Connecting You to Your Community
Lodi, California •

Indexes


November 21st, 2009
November 20th, 2009
November 19th, 2009
November 18th, 2009
November 17th, 2009
November 16th, 2009
November 14th, 2009
ADVERTISEMENT

Should religion be part of political decision-making process?

By Ross Farrow
News-Sentinel Staff Writer
Monday, December 24, 2007 6:06 AM PST

Comments (88 comment(s))

Some local religious leaders and lay people say that faith is very important in who becomes our next president, while others say it shouldn't play a role at all.

With Mitt Romney, a Mormon, and Rudy Giuliani, a Catholic, seeking the Republican nomination for president, religion has become a key topic in the series of debates conducted this year by both major parties.

And with President Bush's reliance on his Christian faith for his decisions, presidential candidates are frequently asked about their faith and how it would be incorporated into their decisions as president.

"I vote for the person and their politics and where they stand on the issues, and that's the most important aspect of any candidate," Lodi Mayor JoAnne Mounce said.

Pastor Rod Suess, of Vinewood Community Church in Lodi, said that character is a major issue when choosing elected officials.

"Obviously, faith shapes character, at least for me," Suess said. "My concern as a pastor is to live out the teachings of Christ."

The issue is played out at the local level, with Lodi-based Christian Community Concerns polling local and regional candidates about their religious and moral beliefs in a publication distributed to the community every two years during election season.

In the presidential campaign, Romney has caught the attention of many throughout the nation because he is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, commonly known as the Mormon Church.

Adelle Barrette, an active Mormon in Lodi, agrees that character is vitally important in selecting a leader. While she didn't say she would vote for Romney, Barrette said he's a good candidate.

"Speaking for myself, I'm excited for his candidacy," she said. "He certainly represents lot of my beliefs. He believes in family and small government."

Barrette predicts a Mormon will become president someday.

What role should religion play in American politics?

Asked by News-Sentinel staff writer Ross Farrow
“
I'm a Christian, so having a religion is important. I think I would vote for a Christian before I'd vote for a Mormon or a Buddhist. Mormons aren't bad people, but I don't agree with their beliefs.
”
Dan Grauman
Lodi
 
“
I don't think religion should make a difference. I don't care if they're Mormon, Catholic or Baptist as long as their religion doesn't affect their interpretation of the Constitution.
”
Grace Bull
Lodi
 
“
It will definitely make a difference in how I vote. I would love to have a Christian president. I think it will make a difference on how they run the country. I would hope that if the president says he is a Christian to go out and walk the Christian life.
”
Lynn MacDonald
Lodi
 
“
It would be nice if they're born-again Christian, and it would show by their lifestyle. They shouldn't be taking anything from the Bible or be adding to it.
”
Kelly Nuss
Lodi
 
“
I would never vote for anybody based on his religion. When you take all the facade out of religion, aren't we all God's children?
”
Gary Kellam
Lodi
 


"I think it would be good for this country because a lot of the country's struggles are from the breakdown of the family," she said.

Some political followers question whether Romney would be unduly influenced by the Mormon hierarchy in Salt Lake City, Utah, but Barrette doesn't think so.

"He would be his own man, and he wouldn't be a captive of Salt Lake City," she said.

In fact, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints' official position is to preach the gospel of Jesus Christ and not elect politicians, Barrette said. While the church encourages its members to be active politically, she said, it takes a neutral stance on party politics.

Nick Felten, a longtime member of St. Anne's Catholic Church in Lodi, said he doesn't look at a candidate's religion. He recalls when many people during the 1960 campaign were concerned that John F. Kennedy, a Catholic, would be subject to undue influence by the pope as president.

"I strictly looked at him as a Democrat and not as a Catholic," said Felten, a Republican.

"If it was going to influence me at all, I would vote for somebody I felt has a good moral background," Felten said. "A religious person can influence how they see things."

In Galt, Pastor Mary Sanders, of Shepherd of the Valley Lutheran Church, said she is more concerned about how a politician acts rather than his or her religious beliefs.

"On one hand, if a person espouses a faith tradition, it would seem oxymoronic that they could separate their conscience from how they conduct their political life," Sanders said.

"On the other hand, I'm not going to vote for anybody based on their religion, because I'm more concerned about how they behave rather than what they believe, and they don't always match," Sanders said.

Lodi Rabbi Raphael Pazo agrees that character is important, but not a person's religious beliefs.

"I would vote for a Mormon, I would vote for a Catholic, I would vote for an atheist," Pazo said.

"I'll vote for somebody based on their ethics," Pazo said. "Who is being consistent, and who is telling the truth? Some will profess to one point of view and do something completely different."

Two lay people drinking coffee at House of Coffees say that religion shouldn't be a factor in choosing political leaders.

"I don't think it really matters," Lodi resident Heather Gake said. "As long as you're a good leader, it doesn't matter. I think people are making too big a deal out of it."

Kim Gates of Lodi agreed, saying that religion and politics should be treated separately.

"It's who can best do the job," Gates said. "With this war, we are in deep financial trouble. We need to get back on track."

Contact reporter Ross Farrow at rossf@lodinews.com.

