what is a "homosexual movement", pray tell? it probably has something to do with opening your mouth and telling people that you don't accept being treated unfairly.
this conference sounds like a real trip. it should draw allllllll the crazies out of the woodwork.
theramblingtaoist
· 3 months ago
I don't know that this "scares me". In politics (as with most other things in life), there is always a right and a left. While one may predominate for awhile, the other never goes away. In time, the pendulum will rock back the other direction.
Mind you, I don't want to see it go that direction, but imbalance itself creates this eventuality.
david
· 3 months ago
Yikes. I hate that people think that these people accurately represent Christians. Take it from me - THEY DON'T.
Guest
· 3 months ago
David,
But don't you think they represent a large segment of the Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christian Church?
I know their are millions of Christians who they don't represent but they are the minority and they certainly don't get the attention of the press.
I am hopeful that the media will begin to pay attention to the alternative voices in Christianity.
Bruce
david
· 3 months ago
Bruce -
No, I agree with you heart and soul. The two people you quoted most certainly DO represent a very large and powerful fundamentalist wing of the American evangelical church - a very Southern, Dispenationalist, Christian-Nationalist version of the faith with an often misshapen view of the Church and it's gospel-given duty to change the world.
I saw in your bio that you're a self-professed ex "fundamentalist baptist." Me too. I'm sorry to say that I have family members who go to conferences such as these, and who believe, vote, and pray along lines drawn by such people as the one's quoted above.
It only took two minutes of looking for a bio of Mr. Rick Scarborough to discover that he was an alumnus of Dallas Theological Seminary. I'd guessed as much.
Sorry for the ambiguity in my previous comment - I didn't mean to sound hostile or in the least bit self-righteousness. I think you're right on. But I do lament for Churches and Church leaders that base the reading of their Bibles on a fundamentalist political ideology.
PS - I saw that you're a fan of Wendell Berry. I was blessed to have been introduced to Berry in college, and have been reading him for the past 6 or so years. GREAT stuff. Are you also a fan of Hauerwas?
Glad to have found your blog, Bruce. I just added it to my reader.
Guest
· 3 months ago
Hey David,
Yes, I am an avid fan of Wendell Berry. I have also read Stanley Hauerwas. Berry has been instrumental in shaping and changing how I look at the world. While I am not a big fiction reader I do enjoy reading Berry's. My whole family loves his books.
Yes, I am an ex-fundy Baptist. I have the scars to prove it. There are many of us...........since the Fundamentalist Church has such high churn rates. I have often said the methodology in such Churches is win them, wet them work them, and waste them. (and of course once they are wasted it is THEIR fault since they didn't keep on the true path of righteousness)
Glad to see your comment!
Bruce
mvy
· 3 months ago
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. 98% of the 2008 campaign events involving a presidential or vice-presidential candidate occurred in just 15 closely divided "battleground" states. Over half (57%) of the events were in just four states (Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania and Virginia). Similarly, 98% of ad spending took place in these 15 "battleground" states. Similarly, in 2004, candidates concentrated over two-thirds of their money and campaign visits in five states and over 99% of their money in 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
mvy
· 3 months ago
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,659 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware --75%, Maine -- 71%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 73% , Massachusetts -- 73%, New York -- 79%, and Washington -- 77%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
All Comments
this conference sounds like a real trip. it should draw allllllll the crazies out of the woodwork.
Mind you, I don't want to see it go that direction, but imbalance itself creates this eventuality.
But don't you think they represent a large segment of the Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christian Church?
I know their are millions of Christians who they don't represent but they are the minority and they certainly don't get the attention of the press.
I am hopeful that the media will begin to pay attention to the alternative voices in Christianity.
Bruce
No, I agree with you heart and soul. The two people you quoted most certainly DO represent a very large and powerful fundamentalist wing of the American evangelical church - a very Southern, Dispenationalist, Christian-Nationalist version of the faith with an often misshapen view of the Church and it's gospel-given duty to change the world.
I saw in your bio that you're a self-professed ex "fundamentalist baptist." Me too. I'm sorry to say that I have family members who go to conferences such as these, and who believe, vote, and pray along lines drawn by such people as the one's quoted above.
It only took two minutes of looking for a bio of Mr. Rick Scarborough to discover that he was an alumnus of Dallas Theological Seminary. I'd guessed as much.
Sorry for the ambiguity in my previous comment - I didn't mean to sound hostile or in the least bit self-righteousness. I think you're right on. But I do lament for Churches and Church leaders that base the reading of their Bibles on a fundamentalist political ideology.
PS - I saw that you're a fan of Wendell Berry. I was blessed to have been introduced to Berry in college, and have been reading him for the past 6 or so years. GREAT stuff. Are you also a fan of Hauerwas?
Glad to have found your blog, Bruce. I just added it to my reader.
Yes, I am an avid fan of Wendell Berry. I have also read Stanley Hauerwas. Berry has been instrumental in shaping and changing how I look at the world. While I am not a big fiction reader I do enjoy reading Berry's. My whole family loves his books.
Yes, I am an ex-fundy Baptist. I have the scars to prove it. There are many of us...........since the Fundamentalist Church has such high churn rates. I have often said the methodology in such Churches is win them, wet them work them, and waste them. (and of course once they are wasted it is THEIR fault since they didn't keep on the true path of righteousness)
Glad to see your comment!
Bruce
Two-thirds of the states and people have been merely spectators to the presidential elections. Candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule enacted by 48 states, under which all of a state's electoral votes are awarded to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state.
Every vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The Constitution gives every state the power to allocate its electoral votes for president, as well as to change state law on how those votes are awarded.
The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,659 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. This national result is similar to recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Delaware --75%, Maine -- 71%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 73% , Massachusetts -- 73%, New York -- 79%, and Washington -- 77%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com