Comments Posted By Joel Gillespie
Displaying 11 To 20 Of 35 Comments
It's pathetic. I denounce it. As if that matters. Reminds me of a nasty old Grand Funk song. Sue, I suppose there have been more FU's on the floor of the house and senate than we dare count, by both parties, by men and women, white and black. These are not choir boys and girls (though few have been dumb enough to be caught on tape). The tee shirt thing is a lot worse to me. It really sucks. I hope to hear it's a hoax, but I doubt it.
Comment Posted By Joel Gillespie On 25.02.2008 @ 20:38
Clever!
Comment Posted By Joel Gillespie On 15.02.2008 @ 16:21
Sue,
So do you find them or did they find you? I went to their site. Funny guy. Anyway, how did you manage the hook up or link or whatever?
Joel
Comment Posted By Joel Gillespie On 14.02.2008 @ 19:20
Sue,
I spent four wonderful days in the red light district of Amsterdam in 1978 - no, not doing THAT - it's where the youth hostel was located! It was a high security hostel! I saw things my twenty year old eyes didn't need to see. But I loved Amsterdam - the fabulous museums, the canals, the interesting people. Took a bunch of nice B&W's of the Amsterdam in the snow - in this set of pictures: http://www.flickr.com/photos/joelgillespie/sets/72157602817796604/.
Comment Posted By Joel Gillespie On 09.02.2008 @ 19:07
Sue,
I think that one has to separate the Constitution proper and the intellectual/social/religious mileu out of which it came. We are bound by the words of the Constitution, not what we think that different framers may have assumed or meant, or what may have influenced them. Many of the framers were deists, many Christians, many irreligious. I do not know the exact statistics. They were influenced by many things. Certainly "Judeo/Christian principles" was (were?) one of those things. It might be argued that our constitution could not have come about apart form very general aspects of the Judeo/Christian world view. But the constitution itself establishes a secular state. It establishes freedom of worship and assembly for Christians and others alike. There is no inherent reason that either a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, an agnostic, an atheist etc. could not be a good president, or be a bad president. McCain seems to be sucking up here, and it seems odd to me really. Going back to the Constitution, I think many Evangelical Christians feel that their own freedoms as Christians are being diminished, and there is a lot of pushback which results in votes, and Republicans cannot win without their votes, even if the Republican winner ignores them totally after the fact. Evangelicals have not adjusted well to being a minority now culturally and politically. The whole "Christian nation" thing, in terms of our origins, is a part of the fundamentalist mindset. I, as a theologically conservative Christian, who have read a fair bit about our founding have always wondered where they got that. My state was certainly not founded to be any sort of religious light upon the hill - it was all about money and power and political reward. But I would suggest this: just as you may want your own tradition to be understood, try to understand the evangelical mind, particularly the more fundamentalist wing of evangelicalism. Try to see the world through their eyes, the nation through their eyes, and at a human level try to understand their fears and worries and and challenges. Try to understand the challenges when every day Christian faith and life bumps up against the challenges to that faith at every turn in our current culture and climate. Look beyond Pat Robertson and James Dobson and other radio and TV personalities, and try to understand the real life challenges for conservative Christians, and it may at least provide a context for this web site where we found the John McCain interview.
Comment Posted By Joel Gillespie On 01.10.2007 @ 11:34
Sue,
I appreciate and agree with your initial sentiment and have read the whole thread. But it exhibits what you complained about, me thinks.
I jump in and out because of all this. People nice in person are nasty as hell, sarcastic, demeaning, and insulting in blogging. A lot of it I think is the medium itself. The reasons we are more courteous in person don't exist so much in this writing thing. I know there have been times when I have been snide. I have tried to apologize. I do feel that despite some vocal and snappy conservatives that the cards are nevertheless stacked here against conservatives.
I don't know how to make a contribution anymore. If I am not controversial nobody reads me. If I am I get dog piled and it takes a week to get out from under the pile. So, I have backed off the hot issues and now I am ignored more or less.
I had been pondering a post called "Top Ten Reasons Greensboro Sucks" and the blogging vitriole was in the top ten, right after the City Council, County Commisioners, School Board, and lack of a decent river. But I thought against it. I knew Ed would be all over me for dissing his city :)
Maybe we'll figure it out.
Joel
Comment Posted By Joel Gillespie On 18.04.2007 @ 21:38
You blog. Don't you want to do more?
Sue,
An off day I think, or an off moment. I think I was blowing off steam from a week that had one curve ball after another and I was in rush and just sort of manic - writing furiously for forty five minutes. My post did not meet my own standards regarding the 9th commandment and how we are to speak about others, and it hurt some feelings of people I care about, and it was just a bad context for making a point which I think is a legitimate one but one for another day, another context. I appreciate your grace towards me. I continue to try to find my place, my voice, my niche in the blogging world here. I love to write, and to share ideas and thoughts, but I want to be a positive force. Anyway, again, thank you for your wonderful paragraph above on "precious humanity." I might like to add that to my "favorite" sayings list. Really, very well put.
Joel
Comment Posted By Joel Gillespie On 09.09.2006 @ 10:29
Sue,
I have erased my brief rant, and am sorry for wading in. It did not meet my own standards and so I just took it off. I'd be happy if all my comments regarding this matter were erased. There is a point I want to make at the right time, but this isn't the right time, and I don't want to cast a shadow over your work. Sorry for the trouble. Joel.
Comment Posted By Joel Gillespie On 09.09.2006 @ 09:23
Dear Sue,
I wrote to you because I support and respect what you and Darkmoon and others are doing in and with converge south. I am 100% supportive of your purpose. I am really not much of a conference kind of guy - what little free time I have I seem to want to spend in the woods these days - but I truly and honestly think that the whole thing is a great idea. I want to do more, and this is a tool from which I could benefit. I figured you would here about my brief rant about "Converging and Diverging," and then, when I thought about it soem more, I did not want to seem ungrateful to you for your work. I had a grumpy blogging day I think, and I just do not did not not buy the line in soem threads I read that Mrs. Edwards coming was somehow apolitical. I mean, her stated purpose is apoltiical, but she is hardly apolitical, at least to many conservatives, and after reading all the talk about her I made a snide comment about rather having a root canal than watching people fawn all over her. I'm not really having a root canal. I guess I wrote to you kind of confessionally, sorry if my words contributed even a slight wisp to any cloud over the project (not likely as few people who read them!), yet finding myself frustrated that some people don't seem to see how much a poke in the eye it is to some, to many perhaps, to have the wife of John Edwards come to such a thing as a special guest. The way that a lot of people, well maybe most people around here, feel about Bush, well, that's about how many conservative folks feel about Edwards. Anyway, I was just trying to address that narrower point in a more salty way than I usually talk about things. And after I did that I felt bad - specifically with you and Darkmoon in mind, and didn't want to be interpreted as not appreaciating your hard work. I think now, if at all possible, I may try to come, despite my rant, because I think your stated goal is a good and worthy one.
Comment Posted By Joel Gillespie On 08.09.2006 @ 22:27
Yes, Sue I do. I am a little put off by the arguing about Mrs. Edwards and wish she wasn't coming, but, yes, I do want to do more than blog. But now I am afraid I have committed myself to a root canal. Anyway, despite my comments about Mrs. Edwards as a participant and how it seems that that (inadvertently) politicizes soemthing not meant to be political, maybe I'll crawl out of the dentist's chair and come. And what I do mainly to say, is, despite my other comments on the comments regarding Mrs. Edwards, I appreciate your hard word in pulling this together.
Joel
Comment Posted By Joel Gillespie On 08.09.2006 @ 19:28
|
|
|
|
|
|
