[Lerkfish]

http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/F...162004/1462370

LOL! while the Bush administration is actually organized right wing churches to campaign for them, they are sending little undercover agents to liberal churches, taking notes, hoping to catch any liberals mentioning politics in order to get their tax exempt status revoked.

Business as usual...republicans always accuse you of the crime they're already committing.

[dcolton]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/F...162004/1462370

LOL! while the Bush administration is actually organized right wing churches to campaign for them, they are sending little undercover agents to liberal churches, taking notes, hoping to catch any liberals mentioning politics in order to get their tax exempt status revoked.

Business as usual...republicans always accuse you of the crime they're already committing.

So could I post the same drivel accusing the democrats of going after Jerry Falwell?

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by dcolton:
So could I post the same drivel accusing the democrats of going after Jerry Falwell?

If it applies, go for it, no one is stopping you.

[Spliffdaddy]

Um, Lerk, I don't see where it mentions the Bush administration.

Maybe you could point that part out for me?

[BlackGriffen]

You know that if it were liberals doing this they'd be called anti-Christian zealots.

BG

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by dcolton:
So could I post the same drivel accusing the democrats of going after Jerry Falwell?

Falwell has tinkered in politics more than Ted Kennedy and Jessie Jackson combined.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Yet-another-Lerkfish-complaining-about-something-thread.

What is it, a dozen or two this week? Must be a record.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Um, Lerk, I don't see where it mentions the Bush administration.

Maybe you could point that part out for me?

I can see where you read that into my post, but what I meant was 1. the bush administration is organizing church participation, and 2. "they", meaning the group in the article, are sending out spies.

sorry for the confusion. Probably could have worded it more carefully, but that's what I meant.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Yet-another-Lerkfish-complaining-about-something-thread.

What is it, a dozen or two this week? Must be a record.

Like your "I hate ___ people" threads.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Like your "I hate ___ people" threads.

I have never started a thread here because I hated someone, complained about someone, etc.

Lerkfish apparently has serious issues that really ought to be handled by medical professionals.

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by Dr.HermanG.:
Lerkfish apparently has serious issues that really ought to be handled by medical professionals.

Why don't you just put him on ignore? What percentage of your posts are personal attacks?

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by AKcrab:

Why don't you just put him on ignore? What percentage of your posts are personal attacks?

If we ignore everyone that we disagree with then we might as well all live in caves.

Very small number of my posts are personal attacks. However, I will call a spade a spade because I tire of someone who constantly whines about the situation of things in this country without ever offering a way as to how he or she would do things differently.

I really would like to see for a change a Lerkfish thread that concluded like "I hate Bush's policies and if I were President this is how I would do things different:....."

[CreepingDeth]

Another right-wing conspiracy, now down by TEH NEOCONSERVATIVE CHRISTIANS IN TEH BUSH ADMINISTRATION!!!!! [foaming]

Evidentially you were fired up by the CtC AM show on the 9/11 "conspiracy."
This is gold.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Falwell has tinkered in politics more than Ted Kennedy and Jessie Jackson combined.

I think its an area that activists who are also religious leaders want us to think is grey, when its really more black and white.

Preachers, whether conservative or liberal, IMHO should have other more pressing concerns than trying to elect politicians. God's work is actually more important.

But it does raise a substantive issue, with Bush pushing for "faith-based initiatives", and other blurrings, the separation between church and state (as is commonly understood, I realize the constitution can be interpreted differently) but I mean, just the excellent idea of not mixing religion with politics is better off in the long run. Look at theocracies, they don't bode well for civil rights. I'm a christian but I would not want a theocracy here in the US.

things to think about.

Does anyone else have thoughts on the actual topic?

[CreepingDeth]

1. This is not a theocracy. People are tearing down the Ten Commandments, don't give me any **** about this being a theocracy.
2. If a Christian church can help those in need by storing something in there garage so they can keep it out of the rain, or do something else, that's fine with me. I'd rather see a church do good deeds that the government to take $1 and give the person 25¢, while requiring 75¢ for upkeep.
3. There is no evil Christian conspiracy.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
1. This is not a theocracy. People are tearing down the Ten Commandments, don't give me any **** about this being a theocracy.
2. If a Christian church can help those in need by storing something in there garage so they can keep it out of the rain, or do something else, that's fine with me. I'd rather see a church do good deeds that the government to take $1 and give the person 25¢, while requiring 75¢ for upkeep.
3. There is no evil Christian conspiracy.

there, that's closer to contributing to a thread. I appreciate it, When all you do is lash out with personal attacks, I have nothing to debate.

1. I did not say we were a theocracy, I was discussing them in general. However, we are more headed in that direction under Bush than we have under previous presidents. Carter was a deeply religious man, but he did not try to shape policy to give advantage to his religious beliefs. I don't think people tearing down the ten commandments has anything to do with being a theocracy. I'm a christian, but I have problem with respect all citizens, regardless of their religious choices, or if they choose not to have a religion. That's what american is all about: respecting the diversity of other americans. I do not support anything which appears to give predominant influence to any religion in public buildings.
Just as I'm sure you wouldn't prefer to have muslims make everyone in class pray, facing mecca, several times a day kneeling on the floor, if they are not muslim.

2. I am not against Churches helping those in need. That's not the objection. The objection is that overtime this policy allows govt, to back away from present entitilements and put the burden on the community. Churches can help the homeless, and that's a good thing, but the church should not be a surrogate for the government merely because the govt. does not want to take responsibility for entitlements and social programs. Further, I'd be very surprised if monies were expended equally among all religions...you seem upset at the ten commandments being torn down, I presume you'd also be upset to see black muslims in your area getting govt monies to spend as they see fit, right?

3. There is a concerted effort among the religious right to be directly involved in, and influence politics. If you deny that, you aren't paying attention to Pat Robertson, for example. You like to use the word "conspiracy" but I rarely use it myself. Instead I express my concerns for certain factions unduly influencing govt. at the expense of other constituents. The religious right has become a powerful lobbying group, and they know that, and they use that to bend political discourse to their pet issues: abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, etc...issues which in fact the president has little jurisdiction, but a republican candidate MUST appear to address those issues to appease the large religious right voting blocs.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I think its an area that activists who are also religious leaders want us to think is grey, when its really more black and white.

Preachers, whether conservative or liberal, IMHO should have other more pressing concerns than trying to elect politicians. God's work is actually more important.

But it does raise a substantive issue, with Bush pushing for "faith-based initiatives", and other blurrings, the separation between church and state (as is commonly understood, I realize the constitution can be interpreted differently) but I mean, just the excellent idea of not mixing religion with politics is better off in the long run. Look at theocracies, they don't bode well for civil rights. I'm a christian but I would not want a theocracy here in the US.

things to think about.

Does anyone else have thoughts on the actual topic?

It's funny how he gets away with it, yet others don't.

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
there, that's closer to contributing to a thread. I appreciate it, When all you do is lash out with personal attacks, I have nothing to debate.

1. I did not say we were a theocracy, I was discussing them in general. However, we are more headed in that direction under Bush than we have under previous presidents. Carter was a deeply religious man, but he did not try to shape policy to give advantage to his religious beliefs.

Republicans hate it, but Reagan was also very religious. But he didn't let that interfere with his job, because he believed in separation of church and state.

I don't think people tearing down the ten commandments has anything to do with being a theocracy. I'm a christian, but I have problem with respect all citizens, regardless of their religious choices, or if they choose not to have a religion. That's what american is all about: respecting the diversity of other americans. I do not support anything which appears to give predominant influence to any religion in public buildings.
Just as I'm sure you wouldn't prefer to have muslims make everyone in class pray, facing mecca, several times a day kneeling on the floor, if they are not muslim.

I agree.

