John Schlitt To Guest On Beyond The Riff, Sunday Oct.2

[sue d.]

On a preview for John's new album, he's got another song about being a free American.

Another? what are the others?

I listened to the rough mixes today... whoa.... you guys are gonna LOVE this!!!

[gman]

I'm still looking for a Gov't service that helps the poor.
I can go downtown and find the poor being helped at churches, rescue missions, etc. I can find masses of people every year donating out of their own resources for blanket and coat drives for the homeless.
Food stamps for cigarettes, alcohol, and lobster tails is not classified as helping the poor, IMO.
That's all a bit sarcastic and doesn't get into the complexities of this issue, but, I'm of the general opinion that the Body of Christ and individuals have done, and continue to do, their job in regards to the real poor at home and abroad. The gov't has effectively redefined poor in the minds of many, and have helped foster a new class folks who, like the scripture mentioned above, shouldn't be getting help.
I also tend to think that scripture should apply to individuals and to the church body, but not Gov't policy. I don't agree with using scripture or the church to promote larger Gov't, social justice, or whatever. I think one of the problems with George Bush was his Christian compassion influencing his policy decisions.

[CatNamedManny]

I'm still looking for a Gov't service that helps the poor.
I can go downtown and find the poor being helped at churches, rescue missions, etc. I can find masses of people every year donating out of their own resources for blanket and coat drives for the homeless.
Food stamps for cigarettes, alcohol, and lobster tails is not classified as helping the poor, IMO.
That's all a bit sarcastic and doesn't get into the complexities of this issue, but, I'm of the general opinion that the Body of Christ and individuals have done, and continue to do, their job in regards to the real poor at home and abroad. The gov't has effectively redefined poor in the minds of many, and have helped foster a new class folks who, like the scripture mentioned above, shouldn't be getting help.
I also tend to think that scripture should apply to individuals and to the church body, but not Gov't policy. I don't agree with using scripture or the church to promote larger Gov't, social justice, or whatever. I think one of the problems with George Bush was his Christian compassion influencing his policy decisions.

See, this is all reasonable. I don't agree with any of it, but it's a place where we can have a discussion. Much better than, "Christians agree with me; if you don't support my candidate/policy/view of government, you're not espousing Christian beliefs."

On a similar note, I think what turns people off about political songs in general is that there's no place for pushback or discussion. It's just a soapbox screed set to a beat. If you agree with the message, rock on. If you don't, too bad.

[executioner]

I'm still looking for a Gov't service that helps the poor.
I can go downtown and find the poor being helped at churches, rescue missions, etc. I can find masses of people every year donating out of their own resources for blanket and coat drives for the homeless.
Food stamps for cigarettes, alcohol, and lobster tails is not classified as helping the poor, IMO.
That's all a bit sarcastic and doesn't get into the complexities of this issue, but, I'm of the general opinion that the Body of Christ and individuals have done, and continue to do, their job in regards to the real poor at home and abroad. The gov't has effectively redefined poor in the minds of many, and have helped foster a new class folks who, like the scripture mentioned above, shouldn't be getting help.
I also tend to think that scripture should apply to individuals and to the church body, but not Gov't policy. I don't agree with using scripture or the church to promote larger Gov't, social justice, or whatever. I think one of the problems with George Bush was his Christian compassion influencing his policy decisions.

See, this is all reasonable. I don't agree with any of it, but it's a place where we can have a discussion. Much better than, "Christians agree with me; if you don't support my candidate/policy/view of government, you're not espousing Christian beliefs."

On a similar note, I think what turns people off about political songs in general is that there's no place for pushback or discussion. It's just a soapbox screed set to a beat. If you agree with the message, rock on. If you don't, too bad.

I just think when a Christian supports a political candiate that just goes against the Bible in so many ways and basically supports him because of it, he really should look deep about his beliefs. I just don't see how a Christian can vote and elect Obama and not feel some sort of shame.
I'm sorry but Ive always been known to lay my opinions out there, and I will never be one to be politically correct. I think its time for Christians to stand up at the polls, homes, schools, work, and even in our churches say what we believe is right and what is wrong.
I'm not the type of person to be sitting on my front porch with a glass of iced tea and a warm Apple pie sitting in the window feeling the cool breeze watching the sunset thinking everything is alright because I have God's Grace.

