prisonchaplain

I won't pretend to be an expert about healthcare policy. It's incredibly complicated. My only point is that you don't see people rallying to a particular solution, because there are no simple ones out there. I'm one of the blessed ones. I pay roughly $2400 per year, my agency pays another $7600 for my family's health insurance. And, as decent as it is, I took at $1200 in an untaxed health account this year, and it's already almost gone (for copays and otc meds). What a mess we're in, but what to rally around? You asked why abortion stirs the hearts and emotions of many conservatives, and healthcare does not--there is no easy, emotionally compelling solution to rally around. It's a pretty safe bet. Once the life form begins to grow, we know how it comes out. Arguments for a later date--viability etc. are based on convenience. Most agree we ought to give life the benefit of the doubt. I find it frankly evil to say that an unborn child is in competition with his/her mother. In what % of cases is this actually so? Likely less than one. Furthermore, most prolifers would be willing to concede that if a mother's life were at risk, then yes, the child could be aborted to save hers. But, again, such instances are incredibly rare. Keep the execution of unborn children safe and legal??? I think not. Again, most prolifers would allow exceptions for preserving the mother's life. Most would also grant exceptions for pregnancies caused by rape or incest. That's the "middle ground" for most prolifers. You sweep over the legitimate debate over which proposals to regulate actually would significantly reduce pollution, which proposals would prove too expensive, how much of a break do developing countries get, how much of global warming is really caused by humanity vs. normal cycles, etc. You want to conserve, conserve. Buy a smaller car, recycle, etc. But, when you start proposing increased taxes, regulations that will cost jobs, etc. you've got some proving to do, and the rallying gets muddled. You said license and compared it to driving. I assumed you were wanting to require classes and testing to get the gun. Background checks do seem reasonable imho, and you'll win some conservatives to your side on this issue (mostly urban ones like myself). Again, in a war against an enemy that threatens to inflict mass casualties on civilians, and will use any means necessary, including public beheadings, the fact that some soldiers went overboard and took dirty pictures, and humiliated prisoners in unprofessional manner, pales in comparison--especially since authorities are prosecuting those responsible. The issue of using "extraordinary measures" to extract intelligence that may save mass civilian populations is a tough one. None of us is privy to the information our services have. We keep watch, but give them the benefit of the doubt vs. the Middle Eastern press, which is looking for any excuse to berate us. IMHO the Revolutionary War was extreme, and worth the price. Nobody relishes employing painful methods to gather information that will save 1000s of lives, but, yes, it may be a necessary and acceptable.

Hey I resemble...er, I mean...resent this joke!

Jason, pull your tongue out of your cheek. You know full well that the title of God is reserved for God amongst nearly all Christians, and that whoever the new person is, was likely being smart alec. If s/he's really seeking something, and the name gets nixed, they can always return with a slightly humbler monicer.

How many Catholics? ... None, they use candles. How many Fundamentalists? ...None, they don't believe in change. How many Pentecostals? ... Seven, one to change the bulb, and six to pray against the spirit of darkness. How many Charismatics? ... Just one...and her hands are already raised. How many Baptists? ... Fifteen: 12 to serve on four different committees, one to be the fried chicken, one to bring the potato salad, and one to do the work. How many government employees? Twenty-seven: 12 to serve on those four different committees, 8 to complete proposals and after-action reports, four to supervise, two to stand by as relief, and one to attempt to screw the new bulb into a water faucet. So, how many Mormons does it take? (This may sound to PC or "new age" but there may be more than one right answer)

I think most Americans are upset about our current healthcare system, but we are not sure how to solve the problem. Socialized medicine is not an obvious answer. So, the problem is serious, but the solution is not clear cut. On the other hand, abortion is: if life begins at conception, don't allow abortions. Since the answer is simple, it's easy to rally around this issue. Because, again, the answers are not so clear. Regulations are argued over, some may do more harm than others, etc. It's easy to say, "I wish the air, water, and natural areas were cleaner," but beyond that there is no simple answer to rally around. I think we've wandered from the prolife trail here. The simple answer, though, is that guns are easier to learn to use than cars are. I have, and so have many (perhaps most) prolifers. You don't proclaim and protect life by killing! Abu Ghraib was mostly about foolishness that got way out of hand--not blatant and extreme physical torture and barbarous murder. PLUS--the perpetrators are being prosecuted. Guatanamo Bay stirs a lot of controversy, but the failures there, those that truly are, are likely prison management break downs, not intentional, painful torture that leads to death. America is not 100% innocent and saintly in this conflict. But, we are fighting an enemy that recognizes no rules, and that threatens mass casualties against civilians. Maybe Goldwater was right in 1964: Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.