I lived for a good portion of my childhood in a prodominantly jewish community (though it was changing as older people moved out, and younger people moved in). But being a christian wasn't anything awkward, or out of place because of this concept. I attended kindergarden and first grade in public school in that community too. Same deal. It's this concept that allows someone who isn't the majority to still live in the community with no tensions or problems.

Try doing that in a place like Saudi Arabia. A very different experience. But what some are indeed trying to bring to America.

2. I am not against Churches helping those in need. That's not the objection. The objection is that overtime this policy allows govt, to back away from present entitilements and put the burden on the community. Churches can help the homeless, and that's a good thing, but the church should not be a surrogate for the government merely because the govt. does not want to take responsibility for entitlements and social programs. Further, I'd be very surprised if monies were expended equally among all religions...you seem upset at the ten commandments being torn down, I presume you'd also be upset to see black muslims in your area getting govt monies to spend as they see fit, right?

That's the key problem. The proposals specifically give unlimited discression to how the money is distributed.

Some religious groups provide social services to anyone who walks in. Others orient much more towards their own.

So rather than let the government provide equal services to any American... they have to now be of a certain faith because only XYZ church has the funding to provide the services?

Besides... how do you regulate where all that money is going? Giving non-profits (low accountability) cash isn't exactly great. It's bad enough within our government (where there is a papertrail and high accountability). That's a question that's never been answered. From diverting money to fund terrorism (abortion snipers, suicide bombers, hate crime defense funds, the list goes on), to things like paying off things like child molestation, or just embezling money. How are non-profits going to be held accountable? At least with the feds there's laws making information public, and several checks and balances. Non profits are pretty much closed door. Granted this is a minority of cases... how do we prevent this?

3. There is a concerted effort among the religious right to be directly involved in, and influence politics. If you deny that, you aren't paying attention to Pat Robertson, for example. You like to use the word "conspiracy" but I rarely use it myself. Instead I express my concerns for certain factions unduly influencing govt. at the expense of other constituents. The religious right has become a powerful lobbying group, and they know that, and they use that to bend political discourse to their pet issues: abortion, gay marriage, stem cell research, etc...issues which in fact the president has little jurisdiction, but a republican candidate MUST appear to address those issues to appease the large religious right voting blocs.

There's a reason why every religious group has a giant office building in Washington DC. And it's not a church, temple, or other house of worshop. It's an office building.

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I have nothing to debate.

Yeah, this is how you debate.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
It's funny how he gets away with it, yet others don't.

He seems to get away with a lot of things I would never have thought possible, so it doesn't surprise me anymore. People just shrug and watch the next "Survivor" episode.

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
Republicans hate it, but Reagan was also very religious. But he didn't let that interfere with his job, because he believed in separation of church and state.

One of the rare times I agreed with him, then.

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
I agree.

I lived for a good portion of my childhood in a prodominantly jewish community (though it was changing as older people moved out, and younger people moved in). But being a christian wasn't anything awkward, or out of place because of this concept. I attended kindergarden and first grade in public school in that community too. Same deal. It's this concept that allows someone who isn't the majority to still live in the community with no tensions or problems.

Try doing that in a place like Saudi Arabia. A very different experience. But what some are indeed trying to bring to America.

That's fortunate for you, and a good experience. I think the major problem with the religious right is they are either so self-absorbed in their own religion they fail to see things from the point of view of other people, or they simply just don't care, because their religion is the only one that matters. If its the second reason, they exemplify the exact reason why the separation between church and state is a good idea. NO religion should supercede the rights of other religions through the vehicle of government. We left Britain precisely because that's a dangerous mix.
If its the first reason, that they are so self-absorbed they fail to see things from the viewpoints of others, then they have forgotten the example of Christ's empathy and compassion for all God's children.

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
That's the key problem. The proposals specifically give unlimited discression to how the money is distributed.

Some religious groups provide social services to anyone who walks in. Others orient much more towards their own.

