Flemming Rose, the culture editor of the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, wrote an op-ed piece for The Washington Post explaining his decision to publish the cartoons of Muhammad. He said it wasn’t provocation for the sake of provocation, and it wasn’t a PR stunt. Rather, he wrote, “I commissioned the cartoons in response to several incidents of self-censorship in Europe caused by widening fears and feelings of intimidation in dealing with issues related to Islam. . . . The idea wasn’t to provoke gratuitously — and we certainly didn’t intend to trigger violent demonstrations throughout the Muslim world. Our goal was simply to push back self-imposed limits on expression that seemed to be closing in tighter.”
He also raised interesting questions about the interplay of religion and democracy: “Has Jyllands-Posten insulted and disrespected Islam? It certainly didn’t intend to. But what does respect mean? When I visit a mosque, I show my respect by taking off my shoes. I follow the customs, just as I do in a church, synagogue or other holy place. But if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy.”
Posted by Phillip Brownlee
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Rage on Open thread 11/22
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/22
- Chas on Open thread 11/22
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/22
- satatom on Open thread 11/22
- JimJohnson on Open thread 11/22
183 Comments
By a strategy of rioting, killing, and cash bounties for murder, Jihadists are waging a war of intimidation and fear to censor western media. Journalists, authors, and politicians everywhere are increasingly afraid to say anything that might offend Muslims. Those that do find a million dollar price on their heads, as a Danish cartoonist just did, or they are silenced by their own organization or government out of fear of reprisals.
An Italian reform minister angered Muslims by wearing a T-shirt decorated with Western media cartoons satirizing the Prophet Muhammad. The Muslims responded by attacking and burning the Italian consulate in Libya, with ten deaths. The reform Minister resigned. Libya suspended its interior minister and other officials, not for failing to protect the consulate, but for using force in trying to prevent it. It declared Sunday a day of mourning for “our martyr sons”.
On Friday, Denmark temporarily shut its embassy in Islamabad after days of violent protests in Pakistan. This is the fifth embassy that Denmark has closed since the cartoon row sparked off. The strategy is working.
Journalists and media who would normally be screaming censorship are instead issuing nonsense that their deep respect for Islam is dictating their decision not to publish content that might offend. We know it’s nonsense because they certainly don’t hesitate to publish words and images deeply offensive to other religions, such as Christians. They are just plain afraid, either that they will be blamed for riots and killing or that they will be targets themselves.
Silence and censorship is not “being responsible”. When the non-Muslim world’s press submits to terror tactics, they hand the Jihad an enormous victory. The responsible thing to do is obvious. Tell the truth about the Jihadists, their beliefs, and their tactics. Encourage free expression of opinions regardless of threats and intimidation.
The Islamic campaign for the repression of ideas and truth cannot be allowed to succeed. Freedom has always had a high cost. It remains to be seen if we still have the courage to pay that price.
http://theflyoverzone.blogspot.com/2006/02/media-surrendering-to-terror.html
Philip,Your ignorance on the Jihaddist mind-set is strikingly obvious! Today’s jihaddist is nearly identical to the Catholic crusaders of Urban 2. You see, the crusader believed that retaking the Holy Land from the Turks and Saracens would essentially get them a get-out-of-hell free card with God. Today’s jihaddist like the jihaddist of old believes that God rewards those who sacrifice themselves against the threats to Islam. (i.e. America and the West, or more specifically secularist societies) The point being that like these two examples of religious zealots, today’s jihaddist does not make a distinction between what is secular and what is religious. Islam to the radical jihaddist encompasses every aspect of his life, which determines every thought, word, and action of the jihaddist. This is what Catholicism and Hasiddic Judaism used to be. Today’s modernized Jews and Christians have broken away from this all-encompassing concept of their faith. We are able to make distinctions between what is secular and what is religious, else Jews would still be stoning sinners and Catholics would still be burning heretics. Our theologies have evolved into one that is tolerable of other religions, but the jihaddist has not changed. Case in point: the Taliban. “Talib” is the Arabic word for “student”. They started out as little more than a bunch of students of the Koran presided over by a sheikh teacher who constantly filled their heads that becoming a martyr for Islam was the most desirable, honorable, manly, righteous way to die that is REWARDED BY GOD. From early adolescence these boys are taught the ancient Wahabbi Islam that is the backbone of their belief system. They grew in number and were financed by the house of Saud, nonetheless, and expatriate Muslims around the world who shared their beliefs. They then grew so numerous that Mullah (elder teacher) Omar was able to put down the warring factions of Afghanistan and take it under control, then Bin Laden came with his group Al Qaeda teamed up with the Taliban and well the rest is now infamous history. Now Philip, what do we do against such an enemy who believes in a cause that has the approval stamp of God unrelentless and unable to be bought?? What is money to people who believe that there reward is with God in heaven? They will fight until we are destroyed or they will die trying. People who believe that terrorism is a thing of the past should understand the kind of enemy we are up against.
Philip,You are right that one who forces another into observing his beliefs is sublimated violence. I as a modern day Catholic who makes distinctions between religious and secular life can understand that, but the radical jihaddist will respond by issuing a Fatwah (bounty) on you and pay money to the muslim who brings your head to him on a platter, with many a pat on the back and a job well done for the one who killed your infidel a$$.
And that is incompatible with a secular democracy.
Shariah Law is incompatible with democracy! Shariah Law dictates that all laws of a nation be based on the laws of the Koran. (shariah law)In essence, that would be a theocracy. (Iran is the only theocracy in the world)Extremist jihaddists who adhere to this ideal (all extremists do) are incompatible with democracy. Allow me to exercise my freedom of speech which may lead to a bounty on my head: (ahem!)…. F**K SHARIAH LAW!!! F**K ISLAMO-FASCISM!!!
He was fighting the establish “Political Correctness” censorship that everybody seems to be on when it comes to Islam. Its prevelent in the USA also.
The cartoons are poor taste, but he and anybody should be allowed to do it with no fear.
I had to go to the Internet to offblog websites to see the cartoons, because main stream media refused to post them or show them on TV. They’ll show Abu Grab abuse photos or dead people floating in the water in New Orleans, but they refused to show the cartoons because it would offend muslims. I consider that weak, bias, and PC censorship on behalf of the media.
CruX, you wrote: “Today’s modernized Jews and Christians have broken away from this all-encompassing concept of their faith. We are able to make distinctions between what is secular and what is religious, else Jews would still be stoning sinners and Catholics would still be burning heretics. Our theologies have evolved into one that is tolerable of other religions, but the jihaddist has not changed.
CruX, I usually agree with you, but by writing the above, have you actually lost your mind? :)
If you can call modern day christians tolerant, you should walk a day in my shoes, or the shoes of any non-christian person who dares to speak up against the christian theocracy.
You have exuded whiffs of homophobia before, so I hope that isnt what is masquerading here as intellectualism. Modern day christians, and sometimes conservative jews, are the next most intolerant people on the planet, next to the taliban. And you all are giving the taliban a race for their money.
I guess you think a “figurative” burning or stoning is ok. Trust me CruX, those more subtle forms of stoning and burning hurt us too.
I am sure this posting will set you off like a firecracker, but CruX, I am willing to risk it. Your myopic vision of modern day religion is the PROBLEM not the solution.
Well, Mr. Rose talks a good game. But who has the guts to publish the next cartoon, or article, or “Satanic Verses”? And if they do, and the riots start again, will the publisher be blamed? After all, they just saw what could happen.
The world Muslim community has shown by their actions that they are like a short tempered bully. And people normally go out of their way to avoid doing things to upset the bully. Will the free press let this intimidation tactic succeed?
My prediction is that it will be a long time before we see something like the Muhammad cartoon again.
“if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission.”
A-Effing-Men!
Something for the religious right here in Kansas to keep in mind. No, we won’t burn down their churches – but we will fight back.
You go scott!!!
I was wondering how long it would take for someone to try to tie the Muslim riots overseas to the Christian right, even though there is no logic to it. The press has no qualms about printing something offensive to Christians. That’s because Christians are an easier, more civilized target. Seen any resulting riots lately?
Scott: Interesting, how you mixed up the message and the consequences. So, do you see yourself in an analogous position to the Muslims or the world?
Connect the dots;
“Supporting a Nazi Lover”http://theflyoverzone.blogspot.com/2006/02/supporting-nazi-lover.html
The underlying principle is the same.
Out,”That’s because Christians are an easier, more civilized target.”Yes, they are. Christians haven’t burned my house down (yet), they’ve only called me anonymously and threatened to. Most of my gay friends have been beaten severely enough to require hospitalization at least once, and several have been killed by people who got permission to from their churches or televangelists. Back during the height of the civil rights movement, I saw hordes of good christians screaming quotes from the bible at peaceful demonstrators.These, and similar acts aren’t the occasional transgressions of a few, as many christians would have you believe, they are a continuous history of the church over the past 17 centuries! Ye shall know them by their works.
Predictably, it turns into a ludicrous comparison of Christianity to nutjob Islam.
How dare we compare nut job to nut job. It would be like apples and apples or oranges and oranges. So sad that you dont see the similarities.
“if a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission.”]
This is different from the Terry, Joe, Fred and Pat crowd how? Like the “book of daniel” flap? Like their forcing gay people to observe their taboo in the public domain?
Todd,Ludicrous? Seems like a fair comparison to me! Try reading a fair history of christianity; it’s a history of oppression, mysogeny, theft, racism and genocide. Actually, the Muslims have, for the most part, been the civilized ones!
How many people were killed over that Daniel flap again?
That’s what I thought.
Jed – The Romans used to crucify people. Does that make the Romans of today a bunch of savages?
Todd, I didnt bring up the daniel flap about violence. It was about censorship and intolerance of other viewpoints. Does being slightly more civilized mean you differ, as Rage once said, only by degree?
Oh, okay. So murdering people over religious beliefs is only a half step below complaining to a television network? Are you seriously going to try to make that argument?
Todd,Seven of my gay friends were killed by people who listened to their ministers and read their bibles. The Romans got over crucifying people; you haven’t!
Jed – You are as intolerant as the most devout Christian. You’re two sides of the same coin.
As turnabout is fair play, I have provided a link to a whole bunch of holohoax cartoons, enjoy!
Viva La Raza Blanco!!
http://www.honestmediatoday.com/holocaust_cartoons.htm
Hey Ian – when you genuflect to your Roman Papist King, do you use your right or left knee?
Todd, apples to apples, remember?
Censorship, i.e. using religius pressure to prevent something from publication, is just as much a christian tactic as it is muslim.
Forcing others to bow to your beliefs in the public domain is a christian tactic just like it is a muslim tactic. They want laws to support and institutionalize their beliefs for non-believers. Christians do that too.
Violence is as much a christian tactic as it is muslim, and yes, it is fair to do a comparison over time.
The fact that you might want a direct comparison of the magnitude of your murders with muslim murders is just….well…I guess that just makes my point. You might differ only by degree…and maybe time!!
Funny how big that speck is in their eyes and how large that log is in yours.
Good grief, jed points out instances of christian violence and HE is intolerant?
I guess all those protestant/catholic clashes in Ireland were not christian?
If he truly believes that he has gay friends that were killed by order of any church, he’s not only intolerant, he’s a moonbat.
