Politcs Plus
I will be writing the 2008 presidential election and anything political in between. Although I am a Democrat ,come on in and tell me where I am wrong. lol
About Mike


Member Since:
October 01, 2007
Last Signed In:
August 29, 2008
Profile Views:
769
Blog Views:
4894
View Profile
Send a Message
Send To A Friend
Sign Guestbook
Add as a Friend

Previous Posts
Grand Slam
"No way,no how,no John McCain"
The Hillary Factor and why
Excellent Choice
Nuance v Steadfast
Start the real campaign
Glad to be back
Vacation bound....Destination...Chicago
Do negative ads work?
Will be vice presidential choice influence your vote?
Archives
October 07
November 07
December 07
January 08
February 08
March 08
April 08
May 08
June 08
July 08
August 08
John Edwards & Barack Obama went straight for the jugular in going
after Hillary. They attacked the vote on calling the Iranian Revolutionary Council a terrorist organization. Saying it will give this president the excuse he needs to
go to war with Iran.

Hillary’s inconsistent answers were exposed on social security and at the end
of the debate she agreed with New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's controversial plan to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants but then a minute later started backtracking.
Now Bill Clinton was a master at being evasive but her facial expressions and
demeanor showed she is no Bill Clinton. Will this debate change the numbers?
I don’t know.

I think what was really exposed last night was status quo positions of the front runner.
How can my party complain about the secrecy in the Bush Administration
if Hillary does not turn over all her documents? I understand it gives the other
candidates an unfair advantage, because she will be the only candidate required to
do this. But if this lack of transparency is going to stop, someone has to take
the lead. The other is lobbyist money; Hillary has out raised all the candidates of
both parties in lobbyist money from Wall Street, defense department, and insurance
and drug companies. Some might see it as success but really it business as usual.
Somehow we must have a leader to take us to public financing because these lobbyist
have too much influence.

I am getting suspicious as to why the Bush Administration is getting their way on the
latest NSA spying bill. Did the telecommunication lobbyist have something to do
with it? I don’t know.

This may sound like a slam on Hillary but it really isn’t, it just exposes some of her
weakness in a primary. Great leaders learn form mistakes and they don’t
usually repeat them. Constructive criticism will only make a person stronger.
Subscribe!
RSS 2.0 feed RSS 2.0
Add to My Yahoo
Add to My Google
Add to Bloglines
Add to My AOL
Mike - > Politcs Plus -> Religion and politics do they mix?
Religion and politics do they mix?

To me, it’s like water and oil they just don’t mix.

Let me clarify that statement. Politics by nature is about making back room deals and for the most part it is sleazy. On the other hand religion is about standing on principals for the good of mankind.

David Kuo wrote an interesting book called “Tempting Faith” that describes how the Bush administration lured in the conservative evangelicals by promoting faith-based agendas. In the end they money that was budgeted for the poor and other compassionate social programs was $20 million less than what the Clinton administration spent. David said Karl Rowe and others called the evangelical leaders “nuts”. To be fair the administration did appoint Justices Alito, and Roberts to the Supreme Court and Bush did veto two embryonic stem cell research bills. Quid Pro Quo?

The USA Today stated the Catholic Bishops just approved a slogan “faithful citizenship” it hammers home the “intrinsic evil” of abortion and reminds Catholic voters that their choices in the 2008 elections “also may affect” their salvation. It does not stop there because it is supposed to offer a “theological” not “ideological” framework for the voting Catholic. They go on to say that Catholics should not vote on a single issue but must also consider the candidates stances on the poor, heath care, education, environment, war in Iraq, and support for traditional marriages. They also say none of Catholic presidential candidates followed the Pro-Life stance. This what makes it difficult because as far as social issues, the parties are definitely split?

I quoted the Catholic stance but the evangelicals are no different.

Should religion have a say in the political process? Yes to a point, but some are at the edge where their tax exemption is at risk. If they want a seat at the table they should give up their tax exemption and register as a lobbyist.

