Dear Republicans, stop it. Please.

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: No, please keep going

Originally posted by qazplm:

So please keep shooting yourselves in the foot with this and immigration issues, and keep two, large future demographics out of the Republican Party.

The LGBT population in the US is estimated at 4%. That's hardly a "large" demographic, especially compared to the Hispanic population, which is nearly three times that, or even the population of US Veterans, which almost doubles it. Even if you go with the anecdotal "one in ten is gay," it's still not an overwhelming demographic category, though I agree that simply ceding 10% (or even 4%) of the vote by being exclusionary is exclusively stupid.

 

[pastorjoeboggs]

Re: No, please keep going

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:

Originally posted by qazplm:

So please keep shooting yourselves in the foot with this and immigration issues, and keep two, large future demographics out of the Republican Party.

The LGBT population in the US is estimated at 4%. That's hardly a "large" demographic, especially compared to the Hispanic population, which is nearly three times that, or even the population of US Veterans, which almost doubles it. Even if you go with the anecdotal "one in ten is gay," it's still not an overwhelming demographic category, though I agree that simply ceding 10% (or even 4%) of the vote by being exclusionary is exclusively stupid.

I think what qaz is getting at is that young people of all orientations tend to be much more laissez faire about the issue - and that even straight young people are going to be turned off by the exclusionary approach.

 

[Purdue85]

Re: Sure.

Originally posted by pastorjoeboggs:
See, you say you're not "insulting and mocking" - but then you say things that are patently intended to be both insulting and dismissive.

Like - "Yes, I think there is a right and a wrong. You don't. I get that."

Or - "I have, however, taken a stand, which causes a problem for you."

And at no point have I suggested that your faith is somehow lacking or that you are inferior to me - spiritually, intellectually or otherwise.

I would love to hear more about what exactly the difference between refusing service to someone for reason of sexual orientation and for reason of religious is. I'm not being dismissive, I genuinely don't see a difference beyond the semantic. If there is a substantive reason, I'd be all ears.

I never suggested that not working at Hobby Lobby would mean someone would go hungry, but here's a plausible scenario. You are an hourly worker at Hobby Lobby - raising your kids as a single parent. Because of your kids, you have to have that income - you can't just quit. Your like or dislike of the insurance policy doesn't come into play because if you quit or take a job for less money at, say, McDonald's, you can't afford basic necessities for your children. In essence, you are "trapped" by economic necessity in your job. Does that mean that your values and right to choose for yourself are no longer relevant? Can you honestly not see that there is a bit of gray area here?

Perhaps the larger issue is that you are speaking in terms of only legal right and wrong - in which case, you are right. The employment laws and all of that support your view. However, I am not as interested in limiting the discussion to legalities. There is a right and wrong that supersedes that of law. Which is where my question (which you seem to keep mistaking for a position or stand of some sort) comes in - the balance between differing moral imperatives. There is the moral imperative that all life matters and there is the moral imperative that people not be subjected to poverty.

You keep clamoring for me to take a stand, so here goes:

The Bible I read tells the story of a God whose primary concern is for the poorest, the weakest, the outcast, the oppressed, the underprivileged. In every single book of the Bible at some point, God's "preferential option for the poor" (to borrow a phrase from Catholic theology) is clearly in evidence. Jesus was born to a no-name unwed teenage mom in a backwater town. Everything about Christianity points to the care of God for the poor and dispossessed.

With that in mind, my stand is that my primary concern is to follow what I read - and not some narrow reading of one or two verses pulled out of context, but a reading that does its best to come to grips with the whole story of Scripture; and a reading that acknowledges that interpreting that story is hard and fraught with difficulties and, even on some occasions, outright contradictions. So, here are a few stands for you:

The poor matter and deserve to be treated with a dignity and respect that is often not given them. Minorities matter - both racial and religious. My "rights" matter less than the needs of others around me.The Bible has really strong words against empires and that my identity as American will always be second to my identity as a Christian.When any corporation chooses profit over care for its employees, it is wrong - indefensibly so.Most days I fail more than I succeed at remembering all of these things.Grace is the most important gift anyone can ever receive.

Welcome to my world. You're whining too much, Joe. My comments don't suggest you're "inferior" at all. Stop complaining. You're allegedly a pastor, fercryinoutloud. Like it or not, your posts will be scrutinized in such a manner. Don't like it? I can't help you. You chose your profession, and you chose to post on this forum. Again, I say, your skin is entirely too thin.

