More Heat than Light: Randall Terry's 'Burn in Hell' Protest

No, I don't have a radio and the online stream doesn't work on my computer.

Hannity might be a liar as you describe him. But what I wonder is, if a conservative solution were to be rolled out that made sense to him, would he support it? Is his support for a conservative solution necessarily a lie? Why would he not tell the truth about a viable solution that didn't conflict with his listeners' principles?

Check out who bankrolls the heritage site and you'll begin to see things a little clearer.

All I could find for Heritage's sponsors is this: http://www.heritage.org/about/

Should the Heritage site be viewed by guilt by association. I would say they both believe in "the end justifys the means".

What end justifies what means? A bullet is a poor means, but the end of preventing a murder justifies it. Means and ends must be weighed against each other for justice to be revealed. So you'll have to be a little more specific.

Like I said, Hannity has the ability to be positive but somehow it comes out negative for me. To him, anyone who doesn't believe like he does isn't a "true American" and thus unpatriotic, etc. A real turnoff. Extremely narrow view of mind.

I wasn't impressed by what I heard from some of the Republican pundits either, before I moved out of my parents' or even for some time after. I don't think that weakens my point.

Thanks for that observation. Mitt Romney is a Mormon, but tries to de-emphasize the fact out of concern for anti-Mormon prejudice, I suppose.

I would think so.

When Mitt Romney's dad, Michigan Governor George Romney, ran for President, the press would hassle him about Mormons and polygamy. When asked "How many wives did your grandfather have, Governor?" he was very well prepared with this comeback: "Enough to keep him away from the neighbors' wives."

God is not a torturer. That is a human invention. Life holds much suffering and much joy, the spirit connects us to eternal truth and beauty, but there is no place of eternal torment; it is an invention of priests and politicians. It is a distortion of Jesus message that has produced nothing but fear , slavery and cruelty. God is love. Fear not.

Um, sure, but I think your sermon there was more to yourself, as my comment didn't really apply to Randall Terry, a guy I haven't heard much about, and was quite clearly more a comment within my own ruminations.

the comparison of him with being against WHAT this administration is trying to put in as "reform" is pretty bad. not even close. nice use of picking the worst to make a case for this issue. actually it typical here,I dont see how its even christian like to do this. Reform is needed but I am not for what is being put out so far. But this doesnt at all put me in this persons catigory which you seem to be trying to do. thats shamefull.

uhm why was my post taken off. she is trying to place those who disagree with this "reform" with this terry guy. that is my opinion. I dont find this breaking any rules here.

"[From the article][Perry stated] 'If Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid force us to pay for child killing and they die unrepentant, they will burn in hell for this,' Terry said in a telephone interview.

And I'm wondering if Terry will join the denizens of Hell for failing to stop the deaths of all those who die due to lack of health care access.

Um, sure, but I think your sermon there was more to yourself, as my comment didn't really apply to Randall Terry, a guy I haven't heard much about, and was quite clearly more a comment within my own ruminations.

I had a great time reading around your post as I read it extensively. Excellent writing! I am looking forward to hearing more from you.

Regards,
Hydroponics

I for one don't begrudge or blame you -- after all, everyone needs to survive. Who knows where you'd be without them; I have no problem paying taxes in that context.

Interestingly, this is where I seem to hold a collectivist worldview while you go individualist.

Well, my own church is on the front lines of that, and we do teach financial responsibility. That said, we understand that there's more to the abortion issue than personal irresponsibility; there are environmental issues that justice requires us to address. It's not an either/or; its a both/and.

You misunderstood me. I meant I wonder how much of one's living expenses should go to such a cause. Downsizing for that would eventually start to look irresponsible to others.

It does seem that way sometimes... I do think pure motives are possible for this, although I would have appreciated acknowledgement of the same for those who oppose the reform bill.

That's just what I was getting at. It was never really about the money proper, just the power that comes with it.

I was actually thinking of benefits to the system rather than the individual. And I don't understand how you can conceptualize money as anything but ... power tokens.

Spoken like someone who's never been on welfare.

Lol. Actually, I am on SSI, Medicaid, and housing assistance (and was in a government job-placement program). But I prefer not to mention that because I'm ashamed of it and I think it skewers how people read my posts. And it is actually tempting to just settle for this, but I know there's more life waiting in the real world and I hate the thought that I'm part of the problem with our economy.

The reality is that no one gets rich off it and virtually everyone who is really wants to leave (and indeed manages to do so).

I'm not sure about lately, but before I started driving (traveled on bicycle or with parents) I had surplus income every month and had to prune it off to avoid going over $2,000. That would be fine if it still happened now that my costs increased.

