The secular progressive Freedom From Religion Foundation has filed a complaint with the IRS to remove the tax exempt status of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association because the secularists believe that the organization’s “vote for biblical values” ad campaign was a violation of the separation of Church and State.
Secularists are once again increasing their War on Christians under the guise of separation of Church and State. Secularists continually try to expand the definition of what constitutes a violation of this interpretation of the First Amendment to limit the rights of religious groups.
If these anti-religious zealots are successful in this new attempt to limit advertising of religious organizations to vote for their religious values, these religious groups would lose their exemption, even though the advertising never mentioned the candidate’s names.
Excerpt:
Brent Rinehart of the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association provided The Christian Post with an official statement regarding the “Biblical Values” ad campaign.
“The ads intentionally do not mention any candidate, political party, or contest, urging instead for readers to cast votes for candidates-at all levels-based on their support for biblical values,” reads the statement in part.”
And the secularists contend,
Rob Boston, senior policy analyst for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, told The Christian Post that he believes FFRF had a good case against the BGEA.
“I believe a strong case can be made that the Graham ministry violated federal law. IRS guidelines allow churches and ministries to engage in issue advocacy, they warn against tying such advocacy to a candidate,” said Boston.
“IRS rules make it clear that a church or ministry can endorse a candidate even without mentioning his or her name.”
Obviously, this secularist group realized the ads didn’t favor their candidate at the presidential level.
Religious organizations must continually update the latest rulings sought by the secularist progressives in order to determine what they currently may say or may not say, not only from the pulpit but in any form of speech that these secularist groups determine is a violation of the First Amendment, or more probably, a violation of their secularist beliefs.
Let’s look at just the basics, without all of us pretending that we are experts on the law, which we are not. Let’s simply look at what Obamacare is doing to Catholics according to a Townhall article written by Terry Jeffery. I agree 100% with his logic and he is much better at discussing the points than I am.
http://townhall.com/columnists/terryjeffrey/2012/11/21/will_obama_allow_americans_to_practice_catholicism_no/page/full/
The Obama administration argues is that it has the authority to tell Americans they can no longer practice Catholicism. What the Obama administration says is that it can order Catholics to act against their faith.
Elsewhere, the administration argues it can order Catholic institutions — such as the University of Notre Dame — to provide its employees and students with coverage for contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs.
Obamacare, the bishops said, is a “violation of personal civil rights.”
The regulation creates a class of Americans “with no conscience protection at all: individuals who, in their daily lives, strive constantly to act in accordance with their faith and moral values. They, too, face a government mandate to aid in providing ‘services’ contrary to those values — whether in their sponsoring of, and payment for, insurance as employers; their payment of insurance premiums as employees; or as insurers themselves — without even the semblance of an exemption.”
How can the Obama administration justify ordering Catholics to act against their faith? First, it argues that Catholics lose the right to live according to the moral teachings of their church when they start a business.
What about a nonprofit institution such as a Catholic university? What about an individual Catholic layperson? How can the administration justify ordering them to act against their faith? The First Amendment says Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion. Isn’t the administration prohibiting the free exercise of religion when it orders Catholics to act against Catholic teaching with Obamacare, a law?
The way the Obama administration interprets the First Amendment, it cannot order only Catholics to pay for the administration of a drug that kills an unborn child, but it can order all Americans — including Catholics — to pay for the administration of a drug that kills an unborn child.
Bishop David Zubik of Pittsburgh wrote in his diocesan newspaper: “The Obama administration has just told the Catholics of the United States, ‘To Hell with you!’”
President Obama has launched the greatest attack on religious liberty in the history of the United States. He hopes to divide Catholics from their church and American law from truth and justice.
There is no middle ground here. The church is right, the bishops are right, freedom of conscience is an alienable right, and law cannot remove an alienable right. Obama is more wrong about the meaning of liberty than any American president has ever been.
This is what I believe and will fight against Obamacare with every ounce of strength I have, regardless of what you secularist say. Remember, slavery used to be the law in America – being the law doesn’t make it right!!
