News:


Main Menu

Deaths of Despair

Started by D. Engebretson, July 22, 2021, 09:41:24 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: Dan Fienen on July 22, 2021, 05:44:19 PM
That may be. But what I see being given to us by (mainly Democratic) leaders is apocalyptic doom and gloom in the environment and in society. The proposed and demanded solutions would involve a complete deconstruction of society, our economy, our laws, and our way of life. Anything deemed "white" in particular is singled out for repudiation and destruction. Knowing that I am a cause and symbol for everything that is wrong about America (and is there much that is currently held to be good about America?) simply does wonders for my low level, chronic depression.


I see the Democrats trying to bring back some of the policies of the 60s when taxes were high, the interstate system was built (under a Republican president) as well as many other infrastructure improvements. (We also landed a man on the moon.)


I was on the board of an outdoor ministry organization. The director said that a rule of thumb (usually not followed) was that any capital fund drive for buildings should raise twice as much as necessary to build the building. The other half is put aside to maintain the building. The government, both federal and state, built many good things (roads, bridges, etc.,) but didn't do as good a job of maintaining them.


There is also the logic that if the doom and gloom is correct; and we do nothing; there will be a complete deconstruction of society. If the doom and gloom is not correct, little damage will be done by the steps taken to improve our planet, decrease pollution, and curb global warming.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

ThePaul711

Quote from: Dan Fienen on July 22, 2021, 05:44:19 PM
That may be. But what I see being given to us by (mainly Democratic) leaders is apocalyptic doom and gloom in the environment and in society. The proposed and demanded solutions would involve a complete deconstruction of society, our economy, our laws, and our way of life. Anything deemed "white" in particular is singled out for repudiation and destruction. Knowing that I am a cause and symbol for everything that is wrong about America (and is there much that is currently held to be good about America?) simply does wonders for my low level, chronic depression.
Democratic policies today are much less liberal than they were in the 1930s-70s.
Radical Lutheran (ELCA)

Attorney

Policy Wonk

David Garner

Quote from: ThePaul711 on July 22, 2021, 11:13:31 PM
Quote from: Dan Fienen on July 22, 2021, 05:44:19 PM
That may be. But what I see being given to us by (mainly Democratic) leaders is apocalyptic doom and gloom in the environment and in society. The proposed and demanded solutions would involve a complete deconstruction of society, our economy, our laws, and our way of life. Anything deemed "white" in particular is singled out for repudiation and destruction. Knowing that I am a cause and symbol for everything that is wrong about America (and is there much that is currently held to be good about America?) simply does wonders for my low level, chronic depression.
Democratic policies today are much less liberal than they were in the 1930s-70s.

In an economic sense perhaps.  Certainly not on social policy.

Ted Kennedy wrote this:

"While the deep concern of a woman bearing an unwanted child merits consideration and sympathy, it is my personal feeling that the legalization of abortion on demand is not in accordance with the value which our civilization places on human life. Wanted or unwanted, I believe that human life, even at its earliest stages, has certain rights which must be recognized—the right to be born, the right to love, the right to grow old...Once life has begun, no matter at what stage of growth, it is my belief that termination should not be decided merely by desire."

Of course, that was 1971, not later in his career when he deemed pro life justices to be dangerous (even though his brother appointed the one who dissented in Roe v. Wade.)

Jimmy Carter wrote:

"I am convinced that every abortion is an unplanned tragedy, brought about by a combination of human errors and this has been one of the most difficult moral and political issues I have had to face. As president, I accepted my obligation to enforce the "Roe v. Wade" Supreme Court ruling, and at the same time attempted in every way possible to minimize the number of abortions."

That was in 1977.

And lest we think that all stopped in the 1970s, Bill Clinton signed into law both the Defense of Marriage Act and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (which was sponsored by the by-then pro choice Kennedy and Chuck Schumer).  That was 1996 and 1993, respectfully.

