This is a great night. I look forward to the Obama presidency, which can inspire us to better times, hopefully get our country back on track, and assist in regaining the trust of our global partners throughout the world.
May God have mercy on us.
We (as a nation, not all individuals) have just voted to deny Him as being the Creator of the Universe.
We have elected someone who is in favor of allowing a baby to be abandoned on a medical cart and allowed to die.
Ok, I just saw California, they just closed, 0% reporting, 0% given to either candidate, yet CBS and CNN give it to OBAMA????
That doesn’t make sense.
It’s CA. It makes sense. I live in TX. Even if 80% of the Republicans decided not to vote and all of the Democrats voted, TX would still be a “slam dunk” for McCain.
recchip,
Wow. That is some gut wrenching prayer. I don’t know how to respond to that except…
Protecting the unborn is as important to me as it is to you and yet I voted for Obama. Why? For me the Republican party generally has not advocated policies that protect and enhance the life of those living nor has its policies been very kind to God’s creation ( e.g. “Drill Baby Drill”). It is too bad that there is not a political party that is ALL LIFE and not just pro-life. This has been my struggle for approx. 20 years and because of family tradition and political philosophy I have pitched my support to the Democrats.
The GOP has been beaten up and down the dial, and badly. The only silver lining is that the filibuster has been preserved for McConnell, although only by one or two votes. This is what I call a “toilet-flushing” election for the GOP. A lot of untreated cr*p has been allowed to build up over the years and now it’s out of the system. Time to start building anew.
revdons,
This man is not only “pro-abortion” he is in FAVOR OF ALLOWING A BABY WHICH HAS BEEN BORN TO DIE!!!!
He has stated that his “first act” would be to sign the “Freedom of Choice Act” which would, eliminate all restrictions on abortion, and remove all “conscience” restrictions which means that all hospitals, pharmacies and doctors would be FORCED to participate in the murder of the unborn.
If Obama signs the FCA and it is somehow found constitutional, the blood of those murdered babies will be on the heads of all those “pro-life” people who voted for that man. Good luck justifying that when you stand before the Throne.
This will also lead to a massive exodus of medical professionals, who will not in good conscience be able to go along with the provisions of the FCA. We may even see a number of Catholic and other religious hospitals close down rather than participate in the murder of the unborn.
Add to that the number of physicians who are quitting or not seeing new patients because of medicare restrictions, high malpractice insurance costs, and now proposed ‘universal health care’ policies — we are going to face a huge crisis in that area.
Christopher Johnson,
Since I humbly trust that faith in God’s grace through Jesus Christ will take care of all my sins, then I think I am covered for voting for Obama.
God bless the United States and God save the President.
It is probably good that we prove ourselves not so set in our ways that we can only elect boring white males. As a gracious gesture, perhaps Obama can realize a way to slip a few donations to the underfinanced McCain campaign.
What a wonderfully historic night – Praise God from whom all blessings flow! President Obama will make a new, bright day for our country after eight years of failed policies and unwise leadership. I can’t believe I’ve lived to see an African-American elected in my lifetime – this is just beyond wonderful. McCain’s concession speech, by the way, was very classy – if he had kept that tenor throughout his campaign it likely would have been much closer. Nevertheless, salute to Obama!!!!
The Federal elections aren’t the end of it. Tomorrow we’ll see the full results from state legislative races. I understand the Dems have taken the NY State Senate, and now for the first time since the 1930s both houses of the New York State Assembly and the New York Governor mansion are in control of the same party.
[i]perhaps Obama can realize a way to slip a few donations to the underfinanced McCain campaign. [/i]
It would only be fair, since he wants to ‘spread the wealth’ — he should start with his own.
Imagine, that Crazy simplistic notion of Republican Americans to think that if you earn wealth you should be allowed to keep it!
(said in a speech by Jim Moran, D. Va, on Oct. 31, 2008 — web search will find it on video).
I can’t shake the feeling that we’re like Israel after God granted their request for a king. Everybody (it seems) is giddy with excitement, but we haven’t quite realized what we’ve gotten ourselves into. I hope I’m wrong.
As an aside, the news coverage is uniformly playing up the “hallelujah, America’s celebrating a new day” angle, focusing on the impromptu street celebrations etc. But while the electoral vote is a blowout, the popular vote is very close. I won’t complain, the rules are the rules; but it makes me wonder if an Obama presidency is really going to be the unifying event that people are asserting.
“I understand the Dems have taken the NY State Senate” —Stephen in Falls Church
Overcoming one of the most persistent gerrymanders of the past three decades.
Did it seem at all strange that Democrats could sweep statewide offices, win presidential elections there, and yet still face a 42-year Republican lock on one house of the state legislature?
