A Petition Movement to Save the Union - Page 6

stmatthew · #51 03-25-2007, 06:20 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

SDG · #52 03-25-2007, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stmatthew

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.

This is what I said :

Quote:

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

Matt I have never said you have to agree with the decision made. I can, not agree with something, and still accept the will of the greater body. This can be done for the sake of unity while not compromising your personal convictions

Abortion is the example I gave before ... it's extreme but it can be any type of legislation or policy.

If you can't accept the direction ... or re-direction of the fellowship, or institution, you are part of and champion ... and would rather subvert the process by causing division, accuse others of not being holy or true to your heritage, or hypocritical,

it's best you leave.

The rules allow for changes ... some will not accept that.

Neck · #53 03-25-2007, 06:31 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 · #54 03-25-2007, 06:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel Alicea

This is what I said :

Matt I have never said you have to agree with the decision made. I can, not agree with something, and still accept the will of the greater body. This can be done for the sake of unity while not compromising your personal convictions

Abortion is the example I gave before ... it's extreme but it can be any type of legislation or policy.

If you can't accept the direction ... or re-direction of the fellowship, or institution, you are part of and champion ... and would rather subvert the process by causing division, accuse others of not being holy or true to your heritage, or hypocritical,

it's best you leave.

The rules allow for changes ... some will not accept that.

Funny how the ones that are a part of the majority are being painted as the bad guys. Maybe the minority should move on, and stop causing the division because of their continual attempts to change what the majority want. I hear the ALJC allows tv. What doth hinder them?? Or would they rather cause division in the Majority?

stmatthew · #55 03-25-2007, 06:35 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??

SDG · #56 03-25-2007, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stmatthew

Funny how the ones that are a part of the majority are being painted as the bad guys. Maybe the minority should move on, and stop causing the division because of their continual attempts to change what the majority want. I hear the ALJC allows tv. What doth hinder them?? Or would they rather cause division in the Majority?

The vote will decide who is the minority ... now.

Neck · #57 03-25-2007, 06:44 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 · #58 03-25-2007, 06:49 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 · #59 03-25-2007, 06:56 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 · #60 03-25-2007, 07:09 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.