I agree that the spat over something like “Daniel” was stupid, but like the fight over porn and sex shops, it has NOTHING to do with intolerance.It has to do with a large group of people not wanting themselves and their families exposed to those kind of temptations. I couldn’t care less if you want to indulge, but where does your right to access that stuff end and my right to not have to deal with it begin? It’s not about being intolerant of your beliefs.. it’s just a turf struggle kind of like the fight over second hand smoke. When in the heck are we all just going to learn to give and take and live together?
P.S. Violence is an extremist tactic… and is totally unacceptable to achieve religious goals. I know in Christianity, you completely subvert the message by trying to force it on anyone. It can’t be done, although some have tried!
Sam, are you serious?
“fight over porn and sex shops, it has NOTHING to do with intolerance.
It has to do with a large group of people not wanting themselves and their families exposed to those kind of temptations.”
Well if that isnt the definition of intolerance, I dont know what is! Websters says “not tolerant, as of opposing views. bigoted. not able to endure, ie. intolerant of hot weather”.
Sam, dont penalize me because you and your family and friends cant resist temptation. Cant endure temptation, cant tolerate it?
Are you gonna fight against all forms of temptation? You better get rid of the four horsemen of hate, because they appear to be a serious source of the temptations to judge, harm and lie!! And many christians call them leaders!!!
“Well if that isnt the definition of intolerance, I dont know what is! Websters says “not tolerant, as of opposing views. bigoted. not able to endure, ie. intolerant of hot weather”.”
Does that mean people who favor gun control are intolerant? People who don’t want a Wal Mart in their neighborhood are intolerant? Or are they simply utilizing their right to free speech to voice their opposition to it?
Jed,I find it hard to believe that you have had so many friends beaten, killed, and have yourself been threatened by so-called christians. In all my years of living in various parts of this country, I have yet to see or hear of a real Christian threatening anybody.
Christians, during the holy wars, and during the Spanish inquisition, were a sorry lot indeed. But, although you still have the radical element, such as the ones who shoot doctors who perform abortions, Christians have become more political, than physical.
So if you want to compare radical Christians with radical muslims, then it’s a go . . . to a certain extent.
Radical christians don’t burn down churches, encourage suicide bombings, or vow to kill anybody who doesn’t believe as they do. At least to the best of my knowledge. Most of the violent acts, such as the oklahoma bombing, are being done by white racist, using religion as an umbrella.
The fact that you have entire countries (syria,Iran among others) that encourage their citizens to burn, loot and kill anything and anybody that disagrees with them, makes them far more dangerous than any right wing christian group. And I am not for one minute condoning in any way any of these idiot christian groups.
The recent and ongoing violent demonstrations by these groups, and the ease at which they are led to violence over something we consider minor, should give everyone pause for thought: If this doesn’t remind people of what Hitler did in the 30’s and 40’s, there is a problem. Hitler was able to do what he did because people laughed him off. They ignored him, instead of seeing him for what he truly was: a madman.
What Irans leader, as well as Syria, Saudi Arabia, is doing is an attempt to put the muslim nations on the same course: a muslim ruled world. Hamas, PLO, Al-Quida, Taliban, they all have the same goal.
Todd, that is typical to change the subject. Safety is very different from religious intolerance. Walmart is not a religious issue. Nice leap though.
Is that another way of saying “Intolerance is what I say it is”? Nice dodge, I guess.
Walker, I cant speak for jed, but I have only had three friends actually beaten and as for threats, well, too numerous to mention. And it depends on the definition of threat. Kinda like the definition of “real” christian. I think you are just leaving yourself an out when you say “real christian”.
The ones that have threatened me were self proclaimed christians and I do not claim to know which ones are real and which ones are not. When they are yelling and throwing beer bottles and using fred’s “god hates fags” lines, it is hard for me to distinguish which are “real” christians and which are merely self proclaimed christians.
Sam,Of course it’s about intolerance. If it was about protecting you and yours, there’s an off button on your TV for that. In the “Daniel” case, it was quite effective. Nobody’s making you go to “adult” businesses if they’re against your beliefs; it’s the rest of the population you don’t want seeing porn and religious parody.
Todd,
I am SSPX and I do not genuflect to any of the Vatican II anti popes, thanks very much!
White, Christian and Proud!!
Silly me Todd, I thought we were talking about muslims and christians.
If you tell me the muslim position on walmart or the christian position on gun control, I will be happy to discuss in a somewhat on-topic manner.
BTW, regarding what intolerance means, do you think my name is Webster?
Grrl… Yes.. I am serious…I’m just saying I understand where they are coming from, and isn’t the political process the place to work those issues out? As long as there are checks and balances, there will be give and take, and everyone can get along. When one side says.. you cannot participate in the process, then there is no balance.Listen to yourself… “don’t penalize me” it’s all about me.. me, me, me… on both sides. Remember what you said before… render unto Caesar… but you gotta give God room to work as well. With a little respect on both sides, everyone will win and lose a few battles, but our Constitution, our rights and our human dignity will remain intact. Just think about it.. and don’t draw hard lines, but try understand, that all of us are just trying to do what we feel is best for our families. Isn’t that what you are trying to do as well?
Gotta go… :)
lol jed, apparantly just having adult entertainment available in the same city is too much temptation.
“Silly me Todd, I thought we were talking about muslims and christians.”
We were, until the topic became about fictitious gay friends who were killed on the order of someone’s pastor. Then you decided to make it about porn shops and whether or not someone should be allowed to oppose having one in their neighborhood.
We can make this topic about whatever you want, I guess.
Kfg,Real, or “true” Christians, as I should have stated, would not, and could not do the things you have had happened to you and your friends. The morons who do those things are racists, homophobes and their followers. They use religion, as I said, as an umbrella, a reason they think is acceptable by the public. It doesnt take a genius to see that. It also doesn’t take a genius to see they’re wrong.
Point: Known, mostly black, gangs, such as the bloods and the crips, prey upon their on race, as well as anybody they feel threatens them. Are we going to condemn a race because of the lunacy of a few? I don’t think so. Would you consider these people African Americans? Maybe, but first you would consider them criminals. They are far more violent than any “Christian” group.
But even those gangs pale in comparison to what the radical muslims are trying to do. Kansassam seems to think that the muslim extremists can be brought to the table and reasoned with. Dead wrong! The only thing these people know is violence. They have been brought up on that since birth, they relish it, they worship it. This isn’t going to go away, it’s only going to get worse.
Sam, thank you because I truely dont sense any hostility in your posts, and I appreciate that.
“isn’t the political process the place to work those issues out? As long as there are checks and balances, there will be give and take, and everyone can get along.”
Sam the political arena is NOT where to work this out. Churches and other non-profits get civil tax breaks by being 501(c)3. One of the provisions is to not engage in certain political activities. And it seems the churches are the ones who dont want checks and balances. They demand control of all three branches.
“but you gotta give God room to work as well”. Sorry Sam. Your god can do whatever in the religious domain, but it is not appropriate for christians to demand submission of all of us in the civil domain. I know you all hate the separation of church and state, but this thread is proof of that wisdom.
My family and I are not trying to deprive you of your civil rights. We dont demand that you be gay in order to legalize your relationships and we dont demand that only gay marriages be recognized. We do not deny you access to each other’s health insurance and retirement benefits. The list could go on and on.
These are civil issues. You all may have the religious issues. You can marry or not marry anyone in your churches. I really dont care.
Here is how I see the give and take you speak of. Give me my equal civil rights in the civil domain and leave me alone. I am more than willing to do the same for your family in both the civil and the religious domains.
Sorry, not fair to post after you are gone, and I have to go too. I am sure we will continue this :)
Todd, re-read the posts. Kansassam brought up the porn shops, not me. My friends who were beaten were real, not fictitious, and I never said they were harmed on the order of any pastor. And still, we were talking about religion. Tell me what the religious arguments are about gun control and walmart!
Ok walker, I can go along with all that. I agree, violence is violence, and it does not matter if it is christians, or muslims, or black or white or whatever. The harm is still the same.
My point about “real” christians was that it is hard for us to tell, and consequently, we have to protect ourselves against them all. We dont have time to split hairs. We just run!
kfg.I would agree with you 100%. The proper tactic. I would too.
JM,I’ve had gay and lesbian friends since I was old enough to realize there were others in the world besides my parents. Over a lifetime, I’ve had many gay and lesbian friends, and I’ve listened to their stories and watched their lives, and seen the horrendous violence and hatred they’ve been subjected to. Most of it has had roots in religious teaching. The violence that hasn’t, has roots in an attitude that “nobody cares what happens to queers,” a result too, of religious prejudice.The threats directed at me were a result of my visible support of my friends, and of other causes not popular among evangelicals. Some were to my face, but more were anonymous phone calls- those have decreased as of late, probably because of caller ID- and a few were unsigned letters mentioning bombs.Since it’s difficult for us nonchristians to tell who’s a “real” christian, and who isn’t, maybe you “real” christians should weed out the unreal ones before you’re tarred too!
True Christians do not kill or bash homosexuals, we pray for them.
V.L.R.B!!
Jed said he has had multiple gay friends murdered by Christians. I’m still awaiting clarification on that.
Sorry walker, but I do want to comment on this “They are far more violent than any “Christian” group.” I bet if you asked them, they say they are christians, no matter how their actions betray that. I am not condeming here but asking an honest question, why so many crosses around the necks of so many gang members?
Jed: I’m sorry, but I too have to question the veracity of your posts regarding all the friends being beaten and killed by Christians.
Your anti-Christian rants are becoming tiresome, particularly when you use fiction to attempt to illustrate your points.
Well gee you guys, I know three real people who were beaten in separte incidents, and I am only 50 and have lived many years out here, away from the city. Again, I cant speak for jed, but I dont think knowing 7 is out of the question. Do you want a list, and if there are 10 names on the list will that satisfy you? Are you saying it doesnt happen?
kfg: Here is Jed’s comment:
“Seven of my gay friends were killed by people who listened to their ministers and read their bibles. The Romans got over crucifying people; you haven’t!”
That’s seven dead that Jed says were killed by Christians and the implication is that they were apparently santioned by their church! That’s not believable.
If you go back and look at other posts by Jed, he frequently has an unfortunate friend to illustrate something. Now I question whether he was being truthful in those cases as well.
I don’t know why gang members wear crosses.
Do you ksfarmgrrl?
I am guessing this is another of your attempts at bashing Christianity?
ksfarmgrrl,
I have known several gay people and have been friends with a few of them.
None of them have suffered at the hands of Christians.
Regardless, Christianity doesn’t teach hate of gay people. There are a few people in this world who hate gay people and use Christianity to justify it.
Yet if you go to 99% of the Christian churches in this country you would see that none preach hate. We teach love.
