Soumay Nonay wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 5:22 pm, David Hartung wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 8:41 am, David Hartung wrote:
Kurt_Lochner wrote:
What's become of the Republican Party? Kow-towing to religious,
an evangelical figures, seems to violate the entire concept
of separation of church and state..
You keep your religion out my government, and keeping the
government out of your religion will follow along nicely..
You might be surprised to learn that I am in full agreement,
although for different reasons.
Without fail, every time the Church has gotten in bed with the
government, it has proven to be a spiritual disaster for the
Church. The church.
No where in the New Testament do we see any sign that the church
was politically active.
These tow reasons alone are enough for me to want the church to
have nothing to do with the government.
You will notice as our exchange went on, I put Dobson in a
different category from Robertson and Falwell.
- This is because Falwell and Robertson's organizations
- are set up as evangelistic, church groups. Their stated
- purpose is to proclaim the Gospel. Thus it is improper
- for them to be politically active.
So by "Being" Religious Persons-of-Faith : The Automatically
Lose Some of Their Basic Rights as American Citizens !
-re- T h i n k i n g . . . . .
I haven't said that. Constitutionally, these groups have the same
rights as any other group.

My judgment that these ministries ought not to be involved in
partisan politics comes from my understanding of the Office of Holy
Ministry. Ordained ministers have been set aside by God for the
purpose of proclaiming His kingdom.
- Partisan politics is outside their scope.

Are they any less Human ?
- - - and your Equal ?

Do they have any less Rights as Citizens ?
- - - and your Equal ?

- This is my belief, others differ.

Clearly We Differ ~ RHF
.

If they are to be active politically, they cannot keep tax free status.

Incorrect.

That is a rule of relatively recent vintage, and one which should be
done away with.

Despite the fact that I believe it inappropriate for a minster of the
Gospel to involve himself in partisan politics, he still has that right.

Soumay Nonay wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 5:26 pm, David Hartung wrote:
wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 12:15:19 -0800 (PST), RHF
wrote:
Real Americans support Equal Political Rights for
both Believers {Persons-of-Faith} and Non-Believers
{Secularist}.
Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Bob Jones, David Dobson
sure as **** don't.
Evidence?

- - Their mission is to replace all secularists with
- - "believers" and to change the function of government
- - from secular to doctrinal----(fundamentalist, of
- - course)

Wrong.

- On this we likely agree.

Wrong Again.

Their Mission is to Transform 'Secularist' into "Believers"
and Transform the Function of Government from a Secular
Anti-Religious Apparatus into an Entity that is Not Hostel
to Persons-of-Faith and Respect the Beliefs of All Citizens.
- - - It's About Equal Treatment and Equality for All :
Believer and Non-Believer Alike.

(OT) : The Separation of Church and State :
It's About Equal Treatment and Equality for All

Pat Robertson chalkboarded his entire strategy for
doing so after his last defeat in a primary
Presidential election.
Cite?

Jerry Falwell funded/paid for a video smearing Clinton
Cite please?

http://www.salon.com/news/1998/03/cov_11news.html

Thank you, but I was hoping for something more credible than Salon.

wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:26:32 -0600, David Hartung
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 12:15:19 -0800 (PST), RHF
wrote:

Real Americans support Equal Political Rights for
both Believers {Persons-of-Faith} and Non-Believers
{Secularist}.
Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Bob Jones, David Dobson
sure as **** don't.
Evidence?

Their mission is to replace all secularists with
"believers" and to change the function of government
from secular to doctrinal----(fundamentalist, of
course)
On this we likely agree.

Pat Robertson chalkboarded his entire strategy for
doing so after his last defeat in a primary
Presidential election.
Cite?

Told you before

If you want to discuss CURRENT EVENTS, you have to be
aware of them

Pat Robertson gave a series of lectures on the 700 club
noting his agenda and not disbanding his campaign staff
in order to push the goal of electing religious
republicans to all levels of public office

Lastly, even a fruitcake like you knows that it's not
just something I made up----and evade the truth because
you know it's correct.

It may be correct, Robertson is certainly capable of doing something
like this.

You have a long track record of posting claims that you cannot support,
and which are often either inaccurate or outright incorrect. I have lost
track of the number of times that I have been unable to find a
supporting cite for one of your claims.

