At least one of the founders said that we'd need a bloody revolution, from time to time. (IIRC, kind of to help politicians and such to remember their place, and also to remind the masses about the importance and cost of liberty.)
I really, really hope he was wrong. Particularly now.
Apropos of not very much, I just finished a book called The Fifth Risk. If you're needing to re-calibrate your expectations of 'normal' government behaviour (back to, well, normal), celebrate some fantastic recent achievements of US federal agencies, and be freshly amazed at the hooligan behaviour of the recent administration towards those who would serve the US people, I recommend it. It's kind of hopeful, and terrible, at the same time.
What makes the USA immune from a coup/ revolution, or any country?
The US military takes an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. The Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of all the military branches are all civilians. This has been ingrained in the system for over 200 years.
Civilian control of the military didn't stop a huge faction of it from turning against an elected president in the early 1860s.
Not that I think anything like that is likely to happen in 2020. Just that, in my experience, statements about some unbroken continuity in American politics going back to the Founding often gloss over that little bit of sectional strife.
You say a huge faction of the military turned against an elected president in 1860. Numbers and Source, please. Yes, a number of officers resigned their commission to join the confederacy, but that was largely out of loyalty to their home state. The standing American military was relatively small. It depended on the call out of the state militias. Consequently, the numbers were not that huge.
There was a report that the Secret Service moved Trump to an underground secure bunker when the protestors breached some barricades in Lafayette Park on Saturday night.
Of course, he claims the reports are false. He says he went to the bunker to inspect it.
Ya, right.
Coward.
Then he has the capital police/military clear a path through the peaceful protestors so he can walk to St James for his photo op holding a Bible in front of the church.
After he was roundly criticized by clergy throughout the country, he comes back, saying "many clergy" have emailed him thanking him for that action.
Ya right.
Coward---have you noticed most bullies are just that, cowards?
What makes the USA immune from a coup/ revolution, or any country?
The US military takes an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. The Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of all the military branches are all civilians. This has been ingrained in the system for over 200 years.
Civilian control of the military didn't stop a huge faction of it from turning against an elected president in the early 1860s.
Not that I think anything like that is likely to happen in 2020. Just that, in my experience, statements about some unbroken continuity in American politics going back to the Founding often gloss over that little bit of sectional strife.
You say a huge faction of the military turned against an elected president in 1860. Numbers and Source, please. Yes, a number of officers resigned their commission to join the confederacy, but that was largely out of loyalty to their home state. The standing American military was relatively small. It depended on the call out of the state militias. Consequently, the numbers were not that huge.
The American army also committed genocide against indigenous peoples. The Dakota Sioux living just south of Saskatoon rightfully killed that maniac Custer and then came here. They should've joined the Métis against the Redcoats for the 1885 rebellion because the British commanded eastern Canadian army was no better.
I have grown very fond of the Republican-led Lincoln Project. Exhibit 1. Exhibit 2. Exhibit 3. Not all Republicans are evil...just the ones with power.
Actually, I think that's pretty normal when there's perceived danger to a US president. Nothing to do with cowardice. The Secret Service is tasked with protecting the president, and I gather a president doesn't have a choice in the matter.
After he was roundly criticized by clergy throughout the country, he comes back, saying "many clergy" have emailed him thanking him for that action.
Ya right.
That part is probably true. In a country of 300 million + I'm sure there are at least 100 wing nut Trump-worshipping "pastors" who saw him holding up a Bible and think it's the best thing EVA! That many emailing him will seem like "many".
Is "pastors" meant to indicate they're behaving like anything but? Or a problem with the word?
FWIW: there was once a brief discussion of this on the boards. Non-US folks saw "pastor" as an insult. But it's not here, at least for Protestant clergy. And it just means "shepherd", which is part of Catholic tradition, too. Like the shepherd's crook that bishops use.
I recall being told by my mother that "pastor" was used, over here at any rate, by people who had not gone through any theological education or official ordination into any denomination. It was a term which could be used by anyone, and should be regarded as a reason for caution in dealing with them. I'm not sure if that should be seen as an insult. The etymology is not very relevant if there are people using the name without proper care for a flock. (And I know of at least one.)
What makes the USA immune from a coup/ revolution, or any country?
The US military takes an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. The Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of all the military branches are all civilians. This has been ingrained in the system for over 200 years.
