|
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? 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.
RSS 2.0![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
|
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 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 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.
5 comments from 3 users
1
posted by
maryann
on Nov 15, 2007 at 12:21 PM
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 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 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
|