Skip
you are something.
You say churches you see do not have political agendas.
I point out some do and give an example.
And you make fun of it.

So I refute by example and you ridicule.

The effort is to push for Fair Trade coffee in a misguided attempt, IMHO, to elevate the standard of living of the coffee picker in Columbia. So they will try to exert political influence on coffee houses to only serve Fair Trade coffee and not Free Trade coffee.

Was that what I did? "Deliberately mischaracterize?" Maybe if you stated yourself more clearly...or came up with a better argument...or stopped using the past to poorly defend your party's present actions - there would be no mischaracterization, deliberate or otherwise.

To summarize your efforts, JP, I'll say this: each word in each phrase of each response to my posts that you insist as juvenile, nefarious and whatever else, increasingly muddies whatever point you are trying to get across. You now sound confused with your own statements, particularly as I read them in a way that you now state you did not intend, or rather blathered as "deliberate mischaracterization." To me that demonstrates a poor and incomplete argument on your part.

Now, if you said, "Our party was once based on economics, but have now strayed to positions of religious right-based social control," then we might have a logical discussion. But I'm not going to give you any hints as to what the neocon currently is and whatever it once was. You should know that being a neocon yourself. Irregardless, it's up to you to clarify yourself.

Lastly, how can "neocon," being a word rooted in "new" or "revised," aptly point to the past tense such as what you seem to outlay in your posts? I mean, it seems as if you start with an oxymoron in and of itself.

Oh, and one more thing, words such as "juvenile" are ad hominems, whose fallicies do nothing other than weaken your argument. Do you really want to show the mettle of your statements by using such language? I guess so as you must not have a choice when your point is lost.

I have long since had the feeling discussing issues with The Right is a simple exercise in futility. A waste of time given how stoned they are with ideology, followed by a need to be evasive or spew half-truths, (Skip, JP).

The original question was, "Do you even know what a neocon is?" My answer is: an incomplete thought within poorly realized self-serving ideals.

SmileWavy

Steve- No, I did not mean to ridicule. That was not my intent and I am sincerely sorry.

It was an attempt at humor and sarcasm by me, but was not meant to be at your (or any "person's") expense. I believe many over exaggerate the motives of Christians, and was trying to make a humorous point.

Back on point... Are you arguing that churches should loose tax exemption? It's not clear to me what you're saying, other than your church is active in free/fair trade issues.

Also, you were apparently refuting a claim I did not make. I said "my church or any church I've visited". I did not say or imply that it doesn't happen at any church. Wasn't that clear?

- Skip

but wait :confused: the over the hill liberal sez that liberals push everything new.

That would mean . .. . that "Neocons" are -- gasp!---"Liberal-Conservatives" :cool:

oh, and "Irregardless" ? . . . was that a pedantic-trap? ;)

PLEASE tell me how I have been evasive? You keep hinting that I won't answer questions. Yet, when I ask "what" questions, you won't reply.

In fact, while you're telling me I won't answer questions, you leave a slew of mine (to you) unanswered (edit: i.e. evasive).

As for half truths... Like that preachers don't pay income tax? Naw, that's not even half-true.

- Skip

Skip
No comment on tax status.

Yes your statement was clear, and so was I. You did not paint all churches as having political agendas, just that you had not seen it, and I just pointed out that some do. But my inference from your statement was that you believe churches do not engage in political efforts, which I know to happen.

Island :D I'll see your "gasp" and raise you a "pfffttt." ;) I'll dig into liberals in another thread.

Skip: the question was would your right-wing churches trade a ban on partial birth abortion for paying Federal and State taxes? In other words, the church succeeds in getting passed a complete ban on partial birth abortions, but in return, the churches are taxed. Or, if you need an analogy, here's one: if a child's life is worth everything to the church - or so they counsel, then isn't it worth a few church dollars?

No.

Also, I did state what I believed a fair trade would be above... So, you could say I answered your questions wayyy up there.

- Skip

No, Skip. Why "no?"

dd,

Don't forget the "left wing" churches, which seem to serve as forums for Democratic stump speeches . . .

Absolutely! I haven't. All of those new-age religion depots as well as Mormon temples, the synagogues and all others should as well pay up.

I'm asking Skip, however, since he seems qualified to (finally) give an answer...

...hmmm, which I haven't yet received. :confused:

Actually, taxing the churches makes complete sense, since it's obvious that the hoped-for oil revenues aren't sufficiently funding GWB's Crusades.

dd- I don't know how to answer your question. Other than the obvious they're non-profit and should be allowed the same protection as other non-profits. I'll admit I'm not well versed in this area and frankly haven't given it much thought.

I guess you got me? Uncle!!! Mercy!!!!

Is your argument then that separation of church and state requires that Churches pay taxes, to ensure there is true separation? Or, have I missed your point?

- Skip

No, it's the opposite. Separation of church and state is fine, and if that separation is truthfully practiced, I believe things should stay as they are as far as the church not paying taxes.

Yet, when agendas are pushed through that originate from a religious base, and are then put to legislation by a politician based on what that religious base wants, this is when I believe separation of C&S defaults, and in that, the church becomes something other than a church - a corporation perhaps with an agenda, a...I got it: the church becomes a LOBBYIST - YES, that's the term I'm looking for. The church lobbies for certain interests endemic to its beliefs. This is when I believe the church should be taxed.

And let me preface this with ALL CHURCHES should be taxed if they engage in political actions; whether they are left, right or center. The reason I used you as an example was because you spoke up first about abortion. If it were a Catholic, Jew or Muslim, I would have asked the same question of them.

dd- OK. I think I get your point now.

Essentially what you're saying is, if you're tax exempt, and a religious organization, you're not to have any political agenda/discussion/etc? But, if you're tax exempt and not a religious org, you're free to have a political agenda?

Do churches lobby politicians? What is it specifically that they do that would warrant their loss of tax-exemption? I'd like to see some examples.

I don't see what this has to do with abortion, which is NOT strictly a religious issue. There are many non-religious people opposed to abortion, especially partial birth. THAT was MY point.

- Skip

dd,

I'd like to see where you would draw the line between political and religious issues. Good luck . . .

dd= Yes, it is I who cannot communicate clearly. Ask anyone here.

Though taxing churches (and other religious organizations) I could get behind.

JP

If we start taxing churches, that could mean taxing faith based groups, which might force some to go broke. Now there's a thought.

All in all, not a bad idea. Anyone care to provide a rationale why they don't pay taxes now?

Well, it's not as much religion as it is the institution that promotes religion. Religion, to an extent, dictates much daily living and decision making - I have no issues with that. But when a religion or house of religion or church actively influences a political decision, this is where I believe the church and state ceases to be separate.

Now Skip brings up a good point - examples. I think the best example for the time being is the Catholic priest in Colorado Springs, who during the election, refused The Host to any parishoner who might vote for Kerry. The Colorado DA, who is Catholic, stomped down hard on the priest for this action stating, IIRC, the church was acting as a lobbying group for GW. The DA then planned to revoke the church's tax exempt status in the state, unless the priest stopped these actions. Needless to say the priest stopped(I think he was a bishop, actually).

Skip, as I recall, you first brought up abortion, and I simply took the bait, and used it to outline an example of church-related concerns (non-denominational at that) which might have influence in DC. Of course, abortion isn't the only topic where it can be perceived religious organizations have political influence.

If we start taxing churches, that could mean taxing faith based groups, which might force some to go broke. Now there's a thought.

LOL.

JP

OK, I'll do this one last time... Abortion is not specifically a church-related concern. Non-religious people are also anti-abortion. Same goes with other political issues. How do you separate the two? It's not possible.

OK. While that is definitely an example, it's also just one guy. I was hoping for examples where, something like "the church" (Baptist, Catholic, Methodist, etc) was lobbying politicians. Or, even something like LA First Christian Church lobbies senator... Some proof of an organized lobby of politicians.

Or, is it simply that any mention of anything political in any religious activity that you're opposed to?

- Skip

Hmmm, but if you taxed churches, they should be able to deduct their expenses. I don't think it would be that big a govt windfall.

I just love political and religious conversations. My favorite lines so far. And in only six pages...

Watch how this statement is proved true below.

So...basically the Liberals KNOW what is best for all. Everyone else's opinion is irrelevant because they might disagree?

The only promoting I see going on is that far left Liberals expect everyone to agree to their views. And then accuse everyone who disagrees of being close minded. (i.e. Gays and abortion) Somehow disagreeing with their oppinion is excluding civil liberties. Hint: the only way this would make sense is to admit that liberals are right and everyone else is wrong.

Again refusing to agree to their view on what is right is not allowed. (i.e. You have to first admit that Far left Liberals are correct in their view of right vs. wrong in order for individuals to be given a choice on abortion and make their own decision.)

Again we will not agree to their views.........so we are wrong. Ummm, now who is close minded.

They would only push for change so long as it is change in the direction the want. If the change is not in the direction they agree with then who wants things to stay the same? Banning abortion would be change....

Insisting that we accept your views is not "private lives". "Coming out of the closet" is hardly a private sounding statement. Insisting that everyone should accept gay marrage is hardly private.

I knew someone would accuse us of being narrow-minded. Why am I narrow minded? Because I will not accept that you are right?

Another example of of trying to accuse everyone who disagrees with you of being close-minded to change. Liberals say they are open minded and accepting.....of everyone but those that disagree with them. Those they call self-serving.

I love this. Gay marriage is about health benifits? Now let me ask a question...who is more likely to have health problems, gays or straights? So....if you are a health insurance company and gays are allowed to marry, you now have to cover not only one high risk person but two. Guess what you do to your premiums to cover this. But no...we are just trying to push our religious views on everyone else.

You appear to be missing out on the fact that most 'liberals' are fighting for liberty, such as living their lives free of government and religious interference.

The right wing obsession with discriminating against women, minorities and gays and forcing their religious mores on those that don't share their religious views has always been at odds with those who are fortunate enough to be free thinkers.

It seems the example shows just the opposite. In this case, the state is interferes with the affairs of the church instead of the other way around.
If the church considers abortion to be murder....and one candidate supports such murder....then of course the church should expect those of faith to not support murder. Forcing the church to act against it's beliefs is interference by the govt...not the other way around.
The founding fathers never planned to keep churchs from being political...only that there would be freedom to worship and not have a govt sponsored religion.

Just the opposite. Most liberals seem to want more govt and more govt protection...
Minimum wage, increases, special rights for "protected" groups, runaway immigration, "lockbox" social security, etc

Liberties defined to be such by themselves. They are continue to insist that what they define to be a liberty be accepted. When someone dares to think otherwise they are being discriminatory. Is disagreeing with the idea of gays being acceptable forcing my religious morals? You are saying that I can not have an opinion for myself so long as it conflicts with your interests?

What is "fortunate enough to be free thinkers"? Feel free to think the sun will not rise in the East and set in the West. In fact, insist that everyone else believe it to. Anyone who says they don't agree is just trying to force their views on you and control your life.

A liberal will never admit to the fact that they are trying to force thier views on everyone else just as hard as the conservative they accuse.

As I state, there is nothing wrong with churches being political. A church pushing its political agendas outside the church into the mainstream is the problem.

tobster
no, there are right wing groups actively promoting their cause, are you blind to that?

You appear to be missing out on the fact that most 'liberals' are fighting for liberty, such as living their lives free of government and religious interference.

When this was a Republican position, I really did like The Right, because at the time (Reagan, IIRC), as Fint says, it seemed more gov't intervention was a position of The Left.

The right wing obsession with discriminating against women, minorities and gays and forcing their religious mores on those that don't share their religious views has always been at odds with those who are fortunate enough to be free thinkers. [/B][/QUOTE]

And it was at this point that The Right lost me completely. I was able to deal with Afghanistan, and was, at worst, on the fence about Iraq early on into the campaign. But the rhetoric of threat swayed me away from Bush's position on it. As a matter of fact, I increasingly think Iraq was less a Republican position and more a position wholeheartedly owned by Bush. Anyway, I was willing, even, to deal with that. But when they started getting into places that are truly sacrosanct to being American - their personal lives - I immediately turned myself off to the GOP's position.

For what it's worth, though, I truly don't believe such diehard ultra conservatism will be a trait of The Right for much longer. In fact, I think that Republicans are a bit concerned with their party's stance and more importantly, the fact they are to the right of many of their constituency who find themselves more in the middle. These people are ripe for the picking by Democrats (if they can ever get their act together) or a Third Party. By '08, I expect a huge platform shift for the GOP; it has to stop ignoring those voters in the middle.

Tobster - are you merely regurgitating much of this thread to see your own typewritten words, or can you add something to the conversation? Many of the points you outline have been gone over ad nauseum. For as much as you say "liberals want this..." "liberals want that..." you aren't giving a pleasing representation of your own party when firing off your anti-opposition diatribe.

Skip, I understand what you're saying about abortion not being specifically a church-related concern. Abortion concerns EVERYONE in America, as a matter of fact, because it is a right that may be taken away from all Americans. Some are not nearly as concerned as others, however, and justfully so - not everyone's going to get an abortion. But the precedence of taking away that right is something everyone in this country should be concerned with - even the extreme right who condones taking away that right (for an abortion). Because if you take one right away, what's next? Another right?

"Lobby" I use that term loosely. I apologize for any confusion. As for anything of the ilk in L.A., oh I'm certain religious influence and "lobbying" happens all the time within L.A. I'm certain dirt exists concerning Archbishop Mahoney's massive dwelling beside the Hollywood Freeway and his attachment via religion to the LA City Council.

I'm not opposed to any religious/political activity within the church. When the church's political activity begins to take effect on constitutional levels, however, yes, I am opposed to such activity.

Wow, this thread is starting to feel like a Hollywood pitch meeting. You'd probably make a good producer, Skip. :D

dd
I realize that you have oft posted (although not much recently) fairly conservative positions on various issues and I have always considered you one who would at least explore an issue fairly. The part I do not understand is your position that the conservatives are intruding into your personal life. I know that I lead a relatively simple life, but I do not see any intrusion in mine. Could you explain what I am missing?

I have never stated that there are no right wing nuts. My attempted point is that anyone who disagrees gets labeled as such. Also the percieved power of these groups gets over exagerated.

Yep...I love to see myself type. I also do not seem to be nearly as intelligent as the likes of yourself.

Please, Please show me where I ever stated the things you claim I said (in quotes) above. Please do not put words in my mouth. I can do that just fine. Thanks

Sadly, I don't have the time to wander through your posts to pick out choice quotes of yours - nor the real desire at this moment. But stick around - you sound like you can come up with some good stuff. At least you cut and paste well. ;)

Absolutely I have posted fairly conservative positions, which I still stand behind. I see no true problems with the conservative party that cannot be similarly pointed to within the democratic party. The Schiavo thing was what set me off. I thought it an avid invasion of personal privacy. And in a sense, I don't truly blame the party for the stance they took with Schiavo - and do recognize as well that there were some Dems who had just as much anti-private povs toward the Schiavo case. What angered me was how those on the Right catered to the religious right who believed the Schiavo case was no longer a private matter, but one based on religious beliefs. In fact, I could get behind the conservatives if they took a variety of other tacts, such as a litigious argument - despite how much I hate litigiousness - based on Michael Schiavo's intent to have his wife die. But they instead went the religious route based on doctrine from the religious right - destroying that line between church and state.

What I'd like to see from the Reps. before '08 is a gradual movement from the religious right. I believe they have too much influence within the party, and in doing so, have sacrificed many Republican voters who aren't nearly as conservative and find themselves in the middle. If they can do this, '08 is a done deal. I mean, what's the choice? Dems? They're still in disarray. Libertarians...well now that's a thought.

Tobster - if you're not willing to accept that there might be another (better?) way, then you are being narrow minded. For the conservatives reading this, the average liberal (ok, me - average or not) tends to view anyone who breaks the world down into black and white, right and wrong, as narrow minded. The self evidence that there is no blanket right/wrong for all people makes it impossible for me to think otherwise.

What makes you think that gay people who are either married or who have a civil union are subject to many of the high health risk aspects of homosexuality? It's easy to make the assertion, but do you have data to back it up? What level is statistically significant?

And you fail to notice the irony in this statement? It's a small percentage of more radical liberals which you are using to generalize about liberals as a whole.