Before we got to the links, I wanted to make a quick note on a few of the political happenings this week.
It was tremendously nostalgic to watch this administrations last state of the union address. It seems so long ago that I was in high school, filling out my ballot one afternoon, proud to vote for such a great conservative like George W. Bush. Even after 9/11, I was with this president - I drove to the local anti-war protest and heckled the protesters. I was assured of this man’s conservatism in every single state of the union, where he praised free markets, individual rights, small government and life.
In time, Bush’s words have grown quite sour. Preaching the doctrine of Reagan, and performing that of FDR and LBJ has led this country’s conservative movement to a level of hypocrisy unprecedented. I could not help be reminded of this during the most recent state of the union, before announcing massive spending increases, continuation of a Wilsonian foreign policy, increased welfare programs, increasing the federal government’s role in education, he said this:
In the work ahead, we must be guided by the philosophy that made our nation great. As Americans, we believe in the power of individuals to determine their destiny and shape the course of history. We believe that the most reliable guide for our country is the collective wisdom of ordinary citizens. And so in all we do, we must trust in the ability of free peoples to make wise decisions, and empower them to improve their lives for their futures. To build a prosperous future, we must trust people with their own money and empower them to grow our economy.
What is also tremendously sad, is that many people have been led to believe that the inherently left-wing philosophy of this administration and many of the candidates is even moderately conservative. Aside from the lip service, it is not. The fact that, for example, Mitt Romney can claim with a straight face that his government mandated healthcare plan is “free-market” is the kind of double-speak that made Orwell famous.
Ron Paul Likely Done
This leads into a sad reality for the Republican party. While Ron Paul is obviously more libertarian than republican (in this new modern way of the party), his presence has been pulling the major candidates to the right, back towards their party’s former values. I believe that Paul saw his last debate this week. Though he will likely stay in the race for some time after super-Tuesday, McCain will wrap up the nomination by then, and continued debate will be unimportant to the people.
Churchy-smurchy
From WashingtonTimes.com: “Malaysian authorities confiscated Christian children’s books, claiming the illustrations of prophets such as Moses and Abraham violate Islamic Shariah law.
Packer Interview On the State of Anglicism
Poly-ticks
Unintended Consequences: Why the A.D.A. has often hurt people with disabilities and other examples.
Try getting your facts straight, even if McCain or Romney win every state on Tuesday they won’t have enough for the nomination. Besides there’s a likely chance that Paul wins Louisiana. Don’t count him out yet, people at the debate were heard commenting on his mistreatment and there was a mention of this sentiment in the LA Times follow up article. Also he made McCain and Romney look like bickering children, and was interrupted by massive applause on at least 3 occasions. He said as long as he has money he will continue on, look at his site today.
I’m not convinced McCain is a shoo-in for the nomination. If he wins big on Super Tuesday, he may emerge the winner even though technically he won’t have a majority of delegates yet. But polls in primary season are notoriously unreliable. Romney still has a real chance. I’m not sure who I’m rooting for. I have major problems with both of them. For example, neither of them are conservatives, and neither of them represent traditional Republican values. I’m a libertarian-minded guy but I’d vote for a good conservative if there was one in the race.
Ron Paul will stay in until the bitter end, I’m sure. I intend to give him my vote. But he’s clearly out of the running for the nomination.
“Ron Paul will stay in until the bitter end, I’m sure. I intend to give him my vote. But he’s clearly out of the running for the nomination.”
I agree. I still think there is a remote chance he will go third party, which could potentially shake things up no matter who gets the Republican nomination. However, I believe the impact of such a move would be weakened if Obama gets the Democratic nomination. But if it’s McCain (not likely in my estimation) or Romney, Clinton, and Paul his chances would look remarkably well. Honestly though, I think the GOP would have a better shot at winning the presidency if they nominate Huckabee. Most of the Paul people I know are Democrats who will vote for Obama if he gets the nomination and Paul does not, baring of course the possibility that Paul runs on a third party ticket.
I’m pulling for Romney… I think, as one non-partisan pundit remarked this week, that he has painted himself into too much of a corner to not stick with the conservative ideals that he’s been promoting the last few years (his still-liberal policies notwithstanding). McCain is just wrong and can’t beat Hillary or Obama. He’s the establishment if anyone ever was, and his continual comprimising on issues is really disturbing (anyone else not like seeing his name next to Feingold or Kennedy on bills?). Plus, he has no self-control, known to cuss people out in the Senate all the time. Romney has shown an amazing amount of self-control, considering all the lies and ad hominems he’s run into.
Matt, try reading the article. I never said Paul would drop out, in fact I said the opposite.
Chris, I think your analysis is spot on. Ron Paul would do well if Clinton is the democratic nominee. I think he would do best against a Clinton/Romney fight - as libertarians, conservatives and anti-war people have nowhere to go in that race.
“McCain is just wrong and can’t beat Hillary or Obama. He’s the establishment if anyone ever was, and his continual comprimising on issues is really disturbing…”
You aren’t just saying that because Ann Coulter threatened to campaign for Hillary if McCain gets nominated, are you? Just kidding.
Actually, aside from RP, I think McCain is a gillion times better than Romney or Huckabee.
Did she? That’s funny, I can’t blame her, McCain scares me.
and oops, it’s compromising, not comprimising.
I am conservative Republican, and want the most conservative president possible. On Super Tuesday I will be voting for Ron Paul.
If it comes down to a brokered convention I sincerely hope Huckabee or Paul win because I cannot stand Romney or McCain.
I will not vote for Romney because of his fee-taxes and mandating of socialist Universal Healthcare garbage in MA. Universal Healthcare is NOT a Republican platform — its a Democratic platform. Altruism
has no place in government.
McCain is a liberal Democrat masquerading as a Republican, as well as a horrible flip-flopper. If it comes down to him vs. Hillary, I will vote for her holding my nose, because she is a better Democrat than McCain, and she is the most conservative candidate viable.
Here’s my personal ranking of the candidates still in the race.
1. Ron Paul
2. Barack Obama (because of his opposition to torture and the war)
3. John McCain (because of his opposition to torture)
4. Mitt Romney
5. Mike Huckabee
6. Hillary Clinton
7. Mike Gravel
Actually, I just discovered that Mike Gravel has also spoken openly against torture, against Guantanamo Bay, and against the war in Iraq. So that boosts him to the #4 spot.
It’s a moot point though. Every candidate except Ron Paul is unacceptable to me.
Jew, here is a great column regarding torture (specifically waterboarding) and how overblown the whole subject is. Any candidate who rules out “soft torture” or military force is incompetent for the job.
http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzU3OWUxOTM5NGZhZmYzODM2ZTI4ODhiYzU1NjdkNzE=
Here’s my ranking:
1. Ron Paul
2. Mike Gravel
3. Barack Obama
I’m not voting for anyone else. If Ron Paul doesn’t go third party and Obama doesn’t get the nomination, I will have to write in Ron Paul.
I take that back. I might vote for Huckabee, but only if he gets the GOP nomination opposite Hillary.
>>McCain is just wrong and can’t beat Hillary or Obama
Polls are fluid, but that’s not true right now.
“McCain now leads Clinton 48% to 40%. He leads Barack Obama 47% to 41%.”
“Hillary Clinton leads Romney 47% to 42%. Barack Obama leads Romney 47% to 38%”
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/john_mccain_match_ups/election_2008_mccain_vs_clinton_and_obama
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_20082/2008_presidential_election/mitt_romney_match_ups/election_2008_romney_vs_clinton_and_obama
Thanks Darius. I’m not worried specifically about waterboarding. I’m looking for two things from a candidate: 1) unequivocal opposition to any form of torture, and 2) a commitment to give Geneva Convention POW rights to detainees. How America treats those in custody is a moral question and reflects upon the character of the nation.
“I take that back. I might vote for Huckabee.” Hahahaha, you’d vote for the most liberal candidate of the Repubs??? Now that’s funny.
Coward, it’s easy for McCain to lead the polls when everything is going his way while the Dems beat each other up. He doesn’t have a prayer once all eyes are turned on him and people really see his dismal record for what it is. In a general election, the Dems will vote for Hillary, while they’ve been voting for McCain in the primaries to push him over Romney. Anyone wonder why liberals love McCain but hate Romney???? Think about it for a second…
“Hahahaha, you’d vote for the most liberal candidate of the Repubs??? Now that’s funny.”
He would be a last resort. Honestly, I just think he’s a likable guy. But I’d bet you would vote for him too if he got the nomination. But I’m gonna pull a flip flop on this one. I couldn’t vote for Huck; I would just write in Ron Paul instead.
You may be right, or you may be wrong. Depending on how you look at it, I can make a hand-waving case either way - and it will be convincing.
It’s not about feelings, but hard data. The only hard data I’ve seen has McCain beating both Democrats, and Romney losing to both.
Polls are fluid, but Rasmussen is beginning their match-up polls soon, and we’ll begin to see trends.
Chris, I would vote for Huck in a general election. But I assumed that for a libertarian like yourself, you would rather die before voting for a liberal like Huck.
Jew, the Geneva Convention DOES NOT apply to terrorists. At least, not the Geneva Convention that I’ve read.
Darius, I don’t care. Either they get rights in the criminal justice system or they get POW rights, but we can’t have a nebulous zone in which they have no rights at all. That’s immoral.
So you’re saying the Geneva Convention is immoral?
Furthermore, you can’t remove this debate to merely theory. In practice, terrorists have plenty of rights. They get housed, fed better than convicts in our penal system, and generally treated quite well, according to all or almost all non-partisan reports on Guantanamo.
Jew, you called specifically for “a commitment to give Geneva Convention POW rights to detainees.” This shows you don’t have an accurate understanding of the GC. Terrorists get well-treated, but they don’t get GC rights.
My personal ranking is:
1. Ron Paul
—–
2. Barack Obama (opposition to war, protections of civil rights, proponent of trade, less overbearing “universal” healthcare)
3. Mike Gravel
4. John McCain
—–
5. Mitt Romney
6. Hillary Clinton
7. Mike Huckabee
No, I’ve read the Geneva Convention and I am quite aware of the various interpretations. I’m aware of the differences between uniformed and un-uniformed combatants, and so forth. I’m informed about this, I really am. I’ve come to the conclusion that we should extend Geneva Convention rights anyway, even though it might not be required under the current administration’s interpretation of the treaty.
“interpretation of the treaty”???? It clearly doesn’t include terrorists, and is obviously written to exclude them. Has nothing to do with one’s interpretation, but what was originally intended.
You’re getting too hung up on the Geneva Convention not applying to terrorists. That’s not the point. I want to extend those rights anyway. What we’re doing now is immoral.
Plus, I’d like America to stop pretending that the President can decide with the stroke of a pen who is and who isn’t a terrorist. Have we completely abandoned our principles? Are we really prepared to throw out the concept of “innocent until proven guilty?” This isn’t an issue of how to protect America. We’re talking about people already in custody. The only question is whether to treat them as POWs or not. Treating them as POWs (at least until we prove in court that they’re unlawful combatants) won’t make America less safe.
Anyway, it’s all a moot point. It influences the way I rank the candidates, but none of the major candidates are acceptable to me. In November I’ll probably have to vote third party again.
I have acknowledged that I will likely have to vote 3rd party in November as well. Actually, it feels good. Unlike the first four years, I didn’t feel the need to justify any of Bush’s actions the last four years. I don’t think there will be any national tv in it for me this time, though.
My personal ranking is:
oh wait, i’m canadian.
That’s OK gurr8, you can vote anyway. Just take a vacation to a state that doesn’t require a picture ID to vote.
I may have sold Ron Paul a smidgen to short. Reports out of Maine suggest he is going to win.
Nope.
I agree there are no conservatives in the race (though Romney is TALKING conservative despite never having been one previously). While I like Ron Paul’s domestic plan, his military and diplomatic ideals are untenable. Since the biggest area a president can do damage is in foreign relations, I’d rather have Hillary in office than Ron Paul. I’m pretty sure that I prefer either Romney or McCain to either of the Democratic candidates, but I’d be tempted to not vote for them just to express my dissent to the Republican party.
I’d suggest working on your reading comprehension. Jew fully agrees that torture of “unlawful combatants” is not covered by the Geneva convention. What he is saying is that we ought to unilaterally commit to treating all prisoners under the conduct rules of the convention. Ideally, these prisoners would be returned to their home nations for imprisonment under local laws, considering that they are not legal combatants of their home nations. The home nations could then be held diplomatically responsible for their handling of “unlawful combatants” from their countries. For us to capture foreign nationals and imprison them without openly specified charges makes us look badly to the world, regardless of our legal or moral rights to do so, or how well we are treating the prisoners.
I agree there are no conservatives in the race (though Romney is TALKING conservative despite never having been one previously).
Well, Christians like Rick Santorum and Dr. Dobson believe Romney is more than talking. And I do believe that Romney has painted himself into too much of a political corner to abandon those conservative values that he’s espoused so much on the campaign trail. Yes, he still has weaknesses regarding some issues where he still talks a little too much like a liberal. However, McCain doesn’t have a conservative bone in his body. He’s informed COMPLETELY by his emotions, and whatever feels good is how he votes (thus his co-authorship of bills with Feingold and Kennedy, two of the skunkiest liberals alive).
I’d suggest working on your reading comprehension. Jew fully agrees that torture of “unlawful combatants” is not covered by the Geneva convention. What he is saying is that we ought to unilaterally commit to treating all prisoners under the conduct rules of the convention. Ideally, these prisoners would be returned to their home nations for imprisonment under local laws, considering that they are not legal combatants of their home nations. The home nations could then be held diplomatically responsible for their handling of “unlawful combatants” from their countries. For us to capture foreign nationals and imprison them without openly specified charges makes us look badly to the world, regardless of our legal or moral rights to do so, or how well we are treating the prisoners.
Atanamis, I was referring to Jew implying that it was merely the current administration that interprets the GC as not applying to terrorists. But that’s beside the point, because any honest person who has the reading skills of a 5th grader cannot deny that the GC does NOT apply to foreign terrorists who don’t fight under a flag. I realize that Jew thinks the GC is wrong. That’s fine. But he didn’t start there (at least he didn’t make clear that he understood that the GC purposely didn’t apply itself to enemy combantants who don’t fight for any particular government or country). As for returning terrorists to their home nations and holding those nations “diplomatically responsible”… how does one do that with a country like Iran or Syria, who won’t listen to “world opinion?” Bomb them?
You say above that you can’t stand Ron Paul’s untenable “military and diplomatic ideals,” yet you yourself are now pushing us to do the same by returning terrorists to their home countries to get released. For more on the ultimate foolishness of this idea, read up on what happened to the Bali terrorist, Abu Bakar Bashir.
“Well, Christians like Rick Santorum and Dr. Dobson believe Romney is more than talking.”
1.James Dobson dedicated an entire program to endorsing Bush’s “case” for war.
2. His co-host embarrassed him and the entire FOTF cult by having a public affair.
Apparently Dobson has an ability to judge a man’s character that we can all trust!
We should expect as much from a man with no character.
I haven’t paid much attention recently, but I’ve been impressed with Dobson’s character in the past.
Shut the hell up, gurr8. You have no clue what you are talking about. Dobson has character you will never have, obviously. Dobson has the most character of any Christian leader I’ve seen, right up there with Billy Graham.
Same with Santorum, he’s a straight shooter.
Pathetic when you speak of someone you obviously have no clue about.
“His co-host embarrassed him and the entire FOTF cult by having a public affair.
Apparently Dobson has an ability to judge a man’s character that we can all trust!”
So you expect his co-hosts to be sinless? FOTF cult huh? You do realize with your little brain that Focus on the Family serves millions of people worldwide? You just proved yourself an idiot with that comment. I just that you didn’t like adding useful things to the conversation, now I know you’re an imbecile to boot.
*that* should be thought.
Now GoogleBot, that was uncalled for… oh wait, yes it was. Impugning the character of a godly man who has spent his life serving others makes my blood boil too.
On a lighter note…Super Tuesday is over. Things aren’t looking so good for Mr. Romney, but he’s still got cash on hand. Whatever that means. There was some interesting talk last night about the possibility of a McCain/Huckabee ticket. Huckabee did win his fair share of delegates as to gain the respect of the pundits, and he and McCain have been quite cordial.
Clinton won the big states and more delegates, but Obama won more states. In the state where I reside, Kansas, Obama beat Clinton quite soundly. Clinton won the big states, however. According to NPR about half of the California votes were absentees, and were cast shortly after the New Hampshire results were made available.
I’m awaiting how the Paul campaign is going to respond to the results. Paul did get some delegates. I’m not sure how many, but he got a second place showing in Alaska. In my opinion he should go third party ASAP. We’ll see what happens.
Huckabee doesn’t have a chance of being McCain’s VP… Governor Pawlenty from Minnesota has that wrapped up, he’s been campaigning for McCain for the last year.
Ever since Pawlenty won in 2006 when every other Republican was losing, he’s been on the very short list of VP candidates.
“Huckabee doesn’t have a chance of being McCain’s VP… Governor Pawlenty from Minnesota has that wrapped up, he’s been campaigning for McCain for the last year.”
I wouldn’t say he doesn’t have a chance. With the delegates he has gotten he has proven himself to be a force to be reckoned with. If they join forces, the Republicans might actually have a chance of winning the election. If Obama gets the nomination, they can kiss it goodbye either way.
Regarding Dobson: just because Focus on the Family serves a lot of people doesn’t make Dobson should be respected or that his character is beyond reproach. I do happen to think highly of Dobson, but the size or influence of his ministry isn’t evidence of his godliness. For example, Pat Robertson’s ministry serves a lot of people and he still makes false prophetic statements year after year.
Regarding Huckabee: he appeals to some conservative voters. I’m not quite sure why. Maybe it’s because he’s a pastor and he’s seen as a solid supporter of conservative Christian values–unlike McCain. But Huckabee has too many potential downsides and not enough positives. We can talk about balancing the ticket, so that Huckabee’s conservative appeal balances out McCain’s liberal image, but the reality is that citizens vote for the President and largely ignore the VP candidate. The downside is that Huckabee is pretty unappealing to the moderate and liberal demographics that support McCain. Plus, Huckabee has said (and still says) a lot of really dumb things.
On the other hand, McCain heaped praise on Huckabee after the Super Tuesday results came in, so that could indicate that he’s considering Huckabee as a running mate. I don’t find it very likely, but McCain is probably just keeping his options open.
Pawlenty is a really likable Christian who can bring in the evangelical vote while not pushing away the moderate vote. McCain would be nuts to pick Huck over Pawlenty. Huck gives McCain the Southern vote, but that’s something McCain already has over Clinton and Obama. What he needs is the Northern vote, which Pawlenty will help bring.
Jew, Dr. Dobson has never once done something that I strongly disagreed with, and he has kept himself above reproach his whole time at Focus on the Family. Yes, he had two co-hosts of his radio show have affairs, but that just proves that Christians can sin, nothing else. But for the grace of God, there go we all.
gurr8 is obviously ignorant regarding FotF. Calling that wonderful group a “cult” is one of the most low and Satanic things I’ve ever heard. They train our youth to be good Christians, they train parents to be godly fathers and mothers, and they provide many services to the downtrodden in our society. Gurr8 knows not of what he judges so harshly.
This made me lol
I wondered when someone would catch that.
So, at last night’s Minnesota caucus, Ron Paul won my precinct “room.”
Paul - 13 votes
Romney - 12
Huck - 10
McCain - 5
And what surprised me the most was almost all of the Paul voters were elderly folks. There was like two young guys and all of these old people with Paul stickers. Interesting contrast. However, when it came to electing delegates, the Paul people didn’t get voted in. This was primarily because most of the elderly left after the straw vote.
The turnout for Republican caucuses in Minnesota was record-breaking, the organizers had never seen so many people. So that was encouraging, especially when the media claims that Repubs are disinterested and disheartened.
Arg! Curse those old people and their early bedtimes!
Fortunately the opposite happened most other places - Ron Paul got a lot more delegates than his vote totals.
Also Darius, you should not be surprised. Many in my Ron Paul meetup group are older as well. This is because these people remember what conservative used to be before the left-wing invaded the GOP and created the neo-conservative movement.
Calling that wonderful group a “cult” is one of the most low and Satanic things I’ve ever heard.
Now you may have a point with the “low” comment (considering your obvious respect for the group)…but Satanic? C’mon, Darius. Unless you were practicing the extremes of hyperbole, that’s a pretty ignorant comment. Disagreeing with a popular Christian group does not equal “Satanic”.
Personally, FOTF drives me bonkers. Once Dobson started getting political and acting more like a Rush Limbaugh than the original intention of the group, I stopped listening and caring. Besides, I’m pretty sure the “cult” comment by gurr8 was meant as a derogatory statement regarding their size and status, and not “literally” calling them a cult.
I knew I should clarify what I meant by “Satanic.” What I meant was that it is of the devil to attribute non-Christian behavior to a very godly man and organization. Scripture clearly spells this out. Calling Dobson’s character into question is the lowest of low, and typical of gurr8’s general ignorance of most things south of Canada. The man has done nothing but served mankind and via his witness and work, brought millions to Christ or at least closer to Christ. I definitely respect Dobson and FOTF about as much as I respect any man under the sun. Politically-speaking, yeah, at times it would be nice if Dobson refrained from as much political involvement. At the same time, why can’t he help inform Christians on moral issues such as politics?
1.James Dobson dedicated an entire program to endorsing Bush’s “case” for war.
2. His co-host embarrassed him and the entire FOTF cult by having a public affair.
Apparently Dobson has an ability to judge a man’s character that we can all trust!
We should expect as much from a man with no character.
Does even one word of that judgmental drivel of a comment sound like something a Christian (perhaps I’m assuming too much) should say about another GODLY Christian??????
“Does even one word of that judgmental drivel of a comment sound like something a Christian (perhaps I’m assuming too much) should say about another GODLY Christian??????”
Maybe not. But wherein thou judgest another thou condemnest thyself. You’ve written similar things about Christians. Pat Robertson comes to mind.
Pat Robertson is someone who has repeatedly said and done un-Christian things. Are we not allowed to differentiate now?
“Are you not to judge those inside [the church]?”
Or are you saying that all Christians are equal and either should not be judged at all or all should be judged?
We are called to judge behavior and words, not salvation. So I don’t know if Pat Robertson will be in heaven… I would guess that he will be. But I do know that for all the good he does, he has also brought shame on the Church as well.
I can’t say the same thing about Dobson; I’ve never seen him do anything to bring the Church into disrepute (beyond defending the gospel of Christ, that is). And I am certain from gurr8’s ignorant statement that he hasn’t either.
Only Satan dwells in statements like gurr8’s above, which condemned a man with no evidence and no proof, yet judged him anyway. God is not honored by gossip and slander.
“Or are you saying that all Christians are equal and either should not be judged at all or all should be judged?”
No. I’m saying that it is no more your place to judge Robertson than it is for gurr8 to criticize Dobson. And all the scripture and reasoning you use to justify your criticism of him is meaningless, because it is being used to back up your personal opinion. Plus, you take that verse about judgment within the church completely out of context.
Darius, the passage you cites is declaring that it is our job to judge those within the church and God’s job for those outside. This conforms to many new testament passages about testing teachers and being weary of false teachers.
Colin, that is what I said.
Chris, pray tell how I take it out of context. Dobson=within the Church. Robertson=within the Church.
Sorry Darius, I missed that.
Gotcha Colin.
What I’m saying is that we SHOULD judge Dobson, Robertson, Graham, etc. ON THEIR FRUIT. But what gurr8 did was judge Dobson on someone else’s fruit or even perhaps a (slight) misstep in judgment. Judged on his own fruit ONLY, Dobson is clean and, assuming something isn’t hidden from us, will hear “Well done, good and faithful servant” when he leaves this earth.
Now, contrast that to Robertson or Hinn or Jesse Jackson (wide spectrum, I know)… Robertson has done a lot of good, but he has also brought some levels of disrepute to the Church. Hinn and Jackson… well, their travails are myriad and obvious. We have to hold them account to their failings (though Jackson and Hinn are so far outside of the Church as to make that difficult). If Dobson were to screw up, then he should be held accountable.
“Darius, the passage you cites is declaring that it is our job to judge those within the church and God’s job for those outside. This conforms to many new testament passages about testing teachers and being weary of false teachers.”
The scripture Darius quoted is 1 Corinthians 5:12.
12For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
Paul’s question suggests that he was addressing the church’s question about how they should deal with a particular situation within the church, namely some perverted guy who was involved in unholy relations with his father’s wife. But here is the verse in it’s central context.
11But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolator, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat.
12For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within?
13But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
The type of judgment mentioned here is excommunication, and it is used in reference to those who are unapologetically involved in gross moral failure. To apply this verse to Pat Robertson or Mr. Dobson, for that matter, would be quite a stretch. Judging those within does not involve personal criticism on the internet.
There is a principle here that we can apply in other situations, but we have to be careful how they are applied. Keep in mind that Paul was writing to one church, and he was reluctantly addressing the affairs within that local body. I say reluctantly because of the first question he poses in verse 12.
If we are always pointing the finger at this one or that, we are heaping judgment upon ourselves. I know because I have been there. I have done it. I know that its not my place to judge everyone - only those “within” my sphere of influence with whom I have a personal relationship. In these cases we should be in a position such that we would be able to restore the individual in due time, under the circumstances.
If we are talking false teachers and false prophets, that is quite another matter and is dealt with differently.
Benny Hinn=false teacher
Darius, I tend to agree with you about Dobson. I have great respect for him. I’m a little uncomfortable with some of the language you use to defend him, though. He’s not the second coming of Jesus. He’s just a man. It isn’t a sin to have strong disagreements with Dobson.
I believe gurr8 made a legitimate point when he called into question Dobson’s judge of character. If Dobson has exhibited a pattern of misjudging people (and I’m not claiming he has) then we should be wary of any further endorsements he makes. The two examples gurr8 brought up should be examined to see if Dobson really did misjudge their character. That’s a legitimate point to make, and we should grant that to gurr8, even though we disagree with his meanspirited jab at Dobson’s character.
I don’t mind saying he perhaps made a misjudgment in character. Who hasn’t misjudged someone’s character? People are fallen, they mess up, and we can’t always foresee that (though I’m not sure how the radio program about the Iraq war fits into this). Gurr8 went beyond this by saying that Dobson had no character. That was disgusting and what I take issue with primarily. I don’t think Dobson is Jesus or even Paul. But in today’s world, I will honor the men who actually honor God. And Dobson is one of those. When we have a world rife with Swaggarts, Robertsons, Hinns, Osteens, and many more, the few who actually lead a godly public life are rare and should be praised as examples by which we should live.
Wow, here is Romney’s CPAC speech… very solid. So sad to see him go and McCain to win. McCain doesn’t have half the principles of Romney.
http://www.sltrib.com/ci_8196972?source=rss