Here’s another way to think about it: when Democrats last controlled the New York Senate, they also had two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress.
Obama’s election is God’s judgment upon this nation. Can anyone doubt this is a call for repentance and returning to the Word of God both incarnate and written?
We will see the beginning of a great persecution of believers and we must not allow our hearts to grow weary. But to continue to proclaim the perfection of God and to do all things for His Glory.
“Makes me wonder if an Obama presidency is really going to be the unifying event that people are asserting” —Connecticutian [#21]
Obama’s election will be a watershed event for black Americans.
Beyond that, we’ll have to see. But I’m confident that Obama intends to be a unifier and will seek to set a unifying tone. Unlike Bush, he won’t just call himself a unifier even as he does a full Rove.
We’ll see, Irenaeus. There are a lot of calls for revenge – and political revenge can come in many forms.
I was thinking today that the start of a populist presidency in America came with Andrew Jackson’s campaigns and with roots from Jefferson. If those old boys are watching, I’d guess that Tom may be applauding, but Old Hickory is probably fit to be tied!
#13 – Good idea. Let us overlook the fact that this man has been a wholly-owned subsidiary of the abortion industry that grace might increase. That’ll sit well. As for Obama being a “unifier,” if that means that everyone shuts up and unquestioningly adopts the leftist position, his “unification” efforts will die a quick death. But one good thing is that we will finally know who truly cares for the least of these and who has been faking it.
There are parallels between the defeat and discredit of the Republicans under Bush-Cheney-McCain-Palin and the decline of the conservative Episcopalians under such as Matt Kennedy whose extremism and lack of that basic Christian virtue – hope – has led such a young man to opine on the sadness of the day for unborn babies without any reflection on its implications for babies already born, and to be born, in America, and throughout the world.
But the good news is . . . the conservative movement can return to its roots — hopefully — and people like Matt Kennedy will be leading that in America.
But not in TEC.
America is, after all, a meritocracy.
The great thing about America is . . . it’s not TEC.
Our country is far better. And I think the next two years will demonstrate that difference quite nicely.
We didn’t “decline.” Over the past three decades, we were tricked, outmaneuvered, and elbowed aside by revisionists with an agenda unrepresentative of Episcopalians generally.
Irenaeus, if Obama really is a unifier why did he kick out reporters from his plane because their paper endorsed McCain? Neither Bush nor McCain ever did something like that.
As for revdon’s fond idea that faith in Christ will cover his sins at the end, well, a lot of people who called Him Lord will apparently find out that their faith isn’t really recognized by the Lord. That should give us all cause to consider our actions.
The people have spoken. While I realize many have reservations about Obama, he is our president-elect. We need to give him a chance.
In terms of the historic comparisons, in particular with regard to #22, what backing do you have for such horrible remarks? What has Obama said (quotes, not heresay) that would indicate he has come to persecute Christians. I thought it was fitting that, unlike McCain (who used the word “Creator), Obama spoke about God in his “victory” speech last night. In terms of the historic precedent, this has happened before in the 1930’s and 1940’s. Democrats built huge majorities in the House, Senate, and obviously took the Presidency with some very “liberal” policies. However, the world did not end, Christians still enjoyed protected constitutional rights, and eventually things swung back the other way. That is the nature of the 2-party system – the system moves back and forth. Just as the Republicans overwhelmingly took the House and Senate in the late 90’s, it is now the Democrats turn. Instead of crying mea culpa, move forward and prepare for two years from now.
30/31: What does the TEC have to do with this conversation?
“I was hungry, and you gave me nothing to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me nothing to drink. I was a stranger, and you didn’t welcome me. I was naked, and you didn’t clothe me. I was sick and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.”
I was left to die as an infant in a hospital linen closet and you voted for the man who said that I should not be helped.
I, and apparently millions of others, could not be happier with the outcome of this election. I am not a one issue voter as some seem to be based on their comments and, further, I am pro-choice. But given #38’s comments, with this president elect and the congress whom will follow, I think the government stands a much better chance at succeeding in Jesus’ request than if McCain were in office. In my experience, there are far too many people who are not paying their fair share of taxes and who give less than a pittance to the church, choosing instead to keep (hoard) their money or use it to by even more BMW’s, summer homes, and boats. So if they are not willing to help their fellow human being willingly, I am very much in favor of voting for someone who will raise their taxes and help those in need. Thus I voted for Barack Obama as opposed to John McCain who could not remember how many homes he owns. This is a glorious day for America!
