I know these folks very well. Good people.
They're embarking on this new ministry, and of course have a lot to say about it. But in dozens of web pages and thousands of words, there are only two Scriptures mentioned, here and here.
In charismatic circles there is a language spoken about discovery and relationship and destiny that seems revelational, but doesn't in actual fact say much at all without an understanding of the underlying concepts. We charismatics tend to say things as if people know what we're talking about, forgetting to tie these concepts into the living Word of God. Then people say, "Ah, THIS is that."
It could be just an oversight. But maybe they're purposeful in their presentation. Perhaps they are trying to filter out people who don't talk the language. I don't know. But I do know that if we want to facilitate the advance the kingdom of God, we need to not assume people know these concepts and how they're tied to Scripture.
Friday, September 6, 2013
Hate here one day; let’s show fairness, respect, love all year - By Liz Welch
Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
----------------------
(The overwrought reaction of the Left to the arrival of a handful of Westboro protesters in Bozeman is interesting to watch. The Westboro people are nobodies. Offensive, yes. Wrong, of course. Dangerous, maybe. Important, absolutely not. But they've gained a lot of press through their demonstrations. The Perpetually Offended Left pays them a lot of attention, which gains them visibility and power way beyond what they should have.
The only reason I can see that the Westboro people are continually played up is because they are useful whipping boys for the Leftist agenda. Leftists can point at them and say, "See, hate/racism/intolerance/evil is still alive and well in America. We need more laws!" As a result, we get more and more legislated [that is, legally forced] "tolerance."
It's a peculiar breed of "tolerance." Any deviation from the prescriptions and proscriptions is met with hysterical putdown. There is no room for diversity from those who are Diverse. Everyone must toe the line, no dissent, no variation, no independent thought.
Don't mistake me, I'm not defending the ideas of Westboro. Frankly, I'm not even defending their free speech rights. But I understand the root of their anger. No one likes to be told what they must believe or how they must conduct themselves. They have their beliefs, and though I don't like those beliefs, it does not mean they are invalid. But I'm not even suggesting that we should look for merit in them. My point is that they're not crazies simply because the hysterical Left disagrees with them.
Most people are not bigots. In fact, very few are. Most people really don't care what other people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Most people haven't got a hate agenda. Most people just want to live their lives and not be told they are intolerant simply because they don't dot every "I" and cross every "T" of the gay agenda.
The gay agenda is a shoutdown offensive. No matter how small the infraction, it is met with vociferous cat calls and character assassination. Most people will think twice before daring to open their mouths again if this is the price they pay.
The below editorial makes all the right noises for the Tolerant Ones. It casts all LGBTs as victims, literally injured by the piddly little Westboro protest. I certainly have sympathy for people who have been abused or mistreated, but I am not willing to assume that someone's speech can effect such automatic, lasting scars upon a whole class of people. I think they doth protest too much, and are simply looking for reasons to be offended.
The author does note that the protest isn't the issue, the LGBT agenda is the issue. But she probably says a little too much. Showing her hand, she writes, "Right here, right now in Bozeman, people are working on an LGBT-inclusive nondiscrimination ordinance to protect people from discrimination in employment, housing and when patronizing local businesses." Here is the problem with this. These people do not like choice. They do not like voluntary association. They don't like people having their own tastes, preferences, or convictions, especially if those convictions are religious.
They insist that people just shut up about these things. If you don't like it, they will bring the force of law to bear against you. They cannot tolerate the idea that people will make choices that vary from their own. They will expect you to do exactly what they say, no matter what your own preference is.
The thing is, I am sympathetic towards parts of the gay agenda. But this is anti-intellectual and anti-freedom.
-----------------------
By now most people in Bozeman, and many across Montana, are aware that the Westboro Baptist Church is bringing its hateful and hurtful anti-gay picket to Bozeman on Monday.
Their plan is to picket at Montana State University and at Bozeman High School. And many citizens who oppose their views are ready to counter-protest.
It’s always good to stand up publicly and denounce hate. While the Westboro Baptist Church has a First Amendment right to picket peacefully, we also have a responsibility to speak up for the people that church attacks with its message. We must support lesbian, gay and transgender people in Bozeman, across Montana and across the nation.
But the truth is that protesting the Westboro Baptists isn’t the most productive way to do that. There is a lot more positive work on LGBT rights that needs people in Bozeman and across the state to get behind it. Supporting work on nondiscrimination ordinances and relationship recognition matters much more to our gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender family, friends and neighbors than shouting at a handful of out-of-state hate spreaders.
Right here, right now in Bozeman, people are working on an LGBT-inclusive nondiscrimination ordinance to protect people from discrimination in employment, housing and when patronizing local businesses. No one should be discriminated against simply for being who they are. Similar efforts are underway in Butte and Billings.
And the ACLU of Montana continues to press forward with its lawsuit to win legal protections in Montana for loving, committed same-sex couples. Signing the statement of support and talking to friends and relatives about the importance of making sure these couples can care for one another is vitally important. Three of the plaintiff couples in that lawsuit live in or near Bozeman.
My hope is that people don’t focus on the sideshow that Westboro Baptist is bringing to town and then forget all the other work for fairness once they foldup and go home.
It’s more productive to focus on the positive work going on in Montana. I urge people in Bozeman to put their energy behind ensuring passage of the nondiscrimination ordinance and supporting same-sex couples’ efforts to win legal recognition in Montana. You can find out more about these efforts and what you can do to help at FairIsFair-Montana.org.
Liz Welch is the LGBT advocacy coordinator for the ACLU of Montana. She lives in Helena.
It's a peculiar breed of "tolerance." Any deviation from the prescriptions and proscriptions is met with hysterical putdown. There is no room for diversity from those who are Diverse. Everyone must toe the line, no dissent, no variation, no independent thought.
Don't mistake me, I'm not defending the ideas of Westboro. Frankly, I'm not even defending their free speech rights. But I understand the root of their anger. No one likes to be told what they must believe or how they must conduct themselves. They have their beliefs, and though I don't like those beliefs, it does not mean they are invalid. But I'm not even suggesting that we should look for merit in them. My point is that they're not crazies simply because the hysterical Left disagrees with them.
Most people are not bigots. In fact, very few are. Most people really don't care what other people do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. Most people haven't got a hate agenda. Most people just want to live their lives and not be told they are intolerant simply because they don't dot every "I" and cross every "T" of the gay agenda.
The gay agenda is a shoutdown offensive. No matter how small the infraction, it is met with vociferous cat calls and character assassination. Most people will think twice before daring to open their mouths again if this is the price they pay.
The below editorial makes all the right noises for the Tolerant Ones. It casts all LGBTs as victims, literally injured by the piddly little Westboro protest. I certainly have sympathy for people who have been abused or mistreated, but I am not willing to assume that someone's speech can effect such automatic, lasting scars upon a whole class of people. I think they doth protest too much, and are simply looking for reasons to be offended.
The author does note that the protest isn't the issue, the LGBT agenda is the issue. But she probably says a little too much. Showing her hand, she writes, "Right here, right now in Bozeman, people are working on an LGBT-inclusive nondiscrimination ordinance to protect people from discrimination in employment, housing and when patronizing local businesses." Here is the problem with this. These people do not like choice. They do not like voluntary association. They don't like people having their own tastes, preferences, or convictions, especially if those convictions are religious.
They insist that people just shut up about these things. If you don't like it, they will bring the force of law to bear against you. They cannot tolerate the idea that people will make choices that vary from their own. They will expect you to do exactly what they say, no matter what your own preference is.
The thing is, I am sympathetic towards parts of the gay agenda. But this is anti-intellectual and anti-freedom.
-----------------------
By now most people in Bozeman, and many across Montana, are aware that the Westboro Baptist Church is bringing its hateful and hurtful anti-gay picket to Bozeman on Monday.
Their plan is to picket at Montana State University and at Bozeman High School. And many citizens who oppose their views are ready to counter-protest.
It’s always good to stand up publicly and denounce hate. While the Westboro Baptist Church has a First Amendment right to picket peacefully, we also have a responsibility to speak up for the people that church attacks with its message. We must support lesbian, gay and transgender people in Bozeman, across Montana and across the nation.
But the truth is that protesting the Westboro Baptists isn’t the most productive way to do that. There is a lot more positive work on LGBT rights that needs people in Bozeman and across the state to get behind it. Supporting work on nondiscrimination ordinances and relationship recognition matters much more to our gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender family, friends and neighbors than shouting at a handful of out-of-state hate spreaders.
Right here, right now in Bozeman, people are working on an LGBT-inclusive nondiscrimination ordinance to protect people from discrimination in employment, housing and when patronizing local businesses. No one should be discriminated against simply for being who they are. Similar efforts are underway in Butte and Billings.
And the ACLU of Montana continues to press forward with its lawsuit to win legal protections in Montana for loving, committed same-sex couples. Signing the statement of support and talking to friends and relatives about the importance of making sure these couples can care for one another is vitally important. Three of the plaintiff couples in that lawsuit live in or near Bozeman.
My hope is that people don’t focus on the sideshow that Westboro Baptist is bringing to town and then forget all the other work for fairness once they foldup and go home.
It’s more productive to focus on the positive work going on in Montana. I urge people in Bozeman to put their energy behind ensuring passage of the nondiscrimination ordinance and supporting same-sex couples’ efforts to win legal recognition in Montana. You can find out more about these efforts and what you can do to help at FairIsFair-Montana.org.
Liz Welch is the LGBT advocacy coordinator for the ACLU of Montana. She lives in Helena.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Comments to my letter
These are the comments posted after my letter to the editor appeared.
The reason I'm posting them is because they are a fascinating case study in how the leftist mind works. You will note that only a handful of comments address the substance of my letter. Most of the comments deal with minor points, things I did not discuss, or projections as to what I must believe.
I'll leave them to you to discover for yourself.
------------------------------
- xcskier posted at 8:33 am on Mon, Aug 26, 2013.
Posts: 15
Like Rich says, we should be proud to be wasteful, use-it-up, forget the
grandkids Americans!
-
MRM posted at 6:39 pm on Sun, Aug 25, 2013.
Posts: 110 SW2, I'm all for ending all subsidies and all non-profits as well.-
call'em_out posted at 6:58 pm on Sun, Aug 25, 2013.
Posts: 198 What problems do non-profits cause?
-
-
call'em_out posted at 5:35 pm on Sun, Aug 25, 2013.
