Faith in Politics

[RJ (151.203.157.69)]

As a Christian Centrist Democrat who has been told that no "real" Christian could be a democrat (LOL), I thought I'd share this article from 2001 I was sent today from a Christian Centrist Republican friend:


The Republican Party has made great electoral progress by exploiting and distorting the Christian faith. Separation of Church and State has been the single most important element in making America a great nation. This tradition is the greatest contribution toward worldwide political thought to develop from the American Revolution and our Founding Fathers. This tradition defines the spirit of America. This tradition is under severe attack from the "so called" Christian Right at the direction of the national Republican Party.

Separation of Church and State protects both from the corrupting influences inherent in mixing them together. Republicans seeking to exploit faith to achieve political ends are damaging the Christian religion and our democratic nation.

Many Christians understand that the doctrines of the "so called" Christian Right arise out of a misunderstanding of Christian theology. Christianity differs from Jewish traditions by emphasizing the personal and internal nature of salvation. Christ taught that merely following external Law would never provide salvation. Just following Laws of Behavior does not make us free from sin. The "so called" Christian Right is trying to ignore this revolutionary doctrine by emphasizing the changing of laws to make us a more Christian nation. This is simply impossible. Salvation is personal and internal. According to the Bible, salvation is only achieved with the help of Jesus Christ. A law book provides no help in achieving salvation. Laws belong in the realm of Caesar instead of God.

The Christian doctrine of "Free Will" is ignored by the political activities of the Republican "so called" Christian Right. We are given the choice to select sin or salvation by God. Legislation is simply irrelevant to salvation. Salvation is the purpose of Christianity, not legislative or political victories by Republicanism.

Christianity also teaches us to care for the poor and helpless. This is not reflected in the lobbying or electoral activity of the "so called" Christian Right. The Republican agenda is a political statement that essentially glorifies Greed. Since when is the Christian religion an advocate of Greed?

The Democratic Party agenda more closely reflects mainstream Christian values than does the Republican agenda. The Democrats do this while protecting our Constitutionally mandated Separation of Church and State. We need to explore the radicalism of the "so called" Christian Right.

We are all aware of the outrageous comments of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson after the September 11th attacks. These political preachers seem to think that God is opposed to civil liberties and Free Will. God is not a Republican or supporter of Republicanism. God is the only source of judgment regarding sin according to the Bible. This right to judge morality is reserved to God. Political preachers have no right to usurp God's authority in this manner. The "so called" Christian Right has set itself up to judge the morality (the sin) of our political figures in violation of this authority. The "so called" Christian Right does not show a tendency towards Christian forgiveness when judging Democrats. The political preachers and their organizations like the Christian Coalition routinely forgive Republicans. Why the double standard? Is it because it promotes Republicanism?

We recently located some interesting quotes by Ralph Reed and Pat Robertson on "The Conservative Hall of Fame" website (click here to read). Ralph Reed was formerly the head of the Christian Coalition and now head of the Georgia Republican Party. In a speech to the Christian Coalition, he said, "Tell em what they want to hear; when elected do as you please. Lie if you have to." Ralph Reed must have missed the Ten Commandments.

Pat Robertson said " I think one man, one vote; just unrestricted democracy would not be wise. There needs to be some kind of protection for the minority which the white people represent now, and they need and have a right to demand a protection of their rights." Pat Robertson attacks democracy and advocates white racism. There is nothing Christian about these comments by Ralph Reed or Pat Robertson.

We recently heard anti-Clinton zealot and Republican commentator, Ann Coulter, defend the comments of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson concerning the September 11th attacks while addressing the College Republicans in Oregon. Her comments included a spirited defense on our treatment of the American Indians as being an advance for Christianity. Her most outrageous comment advocated placing in detention, under John Ashcroft, anyone who criticized the use of references to God in our schools. She seems to be against the Freedom of Speech provided by the Bill of Rights in our Constitution. We do not imprison anyone for his or her religious or political views in America.

The "so called" Christian Right is acting like an American Taliban. Their political agenda is both un-American and un-Christian. They have become nothing more than a tool of the Republican Party in their quest for power. Voters beware! Christians beware! It is time to exercise our Free Will in the ballot box and in our Churches.


Sincerely,

Stephen Crockett and Al Lawrence
October 2001

[RJ (151.203.157.69)]

Do most evangelical Christian churches hand out "election cheat sheets" like was mentioned at GGWO this Sunday?

[Louise Connolly (24.128.24.65)]

A website relative to Christians and Politics:
http://www.sojo.net/index.cfm

[Arguendo (64.12.117.13)]

If the do, they better do so carefully...


IRS Investigating 60 Tax-Exempt Groups
By GENARO C. ARMAS
ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) - About 60 charities, churches and other tax-exempt groups are being investigated for potentially breaking federal rules that bar them from participating in political activity, the Internal Revenue Service said Friday.

