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.

Why would this be wrong, in a moral sense?

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?

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.

wrote:
On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 07:11:12 -0600, David Hartung
wrote:

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

If they are tax exempt under religious affiliation,
yep.

There are restrictions in the IRS code, not in the Constitution.

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

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

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 [.]

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

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"

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