Where's the ANGLICAN forum????

[ContraMundum]

I've been at CF for a little while now, and I was wondering if there was an Anglican forum I could post in.

I've posted over at GT, but I keep finding other denominations use that forum to promote their views and like all good salesman, never miss an opportunity to preach and sell their ideals. While this can be stimulating at times, it is not a haven for an ordinary Anglican like myself where I can discuss things in peace.

I've posted at STR as well, but I keep finding that there is no peace for an Anglican there either. Every thread is hijacked by people promoting issues that are more on the fringe and certainly hardly mainstream BCP Anglican. While I accept diversity in my communion, I do not think the active and somewhat opportunistic promotion of Roman and Orthodox distinctives would have been allowed, but apparently, it is ok. In fact, I have found that it is ok to promote any doctrine but mainstream Anglicanism. When I have posted something which opposes the preaching of the distinctives of other denominations with any strength I have been given warnings and one would think I was preaching Kenneth Copeland or something by the reaction I get.

So, does anyone know where an Anglican can post and have some peace without being harrased ?

[gtsecc]

Do we all agree Kenth Copeland is not the direction we want the faith to go?

[Inside Edge]

That's quite the statement, coming from someone who attends a Continuing church, outside of the "official" AC.

So are you really just asking, "Where is the Anglican forum just for continuers and people who define Anglicanism as I do?"

[ContraMundum]

That's quite the statement, coming from someone who attends a Continuing church, outside of the "official" AC.

So are you really just asking, "Where is the Anglican forum just for continuers and people who define Anglicanism as I do?"

Not at all.

I'm actually very hurt that you said that.

I thought I was clear above that I accept diversity- just want peace from distinctives of other denominations being preached and promoted on every thread I read.

I define distinctives as those things which single out one denomination from another that are not mainstream Anglican.

Let me say as a "continuer" (which you apparently do not approve of) I just have continued in the faith I knew when I converted- so unless you think Anglicanism was heresy in the 70's I don't think your comments are terribly fair. I've just stayed the course I started on. I don't expect others to think like me or agree on every point.

Anyway, I knew someone would want to argue or attack me, thanks a lot.

[ContraMundum]

Do we all agree Kenth Copeland is not the direction we want the faith to go?

Amen brother! :amen:

[Tetzel]

Contra, I think you could post in the Lutheran forum without much difficulty. Especially the ELCA subforum, since you can claim the right to post there based on the call to common mission agreement.

[ContraMundum]

Contra, I think you could post in the Lutheran forum without much difficulty. Especially the ELCA subforum, since you can claim the right to post there based on the call to common mission agreement.

Thank you friend.

I've heard similar comments (already!) from my friends over at WP.

[Inside Edge]

Anyway, I knew someone would want to argue or attack me, thanks a lot.
Oh, cry me a river.

I've got no problem or issue with the Continuing churches. In fact, I think they did the right thing and stayed true to themselves.

My point (which was missed, in part due to your defensiveness and in part due to a lack of clarity on my part), was that your OP sounded a lot like: "STR isn't really an Anglican forum because there's too much diversity and some of the Anglicans' comments here are so diverse that they aren't even Anglican."

I took it that you have some implicit definition of "Anglican" to which you subscribe, and too many of us are "outside the bounds" as far as you're concerned.

I thought I was clear above that I accept diversity- just want peace from distinctives of other denominations being preached and promoted on every thread I read.

I define distinctives as those things which single out one denomination from another that are not mainstream Anglican
And I'm afraid you're going to have to spell that out a little more clearly. There are many a priest and bishop which would consider the Continuing churches at not mainstream Anglican.

So how are you defining "mainstream Anglican," with what authority, and how do you enforce it in a thread? Are you strictly speaking of people from other denominations posting in a thread which you want only Anglicans posting in?

Sorry to offend, but you have to realize your OP comes off as pretty pointed (and possibly offensive). I'll hold off on that conclusion until you've clarified further.

[Colabomb]

There is a general feeling of resentment on this board by many against anything protestant.

Now, I accept Anglo-Catholics as Truly Christian, and Truly Anglican.

The problem is, many speak of diversity, but when that diversity shows its ugly head, we are suddenly fools.

[Fish and Bread]

Most of the Anglican forums I know are either liberal Episcopalian or Anglo-Catholic in general character. I could point you towards one of the less Catholic more liberal ones if you'd like to send me a PM, but I'm not sure that, given your church affiliation, you'd be completely happy there either.

I hope we'll continue to hear your voice here. One of the reasons boards tend to take on a specific character is that folks who are in the minority tend to leave and then the next person in that same minority who shows up feels alone and leaves as well. By sticking around, you might be able to gradually help the group take on a wider variety of perspectives.

In the meantime, you might enjoy also posting to the Lutheran and the Methodist forums, which are probably theologically similar to you. With luck it'll be in addition to, instead of in place of posting here, though. We're all still waiting on your "Errors of Roman Catholic Church" post. :)

[Colabomb]

Most of the Anglican forums I know are either liberal Episcopalian or Anglo-Catholic in general character. I could point you towards one of the less Catholic more liberal ones if you'd like to send me a PM, but I'm not sure that, given your church affiliation, you'd be completely happy there either.

I hope we'll continue to hear your voice here. One of the reasons boards tend to take on a specific character is that folks who are in the minority tend to leave and then the next person in that same minority who shows up feels alone and leaves as well. By sticking around, you might be able to gradually help the group take on a wider variety of perspectives.

In the meantime, you might enjoy also posting to the Lutheran and the Methodist forums, which are probably theologically similar to you. With luck it'll be in addition to, instead of in place of posting here, though. We're all still waiting on your "Errors of Roman Catholic Church" post. :)
Except for the comment about the RCC post, which may have a shade of sarcasm (I'm not sure), I have to agree with Fish's Post.

He makes a point. Perhaps Contra, if we stick it out, it may get better.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Contra, you've kind of insulted more than a few members of this board through a recent and fairly passionate attack on some of our views on Our Lady. While I respect your right to disagree fully, I really don't think that should take the form of bombarding other threads in the future.

[higgs2]

There is a general feeling of resentment on this board by many against anything protestant.

Now, I accept Anglo-Catholics as Truly Christian, and Truly Anglican.

The problem is, many speak of diversity, but when that diversity shows its ugly head, we are suddenly fools.
But isn't it kind of fun that it's not the dreaded "liberals" causing all the angst this time? :) Who'd of thunk it?

[higgs2]

Do we all agree Kenth Copeland is not the direction we want the faith to go?
<raises hand> I agree! :D

[karen freeinchristman]

I hope we'll continue to hear your voice here. One of the reasons boards tend to take on a specific character is that folks who are in the minority tend to leave and then the next person in that same minority who shows up feels alone and leaves as well. By sticking around, you might be able to gradually help the group take on a wider variety of perspectives.


This is true!

[Fish and Bread]

Except for the comment about the RCC post, which may have a shade of sarcasm (I'm not sure)

It wasn 't sarcasm, I'm actually really hoping to see him post on that subject one day. He's alluded to possibly preparing a detailed treatise for us and I'd love to see what his thinking is.

[Aymn27]

Contra, you've kind of insulted more than a few members of this board through a recent and fairly passionate attack on some of our views on Our Lady. While I respect your right to disagree fully, I really don't think that should take the form of bombarding other threads in the future.
Gee, we get that all the time - so now someone wants to do something about it? No liberal bias here? Yea, I've got some property in Arizona that's right on the beach...

[higgs2]

Gee, we get that all the time - so now someone wants to do something about it? No liberal bias here? Yea, I've got some property in Arizona that's right on the beach...
:) Where is the liberal bias? :)

[Aymn27]

:) Where is the liberal bias? :)
Right next to that property ;)

[higgs2]

:) Where is the liberal bias? :)

:thumbsup: good answer.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Gee, we get that all the time - so now someone wants to do something about it? No liberal bias here? ... Care to elaborate? I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. :confused:

[Aymn27]

Care to elaborate? I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to say. :confused:
Just making the comment that we "conservatives" are attacked for our views and bombarded with liberal doctrine - but no one seems to care - but man, don't let an Affirmer get upset - I'd elaborate more but would break forum rules and get a citation - so I'll leave it there..

[higgs2]

Just making the comment that we "conservatives" are attacked for our views and bombarded with liberal doctrine - but no one seems to care - but man, don't let an Affirmer get upset - I'd elaborate more but would break forum rules and get a citation - so I'll leave it there..
So you're saying that mysterium-fidie is liberal?

[Aymn27]

nope..not at all...just saying things tend to go one way around here - has for some time...attacks are allowed (depending on which side they come from) unevenly - just drawing comparisions here - apples and oranges really..probably should just leave well enough alone before I get my own little warning :)

[ContraMundum]

Contra, you've kind of insulted more than a few members of this board through a recent and fairly passionate attack on some of our views on Our Lady. While I respect your right to disagree fully, I really don't think that should take the form of bombarding other threads in the future.

My views on Our Lady were never discussed and the honour due to Her was never in question- in fact, I would argue I defended Her.

Please attack me in context next time. And please stay on topic on this thread, it's kind of important.

[ContraMundum]

Look guys, we simply need to accept that when we wish to discuss Anglicanism as the majority of people experience it we need to speak in riddles so as not to offend. No straight talk allowed. We should allow people to promote all kinds of Roman and Orthodox and fundie distinctives here like the forum is a religious trade show and just shut up about the way we've been doing things for centuries.

Right? Everyone happy with that?

[ContraMundum]

Oh, cry me a river.

Have I done something to you to become your enemy/punching bag?

I took it that you have some implicit definition of "Anglican" to which you subscribe, and too many of us are "outside the bounds" as far as you're concerned.


And I'm afraid you're going to have to spell that out a little more clearly. There are many a priest and bishop which would consider the Continuing churches at not mainstream Anglican.

OK- I'll use the (fatal) approach of straight talk. I think mainstream Anglicanism can be reduced (for the purpose of this forum) to the lowest common denominator- the Faith and Practice of the Book of Common Prayer (any version).

I'd like to be able to discuss Anglicanism within that very broad border without someone trying to actively promote distinctives from other denominations in order to critique Anglican practice and faith with the view of undermining it (eg. proselytism by proxy). This does not include liberal Anglicanism either. Last I heard, they used the BCP too. This is not about trying to silence people with different opinions either- it's about how far they take it and what they are saying about us.

Put it this way- if I went over to the Fundamentalist forum and started touting traditionalism, Apostolic Orders and the like they would delete my posts. If I entered into one of their threads and attacked their faith and practice by undermining the inerrency of the Bible- they would delete my posts. If I was "fellowshipping" over at OBOB and seized every opportunity to float the idea that the Pope was fallible on faith and morals- they'd delete my posts. Yet, in this forum you can undermine our BCP praxis, Creed, Faith and anything else you like and not only will your posts not get deleted but those who oppose them will kindly be reminded to roll over and play dead.

Like I said, I'm not talking about interpretations of the BCP either- the faith and practice of the BCP has kept the whole communion from dying for centuries and will continue to do so- it's about saying those (broad) practices and faith are wrong. You can't do that elsewhere at CF- you shouldn't be able to do it here.

So how are you defining "mainstream Anglican," with what authority, and how do you enforce it in a thread?

I'm glad you asked.

It's very, very simple to my mind.

Any post that deliberately undermines the practice and plain doctrine of the BCP with intent to attack or undermine Anglicanism as it is commonly practiced should be edited or deleted. eg. A liberal Anglican should post all he likes. We should accept that and even welcome it. However, someone telling us that we are wrong about something basic that defines us apart from others or unites us with others (eg. the way we celebrate communion, baptise, confirm, have bishops, our Creeds as written in the BCP whatever) should be done within forum rules- that is genuine questions or fellowship threads and posts.

Are you strictly speaking of people from other denominations posting in a thread which you want only Anglicans posting in?

Excellent question!

Yes, I am mainly speaking about people from other denominations but also about people within our denomination that want us to adopt as de rigour distinctives from other denominations. While I think these discussions could be interesting, they must be done within forum rules. One doesn't rag on the Pope at OBOB, or "believer's baptism" at the Baptist forum, so one shouldn't rag on any unilaterally accepted Anglican belief at STR (and to reiterate, I define that as centred on the BCP.)

Sorry to offend, but you have to realize your OP comes off as pretty pointed (and possibly offensive). I'll hold off on that conclusion until you've clarified further.

My OP was partially tongue in cheek but had a point to make.

I guess I could sum it up by saying I'd like a place where Anglicans can be Anglicans without someone telling us we need to be something else. The Anglican communion is not a spiritual mendicant.

[karen freeinchristman]

I think you are right, Contra.

[ContraMundum]

Thanks Karen.

I'd like to add one more comment by way of example. We all have distinctive or pet things about our faith that mean a lot to us, but we need to know when and where it is appropriate to discuss them and with what intention.

[SirTimothy]

I agree. I also have to note that it's 'de rigueur'. this:

de rigour

is not right. :)

Timothy

[erin74]

Hi guys,

Before this thread gets too out of hand, can I make a suggestion.

There are not a huge amount of moderators for this forum, and of those of us here, some are quite committed to some other forums as well. As for me, I had to move and had major computer issues for a while there. I am still stuck using dh's computer. So for a while there Pamela was left doing the majority/all of the moderating. That certainly makes it difficult to stay on top of things.

So what I am saying is this. If things aren't reported that you have concerns over, it may go unnoticed by the mods, and so nothing will be done about it. Please, if you have a concern over people posting in breach of the rules, report it and give us a chance to look into it.

Also if you do have any concerns please contact one of the mods if you are unsure what to do. We are doing our best for you guys.

