“You know, they say never argue with a woman...”
“I guess that includes all subjects.”
These remarks go nowhere. You are acknowledging that I’m a woman, and that your view can’t prevail here in our discussion simply because you are a man. That is a given.
“Race does not preclude or exclude or even include necessarily, access to God. Not since Christ, anyway. Do we agree on this?”
You keep avoiding what I have been speaking of all along, that we have access to God through Jesus Christ. Forget race. Before God, we are sinners. We died in Adam. In the OT, any person could approach through the prescribed sacrifices given by God to Moses. That included the non-Jew, as long as he approached in God’s prescribed way. The Temple had a court for the gentiles. With Christ, we still approach God’s way. It is always from God’s perspective, not our own. This is the principle I have been attempting to set out, on not only this subject but others.
“All I'm saying is, in the duking out of problems here, race between race, strength is always achieved by conforming to eternal verities, and I would agree, they emanate from Isael (the Bible).”
The duking out occurring here is actually between flesh and spirit, not race and race although race is a handy tool of the Devil. Again, you need to define, both for my benefit and your own, to what ‘eternal verities’ you refer, because I observe you get a little evasive on that. Also, you know I’m all for loving Israel, but when you talk about the Bible, you are talking about God’s word, not Israel’s word, work, or accomplishments. God purposefully made Israel through which to give Jesus to not only them but the whole world. That includes gentiles like you and me. The Bible is God’s revelation of creation, our fall, and His redemption of not only all mankind but the whole of creation. God reveals the person and work of our Redeemer therein, the love of the Father, and the convicting and regenerative work of the Spirit.
“But to say equal access means intermarriage does violence to the concept of equality, placing the spiritual in the sensual.”
You have already acknowledged that I am not advocating intermarriage. That would be sensual, and of course I have not advocated that. Rather I have stated that strictly, it is not sin to intermarry where both are believers. It is not, however, commanded to be a necessary practice of the Christian life, such as prayer, worship, looking to God’s word, and loving other believers. This commandment to love other believers does not use the sensual word for love anywhere in scripture, so we can be confident about this that intermarriage is not a mandate of Christianity.
“Does this help?”
I hope this helps and that you will not throw out sensational accusations when you don’t know what else to say. I don’t necessarily take a non-response as capitulation. If you need more time to answer something I have challenged, say so.
“Being equally regarded by God (and I'm not entirely sure of that) does not mean we are all alike.”
We are regarded by God as individuals, cities, and nations. Remember how the seven churches in the book of Revelation all received different evaluations of the Lord Jesus. You can rest assured that God does judge us according to our works, and where we are His children, according to the measure of faith with which we respond in our Christian walk.
All sinners come by faith in Jesus, we all have sinned. This is the broad brush; there is not a case where some sinners need less of the saving power of the blood of Jesus. We all need Him.
It is not a white invention, nor do whites maintain or manage the grace of God. This is God’s gospel. We do not ask permission of another race to get access to the grace of God in Jesus Christ; nor does a race have the right to assert a preeminence of its own in the matter of access to the grace of God in Jesus Christ.
That is why I resist the temptation to judge another race for its supposed accomplishments or lack thereof. All I know is, scripture hammers home how God loves us and has provided a way to be free from the bondage of sin we have in Adam, and that is only through the shed blood of Jesus Christ. Let the fleshly concerns of race be quiet in this matter.
Posted by Wendy Johnson at July 21, 2005 04:14 PMYou know, they say never argue with a woman...
I guess that includes all subjects.
Race does not preclude or exclude or even include necessarily, access to God. Not since Christ, anyway. Do we agree on this?
All I'm saying is, in the duking out of problems here, race between race, strength is always achieved by conforming to eternal verities, and I would agree, they emanate from Isael (the Bible).
But to say equal access means intermarriage does violence to the concept of equality, placing the spiritual in the sensual.
Does this help?
Being equally regarded by God (and I'm not entirely sure of that) does not mean we are all alike.
Posted by David Yeagley at July 21, 2005 12:29 PMDr. Yeagley, I am neither your dear, nor a white supremacist. Remember how you have hated it when I would take the part of a certain group of people who are not white, whom you happen to despise. You are stooping to name calling, which is the penchant of the Left, but not their exclusive domain. If you understood both what I was saying, and the actual meaning of white supremacist, you would never draw that conclusion about me. I think you are saying that to be sensational in the hopes of making your point, much like Senator Durbin did with his remarks.
I think you have lashed out like this because you cannot provide strict proof for your fantastical claim about the Indians’ place in the formation of this country. I made a fair counter and invited you to inform me otherwise by way of actual record, but you apparently have nothing at hand and so have taken this tack.
You have expressed fear before, that putting faith in God rather than the flesh is the agent for destruction of the Indian race. This is both a lie, and an evidence like I pointed out before with reluctance that (despite much knowledge on your part of scripture and reverence for God and love of the Jews), you simply are not born again. You cannot see what I’m talking about, because you have no help to see what is actually contained in God’s Word. None of us can have that, unless we are made alive to God in the Spirit—born again.
I’m not sure about your remarks about equality, since you have expressed contempt for that term as misused by the Left. Why do you cling to it now? And to what are you not equal?
I think I understand the concept of a nation, and in particular this nation. The U.S. is not your typical nation, that is, formed from one ethnic group and tribe within one religion. We are a conglomeration of many peoples, ethnic groups, and tribes and certainly religions. The U.S. was formed by persons who submitted themselves to the general guidelines of the Christian faith under the God of the Bible. The U.S. is like a giant apartment building, where all kinds of tenants live. And like you find in any such building, there will always be either a first or longtime resident who figures they own the joint. But they don’t; the landlord does, and in this case of our nation, God is our landlord; he owns the whole earth—in fact He made the entire universe, it belongs to Him. If you can prove otherwise using scripture, you should bring it out, rather than resort to the sort of direction in the conversation that you have taken.
So whether the Comanche was present in the vicinity or not during the formation of this country (you were referring to more than Comanche), I would have to offer the same answer. Lack of acknowledgement of God is not the virtuous answer to worshipping the earth; it remains apart from God, and so could not have formed a nation “under God.”
While I have explained what I mean by my remarks, you really have not offered well reasoned thoughts for yours, but have fallen back on ineffective racial assertions. I speak of God’s sovereignty in these matters; you resist any notion of the sovereignty of God.
I would not talk to you in these terms if you had not already displayed at least some interest in God, Jesus, scripture, the Jews, you see. But time and again, I have rather proven you, and you are where I have reluctantly concluded. That is, you cannot see these things because you are not in the Lord Jesus Christ. All must submit in this way to the Lord; therefore, your claim of white supremacist is invalid, and hyperbole as well.
Posted by Wendy Johnson at July 21, 2005 12:15 PM"More to being American..." maybe that's the part that you are averse to. Maybe that's the part that isn't part of your formula. Maybe that's the heathen part.
By the way, in the old days, Comanche didn't believe in anything. No religion. Just very simple intuition. Very simply articulated. No earth worshippers among "the agnostics of the plains," as they've been called.
Posted by David Yeagley at July 21, 2005 09:28 AMWendy, my dear, you are simply a white supremacist, complete with a theology to justify it.
THAT's OKAY! I'm not knocking that. But you can't talk about it. You have to guise it in different terms. That's NOT exactly okay. That's confusing, to all parties.
That is YOUR fantasy. You see, we all have fantasies. If you truly believed in equality, you would not demean mine.
But you DON't believe in equality, and THAT's OKAY, TOO. I really mean that.
But if you say you do, then you confuse the conversation. I'm using you as an example, so don't take it personally. I mean, good grief, at least your talking! Which is more than 99% of white Americans do. Being white and being Christian and being American is a very, very serious thing to reckon with. I recognize it, for all its glory, and all it's faults, blindness, and occasional cruelty. Again, I don't knock it.
I'm saying there's more to being an American, if you want to plug in the basic concept of being a nation.
Posted by David Yeagley at July 21, 2005 09:25 AMDr. Yeagley, I will attempt again to respond then.
"Well, I think you're still not addressing my point, Wendy. What's the point of having an ethnic person on the Supreme Court? First this, or first that. How gamey."
I know what your point is, but the problem is, there is something wrong with just the fatalistic tenor of this question, and it bleeds from your assessment of "Don't give it away to incompetent races that have shown no ability to achieve anything in modern times." Fatalism coupled with sweeping prejudice is a bad decisionmaking tool. It doesn't work well for or against racially motivated appointments.
First this and first that, is gamey indeed. It means nothing, except to the one who is first at something, or somewhere.
"And I will never concede that Indians do not have a primary role in the very ethos of this country."
Dr. Yeagley, if you can produce an overwhelming amount of writings from both the founders and common people at the beginnings of the United States of America that will show this primary role you claim that those Indian tribes had, I will certainly back off on this point. I remain under the distinct impression based on what I do know, that none among all those Indian tribes neither provided anywhere near the lion's share of the counsel, the resolve, the inspiration, the endurance, nor the power that culminated in the successful Revolution against England. They are simply not the founders of this nation, and to make such a claim requires a great deal of imagination. Again, if you can provide proof to the contrary (and I've already heard about the Iroquois confederation's form of government, and it doesn't meet the standards listed above), I will certainly consider it.
"Everyone is nothing but a foreigner, and will never, ever be anything else, no matter how long he lives here."
"Also, being indigenous is not how Indians really thing. That's a foreign term put on us. We are simply here, on our home land. You are the descendent of an invader. Nothing will ever, ever change this, phenomenologically."
Dr. Yeagley, you must realize that this is at best one group's opinion, and at worst not based in reality. I would consider this to be desperate presumption on the part of anyone who would promote this thought. It is illogical for more than one reason, but the most vital is that no Indian tribe, no European tribe for that matter, has been given in perpetuity either connection to or ownership of this land. As a person intensely interested in all things Jewish, surely this is a concept familiar to you. The only real estate on this whole earth that has been assigned as one nation's possession, as connected with a nation, is the land of Israel, as described in the Bible. So whether the Indian nations see themselves as a people connected to the land, or the Europeans see it as more of a possession by conquest and therefore for their own use as they see fit, is way beside the point because the God of reality ordains occupation by a people at His own sufferance. And you know from scripture what our longsuffering God will do to any people who turn to other gods and practice evil. Let's not make the mistake of excluding this important fact from the question of land connection, national identity, ownership, and who is foreign and for how long.
Also, if in your thinking Indians can appropriate a legitimate primary connection with the founding of this nation, then it follows that the invaders can then appropriate a legitimate primary ownership of the land, and all bets are off with the treaties.
"The country has a hybrid Collective Unconscious. Without the land people, the people connected to the land, the nation has only half it's identity, psycho-sociologically. It doesn't meet the most basic definition of a nation."
This is the problem with trying to credit a people known to worship the earth with forming a nation under God, and saying, it's really our earth and our gods that are primary to the formation, identity and survival of this nation. It is without basis in fact, and lacks a right perception of our respective places before God. In fact, it denies God outright.
I submit a national concept is incomplete without complete submission to God. In fact, there is no future for that incomplete concept.
"The Indian has to be part of the forumla, or America is nothing. A haven for criminals, greedy tower builders, a clearing house for world business tycoons, etc. It loses part of its most basic essence as a country.
I realize this is a fairly new concept of sociological roles here, but, I'm pushing it!"
The Indian does not determine whether America is something or nothing. It is both the Indian and non-Indian in America's attitude toward God that is the secret of greatness or loss.
David, I maintain this is a bad concept and is nothing more than more fantasy about the Indian.
Posted by Wendy Johnson at July 21, 2005 01:51 AMWell, I think you're still not addressing my point, Wendy. What's the point of having an ethnic person on the Supreme Court? First this, or first that. How gamey.
Clarence Thomas was most clearly NOT the most qualified person. That was a racial appointment, by Bush,Sr.
And I will never concede that Indians do not have a primary role in the very ethos of this country. Everyone is nothing but a foreigner, and will never, ever be anything else, no matter how long he lives here.
That's the wholly phenomenological point of view of the Indian. Why try to deny that? It isn't necessary to deny it. You may say it means nothing to you, to which thought I would reply, you do not have a fully developed concept of what a nation is. And this is part of what's wrong with America.
Also, being indigenous is not how Indians really thing. That's a foreign term put on us. We are simply here, on our home land. You are the descendent of an invader. Nothing will ever, ever change this, phenomenologically.
