Republican Brothel Owner Wins Election
RENO, Nev. — Lance Gilman is a thriving businessman with dozens of employees. That those workers include a good many prostitutes did not faze the people of a rural Nevada county who recently elected him as a Storey County commissioner by a wide margin.
The Mustang Ranch brothel owner is the first such owner to win election to public office in Nevada since prostitution was legalized here in 1971, Nevada historian Guy Rocha said. And he’s believed to be the first to do so in the state’s 148-year history
[...]
Gilman, 68, a self-described “dye-in-the-wool Republican who loves American values,” said he encountered few objections to his Mustang Ranch ownership during his campaign in the county of 4,000. He won with 62 percent of the vote on Nov. 6.
His claims that his bordello, located along Interstate 80 some 10 miles east of Reno, has contributed more than $5 million to the county’s budget over the past decade. It has 44 full-time employees, and 30 to 80 working girls, depending on the season.
“To 99 percent of the voters, they view it as just a business,” Gilman told The Associated Press. “It’s a prosperous business that’s helped the county.”
Sounds like Kevin’s kind of Republican!
A small business owner…a job producer!Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2012 at 0921 hrs
Lance is clearly not Owen’s kind of Republican.
Notice the “no weapons” sign.Posted by Charlie Hillman on November 19, 2012 at 1003 hrs
Charlie, try thinking for once, instead of trying to attack. I’m quite sure from Owen’s writings that he would support the Right of an individual to hang or not hang that sign. It would only be a government official trying to hang that sign at the city, county, state, or country level that Owen would disagree with.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2012 at 1106 hrs
Dave,
I would discourage such activity from a personal standpoint, (especially if one claims to be a Christian) but, yes, I agree with you…
A job producer and small business owner.
If embracing the “right to be let alone” makes one a “good Republican”, this business owner would certainly qualify.
Are you shocked?
This business owner is to be much more applauded than the typical Stalinist liberal that will dictate the light bulbs we buy or prohibit us from drinking 16 oz. or more of soda at a time.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2012 at 1110 hrs
Good to know Kevin. Then you also approve the voters’ decisions in Colorado and Washington approving recreational use of marijuana since it will create new jobs for those states and the morality of the business is not really an issue. Would the same small business - job producer mentality to some enterprising abortionist?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2012 at 1134 hrs
instead of trying to attack
Ah Jason, lighten up a bit. It was just a joke. Owen knows full well of my support for the 2nd amendment.
I’d suggest you try thinking in colors other than black and white. The government already restricts my right to bear arms in many places (e.g. airports).Posted by Charlie Hillman on November 19, 2012 at 1151 hrs
Republicans 2016 - the party of Lincoln - and Hookers .
It has a nice, inclusive ring to it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2012 at 1542 hrs
As someone who lives in Nevada and knows a little about what actually happens with these brothels, from the outside, not the inside:
Brothel owners do contribute a lot of money to the local economy in the small counties. Because many of these counties have little business except casinos and brothels, they contribute a lot to the local tax base. They have donated a lot of money to local schools and local emergency services. they also contribute, through fees of the hookers, to the local sheriff department’s budgets. They also do not need a lot of local services, like EMS, Fire or police or other services, so they have add a net value, money wise, to the communities they are in.
It doesn’t surprise me he won. It’s hard to find people to run for office in these rural counties. It’s a thankless job.
Finally, in rural Nevada, it is hard to find a liberal, much less a Democrat. A Democrat is as rare as finding a Bear fan in Green Bay. Sure they exist, but no one talks about them and the liberals and Bear fans tend to hide.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2012 at 1752 hrs
“If embracing the “right to be let alone” makes one a “good Republican”, this business owner would certainly qualify.”
Mr. Schuenemann, you are a hypocrite. Since when do Christian conservatives embrace individuals “right to be let alone” if they engage in sinful enterprises like condoning fornication outside of marriage? Had the owner of the Mustang Ranch been a (D) who gained political office, you would be all over his “lack of morals”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 19, 2012 at 1931 hrs
Dave,
I don’t have a problem with the decision by the voters on that issue…as long as it is taxed on level of alcohol and cigs.
Alcohol is far more dangerous to our society as pot, and we saw what happened with prohibition on that.
Abortion is murder, not a “business enterprise”. there is no mutual consent by the child in the matter. There can be mutual consent on Mary Jane use by adults.
Although, I do think pot smoking is dumb and a complete waste of money.
I’d like to see an initiative where pot smokers waive their right to social security or Medicare for using. If pot smokers have money and time for pot, they do not need a government handout later in life….or should make taxpayers pay for there foolish behavior choices when it comes to health problems.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2012 at 0602 hrs
greencarman,
Christians should not engage in the activity and discourage others from doing so…however, the issue is: should the activity be illegal?
There are many things that are sins, that are not illegal to do.
Are you saying all sins should be prosecuted and punished by government authority? (The sins stemming from the use of alcohol, certainly come to my mind.)
If so, I think nearly all politicians would be in jail.
The function of government is to protect the liberty and rights from infringement by others.
If everyone is an adult at Mustang Ranch….where is the rights violation?
The participants may need forgiveness for the sins committed, but is forgiveness a function of government?
If it is, the anti-free speech liberals from the freedom from religion foundation will be in a total convulsion.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2012 at 0613 hrs
I’d like to see an initiative where pot smokers waive their right to social security or Medicare for using. If pot smokers have money and time for pot, they do not need a government handout later in life….
Kevin, you realize that social security, in theory, is getting your own money back, right? It’s not welfare, you’re entitled to it.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2012 at 0832 hrs
GCM, Kevin is right on from a Christian point of view. It is amazing how he can see separation of church and state so clearly sometimes and be blind to it in other cases, but this is one of the clear eyed views. The fact that there have been movements against victimless sinful crimes by ‘moral majorities’ in the past does not make their positions right. Those advocacy groups were the ones in the wrong. Christians have no right to legislate their morals to the non-christian, secular world.