And you're not being truthful. You DID say they would go hungry. It's in your prior post. It's wrong, and it's dishonest.

You (and others on this forum) have a disingenuous way of arguing, then when pressed, say, "well, you're right".

And, yes, we are to care "for the poor and dispossessed". They're also to care for themselves, which leftists conveniently ignore. I've never read a post here where someone has said the poor should NOT be treated with dignity and respect, in spite of the left's claims. Ditto minorities. Yes, they matter. Is that an argument, really, Joe? Really?? And what corporation is choosing "profit over care for its employees"? For abortions, "pastor"? That's what the Hobby Lobby issue was all about, exterminating babies.

I agree... grace is the most important gift. As is honesty. Sadly, (and I mean that), your post comes dangerously close to being dishonest... even if I'm once again in danger of hurting your feelings.

 

[Purdue85]

Re: No, please keep going

Originally posted by pastorjoeboggs:

Originally posted by gr8indoorsman:

Originally posted by qazplm:

So please keep shooting yourselves in the foot with this and immigration issues, and keep two, large future demographics out of the Republican Party.

The LGBT population in the US is estimated at 4%. That's hardly a "large" demographic, especially compared to the Hispanic population, which is nearly three times that, or even the population of US Veterans, which almost doubles it. Even if you go with the anecdotal "one in ten is gay," it's still not an overwhelming demographic category, though I agree that simply ceding 10% (or even 4%) of the vote by being exclusionary is exclusively stupid.

I think what qaz is getting at is that young people of all orientations tend to be much more laissez faire about the issue - and that even straight young people are going to be turned off by the exclusionary approach.

What "exclusionary approach"?

 

[Purdue85]

Re: Sure.

Originally posted by pastorjoeboggs:

Originally posted by ecouch:
I must say, I agree with your detractors. This is apologetic pap. No substance. Extreme liberal theology.

Let me know when you wish to discuss reality. The god you created isn't the god most Christians follow.

Respectfully, I would ask if you have read the Bible in its entirety - and for more than just looking for reasons to hate it. I said nothing in that post that is not accurate. It is not, in fact, extreme liberal theology - I know this because I have friends who are extremely liberal in their theology and we disagree on many, many very important issues. More importantly, if you think that the points I listed represent the entirety of my theological worldview, you are incorrect. There's not enough time to try to capture it all.

Now, if your main point is that many, if not most of us who claim to be Christians do not do a good job consistently living to those teachings, you're absolutely right. That doesn't make what the Bible says any less clear.

You seem to be dead set against any religious.belief of any kind. That's fine, but your closed-mindedness means discussion is not a real possibility. I suspect that, no matter what I had posted, your response would have looked very much the same.

Joe, this is where you lose people, especially as a self-professed "pastor".

You just whined and complained about me being "insulting and mocking" (when I wasn't), yet you dare call another poster closed-minded.

 

[pastorjoeboggs]

Re: Sure.

I did not re-read all of my previous posts prior to posting most recently. I skimmed them, and I missed the comment I made about going hungry. My bad. A person who believes in grace, though, might think "mistake" before "dishonesty." I did say that, and though I stand by it as a potential outcome if individuals are forced to quit over religious issues.

Let me be clear, my feelings are not hurt. You do not know me at all, and I do not know you - your opinion of me, however low, does not bother me either way. My point is that you are wonderfully condescending and, apparently, cannot see it. You talk down to people and make ridiculous leaps of "logic" - such as suggesting that anything I've written in this post intimates that I don't believe in right and wrong. Communicating with respect in the midst of disagreement seems to be beyond you.

Not all of the bullet points I listed were directed exclusively at the current conversation, though I did not make that very clear.

The list of corporations choosing profit over care for its employees is tremendously long - look at any company that does not pay a living wage, for example. Wal-mart comes to mind. So does McDonalds. So does any company that does not provide things like paid maternity leave.

Have you even paid attention to the conversation among many conservatives about the poor? The rhetoric always seems to focus (as yours does) on insinuating that the poor are somehow to blame for their own situations. If you've ever volunteered at a social service organization, you'd also have seen how much of the process of seeking help dehumanizes people. What's funny is that the favorite saying of so many - "God helps those who helps themselves." - is not a Biblical thought at all. In fact, the Biblical view seems to encourage extending help regardless of whether or if people can help themselves.

