Undecided Iowa Evangelicals Are Praying for an Answer

[werepossum]

Right there is where they should lose their tax exempt status.

SNIP

Along with maybe 90% of black churches?

It amazes me that people who put their faith in a government of men (especially politicians) are amazed that other people put their faith in G-d.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Go play, troll boy. trolls are trying to talk.

FTFY.

Not that I expected less from a dave troll thread, especially a two-fer. Dave thread and a religion thread...

 

[soundforbjt]

FTFY.

Not that I expected less from a dave troll thread, especially a two-fer. Dave thread and a religion thread...

This from a guy who's avatar listened to psychics.

 

[Bowfinger]

Along with maybe 90% of black churches?

It amazes me that people who put their faith in a government of men (especially politicians) are amazed that other people put their faith in G-d.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make, other than a gratuitous attack. First, if there are "black churches" (and by that I assume you're insinuating Democratic-leaning congregations) actively engaging in politics, they should also lose their tax exempt status. Color has nothing to do with it.

Second, your comment about putting faith in government vs. God is a complete non sequitur. The two are unrelated, and neither issue has anything to do with this thread. The issue is churches taking an active role in politics while still claiming the privilege of tax exemption. No. Pick one.

 

[Doppel]

They are brainwashed lemmings that should have no right to vote.

This, from the forums' most ignorant troll is so ironic you run the risk of bringing the entire forums down.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

The issue is churches taking an active role in politics while still claiming the privilege of tax exemption. No. Pick one.

I see individuals...please tell me which churches in this story are taking an active role in politics in violation of their tax-exempt status?

 

[Bowfinger]

FTFY.

Well yes, now that you're here, it is trolls plural. Thanks for the update, I guess, but I think most people here know you well enough that you don't need to make an announcement.

Not that I expected less from a dave troll thread, especially a two-fer. Dave thread and a religion thread...

While I understand "your types" feel an irresistible compulsion to pile on Dave whenever he posts, he's raised a valid and serious issue here. As a self-proclaimed conservative, you of all people should recognize this problem for your party. The GOP's relatively recent turn to pandering to religious extremists has undermined the Republican Party's traditional values.

This trend to indulging the fringe may have bought a few votes in the short term, but it is increasingly perverting the party into something more and more Americans cannot accept. You need look no further than the current crop of Presidential contenders. The religious zealots have so much influence today that you are on the verge of nominating such a poor candidate that Obama can beat him in spite of a terrible economy. In short, it's the religious extremists holding the gun the GOP is using to shoot itself in the foot.

 

[cybrsage]

...brainless vitriol removed... In both cases we're discussing extremist, ultra-conservative religious groups running countries. It's bad when they do it, and bad when we do.

The US does not have any religious groups running it. Never has, in fact.

 

[Bowfinger]

I see individuals...please tell me which churches in this story are taking an active role in politics in violation of their tax-exempt status?

What is it with you that you're so incapable of reading? Read the OP or look at my very first post in this thread. When church leaders get together to discuss who they want their congregations to support (i.e., vote for), the churches have crossed the line that justifies their tax exemption.

 

[PokerGuy]

Go play, troll boy. Grown-ups are trying to talk.

Then why are you posting? You're an absolute idiot if you think the Taliban is the same as a church pastor looking to God for guidance on an issue. Then again, we already knew you were an idiot, so carry on.

 

[cybrsage]

If the church is any good at it's "preaching", it's followers will "know" the church's stance on "issues".

Therefore there is no "real" need for them to post something like that unless "they are endorsing" a particular candidate.

Not at all true. The DNC and GOP candidates always list their stances on issues. Does that mean they are bad at explaining their issues verbally? No, it means they also want a written statement about their stances on the issues.

A church can do the same without engaging in politics. Most likely most people will know the church's stances on the issues (as they should), but may very well not know the stance of the various candidates.

 

[PokerGuy]

What is it with you that you're so incapable of reading? Read the OP or look at my very first post in this thread. When church leaders get together to discuss who they want their congregations to support (i.e., vote for), the churches have crossed the line that justifies their tax exemption.

You need to learn to read moron. Church leaders get together to ask for guidance from God, hoping He guides them and helps them determine who the right person is for them to vote for. They are not telling anyone how to vote.

 

[cybrsage]

What is it with you that you're so incapable of reading? Read the OP or look at my very first post in this thread. When church leaders get together to discuss who they want their congregations to support (i.e., vote for), the churches have crossed the line that justifies their tax exemption.

I did a search of the linked article, as well as a quick scan, and did not find any mention of congregation in it.

Can you quote the portion you are referring to...the one which says they are going to go to their congregations and tell them who to vote for?

 

[Bowfinger]

The US does not have any religious groups running it. Never has, in fact.

First you should learn the difference between "fact" and your personal opinions. Second, that is exactly what we are talking about in this thread, the increasing influence of the religious fringe in selecting our leaders.

 

[Bowfinger]

Then why are you posting? You're an absolute idiot if you think the Taliban is the same as a church pastor looking to God for guidance on an issue. Then again, we already knew you were an idiot, so carry on.

Fluff off. You're even more of a brainless partisan hack than Cybrsage, and that's saying something. As far as I can remember you have yet to post a single word here that wasn't copied straight from the RNC. Dismissed.

 

[Bowfinger]

You need to learn to read moron. Church leaders get together to ask for guidance from God, hoping He guides them and helps them determine who the right person is for them to vote for. They are not telling anyone how to vote.

Bullshit. When they're talking about needing to "unite behind one of the candidates" to avoid "a splintered evangelical electorate that brings Romney a win," that's exactly what they're trying to do. It's a damn sure sight their handful of individual votes aren't going to swing an election. Anyone who doesn't acknowledge the clear implication of that statement is either an idiot or a liar.

 

[soundforbjt]

Not at all true. The DNC and GOP candidates always list their stances on issues. Does that mean they are bad at explaining their issues verbally? No, it means they also want a written statement about their stances on the issues.

A church can do the same without engaging in politics. Most likely most people will know the church's stances on the issues (as they should), but may very well not know the stance of the various candidates.

That's not the "job" for the church, they are not supposed to be "in politics".

 

[cybrsage]

First you should learn the difference between "fact" and your personal opinions. Second, that is exactly what we are talking about in this thread, the increasing influence of the religious fringe in selecting our leaders.

You claimed:

In both cases we're discussing extremist, ultra-conservative religious groups running countries.

The US does not have this. Your comparison shows the two are vastly different.

 

[cybrsage]

That's not the "job" for the church, they are not supposed to be "in politics".

What is the job of the church?

 

[PokerGuy]

That's not the "job" for the church, they are not supposed to be "in politics".

If the church takes a moral stand against abortion (for example), providing information to churchgoers about the position each candidate has taken on that issue is not politics, it's simply providing a service. As long as they are not telling people how to vote, they are fine and well within their rights.

 

[PokerGuy]

You claimed:



The US does not have this. Your comparison shows the two are vastly different.

The US doesn't and never has had a religious organization running the country, he's just an idiot.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

What is it with you that you're so incapable of reading? Read the OP or look at my very first post in this thread. When church leaders get together to discuss who they want their congregations to support (i.e., vote for), the churches have crossed the line that justifies their tax exemption.

Perhaps you should read the article a little more closely...it appears that you have trouble distinguishing facts from fiction. The article says the following:

"Iowa social conservatives originally came together on Monday to pray and to try to choose one candidate to support in the Jan. 3 caucuses. But the meeting turned into a discussion about getting behind one candidate with the goal of preventing Mitt Romney from winning the caucuses and going on to win the GOP nomination."

Please point me to the part where they are campaigning from the pulpit and telling their congregation who to vote for.

You know, people have rights to support whatever political candidate they want to regardless of whether or not they they happen to be a church leader. They are individuals and they have rights just as you do.

 

[PokerGuy]

They are individuals and they have rights just as you do.

No no no, in the mind of a dimlib, only those who agree with them should have rights.

 

[soundforbjt]

If the church takes a moral stand against abortion (for example), providing information to churchgoers about the position each candidate has taken on that issue is not politics, it's simply providing a service. As long as they are not telling people how to vote, they are fine and well within their rights.

If the people of their congregation does'nt know that their church is against abortion, then they have a very uninformed or un-attentive audience.

 

[Bowfinger]

The US doesn't and never has had a religious organization running the country, he's just an idiot.

Po' baby. Did I hurt your feelings? It's a literary technique highlighting the similarities of two things to help add clarity. That's sometimes needed when people are incapable of thinking things through, when blinded by partisanship, for example.