On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 09:03:53 -0800, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>About a decade ago, /Christianity Today/ had an article on a group of
>unchurched Christians who had apparently left organized religion
>decades earlier and had passed on their religion to their children
>themselves.

Being a Canadian of roughly the same position as those in that survey
I've never allowed ministers to unduly influence my choice of
politicians but then I know my politics better than most of them
having been schooled by my late grandfather (mostly in terms of
pointing me to plenty of good books on politics) who was a 2 time
unsuccessful federal candidate for public office. (Meaning that while
I understood he didn't know everything about politics was more 'clued'
than the average bear)

Which in plain English means I support people who are compassionate
but extremely tough on flab in the budget. Socially conservative but
not over the top about it.

While I've seen lots of Trump going back to his WWE and the Apprentice
days I can't imagine voting for him though had I been an American I
would have had a very tough choice in 2016 and 2020.

On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 8:52:41 AM UTC+11, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 03:46:01 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
> <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >Vaguely in that area, I'm uncomfortable hearing
> >American "evangelical" citizens saying that God has
> >sent Donald Trump to them, because presumably
> >they're hearing that from their church preachers.
> Which is why I'm so amazed at the way American evangelicals have
> embraced Trump - because with his personal life he's not only not one
> of them, he's pretty much the antithesis of what they would consider a
> Christian is supposed to be.
>
You appear to be operating under a very outdated idea of what the evangelical idea of a christian is

> I understand there's the anti-woke thing but Trump?

On Thu, 18 Jan 2024 09:03:52 -0800, Paul S Person
<psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Jan 2024 10:19:43 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
><rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>
>>On Wednesday 17 January 2024 at 04:06:07 UTC, Kevrob wrote:
>>> On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 10:45:54?PM UTC-5, Robert Carnegie wrote:
>>> > On Wednesday 17 January 2024 at 00:05:57 UTC, pete...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> > > On Tuesday, January 16, 2024 at 6:40:39?PM UTC-5, Scott Dorsey wrote:
>>> > > > Robert Carnegie <rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>>Well - I think "Babylon" in Revelations is code
>>for Rome, but as a commercial power - it doesn't
>>mean Roman Catholicism.

Yup - I definitely heard that interpretation when growing up though I
also heard it applied to the Holy See.

>>On the other hand, the "Authorised Version" bible
>>is a work of translation into English by Protestants,
>>commissioned by King James. It may have been
>>about the Pope for them.

I don't think so - there had been English language bibles published
since the 14th century. What King James wanted was a standard edition
that could be read from the pulpit - which is why he had such a varied
group of translators.

This methodology has been used by several 20th century English
language translations since current translators agree the English
language itself has evolved in the last 400 years.

>>References say that the name of "The Beast"
>>has been applied since George W. Bush's car.

It goes back a LOT further than that.

>>As I say, The Beast there is
>>a White man, but he wears dark suits.

If that's the standard then it includes most of both houses of
Congress!

On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 13:52:33 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>
wrote:

>On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 03:46:01 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
><rja.carnegie@excite.com> wrote:
>
>>Vaguely in that area, I'm uncomfortable hearing
>>American "evangelical" citizens saying that God has
>>sent Donald Trump to them, because presumably
>>they're hearing that from their church preachers.
>
>Which is why I'm so amazed at the way American evangelicals have
>embraced Trump - because with his personal life he's not only not one
>of them, he's pretty much the antithesis of what they would consider a
>Christian is supposed to be.

Ironically, Luther would have agreed with their approach: as he said
when discussing rulers, "better a Turk who is a good leader than a
Christian who is not".

But, of course, since Trump wasn't a good leader (or any kind of
leader in the sense demanded of Presidents of the United States of
America), that would not apply to Trump.

Also, some Evangelicals appear to be explicitly rejecting the
traditional understanding of how a Christian behaves. As other
responses to you post have noted.

>I understand there's the anti-woke thing but Trump?

Well, you may agree that Trump is not woke in any sense.

I've noted before that these groups have been losing since the 1950s
(ignoring their ancestors losses in a little event in 1860-1865 and
female suffrage): legal segregation, school prayer, divorce,
cohabitation, Roe v Wade, LGBTQIA+ (if that's the correct designator)
in general and gay marriage in particular. That's a lot of losing.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 9:36:23 AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:

> I've noted before that these groups have been losing since the 1950s
> (ignoring their ancestors losses in a little event in 1860-1865 and
> female suffrage): legal segregation, school prayer, divorce,
> cohabitation, Roe v Wade, LGBTQIA+ (if that's the correct designator)
> in general and gay marriage in particular. That's a lot of losing.

Well, there you are. Jimmy Carter failed them, so now they're trying
something completely different. If only Donald Trump could have
been a comedian on Monty Python's Flying Circus instead of a
politician.

John Savard

On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 11:36:23 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 13:52:33 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca>
> wrote:
> >On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 03:46:01 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
> ><rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
> >
> >>Vaguely in that area, I'm uncomfortable hearing
> >>American "evangelical" citizens saying that God has
> >>sent Donald Trump to them, because presumably
> >>they're hearing that from their church preachers.
> >
> >Which is why I'm so amazed at the way American evangelicals have
> >embraced Trump - because with his personal life he's not only not one
> >of them, he's pretty much the antithesis of what they would consider a
> >Christian is supposed to be.
> Ironically, Luther would have agreed with their approach: as he said
> when discussing rulers, "better a Turk who is a good leader than a
> Christian who is not".
>
> But, of course, since Trump wasn't a good leader (or any kind of
> leader in the sense demanded of Presidents of the United States of
> America), that would not apply to Trump.
>
> Also, some Evangelicals appear to be explicitly rejecting the
> traditional understanding of how a Christian behaves. As other
> responses to you post have noted.
> >I understand there's the anti-woke thing but Trump?
> Well, you may agree that Trump is not woke in any sense.
>
> I've noted before that these groups have been losing since the 1950s
> (ignoring their ancestors losses in a little event in 1860-1865 and
> female suffrage): legal segregation, school prayer, divorce,
> cohabitation, Roe v Wade, LGBTQIA+ (if that's the correct designator)
> in general and gay marriage in particular. That's a lot of losing.

They got a reversal of Roe vs. Wade. At least one SCOTUS justice is
talking of reversing on gay marriage and LGBT+ rights.

We live in 'interesting times'.

pt

The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>Which is why I'm so amazed at the way American evangelicals have
>embraced Trump - because with his personal life he's not only not one
>of them, he's pretty much the antithesis of what they would consider a
>Christian is supposed to be.
>
>I understand there's the anti-woke thing but Trump?

If you look carefully you will notice that an awful lot of "evangelicals"
don't seem actually to be very Christian at all even if they use the normal
signs and symbols of Christianity.

Many who are basically say that because Trump put "conservatives" on
the Supreme Court to eliminate Roe vs. Wade that they are on his side because
this is more important to them than anything else in the world. I find this
very strange, seeing that until fairly recently the anti-abortion movement was
a Catholic thing and evangelicals specifically avoided the issue in order to
distinguish themselves from those evil Catholics.

In 1976, the Southern Baptist convention passed a declaration in favor of
the right to abortion. But then a few years later Pat Robertson discovered
he could get money by being anti-abortion and Ronald Reagan discovered he
could get votes by supporting Pat Robertson and then everything changed.
--scott

--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

"pete...@gmail.com" <petertrei@gmail.com> writes:

> They got a reversal of Roe vs. Wade. At least one SCOTUS justice is
> talking of reversing on gay marriage and LGBT+ rights.

But not Loving vs Virginia, given the justice who's been loving
Virginia all these years.

> We live in 'interesting times'.

More bother.