Interesting! I did not realize that the Catholic Church had moved back to wallowing in a constant state of a persecution complex. That is so-o-o-o–o Middle Ages of you guys! But if you are happy there, my only hope is that you don’t get pulled muscles getting down on your knees 8 times a day for prayer and to look under your beds for the boogie man.
For you Catholics who don’t remember the Liturgy of the Hours that is the official set of daily prayers prescribed by the Catholic Church to be recited by clergy, religious institutes, and laity, here is the list:
Lauds or Dawn Prayer (at Dawn, or 3 a.m.)
Prime or Early Morning Prayer (First Hour = approximately 6 a.m.)
Terce or Mid-Morning Prayer (Third Hour = approximately 9 a.m.)
Sext or Midday Prayer (Sixth Hour = approximately 12 noon)
None or Mid-Afternoon Prayer (Ninth Hour = approximately 3 p.m.)
Vespers or Evening Prayer (“at the lighting of the lamps”, generally at 6 p.m.)
Compline or Night Prayer (before retiring, generally at 9 p.m.)
I know y’all know this because you are, as Ted and Terry Jeffery have told us, a ” class of Americans ‘with no conscience protection at all: individuals who, in their daily lives, strive constantly to act in accordance with their faith and moral values.’ ” We know you wouldn’t miss your daily prayers.
Obviously, you had no answer for my response, JRM, except to ridicule our faith and religious freedom in our “brave new world” under the Obama administration, which is what secularist always do to people who try to maintain religious standards and morality and respect for the sanctity of life. If the religious occasionally falter, then the secularist accuse them of not believing in their faith – a simplistic view of morality and our right to religious freedom under the Constitution of the U.S.
Jeffery is obviously wrong in how he is framing the issue. Obama isn’t telling Catholics anything. If you are an American you live under the law. It’s obvious to me that as far as rights are concerned Obama has chosen women’s rights. Contraception and abortion are considered women’s health issues.
My understanding of the new law means that all American employers have to include basic women’s health care including abortion and contraception. If you work at a church you are not obligated to follow this law. If you work at a religiously connected place, it’s not a church.
Jeffery’s piece also tells me the following:
What acience, medicine and wonen’s rights groups see as legitimate women’s health concerns are trumped by Catholic teachings.
I bet some sort of compromise comes out like a health savings account that people can use the money for any procedures not covered by a policy. This will happen if people ask for it. It could work similar to an HSA and cover procedures not listed in coverage offered by employers.
It’s also legitimate not just a place for employers to stash money for things they don’t agree with by calling it another name “account for items not listed in the policy.” There are plenty of health issues and procedures that can’t be written as line item coverage because they aren’t offered — eye care, dental, mental health. This account could also be used for women’s health without an employer violating his conscience or women having their basic health services denied.
That’s a legitimate, honest non-partisan solution. It doesn’t specifically cover or exclude a religious group. No one’s conscience is intentionally violated. It works just like tax money but for health — you pay it knowing something’s will go toward items you find appalling and some you applaud but never toward a specific line item you can take blame or credit for legitimately.
I really do understand paying for abortions is a legitimate concern. Contraception is a different matter and no one’s business other than two people involved. Happy thanksgiving!
Ted, how can one have any kind of answer for your response. You said you agreed with Terry Jeffery’s opinion. And that is what it is , his opinion. He cannot prove anything he says other than admit that it is his interpretation.
To accuse this administration, or any other administration of being against Catholics is absurd, especially when the accusor makes the statement that “The Obama administration argues is (sic)that it has the authority to tell Americans they can no longer practice Catholicism. What the Obama administration says is that it can order Catholics to act against their faith.” Show me where they “argue” these specific things and/or where they “say” these specific things. Once again we have a case of a supposed expert claiming that someone or some group is “arguing” something or “saying” something but is unable to direct us to any place where those actual things are being “argued” or “said” by the people accused of arguing or saying them. In other words, it is nothing more than his unprovable opinion.