The country has a hybrid Collective Unconscious. Without the land people, the people connected to the land, the nation has only half it's identity, psycho-sociologically. It doesn't meet the most basic definition of a nation.
The Indian has to be part of the forumla, or America is nothing. A haven for criminals, greedy tower builders, a clearing house for world business tycoons, etc. It loses part of its most basic essence as a country.
I realize this is a fairly new concept of sociological roles here, but, I'm pushing it!
Posted by David Yeagley at July 20, 2005 09:06 PM"'The ultimate decision maker is the Supreme Court and what they rule becomes the law of the land but they're all human beings,' explained Smith." --linked article from ICT
Rulings are made and can be overturned; law is to be made by elected representatives in Congress. Rulings do not become law. They are interpretations of law.
"Is that what an "ethnic" Justice is supposed to do--show no connection to his own ethnicity?" --Dr. Yeagley
I would hope he or she would show a real connection to a right interpretation of the law, and not legislate personal connections from the highest court of the land. In that respect, Congress remains the legitimate go-to body for changes in law. The Supreme Court is to provide that check and balance to make sure laws comport with the Constitution. Hence the pressure to get in your man or woman with either a liberal's or conservative's view of the Constitution.
"Why? Partly because Indians have not shown an interest in America. To change this trend is part of the basic purpose of BadEagle.com." --Dr. Yeagley
It's one thing to claim to be a first american, or a native american; it's another thing to be an American.
"After all, aren't Indians supposed to be the primal spiritual beings of the continent? Aren't we supposed to carry the deepest flame?"
Dr. Yeagley, this goes back to this propensity to assign a fantasy to the Indian people. Also, you are now talking about a continent, not America.
I will be happy for anyone on the Supreme Court who would have the gall to remind their fellow jurists that they are there to interpret the law, not make law, and [here's MY fantasy, Dr. Yeagley] that they will all agree on that, and also advise the Judiciary Committee to wise up on that point.
Posted by Wendy Johnson at July 20, 2005 06:41 PMI have no objection at all to Roberts' appointment. I misrepresented myself if you all thought I did. I'm proud for him and proud of him.
I'm saying the whole point of putting Thomas in there was RACIAL. The point of putting O'Conner in there was GENDER.
So, I take it this era is over? Well, we'll still have to abide Thomas for who knows how long, and we'll have a Chief Justice to replace very soon. (If Renquist had any dignity, he'd resign, seems to me. This would be respect for old age, not bringing embarrassment on all because of it.)
So, will Bush appoint a woman, a minority woman, as the Chief Justice. Then we're still playing ball. Otherwise, the games over. White man wins!
All I'm saying is, KEEP IT THAT WAY!! Don't give it away to incompetent races that have shown no ability to achieve anything in modern times. Do us all a favor, and keep the standards UP, not DOWN.
See my point? I resent Thomas, because he clearly was NOT the most qualified at ALL. That was a racial appointment. Even if we move past that, as Bush has apparently done for now, we still live with Thomas, the RACIAL appointment.
David:
The "lean to the left" by Souter and others has been studied.
The thing Supremes want the most is to be loved - they certainly aren't in it for the money.
The "loving" is done by "The people" - who have their hand out for "special treatment" (affirmative action; "the poor"; the labor unions; etc..
The other close contacts of the Supremes are thew law clerks - new grads from mostly liberal law schools. Only people with extremely strong character can resist this "leaning to the Left" - Thomas, Scalia, Rhenquist have resisted.
What in the world is wrong with a caucasian male being the "best pick". If you believe in the Constitution, you must believe in "color blindness".
Many professional women of Sandra O'Connor's generation were mistreated, so have a "gender chip on her shoulder" - obvious by her rulings on women's issues and civil rights.
Some have accused Bush of being hypocritical on his nominations - by insisting on a "constructionist", but favoring a "constructionist of the correct sex and color" - quite inconsistent.
By selecting Roberts, Bush has demonstrated extreme courage - for daring to select a "Rich White Male", even if he may be the best person for the job.
Bush will undoubtedly take some political heat for not selecting a personof the right color - but this is a character trait of Bush - "doing the right thing" even if it is "unpopular" (like the Iraq war).
Posted by Frank Zavisca at July 20, 2005 05:02 PM"So, Bush nominated a white man:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050719/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_bush
John G. Roberts, Jr., from Buffalo, NY.
Surprised us all? Nah."
I have two surprises, Dr. Yeagley. That you would write that white men ought to be emulated and now he has no legitimate right to a Presidential nomination because he's white and a man.
The other surprise is that a white man from my neck of the woods is nominated--a Midwesterner. So it looks like, in a nation comprised still of mostly white people, a white man can still be offered first an important post in the political arena that was previously occupied by a woman or minority. That means there's no "entitlement" of women and minorities, right? Of course, he also has first dibs on the Democratic tearing-in party that has already started. The only anti-abortion criticism they could dig up on such short notice last night was that he wrote one brief for Reagan that was not in favor of abortion. Boy, are they reaching; but hey, there's still time to find more dirt on a Harvard grad, an excellent lawyer, with experience in the political world and sitting on a federal bench (oh no! for a measly two years!!). (They're ticked because his steady application of law without the interjected personal drama provides such scant fodder).
His specs:
Roberts, John G. Jr.
Born 1955 in Buffalo, NY
Federal Judicial Service:
U. S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit
Nominated by George W. Bush on January 7, 2003, to a seat vacated by James L. Buckley; Confirmed by the Senate on May 8, 2003, and received commission on June 2, 2003.
Education:
Harvard College, A.B., 1976
Harvard Law School, J.D., 1979
Professional Career:
Law clerk, Hon. Henry Friendly, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, 1979-1980
Law clerk, Associate Justice William Rehnquist, Supreme Court of the United States, 1980-1981
Special assistant to the attorney general, U.S. Department of Justice, 1981-1982
Associate counsel to the president, White House Counsel's Office, 1982-1986
Private practice, Washington, DC, 1986-1989, 1993-2003
Principal deputy solicitor general, U.S. Department of Justice, 1989-1993
Race or Ethnicity: White
Gender: Male
My addition from another search: He's a practicing Catholic. That alone should please a lot of minorities across the board, but religion isn't really the desire here, is it?
Sean Hannity's comment should then be taken into consideration. But then how do you choose? A lot of Christians have pinned their hopes on this president, but that's a mistake too. A person is responsible for their own actions after assuming the job. If there's no indication of liberalism prior to the appointment, how can this be the fault of conservative people? Instead, godly people need to pray in earnest for their leaders, as once they undertake their responsibilities they will be under tremendous temptations.
And did anyone hear last night that member of the Judiciary Committee who boldly stated that the job of this Supreme Court post was to "make law"?
Posted by Wendy Johnson at July 20, 2005 04:28 PMSay Doc,
What do you think it would take for Indians as a whole to get the ear of the Government and Media the way Blacks and Hispanics for example have?
What factors do you think have stood in the way?
The idea of Indian independence just occured to me because I don't think I've ever seen to many cases where Indians were necessarily completely united as one voice. Mostly I seem to recall hearing them in terms of Apaches, Commanches, etc. I wonder if Indians had ever united as one if their political force would increase.
I think it is tragedy the way America has forgotten what it owes Indians in terms of its own identity...
What do you reckon?
Regards
Hunter Pieper
Posted by Hunter Pieper at July 20, 2005 09:16 AMSo, Bush nominated a white man:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050719/ap_on_go_su_co/scotus_bush
John G. Roberts, Jr., from Buffalo, NY.
Surprised us all? Nah.
Sean Hannity made a good point today. Conservatives need to be very, very concerned. Conservative appointees have turned liberal, very liberal in some cases. The liberals don't turn conservative, on the bench, but the conservative judges have been known to turn liberal.
Posted by David Yeagley at July 19, 2005 08:07 PMYes, it has occurred to me that Bush tried repeatedly to appoint Estrada as the first Hispanic on the Court. But, he wasn't even born in America, but Honduras.
Is the object here just to get someone appointed? Bush can nominate anyone. But will the nomination get approved?
This is one of those "balance of power" episodes, so rare except when it comes to blocking conservatives...
Posted by David Yeagley at July 19, 2005 04:07 PM