Posts: 198 -
bullgod posted at 11:53 am on Sun, Aug 25, 2013.
Posts: 146 You can't argue with the liberal enviro-nazis. There arguments are entirely emotion based and trying to explain facts to them is pointless. -
MRM posted at 8:35 am on Sun, Aug 25, 2013.
Posts: 110 "A real person, man or woman, should know how to survive without the comforts of heat, electricity, and a.c. Complaining about the prices of a luxury good, electric heat and a.c., doesn't make sense.... don't buy it then if you don't like it. Isn't that capitalism?"
Tell that to the elderly. In case you don't follow the news, and by the above statement it's evident that you don't, the weakest of our population always suffer during extreme heat waves or prolonged cold spells. Usually the elderly. That is to whom I am referring.
As far as the human condition is around the world, I pray every night for it to improve.
Also, if you care to read carefully, I didn't say for one second that higher prices will affect me. I asked who the left will blame for problems they caused.
The fact is that coal still remains the best, cheapest and one of the most abundant sources we have for cheap power. Would you rather burn it here with some kind of reasonable regulation or send it to China where it puts over twice the pollutants in the air?-
Snidely Whiplash II posted at 4:25 pm on Sun, Aug 25, 2013.
Posts: 340 "The fact is that coal still remains the best, cheapest and one of the most abundant sources we have for cheap power. Would you rather burn it here with some kind of reasonable regulation or send it to China where it puts over twice the pollutants in the air?"
A fair question, I would rather not see coal burned at all unless the generating station is fully equipped with scrubbers and modern anti-pollution controls.
Let China mine their own coal.
Coal, or gasoline, remain cheap (relatively speaking) because much of the impacts involved in their production and consumption are not factored into their true costs.
-
-
MRM posted at 12:59 pm on Sat, Aug 24, 2013.
Posts: 110 -
magicdragon posted at 4:12 pm on Sat, Aug 24, 2013.
Posts: 2726 "China has the largest wind market size of any country, according to the WWEA. By last June, China had around 67.7 gigawatts of wind capacity from its installations. Gsänger said that number is likely closer to 80 now."
" Currently the United States has close to 60 gigawatts, Gsänger said. However the total number of installments per capita in the United States isn't as impressive."
"Germany leads the European wind market with more than 30 gigawatts, helping the EU surpass 100 gigawatts of installed wind energy last fall."
Granted this is just a fraction of what we use but it is a start. Many European nations realize the importance of cutting the use of fossil fuels. Of all the political parties in the world the GOP in our country is the only one that has as one of their tenets fossil fuel use should increase. Drill, baby, drill. Carter put solar in the White House and tried to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Reagan took them down and during his term we were the only industrialized nation that wasn't building efficient rail systems. Instead during those years we lost thousands of miles of track. Even though highways are the most highly subsidized form of travel and cartage we seem to want to make semis and cargo vans our mainstay. -
lovelife posted at 6:42 pm on Sat, Aug 24, 2013.
Posts: 117 Really MRM? "When people are dying because they can't afford to heat (or cool) their homes, who will they point their long bony finger towards?"
Build a fire when it is cold, go to the mountains when it is hot or jump into some water when it is hot. There are people across the world who don't have heat or air conditioning and they are surviving. Are you an entitled human that can just continue environmental degradation for sissy pants comfort? A real person, man or woman, should know how to survive without the comforts of heat, electricity, and a.c. Complaining about the prices of a luxury good, electric heat and a.c., doesn't make sense.... don't buy it then if you don't like it. Isn't that capitalism?
-
-
Tknees posted at 12:09 pm on Sat, Aug 24, 2013.
Posts: 55 -
lovelife posted at 11:49 am on Sat, Aug 24, 2013.
Posts: 117 -
magicdragon posted at 4:23 pm on Sat, Aug 24, 2013.
Posts: 2726 Limbaugh, Beck, Palin and Santorum all equate climate change with religion. Others too.
"The study, based on data from the 2007 Cooperative Congressional Election Study, uncovered that belief in the “Second Coming” of Jesus reduced the probability of strongly supporting government action on climate change by 12 percent when controlling for a number of demographic and cultural factors. When the effects of party affiliation, political ideology, and media distrust were removed from the analysis, the belief in the “Second Coming” increased this effect by almost 20 percent. (This suggests there is a significant overlap between those three variables and belief in the “Second Coming.”)
That very sentiment has been expressed by federal legislators. Rep. John Shimkus (R-IL) said in 2010 that he opposed action on climate change because “the Earth will end only when God declares it to be over.” He is the chairman of the Subcommittee on Environment and the Economy."
Maranatha.
-
-
Averageguy posted at 11:29 am on Sat, Aug 24, 2013.
Posts: 66 Rich cant just disagree with the letter because he believes Walser is wrong or misinformed, because she doesn't agree with his opinion she "hates the American way of life." Drama queen mush Rich?-
magicdragon posted at 4:57 pm on Sat, Aug 24, 2013.
Posts: 2726 Really, is his America the one you want your kids and grandkids to grow and live?
-
-
dogmantrainer posted at 10:19 pm on Fri, Aug 23, 2013.
Posts: 266 Now you did it Rich, you confronted both environmentalists and progressive socialists. OOOOu they gonna git you now.
The environmentalists don't like manwomanglbt-kind as a basic premise. MWGLBT is THE item scheduled for deletion according to their leadership (which includes IPCC - I did some research). On top of that they do not believe that THEY THEMSELVES are the culprit and should on that basis not be deleted from the earth equation. However, on behalf of all of us scum bag demons who cut trees, mine, extract, disagree with environmentalists and aren't progressive socialists: Welcome - you just made the list buddy (and don’t ever call me Francis….) (that's an obscure movie line reference).
Truth is fluid to the socialist – they don’t have absolutes, the words you use might be the same as theirs but their definitions are fluid and their meaning changes according to which best achieves the party’s objectives. Wasteful to you isn't the same as wasteful to them.
American way of life means something else too - which is why they fundamentally want progress for forward change with hope and as far away from the way you mean it as they can get. -
magicdragon posted at 11:33 am on Fri, Aug 23, 2013.
Posts: 2726 What exactly is the American way of life? In the post Civil War years anyone who spoke out against genocide against Native Americans was branded with the same label. Those who earlier opposed slavery were also mocked and belittled. In the south if you were for equal rights and against the Jim Crow laws you were unAmerican according to the racists. Women who wanted a say in government were branded as seditious. Nixon called all war protesters traitors. McCarthy went on a with hunt.
If you take time to read the Constitution you will find that speaking up for your cause is protected and the founding fathers welcomed opposing views. If environmentalists are American citizens then by definition they are working for the American way of life.
What you mean is that those who do not share your views hate your definition of American life which means that your views are contrary to them as well. We are all Americans. Your definitions mean squat. I have learned a few things in my sixty years. One of them is that no one really gives a rat's patootie what you or I think, One person's beliefs are just as valid as the next's. You seem to want sheep rather than thinking citizens.-
longneck posted at 3:50 pm on Fri, Aug 23, 2013.
Posts: 349 Well put Magicdragon. To add to what you have to say----the American way of life is historically fluid and is quite adaptable to the times.-
magicdragon posted at 10:09 pm on Fri, Aug 23, 2013.
Posts: 2726 And yes that was witch hunt, I type with a lisp.
-
-
Tknees posted at 12:12 pm on Sat, Aug 24, 2013.
Posts: 55 Great reply!
-
-
Caelan Simeone posted at 10:44 am on Fri, Aug 23, 2013.
Posts: 1 Rich,
I do not think that you can conclude that every extreme environmentalist hates the American way of life simply based off of one example. I agree with you on the idea that if we implemented a green tax today in the way Kristen Walser suggested it would most likely not end well for the American economy. On the other hand there are a wide variety of other methods that could be used to implement a green tax. One of these ideas is a Net Zero Tax. In this system taxes would be placed on things that do not benefit the American people such as carbon emissions and environmental destruction. The incomes based off of this tax would then be offset by reductions in other taxes such as the Income Tax, Sales Tax, or Payroll tax. This would create incentives for Americans to do positive economic activities such as make, spend and save more money, while building a society that takes better care of its natural lands and environment. Several books such as Natural Capitalism and the Ecology of Commerce talk about some of these ideas in more depth.-
Snidely Whiplash II posted at 2:53 pm on Fri, Aug 23, 2013.
Posts: 340 Caelan, nice try but using logic and acting nice is a waste of time with some extremists (Rich).
After all Rich is in favor of "the wasteful American way of life".
Rich as I am quite sure you will read this, do you not believe that there is a large amount of waste generated by the current American way of life?
I see it everyday, don't you?-
magicdragon posted at 10:08 pm on Fri, Aug 23, 2013.
Posts: 2726 Don't we give all that waste back to Mother Earth when we burn it, bury it and send it to the bottom of the sea? What nice children we are.
-
-
Wednesday, September 4, 2013
Washburn aims to limit voter rights - letter by Tom Stonecipher
Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
Ask yourself this: Should elected officials be chosen on the vote of all American citizens, or should they be selected by ensuring that citizens who disagree with them don’t get to vote at all? The latter is undeniably the goal of laws which, for voting, call for state-issued photo IDs, current drivers’ licenses (who can’t afford cars? Oh yes, poor Americans), limit registration to vote within 30 days of the election — all when the evidence of voter fraud among all states is virtually non-existent. (This is the standard, almost verbatim Leftist take on the issue. But there is no evidence at all that proving who you are when you vote is an onerous burden, any more than proving who you are to take out a loan, buy tobacco, or get a fishing license is. And no one has suggested any of these ID requirements are discriminatory.
----------------------------
I previous dealt with this issue here, but I may end up repeating myself. I believe that Mr. Stonecipher is an attorney, which automatically caused my radar to beep. I don't know him, so I am not impugning his character, only questioning his reasoning.
---------------------------
At a time when five Supreme Court justices have gutted the Voting Rights Act, (I know the Left has used the term "gut," the reality is a bit more pedestrian. The decision simply removed certain states from federal oversight regarding their election practices. The NY Times noted Chief Justice Roberts' intent: "Chief Justice Roberts wrote that Congress remained free to try to impose federal oversight on states where voting rights were at risk, but must do so based on contemporary data." The article went on to say that the invalidated provision "determined which states must receive clearance from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington before they made minor changes to voting procedures, like moving a polling place, or major ones, like redrawing electoral districts."