The Democratic Party has moved radically to the left on social policy, adopting a quasi-libertine "anything goes but stuff we don't like (Christianity, traditional moral values, the traditional family) approach to politics.  I don't know what John F. Kennedy thought about modern social issues, but I bet he never thought he'd see grown men competing with girls in college athletics.
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

David Garner

I forgot to mention the "growth" of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on gay marriage.  Both were against it until the party dragged them to the left.

I'm aware of the view that says "they were always for it, they just thought they couldn't say that politically," but I think mine is the more charitable view.  The other basically says they are liars and cowards.  I merely say they are malleable political actors with a mushy moral center.
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: David Garner on July 23, 2021, 06:42:37 AM
I forgot to mention the "growth" of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on gay marriage.  Both were against it until the party dragged them to the left.

I'm aware of the view that says "they were always for it, they just thought they couldn't say that politically," but I think mine is the more charitable view.  The other basically says they are liars and cowards.  I merely say they are malleable political actors with a mushy moral center.


Couldn't we also say that they learned some new things over the years that produced a change in thinking? I know that I have; and that such learnings have changed my mind about a number of issues. Both μετανοέω and μεταμελλόμαι are words that indicate a willingness to change and be changed. "Hardness of heart" is a biblical term that indicates an unwillingness to change.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

David Garner

Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 23, 2021, 12:27:52 PM
Quote from: David Garner on July 23, 2021, 06:42:37 AM
I forgot to mention the "growth" of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on gay marriage.  Both were against it until the party dragged them to the left.

I'm aware of the view that says "they were always for it, they just thought they couldn't say that politically," but I think mine is the more charitable view.  The other basically says they are liars and cowards.  I merely say they are malleable political actors with a mushy moral center.

Couldn't we also say that they learned some new things over the years that produced a change in thinking? I know that I have; and that such learnings have changed my mind about a number of issues. Both μετανοέω and μεταμελλόμαι are words that indicate a willingness to change and be changed. "Hardness of heart" is a biblical term that indicates an unwillingness to change.

We could. But the thing is, those who say "they were always for it, they just thought they couldn't say that politically," don't say that.
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

ThePaul711

Quote from: David Garner on July 23, 2021, 05:26:45 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 23, 2021, 12:27:52 PM
Quote from: David Garner on July 23, 2021, 06:42:37 AM
I forgot to mention the "growth" of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on gay marriage.  Both were against it until the party dragged them to the left.

I'm aware of the view that says "they were always for it, they just thought they couldn't say that politically," but I think mine is the more charitable view.  The other basically says they are liars and cowards.  I merely say they are malleable political actors with a mushy moral center.

Couldn't we also say that they learned some new things over the years that produced a change in thinking? I know that I have; and that such learnings have changed my mind about a number of issues. Both μετανοέω and μεταμελλόμαι are words that indicate a willingness to change and be changed. "Hardness of heart" is a biblical term that indicates an unwillingness to change.

We could. But the thing is, those who say "they were always for it, they just thought they couldn't say that politically," don't say that.
I think Obama was always for gay marriage. If you examine his record as Illinois state senator, it was to the left of how he campaigned in 2008, and to a degree, even in 2012.
Radical Lutheran (ELCA)

Attorney

Policy Wonk

David Garner

Quote from: ThePaul711 on July 23, 2021, 05:28:40 PM
Quote from: David Garner on July 23, 2021, 05:26:45 PM
Quote from: Brian Stoffregen on July 23, 2021, 12:27:52 PM
Quote from: David Garner on July 23, 2021, 06:42:37 AM
I forgot to mention the "growth" of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on gay marriage.  Both were against it until the party dragged them to the left.

I'm aware of the view that says "they were always for it, they just thought they couldn't say that politically," but I think mine is the more charitable view.  The other basically says they are liars and cowards.  I merely say they are malleable political actors with a mushy moral center.