Civilian control of the military didn't stop a huge faction of it from turning against an elected president in the early 1860s.
Not that I think anything like that is likely to happen in 2020. Just that, in my experience, statements about some unbroken continuity in American politics going back to the Founding often gloss over that little bit of sectional strife.
You say a huge faction of the military turned against an elected president in 1860. Numbers and Source, please. Yes, a number of officers resigned their commission to join the confederacy, but that was largely out of loyalty to their home state. The standing American military was relatively small. It depended on the call out of the state militias. Consequently, the numbers were not that huge.
The American army also committed genocide against indigenous peoples. The Dakota Sioux living just south of Saskatoon rightfully killed that maniac Custer and then came here. They should've joined the Métis against the Redcoats for the 1885 rebellion because the British commanded eastern Canadian army was no better.
And, ironically, Riel himself fled in the opposite direction, down to Montana.
That said, I'd have to say that the Canadian army in the 1880s west was a bit better than the US Army of the Custer era, if only because, apart from the Riel Rebellions(whose total casualties numbered in the dozens), I really can't think of any large-scale massacres of First Nations carried out by government troops, and nothing involving civilians.
The Beothuk were another story. Though that genocide wasn't carried out by Canadians per se.
Is "pastors" meant to indicate they're behaving like anything but? Or a problem with the word?
The former. I know it's common even among sane folk in the US, for all that it rings loud alarm bells in a UK context. A Minister, Priest, Vicar, Rector... might be fine, might be bonkers. Pastor? 95%+ chance of being Dagenham.
Three stops from Barking? I disagree, I (UK) have only ever heard ‘pastor’ used as an alternative to ‘minister’, certainly no implication of a lack of training or barkingness. No alarm bells, a bit old fashioned perhaps, but nothing else.
Is "pastors" meant to indicate they're behaving like anything but? Or a problem with the word?
The former. I know it's common even among sane folk in the US, for all that it rings loud alarm bells in a UK context. A Minister, Priest, Vicar, Rector... might be fine, might be bonkers. Pastor? 95%+ chance of being Dagenham.
I think that may be an over-exaggeration - seems to be relatively common usage in non-conformist circles IME,
Three stops from Barking? I disagree, I (UK) have only ever heard ‘pastor’ used as an alternative to ‘minister’, certainly no implication of a lack of training or barkingness. No alarm bells, a bit old fashioned perhaps, but nothing else.
This sounds exactlylike a lot of my bat-s**t-crazy republican friends did during/after the 2016 election. They were 1000% convinced that if Trump won that Obama would launch a coup and stay in the White House.
Rather than looking at what happens in third world countries, what happens in other western nations when the incumbent disputes an election result? The opposition don't call for the army to step in, they wait, do the math and if necessary get a court to decide or re-run the election.
There was a report that the Secret Service moved Trump to an underground secure bunker when the protestors breached some barricades in Lafayette Park on Saturday night.
Of course, he claims the reports are false. He says he went to the bunker to inspect it.
Ya, right.
Coward.
He wouldn't have a choice though.
So if you're calling him a coward for lying/stretching the truth so far you can see through it, then ok. If you're calling him a coward for being forcibly taken to a bunker by the Secret Service then that's not fair, not even on him.
The Guardian has an article about those for whom it resonated. Seeing it like Jericho, I fail to see any resemblence, (trumps on the inside, trumps building the wall (look out ivanka), he didn't have any trumpets, they attacked before, no circling, no repetition, ...)
Although when looking for link, it seems the seems that the dividing line is well inside the "US evangelical*" camp
*as in that brand as distinct from evangelical including Lutherans, evangelical as in spreading the good news, etc...
Is "pastors" meant to indicate they're behaving like anything but? Or a problem with the word?
FWIW: there was once a brief discussion of this on the boards. Non-US folks saw "pastor" as an insult. But it's not here, at least for Protestant clergy. And it just means "shepherd", which is part of Catholic tradition, too. Like the shepherd's crook that bishops use.
I presume the scare-quoting of "pastors" is not about casting doubt on the authority of the word 'pastor' itself, but their choice of championing Trump. As in, what kind of person with Christian values would champion Trump? As in, a true pastor would reject Trump and his values. Almost as if Jesus would talk about the Good Shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep, not to be confused with the 'shepherds' who have access to the flock by illicit means and are therefore thieves and robbers?
