Saturday, November 15, 2008

A bit of news


For those who are interested in the on-going news in the Sacramento area about the happenings around proposition 8 there are several small news items. In the Sacramento Bee, today there was a very small article by Jennifer Garza, stating that the FBI is investigating "whether recent acts of vandalism against Mormon Temples and meeting houses are hate crimes."

The story states that in the Sacramento region ten Mormon church buildings "have been vandalized since the elections."

Another smaller article states that the California Supreme Court is asking the State to give their opinion on the suits filed against proposition 8. The author, Denny Walsh writes, "The court has requested the attorney general's office respond by Monday to the suits, filed by gay and lesbian couples and some municipalities."

11 comments:

Tim Curtis said...

Hi Viola,

I am so saddened by the events that have taken place because of prop 8, though I am not surprised by them.

I hadn't looked at your blog for a while, because of school, and I think that you are doing a great job on your blog, better than ever.

I do wish I hadn't created such a maelstrom, or at least hadn't intensified it, on the other post. It confounds me that it is possible to try and answer someone's question, and yet they think that you are trying to avoid the question.

I think that we are in for some very interesting times for the next few years, if not longer, since it appears that our government will be wholly on the side of the radical left, and seems to be heading towards socialism. If this is true, the future will be very difficult for the church, but then again, the church does grow when it is persecuted. I wish we didn't need to be slapped in the face before we get the courage to stand up for God, I of course speak of the church as a whole, for I know that you have the courage to stand firm.

Keep up the great work, you are a blessing to our Christian family, and an example that any Christian can look up to, for the fruit of your faith is evident in your words and your life.

Hopefully next time I send my words your way, it will be more of a controlled burn.

Blessings to you and yours,

Tim

By the way, you have a very cute great-grand-daughter,

Congratulations!

Anonymous said...

Tim,

It's hard to have a controlled burn when the Wind is blowing...

"It confounds me that it is possible to try and answer someone's question, and yet they think that you are trying to avoid the question."

That is usually an indication that people are operating under different sets of assumptions. When that happens, the only way forward is to examine those assumptions and why we have them.

Take some of your other comments for example.

You said our government will be wholly on the side of the radical left. Yet others would argue that there is no "radical left" in America, but that it is only a paper tiger created by the Neo-cons as a scare tactic. Why do you assume there even is a radical left, and why do you think they are "bad"?

Is it "good" for corporate profits to land in the hands of the few, and loss to land in the hands of the many? It is assumed that to curb such practices is a form of socialism and since it is assumed that socialism is "bad" then curbing such practices is "bad".

Ever wonder where those assumptions come from?

Here is what Jesus said on the subject:

"One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me."

But when he had heard these things, he became very sad, for he was extremely rich.

And Jesus looked at him and said, "How hard it is for those who are wealthy to enter the kingdom of God!

"For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

Why did Jesus say this? What were his assumptions, and are they the same as yours?

Carl

Viola Larson said...

Hi Tim,

Thanks so much, your words are something I really need to hear. I don't think you caused the maelstrom, it was already brewing. And besides I think you had some great answers and thoughts.

And I agree I also think we are in for some interesting times. Some times that require faithfulness and drawing very close to the Lord of the Church.

And, it is never my courage, but always the Lord's presence in my life, his gracious gift of himself, and yes sometimes I do need a good slap in the face--from him. Kind of a wake up, wake up!
Ephesians 5:1-21)

Tim Curtis said...

Hi Carl,

I think that you are correct in asserting that people are working under different sets of assumptions, when there is disagreement, but I am not sure whether that would account for the misunderstanding of my efforts to answer the questions. I would also say that both sides need to evaluate their assumptions, though I am sure that is what you were saying. I guess what I am trying to say is that a lack of understanding of ones assumptions, both your own, and others is very important, but even without that understanding, you should be able to see the effort of someone who is trying to communicate with you and not discount it.

I do not have time to get into a long discussion today, but I did want to address your comment, since you do take me slightly out of context.

If you look at my comment, you will note, that when I speak of the radical left, that I use the terms "seems to be", and "If this is true." These two phrases show that I am uncertain, and that what I am speaking of is a possibility, not a sure thing, though I think that it can be supported that there is a radical left within the US.

Their are members of our government, our president elect among them, that support the most radical/leftist policies put forth in our nation. One example is the "right" to have an abortion at any time during the pregnancy.

I want to try an put this in perspective, by speaking to the state of law in California, since that is what I am familiar with. In California, you cannot get a tattoo prior to the age of 18, even with parental approval, but you can get an abortion. A minor cannot have a piercing of any type, including ears, with out parental consent, but they can have an abortion without parental notification. The school nurse cannot give my child a pain reliever, but can talk to my child about abortion. I can be held liable for costs incurred if my daughter has an abortion, but I have no right to be notified prior to the abortion. My daughter has the right to approve a surgical procedure that can maim or even kill her, or cause a life threatening systemic infection, but she cannot drive a car. And the list can go on and on, just about this one topic.

Now, I do understand that you may disagree with me on whether abortion should be legal, or even available to minors, which you have every right to do. But the people advocating this type of legislation and maintaining this are leftist. I have included the definition, from Mermaim-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary (Eleventh Edition) below, so you can see where I am coming from. Copying only the pertinent part to save space.

Left:
4, a : those professing views usu. characterized by desire to reform or overthrow the established order esp. in politics and usu. advocating change in the name of the greater freedom or well-being of the common man
b : a radical as distinguished from a conservative position

You may agree with the left, or you may not, but the Left is present, as it has been since the formation of our country. The difference right now, is that if you look at the people in power, especially as of 20 January 2009, we are run by the left, which by definition includes a radical stance, but I think that there is an element that is more radical than the norm, and Obama is part of it, and this is apparent if you examine his voting record.

The definition of left, that I have copied below is from Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 11th Edition:
3 a : marked by a considerable departure from the usual or traditional : extreme
b : tending or disposed to make extreme changes in existing views, habits, conditions, or institutions
c : of, relating to, or constituting a political group associated with views, practices, and policies of extreme change

What ever you say about the current leadership of the democratic party, if you like them or not, in the current election, they were advocating extreme change, and my fear as I was trying to say, is that it will come to pass in way I will not like.

In general, I do not like Leftist views, because they tend to go against Scripture, this view is based on my observations of the last 200 years, and the fact that it has been leftist, socialist governments that have perpetrated the greatest atrocities in history, killing more people than any misguided "Christian" effort. These include Napoleon (atheist dictator), Hitler (Atheist and Fascist dictator) , Stalin... they were all socialist, though the term hadn't been invented when Napoleon was around, but if the shoe fits...

On a side note, many believe Fascism to be right wing, but its origins are in Socialism, if you will, it is the more brutal brother of Socialism. The NAZI's were the national socialists.

Now don't get me wrong, I am not saying that an American Socialism would fall to the depths of Hitler's Germany, but that does not mean that it is good either. I disagree with socialism, because at it's heart, it takes away the rights of the individual, such as freedom of speech, and this can be seen in any socialist country. Even in England, which is probably second only to the US in the amount of freedom it's citizens enjoy, they do not have a right to free speech, as we do, and there are many other freedoms that they do not have.

I hope this answers some of your questions as to my views, I would say more, but I am out of time.

Tim Curtis said...

Viola,

Well said, and you are welcome.

Blessings,

tim

Anonymous said...

Thank you Tim,

Very complete response.

You mixed a couple of definitions of Socialism:

"advocating change in the name of the greater freedom or well-being of the common man "

AND

"it takes away the rights of the individual, such as freedom of speech"

The examples you used were examples of autocratic authoritarian states that used the term socialism in the same way Bush (the "decider") called the environmental laws he enacted the "clean air act". In other words, call something the opposite of what it is, and it confuses the opposition.

By the way, the Latin word for "decider" is "dictator". Interesting, huh?