Couldn't we also say that they learned some new things over the years that produced a change in thinking? I know that I have; and that such learnings have changed my mind about a number of issues. Both μετανοέω and μεταμελλόμαι are words that indicate a willingness to change and be changed. "Hardness of heart" is a biblical term that indicates an unwillingness to change.

We could. But the thing is, those who say "they were always for it, they just thought they couldn't say that politically," don't say that.
I think Obama was always for gay marriage. If you examine his record as Illinois state senator, it was to the left of how he campaigned in 2008, and to a degree, even in 2012.

I don't begrudge you thinking that.  I just think it's the least charitable option, because it necessarily means he intentionally lied in his campaign promises.
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

Charles Austin

In politics and in the development of opinion, there is a difference between "lying" and explaining and/or changing positions. If someone doesn't speak to a particular issue and seems to go along with a certain train of thought, and then later says something more definitive, is that lying?
I was not "lying" when I opposed ordination for women in 1967, and later supported it in 1975.
People might've thought I opposed same-sex marriage for many years, because I wrote or said very little about it. Or, I might have opposed it for certain reasons, but then, when it was approved, endorsed it for other reasons.
Mr. Garner seems very eager to insist that former President Obama "intentionally" lied.
ELCA PASTOR. Iowa born and raised. Former journalist. Former news director and spokesman for the LCA. Former LWF staff in Geneva, Switzerland.  Parishes in Iowa. New Jersey and New York.  Retired in Minneapolis.

Dan Fienen

Quote from: Charles Austin on July 25, 2021, 09:30:11 AM
In politics and in the development of opinion, there is a difference between "lying" and explaining and/or changing positions. If someone doesn't speak to a particular issue and seems to go along with a certain train of thought, and then later says something more definitive, is that lying?
I was not "lying" when I opposed ordination for women in 1967, and later supported it in 1975.
People might've thought I opposed same-sex marriage for many years, because I wrote or said very little about it. Or, I might have opposed it for certain reasons, but then, when it was approved, endorsed it for other reasons.
Mr. Garner seems very eager to insist that former President Obama "intentionally" lied.
Again you overstate. Mr. Garner's preferred interpretation was that Pres. Obama's position evolved. If he had always been in favor of same-sex marriage but on the campaign trail said that he was opposed in order to garner votes, that at least comes close to lying.
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

peter_speckhard

Quote from: Charles Austin on July 25, 2021, 09:30:11 AM
In politics and in the development of opinion, there is a difference between "lying" and explaining and/or changing positions. If someone doesn't speak to a particular issue and seems to go along with a certain train of thought, and then later says something more definitive, is that lying?
I was not "lying" when I opposed ordination for women in 1967, and later supported it in 1975.
People might've thought I opposed same-sex marriage for many years, because I wrote or said very little about it. Or, I might have opposed it for certain reasons, but then, when it was approved, endorsed it for other reasons.
Mr. Garner seems very eager to insist that former President Obama "intentionally" lied.
The point is that he favored same-sex marriage in 2008 or at least made it such that it was 100% predictable that he would favor same-sex unions when politically expedient. Yet those who at the time said as much (because it was true) were called uncharitable or misinformed for not going by his carefully worded public statements and instead simply looking at who was supporting him and why as well as the logic of his positions on other issues. If, in 2008, someone had sounded the alarm that Obama favored same-sex marriages, you would have called that person a liar or scare-monger even though you knew that person was speaking the truth. You would have done that because in 2008 it might have been a liability in crucial swing states. So yes, to pretend for political reasons not to hold a position that you don in fact hold is intentional and it is lying. But nearly every politician does it. It is like the CIA denying that so-and-so was an operative engaged in espionage when they and the people they're dealing with know that is an intentional lie made for face-saving diplomatic reasons.