At a time when five Supreme Court justices have gutted the Voting Rights Act, (I know the Left has used the term "gut," the reality is a bit more pedestrian. The decision simply removed certain states from federal oversight regarding their election practices. The NY Times noted Chief Justice Roberts' intent: "Chief Justice Roberts wrote that Congress remained free to try to impose federal oversight on states where voting rights were at risk, but must do so based on contemporary data." The article went on to say that the invalidated provision "determined which states must receive clearance from the Justice Department or a federal court in Washington before they made minor changes to voting procedures, like moving a polling place, or major ones, like redrawing electoral districts."
So these kinds of things are now left to the states in question, which in itself seems consistent with states possessing the authority to determine their own polling practices. Indeed, many believe that federal intrusion into this area is in itself a violation of the Constitution.
The Times then acknowledged the pervasive racism of the past was no longer applicable: "In the 2004 election, the last before the law was
reauthorized, the black registration rate in Mississippi was 76 percent, almost
four percentage points higher than the white rate. In the 2012 election, Chief
Justice Roberts wrote, “African-American voter turnout exceeded white voter
turnout in five of the six states originally covered by Section 5.”
So rather than the Act being "gutted," we must conclude that the Act did its job and was basically moot.) encouraging states like Texas and North Carolina, states with histories of the random, unpunished lynchings of black men, to enact restrictive voting regulations aimed only at keeping the poor and those of color from voting or registering to vote, let us take stock of what is happening, as Montanans and Americans.
Ask yourself this: Should elected officials be chosen on the vote of all American citizens, or should they be selected by ensuring that citizens who disagree with them don’t get to vote at all? The latter is undeniably the goal of laws which, for voting, call for state-issued photo IDs, current drivers’ licenses (who can’t afford cars? Oh yes, poor Americans), limit registration to vote within 30 days of the election — all when the evidence of voter fraud among all states is virtually non-existent. (This is the standard, almost verbatim Leftist take on the issue. But there is no evidence at all that proving who you are when you vote is an onerous burden, any more than proving who you are to take out a loan, buy tobacco, or get a fishing license is. And no one has suggested any of these ID requirements are discriminatory.
Mr. Stonecipher rather indelicately lumps the ID requirements together, as if all of those IDs must be presented in order to vote. However, any state-approved ID will suffice. And the fact is, knowing who the person is when he/she votes is a perfectly reasonable, and also, constitutionally required activity. Only citizens are allowed to vote according to the Constitution, therefore the state has a compelling interest to ensure that people are who they say they are and vote only once.
We know that voter fraud is not "virtually non-existent." There are news stories everywhere about dead people voting, people voting multiple times, and people voting while pretending to be someone they are not. But the point really isn't relevant, anyway. Even if voter fraud is "virtually non-existent," the state still must ensure proper procedure. An since the procedure is evenly applied, it cannot be viewed as racist.)
In Montana, the man pushing this national strategy is our local representative, Ted Washburn. Washburrn has for years introduced bills to require state-issued photo IDs to vote, to limit and restrict voter registration before elections, and generally do whatever might help keep the poor, single moms, Native Americans, and our small population of American Hispanics from voting in elections, because they might not support Ted’s core political philosophy. All with no evidence of any voter fraud here. (Mr. Stonecipher imputes a motive to Mr. Washburn that he cannot possibly know. More to the point, there has been a large influx of of undocumented persons flowing into the US for many years. If there isn't a problem at present, there sure will be. People of all races, origins, or status must be able to prove they are eligible to vote.)
What does Washburn have in mind? Ask him when you see him out and about and weigh his answer for yourself. Only our governors’ vetoes have kept his efforts to disenfranchise Montana citizens from success. His fellow party members are ardent cheerleaders for his work. Are you?
Tom Stonecipher
Bozeman
In Montana, the man pushing this national strategy is our local representative, Ted Washburn. Washburrn has for years introduced bills to require state-issued photo IDs to vote, to limit and restrict voter registration before elections, and generally do whatever might help keep the poor, single moms, Native Americans, and our small population of American Hispanics from voting in elections, because they might not support Ted’s core political philosophy. All with no evidence of any voter fraud here. (Mr. Stonecipher imputes a motive to Mr. Washburn that he cannot possibly know. More to the point, there has been a large influx of of undocumented persons flowing into the US for many years. If there isn't a problem at present, there sure will be. People of all races, origins, or status must be able to prove they are eligible to vote.)
What does Washburn have in mind? Ask him when you see him out and about and weigh his answer for yourself. Only our governors’ vetoes have kept his efforts to disenfranchise Montana citizens from success. His fellow party members are ardent cheerleaders for his work. Are you?
Tom Stonecipher
Bozeman
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Moribund Congress needs to move on Social Security - Editorial by Pat Williams
Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
----------------------------
(Pat Williams was a Congressman in the US house from 1978 to 1996. He was reliably Left, but inexplicably managed to win with large majorities in conservative Montana. Except his last election in 1992 when he managed only 51%. I suspect he realized the handwriting was on the wall, and decided against running again.)
--------------------------------
Pat Williams served nine terms as a U.S. Representative from Montana. After his retirement, he returned to Montana and taught at the University of Montana.
Imagine if tomorrow morning’s headline was this: “Four hundred thousand to get one half billion dollar boost in income.” The underlying news story announces that hundreds of thousands of people here in three states of the Northern Rockies whose good earning jobs are behind them will share $500 million each year for the rest of their lives.
One half billion dollars distributed among people in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, particularly the 15 percent who no longer bring home good salaries, would be one of the greatest bursts of targeted payroll in our history, a boon for spending in our small businesses and a continuing economic shot in the arm for our region.
Of course, this vital economic engine already exists — Social Security. (An astounding departure from rationality. Mr. Williams is identifying a pot of money, $500 million, that is sourced from Social Security. This "vital economic engine" is supposedly helping an economy where 90 million people are out of work, where people are settling for part time employment in record numbers, where the unemployment rate is stubbornly above 7.5%, and where the annual deficits have exceed One TRILLION dollars every year since President Obama took office.
One half billion dollars distributed among people in Montana, Wyoming, and Idaho, particularly the 15 percent who no longer bring home good salaries, would be one of the greatest bursts of targeted payroll in our history, a boon for spending in our small businesses and a continuing economic shot in the arm for our region.
Of course, this vital economic engine already exists — Social Security. (An astounding departure from rationality. Mr. Williams is identifying a pot of money, $500 million, that is sourced from Social Security. This "vital economic engine" is supposedly helping an economy where 90 million people are out of work, where people are settling for part time employment in record numbers, where the unemployment rate is stubbornly above 7.5%, and where the annual deficits have exceed One TRILLION dollars every year since President Obama took office.
Did this $500 million magically appear, Mr. Williams? Is it somehow just sitting around, waiting for someone to tap into it? No, that money is extracted from workers' wages and transferred to retirees and others who are no longer contributing economically to society. The money that first belonged to someone else is being spent by people who did not earn it. We are left guess as to how this constitutes a "vital economic engine."
Yes, yes, those retirees did contribute while they were working. Their money was shifted to prior retired workers, who spent that money just like today's retirees are spending today's workers' money. And we know it only takes a few years to fully recoup contributions. After that, Social security is nothing more than a welfare program for the aged.
There is no new money here, only someone elses' money. There can be no enhanced financial benefit to the economy, because the same amount of money is still in play. The only difference is the money is in the hands of different people.)
The first monthly Social Security check was cut for $22.54 and delivered to Ida May Fuller in Brattleboro, Vt., 73 years ago. Today’s Americans receive Social Security checks averaging $1,180 per month.
Both critics and supporters of Social Security are justifiably concerned about the financial solvency of the system. (Justifiably concerned? Why?) Although the retirement fund enjoys by far the largest surplus, $2.7 trillion, of any government trust fund, that money is expected to start being reduced in 2021. (Wait, wait, wait. It has a surplus? I thought we could be "justifiably concerned?" With a recrd surplus, why should we be concerned?
Please forgive me for rehashing this, but there is no money at all in Social Security. Its assets are non-marketable bonds issued by the Federal Government. The government creates a special bond [an I.O.U.] that only it can buy or sell, and gives it to the SS trust fund. It then takes money in an amount equal to the bond, and spends it in the general fund. Therefore, the trust fund loans money to the government. The trust fund contains nothing but government promises to pay back its debt. The fund has no cash.)
Low employment, the Great Recession that began under President George W. Bush, (He has to get in the obligatory Bush-bashing.) and increasing life spans have all presented unanticipated difficulties for the fund. (I thought it had a record surplus? How can it be having difficulties? And who says they're unanticipated? Economists have been warning us for decades, while politicians like Mr. Williams have been poo-pooing them.) However, the worry about future fund shortages has happened several times during the past half century (Um, yeah. So he negates his assertion about being "unanticipated" by admitting the fund has been repaired several times.) and each time was easily repaired by adjusting benefits for future retirees or increasing the payroll tax known as FICA. (Translated, that is increasing taxes and delaying and reducing payouts. This is what constitutes repairs. But if something is repaired, why does it keep needing to be repaired?)
There is a proposal by the president and many members of Congress to make small reductions in benefits to those retiring in the future. ("Small reductions," which means lower payments to retirees who already have to choose between food and medicine? I thought the eeevil Republicans we doing this?
And I thought SS was an "economic engine." So shouldn't Congress be increasing benefits because of the supposed boon to the economy? Wouldn't cutting benefits reduce the economic engine? Whaaa?) One of the more interesting legislative proposals ("interesting" always means "higher taxes" to a liberal. I'm surprised he didn't use the term "thoughtful," or "nuanced" as well.) on the tax side is this: People earning up to $110,000 each year now pay a Social Security (FICA) tax, but those earning above that amount pay no additional FICA. If that tax was applied to all earnings up to $250,000, (Why stop there? Why not take the cap off entirely and watch the "economic engine" really heat up!) Social Security would not only be financially sound for the rest of this century, but monthly benefit payments could be increased. (These are the words of a true believer, where tax increases are the solution to every problem, where simply adding money will make a bad program good, where the rich are the perpetual scapegoats. Oh, and by the way, SS benefits are tied to the inflation index, so they are already increasing on a regular basis.
Once again, I apologize for covering this ground again, but with the Left, every day is a new day. Nothing has ever been done before, every idea is a novel solution that has never been tried. They start each day fresh, like their propositions are unique and innovative, breaking new ground and blazing new trails.)
