Lap Sitting

[Woody]

Has anyone here noticed that we as posters have developed friends along the religious lines of 'conservatives vs. liberals' but when it comes to politics .... we switch friends and join up with the 'enemy'. IOWs the alliances are all jumbled up in a pot and you never know who you might be sitting next to or holding hands with.

I for one find this all together UNcomfortable. Those who I consider friends are suddenly in opposition to me. And those with whom I am used to disagreeing with are suddenly sitting in my lap. And I can't decide if I like them in my lap or not.

Is there any solution to my discomfort? Or do I just have to suck it up?

[olger]

Olger says it's Best to keep your lap private.

Kevin Paulsen is all for liberal politics (votes Democrat) but staunchly supports conservatism in the church. I am sure there are others like him.

Me, I prefer conservatism in both barrels

[carolaa]

I've noticed that a little, not a lot. I'd think people would be more consistent.

[Woody]

Quote:

Olger says it's Best to keep your lap private.

Can you explain this a little more? Or do your beliefs need to be kept private?

I will disclose that you are one of the people who are suddenly in my lap and it feels just a little uncomfortable. What do I do about it?

[Tom Wetmore]

We are in the same boat, discomfort-wise, on that situation. It is a point that I have attempted to make several times in the past.

It seems particularly distressing when those with whom I may agree on spiritual/religious topics seem to approach their opposite political views with what seems like religious fervor or try to pin their political views to some moralistic base.

Tom

[Woody]

And Tom ... I like your disclaimer.

But when it comes to political affiliation ... I don't care for the demos just because of the kind of people in that party. I came to this realization after the Clinton affair and all of his supporters. The fact that the Demos couldn't stand up for truth at that point ... really soured me on Democrats.

[Jeannieb43]

When I was young, it didn't used to be that way. People could differ politically without its having anything to do with their religious faith or practice. I have to say, this religious involvement with politics seems to have begun with the radical right, in the '90s.

Then GWB picked it up, saying "If you're not FOR us, you're AGAINST us" -- further polarizing the country.

Let's hope our next president can unify the country.

[Woody]

When I was young, it didn't used to be that way. People could differ politically without its having anything to do with their religious faith or practice. I have to say, this religious involvement with politics seems to have begun with the radical right, in the '90s.

Then GWB picked it up, saying "If you're not FOR us, you're AGAINST us" -- further polarizing the country.

Let's hope our next president can unify the country.

Even back in the 70's I knew that true Adventists were Republicans.

[John317]

Yes, I remember the time not too many years ago when virtually the whole town of Loma Linda was Republican. As I kid, I was only one of two in my class that voted for John Kennedy, and the teacher called the kids who voted that way, "smart-alecs'. (He didn't know who had voted Democratic.)

But I went from being for Goldwater in '64 to being in the Far Left in 1972. Hlllary was a Goldwater girl back in those days too, I hear.

[Woody]

How old were the 'boys' that voted for Kennedy? This may be the reason for their blunder.

Edit: Whoops ... the 'boys' part disappeared. Must have been an edit?

[John317]

How old were the 'boys' that voted for Kennedy? This may be the reason for their blunder.

About 11, 12.

One was my friend Jimmy Carasco (son of Tony Carasco, the gospel recording artist), and the other was me. We were in the sixth grade, in Mr. Hixon's class (almost Nixon!).

I was really into history and politics even in those days. I went to see Goldwater and saw Reagan, LBJ, and shook Robert Kennedy's (scratched, bleeding) hand.

[Woody]

You've come a long ways ....

[John317]

Uh-huh-- in more ways than one.

[Woody]

Well ... I wouldn't go that far.

[Bravus]

I'm not sure it's such an issue. There are many here with many views and ideas - the idea that one should be consistent in everything, and particularly that politics and religion should line up, is an odd one, to me.

(Cue Dr Johnson and 'a foolish consistency is the hobgolin of little minds'.)

There are things about which I disagree with pretty much everyone here - different things with different people. And by the same token, things about which I find myself agreeing with everyone here - again, different things with different people.

