Investigations and the Rule of Law

Events occurring and how they relate/affect Anabaptist faith and culture.
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14438
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Investigations and the Rule of Law

Post by Bootstrap »

GaryK wrote:I realize Wayne can speak for himself. I'm focused on the criticism of Wayne for saying he is non-partisan. I'll leave it like this - it does not seem consistent to me for you to say that Wayne is wrong for criticizing those who are not loyal partisans only for you to criticize him for saying he is non-partisan. IMO what you engaged in mirrors quite closely what happens all the time in politics.
I did not criticize him for saying that he's non-partisan, that's actually something I hope we would all aspire to as Christians. I would rather see us call each other to be consistently non-partisan and not do calls to partisan loyalty. And I'd rather see us just discuss topics without accusing people of being on the wrong side.

I wish I saw more of that in politics ...

I wonder if you read the tone of that post differently than I meant it? I really did not mean it to be hostile. But I was trying to point out an inconsistency.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
GaryK
Posts: 2279
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:24 pm
Location: Georgia
Affiliation: Unaffiliated

Re: Investigations and the Rule of Law

Post by GaryK »

Bootstrap wrote:
GaryK wrote:I realize Wayne can speak for himself. I'm focused on the criticism of Wayne for saying he is non-partisan. I'll leave it like this - it does not seem consistent to me for you to say that Wayne is wrong for criticizing those who are not loyal partisans only for you to criticize him for saying he is non-partisan. IMO what you engaged in mirrors quite closely what happens all the time in politics.
I did not criticize him for saying that he's non-partisan, that's actually something I hope we would all aspire to as Christians. I would rather see us call each other to be consistently non-partisan and not do calls to partisan loyalty. And I'd rather see us just discuss topics without accusing people of being on the wrong side.

I wish I saw more of that in politics ...

I wonder if you read the tone of that post differently than I meant it? I really did not mean it to be hostile. But I was trying to point out an inconsistency.
Here is what you said about Wayne.
Bootstrap wrote: When you say you are "non-partisan", what do you mean by that? I have heard you dismiss many people because they belong to the wrong faction, using names like Republican In Name Only to dismiss people who were not purely partisan enough to be trusted. You frequently ignore the substance of what people say by saying they belong to the wrong faction. I have thought about responding to that kind of thing with, "another call to partisan loyalty?" Maybe that would be helpful. You could feel free to do the same to me if you see me doing that kind of thing.
The bolded and underlined statements seem accusatory and critical to me and outright dismissive of Wayne's claim to be non-partisan. I have concluded that "non-partisan" is a subjective term as it relates to politics and IMO Wayne has every bit as much, if not more, reason to call himself non-partisan as you do.

You mention the word inconsistency. The very nature of politics promotes inconsistency and inconsistency in politics is largely in the eye of the beholder. Political persuasions will always see inconsistencies in other political persuasions and it usually gets ugly when those inconsistencies are pointed out.

That's not the way of the Kingdom that followers of Jesus are part of and I will say it again - one cannot be part of the political process without being complicit in its very nature. IMO to have a foot in both systems is itself contradictory.
0 x
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14438
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Investigations and the Rule of Law

Post by Bootstrap »

Gary, you imply that "calls to partisan loyalty" is subjective and has no real meaning. I don't think so. I'm happy to discuss that with you, but here's an example in this thread. I think the criteria for investigating a president should not depend on whether you like the president or not, we need investigations to be as fair as possible, and we should generally accept the outcome of an investigation. I also think that the less politicized branches of government (not Congress!) are best positioned to investigate fairly, and investigations should be shielded from the political process. I don't think politicians should keep reopening investigations unless there is new information to protect us from retrying someone until we get the politically desired result.

I don't think that's a partisan position. It doesn't depend on how you feel about Obama versus Trump. It doesn't call anyone to be loyal to a "side". It doesn't depend on political grievances.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
GaryK
Posts: 2279
Joined: Sat Nov 12, 2016 6:24 pm
Location: Georgia
Affiliation: Unaffiliated

Re: Investigations and the Rule of Law

Post by GaryK »

Bootstrap wrote:Gary, you imply that "calls to partisan loyalty" is subjective and has no real meaning. I don't think so. I'm happy to discuss that with you, but here's an example in this thread. I think the criteria for investigating a president should not depend on whether you like the president or not, we need investigations to be as fair as possible, and we should generally accept the outcome of an investigation. I also think that the less politicized branches of government (not Congress!) are best positioned to investigate fairly, and investigations should be shielded from the political process. I don't think politicians should keep reopening investigations unless there is new information to protect us from retrying someone until we get the politically desired result.

I don't think that's a partisan position. It doesn't depend on how you feel about Obama versus Trump. It doesn't call anyone to be loyal to a "side". It doesn't depend on political grievances.
What you may view as "calls to partisan loyalty" may not be what Wayne calls for at all, so in that regard it could be subjective. If you can point me to instances where he has specifically called for "partisan loyalty" I will be happy to see if I see what you see.
0 x
MaxPC
Posts: 9044
Joined: Sat Oct 22, 2016 9:09 pm
Location: Former full time RVers
Affiliation: PlainRomanCatholic
Contact:

Re: Investigations and the Rule of Law

Post by MaxPC »

GaryK wrote: Here is what you said about Wayne.
Bootstrap wrote: When you say you are "non-partisan", what do you mean by that? I have heard you dismiss many people because they belong to the wrong faction, using names like Republican In Name Only to dismiss people who were not purely partisan enough to be trusted. You frequently ignore the substance of what people say by saying they belong to the wrong faction. I have thought about responding to that kind of thing with, "another call to partisan loyalty?" Maybe that would be helpful. You could feel free to do the same to me if you see me doing that kind of thing.
The bolded and underlined statements seem accusatory and critical to me and outright dismissive of Wayne's claim to be non-partisan. I have concluded that "non-partisan" is a subjective term as it relates to politics and IMO Wayne has every bit as much, if not more, reason to call himself non-partisan as you do.

You mention the word inconsistency. The very nature of politics promotes inconsistency and inconsistency in politics is largely in the eye of the beholder. Political persuasions will always see inconsistencies in other political persuasions and it usually gets ugly when those inconsistencies are pointed out.

That's not the way of the Kingdom that followers of Jesus are part of and I will say it again - one cannot be part of the political process without being complicit in its very nature. IMO to have a foot in both systems is itself contradictory.
Agreed. I find it interesting that one says he is non-partisan and yet says that he will vote for Obama or vote for Hillary and then proceed to flood the forum with Democrat platform propaganda. I agree with Gary: it's not the way of the Kingdom for followers of Jesus and it's an excellent example of Matthew 6:24 (ESV)
No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.
... or man.
0 x
Max (Plain Catholic)
Mt 24:35
Proverbs 18:2 A fool does not delight in understanding but only in revealing his own mind.
1 Corinthians 3:19 For the wisdom of this world is folly with God
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14438
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Investigations and the Rule of Law

Post by Bootstrap »

GaryK wrote:
Bootstrap wrote:Gary, you imply that "calls to partisan loyalty" is subjective and has no real meaning. I don't think so. I'm happy to discuss that with you, but here's an example in this thread. I think the criteria for investigating a president should not depend on whether you like the president or not, we need investigations to be as fair as possible, and we should generally accept the outcome of an investigation. I also think that the less politicized branches of government (not Congress!) are best positioned to investigate fairly, and investigations should be shielded from the political process. I don't think politicians should keep reopening investigations unless there is new information to protect us from retrying someone until we get the politically desired result.

I don't think that's a partisan position. It doesn't depend on how you feel about Obama versus Trump. It doesn't call anyone to be loyal to a "side". It doesn't depend on political grievances.
What you may view as "calls to partisan loyalty" may not be what Wayne calls for at all, so in that regard it could be subjective. If you can point me to instances where he has specifically called for "partisan loyalty" I will be happy to see if I see what you see.
Let me suggest that we both do that, going forward, with each other. If Wayne wants to discuss this with me I can do the same with him. I really don't want to keep talking about someone who is not involved in the discussion, that's why I keep trying to move away from that.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Bootstrap
Posts: 14438
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2016 9:59 am
Affiliation: Mennonite

Re: Investigations and the Rule of Law

Post by Bootstrap »

MaxPC wrote:Agreed. I find it interesting that one says he is non-partisan and yet says that he will vote for Obama or vote for Hillary and then proceed to flood the forum with Democrat platform propaganda.
Actually, I think Democrats and Republicans each encourage partisanship, I'm campaigning against it. Until the last election, precisely half of the presidents I had voted for were Republicans. And on this topic, I'm campaigning for the principle that a president should be investigated when serious questions are raised - the same way, regardless of the party of the president. To me, the partisans are the ones saying that Trump should already be considered guilty (Democratic partisans) or must not be investigated (Republican partisans) even before the investigation is completed, without access to most of the relevant information.

If you ever see me calling for people to be loyal to a party or candidate or suggesting that someone should be treated differently because of their political affiliation, please do call me on that.
MaxPC wrote:I agree with Gary: it's not the way of the Kingdom for followers of Jesus and it's an excellent example of Matthew 6:24 (ESV)
No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.
... or man.
Actually, that's precisely the issue for me. As Christians, we can still be so strongly wed to political views that it's difficult to discuss things across partisan lines. And MN skews pretty far to the right. From where I sit, what I am doing here is generally challenging loyalty to the political right, not promoting loyalty to the political left. And for what it's worth, I get flack from the political left for doing the same thing there.

I think there are people who will not vote but are very devoted to a particular political wing.
0 x
Is it biblical? Is it Christlike? Is it loving? Is it true? How can I find out?
User avatar
Josh
Posts: 23806
Joined: Wed Oct 19, 2016 6:23 pm
Location: 1000' ASL
Affiliation: The church of God

Re: Investigations and the Rule of Law

Post by Josh »

I think being “moderate” or “non-partisan” is itself a political Position (albeit an admirable one), but I also think it’s basically a lost cause at this point.
0 x
Post Reply