Pastor is a legitimately ordinary word for ministers in most of the ministry circles I'm familiar with, though the official title of 'Pastor' as in 'Pastor Smith' tends to be more associated with non-conformist congregations. But not considered the worse for that, necessarily.
Darn, you beat me to it about the Guardian article!
Interestingly, the reporter seems to know a bit about the Bible.
Of all the deluded, non-scriptural, anti-"what Jesus said", fundamentally *stupid* things to do and say...
If/when any of them ever realize what they've done...the results might not be pretty. Like suicide-watch not pretty. Hopefully, they'll choose to repent instead.
From one of the Guardian articles jay_emm linked to
Fea said it was unclear what happens next: whether evangelicals will stay by Trump, or make a significant split. But whatever happens, he said, is unlikely to be peaceful.
“Here’s a good rule of thumb,” he said. “Looking back through history, whenever you see someone in authority using the Bible to justify law and order, it ends badly.”
What makes the USA immune from a coup/ revolution, or any country?
The US military takes an oath to defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic. The Secretary of Defense and the Secretaries of all the military branches are all civilians. This has been ingrained in the system for over 200 years.
Civilian control of the military didn't stop a huge faction of it from turning against an elected president in the early 1860s.
Not that I think anything like that is likely to happen in 2020. Just that, in my experience, statements about some unbroken continuity in American politics going back to the Founding often gloss over that little bit of sectional strife.
You say a huge faction of the military turned against an elected president in 1860. Numbers and Source, please. Yes, a number of officers resigned their commission to join the confederacy, but that was largely out of loyalty to their home state. The standing American military was relatively small. It depended on the call out of the state militias. Consequently, the numbers were not that huge.
The American army also committed genocide against indigenous peoples. The Dakota Sioux living just south of Saskatoon rightfully killed that maniac Custer and then came here. They should've joined the Métis against the Redcoats for the 1885 rebellion because the British commanded eastern Canadian army was no better.
And, ironically, Riel himself fled in the opposite direction, down to Montana.
That said, I'd have to say that the Canadian army in the 1880s west was a bit better than the US Army of the Custer era, if only because, apart from the Riel Rebellions(whose total casualties numbered in the dozens), I really can't think of any large-scale massacres of First Nations carried out by government troops, and nothing involving civilians.
The Beothuk were another story. Though that genocide wasn't carried out by Canadians per se.
Riel went to the USA after the first rebellion in Manitoba after 1873 or so. He returned at the request of the Métis in Saskatchewan.
The timing and economy of the Canadian north were the differences. The rivers as highways for the fur trade, the recruitment of various first nations to work within it, and provided effective routes for disease to kill many. Once the beaver and buffalo were destroyed, then herding people onto reserves and not giving then even the treaty-promised starvation rations. And then stealing children for adoption by white families (up toabout 1970) putting then in Christian denomination run schools where massive systemic abuse, cultural and language genocide (up to about 1980, though many closed decades earlier) -- we're dealing with this ongoing right now. It's not history.
After he was roundly criticized by clergy throughout the country, he comes back, saying "many clergy" have emailed him thanking him for that action.
Ah yes - the old "nobody will speak out in public, but I've had lots of private support" tactic. Nobody believes that one, even when it's not coming from a proven liar.
Pastor is a legitimately ordinary word for ministers in most of the ministry circles I'm familiar with, though the official title of 'Pastor' as in 'Pastor Smith' tends to be more associated with non-conformist congregations. But not considered the worse for that, necessarily.
I know a couple of female TEC priests who call themselves "Pastor" because they don't like "Mother" much. And a couple who call themselves "Mother". Their male equivalents all use "Father".
There was a report that the Secret Service moved Trump to an underground secure bunker when the protestors breached some barricades in Lafayette Park on Saturday night.
Of course, he claims the reports are false. He says he went to the bunker to inspect it.
Ya, right.
Coward.
He wouldn't have a choice though.
So if you're calling him a coward for lying/stretching the truth so far you can see through it, then ok. If you're calling him a coward for being forcibly taken to a bunker by the Secret Service then that's not fair, not even on him.
I was prepared to give him a pass on the bunker thing for that reason. If he had just said "my security personnel were worried and took me to the bunker. I didn't think I needed it, but they were concerned." I would have just shrugged it off.
