In article ,
ospam (WillStG) wrote:

[snip]


It has been predicted that if Bush is reelected the fringe elements of the
Democratic Party will try even harder to impeach GWB. If they do, they will
alienate Democratic moderates to an even greater degree, and the doom the
Democratic Party. I think then you will then have a bunch of defections from
Southern Blue Dog Democrats, and more Democrats retiring from Congress.


Shall we place our bets? You couldn't be more wrong. Those of us who support
his impeachment are hardly "the fringe", as much as you'd like it to be so.

[snip]


Well Christian theology does agree when you are elected President, God
wants you in that office based on the Will of the People. And even the
President is entitled to his personal religious beleifs, this is certainly in
the tradition of our Founding Fathers, of leaders like Washington and
Lincoln.


Christian (or any other) theology has no place in a discussion of American
politics. And by the way, since Bush didn't get the votes of the majority of
people voting, I guess God didn't really want him as president?

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

In article ,
ospam (WillStG) wrote:

Jay Kadis

Those of us who support
his impeachment are hardly "the fringe", as much as you'd like it to be so.

That you cannot recognize how far from the center you are just shows your
isolation.

You may be a bit surprised. You're further to the right than you think.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

"WillStG" wrote in message
...

Well Christian theology does agree when you are elected President,
God
wants you in that office based on the Will of the People. And even the
President is entitled to his personal religious beleifs, this is certainly
in
the tradition of our Founding Fathers, of leaders like Washington and
Lincoln.

Lincoln wasn't a Founding Father, and any study of the Founding Fathers will
show that qite a few of them, and especially those who framed the
Constutution, were not Christians.

Glenn D.

"WillStG" wrote in message
...

Well Christian theology does agree when you are elected President,
God
wants you in that office based on the Will of the People.

So any effort to kick God's Chosen Prez out like the impeachment of Clinton
can be regarded as heresy?

Glenn D.

"Glenn Dowdy"

Lincoln wasn't a Founding Father, and any study of the Founding Fathers will
show that qite a few of them, and especially those who framed the
Constutution, were not Christians.

I didn't really say Lincoln was a Founding Father. I didn't say the
Founders were Christians either. I did say being entitled to personal
religious beliefs was consistent with tradition of the Founders, and leaders
like Washington and Lincoln.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

"WillStG" wrote in message
...
"Glenn Dowdy"

Lincoln wasn't a Founding Father, and any study of the Founding Fathers
will
show that qite a few of them, and especially those who framed the
Constutution, were not Christians.

I didn't really say Lincoln was a Founding Father. I didn't say the
Founders were Christians either. I did say being entitled to personal
religious beliefs was consistent with tradition of the Founders, and
leaders
like Washington and Lincoln.

Your typo threw me. Mea culpa.

Glenn D.

"Glenn Dowdy"

So any effort to kick God's Chosen Prez out like the impeachment of Clinton
can be regarded as heresy?

Impeachment would equate in weight with someone being elected. The point
is Christian Theology generally assumes that Democratic Governance in this
Nation, by the assent of the Governed, to be the Contemporary expression of
God's Will.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

WillStG wrote:
"Glenn Dowdy"

So any effort to kick God's Chosen Prez out like the impeachment of Clinton
can be regarded as heresy?

Impeachment would equate in weight with someone being elected. The point
is Christian Theology generally assumes that Democratic Governance in this
Nation, by the assent of the Governed, to be the Contemporary expression of
God's Will.

Whose Christian theology? That reeks a bit of the Divine Right of Kings.

Elected officials serve at the will of the people, and can be removed at
the will of the people as well. People, being fallible, may not elect
the best person, and they may decide to change their mind mid-course. We
have provisions in our constitition to deal with this stuff, which may not
be optimal but are surprisingly effective.

To make your statement, you would have to say that everything that happens
is the will of God in order to be consistent. If you do that, it makes quite
reasonable sense. But if you're unable to do that (and an awful lot of
Christians don't seem to be able to), you have consistency issues.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

(Scott Dorsey)

Whose Christian theology? That reeks a bit of the Divine Right of Kings.


Elected officials serve at the will of the people, and can be removed at
the will of the people as well. People, being fallible, may not elect
the best person, and they may decide to change their mind mid-course. We
have provisions in our constitition to deal with this stuff, which may not
be optimal but are surprisingly effective.

To make your statement, you would have to say that everything that happens
is the will of God in order to be consistent. If you do that, it makes quite
reasonable sense. But if you're unable to do that (and an awful lot of
Christians don't seem to be able to), you have consistency issues.

This does NOT "reek of the Divine Right Of Kings", it is the exact
opposite! Saying "the will of God" is that we as citizens take responsibility
for our own Governance does not in any way negate the Constitution, decision
making by the people, and our system of laws.

We have free will to make mistakes, to decide in ways that may result in
good or ill, and we are responsible for that is what this concept means. Being
responsible to God to rule ourselves well in no way contradicts "a Government
by the People, of the People, and for the People".

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

"WillStG" wrote in message
...
"Glenn Dowdy"

So any effort to kick God's Chosen Prez out like the impeachment of
Clinton
can be regarded as heresy?

Impeachment would equate in weight with someone being elected.

And fighting that impeachment also has equal weight? After all, you'd be
trying to defend the Will of God.

The point
is Christian Theology generally assumes that Democratic Governance in this
Nation, by the assent of the Governed, to be the Contemporary expression
of
God's Will.

So then shouldn't Christians should be 100% behind anyone that gets elected?

Glenn D.