I know what your answer will be but once again, it is your opinion of what someone else is doing. Even though the Catholic Church has been left with a very viable solution, a solution that you claim other business will use, you refuse to acknowledge that it is a viable solution for the Church. Once again, an opinon that you cannot support. But, go ahead, give it the old college try again! Maybe this time the boogie man secularists that you are finding under your bed will be more believable!
Here’s another example of the War on religion. This time it’s in Santa Monica. It’s been going on for years with atheists in the city trying to prevent Nativity scenes on public property and they finally forced the city to give up fighting in court. Whether you believe it or not JRM, there are people who hate religion and they will do anything to stop religious activities based on the smallest reference to the non-constitutional reference to “Separation of Church and state.”
You can’t say there isn’t a war on religion. These people are emboldened by our current administration and their goal is to destroy religion and remove it from public view, wherever they can. It’s the same thing communist countries accomplished in the past before banning the freedom to practice their religion in public.
The link:
http://www.gopusa.com/news/2012/11/19/atheists-intimidate-santa-monica-into-eliminating-nativity/?subscriber=1
Damon Vix didn’t have to go to court to push Christmas out of the city of Santa Monica. He just joined the festivities.
The atheist’s anti-God message alongside a life-sized nativity display in a park overlooking the beach ignited a debate that burned brighter than any Christmas candle.
Santa Monica officials snuffed the city’s holiday tradition this year rather than referee the religious rumble, prompting churches that have set up a 14-scene Christian diorama for decades to sue over freedom of speech violations. Their attorney will ask a federal judge Monday to resurrect the depiction of Jesus’ birth, while the city aims to eject the case.
“It’s a sad, sad commentary on the attitudes of the day that a nearly 60-year-old Christmas tradition is now having to hunt for a home, something like our savior had to hunt for a place to be born because the world was not interested,” said Hunter Jameson, head of the nonprofit Santa Monica Nativity Scene Committee that is suing.
Shawn sez: “Contraception is a different matter and no one’s business other than two people involved. ”
I couldn’t agree more. So why do you want to involve me, by picking MY pocket (or anyone else’s) , to pay for THEIR contraceptive needs?
So Ted, where is the proof from Mr. Jeffrey’s statements., ones you back 100%. All you gave me was another red herring you want me to chase and prove wrong. First, you need to prove something that you backed 100% is right.
Trying to blame the atheists this time doesn’t exempt you from proving your claims of what secularists and the Obama administration “argues” or “says”. We are all waiting for that proof. Man up and prove that what you backed 100% is true. Show me where they made the arguments you said they made or said what you said they said! Maybe for a change you will prove that something you back 100% was actually “argued” or “said” as you claim, rather than just your interpretation of something you think someone is doing but cannot prove.
“something like our savior had to hunt for a place to be born because the world was not interested”.
What was the matter there, Ted, didn’t Jesus buy big enough road side signage to announce his impending birth? Or maybe the secularist and athiests and Christian bashers stole the road side signs he and his followers put up.That has got to be the dumbest comment you have ever posted, Ted, to try to prove one of your point that I have ever seen.
And today we had the pope states in his new book, that Jesus was born a few years earlier than we thought (some 6th century monks fault), and that there were probably no donkeys and camels in the manger because this dipiction of the scene is probably base on myth. How does he know that? Did he get a call from Terry Jeffery telling him that, or did he just come into possession of some of the original photographs taken by Mary and Joseph.
Did you mean to write “inalienable” Ted? Because any alienable right can certainly be removed by law.
In case you aren’t aware, Republicans in the 70s supported Planned Parenthood because they offered contraceptive services. This led to less abortions and less people to be on welfare, less sexually transmited diseases.
Of course, some people believe that’s wrong because a religion says so — not any scriptures of the religion, just some guys who don’t have sex with women and have moved criminals around from parish to parish for decades. Some people have decided that these people are teachers of God’s morality.
If you want to solicit VOLUNTARY contributions for birth control and abortion, go for it.
But, can you explain why should I, or anyone else, be forced to pay to support sexual moral standards (or the lack thereof) like those of Sandra Fluke, especially if my beliefs/church doctrine oppose such acts?
Contraception and abortion are currently considered basic women’s health issues. Since the voters decided through electing candidates who support these positions that that is the direction the country will take, everyone contributes and follows the same laws.
