Speaker Pushes Jobs Bill Provision (church in politics)

[zimv20]

link (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A26244-2004Jun8.html)


House Republican leaders have tacked on to a major jobs bill a provision that would give religious leaders more freedom to engage in partisan politics without endangering the tax-exempt status of their churches.

Conservative Christian groups have been pushing for such legislation for years, while civil liberties organizations and religious minorities have opposed it. But unlike past proposals, which were stand-alone bills, the current provision is attached to a huge tax bill that House leaders have placed on a fast track for consideration.


Last week, Americans United made public an e-mail from the Bush-Cheney campaign seeking to identify 1,600 "friendly congregations" in Pennsylvania. Campaign officials acknowledged that similar efforts are underway across the country as Bush seeks to take advantage of what political strategists call the religion gap: Polls show that frequent churchgoers overwhelmingly vote Republican.

Under current tax rules, clergy members are allowed to speak out on political issues and to lead nonpartisan voter registration drives. But the IRS can revoke a congregation's 501(c)3 tax-exempt status if it endorses candidates or engages in partisan politics.


But on page 378 of the bill is a provision entitled "Safe Harbor for Churches." It would allow clergy members to engage in political activity, including endorsing candidates, as long as they make clear that they are acting as private citizens and not on behalf of their religious organizations. They could not make partisan political statements in church publications, at church functions or using church funds.

The provision also would allow clergy members to commit three "unintentional violations" of the tax rules on political activity each year without risking the loss of tax-exempt status.

[Voltron]

Just because you put on a robe and believe in God doesn't mean you have lost the right to not only decide who you want to vote but also to try to sway others to vote the same. Does not mean you lose your right to free speach. Unless you live in America apparently.

I see nothing wrong with this.

But on page 378 of the bill is a provision entitled "Safe Harbor for Churches." It would allow clergy members to engage in political activity, including endorsing candidates, as long as they make clear that they are acting as private citizens and not on behalf of their religious organizations. They could not make partisan political statements in church publications, at church functions or using church funds.

The provision also would allow clergy members to commit three "unintentional violations" of the tax rules on political activity each year without risking the loss of tax-exempt status.

especially with the provision included in it I have marked in red.

[IJ Reilly]

Oh, I like this one:

The provision also would allow clergy members to commit three "unintentional violations" of the tax rules on political activity each year without risking the loss of tax-exempt status.

Sounds like an invitation to sin, with instant absolution. Not many churches offer such a deal, but now they'll be getting it.

[Ugg]

Oh, I like this one:

The provision also would allow clergy members to commit three "unintentional violations" of the tax rules on political activity each year without risking the loss of tax-exempt status.

Sounds like an invitation to sin, with instant absolution. Not many churches offer such a deal, but now they'll be getting it.

Man, this is scary. There is a clear reason for the separation of church and state unless of course gw wants to send us back to the dark ages. This, is only the beginning of christianization of US politics if he gets his way.

[mactastic]

So would it be ok if teachers started advocating for a candidate the same way as churches? You know, only if they made clear they were doing it in their private capacity, not in the official job capacity of course. I bet that would get some GOP panties up in a knot real fast.... :eek:

[zimv20]

how 'bout Planned Parenthood?

[Voltron]

Oh, I like this one:

The provision also would allow clergy members to commit three "unintentional violations" of the tax rules on political activity each year without risking the loss of tax-exempt status.

Sounds like an invitation to sin, with instant absolution. Not many churches offer such a deal, but now they'll be getting it.
So your saying because someone becomes a priest they stopped being a private citizen? All this is saying is that they can do the same thing as a private citizen can as long as they are not representing the church or using church funds to do it.

[Voltron]

So would it be ok if teachers started advocating for a candidate the same way as churches? You know, only if they made clear they were doing it in their private capacity, not in the official job capacity of course. I bet that would get some GOP panties up in a knot real fast.... :eek:
Not in a classroom, not on a field trip. But on their day off why not? In fact what stops them from doing it now on their day off?

[Krizoitz]

Man, this is scary. There is a clear reason for the separation of church and state unless of course gw wants to send us back to the dark ages. This, is only the beginning of christianization of US politics if he gets his way.