In Christ,

erin

[Colabomb]

Hi guys,

Before this thread gets too out of hand, can I make a suggestion.

There are not a huge amount of moderators for this forum, and of those of us here, some are quite committed to some other forums as well. As for me, I had to move and had major computer issues for a while there. I am still stuck using dh's computer. So for a while there Pamela was left doing the majority/all of the moderating. That certainly makes it difficult to stay on top of things.

So what I am saying is this. If things aren't reported that you have concerns over, it may go unnoticed by the mods, and so nothing will be done about it. Please, if you have a concern over people posting in breach of the rules, report it and give us a chance to look into it.

Also if you do have any concerns please contact one of the mods if you are unsure what to do. We are doing our best for you guys.

In Christ,

erin
An example of the frustration that exists.

I believe in Sola/Prima Scriptura.

I believe that nothing found outside of Scripture can rightfully be imposed on anyone.

While I accept your right to disagree. I want to point something out. This doctrine is indeed Anglican Doctrine.

I am told that Where the Bishop is, there is the Church. I don't believe that. And since Anglican doctrine, and the Scriptures make no claim about this, I should not be expected to believe it.

One of the Distinctives of Anglican doctrine, is that Tradition is respected, but required for no man. Yet if I find myself outside of some quote from some Church father, I am suddenly borderline Heretical.

[higgs2]

Just making the comment that we "conservatives" are attacked for our views and bombarded with liberal doctrine - but no one seems to care - but man, don't let an Affirmer get upset - I'd elaborate more but would break forum rules and get a citation - so I'll leave it there..
Very mysterious. I'm sorry you feel so persecuted here. I really mean that, I am not being sarcastic.

[No Swansong]

Just making the comment that we "conservatives" are attacked for our views and bombarded with liberal doctrine - but no one seems to care - but man, don't let an Affirmer get upset - I'd elaborate more but would break forum rules and get a citation - so I'll leave it there..


Amen (wondering if I can rep you yet?)

[higgs2]

Amen (wondering if I can rep you yet?)
I just don't get why liberals are brought into this when none of the players are liberals. And are "Affirmers" anglocatholics? It seems to me that really, the disagreement here is between conservative evangelicals and conservative anglo-catholics.

[Colabomb]

She's right. But to be honest Higgs, you were the one to bring liberals into this with your snide comment.

[higgs2]

She's right. But to be honest Higgs, you were the one to bring liberals into this with your snide comment.


my 'snide' comment? Would you please let me know which of my comments you find to be snide? I willl edit it, as I am *not* trying to be snide.

I thought liberals were brought into it whey amyn said something about "no liberal bias here".

[Colabomb]

But isn't it kind of fun that it's not the dreaded "liberals" causing all the angst this time? :) Who'd of thunk it?

This post.

[higgs2]

This post.
Oh. I'm sorry that you found it to be "snide" (nasty in a derogatory, insinuating manner). I thought it was a bit straight forward rather than insinuating, and I did try to point out a real truth using humor to downplay the acerbic effect of my commentary.

I didn't realize that amyn was talking about liberal bias with the conservative anglocatholic mysterium because of my comment. I didn't think the issue that I was commenting on really had anything to do with amyn's issue with mysterium.

Hmmmm. It does get confusing, does it not?

I'm so sorry you found my pointing out a particular irony on this board to be offensive, cola. I don't mean for you to take things so personally. Take care of yourself.

Peace be with you.

[SeenAndUnseen]

The problem is, there is no way to define Anglicanism; it truly, really has become a large, amorphous conglomeration of whatevers -- and that means, Contra, that the burden of proof falls to you who would attempt to assert any form at all to this formless faith. Tell me, what IS Anglicanism then? If you can prove to me what it is or that it even has any distinctives of its own, then fine, you have a point.

[ContraMundum]

I just don't get why liberals are brought into this when none of the players are liberals. And are "Affirmers" anglocatholics? It seems to me that really, the disagreement here is between conservative evangelicals and conservative anglo-catholics.

Actually, I don't think the disagreement here is about either party within Anglicanism.

It's really about foreign distinctives and practices being pushed at the expense of Anglicanism.

It's about Romanism, Eastern Orthodoxy and fundamentalism all being pushed here while criticising Anglican practices and faith. Again, I'm not saying an Anglican is not free to hold to some of the things one might find in those camps, but I am saying that this is not the place to preach about them at the expense of Anglican faith, polity or praxis.

What I fail to understand is that there are forums where one can happily post all about one's pet doctrine or practice. eg- you can post to your heart's content about scapulars, the Papacy or the "magisterium" at OBOB, and no one will take offence. You can post all you like against the Western praxis of reserving confirmation to those of discernment or all about how the Creed in our prayer books is wrong over at TAW and no one will take offence. You can wax lyrical all you like against tradition over at one of the other forums too, and no one will care. You can debate as heartily as you like any doctrine you care to think of over at GT, and you will find plenty of willing participants. Why antagonise us here? Why take advantage of a thread about one thing and turn it into a thread about some other denomination's faith and practice? Why can't we have a haven too?

[Aymn27]

Very mysterious. I'm sorry you feel so persecuted here. I really mean that, I am not being sarcastic.
Well higgs - I've been here over a year now and to be honest, I don't feel persecuted - but I've had to learn the hard way where the boundaries are and what exactly can/cannot be discussed on this forum. The rules are designed in such a way that I cannot publicly state what I'm dissatisfied with - and when you do it through the proper channels - it is useless and ineffective b/c much like the Roman Church, the powers that be - are..LOL..sorry to be confusing - I probably should have just kept my mouth shut because I can't tread where I want to go. Let me just say I don't believe that Anglicans should be mods on an Anglican board - I think CF would be better served if mods on forums were sympathetic to that particular denomination - but not a member. Otherwise you have a forum with an ethos that reflects the mod's personal viewpoints. That's just a natural tendency and I'm sure mods don't intend to be biased - well, most don't - but in the end they will show favor to the position or doctrine or even the person they like/favor. A netural party would be more beneficial in my view.

[ContraMundum]

The problem is, there is no way to define Anglicanism; it truly, really has become a large, amorphous conglomeration of whatevers -- and that means, Contra, that the burden of proof falls to you who would attempt to assert any form at all to this formless faith. Tell me, what IS Anglicanism then? If you can prove to me what it is or that it even has any distinctives of its own, then fine, you have a point.

I dedicated a few paragraphs earlier to what I think is reasonable to agree upon regarding what constitutes Anglicanism for the purposes of this forum. I don't think I need to prove that to anyone- we have a Prayer Book, always will and we all use it and agree upon its contents. Why you think Anglicanism is a foundationless and open-ended smorgåsbord religion that is therefore undefinable is beyond me. Oddly enough, I hear that kind of criticism from other continuers, but I don't believe it. It may look like it is falling apart at the seams to some but the centre is holding steady. We all agree on the BCP- any version, and have all led a life around that as members in our churches. I think that is fairly straight forward and not a disputed point of view.