For this reason, I believe nothing you claim, unless it is individually
supported.

wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:28:54 -0600, David Hartung
wrote:

It is patently wrong for a religious dominated person
to control public officials with threats and
retaliation. Immoral as hell, BTW
Why would it be more immoral for a "religious dominated person" to
control public officials with threats, and okay for a "non-religious
dominated person" to do so?

Constitutional proscriptions

There are no constitutional proscriptions against private relifios
organizations engaging in partisan political activity.

His network is (probably) tax exempt

So?

RHF wrote:
Oh Yeah - They are "Religious" so they should STFU
when it comes to Politics.

The problem is not when a member of a church makes their political opinion
known, or even works to elect any politician. It comes when that person uses
the power and/or facilities of the church to do such political work. A
preacher/parson/vicar/rabbi/priest/etc. should never promote any political
position as a part of a church/synagog activity. Nor should a lay person use
the power or facilities of such church/synagog for such purpose.

As individuals, they have the same right to voice an opinion or vote for
whomever they wish, as long as they are not trying to do so as a
representative of the church/synagog. This is much like the law that
prohibits government employees from promoting any candidate (including those
in the armed services).

"David Hartung" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 19:28:54 -0600, David Hartung
wrote:

It is patently wrong for a religious dominated person
to control public officials with threats and
retaliation. Immoral as hell, BTW
Why would it be more immoral for a "religious dominated person" to
control public officials with threats, and okay for a "non-religious
dominated person" to do so?

Constitutional proscriptions

There are no constitutional proscriptions against private relifios
organizations engaging in partisan political activity.

His network is (probably) tax exempt

So?


No Constitutional proscriptions per-se.. but there are specific laws about
tax exempt status and lobbying or political campaigning that are very clear
(and have been in existance for quite some time).

http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

See pp. 5-8 et.seq. especially.

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

RHF wrote:
Oh Yeah - They are "Religious" so they should STFU
when it comes to Politics.

The problem is not when a member of a church makes their political opinion
known, or even works to elect any politician. It comes when that person
uses the power and/or facilities of the church to do such political work.
A preacher/parson/vicar/rabbi/priest/etc. should never promote any
political position as a part of a church/synagog activity. Nor should a
lay person use the power or facilities of such church/synagog for such
purpose.

As individuals, they have the same right to voice an opinion or vote for
whomever they wish, as long as they are not trying to do so as a
representative of the church/synagog. This is much like the law that
prohibits government employees from promoting any candidate (including
those in the armed services).


http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

See pp. 5-8 et. seq especially

"Brenda Ann" wrote in message
...

RHF wrote:
Oh Yeah - They are "Religious" so they should STFU
when it comes to Politics.

The problem is not when a member of a church makes their political opinion
known, or even works to elect any politician. It comes when that person
uses the power and/or facilities of the church to do such political work.
A preacher/parson/vicar/rabbi/priest/etc. should never promote any
political position as a part of a church/synagog activity. Nor should a
lay person use the power or facilities of such church/synagog for such
purpose.

As individuals, they have the same right to voice an opinion or vote for
whomever they wish, as long as they are not trying to do so as a
representative of the church/synagog. This is much like the law that
prohibits government employees from promoting any candidate (including
those in the armed services).


Sorry, the ban of using churches to promote candidates only exists becase of
one power-hungry Texas senator, one Lyndon Johnson, who had the codicil
added to the IRS code in 1954 so he could get re-elected and not have to
rely on Box 13 again.

Until Bill Clinton, I held Lyndon Johnson to be the worst president in my
lifetime.