Oh give me a break. Our whole country was founded on the idea of groups being FREE to express their opinions. Why should religious groups be singled out? Groups like PETA, Planned Parenthood, Greenpeace, all have agendas too. Any group has positions and they have the right to try and convince other people that they are right or wrong. Its up to the people of the country to then decide what should and shouldn't be ok (obviously within the limitations of the Constitution).

Please read the first ammendment. It grants Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion. People who expect people to keep their ideologies and political views seperate simply because they believe in God are taking away the very freedom they are trying to defend.

What the first ammendmant is set up to do is keep the Government from establishing one religion as THE religion in this country. However as long as all religious and other groups have the equal right to express their views their is not a problem.

I'd like to point out that religious groups have championed some very important causes in the history of this country, such as abolitionism and civil rights. Should Martin Luther King not have been allowed to voice his view on equality because he was a minister? I think not.

And if you think for a minute that there is some sort of "Christianization" of the Country occuring you should note that abortion is still legal, gay marriage is becoming legal, the Ten Commandments monument was taken OUT of the courthouse in Alabama, and "Under God" was ruled unconstitutional in the pledge of allegiance.

The freedom for a group, any group to express their views and try and convince others to support those views is the fundemental building block of a free country. So long as that group stays within the bounds of law (i.e. not advocating for an official state religion, or outlawing religion alltogether). If you don't like what they are saying oppose that, but don't oppose their right to say it. That is a dangerous precdent to follow, not allowing people you disagree with to express their views. You should think about that.

[Frohickey]

Man, this is scary. There is a clear reason for the separation of church and state unless of course gw wants to send us back to the dark ages. This, is only the beginning of christianization of US politics if he gets his way.

Actually, it sure sounds like something that would benefit the Democrats greatly, except that they already have the benefit locked in.

Remember the politicking that goes on in black churches? I think its the Democrats that have like 90% of the black votes.

[Frohickey]

Overall, I don't see any problem at all with the bill. Also, it does not run counter to the 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion.

In fact, I would like to see it expanded.

Can I get tax-exempt status if I promise to not engage in partisan politics? ;) :D :eek:

Would be nice to never have to fill out a Form 1040 or see any income tax withholding. Heck, I'll promise to not engage in partisan politics in a heartbeat. :D :D :D

[blackfox]

Krizoitz, good points (as per usual)...I think what frightens people (myself included) is the power of moral authority that Religion holds...which, of course was why there was a separation of Church and State, to prevent absolutism in power structures. While it is true, that we as a Nation sought to prevent one Church from being the Religion of the State, in real terms Christianity is THE de-facto US religion, whether explicit or not. As far as freedom of opportunity goes, it is true that there is an opportunity for all Religion in America, but Christianity is by far the wealthiest, most influential, and respected/legitimate (if only by it's age and numerical strength), and will disproportionately benefit from this access. It is much like politics, where everyone has an equal opportunity to run for office, but it is the main, established parties and their nominees that actually do.

This all ties in with my real fear, is that various groups will basically use God's name in vain (blaspheme), using the authority of the Church to advance a very un-Christian agenda...if you substitute the authority of a Nation in these same means, you get Fascism...so I am a little wary...

I know that you are a decent and fair Christian and person, Krizoitz, but many who call themselves your brethren are not. I am sorry that you are made to personally suffer, as a result of dealing with the lowest-common denominator.

[IJ Reilly]

Nobody's brought this up yet, but if an organization enjoys a tax exemption under section 501(c)(3) of the tax code, they're effectively barred from becoming involved with political activities. I wonder if any thinks this limitation is "unfair" or a violation of the First Amendment -- or does it only become a problem when it applies to religious organizations?

[mactastic]

Not in a classroom, not on a field trip. But on their day off why not? In fact what stops them from doing it now on their day off?

But do they get 3 'unintentional violations per year' or would they be fired for their first offense?

[Ugg]

Actually, it sure sounds like something that would benefit the Democrats greatly, except that they already have the benefit locked in.

Remember the politicking that goes on in black churches? I think its the Democrats that have like 90% of the black votes.

You ignore the fact that Hispanics make up the largest ethnic minority in the US and are much more likely to be religious than any other group. The Hispanic vote is much less Democrat oriented than the Black vote is. Also, Hispanics are by and large Catholic. There's also the question of Muslim clerics being able to support the candidate of their choice and the potential for conflict with the (Un) Patriot Act.