[CatNamedManny]

I just think when a Christian supports a political candiate that just goes against the Bible in so many ways and basically supports him because of it, he really should look deep about his beliefs. I just don't see how a Christian can vote and elect Obama and not feel some sort of shame.
I'm sorry but Ive always been known to lay my opinions out there, and I will never be one to be politically correct. I think its time for Christians to stand up at the polls, homes, schools, work, and even in our churches say what we believe is right and what is wrong.
I'm not the type of person to be sitting on my front porch with a glass of iced tea and a warm Apple pie sitting in the window feeling the cool breeze watching the sunset thinking everything is alright because I have God's Grace.

The problem is what "goes against the Bible?" And whose interpretation of the Bible are we using? I think any president who would neglect the poor, abandon them to the whims of the free market, cut taxes for the wealthy and allow corporations to abuse the environment is absolutely going against the Bible, which has quite a lot to say about corporate responsibility for the poor and being good stewards of the resources we've been given. So will you be voting against those candidates? Of course not. You will be arguing the Bible rejects "big government" (whatever that means), wants people to work so they can eat (even if they can't work, apparently, or if they are children with no choice in the matter), and calls exclusively for individual and church action, even if relying solely on individuals and churches has in the past left thousands upon thousands of needy people with no help at all.

Since we're both appealing to the Bible for the moral justification that undergirds our political preferences, the only difference between you and me in this arena, then, is that you argue your interpretation of the Bible is so self-evidently correct that any contrary point of view is worthy of "shame." I argue such a viewpoint is born of either ignorance or arrogance because it either 1. has no knowledge of the many different views of how the Bible should interface with secular politics, or 2. it doesn't care to acknowledge the legitimate basis those views have in the biblical text.

[loengard]

The problem is what "goes against the Bible?" And whose interpretation of the Bible are we using? I think any president who would neglect the poor, abandon them to the whims of the free market, cut taxes for the wealthy and allow corporations to abuse the environment is absolutely going against the Bible, which has quite a lot to say about corporate responsibility for the poor and being good stewards of the resources we've been given. So will you be voting against those candidates? Of course not. You will be arguing the Bible rejects "big government" (whatever that means), wants people to work so they can eat (even if they can't work, apparently, or if they are children with no choice in the matter), and calls exclusively for individual and church action, even if relying solely on individuals and churches has in the past left thousands upon thousands of needy people with no help at all.

In my experience, I have found that the programs of the government often lead to laziness, abuse, and neglect of those they are supposed to be helping. They are poorly administrated, and are a great economic drain on society as a whole. No one is arguing against helping the poor and disadvantaged, but the current system doesn't work. The church alone hasn't done what it should, and so here we are.

This, however, is not why I vote against candidates such as Obama. For me, it comes down to one thing - the sanctity of human life. I cannot ever vote for a candidate that supports abortion on demand. It just goes against everything I believe as a Christian. By voting for these candidates, we actively participate in the sacrifice of innocence to the god of convenience and I just can't abide that. While I generally oppose the expansion of the welfare state, I have voted for candidates that don't share my views on this issue. In other words, this is not a make or break issue for me. Abortion, however, is.

I should point out that this is a deeply personal issue with me. I am the father of five wonderful adopted children. They came out of the foster care system and the files that I have from the state on each of them would utterly break your heart. I shudder to think of what my life would be had their biological mothers exercised their "choice" and killed them before God could bless me and my wife with them.

[executioner]

Loengard you said it all right. The pro life/choice issue is probably the thing that sways me more than anything else. Part of Obamacare would allow tax dollars to be used for third and late term abortions. The single most important thing is life that is made in the image of God. I believe in God's Eyes its murder plain and simple.

[gman]

The problem is what "goes against the Bible?" And whose interpretation of the Bible are we using? I think any president who would neglect the poor, abandon them to the whims of the free market, cut taxes for the wealthy and allow corporations to abuse the environment is absolutely going against the Bible, which has quite a lot to say about corporate responsibility for the poor and being good stewards of the resources we've been given.

This is really non reality. Average conservatives dson't hate the poor or the environment, or only want to cut taxes for the wealthy any more than the average liberal wants to get every American on the Gov't dole, shut down the free market, and protect the environment from ever being touched or used.
Just sayin.

[brent]

This has nothing to do with the original topic, but I like where it has gone.

You people that think socialism is what Jesus wanted are nuts. Socialism, the way the world's governments see it, is a way of controlling the masses, and it is a stage in progression to Communism. Socialism has some things that SOUND good. But do you REALLY want the few in charge telling the masses what they can and cannot do for a living, what they can and cannot buy, what they can and cannot believe? Is THIS Jesus Christ? Now.

God did not call the governments of the world to do his work. He established his family, The Church to be his hands and feet. Here is what I often find true about those who want socialism:

1. They usually have nothing and are in a rut.
2. They usually are not doing anything for other people. How can they when they have nothing?
3. When they DO get something, they would not want it TAKEN from them and given to someone else who does not have any right to it. My how the tables turn.
4. They have no understanding of economics.

There is this misconception that we are all the same in Christ and in Heaven. There is a hierarchy in Heaven just as there is one on earth. In one way, we are the same. We are all sinners and Christ loved all and would that all come to Him. But the facts are that we are not all equal in gifts, talents, wealth, brains, etc. As much as I would like to be David in Heaven, ruling over the nations, I will not be. I am not called to do that. I am me. I am commissioned to praise God with my life, with work, not being a sluggard, carrying out the great commission and the great commandment. I will not be Billy Graham or the Apostle Paul. Their works will be greater than mine, and their rewards will be proportionate.

If there is socialism, the way that the world wants it, the wealth of the wicked will REALLY be harder to get, and there will be less work of God being done. It takes money to do missions, feed the poor, educate the people, pay medical bills, etc. Jesus never once condemned anyone for doing well with what he gave them. Jesus never condemned anyone for having wealth. Jesus only wanted us not to make wealth our God, and to use it as if it were His, because it is.

The concept should not be "lets make laws to legislate God's work", because that is not the job of the government and that would be nothing more than enforcing another tithe (temple tax). God wants us to give out of the abundance of our hearts and obedience, not out of the government programs. Why would anyone want the government to do this? Name one thing they do with the efficiency of the church or private sector? Name one thing they don't politicize and mess up. Who says the government will not pick and choose who it helps and who it will not help?

Look hard into the Obama Healthcare situation. Do you want people over 70 written off when they get cancer? Yeah. That seems Christ-like. Socialized medicine is not what we want. Not like that.

BTW, what is the number one country people from other socialist nations move to or apply to visit? America. We have had foreign exchange students from some countries with forms of socialism, and it is not pretty. They want to live here. Heck, those countries are in the news right now having political and economic failures! It DOES NOT WORK.

[petheadeast123]

I probably shouldn't have said "another" - I was just thinking it was in the same political vein as the cross remains. The music sounded good, and hopefully the rest of the album is like that, but lyrically that rough mix is one song I'll have to skip.

Where'd you hear the preview at? Is there one out I'm not aware of?

[p-freak]

I'm also wondering what rough mix you're referring to, Matthew.

[CatNamedManny]

This has nothing to do with the original topic, but I like where it has gone. ...

Wow, that was a really long post arguing against something no one was even talking about. But since you brought up other countries, here are some actual facts: Scandinavian countries have far more government regulation and a far more robust safety net than we do. Their economic inequality is lower, their upward mobility is higher, their health care costs less, and the care it provides is better. Oh, and their economy has done much better through this recession than ours. There are plenty of data backing all of this up. It's fun to think America has it all figured out, but we don't. It might just be that other countries have figured out better ways of doing things than we have – ways that are not only more compassionate, but also better at promoting economic freedom for all of their citizens, not just the luckiest, wealthiest few.

Abortion as an issue, I understand. My question is: If George W. Bush's policies led to more abortions than Barack Obama's, does your personal agreement or disagreement with them on the broader issue actually matter? How about if Barack Obama's policies save the lives of more babies outside the womb than George W. Bush's? Why do preborn babies matter more than babies who have already been born? I'm strongly pro-life. I just believe we need to be concerned about all life. And, regardless how mad you might be about the stereotypical "lazy people taking advantage of the welfare state" (which has very little actual data to back it up, no matter how many times you repeat it), their children are blameless. Do they deserve to die because their parents suck and the church either can't or won't do its job? I would argue not. Hopefully, you would, too.

Gman, I'm not talking about "average conservatives." I'm describing the positions and votes taken by the self-described conservatives in Washington and on the campaign trail, who voted for Paul Ryan's plan to cut taxes for the wealthy with savings gained from privatizing health care for the poor and elderly, who rejected a hypothetical deal to balance the budget with $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases, and who nearly unanimously reject efforts to better steward our environment, including efforts once supported by conservatives as free-market-friendly ways to clean up our air and stave off global warming (conservatives in Washington used to believe in that, too).

In conclusion, and this will be my last post in this thread, I really just want to reiterate that it's OK to be a Christian and vote for a Democrat or someone who is considered liberal. There are plenty of moral, compassionate, ethical, Christian reasons for doing so. It may or may not be the right thing for you to do, but it is not inherently wrong. I'm not sure if I did a good job explaining how a progressive worldview is compatible with, perhaps even compelled by, scripture, but I hope you at least got a sense of what I was trying to say.

[gman]

This has nothing to do with the original topic, but I like where it has gone. ...

Wow, that was a really long post arguing against something no one was even talking about. But since you brought up other countries, here are some actual facts: Scandinavian countries have far more government regulation and a far more robust safety net than we do. Their economic inequality is lower, their upward mobility is higher, their health care costs less, and the care it provides is better. Oh, and their economy has done much better through this recession than ours. There are plenty of data backing all of this up. It's fun to think America has it all figured out, but we don't. It might just be that other countries have figured out better ways of doing things than we have – ways that are not only more compassionate, but also better at promoting economic freedom for all of their citizens, not just the luckiest, wealthiest few.

Abortion as an issue, I understand. My question is: If George W. Bush's policies led to more abortions than Barack Obama's, does your personal agreement or disagreement with them on the broader issue actually matter? How about if Barack Obama's policies save the lives of more babies outside the womb than George W. Bush's? Why do preborn babies matter more than babies who have already been born? I'm strongly pro-life. I just believe we need to be concerned about all life. And, regardless how mad you might be about the stereotypical "lazy people taking advantage of the welfare state" (which has very little actual data to back it up, no matter how many times you repeat it), their children are blameless. Do they deserve to die because their parents suck and the church either can't or won't do its job? I would argue not. Hopefully, you would, too.

Gman, I'm not talking about "average conservatives." I'm describing the positions and votes taken by the self-described conservatives in Washington and on the campaign trail, who voted for Paul Ryan's plan to cut taxes for the wealthy with savings gained from privatizing health care for the poor and elderly, who rejected a hypothetical deal to balance the budget with $10 in spending cuts for every $1 in tax increases, and who nearly unanimously reject efforts to better steward our environment, including efforts once supported by conservatives as free-market-friendly ways to clean up our air and stave off global warming (conservatives in Washington used to believe in that, too).

In conclusion, and this will be my last post in this thread, I really just want to reiterate that it's OK to be a Christian and vote for a Democrat or someone who is considered liberal. There are plenty of moral, compassionate, ethical, Christian reasons for doing so. It may or may not be the right thing for you to do, but it is not inherently wrong. I'm not sure if I did a good job explaining how a progressive worldview is compatible with, perhaps even compelled by, scripture, but I hope you at least got a sense of what I was trying to say.

So, is economic inequality a bad thing? Is it the proper role of Gov't to be compassionate? Should the Gov't provide a safety net, and how much? In what way is their economy better? What is their unemployment rate? Are people free to work at whatever occupation they chose, and to work as much as they want to? Do they have a deficit? My argument is that we shouldn't even be discussing massive increases in socialism and Gov't in the U.S. when we can't even pay for what we already have. It's been reported that it took from America's founding to 2008 to reach 10 trillion in deficit, and we've grown to 15 trillion under President Obama. Both are highly irresponsibile. I would venture to say that if you asked most people, prior to Obama's election, if they expected or wanted a 5 trillion increase in the deficit, they would have said no. Healthcare might cost less for any number of reasons. Is it better for all, or only for some? Upward mobility might be lower in the U.S. because it is not the Gov'ts intent to provide such mobility, despite what it says, IMO.
I also think Global Warming is mostly fantasy, but it takes more than a few lying scientists falsifying research and Al Gore making millions on it to make that case.
Also, I call BS on no data to back up the stereotypical lazy people taking advantage of the welfare state. I hear and read the stories all the time, and that's just where I live. It's happening everywhere. The church does its job every day, despite the willingness of many liberals to turn a blind eye to it.
I've concluded that some people, for whatever reason, just like big Gov't. They are free to do so. The constitution guarantees them that right. I guess we will see which idea wins in the end.

[brent]

Nobody is equal in this life or the life to come. That is just the way it is. No blessings or judgements will be the same. Get used to it.

[gman]

wins in the end? figure of speech or ...

Yes. American freedom and exceptionalism, or the fundamentally transformed socialist paradise of President Obama and his behind the scenes organizers and string pullers.