To make your statement, you would have to say that everything that happens
is the will of God in order to be consistent. If you do that, it makes quite
reasonable sense. But if you're unable to do that (and an awful lot of
Christians don't seem to be able to), you have consistency issues.
--scott

but most people , even die hard christians can't allow that God has
complete control and authority over everything that happens
in effect we have been presented with the God of convience, available to
do our bidding but never held accountable for "all that other stuff"
sounds a lot like something MAN created to further his selfish agendas
George

In article ,
"Glenn Dowdy" wrote:

"WillStG" wrote in message
...
"Glenn Dowdy"

So any effort to kick God's Chosen Prez out like the impeachment of
Clinton
can be regarded as heresy?

Impeachment would equate in weight with someone being elected.

And fighting that impeachment also has equal weight? After all, you'd be
trying to defend the Will of God.

The point
is Christian Theology generally assumes that Democratic Governance in this
Nation, by the assent of the Governed, to be the Contemporary expression
of
God's Will.

So then shouldn't Christians should be 100% behind anyone that gets elected?

Glenn D.



Glenn , your going to have to ease up on Will, this stuff hurts his brain
George

George wrote:

but most people , even die hard christians can't allow that God has
complete control and authority over everything that happens
in effect we have been presented with the God of convience, available to
do our bidding but never held accountable for "all that other stuff"
sounds a lot like something MAN created to further his selfish agendas

Glad you qualified that with "most people." There other
interesting alternatives.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

In article ,
Bob Cain wrote:

George wrote:

but most people , even die hard christians can't allow that God has
complete control and authority over everything that happens
in effect we have been presented with the God of convience, available to
do our bidding but never held accountable for "all that other stuff"
sounds a lot like something MAN created to further his selfish agendas

Glad you qualified that with "most people." There other
interesting alternatives.

how could I not
There is a christian lunitic fringe that needs to be allowed for
George

George wrote:

In article ,
Bob Cain wrote:


George wrote:


but most people , even die hard christians can't allow that God has
complete control and authority over everything that happens
in effect we have been presented with the God of convience, available to
do our bidding but never held accountable for "all that other stuff"
sounds a lot like something MAN created to further his selfish agendas

Glad you qualified that with "most people." There other
interesting alternatives.


how could I not
There is a christian lunitic fringe that needs to be allowed for

Hmmm, that's not the kind of atlternative I was thinking of
but, oh well.


Bob
--

"Things should be described as simply as possible, but no
simpler."

A. Einstein

"Glenn Dowdy"

And fighting that impeachment also has equal weight? After all, you'd be
trying to defend the Will of God

It would be viewed the same as an election, as I said. The point is we
are responsible for our self governance, according to modern Christian
Theology. It assumes Democracy here is God's will.

So then shouldn't Christians should be 100% behind anyone that gets elected?"

This is true Glenn, they should by this theology show respect for the
office of the Presidency as he represents the Will of the People, according to
the laws of the Republic. And this used to be basic American Civics once upon
a time, you show respect to the office of the President, not neccessarily to
the individual who occupies it.

But this doesn't mean they give up the right to particpate in public policy
debates, or to disagree on issues.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

What I wonder is why we try to minim ize our own evils by pointing to
someone even worse
why can't we use good to bring us into focus
after all we really only have power over our owm actions
doing less evil is not the same as doing good


Nice sentiment but this assumes a sense of personal values consistant with each
person's own. Have you seen evidence of this with your own aquaintances?
I thought not. If these issues are really a personal breakdown for all of us we
would be doing something other than what we are doing. But..as you say..we
can't control ANYONE but ourselves.
John A. Chiara
SOS Recording Studio
Live Sound Inc.
Albany, NY
www.sosrecording.net
518-449-1637

"Blind Joni" wrote in message
...
This is very informative. Just a question ..related to a long discussion I
had
with a friend Sat. night. If these processes...meaning corporations taking
an
increasing role in directing and controlling policy...seems to be a
product of
human nature..as it has happened for centuries..is there really any
surprise
that it is happening and what can be done to change this if enough feel it
should be changed and also believe that it can be done?
This conversation grew out of another discussion of the meaning of
"common sense" with another person.

Good question, John. However, one could look at it two different ways, one
being that it is a natural form that reoccurs as society and systems become
more intricately linked. More requirements for energy, for instance, give
rise to certain political aspects of the energy industry that get some major
input into the policy making process of the government without that same
industry having to take the risks of working these systems out by
themselves. The power grid would be one such example. It will stay
stagnate unless government puts the bucks in, and as government does, it
will be the energy industry that defines the goals, reaps the profits, all
without providing any MORE than what they already are providing. Nice
little packet there.

But the second way it could be looked at is as a slowly matasticizing
cancer, previously thought to have been cut out at the root, only to find it
pops it's ugly head up somewhere else, inviting in the blood of money to
support it's own existence without giving any benefits back and most likely
killing the host because it's a one track system. How not?

My personal view is that we are talking about the latter. Either way, it's
still the same slow agonizing death if it's allowed to maintain itself
whilst eating away at the very system that has allowed it to, no, encouraged
it excelerate it's grasp for more while giving back even less and less in
it's perpetual dance with the emminent death of it's host.

--


Roger W. Norman
SirMusic Studio

WillStG wrote:

I didn't really say Lincoln was a Founding Father. I didn't say the
Founders were Christians either. I did say being entitled to personal
religious beliefs was consistent with tradition of the Founders, and leaders
like Washington and Lincoln.


Read Cuomo's new book.