This is a stupid idea. Religious leaders have every right to condone or condemn whomsoever they desire on their own time. One of the conditions of tax exempt status is to refrain from politics while at the pulpit. If the country has a problem with that then it needs to go through Congress not through the WH.

[Voltron]

But do they get 3 'unintentional violations per year' or would they be fired for their first offense?
Nope they don't even get fired for their 4th offense if they have tenure. Teachers been using there classes as a means to brain wash their students for years.

[Voltron]

This is a stupid idea. Religious leaders have every right to condone or condemn whomsoever they desire on their own time. One of the conditions of tax exempt status is to refrain from politics while at the pulpit. If the country has a problem with that then it needs to go through Congress not through the WH.
Apparently they aren't or there wouldn't be a need to make a law saying it is ok for them to preach their politics when they are off duty from preaching there religion. Of course an argument could be made that a preacher is always on duty.

[Frohickey]

You ignore the fact that Hispanics make up the largest ethnic minority in the US and are much more likely to be religious than any other group. The Hispanic vote is much less Democrat oriented than the Black vote is. Also, Hispanics are by and large Catholic. There's also the question of Muslim clerics being able to support the candidate of their choice and the potential for conflict with the (Un) Patriot Act.

This is a stupid idea. Religious leaders have every right to condone or condemn whomsoever they desire on their own time. One of the conditions of tax exempt status is to refrain from politics while at the pulpit. If the country has a problem with that then it needs to go through Congress not through the WH.

Thats only a recent occurrence. Prior to that, blacks were the largest minority group in the United States.

Tax exempt status, I'm ambivalent about that. Seems that the tax-exempt status is being used as a wedge in order to stop organizations (and their members) from exercising their constitutional rights.

[zimv20]

Seems that the tax-exempt status is being used as a wedge in order to stop organizations (and their members) from exercising their constitutional rights.
i don't think that's the right way of looking at it. not-for-profit groups that exist for humanitarian reasons are given favorable tax status because they are supposed to help all people equally, w/o prejudice.

[Krizoitz]

One of the conditions of tax exempt status is to refrain from politics while at the pulpit.

Seem like the government is infringing on peoples freedom of religion and speech, but its ok as long as its aimed at Christianity, or atleast thats what the left wants us to believe.

[Neserk]

I think some arguments would be going differently here if the religious organizations were Wicca, Islam, Buddhist, etc.

THe problem I've personally seen with churches is that they insist one follow their religious tenants while receiving their benefits.

Examples: I volunteered in a home where girls who were pregnant and could not live with their own families went. The home was a non-profit and decidedly religious. The girl I was partnered with became very "Christian" up until her baby was born and she was able to move out on her own. I would personally prefer to see sincereity in religious belief/practice than manipulated (as was her case by her house parents).

I also know of homeless sanctuaries that force people through a 2 hourish religious service before providing food etc. :eek:

I don't think this is what Jesus had in mind...

[Ugg]

Seem like the government is infringing on peoples freedom of religion and speech, but its ok as long as its aimed at Christianity, or atleast thats what the left wants us to believe.

If someone is not paying taxes, should they be allowed to use that tax free status to promote the politician of their choice? I don't think so. It's not just a matter of Christianity. Or have you forgotten the wide range of religon in the US?

The point of this is to avoid the promotion of any one religion. In order to be applied fairly it has to be applied across the board. Take a look at Europe and the middle east, politics and religion don't mix.

I agree with Neserk, if Jesus' teachings were what most "Christians" followed, then there would be no need for the law. Sadly, few Christians follow Christ's path.

[Voltron]

If someone is not paying taxes, should they be allowed to use that tax free status to promote the politician of their choice? I don't think so. It's not just a matter of Christianity. Or have you forgotten the wide range of religon in the US?

The point of this is to avoid the promotion of any one religion. In order to be applied fairly it has to be applied across the board. Take a look at Europe and the middle east, politics and religion don't mix.

I agree with Neserk, if Jesus' teachings were what most "Christians" followed, then there would be no need for the law. Sadly, few Christians follow Christ's path.
This isn't about allowing a tax free institution to spread their political beliefs but about individuals not being allowed to spread their political beliefs because they are a member of a tax free institution. This is about individual rights. When he's not wearing a robe and he's not using church funds to do it he should be free to politic any way he sees fit.

[Frohickey]

Seem like the government is infringing on peoples freedom of religion and speech, but its ok as long as its aimed at Christianity, or atleast thats what the left wants us to believe.

You need to remember that the left doesn't like competititon.
The left wants you to worship government and the state. Why else are they trying their hardest to make sure that you are subservient and dependent on the state?

[mactastic]

You need to remember that the left doesn't like competititon.
The left wants you to worship government and the state. Why else are they trying their hardest to make sure that you are subservient and dependent on the state?


You forgot to capitalize. It's The Left when you are making those sweeping generalizations that you like so much. :D :D :p

[Frohickey]

You forgot to capitalize. It's The Left when you are making those sweeping generalizations that you like so much. :D :D :p

Sorry. I need to refer to them via their proper name.

Its the Holy Leftist Church of State Subservience and Dependency.
So, who will be the first high priestess of the HLCSSD? I think Hillary Clinton, the one that was named after Sir Edmund Hillary, even though Sir Edmund would not be famous until 6 years after no-name-daughter of Dorothy Rodham had to endure 6 years of having no first name. Wow. She must have had a scarred childhood. She deserves to be the first high priestess of the HLCSSD.

;) :eek: :D

[Krizoitz]

If someone is not paying taxes, should they be allowed to use that tax free status to promote the politician of their choice? I don't think so. It's not just a matter of Christianity. Or have you forgotten the wide range of religon in the US?

The point of this is to avoid the promotion of any one religion. In order to be applied fairly it has to be applied across the board. Take a look at Europe and the middle east, politics and religion don't mix.

No I haven't forgotten, and I am well aware that some have used Christianities numbers to justify discriminatory behavior against other religions in the past and some still try and do it (Pres Bush's anti-gay marriage amendment). However In the past 30 years I have also seen a backlash AGAINST Christianity, especially with this absurd idea that you have to keep your religion hidden. Its like "ok you can believe whatever you want, but heaven forbid if you let anyone know about it".

Anyhow, the reason for tax-exempt status is for groups that are NON-profit. Chuches and charities being the main examples. These are groups who aren't out to make money and so they don't pay taxes. Why should that limit their ability to exercise free speech. The fact that there is a law that limits the free-speech of religious non-taxed groups and not other non-taxed groups bothers me greatly. PETA, Greenpeace, etc are no less "religious" than a church. They have a set of beliefs that they try and promote and part of the way they do that is through political action.

Allowing the church to endorse or critcize politicians, bills, etc is no threat to the freedom of religion so long as the church isn't given the power to MAKE the laws.

As for applying the rules across the board, I dont' see that happening here. I see God centered religions being discriminated against, while other groups such as environmentalists aren't.

[IJ Reilly]

Greenpeace is a religion. Okay, I've got to let that one pass...

As for Christians feeling the need to their religion hidden, now that's just absurd. I've never encountered this phenomenon even once in my entire life. Jews, Muslim, Hindus, Buddhists keeping quiet about what they believe, yes. Often. But never Christians.

[Ugg]

No I haven't forgotten, and I am well aware that some have used Christianities numbers to justify discriminatory behavior against other religions in the past and some still try and do it (Pres Bush's anti-gay marriage amendment). However In the past 30 years I have also seen a backlash AGAINST Christianity, especially with this absurd idea that you have to keep your religion hidden. Its like "ok you can believe whatever you want, but heaven forbid if you let anyone know about it".

Anyhow, the reason for tax-exempt status is for groups that are NON-profit. Chuches and charities being the main examples. These are groups who aren't out to make money and so they don't pay taxes. Why should that limit their ability to exercise free speech. The fact that there is a law that limits the free-speech of religious non-taxed groups and not other non-taxed groups bothers me greatly. PETA, Greenpeace, etc are no less "religious" than a church. They have a set of beliefs that they try and promote and part of the way they do that is through political action.

Allowing the church to endorse or critcize politicians, bills, etc is no threat to the freedom of religion so long as the church isn't given the power to MAKE the laws.

As for applying the rules across the board, I dont' see that happening here. I see God centered religions being discriminated against, while other groups such as environmentalists aren't.

3 simple words. History, history, history. History, if you missed it the first time, has proven time and time again that religion and politics make bad bedfellows.

No, it's not a backlash, it's the realization that there are other religions, sects, belief systems and values than those embodied in Christianity and they deserve to be protected from Christianity.

I agree with IJ, few Christians are shy about proclaiming to the world what their purpose is, and it seems mainly to force their beliefs onto the "unbelievers'.

Man, if Jesus could hear you know I'm sure he would be ashamed. It's not about who is biggest nor about who is best, but about doing things with humility and loving one's fellow man. Unfortunately, organized religion of whatever flavor rarely seems to have anything to do with what the founders of that religion intended. Wow, I'm starting to sound like Frohickey. Maybe I was breathing too many SUV fumes today.....

[takao]

As for Christians feeling the need to their religion hidden, now that's just absurd. I've never encountered this phenomenon even once in my entire life. Jews, Muslim, Hindus, Buddhists keeping quiet about what they believe, yes. Often. But never Christians.

hm i don't know where you live but here the whole religous discussion is rather relaxed and even the christians are rather laid back

reminds me of last weekend when i was church(which just got finished after a few works needed to get made ... you know after 140 years a few things aren't in top condition anymore), after a long period of abstinence, for the conformation (sp?) of my younger brother..was very nice and relaxed even with the church filled completly with lots of people and many had to keep standing the whole 1,5 hours (normaly the church is filled to 50% max) ... and the new young priest (the old died sadly because of cancer) made a critical but gentle comments towards those "war driving politicans out there" as he called it ...
and seeing lots of people don't knowing when to stand up or to sit down during ceromony (me included) was absolute priceless :D very entertaining... my sister and I were joking all the time,making pictures(without flash light ;) ) and of course the selection of songs which got sung ('wind of change','we are the world') fitted the things the priest said nicely ;)

funny attidude towards religion in a country who suffered from a catholic-fascistic regime before WW2 isn't it ?

[Frohickey]

Wow, I'm starting to sound like Frohickey. Maybe I was breathing too many SUV fumes today.....

Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated. :p :eek: :D

[pdham]

I plan on going into ministry, and I dont even really like this idea. I am reminded of a verse in the Bible when Jesus says "give to Ceasar what is Ceasars and to God what is God's", now Jesus was specifically talking about paying taxes (He was encouraging His followers to do so), but I think it illustrates my point well. I have no problem with a church having a set of beliefs, even making those beliefs known to there attendees. But churches should never be used, by a party for a source of political gain. This seems to enter to many variables into the equation that could be contrary to solid teaches of a church. For the churches sake, I don't think I would like to see this occur, it is an invitation to misuse religion for gain. This reminds me of another verse: 1 Timothy 6:5 "These people always cause trouble. Their minds are corrupt, and they don't tell the truth. To them religion is just a way to get rich." We just may be talking about a "political richness" here.


Paul

[Neserk]

The left wants you to worship government and the state.


What the hell? Talk about coming from left field... that doesn't even make sense...

[Neserk]

I plan on going into ministry, and I dont even really like this idea.


Paul


Glad to hear that.

[Frohickey]

What the hell? Talk about coming from left field... that doesn't even make sense...

It doesn't? Why is the left against any religious symbolism at all? There isn't even any religious advocacy (as it should be), but the ACLU is against 'plus' signs in various state and municipal logos. ;)

And, what are the various welfare benefits if not to have women (and men) depend on government, instead of each other?

[Neserk]

It doesn't? Why is the left against any religious symbolism at all? There isn't even any religious advocacy (as it should be), but the ACLU is against 'plus' signs in various state and municipal logos. ;)



Stereotype much? What the Left is against is having 1 religion (namely, Christianity, if you can call it that) dominating the country and being seen as the only religion in existence -- which would be the preference of certain people.

You should do some research on the ACLU before you go spouting off Fundie lies. The ACLU has actually protected religious rights *of Christians.* They are seldom are the violated but in the cases where they have been they the ACLU stepped in and took the case. Further, Christians (the ones with the big mouths) seem to think they are the only ones who have the right to religious freedom, at the expense of others. Thus explaining why you see what appears to be an inbalance of court cases. When the ACLU wants CA to remove the cross from a public symbol that is meant for *all* Californians it is *protecting* the religiious rights of Jews, Muslims, Buddists, Hindus, etc. But I'm sure you are only interested in your right to see your symbol everywhere you look!

[Krizoitz]

You should do some research on the ACLU before you go spouting off Fundie lies. The ACLU has actually protected religious rights *of Christians.* They are seldom are the violated but in the cases where they have been they the ACLU stepped in and took the case. Further, Christians (the ones with the big mouths) seem to think they are the only ones who have the right to religious freedom, at the expense of others. Thus explaining why you see what appears to be an inbalance of court cases. When the ACLU wants CA to remove the cross from a public symbol that is meant for *all* Californians it is *protecting* the religiious rights of Jews, Muslims, Buddists, Hindus, etc. But I'm sure you are only interested in your right to see your symbol everywhere you look!

While I do whole heartedly agree that in most cases the ACLU has done a good job protecting peoples rights of all creeds, and I can understand removing an overtly religious symbol. But removing the cross symbols, the basic plus symbol used almost universally as a sign of hospitals worldwide seems to be taking things way too far. Yes its possible even probable that the symbol has religious origins, but I don't thinka anyone can reasonable argue that the use of a cross symbol by hospitals is an atempt to push any kind of religious agenda. I mean when was the last time you hear abou the American Red Cross proslytizing to disaster victims?

[Frohickey]

Stereotype much? What the Left is against is having 1 religion (namely, Christianity, if you can call it that) dominating the country and being seen as the only religion in existence -- which would be the preference of certain people.

If the Left are against one religion dominating the country, shouldn't the Left be out supporting the other religions instead? Maybe the ACLU should be demanding that the star of David replace the cross in 5% of the LA county seals. ;)

If the Left are against one religion dominating the country, why not just let the issue lie, and they can then rail on the one dominant religion and make it irrelevant. Oh, I get it. They can't do a blatant anti-dominant religion campaign, or else they will be marked and castigated as heathens. They already have started a religion based on Gaia, might as well go for the whole enchilada.

So, the tactic is to say they are against any religious symbolism in order to level the religious playing field. Didn't the communists also clamp down on religions? ;)


Marx's opinion of religion is simple: it is an illusion whose chief purpose is to provide reasons and excuses to keep society functioning just as it is. (http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/religion/blrel_marx_religion.htm)

So, if you are trying to change society, to change the way society is functioning, you need to remove religion. Or at least, step by step, hammer down the dominant one, until you can change society.

[blackfox]

Is the Right co-opting and manipulating Religion to serve it's own needs any better? I would rather have an over-principled Secularist than an under-principled one wrapped in the mantle of Religion...

[Neserk]

If the Left are against one religion dominating the country, shouldn't the Left be out supporting the other religions instead? Maybe the ACLU should be demanding that the star of David replace the cross in 5% of the LA county seals. ;)


No, they have to equally support freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Putting the star of David or other religious symbols would just be doing the same thing.


If the Left are against one religion dominating the country, why not just let the issue lie, and they can then rail on the one dominant religion and make it irrelevant.


That makes no sense, whatsoever.



So, the tactic is to say they are against any religious symbolism in order to level the religious playing field. Didn't the communists also clamp down on religions? ;)


Communism is on its death bed. This isn't the 50's or the 80's, give it a rest. It isn't about clamping down on relgions, if that were the case they'd be closing down religious buildings :rolleyes: it is about relgion seeping its way into politics.


So, if you are trying to change society, to change the way society is functioning, you need to remove religion. Or at least, step by step, hammer down the dominant one, until you can change society.

Once again: :rolleyes: No one is trying to remove religion. It is simply recognizing where it belongs and where it does not belong. Putting a cross or star of david or Buddha on a public symbol endorses that relgion, we can't have that. If you want a cross put one up in your window or get the Christian flag and fly it from your home.

We all know you aren't in favor of true religious freedom. You wouldn't be whining if it weren't for the fact it is a cross they want removed. If it was a religious symbol from Islam or Hinduism or Wicca you'd be silent or cheering them on!

[takao]

So, the tactic is to say they are against any religious symbolism in order to level the religious playing field. Didn't the communists also clamp down on religions? ;)

last time i checked the communism was tolerating the orthodox church/etc during it last 40 years... (i'm not talking about stalin here) ... they weren't supporting them but they weren't there out there doing everything agaisnt them
same in communistic poland or the DDR
of course they weren't writing "in god we trust" all over the place ;)





communism hadn't much to do with marxism (especially in the end)
you know the 'bolschevicy' (sp?) which translates to "majority" were actually the minority in 1917 ... kinda ironic isn't it ;)

but we are getting off topic...

[Frohickey]

Is the Right co-opting and manipulating Religion to serve it's own needs any better? I would rather have an over-principled Secularist than an under-principled one wrapped in the mantle of Religion...

Could be. Thats why some conservatives have said that they would like the republican party to kick out the christian right. And, some of the conservatives, like me, just decide to vote for the Libertarian candidate most of the time. ;)

I would rather have a strict-constructionist over either of the two you have mentioned.

[Voltron]

No, they have to equally support freedom of religion and freedom from religion. Putting the star of David or other religious symbols would just be doing the same thing.

!
um where do you get freedom from religion from, I swear reading this bill of rights and crap backwards and forward and I don't see nothing about being freedome from religion?

They did not create freedom of religion to protect the government from religion just like they did not create freedom of speech to protect the government from people speaking. :eek:

[Voltron]

Once again: :rolleyes: No one is trying to remove religion. It is simply recognizing where it belongs and where it does not belong. Putting a cross or star of david or Buddha on a public symbol endorses that relgion, we can't have that. If you want a cross put one up in your window or get the Christian flag and fly it from your home.

We all know you aren't in favor of true religious freedom. You wouldn't be whining if it weren't for the fact it is a cross they want removed. If it was a religious symbol from Islam or Hinduism or Wicca you'd be silent or cheering them on!
oops wrong, if your a judge and you are religious plan on not getting a straight up or down vote in the Senate for supreme court or other jurist type duties because the Democrats will simply refuse to allow it to come to a vote by refusing to shut their mouths long enough to vote for it. I forgot the proper term for that but I'm sure you get my point. Democrats is trying to make it that if you are religious your not allowed to hold any government office.

[Neserk]

um where do you get freedom from religion from, I swear reading this bill of rights and crap backwards and forward and I don't see nothing about being freedome from religion?

They did not create freedom of religion to protect the government from religion just like they did not create freedom of speech to protect the government from people speaking. :eek:


History. That would be the part where you aren't required to have a religion. Which was not the case in many countries. You are free to worship God as you choose or to not worship God at all ;)

Government doesn't need to be protected from religion. People need to be protected from people in the government foisting a religion on them.

[Neserk]

oops wrong, if your a judge and you are religious plan on not getting a straight up or down vote in the Senate for supreme court or other jurist type duties because the Democrats will simply refuse to allow it to come to a vote by refusing to shut their mouths long enough to vote for it. I forgot the proper term for that but I'm sure you get my point. Democrats is trying to make it that if you are religious your not allowed to hold any government office.

No, if you insist on using your religion and spreading it all over people using the power of your office count on not getting an endorsement.

It is a filibuster. And both parties use it.

Religious leaders, lets see: Carter, Southern Baptist. Reagan, Bush, Bush: Born Again Christians (or so they claim). Clinton: Southern Baptist. Kennedy: Catholic.

Nope, if you are religious you aren't allowed to hold any government office.

[Frohickey]

History. That would be the part where you aren't required to have a religion. Which was not the case in many countries. You are free to worship God as you choose or to not worship God at all ;)

Government doesn't need to be protected from religion. People need to be protected from people in the government foisting a religion on them.

Agreed.

So, where is it that a LA county seal with a 'plus' sign on it is supposed to give government employees/officials the power to foist a religion on people? I didn't know that LA county seals were forged in the fires of Mt Doom, and able to corrupt people who gaze upon them. :eek:

My preciousssssss.......

[Neserk]

Agreed.

So, where is it that a LA county seal with a 'plus' sign on it is supposed to give government employees/officials the power to foist a religion on people? I didn't know that LA county seals were forged in the fires of Mt Doom, and able to corrupt people who gaze upon them. :eek:

My preciousssssss.......

It isn't a plus sign and it suggests an endorsement of Christianity. Which was its original intent, if you know CA history. Which I do have studied it prior to taking the CSET.