As I was whining to my wife this morning, she reminded me that it would be more productive to pray for Pres-elect Obama and his family. For his leadership of the nation for the next two years (I’m hoping for a mid-term backlash!) but also for protection for himself and his family. Sad to say, but while I don’t believe we are a generally racist nation, there are still enough unbalanced people out there that might try something tragic..
Vitner, it’s comments such as yours that has caused me even more despair than Obama’s election. I mean no personal offense; but I fear we are getting the government we ask for and deserve, because too many people are not thinking clearly.
Do you think raising taxes is going to result in more people tithing? Do you recall Jesus taking from the rich in order to give to the poor (which is different from telling the rich to care for the poor)? Do you think “those in need” in the US have much in common with “those in need” in other parts of the world or in Jesus’ time? I would agree that there are too many who have too much in our society, and I think we would agree on calling that “greed”. But forcible wealth redistribution will not change any hearts, only harden them.
I would say, if you want to help those in need, create an environment of wealth and plenty. Rising tide lifts all boats, etc. The government has proven inept at that, and over-regulation and over-taxation have proven to achieve the opposite effect. Fix the abuses, but don’t throw the wealthy baby out with the corrupt bath water.
I’m not worried about FOCA – if it ever gets out of Congress I’ll eat my had (it was introduced in 2004 and is still languishing in committee in both houses). Neither party wants it to pass, nor do they want it to go away: it’s too good a campaign tool.
If it manages to pass in it’s current form and is not declared unconstitutional by the court, I’ll eat [i]your[/i] hat.
Bottom line is that our choice of President will have very little influence over abortion rights in this country, so I’m sleeping well with my vote for Obama with a clear conscience.
[blockquote]Do you think raising taxes is going to result in more people tithing? Do you recall Jesus taking from the rich in order to give to the poor (which is different from telling the rich to care for the poor)? [/blockquote]
No, I don’t think raising taxes is going to result in more people tithing. I think it will result in providing more funds to help needy people. I remember Jesus telling the rich to help the poor as did the prophets and how their words continue to be ignored. So I have no problem with the rich paying more in taxes and closing their loopholes. I have found that the more money that people accumulate, the less they give away.
As I said, Matt, I’m pro-choice and believe that it’s totally up to a woman to decide what to do with her body. Your issue is not mine or, at the very least, it’s nowhere near the top of my list.
[blockquote]I’m pro-choice and believe that it’s totally up to a woman to decide what to do with her body.[/blockquote]
Me too. I just don’t think she has the right to do whatever she wants to her child’s body.
[blockquote]So if they are not willing to help their fellow human being willingly, I am very much in favor of voting for someone who will raise their taxes and help those in need.[/blockquote]
Yes! If they won’t be good charitable loving Christians willingly, we’ll use the State to MAKE em! hilarious!
[blockquote] Yes! If they won’t be good charitable loving Christians willingly, we’ll use the State to MAKE em![/blockquote]
“If they won’t be good charitable loving [b]people[/b] willingly, we’ll use the State to MAKE em.” Insert that change and you’re exactly correct. People who make more should be taxed more. If they gave more to begin with, we wouldn’t need to do so. But because greed runs rampant, the state has to step in. To paraphrase, “With great wealth, comes great responsibility.”
He didn’t go through college based on his family connections.
He worked hard and earned his chops.
He’s worked for investment banks, communities, and taught at a conservative law school, where he could have become a professor.
He rejected corporate America for public service.
He made his money himself, and not through family connections.
He built up the most effective organization in campaign history.
and led that campaign through two wars.
He is not simply a great leader. He has the makings of a military leader.
A lot of it is context. But Abe Lincoln himself didn’t win a majority.
As far as Jesus and the rich, he does offer warnings to the rich, as do most of the prophets. When the rich say, “its my money, and nobody else’s” it reeks of selfishness. Look at all the bankers being bailed out. See Paris Hilton. Yes, it is their money. And we implicitly reward their behavior when we argue against a social contract that reminds people that to whom much is given, much is expected.
Yes, taking capital away from the capitalists will certainly make more money available to fund bureaucracies that pay lip service to the poor. It will also mean less capital for investment, and less incentive to invest what’s left, meaning more and more people will be lining up at said government bureaucracy’s door. If that sounds like a good idea, it just reinforces my despair about getting the government we ask for.
How about a social contract that says “you will give 10% of your income to a non-governmental agency in your home state each year, regardless of your net worth”? That would more readily accomplish the stated goal of helping the poor, and reduce the middlemen. Do you suppose the politicians would go for that? Do you suppose the voting public would if it were put to referendum?
#50 – that’s not exactly how it works. The government is not merely a bureaucracy, but funds private agencies. I would also add that without a bureaucracy, Democracy is pretty much impossible (this isn’t my idea – it’s Weber’s).
