Thursday, September 02, 2004
Well since we are on the topic of politics...
...offered by JamesoftheNorthwest, a sinner and extremist from Dar Al-Harb at 1:28 PM [+]
Much thinking going on in my head. I am at the point now where I cannot in good conscience vote for Bush or Kerry. Reading the following has been a breathe of fresh air:
Re:
The Federal Marriage Ammendment
the Federal Marriage Amendment is wholly unnecessary, dangerous and inappropriate...it puts the basic Godly institution of marriage under the authority, and therefore the governance, of the Federal Government to define, refine, direct and wholly pervert...ask yourself, who is the definer of marriage? Certainly it is not the United States government, nor even the State government. The author and perfector of Marriage is none other than the LORD Almighty.
Iraq and the war on terror
In 1821, John Quincy Adams said, of America:
"She goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own."
But, ignoring Adams' wise advice, President Bush, using our military, has gone abroad and destroyed the monster Saddam Hussein who posed no threat to the vital national security interests of our country. The result: We are bogged down in a bloody and expensive mess with no end in sight...Terror is not an enemy. Terror is the tactic of an enemy. A war on a tactic will, in all likelihood, never end because the object of the war, the tactic, can never be eradicated. This type of war will always be an endless, confusing tragedy.
Abortion
As President, I would advocate a total ban on all abortions and a total ban on any federal funding of abortions, here or abroad.
Okay...reading his take on the issues that weigh most heavily on my heart at the moment makes me have Deja-Vu with much of what I myself have written here and elsewhere. Anyone wanna take a stab at convincing me NOT to vote for:
Please don't tell me I am throwing my vote away...I am more concerned about walking away from the voting booth feeling good about my decision. And while I do not think I agree with everything Peroutka says...he's got my most troublesome bases covered and I am willing to suffer the others.
+++
22 comments
22 Comments:
um... The Constitution Party is not very far or very different from the Montana Freemen. Among their beliefs are
- only gold and silver money can be coined and used as monies in america
- the 16th Amendment (income tax) was never properly ratified
- there are no "US Citizens" but only "sovereign citizens,"
- only the states can enforce laws--Congress can pass laws, but the federal government can never actually enforce them
with their advocacy for a theocratic gov't under biblical law, they'd probably make praying to the Theotokos, venerating icons, etc... illegal. In their 'biblical' theocracy, they'd certainly have little tolerance for an Orthodox reliance on Holy Tradition as a means of understanding and interpreting Scripture. if you think TBN is right wing protestant...
more:
the Ohio vice-chair of the CP has said that the murder of abortion providers is "justifiable homicide."
"Larry S. Kilgore of the Constitution Party of Texas said, “Well, we know punishing homosexuals by death would be extremely hard in today’s society,” adding, “But we hope that we can help to drive it underground so in about twenty or thirty years, the punishment (death penalty) can fit the crime.”
at any rate, from a CP supporters website... you better make the switch, otherwise you're in danger of judgement by God Himself: "Anyone with a shred of morality will leave anti-Judeo-Christian political parties and join the Constitution Party immediately, for, regardless of our beliefs, we shall all be judged by God Himself."
By 
, at
2:40 PM
________________________________________________________________
"the monster Saddam Hussein who posed no threat to the vital national security interests of our country"Errr... except funding the training of terrorists, you mean?
By , at
2:50 PM
________________________________________________________________
regardless of how we may wish to avoid the issue - marriage has always been under the authority of civil powers. The Church in my understanding has added grace and trancendence to what was (and to some extent still is) a businss deal
sfallin
By , at
3:24 PM
________________________________________________________________
Two anonymous posters: who are you please?
As I understand Peroutka does not in any way advocate a theocratic government (a word which needs defining please). He is also a former Roman Catholic who in a note online asks for prayers for his departed brother...so if what you say is true about the possible persecution of the Orthodox, he himself might be in trouble. Praying for the departed is a most unevangelical-fundamentalist-praying to Mary is evil sort of thing to do.
I cannot speak to what individual members of this party say. I know plenty of wacked republicans and democrats.
Anonymous 1, You mention 4 issues that I really have little opinion about, so what can I say? Outside of the abolishing of the IRS and Income Tax I have not heard Peroutka address these.
Now, anonymous 2, is Saddam funding terrorists? You don't know that any better than I do. Fact is, I agree with Peroutka that a "war on terrorism" is illfounded and doomed to fail.