Morals are part of what sets people apart from each other. Following the law is not morality IMO. What you choose to do or not do, and what you take responsibility for is what sets personal morality. If all the laws were Godly from a christian point of view, how would you ever tell a christian apart from a law abider? What would be the difference?
VAPolitico, you do realize that social security, for instance in the form of disability, has massive amounts of money committed outside of its original purpose of a retirement piggy bank, right? In all cases outside of retirment, you are not entitled to it, though millions receive it. So really, the key words of your comment is in theory.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2012 at 0932 hrs
an initiative where pot smokers waive their right to social security or Medicare
Certainly that would also extend to those folks who drink beer or eat Blizzards, right?
Posted by Charlie Hillman on November 20, 2012 at 1038 hrs
Tuqueras,
I’m just pushing back against the notion that you can pay SS tax alllll your life and then have ti gov’t simply refuse to pay it out because you smoked weed.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2012 at 1058 hrs
Tuerqas—“GCM, Kevin is right on from a Christian point of view.”
According to Jude 1:7, sexual immorality merits an eternity in flames.
Tuerqas—“Christians have no right to legislate their morals to the non-christian, secular world. ”Christians, as citizens of a country, have every right to promote their values and work to ensure that their beliefs are crafted into law by politicians. Mr. Schuenemann stated in a past blog post, “A religion is questionable, in my view, when it rejects the basic doctrines in the New Testament.” Am I mistaken in that the New Testament fails to clearly renounce that prostitution is sinful, that it has no place in a righteous society?
Recall that Mr. Schuenemann also said in that same blog post, “Political position on a theological issue that according to his faith is fundamentally opposed.” It would appear that Mr. Schuenemann has a major disconnect here with protecting the “political rights of others” to strictly adhering to the “principles of his religious beliefs”.
That is, he repeatedly touts how morality ought to be the focal point in American society, and that Christian values is the wellsprung of that morality. Sex outside of marriage, let alone paying someone for it, is immoral. Morality is the foundation for laws. In particular, Christian morality is that basis.
Tuerqas—“If all the laws were Godly from a christian point of view, how would you ever tell a christian apart from a law abider? What would be the difference?”There would be no difference! Exactly the point Mr. Schuenemann is making. If our society was based on strictly Christian values, our country, from his point of view, would be in a better place socially.
Mr. Schuenemann—There are many things that are sins, that are not illegal to do. “Are you saying all sins should be prosecuted and punished by government authority?”Citizens in a society, through majority rule, determines which sins are or not egregious to the point that legislation is passed to limit or prohibit them.
Mr. Schuenemann—The function of government is to protect the liberty and rights from infringement by others. If everyone is an adult at Mustang Ranch….where is the rights violation?Then, according to YOUR logic, then you would have no problem from a LEGAL perspective if two adult men or two adult women want to get married.
Mr. Schuenemann—Christians should not engage in the activity and discourage others from doing so…however, the issue is: should the activity be illegal?Here is where you are hypocritical. The selling of human flesh is runs counter to the Christian tradition. Why would Christians condone such behavior from a “rights” perspective when this action contradicts biblical teachings?
http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/kralis/060804
No, if “true” Christians such as yourself are consistent in their faith and their principles, the major sins of abortion, prostitution, and sodomy must be renounced spiritually and legally!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 20, 2012 at 2332 hrs
an initiative where pot smokers waive their right to social security or Medicare
Certainly that would also extend to those folks who drink beer or eat Blizzards, right?
Or extend to those who’s body mass index is above the recommended limit.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2012 at 0642 hrs
greencarman,
“Political position on a theological issue that according to his faith is fundamentally opposed.”
Where did I say this? I believe someone ELSE said this in response to a comment I made.
That is, he repeatedly touts how morality ought to be the focal point in American society, and that Christian values is the wellsprung of that morality. Sex outside of marriage, let alone paying someone for it, is immoral. Morality is the foundation for laws. In particular, Christian morality is that basis
Correct, but that does not mean such influence results in advocacy position, or if you prefer the liberal phrasing “there ought to be a law”. “the right to be let alone” is the opposite position of liberals…who give up on influence and run to make a law to prohibit sale of 17 oz. of soda.
Personally, I severely detest alcoholism as a sin, but that does not mean prohibition of alcohol would be a good strategy in dealing with it.
Citizens in a society, through majority rule, determines which sins are or not egregious to the point that legislation is passed to limit or prohibit them
In Christianity, all sins are equal. One is guilty of breaking the whole law with one sin. The sins that government should protect us from are those where our rights are violated. If one consents to an activity, even though it’s sinful from a Christian point of view, does that mean we utilize government resources to put that person in jail?
I think we have more important priorities from a prosecution standpoint. Like cracking down on drunk driving, theft, fraud, murder, rape, etc.
Then, according to YOUR logic, then you would have no problem from a LEGAL perspective if two adult men or two adult women want to get married.
I thought you said “majority rules”? Wisconsin voted, overwhelmingly, marriage be between one man and one woman.
I would not advocate changing the majority on that, because if that were changed, my fear is: government would force (thanks to stalinist liberalism) churches to perform marriages contrary to their faith. That is a violation of the first amendment.
Here is where you are hypocritical. The selling of human flesh is runs counter to the Christian tradition. Why would Christians condone such behavior from a “rights” perspective when this action contradicts biblical teachings.
No, if “true” Christians such as yourself are consistent in their faith and their principles, the major sins of abortion, prostitution, and sodomy must be renounced spiritually and legally.
Again, I agree prostitution is a sin and no Christian should ever partake in the activity.
However, you are incorrect to classify sins as “major” and “minor”. All sins are equal under the Law in the bible.