Taxes may be disincentives up to a point. But when we spend money on a teacher’s salary, the teacher than can buy a house. Go to the local deli. Save for a yacht, buy wine for friends. The government transferred wealth from a wealthy person to a teacher of their child. The government can also hire pollicemen or auditors to ensure that people aren’t speeding or cooking their books. The government can fund NASA or send money to MIT through the military, resulting in inventions which can benefit the private sphere.
The problem is that: do we want small monarchies to develop? Say, like Paris Hilton. Or do we prefer the way Warren Buffett has educated his children? Some people get rich because they love their work; others don’t want anyone else to be supported.
As a not-for-profit business owner, if my employees all had health insurance, I could raise their salaries and even hire more staff. My organization could flourish. Right now I benefit that other companies pay for their health insurance. And one reason American car companies are so screwed is that their competition in other countries pays their health insurance.
As far as “lip service to the poor” you should use some numbers. Numbers are important when we count these things. And yes, some forms of welfare are effective, and others aren’t.
Some people support, for example, a simple transfer of wealth. End the helping bureaucracies, and ensure that every child has some kind of equal opportunity (as Milton Friedman suggested once) when they are born. Ensure that no child is born into poverty by having a guaranteed minimum income. It replaces social security and unemployment. It’s enough so that nobody starves, but it doesn’t go through a social worker or a therapist. It might even come through the mail.
People can use the money for schools, for education, for housing. But it ensures nobody starves. As people work, their guaranteed income decreases a little. Not enough to discourage working.
But a tax on the wealthy does not discourage work – it may discourage greed and entitlement. It does say that the wealthy, because they are protected by the USA and are brothers with other citizens, have a responsibility to the USA. And past making $1 miillion dollars a year, why would a real working person just stop working if they were taxed 40%? Most wouldn’t.
#54 — I believe that the Roman Catholic Church and most other Christian churches would disagree with that view and interpretation of the death penalty. However, to get into a discussion about it would move us beyond the bounds of this thread’s topic.
Matt: I understand that you and I are on different ends of the argument, but given your argument – what would you do in the case of an pro-life candidate who is pro-gay marriage (they do exist by the way) vs. a pro-choice candidate who is anti-gay marriage? To what level does the single-issue rise in such a hierarchy?
#59, Catholic teaching would be that neither candidate is acceptable, but if it came down to it, I would think the advocate of legitimizing gay ‘marriage’ is more palatable than the one advocating mass murder.
Actually, under the current system, according to IRS data, the top 50% of the wage earners pay 96.03% of all taxes in the US. The top 5% pays 53.25%
The bottom 50% pay 3.97% of all income taxes.
Which means that the top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%!
Only a small percent of the Fortune 400 inherited their wealth, most rose from having very little by the sweat of their brow, or ingenuity. So why do we want to punish them for succeeding at the American Dream? or are we like Jim Moran, the Virgina Democratic Senator who stated that:
Now in the last seven years … we have been guided by a Republican administration who believes in this simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it and they have an antipathy towards the means of redistributing wealth.â€
Not socialism? Not Christian! Re-read Acts 5: the sin of Ananias and his wife Sapphira wasn’t that they had wealth and wanted to keep it, it was that they lied about how much they had and of that was giving to the Apostolic community! Jesus never came down on wealth, just the mis-use of it. In fact, he had many wealthy friends (Lazarus; Joseph of Aramithea; etc.). If they chose to give it away, he praised them. If they chose to give a portion away, he praised them. If they didn’t, He didn’t condemn them, but let them decide. The government should not decide for us.
God speed him. God bless us all.
A historic day.
Ok, I just saw California, they just closed, 0% reporting, 0% given to either candidate, yet CBS and CNN give it to OBAMA????
That doesn’t make sense.
Jim E.
Fl.
PS.
Just a thought:
So what happens if McCain concedes, then the Electoral College gives it to him anyway?
Jim Elliott
Fl.
“What happens if McCain concedes, then the Electoral College gives it to him anyway?”
President McCain. A concession has no legal effect.
This is a great night. I look forward to the Obama presidency, which can inspire us to better times, hopefully get our country back on track, and assist in regaining the trust of our global partners throughout the world.
May God have mercy on us.
We (as a nation, not all individuals) have just voted to deny Him as being the Creator of the Universe.
We have elected someone who is in favor of allowing a baby to be abandoned on a medical cart and allowed to die.
As I said, MAY GOD HAVE MERCY ON US!!
Ok, I just saw California, they just closed, 0% reporting, 0% given to either candidate, yet CBS and CNN give it to OBAMA????
That doesn’t make sense.