I disagree that the administration coming into office in Jan is bringing about radical changes. I believe most of the changes you will see will be throw backs to the pre neo-con era, mixed with some adaptations to the changing economic situation the world is in today. Most of them are due to the radical changes that took place in the last 20 to 30 years, what some people call the "Dilbertization of America".

The main thing is that the last eight years have represented the most radical departure from traditional American values we have ever seen, and the change that is in store for Washington come January is mostly a rolling back of many of those changes. McCain was on the same page here. The biggest difference between these two guys is leadership style and IQ.

Will they or won't they bail out the automobile industry? Tough to call. Bad either way.

I don't think we will be waging any unprovoked invasions of other countries on false pretenses. Talk about acting like Nazi Germany, our invasion of Iraq followed the same approach as Germany's invasion of Poland. A huge blemish on our honor and reputation around the world.

The abortion thing I personally write off as a distraction in the following sense. The neo-cons used that issue to divide the liberals, and get the support of the Evangelical community, but did exactly nothing to change the status quo. I imagine the Obama administration will do exactly the same thing the Bush administration did about it, namely nothing at all.

As far as his religious beliefs and values, I bet in the long run you will find Obama living a life much more consistent with the Christian Scriptures than anybody in the last 150 years. He won't be talking out of both sides of his mouth. He will think about, explain, and justify his views and stick to them in practice. I bet.

But we shall see.

Carl

Viola Larson said...

Carl & Tim thank you both for leaving your opinions here on Obama and Socialism. An excellent posting on Obama as a Socialist is one posted by Michael Kruse at Is Barack Obama a Socialist? Michael is linked to an article at The Christian Science Monitor and then he does commentary himself. It is very good and I encourage you both to read it.

Tim Curtis said...

Hi Carl,

Good response.

I want to just explain one item, which is the definitions that I used, then I've got to go.

As to leftism advocating change, and freedom for the common man. That is true, and if you look at the rhetoric, of the leaders of leftist movements, that is what they advocate, this includes the French Revolution, the Russian Bolsheviks, and the German NAZI's, just to use the same examples. The important term is advocate. The confusion comes in, because they advocate it, but they never follow through with it.

Where I speak of the rights of the individual being taken away, I am speaking of what actually happens, from a historical context. My fear is that we are in a milder form of the same situation.

As to the Bush presidency, I don't think that it was as bad as you say, but at the same time, I'm not all fired up about it either. Unfortunately, from my point of view Bush is a liberal Republican, and so is McCain. I think that what we need in office is a truly conservative leader, who does not try to appease both sides and be a man from the middle. What I mean, is an honest person, who says what is on his heart, rather than trying to figure out what people want to hear. You know, not a politician.:-)

I would also make one suggestion. The IQ argument doesn't really work, and has been used only to insult Bush. In fact his IQ is not low, he just speaks like he's from Texas, I guess. I would stay away from that one if I were you. Truly, just a suggestion. :-)

I have enjoyed the give and take, though of course I'm right and your wrong, and visa versa. :-) I've got to go study, hopefully we can converse again soon.

Blessings,

tim

Anonymous said...

Hi Viola,

Interesting link. But I think that was just pre-election campaign rhetoric. There was a lot of that going around. The election is over, the nation made its choice, and now it is time to get together behind the guy so we can stop shooting ourselves in the feet. Even McCain has now thrown his support behind Obama.

Tim,

“from my point of view Bush is a liberal Republican, and so is McCain.”

OK, that’s a calibration point. Just out of curiosity, is there anybody to your right?

Good luck with your studies and remember: The king really is naked. Always. And everybody knows it.

Carl

Anonymous said...

PS

I am hoping Obama re-instates habeas corpus. That's an important right, right up there with free speech, don't you think?

Carl

Tim Curtis said...

Carl,

Yes, their are some to the right of me. As a matter of fact, I am probably the most liberal person at the school I am attending, and no they're not on the crazy fringe. But that's a completely different issue. The fringe of any world-view becomes an illness, and discourse is impossible.