were BG quotes about control of "the media",
too, but by Jews, not "Liberals" (yes, the "textures" have changed somewhat).

>Are you equally bothered by the union/Democratic Party cross funding
>from the 1996 and 2000 elections? Or is it only conservatives that
>have conspiracies?

Not to anywhere near the same extent, since I don't see Al Gore invading Iraq
in a pre-planned "War on Terrorism" (incl. hiring the the old Hawk advisors),
am I "bothered" by "cross funding" by the Dems. --TP

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On 17 Dec 2004 18:59:12 GMT, [email protected]ospam (Tom Paterson)
wrote:

>IOW, you didn't bat an eye when you saw that millions upon millions of USA
>citizens believe that a supernatural force is going to intervene in the affairs
>of man "soon" (really soon, not in the 2000 year Biblical gap)?

etc. and follows no discernable logical path from my post.

You called it a conspiracy and it isn't. It may be why you appear to
see a world filled with conspiracies, all from the right. Any two or
more people doing something together when you disagree with the
opinions of one or more of them. Yep, we need to stamp out
conspiracies by getting everyone to meet only to further agendas
approved by Tom Paterson.

A conspiracy is, along with other parts of the definition, an illegal
act or a legal act to further an illegal act or agenda. It isn't
enough that you want it to be illegal or that you simply disagree with
it. Collusion or maybe an unholy alliance may fit, but not conspiracy.

As to my personal reaction or opinions, you haven't a clue as it
wasn't part or parcel of my reply. In any event, I doubt that it is
quite as predictable as yours.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

 

[Tom Paterson]

>From: Curtis L. Russell

>etc. and follows no discernable logical >path from my post.

Nice try (not).

>You called it a conspiracy and it isn't. It may be why you appear to
>see a world filled with conspiracies, all >from the right.

My dictionary (Webster) doesn't agree with yours.

>Any two or
>more people doing something together when you disagree with the
>opinions of one or more of them.

Agreement isn't required.

>Yep, we need to stamp out
>conspiracies by getting everyone to meet only to further agendas
>approved by Tom Paterson.

That's just a swipe. Suggest: Rebut to substance.

>Collusion or maybe an unholy alliance >may fit, but not conspiracy.

Both of those will work for me. Shall we continue?

>As to my personal reaction or opinions, you haven't a clue as it
>wasn't part or parcel of my reply. In any event, I doubt that it is
>quite as predictable as yours.

Well, I seem to have been unpredictable a couple of times (per your apparent
expectations) in this post alone.

So, are we in the End Times? Is the Antichrist going to stand and declaim in
the rebuilt Temple in the ordinary understanding of "soon" (Hal Lindsey having
been thirty years early, so far)?

Are you disagreeing that BushCo is getting what they want at least in part
because of "religious" associations? Let's not quibble about definitions or
"predictability" or any of that "textures" nonsense, OK? --TP

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On 17 Dec 2004 20:07:26 GMT, [email protected]ospam (Tom Paterson)
wrote:

>So, are we in the End Times? Is the Antichrist going to stand and declaim in
>the rebuilt Temple in the ordinary understanding of "soon" (Hal Lindsey having
>been thirty years early, so far)?
>
>Are you disagreeing that BushCo is getting what they want at least in part
>because of "religious" associations? Let's not quibble about definitions or
>"predictability" or any of that "textures" nonsense, OK? --TP

Which, again, had nothing to do with my post, which was specifically
about your use of 'conspiracy'. Almost all of your comments were to
further your own ramblings and they remain largely not much more than
scribblings.

As I am a non-Christian and a deist, I think you can safely assume
that I have few expectations of the 'End Times', at least through
supernatural means. I also don't waste a lot of time worrying about
conspiracies among those that do.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

 

[B. Lafferty]

Am I the only one starting to long for a winter helmet thread?


"Tom Paterson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> >From: Curtis L. Russell
>
>>etc. and follows no discernable logical >path from my post.
>
> Nice try (not).
>
>>You called it a conspiracy and it isn't. It may be why you appear to
>>see a world filled with conspiracies, all >from the right.
>
> My dictionary (Webster) doesn't agree with yours.
>
>>Any two or
>>more people doing something together when you disagree with the
>>opinions of one or more of them.
>
> Agreement isn't required.
>
>>Yep, we need to stamp out
>>conspiracies by getting everyone to meet only to further agendas
>>approved by Tom Paterson.
>
> That's just a swipe. Suggest: Rebut to substance.
>
>>Collusion or maybe an unholy alliance >may fit, but not conspiracy.
>
> Both of those will work for me. Shall we continue?
>
>>As to my personal reaction or opinions, you haven't a clue as it
>>wasn't part or parcel of my reply. In any event, I doubt that it is
>>quite as predictable as yours.
>
> Well, I seem to have been unpredictable a couple of times (per your
> apparent
> expectations) in this post alone.
>
> So, are we in the End Times? Is the Antichrist going to stand and declaim
> in
> the rebuilt Temple in the ordinary understanding of "soon" (Hal Lindsey
> having
> been thirty years early, so far)?
>
> Are you disagreeing that BushCo is getting what they want at least in part
> because of "religious" associations? Let's not quibble about definitions
> or
> "predictability" or any of that "textures" nonsense, OK? --TP

 

[Curtis L. Russell]

On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 20:19:27 GMT, "B. Lafferty" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Am I the only one starting to long for a winter helmet thread?

How about whether or not poseurs and posers are the same. And if most
Canadians use 'hosers', do they call the same people 'hoseurs' in
Quebec?

Just suggestions instead of starting a helmet thread.

Curtis L. Russell
Odenton, MD (USA)
Just someone on two wheels...

 

[Jim Flom]

"B. Lafferty" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Am I the only one starting to long for a winter helmet thread?

This was dead and I had to go and throw that Toronto Sun column up there.
Mea cupla. Shoot it now, before we start talking about epistemology.