You have also conveniently disregarded the notion that the respect called for is to be extended to all who are outsiders - which, in our current time would include the LGBTQ community as well as the economically poor. It would also, I believe, include the law enforcement community right now.

I'm not suggesting that you or any posters here have blatantly said that minorities or the poor do not matter - what I am suggesting, or rather coming out and saying directly, is that many of the ideas espoused are functional statements that certain groups are of lesser value.

With that said, I recognize that we are getting nowhere rather quickly in this conversation, and I have better things to do this evening. I pray you have a fantastic New Year. God Bless.

 

[Purdue85]

Re: Sure.

Originally posted by pastorjoeboggs:
I did not re-read all of my previous posts prior to posting most recently. I skimmed them, and I missed the comment I made about going hungry. My bad. A person who believes in grace, though, might think "mistake" before "dishonesty." I did say that, and though I stand by it as a potential outcome if individuals are forced to quit over religious issues.

Let me be clear, my feelings are not hurt. You do not know me at all, and I do not know you - your opinion of me, however low, does not bother me either way. My point is that you are wonderfully condescending and, apparently, cannot see it. You talk down to people and make ridiculous leaps of "logic" - such as suggesting that anything I've written in this post intimates that I don't believe in right and wrong. Communicating with respect in the midst of disagreement seems to be beyond you.

Not all of the bullet points I listed were directed exclusively at the current conversation, though I did not make that very clear.

The list of corporations choosing profit over care for its employees is tremendously long - look at any company that does not pay a living wage, for example. Wal-mart comes to mind. So does McDonalds. So does any company that does not provide things like paid maternity leave.

Have you even paid attention to the conversation among many conservatives about the poor? The rhetoric always seems to focus (as yours does) on insinuating that the poor are somehow to blame for their own situations. If you've ever volunteered at a social service organization, you'd also have seen how much of the process of seeking help dehumanizes people. What's funny is that the favorite saying of so many - "God helps those who helps themselves." - is not a Biblical thought at all. In fact, the Biblical view seems to encourage extending help regardless of whether or if people can help themselves.

You have also conveniently disregarded the notion that the respect called for is to be extended to all who are outsiders - which, in our current time would include the LGBTQ community as well as the economically poor. It would also, I believe, include the law enforcement community right now.

I'm not suggesting that you or any posters here have blatantly said that minorities or the poor do not matter - what I am suggesting, or rather coming out and saying directly, is that many of the ideas espoused are functional statements that certain groups are of lesser value.

With that said, I recognize that we are getting nowhere rather quickly in this conversation, and I have better things to do this evening. I pray you have a fantastic New Year. God Bless.

I do not have a "low opinion" of you. For the life of me, I cannot imagine why you insist on doing that. It isn't becoming of you.

You choose to stereotype conservatives. That's incredibly bad for, but okay, that's you. Newsflash: we ALL care about people. You and your fellow leftists don't have a corner the market when it comes to compassion. What's more, compassion isn't defined by how much you can confiscate from the productive members of society and re-distribute to the "needy", it's measured by how many of those in need can be made productive. That isn't' accomplished by handouts.

Nobody is excluding the "LGBTQ community", in spite of how much you seem to want to try to make it so.

You seem to be unable to comprehend that, while conservatives feel compassion and many give tremendous help to the needy, they also recognize that people cannot continue to be given handouts and magically be made to be productive.

I truly want to believe your heart is in the right place, but your head just isn't there yet (grin!). I,too, pray that you will have a great New Year. God Bless you ... and your family, as well.

 

[qazplm]

not the demo I was talking about

I was talking about the fact that the youth and young adults of today overwhelmingly are pro gay rights. Even those who self-identify as Republican.

Their kids are also likely to be pro gay rights.

 

[gr8indoorsman]

Re: not the demo I was talking about

Got it, and I agree. Even though I am not "pro gay rights", I am largely indifferent. It is one of those groups I don't think should have special rights identified, nor should they have special rights denied. I guess by default that actually makes me pro gay rights by thinking everyone should have equal rights based on sexuality, which shouldn't be a factor at all. Like race, it has been, and that is unfortunate.