Reader Feedback

Lodian wrote on Jan 2, 2008 8:07 PM:

" Oops, I almost forgot to add ".....". lol! "

Report Abuse

Lodian wrote on Jan 2, 2008 1:53 PM:

" Oops, I almost forgot to add ".....". lol! "

Report Abuse

Lodian wrote on Jan 2, 2008 1:52 PM:

" Dan Grauman said, when interviewed by the LNS, "...having a religion is important." He goes on to say "I would vote for a Christian before I'd vote for a Mormon or a Buddhist." and "Mormons aren't bad people, but I don't agree with their beliefs." Why would anyone not vote for a candidate just because they are Mormon? If he/she was the best candidate and he/she was also a Mormon (their chosen "religion"), why would that matter in the least?
"

Report Abuse

Lee wrote on Jan 2, 2008 1:41 AM:

" And the sideshow continues ad nauseam. "

Report Abuse

real facts wrote on Jan 2, 2008 12:05 AM:

" lodian; you and your imaginary "friend" sure do alot of this --->(....) in your posts. coincidence? uh ....not quite. seems you can't fully morph your way into your little friend, so you leave clues. "lee" comes out to play, when you can't shoo me away yourself. afterall, "men" are more 'intimidating' (or so you assumed). you both high five "each other", but only in the way that ppl pat themselves on the back. it's actually comical how obvious it is how you are actually high fiving.....YOURSELF. you and your imaginary friend have always shared the exact same position of biblical illiteracy, refusal to cross check scriptural references, refusal to answer the SAME biblical challenges to qualify your position, the lies you both told were EXACTLY the same, your verbage toward me the same, both tried your "rapid fire" blog barrages on me to try and irritate me, you both feigned sincereity when i challenged BOTH of yours integrity (your responses to that were 100% the same), you both tried to use my exact words against me (something no one else has), and most recently.....you BOTH became "docile" when i leveled the accusation about you being BOTH personages. whenever i turned up the heat against you in the past based on your lack of integrity behavior, you shot back and so did "lee". thats not something your created "boldness" in the personage of lee would have done. it's obvious your integrity doesn't exist (in here anyway). not only did you not address it after i gave you the chance, you continue to lie about it. it's YOUR delusional life to lead.....all i do is hold up the mirror. good luck with managing your multiple personalities. little did i know when i told you in the last blog to "go talk to yourself", that i was actually saying something prophetic. and whats you and lee's obssesion with the words "paranoia and paranoid"? oh yeah, thats the fallout of trying to pass yourself off as two different ppl. the LNS knows you two have the same IP number, and the same e-
mail service provider. gotcha. i warned you about 500 posts ago, i would be in your best interest NOT to talk to me in here. you should have taken my advice. my advice now....get some integrity before you step off into eternity, because it will either be your crowning glory (should you attain some), or your complete undoing.... "

Report Abuse

Lodian wrote on Jan 1, 2008 9:00 PM:

" If a candidate looks to be going overboard in professing his/her religious beliefs then it's time to check them off of your list. "

Report Abuse

real facts wrote on Jan 1, 2008 7:11 PM:

" ("Lodian wrote on Jan 1, 2008 6:59 PM:
Robb: It was funny when you said "...your 15 minutes is up". Good one."). you had time to write this, but no rebuttal of my offer to let you come clean? ppl that lie, and then have to continue to lie, in order to cover thier tracks, are usually fairly good at it. your bad at it. in your writing style, you self implicated yourself in THIS post, and i bet you can't even figure out how you did. since you refused my offer, and MY integrity is on the line, hopefully tonight i will list the implications that show your lying. read over your own post, and see if you can figure it out. your not "lee" huh? "

Report Abuse

Lodian wrote on Jan 1, 2008 6:59 PM:

" Robb: It was funny when you said "...your 15 minutes is up". Good one. "

Report Abuse

real facts wrote on Jan 1, 2008 4:07 PM:

" 16925 ; what happened? you never came back to qualify YOUR statement. i know ppl don't suffer blog induced stage fright, as the blogs are anonymous. most everyone isn't afraid of giving thier opinion in here. i do find it funny that ppl make statements about the bibles content as if they know what they are talking about, then when they are asked to qualify that position, they make excuses or disappear. they don't have any problem defending any other position on any other matter at LNS. why not this? it only happens when a person can't defend thier biblical position to begin with. "

Report Abuse

real facts wrote on Jan 1, 2008 3:54 PM:

" robb; "argumentative", in that i won't allow ppl to make statements that attempt to strip God of his authority. you call it argumentative, i call it strong opposition. i am sure you are used to Christians not standing up as firmly as i do. we will do this your way, seeing how YOU made a statement toward me. how about you qualify your last statement to me about me being "uninformed". the only way you could make that statement accuretly, is that you somehow possess knowledge to the contrary of what i have said in here. so, what am i "uninformed" about. your not one of those ppl that come in here and make sweeping statements they aren't willing to qualify, are you? as you can see from my "longwindedness", i live up to my statements in here BY qualifying them. you ???? "

Report Abuse

Robb wrote on Jan 1, 2008 12:27 PM:

" I have no message problems, I just find the messenger uniformed and argumentative..

It is far too sad, and my pity is with you..
"

Report Abuse

real facts wrote on Jan 1, 2008 11:43 AM:

" lee (lodian); you don't care, thats the problem. look, i am going to play this the "nice" way. i know you are the same person, i can prove it. what YOU need to do is come clean about it yourself so you can save face in here. it would be better for your long term tenure in here IF you spilled it yourself. ppl make mistakes, and owning up to it will go a long way toward your personal claim of integrity in here. you know i am good at this stuff, and if i build my case against you by compiling the evidence that demonstrates you ARE the same person, ppl will know for sure you have no integrity. i will be glad to do it for you, if you won't. it's just like barry bonds. the guy continues to lie and discredit himself, when all he had to do was admit he did roids, made a mistake and moved on. he continues to bury himself in the black lack of integrity hole, by continuing his lying ways. don't end up being the "barry bonds" of the LNS blogs. i am being nice enough to let you bail yourself out of this one. even your last two posts as lodian and lee, demonstrates you ARE the same person. anyone with a similitude of ability of reading between the lines, can tell by those two posts alone. your turn... "

Report Abuse

real facts wrote on Dec 31, 2007 10:38 PM:

" rob; you can only make that statement if NO ONE possessed the ability to assuredly point the way to God unequivocably. it's both tragic and rediculous that ppl make the statement that no one can know definetively "who" God is, and what his standards are. because that would completely eliminate Gods ability to distinguish himself TO his creation. thats rediculous. God "can't differentiate himself all of a sudden? since the beginning of time until now, SOMEONE would know. the reason ppl don't like to hear it, is because its an authority issue. talk about "God" in general non-authority terms, they have no problem. be specific about who God is and what he wants turns it into an authority issue. robb, you have a problem with the "message", not the messenger. you will have to tell "him" his 15 min is up...if you actually did read my posts, you would know "who" holds the key to your salvation "

Report Abuse

Robb wrote on Dec 31, 2007 6:34 PM:

" And I suppose if we were to all follow you RF, we are insured "salvation"??

Step off the box, your 15 minutes it up! "

Report Abuse

Lee wrote on Dec 31, 2007 5:33 PM:

" Hey, real facts, it's Lee....and only Lee, pal. I don't really care if you believe it or not. It's NEW YEARS EVE. DON'T drink and drive, real facts! "

Report Abuse

real facts wrote on Dec 31, 2007 4:18 PM:

" lodian: you really don't think you are going to skate away from your resonsibility of answering the question definetively; did you ever post as "lee"? after hmmm outed you, and i put together the pieces of the puzzle and made my accusation, your next post after that appears to be an attempt at skating away without outright addressing it. did you ever post as another person named "lee". it doesn't matter if it was on another computer or not. i want to see you publically admit (or lie) that you did / didn't. your the one that feigned "integrity". let's see you show some. did you ???????? "

Report Abuse

real facts wrote on Dec 31, 2007 4:10 PM:

" brian; admittingly, i am not much into politics. not really familiar with the ppl you listed. not my bag (yet). however, i resepect you immensely in these blogs. the reason i do is that you are a person who is actually interested in the truths of life. i have witnessed you adjusting to "a" truth, and that is what demonstrates Godly character. my "high five" of you publically is NOT because we agree on "most" issues, but because you have character. i would say the same thing to an atheist ("if" they demonstrated those traits). it just so happens that we DO agree on most everything. your a breath of fresh air in here brian. it is becoming increasingly harder to find ppl of Godly character. ppl with "feigned" Godly character, are more common than flies on a dairy farm. if that offends anyone - good. it's supposed to, because anything short of Godly character....stinks. most ppl swim in the "who really cares" river. you should high five yourself....and continue to hold up the "mirror" of truth. it will always be worth it (and necessary), no matter how much you feel like your the only one. it would rather be the "lone wolf". of truth anyday, then numbered among the "pack". thats no accomplishment. that scripture "wide is the path that leads to destruction, and MANY will follow it. narrow is the gate that leads to eternal life, and FEW will enter therein. that pretty much tells who has Godly character and who doesn't. "

Report Abuse

real facts wrote on Dec 31, 2007 3:41 PM:

" voter; realistically, i am not going to get a "perfect" candidate in comparison to what the bible describes as the perfect leader. i will have to settle for someone close as possible to that. so your "trustworthy" quip might just be what gets them into that category. i know what you meant by "Jesus was a liberal", but that is an inherently dangerous statement that "could" carry several connotations, and needs to be addressed. one of which needs to be dismissed immediately. Jesus Christ wasn't a progressive, as "liberals" so desperately want him to BECOME. Jesus Christ came to fulfill, then do away with the mosaic law. "most" jews under the mosaic law at that time did NOT recognize him as the Christ (just as scrpture had prophesied hundreds of years prior, they would have "spiritual blindness"). because they didn't recognize who Christ was, and that he came to fulfill the law in order to start the new dispensation of salvation by grace, they (the jews) saw Jesus as a "rebel" for sure. he WAS a rebel to them. he was "liberal" to them in that the new dispensation was based on grace, and went against the works based salvation they followed for centuries. had they known what scripture did say, they would have recoginzed that Christ wasn't "liberal" afterall. he was supposed to come and act exactly the way he did. therefore, he wasn't a "rebel", but a literal fleshing out of who God was all along. it was an affront to thier self righteousness. Jesus healed on the sabbath. not because he was a "liberal", but because it was ALWAYS the intention of God to show mercy to his creation. it was man from the beginning, that caused the mosaic salvation by works scenario, not God. the actions of Jesus Christ were not "rebellious" for that time, so much as they were right in character of how God ALWAYS was. the jews believed him to be a rebel, but in actuallity, he wasn't. ppl label him a "liberal" today sometimes so they can think they have another reason to continue in thier sin, or to excuse his authority out of thier life. you know, the "cuddly" Jesus. in that definition, Jesus DEFINTELY was anything BUT "liberal". you will not find ONE scripture throught the entirety of the bible were Jesus was "liberal" about sinful behavior, or Godly standards. Jesus Christ upheld those standards, because God doesn't change his character. in fact, everytime he addressed it in a very serious manner, with serious consequences. don't confuse "liberal" , in the liberals current chosen lexicon of words they use to excuse themselves away from Gods authority. thats a LIBERAL (and purposeful) lie "

Report Abuse

voter wrote on Dec 31, 2007 3:01 PM:

" Just a casual reminder, Brian, Jesus was a liberal in his day. And that brings us back to the topic of religion and politics. I think we all want a decent, intelligent, and trustworthy person to lead our country--someone who respects differences while celebrating our common ground. Religious persuasion is not so important, unless it helps someone to arrive at those qualities. "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Dec 31, 2007 2:10 PM:

" Real Facts, In many respects you aren't long-winded. I gather that a good portion of the posters here probably don't listen to conservative talk radio to any extent. Otherwise they wouldn't find your long posts dribble and or just nonsense. I proudly listen to Medved, Prager, Hewitt and the others.
And I frequently visit townhall.com, realclearpolitics.com amongst many other sites. Mark Steyn is one of my favorite guests on the Hugh Hewitt Show. And of course there's Michelle Malkin, Dick Morris, Bill Crystal, Charles Krauthammer, the list is endless. I have yet to embrace any liberal site or find any liberal that has any substance. I hope this gives you an idea what kind of person I am.
One other thing, people that find
Michael Savage insignificant are about as deep as that wading pool at Lodi Lake. "

Report Abuse

Lodian wrote on Dec 31, 2007 12:54 PM:

" nylodian: Thanks and Happy New Year to you and yours. Please everyone, drive safely and if you're drinking, please have a designated driver or call a cab. And nylodian, I am totally with you on the candidate issue. Some say they are one thing and really act like another. Sometimes one has to look and listen closely as some people can put on a great show and all the while they are the biggest fakes one could meet. Anyway... Happy 2008 to all! "

Report Abuse

real facts wrote on Dec 31, 2007 12:23 PM:

" brian; a semi apology to you AND the readership about my longwindedness....i wish to God that what i need to say, i could do it in alot shorter space. it would give me back alot more personal time. unfortuantely i have this penchance for making sure i don't leave any stone un-turned in my efforts in here. my character drives me to make sure i have explained something fully, and the unfortunate amount of time it takes to seperate ppl from thier words, to reveal thier true motives. thats why it's only a "semi" apology. semi, because it's a necessary evil "

Report Abuse

real facts wrote on Dec 31, 2007 11:55 AM:

" to 16925: after re-reading my 11:41 post to you, i realized that first sentence sounded a bit sarcastic or condescending. i assure you, it wasn't intended that way. because i am a "get down to the crux of the matter" type, it might have come off as that. it was intended to underline the fact that the reason ppl don't know certain things about the bible's content / intent, is because they either don't read it themselves, or they rely on the interpretations of others. my intent is ALWAYS to get ppl to know what they believe is right, and not "guess". knowing what it really does say / mean ONLY comes via personal effort, combined with a willingness to accept it's internal truths AS THEY ARE PRESENTED. that person will know the truth. the others will only "pretend" they do "

Report Abuse

real facts wrote on Dec 31, 2007 11:41 AM:

" ("16925 wrote on Dec 30, 2007 6:31 PM:
"I have studied bible teachings since high school and Jesus Christ NEVER claimed to be God"). maybe because you "studied" what someone told you to study. for one, the O.T. is filled with references on how God would come in the flesh HIMSELF, to PERSONALLY deliver mankind via his sacrificial death. only ONE person in history (Jesus Christ) fulfilled that designation. God incarnate. now we will see what kind of biblical integrity you actually have. ppl make statements in here all the time, but run away when asked to qualify them. if you are the type that actually does seek truth and biblical integrity, you will answer a simple easy to answer question. why was Jesus Christ crucified? what was the last governing factor in which he was crucified? here's a clue; it indeed solidifies that Christ DID claim to be God directly. when you come up with that ("IF" you have integrity in this blog), i will show the other blatant instances where he did, and the other times where he alluded to it. deal? "

Report Abuse

nylodian wrote on Dec 31, 2007 7:59 AM:

" Just popping in to wish all the bloggers a Happy New Year! I hope 2008 brings you happiness, good health and prosperty. :) To keep on topic: I will vote on the candidate who has most shown thier good character through their ACTIONS and not whether they can quote scripture. "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Dec 31, 2007 7:07 AM:

" I don't have any problem with Real Facts. Perhaps he gets a little long winded. His posts make perfect sense to me. He's very articulate. It's the ones who don't actually read his posts thoroughly and or just skim over them looking for that key word or phrase to use against him that irks me. Looks like the LNS has no plans to limit the words in a post. Real Facts is a breath of fresh air. Though he gets a little long winded. "

Report Abuse

16925 wrote on Dec 30, 2007 6:31 PM:

" real facts wrote on Dec 30, 2007 11:50 AM: Jesus Christ claimed to be God, and rose from the dead to prove it.
: I have studied bible teachings since high school and Jesus Christ NEVER claimed to be God. He claimed to be the Son of God. Real Facts you need a new name.

"

Report Abuse

Gadzooks wrote on Dec 30, 2007 6:04 PM:

" To aea3dc6y: very insightful. The electorate preferred someone who "acted" the part of a Christian over someone who really was one. A shiny veneer trumps substance. "

Report Abuse

aea3dc6y wrote on Dec 30, 2007 5:17 PM:

" While most of us believe we want a Christian as president we have shown that this is not really true. President Jimmy Carter was a self defined "born again" Christian who was active in his church and regularly led Bible Study. He was rejected in favor of an actor who seldom went to worship and most likely never attended, let alone led, a Bible study. "

Report Abuse

Lodian wrote on Dec 30, 2007 12:58 PM:

" Sorry about the re-post to "Hmmm". Not sure why that happened as I just logged on. Perhaps it's because I refreshed the page.....LNS? "

Report Abuse

Lodian wrote on Dec 30, 2007 12:51 PM:

" to Hmmm: Welcome to the discussion. FYI, I only post as Lodian. I don't have multiple personalities (hehe). In case you are unaware, we sign in with one name/handle now. And I'm sure glad about that. No more faux-posters and stalkers that copy another's handle. Good for you that you don't have a problem with "real facts". Enjoy your comradeship with him. I'll be interested to see how that goes. "

Report Abuse

real facts wrote on Dec 30, 2007 12:00 PM:

" given that definition, i still adhere to my first post in here about "who" i would vote for. my vote is going to go to the person who comes the closest to mirroring Gods standards of morality and justice. as it stands now, i am looking for someone at least "in the ballpark". so far, i am not impressed. "

Report Abuse

real facts wrote on Dec 30, 2007 11:50 AM:

" ("mee thinks wrote on Dec 29, 2007 6:42 PM:" aren't "christians" people who try to live a Christ-like life? Mormons do just that so Mormons ARE christians too"). ummm no. there may be mormons who are Christians because they KNOW the real Jesus Christ, not the one that mormonism teaches. the Jesus Christ of mormonism can't do anything for your salvation, because mormonism teaches you can "save yourself" thru good "works". just because an indivudual or group incorporates "some" of the teachings of Christ into thier "twist" on Christianity, doesn't mean they are a Christian (see my post below). i can't speak about every person that attends a mormon church, but as a whole, it is a false statement that mormons are Christians. mormonism split from the authority of Christ, just as soon as joseph smith "claimed" God gave him a "new" revelation. that "revelation" was 180 degree's opposite Of Gods already set in stone never gonna change revelation. authority.... it's the basis by which you can tell who is, and who isn't. mormonism offers that "warm and fuzzy", but detours drastically from the real authority of Christ. don't believe me? go ask your bishop if mormons "teach" that Jesus Christ IS the one true God. shoot, mormonism teaches that men can become "gods" of their own planet someday. that teaching alone excludes mormonism as "Christian". Jesus Christ died because he claimed to be the ONLY God. it was for that reason he was crucified. DO NOT rely on any person (except Jesus Christ)or organization for your personal salvation. it is imperative to know WHY you believe, not what others tell you to believe (no matter how good it sounds). your eternity is hinged on that. eternity warrants more than a "guess". Christianity isn't a country club. it's a RELATIONSHIP with the one true God, based in a relationship under HIS authority "

Report Abuse

real facts wrote on Dec 30, 2007 11:20 AM:

" ("mee thinks wrote on Dec 29, 2007 6:42 PM:" aren't "christians" people who try to live a Christ-like life"?). the theological / biblical answer to this is.....no. it isn't about the adhereance of the "teachings" of Christ, as it is about his Lordship. Jesus Christ claimed to be God, and rose from the dead to prove it. many ppl "claim" to be "Christians" because they apportion "some" of the teachings of Christ in thier life (love thy neighbor, etc.), but they purposefully steer clear of his authority OVER thier life. theoretically, you can go to church every day of your life, incorporate all the "warm and fuzzy" teachings of Christ, and completely miss an eternal relationship with him. what earmarks a person as a true follower of Christ, is the daily willfull adhearance to his authority, over your life. there is a complete 180 degree difference between Christianty the "religion", and Jesus Christ in a relationship. ppl play "Christianity" all the time, but don't KNOW Christ. that fact is played out in ppl in EVERY denomination and cult. you want to know for sure you are right with God? place yourself right now under the authority of Christ THRU a personal relationship with him. once you experience the FACT that he is still alive (obviously "if" he rose from the dead), you will also experience the vast difference between "pretending", and "knowing". anybody who tells you they are a Christian, but are not submited to the authority of Christ in thier life (at least that being thier goal), is either an outright phony, or their fooling themselves into thinking they are. it's ALWAYS an authority issue. Lord means master, it doesn't mean "concierge". which is exactly why Christ spoke many times about those differences of who, is who. the sheep and the goats. Jesus himself said...."not everyone who says Lord Lord, will enter into my kingdom on that day". refering to the fact their will be many who fool themselves into thinking they are, but are not. the deciding factor? a RELATIONSHIP based in HIS authority, and no one elses. true believers do not have a problem with Christ's authority over thier life in ANY arena in thier life. they seek it out, and adjust to it. you can tell a person is an "ain't", when they seek to excuse themselves away from it. even a person who maybe ignorant of what God says about a particular subject matter will ALWAYS adjust to Gods authority over thier life. a person who won't, and refuses to, is called a "goat" (by biblical definition - not mine)> "

Report Abuse

real facts wrote on Dec 29, 2007 10:01 PM:

" to hmmm; i almost forgot my "manners". thanks for giving me the heads up about lodians lack of integrity show. i appreciate it. can we get past this time blog draining rediculous now? will you ppl reign her in, so i don't have to waste blog space taking out the trash? "

Report Abuse

real facts wrote on Dec 29, 2007 9:58 PM:

" ("Hmmm wrote on Dec 29, 2007 4:57 PM:
" Lee, or should I say Lodian, I do not have a problem with Real Facts. However do you know most bloggers here realize that you, Lee, and Lodian are the same person? You have always been so adamant about people using ONE blog name. Stick to one name and quit attacking others"). "lodians" response (lie) to the above post, was that "lee" wasn't her. never thought about it until you just mentioned it. after going back systematically looking for clue's, thru lodian's AND lee's posts, it IS the same person. it's easy enough to do. you can sign on in an another persons screename IF you have multiple e-mail accounts. turns out "she" isn't smart enough to pull her garbage. TRUTH will always come to the surface. hiding behind the personality of a "man" (and lying about it), shows once and for all that lodian feigns integrity. there is something in her style, she can't cover up. they ARE one in the same. the LNS knows her IP number, and knows i am right... you resort to this behavior, it proves you have no ability to defend your position in life. now what lodian? "

Report Abuse

real facts wrote on Dec 29, 2007 9:41 PM:

" ("Lee wrote on Dec 29, 2007 2:18 PM:
You lie constantly about people and what you've posted or not posted"). really? instead of your perpetual weak attempt at discrediting me, let's just see how much integrity you really have. qualify that accusation by posting examples of WHERE i EVER lied about anything. loved to see you do it. you use to threaten this on the other blog, but NEVER did you EVER post ANYTHING where i did. why is that? because you couldn't? im good at this huh? ...do it "

Report Abuse

real facts wrote on Dec 29, 2007 9:35 PM:

" ("Lee wrote on Dec 29, 2007 2:18 PM:
" real facts:. And you always act like such a victim, when in fact, YOU are the one constantly on the prowl and looking to attack at any moment"). really? another lie. you DID read my first post in here, and STILL lied about who i am. a "victim" is someone who has issues of insecurity, thats not something i suffer from. YOU TWO came swinging at me, im only defending myself, which i promised you i would do. you can count on it. seperating you from your words, to show who you really are, is tedious, but necessary. you suffer short term memory loss, and forget how good i am at it. "

Report Abuse

real facts wrote on Dec 29, 2007 9:27 PM:

" ("Lee wrote on Dec 29, 2007 2:18 PM:
You contradict yourself in every post"). what i did with you in the other blog, is what i HAVE TO DO in here. i made you a promise, and that is whenever you tell your little underhanded lies, i would make you own up to it. pray tell, WHERE did i EVER contradict myself in ANY post? you know me, you know i won't let you pull that stuff without qualifying what you say. lets see you discredit me by actually posting something i said that WAS "contradictory". your never going to get away with your underhanded tripe post it, or go away "

Report Abuse

real facts wrote on Dec 29, 2007 9:21 PM:

" ("Lee wrote on Dec 29, 2007 2:18 PM:
" real facts: And if some comment looks to be about you, when it wasn't even addressed to you, and you get offended by it....then it's on you"). what shows in your lack of integrity, is that you try and boldface lie that it wasn't directed underhandedly at me. i warned you before, if you two want to play games, i won't let you get away with it. say what you want about me, but now your lying AND trying to make this about me. your ego that big? is that what you have to do, because you couldn't handle your business in the last blog? i came here and put the past drivel from you two behind me. you two started it (in this blog), and are responsible for keeping it going. when you continue to lie about me, i am happy to continue your childish little game. if you think your going to dress me down and make me go away by discrediting me, think again. the best thing for you to do concerning me, is to crawl back under your rock. otherwise, fortitude might as well be my middle name. you have only witnessed a small piece of it. since when do i care how ppl feel about me? it's a wonderful place in life not worrying about whether ppl "like" the truth or not. i am not like you. i tell the truth, and don't worry about the results. that (popularity) probably drives you, which would explain your lack of integrity. take a hike lee. you can either quit lying about what really went on, and your current lie about lodians post not being aimed at me, or you can continue your ego trip. no one detours me from telling the truth. right now, your being disrespectful, considering these ppl don't want to see another "dance" between us. know this, there is nothing you can say or do to make me disappear. i WAS being nice. YOU are being disrespectful. you don't prefer "nice"? fine, im your man. "

Report Abuse

Robb wrote on Dec 29, 2007 8:19 PM:

" And the world wonders why we are in Iraq...

More wars have been waged in the name of "god" than anything else...

"

Report Abuse

Lodian wrote on Dec 29, 2007 7:25 PM:

" to Hmmm: Welcome to the discussion. FYI, I only post as Lodian. I don't have multiple personalities (hehe). In case you are unaware, we sign in with one name/handle now. And I'm sure glad about that. No more faux-posters and stalkers that copy another's handle. Good for you that you don't have a problem with "real facts". Enjoy your comradeship with him. I'll be interested to see how that goes. "

Report Abuse

mee thinks wrote on Dec 29, 2007 6:42 PM:

" aren't "christians" people who try to live a Christ-like life? Mormons do just that so Mormons ARE christians too. To Dan G... if you'd vote for a Christian before a Mormon then you have no clue what we believe. perhaps you should educate yourself before you sputter nonsense out of your piehole! "

Report Abuse

Hmmm wrote on Dec 29, 2007 4:57 PM:

" Lee, or should I say Lodian, I do not have a problem with Real Facts. However do you know most bloggers here realize that you, Lee, and Lodian are the same person? You have always been so adamant about people using ONE blog name. Stick to one name and quit attacking others. "

Report Abuse

Lee wrote on Dec 29, 2007 2:18 PM:

" real facts: Are you really unaware that most people on these blogs can't stand you and know most of what you say is a lie. You contradict yourself in every post. You lie constantly about people and what you've posted or not posted. The list goes on and on. Stop being such a whiner and complainer. You attack everyone else, without provocation, and then act the victim when it comes right back to you. What a scam. And if some comment looks to be about you, when it wasn't even addressed to you, and you get offended by it....then it's on you. You're the one with the guilty conscience. Stop blaming others for your social deficiencies. You keep making threats as if you have some Godly power over what others choose to post. You better not this and you better not that....what's the heck is that? What do you think you are....my father? Grow up! Free speech, pal! Read up on it. And you always act like such a victim, when in fact, YOU are the one constantly on the prowl and looking to attack at any moment. Here... Read this carefully... paranoid schizophrenia; A form of schizophrenia in which delusions of "persecution" or "grandeur" (or both), hallucinations, and ideas of reference predominate and sometimes are systematized. (sound familiar? It's YOU! Meds might help....ask a doctor). Now, do us all a favor and take your classless, disrespectful, abusive trolling sideshow elsewhere.

"

Report Abuse

Lee wrote on Dec 29, 2007 2:02 PM:

" I wonder what your blood pressure is like. "

Report Abuse

Lee wrote on Dec 29, 2007 2:01 PM:

" real facts: Would you like some cheese to go with all that "whine"? "

Report Abuse

Gadzooks wrote on Dec 29, 2007 8:43 AM:

" Either this reporter is not very responsible or not very knowledgeable of US government. The US constitution expressly forbids a religious test for officeholders in Article VI. Why wasn't this mentioned? "

Report Abuse

real facts wrote on Dec 29, 2007 7:35 AM:

" lee; maybe not by you. did i address you anyway in here? look, don't lie (again), and cover for someone. you know she took an underhanded swipe at me because she can't help herself, and so it seems, neither can you. i left that other necessary rediculousness with you two in the other blog. i am not going to sit here take anything off of you two. if it's part of defending the integrity of what happened over there, by you two bringing it here, fine. your not going to get away with lying about my integrity, underhandedly or not. i didn't "attack" anybody in here. i called her out for her underhanded swipe. i guarantee you lee, one things for sure, you won't get away with lying about me, or discrediting me for something i didn't even do. i suggest you both not talk to me in here, because i won't sit there and watch you lie about things. i came here and didn't say a word, until you two did. i have enough class to move on. buy some. i dropped it, but if you two want to continue it, im all about it "

Report Abuse

Lee wrote on Dec 29, 2007 3:34 AM:

" Hey, real facts, no one was talking to you. Your name was never mentioned, until you attacked...again. Chill out. If you want to be treated with respect then you have to treat others with respect. And stop attacking everyone on every blog you post on. And stop with the paranoia. "

Report Abuse

Lodian wrote on Dec 29, 2007 1:17 AM:

" I think Grace Bull made the best comment to the LNS.
"

Report Abuse

Winston Wallace wrote on Dec 28, 2007 10:26 AM:

" Religion would be a consideration in my voting for a presidential candidate. I would not vote for an atheist although I respect an atheist more than someone pretending to be of the traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs. At least an atheist is honest about who he is. Most politicians are liars and hypocrites in my opinion. "Thomas Paine said " He who governs least, governs best."
That said, protecting life and liberty of our citizens, providing for the national defense, minting of money, and facilitating interstate commerce about sums it up. Someone who puts the Constitution first and appoints judges who believe that. Religion is a personal thing and I respect it greatly. But it should not get in the way of hard decisions like securing our borders because we feel compassion for the hordes of poor coming here illegally. It should not get in the way of a just war when all else has failed. A socialistic health care program should not be rammed down our throats because of some mis-guided religious beliefs. In most cases I do not think religion really plays much of a part in our national policy. It is all about money, power,and influence. It is about kick backs,pay-offs and bribery. It's about a populace too lazy,too stupid, too apathetic to do anything but complain. We need a revolution of character,courage ,conviction and will. If religion could facilitate and enhance some of those traits then give me a candidate with a little religion. Until then I will be holding my breath. "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Dec 28, 2007 8:11 AM:

" voter wrote on Dec 26, 2007 8:45 AM:

" Prisons are filled with Christians. 82% of Americans claim to be Christian. How this alone qualifies anyone to lead the free world is a stretch. I'll go with intelligence and integrity over religion, thank you.

This is a rhetorical statement since the vast majority of Americans are of Judeo-Christian faith. Voter, be happy they aren't atheists. "

Report Abuse

Lodian wrote on Dec 27, 2007 10:54 PM:

" real acts: Your conniptions are a hoot! "

Report Abuse

Lodian wrote on Dec 27, 2007 10:53 PM:

" real acts: You're conniptions are a hoot! "

Report Abuse

real facts wrote on Dec 27, 2007 10:10 PM:

" lodian; don't act like it wasn't, when you know it was directed at me. don't feign sincerity towards me either, when you know you don't mean it. it would be in your best interest to leave me out of your "posts" (completely). other ppl buy it, i know better. "

Report Abuse

Lodian wrote on Dec 27, 2007 10:05 PM:

" real facts: Well... You seem to be a bit paranoid. Posts aren't always directed at you or even remotely about you. You need to relax that hair-trigger of yours. Did you have a Merry Christmas? How are those college kids of yours doing? Is everyone healthy this year? Have a nice evening. "

Report Abuse

real facts wrote on Dec 27, 2007 7:11 PM:

" lodian; don't direct underhanded comments toward me in here. i came here and made a comment on the subject matter. notice how i didn't address you or lee? you know me, and you know i won't let you pull that here or anywhere. don't pull that conversation over to here. you just underhandedly accused me of not debating you, when that is exactly what you did. you ran. you didn't comment on my first post in here about my proclivities toward politics "

Report Abuse

Lodian wrote on Dec 27, 2007 6:31 PM:

" Lee: I agree. I also enjoy reading posts from people that obviously have a brain, but also someone that has the character to actually debate (if we disagree) on an issue with integrity and be civil in the process. "

Report Abuse

Lodian wrote on Dec 27, 2007 6:28 PM:

" There are other things that are important in a candidate other than if they believe, or have the same interpretations of bible scriptures, as I do. "

Report Abuse

real facts wrote on Dec 27, 2007 5:21 PM:

" i am not going to vote for anybody just because they claim to be a Christian. voting time "conversions" are evident in alot of candidates pre-voting tactics. how many candidates before they were elected claimed they wouldn't raise taxes? in the political world, i look for the person that has displayed (as close as possible) moral values over a long period of time, that comes as close to biblical standards as possible. usually it's what i call an.... "in the ballpark candidate". that candidate could come from any party, i don't care. i pick truth over "party". integrity coupled with moral values displayed over time, VS "claimed" anything (including Christianty) "

Report Abuse

Lee wrote on Dec 26, 2007 11:39 PM:

" Cogito: Spags is short for Spagnola, AKA Govagent (which was his handle sometimes). You sounded like him. Anyway, I agree, I like Lodian's posts too. Lodian posts some great stuff alright. I enjoy your posts too. Nothing like reading posts from people with a brain. "

Report Abuse

Lee wrote on Dec 26, 2007 11:28 PM:

" 16925: We all have assigned handles now. Yippee "

Report Abuse

16925 wrote on Dec 26, 2007 7:51 PM:

" Cogito, maybe someone else has been using your handle. I must be confused. Thanks. "

Report Abuse

nsn_lodian wrote on Dec 26, 2007 1:58 PM:

" A specific "faith" or "set of religious beliefs" shouldn't be a criteria for politics. I do (however) believe that candidates that have a solid "set of religious beliefs" as a background make for better leaders who make decisions using some sort of moral compass (rather than making decisions based on how many interns end up on their knees). ;) "

Report Abuse

voter wrote on Dec 26, 2007 8:45 AM:

" Prisons are filled with Christians. 82% of Americans claim to be Christian. How this alone qualifies anyone to lead the free world is a stretch. I'll go with intelligence and integrity over religion, thank you. "

Report Abuse

libraryguy wrote on Dec 25, 2007 1:32 PM:

" Jimmy Carter tried running the country by the Bible and not by the Constitution, and his is considered a failed presidency. Bush claims to be a Christian, yet I fail to see the vaunted "compassionate conservatism" he harps about manifest itself. In short, the less religious a president is or claims to be, the better. "

Report Abuse

Cogito wrote on Dec 25, 2007 11:12 AM:

" '16925", I think you are confused. Sometimes I tease about Lodi, such as the greenbelt between Lodi and Galt I suggested, But I love Lodi. I've worked there for over 30 years, and have made many great friends there. I do defend Galt from those who look down on us, but I've never made a "vile comment" about Lodi. I think Lodi is an outstanding small town with many outstanding citizens, just like Galt. "

Report Abuse

16925 wrote on Dec 25, 2007 7:25 AM:

" Cogito, if you live in Galt, why all the vile comments about Lodi all the time? "

Report Abuse

Cogito wrote on Dec 24, 2007 9:25 PM:

" Just joking, I'm not as smart as Lodian, I'm from Galt. "

Report Abuse

Cogito wrote on Dec 24, 2007 7:50 PM:

" To "Lee", the answer is no on both counts. And what the hey's a "spags"? I'm just a citizen like everyone else, except I'm probably just a little smarter. So you should listen a little more to what I say. Oh yeah, and "Lodian" too! He's good! "

Report Abuse

liberalwriter wrote on Dec 24, 2007 5:28 PM:

" To Lodian: I completely agree, it's a shallow thing to do, sticking with a candidate merely based on their religion affiliation, unfortunately, I think there's way too many people that think that way. Look at our current situation. Sheesh. "

Report Abuse

Lee wrote on Dec 24, 2007 3:03 PM:

" Cogito: Are you spags/govagent? "

Report Abuse

Cogito wrote on Dec 24, 2007 1:16 PM:

" If I ran for local office and received a questionnaire from the Christian Community Concerns, I would refuse to fill it out. How a candidate stands on issues irrelevant to their office is no ones business. Why would anyone vote against a candidate because of their stance on abortion if their running for city council? It will never come up. There are many people I love and respect who also have different opinions on politics. I would still vote for them. "

Report Abuse

Cogito wrote on Dec 24, 2007 12:43 PM:

" I was impressed with how all the interviewees answered this question. It's not an easy one, yet they all gave very good answers. And I'm not just saying that because I know the last four of them. "

Report Abuse

Cogito wrote on Dec 24, 2007 12:20 PM:

" I can't say that religion is a main concern of mine when considering a candidate, and I'm a Christian. But to be honest, I'd never vote for a Wiccan. Constitutional interpretation is the main factor for me. Especially that "Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise thereof" my religion. People seem to forget that one. I will always say "under God" when I say the pledge, the "official version" is irrelevant. I'm a Pentecostal, I will vote for Romney. "

Report Abuse

Lodian wrote on Dec 24, 2007 11:55 AM:

" One would have to be very narrow-minded to only stick with a candidate because they were of the same religion. I'd say that's pretty shallow. "

Report Abuse

Lodian wrote on Dec 24, 2007 11:54 AM:

" Brian: You said, "I don't base my decision on their religious affiliation when voting." and then you went on to say, "I would never vote for a person who is not a Judeo Christian.". Was that a Freudian slip? Yes, I saw your retraction. It was interesting though. "

Report Abuse

Metric Time System wrote on Dec 24, 2007 9:25 AM:

" Here's what happens when you mix politics and true Christianity: The founding of the United States of America. Washington believed you were not qualified to hold public office if you were not a practicing Christian. "

Report Abuse

Metric Time System wrote on Dec 24, 2007 9:18 AM:

" wtf: ask yourself this, what would have Gore done? And where would the USA be if he was leading the country? Higher taxes? More terrorist bombings on US soil? Gore ordering the military to curl into a defensive ball with its tail between its legs and endure endless attacks, kidnappings, explosions, and murders with no recourse? More monotonistic dronings of bowing down to the god of "new" tolerance by accepting any and all actions and thoughts as rational and valid, except Christianity? No thanks. "

Report Abuse

wtf wrote on Dec 24, 2007 9:08 AM:

" This is what happens when you do mix religion and politics: http://desertpeace.blogspot.com/2007/12/oh-come-let-us-adore-him-but-dont-get.html "

Report Abuse

Metric Time System wrote on Dec 24, 2007 9:05 AM:

" Robb: you're right. Clinton claimed to be a Christian but nothing about his words or actions would ever lead you to believe he was one. Anyone can claim anything for an perceived advantage. He produced no good fruit, in fact he was a chief contributor in the extreme escalation of moral decay during his tenor. A person's actions define their character, not their words. "

Report Abuse

wtf wrote on Dec 24, 2007 9:01 AM:

" To Robb: Bush claimed to be a "Christian" too, and see where we are now. "

Report Abuse

M2CW wrote on Dec 24, 2007 7:53 AM:

" Hmm..... religious and moral beliefs seemed to work when the founding fathers drafted the Constitution.... seems we were doing better then! "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Dec 24, 2007 7:39 AM:

" The time may come when we all become A-religious and only spiritual. Perhaps then all cultures in this world will have no reason to wage wars because of religious conflict. "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Dec 24, 2007 7:33 AM:

" Perhaps I contradicted myself in the last post. I was just trying to say that the presidents I voted for just happen to be Judeo Christian. I just never thought of it that much until now. "

Report Abuse

Brian wrote on Dec 24, 2007 7:26 AM:

" Corruption will always be part of the culture of politics. I don't base my decision on their religious affiliation when voting. There will never be an atheist as president. When the time comes that we see a person running as president with a non-Judeo Chrisatian affiliation I may have to change my mind being that I would never vote for a person who is not a Judeo Christian. I don't know how involved Obama is in the Muslim world. I am dubious he will get the nomination. Based on the last 30 years of presidents or even farther, it is safe to say the president being a religious person has not lessened the amount of corruption in politics. There are and always will be a lot of politicians who are corrupt and have a lot of influence on the president's decision making. "

Report Abuse

Robb wrote on Dec 24, 2007 6:16 AM:

" Bill Clinton claimed to be "Christian", look where that got us... "

Report Abuse

Comments on this story are now closed.

Special Sections

Photo Reprints

Find Ads




Leaf Pickup

Services

Contact Us

Office

125 N. Church St.
P.O. Box 1360
Lodi, CA 95241
(209) 369-2761
Fax: (209) 369-1084

Newsroom

E-mail

(209) 369-7035
Fax: (209) 369-6706

Subscriptions

Subscribe

Problems with your subscription?
(209) 333-1400

Advertising

E-mail

(209) 369-2761
Fax: (209) 369-1084

Classifieds

Place an ad E-mail

(209) 333-1111
Fax: (209) 369-1084