Churches Given Anti-Obama Message on Sunday Before Election

@spendius,

indeed.

beware what you think is obvious.

that's what I always say...

@ossobuco,

I might engage in put-ons osso as an enjoyable pastime but I would never allow myself to exercise them on this subject.

I mean every word. And I'm being nice about it too. I'm only using the genteel arguments.

You might take it for granted that on politics, economics, sport, trivia and suchlike there is an element of irony creeps in every so often.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

Quote:
“No Catholic may, in good conscience, vote for ‘pro-choice’ candidates [or] . . . for candidates who promote ‘same-sex marriage.’ ”

That's a fact. It is not a political view.

Churches are hard pressed in these trying times of auisterity and sacrifice and if they lost their tax exemption they might disappear and whole districts and towns or even cities might become churchless and then what would the population do? Having Sunday off might disappear.

No, it's not a fact; it's an opinion. Catholic priests can't control the conscience of it's members. I know many Catholics whose consciences are just fine with how they vote. Telling someone how they have to feel about a decision they make doesn't make it so. It's stating how they "think" that person should feel about it.

If churches are hard pressed to survive then maybe they need to reconsider their message. Telling people how they have to vote in order to remain a member in good standing in the club is politicizing that membership. They have a choice. They can be politically active and lose their tax exemptions or they can preach their gospel and take care of the sick and needy among them and enjoy the largess of the federal government's tax-free status. What the tax man giveth, the tax man may taketh away (or something like that).

2 Replies

@Rockhead,

Will you tell me what your difficulty was with the post? If any of the points made are not obvious I would be glad to know.

I was an unborn baby myself once and I empathise with the little fuckers. And I can't say that about a large number of adults I have had dealings with.

Perhaps your difficulty arises from the fact that I take no religious position on the matter. And maybe also from your inability to be aware that I might save one unborn baby somewhere if somebody reads my posts with a degree of attention and is persuaded by them. Which is their affair. Not mine.

And that one, if there ever is such a one, that I save from destruction might become the President of the US or fulfill the task of emptying your bedpan when you are knackered.

It might be worth bearing in mind that the religious position is based upon the sort of things I am saying. In which case a priest diddling a choirboy is not a sufficient reason to set it aside despite a herd of numbskulls thinking otherwise.

A fair number of us would not be here if Roe/Wade had happened in 1930.

2 Replies

@JPB,

Suit yourself JP. I think it is a fact. If it wasn't Catholic wouldn't mean anything.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Thanks for what I take as a straight answer.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

A fair number of us would not be here if Roe/Wade had happened in 1930.

I would beg to differ Spendi. Roe v Wade has no bearing on UK abortions or in any country outside the USA for that matter. Other than it reduced the number of rich women that had to fly off to another country to get one.

0 Replies

@spendius,

Quote:

I might save one unborn baby somewhere if somebody reads my posts with a degree of attention and is persuaded by them. Which is their affair. Not mine.

I should perhaps make it clear, despite my thinking it a bit patronising to do so, that I recognise that the corollary is equally valid and that those on the other side might have their posts read with attention and persuade someone to terminate a defenceless human life.

1 Reply

@spendius,

I think you confused the word patronizing with idiotic.

It is idiotic to equate being for choice with trying to convince people to have an abortion.

0 Replies

@ossobuco,

I think my posts on this subject make it quite clear that straight answers are always in operation.

I consider down-thumbers despicable.

2 Replies

@spendius,

If you had been born in a Muslim country to a rabid Muslim couple, your posts would be a lot more understandable.

1 Reply

@tenderfoot,

In what way?

0 Replies

@wandeljw,

The FFRF needs to be careful what they wish for, they might get it.
As I read the law, it says any non-profit organization, not just churches.
So if the FFRF is a non-profit organization, they can't get involved in politics either.

1 Reply

I would think that the FFRF would be willing to pay such taxes so long as it was equally applied to churches. If not, they deserve to close their doors.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

The FFRF needs to be careful what they wish for, they might get it.
As I read the law, it says any non-profit organization, not just churches.
So if the FFRF is a non-profit organization, they can't get involved in politics either.

The FFRF is already subject to the IRS rules for non-profit organizations. It is their argument that only religious non-profits benefit from IRS non-enforcement. Secular non-profits are more vulnerable to IRS enforcement.

From FFRF v. IRS:

Quote:

The Plaintiff is a tax-exempt non-profit organization under §501(c)(3) of the Tax Code, and as such, FFRF must and does abide by the electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3).

*******************************************************************

The non-enforcement of the electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3) against churches and other religious organizations constitutes preferential treatment to churches and religious organizations that is not provided to other tax-exempt organizations, including FFRF, which are required to comply with the electioneering restrictions of §501(c)(3).

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

But what was quoted does not constitute electioneering.

Are you in favour of getting rid of religion and us all becoming atheists? Are you scared to answer the question?

If you can't answer in the affirmative you are just stirring the ****. And if you do you have some other questions to answer.

2 Replies

@spendius,

I am not against religion. I am only against mixing religion and politics. Adding religious fervor to a political stance is dangerous.

1 Reply

@wandeljw,

What you call politics wande is economics and psychology and rhetoric.

Real politics is religion.

The thrust of your posts is aimed at undermining religion and one doesn't engage in undermining structures without the intention of bringing them down.

I think you are just stirring the ****.

0 Replies

@spendius,

If ... " all becoming atheists " came to Fruitation all your Gods would disappear, then you would have no use for bibles, churches or priests or praying and the fearing of Gods... all the wasted time, money and dedication can be spent on normal everyday needs of this and future generations

0 Replies

@spendius,

I mostly vote up, if I ever do, but I reserve the right to vote down for many reasons, not usual. I vote people up I disagree with, at least sometimes, for good argument. I don't care what you think is despicable, what an odd idea that I would.

0 Replies

Churches Given Anti-Obama Message on Sunday Before Election

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know