Hatrack River
Home   |   About Orson Scott Card   |   News & Reviews   |   OSC Library   |   Forums   |   Contact   |   Links
Research Area   |   Writing Lessons   |   Writers Workshops   |   OSC at SVU   |   Calendar   |   Store
E-mail this page
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » A Mormon POTUS, oh my (Page 2)

  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: A Mormon POTUS, oh my
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yes, we do have the attitude that "God is on our side" but it’s not something anyone except the enemies of freedom need worry too much about. What we believe in that regard is that God helped establish a country (and has helped preserve it) which would promote and protect individual freedom, including freedom of religion. He is on our side only insofar as we seek to preserve that and are willing to serve and help others in positive ways.
Like Indians, black people, and gays? If you're going to characterize things in this way, iglee-if you're going to say that the only people concerned are 'enemies of freedom'-expect to have a whole list of things brought up right back at you.

God had a plan for this country, huh? One of those old-fashioned plans of His, plainly, where little things like its original occupants aren't of concern except how they're to be swept aside.

'Help people in positive ways'. Pff. I'm sure that help won't at all take the form of 'for your own good', now will it?

Posts: 16404 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Yes, we do have the attitude that "God is on our side" but it’s not something anyone except the enemies of freedom need worry too much about. What we believe in that regard is that God helped establish a country (and has helped preserve it) which would promote and protect individual freedom, including freedom of religion.
._________.

I assume the .. uh, native americans were just sort of, uh, in the way of that God-helped establishment of a country.

Posts: 14162 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:
Yes, we do have the attitude that "God is on our side" but it’s not something anyone except the enemies of freedom need worry too much about. What we believe in that regard is that God helped establish a country (and has helped preserve it) which would promote and protect individual freedom, including freedom of religion. He is on our side only insofar as we seek to preserve that and are willing to serve and help others in positive ways.
Like Indians, black people, and gays?
Well, he's more on our side now than he was back then. Obviously.
Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Considering who has claimed God's approval on the national level throughout history, it's really not something I'd go out of my way go speak proudly about.
Posts: 16404 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jeff C.
Member
Member # 12496

 - posted      Profile for Jeff C.           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff C.:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
I am increasingly disturbed by a political mindset that believes anything vaguely like, "the US is special to God in a way that other countries aren't". Or "God has a special plan for the US". I get the fuzzy impression that this is LDS doctrine but would love to be corrected on that.

I don't think that this idea is just LDS doctrine; I think that it is part of many evangelical religions as well as being a part of US history.

It's just that whole 'single-child syndrome' on a large, national scale. Individuals like to think they're special, that they've got some hidden destiny or whatever (it's the reason comic books and super heroes are so popular). It shouldn't come as any surprise that a group of people think their specific group is special, too.
It doesn't surprise me. I just prefer that the President doesn't buy into it. The "God is on our side"attitude tends to lead to committing atrocities.
Oh, you'll get no disagreement from me on that one.

I mean, if you really think about it, the bulk of this nation's history is pretty damn bloody, and through it all we thought we were doing God's work.

Posts: 1322 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
iglee
Member
Member # 12455

 - posted      Profile for iglee   Email iglee         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, I did have a lot to say, but a family crisis has come up. So hash it out among yourselves. I don't have anymore time for this. I will just say this:

kombboots, you posted:

"What makes you think that a Mormon president would take that vow more seriously than a non-Mormon president? "

What makes you think I used the word “more” anywhere in my post? What makes you infer that I believe any such nonsense like Mormons have a monopoly on honor and patriotism?

Rabbit, you asked, "Would you apply this same reasoning to a Mormon democrat, say Harry Reid for example?"

Here is the Senatorial Oath of Office, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”

So yes, I expect Senator Harry Reid to take his oath seriously.

You also said,

"I'm pretty sure that the particular "belief" you are referring to is not scriptural and not official doctrine so I think it would be more than a little presumptuous to assume that because a candidate is Mormon he shares your particular beliefs about the constitution."

No and yes.

No, you are wrong in thinking that what I was referring to is not scriptural. What I'm thinking about is scriptural in the books we accept as scriptural.

I refer you to these passages in the Doctrine and Covenants:
101: 76-80
109:54
98:4-10
and also our 11th and 12th Article of Faith
then there is also the link you posted and I thank you for that.
But yes, you are right also. There is not a total unity of the faith concerning which parts of the Constitution were inspired by God in order to establish freedom of religion and all the other individual freedoms which are so important. I pretty much agree with this article which explains it. It is important to remember that we don't believe that every part of the Constitution is inspired. A lot of it needed and still does need work. :

http://gospel.ldsblogs.com/9547/what-do-mormons-believe-about-the-constitution

Yes, it is presumptuous to assume that any particular Mormon feels the same way about it as I do. That is why I like to find out if I can just how any particular candidate feels about the Constitution. I intend to do that this time around too.

Quoting from the above linked article here is part of what Dallin Oaks feels about it,

“Elder Oaks considered five parts of the Constitution to be inspired. His list consisted of these items:
Separation of powers (between branches of federal government)
A written Bill of Rights
Division of powers (between federal and state)
Popular Sovereignty
The rule of law and not of men. “

I pretty much agree with that article and I believe the Constitution is worth supporting and defending because it is still the best way I can think of for preserving freedom. But of course if any of you think there is a better way and think that the Bill of Rights and those other items are outdated and need to be done away with, and think that we ought to give our allegiance to a particular person or party or whatever instead of to the rule of law. Then, by all means, go find a candidate that agrees with you.

Goodbye, I don't have any more time to write any more. But I'm not so egotistical to think that anyone cares anyway.

Posts: 65 | Registered: Jan 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I hope your family crisis is resolved quickly and happily.
Posts: 10613 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I hope you too, Iglee!

But seriously I also hope your family crisis turns out okay. [Smile]

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sorry for the double ish posting. I hate posting from the phone.
Posts: 10613 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Rakeesh
Member
Member # 2001

 - posted      Profile for Rakeesh   Email Rakeesh         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
What makes you think I used the word “more” anywhere in my post? What makes you infer that I believe any such nonsense like Mormons have a monopoly on honor and patriotism?
Well, when you say things like, "Yeah, we think this thing, but only enemies of freedom need to be worries," there is in fact implied a superiority in certain virtues-at the very least the virtue of loving liberty, compared to detractors. So I can't speak for anyone else, but that's where *I* got the idea.

quote:
But yes, you are right also. There is not a total unity of the faith concerning which parts of the Constitution were inspired by God in order to establish freedom of religion and all the other individual freedoms which are so important. I pretty much agree with this article which explains it. It is important to remember that we don't believe that every part of the Constitution is inspired. A lot of it needed and still does need work.
Let's just say without going into the many objections that naturally occur in response to this sort of thinking that it's a shame more Mormon leaders don't share this respect for the sacred secular principles of our nation, then, and its governing document the Constitution. It wasn't a bunch of Mormon leaders who overturned Prop 8 out in California, but God knows they were conspicuous in its initial passage.

quote:
I pretty much agree with that article and I believe the Constitution is worth supporting and defending because it is still the best way I can think of for preserving freedom. But of course if any of you think there is a better way and think that the Bill of Rights and those other items are outdated and need to be done away with, and think that we ought to give our allegiance to a particular person or party or whatever instead of to the rule of law. Then, by all means, go find a candidate that agrees with you.
Who here thinks the Bill of Rights is outdated?
Posts: 16404 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jeff C.
Member
Member # 12496

 - posted      Profile for Jeff C.           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Some day there shall be a nation full of Mormons, and that nation shall be known as Mormania.

Mormania will be a nation of freedom, but without soda or tea because those are evil.

The end.

Posts: 1322 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
See? Depending on what they [taxes] were to be used for, I think that Jesus would approve [of raising taxes]. [Big Grin]

Why? The only comment Jesus ever made about taxation was "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

He said nothing about using the power of the state to assist the poor. From a certain point of view, taxation in order to support state run welfare runs contrary to the gospel of Jesus Christ, because then the individual is removed from providing comfort, sustenance, etc., to those who need them; instead, the power to do good is given to a faceless agency.

(I believe, by the way, that taxes should be increased, and federal and state programs to assist the poor and needy better funded-- but to use the gospel as the foundation for such a program is misguided.)

And Jeff: Mormons can drink soda.

[ February 09, 2012, 08:35 AM: Message edited by: Scott R ]

Posts: 14505 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Who here thinks the Bill of Rights is outdated?
While many parts of the Bill of Rights are as relevant today as they were two centuries ago, some parts of it are definitely outdated. I doubt any one would argue that the $20 dollar lower limit set for jury trials of civil suits in the 7th amendment is not outdated. The entire third amendment seems rather obsolete.

There are serious arguments about whether "jury trials" are outdated all together. I think nearly all Americans would agree that there are at least some problems with the jury system. I'm not familiar enough with the alternatives to know whether I'd support getting rid of trial by jury altogether or not, but I do think that there are many instances where a trial by a jury of peers does not serve justice.

I personally think the second amendment is outdated for several reasons. We no longer live in a frontier society where people need to protect themselves from hostile natives. Most modern weapons (automatic rifles, high explosives, rocket launchers, missiles, tanks, nerve gas, nukes) are simply too dangerous for their ownership to be a fundamental right guaranteed to every citizen. The ability of National Guard troops to fulfill their duty to protect states in times of crisis and operate independently of the Federal Army has been severely compromised because of the need for high tech weaponry. So I think there are numerous reasonable grounds for arguing the 2nd amendment is outdated in the era of modern weapons technology.

Although I strongly disagree, it seems that a majority of Americans think that International Terrorism makes parts of the 1st and 5th amendment outdated.

The overall concept of guaranteeing individual rights is something that will never be outdated, but the specific way those rights were incorporated in the Bill of Rights could easily become outdated and require revision. That's at least part of why we have added so many other amendments to the constitution. Consider that the right to vote in elections, something I think most of us take for granted, wasn't protected in the constitution until after the Civil War.

[ February 09, 2012, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]

Posts: 12590 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Scott, I think that, in ancient Rome, it could very well be that the individual was removed from the act of charity. With a representative government, I don't think that is the case. We make the choices about what we want our society to be and what priorities we want to support. I don't think that the gospel necessarily supports individual rather than community action. In fact, I think that it encourages us to see ourselves as part of a larger body (whether that body is the church or society or all of the kingdom of God) rather than separate.

Besides, Jesus hung out with tax collectors. [Wink]

Posts: 10613 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Scott, I think that, in ancient Rome, it could very well be that the individual was removed from the act of charity. With a representative government, I don't think that is the case. We make the choices about what we want our society to be and what priorities we want to support. I don't think that the gospel necessarily supports individual rather than community action. In fact, I think that it encourages us to see ourselves as part of a larger body (whether that body is the church or society or all of the kingdom of God) rather than separate.

Besides, Jesus hung out with tax collectors. [Wink]

If only you would use scriptural text-- or historical text-- to back up your ideas, we could have something to talk about.
Posts: 14505 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Romans 12 comes to mind if you want to get serious about this.

ETA: If you want historical text - particularly from a Catholic perspective - there is a lot.

[ February 09, 2012, 11:37 AM: Message edited by: kmbboots ]

Posts: 10613 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What specifically in Romans 12 indicates that Jesus favored the use of the power of the state to collect taxes for the upkeep of the poor?

That's a chapter written for the believers and dedicated; are you suggesting it apply politically across a non-standard/non-believing populations?

quote:
Jesus hung out with tax collectors.
Well, here's the whole story:
quote:
10 And it came to pass, as Jesus sat at meat in the house, behold, many publicans and sinners came and sat down with him and his disciples.

11 And when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto his disciples, Why eateth your Master with publicans and sinners?

12 But when Jesus heard that, he said unto them, They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.

13 But go ye and learn what that meaneth, I will have mercy, and not sacrifice: for I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance.

He hung out with publicans to bring them to repentance.
Posts: 14505 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The winky wasn't enough of a clue that I was kidding with the tax collector?

I thought you were asking for Scriptural references to support the statement that you quoted.

Posts: 10613 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We've been talking about Jesus' attitudes toward taxation. I thought that was pretty clear.
Posts: 14505 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jeff C.
Member
Member # 12496

 - posted      Profile for Jeff C.           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
And Jeff: Mormons can drink soda.

A DAMNABLE LIE!!!
Posts: 1322 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff C.:
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
And Jeff: Mormons can drink soda.

A DAMNABLE LIE!!!
Mormons drink pop not soda. Soda is short for "sodium bicarbonate" commonly sold as "baking soda". Mormon's aren't forbidden to drink baking soda, we just don't think it makes a pleasant beverage.
Posts: 12590 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Romans 12 comes to mind if you want to get serious about this.

ETA: If you want historical text - particularly from a Catholic perspective - there is a lot.

Romans 13 speaks more directly to the government question.
Posts: 12590 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jeff C.
Member
Member # 12496

 - posted      Profile for Jeff C.           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
Originally posted by Jeff C.:
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
And Jeff: Mormons can drink soda.

A DAMNABLE LIE!!!
Mormons drink pop not soda. Soda is short for "sodium bicarbonate" commonly sold as "baking soda". Mormon's aren't forbidden to drink baking soda, we just don't think it makes a pleasant beverage.
Regardless, I always thought that myth about the no-caffeine rule was hilarious. I've had mormon friends and they all were allowed to drink tea and cola.

Anyway, none of that would matter in Mormonia. Everyone would wear white shirts and slacks, ride bikes, and we'd all have multiple wives. It would be pretty awesome and everyone would be happy. If you aren't happy with those things, then you'd be banished to the Elephant Graveyard, just outside the giant electric fence. The Elephant Graveyard is a horrible and dark place filled with hilariously evil jackals that are voiced by Whoopy Goldburg. No one comes back from there alive. Or even dead.

BOO!

[Angst]

Posts: 1322 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Mormons drink pop not soda.
Is that a western US usage? By me, 'Pop' is a name Yankees call their fathers.
Posts: 14505 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Romans 12 comes to mind if you want to get serious about this.

ETA: If you want historical text - particularly from a Catholic perspective - there is a lot.

Romans 13 speaks more directly to the government question.
...in that it says, "Pay taxes that are due; support government officials."

It doesn't address the correctness of using the power of the state to answer the needs of the poor, as far as I can tell.

Posts: 14505 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:
Mormons drink pop not soda.
Is that a western US usage? By me, 'Pop' is a name Yankees call their fathers.
Yes! On the western half of the US, carbonated sugary beverages are called 'pop'. In the east, those same drinks are called 'soda'. The people I know from Minnesota (dead middle of the country), call it 'soda pop'. Some people I know from the deep south, call all carbonated sugary beverages 'coke' but I've come to expect that kind of aberrant behavior from southerners.
Posts: 12590 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I just found this website that maps the pop vs soda controversy.

You will note, that this map confirms my long held theory that California is not actually part of the Western US.

When I was a kid, my family lived in Pennsylvania for about 5 years where I learned to call carbonated drinks "soda", when my family moved back to Utah -- if you asked for 'soda' you got a box of baking soda. No one knew what you were talking about if you wanted to drink soda. I think that this regional distinction, has faded considerably over the last few decades. The map I linked does indeed show a lot more of a mix than I remember as a kid.

[ February 09, 2012, 03:45 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]

Posts: 12590 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
advice for robots
Member
Member # 2544

 - posted      Profile for advice for robots           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I grew up in MN and called it pop. Of course, my family moved to MN from the western U.S.

I propose Minnesota change its name to Minnepop. It is, after all, in the midwest.

Posts: 5924 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
We've been talking about Jesus' attitudes toward taxation. I thought that was pretty clear.

It may have been to you. I was talking more specifically about thinking of ourselves as part of community for which we are responsible. Jesus was pretty clear on our duty to the poor. I don't see where he specified that should only be acted on as individuals. Of course the writers of the Gospels were not considering representative government at the time.
Posts: 10613 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I drink soda. I haven't had "pop" since...

...since about the time I stopped going to church.

[Eek!]

Posts: 4006 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I drink soda. I haven't had "pop" since...

...since about the time I stopped going to church.

[Eek!]

Clear evidence of the depth of your apostasy. [Taunt]
Posts: 12590 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
advice for robots
Member
Member # 2544

 - posted      Profile for advice for robots           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Robert Siegal shudders whenever someone calls it pop.
Posts: 5924 | Registered: Oct 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Yeah. That whole post is frightening. Especially as it was meant to be reassuring.

Kate, I can't figure out which post it was you thought was frightening. Were you referring to my post? If so, what part did you find "frightening"?
Posts: 12590 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
ElJay
Member
Member # 6358

 - posted      Profile for ElJay           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I grew up in MN and have always said pop, for what it's worth. I don't know anyone who calls it soda-pop. I can deal with either, but the people who call all pop coke bug me.
Posts: 7911 | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
Yeah. That whole post is frightening. Especially as it was meant to be reassuring.

Kate, I can't figure out which post it was you thought was frightening. Were you referring to my post? If so, what part did you find "frightening"?
Not yours. Iglee's post that was right before mine. The one that started with, "Yes, we do have the attitude that "God is on our side" but it’s not something anyone except the enemies of freedom need worry too much about."

You don't scare me. [Wink] I would even vote for you.

Posts: 10613 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Rabbit
Member
Member # 671

 - posted      Profile for The Rabbit   Email The Rabbit         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ElJay:
I grew up in MN and have always said pop, for what it's worth. I don't know anyone who calls it soda-pop. I can deal with either, but the people who call all pop coke bug me.

I know it's probably unfair bigotry of some sort, but I've found that as a general rule, calling all pope "coke" is a pretty good indicator that the person is going to bug me in a all sorts of ways that have nothing to do with beverages.
Posts: 12590 | Registered: Jan 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've lived mostly in WI and IL and use"pop" and "soda" interchangeably. I probably say "soda" more often than "pop" but neither is different enough to get my notice.
Posts: 10613 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
You will note, that this map confirms my long held theory that California is not actually part of the Western US.

If by that you mean that we don't buy into such linguistic heresies as "pop" the way flyover country does, then of course.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Scott R
Member
Member # 567

 - posted      Profile for Scott R   Email Scott R         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I was talking more specifically about thinking of ourselves as part of community for which we are responsible.
Indeed, that's how you appeared to lead the conversation after I entered and challenged you on your initial assertion.

Here's the conversation that prompted my entry into this thread:

quote:
Originally posted by Jeff C.:
I'm a Christian and I think it would honestly be better to have an Agnostic in office. Either that, or just have it so that the President is forbidden to talk about religion in public.

I mean, just today I saw the President using Jesus as an excuse to raise taxes. Seriously, I'm sure our savior would be proud.

To which you replied:

quote:
Originally posted by kmbboots:
See? Depending on what they were to be used for, I think that Jesus would approve. [Big Grin]

I'd really like to understand from a scriptural point of view, how you can make that statement. Neither Jesus nor his apostles said much about using the state's power to assist the poor; though they did talk a LOT about individuals helping others (and the Church is specifically commanded to assist the poor), there's scarce evidence for welfare policy-making (from the state's point of view) in the scriptures.
Posts: 14505 | Registered: Dec 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
It didn't sound very scriptural to me.
Posts: 4006 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
You will note, that this map confirms my long held theory that California is not actually part of the Western US.

If by that you mean that we don't buy into such linguistic heresies as "pop" the way flyover country does, then of course.
Seriously.

The real West (aka Arizona, New Mexico, and Nevada) are with us, too. What do you "Pop" people have? The Pacific Northwest? Bah. They use 'em both interchangeably. You can't rely on them. They're fickle. They'll let you down, Rabbit.

Stay in your quaint little world in the midwest, and live in blissful, poppy ignorance.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I've found it useful to refer to states west of the mid-west as "True West".
Posts: 14254 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dkw
Member
Member # 3264

 - posted      Profile for dkw   Email dkw         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Scott, take a close look at Matthew 25:32. It doesn't say that all individuals will be gathered together and sorted according to whether they fed the hungry, clothed the naked, and visited the sick and imprisoned, it says all nations will be.
Posts: 9794 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I've found it useful to refer to states west of the mid-west as "True West".

O_o
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
maui babe
Member
Member # 1894

 - posted      Profile for maui babe   Email maui babe         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
Originally posted by Scott R:
quote:
Mormons drink pop not soda.
Is that a western US usage? By me, 'Pop' is a name Yankees call their fathers.
Yes! On the western half of the US, carbonated sugary beverages are called 'pop'.
Except in California and New Mexico, where soda is soda and pop is a name for yer dad or in some cases, a small candy on a stick.
Posts: 2069 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Rabbit:
quote:
Originally posted by scifibum:
I drink soda. I haven't had "pop" since...

...since about the time I stopped going to church.

[Eek!]

Clear evidence of the depth of your apostasy. [Taunt]
apopstasy
Posts: 14162 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by BlackBlade:
I've found it useful to refer to states west of the mid-west as "True West".

O_o
o_O ?
Posts: 14254 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
rivka
Member
Member # 4859

 - posted      Profile for rivka   Email rivka         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
apopstasy

*GROAN*

*throws things at Samp*

Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dan_Frank
Member
Member # 8488

 - posted      Profile for Dan_Frank   Email Dan_Frank         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by rivka:
quote:
Originally posted by Samprimary:
apopstasy

*GROAN*

*throws things at Samp*

*GROAN*

*Throws roses and money and pieces of paper with lipstick imprints on them at Sam*

Beautiful, man. Just beautiful. An exceptionally groan worthy pun.

Posts: 3580 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://i.imgur.com/CCDlj.png
Posts: 14162 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2