Anti-Semitism In France!

[ousooner 1]

As I understand it, any church that is claiming tax-exempt status legally can not endorse a specific candidate.

BUt my post was prompted by claims that there isn't politics being preached from the pulpit. It is. I've seen and heard it. Left one church because of it.

That makes sense. Now that I think about it, the churches I've attended haven't endorse a candidate, but did address the issues and urged us to vote the issues. Thanks for clarifying :confused:

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

My only question is: Why is it not appropriate to as a spiritual leader, to direct you people to vote in a manner that is consistant with the moral code set by the organization. I say that carefully, because that could apply to any group. Planned parenthood lobbies people to vote for pro-choice candidates. The NRA lobbies people to vote for candidates that support their ideas. Minority groups lobby to support candidates that help their cause. The list goes on. Why would Christian leaders not lobby for candidates that supported their views as well?

If a minister preaches that abortion is wrong and that God condemns abortion, and there is an election two days later, if the parishioners are too lazy to see who is pro-life and who is pro-choice, that can not be blamed on suppression of freedom of speech.

For a minister to tell his congregation that a vote for Kerry is a vote for Satan goes way past the law. For a minister to tell a congregation that a vote for Kerry is a vote for Satan is fine, but by taking a tax exemption, he is asking Kerry supporters to help his church financially while that church tries to defeat Kerry.

My minister speaks out about injustice (as he sees it) and quotes scripture to make his point. He however was honest enough to give up his tax exemption. I and all the other members of my congregation do not take a tax deduction for our contributions.

[Ron Cusano 0]

The tax exempt law does not prohibit ministers speaking about social, moral or political issues. It only prohibits them from entering the political process by endorsing a specific canidate or party.

Many issues, such as abortion and gay marriage fall within that criteria and they are within the teir rights to discuss them and provide spiritual guidance therin.

That makes sense. Now that I think about it, the churches I've attended haven't endorse a candidate, but did address the issues and urged us to vote the issues. Thanks for clarifying :confused:

[ousooner 1]

If a minister preaches that abortion is wrong and that God condemns abortion, and there is an election two days later, if the parishioners are too lazy to see who is pro-life and who is pro-choice, that can not be blamed on suppression of freedom of speech.

For a minister to tell his congregation that a vote for Kerry is a vote for Satan goes way past the law. For a minister to tell a congregation that a vote for Kerry is a vote for Satan is fine, but by taking a tax exemption, he is asking Kerry supporters to help his church financially while that church tries to defeat Kerry.

My minister speaks out about injustice (as he sees it) and quotes scripture to make his point. He however was honest enough to give up his tax exemption. I and all the other members of my congregation do not take a tax deduction for our contributions.

Thanks for the clarification.

[Ron Cusano 0]

If a minister preaches that abortion is wrong and that God condemns abortion, and there is an election two days later, if the parishioners are too lazy to see who is pro-life and who is pro-choice, that can not be blamed on suppression of freedom of speech. I havn't seen anyone here make that accusation!!

For a minister to tell his congregation that a vote for Kerry is a vote for Satan goes way past the law. For a minister to tell a congregation that a vote for Kerry is a vote for Satan is fine, but by taking a tax exemption, he is asking Kerry supporters to help his church financially while that church tries to defeat Kerry. That minister was clearly wrong, and is in the tiny minority that might cross the line!

My minister speaks out about injustice (as he sees it) and quotes scripture to make his point. He however was honest enough to give up his tax exemption. I and all the other members of my congregation do not take a tax deduction for our contributions.

Then he is not bound by the tax exemption law. Good for him!

[Ron Cusano 0]

Just for the record, you and all the other members of you church don't have a choice in the matter. You are legally prohibited from claiming a tax deduction from a church that does not have tax exemption. Personally, I think all church's should enjoy tax exemption and still ahve the right to free expression. That's just my opinion!!

If a minister preaches that abortion is wrong and that God condemns abortion, and there is an election two days later, if the parishioners are too lazy to see who is pro-life and who is pro-choice, that can not be blamed on suppression of freedom of speech.

For a minister to tell his congregation that a vote for Kerry is a vote for Satan goes way past the law. For a minister to tell a congregation that a vote for Kerry is a vote for Satan is fine, but by taking a tax exemption, he is asking Kerry supporters to help his church financially while that church tries to defeat Kerry.

My minister speaks out about injustice (as he sees it) and quotes scripture to make his point. He however was honest enough to give up his tax exemption. I and all the other members of my congregation do not take a tax deduction for our contributions.