What a dull world it would be if it could be neatly split into two camps.

[there buster]

The only ones who can unify the country are those who divided it-- into interest groups, racial groups, sexual groups, age groups, etc.

The Democrat party. There was far less partisanship prior to the radical left taking over the Democrat party. The process began in the middle '60's, and was completed by 1972. It took the right and evangelicals about a decade to react.

[Kevin H]

It is interesting. In the 1940s several ministeral students went to the seminary as Republicans and left as Democrats. Elder, I'm not sure how to spell his name, but the seminary building at Andrews is named after him; gave the students topics to debate. One, Felix Lorenz, tells how he once asked for people to debate for or against socialized medicine. Felix, being a strong Republican and very into politics saw socialized medicine as horrible and boldly joined the group to argue against it. Just before class ended Elder W. said "Oh, one last thing, those of you who choose to argue for Socialized medicine are to argue against it and those of you who choose to argue against it are to argue for it." Felix left the room furious. However in his research he, and several on his team changed their mind and left the seminary headded down the road of becomeing democrats.

Another issue is the Republicans use to be more liberal. W. W. Prescott was quite active in the republican party until it started to become too conservative for him. Then there was of course the further moves to the right in 1964 and the Regan revolution that took it so far right that a typical Nixon repulbican couple, after Regan had to be democrats, the Clintons. How many others who would have been republicans under say Nixon, but like the Clintons are now democrats?

[olger]

Beginning about 1950 a wave of bright young Adventists moved into the graduate schools of major secular universities in the United States and Europe. They were a kind of experimental species, for prior to them only a few believers had ventured into such studies, typically persons of long experience in church service. Now bright young people experienced the stimulation of high quality advanced education. And some found it attractive in ways that distanced them previous Adventist faith. From these youthful graduates came a number of faculty members placed in our schools and the rapidly developing seminary recently transferred from its former location in Washington. Within the decade, the seminary experienced a convulsion of faith that some of us in this forum will recall, that led to the departure of several faculty members. Some of these ex-faculty members have continued active in promoting the reinterpretation of the faith.

og

[Bravus]

Hmm. A faith that cannot withstand higher education and critical thinking worries me. What is it about Adventism that causes those who learn to think critically to have to reinterpret it? (This is the flip side of the question about 'what is it about higher education that doesn't support Adventism?' Both questions need answering.)

Simply claiming that universities are a godless plot doesn't really fly, IMO.

[olger]

The majority of universities in our country are incubators for liberal thought, and often a segway for agnosticism in the final analysis. Don't waste your time trying to deny that.

olger

[Bravus]

I'm not denying that that's the outcome, I'm just asking why that's so. I'm sure it's a goal for some professors, but by no means all, and many of my colleagues and friends who are academics are believers. There is something about higher education that causes people to ask questions (intentionally) and apparently something about the answers being given by religion that is unsatisfying. We need to look at both the questions and the answers.

Incidentally, William Perry's classic study of the moral reasoning of university students identified a number of stages, whereby students tend to come in as black-and-white objectivists, go through a stage of absolute relativism and end up at what he calls 'commitment within relativism'. I guess if the goal is to keep people as black-and-white objectivists then it's true that keeping them from going to university at all probably makes sense.

[LifeHiscost]

What a dull world it would be if it could be neatly split into two camps.

Sheep and goats or possibly wheat and tares can make it very interesting IMHO.

Regards!

[Bravus]

Oh, any camps where God makes the split I'm good with - it's just human divisions that seem to me to divide on all the wrong criteria and much too simplistically.

Incidentally, looked at those sheep and goats criteria lately? Interesting. (But *please* can we not have a 90 page faith/works discussion)

[Woody]

Yes. Please. The topic of this thread is lap sitting. If you know anything about laps ... please respond.

[Bravus]

Have to admit, when I read the original thread title I thought it was going to be something juicy about the appropriateness or otherwise of girls sitting on boys' laps at church functions.