I'm not sure that "ignorance" is the right word. Miscommunication, often enhanced by a lack of trust on both sides, is the culprit. Evangelicals focus on conversion--the initial experience of being "born again." LDS focus on sanctification--making it to the finish line. Yet both sides simply say they're talking about salvation. So, it becomes a false dichotamy: faith vs. fruit (works).

I actually dabbled in Libertarianism for a season in my youth, but ultimately rejected it after reading Atlas Shrugged. Like communism, it fails because it does not take into account the fallen nature of humanity (yes, I know, religious talk). We all like to believe that people are basically good. Perhaps they are. However, there is that lingering corruption that beckons us and ruins utopian dreams. Democracy, Democratic Republicanism, and all such governments that try to balance the peoples' will with the rights of all, tend to be insconsistent, inefficient, and frustrating. It's the best thing going, though. BTW, Libertarians argue that they are neither liberal or conservative. Rather they are for Liberty. Personally, I found Adam Smith a lot more pragmatic than Ayn Rand.

We cannot fight battles based upon pacifist principles, nor upon the self-hating silliness that intimates that the life and comfort of a captured enemy combatant is more valuable than thousands or millions of civilian non-combatants threatened by terrorist plots. However, I'm convinced that there is a route we can take that is both Christian and militarily sound, and thank God there are greater minds than mine at work navigating that difficult but essential pathway.

You'd probably make a good Libertarian, except that you'd approve of draconian progressive income taxes in order to support state-sponsored wrestling. :-)

Another milestone at ldstalk. I agree with Sgallon 100% on this. It should be extremely difficult to pass Constitutional amendments, so that if they do pass the consensus will be near-universal. BTW, this difficult to surmount obstacle has kept most of the "religious right" agenda from passing, and I say "Amen, praise God." In order for restrictions on abortion, or a return to some type of prayer in schools, or a clearly defined limitation on what marriage is to have meaning there must be tremendous consensus. If social activists (conservatives or liberals) win at legislation, but don't win hearts, they haven't won. If it was otherwise, why would Planned Parenthood continue to be nervouse 35 years after Roe v. Wade? They won the legal battle, but have yet to win the hearts of society.

3rd option: Who was sharing incomplete or imperfect knowledge about God? And the answer might be us all--even the most anointed saints have unanointed conversations. Do true prophets of God point us towards the Almighty or themselves? Did Joseph Smith stress the messages God gave him, or his own prophethood?

Bottom line: Why the double standard? Because the U.S. claims to represent western freedom, democracy and humanitarianism. The insurgents make no such claims. So, when we stumble into barbarian ideals, we betray ourselves and get harshly criticized. When the enemy commits acts of barbarism, the response is a combination of elitism "What more can be expected of those people?" or self-hatred and blame "We made them that way." So, unlike Sgallon, I understand the sarcasm, and the sense of unfairness. BUT, it doesn't do us well to play the victim and seek sympathy. Rather, we must renew our resolve to stay true to our principles.