It is the fact that he, for some reason, felt the need to give out the bogus "inspection" comment that changes the equation for me. He felt the need to lie, to cover up, to try to explain away the bunker trip. That makes me think it was more than just him following the advice of security personnel. That makes me think he demanded to be taken there.
On the other hand, it is Trump and he does have a practice of lying for no reason at all. He just lies out of habit. Therefore, my conclusion may be wrong. It does show, though, that he cannot be honest with the American people about even the most innocent things.
I recall being told by my mother that "pastor" was used, over here at any rate, by people who had not gone through any theological education or official ordination into any denomination. It was a term which could be used by anyone, and should be regarded as a reason for caution in dealing with them. I'm not sure if that should be seen as an insult. The etymology is not very relevant if there are people using the name without proper care for a flock. (And I know of at least one.)
Whoa, that's a bizarre pond difference. Where I live, "Pastor" is a term of great respect, though often little power. And it is of course the standard term for Lutheran clergy, who (in my synod) go through at least eight years of post-secondary education, and often more. Ah, well.
I have no problem with the Secret Service moving the president to a secure bunker.
But I do have a problem with trump lying about why he went there--that is the mark of a coward. (He thinks it makes him look weak going into a bunker.) But what do you expect from a four (or is it five?) time draft dodger?
The President can overrule the Secret Service. After 911 the Secret Service wanted to keep George W. away from the White House. He finally said enough is enough and went back. I would guess the Secret Service did take Trump to the bunker and he decided to stay. Like Gramps49 I have no problem with him going there, but it is the crazy made up inspection story that makes him look dumb.
I recall being told by my mother that "pastor" was used, over here at any rate, by people who had not gone through any theological education or official ordination into any denomination. It was a term which could be used by anyone, and should be regarded as a reason for caution in dealing with them. I'm not sure if that should be seen as an insult. The etymology is not very relevant if there are people using the name without proper care for a flock. (And I know of at least one.)
Whoa, that's a bizarre pond difference. Where I live, "Pastor" is a term of great respect, though often little power. And it is of course the standard term for Lutheran clergy, who (in my synod) go through at least eight years of post-secondary education, and often more. Ah, well.
Well, I spoke up for Penny and now I'm embarrassed to have accidentally insulted your husband - very sorry It must be a pond difference - here 'pastor' tends to go with churches with really long names. I've tried to tell my kids to watch out for churches with really long names, though I'm sure you couldn't go too far wrong with 'The Parish of St.xxxx, St.yyyyy and St.zzzzzz in qqqqqqqq with rrrrrrrr.' In my tradition, you know where you are with 'Gas St. Methodist Church' - like most things with us it's a feature which appeals to a pretty small cohort
How funny. Here, those people usually insist on being called "Reverend" (if not "Apostle") and yes, they have very long and bizarre church names. I always think of them in cowboy boots.
As for Lutherans, we generally get St. Whatsits or Concordia--Lutherans have no imagination, and may have as many as three churches in the same town with the same name (at which point we start referring to "Old Trinity" and the like). As for "Pastor," that's the standard since Germany--"Herr Pastor" and all that.
President Trump Job Approval CBS News Approve 40, Disapprove 54 Disapprove +14
President Trump Job Approval Rasmussen Reports Approve 46, Disapprove 52 Disapprove +6
President Trump Job Approval Reuters/Ipsos Approve 40, Disapprove 57 Disapprove +17
Direction of Country Reuters/Ipsos Right Direction 23, Wrong Track 67 Wrong Track +44
Direction of Country CBS News Right Direction 28, Wrong Track 67 Wrong Track +39
Looks hopeful, Gramps49. One would wonder about the 23-28% 'right track' people. They must be very afraid, or angry, or something. I wonder if Biden will be able to calm them.
As for Lutherans, we generally get St. Whatsits or Concordia--Lutherans have no imagination, and may have as many as three churches in the same town with the same name (at which point we start referring to "Old Trinity" and the like).
I believe "Concordia" is only used by Missouri Synod Lutherans -- and they don't consider other Lutherans to be true Lutherans, IIRC.
After he was roundly criticized by clergy throughout the country, he comes back, saying "many clergy" have emailed him thanking him for that action.
Ya right.
That part is probably true. In a country of 300 million + I'm sure there are at least 100 wing nut Trump-worshipping "pastors" who saw him holding up a Bible and think it's the best thing EVA! That many emailing him will seem like "many".
I have seen news articles quoting a few—as in maybe two—evangelical clergy who applauded that absolutely bizarre and noxious photo op. What was interesting to me was the prominent conservative/evangelical clergy who were quoted as condemning, or at least criticizing, it.
I recall being told by my mother that "pastor" was used, over here at any rate, by people who had not gone through any theological education or official ordination into any denomination. It was a term which could be used by anyone, and should be regarded as a reason for caution in dealing with them. I'm not sure if that should be seen as an insult. The etymology is not very relevant if there are people using the name without proper care for a flock. (And I know of at least one.)
Whoa, that's a bizarre pond difference. Where I live, "Pastor" is a term of great respect, though often little power. And it is of course the standard term for Lutheran clergy, who (in my synod) go through at least eight years of post-secondary education, and often more. Ah, well.
Yes. In some American churches—including Presbyterians and the Catholic Church—“pastor” is the title given to the member of the clergy in charge of the parish/congregation; it’s the equivalent of “rector” in The Episcopal Church or of “priest in charge.” In my tribe, a larger congregation may have a pastor and one or more associate pastors. Use of “pastor” is also common among Baptists and Methodists. In the American South, the house provided by a Baptist church for the pastor and (traditionally, and still largely) his family—what my tribe would call a “manse” and the Episcopalians would call a “rectory”—is called a “pastorium.”
And while “Pastor” as a form of address, as in “Pastor Smith“ or “Pastor Tom,” is traditionally associated with Lutherans, I’ve often heard it used by Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptist’s and others.
Coming back, remember my mother's understanding of the term dated back to the thirties, before house churches, and fellowship churches, and churches with very long names. Those, from what I see, tend to be black led, and probably follow different patterns.
(I remember, on a tangent, seeing a bunch of white male student types preaching repentance on the street in Peckham, to crowds of black people who probably all attended one or other of the churches with long names which populate the area.)
As for Lutherans, we generally get St. Whatsits or Concordia--Lutherans have no imagination, and may have as many as three churches in the same town with the same name (at which point we start referring to "Old Trinity" and the like).
I believe "Concordia" is only used by Missouri Synod Lutherans -- and they don't consider other Lutherans to be true Lutherans, IIRC.
I AM a Missouri Synod Lutheran, and we say no such thing. Yes, we have our differences with the other Synods--if we didn't, we'd be one big synod, wouldn't we?--but we don't anathematize them. Though to be sure you can find inflammatory rhetoric from people in any denomination.
I recall the use of ‘the pastor’ being standard in mainstream free churches in the UK in the ‘70s. We would never have referred to ‘Pastor Jones’, though, but ‘Mr. Jones’ or first name.
President Trump Job Approval CBS News Approve 40, Disapprove 54 Disapprove +14
President Trump Job Approval Rasmussen Reports Approve 46, Disapprove 52 Disapprove +6
President Trump Job Approval Reuters/Ipsos Approve 40, Disapprove 57 Disapprove +17
Direction of Country Reuters/Ipsos Right Direction 23, Wrong Track 67 Wrong Track +44
Direction of Country CBS News Right Direction 28, Wrong Track 67 Wrong Track +39
I find those numbers depressing. I'm comfortable with no more than 30% of Americans approving of Trump's job performance. Any more than that is a grave injustice.
On the pastor business, I have always found the Pastafarians attractive, theologically speaking of course.
The President can overrule the Secret Service. After 911 the Secret Service wanted to keep George W. away from the White House. He finally said enough is enough and went back. I would guess the Secret Service did take Trump to the bunker and he decided to stay. Like Gramps49 I have no problem with him going there, but it is the crazy made up inspection story that makes him look dumb.
99% sure that (s)he can only overrule when (s) is out of immediate danger. I'm pretty certain that when the White House crashes the Secret Service's duty to protect the President takes precedent over the President's immediate wishes. Potus can have them reassigned or an inquiry after the fact of course.
Comments
I really, really hope he was wrong. Particularly now.
:votive:
You say a huge faction of the military turned against an elected president in 1860. Numbers and Source, please. Yes, a number of officers resigned their commission to join the confederacy, but that was largely out of loyalty to their home state. The standing American military was relatively small. It depended on the call out of the state militias. Consequently, the numbers were not that huge.
Of course, he claims the reports are false. He says he went to the bunker to inspect it.
Ya, right.
Coward.
Then he has the capital police/military clear a path through the peaceful protestors so he can walk to St James for his photo op holding a Bible in front of the church.
After he was roundly criticized by clergy throughout the country, he comes back, saying "many clergy" have emailed him thanking him for that action.
Ya right.
Coward---have you noticed most bullies are just that, cowards?
The American army also committed genocide against indigenous peoples. The Dakota Sioux living just south of Saskatoon rightfully killed that maniac Custer and then came here. They should've joined the Métis against the Redcoats for the 1885 rebellion because the British commanded eastern Canadian army was no better.
I'll defer to your corrections on the ACW.
Actually, I think that's pretty normal when there's perceived danger to a US president. Nothing to do with cowardice. The Secret Service is tasked with protecting the president, and I gather a president doesn't have a choice in the matter.
That part is probably true. In a country of 300 million + I'm sure there are at least 100 wing nut Trump-worshipping "pastors" who saw him holding up a Bible and think it's the best thing EVA! That many emailing him will seem like "many".
FWIW: there was once a brief discussion of this on the boards. Non-US folks saw "pastor" as an insult. But it's not here, at least for Protestant clergy. And it just means "shepherd", which is part of Catholic tradition, too. Like the shepherd's crook that bishops use.
And, ironically, Riel himself fled in the opposite direction, down to Montana.
That said, I'd have to say that the Canadian army in the 1880s west was a bit better than the US Army of the Custer era, if only because, apart from the Riel Rebellions(whose total casualties numbered in the dozens), I really can't think of any large-scale massacres of First Nations carried out by government troops, and nothing involving civilians.
The Beothuk were another story. Though that genocide wasn't carried out by Canadians per se.
The former. I know it's common even among sane folk in the US, for all that it rings loud alarm bells in a UK context. A Minister, Priest, Vicar, Rector... might be fine, might be bonkers. Pastor? 95%+ chance of being Dagenham.
MMM
MMM
I think that may be an over-exaggeration - seems to be relatively common usage in non-conformist circles IME,
Agreed.
Rather than looking at what happens in third world countries, what happens in other western nations when the incumbent disputes an election result? The opposition don't call for the army to step in, they wait, do the math and if necessary get a court to decide or re-run the election.
He wouldn't have a choice though.
So if you're calling him a coward for lying/stretching the truth so far you can see through it, then ok. If you're calling him a coward for being forcibly taken to a bunker by the Secret Service then that's not fair, not even on him.
Although when looking for link, it seems the seems that the dividing line is well inside the "US evangelical*" camp
*as in that brand as distinct from evangelical including Lutherans, evangelical as in spreading the good news, etc...
Respectfully, are you familiar with the Bush v. Gore election mess? If not, please look it up.
I presume the scare-quoting of "pastors" is not about casting doubt on the authority of the word 'pastor' itself, but their choice of championing Trump. As in, what kind of person with Christian values would champion Trump? As in, a true pastor would reject Trump and his values. Almost as if Jesus would talk about the Good Shepherd who lays down his life for his sheep, not to be confused with the 'shepherds' who have access to the flock by illicit means and are therefore thieves and robbers?
Pastor is a legitimately ordinary word for ministers in most of the ministry circles I'm familiar with, though the official title of 'Pastor' as in 'Pastor Smith' tends to be more associated with non-conformist congregations. But not considered the worse for that, necessarily.
Darn, you beat me to it about the Guardian article!
Interestingly, the reporter seems to know a bit about the Bible.
Of all the deluded, non-scriptural, anti-"what Jesus said", fundamentally *stupid* things to do and say...
If/when any of them ever realize what they've done...the results might not be pretty. Like suicide-watch not pretty. Hopefully, they'll choose to repent instead.
Mr (Dr, Prof?) Fea knows the score...
Riel went to the USA after the first rebellion in Manitoba after 1873 or so. He returned at the request of the Métis in Saskatchewan.
