Church Electioneering - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Willravel · 10-28-2008, 02:48 PM

By my understanding, as a part of being tax exempt, churches are not allowed to endorse or ask parishioners to vote for candidates. In federal tax law, it is illegal for a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization (which includes churches) to “participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements) any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.” This is made crystal clear, in no uncertain terms.

And yet we have churches across the country endorsing Obama or McCain. Why shouldn't these churches all lose their tax exempt status? Why is this illegal behavior tolerated?

My opinion is simple: if it's best for the state to not play favorites with religion, then religion should return the favor. If your pastor, priest, rabbi, imam, or other religious leader starts asking parishioners to vote for someone, turn him (or her) in.

You can report violations here:
Report A Violation | Project Fair Play

Derwood · 10-28-2008, 02:55 PM

My guess is that most regular church goers have no problem with their pastor endorsing someone, so there is little chance anyone will turn them in

Amaras · 10-28-2008, 03:12 PM

The "religious" right did it in the last two elections. Probably someone can find an example of a preacher
supporting a democrat during a service, sometime.

dc_dux · 10-28-2008, 03:17 PM

Most churches leaders dont endorse specific candidates or produce/distribute materials that endorse candidates.

They engage in issue advocacy w/o mentioning candidates by name along the lines of "vote for the candidate who will end abortions, support vouchers for religions schools, etc...)

A technicality? Perhaps, but the tax exemption is so entrenched, it will never be overturned.

roachboy · 10-28-2008, 03:25 PM

walking this line was a central element of the christian coalition's organization building. the central claim was, if i remember, just because you're a preacher doesn't mean you're no longer a citizen. the dodge this sets up is obvious--if a candidate were to be endorsed by name, it would happen from the citizen side of the preacher, who presumably would be wearing a different hat while in citizen mode than would be the case in preacher mode. i like to think a racoon skin hat for citizen mode, but that's probably a private fantasy.

conservatives are worried about the reimposition of the fairness doctrine on the public airwaves, which would erase much of the space currently occupied by reactionary radio, and a reconsideration of tax-exempt status for conservative think tanks, which i think is long overdue. i've been too busy to maintain the "conservative post-mortems" thread over the past couple days, but there's been another such in the washington post by that tool peter weyner and a front page news article today in which the general question is posed about whether it makes sense for conservatives to cut mc-cain loose now in order to try to minimize congressional losses. so the right is definitely sweating the outcome of the election---but i don't think they're terribly concerned about tax exempt status for churches coming up as an issue any time soon.

try to imagine a more polarizing move. i can't, really. even though i'd like to see that tax exemption erased, personally, so that the united states could maybe catch up with the french revolution someday.

breaking the back of the christian right can happen through other means. the disappearance of the coherence of their brand and such political traction as it once had beyond the reaches of the paleo-right is probably more damaging than anything else.

Amaras · 10-28-2008, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

........breaking the back of the christian right can happen through other means. the disappearance of the coherence of their brand and such political traction as it once had beyond the reaches of the paleo-right is probably more damaging than anything else.

When they do, let's talk about me changing my vote.

mcgeedo · 10-28-2008, 04:02 PM

"...breaking the back of the christian right..."

roach, can I quote that line the next time someone jumps me for talking about "the People's Republic of Wealth Redistribution?" :-) :-)

Seriously, in the more-or-less free market, Conservative talk radio has outsold Liberal talk radio by a huge margin. I don't have the demographics/Arbitrons at hand, but my observation is that Conservatives have 10 times the stations that Liberals do, easily. Why is it, in your opinion, that the government should change what is apparently the public preference for what they want to listen to/call in on?

Amaras · 10-28-2008, 04:10 PM

I know you weren't asking me, Mcgeedo, but no, I don't think so. I think your point diminishes the "liberal bias"
in the media argument so often used.

mcgeedo · 10-28-2008, 04:38 PM

Thanks for your comment, grolsch.

I make a distinction between "commentary" radio, like Rush, Franken et al, and "news" media like CNN. In commentary or editorial radio, you expect bias, and if you're informed at all you know that the majority of them are going to be Conservative. This is what I find interesting; that the market seems to support a Conservative majority. In news media, you hope for neutrality, and many think that we're not getting that.

Willravel · 10-28-2008, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roachboy

but i don't think they're terribly concerned about tax exempt status for churches coming up as an issue any time soon.

One of the silent stories in America right now is the incredibly dangerous financial situation that most churches are in right now. Any church treasurer will tell you that tax exemption is very important in keeping many churches from closing. Sure, some churches are okay, but with attendance dropping off steadily over the past 20 years, it's only a matter of time until the God bubble pops. If that happens, the Republican party will implode.

Whether people want to admit it or not, tax exemption is important.

roachboy · 10-28-2008, 05:28 PM

mcgeedo---well, no. i'm refering to a specific sector of the conservative coalition that's now a millstone around the neck of the republican party, and i do not generally use words loosely--so on the second point, i'm not saying anything that involves the degrees of mangling basic terminology and distorting the empirical world that your "people's republic" line does.

on the first, what the christian coalition accomplished since the mid 1980s, primarily under the leadership of ralph reed, was an impressive organizational feat. the mobilization of mostly baptist evangelical churches as a political force was central both to the material success of the conservative coalition and also the the language that it's developed, particularly during the last period of conservative opposition under clinton. that language is what i usually call in short hand conservative identity politics. it functions to make political positions a question who who one is rather than of what or how one thinks. it's been balled up with a host of other tics particular to the right that we've all seen the results of since september 2001---and it's coming undone. it's because the political machine that the christian coalition was a big part of fashioning was a powerful as it was that aberrations like the bush administration were possible, and because i oppose and have opposed everything--and i mean everything--about the bush administration and the language that enabled it, that it used to sell itself and its various debacles, i see in that machinery a massive retrograde force. and i look forward to it's coming apart. but i'm not so naive as to think that it will really go away. so i am watching the conservative coalition rush toward defeat and i hope that defeat is total.

on the other hand, i should say that the conservative coalition that propelled the farce that was the bush administration into power is not the same as conservatism as a whole--but in the states it has largely substituted itself for it. and i should also say that i have no particular problem with conservatives who are able to argue positions i might not agree with in a lucid way--but i find the populist conservatives who cannot argue but instead resort to cheap term substitutions and recycling of dissociative talking points to be tiresome. i look forward to a diminshing of that style of being-conservative and hope for the emergence of more diversity of views on the right.

but i still oppose everything that conservatives stand for, and wouldn't mind watching conservatives have to deal with a political waterloo that'd marginalize the extreme right fringe that's been moved to the center of republican discourse over the past 15 years or so. i wouldn't mind watching that at all.

Amaras · 10-28-2008, 05:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcgeedo

Thanks for your comment, grolsch.

I make a distinction between "commentary" radio, like Rush, Franken et al, and "news" media like CNN. In commentary or editorial radio, you expect bias, and if you're informed at all you know that the majority of them are going to be Conservative. This is what I find interesting; that the market seems to support a Conservative majority. In news media, you hope for neutrality, and many think that we're not getting that.

Hope for neutrality....
Well, me too. I don't believe it's possible to receive neutrality as long as
there is a profit motive driving the networks that present news. I guess it's
why I love Frontline and Charlie Rose so much. Hell, even the MacNeil-Lehrer
report.
They have problems, true, but they do struggle to balance their presentation.
I actually shouldn't have thrown Rose in there, it's just that his guest list is killer.

genuinegirly · 10-28-2008, 06:12 PM

I have never heard someone directly endorse a candidate from the pulpit.

With that in mind, our parish priest has mentioned overcoming racism in every homily for the past four months.

Here's what a Catholic Voter's Guide looks like:

Quote:

Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics

Catholic Answers Action, San Diego

Nothing in this voter's guide should be construed as an endorsement of any particular candidate or political party

...

The Five Non-Negotiable Issues

These five issues concern actions that are intrinsically evil and must never be promoted by the law. Intrinsically evil actions are those that fundamentally conflict with the moral law and can never be performed under any circumstances. It is a serious sin to deliberately endorse or promote any of these actions, and no candidate who really wants to advance the common good will support any action contrary to the non-negotiable principles involved in these issues.
1 - Abortion
The Church teaches that, regardin glaw permitting abortions, it is "never licit to obey it, or to take part in a propaganda campaign in favor of such a law, or to vote for it" Evangelium Vitae, Pope John Paul II. Abortion is the intentional and direct killing of an innocent human being, and therefore it is a form of homicide. The unborn child is always an innocenvt party, and no law may permit the taking of his life. Even when a child is conceived through rape or incest, the fault is not the child's, who should not suffer death for others' sins.
2- Euthanasia
Often disguised by the name "mercy killing," euthanasia is also a form of homicide. No person has a right to take his own life, and no one has the right to take the life of any innocent person. In euthanasia, the ill or elderly are killed, by action or omission, out of a misplaced sense of compassions, but true compassion cannot include intentionally doing something intrinsically evil to another person.
3 - Embryonic Stem Cell Research
Human embryos are human beings. Respect for the dignity of the human being excludes all experimental manipulation or exploitation of the human embryo. Recent scientific advances show that medical treatments that researchers hope to develop from experimentation on embryonic stem cells can often be developed by using adult stem cells instead. Adult stem cells can be obtained without doing harm to the adults from whom they come. Thus there is no valid medical argument in favor of using embryonic stem cells. And even if there were benefits to be had from such experiments, they would not justify destroying innocent embryonic humans.
4 - Human Cloning
Attempts for obtaining a human body without any connection with sexuality through 'twin fashion' cloning or parthenogenesis are to be considered contrary to the moral law, since they are in opposition to the dignity both of human procreation and of hte conjugal union. Human cloning also involves abortion because the "rejected" or "unsuccessful" embryonic clones are destroyed, yet each clone is a human being.
5 - Homosexual "marriage"
True marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Legal recongition of any other union as "marriage" undermines true marriage, and legal recognition of homosexual unions actually does homosexual persons a disfavor by encouraging them to persist in what is an objectively immoral arrangement. When legislation in favor of the recognition of homosexual unions is proposed for the first time in a legislative assembly, the Catholic lawmaker has a moral duty to express his opposition clearly and publicly and to vote against iti. To vote in favor of a law so harmful to the common good is gravely immoral.

How Not to Vote
1. Do not just vote based on your political party affiliation, your earlier voting habits, or your family's voting tradition. Years ago, these may have been trustworthy ways to determine whom to vote for, but today they are not often reliable. You need to look at the stands each candidate takes. This means that you may end up casting votes for candidates for more than one party.
2. Do not cast your vote based on candidates' appearance, personality, or "media savvy." Some attractive, engaging, and sound-bite-capable candidates endorse intrinsic evils, while other candidates, who may be plain-looking, ininspiring, and ill at ease in front of cameras, endorse legislation in accord with basic Christian principles.
3. Do not vote for candidates just because they declare themselves Catholic. Unfortunately, many self-described Catholic candidates reject basic Catholic teaching.
4. Do not choose among candidates based on "What's in it for me?" Make your decision based on which candidates seem most likely to promote the common good, even if you will not benefit directly or immediately from the legislation they propose.
5. Do not vote for candidates who are right on lesser issues but who will vote wrongly on key moral issues. This was undescored by Pope John Paul II regarding the life issues: "The common outcry, which is justly made on behalf of human rights - for example, the right to health, to home, to work, to family , to culture - is false and illusory if the right to live, the most basic and fundamental right and the condition for all other personal rights, is not defended with maximum determination. One candidate may have a record of voting in line with Catholic values except, say, for euthanasia. Such a voting record is a clear signal that the candidate should not be chosen by a Catholic voter unless the other candidates have voting records even less in accord with these moral norms.

When there is no "Acceptable" candidate
In some political races, each candidate takes a wrong position on one or more issues involving non-negotiable moral principles. In such a case you may vote for the candidate who takes the fewest such positions or who seems least likely to be able to advance immoral legislation, or you may choose to vote for no one.
A vote cast in such a situation is not morally the same as a positive endorsement for candidates, laws, or programs that promote intrinsic evils: Rather, it is an action aimed at limiting the evil, and an action that limits evil is good.

...

Seaver · 10-28-2008, 06:21 PM

Quote:

The "religious" right did it in the last two elections. Probably someone can find an example of a preacher
supporting a democrat during a service, sometime.

Hm... Rainbow Coalitian and a few others have tax exempt status and push forward just as politically as the worst on the Christian right.

Honestly I'd love stronger enforcement of the tax exempt status, but it's not easy and it certainly wouldn't fly if attempted. It's too easy to straddle the line of supporting political policies without ever mentioning a candidate. At no point is supporting or opposing policies going to cost tax exempt, nor inviting certain politicians to come and speak.

Willravel · 10-28-2008, 06:24 PM

Seaver, out of curiosity, do you support the spirit of this law? I've been getting interesting responses to this question from my more conservative and centrist friends.

ASU2003 · 10-28-2008, 06:45 PM

Religion would be better if they stopped trying to change society as a whole and worked on making the individual happy and leading a successful life. They should provide the guidance of how to best live life from the Bible, Koran or other holy book (and recent history as well), but also be accepting of how other people choose to live their lives. They need to come up with a better strategy to stop other people from doing things that they find morally wrong than to try and force them by law.

Willravel · 10-28-2008, 06:46 PM

Well put, ASU.

Amaras · 10-28-2008, 06:50 PM

Someone here at TFP has a signature that says something like;
"I'm always suspicious of religious figures that say God wants me to do something that remarkably
suits their own needs." Susan B. Anthony

Seaver · 10-29-2008, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Seaver, out of curiosity, do you support the spirit of this law? I've been getting interesting responses to this question from my more conservative and centrist friends.

Yes I support the spirit of the law. I just don't see enforcement as possible. Enforcement on one side of the house will always draw equally reasonable examples from the other. If groups get tax-exempt status they should in no way openly support political candidates. However it is Constitutionally illegal to prevent them from expressing the rights and wrongs of political manners. As long as they walk the line there's no stopping it.

Willravel · 10-29-2008, 04:34 PM

I can appreciate that reality. There's no harm in pragmatism.

I'm glad you agree with the spirit of the law, though.

Bill O'Rights · 10-30-2008, 07:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ASU2003

Religion would be better if they stopped trying to change society as a whole and worked on making the individual happy and leading a successful life. They should provide the guidance of how to best live life from the Bible, Koran or other holy book (and recent history as well), but also be accepting of how other people choose to live their lives. They need to come up with a better strategy to stop other people from doing things that they find morally wrong than to try and force them by law.

Well put, ASU2003. Very well put.

Quote:

Originally Posted by grolsch

Someone here at TFP has a signature that says something like;
"I'm always suspicious of religious figures that say God wants me to do something that remarkably
suits their own needs." Susan B. Anthony

I've seen that, too. I wonder where?

Poppinjay · 10-30-2008, 07:57 AM

Quote:

Seriously, in the more-or-less free market, Conservative talk radio has outsold Liberal talk radio by a huge margin. I don't have the demographics/Arbitrons at hand, but my observation is that Conservatives have 10 times the stations that Liberals do, easily. Why is it, in your opinion, that the government should change what is apparently the public preference for what they want to listen to/call in on?

This is skewed. Think about it this way. 15 million people listen to Rush. 230 million do not.

Then you have to consider the medium. Talk radio's target is men age 18-34. They tend to skew conservative.

In larger markets news radio beats talk radio's ass.

Let's look at my market.

WTOP-FM Bonneville News 5.6 5.7 6.6 5.9 6.3
WMAL-AM Citadel Talk 4.3 3.7 2.9 3.6 3.3

Chicago

WGN-AM Tribune (non-political) Talk 5.8 6.6 5.5 5.7 6.3
WBBM-AM CBS Radio News 4.3 4.7 4.9 4.7 4.
WLS-AM Citadel Talk 3.6 2.7 3.5 3.1 3.0

Traffic on the tens and :15:45 sports are far more popular than Rush.

Back to the OP, a church in Western NC actually kicked out some members who said they were voting for Kerry in 2004. About half the congregation left over that gaffe.

Nobody is going to mess with big religion. They are the most active and financially willing group.

Amaras · 10-30-2008, 08:38 AM

Oops, error.

Yakk · 11-01-2008, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mcgeedo

Seriously, in the more-or-less free market, Conservative talk radio has outsold Liberal talk radio by a huge margin. I don't have the demographics/Arbitrons at hand, but my observation is that Conservatives have 10 times the stations that Liberals do, easily. Why is it, in your opinion, that the government should change what is apparently the public preference for what they want to listen to/call in on?

Because the airwaves are a public resource? With limited total bandwidth?

Practically, the government should seek to use better standards that allow for more radio channels. I believe that with modern technology, you can pretty much get rid of the radio channel shortage at FM quality, and do away with the entire "government dictates what you can listen to by selling the bandwidth off to the highest bidder, and banning anyone who doesn't have government permission to broadcast" issue.

At that point, with the airwaves no longer being in a serious state of shortage, let the free market reign. (This is the case on the internet, for example. Imagine if the government auctioned off the right to have webpages, and there where only ~20 allowed per city in the USA... And it was illegal to set up an alternative internet...)

10-28-2008, 02:48 PM	#1 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Church Electioneering By my understanding, as a part of being tax exempt, churches are not allowed to endorse or ask parishioners to vote for candidates. In federal tax law, it is illegal for a 501(c)(3) tax exempt organization (which includes churches) to “participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements) any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.” This is made crystal clear, in no uncertain terms. And yet we have churches across the country endorsing Obama or McCain. Why shouldn't these churches all lose their tax exempt status? Why is this illegal behavior tolerated? My opinion is simple: if it's best for the state to not play favorites with religion, then religion should return the favor. If your pastor, priest, rabbi, imam, or other religious leader starts asking parishioners to vote for someone, turn him (or her) in. You can report violations here: Report A Violation \| Project Fair Play

10-28-2008, 03:12 PM	#3 (permalink)
Amaras Junkie Location: At my daughter's beck and call.	The "religious" right did it in the last two elections. Probably someone can find an example of a preacher supporting a democrat during a service, sometime. __________________ Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state. -Noam Chomsky Love is a verb, not a noun. -My Mom The function of genius is to furnish cretins with ideas twenty years later. -Louis Aragon, "La Porte-plume," Traite du style, 1928

10-28-2008, 03:17 PM	#4 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Most churches leaders dont endorse specific candidates or produce/distribute materials that endorse candidates. They engage in issue advocacy w/o mentioning candidates by name along the lines of "vote for the candidate who will end abortions, support vouchers for religions schools, etc...) A technicality? Perhaps, but the tax exemption is so entrenched, it will never be overturned. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

10-28-2008, 03:25 PM	#5 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	walking this line was a central element of the christian coalition's organization building. the central claim was, if i remember, just because you're a preacher doesn't mean you're no longer a citizen. the dodge this sets up is obvious--if a candidate were to be endorsed by name, it would happen from the citizen side of the preacher, who presumably would be wearing a different hat while in citizen mode than would be the case in preacher mode. i like to think a racoon skin hat for citizen mode, but that's probably a private fantasy. conservatives are worried about the reimposition of the fairness doctrine on the public airwaves, which would erase much of the space currently occupied by reactionary radio, and a reconsideration of tax-exempt status for conservative think tanks, which i think is long overdue. i've been too busy to maintain the "conservative post-mortems" thread over the past couple days, but there's been another such in the washington post by that tool peter weyner and a front page news article today in which the general question is posed about whether it makes sense for conservatives to cut mc-cain loose now in order to try to minimize congressional losses. so the right is definitely sweating the outcome of the election---but i don't think they're terribly concerned about tax exempt status for churches coming up as an issue any time soon. try to imagine a more polarizing move. i can't, really. even though i'd like to see that tax exemption erased, personally, so that the united states could maybe catch up with the french revolution someday. breaking the back of the christian right can happen through other means. the disappearance of the coherence of their brand and such political traction as it once had beyond the reaches of the paleo-right is probably more damaging than anything else. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-28-2008, 04:10 PM	#8 (permalink)
Amaras Junkie Location: At my daughter's beck and call.	I know you weren't asking me, Mcgeedo, but no, I don't think so. I think your point diminishes the "liberal bias" in the media argument so often used. __________________ Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state. -Noam Chomsky Love is a verb, not a noun. -My Mom The function of genius is to furnish cretins with ideas twenty years later. -Louis Aragon, "La Porte-plume," Traite du style, 1928

10-28-2008, 02:55 PM	#2 (permalink)
Derwood Who You Crappin? Location: Everywhere and Nowhere	My guess is that most regular church goers have no problem with their pastor endorsing someone, so there is little chance anyone will turn them in

10-28-2008, 04:02 PM	#7 (permalink)
mcgeedo Crazy	"...breaking the back of the christian right..." roach, can I quote that line the next time someone jumps me for talking about "the People's Republic of Wealth Redistribution?" :-) :-) Seriously, in the more-or-less free market, Conservative talk radio has outsold Liberal talk radio by a huge margin. I don't have the demographics/Arbitrons at hand, but my observation is that Conservatives have 10 times the stations that Liberals do, easily. Why is it, in your opinion, that the government should change what is apparently the public preference for what they want to listen to/call in on?

10-28-2008, 04:38 PM	#9 (permalink)
mcgeedo Crazy	Thanks for your comment, grolsch. I make a distinction between "commentary" radio, like Rush, Franken et al, and "news" media like CNN. In commentary or editorial radio, you expect bias, and if you're informed at all you know that the majority of them are going to be Conservative. This is what I find interesting; that the market seems to support a Conservative majority. In news media, you hope for neutrality, and many think that we're not getting that.

10-28-2008, 05:28 PM	#11 (permalink)
roachboy Super Moderator Location: essex ma	mcgeedo---well, no. i'm refering to a specific sector of the conservative coalition that's now a millstone around the neck of the republican party, and i do not generally use words loosely--so on the second point, i'm not saying anything that involves the degrees of mangling basic terminology and distorting the empirical world that your "people's republic" line does. on the first, what the christian coalition accomplished since the mid 1980s, primarily under the leadership of ralph reed, was an impressive organizational feat. the mobilization of mostly baptist evangelical churches as a political force was central both to the material success of the conservative coalition and also the the language that it's developed, particularly during the last period of conservative opposition under clinton. that language is what i usually call in short hand conservative identity politics. it functions to make political positions a question who who one is rather than of what or how one thinks. it's been balled up with a host of other tics particular to the right that we've all seen the results of since september 2001---and it's coming undone. it's because the political machine that the christian coalition was a big part of fashioning was a powerful as it was that aberrations like the bush administration were possible, and because i oppose and have opposed everything--and i mean everything--about the bush administration and the language that enabled it, that it used to sell itself and its various debacles, i see in that machinery a massive retrograde force. and i look forward to it's coming apart. but i'm not so naive as to think that it will really go away. so i am watching the conservative coalition rush toward defeat and i hope that defeat is total. on the other hand, i should say that the conservative coalition that propelled the farce that was the bush administration into power is not the same as conservatism as a whole--but in the states it has largely substituted itself for it. and i should also say that i have no particular problem with conservatives who are able to argue positions i might not agree with in a lucid way--but i find the populist conservatives who cannot argue but instead resort to cheap term substitutions and recycling of dissociative talking points to be tiresome. i look forward to a diminshing of that style of being-conservative and hope for the emergence of more diversity of views on the right. but i still oppose everything that conservatives stand for, and wouldn't mind watching conservatives have to deal with a political waterloo that'd marginalize the extreme right fringe that's been moved to the center of republican discourse over the past 15 years or so. i wouldn't mind watching that at all. __________________ a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear it make you sick. -kamau brathwaite

10-28-2008, 06:24 PM	#15 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Seaver, out of curiosity, do you support the spirit of this law? I've been getting interesting responses to this question from my more conservative and centrist friends.

10-28-2008, 06:45 PM	#16 (permalink)
ASU2003 immoral minority Location: Back in Ohio	Religion would be better if they stopped trying to change society as a whole and worked on making the individual happy and leading a successful life. They should provide the guidance of how to best live life from the Bible, Koran or other holy book (and recent history as well), but also be accepting of how other people choose to live their lives. They need to come up with a better strategy to stop other people from doing things that they find morally wrong than to try and force them by law.

10-28-2008, 06:46 PM	#17 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	Well put, ASU.

10-28-2008, 06:50 PM	#18 (permalink)
Amaras Junkie Location: At my daughter's beck and call.	Someone here at TFP has a signature that says something like; "I'm always suspicious of religious figures that say God wants me to do something that remarkably suits their own needs." Susan B. Anthony __________________ Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state. -Noam Chomsky Love is a verb, not a noun. -My Mom The function of genius is to furnish cretins with ideas twenty years later. -Louis Aragon, "La Porte-plume," Traite du style, 1928

10-29-2008, 04:34 PM	#20 (permalink)
Willravel ... a sort of licensed troubleshooter.	I can appreciate that reality. There's no harm in pragmatism. I'm glad you agree with the spirit of the law, though.

10-30-2008, 08:38 AM	#23 (permalink)
Amaras Junkie Location: At my daughter's beck and call.	Oops, error. __________________ Propaganda is to a democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian state. -Noam Chomsky Love is a verb, not a noun. -My Mom The function of genius is to furnish cretins with ideas twenty years later. -Louis Aragon, "La Porte-plume," Traite du style, 1928 Last edited by Amaras; 10-30-2008 at 08:42 AM.. Reason: Forget it.