Rstanley0312 1 #51 September 2, 2009 QuoteWith an open mind. As Quad said there are good Christians and bad ones too. I take people as I find them, be they Christian, Jew, Muslim or Hindu. I totally agree with this!Life is all about ass....either you're kicking it, kissing it, working it off, or trying to get a piece of it. Muff Brother #4382 Dudeist Skydiver #000 www.fundraiseadventure.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,026 #52 September 2, 2009 Quote Quote Quote Quote How do I view Christians? I would prefer to view them from the lower seats of a Roman coliseum. I was tempted to say "naked", but I like your one-liner better. Here's a nice Christian. I think Ghandi got it right. Maybe, but I'd have liked it better if Ghandi didn't regularly drink his own urine. Some day, when I shave my head and become a renunciant, I think I'll skip the urine part. I don't see that his preference in soft drinks has much to do with his view of Jesus and Christians. Now, had it been Bud Lite....... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #53 September 2, 2009 >He's a hypocrite because he wouldn't want his priest or fellow >parishioners to know about it. I went to strip clubs when I was living at home, but I wouldn't volunteer the information to my mother. Does that make me a hypocrite? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 425 #54 September 2, 2009 QuoteQuoteLet's not forget the first ammendment - "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." I don't know of any law respecting an establishment of religion - do you? Ah, so the crux of the matter here is that as long as there is no LAW that established a national religion, it's fine for the majority to establish a de facto one and create other laws that may go against the religious (or non-religious) views of the minority? No. Religion should have as much to do with our political system as it does with mathematics or physics. That is to say, none. It should NEVER be a consideration when making laws or national policy. I believe you are using majority and minority too literally. We are not a democracy with a simple majority rule, where the most get what they want at the expense of the few. Considering your statement, I would think you would be glad of that. We are a representative republic. We elect our officials to represent us. We as Christians, Jews, Muslims, Hindus, or Atheists for that matter influence our representatives through our vote and our free expression, the same way skydivers, boy scouts, gay rights activists, college students, and yes, even Mary Kay Cosmetics consultants do. If you don’t like the way your representatives are representing, you have the constitutional right – no, duty – to stand against them at the voting booth, as well as on any public street if you feel the need. A person can not remove their values and principles when they go into the voting booth, nor should they be expected to. They should vote their conscience, and that conscience comes from any number of life influences and priorities, including religion. Telling a citizen they can't use influences of their religion in voting is as ridiculous as telling someone they can't use any other life influences in voting. No one will force you or anyone else to practice – or even respect – any religion, nor is there any law allowing anyone to force you to (shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion). However in return we must not restrict the ability of others to practice as they choose (or prohibiting the free exercise thereof), even in the voting booth. Hell, especially in the voting booth.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #55 September 2, 2009 QuoteNo one will force you or anyone else to practice – or even respect – any religion, nor is there any law allowing anyone to force you to (shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion). Technically true, completely untrue in actual practice. For instance, California Prop 8 was entirely motivated by a religious group. Their "morals" rule the day because they were able to convince a majority of Christians to vote for it to the detriment of an under represented minority. That's bullshit.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 425 #56 September 2, 2009 QuoteQuoteNo one will force you or anyone else to practice – or even respect – any religion, nor is there any law allowing anyone to force you to (shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion). Technically true, completely untrue in actual practice. For instance, California Prop 8 was entirely motivated by a religious group. Their "morals" rule the day because they were able to convince a majority of Christians to vote for it to the detriment of an under represented minority. That's bullshit. Actually, true in practice. California law allows for amendments to the state constitution through the initiative and referendum process. That allows the people – under certain circumstances – to use the popular vote to decide what the constitution looks like. That's not respecting the establishment any religion. That's people – many, but not all of whom are guided by their religion – exercising their right to vote the way they feel is right. It’s the most basic of democratic principals. If there were more people FOR gay marriage in California than AGAINST it, things would gave gone the other way. Were many – or even most - of the people voting for it religious? Maybe. But that is not relevant. There are many reasons a person might have voted the way they did; religion is only one of them. What about the Atheists who disagree with gay marriage? They exist, you know. How about gay people who are against it? How about Agnostics? Should their votes count? And if so, should not the religious person’s vote count too? One person, one vote, regardless of the motivation behind their vote. If you believe so strongly that California’s constitution should not allow the initiative and referendum process (which is what it sounds like you are really getting at) then you have the right to push for a change in the constitution. If you choose not to do that, anything else you say could be considered simply whining.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #57 September 2, 2009 >If there were more people FOR gay marriage in California than AGAINST it, >things would gave gone the other way. In every poll I saw, less than 50% were in favor of banning such marriages. And if the Utah Mormon church did not sink millions into the campaign to outlaw marriages they have a religious objection to, it wouldn't have passed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 425 #58 September 2, 2009 Quote >If there were more people FOR gay marriage in California than AGAINST it, >things would gave gone the other way. In every poll I saw, less than 50% were in favor of banning such marriages. And if the Utah Mormon church did not sink millions into the campaign to outlaw marriages they have a religious objection to, it wouldn't have passed. Less than 50% of people (in California I assume you mean) weren't in favor of banning gay marriage, yet the voters did? I guess the poll takers didn't poll voters.And please prove up your comment on the Mormon church. How can you you be sure that the prop wouldn't have passed without the church's campaign. Unless you can , that's just an opinion. And you know what they say about that.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #59 September 2, 2009 QuoteAnd please prove up your comment on the Mormon church. How can you you be sure that the prop wouldn't have passed without the church's campaign. Unless you can , that's just an opinion. And you know what they say about that. Considering they're the ones that put it on the ballot . . . it's more than just opinion. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/politics/15marriage.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp&oref=sloginquade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #60 September 3, 2009 >Less than 50% of people (in California I assume you mean) weren't >in favor of banning gay marriage, yet the voters did? Correct. The polls asked questions like "should gay marriage be banned in California?", but the ballot measure was presented by the Mormons as "do you want to make it mandatory to teach children about gay marriage?" Thus they were not really answering the same question. >And please prove up your comment on the Mormon church. How can you >you be sure that the prop wouldn't have passed without the church's >campaign. Unless you can , that's just an opinion. And you know what >they say about that. =============== Mormons admit larger role in California's Prop. 8 campaign The Mormon church has revealed in a campaign filing that the church spent nearly $190,000 to help pass Proposition 8, the November ballot measure that banned gay marriage in California. The disclosure comes amid an investigation by the state's campaign watchdog agency into whether the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints violated state laws by not fully disclosing its involvement during the campaign. While many church members had donated directly to the Yes on 8 campaign – some estimates of Mormon giving range as high as $20 million – the church itself had previously reported little direct campaign activity. But in the filing made Friday, the Mormon church reported thousands in travel expenses, such as airline tickets, hotel rooms and car rentals for the campaign. The church also reported $96,849.31 worth of "compensated staff time" – hours that church employees spent working to pass the same-sex marriage ban. "As I read this report, it seems to raise more questions than it answers," said Fred Karger, who filed the initial complaint against the church with the Fair Political Practices Commission in November. Karger, the founder of Californians Against Hate, a group that opposed the measure, said he believes the church was involved financially long before the first expenditure it listed in September. "I think there is still a lot of missing parts of the report because we know they've been active since June," Karger said. Mormon church officials could not be reached Saturday for comment. Roman Porter, executive director of the FPPC, confirmed that the agency was investigating the complaint against the church but declined comment on specifics. ================================== From an interview on PBS: Dr. PAM CHAN (Member, Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints): There would be little announcements made here and there, announcements about how we might be able to volunteer our time to, you know, go door-to-door, to hand out flyers, to stand on street corners with signs, and these little announcements, you know, I’d hear and I’d look around and wonder, “Is everyone okay with this? Does anyone besides me see a problem with this?” =================================== From Wikipedia: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,[45][46][47] whose members are commonly known as Mormons, also publicly supported the proposition. The First Presidency of the church announced its support for Proposition 8 in a letter intended to be read in every congregation in California. In this letter, church members were encouraged to "do all you can to support the proposed constitutional amendment by donating of your means and time." Local LDS leaders set organizational and monetary goals for their membership—sometimes quite specific—to fulfill this call.[48][49] The response of the LDS membership to their leadership's appeals to donate money and volunteer time was very supportive,[50]such that Latter-day Saints provided a significant source for financial donations in support of the proposition, both inside and outside the State of California.[51] About 45% of out-of-state contributions to ProtectMarriage.com came from Utah, over three times more than any other state.[52] ProtectMarriage, the official proponents of Proposition 8, estimate that about half the donations they received came from LDS sources, and that "eighty to ninety percent" of the early volunteers going door-to-door were LDS.[53] The LDS Church produced and broadcast to its congregations a program describing the opposition to the Proposition, and describing the timeline it proposes for what it describes as grassroots efforts to oppose the Proposition.[54][55] =================================== Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DSE 5 #61 September 3, 2009 QuoteQuoteAnd please prove up your comment on the Mormon church. How can you you be sure that the prop wouldn't have passed without the church's campaign. Unless you can , that's just an opinion. And you know what they say about that. Considering they're the ones that put it on the ballot . . . it's more than just opinion. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/politics/15marriage.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp&oref=slogin The Mormon Church also upset/blew away the ERA amendment. Sonya Johnson, yadayada. The LDS church is one of the most powerful lobby groups on the face of the planet if for no reason other than they own nearly 10% of the total media in the USA. Gee...I wonder where their corporation got all those funds as an NPO? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 425 #62 September 3, 2009 Quote Quote And please prove up your comment on the Mormon church. How can you you be sure that the prop wouldn't have passed without the church's campaign. Unless you can , that's just an opinion. And you know what they say about that. Considering they're the ones that put it on the ballot . . . it's more than just opinion. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/15/us/politics/15marriage.html?_r=3&pagewanted=1&hp&oref=slogin A news article from (the very biased) New York times doesn't exactly carve your argument into stone as fact. Besides, that's democracy at work - what's the problem? Likewise, if it hadn't been for ACORN's efforts, your man B.O. might not have made it to the White House. See how that works?Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 425 #63 September 3, 2009 Quote The Mormon church has revealed in a campaign filing that the church spent nearly $190,000 to help pass Proposition 8, the November ballot measure that banned gay marriage in California. $190,000? Yeah, that kind of scratch sure made a difference. What's that buy, a dozen TV spots?You guys are so entertaining.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #64 September 3, 2009 >$190,000? Yeah, that kind of scratch sure made a difference. Perhaps if you read more than the first sentence of the article, you will realize what you missed. Or not. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tbrown 26 #65 September 3, 2009 They're a varied bunch. Some you'd never know were Christian unless you asked, others won't shut up about it. Some are noticeably kind and giving people, others are complete a-holes. It's kind like asking how do you view black/white/asian/hispanic people.... Your humble servant.....Professor Gravity ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 425 #66 September 3, 2009 Quote >$190,000? Yeah, that kind of scratch sure made a difference. Perhaps if you read more than the first sentence of the article, you will realize what you missed. Or not. Even if I believed any of what the New York Times has to say (you do remember that's the paper with a well established history of publishing blatantly false stories, don't you?) it wouldn't matter. The Mormon Church was participating in the political process - legally. No different than when black preachers all across this great nation encouraged members to vote for Obama (so much for him being the "post racial president"). You guys are barking up a mute tree here. There is absolutely NOTHING wrong, illegal, or unconstitutional about churches being involved in the political process. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. I hear Cuba is nice this time of the year. And what a medical system!Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #67 September 3, 2009 >Even if I believed any of what the New York Times has to say . . . Like I said, if you had read more than the first sentence, you would have seen a total of three pieces there, all from different sources. >The Mormon Church was participating in the political process - legally. ?? No one claimed that a church using its political clout to strip people of their rights is illegal. You didn't believe it happened; I posted several articles indicating that it did. But again, believe whatever you choose. >I hear Cuba is nice this time of the year. And what a medical system! And I hear China is doing great things with capitalist medicine lately. Kidneys on sale this week, I think. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #68 September 3, 2009 QuoteThere is absolutely NOTHING wrong, illegal, or unconstitutional about churches being involved in the political process Sure, as long as they give up their tax-exempt status. How many have done that? - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rehmwa 2 #69 September 3, 2009 QuoteQuoteThere is absolutely NOTHING wrong, illegal, or unconstitutional about churches being involved in the political process Sure, as long as they give up their tax-exempt status. How many have done that? totally agree - it shouldn't be up to the government to support any kind of charity, schools, or medicine or anything else by giving one group relative tax benefits (or penalties) vs any other endeavor. it's good to see more people moving libertarian in their attitudes ... Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 425 #70 September 3, 2009 Quote And I hear China is doing great things with capitalist medicine lately. Kidneys on sale this week, I think. And you get a free abortion for every kid after the first one! Ain't communism great?Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 2,990 #71 September 3, 2009 >And you get a free abortion for every kid after the first one! Ain't >communism great? I think you may have a bit of a miscomprehension of communism if you think "free" is an incentive in such a system. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
chuckakers 425 #72 September 3, 2009 QuoteQuoteThere is absolutely NOTHING wrong, illegal, or unconstitutional about churches being involved in the political process Sure, as long as they give up their tax-exempt status. How many have done that? Wrong. There is no law that keeps a church - tax exemption and all - from taking part in the political process. In fact, it is a staple in many black churches. Go to a black church during election time. You'd think you had walked into a DNC rally! How is it you guys can't get through your heads that the constitution does NOT say you can't mix religion and politics. It only says the government - not the people - won't respect the establishment of any religion. Keep in mind that it also says the government won't restrict the free exercise thereof. You can't take religion out of politics any more than you can take ANY special interest group out of politics - nor should you.Chuck Akers D-10855 Houston, TX Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
DanG 1 #73 September 3, 2009 QuoteWrong. There is no law that keeps a church - tax exemption and all - from taking part in the political process. In fact, it is a staple in many black churches. Go to a black church during election time. You'd think you had walked into a DNC rally! Have you actually been to a black church during election season? Somehow I doubt it. From http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html QuoteTo be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170. The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction. Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues. What were you saying again about the legality of tax-exempt churches and political activity? - Dan G Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
maadmax 0 #74 September 4, 2009 They are a mixed bag. Some have perceived the presence of God and are trying to remake their lives into a transparent fulfillment of His Word. Other are just a bunch of con artists. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
format 1 #75 September 4, 2009 Just a mental dirth, curious side effects though, yet dirth. Can't change it or so, not sure I would unless knowing what to do with fresh cleaned.. "from the heart"What goes around, comes later. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