It’s CA. It makes sense. I live in TX. Even if 80% of the Republicans decided not to vote and all of the Democrats voted, TX would still be a “slam dunk” for McCain.
recchip,
Wow. That is some gut wrenching prayer. I don’t know how to respond to that except…
Protecting the unborn is as important to me as it is to you and yet I voted for Obama. Why? For me the Republican party generally has not advocated policies that protect and enhance the life of those living nor has its policies been very kind to God’s creation ( e.g. “Drill Baby Drill”). It is too bad that there is not a political party that is ALL LIFE and not just pro-life. This has been my struggle for approx. 20 years and because of family tradition and political philosophy I have pitched my support to the Democrats.
The GOP has been beaten up and down the dial, and badly. The only silver lining is that the filibuster has been preserved for McConnell, although only by one or two votes. This is what I call a “toilet-flushing” election for the GOP. A lot of untreated cr*p has been allowed to build up over the years and now it’s out of the system. Time to start building anew.
revdons,
This man is not only “pro-abortion” he is in FAVOR OF ALLOWING A BABY WHICH HAS BEEN BORN TO DIE!!!!
He has stated that his “first act” would be to sign the “Freedom of Choice Act” which would, eliminate all restrictions on abortion, and remove all “conscience” restrictions which means that all hospitals, pharmacies and doctors would be FORCED to participate in the murder of the unborn.
If Obama signs the FCA and it is somehow found constitutional, the blood of those murdered babies will be on the heads of all those “pro-life” people who voted for that man. Good luck justifying that when you stand before the Throne.
recchip and Christopher,
This will also lead to a massive exodus of medical professionals, who will not in good conscience be able to go along with the provisions of the FCA. We may even see a number of Catholic and other religious hospitals close down rather than participate in the murder of the unborn.
Add to that the number of physicians who are quitting or not seeing new patients because of medicare restrictions, high malpractice insurance costs, and now proposed ‘universal health care’ policies — we are going to face a huge crisis in that area.
Jim Elliott
Florida
Christopher Johnson,
Since I humbly trust that faith in God’s grace through Jesus Christ will take care of all my sins, then I think I am covered for voting for Obama.
Steven in Falls Church,
I agree and it’s time for the GOP to take the party back from the Dick Cheney’s and Carl Rove’s.
God bless the United States and God save the President.
It is probably good that we prove ourselves not so set in our ways that we can only elect boring white males. As a gracious gesture, perhaps Obama can realize a way to slip a few donations to the underfinanced McCain campaign.
What a wonderfully historic night – Praise God from whom all blessings flow! President Obama will make a new, bright day for our country after eight years of failed policies and unwise leadership. I can’t believe I’ve lived to see an African-American elected in my lifetime – this is just beyond wonderful. McCain’s concession speech, by the way, was very classy – if he had kept that tenor throughout his campaign it likely would have been much closer. Nevertheless, salute to Obama!!!!
The Federal elections aren’t the end of it. Tomorrow we’ll see the full results from state legislative races. I understand the Dems have taken the NY State Senate, and now for the first time since the 1930s both houses of the New York State Assembly and the New York Governor mansion are in control of the same party.
It’s beginning to look a lot like 1917!!!
Let’s start practicing calling each other COMRADE!!!
[i]perhaps Obama can realize a way to slip a few donations to the underfinanced McCain campaign. [/i]
It would only be fair, since he wants to ‘spread the wealth’ — he should start with his own.
Imagine, that Crazy simplistic notion of Republican Americans to think that if you earn wealth you should be allowed to keep it!
(said in a speech by Jim Moran, D. Va, on Oct. 31, 2008 — web search will find it on video).
Jim Elliott
Florida
I can’t shake the feeling that we’re like Israel after God granted their request for a king. Everybody (it seems) is giddy with excitement, but we haven’t quite realized what we’ve gotten ourselves into. I hope I’m wrong.
As an aside, the news coverage is uniformly playing up the “hallelujah, America’s celebrating a new day” angle, focusing on the impromptu street celebrations etc. But while the electoral vote is a blowout, the popular vote is very close. I won’t complain, the rules are the rules; but it makes me wonder if an Obama presidency is really going to be the unifying event that people are asserting.
“I understand the Dems have taken the NY State Senate” —Stephen in Falls Church
Overcoming one of the most persistent gerrymanders of the past three decades.
Did it seem at all strange that Democrats could sweep statewide offices, win presidential elections there, and yet still face a 42-year Republican lock on one house of the state legislature?
Here’s another way to think about it: when Democrats last controlled the New York Senate, they also had two-thirds majorities in both houses of Congress.
Obama’s election is God’s judgment upon this nation. Can anyone doubt this is a call for repentance and returning to the Word of God both incarnate and written?
We will see the beginning of a great persecution of believers and we must not allow our hearts to grow weary. But to continue to proclaim the perfection of God and to do all things for His Glory.
“Makes me wonder if an Obama presidency is really going to be the unifying event that people are asserting” —Connecticutian [#21]
Obama’s election will be a watershed event for black Americans.
Beyond that, we’ll have to see. But I’m confident that Obama intends to be a unifier and will seek to set a unifying tone. Unlike Bush, he won’t just call himself a unifier even as he does a full Rove.
The big question is whether Obama and Democratic congressional leaders seek to govern as liberals or from the center. Here are my thoughts about that:
http://new.kendallharmon.net/wp-content/uploads/index.php/t19/article/17583/#297815
We’ll see, Irenaeus. There are a lot of calls for revenge – and political revenge can come in many forms.
I was thinking today that the start of a populist presidency in America came with Andrew Jackson’s campaigns and with roots from Jefferson. If those old boys are watching, I’d guess that Tom may be applauding, but Old Hickory is probably fit to be tied!
#13 – Good idea. Let us overlook the fact that this man has been a wholly-owned subsidiary of the abortion industry that grace might increase. That’ll sit well. As for Obama being a “unifier,” if that means that everyone shuts up and unquestioningly adopts the leftist position, his “unification” efforts will die a quick death. But one good thing is that we will finally know who truly cares for the least of these and who has been faking it.
There are parallels between the defeat and discredit of the Republicans under Bush-Cheney-McCain-Palin and the decline of the conservative Episcopalians under such as Matt Kennedy whose extremism and lack of that basic Christian virtue – hope – has led such a young man to opine on the sadness of the day for unborn babies without any reflection on its implications for babies already born, and to be born, in America, and throughout the world.
Heh.
Gotta laugh at Badman’s comment — who knew that Matt Kennedy was around 30 years ago to lead “the decline of conservative Episcopalians”?
Isn’t he a bit young for that?
The main parallel is that folks like Matt Kennedy are not in charge in either camp. More’s the pity.
But the good news is . . . the conservative movement can return to its roots — hopefully — and people like Matt Kennedy will be leading that in America.
But not in TEC.
America is, after all, a meritocracy.
The great thing about America is . . . it’s not TEC.
Our country is far better. And I think the next two years will demonstrate that difference quite nicely.
“The decline of the conservative Episcopalians”
We didn’t “decline.” Over the past three decades, we were tricked, outmaneuvered, and elbowed aside by revisionists with an agenda unrepresentative of Episcopalians generally.
Irenaeus, if Obama really is a unifier why did he kick out reporters from his plane because their paper endorsed McCain? Neither Bush nor McCain ever did something like that.
As for revdon’s fond idea that faith in Christ will cover his sins at the end, well, a lot of people who called Him Lord will apparently find out that their faith isn’t really recognized by the Lord. That should give us all cause to consider our actions.
The people have spoken. While I realize many have reservations about Obama, he is our president-elect. We need to give him a chance.
In terms of the historic comparisons, in particular with regard to #22, what backing do you have for such horrible remarks? What has Obama said (quotes, not heresay) that would indicate he has come to persecute Christians. I thought it was fitting that, unlike McCain (who used the word “Creator), Obama spoke about God in his “victory” speech last night. In terms of the historic precedent, this has happened before in the 1930’s and 1940’s. Democrats built huge majorities in the House, Senate, and obviously took the Presidency with some very “liberal” policies. However, the world did not end, Christians still enjoyed protected constitutional rights, and eventually things swung back the other way. That is the nature of the 2-party system – the system moves back and forth. Just as the Republicans overwhelmingly took the House and Senate in the late 90’s, it is now the Democrats turn. Instead of crying mea culpa, move forward and prepare for two years from now.
30/31: What does the TEC have to do with this conversation?
RE: “What does the TEC have to do with this conversation?”
I dunno — ask badman who insulted Matt Kennedy by comparing him to the non-conservative-acting Republican Party. ; > )
“I was hungry, and you gave me nothing to eat. I was thirsty, and you gave me nothing to drink. I was a stranger, and you didn’t welcome me. I was naked, and you didn’t clothe me. I was sick and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.”
I was left to die as an infant in a hospital linen closet and you voted for the man who said that I should not be helped.
Yeah, good luck explaining that to Jesus.