Todd, Out,If you are expecting me to out my friends, forget it; I don’t do that.I truly wish they were fictional, but I attended way too many funerals and tried to comfort too many partners and family members for that. I’ve spent way too many hours in hospital waiting rooms, not knowing whether my friends were going to make it or not, or whether their injuries would be permanent. I wish all that pain hadn’t existed. Unfortunately, it was, and is, real.Has it ever occurred to you that I might be nonchristian for a reason? I certainly have no problem with Jesus, but his followers have done horrible things to decent people for centuries, and are still doing horrible things to my friends. And when confronted with the crimes, claim “real” christians didn’t do that, it must’ve been them other christians! Riiiight!
well geez isn’t this interesting. This country was founded on judeo christian belifs. may not like like it but it is fact. ten commandments on the doors of the supreme court and also behind the justices.most christians i know try very hard to be incluisive and care for everyone, but we are not perfect, just looking for the best world possible. so when we are characterized as being the same as radical muslims it tends to irritate. are all muslims radical then. i doubt it.
tolerance to endure. yes christians should endure things they don’t believe in, but that does not mean acceptance of that which we don’t believe in. we as chrictians should love and care for everyone even those we disagree with.
we got an a tangent with the sex shops. for christians teh problem with these comes down to the point that they are not good for society as a whole. i don’t want to take away your rights but where does the good of the whole come in. we had a blog on victims of sex crimes and all that blogged agreed that part of teh problem was a proliferation of sex in our society, nobody disagreed. unfortunately only about 20 blogs. amazing considering this blog has over 50 now. maybe the point about sex and society hit to close to home.
i as a christian will continue to tolerate and care about those i disagree with, but don’t expect me to accept it anymore than i accept other things i believ to be bad for society. expect me to avail myself of the political process, just as you have the right to do. to do anythign else would be intolerant
Ok Jed,
Please show us the Christian churches you know of that preach hate towards homosexuals.
I already know about Phelps.
This country was founded on Christian principles, the judeo part came much later and to our detriment.
V.L.R.B!!
“If you are expecting me to out my friends, forget it; I don’t do that.”
No, you simply post anecdotal evidence about people you know on each and every topic on the blog.
The fact is, if what you have been saying about these seven gay friends of yours who were killed by christians by order of the pastor of the church, is true, then “outing” your friends should be less important than getting the truth out there where everybody can see it. You are making allusions not only to murder, but to CONSPIRACY to commit murder, cooked up in the shadowy confines of some church somewhere. In the interests of public safety, you owe it to us.
So let’s see it. Or not, I really don’t care, because you’ve done a really poor job of smearing christians.
Out,”If you go back and look at other posts by Jed, he frequently has an unfortunate friend to illustrate something.”I’ve lived a long time, had a lot of good friends, many of whom wouldn’t be acceptable to you “good christians,” and I’ve listened to, and watched their lives. That’s a lot of stories, and if one illustrates a point I’m making, yes, I’ll use it.You, of course will question it, because it doesn’t fit the selfimage you want to promote. My apologies for injecting reality into your propaganda display.
Nice try. I’m not a Christian. I have no stake at all in how you portray christians, other than the truth matters to me.
You have proven absolutely nothing.
True Christians do not kill or bash homosexuals, we pray for them.
Oh my good Lord! I never thought the day would come but it has. Ian Santiago has posted something right! Hallelujah! Hallelujah! Now if only he would apply the same logic to everyone else in the world, recognizing that all men are created in the image and likeness of God! I am speechless! Dumbfounded! If this does not demonstrate the power of the Holy Spirit, then I do not know what does! “Behold, I make all things new.”Hallelujah! Hallelujah!
Jed,
If you actually know of 7 people who were killed at the order of a Christian church pastor, why is this not a big news story?
One innocent person was brutally killed in wyoming by two stupid boys for being gay and it has made the news, documentaries, and on and on.
You know of 7 killed and ordered by a Christian figurehead no less! Yet this is not public information?
You wonder why we think you are a liar?
Outlander and Todd, I went back and read the entire thread. It was CruX, a self proclaimed christian who first made the muslim/christian comparisons, and compared christians favorably I guess. I responded to his post, and did not bring the subject up.
Second, I cant speak for jed but I dont see what you do in this comment. “listened to their ministers and read their bibles”. Just for whatever it is worth, I read that as they were practicing christians, not that they literally had an order to kill gays. I know you see something else and it could be interpreted that way too.
I am going to take it that you question if his friends were harmed at the direct order of their church, not that he had gay friends killed. The list of the victims of hate crimes is too long to post here, and you know it too.
And while we are on the subject, if a minister whips his congregation into an anti-gay marriage frenzy, and then later one of the parishoners kills a gay person, is that a direct order? I dont think so, but like some here frequently say, you cant yell fire in a crowded theater and not expect consequenses.
Scott, I am not being picky here, just trying to address all the important points in your post.
“This country was founded on judeo christian belifs. may not like like it but it is fact.” I also recall one of those beliefs was in the separation of church and state.
scott, I totally agree with this:”yes christians should endure things they don’t believe in, but that does not mean acceptance” .
You may choose to accept whatever you do or do not like in your church. You are under no obligation to conduct gay marriages in your church. We will be glad to go to a justice of the peace, or at least I would be glad!
“problem with these (sex shops, etc.) comes down to the point that they are not good for society as a whole”
Well scott, lots of people think drinking alcohol is not good for society either, and you see how well prohibition went. I dont think lots of things are good for society, but we do not outlaw them all or curtail those who want to indulge, as someone said. Hell, I dont think country music is good for society either, but I would fight for it’s right to be played!
Of course you have a right to participate in the political process. I am just asking that you respect a couple of boundries. One is that you dont use your tax exempt church organizations, broadcasts, networks, publications, etc. to work your political magic. If they are tax exempt, dont use them. If you wanna use them for political purposes, then file as a (c)4 or whatever pacs file under.
The second is not to pass laws based SOLELY on your particular brand of religion. Like if hindus wanted to make the sale of beef illegal. Purely religious. Do religious and secular beliefs ever intersect? Of course, on safety issues, etc. Denial of gay civil marriage is purely religious.
Jesus Christ never advocated harming anyone! Even those that killed him he did not curse, but he forgave! Do you suppose that all Christians will act accordingly? It would truly be a perfect world if everyone followed JCs example! However, Christians are SINNERS! Meaning, they are not PERFECT, never did JC say we would be sinless once one was baptized!Ks Jed,I did not advocate hurting homosexuals in any post since I started posting in the WE blog. I am sorry for your friends as well as those who harrass them, but their understanding of Christianity is infantile! Why some Christians get hung up on issues like homosexuality is ridiculous to me! They like the crusaders of old have either been duped into believing a lie, or they are merely showing their own personal hatred which comes from themselves, certainly hatred does not come from God, because God as the Scripture points out, is love. Hate / love are complete opposites, and a perfect God does not hold hatred in Himself. (this is the Christian idea of course) This inner hatred comes from indwelling sin that resides in their flawed individual characters. Yes even yours truly is not perfect! Are you shocked? The hypocrite Christians who make themselves out to be sinless are no better than Pharisees, and they will be held accountable to the Lord just like all other sinners! “he who says that he is not a sinner deludes himself.” The crusades were motivated by greed, lust for wealth and power, and the belief that one was justified in killing the heathen in the name of God! Yet they were duped, by a foolish Pope who considered himself the mouth-piece of God! “Does the Pope pronounce anathema? It is Christ who pronounces anathema. Does the Pope pronounce excommunication? It is Christ who pronounces excommunication.” -Urbanus2He is paying for his arrogance along with the arrogant in hell! Anyone who kills in the name of God is guilty of murder irregardless of being Catholic, Protestant, Jew or Muslim. “True religion that is pure and undefiled before God is this: to defend the widow and the orphan.”
It was CruX, a self proclaimed christian who first made the muslim/christian comparisons, and compared christians favorably I guess. I responded to his post, and did not bring the subject up.
Ks,Then you interpreted my post incorrectly! I compared the ANCIENT Catholic crusaders with the ANCIENT jihaddists. I then pointed out that Christianity (as typified by Catholics) has evolved to be tolerant of other religions. A change of which Islam has not undergone, obviously as eveidenced by the existence of the Taliban, UBL, Iran where if they see you wearing a cross, they rip it off your neck and stomp it in the ground. Does that sound like Islam has become more tolerant of other religions to you? It is common for proselytizing “sheep stealing” to go on among Christians today under different denominations. Sure, the different denominations get mad as hell at each other, but no honor killing takes place. However, if a missionary converts a member of a muslim family, honor killing may take place where the new convert and the missionary may very well find themselves dead. This is culturally acceptable to extremist Islamists.
Nathan,Of course none of them were killed “on orders from a christian figurehead,” but those “figureheads” went on antigay crusades that they knew could result in violence. When you claim authority from god, and call someone an “abomination” and quote verses that call for killing him, you don’t need to “conspire;” the nutcases in your ranks will predictably go out and do what you’ve given them permission to! You create an atmosphere of hate, and you don’t expect violence? Come on!
Which church was doing that Jed?
CruX,” Sure, the different denominations get mad as hell at each other, but no honor killing takes place.”You need to read your history- in colonial America, Anglicans burned Puritans, Puritans hanged Quakers, and damn near everybody was after the Baptists! That’s why the Constitution specifies a separation of church and state!
Sorry Nathan, but the list is way too long to go into here.
“To kill a heathen is equivalent to performing a sacramental.”
SAINT Bernard of Clairveaux12th Century
CruX,They sure performed a lot of sacramentals!
You need to read your history- in colonial America, Anglicans burned Puritans, Puritans hanged Quakers, and damn near everybody was after the Baptists! That’s why the Constitution specifies a separation of church and state!
You take that statement completely out of context. I wasn’t talking about early America, I was talking about MODERN DAY read the line BEFORE that and you will see I was talking about the PRESENT.
Jed,They sure as hell did! THANK GOD THE ONE BILLION CATHOLICS OF TODAY DON’T THINK LIKE THAT ANYMORE.
Jed,
Don’t give me the whole list.
Give me the name of the church that incited the hate in it’s members that caused the death of 7 of your friends.
How about that for a start?
kfg,Anybody can call themselves anything they want. They can wear crosses and call themselves Christian. They can stomp people to death, and say they are doing it in the name of Christianity. But are they Christians? Not for a bleeding minute do I think so. They are, again, charlatans hiding behind religion, and have no religious beliefs at all, other than their racist, homophobic and self serving moronic way of thinking.
I don’t for one minute blame anybody for associating these idiots with Christianity, but the fact remains that they are wrong: Groups such as the ones mentioned have no connection whatsoever with true Christianity. Their violent nature precludes that. Even the passage in the bible, “an eye for an eye”, is refuted in the New Testament. So I repeat, any person who practices violence on another person in the name of Christianity is not and can not be a Christian. They are the antithesis of each other.
That, sadly, is not the case with the Muslim religion. There are too many fanatics among them willing to destroy this world so theirs can flourish. When one nation, Iran for example, is ready to destroy another nation, Israel, in the name of some God, there is a major problem. When nation’s leaders excite its people to burn and kill because of some stupid cartoons, there is a problem. When nation’s leaders put a price on someone’s head who disagrees with them, there is a major problem. When a religion can be so distorted that it makes it okay to strap explosives to your own body, and use those to blow up both yourself, and anyone in the kill radius in the name of some God, there is a problem.
Christianity does not, even under its most abhorrent believers, come within a light year of that. But I would still agree with you: why stick around to ask? get the hell out of a situation like that as fast as you can. Arguing with a**h**es, in that case, is useless.
CruX,Do you really think that if some of those denominations could, they wouldn’t start the religious wars all over again? There are a few out there that, if you believe the rhetoric, would gladly shoot Catholics, not to mention Unitarians!
CruX,” Sure, the different denominations get mad as hell at each other, but no honor killing takes place.”
Back to the Irish catholic v protestant, the germans, catholic v lutheran, etc. Still say different denominations dont kill each other?
CruX, whatever on your post. I am not trying to put words in your mouth. I was just trying to point out that you were the one who brought up the subject of christians, not jed or I.