Such violations would threaten their tax-exempt status, the IRS said.

The investigations involve guidelines for 501(c)(3) groups, which grant tax-exempt status so long as organizations do not participate in political activities like endorsing candidates or making campaign donations.

By law, the IRS cannot reveal names or details of investigations. It did reveal that about 20 of the groups being looked into were churches.

Heightened concerns about improper political activities this election season warranted the creation of a committee of career civil servants to look into potential political violations by tax-exempt groups, according to the agency.

Of over 100 reports received during the past couple months, that committee found 60 cases that merited further scrutiny, the IRS said.

"Our obligation is to enforce the law, which prohibits all charities from engaging in political activities," IRS Commissioner Mark Everson said in a statement Friday.

The disclosure from the IRS came a day after Julian Bond, the chairman of the NAACP, said the IRS was investigating his group after he criticized President Bush.

Documents released Thursday by the Baltimore-based National Association for the Advancement of Colored People said IRS agents were investigating Bond's keynote address July 11 at the NAACP's annual convention in Philadelphia.

An "Information Document Request" from the IRS said Bond in his remarks "condemned the administration policies of George W. Bush on education, the economy and the war in Iraq."

Bond contends the timing of the probe gave the appearance it was politically motivated, a charge the IRS vehemently denied.

"What seems enormously outrageous to us are the facts that condemnation and criticism are reasons that we should lose our tax exemption," Bond said in a conference call Friday. He maintained the speech was nonpartisan even though it was critical of Bush.

Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry asked the Justice Department's civil rights division to conduct its own investigation into the IRS actions.

"If the timing of this process leads some to believe politics is at play, it could have a chilling impact on African-Americans' participation in the American political process," Kerry said in a letter Friday to assistant attorney general R. Alexander Acosta.

An IRS "fact sheet" provided by the agency Friday noted, "Even activities that encourage people to vote for or against a particular candidate on the basis of nonpartisan criteria violate the political campaign prohibition."

During his remarks in Philadelphia, Bond criticized Bush's judicial appointments and placed blame for the federal budget deficit "squarely on the tax giveaways for the rich."

According to a transcript provided by NAACP aides, Bond encouraged blacks to vote, adding, "We know that if whites and nonwhites vote in the same percentages as they did in 2000, Bush will be re-defeated by 3 million votes."

[Bob Brinton (151.203.153.102)]

I might just point out that it was Democrat presidents that pushed through civil rights. How can anyone defend this county's treatment of the Indians, even in this century?

I might add here that though curently independent, I have mostly voted Republican over the course of my life. But then, born and raised and still living in a Democrat state, I do seek balance, leaning against the herd mentality.

[RJ (151.203.157.69)]

Arguendo

Has the IRS ever investigated GGWO that you are aware of?

I recall that 25 years ago the branch TBS church I attended in Rumford Maine actually told us who to vote for in each election. Flyers were created and given to every church member with the accompaning sermon about obedience.

This same practice was done in Lenox when I attended the so-called bible college.

I have always been curious if other churches did the same.

[Arguendo (64.12.117.13)]

I don't know that GGWo has ever been investigated.

[Bob Brinton (151.203.153.102)]

I think the AG church I attend has more than once done this sort of thing; perhaps not actually telling you who to vote for, but giving you the candidates' views on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, etc. Issues they know will bias your vote.

[Arguendo (64.12.117.13)]

"giving you the candidates' views on issues such as abortion, gay marriage, etc."

This is legal.

[Anonymous (64.12.117.12)]

Bob...Hello? If we do not know the candidates' views on issues and vote accordingly, then what do we base our vote on? The entire campaigns of candidates are based on the issues. And churches are totally within their rights to bring up what the candidates believe in regards to Christian principles and standards

[Bob Brinton (151.203.153.102)]

I don't disagree with you 64; but the issues selected are quite particularly chosen. Just cause I chose the only ones you care about is not reason to get upset.

[KDuhamel (24.128.118.124)]

Arguendo,

Are you in complete agreement with the views expressed in the article you posted? http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

-Karen

[Arguendo (64.12.117.13)]

Yep, I am. The AP sings my song and I assured that don't mind that I've violated their copyright. (Actually I took it from a site with no copyright notice).

[Arguendo (64.12.117.13)]

Hey!

Who stole my articles and personal pronouns?

[Bob Brinton (151.203.153.102)]

Sing a song of six pence, pocket full of rhymes. Gotta make a phone call; check to find some dymes. What we need on here is some William Blake. I love all those interrupting capitals in the middle of sentences. But phone calls cost more these days. Emails are a beautiful thing. And you can change what you're saying midstream. It's like the advantage of oils or acrylics over watercolours. Do tygers use the phone?

[Bob Brinton (151.203.153.102)]

Arguendo; Watch your language. Pronouns should never be personal on a full stomach.