I, and apparently millions of others, could not be happier with the outcome of this election. I am not a one issue voter as some seem to be based on their comments and, further, I am pro-choice. But given #38’s comments, with this president elect and the congress whom will follow, I think the government stands a much better chance at succeeding in Jesus’ request than if McCain were in office. In my experience, there are far too many people who are not paying their fair share of taxes and who give less than a pittance to the church, choosing instead to keep (hoard) their money or use it to by even more BMW’s, summer homes, and boats. So if they are not willing to help their fellow human being willingly, I am very much in favor of voting for someone who will raise their taxes and help those in need. Thus I voted for Barack Obama as opposed to John McCain who could not remember how many homes he owns. This is a glorious day for America!
As I was whining to my wife this morning, she reminded me that it would be more productive to pray for Pres-elect Obama and his family. For his leadership of the nation for the next two years (I’m hoping for a mid-term backlash!) but also for protection for himself and his family. Sad to say, but while I don’t believe we are a generally racist nation, there are still enough unbalanced people out there that might try something tragic..
Vitner, it’s comments such as yours that has caused me even more despair than Obama’s election. I mean no personal offense; but I fear we are getting the government we ask for and deserve, because too many people are not thinking clearly.
Do you think raising taxes is going to result in more people tithing? Do you recall Jesus taking from the rich in order to give to the poor (which is different from telling the rich to care for the poor)? Do you think “those in need” in the US have much in common with “those in need” in other parts of the world or in Jesus’ time? I would agree that there are too many who have too much in our society, and I think we would agree on calling that “greed”. But forcible wealth redistribution will not change any hearts, only harden them.
I would say, if you want to help those in need, create an environment of wealth and plenty. Rising tide lifts all boats, etc. The government has proven inept at that, and over-regulation and over-taxation have proven to achieve the opposite effect. Fix the abuses, but don’t throw the wealthy baby out with the corrupt bath water.
I’m not worried about FOCA – if it ever gets out of Congress I’ll eat my had (it was introduced in 2004 and is still languishing in committee in both houses). Neither party wants it to pass, nor do they want it to go away: it’s too good a campaign tool.
If it manages to pass in it’s current form and is not declared unconstitutional by the court, I’ll eat [i]your[/i] hat.
Bottom line is that our choice of President will have very little influence over abortion rights in this country, so I’m sleeping well with my vote for Obama with a clear conscience.
[blockquote]Do you think raising taxes is going to result in more people tithing? Do you recall Jesus taking from the rich in order to give to the poor (which is different from telling the rich to care for the poor)? [/blockquote]
No, I don’t think raising taxes is going to result in more people tithing. I think it will result in providing more funds to help needy people. I remember Jesus telling the rich to help the poor as did the prophets and how their words continue to be ignored. So I have no problem with the rich paying more in taxes and closing their loopholes. I have found that the more money that people accumulate, the less they give away.
As I said, Matt, I’m pro-choice and believe that it’s totally up to a woman to decide what to do with her body. Your issue is not mine or, at the very least, it’s nowhere near the top of my list.
[blockquote]I’m pro-choice and believe that it’s totally up to a woman to decide what to do with her body.[/blockquote]
Me too. I just don’t think she has the right to do whatever she wants to her child’s body.
[blockquote]So if they are not willing to help their fellow human being willingly, I am very much in favor of voting for someone who will raise their taxes and help those in need.[/blockquote]
Yes! If they won’t be good charitable loving Christians willingly, we’ll use the State to MAKE em! hilarious!
[blockquote] Yes! If they won’t be good charitable loving Christians willingly, we’ll use the State to MAKE em![/blockquote]
“If they won’t be good charitable loving [b]people[/b] willingly, we’ll use the State to MAKE em.” Insert that change and you’re exactly correct. People who make more should be taxed more. If they gave more to begin with, we wouldn’t need to do so. But because greed runs rampant, the state has to step in. To paraphrase, “With great wealth, comes great responsibility.”
Hail to the Chief!
Someone who knows how to write in proper English!
He didn’t go through college based on his family connections.
He worked hard and earned his chops.
He’s worked for investment banks, communities, and taught at a conservative law school, where he could have become a professor.
He rejected corporate America for public service.
He made his money himself, and not through family connections.
He built up the most effective organization in campaign history.
and led that campaign through two wars.
He is not simply a great leader. He has the makings of a military leader.
A lot of it is context. But Abe Lincoln himself didn’t win a majority.
As far as Jesus and the rich, he does offer warnings to the rich, as do most of the prophets. When the rich say, “its my money, and nobody else’s” it reeks of selfishness. Look at all the bankers being bailed out. See Paris Hilton. Yes, it is their money. And we implicitly reward their behavior when we argue against a social contract that reminds people that to whom much is given, much is expected.