Your request for me to prove to you what Anglicanism is not what I'm about. In fact, to do so would probably be a waste of time, as I have no power to make you think like me. After all, proof is merely providing someone enough evidence to compel assent, and that is a relative task. I'd just commend to you the faith and practice of the BCP and the Holy Scriptures as understood within that matrix.

[Mysterium_Fidei]

Actually, I don't think the disagreement here is about either party within Anglicanism.

It's really about foreign distinctives and practices being pushed at the expense of Anglicanism.

It's about Romanism, Eastern Orthodoxy and fundamentalism all being pushed here while criticising Anglican practices and faith. Again, I'm not saying an Anglican is not free to hold to some of the things one might find in those camps, but I am saying that this is not the place to preach about them at the expense of Anglican faith, polity or praxis.

What I fail to understand is that there are forums where one can happily post all about one's pet doctrine or practice. eg- you can post to your heart's content about scapulars, the Papacy or the "magisterium" at OBOB, and no one will take offence. You can post all you like against the Western praxis of reserving confirmation to those of discernment or all about how the Creed in our prayer books is wrong over at TAW and no one will take offence. You can wax lyrical all you like against tradition over at one of the other forums too, and no one will care. You can debate as heartily as you like any doctrine you care to think of over at GT, and you will find plenty of willing participants. Why antagonise us here? Why take advantage of a thread about one thing and turn it into a thread about some other denomination's faith and practice? Why can't we have a haven too?

The problem is, Anglicanism cannot be defined. You can talk all you like about your alleged adherence to Anglican doctrine, but Anglican doctine at the end of the day is what we define for ourselves. I can say that I adhere to pre-Reformation Anglicanism, you can say post, who cares? You can't really point to one thing as evidence of your doctrines that one group of Anglican bishops and laity will ignore or understand in a vastly different way than you. I certainly don't think the scapular and rosary are unAnglican, and if they are, send me across the Tiber. I stand on the Historic and Apostolic witness of the Ancient and Undivided Church. You can say the exact same thing and mean something totally different than I.

When it comes down to it, no one can 100% define Anglican "...faith, polity or praxis." Anglicanism is in the eye of the beholder, for good or for worse.

[Inside Edge]

Have I done something to you to become your enemy/punching bag?
No, I just don't take well to someone who has such strong opinions, posts some very pointed comments, and then acts all thin-skinned when challenged. Come on man, everyone here knows you're no lightweight around here!

I'd like to be able to discuss Anglicanism within that very broad border without someone trying to actively promote distinctives from other denominations in order to critique Anglican practice and faith with the view of undermining it (eg. proselytism by proxy). This does not include liberal Anglicanism either. Last I heard, they used the BCP too. This is not about trying to silence people with different opinions either- it's about how far they take it and what they are saying about us.

Put it this way- if I went over to the Fundamentalist forum and started touting traditionalism, Apostolic Orders and the like they would delete my posts. If I entered into one of their threads and attacked their faith and practice by undermining the inerrency of the Bible- they would delete my posts. If I was "fellowshipping" over at OBOB and seized every opportunity to float the idea that the Pope was fallible on faith and morals- they'd delete my posts. Yet, in this forum you can undermine our BCP praxis, Creed, Faith and anything else you like and not only will your posts not get deleted but those who oppose them will kindly be reminded to roll over and play dead.

And that I completely agree with. See what a little straight talk will do to clear things up?

Yes, I am mainly speaking about people from other denominations but also about people within our denomination that want us to adopt as de rigour distinctives from other denominations. While I think these discussions could be interesting, they must be done within forum rules. One doesn't rag on the Pope at OBOB, or "believer's baptism" at the Baptist forum, so one shouldn't rag on any unilaterally accepted Anglican belief at STR (and to reiterate, I define that as centred on the BCP.)
And herein is where I see a problem developing: as far as I've gathered, the national chruches don't all center on the same version of the BCP (let alone which ones the Continuing churches use). I've already seen plenty of drawn out discussions on the various 20th century revisions used in the ECUSA vs the one for CoE...and in the ACC, it's quite common for many Anglicans to never lay eyes on an actual BCP, because our day-to-day service book is the Book of Alternative Services.

At any rate, what I just mentioned are details, perhaps. I see no problem with what you want enforced, generally speaking. It would be a great relief, indeed.

[Aymn27]

Oh. I'm sorry that you found it to be "snide" (nasty in a derogatory, insinuating manner). I thought it was a bit straight forward rather than insinuating, and I did try to point out a real truth using humor to downplay the acerbic effect of my commentary.

I didn't realize that amyn was talking about liberal bias with the conservative anglocatholic mysterium because of my comment. I didn't think the issue that I was commenting on really had anything to do with amyn's issue with mysterium.

Hmmmm. It does get confusing, does it not?

I'm so sorry you found my pointing out a particular irony on this board to be offensive, cola. I don't mean for you to take things so personally. Take care of yourself.

Peace be with you.
As I said before - I was just stating that there is bias here - I threw that in b/c well, if you divide and conquer - conservative Anglicanism always loses and ends up having to shut down the thought process. The particular disagreement was between anglo-catholic thought and a more conservative Anglicanism. And in the end "inclusion" was made king irregardless of the fact that it is outside mainstream Anglicanism. Had the subject been one of liberal thought vs a more conservative thought on an issue - guess what? - bingo - "inclusion" wins and the person arguing in favor of classical Anglicanism is silenced. That is how it is - always.

[DeoJuvante]

I don't know we claim that the Book of Common Prayer is all that essential to the Anglican faith. Down here, A Prayer Book for Australia, which is quite catholic, tends to be the main prayer book used. The Book of Common Prayer doesn't seem to reflect the Church (as I experience it) any more, either in language or in doctrine.

PS, Why do continuing Anglican churches use the Anglican forum? Aren't Anglicans basically continuing Catholics? Should we then use the Catholic forum?

[ContraMundum]

The problem is, Anglicanism cannot be defined. You can talk all you like about your alleged adherence to Anglican doctrine, but Anglican doctine at the end of the day is what we define for ourselves. I can say that I adhere to pre-Reformation Anglicanism, you can say post, who cares? You can't really point to one thing as evidence of your doctrines that one group of Anglican bishops and laity will ignore or understand in a vastly different way than you. I certainly don't think the scapular and rosary are unAnglican, and if they are, send me across the Tiber. I stand on the Historic and Apostolic witness of the Ancient and Undivided Church. You can say the exact same thing and mean something totally different than I.

When it comes down to it, no one can 100% define Anglican "...faith, polity or praxis." Anglicanism is in the eye of the beholder, for good or for worse.

I can't agree with you here. To me, the difference between different schools of Anglicanism are easy to live with. We do it all the time in our synods, and only on odd occasions in our long history have we seen schisms over issues, and they are almost always temporary. By and large though, in the 21st Century, we agree on an awful lot.

How I'd personally like to see this work is basic- eg. you like your scapulars and rosaries and all that and don't seem them as "unAnglican". I, however, accept that they are used by some Anglicans but see a lot of excess attached to them, historically at least, and certainly only a small percentage of Anglicans world-wide would consider them mainstream. The solution, for this forum, therefore, is very simple. Try to look out for your brother. What would be a good guideline for that? The BCP- any version. Are those things part of what we all agree on? No. They're for private personal devotion, and any appraisal of them on STR should be done with that in mind. Even if I should agree with you, I would still curb my enthusiasm for them on STR, because I know they may cause offence, and indeed they have and will continue to do so. If I did post about them I would not do so in a manner that was disparaging to other Anglicans in the mainstream BCP kind of faith. I would post all I liked about them at GT or OBOB though. Such a discussion would certainly be welcomed there. One would only need to look at the BCPs available to see that these items are not affirmed, and in parts, possibly spoken against. Discretion would be the wiser action.

And if you think I don't curb my thoughts on issues that are debatable and am thus opening myself up to being a hypocrite, think again. I have a bunch of pet beliefs that I do not discuss here because I know they are not generally held to by all. I try to be nice and even have curbed my distaste on things mainstream Anglicans believe (eg. gender issues, higher criticism etc.) to maintain a happy haven for all. I've even tried to be open to other points of view, and for me, that's hard because I am generally a bit of a stick in the mud.

[EvAnglican]

I've been at CF for a little while now, and I was wondering if there was an Anglican forum I could post in.

I've posted over at GT, but I keep finding other denominations use that forum to promote their views and like all good salesman, never miss an opportunity to preach and sell their ideals. While this can be stimulating at times, it is not a haven for an ordinary Anglican like myself where I can discuss things in peace.

I've posted at STR as well, but I keep finding that there is no peace for an Anglican there either. Every thread is hijacked by people promoting issues that are more on the fringe and certainly hardly mainstream BCP Anglican. While I accept diversity in my communion, I do not think the active and somewhat opportunistic promotion of Roman and Orthodox distinctives would have been allowed, but apparently, it is ok. In fact, I have found that it is ok to promote any doctrine but mainstream Anglicanism. When I have posted something which opposes the preaching of the distinctives of other denominations with any strength I have been given warnings and one would think I was preaching Kenneth Copeland or something by the reaction I get.

So, does anyone know where an Anglican can post and have some peace without being ha rased ?

I hear you, brother

[DeoJuvante]

To be honest, as an unashamedly liberal Anglican, I tend to feel that this board is quite conservative. Maybe it is just because there are a number of conservatives, a number of liberals, a number of catholics, etc. who all feel quite strongly about their faith and defend it stridently... Perhaps we should all take a step back and be less challenging towards those with whom we disagree. Or we could keep bickering.

[ContraMundum]

I don't know we claim that the Book of Common Prayer is all that essential to the Anglican faith. Down here, A Prayer Book for Australia, which is quite catholic, tends to be the main prayer book used. The Book of Common Prayer doesn't seem to reflect the Church (as I experience it) any more, either in language or in doctrine.

In Aust, before there was APBfA, there was AAPB, and before that the 1662. None of them change any essential to the faith and none of the reject earlier practices such as infant baptism or confirmation at the age of discernment or the real presence or absolution or the word of the Nicene Creed or anything. Imagine, though, someone coming here and preaching against these things. Would that not be an affront to us all? That's what I'm talking about.

PS, Why do continuing Anglican churches use the Anglican forum?

Because according to the ABC, the Queen, and common theological pidgeon-holing, we are Anglicans. If we are not Anglicans neither was your grandfather, so to speak.

Aren't Anglicans basically continuing Catholics? Should we then use the Catholic forum?

Good comment. No, we shouldn't. We have different distinctives than the Vatican Catholics. We don't believe in the infallibility of the Pope, for starters. Again: Imagine someone coming here and trying to preach that doctrine to us (which amounts to saying we are all wrong about everything)- would that not be an affront to us all? We certainly wouldn't be allowed to teach the contrary doctrine over at OBOB.

[ContraMundum]

To be honest, as an unashamedly liberal Anglican, I tend to feel that this board is quite conservative. Maybe it is just because there are a number of conservatives, a number of liberals, a number of catholics, etc. who all feel quite strongly about their faith and defend it stridently... Perhaps we should all take a step back and be less challenging towards those with whom we disagree. Or we could keep bickering.

A great start for sure!

[pmcleanj]

I can't agree with you here. To me, the difference between different schools of Anglicanism are easy to live with. We do it all the time in our synods, and only on odd occasions in our long history have we seen schisms over issues, and they are almost always temporary. By and large though, in the 21st Century, we agree on an awful lot.

How I'd personally like to see this work is basic- eg. you like your scapulars and rosaries and all that and don't seem them as "unAnglican". I, however, accept that they are used by some Anglicans but see a lot of excess attached to them, historically at least, and certainly only a small percentage of Anglicans world-wide would consider them mainstream. The solution, for this forum, therefore, is very simple. Try to look out for your brother. What would be a good guideline for that? The BCP- any version. Are those things part of what we all agree on? No. They're for private personal devotion, and any appraisal of them on STR should be done with that in mind. Even if I should agree with you, I would still curb my enthusiasm for them on STR, because I know they may cause offence, and indeed they have and will continue to do so. If I did post about them I would not do so in a manner that was disparaging to other Anglicans in the mainstream BCP kind of faith. I would post all I liked about them at GT or OBOB though. Such a discussion would certainly be welcomed there. One would only need to look at the BCPs available to see that these items are not affirmed, and in parts, possibly spoken against. Discretion would be the wiser action.

And if you think I don't curb my thoughts on issues that are debatable and am thus opening myself up to being a hypocrite, think again. I have a bunch of pet beliefs that I do not discuss here because I know they are not generally held to by all. I try to be nice and even have curbed my distaste on things mainstream Anglicans believe (eg. gender issues, higher criticism etc.) to maintain a happy haven for all. I've even tried to be open to other points of view, and for me, that's hard because I am generally a bit of a stick in the mud.
I want to openly endorse this post with my offical moderator hat on.

We do have a breadth of thought within our Church, and it is possible for them to coexist. Indeed, it is the expectation on this board that they will co-exist, and do so courteously (or at least with restraint from discourtesy).

Within the breadth of Anglicanism, we do have freedom to practice pieties and hold beliefs that aren't completely shared, or even commonly shared within the rest of the communion. When exercising that freedom, we need to recognize that it is a freedom, not a burden to place upon others. Our freedom to wear the scapular, or accept women as clergy, or have praise bands with electric guitars, implicitly depends on others having the freedom to choose to eschew those practices with equal passion. It's not just a matter of "if you don't like it, don't do it". One person may have as valid a reason to discourage some pet piety, as another has to promote it.