That’s why my politics are secular. I look for intelligence first, and then does he/she support most of  my issues. This intelligence makes them seek like minded people for their administration. You avoid incompetence and everything falls in place.

 

Tags:
posted by Mike on Wednesday, November 14, 2007 at 02:13 PM
Report a Violation
Viewed 53 times
5 comments from 3 users

1

posted by maryann on Nov 15, 2007 at 12:21 PM
BTW, I think I might have said this before, but my priest often speaks out about the war and its immorality, but we don't hear much about abortion, and it'll be a cold, cold day when the word C-O-N-TRACEPTION comes out of his mouth from the pulpit. We do hear it from YOUNG visiting priests, thank you God.  So you see, I think a lot of times it's where someone is or what the see/hear about a particular topic.
posted by maryann on Nov 15, 2007 at 12:16 PM

 

Mike, I can't help what individual Protestant churches do to get checked out by the IRS, nor can a lot of other Protestants!

I agree that the Church should be our conscience, Mike, but it should be our conscience on feeding the hungry, protecting the environment, AND protecting all stages of human life.  You won't like this statement, but some people don't know what's good or evil, they need to be guided in their thoughts and actions. The Church (and its members) must speak out to proclaim the Good News: feeding the poor and protecting babies is part of that message.

I don't think John the Baptist thought twice about telling it in the streets that Herod was in an unlawful marriage. John was speaking the truth FOR HEROD'S eventual own good.  Just because John was a practicing Jew/Christian and Herod was a non-practicing Jew who was in the government doesn't mean that Herod should not hear the message.  Perhaps John could have said it in a better way- I think he still would have been beheaded. We should be no less bold today in speaking out on evils.

Pat Robertson is a kook. My husband told me so long ago when I used to give money to Robertson. I finally saw through him on my own. The guy is not trustworthy. By giving his loyalty to Rudy, he is helping to set a precedent of having a pro-abortion Rep. nominee. While I believe that the Rep. Party is not the answer to the country's ills, I do believe that they can be useful in stopping abortion. Support Rudy, and pro-abortion Reps.who are taken seriously will be common.

Mike, our church HAS spoken out on the torture of prisoners recently. I read the National Catholic Register, and there have been debates left and right about the use of torture. Check out ncr.org (I think is the web address) and type in torture.  You will find some well argued pieces from those in the Church AGAINST torture.  CNN/Fox News doesn't always cover what the Church teaches, or get it accurate.

BTW, Benedict has repeatedly spoken out about this war.

Yes, legislating for the people means all the people. I happen to believe that Muslim, Buddhist, Protestant and atheist babies deserve life, and their adults deserve to be fed.

Just because my ideas are based in part on religion doesn't mean I should have to be quiet while those whose ideas are based on secularism can shout from the rooftops. ;-}

 

posted by Mike on Nov 15, 2007 at 10:59 AM

One of the earliest (and only) cases where a religious group had to be sanctioned by the IRS involved Christian Echoes National Ministry. Founded in 1951 by Dr. Billy James Hargis, it engaged in a wide range of political activity, all the way up to endorsing Barry Goldwater for president in 1964. That year the IRS revoked their tax-exempt status, an action which was affirmed by the Tenth Circuit Court in 1972.

For the most part, however, the IRS has done little in reaction to religious organizations which have crossed the line into explicit political advocacy.

In 1991, the IRS investigated Jimmy Swaggart and found that he was guilty of violating IRS rules because he had twice endorsed Pat Robertson for president. There was no fine, the tax-exempt status of his ministry was unaffected, and all he was asked to do was sign a pledge not to do it ever again. After that, however, the IRS seemed to start acting a bit more proactively.

In 1993, the IRS investigated Jerry Falwell and found that his Old Time Gospel Hour had illegally funneled money towards a political action committee which, in turn, had given money to conservative political candidates. This time, there was a $50,000 fine and the tax-exempt status for the organization was revoked retroactively for the years 1986 and 1987, the time when the violations occurred.