To both anonymous posters: options please? I have 60 days to decide. I do not think I can vote for Bush because I think his foreign policy is dangerous and I do not think I can vote for Kerry because I think his liberal domestic policies (on a number of fronts) will make for a pretty crappy place to try and raise my kids the way I chose to.
So believe me when I say that I am not SOLD on the "Constitution Party". But...in the words of Dr. Evil: "Give me a fricken bone here people!"
Steve, Marriage is a business deal? I disagree...civil unions are a business deal. Marriage is a sacrament of the Church, and whether the state recognizes it or not is irrelevant to me - especially if there are no income taxes (wink wink).
Looking for the bone people...otherwise I'm staying home with HR on election day. I'll pray instead. Or at least play computer games.
By 
JamesoftheNorthwest, at
5:02 PM
________________________________________________________________
ALSO....Peroutka makes it very clear that he will keep the government OUT of religion and the free execution thereof.
By JamesoftheNorthwest, at
5:08 PM
________________________________________________________________
I'm with you, James. Heck, after a day of thinking about this, I want pins that say "God, Family, Republic".
Regarding the scare tactics... Petroutka is a Roman Catholic - or at least from an RC family. If you read his blog regarding the recent repose of his brother, Michael actually asks us to pray for his departed brother. I doubt those of us who venerate the Theotokos in an Orthodox Manner have anything to worry about.
By Huw Raphael, at
6:23 PM
________________________________________________________________
Contrary to what anonymous/sfallin (hey, bro!) posted, marriage has not always been under the authority of the civil power. Marriage became important in state affairs during the time of the Roman Empire; and it is there that it acquired its parallel resemblance to contract law. In fact, there were persons in the Empire who could marry without state regulation; only the privileged classes (who had assets to protect and/or distribute) could "marry" in the eyes of the state. Slaves and poor freedmen had no standing to marry, as far as the state was concerned. The Church, of course, blessed their union in holy matrimony, even if the state didn't see this as marriage.
When Christianity became the religion of the Empire (A.D. 395), the "union" of interests in the regulation of marriage came about; with the state acknowledging it had (and has) an interest in marriage and the family that coincides with (but is not identical to) the interests of the Church.
Read the statutes of your state regarding marriage. Then see if this description doesn't fit: Corporation A and Corporation B desire to merge and form a new joint Corporation C. The marriage laws of the state provide the conditions under which such a merger may, or may not, take place; and also provides a mechanism for the distribution of the assets and liabilities (including any subsidiary corporations that may have been spun off during the time the original two were "merged") in the event that the union is dissolved. The interest of the state is for the maintenance of law and order and public decency; and to minimize the demands placed upon its resources to suppor those who should be supported by another entity. (This is probably why sfallin has characterized the state's involvement as a "business transaction." He's not wrong; apart from the Church, there really isn't anything else there. And only the Church can convey God's grace to the union of a man and a woman as husband and wife.)
By Fr. John McCuen, at
7:08 PM
________________________________________________________________
james, anonymous #1 = seraphim o seattle.
re: my criqiques of the CP, do some google searches. search on convention party, but also convention party extremist, convention party theocracy, etc... its clear the want to implement OT law inside a very narrow and frozen historical interpretion of the founding of america.
to me the answer is clear and (mostly) unambiguous. john kerry. i've supported him since before the primaries. but i am very troubled at how this election (and the general political conversation) has de-volved into over-simplistic right vs. left categories. i think the issues we face are more complex than merely 'conservative' and 'liberal' boxes. i feel the average american has been *trained* to think ONLY in conservative vs. liberal categories, polarizing and over simplifying issues... and when that happens, the real powers that be can easier manipulate and control public opinion. i think the republicans are masters at it. we've now had two conventions about john kerry. privately, advisors admit that if this election becomes a referendum on the bush record, they will loose. so they've rather masterfully made it all about john kerry. his 20 yr senate record, his service in viet nam, etc... mixed in with, of course, lots of rhetoric of "be scared... the boogeyman's coming... be afraid... BOO! i'll protect you..." mixed in with lots of cheap and false pseudo-christian rhetoric collapsing the war on terror with the war on iraq... making the election about the need to go to war because "they" attacked us... you don't REALLY need to know who "they" are and don't bother with "how" we prosecute the war... just be afraid, and know that we'll protect you, and know that the other guy won't... be afraid of him too.
but i also do not agonize and spend angst filled nights over my vote. i have very modest expectations re: the real world power of the presidency. i think media and cultural influences actually wield more power in the average american's lives. television. greenspan and co. are of course up there. not to mention the military industrial complex and the halliburtons and enrons of the world.
but mostly, i try to remember what st Paul has told us... that we fight not against flesh and blood, but against the principalities and rulers of this age.
where does real power live? Christ seemed quite unambiguous as well... the power of the Kingdom of God does not resemble the power of this world. the foolish things of God confound the wise. we want a messiah to come in glory and might (ie, the conventions were so much drama about the coming of the annointed one)... and we are given the Son of Man bloody on a tree... destroying the Enemy: death... from within. trampling down death BY death. matthew 25. 1 cor 13. and so on.
By , at
11:49 PM
________________________________________________________________
I'd be opposed to any form of theonomy as well.
But I'd like to see what you you found, Seraphim. SOme links would be useful. I did one of the googles you sugessted, and apart from detractors of the party I found Petrouka saying that people who say the CP is for a theocracy are wrong.
So... if you've found *party* quotes that say otherwise, let me know. Still, a vote for a CP won't put the CP instantly in all levels of the gov't.
I agree with the CP on this point: our society has become so very secular that any mention of God raises a rash.
Regarding JFK, noting how much of a rash Orthodox Senators voting for abortion give me, I couldn't vote for JFK without having to go to confession for the next four years. Given a real choice, the only way I could vote without feeling guilty for voting at all would be Petroutka: theonomy doesn't seem as big of a sin as abortion or the other excesses of the DP.
By Huw Raphael, at
2:13 AM
________________________________________________________________
Hi Huw Raphael, I `m with you on this one.
I simply cannot vote for a party that promotes and defends abortion, even abortions done on teenage schoolchildren without their parent`s permission or knowledge.
I cannot square that with my conscience. I do not want innocent blood on my hands, especially the blood of the innocent and unprotected.
________________________________________________________________
I agree with Steve, marriage has a legal aspect and a spiritual aspect. The legal aspect of marriage is a contract. The spiritual aspect of marriage is a sacrament.
Even the Orthodox wedding service emphasizes this. There are actually two services: The Betrothal, and The Marriage. The Betrothal is a secular service and is not a part of the sacrament. It takes place in the narthex of the Church and involves the exchanging of rings and the promising of each other to each other for faithfulness. It is a secular portion of the service that has its roots in the Byzantine Empire's secular marriage. It fulfills a legal obligation recognized by the Church, BEFORE the couple enters the Church and performs the sacrament.
The state must by definition have some sort of contractual marriage that it recognizes by law, because the state gives people who are married a particular legal status that people who are not married do not have. For example, I cannot steal from my wife. It is technically impossible, because my wife has no legal property that is not mine, and I have no legal property that is not my wife's. (Unless of course, we had some sort of pre-nuptial legal contract written up in that regard.) Anyway, I could give a hundred examples of why marriage is a recognized legal contract. There is no reason why people who are not Christian should have to have Christian Marriages in order to be married. There is no reason why people who are not Christians should have to abide by Christian moral code that goes above and beyond recognized secular moral code. People who are not Orthodox, for example, cannot participate in a sacrament of the Church, and marriage to the Orthodox is a sacrament. Are we saying that nobody else is married? Of course not.
It sounds like there are a lot of other reasons why I would not agree with this party.
Regards,
Basil
By Basil The Wandering Fool, at
7:27 AM
________________________________________________________________
Somebody up above posted that this party was ultra conservative... that the would probably ban prayers to the Theotokos, or something of that nature.
I note perusing the web site that the Peroutka family is mostly likely Catholic, although I haven't found any place where they come out and say that. But Michael Peroutka's brother recently passed away and his funeral is at a Catholic Church.
Now, I happen to be one Orthodox Christian that sees Roman Catholics as as remote from Orthodoxy as Protestants are (perhaps more remote in some ways), but one thing is certain Catholics are at the opposite end of the spectrum from Bible-thumping southern baptists. So, I don't think this party is composed strictly of Bible-thumping southern baptists.
But, again, I don't think I am interested in this party. Our best vote is to keep the fascist Bush from becoming president again. Our best chance at that is voting for Kerry.
Regards,
Basil
By Basil The Wandering Fool, at
7:37 AM
________________________________________________________________
i think media and cultural influences actually wield more power in the average american's lives. television. greenspan and co. are of course up there. not to mention the military industrial complex and the halliburtons and enrons of the world.Well I'm glad you said that Seraphim....u think Michael Moore might do a film about the power of the media and its connection with a liberal agenda? Frankly I think the extent to which the GOP is in bed with the military industrial complex the DP is in bed with much of the media.
While I generally agree with what you say here, my vote does still fit into the overall scheme of where power and influence is going to be directed here in America. At the DNC I heard ALOT about embryonic stem cell research and THAT is something that Kerry will be able to reinstitute - along with a host of other peripheral issues surrounding abortion. One of my biggest issues being the one that Elizabeth mentions regarding my children and parental rights. Frankly I hate the foundations of much of the DP platform. I hate being poor and thus having to send my kids to public schools where their faith will more and more be ridiculed and isolated.
I am asked to fear Peroutka's conservative fundamentalism, but I think I am more afraid of the PC police that will get more power in a Kerry administration. (If for no other reason than because Kerry is actually viable.) I am as scared (as an Orthodox Christian) or the DP extremists as I am of the GOP extremists (as a human being) - I hope that makes sense.
I think the fact that I AM agonizing over the choice here indicates that I am not buying into the overly simplistic arguments on either side.
I think if Peroutka actually stood a chance of winning I would be ALOT less likely to vote for him - or at least I'd be ALOT more careful about it. But when he nailed the 2-3 main issues that primarily give me pause in voting for Bush or Kerry...well...it FEELS good.
I don't know...the cynic in me holds out little hope for the future. I see persecution down the road for those of use who will stand up for the rights of the unborn, or for those of us who will continue to stand and say that homosexual behavior is sinful, or for those of us who will stand up and say that the Orthodox Church ark of salvation. How long before we are officially painted as a hate-group?
Frankly if I were to openly proclaim all that I believe at my work, I think I'd be extremely isolated and I'd also worry about my job. Seriously...all it would take would be for someone to make mention that I am a "homophobe" and I'd have human resources all over my arse. A carelessly left out article on the Orthodox Churches position on homosexuality could be deemed as hate literature and I'd be gone. Don't think this is a joke folks...I really believe that worse is yet to come. AND, I think the DP will move us further in that direction.
Feeling like a paranoid extremist...but anyway.
Maybe I shouldn't vote at all...ahhh the good old days of a Byzantine Orthodox emperor. (comment Rick?) No worries, as long as you are on his/her good side.
By JamesoftheNorthwest, at
8:01 AM
________________________________________________________________
i think media and cultural influences actually wield more power in the average american's lives. television. greenspan and co. are of course up there. not to mention the military industrial complex and the halliburtons and enrons of the world.Well I'm glad you said that Seraphim....u think Michael Moore might do a film about the power of the media and its connection with a liberal agenda? Frankly I think the extent to which the GOP is in bed with the military industrial complex the DP is in bed with much of the media.
While I generally agree with what you say here, my vote does still fit into the overall scheme of where power and influence is going to be directed here in America. At the DNC I heard ALOT about embryonic stem cell research and THAT is something that Kerry will be able to reinstitute - along with a host of other peripheral issues surrounding abortion. One of my biggest issues being the one that Elizabeth mentions regarding my children and parental rights. Frankly I hate the foundations of much of the DP platform. I hate being poor and thus having to send my kids to public schools where their faith will more and more be ridiculed and isolated.
I am asked to fear Peroutka's conservative fundamentalism, but I think I am more afraid of the PC police that will get more power in a Kerry administration. (If for no other reason than because Kerry is actually viable.) I am as scared (as an Orthodox Christian) or the DP extremists as I am of the GOP extremists (as a human being) - I hope that makes sense.
I think the fact that I AM agonizing over the choice here indicates that I am not buying into the overly simplistic arguments on either side.
I think if Peroutka actually stood a chance of winning I would be ALOT less likely to vote for him - or at least I'd be ALOT more careful about it. But when he nailed the 2-3 main issues that primarily give me pause in voting for Bush or Kerry...well...it FEELS good.
I don't know...the cynic in me holds out little hope for the future. I see persecution down the road for those of use who will stand up for the rights of the unborn, or for those of us who will continue to stand and say that homosexual behavior is sinful, or for those of us who will stand up and say that the Orthodox Church ark of salvation. How long before we are officially painted as a hate-group?
Frankly if I were to openly proclaim all that I believe at my work, I think I'd be extremely isolated and I'd also worry about my job. Seriously...all it would take would be for someone to make mention that I am a "homophobe" and I'd have human resources all over my arse. A carelessly left out article on the Orthodox Churches position on homosexuality could be deemed as hate literature and I'd be gone. Don't think this is a joke folks...I really believe that worse is yet to come. AND, I think the DP will move us further in that direction.
Feeling like a paranoid extremist...but anyway.
Maybe I shouldn't vote at all...ahhh the good old days of a Byzantine Orthodox emperor. (comment Rick?) No worries, as long as you are on his/her good side.
By JamesoftheNorthwest, at
8:01 AM
________________________________________________________________
Basil, as a nation that prides itself more and more in upholding the modern interpretation of "separation of church and state" then it seems to me that we need to divorce (pun intended) the connection between state marriage and church marriage.
The identification of the Orthodox service and the Byzantine Empire doesn't answer because the Byzantine Empire was a decidedly Christian entity (or at least it purported to be) - certainly that government and the Church were unifed to an extent that would horrify us "modern-minded" people.
Do you think Basil that the Church needs government assent in order to marry people? In other words, can't the "two become one flesh" without the state giving a license?
Yes, there is a legal contract between my wife and I...but I tend to see that as being completely different and frankly unnecessary to whether or not I am sacramentally united to my wife - which is how I define marriage.
This is a vague and scary realm folks...because in a way we see Church and State uniting to do something together...and an attitude that says you must have one to have another may lead us into legal areas that we do not wish to tread. How long before gay Orthodox couples can sue the Church for refusing to offer the "scaramental portion" of marriage to them?
If the US government collapsed tomorrow, would we still be married to our wives?
And of those couples not united by the Church (like myself and my wife), well we know where grace is...but we do not know where grace isn't. Are they married? God knows.
By JamesoftheNorthwest, at
8:15 AM
________________________________________________________________
I remember with great distaste the day I voted for Bush in 2000. It was akward in booth since I was holding my nose. For me, the decision didn't come down to an assessment of the degree to which I did, or did not agree with with the candidate - I no more expected either Bush or Gore to keep their word once they got into office than I would a pan-handler to buy healthy food with my alms. Rather it boiled down to a cold eyed assessment of which of the two bozos would do the least damage over the next 4 years. To this day, I don't regret the choice I made in 2000. Gore wouldn't have invaded Iraq, but I'm not confident that he had the intestinal fortitude for 9/11.
At this juncture, I believe that Kerry, saddled with a (presumeably) republican house and/or senate will do less harm than W. That's why he has my vote (for the moment) his stance on the preservation of life aside.
November isn't that far away, any day now I'll start practicing punching holes in paper with one hand because I know that when I go into the booth the other will be holding my nose regardless of who I vote for.
sfallin
By , at
3:20 PM
________________________________________________________________
James says: "then it seems to me that we need to divorce (pun intended) the connection between state marriage and church marriage."
James, actually since Marriage is a sacrament, and there are no sacraments outside the Orthodox Church, then anybody that is "married" not by the Orthodox sacrament of marriage has only a "state marriage."
In other words, we already HAVE a divorce between state marriage and church marriage.
(oh, I can be devious, can't I!)
Basil
By Basil The Wandering Fool, at
3:50 PM
________________________________________________________________
"The identification of the Orthodox service and the Byzantine Empire doesn't answer because the Byzantine Empire was a decidedly Christian entity"
Yes and no. I wouldn't say the empire was a Christian entity. Actually, no government in all history has had a more clearly defined separation of Church and State than Byzantium. In the Byzantine Empire, it was separated as follows:
1) The Empire was subject to the Church in all matters that were religious,
2) The Church was subject to the Empire in all matters that were secular.
If it was a secular matter, it was refered to the state. If it was a religious matter it was refered to the Church. There was a very distinct separation between Church and State. For example, clergymen (which included readers by the way) were forbidden to serve in the Army. I wouldn't be surprised if the clergy were forbidden by law to discuss politics, for that matter.
Regards,
Basil
By Basil The Wandering Fool, at
3:56 PM
________________________________________________________________
Nice Blog!!! I thought I'd tell you about a site that will let give you places where
you can make extra cash! I made over $800 last month. Not bad for not doing much. Just put in your
zip code and up will pop up a list of places that are available. I live in a small area and found quite
a few. MAKE MONEY NOW
________________________________________________________________
Great , this was cool. Like to see more posts
I’m running a cheap web hosting providers site. It pretty much covers cheap web hosting providers related stuff.
If you have time please visit my site/blog.
Thanks.
By Web Hosting reviews, at
8:12 AM
________________________________________________________________
Hello, My name is Donald you have a great blog here! I'm definitely going to bookmark you! I have a home business lead site. It pretty much covers home business lead related stuff.
Come and check it out if you get time :-)
By Marketing man, at
12:10 AM
________________________________________________________________
You have a very good site on based business home work This is something I also have a large interest in and have set up a blog about based business home work please visit and let me know what you think.
________________________________________________________________