[green 6]

I am a member of two minorities. I am an atheist. My father's side of the family is Jewish and while I am not Jewish to a Jew I am Jewish to any and all anti-Semites.

Just as there was revulsion in the Western world not so long ago over the story of a Muslim who had converted to Christianity and who was going to be put to death by his state for this reason, there is presently great anxiety amongst many of us who live in North America at this time and who do not conform to the evangelical right wing vision of what they would like to see in a political state. Note that this group would not only include the usual suspects, that is to say those of us who are atheists, Jews, Muslims, Wiccans, pro-choice, left-wing-nuts, Democrats, and New Age Buddhists, but this group would also include a bunch of Christian co-religionists: Catholics, Episcopalians, Lutherans, etc....

Should the state not be kept separate from the religious power brokers of the fundamentalist right, all of us who do not satisfy those who obtain power (let us now call you The Thought Police) will be at your mercy. We will be the dhimmi. You will cut us no slack.

You might remember that this continent was settled by individuals who wished to be left in peace in order that they might believe and worship according to their needs. You might also need to be reminded that the framers of your Constitution were meticulous in keeping these needs, the needs of you and of any other folk who should chose to come to this continent, in mind. This is why they were kinda fussy about separating religion and state. I think that this was mighty kind and mighty civilized of them. What do you think?

[gadgetlady 4]

Does that include knowing that BuSh is not King George?

And that there are three separate and equal branches of government?

And that at least one of those branches has said that church and state must be kept separate?

Should we amend the the US Constitution to make the USA a Theocracy?

You know, I see you get upset over and over when other people submit posts that you read to imply various things about you. In that same vein, I resent your implications about me and the beliefs to which I subscribe. I don't think the USA should be a theocracy. I don't think the president is a king. And I know the First Amendment quite well. In case you don't, it says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

In other words, unlike the country of England from which they had just come, the Founding Fathers did not want the United States to have an official religion. And we don't. That doesn't mean religions of various types can't influence our politics or our society. It means that the GOVERNMENT doesn't run the CHURCH, and there is no OFFICIAL CHURCH established by the government.

[gadgetlady 4]

Should the state not be kept separate from the religious power brokers of the fundamentalist right, all of us who do not satisfy those who obtain power (let us now call you The Thought Police) will be at your mercy. We will be the dhimmi. You will cut us no slack.

Isn't the reverse also true? Didn't Canada pass Bill C-250, a "hate crimes" law that forbids criticism of homosexuality?

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

Just for the record, you and all the other members of you church don't have a choice in the matter. You are legally prohibited from claiming a tax deduction from a church that does not have tax exemption. Personally, I think all church's should enjoy tax exemption and still ahve the right to free expression. That's just my opinion!!

Which equates into the USA becoming a theocracy. IMHO

[green 6]

Isn't the reverse also true? Didn't Canada pass Bill C-250, a "hate crimes" law that forbids criticism of homosexuality?

Yep, but this also forbids criticism of all life styles, even those of the fundamentalists.:confused: It is, however, a controversial law and I am not sure that I am comfortable with it even though its roots were based in idealistic sentiments. I believe that the UK is struggling with similar problems vis-a-vis hate laws and freedom of speech issues at this time. The issues at stake are impossible to hammer down with these clumsy laws it would appear.:cry

[Tired_Old_Man 1]

You know, I see you get upset over and over when other people submit posts that you read to imply various things about you. In that same vein, I resent your implications about me and the beliefs to which I subscribe. I don't think the USA should be a theocracy. I don't think the president is a king. And I know the First Amendment quite well.

I was not asking you the first three questions. I was wondering if the test would include those questions.

The last question was addressed to anyone who wanted to reply.

About me getting upset. Unless you have planted a web-camera in my home, you do not know if I am smiling or crying, or anywhere in between.

[gadgetlady 4]

I was not asking you the first three questions. I was wondering if the test would include those questions.

The last question was addressed to anyone who wanted to reply.

You were replying to me. It seems to be a no-brainer that it was directed at me. And it is pretty clear that you (and others on this thread who agree with you on most positions) believe that all of us Christian fundamentalist fanatical terrorists believe that the US should be a theocracy.

[Ron Cusano 0]

Don't say "no-brainer"!! He thinks you're calling him stupid. He got mad at me before!!

You were replying to me. It seems to be a no-brainer that it was directed at me. And it is pretty clear that you (and others on this thread who agree with you on most positions) believe that all of us Christian fundamentalist fanatical terrorists believe that the US should be a theocracy.

[BJean 16]

Uh-oh Tom. You're in for it now!