Sir Charles the Curmudgeon

On Nov 29, 4:56*am, David Hartung wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 8:24 pm, David Hartung wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 5:22 pm, David Hartung wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 8:41 am, David Hartung wrote:
Kurt_Lochner wrote:
What's become of the Republican Party? *Kow-towing to religious,
an evangelical figures, seems to violate the entire concept
of separation of church and state..
You keep your religion out my government, and keeping the
government out of your religion will follow along nicely..
You might be surprised to learn that I am in full agreement, although
for different reasons.
Without fail, every time the Church has gotten in bed with the
government, it has proven to be a spiritual disaster for the Church. The
church.
No where in the New Testament do we see any sign that the church was
politically active.
These tow reasons alone are enough for me to want the church to have
nothing to do with the government.
You will notice as our exchange went on, I put Dobson in a different
category from Robertson and Falwell.
- This is because Falwell and Robertson's organizations
- are set up as evangelistic, church groups. Their stated
- purpose is to proclaim the Gospel. Thus it is improper
- for them to be politically active.
So by "Being" Religious Persons-of-Faith : The Automatically
Lose Some of Their Basic Rights as American Citizens !
-re- T h i n k i n g . . . . .
I haven't said that. Constitutionally, these groups have the same rights
as any other group.
My judgment that these ministries ought not to be involved in partisan
politics comes from my understanding of the Office of Holy Ministry.
Ordained ministers have been set aside by God for the purpose of
proclaiming His kingdom.
- Partisan politics is outside their scope.
Are they any less Human ?
- - - and your Equal ?
Do they have any less Rights as Citizens ?
- - - and your Equal ?
- This is my belief, others differ.
Clearly We Differ *~ RHF

- Do you understand that something may be legal
- and constitutional, but still be inappropriate?

OK - So tell me how is exercising one's basic
human rights inappropriate ?

Oh Yeah - They are "Religious" so they should STFU
when it comes to Politics.

? Are People-of-Faith To Be Denied a Seat . . .
at the Table of American Politics ?
* And Thereby be Relegated to the Role of Second-Class
Political Citizens.
* Hey may be Ministers, Preachers, Rabbis, Imams,
Priests, etc should not even be allowed to Vote.

Has Religion become "The-R-Word" in American Politics ?

has god -proclaimed- thou shall not
be political and religious too ~ RHF

- A question, if I may.
-
- In you eyes, what is the job of an ordained minister?

-basically-
To Be Faithful to His/Her Faith and Minister to the Faithful.

"David Hartung" wrote in message
...
Soumay Nonay wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 5:22 pm, David Hartung wrote:
RHF wrote:
On Nov 28, 8:41 am, David Hartung wrote:
Kurt_Lochner wrote:
What's become of the Republican Party? Kow-towing to religious,
an evangelical figures, seems to violate the entire concept
of separation of church and state..
You keep your religion out my government, and keeping the
government out of your religion will follow along nicely..
You might be surprised to learn that I am in full agreement,
although for different reasons.
Without fail, every time the Church has gotten in bed with the
government, it has proven to be a spiritual disaster for the
Church. The church.
No where in the New Testament do we see any sign that the church
was politically active.
These tow reasons alone are enough for me to want the church to
have nothing to do with the government.
You will notice as our exchange went on, I put Dobson in a
different category from Robertson and Falwell.
- This is because Falwell and Robertson's organizations
- are set up as evangelistic, church groups. Their stated
- purpose is to proclaim the Gospel. Thus it is improper
- for them to be politically active.
So by "Being" Religious Persons-of-Faith : The Automatically
Lose Some of Their Basic Rights as American Citizens !
-re- T h i n k i n g . . . . .
I haven't said that. Constitutionally, these groups have the same
rights as any other group.

My judgment that these ministries ought not to be involved in
partisan politics comes from my understanding of the Office of Holy
Ministry. Ordained ministers have been set aside by God for the
purpose of proclaiming His kingdom.
- Partisan politics is outside their scope.

Are they any less Human ?
- - - and your Equal ?

Do they have any less Rights as Citizens ?
- - - and your Equal ?

- This is my belief, others differ.

Clearly We Differ ~ RHF
.

If they are to be active politically, they cannot keep tax free status.

Incorrect.

That is a rule of relatively recent vintage, and one which should be done
away with.

Despite the fact that I believe it inappropriate for a minster of the
Gospel to involve himself in partisan politics, he still has that right.

As a matter of fact the change was made by one power-hungry Texas Senator by
the name of Lyndon Johnson in 1954 so he could get re-elected.

We've had 3 really bad presidents in my lifetime, LBJ, Bill Clinton and now
Barack Obama.

Sir Charles the Curmudgeon