--
Mike Spencer Nova Scotia, Canada

In article <d735fcb4-1c30-4a6a-85f6-0ca66dedee3dn@googlegroups.com>,
pete...@gmail.com <petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:
>[Trump is] also facing multiple indictments

Show me one (1) indictment that passes muster with a well known
lawyer, proudly liberal (one of the last honest ones), who supported
Hillary and Biden. Alan Dershowitz. He has excoriated the whole
"legal" campaign against Trump.

All the other stuff... yeah. Trump is pretty craptastic.
But there's so much fake crap being spewed about Trump that
it causes me to question the reality of the real crap.

--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston

In article <a0fb9011-432e-43a0-b063-8dfa9c7109abn@googlegroups.com>,
Quadibloc <jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>However, I doubt that is really true. Because then Kamala Harris would be
>able to defeat Donald Trump. And I don't think I could hope for that in my
>wildest dreams.
>
>Because she has two colossal strikes against her. She is not white. And she
>is not male.

About either of those, I care nothing. I'll be voting for
Nikki Haley in the primary and (hopefully) in November,
and there is no white person on this planet that I'd even
consider for a moment voting for if he were running against
Thomas Sowell.

About Kamala Harris... I have a very personal grudge against
her. As San Francisco DA, she turned loose the mugger that
shot a friend of mine. For that, if nothing else, she is
absolute anathema to me.

--
Mike Van Pelt | "I don't advise it unless you're nuts."
mvp at calweb.com | -- Ray Wilkinson, after riding out Hurricane
KE6BVH | Ike on Surfside Beach in Galveston

On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 11:23:11 AM UTC+11, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
> In article <d735fcb4-1c30-4a6a...@googlegroups.com>,
> pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >[Trump is] also facing multiple indictments
>
> Show me one (1) indictment that passes muster

Seeing as they've passed grand juries and gone to trial against a white, alleged billionaire there's got to be pretty strong evidence backing them.
Oh, and in what world is somebody asking people to find him votes not encouraging cheating the election?

>with a well known
> lawyer, proudly liberal (one of the last honest ones), who supported
> Hillary and Biden. Alan Dershowitz. He has excoriated the whole
> "legal" campaign against Trump.

Funny how your definition of honest seems to be "supports trump"
Here's an analysis of various legal people talking about Dershowitz's defence of Trump when he was being impeached
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/20/politics/dershowitz-trump-legal-analysis/index.html
another take is at https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/22/opinion/alan-dershowitz-impeachment.html

His legal argument was bullshit and just designed to provide a figleaf to GOP people voting against impeachment and went against his earlier position
"In the interviews, Dershowitz fended off accusations of flip-flopping, after old footage emerged of a 1998 interview on CNN where he said a crime wasn’t necessary to remove a President."

Dershowitz has a long history of anything goes to push his case or views

from
https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/30/alan-dershowitz-presidential-powers-109474
his statements in the Senate impeachment
“every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest, if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected — in the public interest — that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.”

and Dershowitz was a noted friend of Epstein and got his extremely favorable non-prosecution agreement for his involvement in sex trafficking and rape

and he tried to get the Trump Administration to commute Nader's 10 year sentence for child pornography and sex trafficking

He seems to be very keen on shielding people from sex offences, wonder why a friend of Epstein might have that as a priority

Here's his take on accusations he's been involved in dodgy stuff
'During an interview with Miami news station WPLG regarding Britain’s Prince Andrew (another friend of Epstein) and his alleged sexual involvement with an underaged girl who was allegedly kept as a sex slave by Epstein, Dershowitz not only bashed the accuser, calling her an “admitted prostitute and a serial liar” but claimed that the then-teen was not victimized and in fact “made her own decisions in life.”'

Yes, and underage girl was making all her own decisions when forced into sex...
and, after video surfaced of him stating he'd gotten massage's at Epstein's place he stated that he did but he didn't like massages and kept his underwear on. Nothing suss...

Here's another quote from him “If you don’t have the law or legal facts on your side, argue your case in the court of public opinion.”

Here's his level of honesty
'Dershowitz wrote a book about the case, “Reversal of Fortune,” which was published in 1986. Nora Ephron, reviewing it for the Times, noted wryly, “Throughout, in the venerable tradition of defense lawyers who write books about themselves, Mr. Dershowitz made brilliant decisions no one else would ever have been brave or intelligent enough even to consider.” Dershowitz wrote a letter to the editor complaining that Ephron was deriding his work in order to help get a friend’s book about the same case published. (The friend published no such book—and, Ephron replied, wasn’t even a friend.)'

any criticism of him must be down to other reasons.

This article gives an overview of him
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/08/05/alan-dershowitz-devils-advocate

It makes the point that after the lawsuits flying about after his alleged involvement with Epstein's crimes (where his accuser's lawyers received significant money, around a million, in a settlement but Deshowitz ensured he'd receive 50k so he could give the impression that the settlement was in his favor) his invitations from the mainstream press had dried up, his last book had done badly. But he could get attention by towing the line on Fox.

'At times, Dershowitz’s defense of Trump put him in conflict with old comrades. In April, 2018, he accused Mueller, with no apparent evidence, of complicity in one of the worst scandals in F.B.I. history, in which four men in Boston were wrongly imprisoned for murder, in 1968, based on false testimony from a mafioso who was also an informant for the Bureau. In a radio interview, Dershowitz said that Mueller, who had worked in the U.S. Attorney’s Boston office, had “kept four innocent people in prison for many years.” The allegations echoed across the right-wing media, with statements from Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh, and Dershowitz called for an investigation by the Justice Department’s inspector general. As it happened, Nancy Gertner had been the presiding judge in the most expansive lawsuit in the case, in which representatives of the four framed men sued the federal government. On April 18th, she published an Op-Ed in the Times, noting that, in thousands of pages of court records, “there is no evidence that the assertion is true.” Gertner told me that she was dismayed by Dershowitz’s recent appearances: “He has squandered his position as a Harvard law professor and a civil libertarian—for the sole purpose of being on TV.”'

again, no concern for truth if it doesn't suit his narrative...
>
> All the other stuff... yeah. Trump is pretty craptastic.
> But there's so much fake crap being spewed about Trump that
> it causes me to question the reality of the real crap.

So you're eager to look for ways to not pay attention to what Trump's actually done...

On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 11:29:22 -0800 (PST), Quadibloc
<jsavard@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:

>On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 9:36:23?AM UTC-7, Paul S Person wrote:
>
>> I've noted before that these groups have been losing since the 1950s
>> (ignoring their ancestors losses in a little event in 1860-1865 and
>> female suffrage): legal segregation, school prayer, divorce,
>> cohabitation, Roe v Wade, LGBTQIA+ (if that's the correct designator)
>> in general and gay marriage in particular. That's a lot of losing.
>
>Well, there you are. Jimmy Carter failed them, so now they're trying
>something completely different. If only Donald Trump could have
>been a comedian on Monty Python's Flying Circus instead of a
>politician.

So did Ronnie, although he /did/ keep the Feds out of investigating
early abortion clinic bombings by claiming they were merely a local
problem.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Wed, 24 Jan 2024 12:53:38 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 11:36:23?AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Jan 2024 13:52:33 -0800, The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca>
>> wrote:
>> >On Tue, 16 Jan 2024 03:46:01 -0800 (PST), Robert Carnegie
>> ><rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>Vaguely in that area, I'm uncomfortable hearing
>> >>American "evangelical" citizens saying that God has
>> >>sent Donald Trump to them, because presumably
>> >>they're hearing that from their church preachers.
>> >
>> >Which is why I'm so amazed at the way American evangelicals have
>> >embraced Trump - because with his personal life he's not only not one
>> >of them, he's pretty much the antithesis of what they would consider a
>> >Christian is supposed to be.
>> Ironically, Luther would have agreed with their approach: as he said
>> when discussing rulers, "better a Turk who is a good leader than a
>> Christian who is not".
>>
>> But, of course, since Trump wasn't a good leader (or any kind of
>> leader in the sense demanded of Presidents of the United States of
>> America), that would not apply to Trump.
>>
>> Also, some Evangelicals appear to be explicitly rejecting the
>> traditional understanding of how a Christian behaves. As other
>> responses to you post have noted.
>> >I understand there's the anti-woke thing but Trump?
>> Well, you may agree that Trump is not woke in any sense.
>>
>> I've noted before that these groups have been losing since the 1950s
>> (ignoring their ancestors losses in a little event in 1860-1865 and
>> female suffrage): legal segregation, school prayer, divorce,
>> cohabitation, Roe v Wade, LGBTQIA+ (if that's the correct designator)
>> in general and gay marriage in particular. That's a lot of losing.
>
>They got a reversal of Roe vs. Wade. At least one SCOTUS justice is
>talking of reversing on gay marriage and LGBT+ rights.

Yes they did, and the Republican Party is now appalled -- appalled, I
tell you -- to find that the very same white suburban females they
rely on are now "enemies within the gates". Several
Republican-controlled States now have abortion protections in their
State Constitutiions, despite the efforts of the Republicans-in-Charge
to prevent them being voted on and, now that they are passed, are, in
at least two instances, trying desperately to pass laws ignoring them.
And Montana and Florida may be voting on such changes this year,
depending on how firmly the Courts hold the line [1].

And no amount of gerrymandering is going to fix that!

[1] The efforts to prevent them from being voted on included trying to
inflate the "costs" by someone not authorized by law to determine them
and an attempt to use very inflammatory and idiotic language in the
title. It is too early to see what will happen to any laws passed in
defiance of the changes.

>We live in 'interesting times'.

And have been for some time.

Buckle up!
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On 24 Jan 2024 21:28:03 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca> wrote:
>>Which is why I'm so amazed at the way American evangelicals have
>>embraced Trump - because with his personal life he's not only not one
>>of them, he's pretty much the antithesis of what they would consider a
>>Christian is supposed to be.
>>
>>I understand there's the anti-woke thing but Trump?
>
>If you look carefully you will notice that an awful lot of "evangelicals"
>don't seem actually to be very Christian at all even if they use the normal
>signs and symbols of Christianity.

The rot has been going on for a long long time. But it does seem to be
reaching new levels, which in some could be regarded as "apostasy" by
some groups.

>Many who are basically say that because Trump put "conservatives" on
>the Supreme Court to eliminate Roe vs. Wade that they are on his side because
>this is more important to them than anything else in the world. I find this
>very strange, seeing that until fairly recently the anti-abortion movement was
>a Catholic thing and evangelicals specifically avoided the issue in order to
>distinguish themselves from those evil Catholics.
>
>In 1976, the Southern Baptist convention passed a declaration in favor of
>the right to abortion. But then a few years later Pat Robertson discovered
>he could get money by being anti-abortion and Ronald Reagan discovered he
>could get votes by supporting Pat Robertson and then everything changed.

That's a good point.

The event described here <https://www.fwhc.org/rico.htm> may or may
not have been the first, but it is in the right area and early enough.
It was not done by Roman Catholics.

Interestingly, despite their efforts to snuggle up to Rome,
Evangelicals generally are /not/ pro-life, because they support
capital punishment. They are merely anti-abortion. Although, after
years of contamination from Rome, some /do/ oppose effective
contraception as well (except, of course, chastity).

As to Evangelical's obsession with sex -- well, that says something
about them, doesn't it. Fortunately, God is not similarly obsessed.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 7:23:11 PM UTC-5, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
> In article <d735fcb4-1c30-4a6a...@googlegroups.com>,
> pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >[Trump is] also facing multiple indictments
>
> Show me one (1) indictment that passes muster with a well known
> lawyer, proudly liberal (one of the last honest ones), who supported
> Hillary and Biden. Alan Dershowitz. He has excoriated the whole
> "legal" campaign against Trump.

Dershowitz has some pretty out-there opinions, for example proposing
the use of torture for interrogating terrorists.

I think Trump's mishandling of classified documents is a pretty open and
shut case, but unfortunately is currently in the hands of a clearly biased judge.

pt

On Thursday, January 25, 2024 at 11:45:39 AM UTC-5, Paul S Person wrote:
> On 24 Jan 2024 21:28:03 -0000, klu...@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> >The Horny Goat <lcr...@home.ca> wrote:
> >>Which is why I'm so amazed at the way American evangelicals have
> >>embraced Trump - because with his personal life he's not only not one
> >>of them, he's pretty much the antithesis of what they would consider a
> >>Christian is supposed to be.
> >>
> >>I understand there's the anti-woke thing but Trump?
> >
> >If you look carefully you will notice that an awful lot of "evangelicals"
> >don't seem actually to be very Christian at all even if they use the normal
> >signs and symbols of Christianity.
> The rot has been going on for a long long time. But it does seem to be
> reaching new levels, which in some could be regarded as "apostasy" by
> some groups.
> >Many who are basically say that because Trump put "conservatives" on
> >the Supreme Court to eliminate Roe vs. Wade that they are on his side because
> >this is more important to them than anything else in the world. I find this
> >very strange, seeing that until fairly recently the anti-abortion movement was
> >a Catholic thing and evangelicals specifically avoided the issue in order to
> >distinguish themselves from those evil Catholics.
> >
> >In 1976, the Southern Baptist convention passed a declaration in favor of
> >the right to abortion. But then a few years later Pat Robertson discovered
> >he could get money by being anti-abortion and Ronald Reagan discovered he
> >could get votes by supporting Pat Robertson and then everything changed.
> That's a good point.
>
> The event described here <https://www.fwhc.org/rico.htm> may or may
> not have been the first, but it is in the right area and early enough.
> It was not done by Roman Catholics.
>
> Interestingly, despite their efforts to snuggle up to Rome,
> Evangelicals generally are /not/ pro-life, because they support
> capital punishment. They are merely anti-abortion. Although, after
> years of contamination from Rome, some /do/ oppose effective
> contraception as well (except, of course, chastity).
>
> As to Evangelical's obsession with sex -- well, that says something
> about them, doesn't it. Fortunately, God is not similarly obsessed.
> --

Catholics use terms such as "consistent life ethic" and "seamless garment"
to explain being anti-abortion AND anti-death penalty. As an ex-Catholic
Libertarian I agree with the latter position and understand the former. I
similarly pick and choose what I like in Catholic Social Teaching. I'm a
big fan of the principle of subsidiarity, for example....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity_(Catholicism)

....though for philosophical, not religious reasons.

The various debates around the US about what, if any, regulations there
ought to be on abortion actually are in line with subsidiarity and federalism.
US pols tend to support distributed, federal solutions to social issues when
it suits them, and national, one-size-fits-all rules when _that_ suits them..
See the adamant refusal of the Feds, until recently, to change cannabis
from Schedule I to Schedule III while the several states have been legalizing
and/or decriminalizing pot.

--
Kevin R

On Thu, 25 Jan 2024 10:22:59 -0800 (PST), "pete...@gmail.com"
<petertrei@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Wednesday, January 24, 2024 at 7:23:11?PM UTC-5, Mike Van Pelt wrote:
>> In article <d735fcb4-1c30-4a6a...@googlegroups.com>,
>> pete...@gmail.com <pete...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >[Trump is] also facing multiple indictments
>>
>> Show me one (1) indictment that passes muster with a well known
>> lawyer, proudly liberal (one of the last honest ones), who supported
>> Hillary and Biden. Alan Dershowitz. He has excoriated the whole
>> "legal" campaign against Trump.
>
>Dershowitz has some pretty out-there opinions, for example proposing
>the use of torture for interrogating terrorists.
>
>I think Trump's mishandling of classified documents is a pretty open and
>shut case, but unfortunately is currently in the hands of a clearly biased judge.

Or a judge who, having had her *$$ reamed on this topic in the past,
is being very, very careful about crossing all her t's and dotting all
her i's.

Which, in the result, may amount to much the same thing.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

In article <jle2ri5fm6i9i468abtrhr1dvdv718g127@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>I've noted before that these groups have been losing since the 1950s
>(ignoring their ancestors losses in a little event in 1860-1865 and
>female suffrage): legal segregation, school prayer, divorce,
>cohabitation, Roe v Wade, LGBTQIA+ (if that's the correct designator)
>in general and gay marriage in particular. That's a lot of losing.

[Hal Heydt]
Interactial marriage, access to contraceptives, and--while not
generalized having had laws against it--inter-religious marriage.

On 1/26/2024 12:31 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> In article <jle2ri5fm6i9i468abtrhr1dvdv718g127@4ax.com>,
> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>> I've noted before that these groups have been losing since the 1950s
>> (ignoring their ancestors losses in a little event in 1860-1865 and
>> female suffrage): legal segregation, school prayer, divorce,
>> cohabitation, Roe v Wade, LGBTQIA+ (if that's the correct designator)
>> in general and gay marriage in particular. That's a lot of losing.
>
> [Hal Heydt]
> Interactial marriage, access to contraceptives, and--while not
> generalized having had laws against it--inter-religious marriage.

Basically anything "against the word of God" (according to your local
preacher). ;)

--
I've done good in this world. Now I'm tired and just want to be a cranky
dirty old man.

Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
>Catholics use terms such as "consistent life ethic" and "seamless garment"=
>to explain being anti-abortion AND anti-death penalty. As an ex-Catholic=
>Libertarian I agree with the latter position and understand the former. I=
>similarly pick and choose what I like in Catholic Social Teaching. I'm a=20
>big fan of the principle of subsidiarity, for example....=20

It makes a lot of sense. How can someone call themselves "pro-life" and
be in favor of carpet-bombing other countries? That is a pro-death stance,
not pro-life.

I am not pro-life. For one thing, I believe that there is a time and place
for assisted suicide. But I have respect for the few people who really are.

>The various debates around the US about what, if any, regulations there
>ought to be on abortion actually are in line with subsidiarity and federalism.
>US pols tend to support distributed, federal solutions to social issues when
>it suits them, and national, one-size-fits-all rules when _that_ suits them.

My father was of the belief that parents should be able to abort children
until they reached the age of 18.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>On 1/26/2024 12:31 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> In article <jle2ri5fm6i9i468abtrhr1dvdv718g127@4ax.com>,
>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>> I've noted before that these groups have been losing since the 1950s
>>> (ignoring their ancestors losses in a little event in 1860-1865 and
>>> female suffrage): legal segregation, school prayer, divorce,
>>> cohabitation, Roe v Wade, LGBTQIA+ (if that's the correct designator)
>>> in general and gay marriage in particular. That's a lot of losing.
>>
>> [Hal Heydt]
>> Interactial marriage, access to contraceptives, and--while not
>> generalized having had laws against it--inter-religious marriage.
>
>Basically anything "against the word of God" (according to your local
>preacher). ;)

But yet they let the beard-shavers and mixed-fabric-clothing wearers
walk right around in public. Disgusting.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

On 27 Jan 2024 00:50:46 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Dimensional Traveler <dtravel@sonic.net> wrote:
>>On 1/26/2024 12:31 PM, Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>>> In article <jle2ri5fm6i9i468abtrhr1dvdv718g127@4ax.com>,
>>> Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>>>> I've noted before that these groups have been losing since the 1950s
>>>> (ignoring their ancestors losses in a little event in 1860-1865 and
>>>> female suffrage): legal segregation, school prayer, divorce,
>>>> cohabitation, Roe v Wade, LGBTQIA+ (if that's the correct designator)
>>>> in general and gay marriage in particular. That's a lot of losing.
>>>
>>> [Hal Heydt]
>>> Interactial marriage, access to contraceptives, and--while not
>>> generalized having had laws against it--inter-religious marriage.
>>
>>Basically anything "against the word of God" (according to your local
>>preacher). ;)
>
>But yet they let the beard-shavers and mixed-fabric-clothing wearers
>walk right around in public. Disgusting.

That's because the whole "against the word of God" approach is part of
a bigger problem, where only /some/ parts are considered valid, while
others can be freely ignored.

This is a step on the road from "I do what God says" to "God does what
I say".
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

On 27 Jan 2024 00:49:42 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:

>Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
>>Catholics use terms such as "consistent life ethic" and "seamless garment">>to explain being anti-abortion AND anti-death penalty. As an ex-Catholic>>Libertarian I agree with the latter position and understand the former. I>>similarly pick and choose what I like in Catholic Social Teaching. I'm a=20
>>big fan of the principle of subsidiarity, for example....=20
>
>It makes a lot of sense. How can someone call themselves "pro-life" and
>be in favor of carpet-bombing other countries? That is a pro-death stance,
>not pro-life.
>
>I am not pro-life. For one thing, I believe that there is a time and place
>for assisted suicide. But I have respect for the few people who really are.
>
>>The various debates around the US about what, if any, regulations there
>>ought to be on abortion actually are in line with subsidiarity and federalism.
>>US pols tend to support distributed, federal solutions to social issues when
>>it suits them, and national, one-size-fits-all rules when _that_ suits them.
>
>My father was of the belief that parents should be able to abort children
>until they reached the age of 18.

That's actually /very/ traditional. The Romans living in classical
times would have agreed with him.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"

Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:
>That's because the whole "against the word of God" approach is part of
>a bigger problem, where only /some/ parts are considered valid, while
>others can be freely ignored.
>
>This is a step on the road from "I do what God says" to "God does what
>I say".

Many people wish to serve God, but only in an advisory capacity.
--scott

In article <o5barits503f8idq33bei0i5uusq18q0mc@4ax.com>,
Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

> On 27 Jan 2024 00:49:42 -0000, kludge@panix.com (Scott Dorsey) wrote:
>
> >Kevrob <kevrob@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >>Catholics use terms such as "consistent life ethic" and "seamless garment"=
> >>to explain being anti-abortion AND anti-death penalty. As an ex-Catholic=
> >>Libertarian I agree with the latter position and understand the former. I=
> >>similarly pick and choose what I like in Catholic Social Teaching. I'm a=20
> >>big fan of the principle of subsidiarity, for example....=20
> >
> >It makes a lot of sense. How can someone call themselves "pro-life" and
> >be in favor of carpet-bombing other countries? That is a pro-death stance,
> >not pro-life.
> >
> >I am not pro-life. For one thing, I believe that there is a time and place
> >for assisted suicide. But I have respect for the few people who really are.
> >
> >>The various debates around the US about what, if any, regulations there
> >>ought to be on abortion actually are in line with subsidiarity and
> >>federalism.
> >>US pols tend to support distributed, federal solutions to social issues
> >>when
> >>it suits them, and national, one-size-fits-all rules when _that_ suits
> >>them.
> >
> >My father was of the belief that parents should be able to abort children
> >until they reached the age of 18.
>
> That's actually /very/ traditional. The Romans living in classical
> times would have agreed with him.

I am under the impression that 18 wasn't the upper age limit for Roman
fathers.

--
"We have advanced to new and surprising levels of bafflement."
Imperial Auditor Miles Vorkosigan describes progress in _Komarr_.
-------------------------------------------------------
Robert Woodward robertaw@drizzle.com