So….how come the christians are just given a bad name by extremists who are not representative but muslims cant make the same claim? You dont think some of the atrocities are committed by extremists?
So once again, todays christians are separated from these muslims only by degree or time?
Could some Kansas muslims weigh in here?
Nathan,Well, let’s see. There was Falwell, and Robertson and Dobson, as well as the whole Southern Baptist Convention. That ought to be enough to start with!
absolutley seperation of church and state as in no state run religion. it is my feeling especially from many of these blogs that now means to many people no religion, anytime, nothing based in morals or values simply situational ethics. not what i believe the founding fathers wanted. there has to be a right and a wrong the situation not matter how tenous doesn’t matter. ie free speech. have to let groups protest ie fred phelps no matter how much we disagree otherwise i believ we will eventually descend into anarchy.
gay marriage against but i’m for civil unions because of the country we live in. already in canada a man had petitoned fro a polygamist marriage under the guise that gay marriage is ok so his rights are violated now. where does it stop? the nordic countries have all but given up on marriage and now the family culture suffers and in essence the children suffer with single parent households on teh rise. its not religious its about norality and doing what is best for the country as a whole.
again teh whole its my individual secularist idea really concerns me. we have lost our sense of common sense and right and wrong when we believe that live sex shows are going to not harm our culture, when we believe that abortion 24/7 is ok, got to be some checks and balances. the list goes on and on.
are we allowed in church to discuss in groups politics or are politics never to eb discussed in groups. my church never says anythign about who to vote for. and only prays that all leaders have the guidance and wisdom. where do you draw teh line about where and when i can talk abotu politcs in my church.
finally, how do i sepearte my beliefs from laws i believe in. my beliefs are part of the make up of who i am, just as your beliefs are. one could argue that secularism has become a religion or belief system.
finally, i respect your views, but when you condemn a whole group of people for the actions of a few it belittles you and me. you calle dme out the other day for using a broad brush. please don’t do it back to christians. i care about you as a person i just don’t agree with some of your views or ideas. tolerance
Ks,Did I say ALL MUSLIMS are extremists? Did I say that? Is that sentence in any of my previous posts? No. Extremist muslims are different from moderate muslims and I never said that ALL MUSLIMS were to blame for the muck that the extremists throw on Islam.
Do you really think that if some of those denominations could, they wouldn’t start the religious wars all over again?
Do you have anything better than making bald assertions?? Cuz unsubstantial statements aren’t gonna fly when debating with me.
So….how come the christians are just given a bad name by extremists who are not representative but muslims cant make the same claim? You dont think some of the atrocities are committed by extremists?
Because you can’t take a minority fringe group of a religion and blame the entire members of that religion for the faults of the minority fringe group. Illogical representativeness.
Don’t worry Jed and Ks, as Ozzy Osbourne always says after finishing a concert: “I love you all.”
Walker, you said: “When nation’s leaders put a price on someone’s head who disagrees with them, there is a major problem.”
Ok, so Pat isnt an elected leader, but he sure leads a helluva lot of christians. Didnt he essentially put a price on chavez’s head?
“But are they Christians? Not for a bleeding minute do I think so.” I dont think so either Walker, but the point is that THEY think they are christians. THEY say they are doing what they are taught. Who am I to disagree?
I totally agree that what Jesus preached, and what most christians practice, has little to do with each other. Remember, my favorite bumper sticker is “jesus, save me from your followers”. But dont act like the christian hypocricy is a different animal than muslim hypocricy. Again, does the hypocricy only differ by degree or time? I am sure mohammed didnt intend for them to act like jackasses either, but they do.
“When a religion can be so distorted that it makes it okay to strap explosives to your own body, and use those to blow up both yourself, and anyone in the kill radius in the name of some God, there is a problem.” Once again, look to Northern Ireland. Or if not Ireland, do you think Eric Rudolph really cared if he died in his explosions? Do you think the fellow who recently spilled blood in a gay bar with both hatchet and gun really cared if he died in the attack?
“There are too many fanatics among them willing to destroy this world so theirs can flourish.” Walker, again, just a difference in degree or numbers? There are lots of the “left behind” people who relish war in the mideast because it brings the end times to fruition and hurries up the next reign of Jesus.
I am sorry if you all, not just walker, think that pointing out the obvious is christian bashing. I am sorry if you think you are the ones who get to say who the real chrisitans are. If anyone wants the good muslims to police their bretheren, maybe christians need to do the same!
Ks,I agree with your concluding statement. However, one must realize that many a Christian has become so secularized that their religious life is spent only in a church building on a sunday, the rest of the week, they revert to their comfortable, irresponsible hedonism.Ex nihil, nihil sunt
I said: “It was CruX, a self proclaimed christian who first made the muslim/christian comparisons, and compared christians favorably I guess. I responded to his post, and did not bring the subject up.”
Crux said:”Ks,Then you interpreted my post incorrectly! I compared the ANCIENT Catholic crusaders with the ANCIENT jihaddists.”
So crux, you are still comparing christians and muslims, albeit ancient ones. And you think christians measure up favorably, right? So what the hell about my comment was wrong?
You are so in love with your own grasp of logic you forget to read. Why try to deny? You are indeed the first one on this thread to make the comparison. Not a criticism, just a fact. My, my, sensitive arent we? Sometimes you split the hairs so fine you dont even make sense. What brand of logic is that? And where did I say that YOU said ALL muslims?
You also totally misread my point about using extremists to brand the entire religion. Some do that to muslims, and some do that to christians. Seems to me what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. That was the point, which for all your logic training, I guess you missed.
Mostly crux, all your ranting about logic aside, you just believe. And in case no one ever told your dumb ass, faith and logic are not the same. So defend away crux, but be clear on what is faith and what is logic.This is my opinion, based on the world I see. A lot of horrible things in this world are done by people who think they are doing something in the name of their imaginary god. A pox on all your religious houses.
Careful crux. Your superiority complex, your arrogant posturing and rambling postings make us realize you really are a lawyer.
“Seems to me what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.”
That’s great if the goose and the gander are both committing mass murder. So far, only one of them is.
scott “absolutley seperation of church and state as in no state run religion”. That is your opinion dear. Others of us are of the opinion it means separation of state from all churches.
You are welcome to do politics in your churches, but you must play by the rules of all political action committees. If you all want to do politics in your church, just pay taxes. No problem then.
Scott, people who are not christians and who do not go to church still have the ability to distinguish what is right and wrong. They do it every day, without your help. We just dont claim to be doing it for god.
Good for you for not opposing civil unions. How did you vote on the hate amendment? I dont really want to know, but stop tell me your good intentions if the deeds dont match.
You and crux are both hung up on the “but I am not that kind of christian”. When you advocate for “christian” laws, do you think it matters to non-christians what brand you are or are not?
You all spend so much time defending christianity, you dont even hear what the rest of us think of you and your religions. You can say what you want, but the rest of us all all looking at your deeds.
kfg,Wow . . . I never said anything about christian bashing. I gave my thoughts on what I believe to be the case. Your opinion has merit, and I take it as such, but please don’t put me in the same catagory as those who cry “foul” every time someone says something they disagree with concerning their beliefs.
I have no problem with you, or anybody else for that matter, being gay, agnostic, witches et al, as long as they do not physically threaten me. To do so is to suffer the wrath of a Viet Nam veteran, and it would not be in the name of any religion.
You quoted some of what I wrote, and used your logic and knowledge to refute that which you didn’t believe. I respect that. I think you are wrong, but I still respect that.
To compare some fringe group of so-called “Christians” to a nation whose agenda is the annihilation of another country is comparing apples and oranges, in my opinion.
For someone like Pat Roberts to call for putting a price on another nations leader, is, in my mind, speech enciting to violence, something not covered by the first amendment. In my mind, he should be brought up on charges and made an example of. But that is very dicey territory.
As for the conflict between the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland: That, in my opinion, goes way beyond religion. They have been at war with each other for centuries, and while religion may have been the start of it all, it has little to do with it now.
Finally, while it may be obvious to you, it is not so to me. True Christians do not beat or kill people today in this country. Those that use the name of christianity to do so are not true christians. That is my opinion, and I am not bashing anyone who disagrees with me. I use what I consider rational thought to discuss the issue with them, as I am so doing now.
Opps . . . Pat Robertson. My bad.
Todd, both of them HAVE committed mass murder. Northern Ireland, crusades, spanish inquisition, etc. Do you really want a list? Dont act like history doesnt matter. Christians certainly have blood on their hands too.
Does this all hinge on the definition of “mass”? How many murders make a “mass”? Over what period of time? And why, when given examples of christian atrocities, do you all say “those arent real christians” or “I am not THAT kind of christian”?
How are those p.r. tactics working for you all?
Walker, I am sorry if I lumped you into the christian apologists by mistake.
I also dont think you are a bigot. Quite the contrary.
I also dont think you bash anyone. As you pointed out, when it comes to religion, we just disagree. But you and I both know many christians who use their religion to try and force the rest of us into submission.
kfg,Thanks, I do appreciate that.
I agree with you on that. The current crop of idiots on the KBOE prove that statement true.
I have been known to bash a few narrow minded people here, but damn, grrl, you gotta have some fun sometime.
Oh? so you wish to dispute logic with me as well? Ok, lets start by all the generalizations you and Jed have made about Christians in the posts upthread:
If you can call modern day christians tolerant, you should walk a day in my shoes,
Modern day christians, and sometimes conservative jews, are the next most intolerant people on the planet, next to the taliban. And you all are giving the taliban a race for their money.
I saw hordes of good christians screaming quotes from the bible at peaceful demonstrators.
These, and similar acts aren’t the occasional transgressions of a few, as many christians would have you believe,
I know you all hate the separation of church and state, but this thread is proof of that wisdom.
Now let’s see unsubstantial assertions:Do you really think that if some of those denominations could, they wouldn’t start the religious wars all over again?
So….how come the christians are just given a bad name by extremists who are not representative but muslims cant make the same claim? You dont think some of the atrocities are committed by extremists?
I never said that muslim extremists are representative of all muslims as in the example which you have mentioned here in which you IMPLY that I have somehow made Christians morally superior to Muslims, which you later accuse me of doing. Finally, your concluding insults in your last post is all I need to properly infer that there are 50 year olds out there that still have some growing up to do. But please, continue this debate with me, it is proof that you can’t formulate an argument without inserting logical fallacies and personal attacks.Bravo Ks, Bravo!
You guys have learned nothing have you??? THere is no such thing as a disparity between “violent” christians and “real” christians? Any self-proclaiming Christian is rightly identified as such, however the fact that he belongs to the Christian religion and is violent towards others doesn’t negate his being a Christian anymore than a violent muslim who kills people is no longer a “real” muslim! God! That whole argument that self-proclaiming christians aren’t real christians is BULLSHIT! Whoever made up that argument oughtta learn how to make arguments!
People please understand the following:
ACTIONS DO NOT DETERMINE A PERSON’S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS, CONVICTION DOES.
You and crux are both hung up on the “but I am not that kind of christian”. When you advocate for “christian” laws, do you think it matters to non-christians what brand you are or are not?
I advocated a law now? Funny, I can’t seem to see any examples when I observe my earlier posts. Oh! Fiddlesticks! I forgot this was a post by you Ks, and I forgot that you are accustomed to putting words in my mouth! My mistake! Pardon me, I must be illogical when I point out fallacious statements aren’t I?
