Page 11 of 12 FirstFirst ... 9101112 LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 111
  1. #101  
    Patent Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Iowa
    Posts
    1,784
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Err, isn it saying they can (and do) promote their causes and beliefs such as the pro-life agenda? What they cannot do is advocate a specific candidate or a specific piece of legislation.

    Edit: Upon Ginger's post it looks like advocacy regarding specific bills is allowed (in some cases?), just not candidates.
    Well, why can't they advocate for a candidate? Look at moveon.org, they are a nonprofit group, but they freely endorse political figures. If a group like that can endorse Obama, why can't a religious group?

    Is there something special, from a tax perspective, about using the Bible, as opposed to Concept of Man, as a basis for political thought? What distinction is there to make?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #102  
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Hartford, CT USA
    Posts
    2,024
    Quote Originally Posted by Cold Warrior View Post
    Originally Posted by PoliCon
    bullshit. You start here in one thread and act like this is the very first time you and I have discussed any issue. You have called me names more than once without a moments provocation. How many times CW have you called me and many others here - whacky -whacks and other derogatory terms? You're a hypocrite of the very worst kind - an elitist hypocrite.
    ...
    Moreover, I would invite you to cite specifically where I have called you names "without a moments provocation."
    BTW, still waiting for all those threads wherein I called you names (directly -- we've already discredited your fantasy of "group" name calling) "without a moments provocation."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #103  
    CU Royalty JB's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    8,062
    Quote Originally Posted by SaintLouieWoman View Post
    Enough of your nastiness, not too classy to keep calling the members "ignorant hicks" if they don't agree with you.

    It would be a good idea for you to mind your manners----after all, you are supposedly so superior to the lowly conservatives on this board. Have had alerts on this and think it's time for you to cease and desist on the namecalling and the swamp remarks.
    Bullshit.

    I've seen worse directed back at CW many times on this board.

    Either direct that post at everyone or no one.
    Be Not Afraid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #104  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,318
    Quote Originally Posted by JB View Post
    Bullshit.

    I've seen worse directed back at CW many times on this board.

    Either direct that post at everyone or no one.
    I'm going to weigh in here with JB. Think what you will of CW I don't recall seeing him fling the first handful of poo. Besides we're all big boys and girls and hopefully our skin is thick enough to take some name calling.

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #105  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    Quote Originally Posted by FlaGator View Post
    I'm going to weigh in here with JB. Think what you will of CW I don't recall seeing him fling the first handful of poo. Besides we're all big boys and girls and hopefully our skin is thick enough to take some name calling.
    Perhaps he wasn't the first in this thread - but that does not mean he's innocent. ANYHOW - I though we were going back on topic here?
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #106  
    Power CUer FlaGator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    The Swamps of N. Florida
    Posts
    22,318
    Quote Originally Posted by PoliCon View Post
    Perhaps he wasn't the first in this thread - but that does not mean he's innocent. ANYHOW - I though we were going back on topic here?
    You're a wise man my friend...:)

    I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else.
    C. S. Lewis
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #107  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Woodland Park, Colorado, United States
    Posts
    8,563
    Quote Originally Posted by wilbur View Post
    Err, isn it saying they can (and do) promote their causes and beliefs such as the pro-life agenda? What they cannot do is advocate a specific candidate or a specific piece of legislation.

    Edit: Upon Ginger's post it looks like advocacy regarding specific bills is allowed (in some cases?), just not candidates.
    With respect to the bold segment, why not? This is exactly where I believe Reilgious ideology and opinion should merge. The congregation is made up of citizen voters just like the Liberal Media audience. Nobody seems to bitch about the obvious liberal bias and propaganda of the Liberal media.

    Please don't quote laws that I believe to be wrong anyway. I understand the argument about Church and State, tax exempt, etc. I'm talking about ideas here.

    The law is misused anyway because the intent was to keep the State out of religion not religion out of politics.
    Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.
    C. S. Lewis
    Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:
    Ayn Rand
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #108  
    Quote Originally Posted by AmPat View Post
    The law is misused anyway because the intent was to keep the State out of religion not religion out of politics.
    Just so. The intent of original discussion among the founders and framers throughout their various careers and correspondences was to avoid the creation of a national or state church. They saw all too well how the prerogatives of churches were wielded to the benefit of rulers. The rulers then crushing dissent through the puppetry of religious doctrine. The founders didn't want that and neither do we.

    That said, it makes no sense to instruct people to ignore their religious value system when making decisions - including political decisions. We are not going to have a theocracy here. Certainly, not a Christian theocracy. Christians can't even agree on the sabbath, let alone something more intrusive.

    It's worth noting that Christians were vocal, specific, and unrelenting in preaching against slavery and for women's suffrage and civil right rights. Of course, we were way wrong on that whole Prohibition thing.

    That was mostly the Presbyterians and the Baptists, though. :D
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #109  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Woodland Park, Colorado, United States
    Posts
    8,563
    Well said Ginger. This automatic and false revulsion to Churches/Preachers speaking their mind on relevant political topics and people is NOT the original intent of the framers of the Constitution.

    Any attempt to make it anything but the ONE WAY prohibition that it is Constitutionally is false and wrong. In sum, the intent was to prohibit the formation of a State sponsored Church, NOT to prohibit Churches from Freedom of Speech, Worship, and GAthering together.

    Here's an interesting thought; doesn't making a law muzzling Churches from speaking their opinions actually inject the State into the Church?
    Last edited by AmPat; 09-30-2008 at 10:56 PM.
    Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.
    C. S. Lewis
    Do not ever say that the desire to "do good" by force is a good motive. Neither power-lust nor stupidity are good motives. (Are you listening Barry)?:mad:
    Ayn Rand
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #110  
    CU's Tallest Midget! PoliCon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    Pittsburgh PA
    Posts
    25,328
    It's always fun when people throw up Jefferson's "edict" about a wall of separation between church - INSISTING that it means that the church and the state should never ever mix on any level and any statement about religion by a public person needs to be forbidden as if it is gospel truth. They do so ignoring that Jefferson attended church services on most Sundays in the House Chambers of the US Capital building - and paid from the treasury for the Marine Corps band to play at these services. What's more Jefferson advocated that ALL federal buildings do double duty as churches for Sunday Services both in DC and around the country.
    Stand up for what is right, even if you have to stand alone.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •