Two new Orthodox parishes to open in Baltimore
Fr. Daniel Garguillio
Parishes to bring ancient liturgy experience to southeast Baltimore
Baltimore, MD [June 25, 2008] Today, the North American Old Catholic
Church announced the opening of two Orthodox Catholic parishes in the
southeast section of Baltimore, with a specific mission to reach out
to younger unchurched, and to older, traditional Catholics. Both
churches are staffed by the clerics at Holy Cross Monastery.
“There seems to be a rather strange disconnect between many modern
churches and the needs of the people in our society.” commented Father
Daniel Garguillio, abbot of the monastery. “Many churches, in an
attempt to modernize and supposedly attract more young people to their
congregation, replace time honored ancient liturgical worship,
replacing it with flashy ‘events’ that look more like American Idol
than the prayer and worship of God.”
Father continued, “In society, we see many young people are going to
“Goth” night clubs, wearing medievalist attire, and even listening to
Gregorian Chant CDs! It is obvious that the ancient music, dress, and
the mysticism that it represents still reaches into the hearts and
minds of the young, as well as the young at heart. There is a need, an
aching, for prayer in the ancient tradition which many of today’s
churches are increasingly ignoring. By offering our worship through
the ancient liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, we hope to fulfill that
longing.”
The parishes are:
Beginning on Sunday, June 29, 2008, Saint Andrew the First Called
Orthodox Church will offer Mass in the chapel at Saint Peter’s
Evangelical Lutheran Church, 7834 Eastern Avenue. Liturgy will be
offered every Sunday at 3:00 PM.
Beginning on Saturday, July 5, 2008, Most Holy Theotokos Orthodox
Church will offer Mass and services to the residents at and
surrounding neighborhood of FutureCare NorthPoint Nursing Home, 1046
Old North Point Road. Liturgy will be offered every Saturday at 10:30
AM.
END###
Media Advisory: reporters and television crews are welcome to attend
either parish’s opening liturgy.
###
Fostering a continued, strong commitment to catholic tradition, and
the search for contemporary meaning, the North American Old Catholic
Church is part of the worldwide, universal church of Jesus Christ. For
more information about the church, and to review or download our press
kit, visit http://newsroom.naoldcatholic.com and click on *PRESS KIT*
You may also request a press kit by emailing
pres...@naoldcatholic.com
++
Fr. Daniel Garguillio wrote:
How far is that from Greek Town? I can't remember how the numbers go on
Eastern Avenue.
Why is this parish called St. Andrew's when there is already a St.
Andrew's on the other side of Patterson Park? Not to condemn their
efforts but what about Orthodox collegiality and Pan Orthdox events in
Baltimore? Do the mission parishioners say, "Oh, we don't belong to
that long established St. Andrew's. We belong to a new St. Andrew's
that is meeting in a Lutheran Church"?
>Beginning on Saturday, July 5, 2008, Most Holy Theotokos Orthodox
>Church will offer Mass and services to the residents at and
>surrounding neighborhood of FutureCare NorthPoint Nursing Home, 1046
>Old North Point Road. Liturgy will be offered every Saturday at 10:30
>AM.
>
>
I think it is very nice that you have a ministry going for nursing home
people. WE Orthodox ought to have more Orthodox nursing homes. In
fact, are there any outside the one on Staten Island?
OrthodoxNews
heretical groups. No Eastern Orthodox church offers Mass. And the fact that
the so-called Old Catholic Church announces the openings is proof that they
are not Eastern Orthodox. The press release is misleading and VERY
disingenuous on the part of the heretics.
"++" <fri...@spambot.com> wrote in message
news:GbudnfFX7PNGQPvV...@rcn.net...
OrthodoxNews
Alexander Arnakis
>
>Why is this parish called St. Andrew's when there is already a St.
>Andrew's on the other side of Patterson Park? Not to condemn their
>efforts but what about Orthodox collegiality and Pan Orthdox events in
>Baltimore? Do the mission parishioners say, "Oh, we don't belong to
>that long established St. Andrew's. We belong to a new St. Andrew's
>that is meeting in a Lutheran Church"?
>
neither Orthodox nor Roman Catholic, although, to the uninitiated,
they pretend to be both.
Do a Google search for "Old Catholic."
Alexander Arnakis
wrote:
>
>What the good father meant is "orthodox" traditional Roman Catholics
>of the 'Union of Utrecht"who reject the doctrine of papal
>infallibility .
>
>So he is a small "o" orthodox not a upper case "O" Orthodox .
>
>He must still have the tridentine Latin mass.
>
>I don't know why he posted here .
>
Simple. He's trying to steal both Orthodox and Roman Catholic
believers, under false pretenses.
++
Alexander Arnakis wrote:
Are you sure? After all, we are the Orthodox Catholic Church and you
can't get much older a Christian religion than us. Too late at night
for searches, earlier than normal liturgy tomorrow. Still recovering
from too much incense at vigil
>
>
>
athair ambrois
I see that they derive a lot of their income from wedding ceremonies.
Their presiding bishop performed 100 weddings last year. They are
equally as happy to marry gays and lesbians as atheists and agnostics.
"Our clergy not only are willing to perform ceremonies for same-sex
couple, we encourage it and have experience performing them!
"Whether you want a traditional, contemporary, spiritual, religious,
or dignified civil ceremony, we are more than happy to presiding at
gay weddings, holy unions, or commitment ceremonies."
http://www.dcweddingceremony.com/?page_id=4
http://naoldcatholic.com/leadership.html
I see that Father Daniel who posted the message is also on the wedding
gravy train. Bad boy, Father!
"Father Daniel Garguillo - Father Garguillo engages primarily in
pastoral counseling ministry, so his approach to weddings is very
comforting, welcoming and warm. Although a bit soft spoken, the love
of God really shines through in the ceremonies Father performs."
http://www.dcweddingceremony.com/?page_id=6
athair ambrois
I see that they derive a lot of their income from wedding ceremonies.
Their presiding bishop performed 100 weddings last year. They are
equally as happy to marry gays and lesbians as atheists and
agnostics.
"Our clergy not only are willing to perform ceremonies for same-sex
couple, we encourage it and have experience performing them!
"Whether you want a traditional, contemporary, spiritual, religious,
or dignified civil ceremony, we are more than happy to presiding at
gay weddings, holy unions, or commitment ceremonies."
http://www.dcweddingceremony.com/?page_id=4
http://naoldcatholic.com/leadership.html
I see that Father Garguillo who posted the message and is the Abbot of
their monastery is also on the wedding gravy train. Bad boy,
athair ambrois
> Whether you want a traditional, contemporary, spiritual, religious, or
> dignified civil ceremony, we are more than happy to presiding at gay
> weddings, holy unions, or commitment ceremonies.
>
> ...."
>
> From here :http://www.dcweddingceremony.com/?page_id=4
>
> I thought marriage of 2 homosexuals is illegal in Washington D.C. ?
That being the case, then the Primate of this Church Michael V. Seneco
and the priest Daniel Garguillo are criminals who are breaking State
law.
huey.c...@gmail.com
No. Any church is free to hold any ceremony they like and call it a
marriage. However, absent a marriage license from the state, duly signed
and witnessed, it might as well be Pancake Breakfast as far as the state
is concerned. ...except in California and Massachusetts, anyway.
--
Huey
athair ambrois
> No. Any church is free to hold any ceremony they like and call it a
> marriage. However, absent a marriage license from the state, duly signed
> and witnessed,
We have different laws. If I were to do, as a few people have
requested, a spiritual-only marriage I would be in breach of the law
and liable to a fine or up to 7 years imprisonment.
OrthodoxNews
***Drive over and see for yourself. (BTW, we're sure!)
OrthodoxNews
"athair ambrois" <em...@globe.net.nz> wrote in message
news:78c458b0-2bed-4c8e...@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
***I guess even heretics can shine with Elmer Gantry-like love!!
Fr. Daniel Garguillio
> No Eastern Orthodox church offers Mass.
True, the press release should have said "Divine Liturgy". It was
perhaps the intention of Archbishop Michael to reach out to those not
yet familiar with the Traditions of the Eastern Church by using the
more familiar Western term "Mass". I will speak with him about it.
+Daniel
Fr. Daniel Garguillio
> How far is that from Greek Town? I can't remember how the numbers go on
> Eastern Avenue.
Fairly close, a couple of miles east of Greek Town.
> Why is this parish called St. Andrew's when there is already a St.
> Andrew's on the other side of Patterson Park? Not to condemn their
> efforts but what about Orthodox collegiality and Pan Orthdox events in
> Baltimore? Do the mission parishioners say, "Oh, we don't belong to
> that long established St. Andrew's. We belong to a new St. Andrew's
> that is meeting in a Lutheran Church"?
The focus of our churches being different, I don't see it as being a
problem. There are also two or three *Episcopal* (Anglican) churches
called St. Andrew's in Baltimore (not that that has anything to do
with us!). Multiple churches with the similar names are fairly common
in large cities.
That being said, we certainly have no quarrel with St. Andrew's OCA.
We simply have the same Patron.
> I think it is very nice that you have a ministry going for nursing home
> people. WE Orthodox ought to have more Orthodox nursing homes.
Agreed there. It is one of the most truly spiritually rewarding (but
sadly overlooked) ministries for any priest.
In IC XC,
+Daniel
Barnabas
want to) almost 10 years of my life playing "dress up" Orthodoxy in a
group that desired the ancient faith without all that messy hard work
of actually being in organic communion within the Orthodox Church.
I don't say that is what's happening here. How could I know? But I do
know that any real and lasting work any of us do will have to be
eventually brought to the Church in communion if it is ever going to
be "fruit that remains." This "we are going to do Orthodoxy right"
mentality is absolutely a dead end. If you and your Old Catholic group
have charisms and talents, bring them to the Church. Perhaps the
Church can put them to use, but more than likely it will be as it has
been for me, a time when my own foolish notions of my gifts and
abilities will be put to the test in the fire of the hard work of
communion within the Church.
I also don't mean to engage in any lenghty discussion of the merits of
this or that vision of communion and bringing America to Orthodoxy. I
simply wish to share my own regrets for waiting so long to enter into
the hard work of communion within the Orthodox Church. The fruit that
this work has produced in my own life is worth much more than any of
the perceived "gains" I thought I had outside of the organic and
canonical communion within the Church. Please know that ever fear I
had about the Orthodox Church was well founded.
There are many within the Church who see it as nothing more than a
place to preserve yia yia's recipies and a few colorful costumes and
dance steps, or some ultimately futile attempt to pretend they don't
live where they live now. There are many within the Church, especially
here in America, who are so narrow minded that you could put out both
eyes with one bb! There are far too many who know so little about
their faith that they resort to silly nationalistic (and sometimes
racist) motivations for preserving the ancient traditions of the
faith. The sad and overwhelmingly obvious results of these weaknesses
is that these motivations will not preserve anything these folks want
to preserve. These weak motivations are, after all, too small to
preserve the timeless beauty of the Faith, and too irrelevant to keep
any of the "old world" alive. All of these fears are well founded and
certainly insist on an "eyes wide open" approach to entering the
Church.
But in spite of these very real weaknesses, there is simply no
substitute for the hard work of dealing with these shortcomings,
especially with all the benefits that come.