1st Corinthians 10:23. “Everything is permissible”—but not everything is beneficial. “Everything is permissible”—but not everything is constructive. 24 Nobody should seek his own good, but the good of others.
James 2:10. For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles at just one point is guilty of breaking all of it.
All sins carry equal weight, from a biblical perspective. So you also want to make adultery, and homosexuality, illegal based on your argument? (All sin should be illegal and Christians should always advocate outlawing sin?)
Government is there to protect our rights from infringement from others. Again, who’s rights would we be protecting by arresting everyone at the Mustang Ranch?
If you are going to say that sins of mutual consent, should result in earthly punishment (jail time), the UW-Madison would be close to a ghost town in arresting students for alcoholism (binge drinking) and sexual immorality.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2012 at 0645 hrs
VA,
Kevin, you realize that social security, in theory, is getting your own money back, right? It’s not welfare, you’re entitled to it.
The basic flaw is: once government taxes it and TAKES IT from you, it is no longer yours!!!!
You are subject to the whim of the ruling class. You are not “entitled” to anything.
You individual choice about those earnings have been stripped away from your control.
This is why it amazes me, liberals, the alleged champions of choice, would even advocate programs like social security, robbing the working poor of resources, choice and wealth.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2012 at 0653 hrs
GCM, dude, did I imply that I believe KS is always right? I certainly did not mean to, nor do I think I did. The one comment was right on. If Christians want to band together to legislate to non-christians, it is wrong by their own morals. People should not be forced to be Godly with no belief in God. That belief/faith must come first. Christians should not murder, steal, etc. because it is wrong and against God’s will, not because of secular law. I should rephrase, though. Christians have every right, they have no good Christian justification to legislate their morals to non-christians.
I did not endorse any other KS statements in this thread besides comment 11, so the rest of the argument to me... about Kevin’s comments...makes no sense to me. Besides that, Kevin does not repeatedly tout that morality ought to be the focal point of society, he repeatedly argues that religion and religious speech is constantly and aggressively attacked by many liberal outlets. Something I happen to believe as well.
Tuqueras,
I’m just pushing back against the notion that you can pay SS tax alllll your life and then have ti gov’t simply refuse to pay it out because you smoked weed.
You are right, he should have said ‘waive medicare’ not social security. Not that I agree, but I certainly think if smokers should pay more for insurance (do they pay more medicare or does smoking become ‘free’ if you live to 65, or 55 if you are a public servant?) then drinkers, pot smokers, and people who believe abortion is a fine method of family planning, should also pay more for their insurance too, don’t you think?
That is the biggest farce of Gov’t planned healthcare. Health is now taxed. We all must pay for everyone’s bad choices in life, not just their bad luck. Even if you are one of the ones who think that is best, you must realize that few people will ever be happy with even the majority of decisions that others(often non-elected and self interested others) make for them, much less all the choices.
No, if “true” Christians such as yourself are consistent in their faith and their principles, the major sins of abortion, prostitution, and sodomy must be renounced spiritually and legally!
‘True Christian’ is an interesting phrase. I am one who believes that every single covenant with God is individual. Am I wrong? Maybe, only fools believe they understand the meanings of God.(One of faith’s greatest gifts, IMO. Humility) I can and should try to convince/convert others, but JC said to live within the laws of the land, not take your own land and make your own laws. That was the old Testament. Am I not a true Christian because I believe the above statement to be wrong? I really don’t care about your judgment, I care about God’s. My faith and my principles dictate that I do not engage in your ‘major sins’ above and preach against them, not that I go vigilante against anyone who does.
Your definition puts faith above secular law in all things. That means we should disregard whether there is a law against an immoral act and punish it. My definition puts faith above the law only for me, and I believe that is the way it should be.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2012 at 0926 hrs
Tuerqas—Besides that, Kevin does not repeatedly tout that morality ought to be the focal point of society, **he repeatedly argues that religion and religious speech is constantly and aggressively attacked by many liberal outlets.**
Sure, whatever**. Regardless, he insists that Americans embrace a particular brand of what is right and what is wrong, one that is consistent with his Christian values. Mr. Schuenamann’s political and moral beliefs are joined at the hip; that is, they play off one another. Our country, from his vantage point, would be in a much better place socially if people simply embraced the moral codes that he follows.
Nothing wrong with that philosophy, until he becomes hypocritical about it.
“Political position on a theological issue that according to his faith is fundamentally opposed.”**Mr. Schuemenann, you said “Where did I say this? I believe someone ELSE said this in response to a comment I made.”
Own your comment**...
It would appear that you are opposed to things from a moral and political perspective, that are intertwined. If you believe gay marriage is a sin and oppose its implementation legally, then you are consistent. If you believe that prostitution is a sin and support its existence legally, then you’re religious beliefs are incompatible with your political beliefs. You are promoting civic behavior that runs contrary to Church teaching. You have a duty as a Christian to make sure sin does not infiltrate our society through political measures.Why? Recall that Christian leaders have told their congregations that they must support politicians who share the same morals and values as they do, lest they be promoting sin and subject to possible removal from the church for supporting gay marriage, abortion, homosexuality, etc.
Mr. Schuenemann—The function of government is to protect the liberty and rights from infringement by others. If everyone is an adult at Mustang Ranch….where is the rights violation?GCM—Then, according to YOUR logic, then you would have no problem from a LEGAL perspective if two adult men or two adult women want to get married.
Mr. Schuenemann—I thought you said “majority rules”? Wisconsin voted, overwhelmingly, marriage be between one man and one woman.
Correct! Wisconsinites voted and the people have spoken on the matter. I never said I disagreed. The question remains do YOU believe in majority rules?