The various prayer-books are a good standard to turn to; including the 1928 or 1979, the ABS and CW, the BAS, and A Prayer Book for Australia, 1552 and 1549 as well as the 1662. At the same time, while one can have some certainty that the prayer book used in their province and communion represents a degree of mainstream practice for that province and communion, it is not definitive for other provinces and is not a hammer with which to beat on one another.

Finally, while ideas and ideals do not need to be hidden, the discussion of them does need to be curbed. Giving free reign to any form of sarcastic wit, vilification, florid overstatement, perjoration, condemnatory oration, arrogant absolutism -- in short, to flaming and baiting -- is inappropriate. You can present your idea. You cannot beat people over the head with it or back them up against a wall with it.


Regards,
Pamela

[ContraMundum]

I want to openly endorse this post with my offical moderator hat on.

We do have a breadth of thought within our Church, and it is possible for them to coexist. Indeed, it is the expectation on this board that they will co-exist, and do so courteously (or at least with restraint from discourtesy).

Within the breadth of Anglicanism, we do have freedom to practice pieties and hold beliefs that aren't completely shared, or even commonly shared within the rest of the communion. When exercising that freedom, we need to recognize that it is a freedom, not a burden to place upon others. Our freedom to wear the scapular, or accept women as clergy, or have praise bands with electric guitars, implicitly depends on others having the freedom to choose to eschew those practices with equal passion. It's not just a matter of "if you don't like it, don't do it". One person may have as valid a reason to discourage some pet piety, as another has to promote it.

The various prayer-books are a good standard to turn to; including the 1928 or 1979, the ABS and CW, the BAS, and A Prayer Book for Australia, 1552 and 1549 as well as the 1662. At the same time, while one can have some certainty that the prayer book used in their province and communion represents a degree of mainstream practice for that province and communion, it is not definitive for other provinces and is not a hammer with which to beat on one another.

Finally, while ideas and ideals do not need to be hidden, the discussion of them does need to be curbed. Giving free reign to any form of sarcastic wit, vilification, florid overstatement, perjoration, condemnatory oration, arrogant absolutism -- in short, to flaming and baiting -- is inappropriate. You can present your idea. You cannot beat people over the head with it or back them up against a wall with it.


Regards,
Pamela


I wish this could be sticky-posted. :amen:

[Tetzel]

And if you think I don't curb my thoughts on issues that are debatable and am thus opening myself up to being a hypocrite, think again. I have a bunch of pet beliefs that I do not discuss here because I know they are not generally held to by all. I try to be nice and even have curbed my distaste on things mainstream Anglicans believe (eg. gender issues, higher criticism etc.) to maintain a happy haven for all.

Let it out, man. Make your declarations!

On edit: or nor. Whatever decorum commands.

[Inside Edge]

I want to restate something here: I don't think this thread, or Contra's comments, are about conservative-liberal bickering within Anglicanism. I have a feeling he's more than ready to deal with that sort of stuff.

It's about specific, particular, distinctive topics or issues that were/are developed outside of the Anglican Church, which have not yet been adopted by any majority or mainline Anglican body, yet are being vehemently argued as if they were, or should be.

His request actually has nothing to do with the allowance or suppression of bickering and argument - it is quite the opposite, if I understand it correctly.

[Aymn27]

I want to restate something here: I don't think this thread, or Contra's comments, are about conservative-liberal bickering within Anglicanism. I have a feeling he's more than ready to deal with that sort of stuff.

It's about specific, particular, distinctive topics or issues that were/are developed outside of the Anglican Church, which have not yet been adopted by any majority or mainline Anglican body, yet are being vehemently argued as if they were, or should be.

His request actually has nothing to do with the allowance or suppression of bickering and argument - it is quite the opposite, if I understand it correctly.
I believe you are correct - and I am the one who introduced that line of talk because I was responding to Higgs post. I am sorry for diverting the original intent of this thread. I have caused confusion. My apologies.

[RedneckAnglican]

So, does anyone know where an Anglican can post and have some peace without being harrased ?

I think it's next to the Lutheran board where an ELCA lutheran can post and not be considered a heretic...when you find it let me know would ya?...

[Simon_Templar]

I think that there are definetly some things that are distinctively anglican. However, it is also true that to a high degree the more 'protestant' members are as much picking and choosing when they talk about "anglicanism" as the anglo-catholics are.

For example.. while I would agree that the BCP is probably the most distinctively anglican thing there is, there was a point, in the reformation era that the BCP was declared illegal by the church of England and priests were actually prosecuted for even reciting a prayer which was memorized from the BCP.
The hatred of scripted liturgy was one of the halmarks of the protestant reformers in england, so why is that not "Anglican"?
At the same time the presbyterian church exists today largely because the church of england would not allow their 'too protestant' views on church government and such doctrines.. and disenfranchized them as a result, so how come the centrality of bishops to the church isn't "anglican"? For many years the 39 articles were a defining part of anglicanism, at other times, including now, few anglicans have cared about them, or completely agreed with them. At times the church of england has been more "Roman" at other times it has been far more protestant even than many of the more 'protestant' anglicans would agree with... so how do you really say "this is really anglican and this is not distinctively anglican"?

In the end, in my opinion, Anglicanism is defined by the desire to return to the pure and unmodified faith as it was, and is practiced in english culture and style. That was the goal of the protestant reformers, even when they err'd (and they did err to extremes) and it was the goal of the oxford movement even if they err'd to far to Rome. I'd have to say that if anglicanism means something contradictory to that, its probably not worth having, and I'm definetly in the wrong place.

[SirTimothy]

It's about specific, particular, distinctive topics or issues that were/are developed outside of the Anglican Church, which have not yet been adopted by any majority or mainline Anglican body, yet are being vehemently argued as if they were, or should be.

Yep. I'm in agreement with him. :)

[Andy Broadley]

So, does anyone know where an Anglican can post and have some peace without being harrased ?

Tried the Alehouse?;)

Good place to start :thumbsup:

[Dewi Sant]

^_^


This thread is no longer anglican.

[Andy Broadley]

^_^


This thread is no longer anglican.

I'm an honoury Anglican :cool:

[Dewi Sant]

Actually I am anglican,
My family is CofE and I am confirmed into the CofE but I also go to an Orthodox church (though I am not strictly a member)

I would be a Palm Sunday now but I'm not because of my Flu. I am feeling a little better today than yesterday but now perfect. I could get to church (if my mum drove me there) but I would want to give it to anyone else.

I am hoping that I might be able to pick up a palm cross some time, I can't go through Easter without it :(.

[Dewi Sant]

Urghh! We have a Labour supporter on the Forum!


^_^

[Andy Broadley]

This is Yorkshire.

They burn Tories at the stake up here....

[Andy Broadley]

I see you're a Preston lad.

North End fan?

[Colabomb]

This is Yorkshire.

They burn Tories at the stake up here....
YOu guys still use the term Torrie?

[Andy Broadley]

YOu guys still use the term Torrie?

Tories = Conservatives.

Yea, we still use it.

There is (or was, I'm not sure) a senior Tory called Virginia Bottomly.

One day someone poited out that her name was an anagram of 'I'm and evil Tory bigot':D :D :D :D


BTW, did you know that Mother in Law is an anagram of Woman Hitler?

And if that isn't final proof of the existence of God, then I don't know what is :D :D :D :D

[Colabomb]

LOL, so in England I'd be a Tory.

[Colabomb]

Have you noticed that Alehouse Talk has become the borg? Any thread that doesn't move fast enough becomes an Alehouse clone.

[Andy Broadley]

LOL, so in England I'd be a Tory.

Dunno buddy, but you'd at least know what football is.;)

[Andy Broadley]

Have you noticed that Alehouse Talk has become the borg? Any thread that doesn't move fast enough becomes an Alehouse clone.

If that means that this thread has digressed, then yes it has...:)

[Colabomb]

Dunno buddy, but you'd at least know what football is.;)
Yeah, all three of them.

[Colabomb]

Do you know Homestarrunner.com?

[Andy Broadley]

Yeah, all three of them.
At the last count I was aware of at least six

[Andy Broadley]

Do you know Homestarrunner.com?
Nope. Should I?

[SirTimothy]

LOL, so in England I'd be a Tory.

Not necessarily. Conservatives in the UK and the USA differ muchly.

BTW, did you know that Mother in Law is an anagram of Woman Hitler?

I'm glad to see there's another Plass fan around...

Timothy

[Andy Broadley]

I'm glad to see there's another Plass fan around...

Timothy


:clap: :clap: :clap:

Adrian Plass ROCKS

[Andy Broadley]

Leonard Thyne for Prime Minister

[SirTimothy]

That would be Leonard Thynn. And yes, he'd make a wonderful PM... have you read the latest diary about the tour? He'd be perfect for PM after that...

[higgs2]

Tories = Conservatives.

Yea, we still use it.

There is (or was, I'm not sure) a senior Tory called Virginia Bottomly.

One day someone poited out that her name was an anagram of 'I'm and evil Tory bigot':D :D :D :D


BTW, did you know that Mother in Law is an anagram of Woman Hitler?

And if that isn't final proof of the existence of God, then I don't know what is :D :D :D :D
The only anagram I can rememeber is that "Not pro breast" is an anagram for "Pat Robertson". :sorry:

[Andy Broadley]

Robert Runcie.

C E but in error...

[Andy Broadley]

Shiela Walsh

Lah she wails

[higgs2]

Shiela Walsh

Lah she wails
:D

[pmcleanj]

YOu guys still use the term Torrie?
We do, too. But our slang for Liberal is "Grit" instead of "Whig". And the news has apparently decided the NDP need a slang term too, so they're being called "Dippers". You haven't really "made it" on the political scene until your party has a nickname.

[karen freeinchristman]

But our slang for Liberal is "Grit" instead of "Whig".

We don't really call the Labour party "Whigs" any more.
That may be because there is now a third party called the 'Liberal Democrats', which have the really creative nickname of 'LibDems'. Things are getting really boring in politics nowadays.

[Colabomb]

We don't really call the Labour party "Whigs" any more.
That may be because there is now a third party called the 'Liberal Democrats', which have the really creative nickname of 'LibDems'. Things are getting really boring in politics nowadays.
Lol, Politics are a Riot over here. You guys hear about the immigration thing going over here?

[erin74]

you think your politics are funny - ours are hilarious. We have our parliament time televised - just for an hour a day - but it's pretty funny.

One of our old pm's was renound for calling people 'scumbags' and the like.

[Aymn27]

We don't really call the Labour party "Whigs" any more.
That may be because there is now a third party called the 'Liberal Democrats', which have the really creative nickname of 'LibDems'. Things are getting really boring in politics nowadays.
USA is rather boring in that it has a two-party system. At the moment the Democrats, who call themselves liberals, are actually identicial to a socialist platform. True liberals belong in the Libertarian party - which is the largest third party, but still gets minimal votes. Then there are the Republicans who are actually more in line with the Democrat party platform of the 50's and 60's. Bush is NOT an ultra-conservative like the media makes him out to be. He may be rather staunch on military matters, but is pretty much moderate on social issues - for example the Medicare Prescription Bill (which is embarassingly considered a Republican item), No Child Left Behind Act (further nationalizing the public education system), and his rather lack-luster stance on immigration - the debacle that is going on now. He is spending at a higher rate than a socialist Democrat and has expanded government with Homeland Security. It is just that the Demo party and the media are so far left of center - they think he is right-wing!!

I think I'm bailing on the Repub party next go around - and I certainly will NOT vote Democrat. I'm going to go Libertarian - I'm all for free economic systems and less government. Where is Ronald Reagen when you need him?:sigh:

[ContraMundum]

USA is rather boring in that it has a two-party system. At the moment the Democrats, who call themselves liberals, are actually identicial to a socialist platform. True liberals belong in the Libertarian party - which is the largest third party, but still gets minimal votes. Then there are the Republicans who are actually more in line with the Democrat party platform of the 50's and 60's. Bush is NOT an ultra-conservative like the media makes him out to be. He may be rather staunch on military matters, but is pretty much moderate on social issues - for example the Medicare Prescription Bill (which is embarassingly considered a Republican item), No Child Left Behind Act (further nationalizing the public education system), and his rather lack-luster stance on immigration - the debacle that is going on now. He is spending at a higher rate than a socialist Democrat and has expanded government with Homeland Security. It is just that the Demo party and the media are so far left of center - they think he is right-wing!!

Interesting.

I have noticed that one thing people in the US do is label everything "liberal" and "conservative", which are both kinda misnomers regarding their own two major political parties.

I think I'm bailing on the Repub party next go around - and I certainly will NOT vote Democrat. I'm going to go Libertarian - I'm all for free economic systems and less government. Where is Ronald Reagen when you need him?:sigh:

Yeah...I like these guys: http://www.thelaborparty.org/

[Aymn27]

Interesting.

I have noticed that one thing people in the US do is label everything "liberal" and "conservative", which are both kinda misnomers regarding their own two major political parties.



Yeah...I like these guys: http://www.thelaborparty.org/
I have found a flaw in Contra!! LOL (he's a union member) rofl....

Contra - not sure how labor is organized elsewhere in the world but here in the states it seems to always be a corrupt institution. Now, I'm not totally against the idea of unions, but I'm much more in support of a free-market economy where prices and wages are determined by the market, not by social and economic engineering. Granted, there is potential for abuse in both ideologies - I just think a free-market system has a better chance of "working itself out"...

BTW, my dad and brother are union and think I'm crazy - I, on the other hand, am an "administrative" person who supervises union workers and think they're "lazy", LOL...which way to go???

[Simon_Templar]

My whole family have been teachers, and in wisconsin if you want to work as a teacher you have to pay the union (which is notoriously socialist Dem.) so my experience with unions has been something akin to the mafia running a protection racket.. you wanna do business you pay us... and we, we take your money and promote a bunch of things you hate.

I have no problem at all with "labor" getting together to oppose unfair conditions. That is entirely part of the free market economy. the labor market is part of the market. Unions did this once upon a time about 150 years ago.
Now, unions hike wages abitrarily and aritificially which in turn creates a cascade of other problems in the market, and do business basicly on the same terms as the mafia using intimidation and what under almost any other circumstance would be illegal practices to inhibit companies from doing business without them.
Unions are one of the few monopolies which are allowed to not only exist, but aggressively enforce their exclusivity.

As for G.W. if you knew me in person, or if you talk to my family and friends, you'd find out that even before he was elected I had a strong suspicion that he was essentially a 'plant'. The powers that be chose him to be president and groomed him and set him up to appeal to the 'conservatives'. :) and I'd still rather have him than John Kerry :D. At least in G.W. they are having the courtesy to pay my views a little lipservice now and then.

I'm still not totally concinced one way or the other... wether G.W. is just not wise and ill advised... or if he is the puppet of the hour.

There again, tho. Even though I don't trust him and dislike alot of things he's done.. the libs and dems hate him for all the wrong reasons... they hate him because they think he's like me.

[pjw]

you think your politics are funny - ours are hilarious. We have our parliament time televised - just for an hour a day - but it's pretty funny.

One of our old pm's was renound for calling people 'scumbags' and the like.
parliament question time is fantastic! i love it ;) :) :D especially, "order!" "member for ..., you are warned!" the speaker is fantastic, it's so great seeing what a pack of fighting little school-kids politicians really are.
in australia we basically have the liberals (middle-right), the nationals (middle-right), labour (middle-left), the greens (left), the democrats (left), and family-first (right). a coalition of the liberals and the nationals is the federal government at the moment, with almost all the rest of the house of representatives made up of labour members. in the senate, the liberals and nationals have a majority, while the rest is made up of labour, greens, democrats, one family first member, and independents. the whacky thing is that all the states have labour governments (some of them very recently re-elected), while the federal government is (and has been for the past 10 years) liberal (and was re-elected about 1 1/2 years ago). it's pretty bizarre.

[Simon_Templar]

parliament question time is fantastic! i love it ;) :) :D especially, "order!" "member for ..., you are warned!" the speaker is fantastic, it's so great seeing what a pack of fighting little school-kids politicians really are.
in australia we basically have the liberals (middle-right), the nationals (middle-right), labour (middle-left), the greens (left), the democrats (left), and family-first (right). a coalition of the liberals and the nationals is the federal government at the moment, with almost all the rest of the house of representatives made up of labour members. in the senate, the liberals and nationals have a majority, while the rest is made up of labour, greens, democrats, one family first member, and independents. the whacky thing is that all the states have labour governments (some of them very recently re-elected), while the federal government is (and has been for the past 10 years) liberal (and was re-elected about 1 1/2 years ago). it's pretty bizarre.

interestingly enough it has also been very common in US politics for the voters to split power between the parties. It is common for the congress to be controled by one party while the executive (president) is of the opposite party.
That is actually one of the reasons that the republicans controling both branches for the last few elections has been such a big deal, and seen as such a mandate.

Also interestingly enough, in the last few administrations (since Reagan really) it doesn't seem to have mattered much which party was in controled the presidency because all of the administrations (3 rep. and 2 dem.) have basicly done exactly the same things on the most important issues. There hasn't been a significant major change in economic policy, foreign policy, judicial policy, or trade policy since George I took office after Reagan.
There have been minor changes and fluctuations, but no major change of "doctrine". Thats one of the reasons democrat hatred and vitriol against bush has been so puzzling.. the truth is Bush's policies are almost identical to Clinton's on most issues.

[Colabomb]

Eh, that's why I call myself a conservative Indy. I don't have to deal with the stupidity of either party and get to complain about all of them.

[ContraMundum]

I have found a flaw in Contra!! LOL (he's a union member) rofl....

Contra - not sure how labor is organized elsewhere in the world but here in the states it seems to always be a corrupt institution. Now, I'm not totally against the idea of unions, but I'm much more in support of a free-market economy where prices and wages are determined by the market, not by social and economic engineering. Granted, there is potential for abuse in both ideologies - I just think a free-market system has a better chance of "working itself out"...

BTW, my dad and brother are union and think I'm crazy - I, on the other hand, am an "administrative" person who supervises union workers and think they're "lazy", LOL...which way to go???

I was a devout union member and shop steward for years. I was even politically active in the union movement as well, so you've got me pegged.

I guess it's all about which side of the fence you live. I have seen a little union corruption, but once you've been done over by the bosses (and they are often corrupt as well) you never feel the same way about capitalism without restraints and worker's rights. It's hard to trust any of them after that. I'm sure they feel that way about the unions too.

[Andy Broadley]

What was this thread supposed to be about?:scratch: :D

[higgs2]

What was this thread supposed to be about?:scratch: :D

:o I think someone was asking for directions? :confused: :P :D

[Andy Broadley]

Down here for about 200 yards till you get to the Red Lion, turn left and go as far as the Fox and Hounds, then turn right and it's just past the Kings Arms...

For some reason, people in this country always seem to give directions by pubs:D

[karen freeinchristman]

For some reason, people in this country always seem to give directions by pubs:D

Why didn't you mention the Canterbury Alehouse, then?
Huh? :confused: ;)

[Aymn27]

I was a devout union member and shop steward for years. I was even politically active in the union movement as well, so you've got me pegged.

I guess it's all about which side of the fence you live. I have seen a little union corruption, but once you've been done over by the bosses (and they are often corrupt as well) you never feel the same way about capitalism without restraints and worker's rights. It's hard to trust any of them after that. I'm sure they feel that way about the unions too.
I agree contra - but I am more pro-capitlaist than pro-union, of course I've never worked in a sweat shop, etc. The way I see it, is that capitalism, in its freest form is the "perfect system". GIVEN THAT - all who participate in the market are honest, fothright Christians who obey the commands of Scripture. Of course, the same could be said of socialism and other systems as well. Until the world is fully redeemed by Christ - all systems are flawed - because we are fallen human beings.

[ContraMundum]

I agree contra - but I am more pro-capitlaist than pro-union, of course I've never worked in a sweat shop, etc. The way I see it, is that capitalism, in its freest form is the "perfect system". GIVEN THAT - all who participate in the market are honest, fothright Christians who obey the commands of Scripture. Of course, the same could be said of socialism and other systems as well. Until the world is fully redeemed by Christ - all systems are flawed - because we are fallen human beings.

Very wise words indeed. The conversion of the heart makes us better at everything, even being bosses and workers. Very cool.