However, trying to raise children on a minimum-wage job, especially in "at-risk" areas, is virtually impossible; my church understands this. However, Terry is trying to foment a sense of resentment toward people on the bottom, which is another reason he needs to be taken to the woodshed.

I truly wish churches would do much more for poor mothers than condone abortion. Yours probably does, but I mean all-out. I think taking it to the level of financial irresponsibility might be best...

I understand neither this statement nor the context. And besides, I don't understand what's wrong with regulation; even the Scriptures condemn what Gandhi called "commerce without morality" because God does not endorse cutthroat capitalism. But that's exactly what we're talking about in the health-care insurance debate.

Libertarianism posits that when government regulates, the free market is usually rendered less competitive. I think this is only due to the overhead required of new competitors. If someone could find a way to regulate without doing this, that might become my new mantra.

But the comment was actually directed at subsidization - absolute regulation. When government subsidizes an industry that was previously competitive or at least had the potential to be so, it will replace free-market restraints with the relatively weak democratic restraints.

The context was that liberals don't like how anti-competitive some businesses are. I don't either, but that kind of regulation only aggravates the problem.

Why does this always have to be about the voter not wanting any more taxes? Granted, that's one of the conservative's pet peeves, but it's not conservatism. The conservatives who believe that conservatism is simply better than liberalism have more concerns than raw cash.

That's just what I was getting at. It was never really about the money proper, just the power that comes with it.

Of course, some on the top are of the order of the rich young ruler - then again some currently on welfare (a friend of mine included) see no reason to get a job when everyone else's money is delivered to them each month. And I'll bet some not on welfare would like to be for the same reason.

Spoken like someone who's never been on welfare. The reality is that no one gets rich off it and virtually everyone who is really wants to leave (and indeed manages to do so). However, trying to raise children on a minimum-wage job, especially in "at-risk" areas, is virtually impossible; my church understands this. However, Terry is trying to foment a sense of resentment toward people on the bottom, which is another reason he needs to be taken to the woodshed.

I recently saw a remark that I consider very accurate - something along the lines that liberals are disappointed at the lack of competition so they'll let the government handle it. Government tends to decrease competition, not to mention other ill effects on the market, so this is absurd. Regulation = centralization, and centralization = bad.

I understand neither this statement nor the context. And besides, I don't understand what's wrong with regulation; even the Scriptures condemn what Gandhi called "commerce without morality" because God does not endorse cutthroat capitalism. But that's exactly what we're talking about in the health-care insurance debate.

Why does this always have to be about the voter not wanting any more taxes? Granted, that's one of the conservative's pet peeves, but it's not conservatism. The conservatives who believe that conservatism is simply better than liberalism have more concerns than raw cash.

Of course, some on the top are of the order of the rich young ruler - then again some currently on welfare (a friend of mine included) see no reason to get a job when everyone else's money is delivered to them each month. And I'll bet some not on welfare would like to be for the same reason.

And then there's the issue of too much power in too few hands. I recently saw a remark that I consider very accurate - something along the lines that liberals are disappointed at the lack of competition so they'll let the government handle it. Government tends to decrease competition, not to mention other ill effects on the market, so this is absurd. Regulation = centralization, and centralization = bad.

No, find another way. As much as I'd like to see America 100% prosperous, it's not worth the nation.

Ain't that the truth.

Hannity might be a liar as you describe him. But what I wonder is, if a conservative solution were to be rolled out that made sense to him, would he support it? Is his support for a conservative solution necessarily a lie? Why would he not tell the truth about a viable solution that didn't conflict with his listeners' principles?

Because his listeners would prefer the situation just go away.

More accurately, they don't want any reform of any kind that costs them
anything, and I don't mean just money, either -- the insurance companies don't
want their windfall touched and are lobbying heavily against it. For that
reason there's going to be no effective reform without government intervention
in this case.

Conservatives generally don't want government-based reform. But reform isn't inherently government-based, and that's what most here seem to keep forgetting.

It does seem that way sometimes... I do think pure motives are possible for this, although I would have appreciated acknowledgement of the same for those who oppose the reform bill.

kind of strong retoric from this. I believe and i didnt read his whole talk but it doesnt really say he is against "reform" does it. he is against this one because of the abortion issue. He is over the line in his wording and actions for sure. but his point if presented properly still stands. it would help if people would look through the way its presented at times. Maybe speak against his method of voicing his opinion But at least say if what he says has any merit. Of course I think he still must be told his way of voicing it is wrong. Always saying no health care kills millions is wrong. With this thinking we could say this against a lot of things. not forcing people too wear set belts in cars. or helments or eating right or smoking, all of this would be nice if they did it BUT were do you stop at forcing choices we all need to make in life. were does freedom of choice end. its a rather slippery slope and not one some of us want to just rush into just because people make it sound so horrific.

There

Ain't that the truth.