“All sins carry equal weight, from a biblical perspective. So you also want to make adultery, and homosexuality, illegal based on your argument? (All sin should be illegal and Christians should always advocate outlawing sin?)”Mr. Schuenemann, it’s NOT MY ARGUMENT, it’s YOUR POSITION! From a religious standpoint, you renounce sin—adultery, homosexuality, prostitution. I would venture to say that you do not want sin to ruin our society. I would imagine that you prefer laws to prevent sin from spreading. So, how can you proclaim yourself a Christian if you do not seek legislation to at the very least limit such activity? How can you be perfectly fine with Nevada legalizing prostitution—a known sin—even though prostitution runs counter to the principles of your faith?
“Government is there to protect our rights from infringement from others. Again, who’s rights would we be protecting by arresting everyone at the Mustang Ranch?”God states unequivocally he opposes sin. How could God approve a state ensuring that the selling of one’s body be legal if the action itself is a sin? If you want to say “free will”, fine. Then states have the right to legalize any behavior deemed sinful, even if it runs counter to your religious beliefs. So you have no standing anymore to run your mouth off opposing gay marriage if two consenting adults want to get hitched and the state guarantees that behavior even if that action is deemed sinful. Because the state has the freedom, the right if you will, to make its own decision as to what behavior is acceptable and unacceptable.
“I would not advocate changing the majority on that, because if that were changed, my fear is: government would force (thanks to stalinist liberalism) churches to perform marriages contrary to their faith. That is a violation of the first amendment.”If a state deems marriage as between two PEOPLE, then those individuals can consummate their relationship outside of a church, or a church that recognizes such unions. Hence, no violation of the First Amendment. Your church is off the hook!
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2012 at 2214 hrs
greencarman,
So if I encourage someone not to sin, I MUST advocate making that sin illegal?
That is a very narrow view of Christianity.
Wouldn’t everyone be in jail if we prosecuted every sin?
Adultery is a sin…should we throw Bill Clinton in prison?
That is what you are saying with your position that all sin should be unequivocally opposed by the State.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2012 at 2225 hrs
GCM,
How can I own that comment when the link you provided shows I DID NOT MAKE THAT COMMENT?
(or that you badly misrepresented the comment.)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 21, 2012 at 2227 hrs
Obama, however, with his flip-flop on gay marriage, “has taken a political position on a theological issue.”
The quote in italics highlight your exact words, Mr. Schuenemann. In my haste, I added “that according to his faith is fundamentally opposed”. Regardless, the context remains valid…Obama went against his religious beliefs to take a position on a matter for political purposes, which is what you are doing exactly when you support the legalization of prostitution despite this action being sinful.
And since when do YOU care about people misrepresenting comments when YOU are the king of such action!
“That is what you are saying with your position that all sin should be unequivocally opposed by the State.”This is NOT my position, it is YOUR position! As a citizen who is a Christian, YPI oppose sin and seek legislation to ensure it does not spread in society. Since YOU equate all sins as equal in weight as a Christian—recall that YOU said there is no such thing as major or minor sins—then naturally YOU want alls sin to be eradicated or at least minimized; hence, YOU support legislation to meet that desired result.
Otherwise, YOU are being hypocritical if YOU say you oppose sin from a theological standpoint, but not a legal standpount…unless YOU acknowledge that there are indeed major and minor sins, and that Christian citizens prefer that their government criminalize major sins.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2012 at 1011 hrs
Otherwise, YOU are being hypocritical if YOU say you oppose sin from a theological standpoint, but not a legal standpount…unless YOU acknowledge that there are indeed major and minor sins, and that Christian citizens prefer that their government criminalize major sins.
Posted by greencarman on November 23, 2012 at 1011 hrs
My God, GCM, you are an ignorant wretch. Your game of Gotcha! would be so much more interesting if you had better than a second grade understanding. Sincerely, my nine-year-old asks better questions and exhibits a better understanding of Christianity, economics….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 23, 2012 at 1656 hrs
Typical Mike, or Mike Smith, or whoever he is…he has difficulty engaging in actual debate, so he has to resort to smeety-like retorts to get attention for himself. Congratulations, you’re successful in your quest.
Now let the adults in the room actually speak on important matters.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 24, 2012 at 0047 hrs
greencarman,
Does making something illegal mean one is actually opposing the sin?
Given the amount of politicians that engage in the sin of prostitution, it seems the illegality in 49 states does not mean much.
This sin is better opposed through bible study.
Government is about whether (or should be) to separate someone from society because they harm the rights of others. Should Elliot Spitzer be separated from society? Or does he get a pass because he can afford a “higher class” working girl? Or that he can afford the best lawyers?
If you say, well, his wife and family was harmed. That is true, but then should Bill Clinton be punished for the same thing? Should we throw Clinton in prison for his behavior?
As you can see, all sin cannot be prosecuted by government. A line must be drawn. I’ve given you my line…protecting the rights of others. What is your line?
(Nice try on altering my quotes and claiming I don’t own made up quotes.)
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 24, 2012 at 0710 hrs
I am sorry, GCM. I am just taken back by how categorically dumb you are. It’s like Kasparov explaining chess to Ralph Malph.
And you have the opportunity to gain knowledge. You choose not. Consequently you make yourself look like an idiot. Advantage of anonymity I guess.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 24, 2012 at 0820 hrs
“I am sorry, GCM. I am just taken back by how categorically dumb you are.”
That’s all you got, Mike, or Mike Smith? You have yet to disproven any of my points. You know, with thoughtful analysis. Calling me “stupid” only proves my point—you’d rather be smeety-esque. And you call yourself an adult???
If you’re going to get involved in the conversation, then do it with a purpose. Otherwise, all you got is noise if you chime in with simply ad hominem attacks and not address the specific points.
Mr. Schuenemann—Let me repeat this point, since you ignore it entirely…From a religious standpoint, you renounce sin—adultery, homosexuality, prostitution. I would venture to say that you do not want sin to ruin our society. I would imagine that you prefer laws to prevent sin from spreading. So, how can you proclaim yourself a Christian if you do not seek legislation to at the very least limit such activity? How can you be perfectly fine with Nevada legalizing prostitution—a known sin—even though prostitution runs counter to the principles of your faith?