Because, for every narrow-minded person I have encountered in the
Orthodox Church, I have encountered a hundred sincere, faithful, and
loving believers who, through patience, compassion, and love have
guided me to a fuller understanding of the Faith. I have seen my
initial impressions of some of the ethno-centric baggage of the Church
as being too short sighted myself. I have found some of these cultural
expressions (certainly not all) to be worthy bearers of deeper truths
that have been helpful to me in deepening my own piety and faith. I
have watched as so-called "cradle" Orthodox grasp the deep healing
given to them by the Faith raise their children as committed believers
and I've watched as so-called "converts" finally see the power of
humility in living out a sense of gratitude for those who preserved
the faith so they could receive it. I have watched as young men and
women come to understand that if they first dwell deeply on the
"sublime theology" of Orthodoxy, their children will want to keep
alive those special cultural markers that allow them to display their
Orthodox faith in a healthy and welcoming way. Their children want to
learn the "language" not because of some foolish and shallow
nationalism, but because that "language" best captures the precious
nuances of the Faith they have come to love and has so transformed
their lives. It has been worth the work.
My journey isn't over, anymore than I'm sure your's is as well. Here
at seminary I am learning more than I ever dreamed, and much of that
education is occuring not in a classroom but in the daily living with
so many different people from so many different places. I have found
my worst fears and my greatest hopes both confirmed in my canonical
communion within the Church, and I wouldn't go back to my "dress up"
days for anything!
OrthodoxNews
"Fr. Daniel Garguillio" <revd...@garguillio.com> wrote in message
news:18478d58-e9b1-4a26...@i36g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
+Daniel
***And your new parishes are not Eastern Orthodox.
OrthodoxNews
http://aggreen.net/other_orthodox/other.html
Al
"Barnabas" <evan...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:426d94fe-4d1c-40ca...@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
++
athair ambrois wrote:
Well, then, he is well placed. During the Kurt Schmoke administration in
Baltimore, the city became one of the first gay friendly cities in the
US outlawing any kind of discrimination against gays in employment and
benefits. Sadly, the head of the gay alliance in the city and his
partner who lived next door to me both died of aids as did my district
housing inspector, the sweet guy who had to inspect whether or not I was
fulfilling historic guidelines in the renovation of my 1868 home in my
national register neighborhood.
Alternative lifestyles have their costs. Since my little hetero family
was challenged in my community with the burden of traditional values, we
had to pay for shades on twelve windows on the side facing the dear
neighbors so that the loving lifestyle being demonstrably exhibited next
door would not prejudice our young son into thinking that the hetero
alternative was not a normal alternative to the majority homosexual
lifestyle of our neighborhood.
>
>
>
++
veritas wrote:
>Here is an extract :
>
>"....
>We believe that regardless of what the government says, when two
>people love one another, God is in the mix.
>
>Our clergy not only are willing to perform ceremonies for same-sex
>couple, we encourage it and have experience performing them!
>
>Whether you want a traditional, contemporary, spiritual, religious, or
>dignified civil ceremony, we are more than happy to presiding at gay
>weddings, holy unions, or commitment ceremonies.
>
>...."
>
>From here : http://www.dcweddingceremony.com/?page_id=4
>
>
>I thought marriage of 2 homosexuals is illegal in Washington D.C. ?
>
>Peter
>
>
It is not yet accepted pratice in DC, but Baltimore is gay friendly.
++
I'd like to bring up a problem that plagues us Orthodox sometimes. Many
actual real Orthodox parishes are peppered with people who never quite
get around to becoming Orthodox. In one parish near me, a woman who
cannot abise the idea of the Orthdox not having a female priesthood,
fulfils her Episcopalian duties and then gets a ride over to this
Orthodox parish where she runs the choir without really understanding
anything about liturgies or services, and reads the Gospel and Epistle
in the natal language of the people. The priest, of course, is as fault
for allowing the same while eschewing the talents he has not yet
discovered among his actual Orthodox parisioners. This woman has been
prevaricating becoming Orthodox for a quarter century and has never
become a catechumen. And she has fostered an idea that it doesn't
really matter what religion you are.
It is important to actually foster Orthodox practices and an Orthodox
community and Orthodox participation in parishes. An Orthodox Christian
takes responsibility for being Orthodox. All the imitators,
substitutes, lovers and admirers but not members of, do not. You can't
save your immortal life with a substitution or a kinda sorta idea of the
real thing.