The timing and economy of the Canadian north were the differences. The rivers as highways for the fur trade, the recruitment of various first nations to work within it, and provided effective routes for disease to kill many. Once the beaver and buffalo were destroyed, then herding people onto reserves and not giving then even the treaty-promised starvation rations. And then stealing children for adoption by white families (up toabout 1970) putting then in Christian denomination run schools where massive systemic abuse, cultural and language genocide (up to about 1980, though many closed decades earlier) -- we're dealing with this ongoing right now. It's not history.
Ah yes - the old "nobody will speak out in public, but I've had lots of private support" tactic. Nobody believes that one, even when it's not coming from a proven liar.
I know a couple of female TEC priests who call themselves "Pastor" because they don't like "Mother" much. And a couple who call themselves "Mother". Their male equivalents all use "Father".
It is the fact that he, for some reason, felt the need to give out the bogus "inspection" comment that changes the equation for me. He felt the need to lie, to cover up, to try to explain away the bunker trip. That makes me think it was more than just him following the advice of security personnel. That makes me think he demanded to be taken there.
On the other hand, it is Trump and he does have a practice of lying for no reason at all. He just lies out of habit. Therefore, my conclusion may be wrong. It does show, though, that he cannot be honest with the American people about even the most innocent things.
Whoa, that's a bizarre pond difference. Where I live, "Pastor" is a term of great respect, though often little power. And it is of course the standard term for Lutheran clergy, who (in my synod) go through at least eight years of post-secondary education, and often more. Ah, well.
I'm getting slightly jealous. You get all the best insults!
But I do have a problem with trump lying about why he went there--that is the mark of a coward. (He thinks it makes him look weak going into a bunker.) But what do you expect from a four (or is it five?) time draft dodger?
I doubt TEC will be complaining. Publicity for standing up for justice, garnering the hatred of the powerful? That's how I like my evangelism.
I have never been so proud to be an Episcopalian!!!
Well, I spoke up for Penny and now I'm embarrassed to have accidentally insulted your husband - very sorry
As for Lutherans, we generally get St. Whatsits or Concordia--Lutherans have no imagination, and may have as many as three churches in the same town with the same name (at which point we start referring to "Old Trinity" and the like). As for "Pastor," that's the standard since Germany--"Herr Pastor" and all that.
President Trump Job Approval CBS News Approve 40, Disapprove 54 Disapprove +14
President Trump Job Approval Rasmussen Reports Approve 46, Disapprove 52 Disapprove +6
President Trump Job Approval Reuters/Ipsos Approve 40, Disapprove 57 Disapprove +17
Direction of Country Reuters/Ipsos Right Direction 23, Wrong Track 67 Wrong Track +44
Direction of Country CBS News Right Direction 28, Wrong Track 67 Wrong Track +39
Yes. In some American churches—including Presbyterians and the Catholic Church—“pastor” is the title given to the member of the clergy in charge of the parish/congregation; it’s the equivalent of “rector” in The Episcopal Church or of “priest in charge.” In my tribe, a larger congregation may have a pastor and one or more associate pastors. Use of “pastor” is also common among Baptists and Methodists. In the American South, the house provided by a Baptist church for the pastor and (traditionally, and still largely) his family—what my tribe would call a “manse” and the Episcopalians would call a “rectory”—is called a “pastorium.”
And while “Pastor” as a form of address, as in “Pastor Smith“ or “Pastor Tom,” is traditionally associated with Lutherans, I’ve often heard it used by Presbyterians, Methodists, Baptist’s and others.
(I remember, on a tangent, seeing a bunch of white male student types preaching repentance on the street in Peckham, to crowds of black people who probably all attended one or other of the churches with long names which populate the area.)
I AM a Missouri Synod Lutheran, and we say no such thing. Yes, we have our differences with the other Synods--if we didn't, we'd be one big synod, wouldn't we?--but we don't anathematize them. Though to be sure you can find inflammatory rhetoric from people in any denomination.
MMM
woot!
I find those numbers depressing. I'm comfortable with no more than 30% of Americans approving of Trump's job performance. Any more than that is a grave injustice.
On the pastor business, I have always found the Pastafarians attractive, theologically speaking of course.
99% sure that (s)he can only overrule when (s) is out of immediate danger. I'm pretty certain that when the White House crashes the Secret Service's duty to protect the President takes precedent over the President's immediate wishes. Potus can have them reassigned or an inquiry after the fact of course.