“I’ve given you my line…protecting the rights of others. What is your line?”That’s my line as well, Mr. Schuenemann. Just remember when YOU are called out in the future for deviating from this position.
Just remember that when ministers and priests demand their flock renounce sin by voting for politicians who will enact legislation to criminalize certain behaviors, YOU will be front and center telling these religious leaders that “sin cannot be prosecuted by government. A line must be drawn.”
Just remember that when a bishop tells citizens to vote only for politicians who strictly embrace Church teachings and will craft laws reflective of those teachings—lest they cost those citizens their salvation—YOU will be front and center telling him that “sin is better opposed through bible study”.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 24, 2012 at 1649 hrs
greencarman,
Just remember that when a bishop tells citizens to vote only for politicians who strictly embrace Church teachings and will craft laws reflective of those teachings—lest they cost those citizens their salvation—YOU will be front and center telling him that “sin is better opposed through bible study”.
Just to be sure you do not misquote me again. Government’s job is to protect rights from being violated by others. Let’s take alcoholism as an example. What is more effective? Building up one’s spirit in Christ to encourage one to stop the sin, or making alcohol illegal? Prohibition, in essence, produced even more issues, nearly crumbling the very fabric of our society.
It is perfectly fine for a church to encourage, preach, or, admonish those abusing alcohol to bring the members of the flock closer to Christ. Your statement seems somewhat sweeping that a church cannot even do that. If so, you are not correct in this stand.
Enabling alcoholism (or other addictions) is also a big problem in our society. It is fine for a church to also say, “stop giving the alcoholic alcohol” and encourage them toward Christ. Given our welfare state, that can also apply to the programs that allow recipients to free up income for these vices. A church should have no issue expressing that viewpoint as well. I get the sense in your sweeping statement, a church cannot say that.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 25, 2012 at 0630 hrs
Otherwise, YOU are being hypocritical if YOU say you oppose sin from a theological standpoint, but not a legal standpount…unless YOU acknowledge that there are indeed major and minor sins, and that Christian citizens prefer that their government criminalize major sins.
Posted by greencarman on November 23, 2012 at 1011 hrs
This is the kind of statement that is vetted in confirmation/catechism. This kind of ignorance is scary and damaging. Of course, GCM’s purpose here is merely some kind of self-serving game of Gotcha! and if he really wanted to know the answer, he has the resources… gasoline in his green car to get his lard butt to church….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 25, 2012 at 0753 hrs
“Just to be sure you do not misquote me again.”
I didn’t misquote you. The quote in italics highlight your exact words, Mr. Schuenemann. In my haste, I added “that according to his faith is fundamentally opposed”. Regardless, the context remains valid…Obama went against his religious beliefs to take a position on a matter for political purposes, which is what you are doing exactly when you support the legalization of prostitution despite this action being sinful.
Mr. Schuenemann—“It is perfectly fine for a church to encourage, preach, or, admonish those abusing alcohol to bring the members of the flock closer to Christ.”“... that can also apply to the programs that allow recipients to free up income for these vices. A church should have no issue expressing that viewpoint as well.”
I totally agree. Never did I state nor imply otherwise. Just be sure in the future not to assume that I make sweeping generalizations
Recall that you said, “The function of government is to protect the liberty and rights from infringement by others. If everyone is an adult at Mustang Ranch….where is the rights violation?”**Based on this statement**, it would appear that you are NOT inclined to oppose prostitution from a legal standpoint; that is, the government may make it lawful. Majority rules, after all. The people in Nevada have spoken. Now, I certainly do not question that you oppose prostitution from a moral standpoint.
But where do YOU stand if religious leaders insist that its congregation vote for politicians who will limit or prohibit prostitution in the form of laws, lest the flock be jeopardizing their place in heaven if they do not advocate such legislation that represents their values?
It would appear the position of priests and ministers—which they have the right to speak their mind on this and other matters—would contradict YOUR position**.
So I would assume that ministers and priests who demand their flock renounce sin by voting for politicians who will enact legislation to criminalize certain behaviors, YOU will be front and center telling these religious leaders that “sin cannot be prosecuted by government. A line must be drawn.”
Correct?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 25, 2012 at 0819 hrs
“This is the kind of statement that is vetted in confirmation/catechism. This kind of ignorance is scary and damaging.”
Mike, or Mike Smith, why don’t YOU explain it to us, rather than make statements that lack any substance. Back up your “huff, and I’ll puff, and I’ll blow down” rhetoric. Apparently, YOU have all of the answers, so why don’t YOU tell us!
“Of course, GCM’s purpose here is merely some kind of self-serving game of Gotcha!”IF that be the case, it certainly seems you are enjoying your own version. What’s YOUR purpose of getting involved in the conversation in the first place?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 25, 2012 at 0827 hrs
You appear to be having a problem with your CAPS LOCK.
I am not going to explain sin to you. You have multiple resources at your disposal if your purpose truly is to understand. But you have been talking like an ignorant zealot for months now.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2012 at 1549 hrs
But where do YOU stand if religious leaders insist that its congregation vote for politicians who will limit or prohibit prostitution in the form of laws, lest the flock be jeopardizing their place in heaven if they do not advocate such legislation that represents their values?
I don’t perceive this as happening in my church from the pulpit.
Even if such a thing did occur from the pulpit, based on what Obama’s minister does—-calling for the damnation of America—-you would have a problem with a lecture of this kind from the pulpit.
Liberals have made it OK to be political from the pulpit these days…don’t you think?
Given what Jeremiah Wright (allegedly Obama’s pastor) does, is it a big deal if a minister suggests you vote for someone protecting unborn children from murder?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2012 at 1636 hrs
“But you have been talking like an ignorant zealot for months now.”
