« Kieschnick's Real Motives | Main | Kieschnick's Contradictory Statements »


Lane Chaplin

Wow. What is Kieschnick thinking?!?

Anastasia Theodoridis

NOT to disagree with you one iota, but here's another thought:

Todd and Jeff can sidestep this whole farce by making some small change to the name of their show, making it something like "New Issues, Etc." or "More Issues, Etc." or "Issues and Answers, Etc."

If they were to do that, finding a name different enough to moot the trademark issue yet still recognizable as the same show, they could spare the LCMS the whole controversy, the divisivness, and a ton of money. (And save themselves the money and headache as well).

Theologius Minimus

I've suggested to others that perhaps the program should be re-named "Not Petty Issues, Etc." Then LCMS, Inc. will leave it alone, because the synod hierarchy only seems inclined to deal with petty issues.


No. To change the name of the show even a little would be to admit that the leadership of the synod is a little teensy bit right in pursuing this legal action.

The LCMS relinquished rights to the name when they neglected to renew the trademark NINE YEARS AGO. They do not own the name. They have no rights to the name.

Mickey MET

If what is said in the above text is accurate, and I'm willing to bet it is, then this is one more reason to wonder why we have this man as the president of our church. . . .

Jonathan Schultz

I agree completely with Elephant. I mentioned in a comment on another recent post that anything short of defending himself and his show would result in giving Dr. K some credibility. It probably wouldn't be much, but in my humble opinion, any amount is too much.

Rev. Eric J. Stefanski

Why do you concede that " President Kieschnick...rightly invoked 1 Corinthians 6:1-8 against those who brought suit against the LCMS"? (emphasis mine)

First, the suit was not brought "against the LCMS," but "on behalf of the LCMS," brought by those who were members in good standing because the administration (and its presidentially-appointed CCM) had put the corporation in danger by violating laws in the state of its incorporation.

Second, since there was no way for the signatories to the suit to have a hearing by the synod, 1 Cor. 6 did not in any way prohibit them from this action.

(Please note: I advised against the lawsuit because it was based on charges that could never be substantiated, were not contrary to the Constitution and Bylaws, and contained language that was contrary to Christian behavior. In the end, those who signed on had to admit that all of those things were true in order to prevent themselves from being disciplined [other than , you know, having a big red 'A' painted on their chests before the elections at the 2007 LCMS coven...I mean, 'convention'].)


William Cwirla

The LCMS certainly has the right to attempt to defend its claim to a trademark, though it will be difficult to justify since it hasn't even been interested enough to renew the paperwork and it cancelled the show.

What is impossible to justify is a church body attempting to extort silence in return for a trademark. One has to wonder: what's the big secret?


The trademark was in the dead file for lack of renewal, Pr. Cwirla.

Legally, I cannot reclaim my household trash once I put it in the dumpster and some "diver" takes it out.

If someone really talked about the way Jerry spends money he wouldn't have a 50.5% win next time.
Lutherans have gotten very casual about doctrine, but I have yet to meet a Lutheran who is casual about wasting money!

The comments to this entry are closed.

October 2010

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
          1 2
3 4 5 6 7 8 9
10 11 12 13 14 15 16
17 18 19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27 28 29 30

A Little Leaven

Support This Site

Follow Me on Twitter

  • Twitter

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter