|
(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question-Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
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. |
(OT) : The Separation of Church and State : It's About EqualTreatment and Equality for All
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. |
(OT) : How Liberals Define : The Separation of Church and Statein America Today.]
|
(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
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). |
(OT) : How Liberals Define : The Separation of Church and State in America Today.]
"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. |
(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
"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 |
(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
"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 |
(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today-question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American PoliticalProcess ?
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. |
(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
"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 |
(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question-Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process?
|
(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question-Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process?
RHF wrote:
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. How does that task relate to the sort of political activity taken by Robertson and company? |
(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question-Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
|
(OT) : How Liberals Define : The Separation of Church and Statein America Today.]
|
(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today-question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American PoliticalProcess ?
On Nov 29, 5:29*am, "Brenda Ann" wrote:
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. And You Will Be The Judge Of All That ? ? ? DANG SO THEY HAVE NO FREEDOM OF SPEECH [.] AND THEY DO NOT HAVE POLITICAL FREEDOM [.] BECAUSE THEY ARE RELIGIOUS PEOPLE-OF-FAITH. Until the US Government Passed the Income Tax Laws and Created the Charitable Income Tax Exemption : There Was True Freedom of Speech and True Separation of Church and State. Since Then - The US Government has been Dictating to Churches and Ministers : What They Can and Can Not Do as a Church. THAT AIN'T SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. - 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. Last Time I looked around a Minister of God was a Minister of God 24/7 : On Call and Duty Every Hour of Every Day. -*This is much like the law that prohibits government - employees from promoting any candidate (including - those in the armed services). It may be "BAD's Law" {Bad Law} But It Ain't Federal Law to Limit the Freedom of Speech of Church Leaders and Members. Minister are Ministers -and- Federal Employees are Federal Employees. -ps- there is a difference. Ministers are Private Citizens and 'may' get in your face. -IF- You Let Them. Federal Employees are Agents of the US Government and "CAN" Get In Your Face -cause- They Have The Power of The US Government Behind Them. yes - i said that {freedom of speech} ~ RHF |
(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today-question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American PoliticalProcess ?
On Nov 29, 5:38*am, "Brenda Ann" wrote:
"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 Yes and It is BAD Regulation {Law} : Where the US Federal Government Dictates : What a Church can-and-can-not Do [.] Note Again - That the IRS only took on this Role of Silencing Churches and their Leaders after the Income Tax was Passed : Before then there was True Freedom of Religion and Actual Separation of Church and State in the USA. THAT AIN'T SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE : That's the US Federal Government Dictating What a Church can-and-can-not Do [.] * Restricted Freedom of Speech * Restricted Freedom of Political Activity * Limited Freedom of Religion HEY -if- We Go To A Flat National Sales Tax and Abolish the Income Tax for 90% of Americans : Then How Will the US Government Enforce 1 - Individual Charitable Donations to Churches [No Income Tax = No Deduction :] 2 - Tax Exempt Status of Churches [No Income Tax = No Exempt Status :] -Result- A Return to True Separation of Church and State in the USA. -WHY- Cause There Won't Be Any Income Tax for 90% of the People. American Needs a Flat National Sales Tax Now and Needs to Abolish the Income Tax Now to Restore Our Freedoms for All Americans. yes - i said that {freedom of speech} ~ RHF |
(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today-question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American PoliticalProcess ?
On Nov 28, 10:17*pm, "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. That is Right in the USA there now is "NO" Separation of Church and State : Cause the US Federal Government has step-in via the Income Tax and Limited the Freedom of Speech and Political Freedoms of Churchs and their Leaders. THAT AIN'T SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE [.] |
(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today-question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American PoliticalProcess ?
On Nov 29, 7:46*am, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 06:56:11 -0600, David Hartung wrote: A question, if I may. - - In you eyes, what is the job of an ordained minister? - Better to ask what they are NOT - First of all, using a tax exempt status to promote a - political action advocacy as an official of a church. Move-On ! -so- Secular Charitable Status Political Activity and Advocacy is A-OK -but- It is the Role and Duty of the US Federal Government to Limit the Freedom of Speech and Political Freedom of Churches. THAT AIN'T SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE [.] Yeah - That's True Equality for All ~ RHF |
(OT) : Pre-Defining the Future Name Calling of "The Criminal Obama{Clinton#3} Administration"
On Nov 29, 9:35*am, Bob Dobbs wrote:
RHF wrote: Don't flinch when you start reading the words "The Criminal Obama {Clinton#3} Administration" "The Obama Chicago Crime Family" "The Obama {Clinton#3} Regime" Why would anyone flinch, unless they got hold of some right wing republican conservative christian publication unknowingly, then they would probably do the responsible thing and deposit in the nearest dumpster. As to your chronic wailing against anything progressive, that's what kill filters are for, but for the time being I enjoy watching you squirm. History will record the glowing accomplishments of President Obama and some future student will have to google long and hard to find the footnotes about McCain, the hotshot cowboy who did an in your face low altitude barnstorming flight and caught that missile, Oh and Palin, wasn't she the truck stop trollop that made such an ass of the pitiful republican effort back when President Obama was getting started. g -- Operator Bob Echo Charlie 42 -"The Criminal Obama {Clinton#3} Administration" -aka- The Corrupt "Clinton # 3" Administration -"The Obama Chicago Crime Family" -nix to family- Correction : "The Obama 'Chicago' Crime Syndicate" -"The Obama {Clinton#3} Regime" |
(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
|
(OT) : How Liberals Define : The Separation of Church and State in America Today.]
In article ,
says... 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. How convenient that you somehow forgot Falwell's Clinton tape.. http://waasinfo.com/clients/waas/geo...onnection.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clinton_Chronicles And the trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLl7uVWF6pY The people who made it scare me a lot more than Clinton ever did. -- BDK BDK Klan leader? kOOk Magnet! NJJ CLUB #1 Shillmaster |
(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
"BDK" wrote in message ... In article , says... "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 LOL, how can you call Obama a bad president, when he hasn't taken office yet???? My bad presidents: 1. G.W. Bush nobody comes close, a total embarrassment. 2. Jimmy Carter, worthless. 3. Nixon, a crooked *******. 4. LBJ..Vietnam. I did just fine with Clinton, and I couldn't care less who he screwed, was blown by, etc. -- BDK BDK Klan leader? kOOk Magnet! NJJ CLUB #1 Shillmaster Then you, sir, are suffering from the ID10T bug. I lived in Arkansas in the 80's and watching Clinton as the best presdient Chinese money could buy was like deja-vu all over again. He screwed Arkansas, but swept things under the rug so it all fell on the next Governor. He screwed America, too, but he swept it all under the rug for Bush to get hit with. And Obama can't help but be a bad president. He's a Chicago Democrat. Part of the Machine, one of the most corrupt and dishonest political organizations in the county. Not only does he have William Ayres as a friend but he also has Jesse Jackson Jr and Todd Stroger, both of which are typical tax-and-spend Dimocrats as friends. The Dims here in Chicago are now ruling by primogeneture. Richard J was replaced by his son Richard M. John Stroger was replaced by his son. Emil Jones is trying to replace himself with his son. Edward Madigan is trying to replace himself with his daughter. Next thing Obama will start ruling by Divine Right. . . . Sir Charles the Curmudgeon |
(OT) : How Liberals Define "Troll"-----we call it HARTUNG
"David Hartung" wrote in message ... wrote: On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 07:09:18 -0600, David Hartung wrote: 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, You have a long track record of requiring "cites" for things that are historically accepted, matters of public record, or a host of other things that most normal, educated, well-informed people have no trouble accepted as fact You're they type that would deny most of what Nixon, or Reagan did in their criminal adminstrations because either you can't remember, hate the fact it's true, or just were too stupid to pay attention You might be surprised to know that I see Nixon's coverup of criminal activity as the thing which destroyed his presidency. You counter everything by saying "cite"---which is evasive. The litany of untruth, lies, stories, innuendo, conjecture, theory, rumors that your side leveled at clinton were so bizarre, out of place, unbelievable that it was embarassing to have to deal with you turds who bought it Now it is you who is ignoring fact. Jerry Falwell made a Video that compiled a mountain of outright lies, testimonials by paid "witnesses" and you can't even remember it-----skating over the fact that was part of the rightwing, religious reich's railing against the Clintons You might be aware that I am not defending Falwell. You ignored all of Reagan's criminal activities, impeachable offenses---even in the face of the facts and highly credible allegations (which eventually were proven) You have no idea what I may have "ignored" during the Reagan Administration. Yet your entire character shows when public events, common knowledge, and logical/credible things are laid before you, you THEN demand "cites I learned long ago that even commonly known events take on different character, depending on who is relating the event. You're nothing more than a troll, and it's not just Me that says it, Hartung Your point? Everyone who whacks you across the snout says the same thing you're a miserable, sleazy troll For me, you're comic relief Funny, I have much the same opinion of you. By the way, when did you drop out of high school? hasn't started yet. They don't usually let you into high screwel until age 14. Sir Charles the Curmudgeon |
(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question-Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
CharlesTheCurmudgeon wrote:
Then you, sir, are suffering from the ID10T bug. I lived in Arkansas in the 80's and watching Clinton as the best presdient Chinese money could buy was like deja-vu all over again. He screwed Arkansas, but swept things under the rug so it all fell on the next Governor. He screwed America, too, but he swept it all under the rug for Bush to get hit with. And Obama can't help but be a bad president. He's a Chicago Democrat. Part of the Machine, one of the most corrupt and dishonest political organizations in the county. Not only does he have William Ayres as a friend but he also has Jesse Jackson Jr and Todd Stroger, both of which are typical tax-and-spend Dimocrats as friends. The Dims here in Chicago are now ruling by primogeneture. Richard J was replaced by his son Richard M. John Stroger was replaced by his son. Emil Jones is trying to replace himself with his son. Edward Madigan is trying to replace himself with his daughter. Next thing Obama will start ruling by Divine Right. . . . I have been waiting for this to come up. Obama is a politician from Chicago. It is rational to believe that he has some connection with the Daily machine. Is there any evidence to support this belief? |
(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
"David Hartung" wrote in message ... wrote: On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 07:00:12 -0600, David Hartung wrote: 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. Not as an official of a tax exempt status church----without suffering the consequences. Only because LBJ was trying to silence those who opposed him. Lyndon Johnson, asshole that he was, did not write or pass tax law by himself.. there were at least 40 other senators that followed his lead (and likely at least 50). |
(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
CharlesTheCurmudgeon wrote:
"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 Bovine fecal matter.. |
(OT) : How Liberals Define "Troll"-----we call it HARTUNG
|
(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question-Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
BDK wrote:
My bad presidents: 1. G.W. Bush nobody comes close, a total embarrassment. 2. Jimmy Carter, worthless. 3. Nixon, a crooked *******. 4. LBJ..Vietnam. You forgot that #4 also qualifies for a "crooked *******"...big time! |
(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
In article , says...
"BDK" wrote in message ... In article , says... "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 LOL, how can you call Obama a bad president, when he hasn't taken office yet???? My bad presidents: 1. G.W. Bush nobody comes close, a total embarrassment. 2. Jimmy Carter, worthless. 3. Nixon, a crooked *******. 4. LBJ..Vietnam. I did just fine with Clinton, and I couldn't care less who he screwed, was blown by, etc. -- BDK BDK Klan leader? kOOk Magnet! NJJ CLUB #1 Shillmaster Then you, sir, are suffering from the ID10T bug. I lived in Arkansas in the 80's and watching Clinton as the best presdient Chinese money could buy was like deja-vu all over again. He screwed Arkansas, but swept things under the rug so it all fell on the next Governor. He screwed America, too, but he swept it all under the rug for Bush to get hit with. And Obama can't help but be a bad president. He's a Chicago Democrat. Part of the Machine, one of the most corrupt and dishonest political organizations in the county. Not only does he have William Ayres as a friend but he also has Jesse Jackson Jr and Todd Stroger, both of which are typical tax-and-spend Dimocrats as friends. The Dims here in Chicago are now ruling by primogeneture. Richard J was replaced by his son Richard M. John Stroger was replaced by his son. Emil Jones is trying to replace himself with his son. Edward Madigan is trying to replace himself with his daughter. Next thing Obama will start ruling by Divine Right. . . . Sir Charles the Curmudgeon BWHAHAHA! So you claim to be a psychic? -- BDK BDK Klan leader? kOOk Magnet! NJJ CLUB #1 Shillmaster |
(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
|
(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
|
(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today-question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American PoliticalProcess ?
On Nov 29, 12:52*pm, David Hartung wrote:
CharlesTheCurmudgeon wrote: Then you, sir, are suffering from the ID10T bug. *I lived in Arkansas in the 80's and watching Clinton as the best presdient Chinese money could buy was like deja-vu all over again. *He screwed Arkansas, but swept things under the rug so it all fell on the next Governor. *He screwed America, too, but he swept it all under the rug for Bush to get hit with. And Obama can't help but be a bad president. *He's a Chicago Democrat.. *Part of the Machine, one of the most corrupt and dishonest political organizations in the county. *Not only does he have William Ayres as a friend but he also has Jesse Jackson Jr and Todd Stroger, both of which are typical tax-and-spend Dimocrats as friends. *The Dims here in Chicago are now ruling by primogeneture. *Richard J was replaced by his son Richard M. John Stroger was replaced by his son. *Emil Jones is trying to replace himself with his son. *Edward Madigan is trying to replace himself with his daughter. * *Next thing Obama will start ruling by Divine Right. . .. . I have been waiting for this to come up. - Obama is a politician from Chicago. It is rational to believe - that he has some connection with the Daily machine. - Is there any evidence to support this belief? It's A Belief : Take It On Faith ;-} ~ RHF |
(OT) : How Liberals Define : The Separation of Church and Statein America Today.]
On Nov 29, 4:10*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:02:05 -0800 (PST), RHF wrote: - - American Needs a Flat National Sales Tax Now and - - Needs to Abolish the Income Tax Now to Restore Our - - Freedoms for All Americans. - Sorry, but That would mean Bill Gates would have a LOT - more "freedom" than anyone else. D'Oh! - Bill Gates Presently Has A Lot More FEEDOM then anyone else : Plus the Money to Buy More. ~ RHF But under a Flat tax Plus System : * Average American "The 90%ers" Pay As You Spend Via a National Sales Tax which in-fact Taxes the Chinese Made Product at an Equal Rate as the American Made Product. * High Income Americans "The 10%ers" with Incomes above $250K : Pay the same National Sales Tax as Everyone Else : Plus They Pay a Flat Tax on All Income above $250K with No Deductions. |
(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today-question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American PoliticalProcess ?
On Nov 29, 4:30*pm, Billy Burpelson wrote:
BDK wrote: My bad presidents: 1. G.W. Bush nobody comes close, a total embarrassment. 2. Jimmy Carter, worthless. 3. Nixon, a crooked *******. 4. LBJ..Vietnam. You forgot that #4 also qualifies for a "crooked *******"...big time! LBJ took your Social Security Money; and put it into the General Fund - DA CRIMINAL ! |
(OT) : How Liberals Define : The Separation of Church and State in America Today.]
RHF wrote:
On Nov 29, 4:10 pm, wrote: On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:02:05 -0800 (PST), RHF wrote: - - American Needs a Flat National Sales Tax Now and - - Needs to Abolish the Income Tax Now to Restore Our - - Freedoms for All Americans. - Sorry, but That would mean Bill Gates would have a LOT - more "freedom" than anyone else. D'Oh! - Bill Gates Presently Has A Lot More FEEDOM then anyone else : Plus the Money to Buy More. ~ RHF But under a Flat tax Plus System : * Average American "The 90%ers" Pay As You Spend Via a National Sales Tax which in-fact Taxes the Chinese Made Product at an Equal Rate as the American Made Product. * High Income Americans "The 10%ers" with Incomes above $250K : Pay the same National Sales Tax as Everyone Else : Plus They Pay a Flat Tax on All Income above $250K with No Deductions. . And the flat tax would be regressive as hell. The wealthy obviously favor it for a reason, it would clearly reduce their taxes greatly, while making it tougher on the middle and lower classes. Republicans favor it for those reasons. |
(OT) : The Separation of Church and State in America Today -question- Is there a Place for Religion {Faith} in the American Political Process ?
RHF wrote:
On Nov 29, 12:52 pm, David Hartung wrote: CharlesTheCurmudgeon wrote: Then you, sir, are suffering from the ID10T bug. I lived in Arkansas in the 80's and watching Clinton as the best presdient Chinese money could buy was like deja-vu all over again. He screwed Arkansas, but swept things under the rug so it all fell on the next Governor. He screwed America, too, but he swept it all under the rug for Bush to get hit with. And Obama can't help but be a bad president. He's a Chicago Democrat. Part of the Machine, one of the most corrupt and dishonest political organizations in the county. Not only does he have William Ayres as a friend but he also has Jesse Jackson Jr and Todd Stroger, both of which are typical tax-and-spend Dimocrats as friends. The Dims here in Chicago are now ruling by primogeneture. Richard J was replaced by his son Richard M. John Stroger was replaced by his son. Emil Jones is trying to replace himself with his son. Edward Madigan is trying to replace himself with his daughter. Next thing Obama will start ruling by Divine Right. . . . I have been waiting for this to come up. - Obama is a politician from Chicago. It is rational to believe - that he has some connection with the Daily machine. - Is there any evidence to support this belief? It's A Belief : Take It On Faith ;-} ~ RHF . It's another Republican spit ball. |
(OT) : How Liberals Define "Troll"-----we call it HARTUNG
wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 14:50:45 -0600, "CharlesTheCurmudgeon" wrote: hasn't started yet. They don't usually let you into high screwel until age 14. Well, that must really suck for you Being whipped by what you consider "inferior" sure don't look good on your resume. SNICKER High "screwel" is Limbaugh's term. He had a tough time in high "screwel" and a worse time in college. The only thing lamer is a poor little Ditto repeating his master's words. |
(OT) : How Liberals Define : The Separation of Church and Statein America Today.]
Soumay Nonay wrote:
RHF wrote: On Nov 29, 4:10 pm, wrote: On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:02:05 -0800 (PST), RHF wrote: - - American Needs a Flat National Sales Tax Now and - - Needs to Abolish the Income Tax Now to Restore Our - - Freedoms for All Americans. - Sorry, but That would mean Bill Gates would have a LOT - more "freedom" than anyone else. D'Oh! - Bill Gates Presently Has A Lot More FEEDOM then anyone else : Plus the Money to Buy More. ~ RHF But under a Flat tax Plus System : * Average American "The 90%ers" Pay As You Spend Via a National Sales Tax which in-fact Taxes the Chinese Made Product at an Equal Rate as the American Made Product. * High Income Americans "The 10%ers" with Incomes above $250K : Pay the same National Sales Tax as Everyone Else : Plus They Pay a Flat Tax on All Income above $250K with No Deductions. . And the flat tax would be regressive as hell. The wealthy obviously favor it for a reason, it would clearly reduce their taxes greatly, while making it tougher on the middle and lower classes. Republicans favor it for those reasons. Where does it say that taxers must be "progressive"? |
(OT) : How Liberals Define : The Separation of Church and State in America Today.]
David Hartung wrote:
Soumay Nonay wrote: RHF wrote: On Nov 29, 4:10 pm, wrote: On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 09:02:05 -0800 (PST), RHF wrote: - - American Needs a Flat National Sales Tax Now and - - Needs to Abolish the Income Tax Now to Restore Our - - Freedoms for All Americans. - Sorry, but That would mean Bill Gates would have a LOT - more "freedom" than anyone else. D'Oh! - Bill Gates Presently Has A Lot More FEEDOM then anyone else : Plus the Money to Buy More. ~ RHF But under a Flat tax Plus System : * Average American "The 90%ers" Pay As You Spend Via a National Sales Tax which in-fact Taxes the Chinese Made Product at an Equal Rate as the American Made Product. * High Income Americans "The 10%ers" with Incomes above $250K : Pay the same National Sales Tax as Everyone Else : Plus They Pay a Flat Tax on All Income above $250K with No Deductions. . And the flat tax would be regressive as hell. The wealthy obviously favor it for a reason, it would clearly reduce their taxes greatly, while making it tougher on the middle and lower classes. Republicans favor it for those reasons. Where does it say that taxers must be "progressive"? Where does it say that the poorest Americans must bear the greatest porportionate tax burden? Perhaps the wealthiest people should simply not have to pay taxes at all? |
(OT) : How Liberals Define : The Separation of Church and Statein America Today.]
|
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
RadioBanter.com