Also in 1993, the IRS investigated a small church in Binghamton, New York (the home church of radical anti-abortion activist Randall Terry, by the way). Pastor Daniel Little had been so outraged over the candidacy of then-Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton that he and his congregation took out a full-page ad that ran in USA Today and The Washington Times. With the headline “Christian Beware,” it accused Clinton of supporting “policies that are in rebellion to God’s Laws,” along with other vituperative attacks on the Democratic party and liberals generally.

It ended with the question, “How then can we vote for Bill Clinton?” just before it solicited “tax-deductible donations” to help fund even more such advertisements (and it did result in hundreds of contributions from all across the nation). This was perhaps one of the most blatant abuses of a church’s tax-exempt status that the IRS had ever seen, and it’s no wonder that it attracted quite a lot of attention, both positive and negative.

Eventually, in 1995, the IRS revoked the church’s tax-exempt status — but the church sued the IRS to get it back, with the help of Pat Robertson’s American Center for Law and Justice. Both a Washington, D.C. district judge and Circuit Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C. ruled in favor of the IRS, however, dealing a symbolic blow both to the church and to Pat Robertson.

Symbolic? Absolutely. If the church does not intervene in any future political campaigns, it can continue claim  501©(3) status and receive all of the attending benefits.

http://atheism.about.com/od...

Last night Pat Robertson more or less said it does not matter how Rudy feels about life it’s all about the judges. Yet, when Rudy had the opportunity to appoint judges he picked liberal judges’. Robertson blamed the liberal administration. I see Pat Robertson, Dr. James Dobson, and others injecting themselves into this election without repercussions.

I really expected the churches to stand up for humanity, when it was revealed that our country tortures, but they were all relatively quite. The church should be our conscience when it comes to the poor,disabled, the enviorment and let the government do the legislating because “of the people” means Christians and Non Christians.

 

 

posted by maryann on Nov 15, 2007 at 09:14 AM

I think the separation of Church and state is needed. BUT what does separation of Church and state mean?  It does not mean muzzling the Catholic bishops or the evangelical preachers whose job is to lead the faithful, even those faithful who don't want to hear the message.

We don't have a state Church in America like England and some other counries of Europe. If I am correct, the state church in England is the Anglican Church, the one good ol' Henry VIII started. Today, the queen is the official head of the Church of England. Also, we don't have government leaders appointing bishops, like the Chinese presently want to do, or Church leaders picking statesman.  Sounds good to me.

Yes, I know that the Catholic Church once mixed political power with religious power. I think the Church has been at its best when it was a spiritual force, not a political force. Politics can too easily tempt religious men and women.

I think that the Catholic bishops have every right under the Constitution AND especially in God's eyes, to preach the Catholic truth to its faithful. Why do certain individuals or groups want them muzzled? They surely don't have to listen. Don't we have freedom of speech, and don't we have freedom of religion?

If every Democrat was pro-abortion, and if every Republican was pro-life, some might have greater cause to be worried. Please let the Church get about its business of preaching the gospel to every creature, and teaching what Jesus has commanded. This is it's mission on Earth, not to get Republicans elected. (especially the Republican front-leader of today!)lol

When it comes down to it, no political party is going to turn this country's morals around. Only the power of God can, and I know he writes straight with crooked lines.

Roger, you mention the Vatican selling real estate. When you've been around since the time of Jesus, things tend to collect. Do you think that no Protestant groups have great real estate holdings? The Catholic Church is the largest charitable organization in the world, and the fixtures do NOT stand in the way of the Catholic faithful helping their fellow man.

 

posted by RogerTheShrubber on Nov 14, 2007 at 08:10 PM

I can only quote the great George Carlin......

"You know what they ought to do with churches? Tax them. If holy people are so interested in politics, government, and public policy, let them pay the price of admission like everybody else. The Catholic Church alone could wipe out the national debt if all you did was tax their real estate".

1

Leave a Comment
Ground Rules for posting comments:
  • No profanity or personal attacks.
  • Please comment on the subject of the blog post itself.
If you do not follow these rules we will remove your comment. Please keep it civil.

To protect users from spam, we need you to prove that you're a human being.
Please enter the text from the image at left.