A Petition Movement to Save the Union

[Neck]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[stmatthew]

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

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 ... both 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.

Perception is all in the eye's of the one looking. For some it may look to be a control issue. For other, it is something else.

I could say that for some, this is only an attempt to get their foot in the door, so they can come back later and finish the job of completely opening the door to tv.

[SDG]

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Perception is all in the eye's of the one looking. For some it may look to be a control issue. For other, it is something else.

I could say that for some, this is only an attempt to get their foot in the door, so they can come back later and finish the job of completely opening the door to tv.

Which of the men of God that you know are really pro-TV ... they are pro- allowing moderation of a media .... like other types of media that can be used for good or evil.

This is my biggest problem with this ... there are sanctified men of God on all sides of this issue throwing barbs at each other claiming they are more spiritual than the other .... that's pretty sickening to me ....

You can be holy with or without a TV ... You may not think it's best for you and your family ... or your flock.. but it is possible ... don't you agree?.

[SDG]

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]

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]

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