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.