Whatever the solution, our moribund, reluctant congressmen and women ought to get a move on and readjust our essential Social Security system, which provides our states with an enormous economic boost.
(Well, Mr. Williams restates his thesis without ever offering evidence that it is true. Apparently it is self-evident. It's an article of faith with the Left: government programs are always good, always help, and never fail. And anyone who even mildly criticizes them are characterized as being in favor of the problem.
Moribund: 1. in a dying state; near death. 2. on the verge of extinction or termination. 3. not progressing or advancing; stagnant. Probably the most accurate thing Mr. Williams has wrote. One could only hope that these buddies of his in government, who have mismanaged the economy, violated the Constitution, and padded their own pockets while doling out huge sums of money and political favors to their pals were indeed moribund. Here's wishing for a moribund Congress.
But what they certainly ought not do is implement another tax increase "repair" to the SS system, especially at the prodding of an economically illiterate former congressman who is largely responsible for the mess we find ourselves in.)
There is no new money here, only someone elses' money. There can be no enhanced financial benefit to the economy, because the same amount of money is still in play. The only difference is the money is in the hands of different people.)
The first monthly Social Security check was cut for $22.54 and delivered to Ida May Fuller in Brattleboro, Vt., 73 years ago. Today’s Americans receive Social Security checks averaging $1,180 per month.
Both critics and supporters of Social Security are justifiably concerned about the financial solvency of the system. (Justifiably concerned? Why?) Although the retirement fund enjoys by far the largest surplus, $2.7 trillion, of any government trust fund, that money is expected to start being reduced in 2021. (Wait, wait, wait. It has a surplus? I thought we could be "justifiably concerned?" With a recrd surplus, why should we be concerned?
Please forgive me for rehashing this, but there is no money at all in Social Security. Its assets are non-marketable bonds issued by the Federal Government. The government creates a special bond [an I.O.U.] that only it can buy or sell, and gives it to the SS trust fund. It then takes money in an amount equal to the bond, and spends it in the general fund. Therefore, the trust fund loans money to the government. The trust fund contains nothing but government promises to pay back its debt. The fund has no cash.)
Low employment, the Great Recession that began under President George W. Bush, (He has to get in the obligatory Bush-bashing.) and increasing life spans have all presented unanticipated difficulties for the fund. (I thought it had a record surplus? How can it be having difficulties? And who says they're unanticipated? Economists have been warning us for decades, while politicians like Mr. Williams have been poo-pooing them.) However, the worry about future fund shortages has happened several times during the past half century (Um, yeah. So he negates his assertion about being "unanticipated" by admitting the fund has been repaired several times.) and each time was easily repaired by adjusting benefits for future retirees or increasing the payroll tax known as FICA. (Translated, that is increasing taxes and delaying and reducing payouts. This is what constitutes repairs. But if something is repaired, why does it keep needing to be repaired?)
There is a proposal by the president and many members of Congress to make small reductions in benefits to those retiring in the future. ("Small reductions," which means lower payments to retirees who already have to choose between food and medicine? I thought the eeevil Republicans we doing this?
And I thought SS was an "economic engine." So shouldn't Congress be increasing benefits because of the supposed boon to the economy? Wouldn't cutting benefits reduce the economic engine? Whaaa?) One of the more interesting legislative proposals ("interesting" always means "higher taxes" to a liberal. I'm surprised he didn't use the term "thoughtful," or "nuanced" as well.) on the tax side is this: People earning up to $110,000 each year now pay a Social Security (FICA) tax, but those earning above that amount pay no additional FICA. If that tax was applied to all earnings up to $250,000, (Why stop there? Why not take the cap off entirely and watch the "economic engine" really heat up!) Social Security would not only be financially sound for the rest of this century, but monthly benefit payments could be increased. (These are the words of a true believer, where tax increases are the solution to every problem, where simply adding money will make a bad program good, where the rich are the perpetual scapegoats. Oh, and by the way, SS benefits are tied to the inflation index, so they are already increasing on a regular basis.
Once again, I apologize for covering this ground again, but with the Left, every day is a new day. Nothing has ever been done before, every idea is a novel solution that has never been tried. They start each day fresh, like their propositions are unique and innovative, breaking new ground and blazing new trails.)
Whatever the solution, our moribund, reluctant congressmen and women ought to get a move on and readjust our essential Social Security system, which provides our states with an enormous economic boost.
(Well, Mr. Williams restates his thesis without ever offering evidence that it is true. Apparently it is self-evident. It's an article of faith with the Left: government programs are always good, always help, and never fail. And anyone who even mildly criticizes them are characterized as being in favor of the problem.
Moribund: 1. in a dying state; near death. 2. on the verge of extinction or termination. 3. not progressing or advancing; stagnant. Probably the most accurate thing Mr. Williams has wrote. One could only hope that these buddies of his in government, who have mismanaged the economy, violated the Constitution, and padded their own pockets while doling out huge sums of money and political favors to their pals were indeed moribund. Here's wishing for a moribund Congress.
But what they certainly ought not do is implement another tax increase "repair" to the SS system, especially at the prodding of an economically illiterate former congressman who is largely responsible for the mess we find ourselves in.)
Pat Williams served nine terms as a U.S. Representative from Montana. After his retirement, he returned to Montana and taught at the University of Montana.
Public leery of another Middle East entanglement *updated*
Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
WASHINGTON (MCT) — The American public doesn’t have much appetite for a military strike in Syria.
People don’t fully understand how America has a national interest. They’re not well-versed on who’s fighting whom and they wonder why this country is not spending precious federal dollars on boosting the domestic economy rather than engaging in faraway conflicts.
And, said Ipsos pollster Julia Clark, “they’re a little bit burned by mismanaged expectations” of American missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Support for military action would jump, according to polls, if it was proven that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons on its own people. But even that boost wouldn’t fully erase the deep skepticism.
“No question people would have a highly negative reaction to the use of chemical weapons. But there is just limited support for involvement in the Middle East and in Syria,” said Carroll Doherty, an analyst at the Pew Research Center.
An NBC News poll conducted Wednesday and Thursday found half of Americans do not support military action in Syria. By 41 percent to 27 percent, they do not think the use of military force will improve the situation for Syrian civilians.
Members of Congress are hearing the same kinds of doubts, one reason they’re clamoring for President Barack Obama to lay out his case clearly before embarking on any military mission. The public agrees — nearly four in five want Obama to get congressional approval before acting.
In a rare display of bipartisan agreement, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California echoed the same concerns as those of Republican House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio.
“There needs to be more consultation with all members of Congress and additional transparency into the decision making process and timing,” she said, “and that the case needs to be made to the American people.”
----------------
*Update* In case you think I'm being overly sensitive about the condescending press, I refer you here. The takeaway quote is, "If you found the above sentence kind of confusing, or aren’t exactly sure why Syria is fighting a civil war, or even where Syria is located, then this is the article for you."Not the eerie similarity to the second sentence of the below article.
---------------
---------------
The single thing I wanted to note here is the glaring presumption of the writer. He tells us that Americans don't support a military strike in Syria, and then tells us why: We are too stupid and uniformed!
This attitude towards the general public is typical from both journalists and government. Apparently, we need them to tell us how to think and what to do. If we differ with them on their preferred attitudes and actions, we are stupid, misinformed, mind-numbed robots who listen to too much talk radio.
We can't possibly differ because of independent study and thoughtful consideration of the issues. No, you see, if we aren't reaching the same conclusions, we just don't have the facts.
---------------------------
WASHINGTON (MCT) — The American public doesn’t have much appetite for a military strike in Syria.
People don’t fully understand how America has a national interest. They’re not well-versed on who’s fighting whom and they wonder why this country is not spending precious federal dollars on boosting the domestic economy rather than engaging in faraway conflicts.
And, said Ipsos pollster Julia Clark, “they’re a little bit burned by mismanaged expectations” of American missions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Support for military action would jump, according to polls, if it was proven that the Syrian regime used chemical weapons on its own people. But even that boost wouldn’t fully erase the deep skepticism.
“No question people would have a highly negative reaction to the use of chemical weapons. But there is just limited support for involvement in the Middle East and in Syria,” said Carroll Doherty, an analyst at the Pew Research Center.
An NBC News poll conducted Wednesday and Thursday found half of Americans do not support military action in Syria. By 41 percent to 27 percent, they do not think the use of military force will improve the situation for Syrian civilians.
Members of Congress are hearing the same kinds of doubts, one reason they’re clamoring for President Barack Obama to lay out his case clearly before embarking on any military mission. The public agrees — nearly four in five want Obama to get congressional approval before acting.
In a rare display of bipartisan agreement, House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi of California echoed the same concerns as those of Republican House Speaker John Boehner of Ohio.
“There needs to be more consultation with all members of Congress and additional transparency into the decision making process and timing,” she said, “and that the case needs to be made to the American people.”
Friday, August 30, 2013
Property rights - FB discussion
I posted this:
"Property rights, like all rights, are a right of action. A right to freedom of action. It is more than a right to the property as a physical object, it is a right to do with it as you please. For if you are not free to use your property as you wish, then what good is your right to claim it?"
L.B.: You sound like a good Englishman. Ownership, property rights, mine, mine, mine. This was all brought to this continent by the British, and I really do believe the people in this country are still British. Look how they slobbered over the birth of the new little king, and the royal marriage. I believe the concept of land ownership is rebellion against the one who owns all of creation. The Native Americans had it right; they believed that the land could not be owned by a man but that it all belonged to the Creator. All land and property belongs to YHWH God and we are only blessed with the privilege to use it. We all need to give our property rights back to Him and see what He wants us to do with it. That is the only right you have. Doing what we please is rebellion against God.. I preached this in a church one time and the pastor told me that if I ever wanted to preach there again not to preach that message. lol. Its the truth baby!!!
Me: I was not intending to comment on spiritual matters, only on legal principles under our system. Of course everything belongs to God! My purpose was to contrast with the leftist idea that the government has the power to impede legal property rights.
Property ownership was a deeply ingrained principle in the Hebrew people. All the tribes received a portion of the promised land except the levites. Every seven years, it all reverted back to the original owners.
So, my question is, how did God give the land to Israel if they did not possess it? Ge. 17:8: "The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.”
I agree with much of what you said, but I wonder if the concept of stewardship can be demonstrated from the Scriptures? Your thoughts?