No, I disagree. That is not a reasonable compromise. That's capitulation. That's the extreme that says society has no say about matters that involve consenting adults. Historically, societies have set limited bounderies. One has been that marriage shall be between a man and a woman who are "of age." The reasonable compromise, imho, is the status quo ante. Government will stay out of the bedrooms of individuals, and will put no religious test to any candidate. On the other hand, if the overwhelming majority of Americans (and Constitutional amendments are so difficult, we're likely talking a 75% supermajority to build the will to pass one) continue to oppose gay marriage, then government should not be compelled to sanction them. On the other hand, again, recognizing the rights of minorities to engage in legal activities, civil unions that ensure at least most legal rights, does seem a reasonable compromise. This is what one radio commentator calls a "but monkey." The classic, "Oh you're right, BUT..." In this case, I'm right, BUT those candidates with religious leanings are indeed suspect. Let us make sure they don't ..." I say candidates run on what they believe, and we vote them in or out based on that. If Bush actually said God called him to run, then people of faith will have to discern if that's so, and those that are not will have to decide if he's dangerous, or whether it matters. Quick history lesson: Up through the mid-1970s most evangelicals and fundamentalists askewed politics as "dirty" "worldly" and something best left alone. The abortion decision of 1972 scandalized many of us, and led to some serious rethinking. Out of this was born the Moral Majority, and later the Christian Coalition. So, yes, 'we' were silent for quite some time. About this time, liberals starting talking the "separation of church and state" talk, and argued that religious leaders should be quiet. The IRS began revoking tax-exempt status from churches that advocated candidates, and, as late as Fall 2002 we had a local school district superintendent saying he saw no difference between Al Quaida and the Christian Coalition, since both were trying to set up theocracies! So, laugh all you want, social conservatives have definitely come to understand that "separation of church and state" is a legal sledge hammer meant to be used on us. Bottom-line: Society has the right to set minimal community standards, and it matters not what those standards are grounded in. Some have argued that American liberty ideals are grounded in religious thinking! So, if society comes to a consensus that the default understanding of when life begins, sans absolute scientific certainty, is at conception, than that can be the legitimate law of the land. So, when it comes to soup kitchens, only atheist groups may apply? Oh, agnostics are okay too. Just not groups with religious affiliations? Funny, haven't seen Republicans do that. Pollsters and pundits and demographers paint the red state/blue state maps, and point out differences in church attendence, but nobody is using the religious affiliations (or lack there of) to silence or badger them into silence. On the other hand, conservatives are immediately accused of trying to set up Sharia courts and the like, because of their religious connections. I don't disagree that the notion that government should not interfere with religion is in the laws of our land. However, the judges are wrong when the intimate that the founding fathers meant to restrain churches from vocalizing (or in the ancient tradition, prophesying) to Caesar.

Democracy is so important. A society primarily governed by the will of the majority is one in which tyranny. evem when it takes root, will prove short-lived. On the other hand, minorities have certain inalienable rights, and our laws need to protect them. So, the happy solution to the democracy vs. fairness for all dilemma is liberty. Eleven years ago, when I was but a wee lass, I wrote the following contemplation on this very issue: http://www.acton.org/publicat/books/duty/hmention2.html Bottom-line: Community standards are legitimate, but, when in doubt, freedom is the best default.

IMHO you can delete the <strike>IMHO</strike>. The Mormon view of redemption post mortem is clearly "more merciful" than evangelicalism's "die--then the judgment." Of course, both are claiming to explain God's plans, so the real question is: who got it right?

The Captain said it well. I happen to belong to a denomination, but I'm not LDS. Nevertheless, I've been welcomed here, and quite often LDS folk have gone out of their way to thank me for what I've shared. Having the mentality of a guest is a tremendous piece of good advice. Listen, get your balance, then insert an idea or two. Avoid personality contests, or arguments over who's being fair, etc. Another helpful hint I've only recently picked up on (after over 1000 posts)--avoid over-using the quote function. When a post degenerates into two people doing line-by-line rebuttals the general interest level drops, and the danger of the discussion becoming too much about personality arises. Have fun, share and learn. Blessings to you!

Is there no reasonable social consensus on marriage that would protect minorities while honoring the broad moral tradition of this nation? Must we chose between the two extremes of Sharia-type religious courts and Randian ojectivism, which allows no collective social standards at all? How does "separation of church and state" get interpreted? Does it mean all religious candidates are suspect, because they may attempt to infuse their religious doctrine into law? Does it mean that religious leaders must keep silence about any matter that could be interpreted as being political in nature? Does it really mean our kids can't pray in school? Can't have "a moment of silence." Does it mean Bible clubs are out, but alternative living social clubs are in as school activities? Does it mean abortion cannot be regulated because most of the reasons for doing so are religious in nature? Does it mean that religious charities can't receive government grants? Etc. etc. IMHO Republicans get accused of mixing religion and politics, while Democrats get a "by." For example, if Pat Robertson speaks about social or political matters, the spectre of a religious state is immediately raised, but if politicians speak at African-American churches, well that's okay because that's part of the civil rights historical development, and it shows diversity and a willingness to reach out to minority communities. Although, if it's a Republican, well then, he's using the pastor as an "Uncle Tom." Bottom-line: The "separation of church and state" argument is usually a red herring meant to put social conservatives on the defensive.

The way that the Law of Moses is fulfilled today by those who insist on submitting to the law, minus the grace that Christ offers, is through the lense of rabinnic interpretation, as found in the Talmud, and as offered by Jewish scholars. I'm not up on the laying around of pieces of property, but a common practice in heavily Jewish condos is to preset elevators to stop on each floor just prior to the beginning of Sabbath. That way, you can take the elevator without pushing a button, and thus "creating work" (i.e. causing the spark that would tell the elevator where to go, since the starting of the spark would be interpreted as work). Ironically, it would be acceptable to also walk the 10-15 flights to get to your apartment, as that is an acceptable distance to walk on the Sabbath. Do you get the seemingly convulated efforts that go into obeying the letter of the law?

Why are we so surprised when people who make know claims to being Christians or Mormons don't live by our social mores? Judgment begins in the house of God. Rather than condemning those on the outside, we ought to by led by the Holy Spirit in offering them redemption (salvation). Now, if the saints are up to no good, its time for us to put one another in check.

This all reminds me of what youth leaders call "Christian swearing." Using words like gosh, geez, dang, heck, etc. were all wrong, because "You know what you meant in your heart." IMHO, using the Lord's name in vain is a sin to be avoided at all costs. Not calling others "fool," and thus being in danger of hellfire. Not speaking in a manner that is beneath a child of God. I could continue down the degression from extremely dangerous to mildy unworthy verbal sins, but my bottom-line is that much that we Christians call "cursing" is really just mildly offensive and uncouth communication, whereas the truly offensive use of the Lord's name, or the Son's name barely registers on our outrage meters.

I want to make sure I understand this correctly. Are you suggesting that Jesus banned the gospel from being preached to the Gentiles??? He sometimes told the disciples "not yet," but never intimated a ban. Furthermore, to suggest that Jesus banned the gospel to the Gentiles, and then to say that "of course the prophets are fallible" may be read as "Jesus was a prophet who, of course, was fallible." Is this what you mean? One subtle disagreement I might have, even if I were LDS--I do not believe all actions of prophets--even God's prophets--are "approved." God did not tell Abraham to lie about his wife, nor do I see approval.

Put simply, if a state authorizes a marriage, and the family unit moves to another state, can that state fail to also recognize it? If they can today, the day is surely coming when a judge will say otherwise. The purpose in seeking a constitutional amendment (very very difficult to pass, btw) is so that a judge cannot declare it void. Frankly, on this issue any less will not survive the judiciary's right of review. Me guesses the church wanted to practice polygamy at the time, and left it to the lawyers to make whatever legal arguments needed to be made to achieve that end. It's purpose was not state's rights, but religious rights. Today, I'd speculate that the church wants to preserve the national moral consensus in favor of traditional marriage. I see the potential pitfalls either way, but the reality is that there will always be tension between the rights of the minority, and the will of the majority (democracy vs. individual rights).

Rather than seeing an unrepentent sinner, maybe we should see a soul trying to find purpose. The Apostle Paul's address concerning the "altar to the Unknown God" comes to mind. Jesus tended to condemn self-righteous religious hypocrites/leaders, and show incredible mercy to secular sinners (or those sincerely caught up in false religion). I don't see Angelina pretending to be a spiritual leader, so maybe a little charity and sweetness, rather than fire brimstone??? I don't usually check the religious practices of business owners prior to patronage, unless I get a reference in church. She used to claim Kaballah, but now says her child is her religion. So, once again, no pretense, no hypocrisy. Patience and gospel example is what Christians owe her. Such stars don't need our condemnation, but our love and gospel example. They are "of the world." So, ours is to show them a better way. So, read and watch more substantial news sources.

A couple of thoughts: 1. Every law that approves/sanctions or disapproves/criminalizes is "against a select group of people. 2. Any law that would redefine/restrict/expand marriage is inherently a national issue, because judges have demonstrated a great willingness to overturn state laws and initiatives of this nature.

I don't expect you to call me Rev., pastor, or even chaplain, but "Dude"??? It's so 70s, man. As to your exasperated question, there certainly is talk of doing away with government marriages. The conversation usually goes like this: 1. If we're going to have gay marriages, what's next? Polygamy? 2. How would you regulate how many, or under what circumstances? 3. What if people set up group living arrangements for tax benefits, etc. 4. You know, government really shouldn't be in the business of approving or disapproving people's living arrangments, anyway. It ought to just revert to legalizing living partnerships. 5. Yeah, who's the government to say what's moral and what's "living in sin." See where we're headed. If I'm not mistaken, people at this venue have expressed some of the above.