Come on, Mike, or Mike Smith. Time to talk the talk. YOU made the accusation, now YOU back it up. YOU seem to be the expert here, so what resources in YOUR estimation should I look up that will make me “less ignorant”?
Regardless, why should YOU even care in the first place?
“This is the kind of statement that is vetted in confirmation/catechism. This kind of ignorance is scary and damaging.”Again, Mike or Mike Smith, why don’t YOU explain it to us. Back up YOUR “huff, and I’ll puff, and I’ll blow down” rhetoric.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2012 at 1827 hrs
GCM—But where do YOU stand if religious leaders insist that its congregation vote for politicians who will limit or prohibit prostitution in the form of laws, lest the flock be jeopardizing their place in heaven if they do not advocate such legislation that represents their values?
Mr. Schuenemann—I don’t perceive this as happening in my church from the pulpit.
Complete cop-out on your part. Go figure.
“Liberals have made it OK to be political from the pulpit these days…don’t you think?”Liberals and conservatives, Mr. Schuenemann.
“Given what Jeremiah Wright (allegedly Obama’s pastor) does, is it a big deal if a minister suggests you vote for someone protecting unborn children from murder?”No, not at all.
But the topic of the thread is not abortion, Mr. Schuenemann, it’s prostitution. Which you support legally, but not morally. Don’t you think there is a disconnect there?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2012 at 1837 hrs
greencarman,
Is immoral behavior always supposed to be illegal?
Conversely, should only moral behavior be legal?
If so, let’s start with the morality of taking someone’s time money and effort for the wasteful ways of Washington D.C.
How many politicians can we lock up on that immorality alone?
There can be a distinction between persuasion and force. On this issue, I think persuasion is better. Force is what government uses. Even in 49 states where it is illegal, the behavior seems rampant, and only gets a slap on the hand anyway.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2012 at 1855 hrs
Congrats kid, you’ve exposed imperfection in humanity. Certainly worthy of a Nobel Prize.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2012 at 2026 hrs
“If so, let’s start with the morality of taking someone’s time money and effort for the wasteful ways of Washington D.C.”
That’s a matter of debate as to whether those actions are immoral from a RELIGIOUS perspective. Let’s stick to the tried and true ones from that specific point of view, like prostitution, homosexuality, and abortion.
“Is immoral behavior always supposed to be illegal?”Yes, if one strictly adheres to the tenets of a particular faith.
Just going by what you have stated in the past.The Bible condemns prostitution, homosexuality, and abortion, correct? A church calls these immoral actions sins. The members of a congregation therefore have a duty called forth by God for these sins not to rear their ugly head in society. How do these religious folks work toward eradicating sin? I would venture to say through legislation. Do they want to seize the opportunity for their community to be free from sin if the moment presents itself?
“On this issue, I think persuasion is better. Force is what government uses.”Let me put on Mr. Schuenemann hat on…
Since we are to promote all that is good (Amos 5:15) and to detest all that is evil (Romans 12:9), our contempt for evil must never be twisted into an excuse to do evil. Therefore, for example, “true” Christians are intolerant of prostitution in the sense that they work to make it illegal in their society via laws.
These laws PERSUADE people not to engage in evil, for there are consequences for one’s actions. is not a Christian society suppose to be free from sin as much as possible?When the children of Israel first entered the land of Cannan, God ordered the people of that land destroyed (force???) because they were tolerant of immorality and false religion (Deuteronomy 20:17).
God’s wrath (force???) was incurred by the children of Benjamin because they had become tolerant of evil (Judges 19:22-30 and 20:1-48).
The Apostle Paul rebuked the congregation at Corinth because it tolerated fornication (!), and he pronounced a curse on those who perverted the gospel (1 Corinthians 5:1-13, Galatians 1:6-9)—force???
I would venture to say that “true” Christians are perfectly clear in that they not only find sin intolerable, but they condemn it in numerous ways, including legislation within their communities. That is called persuasion, not force.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2012 at 2200 hrs
And yet, Christ walked among the sinners, including prostitutes.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 26, 2012 at 2206 hrs
GCM
That’s a matter of debate as to whether those actions are immoral from a RELIGIOUS perspective.
Debate? From a religious perspective? Christ indicates one should be a good steward of the blessings he has entrusted us with. Are the wasteful ways of D.C. moral based on this idea? If one calls to add to the wasteful ways, is that biblical in terms of being a good steward of the blessings God has entrusted you?
Clearly, you may want to read the famous story of the Walls of Jericho (Joshua chapters 1-6). Rahab, a central figure in the story, was regarded as a prostitute, and was an essential part of Israel’s victory. She eventually marries into the Jewish people and becomes part of the Genealogy of Jesus in Matthew 1:5. A story of redemption in the Old Testament.
I agree that within the Christian community and Christian congregations it is a big problem to be tolerant of evil, including sexual relations outside of marriage. Would I support admonishing, and eventually excommunicating, the Mustang Ranch owner out of the Christian church? Yes, if he continued his sin without correction and repentance. I’d also support the same for the participants at the Mustang Ranch.
When such activity is done in the open, it may be easier for the church to correct any Christians engaging in that type of behavior. When its done underground, (the case in 49 states, today) and the church does not know about it…correction cannot take place resulting from the sin being done in secret.
The apostle Paul was admonishing the Corinth church about being tolerant of its Christian members participating in this sin. If you read comment #4 and #11 above, I reflect the apostle Paul’s letter on the issue. Christians should never participate in such an activity.
Are you indicating the letter by Paul to the church in Corinth applied to people who were not in the Corinth church?
I certainly detest the evil of prostitution. I also detest the sin and evil of alcohol abuse, but that does not mean alcohol should be illegal. As the apostle Paul indicated, the church should act accordingly on these matters.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 27, 2012 at 0838 hrs
From what I have seen since my last comment, GCM’s comparison of Obama and Kevin is correct. Kevin, you should not condone or accept prostitution based on legality vs. religion if you are not willing to also condone and accept Obama’s similar position on gay marriage. He has the exact same right to encourage legislation against his personal beliefs as you do(it does not make him a hypocrite any more or less than it does you).
GCM, if that wasn’t your only point, it may have been your only valid one. I still think you are way off base in your ‘sin must be illegal’ argument. If you think that, fine. If you think all Christians should think that, you are entitled to your opinion, but that is what it is: Your opinion. The NT does not advocate theocracy and neither do I. Live with it. All but one of your biblical references has been OT in this thread(I think). Once again, the OT gives zero rules for Christians. It is a record for us. It teaches valuable lessons. Not surprisingly, the NT verse you quoted offers rebuke and condemnation to those within the flock, not laws to those within the flock, and not to non-christians at all. Those who have not found Christ are not expected to follow God’s laws, but they are all still expected to follow secular laws.
I repeat, Christian doctrine states that Christians are expected to follow christian values and mores. Nowhere does the NT even imply (unlike the OT) that non-christians should live with Christian values, or be killed, or anything like that. Kevin’s line is the same as mine(and yours), it is why I became a Libertarian. Secular law is never required to follow Christian morals. Therefore, it follows logically that our secular leaders need not be Christians, though I think it is fine for a religious leader to tell his flock which candidates are Christians, etc. He can also tell me who he thinks I should vote for all he wants, but if he tries to tell me God wants one official or the other, he should be condemned.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 27, 2012 at 1200 hrs
Tuerqas,
Your point on Obama’s gay marriage flip-flop really depends on: Is marriage a biblical institution established by God? or purely a legal institution that can expel God from the equation? Can marriage be separated by legal and its biblical foundation established by Christ?
My answer to the last question is an emphatic No.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 27, 2012 at 1230 hrs
Tuerqas—I still think you are way off base in your ‘sin must be illegal’ argument. If you think that, fine.”
Not my position, to be honest. Just playing devil’s advocate and keeping Mr. Schuenemann honest.
“If you think all Christians should think that, you are entitled to your opinion, but that is what it is: Your opinion.”Again, I don’t think that way, but some Christians do.
“Not surprisingly, the NT verse you quoted offers rebuke and condemnation to those within the flock, not laws to those within the flock, and not to non-christians at all.”Yet, somehow, this attitude prevails among some Christians in our society today—morality must be legislated to reflect their personal religious beliefs.
“I repeat, Christian doctrine states that Christians are expected to follow christian values and mores.”Correct, but when Christians are part of a society, undoubtedly they prefer that their values and mores become embedded in the legal fabric of that society and will elect politicians who embrace their lines of thinking. It’s only natural that they take that route.
“Secular law is never required to follow Christian morals.”Did you hear that, Mr. Schuenemann? That is why your position on gay marriage would appear to be contradictory—if you truly believe in government being able to protect people’s freedom, then two people can consent to be married without the sanction of a church. Based on your religious faith, you are stating the case that marriage was designed and inaugurated by a Creator. From an anthropological perspective, one could argue that marriage is devoid of any religious meaning; that is, the bond represents a union between two people.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 28, 2012 at 0056 hrs
greencarman,
I’m fascinated by your scrutiny to “keep me honest” while you are the one to scream “majority rules”, while advocating gay marriage.
WI voted by almost 2/3 majority to define marriage between one man and one woman. Majority no longer rules in your view?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 28, 2012 at 0744 hrs
“WI voted by almost 2/3 majority to define marriage between one man and one woman. Majority no longer rules in your view?”
Just to be sure you do not misquote me again. Or create a strawman.
I’ve always maintained that majority rules. The people have spoken on gay marriage in Wisconsin. I may not like it, but the decision has been made, for now. Public sentiment may change.
Do YOU accept majority rules, even if it is an issue that you individually support, but that a group collectively opposes?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 28, 2012 at 2311 hrs
Yet, somehow, this attitude prevails among some Christians in our society today—morality must be legislated to reflect their personal religious beliefs.
Fine, but you were projecting that belief on to me in your comments as well as Kevin. In that, you were incorrect. I would venture to say that most people who believe in constitutional rights being supported over religious beliefs in the secular world, would not have the beliefs you stated above. I agree with you that the majority of Chrisitans overall do not seem to make that distinction and have likely never consciously considered the conundrum at all.
The US constitution is a conflict to religion, that is what made the separation of Church and State clause such a landmark. And yes, Kevin has aired some views that conflict this belief. I think most people that have actually considered the question may have conflicts with it and they may or may not be hypocritical.
For instance, if a ‘true’ Christian had the OT view that life begins at first breath, then even killing a baby that has been taken from its mother with its heart beating is not murder if it was never slapped into making its first breath. It had no rights until it took its first breath. Another ‘true’ Chrisitan may believe in life at conception and then it would have a ‘right’ to life and killing it anytime after conception would be a rights violation. These two Christians would have serious conflicts over abortion even though they may agree that secular ‘law of the land’ rights given to humans legally precedes and/or trumps Christian doctrine.
Your point on Obama’s gay marriage flip-flop really depends on: Is marriage a biblical institution established by God? or purely a legal institution that can expel God from the equation? Can marriage be separated by legal and its biblical foundation established by Christ?
My answer to the last question is an emphatic No.
