A Petition Movement to Save the Union

Neck · #1 03-25-2007, 05:31 PM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea
Of course ... and was it brought back to the table through legal channels and a constitutional process ... YES .....

Did the Supreme court re-examine Plessy vs. Ferguson - segregation- separate but equal ... do institutions re-examine failed policies even whe it was voted on by the majority????

This was last voted when ???? Are we going say that the U.S. constitution is a static document ... that everything that has to stay the way it is because of guys over 200 years ago got it right???

There is a process for bring up resolutions again in the UPCI ... either the right can play by the rules it wants to champion or stifle a democratic process that's HAPPENING TODAY.

Please explain what you meant by this post then, as from my point of view, you are saying that if someone is not willing to accept the majority vote, they need to leave, and should never have joined.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea
If a minister who has joined a fellowship that makes collective decisions through a democratic resolution process cannot accept the will of the majority ... then ... no matter where they stand ideologically .... they have no business joining such an org

__________________________________________________ _______________

First off from the top on down.

No one believes the UPCI will pass a TV resolution for TV.

At the end of the day they will appear from behind the 'Veil" and state the following.

The debate that was rendered on both sides of the isle was a hard fought debate.

Arguments from both sides were spoken.

After much consideration and prayer.

The UPCI will stay out of TV for the foreseeable future.

They will proclaim this as a standard of holiness and not selling out.

My thoughts:

The debate has taken on a personality of it's own over the years...

It will never pass....

The men in this immediate generation do not have vision...

They only see a cause....

stmatthew · #2 03-25-2007, 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neckstadt

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea
Of course ... and was it brought back to the table through legal channels and a constitutional process ... YES .....

Did the Supreme court re-examine Plessy vs. Ferguson - segregation- separate but equal ... do institutions re-examine failed policies even whe it was voted on by the majority????

This was last voted when ???? Are we going say that the U.S. constitution is a static document ... that everything that has to stay the way it is because of guys over 200 years ago got it right???

There is a process for bring up resolutions again in the UPCI ... either the right can play by the rules it wants to champion or stifle a democratic process that's HAPPENING TODAY.

Please explain what you meant by this post then, as from my point of view, you are saying that if someone is not willing to accept the majority vote, they need to leave, and should never have joined.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea
If a minister who has joined a fellowship that makes collective decisions through a democratic resolution process cannot accept the will of the majority ... then ... no matter where they stand ideologically .... they have no business joining such an org

__________________________________________________ _______________

First off from the top on down.

No one believes the UPCI will pass a TV resolution for TV.

At the end of the day they will appear from behind the 'Veil" and state the following.

The debate that was rendered on both sides of the isle was a hard fought debate.

Arguments from both sides were spoken.

After much consideration and prayer.

The UPCI will stay out of TV for the foreseeable future.

They will proclaim this as a standard of holiness and not selling out.

My thoughts:

The debate has taken on a personality of it's own over the years...

It will never pass....

The men in this immediate generation do not have vision...

They only see a cause....

Please explain this "charge" that you have laid upon some of the most Godly men I know??

Neck · #3 03-25-2007, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Please explain this "charge" that you have laid upon some of the most Godly men I know??

They are Godly. I do not refute that....

My comments speak to the machine not the individual personalities.

You may label it a "Charge".

The rest of the ecumenical body see's this as a concern...

I am stating the same debate has been waging since 1975.

Why has this debate been allowed to constantly be a reproach on the organization.

Put it to rest this time would they???

The leadership should have put this to bed 30 years ago?

Is that not reasonable?

Nathan Eckstadt

stmatthew · #4 03-25-2007, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Neckstadt

They are Godly. I do not refute that....

My comments speak to the machine not the individual personalities.

You may label it a "Charge".

The rest of the ecumenical body see's this as a concern...

I am stating the same debate has been waging since 1975.

Why has this debate been allowed to constantly be a reproach on the organization.

Put it to rest this time would they???

The leadership should have put this to bed 30 years ago?

Is that not reasonable?

Nathan Eckstadt

According to Dan, it can never be "put to rest", because there is a democratic process that will keep it coming back up year after year until either all the cons leave the org, and let the libs have it, or the libs leave the org, and let the cons have it.

SDG · #5 03-25-2007, 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stmatthew

According to Dan, it can never be "put to rest", because there is a democratic process that will keep it coming back up year after year until either all the cons leave the org, and let the libs have it, or the libs leave the org, and let the cons have it.

I never said that Matt ...

but to deny that resolutions cannot be re-examined is to ignore a structure in place that allows them to, thankfully ...

whether it be yearly or every 50 years ...

You can't champion 'the rule of law' and then bemoan when it's used to bring up an issue you don't agree with.

This applies to any side.

stmatthew · #6 03-25-2007, 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I never said that Matt ...

but to deny that resolutions cannot be re-examined is to ignore a structure in place that allows them to, thankfully ...

whether it be yearly or every 50 years ...

You can't champion 'the rule of law' and then bemoan when it's used to bring up an issue you don't agree with.

This applies to any side.

I did not say you said it. But you did RIGHTLY explain the legal proceedings of the UPCI, and that is why I stated that according to you, it will continue to come up until one side wins, and the other quits fighting.

SDG · #7 03-25-2007, 06:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stmatthew

I did not say you said it. But you did RIGHTLY explain the legal proceedings of the UPCI, and that is why I stated that according to you, it will continue to come up until one side wins, and the other quits fighting.

No one has to win or lose ... this one, brother Matthew ... Perhaps other issues might come up that are more urgent ...

but what gives ... if you allow a pastor/church/ministry the right to advertise using a media that is already about to merge with another accepted media.

TV is not being allowed ... just advertising.

You can allow another person this option without having to exercise it or tacitly endorse it yourself

Those are the facts ... as the resolution presently reads ...

sure there are other factors at work ... but those have a deeper history ... than just TV.

To some this is only about exercising control over the others ... this is true on various sides.

SDG · #8 03-25-2007, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I never said that Matt ...

but to deny that resolutions cannot be re-examined is to ignore a structure in place that allows them to, thankfully ...

whether it be yearly or every 50 years ...

You can't champion 'the rule of law' and then bemoan when it's used to bring up an issue you don't agree with.

This applies to any side.

BUMP FOR THE OBSTRUCTIONISTS OF THE RESOLUTION PROCESS.

rrford · #9 03-25-2007, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

I never said that Matt ...

but to deny that resolutions cannot be re-examined is to ignore a structure in place that allows them to, thankfully ...

whether it be yearly or every 50 years ...

You can't champion 'the rule of law' and then bemoan when it's used to bring up an issue you don't agree with.

This applies to any side.

I totally agree that the process allows for Resolutions to continually be submitted. I agree that one can work to effect change if they so desire.

But, one cannot blatantly disregard the policy they are seeking to change and expect to be credited with integrity. For instance, you used Plessey Vs. Ferguson as an illustration. While it may be a good illustration and reference let us remember there are penalties enacted upon those who violate the tenet of the law whether they agree with it or not. One is expected to follow the law, work for change, and then, and only then, can one legally change their actions.

Neck · #10 03-25-2007, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stmatthew

According to Dan, it can never be "put to rest", because there is a democratic process that will keep it coming back up year after year until either all the cons leave the org, and let the libs have it, or the libs leave the org, and let the cons have it.

I just wonder if we will be talking about this in 2015...

Nathan Eckstadt