So rather than let the government provide equal services to any American... they have to now be of a certain faith because only XYZ church has the funding to provide the services?

Besides... how do you regulate where all that money is going? Giving non-profits (low accountability) cash isn't exactly great. It's bad enough within our government (where there is a papertrail and high accountability). That's a question that's never been answered. From diverting money to fund terrorism (abortion snipers, suicide bombers, hate crime defense funds, the list goes on), to things like paying off things like child molestation, or just embezling money. How are non-profits going to be held accountable? At least with the feds there's laws making information public, and several checks and balances. Non profits are pretty much closed door. Granted this is a minority of cases... how do we prevent this?

Yes, If some will recall, back when the faith based initiatives came up, churches were incensed to think they might have to be forced to allow gay people to work for their organization to receive federal funds...in other words, they couldn't be as exclusionary if they got federal money. (I'll pause to allow the irony of that situation sink in, where the churches were outraged at the possiblity the government was asking for churches to be more tolerant.) Bush allayed their fears and said, no they would not have to do things outside their beliefs in order to receive funds.
So, conceivably, if a church did not want to HIRE gay people, who's to prevent that they also might not want to HELP people that normally would be helped by a government program, if they fell out side of "acceptable" status (and into "sinful" status) in regards to the particular dogma in each individual religion. How is that better? The answer is, it's not better.
What faith based initiatives REALLY are is killing two birds with one stone: republicans have long chafed under what they consider the albatross around their necks: social entitlements or assistance. And, the religious right voting blocs get some quid pro quo in terms of monies they can spend as intolerantly as they desire, to further their own dogmas.

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
There's a reason why every religious group has a giant office building in Washington DC. And it's not a church, temple, or other house of worshop. It's an office building.

Not all religions are bad because they lobby for their issues that they find important. The ones that are bad are the ones that directly expect something for delivering votes.

thanks for an enlightening, adult discussion. This is the kind of debate I seek.

[Zimphire]

[Spliffdaddy]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Um, Lerk, I don't see where it mentions the Bush administration.

Maybe you could point that part out for me?

I'll ask one more time since you never answered this question.

Quite obviously, you mis-spoke in your original post.

here's your chance to acknowledge that fact.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I'll ask one more time since you never answered this question.

http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...66#post2140762

[Spliffdaddy]

That wasn't an answer. That was a dodge.

Where does the article mention the Bush administration?

The correct answer is > it does not mention the Bush administration.

So why does Lerk feel the need to point the finger at Bush?

The correct answer is > because it's YET ANOTHER conspiracy theory from Lerk's mind.


edit: and he'll post another one tomorrow.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:

edit: and he'll post another one tomorrow.

And we will

[Dr.HermanG.]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:


edit: and he'll post another one tomorrow.

Or just go through and delete them all.

Seriously. The. Dude. Needs. Professional. Counseling.

[LoganCharles]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
[url]Business as usual...republicans always accuse you of the crime they're already committing.

Lame spin on the article.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
I can see where you read that into my post, but what I meant was 1. the bush administration is organizing church participation, and 2. "they", meaning the group in the article, are sending out spies.

Ah, so it's just a pronoun-antecedent problem; a minor grammatical slip.

OK, I'll buy that. But let it be a lesson on the importance of grammar.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Millennium:
Ah, so it's just a pronoun-antecedent problem; a minor grammatical slip.

OK, I'll buy that. But let it be a lesson on the importance of grammar.

right, I think I could've stated it better:

LOL! while the Bush administration is actually organized right wing churches to campaign for them, they are sending little undercover agents to liberal churches, taking notes, hoping to catch any liberals mentioning politics in order to get their tax exempt status revoked.


would be better:

LOL! at the same time that the Bush administration is actually organizing right wing churches to campaign for them, this group is ignoring that, and is instead sending little undercover agents to liberal churches, taking notes, hoping to catch any liberals mentioning politics in order to get their tax exempt status revoked.

the point I was trying to make is that they were stepping around a whale to catch a minnow. If they wanted to really catch people in the act of that, its in all the papers and out in the open that the Bush administration is pushing that envelope...there's no need to send undercover agents for that, but they aren't interesting in catching THAT.

so, I suppose I just found it hugely ironic.

or, since we're talking about churches: they wanted to remove the splinter from the other person's eye, ignoring the beam in their own.

[Spliffdaddy]

So what you're trying to say is the article didn't mention the Bush administration.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
He seems to get away with a lot of things I would never have thought possible, so it doesn't surprise me anymore. People just shrug and watch the next "Survivor" episode.

One of the rare times I agreed with him, then.

That's fortunate for you, and a good experience. I think the major problem with the religious right is they are either so self-absorbed in their own religion they fail to see things from the point of view of other people, or they simply just don't care, because their religion is the only one that matters. If its the second reason, they exemplify the exact reason why the separation between church and state is a good idea. NO religion should supercede the rights of other religions through the vehicle of government. We left Britain precisely because that's a dangerous mix.
If its the first reason, that they are so self-absorbed they fail to see things from the viewpoints of others, then they have forgotten the example of Christ's empathy and compassion for all God's children.

Yes, If some will recall, back when the faith based initiatives came up, churches were incensed to think they might have to be forced to allow gay people to work for their organization to receive federal funds...in other words, they couldn't be as exclusionary if they got federal money. (I'll pause to allow the irony of that situation sink in, where the churches were outraged at the possiblity the government was asking for churches to be more tolerant.) Bush allayed their fears and said, no they would not have to do things outside their beliefs in order to receive funds.
So, conceivably, if a church did not want to HIRE gay people, who's to prevent that they also might not want to HELP people that normally would be helped by a government program, if they fell out side of "acceptable" status (and into "sinful" status) in regards to the particular dogma in each individual religion. How is that better? The answer is, it's not better.
What faith based initiatives REALLY are is killing two birds with one stone: republicans have long chafed under what they consider the albatross around their necks: social entitlements or assistance. And, the religious right voting blocs get some quid pro quo in terms of monies they can spend as intolerantly as they desire, to further their own dogmas.

Not all religions are bad because they lobby for their issues that they find important. The ones that are bad are the ones that directly expect something for delivering votes.

thanks for an enlightening, adult discussion. This is the kind of debate I seek.

I won't debate my experiences are personal (since they are by definition). But it is possible in the US for it to happen.

Though there's without question, a step in the other direction. Which is a little bothersome.

Especially since every group is a minority somewhere in our diverse US. If we really go with this monopoly-religion thing, can we allow persecution of christians and jews in muslim prodominant detroit neighborhoods?

Can we persecute muslims and christians in jewish neighborhoods?

Can we make people swear on a torah in a jewish community's court? How about a Koran in detroit? Why not something tangable and real for athiests? Why are those wrong?

We could go into many topics, from funding charities of other religious groups (as proposed), to communities not issuing permits to minority religions. It happens all the time.

Heck here's a personal example:

There's a mosque right down the road from me (not even 1/4 mile). Friday is their holy day. So between 12-3 they overflow their parking lot and park on city streets (not blocking driveways, or anything illegal. All spots are completely legal under NJ law)....

a few community members are now outraged, and feel the town needs to have an ordinance making it illegal to park on those streets.

Now my question is this? Why is it every christian church, and jewish synagogue allowed to do it as long as cars were around? In all honesty, I've never seen a house of worshop capable of havinga big enough parking lot. But why can't they be stopped from parking in public streets? Why is it even suggesting the idea sparks outrage?

Then we have christian groups getting building permits for new buildings ASAP, and a mosque waiting ages to get a permit to replace it's trailers on it's property with a small building and parking (to help with the problem above, and to allow their school to share 1 building with less footprint, rather than all the trailers).

Crap like this gets on my nerves. And it's not even my religion. Though out there somewhere, I'm sure it is.

Pretty sad what an age we live in.