My money goes to things I don’t like — failing programs, faith-based programs, costly wars, unjust wars, support for anti-communist dictators who’s only supposed virtue is being against communism. It also goes to things I like such as infrastructure, research and development of technology, etc.
If you adopt my idea of the HSA-style account then there is no direct support of line items that you might be morally opposed to. But we know that moral opposition to the health care bill from Republicans is new, fake outrage because they had abortion coverage for their national party. Pro-life Catholics could’ve cared less about the party they support having abortion coverage. It was their contribution money to the party paying for it along with other pro-life people. They are only mad when the Democrats do it so we know it’s a scam.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1109/Abortion_coverage_at_the_RNC.html
So short answer — people pay for things they don’t like because they lost the election — like everyone else does — and they weren’t very concerned when their political party was providing the things they claim to hate.
Making special excceptions for religions is a game. Since you can make your own religion in this country that is just as legitmiate as an old one, anyone can claim a religious exemption to things they don’t like. I think this will backfire if churches claim they can endorse candidates now, unlike other not for profits, and they won’t be exempt from anything, not taxes, not health care laws, nothing.
Have a good weekend.
Azguy – I didn’t see “alienable” right in this post.
Nov. 21st, 2012 at 8:47p.m.
Ted Biondo says: “Let’s look at just the basics,……………. There is no middle ground here. The church is right, the bishops are right, freedom of conscience is an alienable right and law cannot remove an alienable right.”
Azguy – The “an alienable right” was in Mr. Jeffery’s statement as a portion of my response. You are correct, it should be “inalienable right” – what’s the point? Maybe we should start spell checking all of the comments I get from you guys. Is that what you want to discuss – typos, mispelled words or grammer – or the issues in the post. Everyone can use a dictionary – what is that worth? This isn’t a Liberal Arts English Grammar class, it’s a blog!
Shawn, you say ” churches claim they can endorse candidates “, but no candidates were endorsed by name, or even by political party.
What WAS stated? “The ads intentionally do not mention any candidate, political party, or contest, urging instead for readers to cast votes for candidates-at all levels-based on their support for biblical values,” .
So, tell me how this violates the law. Or, is this one of those Leftist-interpreted comments, such as the ones which characterize any criticism of Obama as “racist”?
It obviously isn’t a place where you want to discuss “the issues in the post”. I am still waiting for you responses on two items that I asked you to provide facts on. However, you have, as usual, just stop posting on them.
The point people are making,Ted, is that you said your read Mr. Jeffeery’s position and stated that you agreed “100% with his logic and he is much better at discussing the points than I am”. Yet you failed tospot the “alienable” inaccuracy. Maybe you also failed to recognize the fact that he provided absolutely no proof of his opinions. He failed to show where the objects of his rant “argued” or “said” what he claimed they “argues” or said”.
And I am still waiting for you explanation of your comment about “something like our savior had to hunt for a place to be born because the world was not interested”.
So, if you want to discuss the “issues in the post”, not “typos, mispelled words or grammer”, then why don’t you do so?
Yes Ted, your blog is not a liberal arts grammar class. But does that mean proper grammar and spelling aren’t important? You’re asking me what is the point of that?. Well Ted, proper grammar makes what one says or writes easier to comprehend and more enjoyable to hear or read. But you’re the one who was a school board member for many years and a current , long-serving, Junior College board member. You more than me should strive for proper grammar in your postings. And everyone can use a dictionary and everyone should if they have any doubt about the spelling or meaning of a word they are going use in print.
From Ted’s article:
Rob Boston, senior policy analyst for Americans United for Separation of Church and State, told The Christian Post that he believes FFRF had a good case against the BGEA.
“I believe a strong case can be made that the Graham ministry violated federal law. IRS guidelines allow churches and ministries to engage in issue advocacy, they warn against tying such advocacy to a candidate,” said Boston.
“IRS rules make it clear that a church or ministry can endorse a candidate even without mentioning his or her name.”
–
We have courts to determine whether or not BGEA is in violation. “Biblical values” is pretty broad in the actual definition — but I’m sue the speakers mean voting against candidates that believe homosexuals should be treated equally as heterosexuals and voting agains candidates who believe women can have abortions for whatever reason they choose.
Shawnnews, you are right. Biblical values do conclude that marriage is only betwwen a man and a women. Secularists can choose any type of union they want, but it doesn’t change the fact that a marriage is only between a man and a woman. Also, abortion is the ending of a human life, pure and simple; it’s not getting rid of an unwanted fetus for whatever reason one feels entitled! A baby is murdered during abortion regardless of what the secularist rationalizes.
Catholics and other religious individuals have the same rights to request a vote against whomever advocates the murder of an unborn baby or that same sex marriage is a marriage! Homosexuals can be treated equally with heterosexuals, under the law, without the term marriage being applied! It’s another in your face jab at religious beliefs by secularists – a continuation of the war on religion in America!
Romans 13:
1Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.
2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
3 For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended.
4 For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer.
5 Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.
6 This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7 Give to everyone what you owe them: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.
So JRM, you are saying the Romans 13 is telling us that God wants Christians to murder their babies in the womb if the law allows it and they wish to abort the baby and homosexual marriages are condoned by God if the law allows it Then God obviously wanted slavery in America because it was the law of the land.
The answers by Christians is that this section deals with the divine rights of kings and doesn’t have anything to do with the democratic elections we have today.
Many Christian pastors and leaders today are erroneously reviving the divine-right-of-kings argument used in the Dark Ages, which created some of the most horrific human affairs in history. The ones you proposed JRM.
They, like the grandfather of Communism, Georg Hegel, argue that government is divinely sanctioned to do anything it pleases and that God requires people to submit regardless of natural standards of justice.
This argument has been used by virtually every tyrant since Jesus’ life, including Adolf Hitler, and it is fallaciously being used by Christians.
This false premise is doing more to bring America and the rest of the world into oppression and slavery than perhaps any other doctrine.
Holders of this doctrine are creating self-fulfilling prophecies of America’s ruin–all in the name of a shallow reading and misconstruction of Romans chapter 13.
Old Testment was changed by Jesus. JRM, You must be the tyrant of which the authors preach! Throughout history, oppressive regimes have tried to suppress or outlaw the Bible. In the “land of the free,” the adversary is more devious. Bible paraphrases change the Truth of God into lies to support the State’s agenda. (See Romans 1:25) SOUND FAMILIAR
The words chosen are not Bible words, they are statists’ words. The changes are subtle, but the effects are dramatic. For instance, in the Living Bible paraphrase of Romans 13, we are told that if we refuse to obey the “law of the land,” we are refusing to obey God. This is just another clever means of persuading Christians to take up citizenship with the kingdoms of the world.
Also, for example, what if our President decided to resurrect the old monarchical custom of Jus Primae Noctis (Law of First Night)? That was the old medieval custom when the king claimed the right to sleep with a subject’s bride on the first night of their marriage. Would our sincere Christian brethren sheepishly say, “Romans Chapter 13 says we must submit to the government”? I think not. And would any of us respect any man who would submit to such a law?
So, there are limits to authority. A father has authority in his home, but does this give him power to abuse his wife and children? Of course not. An employer has authority on the job, but does this give him power to control the private lives of his employees? No. A pastor has overseer authority in the church, but does this give him power to tell employers in his church how to run their businesses? Of course not. All human authority is limited in nature. No man has unlimited authority over the lives of other men. (Lordship and Sovereignty is the exclusive domain of Jesus Christ.)
And the government does not have unlimited authority to control our lives. I know Obama will try as others have tried. But I will have no problem blowing off any revenuers head if he sets foot on my homested. Come to think of it your thinking, JRM, is so bad I wouldn’t be coming around me house either, JRM
So Ted, you are saying that Romans 13, A CHRISTIAN WRITTEN BOOK OF THE NEW TESTAMENT, does not apply to any TRUE Christian’s life. That thinking means that a TRUE CHRISTIAN has the right to pick and choose which book, nay, which chapters and verses of which books they want to believe and follow, or throw away. That is a very interesting theory. Kind of gives a person the right to make up his own rules for life doesn’t it.
And speaking of rules, in looking at your total response, I see that you also feel that it is alright to copy paragraphs and sentences from other peoples articles and papers and not bother to give them credit for their work. But then I guess that there are Christians that think they can do whatever they want because they know which words in the New Testament really apply, and those which don’t.
Chuck Baldwin as well as the Embassy of Heaven author, and probably more if I wanted to waste more of my time on research, might be upset that you used their work, exact paragraphs, word for word and didn’t give them credit.
Sounds like stealing to me, and shows that you have little regard for honest discourse. You just keep proving that you have significantly less regard for what is right and true than you keep claiming. The last time I saw this level of plagerism was when a footbal player in my ethics class submitted the best paper on existentialism that I have ever seem. Unfortunately he got caught submitting a paper that he got from his fraternity’s term paper files which was itself a plagerized document. The result to him was he was expelled from college, lost his football scholarship, and put a mark on his record that he has never been able to erase.
Maybe I should cut you some slack since it could be that you had a few to many toddies before you answered my post at 12:07 this morning. I make this judgment since every word is spelled correctly in the plagerized sections, but there are loads of misspellings in the sections that were not plagarized. And then, it could have been the toddies may have made you decide to plagarize in the first place. But then, you are grown up man who should be held responsible for his actions.
What do you have to say for yourself Ted?
You are right, JRM, about the spelling and typos. I didn’t check them that early in the morning and should have made a better effort. I stand by what I and the other authors said, however. I thought I had referenced them, but obviously did not. No more responses after midnight in the future.
More to the point, I will also be more selective, when and if, I make responses in the future. I’m spending more time responding to comments for three or four people, than I am writing posts for hundreds of others. A lot of people like the topics I present, even if you few don’t. I will expeditiously decide where to spend my time in the future!
Okay, Ted, if that is the story you are sticking to, that is your choice. I expected you to be at least as honest as you expect all those people you rant about to be, but I guess not. And now you are going to stop responding to the comments of three or four people who question the positions you take and the things you say. That must mean that you have changed your mind about “discussing the issues” that you stated a little above in this post.
Let’s face it, if the three or four people you referred to stopped posting on your site, all you would have is a bunch of “yes” men here and be just like any other boring extreme right wing opinion blog. If that’s the case, you might as will stop writing because they can all go directly to all the places you quote (and sometimes not quote). They would not need you as the middle man any more. Besides that, SNuss wouldn’t have anybody to attempt to insult anymore.
Ted said “Biblical values do conclude that marriage is only between a man and a woman.” Really? Where? Because the Bible that I studied described 7 different types of marriage including plural, slaves, concubines, and being forced to marry your brother’s widow because they were childless. It sounds more like these are YOUR values and you’re using a few lines from the Bible to justify them while ignoring the rest of what it says. Again.
If you want to follow the Bible then fine, follow the whole thing, not just the parts that can be bent to serve your purpose…
“I will also be more selective, when and if, I make responses in the future.”
Ted, you have already been quite selective. See the list of items you had no response to which I enumerated here:
http://blogs.e-rockford.com/tedbiondo/2012/11/08/unintended-consequences-of-reducing-size-of-county-board/comment-page-1/#comment-112094
It’s going to be difficult for you to be even more selective.
“I’m spending more time responding to comments for three or four people, than I am writing posts for hundreds of others.”
You’re spending this time responding to the comments of a few people who point out where you are wrong. Rather than just ignoring people who point out your mistakes, misinformation, propaganda and outright lies, why don’t you simply start posting thoughtful pieces that can be supported by actual facts? Doesn’t that seem like a more upstanding approach than stating that you’re just going to ignore people who know more than you and are more honest?
“A lot of people like the topics I present, even if you few don’t.”
And you think that these people deserve to be lied to?
Amazing Scott – did the bible passages say anything about forcing you to marry a same sex person, but then that would not help the childless part, would it?
“…did the bible passages say anything about forcing you to marry a same sex person…”
Ted, what are you even talking about? Who’s forcing anyone to “marry a same sex person”?
Adam, you stated ” Because the Bible that I studied described 7 different types of marriage including plural, slaves, concubines, and being forced to marry your brother’s widow because they were childless.”
So, I see nothing about males being forced to marry other males, unless your brother’s widow was actually a transvestite.
Obviously you have all found the Bible has many things to say and Biblical values are interpretable. Christian values are narrower but stil interpretable.
The health law — written by Christians since almost every elected official claims some sort of Christianity — is not aimed at dismantling religions. It’s Christian authors and sponsors decided women’s health included contraception and abortion. Churches/temples don’t have to follow the law. That’s another gift besides being tax free.
I don’t mind non-for-profits being tax free including religious ones. I’m not even for taxing churches — but all these tax free organizations have to follow the law or pay a tax. It’s not persecution. I get the arguments about abortion and I think they are valid. That’s why we have courts and I’ll wait until the end of the obvious court cases that will be filed on this portion of the bill. Persecuted people don’t get a day in court unless at a show trial.
Snuss, now what are you talking about? I did not state any of that. Now you’re just making stuff up like Ted.
Ahh, SNuss is confused- I said that, and Adam Faber replied to Ted when Ted asked me his own very confused question about levirate marriage which was probably more of a snarky but badly delivered response than an actual question because he is at a loss to explain how the Bible could possibly say something different than what he thinks. He knows the story of how Solomon had over 500 wives but it never really registered to him as an endorsement of plural marriage. Sure the ‘Wisdom of Solomon’ is legendary- with 500 wives I think I’d be too tired to think clearly =)
Oh, and I note that Ted failed to respond to any of Adam Faber’s comments when he posted…
Yes, I did mistakenly attribute Scott’s comment to Adam. All this propaganda seems to blur together after awhile.
Yes, especially when you’re the one spewing it. I have trouble keeping up with you having multiple IDs with the same name but different capitalization…
The name is the same, even if I miss the “shift’ key on occasion. I don’t post under multiple identities like some of you Leftist radicals do.
Well I’m more of a centrist radical (and by radical I mean common sense) but I AM left-handed. Who do you think is using multiple IDs? I’m not- what you see is what you get.
I consider myself a “right-wing extremist”, as defined here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=fHXzM4FCz_I
Of course, such views are only “extreme” if you are a hate-filled Leftist radical, or have been drinking too much kool-ade.
Well then- good luck with that. I believe that extremism is the problem, not the solution.
Yes, Leftist extremism is the problem. Democrats today are more like the party of Karl Marx, rather than the party of Harry Truman, or JFK.
lol, look who’s talking! Don’t worry, Obamacare will probably cover it…
Christians should thnak God every day that their fellow Christians Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are in charge of the US state department running interference against the irresonsible actions of other Christians in promoting a bill that includes the death penalty for homosexuals in Uganda.
Millions of people have died in Africa from AIDS. Rather than promote sontraception and health, they have decided to jail homosexuals and possibly kill repeat homosexual offenders. This Ugandan bill came agfter a conference led by US evangelicals.
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/11/26/1164863/-American-Christian-Evangelicals-celebrating-advancement-of-Uganda-s-Kill-the-gays-bill
What these three men are congratulating (Tony Perkins, Scott Lively) and Bryan Fischer) is a bill that will lead to the legal persecution of gays in Uganda and their death at the hands of the government.
Notice that in their “tweets ” of them believes that a law like this is fine and acceptable for the US. If the Communist Party of the US advocated the death of ohers they would probably be tried and charged with sedition. These guys might not even pay a tax.
Full disclosure. If a choose, I go to one local formerly-liberal Protestant church. I probably was indoctrinated to my political beliefs like everyone else gets indoctinated into theirs. The hate and demonization of gays wasn’t there. One of the pastors even thought it was great that gays were being welcomed into the church during the 80s.
The problem is in the book. You can take a relgious book and make it into what ever you want for good or evil and claim the God supports it. The interpretations change, the translations change, but the book never does.
Love the sinner, hate the sin.