Yes, taking capital away from the capitalists will certainly make more money available to fund bureaucracies that pay lip service to the poor. It will also mean less capital for investment, and less incentive to invest what’s left, meaning more and more people will be lining up at said government bureaucracy’s door. If that sounds like a good idea, it just reinforces my despair about getting the government we ask for.
How about a social contract that says “you will give 10% of your income to a non-governmental agency in your home state each year, regardless of your net worth”? That would more readily accomplish the stated goal of helping the poor, and reduce the middlemen. Do you suppose the politicians would go for that? Do you suppose the voting public would if it were put to referendum?
#50 – that’s not exactly how it works. The government is not merely a bureaucracy, but funds private agencies. I would also add that without a bureaucracy, Democracy is pretty much impossible (this isn’t my idea – it’s Weber’s).
Taxes may be disincentives up to a point. But when we spend money on a teacher’s salary, the teacher than can buy a house. Go to the local deli. Save for a yacht, buy wine for friends. The government transferred wealth from a wealthy person to a teacher of their child. The government can also hire pollicemen or auditors to ensure that people aren’t speeding or cooking their books. The government can fund NASA or send money to MIT through the military, resulting in inventions which can benefit the private sphere.
The problem is that: do we want small monarchies to develop? Say, like Paris Hilton. Or do we prefer the way Warren Buffett has educated his children? Some people get rich because they love their work; others don’t want anyone else to be supported.
As a not-for-profit business owner, if my employees all had health insurance, I could raise their salaries and even hire more staff. My organization could flourish. Right now I benefit that other companies pay for their health insurance. And one reason American car companies are so screwed is that their competition in other countries pays their health insurance.
As far as “lip service to the poor” you should use some numbers. Numbers are important when we count these things. And yes, some forms of welfare are effective, and others aren’t.
Some people support, for example, a simple transfer of wealth. End the helping bureaucracies, and ensure that every child has some kind of equal opportunity (as Milton Friedman suggested once) when they are born. Ensure that no child is born into poverty by having a guaranteed minimum income. It replaces social security and unemployment. It’s enough so that nobody starves, but it doesn’t go through a social worker or a therapist. It might even come through the mail.
People can use the money for schools, for education, for housing. But it ensures nobody starves. As people work, their guaranteed income decreases a little. Not enough to discourage working.
But a tax on the wealthy does not discourage work – it may discourage greed and entitlement. It does say that the wealthy, because they are protected by the USA and are brothers with other citizens, have a responsibility to the USA. And past making $1 miillion dollars a year, why would a real working person just stop working if they were taxed 40%? Most wouldn’t.
If we are going to be single-issue about abortion, what about the fact that both Obama and McCain support the use of the death penalty?
[blockquote]People who make more should be taxed more.[/blockquote]
And so they already are. But don’t mistake taxation for charity.
#55 taxation is paying dues for living in a great country.
#54 — I believe that the Roman Catholic Church and most other Christian churches would disagree with that view and interpretation of the death penalty. However, to get into a discussion about it would move us beyond the bounds of this thread’s topic.
Matt: I understand that you and I are on different ends of the argument, but given your argument – what would you do in the case of an pro-life candidate who is pro-gay marriage (they do exist by the way) vs. a pro-choice candidate who is anti-gay marriage? To what level does the single-issue rise in such a hierarchy?
#59, Catholic teaching would be that neither candidate is acceptable, but if it came down to it, I would think the advocate of legitimizing gay ‘marriage’ is more palatable than the one advocating mass murder.
Actually, under the current system, according to IRS data, the top 50% of the wage earners pay 96.03% of all taxes in the US. The top 5% pays 53.25%
The bottom 50% pay 3.97% of all income taxes.
Which means that the top 1% is paying more than ten times the federal income taxes than the bottom 50%!
Only a small percent of the Fortune 400 inherited their wealth, most rose from having very little by the sweat of their brow, or ingenuity. So why do we want to punish them for succeeding at the American Dream? or are we like Jim Moran, the Virgina Democratic Senator who stated that:
Now in the last seven years … we have been guided by a Republican administration who believes in this simplistic notion that people who have wealth are entitled to keep it and they have an antipathy towards the means of redistributing wealth.â€
Not socialism? Not Christian! Re-read Acts 5: the sin of Ananias and his wife Sapphira wasn’t that they had wealth and wanted to keep it, it was that they lied about how much they had and of that was giving to the Apostolic community! Jesus never came down on wealth, just the mis-use of it. In fact, he had many wealthy friends (Lazarus; Joseph of Aramithea; etc.). If they chose to give it away, he praised them. If they chose to give a portion away, he praised them. If they didn’t, He didn’t condemn them, but let them decide. The government should not decide for us.
Peace
Jim E.
Florida