I think the fallacy here is that we are failing to differentiate what is done in the name of Christianity, from the broader, “what Christians do”. After all, the majority of Americans identify themselves as Christians, whether they truly are or not.
Just because a Christian does something morally wrong it should not reflect badly on Christianity. They would have been acting against Christ’s teachings. You won’t find the act ratified by a church authority figure. (Although most anyone these days can claim that title.) However, it should tell you something, when critics have to go back to the Crusades to find an example.
This stands in stark contrast to the Muslim riots, which have largely been organized and encouraged by the Muslim religious leaders.
Of course now Ks is going to slanderously assault me for my religious convictions concerning homosexual marriage. It’s just a matter of time now. Gee, I didn’t know that I was to kowtow to secular society and change my religious convictions everytime a group of people find my convictions offensive. Pardon me, for holding such convictions in our “free speech” obsessed society! Go fabricate more arguments about me being a homophobic bigot! Go ahead, I certainly haven’t heard those before! Your logic is: If he doesn’t support gay marriage then he must be a homophobe. (If X then Y) Then you flip it If he is a homophobe then he doesn’t support gay marriage. (If Y then X) That is your impression of everyone here who does not agree with you on gay marriage isn’t it? Just brand them a bigot? Well I don’t hate ANYONE! My defense of traditional marriage has nothing to do with hatred for the homosexual person. But please, continue your smear tactics Ks.
CrusaderX,
Out of all the discussions where ksfarmgrrl has been proven wrong time and time again about Christianity…why do you think she would change now?
If anyone here has hate in their heart or is a bigot, it is her towards Christians.
Crux, I think you take way too much speed. Keep spinning brother, the flying spagetti monster loves you too. And outlander, no one seriously thinks we have to go back to the crusades for examples of christians committing murder.
I am not saying muslims are saints either. And yes, the actions of individual members always reflect on the group at large, crux rantings aside. If you want to say that there is no identifiable group called “christians”, then say that. Is there never a time anyone can speak of christians as a group?
I am not the one making the “real christians” argument. Whenever I point out an example of what christians have done, someone shouts, “but they are not real christians”. Again, who says what is real? Me? You? Them? I think if they self identify, I should be able to take them at their word.
And outlander, are you serious that Pat is not a church leader in any sense of the word? Are you denying that he has advocated the murder of chavez? Maybe you dont agree with him, but he leads many. Christians cant claim the good ones without also claiming the bad apples too.
How many examples are enough here? One’s too many and a hundred aren’t enough?
Once again, all this seems about degree. Muslims murder, christians murder. We can all come up with examples of both. Is the only argument about when and how much? I dont even have a dog in that fight.
Goodness gracious folks! Nothing like good old religious fervor, both pro and con, to bring out the beast in everyone. And I do mean the Beast!!! I truly think it would be grand if ALL the cartoonists in this world would put together a big old book containing cartoons lampooning all the major religions of the world. I do not claim much, but I do know that God, in what form you prefer, has got to have an incredible sense of humor. Take a moment from trying to change the world around you and take a good look at US and all we do. Absolutely hilarious or heartbreaking. And not much in between.
Crux, you are too funny. No one is ever allowed to make fun of or actually criticize the great and powerful oz are they? I am laughing so hard I cant breathe. If I can send you into that much of a tizzy, with my pea brain and lack of logic and all, I better go buy a lottery ticket.
The more you rant crux, the more you make us think what a logical person you are. And the more you show your christian side. Dont let your passions get away from you there logic boy.
Pat clearly made a mistake in what he said about Chavez.
To say that he is preaching for his murder is deceitful.
He has said it one time and has cleared the record since.
It is not like he is sitting there every week saying we need to kill chavez.
I am still laughing here. Crux, me thinks you doth protest too much on the homophobia thing, and I am not the first person who has called you on that. This morning, I was just prodding (i.e. the ‘whiff’ comment) to see if you were homophobic. I still dont know, but it sure hit a nerve….lololololol.
Surely you dont fall into the “I can dish it out but I cant take it” club do you?
Ks,You’re not dumb, you’re just insulting. Sorry if my “Christian side” showed up, try to understand that religion is a touchy subject and many religious people are prone to well… over-react. Rest assured though Ks that I won’t be coming to your house and burning it down to the ground, unlike SOME people I know…
Ks,You’re not dumb, you’re just insulting. Sorry if my “Christian side” showed up, try to understand that religion is a touchy subject and many religious people are prone to well… over-react. Rest assured though Ks that I won’t be coming to your house and burning it down to the ground, unlike SOME people I know…
No, I fall into the “I can take it but f**k with me on my religion and I’ll open a proverbial can of whoop-ass on you” crowd. :)
And i am NOT A HOMOPHOBE!!! See? Didn’t I call that in an earlier post or what? I saw Brokeback Mountain and guess what? I didn’t have a sexuality crisis in the sex scenes between Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal. So no, I have no phobia of gay people because i am very confident in my being heterosexual. But there you go like I said before making up allusions to my sexuality. Har har har, it is to laugh…
And i am NOT A HOMOPHOBE!!! See? Didn’t I call that in an earlier post or what? I saw Brokeback Mountain and guess what? I didn’t have a sexuality crisis in the sex scenes between Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal. So no, I have no phobia of gay people because i am very confident in my being heterosexual. But there you go like I said before making up allusions to my sexuality. Har har har, it is to laugh…
And i am NOT A HOMOPHOBE!!! See? Didn’t I call that in an earlier post or what? I saw Brokeback Mountain and guess what? I didn’t have a sexuality crisis in the sex scenes between Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal. So no, I have no phobia of gay people because i am very confident in my being heterosexual. But there you go like I said before making up allusions to my sexuality. Har har har, it is to laugh…
And i am NOT A HOMOPHOBE!!! See? Didn’t I call that in an earlier post or what? I saw Brokeback Mountain and guess what? I didn’t have a sexuality crisis in the sex scenes between Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal. So no, I have no phobia of gay people because i am very confident in my being heterosexual. But there you go like I said before making up allusions to my sexuality. Har har har, it is to laugh…
Well me too crux. I got a few cans of whoop ass here too for use on those who f*** with me on issues near and dear to me. I’m not opposed to using them either. :)
So, on the subject of burning down houses… here is a joke that will piss off EVERYONE. It isnt directed at anyone in particular. And yes I take terrorist seriously too. I am paraphrasing Chris Rock here about being afraid of the right thing.
Chris said that when he looked at the dragging of Jame Byrd, the killing of Matthew Shepard, the Oklahoma City bombing, etc. he came to one conclusion. “I aint afraid of Al-Quaida…I’m afraid of Al- Cracker!”
lol.NO COMMENTI don’t wanna get shot over here. :)
Viva La Kansas Crackers!!
Chris Rock also said that “Meth was Crack for Crackers.” The prevenlent drug of choice by many ruralites. So much so that Meth Watch signs are in the road enterence to the small towns in Kansas. Especially Western Kansas.
Chris Rock also told the black community to pick up their own trash. Meaning, clean up your neighborhood first before you scream and holler about somebody else.
Chris Rock is a wise person. I love him.
The subject was the publication of the anti Islam cartoons.
Clearly this was done to stick a finger in the eye of Muslims.
Here in America,it is just a bit different.
In America it is the Christian religion that sticks its NOSE into all areas of life.
Cries are raised to allow prayer in schools. But in truth, prayer in school is not disallowed. I would be the first to fight if it were so. Anyone can pray anytime in any school. That prayer must be INDIVIDUAL and not coerced or even encouraged. Truth told? Folks who want prayer in schools are not concerned that their child be allowed to pray. They want ALL children FORCED to pray.
Jesus said, “render unto Ceasar what is Ceasers’” “render unto god what is gods” That would suggest to me that government (Ceaser) has no place in marriage or civil unions. Yet some “christians” seem all to eager to tell others how to live. Is the Kansas constitutional ban on gay marriage of god? Or is it of ceaser by way of those who claim to speak for god?
That big sky cluttering cross above Terry Fox’s church, would that constitute a graven image?
Jesus said, “If a man steals your cloak, find him and offer him also your shirt” (paraphrasing here. I am an atheist after all) Would this square with Joe Wright and his multi million dollar cathedral of glass and steel on multi million dollar real estate?
Now the deal with the Mohammed cartoons is they were DESIGNED to attack a religion. In America, it is the Christian religion that attacks society at large. I must admit I hear no voice of ‘god”. It is disturbing to me that so many suffer under the judgement of some who do “hear” the voice of god. I gotta wonder if the message gets lost in the prejudice of the “messenger”.
CruX,Four times? You wouldn’t want people to think you protest too much!
JR,I can understand to an extent, why the Muslims got so upset over a cartoon. I was just looking over an old one (from about 35 years ago)that would probably incite a lot of christians to homicide! Definitely offensive! Also a little too close to the truth for comfort!I’ve also come to view Terry Fox’s cross as kind of a phallic symbol, as in “My cross is bigger than yours!”
One of the things that bothers me, on both sides of the issue concerning religion and government, is the idea that government is trying to establish a precedent of freedom from religion. This is propounded all the time by religious groups (as opposed to zealots).
I don’t see that as the case. But I also don’t see where one person can start a battle that results in millions of tax payer dollars being paid in court battles over something he deems religious that “offends” him.
Such is the case of a cross, visible from I-8 just out of San Diego. The cross happens to be on public land. It had been there for years, with no complaints. Suddenly one man finds it offensive, and governments quake.
When the county, which owned the land, tried to sell it to a group that would keep the cross in place, they were denied the opportunity to do so, even at fair market price.
While I agree the cross should have not been on public land, I disagree with the refusal of the courts to sell the land to a group wishing to keep the cross where it was. That, to me, smacks of freedom from religion rearing its ugly head. Not what this country was founded on.
What does this have to do with savage anarchists burning and killing over some cartoons? Damned if I know. It’s late, and I got 4 more hours of work.
Farmgrrl…wow.. I had to go waaaay back to find your post. Let me change direction a bit to clarify my point. I think “intolerance” is a much overused word these days. Just because we disagree doesn’t make us intolerant of each other! Point is, we ALL live in the same world, same environment, both natural and political. look.. you can move in right next door and do whatever you like, go ahead and grow giant watermelons and cucumbers, and I’m not going to monitor your bedroom. BUT… if you start raising pigs in the back yard you are now affecting MY environment, and I am going to look to someone in authority to decide if that is right or wrong. Am I intolerant of pigs, not really, I love pigs.. I just don’t want to have to smell them every day. Does that make me intolerant of you.. no.. not at all.. we just don’t see eye to eye on pigs in this case. Now if you tell me that because I am a Christian I am not allowed to use the political process, is that being intolerant? No.. it is wrong, but not intolerant. Think about it.. if you take away my right to discuss this issue in a public forum, then what recourse do I have? Is that when the differences become “intolerance” and I go extreme and shoot your cat or something? Not me.. but some might… hopefully it would just come to ranting on a Blog!
Look.. when I was in high school, my three best friends were an American Indian, a Jewish boy, and the gay son of my pastor. I got more than one bloody nose by sticking it between them and some stupid bully. Now were these “bullies” intolerant.. I would say yes, because their actions crossed the line into the basic human rights of my friends. Were these bullies Christians? Maybe.. but their actions were WRONG, and they didn’t do it BECAUSE they were Christians.. they did it because of some sense they saw themselves as better than me and my friends.(which in itself is not a Christian virtue). Same as the extremists today.. they are just bullies stepping all over the rights of the rest of us because they think their way is better than ours. It is just plain wrong.
The gay marriage issue is not an issue that should be debated in the public arena. “Marriage” is a religious issue and it should be up to the church who they marry. I may be wrong, but I believe gay couples have the rights of civil unions with all the benefits. I know they get the same benefits where I work. Am I wrong in that?
Sorry for rambling, but there are alot of issues in this debate. It all boils down to the need to stop the extremism, the killing, and the hate, no matter who is doing it.
“I may be wrong, but I believe gay couples have the rights of civil unions with all the benefits.”
Show me where that is true sam. My partner and I would like to know. I think the burden of proof is on you here with that statement.
Individual companies sometimes offer partner benefits to both UNMARRIED CO-HABITING STRAIGHT PEOPLE (what does your bible say about them?) and gay people. Such benefits are rare, and are under challenge in the courts because of hate amendments. Depending on how the courts rule on hate amendments, those RARE partner benefits may not be allowed in the future.
“Now if you tell me that because I am a Christian I am not allowed to use the political process, is that being intolerant?”
Sam…nowhere have I said you shouldnt participate in the political process. But why do you get preferential tax treatment? Register like other PACs and play by the same rules. Why do you deserve special treatment? Because you are above the regulations that govern the rest of us?
“Maybe.. but their actions were WRONG, and they didn’t do it BECAUSE they were Christians.”
How do you know that sam? Do you know exactly why they did it? Do you think their religious training, whatever stripe, had nothing to do with the way they were acting? If that is true, why bother educating kids on right and wrong? I suspect at a minimum some dinner table talk about “damn queers”. A “living your faith” lecture? I dont know, and you dont either.
Sam, with all due respect, this next is one of the most outrageous things I have ever heard you post. Do you really mean this?
“The gay marriage issue is not an issue that should be debated in the public arena.”Marriage” is a religious issue and it should be up to the church who they marry.”
Sam…I said above you may choose whom you marry and whom you do not in your churches. No argument from me there. Witness the catholics who say that divorced people cant re-marry in the church. No one questions their right to do that, even though secular law allows it. There is a church in Hoxie that wont marry people if they have lived together before marriage. That is their right, they can choose what they do IN their churches.
But why do churches get to say what “marriage” is in the public, secular, caesar domain? The LAWS of this state and nation deal with MARRIAGE, not civil unions. I wondered above if churches wanted to control laws. Are you making that point for me? If marriage is only a church institution, why do the secular laws govern it?
And which church or “christian” group do you want to control marriage? As evidenced in this thread, christians dont even agree with each other all of the time, so we are gonna have to choose WHICH christian church doctine gets control of marriage.
Do you want fred’s church in control, or are you going to say “he isnt a real christian”.Once again sam, who gets to say who is a real christian? Do you want fred in charge of any laws? How do you suppose he would regulate your church on other legal matters if he were in charge?
Maybe you dont want fred in charge of marriage? How about the pope? Maybe the pope will only marry you if you convert to his religion. Is that ok for YOUR MARRIAGE and the laws that govern it?
Dont like catholic doctrine, well then, how about letting the universlist unitarians be in charge of marriage? Or the church of christ? Or any of the other christian churches that dont oppose gay marriage? Will that be ok with you then, if they are in charge of the marriage laws? Or is it only the opinion of YOUR CHURCH that should control the marriage laws?
You should know by now that many churches already bless gay unions and welcome gay couples. I think they are called reconciled congregations. Could those churches possibly be put in charge of the marriage laws?
Sam… despite your lengthy post you didnt think this one through. Maybe you dont get that those of us who mistrust religion already suspected that christians think the church should be in charge of our legal and secular lives.
What other civil and legal issues do you think the “church” should control?
Farmgrrl..
“Show me where that is true sam. My partner and I would like to know. I think the burden of proof is on you here with that statement.”
I completed that statement with the words ‘Am I wrong in that?’ because I don’t know what the laws are. I do know that in my company, gay couples get benefits, and co-habitating straight people don’t. Things are changing, and I hope that full benefits will be widely accepted before long.
“Sam…nowhere have I said you shouldnt participate in the political process. But why do you get preferential tax treatment? Register like other PACs and play by the same rules. Why do you deserve special treatment? Because you are above the regulations that govern the rest of us?”
I get no preferential tax treatment.. I pay taxes just like everyone else. Believe me, I wish I could be a non-profit so I didn’t have to pay sales tax on the food and stuff for the homeless, but I’m not.
“How do you know that sam? Do you know exactly why they did it? Do you think their religious training, whatever stripe, had nothing to do with the way they were acting? If that is true, why bother educating kids on right and wrong? I suspect at a minimum some dinner table talk about “damn queers”. A “living your faith” lecture? I dont know, and you dont either.”
Christian education does NOT teach that. If it was taught, then it was not Christian teaching, it was bigoted and hateful.
“Sam… despite your lengthy post you didnt think this one through. Maybe you dont get that those of us who mistrust religion already suspected that christians think the church should be in charge of our legal and secular lives.What other civil and legal issues do you think the “church” should control? ”
Did you even think about what I said before you got angry? “Marriage” in the churchy, God’s blessing sort of way is a church issue. Each church decides who can and can’t get married, hopefully using some Biblical standard. What I said, in too many words I guess, was that in the public arena marriage=civil union, and in the eyes of the law there should be no difference. The church has, or should have, no say in making any legal distinction between the two, any more than the court would have any say in who can get married in a church. Maybe the problem is just the term, and a clear distinction needs to be made. The law must apply to the legal rights of any two people who are “married” or “civil-unionized”, whether in a church or in a court, or wherever, so long as they meet the legal requirements. The church was not meant to control ANY civil/legal issues. The “separation” clause is there to protect the church from the state, and the state from the church. It is a good thing.
“What I said, in too many words I guess, was that in the public arena marriage=civil union, and in the eyes of the law there should be no difference.”
Sam, I am sorry I did not get that from your post. I whole heartedly agree with the above. I also support this statement:
“Each church decides who can and can’t get married”
And finally, I say bravo to this:
The church was not meant to control ANY civil/legal issues. The “separation” clause is there to protect the church from the state, and the state from the church. It is a good thing.
And I totally agree the state should stay out of your churches, except on the tax question. The tax treatment part was not meant for you as an individual, but “you” meaning church groups operating in the political arena. Sorry if I was unclear, I just want a level playing field there.
I can see I have some trouble with the term “you”, not just from you, sam, but from other posters too. I guess no one can read my mind here if I mean “you” personally, or “you” as in groups. I will promise to try to be more clear in my posts.
Thanks for the clarifications sam. Sorry if I misread your earlier post.
JM,You’re missing the point! It’s not about nonchristians being offended by your religious symbols. If you want to put up a 150 foot cross, or an office building inscribed with the ten commandments, go for it! Makes me no nevermind!But we nonchristians of whatever kind are also entitled to fair treatment by government. After all, it’s our government too, and when we walk into a courthouse that’s filled with christian symbols, given your history of persecuting nonchristians, we can’t help but feel that our chances of receiving a fair shake there are diminished. Same goes for religious displays and christian prayers in other government offices.We don’t wish to destroy your beliefs. We just want to live our lives free of the institutionalized persecution the church has inflicted on nonchristians for the last 1700 years.
Jed,No, my comp was slowing down for some reason and when I posted I didn’t see my post register on the thread. So I posted it several times then I hit refresh and oua la! 4 identical posts.
Jed,Please explain to us how having the Ten Commandments or sculpted busts of biblical characters in courts of law a form of persecution for non-christians? I think you are stretching the definition of “persecution” a bit too much.
Ks,Why should churches have the right to act in the public sphere?Because these churches are comprised of American citizens (for the most part anyway) and American citizens have every right to participate in politics.
CruX,If you were an African-American, would you feel comfortable about going into court and finding your judge wearing Klan robes? Would you expect your case to be tried on it’s merits?
Jed,I would be worried if the judiciary based our laws predominantly on the tradition of any particular religion. However, we are a secular society and we do not make any religion the standard on which legal precedents are based. Also, judges are trained to decide cases objectively and in no way can a judge insert his religious beliefs/ biases/ opinions on any case, he must decide cases purely on the rule of law. So, even though a judge belongs to a particular religion / race / political affiliation, you can rest assured that he was trained to decide cases objectively and not to insert his biases into the decision of a non-jury trial. The so-called “judicial activism” argument that is being thrown around today is the result of people who were dissatisfied in subsequent rulings by judges of the higher courts. So these people make up judicial activism which in essence accuses judges of subjectivizing their rulings. This is nothing but a wild-eyed conspiracy theory, these are people who hate Roe vs. Wade and will come up with anything to besmirch the integrity of the Supreme Court. But I am getting off topic, getting back to your example, If I were put in that situation where I saw a judge in a Klan outfit, I would simply report him to the American Bar Association and they will have him disbarred, and I won’t have to worry him because his days of practicing law would be over.
CruX,Yes, and what color is the sky in your world?I’m old enough to remember when Klan members in the south were routinely acquitted for lynching, and D.A’s refused to indict gay-bashers and domestic abusers. I’ve read my history enough to be aware that in our country’s first century and beyond, nonchristians were prohibited from testifying in some states, and from adopting children in others. Even today, if you are openly atheist, forget about running for public office in many areas of the country.That ideal rule of law that you place such faith in is no more reliable than the judges who enforce it, and they are elected or appointed or confirmed by people with prejudices, who expect those prejudices to be confirmed. Witness the latest round of Senate hearings!If I’m touchy about protecting my rights as a citizen, it’s because there are preachers and politicians out there who would gladly deprive me of them, right down to my right to exist, and they are willing to lie, cheat and steal for the political power to do just that!
Brother American Jed,Well, I’m not that old so I haven’t really experienced heavily institutionalized discrimination in the courts. Given your description you must be old enough to be my father! However, I still don’t think that having sculptures in court buildings is a case of persecution though, “Pops”. Judges are appointed by the President though “Pops”. I agree that atheists haven’t been given a fair share in this country’s political process, however, nobody can stop you from bringing your case to court and filing a discrimination suit. As for myself, I’m not that old so I haven’t had experienced or witnessed the kind of discrimination against athiests that you speak of. Personally, I don’t care what religious affiliation or lack thereof you are. So you don’t believe in a god? Fine with me, you’re still a citizen of this country and are fully entitled to your rights. If I were an attorney I would have no qualms with representing you Pops.
Unhyphenated AmericanCX
CX,As another poster who is old enough to be your father, let me just say this. You seem very bright, and you have a good handle on your scriptures. But.. wisdom comes from not only knowing, but understanding how to use your knowledge. Remember that who a person is, is the sum total of his/her life experience. Never discount the history of an individual because reality is how we perceive it. Remember the old saying that reality is 10% what happens, and 90% how I react to it. If someone says they feel uncomfortable in a situation it may be absolutely true.. even though you and I may not feel the same way. I’m not putting you down or anything, I just want to suggest that you put yourself in the other persons shoes before you respond to them, and be sensitive to what they have experienced. And always remember that Jesus loves them just as much as he does you and me. :)
Brother American sam,I will remember what you said, and I have noticed upon closer inspection of my previous posts that I may seem downright obnoxious when it comes to sensitive issues. I apologize to all for my rude uncouth behavior.
Unhyphenated AmericanCX
“However, we are a secular society and we do not make any religion the standard on which legal precedents are based.”
This may possibly be the dumbest and most outrageous thing I have ever read here. Ian makes more intelligent comments, even if they are distasteful.
If you think the hate amendment is NOT a law based on christianity, you dont live in the real world. And BTW, I would also like to know what color the sky is there.
And this guy is in law school?
Are you GMC70 too?
Crux, I wasnt going to respond to you anymore since it is so clearly a waste of time, but while we are at it here, go find where I said christians shouldnt participate in the political process. In fact, what I said was, we should strive to reach your statement about laws not being based purely on ANY religion.
All I ask is that the churches, and their members, play by the same rules as the rest of us in the political arena. That means abiding by the same rules that govern secular pacs. Limits on giving and spending, public reporting, accountability and transparancy, and living with the same tax rules as us “secular” political organizations.
Is that too much to ask, or are you afraid you cant compete on a level playing field?
But since churches dont have to abide by the same rules (laws) in the political arena, I guess that lends some “truthiness” to your comment about the u.s. having secular laws that dont favor religious groups.
In your dreams. What color is the sky there?
FarmGrrl..
“If you think the hate amendment is NOT a law based on christianity, you dont live in the real world.”
I’m really curious here… are you talking about the hate crimes legislation, or what specifically? And.. if you are, are you not in favor of that?
How is the legislation against homosexual marriage a “hate amendment?”
Second,
Churches are not political entities and thus are not subject to the same rules you wish them to.
Sorry you hate Christianity so much that you think it should be taxed…
No sam, I mean the amendment against allowing civil unions for gay couples. That is commonly referred to as the hate amendment.
The hate amendment was largely passed at the behest of christians and christian churches. The catholic church was the largest funder of the campaign to pass it in kansas. Hence my comments pointing out the hypocricy about christians participating on a level playing field.
Terry, Joe and Fred led the charge from their safely tax exempt positons. And while the anti-amendment people were reporting and respecting the laws regarding spending and campaign contributions, the churches took full advantage of their exemptions from the tax and campaign laws.
Is all that fair? Do you see why some of us have such disgust for the hypocricy of churches? Would this be more “love” from the christians?
I have mixed feelings on hate crime legislation. I think all personal injury crime is hate crime. I dont think greater penalties for hate crimes are effective in deterring crime. Just like the death penalty doesnt really stop anyone from killing.
Education would be the answer, but I dont see anyone willing to do that in their own back yard. And if we do it? It is just propaganda from us, according to our opponents. It does no good coming from us.
That is why we need “good” christians and conservatives to stand up and admonish your own.Just imagine the difference if the churches were preaching tolerance and love instead of setting the example of running roughshod over the laws governing the rest of us.
Nathan, you are so dumb it is just laughable.
“Churches are not political entities and thus are not subject to the same rules you wish them to.”
DUH nathan. When they act like political groups, they should be taxed. If you engage in politics, then abide by the law. If you dont want to play by the tax and campaign laws, then stay out of the political arena as a group. If you participate as individuals or groups, then abide by the law.
I guess we just need to turn all the gay rights groups into churches. Would that be ok with you nathan?
Here is a nathan type question for you: do you think churches are above the law?
BTW nathan, I am not getting sucked into one of your dumbass loops today. If that makes you feel like you won something, do your victory dance. I suggest you keep posting. Not just for the laughs, but for the converts it brings us. LOLOLOLOLOL.
You show me the law that I think Churches are above ksfarmgrrl.
I don’t know of any law that they are above.
How about the campaign finance and reporting laws nathan? How about the tax laws for political organizations?
Farmgrrl…Do you think, or know for that matter that “churches” actively campaigned and provided money to get the amendment passed?Would it be better or legal for them to create their own “taxed” PAC, but NOT a part of the church?I’m all for getting facts and finding solutions to great divides like this because it harms both sides of the issue.It doesn’t look black and white to me… I see some churches that appear very “political” but I know of others that are about their business and not “political” at all. I know that a blanket taking away of tax exempt status of all religious organizations would do great harm to alot of good charitable organizations. On the other hand.. maybe there is a way of dividing the “charitable” from the “political”?I’m not sure how to negotiate that… do you have thoughts, or are you totally against the tax -exempt status?—–
“How about the campaign finance and reporting laws nathan?”
You show me a church that is in violation of it then.
“How about the tax laws for political organizations?”
Show me a church that meets the definition of a political organization.
Ksfrmgrl–
That’s what he does.
He just keeps asking “why” like a two-year old kid.
It’s how he harasses people and then when you call him on it, he says with a presumably wide-eyed look on his face, “I didn’t do anything.”
Yeah, you’re right, Know Nothing Nathan, Pat Robertson’s 700 Club isn’t at all, you know, POLITICAL or anything . . . just because the guy ran for PRESIDENT means nothing . . .
I meant Kansasam in my last post. Sorry.
ProudLib…and you are attacking me why?
Sam,I am in favor of the tax exempt status of churches. That said, when The First Church of the Anti-Clinton starts funnelling cash into campaign coffers, holding rallys for candidates, promising to deliver votes and excommunicating members who vote the wrong way, and purchasing glitzy political ads at election time, maybe they have more money and ego than is good for them, and should render some of it unto Caesar! After all, their founder was a carpenter who most likely never had more than a couple sheckels at a time to rub together, and warned continually about the dangers of excess wealth. He did all right, and didn’t need a $50,000,000 glass cathedral to do it in!
CruX,Actually, I have grandchildren not much younger than you.
Kansassam said “I know that a blanket taking away of tax exempt status of all religious organizations would do great harm to alot of good charitable organizations.”
Sam, I agree with that. Nowhere have I advocated taking away all tax exempt status from churches. If they are 501(c)3, they should be tax exempt, whether religious in nature or simply not for profit. I clearly see how govt could tax churches out of existence or favor one church over another if they totally lost their 501(c)3 status.
But getting and keeping 501(c) 3 status means following the IRS rules. And the IRS says that 501(c)3’s can not be political organizations. A separate catagory was created for politics. That is why pacs register as 501(c)4’s. (I am not sure of the exact code number) I know non-profits, depending on their purpose as stated in their IRS status application, have to create pacs in order to engage in the political process.
Why should churches not have to follow that same rule? They are 501(c)3 after all. That is generally their tax exempt status in caesar’s domain.
So a separate political organization like a sister 501(c)4 might work, but who will police the money coming into churches and say it isnt diverted for politics? Lots of potential problems with dual organizations.
What happens when Terry, Joe and Fred preach politics on Sunday morning? Does the church then become taxable even if there is shadow political organization? Too many questions unanswered, and I see lots of potential for abuse. And lots of screaming when churches are asked to open their books for an audit regarding their political activities.
When churches actively urge their parishoners to vote a certain way, to go forth and do good on a campaign, to support certain candidates, contribute funds to candidates, buy advertising like a 527, and engage in all kinds of political work, they should be subject to the same finance laws and reporting regulations as everyone else.
Dont make me google all the money that churches poured into the campaign to support the passage of the hate amendment. Dont make me google all the quotes of all the ministers who advocated its passage. That is a political statement according to the campaign finance laws.
Nathan, go to the Kansas Ethics Commission website and see who raised what money, how it was spent, etc. on the hate amendment. And that is the REPORTED church money. The other is just “soft” money or unreported “in kind” contributions by the churches.
It was the Kansas Ethics Commission which posted the info on the financial (read CASH) contribution of the catholic church. It was an arm of the church in Connecticut that wrote the check for the kansas campaign.
Anyone who thinks churches didnt play a big political role in the hate amendment campaign is just being obtuse. Anyone who thinks the churches dont participate politically on the abortion laws is more obtuse.
Do christians, or other religions, have a right to participate in the political process? Of course. Should they play by the same rules as secular organizations? Absolutely.
It is my opinion that churches only want a separation of church and state when it comes to taxes. Otherwise, they very much want to influence “the state”.
My proposed solution is to have church members participate as individual americans in the process without using the tax exempt resources of the formal church. That would be cleanest, and it is what the rest of us do. If that doesnt work, make them be 527 organizations, like the swift boat guys.
What is your proposed solution sam?
I see your points… let me think on that and respond tomorrow. I’m really not a political kind of guy, so I don’t know how stuff is supposed to work, but I do think “outside the box”, so I might have some ideas..
Enjoy your day:)
Take all the thinking time you need sam. We all need a good solution to this question! If this thread disappears, lol, I am sure we will get another chance :)
Thanks for the reasoned response. you have a good day too.
Sam, you are softening me up, lol. Here are a couple of confessional surprises:)
I noticed it was a United Methodist Men’s Group that included people from kansas that was the first group to start serving meals in Waveland, Mississippi. Good on ‘em as Molly Ivins would say. That is a perfect example of christian charity and I think they should get all the tax breaks available to do that work.
Second, I dont like the way this white house has set up faith based initiatives, but I think that it is a concept that could work. If a charitable org has a track record of acceptable performance, they should be eligible for govt programs to fund that work.
I am not saying that very well.
I am also advocating a level playing field for charitable groups. Just because a charitable group is church affiliated, it should not automatically be excluded from the federal grant process. They should get to participate, as long as they can perform, as long as they serve everyone, and as long as the money isnt used to swell the ranks of church membership. That’s the tricky part.
Farm Gal,While there have been excellent faith-based organizations, such as Mennonite Housing, there have been others that have proved incompetent and/or use charity as bait for prosletyzing, and a few that have withheld aid to members of denominations they disagree with. Of course you don’t need to be faith-based to screw things up royally- look at FEMA!
It seems that Danish courage is not spreading to Dutch school officials, who have banned their own flag in a “fear the muslims” move.
http://theflyoverzone.blogspot.com/2006/02/dutch-schools-ban-flag-fearing-muslim.html
Strange bedfellows politically, William J. Bennett and Alan M. Dershowitz wrote a column together in the Washington Post. This pairing is like a journalistic version of the Odd Couple. Though from the conservative and liberal wings of American politics, they united for what they agree is a critical failure of the media in dealing with Islamic intimidation.
http://theflyoverzone.blogspot.com/2006/02/bennett-and-dershowitz-team-up-on.html
Sister American Ks,
In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). A 501(c)(3) organization may engage in some lobbying, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.
Organizations may, however, involve themselves in issues of public policy without the activity being considered as lobbying. For example, organizations may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.
Whether an organization’s attempts to influence legislation constitute a substantial part of its overall activities is determined on the basis of all the pertinent facts and circumstances in each case. The IRS considers a variety of factors, including the time devoted (by both compensated and volunteer workers) and the expenditures devoted by the organization to the activity, when determining whether the lobbying activity is substantial.
Under the substantial part test, an organization that conducts excessive lobbying activity in any taxable year may lose its tax-exempt status, resulting in all of its income being subject to tax. In addition, a religious organization is subject to an excise tax equal to FIVE PERCENT OF ITS LOBBYING EXPENDITURES (emphasis mine) for the year in which it ceases to qualify for exemption.
Further, a tax equal to five percent of the lobbying expenditures for the year may be imposed against organization managers, jointly and severally, who agree to the making of such expenditures knowing that the expenditures would likely result in the loss of tax-exempt status.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violation of this prohibition may result in DENIAL or REVOCATION OF TAX EXEMPT STATUS and the imposition of certain EXCISE TAX.
Sister American Ks, did you read the preceding stipulations on Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3)?Now I want you to think very hard, (and I know that may be asking too much of you) DOES YOUR ARGUMENT THAT CHURCHES ARE ALWAYS TAX EXEMPT AND NOT SUBJECT TO EXCISE TAXATION CONFORM WITH THE ACTUAL 501(c)(3) CODE?a. yesb. noc. i’m Ks and I didnt read the entirety of 501(c)(3) except the opening statement and thought that there were no exceptions or boundaries within which religious organizations had to follow.
i’m betting on C. :)
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=120703,00.html
Ref: above
All I ask is that the churches, and their members, play by the same rules as the rest of us in the political arena. That means abiding by the same rules that govern secular pacs. Limits on giving and spending, public reporting, accountability and transparancy, and living with the same tax rules as us “secular” political organizations.
Is that too much to ask, or are you afraid you cant compete on a level playing field?
But since churches dont have to abide by the same rules (laws) in the political arena, I guess that lends some “truthiness” to your comment about the u.s. having secular laws that dont favor religious groups.
In your dreams. What color is the sky there?
WHAT? NO SMART-ASS REMARK? IT’S BEEN NEARLY 6 HOURS SINCE I POSTED. WHAT’S GOIN ON? DID MY ABOVE POSTS ACTUALLY DISPROVE YOUR RIDICULOUS POSITION ABOVE? OBVIOUSLY IT DID. AND THE COLOR OF THE SKY IN MY WORLD, KS, IS BLUE.
Crux, you are dumb enough to be laughable most of the time. The rest of the time, you are just to be pitied. I guess you forgot I have you on ignore.
But I really would like to know, do you post on speed or just alcohol? Or are you just off your meds? And GMC70, how many screen names do you have? You must need meth to keep up with all that and your studies.
If churches are subject to the same rules, why is the IRS not investigating the whole Terry, Joe and Fred political operation? Why is Pat Robertson still out of jail? Why is the catholic church not sanctioned for all its political activity?
I would say those church leaders all have very sophisticated and well funded political operations. Are you saying the catholic church doest do political work on the abortion issue?
Come on, say it. It will once and for all prove that famous logical mind you claim is just wacked.
Ok, lawyer boy, did you even read what you wrote?
“Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”
Thanks for making my point in the above post crux. The law is clearly on the books and not being enforced. Sounds like the IRS is very clear about churches and their political operations.
Why is the law not being enforced? Gosh…I dunno, something about the “base” for both phill klein, your favorite target, or bush/gonzales?
So….I guess all the preaching, the money, the advertising, the campaigning, the printing, the door to door organizing, etc. that the churches, including your own catholic church, have engaged in regarding the hate amendment and abortion dont fit the above category?
Next you posted: “Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity.”
Gosh Crux, wanna talk about all the statments made on behalf of the churches regarding the hate amendment and abortion? Why are Terry, Joe and Fred and numerous bishops not investigated for their political statements and candidate endorsements?
“Violation of this prohibition may result in DENIAL or REVOCATION OF TAX EXEMPT STATUS and the imposition of certain EXCISE TAX.”
Yes asshole, how many times have you heard me call for an investigation of the tax exempt status of Terry, Joe and Fred? And certainly the $100,000+ check, written by an arm of the catholic church,to the hate amendment campaign, should qualify for an investigation if not sanctions, no?
I’ll be waiting to see that excise tax penalty. Of course, it will never happen because, as we all know, churches are above the law.
And does the whole thing hinge on the word “substantial”? So churches are above the law, unless they do it on such a scale, and so outrageously, their political stuff so “substantial” that the IRS finally has to do something about it?
Crux, real slow for you once again. Saying the churches dont have to abide by the same laws doesnt mean there arent any laws on the books. There are laws on the books, they are just not enforced equally. You are supposed to be logic boy so I thought maybe you could follow that. I guess not.
I guess you missed my posts where I said I have you on ignore. Silence just means you are so stupid to listen to that it hurts my ears.
Damn, you went a whole six hours without hearing from me? Here is a tip, crux, I actually have a life and dont live to see your rantings on the screen. Is this the most entertaining thing in your life?
But please, rave on here. We cant wait for the next installment of “Crux, boy lawyer” followed by “Crux, the ranting years”. Followed by the third sequel, “Crux, Logic Master of the Universe”. What a trilogy.
Same moon bat time, same moon bat channel.
There are laws on the books, they are just not enforced equally.
So what you’re saying in effect is, the IRS is favoring churches now? Please back up your examples with concrete evidence and maybe I’ll believe you and call the IRS so they can file suit on those churches for tax evasion. You grow more hysterical by the minute grandma! The IRS is in bed with the Christian churches of America?? You’re really Ian Santiago aren’t you??
The IRS considers a variety of factors, including the time devoted (by both compensated and volunteer workers) and the expenditures devoted by the organization to the activity, when determining whether the lobbying activity is substantial.
Learn how to read woman. If those said churches weren’t already charged with an excise tax then THE IRS MUST NOT HAVE DETERMINED THEIR ACTIONS TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY LOBBYING!!!
If churches are subject to the same rules, why is the IRS not investigating the whole Terry, Joe and Fred political operation? Why is Pat Robertson still out of jail? Why is the catholic church not sanctioned for all its political activity?
I would say those church leaders all have very sophisticated and well funded political operations. Are you saying the catholic church doest do political work on the abortion issue?
How the hell do you know that the IRS didn’t investigate these churches? Do you WORK for the IRS? Are you one of their tax attorneys? Do I have to post the entirety of IRC 501(c)(3) and explain each and every sentence to that hysterical mind of yours? I should have known better than to discuss laws with a you, you senile old bitch.
In general, no organization may qualify for section 501(c)(3) status if a substantial part of its activities is attempting to influence legislation (commonly known as lobbying). A 501(c)(3) organization MAY ENGAGE IN SOME LOBBYING, but too much lobbying activity risks loss of tax-exempt status.
Organizations may, however, involve themselves in issues of public policy WITHOUT THE ACTIVITY BEING CONSIDERED AS LOBBYING. For example, organizations may conduct educational meetings, prepare and distribute educational materials, or otherwise consider public policy issues in an educational manner without jeopardizing their tax-exempt status.
You left out the first two paragraphs idiot.
And what’s with all the name-calling? Just because you lost this argument and can’t present any hard evidence of any church being above and beyond the taxation laws of the Internal Revenue Code doesn’t mean you have to get your panties in a bunch, grandma! That’s ok, they say when one get’s older, one’s senses begin to deteriorate. I guess your bad eyesight was to blame for not seeing the first two paragraphs of my previous post. I’m sorry, I shouldn’t have been so harsh on the elderly.
Farmgrrl..i am really busy today, but still thinking. It was really nice of CX to show me a real example of why you feel the way you do about church people. Please understand that there really are some of us that would like to find ways to resolve differences for the cause of Christ. We really don’t have to agree on every point, but we can work together to at least try and find some common ground. Maybe some changes to the tax codes are in order.. I have a few thoughts on that. I WILL get back to you.. promise!
P.S. After that warm welcoming invitation to graze with the flock that you just received, I suspect I won’t be seeing you in church Sunday.. but we’ll talk soon!
Once again, I’ll post the source of the paragraphs from the IRC 501(c)(3). Please make sure to wear your spectacles this time, kay Granny?LOLOLOLOLOLOL!
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=120703,00.html
It was really nice of CX to show me a real example of why you feel the way you do about church people.
What’s that supposed to mean sammy?
Hi Kansassam. Sorry our discussion got derailed. Thanks for understanding now why some of us feel the way we do. I think he has given a living example of every point I ever made about the dangers of theocracy.
If his posts here dont give you enough examples of hateful homophobia, check out his “christian” posts here. Warning though, it is pretty distasteful even for me!! LOLOL.
Dont just read the last posts, read the whole thread.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2006/02/klines_passion_.html#comments
I think you are strong enough to see it sam, just dont do it before you eat.
Ha! Now she accuses me of homophobia and attempts toshow that I am in favor of a theocracy! This is really a megalomaniac! What happened Ks? No more arguments about churches being “above the law” that you now pull a scope shift into nothing but wild-eyed accusations? You are a real piece of work you know that? You can’t simply stick to the issue at hand that you now resort to character assassination! I would have expected this from Ian but not from you. Thanks for showing me your true colors.
Ks,I also find it funny that when I was making fun of Kline YOU CHIMED IN AS WELL! Funny, you didn’t seem to call me a homophobe when I put your name in there? You only posted after we argued in THIS THREAD! Now you wish to portray me as a homophobe when your earlier post clearly showed that you understood that I wasn’t bashing homosexuals, but I was bashing Kline! I have been extremely kind to you since the beginning of this thread, even when you started swinging personal insults at me! (Go read this thread over again and you’ll see what I mean.) I held my tongue long enough! You deserve the name-calling for your incredulous personal attacks on me and for fabricating lies that I am a homophobe! You are a 50 year old CHILD! You need to GROW UP!
CX..It just means that being young and brash is expected when you are passionate about a cause, but being caustic with name calling will destroy your witness.As you can see from the responses to your posts, that you are receiving exactly what you are dishing out IMHO.What is your purpose on here…if it is just to argue, fine; but if you are trying to draw people to your side, well.. it doesn’t appear to be working too well for you. If you need a good example of how to do that.. look to Christ. How did he handle it when his character was challenged…..?
You accuse me of name-calling? Have you even scrolled upthread and compared her posts to mine? Have you seen that I held my tongue even when she started blatantly insulting me!? I have taken your advice, sam. Hopefully SHE will remember it as well!
Cx…SHE is very passionate about her cause as well… It is possible to get along with her and others on this BLOG. sometimes it is just because we are not clear on what we are trying to say… and sometimes it is a real challenge.. but if you reach for higher ground you can do it.Most people have nothing to lose by what they say one here… you and I are trying to represent Christ… we have ALOT to lose. Just don’t respond in anger and you will be fine:)
P.S. Don’t feel too special.. my son’s get these lectures all the time.. LOL!
When courts—as happened in Massachusetts—find same-sex “marriage” to be a constitutional and fundamental human right, the ACLU will argue that the government is underwriting discrimination by offering tax exemptions to churches and synagogues that only honor biblical marriage. What does this mean, people? It means that once same-sex marriage is legalized nationally, YOUR CHURCHES WILL BE FORCED TO RECOGNIZE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE. FURTHERMORE, IN CANADA WHERE SAME-SEX “MARRIAGE” IS LEGALIZED, IF YOU SPEAK NEGATIVELY ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY, YOU GO TO JAIL. IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT OUR COUNTRY TO BECOME?
CruX,You mean just like those awful feminists want to integrate public restrooms?
CruX,Careful! You’re not even out of law school yet, and you’re already giving lawyers a bad name.
Jed,that last post I wasn’t serious about. You’ll see why on the blank thread. ;)
Farmgrrl..Maybe if this task force was bolstered with enough money, it could actually become effective. It might be a good starting point anyway……
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060225/ap_on_go_ot/irs_politics_7
Have a good one:)
Hey, good researching Sammy! I told her the IRS doesn’t play favorites when it comes to taxes. They’re the IRS for Pete’s sake! They’re vultures! Hell we can’t find Bin Laden but if ya skip out on your taxes, they’ll FIND your ass! The very idea that the IRS would cater to religious organizations rather than secular ones is dumb, cuz the IRS is only concerned with takin our friggin money! They don’t give a crap about anyone’s god or anyone’s agenda!