Jim Butler

Quote from: Charles Austin on July 25, 2021, 09:30:11 AM
In politics and in the development of opinion, there is a difference between "lying" and explaining and/or changing positions. If someone doesn't speak to a particular issue and seems to go along with a certain train of thought, and then later says something more definitive, is that lying?
I was not "lying" when I opposed ordination for women in 1967, and later supported it in 1975.
People might've thought I opposed same-sex marriage for many years, because I wrote or said very little about it. Or, I might have opposed it for certain reasons, but then, when it was approved, endorsed it for other reasons.
Mr. Garner seems very eager to insist that former President Obama "intentionally" lied.

What is he saying that makes you think that? He keeps saying that he believes that saying that Prez O lied is uncharitable.

As far as I'm concerned, he did intentionally lie. In 1996, he wrote "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." You cannot get any more categorical than that.

Then, suddenly, when he starts running for U.S. Senator in 2004, his position has shifted, "I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. ..." Notice what he says: he does not object to same sex marriage, per se. He only objects as a "strategic issue."

He shifts again in 2008, telling Rick Warren, "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix."

Mysteriously, after he won election, his views began to evolve and in 2012 he said that, after much thinking and reflecting, he was now in favor of same sex marriage. Precisely the same view that he held in 1996.

He was always for it. Saying anything else was, as he says, a "strategic issue."

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/may/11/barack-obama/president-barack-obamas-shift-gay-marriage/



"Pastor Butler... [is] deaf to the cries of people like me, dismissing our concerns as Satanic scenarios, denouncing our faith and our very existence."--Charles Austin

Dan Fienen

Pres. Obama was and is a politician. To hold one position but when politically expedient support another with total sincerity and then when politically expedient or possible "evolve" back into the other position is typical politics. For some, when Republicans do that it is lying and hypocritical, when Democrats do that it is simply evolving positions. For others it is the opposite.
Pr. Daniel Fienen
LCMS

Brian Stoffregen

Quote from: jebutler on July 25, 2021, 01:08:14 PM
Quote from: Charles Austin on July 25, 2021, 09:30:11 AM
In politics and in the development of opinion, there is a difference between "lying" and explaining and/or changing positions. If someone doesn't speak to a particular issue and seems to go along with a certain train of thought, and then later says something more definitive, is that lying?
I was not "lying" when I opposed ordination for women in 1967, and later supported it in 1975.
People might've thought I opposed same-sex marriage for many years, because I wrote or said very little about it. Or, I might have opposed it for certain reasons, but then, when it was approved, endorsed it for other reasons.
Mr. Garner seems very eager to insist that former President Obama "intentionally" lied.

What is he saying that makes you think that? He keeps saying that he believes that saying that Prez O lied is uncharitable.

As far as I'm concerned, he did intentionally lie. In 1996, he wrote "I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages." You cannot get any more categorical than that.

Then, suddenly, when he starts running for U.S. Senator in 2004, his position has shifted, "I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation. ..." Notice what he says: he does not object to same sex marriage, per se. He only objects as a "strategic issue."

He shifts again in 2008, telling Rick Warren, "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God's in the mix."

Mysteriously, after he won election, his views began to evolve and in 2012 he said that, after much thinking and reflecting, he was now in favor of same sex marriage. Precisely the same view that he held in 1996.

He was always for it. Saying anything else was, as he says, a "strategic issue."

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2012/may/11/barack-obama/president-barack-obamas-shift-gay-marriage/


As I recall, Rick Warren's position back then was in favor of same-sex unions, but didn't want to call them "marriages." That seems to be what Obama was saying. It's partly the issue with our "publicly accountable, life-long, monogamous same-sex" [i.e., PALMS] language in the Social Statement.
I flunked retirement. Serving as a part-time interim in Ferndale, WA.

David Garner

Quote from: Charles Austin on July 25, 2021, 09:30:11 AM
Mr. Garner seems very eager to insist that former President Obama "intentionally" lied.

Someone hasn't read any of my posts on this thread, but simply saw me talking about President Obama and decided which side to take.
Orthodox Reader and former Lutheran (LCMS and WELS).

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk