Some say I speak in parables. The reality is far more complex. Within these walls you may find musings on philosophy, theology, politics, and Christian apologetics (without parables -- I'm a much more competent straight-talker than storyteller).
What if Thomas Jefferson had treated Ben Franklin the way some Republicans are treating Mitt Romney? Evangelicals for Mitt have gotten hold of a letter from that alternative reality.
Wow, I didn't realize that Ben Franklin ever ran for the office of President and that Thomas Jefferson endorsed his candidacy...
The analogy is a poor one and is a sophistic misapplication to the circumstances. The issue isn't immigration or even participation, it is about holding the second highest office in the U.S. (The first being Pastor of FBC Dallas)
Changing your mind in the right direction is not grounds for complaining, as if the change had been in the wrong direction, particularly when you provide an account of why you changed your mind, and especially when the change involved no difference in the underlying moral issue but only a difference in how one should respond in terms of laws and enforcement. That is the main point, and it is indeed analogous.
I think Tancredo said it best when he said, "I trust those conversions when they happen on the road to Damascus and not on the road to Des Moines."
I still don't think that the analogy of Franklin's immigration and participation in the process are analogous, unless you agree that we should have the same criteria for the presidency that we have for immigration and participation. Personally, I think that is setting the standards way to low.
I think Tom Tancredo said it immorally when he said that. If the only change in mind someone could ever have were religious conversions, then Tancredo might have a point. In reality, people change their minds, and they do it with much shorter notice before elections, as Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush did on the same issue.
What's clear is Romney's record. His tenure as governor shows his willingness to pursue the views conservatives want. I do think it's a good idea to take politicians at their word unless there's good reason to think they don't mean what they say, and I see nothing to contradict Romney's account of why he changed his view. But I don't think that's all to go by with Romney, as it was for Reagan when he first ran for president. Romney was a governor for a while after his view change, and he implemented his views. So we know he isn't doing some insincere thing that he merely says but could never implement because of some supposed real view he holds that he's pretending not to hold.
Ben Franklin wasn't just immigrating and participating. He was one of the founding thinkers in setting up this country from the outset. His participation played much more of a role in the development of this country than any single president ever did.
Mitt's dad along with Ford and Ramsey were part of the MKULTRA activities....in Michigan. Is Mitt another Manchurian Candidate? He is a "new world order candidate"...whatever you think of that. but so is hillary...the d and r do not mean anything to this group.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, if that's what you're getting at. Whatever George H.W. Bush meant by the New World Order, I don't extend much credibility to people who think he was involved in a conspiracy to take over the world in cooperation with the Bilderberger Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Illuminati. In fact, I consider those who buy into that stuff to be in the same category as people who think George W. Bush engineered 9-11, those who deny the Holocaust, or anyone who thinks The Da Vinci Code is even remotely similar to actual historical events.
Besides, if these people were involved in this ultra-secret conspiracy, they're not doing a very good job of hiding their membership in it since so many influential people are widely touted to be involved in it, and it can't be all that secret since their membership in the relevant groups is so publicly known. What's worse is that they seem to be absolutely terrible at actually achieving any of their aims even though they've supposedly been controlling the most influential country in the world for decades, so I can't see how voting one of them into office could be all that bad, even presuming the absurd premise that such a conspiracy exists.
Leave a comment
Search
About this Entry
This page contains a single entry by Jeremy Pierce published on May 19, 2007 6:41 AM.
Wow, I didn't realize that Ben Franklin ever ran for the office of President and that Thomas Jefferson endorsed his candidacy...
The analogy is a poor one and is a sophistic misapplication to the circumstances. The issue isn't immigration or even participation, it is about holding the second highest office in the U.S. (The first being Pastor of FBC Dallas)
Changing your mind in the right direction is not grounds for complaining, as if the change had been in the wrong direction, particularly when you provide an account of why you changed your mind, and especially when the change involved no difference in the underlying moral issue but only a difference in how one should respond in terms of laws and enforcement. That is the main point, and it is indeed analogous.
I think Tancredo said it best when he said, "I trust those conversions when they happen on the road to Damascus and not on the road to Des Moines."
I still don't think that the analogy of Franklin's immigration and participation in the process are analogous, unless you agree that we should have the same criteria for the presidency that we have for immigration and participation. Personally, I think that is setting the standards way to low.
I think Tom Tancredo said it immorally when he said that. If the only change in mind someone could ever have were religious conversions, then Tancredo might have a point. In reality, people change their minds, and they do it with much shorter notice before elections, as Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush did on the same issue.
What's clear is Romney's record. His tenure as governor shows his willingness to pursue the views conservatives want. I do think it's a good idea to take politicians at their word unless there's good reason to think they don't mean what they say, and I see nothing to contradict Romney's account of why he changed his view. But I don't think that's all to go by with Romney, as it was for Reagan when he first ran for president. Romney was a governor for a while after his view change, and he implemented his views. So we know he isn't doing some insincere thing that he merely says but could never implement because of some supposed real view he holds that he's pretending not to hold.
Ben Franklin wasn't just immigrating and participating. He was one of the founding thinkers in setting up this country from the outset. His participation played much more of a role in the development of this country than any single president ever did.
Mitt's dad along with Ford and Ramsey were part of the MKULTRA activities....in Michigan. Is Mitt another Manchurian Candidate? He is a "new world order candidate"...whatever you think of that. but so is hillary...the d and r do not mean anything to this group.
I'm not a conspiracy theorist, if that's what you're getting at. Whatever George H.W. Bush meant by the New World Order, I don't extend much credibility to people who think he was involved in a conspiracy to take over the world in cooperation with the Bilderberger Group, the Council on Foreign Relations, and the Illuminati. In fact, I consider those who buy into that stuff to be in the same category as people who think George W. Bush engineered 9-11, those who deny the Holocaust, or anyone who thinks The Da Vinci Code is even remotely similar to actual historical events.
Besides, if these people were involved in this ultra-secret conspiracy, they're not doing a very good job of hiding their membership in it since so many influential people are widely touted to be involved in it, and it can't be all that secret since their membership in the relevant groups is so publicly known. What's worse is that they seem to be absolutely terrible at actually achieving any of their aims even though they've supposedly been controlling the most influential country in the world for decades, so I can't see how voting one of them into office could be all that bad, even presuming the absurd premise that such a conspiracy exists.