24 total posts
Don't you mean "shades of Clinton?"
The IRS during his Administration did the same thing only more widespread. Did you forget?
(NT) Don't remember any IRS audits of churches.
Looks like it's OK to support the President from the pulpit
but not to oppose him.
(NT) Have you ever seen Jesse (the camera hog) Jackson ???
It's not OK to take sides politically from the pulpit. I've
never heard that done. In the churches I've attended, the closest thing I've ever seen to political activity was a very quiet participation in voter registration. In one church, Bob Dole wanted to speak at one service, and was refused.
I'm glad to see....
....that you disapprove of the likes of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson, who preach their politics from the pulpit all the time.
Not to mention Jesse Jackson, the"Rev" Al Sharpton....
and tons of other African-American and left wing preachers who do it ALL the time.
And you know what? It's protected speech, allowed by the First Amendment, no matter what side it's coming from.
Now, the extent to which this is actually acting as a church and not a political organization is something else to think about. Some of these "churches" are little more than liberal propaganda outposts and money gathering operations. Whether this one is or not I don't know.
And some are nothing more....
....than conservative propaganda outposts and money gathering operations.
As long as you're looking at both sides, I have no argument.
I don't listen to Falwell or Robertson. I don't have the
foggiest notion what they say. Thus, I am not in a position to comment. The few times that I have heard them, they didn't talk about candidates for political office. I guess you condemn the many black ministers who do talk about candidates from the pulpit. How about Jessie Jackson? Do you condemn him?
I think one key difference.....
...is that Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton etal. don't state or insinuate that it is immoral or against their professed faith to have beliefs contrary to theirs. I also don't think I can recall either of them ever claiming to have an ''in'' with God that the rest of us don't have. Their rants tend to be about secular matters. What they do have in common with Falwell and Robertson is that they're blowhards with a love for media attention.
I went to a synagogue that was noted for its political activism so I don't oppose that outright. I was just hoping you were consistent since you had initially only mentioned liberal/Democratic politics, and it looks like you are. That's all I was curious about.
I don't know about insinuating immorality, but I think both
Jackson and Sharpton do that. I'm certain that our very own Rob and DK do it. If you take conservative political positions, they are quick to say that you are acting against what God wants and approves of. I think Jessie and Al do not hesitate to suggest that God takes a dim view of their political opponents. Then, of course, there's Jackson's famous hymietown remark.
Arent' you one of the loudest
squealers of "Seperation of church and state?"
(NT) Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.
Looks to me like just another case of reporters
going fishing after, first, stocking the pond with the species of their own desire to net.;)
Then every Catholic church in Texas should also be stripped!
As the Sunday before the vote on Proposition 2, they read a bishops' letter from the pulpit urging a vote for that despicable homophobic amendment. I wonder -- is that what Jesus would have done? While the Church's official position is "love the sinner, hate the sin," denying civil rights doesn't sound like an act of love to me!
-- Dave K, Speakeasy Moderator
click here to email email@example.com
The opinions expressed above are my own,
and do not necessarily reflect those of CNET!
Why are you part of the
Catholic church if they are so homophobic?
(NT) hes in collage administration:)
No, Jesus would have called on the sinner to repent. Do
you, for one second, imagine that Jesus approves of homosexuality? Jesus condemned those who sought to 'amend' the Bible by ignoring passages that they did not like. He said that not one jot or tittle of scripture would ever pass away, and He was talking about our Old Testament.
Jesus would have...
PROBABLY hollered from behind the wheel of his SUV (he was a carpenter you know) that the amendment was not enough and suggested investing in salt futures.
Why is it that you CONSTANTLY want to deprive religious people of their First Amendment rights? Their position on the amendment had nothing to do with "homophobia", but everything to do with being against perversion and perverts and the AIDS epidemic so ably assisted through the homosexual lifestyle.
It had NOTHING to do with an election of representatives or officials which is where the Church in the article had run afoul of FEC regulations AND US Code law governing tax free organizations.
News Flash Rob: The President does not set tax policy for
the IRS. This sort of thing is VERY old, and has nothing to do with President Bush. What you probably do not know is that the IRS is very lenient. The political activities that usually go on in black churches are WAY over the line, but the IRS has never taken action that I am aware of. However, newspaper coverage of the sermon is pretty dumb. The IRS can scarcely ignore it. That sermon must have been WAY OVER the line.
Of course, it was also WAY OVER the line theologically, but liberal ministers aren't usually very concerned about the theological basis for what they say.
You, of course, brimming with vitriol, do not hesitate to impugn a man's character with the flimsiest of excuses and a complete absence of truth. You are an excellent example of the liberal mindset in the church today.
He's just assuming that Bush is as VINDICTIVE
as Slick Willie was when he was in office, criticize bill/hill, get an audit
While agreeing somewhat, unfortunately repeated
accusations of harrassment from the IRS for political opponents seems to occur irregardless of which political party is in power in the White House.
In fact, I suspect such accusations have occurred even when the man in the White House would never knowingly sanction such misuse, but party officials work through career bureaucrats to get it done.
click here to email firstname.lastname@example.org
SOP for the Clinton crew they invented and perfected,
the politics of personal destruction