Rev. Erudite Redneck, B.S., B.S., M.A., M.Div.

Amen, ER. Amen.

And you know what Nick? My rights are not a "game."
 

ER: You know? wWhen i first read that particulat part of the constitution many years ago, I had some trouble deciphering it, because of the high falutin' language they used at the time. But i think it states that indians should only be taxed as if they are only 3/5 of a whole human being. (hmmm, if that's true, they are getting special rights, at least with taxes) that is doscrimanatory but it reflects the attitudes of the times. Maybe instead of insisting the President appoint judges that will make the liberals happy, regardless of whether they reflect the Presidents ideology, we should think about amending the constitution to elevate the personhood status of the blacks ( I seem to recall that blacks were not regarded as whole persons either) and the indians, and so, acknowledge their equality.
 

Ah, Mr. Nick was locked and loaded for this, I can tell. Whoever he's fighting, it ain't really me.

I don't like being called a lefty in general, 'cause I'm not. I am, however, proudly leftist when it comes to economics and fiscal policy. I am pretty dadgum leftist when it comes to social POLITICAL ISSUES, although my own personal value system is pretty morally conservative.

I'm for the war in Iraq. Even if it is framed as the modern extension of manifest destiny. Sorry. I am a traditional, flag-wavin' American in that regard.

Come to think of it, though, I'm also a traditional, liberal flag-wavin' American when it comes to those economic and social questions, too.

"Extemist" is a descripion. I stand by the legitimate label of "lefty" when applied to me honestly and with some thought. I'll even except the label "extemist" when used as same. If NIck doesn't, then he's bein' a sissy. Goldarn it, boy, wear the label proudly, if yer proud -- and I know you are.

I don't know where the "for you to suggest that we simply go home and stay out of the process, because our brand of Christianity ain't yours" horseshit came from.

Bring it on, Nick. The game -- war, battle, whatever -- IS afoot. Bring. It. On.

And just in case my friend Nick -- and he is a friend -- decided to revise, extend or delete his hasty, pent-up comment, as he has been wont to do in the past, here they are again, where he can't get to them:

Nick Toper said...
OK, I'll look past the name-calling (funny how you always threaten keyboard violence on anyone who would call you a "lefty," but you are nonetheless quite adept at lobbing tags like "extremist.") Let's just focus on this:

Historically, there has been a reason to win a presidential election. It means you can nominate people to the Supreme Court. (Nice argument, by the way, sifting for the extreme case that proves your ideological point -- the thing about the 3/5ths representation. I believe we call that setting up a straw man. But I digress.)

Anyway, historically, when you win an election, it means you get to pick a Supreme Court nominee that reflects your values. Clinton -- or shall I call him Your Highness to show the proper respect here in your cyber neighborhood? -- had that opportunity with Ginsburg, as you may recall. She was a lefty, I think it's safe to say. For those who debate the point, here are some of her opinions her opinions prior to being confirmed to SCOTUS. Even if you, indivdually, agree with them -- you can't argue that these are "mainstream" opinions. And that's the acid test now, isn't it, whether a judge is "extreme" in views?:

"Prostitution, as a consensual act between adults, is arguably within the zone of privacy protected by recent constitutional decisions."

"Sex-segregated adult or juvenile institutions are obviously separate and in a variety of ways, unequal.

"If the grand design of such institutions is to prepare inmates for return to the community as persons equipped to benefit from and contribute to civil society, then perpetuation of single-sex institutions should be rejected."

"[T]he provision (prohibiting bigamists from voting or holding office) is of questionable constitutionality since it appears to encroach impermissibly upon private relationships."

"The Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, while ostensibly providing 'separate but equal' benefits to both sexes, perpetuate stereotyped sex roles to the extent that they carry out congressionally-mandated purposes."

And last, but not least:

"Replacing 'Mother's Day' and 'Father's Day' with a 'Parents' Day' should be considered, as an observance more consistent with a policy of minimizing traditional sex-based differences in parental roles."

Was there a Republican-led filibuster of Ginsgurgh's nomination, in light of these clearly non-"centrist" views? Why, no there wasn't. In fact, she was confirmed 96-0 -- not because guys like Strom Thurmond and Bob Dole agreed with her positions, but because they and every other GOP senator understood that the president is entitled to his nominees; if Republicans wanted someone who agreed with them, they should have won the '92 election. Those are the spoils of winning a poltiical battle.

Maybe it's because Democrats haven't won one in awhile that they now seem to have forgotten that -- even though their speech archives are littered with references to their rejection of filibusters as a legitimate option in matters of judicial nominations.

So, yeah, ER, we "extremists" are poised to fight for a nominee that reflects our values -- because until very recent history that was the way the game was played. And for you to suggest that we simply go home and stay out of the process, because our brand of Christianity ain't yours, is absolutely ludicrous.

6:28 PM
 

Nick: That last comment was a real chickenshit thing to say, in my book. You want to bring up the subject? Do it. But don't be a chckenshit about it. Yank.
 

BTW, I only see a problem with two of those six Ginsburg quotes, Nick. The last two. You surely have better boogers than that in the woods that keep y'all righties all so het up!
 

I don't have an argument for coed prisons. The Ginsburg quote is an "If ... then" statement. I don't understand how anyone can start with that particular "if" and not see the logic in that "then." Seeing the argument and believing in it, or in believing that it's what SHE even thinks is right or wrong, are tweo different things -- and the confusion is the PROBLEM. Righties can't stand people who know how to think! They just want people who agree with 'em, by thinking or not. And that's just what I think.
 

Also, as I said, Bring. It. On. I never, and never will, siuggest that Bush do anything but what he thinks is right. If he wants a knock-down drag-out fight, he should appoint a wingnut. The funny thing is I'm not sure he does. Hee hee. He's not y'allses' boy, actually, now, is he? Go-go-Gonzalez!
 

Now what was that the Nice Mister DeLay said, again? About justices feeling the pain of their decisions? Was he giving those gun-toting lefties among us the right to take out our frustrations with rocket launchers?
Naw, this one's turn about is fair play: this is blow back from the Warren court, after all these years. Those Klan boys (Nick?) never quite got over those particular years of judicial activism.
The whole thing is gonna lead to us not having a fucntioning government again, I suspect, like the last time the Republicans ran the whole thing into the ditch, back in '94.
 

Nicky, back then you weren't liberal! You were pretty a-political, as I recall, just found yourself usually in the lib crowd. And, fact is, I was more conservative then than now. Go figure. They say yer supposed to veer right at 40.

Nowadays, no, I don't think yer stupid -- although I think your saying that was dang near a stupid thing to say.

You are focused -- so focused that you can't see big pictures, nuances and the need for compromise. I believe it is -- WAS -- called "Madisonian" compromise, because historically that's the only way we seem to be able to get along in this country, by laying down our rhetorical arms at the end of the day and voting, then moving on. (Here, I could say the same to B, which is why y'all are actually alike: You both seem unwilling to compromise on your one or two pet ideals -- and I guess that's OK, actually, since it takes two extremes to get a fair median.)

And, I don't think you're actually focused on what you think your focused on. I think you -- and I mean everyone in your current crowd -- are focused on purely socio-political-economic goals, just like the rest of us, but y'all have deluded yourselves -- wait, unfair -- y'all believe you're part of some grand holy cause, and you want the rest of the country to think so, too.

Bull. Shit. And now Baby Jesus is crying again.
 

Wow. and I thought I was the only one that could make Baby Jesus cry. Actually, if Baby Jesus aint crying already by the fol-de-rol currently going on in both houses of Congress, I don't think anything written by me or Nick would do the trick.
 

Tim, I AM a lib on certain important issues. And, Nick is an actual paid activist, although he calls himself a journalist. OK, he is a journalist-activist, and he is on a mission, a political mission, an extreme one. Ergo, I stand by what I said about nuance and big picture, etc. I think the same is true of all extreme activists, though, not just Nick.

Myself, I am no activist. I am not on a political mission. I am a Christian whose heart aches to see right-wing words and acts being conducted in Jesus's name. Fact is, I don't think ANY political organization, left or right, ought to be using the Gospel, or even general Christiany stuff, to advance their agenda.

Preach Christ and Him crucified -- and risen. Be active politically. My opinion is that mixing the two is suspicious politics and it cheapens the Christian message.

Now, all sides will, and should keep on doing whatever the hell they think is right. And I will, too.
 

Oh, and yer right, of course. I picked up that "making the Baby Jesus cry" riff from Don Imus, I think. Jesus is at the right hand of the Father, advocating for all who're trusing in Him for salvation, regardless of all else -- ALL else, politics, sin, confusion, narrow-mindedness, open-mindedness, gay, straight, transgendered, overtly "saved," raised in the church and confirmed, whatEVER. (On the other hand, if you're standin' behind the throne, he's on the left side. Ha.)

And I think it's about time he came back down here and kicked some ass.

(What gets me is how my buddy Nick seems to think so much of this is about him. I mean, go back and read the comments. He came out swinging, defensively. And kind of haphazardly; what the heck did Ginsburg have to do with this post about O'Connor?)
 

Peace to you all. Calling your attention to the following, which is posted on a blog site called oxegen (political affiliation unknown to this poster). Have a happy Fourth.


---

Jesus: Republican or Democrat?
Some blog entries I have read recently made me think about politics, and my personal view is that it’s sacrilegious to align Jesus to our political affiliations and causes. It’s like saying: “C’mon God, pick a side, and it better be mine.” God is neither a Democrat, nor a Republican, neither conservative, nor liberal. God is simply God. Always has been, and always will be. It’s been His message since the beginning of times. When Moses asked what he should tell the people, God simply responded: “Tell them I am what I am.” Who do we think we are to add anything to this message? It’s not I am AND, only I am that I am.