Similarly, the only contention I have with gay marriage is the definition. I fully support(and would vote for) a secular gay union contract legally equal to the religious rite of marriage. Separation of C&S applies here from the other side. The State has no right to redefine a religious rite. Make equivalents for tax(and other ‘law of the land’) purposes, sure. In the same way that two people can disagree on terms concerning abortion, I can see a skewed definition of ‘marriage’ allowing a Christian to accept ‘gay marriage’, but I believe it is a violation of C&S to do so. I emphasize, my opinion.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 29, 2012 at 0827 hrs
Separation of church and state clause? Are you (incorrectly) refering to the establishment clause?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 29, 2012 at 0835 hrs
Well sure, I guess so. I was specifically referring to Thomas Jefferson’s writings on the subject. He often used the phrase separation, or building a wall between church and state. The establishment clause is a reflection of those beliefs. i.e., it was written with the intent to create certain barriers between Gov’t making one state religion or exalting one religion or religious sect over another. This had the intentionally reciprocal effect of limiting what powers the Church could exert over the state. Because of this, I have always thought the ‘establishment clause’ was somewhat of a misnomer and certainly less descriptive than the phrase separation of church and state.
I did not mean to infer that the specific phrase is actually written in the constitution. Luckily, even though you seem to have been unsure to what I was referring, you guessed correctly. I sure hope others less heavily invested in literal
interpretation and more conversant in sensible understanding come to the same conclusion.Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 29, 2012 at 1440 hrs
So by ‘separation of church and state clause’ you were ‘specifically refering to Thomas Jefferson’s writings on the subject’.
Okay….
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 30, 2012 at 1015 hrs
He wrote the establishment clause. The phrase separation of church and state is not only used interchangeably with it, it is 10 times more recognizable. I did more than one paper on the subject in school and have never been questioned on this particular detail, including Professors. I really am not sure what the gotcha that you are going for even is here. If you attempt to speak of the establishment clause and are not referring to Thomas Jefferson’s views on the subject, you are ignorant.
It is like if I referred to the Pepsi/Coke ad wars of the 80s and 90s and you said: Coke wars? Are you (incorrectly) referring to the Pepsi Cola/Coca Cola wars? How stupid. I have to agree with GCM. Do you ever just express your own opinion or are you only capable of (badly) attempting to gotcha the work of others?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on November 30, 2012 at 1442 hrs
I’m not interested in a debate with an atheist about the establishment clause or separation of church and state (two separate items). My original comment is in regard to this very odd statement:
The US constitution is a conflict to religion, that is what made the separation of Church and State clause such a landmark.
This may be true nowadays to secular folk(??), but non-secular people, including the founding fathers, the intent of the U.S. Constitution and religion work pretty well together.
If you’d read this statement again before you hit [return] you would’ve avoided doubling down on stupid:
I was specifically referring to Thomas Jefferson’s writings on the subject [‘separation of church and state clause].
(independent of TJ’s involvement in the establishment clause, his writings are not any form of ‘separation of church and state clause’ in the Constitution; they are not even law)
Or worse yet, tripling down on stupid:
He wrote the establishment clause. The phrase separation of church and state is not only used interchangeably with it, it is 10 times more recognizable.
Now:
Do you ever just express your own opinion or are you only capable of (badly) attempting to gotcha the work of others?
My opinion: TJ is spinning in his grave at the abortion rooted in his writings… in the same way John Maynard Keynes is spinning in his grave at the twisting of his economics.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 01, 2012 at 1706 hrs
Well, well, more than a one or two statement answer, and well written. I do admit I did the triple down stupid, Madison actually wrote the establishment clause.
I still don’t see the original mistake or the double down, though, so you may have to explain it to me. From the words of Justice Black in the 1947 Everson v. Board of education:
The “establishment of religion” clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between church and State.”
Jefferson’s words from the Danbury letter had been cited before that in State law, and Justice Black above seemed to agree with TJ that the establishment clause was meant to create a separation between chuch and state. I don’t see your reasoning that they are two different things. The phrase separation of C&S was coigned by Jefferson to describe the establishment clause and that is the context in which I used it.
The conflict I referred to was not that the US Gov’t was against religion. It was the first document to take the next step from the Magna Carta. The Magna Carta was a big blow to divine right monarchies, but the US Con demolished it. It took religion fully out of all Government control. It did this in the name of freedom of religion and it did an excellent job. The conflict I mentioned was the trade off of religion losing a lot of Governmental influence to gain freedoms from control by the same Government(hence, landmark). Feel free to correct where I am mistaken.
You think the establishment clause is a different thing than separation of C&S. As Jefferson used the latter to describe the former and it caught on, I think you are dead wrong on your non-gotcha statements. Why are they “(two separate items)”?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 03, 2012 at 1017 hrs
So really, you are still just a gotcha boy, Mike?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 06, 2012 at 0900 hrs
Been traveling for work and no time; however I said above. I have no interest in debating church & state with an atheist.
Remind me to ask for a discount next time I order fasteners. If they can afford to have you screwing around all day…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 06, 2012 at 0915 hrs
In other words, back to stupid one line flyers with no thought or truth behind them as I am not anything like an atheist. Oh well. Hope you feel better about your life one day and God bless.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 06, 2012 at 1324 hrs
Do you believe, for instance, that Christmas trees on govt property (under the scope of separation of C&S) are covered under the intent of the establishment clause? TJ had Christmas trees at the White House…
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 06, 2012 at 1425 hrs
Here we go…the true “separation of church and state” debate…finally!
One cannot, successfully, conduct the “separation” without reviewing thought, word, and action…a government “speech review” concept that has been held to violate the first amendment time and again.
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 06, 2012 at 1431 hrs
No, it is officially covered under LPCD. (Liberal political correctness disease). Unofficially, it is part of a clear plan by faux academia to legislate religion in to non-existence through death by a thousand laws. Where did that come from?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on December 06, 2012 at 1458 hrs
Total Entries: 21059
Total Comments: 146944
Most Recent Entry: 05/17/2013 05:57 am
Most Recent Comment on: 05/18/2013 05:31 am
Total Members: 9751
Total Logged in members: 0
Total guests: 45
Total anonymous users: 0
Most Recent Visitor on: 05/22/2013 03:30 pm
The most visitors ever was 663 on 09/02/2012 05:13 pm
Protected and licensed under a Creative Commons License (some rights reserved).