Obama is a Canon shooter - DPChallenge Forums

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM for Canon

08/18/2008 08:31:44 PM · #277

Originally posted by coronamv:

Hey Mathew, Is it not funny how we can pull two opposing views from the same narrative.

Yes - makes a mockery of the whole "derive morality from the bible" thing doesn't it?

coronamv

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

08/18/2008 08:47:28 PM · #278

Well I think religion leaves alot to question or interpretate? That I believe to be the flaw is man.

Nikon AF-S DX 18-105 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR

08/18/2008 10:39:14 PM · #279

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by coronamv:
Well said. Ronb and Mathew I feel it would be upon you to find that info. good Hunting

He Heh Heh. I thought I would spend five minutes seeing if I could come up with some biblical support for an opposing argument. I can see the attraction of quoting from the bible in any situation - you can make it say exactly what you want it to. I am going to do this more often!

The last quote here is the best and most apposite for the people active in this thread...

Biblical Support for Fair Redistribution of Wealth

Pay your taxes:

â��Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar...â�� â��Luke 20:25

The bible supports redistribution of wealth:

"13Not that others should have relief while you have hardship. Rather, it is a question of fairness. 14At the present time, your surplus fills their need, so that their surplus may fill your need. In this way things are fair. 15As it is written,

â��The person who had much did not have too much,

and the person who had little did not have too little.â�� " -2 Corinthians 8:13

Note that this passage supports the VOLUNTARY redistribution of wealth, not the FORCED redistribution of wealth.

Originally posted by Matthew:

The bible clearly supports the provision of social support on a national basis:

"If there is a poor man with you, one of your brothers, in any of your towns in your land which the LORD your God is giving you, you shall not harden your heart, nor close your hand from your poor brother; 8 but you shall freely open your hand to him, and shall generously lend him sufficient for his need in whatever he lacks." Deuteronomy 15:7

Note that no overseer is appointed to collect the money from you under threat of confiscation or imprisonment. Note, too, that it is a directive, not at a national basis, but at a PERSONAL basis: "if there is a poor man with YOU. . . in any of YOUR towns in YOUR land, and that it is only if the poor man is one of YOUR brothers ( a fellow tribesman ). There are other edicts for aliens in the land.

Originally posted by Mathew:

The bible supports the concept of the common interest:

"And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common." - Acts 4:32

Again, no mention of coercion.

Originally posted by Matthew:

Biblical Support for Taxing Big Oil

This is not something that I support, but the bible tells me to change my mind.

Christians should appoint leaders who hate dishonest gain:

â��Furthermore, you shall select out of all the people able men who fear God, men of truth, those who hate dishonest gain; and you shall place these over them as leaders of thousands, of hundreds, of fifties and of tens." Exodus 18:21

You spoke earlier about libel and slander. It appears that you, yourself, are now accusing the big oil companies of making dishonest gain. Are you ready to provide proof of such an accusation?

Originally posted by Matthew:

Unjustly obtained wealth should be recovered and redistributed to the poor:

"He that by usury and unjust gain increases his substance, he shall gather it for him that will pity the poor." -Proverbs 28:8

Again, who are you accusing of "unjust gain"? And do you have proof, or should we raise the libel/slander flag?

Originally posted by Matthew:

Biblical Requirement for Compassion for the Poor

Witholding compassion from those in need is a signal of spiritual death:

"The person who does not love remains spiritually dead. ... 17Whoever has earthly possessions and notices a brother in need and yet withholds his compassion from him, how can the love of God be present in him? " - 1 John 3:17

True, but again, there is no overseer forcing compliance.

Originally posted by Matthew:

The humble collector of taxes will be exalted over the self-righteous (now, who does the Pharisee remind me of...?!?!):

"9Jesus[d] also told this parable to some people who trusted in themselves, thinking they were righteous, but who looked down on everyone else: 10â��Two men went up to the temple to pray. One was a Pharisee, and the other was a tax collector. 11The Pharisee stood by himself and prayed, â��O God, I thank you that I'm not like other peopleâ��thieves, dishonest people, adulterers, or even this tax collector. 12I fast twice a week, and I give a tenth of my entire income.â��

13â��But the tax collector stood at a distance and would not even look up to heaven. Instead, he continued to beat his chest and said, â��O God, be merciful to me, the sinner that I am!â��[e] 14I tell you, this man, rather than the other one, went down to his home justified, because everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, but the person who humbles himself will be exalted.â�� -Luke 18:9

Words to live by, those.

dponlyme

Nikon D3000

08/19/2008 04:27:09 AM · #280

All of this and no one mentions Jesus feeding the 1000's of people with a few fishes and loaves of bread.... anyway when did this turn into a religious discussion and why? Well anyway the Bible does expect personal responsibility and stewardship it also expects mercy, compassion and to help your fellow man. These are not contradictory and the fact that you can pull this verse or that verse from the Bible to promote your own ideas or agenda do not indicate that the Bible is somehow a flawed and contradictory document. Anybody can be a 'one verse charlie' so to speak. The Bible is meant to be studied as a whole and understood with prayer and the guidance of the Holy Spirit. If the Holy Spirit does not live in you and you do not pray then you will fall woefully short of having the tools to understand the lessons that the Bible teaches in regards to the subtle nuances of morality and what is the correct response to the poor and those who have need. In a perfect world food stamps would not be necessary because we would all be Christians and would look out for one another dealing with each other in honesty and caring and compassion and sharing with one another as we had need. In that scenario the one who was able but refused to work would indeed deserve not to eat because he would be without excuse. In my opinion most who are on foodstamps legitimately have circumstances which have prevented them from working or they are just not payed enough to survive and have the basic necessities of life. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't have any proof but I just can't imagine why anyone would choose to be poor (it's extremely stressful) just so they didn't have to work. My goal is to be able to earn my way and be able to help my children and my grand children when they have need of my help. I can't do that right now but with God I know that there is hope. I won't give in and I won't quit. I will rise above my circumstances and be victorious and I will thank God for foodstamps that have allowed me the opportunity to recover my life.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/19/2008 06:14:09 AM · #281

Originally posted by RonB:

Note that this passage supports the VOLUNTARY redistribution of wealth, not the FORCED redistribution of wealth. ...Note that no overseer is appointed to collect the money from you under threat of confiscation or imprisonment. Note, too, that it is a directive, not at a national basis, but at a PERSONAL basis: "if there is a poor man with YOU. . . in any of YOUR towns in YOUR land, and that it is only if the poor man is one of YOUR brothers ... True, but again, there is no overseer forcing compliance.

That's not how I read it. The state is the modern embodiment of the ancient tribe and "you" can be read collectively. The bible opposes unjust taxes rather than all taxes.

It is not inconsistent with biblical teaching to have a taxation system that benefits the poor.

It is inconsistent with biblical teaching to oppose a system that benefits the poor merely because that system is supported by tax rather than voluntary contribution.

If you don't as a general principal resent some of your money being redistributed to the poor, why would you resent the element of tax that is used for this purpose?

Originally posted by RonB:

Words to live by, those.

Ironic then that the critics of social welfare are accusing the recipients as being the modern equivalent of being (unlike them) "peopleâ��thieves, dishonest people, adulterers, or even this tax collector" and rely upon sanctimonious alternatives.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

08/19/2008 09:30:05 AM · #282

Originally posted by RonB:

Again, who are you accusing of "unjust gain"? And do you have proof, or should we raise the libel/slander flag?

"Unjust" is an expression of opinion and is not subject to libel/slander laws. To accuse them of "illegal" gains might be.

Of course, that would mean they would have to have broken some law, as defined by and administered by the government (with a law enforcement and judicial system paid for with TAXES) -- do you even recognize the right of the people to collectively form a government, or are you in favor of a strict theocratcy under the rule of Christian Ayatollahs?

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

08/19/2008 11:38:25 AM · #283

Look, this is getting silly.

Back in Old Testament times, in Biblical times, the sick, the lame, the unable-to-cope were basically non-persons. It was pretty much every man for himself out there in the locally-fragmented world. Jesus's message was that we all are brothers, we should be compassionate and care for each other. Of course, at that time, given the political reality of the Roman empire, this would have to be more of an individual, or very small collective, effort than an organized structure. But to use this as some sort of justification for saying that the state should not take care of its people is totally lame IMO.

I mean, you can make arguments against the welfare state, absolutely, but "Jesus said..." isn't one of them, OK?

R.

Sigma 24-70mm f/2.8 IF EX DG HSM for Canon

08/19/2008 12:10:51 PM · #284

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Yes - I was trying to make a point along these lines but it appears that a whole bunch of people have taken me literally.

I was serious about how easy it is to mine the bible for supporting quotes and throw them into any argument.

coronamv

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

08/19/2008 04:47:50 PM · #285

Basically it is all interpretation.

08/19/2008 10:40:58 PM · #286

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

If we did as Jesus said, we wouldn't have need of a welfare state. But because most people would rather avoid having personal contact with destitute and/or needy people, they choose to pay others ( e.g. the church, the state ) to act on their behalf - and then complain about how inefficient a job their surrogates do with the money they receive.
I believe that you all misread my position. I was not, and did not, argue against welfare, food stamps, medicare, etc. I merely posted what I believe was the Biblical position on care for the poor and needy. I remain firm in that belief. The fact that we NEED to have the government care for the poor and needy - a job that WE should be doing ourselves - is OUR fault. Government assistance programs are not Biblical - but they ARE necessary because WE fail to act in accordance with the teachings of Scripture. I wish it wasn't so, but it is.
And hot on the heels of passing off personal responsibility for caring for the poor and needy, we are also seeing a marked increase of folks shunting their aging parents and / or grandparents off to 'nursing homes' or 'assisted living' facilities. Again, it's not Biblical, but it does get the old folks out of the way ( for a price ). Caring for them at home is, after all, inconvenient, even burdensome, at times.
And, just for the record, my family ( mother and 3 brothers ) survived on welfare for a while after my father abandoned us. My mother tried her best to keep things going, but eventually applied for welfare, which kept us afloat until she could get a job that barely met our needs. Even after we were able to get off of welfare, we still benefited from the gifts of food and clothing from the local Salvation Army mission - folks who knew us personally. So we received aid from both the government and from people who took Biblical teaching as a personal. There is, in the modern world a place for, and a need for both.

Nikon AF-S DX 18-105 f/3.5-5.6 ED VR

08/20/2008 03:57:56 AM · #287

Originally posted by RonB:

On the other hand, Scripture does NOT appear to support the idea that we should be coerced to do so. And certainly not through taxation.

...As for the government - well, I've come to expect massive waste and fraud in government run programs as the norm.

Originally posted by RonB:

There is, in the modern world a place for, and a need for both.

You decided to introduce a reading of scripture into a debate on welfare. There are lots of ways to read scripture. You chose to promote the view that the bible does not support state provision of welfare through taxation.

That is a very strange thing to do if you support the provision of welfare by the state.

dponlyme

Nikon D3000

08/20/2008 05:22:44 AM · #288

Originally posted by RonB:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Look, this is getting silly.

Back in Old Testament times, in Biblical times, the sick, the lame, the unable-to-cope were basically non-persons. It was pretty much every man for himself out there in the locally-fragmented world. Jesus's message was that we all are brothers, we should be compassionate and care for each other. Of course, at that time, given the political reality of the Roman empire, this would have to be more of an individual, or very small collective, effort than an organized structure. But to use this as some sort of justification for saying that the state should not take care of its people is totally lame IMO.

I mean, you can make arguments against the welfare state, absolutely, but "Jesus said..." isn't one of them, OK?

R.

If we did as Jesus said, we wouldn't have need of a welfare state. But because most people would rather avoid having personal contact with destitute and/or needy people, they choose to pay others ( e.g. the church, the state ) to act on their behalf - and then complain about how inefficient a job their surrogates do with the money they receive.
I believe that you all misread my position. I was not, and did not, argue against welfare, food stamps, medicare, etc. I merely posted what I believe was the Biblical position on care for the poor and needy. I remain firm in that belief. The fact that we NEED to have the government care for the poor and needy - a job that WE should be doing ourselves - is OUR fault. Government assistance programs are not Biblical - but they ARE necessary because WE fail to act in accordance with the teachings of Scripture. I wish it wasn't so, but it is.
And hot on the heels of passing off personal responsibility for caring for the poor and needy, we are also seeing a marked increase of folks shunting their aging parents and / or grandparents off to 'nursing homes' or 'assisted living' facilities. Again, it's not Biblical, but it does get the old folks out of the way ( for a price ). Caring for them at home is, after all, inconvenient, even burdensome, at times.
And, just for the record, my family ( mother and 3 brothers ) survived on welfare for a while after my father abandoned us. My mother tried her best to keep things going, but eventually applied for welfare, which kept us afloat until she could get a job that barely met our needs. Even after we were able to get off of welfare, we still benefited from the gifts of food and clothing from the local Salvation Army mission - folks who knew us personally. So we received aid from both the government and from people who took Biblical teaching as a personal. There is, in the modern world a place for, and a need for both.

I agree with your post with one caveat. In Jesus' Kingdom (Him being the King or the State so to speak) mercy and compassion reign and "Blessed are the poor in spirit". If we seek first his Kingdom the all things we need will be added unto us. Circumstances be damned he makes sure we get what we need and knowing the hardness of peoples hearts this is often through the state. In this sense the Bible does support foodstamps and other social programs. I don't expect anyone to agree with me but I believe that I have been brought to this position to learn something and I think I have. I have stayed true to God when it would have been better for me personally to not have. I am a better person for the struggles I have faced and yes I have had to rely on foodstamps in order to do this. To my way of thinking it is God providing what I need to survive and keep doing His will. He will also provide the means to get out of this situation... the internet is playing a large role. I say that it is my goal to be self supporting but the truth is it is His goal every bit as much and I know without a doubt that I will succeed with His help. Just as I know without a doubt that I have made the right decisions in regard to my life that have led me to where I am at. I make no apologies to the coronamv's of the world for that which I thank God for.

08/20/2008 11:51:55 AM · #289

Originally posted by Matthew:

Originally posted by RonB:
On the other hand, Scripture does NOT appear to support the idea that we should be coerced to do so. And certainly not through taxation.

...As for the government - well, I've come to expect massive waste and fraud in government run programs as the norm.

Originally posted by RonB:
There is, in the modern world a place for, and a need for both.

You decided to introduce a reading of scripture into a debate on welfare.

Actually, it was GeneralE, in a posting made on 08/17/2008 at 04:02:25 PM who did the introduction of scripture into the debate. I merely took the opportunity to respond to that introduction.

Originally posted by Matthew:

There are lots of ways to read scripture. You chose to promote the view that the bible does not support state provision of welfare through taxation.

And you attempted, but failed as far as I am concerned, to counter that view with scriptural backing.

Originally posted by Matthew:

That is a very strange thing to do if you support the provision of welfare by the state.

I don't support the idea of government welfare - I believe that charity ( welfare ) should be practiced on a personal level, as the Bible instructs. I do, on the other hand, support the provision of welfare by the state as a practical measure, because the majority of people choose to not be involved at a personal level - leaving no practical alternative for those in need.

Message edited by author 2008-08-20 11:53:00.

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

08/20/2008 12:38:28 PM · #290

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by RonB:
Again, who are you accusing of "unjust gain"? And do you have proof, or should we raise the libel/slander flag?

"Unjust" is an expression of opinion and is not subject to libel/slander laws. To accuse them of "illegal" gains might be.
Of course, that would mean they would have to have broken some law, as defined by and administered by the government (with a law enforcement and judicial system paid for with TAXES)

Both Louis and Matthew cautioned coronamv about libel in reference to his accusation that someone was "cheating". Do you believe that an accusation of "cheating" is not also prone to interpretation as "opinion" rather than "law" - if so, why cherry-pick who to pick on?

Originally posted by GeneralE:

-- do you even recognize the right of the people to collectively form a government, or are you in favor of a strict theocratcy under the rule of Christian Ayatollahs?

a) Christian denominations do not have Ayatollahs, so that's not something I could favor even if I were in favor of a strict theocracy. For the record, I am NOT in favor of a strict theocracy under any form of rule.
b) I do recognize the right of the people to collectively form a government - AND I support the right of the majority to establish that government as a strict theocracy, or to formulate the laws of that government on the basis of theocratic principles, if a majority of the citizens of that government agree to do so.
Do you support the right of the people to do so?

milo655321

Nikon D70

08/20/2008 01:03:49 PM · #291

Originally posted by RonB:

(...) I support the right of the majority to establish that government as a strict theocracy, or to formulate the laws of that government on the basis of theocratic principles, if a majority of the citizens of that government agree to do so.
Do you support the right of the people to do so?

No. I think itâ��s a lousy idea with much potential for abuse of the minority groups. I much prefer our Constitution which protects the rights of minority groups by (attempting) to provide them with the same rights as the majority.

I'd go so far as to write, RonB, that you would "support the right of the majority to establish" any government in which you personally live (yes, I know, Iâ��m adding that portion) "as a strict theocracy, or to formulate the laws of the government on the basis of theocratic principles, if a majority of the citizens of that government agree to do so" only if you were in the majority group.

The question is would you support such a democratic system of government for a country wherein you were a member of a religious minority?

Message edited by author 2008-08-20 15:04:57.

08/20/2008 01:40:40 PM · #292

Some might find it interesting to note that one of the earliest, if not the first, large-scale government welfare program was created specifically to counter Christian Charity. The government welfare program was instituted by Roman Emperor Julian ( the Apostate ) in 361 A.D. ( or 361 C.E., if you prefer ). From Wikipedia

"In his Tolerance Edict of 362, Julian decreed the reopening of pagan temples, the restitution of alienated temple properties, and the return from exile of dissident Christian bishops. The latter was an instance of tolerance of different religious views, but may also have been seen as an attempt by Julian to foster schism and division between different Christian sects, as conflict between rival Christian sects was quite fierce.
Because Christian charities were beneficial to all, including pagans, it put this aspect of the Roman citizens lives out of the control of the Imperial authority and under that of the Church. Thus Julian envisioned the institution of a Roman philanthropic system, and cared for the behaviour and the morality of the pagan priests, in the hope that it would mitigate the reliance of pagans on Christian charity:
"These impious Galileans not only feed their own poor, but ours also; welcoming them into their agapae, they attract them, as children are attracted, with cakes.
"Whilst the pagan priests neglect the poor, the hated Galileans devote themselves to works of charity, and by a display of false compassion have established and given effect to their pernicious errors. See their love-feasts, and their tables spread for the indigent. Such practice is common among them, and causes a contempt for our gods."

His care in the institution of a pagan hierarchy in opposition to that of the Christians was due to his wish to create a society in which every aspect of the life of the citizens was to be connected, through layers of intermediate levels, to the consolidated figure of the Emperor - the final provider for all the needs of his people. Within this project, there was no place for a parallel institution, such as the Christian hierarchy or Christian charity."

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

08/20/2008 11:34:42 PM · #293

Originally posted by AndyMac24:

You have obviously not been paying any attention to the race. Here let me summarize....

Obama talks about issues,
McCain Talks about Obama.

Here look at the polls...
Here is what it looks like when you don't just assume that the popular vote wins.

Perhaps its time to take another look at those polls. They have a tendency to change from time to time.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

08/21/2008 11:49:19 AM · #294

Originally posted by milo655321:

Originally posted by RonB:
(...) I support the right of the majority to establish that government as a strict theocracy, or to formulate the laws of that government on the basis of theocratic principles, if a majority of the citizens of that government agree to do so.
Do you support the right of the people to do so?

No. I think itâ��s a lousy idea with much potential for abuse of the minority groups. I much prefer our Constitution which protects the rights of minority groups by (attempting) to provide them with the same rights as the majority.

I'd go so far as to write, RonB, that you would "support the right of the majority to establish" any government in which you personally live (yes, I know, Iâ��m adding that portion) "as a strict theocracy, or to formulate the laws of the government on the basis of theocratic principles, if a majority of the citizens of that government agree to do so" only if you were in the majority group.

The question is would you support such a democratic system of government for a country wherein you were a member of a religious minority?

You're taking part of Ron's statement out of context.

Originally posted by RonB:

Note his section a... His section b points out, however, that in his opinion the "people", collectively, have the right to do what they wish, collectively, when it comes to choosing what form of governance they want. He's NOT saying he's in favor of strict theocracies.

R.

milo655321

Nikon D70

Tokina AF 12-24mm f/4.0 AT-X Pro DX

08/21/2008 12:05:41 PM · #295

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

You're taking part of Ron's statement out of context.

Originally posted by RonB:
a) Christian denominations do not have Ayatollahs, so that's not something I could favor even if I were in favor of a strict theocracy. For the record, I am NOT in favor of a strict theocracy under any form of rule.
b) I do recognize the right of the people to collectively form a government - AND I support the right of the majority to establish that government as a strict theocracy, or to formulate the laws of that government on the basis of theocratic principles, if a majority of the citizens of that government agree to do so.
Do you support the right of the people to do so?

Note his section a... His section b points out, however, that in his opinion the "people", collectively, have the right to do what they wish, collectively, when it comes to choosing what form of governance they want. He's NOT saying he's in favor of strict theocracies.

R.

Now that I've read your response, I see his post in a different light. Perhaps youâ��re right. Please forgive me if Iâ��ve misread what he said (and, RonB, also please forgive me if Iâ��ve misunderstood what youâ��ve written), but â�¦ let me see if Iâ��m getting this straight â�¦

the correct interpretation is that RonB is â��not in favor of a strict theocracy under any form of ruleâ��, but in â��support the [of] right of the majority to establishâ�� one?

Is that the best way to interpret it or is their a more succinct way to put it? (Honest question.)

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.8D

08/21/2008 12:35:38 PM · #296

Originally posted by milo655321:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
You're taking part of Ron's statement out of context.

Originally posted by RonB:
a) Christian denominations do not have Ayatollahs, so that's not something I could favor even if I were in favor of a strict theocracy. For the record, I am NOT in favor of a strict theocracy under any form of rule.
b) I do recognize the right of the people to collectively form a government - AND I support the right of the majority to establish that government as a strict theocracy, or to formulate the laws of that government on the basis of theocratic principles, if a majority of the citizens of that government agree to do so.
Do you support the right of the people to do so?

Note his section a... His section b points out, however, that in his opinion the "people", collectively, have the right to do what they wish, collectively, when it comes to choosing what form of governance they want. He's NOT saying he's in favor of strict theocracies.

R.

Now that I've read your response, I see his post in a different light. Perhaps youâ��re right. Please forgive me if Iâ��ve misread what he said (and, RonB, also please forgive me if Iâ��ve misunderstood what youâ��ve written), but â�¦ let me see if Iâ��m getting this straight â�¦

the correct interpretation is that RonB is â��not in favor of a strict theocracy under any form of ruleâ��, but in â��support the [of] right of the majority to establishâ�� one?

Is that the best way to interpret it or is their a more succinct way to put it? (Honest question.)

That's a pretty fair assessment of what I said.
I may not be in favor of [ some of ] the outcomes of the democratic process, but I support the process.

My question to GeneralE was, would HE support the democratic process even if it ultimately led to the establishment of a theocracy?

Would YOU support it?

Message edited by author 2008-08-21 12:36:26.

Louis

Nikon D800

08/21/2008 01:03:48 PM · #297

Originally posted by RonB:

My question to GeneralE was, would HE support the democratic process even if it ultimately led to the establishment of a theocracy?

In essence, you are asking if it is correct to uphold the process in a way that would ultimately destroy it. It's a kind of a trick question, and therefore difficult to answer. I'm not entirely sure one is obligated to dogmatically defend a process, idea, belief, or anything else so blindly that we are faced with the absurd conundrum of having to defend its destruction.

08/21/2008 01:31:29 PM · #298

Originally posted by Louis:

Originally posted by RonB:
My question to GeneralE was, would HE support the democratic process even if it ultimately led to the establishment of a theocracy?

In essence, you are asking if it is correct to uphold the process in a way that would ultimately destroy it. It's a kind of a trick question, and therefore difficult to answer. I'm not entirely sure one is obligated to dogmatically defend a process, idea, belief, or anything else so blindly that we are faced with the absurd conundrum of having to defend its destruction.

I don't see the question as being difficult to answer at all. You either do, or do not, uphold the process. If you do uphold the process, then you accept, as a consequence, that the people may abuse that process in such a way as to lead to the demise of their own government. If you are unwilling to accept such a consequence, then you do not uphold the process.
Would you also waffle at answering a question like "Do you support the right of people to choose to have unprotected sex?", knowing that some people will contract an STD by so doing? Or "Do you support the right of people to smoke cigarettes?, knowing that some smokers will die from lung cancer as a result?
Or would you consider those questions to be "absurd conundrums", also?