Of course issues matter, but there are principles in both parties with which God would agree and disagree. Trying to make him fit the mold of either is just pure arrogance and idolatry of the world’s ways. Politics and religion always has a stake in the truth, and the propagators will always defend their truth to the end - even take up sword and crucify the messenger if need be. God on the other hand said: “My truth is Jesus Christ, and my cause is to sum up everything in Him.” When the Truth is among such men, they will hardly recognize the Truth because they are far too busy defending their own ideologies. It happened when Jesus walked the earth and it is still happening to this day with men trying to make Jesus side with their political causes. Even Jesus rebuked his disciples for attempting to inaugurate him into the politics of the day. His Kingdom is not made visible through party banners, bumper stickers or political conventions. His kingdom is made visible by Christ living through us, and as each of us learn to do that we collectively display the Kingdom. His kingdom doesn’t have an earthly headquarter, logo or fund-raising campaign.

The first century Church relied on spiritual weapons to fight the battles that waged between God’s kingdom and the kingdoms of this world. Sadly, today’s Church has embraced social and political weapons in their attempt to advance God’s Kingdom. God would have none of that, and the result of using carnal methods to advance God’s kingdom will always result in bloodshed, destruction and war. It never achieves the goal it sets out to achieve - it cannot, because it’s not God’s way of settling His Kingdom. Neither Jesus, nor Paul taught us to use carnal weapons to fight the powers of darkness in establish God’s kingdom. It’s only done in one way; on our knees one prayer at a time. It’s a spiritual battle, not a political or social battle. Christians ought not rely on corrupt politics to do that which only God can do through the work of His Spirit.

While I think Communism is evil, I can definitely see the case for it from God’s view. We tend to view the world through our self-preferring western gospel, and we seldom see the big picture. Which do you think is better for God: Allow Communism which is resulting in the fastest growing and most dynamic noninstitutionalized Church in the world today, or have a country of freedom where the Church is weak and apostate? Freedom exists because people realize that this is God’s gift to man, not because government grants it through politics (which is absurd just saying it). Granted, the price our Chinese brothers and sisters are paying is a heavy one, and I don’t know that I could pay that price. Martyrdom is not something I wish on my worst enemy, but there is a cost to God’s gospel. I choose freedom any day over such a system of government, but let’s start seeing God’s kingdom from his point-of-view, and not from the perspective of our selfish desire to always have it our way.

Michael Clark writes:
So what is the point? The kingdom of God is not patterned in any shape or fashion after the kingdoms of fallen principalities and rebellious men. That wisdom is worldly, sensual and devilish. God's kingdom is based on loving servitude and human weakness, not lording over others as the kings of the Gentiles do. In the Book of Revelation it is written,

Then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdoms of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!” (Revelation 11:15, NKJV).

How did this ever come to pass in the mind of God? How will the kingdoms of this world that hate everything Christ-like and weak, finally become the kingdoms of our Lord and His Christ? His victory is still the same whether through Himself or His saints.

…having stripped the rulers and the authorities, He made a show of them in public, triumphing over them in it. (Colossians 2:15, GLT).

What was the public show? What was it that stripped all rulers and authorities? What was it that brought about Christ's triumph over them? It was the death of the cross. This is the triumph by which even death is swallowed up in victory.

Jesus has conquered by weakness and obedience to God. So must we. This is not "kingdom now theology," employing political power by filling governmental offices or by getting out the vote for favored candidates. This is not the way the kingdoms of this world becomes the kingdoms of the Lord and His Christ. Satan is not cast out by satanic principles, nor are his weapons used to upset His own kingdom. Our weapons are not carnal, but mighty, able to pull down satanic strongholds as we follow after Christ in the principle of the cross, in His brokenness and humility.

Next time you flaunt Jesus as a Republican or a Democrat – think again - don’t cheapen the King of Kings that way. He didn't come to choose sides, he came to take over. He knows how to make the kingdoms of this world come into line with his Kingdom. Our privilege is simply to love him, and from that will flow our obedience for his desires, which will finally result in his Kingdom coming into our hearts and into the world.
 

ER, actually, if you are standing behind the throne, Jesus would be on your right, if you are facing the same direction as God the Father.

This is off the subject, but I want to know...If Descarte were to say, "I think not", would he then cease to exist?
 

Nick, I am sorry, but an embryo does not have the same rights I do. And to grant it the same rights I do means that you are requiring me to risk my health and my life to create the life of another. Now, if you think that abortion is wrong in all cases, including rape or incest or if the mother's life is at risk, I will grant that you are consistent in your belief that an embryo is a person; but if you grant those exceptions, then you are implicitly conceding that there are some cases in which abortion might be okay--just as long as you're the one making the decisions.

When you start arguing for mandatory kidney or liver donations, then we can talk.
 

Mark, I wondered if someone would catch my left-right-throne goof. Glad to see yer on yer toes.

Anon, Great synopsis of the futility and silliness of anyone who puts an earthly-political label on God.

All, does anyone have any idea why I no longer am getting e-mails automatically when someone leavesa a comment? Is Blogger just having a rough couple of days?
 

Blogger must be under the weather, I haven't been getting them either. I thought no one loved me anymore until I saw a few of my blog buddies posted, except--ahem--for one erudite one! ;)