Barnabas wrote:
>Fr. Daniel, please forgive me, but I spent (I won't say "wasted" but I
>want to) almost 10 years of my life playing "dress up" Orthodoxy in a
>group that desired the ancient faith without all that messy hard work
>of actually being in organic communion within the Orthodox Church.
>
>I don't say that is what's happening here. How could I know? But I do
>know that any real and lasting work any of us do will have to be
>eventually brought to the Church in communion if it is ever going to
>be "fruit that remains." This "we are going to do Orthodoxy right"
>mentality is absolutely a dead end. If you and your Old Catholic group
>have charisms and talents, bring them to the Church. Perhaps the
>Church can put them to use, but more than likely it will be as it has
>been for me, a time when my own foolish notions of my gifts and
>abilities will be put to the test in the fire of the hard work of
>communion within the Church
OrthodoxNews
>
> It is not yet accepted pratice in DC, but Baltimore is gay friendly.
***Tell us more, Gail. Personal experience??
Alexander Arnakis
>It is not yet accepted practice in DC, but Baltimore is gay friendly.
Only two states in the country currently allow gay marriages:
Massachusetts and California. Neither Maryland or D.C. recognize them,
as a legal matter. There are several "churches" that are willing to
bless same-sex unions. Unless performed in Massachusetts or
California, such ceremonies are legal nullities.
Stephen Adams
>On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 15:58:27 -0400, ++ <fri...@spambot.com> wrote:
>
>>It is not yet accepted practice in DC, but Baltimore is gay friendly.
>
>Only two states in the country currently allow gay marriages:
>Massachusetts and California. Neither Maryland or D.C. recognize them,
>as a legal matter.
I would say that they have no choice under the 'Full Faith and Credit'
clause of the US Constitution.
-Stephen
--
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" Stephen Adams
malchu...@AMgmail.com (remove SPAM to reply)
Alexander Arnakis
>Alexander Arnakis <inv...@address.none> writes:
>
>>Only two states in the country currently allow gay marriages:
>>Massachusetts and California. Neither Maryland or D.C. recognize them,
>>as a legal matter.
>
>I would say that they have no choice under the 'Full Faith and Credit'
>clause of the US Constitution.
>
That's an open question. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was
supposed to prevent the application of the Full Faith and Credit
clause in this situation. It may end up having to be decided by the
Supreme Court.
OrthodoxNews
"Alexander Arnakis" <inv...@address.none> wrote in message
news:a2jg64l2qt750ebhl...@4ax.com...
***According to the web site of the Unitarian Universalist "church", they
perform gay marriages.
Alexander Arnakis
<Orth...@nospam99.net> wrote:
>
>***According to the web site of the Unitarian Universalist "church", they
>perform gay marriages.
They can perform "marriages" between people and chickens, too, but
these have no legal force and effect unless the state says so.
Stephen Adams
I'd say that the clause is clear as a bell. DOMA is aboslutely,
clearly and unequivocally unconstitutional.
OrthodoxNews
"Stephen Adams" <ada...@no.spam> wrote in message
news:g4bd1...@news4.newsguy.com...
> Alexander Arnakis <inv...@address.none> writes:
>>On 30 Jun 2008 03:19:25 GMT, Stephen Adams <ada...@no.spam> wrote:
>>
>>>Alexander Arnakis <inv...@address.none> writes:
>>>
>>>>Only two states in the country currently allow gay marriages:
>>>>Massachusetts and California. Neither Maryland or D.C. recognize them,
>>>>as a legal matter.
>>>
>>>I would say that they have no choice under the 'Full Faith and Credit'
>>>clause of the US Constitution.
>>>
>>That's an open question. The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) was
>>supposed to prevent the application of the Full Faith and Credit
>>clause in this situation. It may end up having to be decided by the
>>Supreme Court.
>
> I'd say that the clause is clear as a bell. DOMA is aboslutely,
> clearly and unequivocally unconstitutional.
***In the strictest sense, you are right. But these days the Supreme Court
is wont to generalize. Strict interpretation is no longer guaranteed (and
not expected by liberals) by the high court.
OrthodoxNews
"Alexander Arnakis" <inv...@address.none> wrote in message
***True. But I don't think that's a guiding factor for the Unitarians.
++
OrthodoxNews wrote:
Yes, here is a difference between whether the state accepts a marraige
for tax purposes versus whether certain civil rights of homosexuals are
upheld. Some places do one without the other.
OrthodoxNews
"OrthodoxNews" <Orth...@nospam99.net> wrote in message
news:g4bf0...@enews2.newsguy.com...
***BTW, this is not really a new problem:
"On every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry
ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the
spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be
squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable
one in which it was passed." — Thomas Jefferson (letter to William Johnson)
June 12, 1823
Joe Orthodox
"We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by
the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the
succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country."
"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions,
but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the
human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new
discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions
change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also
to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear
still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to
remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
- Thomas Jefferson
--
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face. It’s just a goddamned piece
of paper!" ~ George W. Bush (November 2005 in an Oval Office meeting
with Republican Congressional leaders)
Stephen Adams
>OrthodoxNews wrote:
>> ***BTW, this is not really a new problem:
>>
>> "On every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry
>> ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect
>> the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning
>> may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the
>> probable one in which it was passed." — Thomas Jefferson (letter to
>> William Johnson) June 12, 1823
>
>"We may consider each generation as a distinct nation, with a right, by
>the will of its majority, to bind themselves, but none to bind the
>succeeding generation, more than the inhabitants of another country."
>
>"I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions,
>but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the
>human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new
>discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions
>change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also
>to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear
>still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to
>remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors."
>
>- Thomas Jefferson
And both need to be read together. :-) That generates this:
"Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established
]should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly
all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer,
while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the
forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses
and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design
to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their
duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their
future security."
Change is a given. It's only a question of how long. Jefferson is
telling us that we should replace what we have that is not working
for us with something new, but also telling us that we should not
try to twist the document into saying something it doesn't mean.
So, I'm all for amending the Constution or replacing it. But trying
to force-fit the Constitution to meet our needs isn't right...
Joe Orthodox
> Joe Orthodox <nospamt...@spamster.org> writes:
>> OrthodoxNews wrote:
>
>>> ***BTW, this is not really a new problem:
>>>
>>> "On every question of construction [of the Constitution], let us carry
>>> ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect
>>> the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning
>>> may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the
It all comes down to whether one prefers the early or the late Jefferson
(or the late vs. early Goldwater, or the late vs. early Reagan -- time
and experience have a way of yielding further knowledge and wisdom and
previous fancies are either modified or thrown out altogether). There's
no way one can reconcile the opinion that there should be a bloody
revolution every few decades (that overthrows the existing laws and
constitution) with the opinion that the governing constitution should be
permanently fixed to the mindset of corrupt, 18th century slave owners.
I'd rather have the thing re-interpreted through sober and legal
debate at the ballot box than have bands of murderous Timothy McVeighs
roaming my street, rewriting the law as THEY see fit at the point of a gun.
Stephen Adams
>
>It all comes down to whether one prefers the early or the late Jefferson
>(or the late vs. early Goldwater, or the late vs. early Reagan -- time
>and experience have a way of yielding further knowledge and wisdom and
>previous fancies are either modified or thrown out altogether).
Yes, and my personal experience is the same - my views have changed
over time.
>There's
>no way one can reconcile the opinion that there should be a bloody
>revolution every few decades (that overthrows the existing laws and
>constitution) with the opinion that the governing constitution should be
>permanently fixed to the mindset of corrupt, 18th century slave owners.
Men of their times, and yet, they add serious value. We still read
Plato, Sun Tzu, Shakespear, etc, and they offer valuable insight.
The beauty of the Constitution is that it is a relatively simple
list of specific powers delegated to the central government. To
reinterpret it to permit an all-pevasive federal government is
hardly a 'sober and legal debate.
> I'd rather have the thing re-interpreted through sober and legal
>debate at the ballot box than have bands of murderous Timothy McVeighs
>roaming my street, rewriting the law as THEY see fit at the point of a gun.
He wouldn't last long, not in this country....
Joe Orthodox
> Joe Orthodox <nospamt...@spamster.org> writes:
>> It all comes down to whether one prefers the early or the late Jefferson
>> (or the late vs. early Goldwater, or the late vs. early Reagan -- time
>> and experience have a way of yielding further knowledge and wisdom and
>> previous fancies are either modified or thrown out altogether).
>
> Yes, and my personal experience is the same - my views have changed
> over time.
>
>> There's
>> no way one can reconcile the opinion that there should be a bloody
>> revolution every few decades (that overthrows the existing laws and
>> constitution) with the opinion that the governing constitution should be
>> permanently fixed to the mindset of corrupt, 18th century slave owners.
>
> Men of their times, and yet, they add serious value. We still read
> Plato, Sun Tzu, Shakespear, etc, and they offer valuable insight.
> The beauty of the Constitution is that it is a relatively simple
> list of specific powers delegated to the central government. To
> reinterpret it to permit an all-pevasive federal government is
> hardly a 'sober and legal debate.
>
Yet, social conditions can change which inevitably lead to changes to
it. I'm not advocating radical re-interpretations, but the system is
rigged that long term voting trends will put a particular ideology into
power which is constitutionally empowered to appoint judges who'll
re-interpret the document.
I would still like to see a reconciliation with Jefferson's view that
the government should be overthrown every 30 years with his view that
the Constitution shouldn't be re-interpreted. The latter view displays
a desire for order and traditionalism, but the former respects neither.
Both are recipes for disaster.
Stephen Adams
I'm not advocating no change mind you, but change as required by the
document - amendment and/or treaty. Expansion of the scope should
involve a full, national debate, not the decisions of 9 (or fewer in
the past) justices.
>I would still like to see a reconciliation with Jefferson's view that
>the government should be overthrown every 30 years with his view that
>the Constitution shouldn't be re-interpreted. The latter view displays
>a desire for order and traditionalism, but the former respects neither.
> Both are recipes for disaster.
Jefferson believed that no matter how the document was written, the
government would find a way to become oppressive. And because of that,
it would be necessary (not desirable) to have a revolution every few
decades.
Joe Orthodox
Yep. His observations were certainly based on past experience and
previous human history. It would seem that the experience of Western
Europe over the last 60+ years and the US over the course of its history
have provided good cause for optimism. We're not perfect by a long
shot, but it's been a miraculous improvement over what we came out of.
If TJ were alive today, he might agree -- while reserving the right to
violently overthrow a Hitler should he arrive again.
Stephen Adams
>Stephen Adams wrote:
>> Joe Orthodox <nospamt...@spamster.org> writes:
>>> I would still like to see a reconciliation with Jefferson's view that
>>> the government should be overthrown every 30 years with his view that
>>> the Constitution shouldn't be re-interpreted. The latter view displays
>>> a desire for order and traditionalism, but the former respects neither.
>>> Both are recipes for disaster.
>>
>> Jefferson believed that no matter how the document was written, the
>> government would find a way to become oppressive. And because of that,
>> it would be necessary (not desirable) to have a revolution every few
>> decades.
>
>Yep. His observations were certainly based on past experience and
>previous human history. It would seem that the experience of Western
>Europe over the last 60+ years and the US over the course of its history
>have provided good cause for optimism. We're not perfect by a long
>shot, but it's been a miraculous improvement over what we came out of.
>If TJ were alive today, he might agree -- while reserving the right to
>violently overthrow a Hitler should he arrive again.
Given that he served as the Chief Executive, one would have to assume that
the oppression would have to rise to a significant level (...a long train
of abuses...) before he would even begin to countenance military action.
I think his line would be lower than Hitler (Napolean would suffice, I
would think)....but that's an academic argument...