L.B.: Psalm 24:1 (Your favorite scripture) "The earth is YHWH God's and all of it's fullness, the world and those who dwell therein." more later
S.W.: I'm ok with people owning property and doing with it as they please, but if you have you car radio blasting in my cul-de-sac at 2:00 a.m., those right will be abridged.
L.B.: Think about it. Do you really own your land or do you just have permission to think you own it?
Me: I do not think I own my land. That's the purpose of my post. If someone else can tell me what to do with the land I supposedly hold the deed to, then my ownership is diminished because the property serves someone elses' interest, not mine. And, if I don't pay my property taxes, the government can take the land and sell it. Clearly I don't own property.
S.W.: I do subscribe to the thought that six feet is all the land a man ever really needs, and chances are that he will hold that piece longer than any other. By that time, ownership questions are moot.
Me: Ownership includes the power to decide the disposition of the property after you die. But as a practical matter, you are correct.
L.B.: Who do you think really owns the land? The Queen, the Pope, the USA Corporation?
S.W.: On the other hand, I happened upon a guy inside of one of the family's properties who claimed that he "...didn't think it belonged to anyone..." Some call him a Free Spirit; the court called him a Burglar.
Me: The US government has final say on all property and its use and disposition.
Me: Here is an example. This IRS decision changes the nature of how property is treated/taxed/not taxed. Regardless of the issue of homosexuality, clearly the government assumes the power to make these kinds of decisions about peoples' property.
I.R.S. to Recognize All Gay Marriages, Regardless of Statewww.nytimes.com
"Property rights, like all rights, are a right of action. A right to freedom of action. It is more than a right to the property as a physical object, it is a right to do with it as you please. For if you are not free to use your property as you wish, then what good is your right to claim it?"
L.B.: You sound like a good Englishman. Ownership, property rights, mine, mine, mine. This was all brought to this continent by the British, and I really do believe the people in this country are still British. Look how they slobbered over the birth of the new little king, and the royal marriage. I believe the concept of land ownership is rebellion against the one who owns all of creation. The Native Americans had it right; they believed that the land could not be owned by a man but that it all belonged to the Creator. All land and property belongs to YHWH God and we are only blessed with the privilege to use it. We all need to give our property rights back to Him and see what He wants us to do with it. That is the only right you have. Doing what we please is rebellion against God.. I preached this in a church one time and the pastor told me that if I ever wanted to preach there again not to preach that message. lol. Its the truth baby!!!
Me: I was not intending to comment on spiritual matters, only on legal principles under our system. Of course everything belongs to God! My purpose was to contrast with the leftist idea that the government has the power to impede legal property rights.
Property ownership was a deeply ingrained principle in the Hebrew people. All the tribes received a portion of the promised land except the levites. Every seven years, it all reverted back to the original owners.
So, my question is, how did God give the land to Israel if they did not possess it? Ge. 17:8: "The whole land of Canaan, where you are now an alien, I will give as an everlasting possession to you and your descendants after you; and I will be their God.”
I agree with much of what you said, but I wonder if the concept of stewardship can be demonstrated from the Scriptures? Your thoughts?
L.B.: Psalm 24:1 (Your favorite scripture) "The earth is YHWH God's and all of it's fullness, the world and those who dwell therein." more later
S.W.: I'm ok with people owning property and doing with it as they please, but if you have you car radio blasting in my cul-de-sac at 2:00 a.m., those right will be abridged.
L.B.: Think about it. Do you really own your land or do you just have permission to think you own it?
Me: I do not think I own my land. That's the purpose of my post. If someone else can tell me what to do with the land I supposedly hold the deed to, then my ownership is diminished because the property serves someone elses' interest, not mine. And, if I don't pay my property taxes, the government can take the land and sell it. Clearly I don't own property.
S.W.: I do subscribe to the thought that six feet is all the land a man ever really needs, and chances are that he will hold that piece longer than any other. By that time, ownership questions are moot.
Me: Ownership includes the power to decide the disposition of the property after you die. But as a practical matter, you are correct.
L.B.: Who do you think really owns the land? The Queen, the Pope, the USA Corporation?
S.W.: On the other hand, I happened upon a guy inside of one of the family's properties who claimed that he "...didn't think it belonged to anyone..." Some call him a Free Spirit; the court called him a Burglar.
Me: The US government has final say on all property and its use and disposition.
Me: Here is an example. This IRS decision changes the nature of how property is treated/taxed/not taxed. Regardless of the issue of homosexuality, clearly the government assumes the power to make these kinds of decisions about peoples' property.
I.R.S. to Recognize All Gay Marriages, Regardless of Statewww.nytimes.com
Thursday, August 29, 2013
If You Send Your Kid to Private School, You Are a Bad Person - Allison Benedikt
Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
---------------------------------
This is a truly twisted way of looking at education, social policy, and personal obligations to one's children vs. the interests of society as a whole. Read on...
A manifesto.
By Allison Benedikt Posted Thursday, Aug. 29, 2013, at 5:50 AM
Send your kids to public school, even if you can afford private. Future generations will thank you.
You are a bad person if you send your children to private school. Not bad like murderer bad—but bad like ruining-one-of-our-nation’s-most-essential-institutions-in-order-to-get-what’s-best-for-your-kid bad. So, pretty bad. (Ms. Benedikt lays the groundwork for her thesis. She begins not by identifying the problem for which she will proffer a solution. No, she passes judgment on parents who make personal choices not in accordance with her preferences.)
I am not an education policy wonk: I’m just judgmental. But it seems to me that if every single parent sent every single child to public school, public schools would improve. (This is the "cart before the horse." People are taking their children out of public schools because of their deterioration. Returning these children would not improve education, it would simply add to the number of children being maleducated.)
This would not happen immediately. It could take generations. Your children and grandchildren might get mediocre educations in the meantime, but it will be worth it, for the eventual common good. (In other words, you should sacrifice your childrens' well-being in the undemonstrable possibility that later generations might benefit decades later. It's likely that Ms. Benedikt doesn't have a similar view regarding the national debt that is being left to our grandchildren to pay.)
(Yes, rich people might cluster. But rich people will always find a way to game the system: That shouldn’t be an argument against an all-in approach to public education any more than it is a case against single-payer health care.) (Rich people are irrelevant. We are really talking about the mass exodus of the middle class from public education, and as of yet Ms. Benedikt has not made an argument in favor of denying them their own choices.)
So, how would this work exactly? It’s simple! Everyone needs to be invested in our public schools in order for them to get better. Not just lip-service investment, or property tax investment, but real flesh-and-blood-offspring investment. (Hmm. This sounds like the elimination of private schools, just to make sure that everyone receives and equally bad education.)
Your local school stinks but you don’t send your child there? Then its badness is just something you deplore in the abstract. (Abstract? When it comes to our children, there is nothing abstract about it. We are talking about real people with real risks. Our children are not social experiments propagated for the benefits they bring to society. The good of society is way down the list. If public schools fail, it is only because they did not do as they are charged.)
Your local school stinks and you do send your child there? I bet you are going to do everything within your power to make it better.
And parents have a lot of power. (Ummm, no. It sounds more like that Ms. Benedikt wants to curtail parental power in favor of an illusory "benefit" to other interests who may or may not have the interests of the parent or the child in mind. Further, parents have very little power in the public school system. Indeed, Ms. Benedikt betrays this in her interest to bolster government schools at the expense of generations of children. There is no evidence whatsoever that parents hold sway in the public schools, or those schools would already be what Ms. Benedikt wants them to be.)
In many underresourced schools, it’s the aggressive PTAs that raise the money for enrichment programs and willful parents who get in the administration’s face when a teacher is falling down on the job. (The worst public schools in America [Washington, DC] are also the best funded. Where is all that money going at $18,000 per child? There is no reason at all for schools having to rely on fundraising with this kind of money in play.)
Everyone, all in. (By the way: Banning private schools isn’t the answer. We need a moral adjustment, not a legislative one.) (So now she denies that she wants to ban private schools, but she does not offer a mechanism to make public schools "everyone, all in.")
There are a lot of reasons why bad people send their kids to private school. Yes, some do it for prestige or out of loyalty to a long-standing family tradition or because they want their children to eventually work at Slate. But many others go private for religious reasons, or because their kids have behavioral or learning issues, or simply because the public school in their district is not so hot. None of these are compelling reasons. (Whaaa? Who is she to decide what others might think are compelling reasons? This is typical leftist thinking, to presume for you what are good and bad reasons. Leftists are all about controlling people. They love to bring the coercive power of government to bear on people who they believe aren't doing the "right thing." They know better than you what is good and bad, because you are too stupid or too self interested to make proper choices.)
Or, rather, the compelling ones (behavioral or learning issues, wanting a not-subpar school for your child) are exactly why we should all opt in, not out. (Another bare assertion that has yet to be backed up.)
I believe in public education, but my district school really isn’t good! you might say. I understand. You want the best for your child, but your child doesn’t need it. (Again she presumes to tell us all what we need, and no doubt is quite willing to make sure we conform to her precepts.)
If you can afford private school (even if affording means scrimping and saving, or taking out loans), chances are that your spawn will be perfectly fine at a crappy public school. (A generalization based on supposition and nothing else.)
She will have support at home (that’s you!) and all the advantages that go along with being a person whose family can pay for and cares about superior education—the exact kind of family that can help your crappy public school become less crappy. (Another bare assertion, unsubstantiated by nothing more than her worldview.)
She may not learn as much or be as challenged, but take a deep breath and live with that. (Now I'm wondering if she's writing satirically. It's just fine that your child gets a substandard education, because it's supposed to benefit public schools in the long run? This is the reason we should sacrifice our children on the altar of the "good of society?" What?)
---------------------------------
This is a truly twisted way of looking at education, social policy, and personal obligations to one's children vs. the interests of society as a whole. Read on...
A manifesto.
By Allison Benedikt Posted Thursday, Aug. 29, 2013, at 5:50 AM
Send your kids to public school, even if you can afford private. Future generations will thank you.
You are a bad person if you send your children to private school. Not bad like murderer bad—but bad like ruining-one-of-our-nation’s-most-essential-institutions-in-order-to-get-what’s-best-for-your-kid bad. So, pretty bad. (Ms. Benedikt lays the groundwork for her thesis. She begins not by identifying the problem for which she will proffer a solution. No, she passes judgment on parents who make personal choices not in accordance with her preferences.)
I am not an education policy wonk: I’m just judgmental. But it seems to me that if every single parent sent every single child to public school, public schools would improve. (This is the "cart before the horse." People are taking their children out of public schools because of their deterioration. Returning these children would not improve education, it would simply add to the number of children being maleducated.)
This would not happen immediately. It could take generations. Your children and grandchildren might get mediocre educations in the meantime, but it will be worth it, for the eventual common good. (In other words, you should sacrifice your childrens' well-being in the undemonstrable possibility that later generations might benefit decades later. It's likely that Ms. Benedikt doesn't have a similar view regarding the national debt that is being left to our grandchildren to pay.)
(Yes, rich people might cluster. But rich people will always find a way to game the system: That shouldn’t be an argument against an all-in approach to public education any more than it is a case against single-payer health care.) (Rich people are irrelevant. We are really talking about the mass exodus of the middle class from public education, and as of yet Ms. Benedikt has not made an argument in favor of denying them their own choices.)
So, how would this work exactly? It’s simple! Everyone needs to be invested in our public schools in order for them to get better. Not just lip-service investment, or property tax investment, but real flesh-and-blood-offspring investment. (Hmm. This sounds like the elimination of private schools, just to make sure that everyone receives and equally bad education.)
Your local school stinks but you don’t send your child there? Then its badness is just something you deplore in the abstract. (Abstract? When it comes to our children, there is nothing abstract about it. We are talking about real people with real risks. Our children are not social experiments propagated for the benefits they bring to society. The good of society is way down the list. If public schools fail, it is only because they did not do as they are charged.)
Your local school stinks and you do send your child there? I bet you are going to do everything within your power to make it better.
And parents have a lot of power. (Ummm, no. It sounds more like that Ms. Benedikt wants to curtail parental power in favor of an illusory "benefit" to other interests who may or may not have the interests of the parent or the child in mind. Further, parents have very little power in the public school system. Indeed, Ms. Benedikt betrays this in her interest to bolster government schools at the expense of generations of children. There is no evidence whatsoever that parents hold sway in the public schools, or those schools would already be what Ms. Benedikt wants them to be.)
In many underresourced schools, it’s the aggressive PTAs that raise the money for enrichment programs and willful parents who get in the administration’s face when a teacher is falling down on the job. (The worst public schools in America [Washington, DC] are also the best funded. Where is all that money going at $18,000 per child? There is no reason at all for schools having to rely on fundraising with this kind of money in play.)
Everyone, all in. (By the way: Banning private schools isn’t the answer. We need a moral adjustment, not a legislative one.) (So now she denies that she wants to ban private schools, but she does not offer a mechanism to make public schools "everyone, all in.")
There are a lot of reasons why bad people send their kids to private school. Yes, some do it for prestige or out of loyalty to a long-standing family tradition or because they want their children to eventually work at Slate. But many others go private for religious reasons, or because their kids have behavioral or learning issues, or simply because the public school in their district is not so hot. None of these are compelling reasons. (Whaaa? Who is she to decide what others might think are compelling reasons? This is typical leftist thinking, to presume for you what are good and bad reasons. Leftists are all about controlling people. They love to bring the coercive power of government to bear on people who they believe aren't doing the "right thing." They know better than you what is good and bad, because you are too stupid or too self interested to make proper choices.)
Or, rather, the compelling ones (behavioral or learning issues, wanting a not-subpar school for your child) are exactly why we should all opt in, not out. (Another bare assertion that has yet to be backed up.)
I believe in public education, but my district school really isn’t good! you might say. I understand. You want the best for your child, but your child doesn’t need it. (Again she presumes to tell us all what we need, and no doubt is quite willing to make sure we conform to her precepts.)
If you can afford private school (even if affording means scrimping and saving, or taking out loans), chances are that your spawn will be perfectly fine at a crappy public school. (A generalization based on supposition and nothing else.)
She will have support at home (that’s you!) and all the advantages that go along with being a person whose family can pay for and cares about superior education—the exact kind of family that can help your crappy public school become less crappy. (Another bare assertion, unsubstantiated by nothing more than her worldview.)
She may not learn as much or be as challenged, but take a deep breath and live with that. (Now I'm wondering if she's writing satirically. It's just fine that your child gets a substandard education, because it's supposed to benefit public schools in the long run? This is the reason we should sacrifice our children on the altar of the "good of society?" What?)
Oh, but she’s gifted? Well, then, she’ll really be fine.
I went K–12 to a terrible public school. (Based on her presentation in this article, she came out maleducated.
Here comes some anecdotal evidence from which Ms. Benedikt will make generalizations as to what is good for everyone else...)
My high school didn’t offer AP classes, and in four years, I only had to read one book. There wasn’t even soccer. This is not a humblebrag! I left home woefully unprepared for college, and without that preparation, I left college without having learned much there either. You know all those important novels that everyone’s read? I haven’t. I know nothing about poetry, very little about art, and please don’t quiz me on the dates of the Civil War. I’m not proud of my ignorance. But guess what the horrible result is? I’m doing fine. I’m not saying it’s a good thing that I got a lame education. I’m saying that I survived it, and so will your child, who must endure having no AP calculus so that in 25 years there will be AP calculus for all. (The educational malpractice perpetrated against Ms. Benedikt manifests in her lack logical and thinking skills. She is quite content with her ignorance, her lack of understanding, and the things she didn't learn in school. And this is what she wants to foist on all the rest of us. Why? Because what is good for public schools is more important than personal choice and what is good for children. Wow.)
By the way: My parents didn’t send me to this shoddy school because they believed in public ed. They sent me there because that’s where we lived, and they weren’t too worried about it. (Can you imagine?) Take two things from this on your quest to become a better person: 1) Your child will probably do just fine without “the best,” so don’t freak out too much, but 2) do freak out a little more than my parents did—enough to get involved. (In other words, they didn't care enough about her to either involve themselves in her public school, which was the panacea she offered above, or to proactively do something about her poor education by getting her out of the bad situation. Yet she suggests that the solution is for parents to do for their children at home to make up for what the public school failed to do. Astonishing!)
Also remember that there’s more to education than what’s taught. As rotten as my school’s English, history, science, social studies, math, art, music, and language programs were, going to school with poor kids and rich kids, black kids and brown kids, smart kids and not-so-smart ones, kids with superconservative Christian parents and other upper-middle-class Jews like me was its own education and life preparation. Reading Walt Whitman in ninth grade changed the way you see the world? (Ho-boy. More Leftist doublethink. Here she places high value on "diversity," higher than actually learning stuff, as if diversity in itself is automatically beneficial. Well, Ms. Benedikt, guess what? Not everyone values the same thing you do. In fact, it really doesn't matter what you value. People get along quite well in life without ever having met an immigrant from Estonia.)
Well, getting drunk before basketball games with kids who lived at the trailer park near my house did the same for me. In fact it’s part of the reason I feel so strongly about public schools.
Many of my (morally bankrupt) colleagues send their children to private schools. (How selfish they are! How classist! How out of tune with the needs of the whole! They didn't simply make a choice regarding their children's well being. No, they are morally bankrupt! Every one of them are immoral. Why? Because they didn't submit their children to the public school meatgrinder! That is the unforgivable sin.)
I asked them to tell me why. Here is the response that most stuck with me: “In our upper-middle-class world, it is hard not to pay for something if you can and you think it will be good for your kid.” I get it: You want an exceptional arts program and computer animation and maybe even Mandarin. You want a cohesive educational philosophy. You want creativity, not teaching to the test. You want great outdoor space and small classrooms and personal attention. You know who else wants those things? Everyone. (Aaaand, that's bad. Everyone wants good things for their children, but that must be suppressed because it is anti-society. Such independent thinking must be frowned upon in the strongest possible terms.)
Whatever you think your children need—deserve—from their school experience, assume that the parents at the nearby public housing complex want the same. No, don’t just assume it. Do something about it. Send your kids to school with their kids. (Yes, don't help them obtain a scholarship to a private school. Don't facilitate their desire to give their children a better chance at success in life. No, you should send your children to the same crap hole your impoverished neighbor does, so that everyone is equally ignorant at the end of 12 years of indoctrination and educational malpractice!)
Use the energy you have otherwise directed at fighting to get your daughter a slot at the competitive private school to fight for more computers at the public school. (More government funding! Throw good money after bad so that kids will be able to surf the web but can't read their diplomas! Yes, for the good of society, make everyone just the same, equally stupid, equally unaware of history, math, biology. Because that's FAIR.)
Use your connections to power and money and innovation to make your local school—the one you are now sending your child to—better. Don’t just acknowledge your liberal guilt—listen to it.
I went K–12 to a terrible public school. (Based on her presentation in this article, she came out maleducated.
Here comes some anecdotal evidence from which Ms. Benedikt will make generalizations as to what is good for everyone else...)
My high school didn’t offer AP classes, and in four years, I only had to read one book. There wasn’t even soccer. This is not a humblebrag! I left home woefully unprepared for college, and without that preparation, I left college without having learned much there either. You know all those important novels that everyone’s read? I haven’t. I know nothing about poetry, very little about art, and please don’t quiz me on the dates of the Civil War. I’m not proud of my ignorance. But guess what the horrible result is? I’m doing fine. I’m not saying it’s a good thing that I got a lame education. I’m saying that I survived it, and so will your child, who must endure having no AP calculus so that in 25 years there will be AP calculus for all. (The educational malpractice perpetrated against Ms. Benedikt manifests in her lack logical and thinking skills. She is quite content with her ignorance, her lack of understanding, and the things she didn't learn in school. And this is what she wants to foist on all the rest of us. Why? Because what is good for public schools is more important than personal choice and what is good for children. Wow.)
By the way: My parents didn’t send me to this shoddy school because they believed in public ed. They sent me there because that’s where we lived, and they weren’t too worried about it. (Can you imagine?) Take two things from this on your quest to become a better person: 1) Your child will probably do just fine without “the best,” so don’t freak out too much, but 2) do freak out a little more than my parents did—enough to get involved. (In other words, they didn't care enough about her to either involve themselves in her public school, which was the panacea she offered above, or to proactively do something about her poor education by getting her out of the bad situation. Yet she suggests that the solution is for parents to do for their children at home to make up for what the public school failed to do. Astonishing!)
Also remember that there’s more to education than what’s taught. As rotten as my school’s English, history, science, social studies, math, art, music, and language programs were, going to school with poor kids and rich kids, black kids and brown kids, smart kids and not-so-smart ones, kids with superconservative Christian parents and other upper-middle-class Jews like me was its own education and life preparation. Reading Walt Whitman in ninth grade changed the way you see the world? (Ho-boy. More Leftist doublethink. Here she places high value on "diversity," higher than actually learning stuff, as if diversity in itself is automatically beneficial. Well, Ms. Benedikt, guess what? Not everyone values the same thing you do. In fact, it really doesn't matter what you value. People get along quite well in life without ever having met an immigrant from Estonia.)
Well, getting drunk before basketball games with kids who lived at the trailer park near my house did the same for me. In fact it’s part of the reason I feel so strongly about public schools.
Many of my (morally bankrupt) colleagues send their children to private schools. (How selfish they are! How classist! How out of tune with the needs of the whole! They didn't simply make a choice regarding their children's well being. No, they are morally bankrupt! Every one of them are immoral. Why? Because they didn't submit their children to the public school meatgrinder! That is the unforgivable sin.)
I asked them to tell me why. Here is the response that most stuck with me: “In our upper-middle-class world, it is hard not to pay for something if you can and you think it will be good for your kid.” I get it: You want an exceptional arts program and computer animation and maybe even Mandarin. You want a cohesive educational philosophy. You want creativity, not teaching to the test. You want great outdoor space and small classrooms and personal attention. You know who else wants those things? Everyone. (Aaaand, that's bad. Everyone wants good things for their children, but that must be suppressed because it is anti-society. Such independent thinking must be frowned upon in the strongest possible terms.)
Whatever you think your children need—deserve—from their school experience, assume that the parents at the nearby public housing complex want the same. No, don’t just assume it. Do something about it. Send your kids to school with their kids. (Yes, don't help them obtain a scholarship to a private school. Don't facilitate their desire to give their children a better chance at success in life. No, you should send your children to the same crap hole your impoverished neighbor does, so that everyone is equally ignorant at the end of 12 years of indoctrination and educational malpractice!)
Use the energy you have otherwise directed at fighting to get your daughter a slot at the competitive private school to fight for more computers at the public school. (More government funding! Throw good money after bad so that kids will be able to surf the web but can't read their diplomas! Yes, for the good of society, make everyone just the same, equally stupid, equally unaware of history, math, biology. Because that's FAIR.)
Use your connections to power and money and innovation to make your local school—the one you are now sending your child to—better. Don’t just acknowledge your liberal guilt—listen to it.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
The Forward Together Lectionary
Reproduced here for fair use and discussion purposes. My comments in bold.
-------------------------
This is a perfect expression of the social gospel, which is really no gospel at all. Everything discussed here will deal with physical problems and political solutions. The reader will not find a single mention of sin, repentance, holiness, any discussion of the church and its mission or obligations.
Introduction to the Forward Together Lectionary
The policies that have been advanced by the North Carolina General Assembly are both extreme and immoral, but they are not new. They reflect human practices of oppression and humiliation that are as old as human society itself. In their attempt to limit access to power to the hands of a select few, to undermine public services and public response to the needs of the most vulnerable, and to generally establish a system of inequality, the current General Assembly agenda resembles that which God decries throughout the Scriptures. It is in this regard that this lectionary has been composed. It is an attempt to provide the context for a response to the issues of the day in the Scriptures that are key to many believing communities.
One cannot look at the Bible and explore its pages without becoming acutely aware that God is greatly concerned for justice in human communities. Most clergy will acknowledge this in relation to the works of the prophets; the prophets speak consistently and repeatedly about notions of interpersonal and societal justice. But the truth is that it is not only the prophetic texts that have this concern. Every section of the Bible addresses justice in some form or fashion. Whether it be the destruction of Sodom in Genesis for its abuse of vulnerable travelers, or the liberation of the enslaved Hebrews in Exodus, or the instructions about the proper care for widows, orphans, the poor, and aliens in Deuteronomy, or the countless narratives about God's actions to ensure justice in the Deuteronomic History, or the persistent entreaties for God's justice in the Psalter, or the manifold attempts to find fault with the protagonist's actions toward the poor in Job, the Hebrew Bible is replete with discussions of God's call for social justice. (Everything up to this point is true and accurate, and ought to be the burden of every Christian's heart... but then they slip in the phrase "social justice." This is a leftist buzz word which invokes the unrestrained power of government to implement its vision of what social justice is. We will find as we read that the Lectionary intends to address hunger, poverty, and other social ills, via the redistributive power of government programs via taxation. You will not find them calling for individual compassion, personal work done on behalf of individuals or communities. You will only read of what government should do.
-------------------------
This is a perfect expression of the social gospel, which is really no gospel at all. Everything discussed here will deal with physical problems and political solutions. The reader will not find a single mention of sin, repentance, holiness, any discussion of the church and its mission or obligations.
No, its singular focus is on what government needs to do to bring about social change.
----------------------
Introduction to the Forward Together Lectionary
The policies that have been advanced by the North Carolina General Assembly are both extreme and immoral, but they are not new. They reflect human practices of oppression and humiliation that are as old as human society itself. In their attempt to limit access to power to the hands of a select few, to undermine public services and public response to the needs of the most vulnerable, and to generally establish a system of inequality, the current General Assembly agenda resembles that which God decries throughout the Scriptures. It is in this regard that this lectionary has been composed. It is an attempt to provide the context for a response to the issues of the day in the Scriptures that are key to many believing communities.
One cannot look at the Bible and explore its pages without becoming acutely aware that God is greatly concerned for justice in human communities. Most clergy will acknowledge this in relation to the works of the prophets; the prophets speak consistently and repeatedly about notions of interpersonal and societal justice. But the truth is that it is not only the prophetic texts that have this concern. Every section of the Bible addresses justice in some form or fashion. Whether it be the destruction of Sodom in Genesis for its abuse of vulnerable travelers, or the liberation of the enslaved Hebrews in Exodus, or the instructions about the proper care for widows, orphans, the poor, and aliens in Deuteronomy, or the countless narratives about God's actions to ensure justice in the Deuteronomic History, or the persistent entreaties for God's justice in the Psalter, or the manifold attempts to find fault with the protagonist's actions toward the poor in Job, the Hebrew Bible is replete with discussions of God's call for social justice. (Everything up to this point is true and accurate, and ought to be the burden of every Christian's heart... but then they slip in the phrase "social justice." This is a leftist buzz word which invokes the unrestrained power of government to implement its vision of what social justice is. We will find as we read that the Lectionary intends to address hunger, poverty, and other social ills, via the redistributive power of government programs via taxation. You will not find them calling for individual compassion, personal work done on behalf of individuals or communities. You will only read of what government should do.
We also find it ironic indeed that these folks want the Bible imposed on American government [according to their understanding, albeit], while at the same time )
In fact, the entire narrative of the Hebrew Bible tells the story of God's attempt to create a community wherein Justice reigned, where everyone had land from which to subsist, where everyone had a right to argue their case at the city gate, where judges did not take bribes or honor the socially powerful, where all scales were balanced and boundary stones fixed, and where those who fell through the cracks were protected by God. Even promises of a Messiah and the impending "Day of YHWH" are predicated on the notion of God's work to bring justice long delayed into being in this world. (This is, of course, quite true, though repentance, redemption, salvation, and sin will not be found in this presentation. Only the social aspects of society will be addressed.)
These messages, however, are not limited to the Hebrew Bible. The Christian Testament addresses notions of God's justice incarnate in a Messiah who heals the sick, feeds the hungry, welcomes the outcast, and brings "good news to the poor" of the advent of the Kingdom of God where the justice that is a part of God's will is done "on earth as it is in Heaven." (The question is begged: What is the "good news," aka, The Gospel? Is the "good news" only for the poor? Reviewing the Scriptures, we find only one mention of the "good news" in conjunction with the poor, Mt. 11:5: "The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor."
The "good news," however, is not for just the poor. Mk. 16:15 says, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation." All creation needs the "good news," because the "good news" is salvation from sin and a restoration of that from which creation has fallen because of sin.
In fact, the entire narrative of the Hebrew Bible tells the story of God's attempt to create a community wherein Justice reigned, where everyone had land from which to subsist, where everyone had a right to argue their case at the city gate, where judges did not take bribes or honor the socially powerful, where all scales were balanced and boundary stones fixed, and where those who fell through the cracks were protected by God. Even promises of a Messiah and the impending "Day of YHWH" are predicated on the notion of God's work to bring justice long delayed into being in this world. (This is, of course, quite true, though repentance, redemption, salvation, and sin will not be found in this presentation. Only the social aspects of society will be addressed.)
These messages, however, are not limited to the Hebrew Bible. The Christian Testament addresses notions of God's justice incarnate in a Messiah who heals the sick, feeds the hungry, welcomes the outcast, and brings "good news to the poor" of the advent of the Kingdom of God where the justice that is a part of God's will is done "on earth as it is in Heaven." (The question is begged: What is the "good news," aka, The Gospel? Is the "good news" only for the poor? Reviewing the Scriptures, we find only one mention of the "good news" in conjunction with the poor, Mt. 11:5: "The blind receive sight, the lame walk, those who have leprosy are cured, the deaf hear, the dead are raised, and the good news is preached to the poor."
The "good news," however, is not for just the poor. Mk. 16:15 says, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation." All creation needs the "good news," because the "good news" is salvation from sin and a restoration of that from which creation has fallen because of sin.
God made creation and said that it was good. That creation now suffers under the sin of Adam, and Christ came as a perfect sacrifice for the sins of the people. Lk. 2:10-11 tells us, "But the angel said to them, 'Do not be afraid. I bring you good news of great joy that will be for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is Christ the Lord.'"
"Jesus Himself claimed the mantle from Isiaiah 61:
Ac. 14:15 confirms this:
Paul tells us in Ro. 1:16:
The Gospels are followed by narratives of early Christian community where all goods were shared and all needs met in Acts, where men and women, enslaved and enslavers, Jews and Gentiles were deemed "one" in Galatians, where religion was summed up as caring for orphans and widows in James, and where we are called to Love our sisters and brothers if we claim to Love God in 1 John. The entire concept of apocalyptic which drives so much of the Christian Testament is tied to notions of justice denied in this world being fulfilled at God's in-breaking into our time and space to fix what we have broken and to make right what we have corrupted. (We continue to notice the subtle twist given to the purpose of God on the earth. The social gospel is only about social change, change to the political Left. Any other consideration is subordinated to this, if mentioned at all.)
"Jesus Himself claimed the mantle from Isiaiah 61:
Lk. 4:18 “The Spirit of the Lord is on me, because he has anointed me to preach good news to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim freedom for the prisoners and recovery of sight for the blind, to release the oppressed, to proclaim the year of the Lord’s favor." Then he rolled up the scroll, gave it back to the attendant and sat down. The eyes of everyone in the synagogue were fastened on him, and he began by saying to them, "Today this scripture is fulfilled in your hearing."There is a spiritual application to these phenomena: Freedom, vision, liberation. They go far beyond government giving the poor a meal.
Ac. 14:15 confirms this:
Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. We are bringing you good news, telling you to turn from these worthless things to the living God, who made heaven and earth and sea and everything in them."The "good news" is to repent [turn from evil] and to the Creator of all things.
Paul tells us in Ro. 1:16:
I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile.Clearly, the "good news" must include the message of salvation.)
The Gospels are followed by narratives of early Christian community where all goods were shared and all needs met in Acts, where men and women, enslaved and enslavers, Jews and Gentiles were deemed "one" in Galatians, where religion was summed up as caring for orphans and widows in James, and where we are called to Love our sisters and brothers if we claim to Love God in 1 John. The entire concept of apocalyptic which drives so much of the Christian Testament is tied to notions of justice denied in this world being fulfilled at God's in-breaking into our time and space to fix what we have broken and to make right what we have corrupted. (We continue to notice the subtle twist given to the purpose of God on the earth. The social gospel is only about social change, change to the political Left. Any other consideration is subordinated to this, if mentioned at all.)
Thus, it can rightly be said, that the entire corpus of the Hebrew and Christian Testaments is focused on justice! That said, sermons on justice that address the constant cry in Scripture to tend to the needs of single mothers, fatherless children, immigrants (regardless of their status), the sick, the afflicted, the oppressed, the incarcerated, and the poor in our times are few and far between. As a result people have frequently imagined the message of God to be a solely spiritual concern (The social gospel commits the opposite error. It has little or nothing to say about the spiritual.)
and forgotten that God's word was intended to transform this world (Undocumented statement.)
and not just offer us benefits in the next. It is for this reason that this brief lectionary was created, to serve as a reminder of what it was that God really said, over and over and over again about justice being done in this world and to provide a context from where sermons and lesson plans can be developed by religious leaders to address justice issues with their congregants. (And the Lectionary makes the opposite mistake, that "social justice" is the sole impact of the Gospel.)
In this brief lectionary you will find 5 focal passages with exegetical/ theological and reflective information about the texts. In its pages, we will address Genesis 1:26-27 (Focus: the importance of the image of God for establishing just relationships), 1 Samuel 8:11- 17 (Focus: the need for prophets to balance kingly/governmental power), Isaiah 1:10-17 (Focus: determining what is it that God calls for from believing communities); Matthew 25:31-46 (Focus: the way we treat vulnerable Others is the way we treat God); and Acts 2:43-47 (Focus: an example of a just and diverse community). Though far from offering thorough commentaries on these texts, we hope that these readings will provide a basis for faith communities to begin discussions about what it is that God requires and how to begin to move our state, our nation, and our world in that direction. This work, though the product of the immediate labors of Dr. Rodney Sadler, Dr. William Turner, and Dr. Peter Wherry, is born of the contemporary theological engagements of many of our state’s religious leaders and Dr. William Barber’s constant challenge to us all to view the current crises in North Carolina’s political arena through theological and scriptural lenses. Special thanks are due to Dr. Cardis Brown and Rev. Kojo Nantambu for their work to organize North Carolina’s religious leaders and to foster this project.
Gen 1:26-27 NRS Betselem Elohim: In the Image of God
26 Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." 27 So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
One of the most poignant passages in all of Scripture for addressing human rights comes in the first chapter of the first book of the Judeo-Christian biblical texts. It is two verses from the initial Priestly Writer’s Creation narrative ("Priestly Writer" is a reference to Textual Criticism, which is a literary discipline that attempts to harmonize perceived errors in the ancient documents. The offspring of this in liberal theological circles is the effort to rob the Scriptures of their divine inspiration by casting doubt on traditional Christian doctrines.
In this brief lectionary you will find 5 focal passages with exegetical/ theological and reflective information about the texts. In its pages, we will address Genesis 1:26-27 (Focus: the importance of the image of God for establishing just relationships), 1 Samuel 8:11- 17 (Focus: the need for prophets to balance kingly/governmental power), Isaiah 1:10-17 (Focus: determining what is it that God calls for from believing communities); Matthew 25:31-46 (Focus: the way we treat vulnerable Others is the way we treat God); and Acts 2:43-47 (Focus: an example of a just and diverse community). Though far from offering thorough commentaries on these texts, we hope that these readings will provide a basis for faith communities to begin discussions about what it is that God requires and how to begin to move our state, our nation, and our world in that direction. This work, though the product of the immediate labors of Dr. Rodney Sadler, Dr. William Turner, and Dr. Peter Wherry, is born of the contemporary theological engagements of many of our state’s religious leaders and Dr. William Barber’s constant challenge to us all to view the current crises in North Carolina’s political arena through theological and scriptural lenses. Special thanks are due to Dr. Cardis Brown and Rev. Kojo Nantambu for their work to organize North Carolina’s religious leaders and to foster this project.
Gen 1:26-27 NRS Betselem Elohim: In the Image of God
26 Then God said, "Let us make humankind in our image, according to our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the wild animals of the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." 27 So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
One of the most poignant passages in all of Scripture for addressing human rights comes in the first chapter of the first book of the Judeo-Christian biblical texts. It is two verses from the initial Priestly Writer’s Creation narrative ("Priestly Writer" is a reference to Textual Criticism, which is a literary discipline that attempts to harmonize perceived errors in the ancient documents. The offspring of this in liberal theological circles is the effort to rob the Scriptures of their divine inspiration by casting doubt on traditional Christian doctrines.
So regarding the Genesis reference, it is thought by the textual critics that Moses did not write it, that instead several authors created it and there was a later effort to amalgamate all the stories in Genesis. Thus, the contents of Genesis is a conspiracy of sorts, since these "editors" decided what would be included and what would not be. The flaws in this kind of thinking is beyond the scope of our presentation. Suffice to say, there is no good reason to suggest that Genesis was written by a committee.)
in Genesis 1:1-2:4a. In this brief account, the omniscient narrator there describes the creation of humankind, or haadam. This term, haadam is a fascinating term since it is not really a reference to a personal name or a “man” in this story. Instead it is a reference to an idealized form of humanity from which all of the rest of humanity is eventually derived. It is a humanity that contains the origins not of a male, but of both the male and the female, expressing their common origins in a way that is neither hierarchical nor expressly patriarchal; no, the passage is decidedly egalitarian as it grounds the origins of both genders in God’s initial creative activity. (And so it begins. Note how the Lectionary seeks to mythologize the account of Adam and Eve, making them a archetype of humanity and not actual people who existed in history.
in Genesis 1:1-2:4a. In this brief account, the omniscient narrator there describes the creation of humankind, or haadam. This term, haadam is a fascinating term since it is not really a reference to a personal name or a “man” in this story. Instead it is a reference to an idealized form of humanity from which all of the rest of humanity is eventually derived. It is a humanity that contains the origins not of a male, but of both the male and the female, expressing their common origins in a way that is neither hierarchical nor expressly patriarchal; no, the passage is decidedly egalitarian as it grounds the origins of both genders in God’s initial creative activity. (And so it begins. Note how the Lectionary seeks to mythologize the account of Adam and Eve, making them a archetype of humanity and not actual people who existed in history.
Further, There is no sense of egalitarianism in these accounts. This is a modern concept, valued by the Left today, which is an imposition pursuing an agenda.
Indeed, the Left is quick to criticize Christianity as patriarchal; indeed, all of Jewish society throughout the Bible is patriarchal. But somehow, without any documentation, the authors claim the original creation was egalitarian.)
Thursday, August 22, 2013
Submission in marriage - Vox Day
Vox Day expounds on true submission as it applies to wives specifically in Christian marriages, but it seems to me the principles hold true for men in the church as they too are called to submit to one another.
---------------------------
In the gap created by feckless, feminized Churchian pastors across America, one fearless Game blogger boldly stands:
It is understandably difficult for women raised in a feminist and equalitarian society to accept that they have a Christian duty to be submissive wives to their husbands. But think on this: pride is the source of the original rebellion. To rebel against the clear message of the Bible because it offends one's pride is quite literally Satanic behavior, whether one is male or female.
And one rejects one's Christian duties at one's eternal peril. Rejecting the leadership of one's husband is not necessarily tantamount to rejecting Jesus Christ as one's savior, but God is neither mocked nor fooled, and one always pays a price for disobeying His commands.
---------------------------
In the gap created by feckless, feminized Churchian pastors across America, one fearless Game blogger boldly stands:
What takes courage, obedience, and faith is to witness a failing Christian husband and remember that the Bible is clear that husbands are the head of the household, and wives are called to submit to their husbands even if the husband is not leading her as Christ leads the Church.In his series of three posts on the matter, Dalrock correctly points out:
These men are overcome by their own pride and a desire to curry favor with the wives they are speaking to. In the case of Pastors who sin this way it is to strengthen their position of leadership over their congregation, and this is by far the most damaging act of treachery. In the case of the omegas circling the camp hoping to find a shortcut to manhood by currying favor with unhappy wives, the treachery is no less real but it is far less damaging because these men are failures whom neither men nor women respect. But either way, this is how feminist rebellion is sold to modern Christians, and it perfectly explains why movies like Fireproof and Couragous are so eagerly accepted. Christian women in feminist rebellion are eager to hear a message which absolves them of the clear instruction to submit to their husbands, and far too many Christian men are looking to ingratiate themselves to the women in rebellion.
- Marital leadership is a man's Bible-based Christian duty.
- The modern Church is actively setting itself against the Bible in this regard.
- Female marital submission is not dependent upon a woman's approval of her husband's leadership.
It is understandably difficult for women raised in a feminist and equalitarian society to accept that they have a Christian duty to be submissive wives to their husbands. But think on this: pride is the source of the original rebellion. To rebel against the clear message of the Bible because it offends one's pride is quite literally Satanic behavior, whether one is male or female.
And one rejects one's Christian duties at one's eternal peril. Rejecting the leadership of one's husband is not necessarily tantamount to rejecting Jesus Christ as one's savior, but God is neither mocked nor fooled, and one always pays a price for disobeying His commands.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)