[Arguendo (64.12.117.13)]

Blake? What the heck did I do to you...

Little lamb who made thee?
Dost thou know who made thee..

blah, blah, blah

[Bob Brinton (151.203.153.102)]

Isn't it baa baa baa?

[Arguendo (64.12.117.13)]

Hate Blake. Hate him. HATE HIM!

Blake and Camille Paglia.

[KDuhamel (24.128.118.124)]

Isn't it a linking verb and a personal pronoun that escaped?

[Bob Brinton (151.203.153.102)]

Okay. Anyway; thanks for a fun evening. I'm off for elsewhere. I don't know Paglia. How about some P.K.Dick?

[Bob Brinton (151.203.153.102)]

Karen; I've had too many beers to get an inkling of what linking has to do with 'it all'. Good nyte to awl.

[Dave Drago (66.136.184.165)]

What can a church or a pastor do? (left or right)
POLITICAL AND LEGISLATIVE GUIDELINES FOR PASTORS AND CHURCHES

by Mathew D. Staver, Esq.
Copyright © 2000-2004

Supporting or Opposing Candidates

Endorsing or opposing political candidates

Church - No
Pastor - Yes

Contributions to political candidate

Church - No
Pastor - Yes


In-kind and independent expenditures for or against political candidates

Church - No
Pastor - Yes


Contributions to Political Action Committees

Church - No
Pastor -Yes

Appearance of political candidate at church meeting or service

Church - Yes
Pastor - N/A

Introduction of political candidates at church

Church - Yes
Pastor - Yes


Political candidate to preach or read scripture (contributions should not be solicited & message should not urge people to vote for the candidate)

Church - Yes
Pastor - N/A

Voter registration programs and campaigns (non-partisan)

Church - Yes
Pastor - Yes

Distribution of candidate surveys and incumbent voting records (avoid editorial opinions)

Church - Yes
Pastor - Yes

Distribution in church parking lot of political statements and opinions on political issues (so long as no church endorsement)

Church - Yes
Pastor - N/A

Rent or loan church mailing lists to political candidates (list must be made available to all candidates on similar terms and prices)


Church - Yes
Pastor - N/A

Church bulletin political ads at regular price and news stories

Church - Yes
Pastor - N/A

Church bulletin editorial where the pastor or staff member endorses or opposes a candidate

Church - No
Pastor - No

Church bulletin editorial regarding political issues or two different church members take opposing views on a candidate

Church - Yes
Pastor - N/A

Use of church facilities by political candidates (as long as all other candidates are allowed or invited)

Church - Yes
Pastor - N/A

Fund-raising for candidates

Church - No
Pastor - Yes

Campaigning for candidates

Church - No
Pastor - Yes

Educate members of the public about viewpoints of candidates

Church - Yes
Pastor - Yes

Discuss church doctrine pertaining to candidate views such as abortion

Church - Yes
Pastor - Yes


Granting use of name to support a political candidate

Church - No*
Pastor - Yes*

Support or oppose judicial, department or cabinet appointments

Church - Yes
Pastor - Yes

Support or oppose judicial candidates

Church - No
Pastor - Yes

Support or oppose other political appointments of nonelected officials

Church - Yes
Pastor - Yes

Supporting or Opposing Legislation

Use of church facilities by lobbying groups to discuss social issues

Church - Yes
Pastor - N/A

Rent or loan church mailing list to lobbying groups

Church - Yes
Pastor - N/A

Preach sermons on social issues and political issues and activism

Church - Yes
Pastor - Yes

Educate on political process and political/social/legislative issues

Church - Yes
Pastor - Yes

Petition drives supporting or opposing legislation

Church - Yes
Pastor - Yes

Support or oppose legislation unrelated to the church organization

Church - Yes**
Pastor - Yes

Support or oppose legislation that directly relates to the organization

Church - Yes***
Pastor - Yes

Encourage members to voice their opinions in favor or in opposition to certain legislation

Church - Yes**
Pastor - Yes

Lobby candidates to support or oppose legislation

Church - Yes**
Pastor - Yes

Distribute position papers supporting or opposing legislation

Church - Yes**
Pastor - Yes


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*A pastor may include title and church affiliation in a personal endorsement along with the following notation: “Title and affiliation for identification purposes.”

**Churches and other 501(c)3 organizations may support or oppose legislation so long as such activity comprises an insubstantial part of the overall operation. A 501(c)4 organization may support or oppose legislation without any limitations.

***A church or any other 501(c)3 organization may without limitation support or oppose legislation that directly affects the organizational structure and operation of the organization. For example, a church may without limitation oppose legislation attempting to repeal the tax-exempt status of the church.

[Arguendo (64.12.117.13)]

You don't want to know Paglia. A complete waste of time.

Karen, the only time I know the name of the parts of grammar is when I am parsing the law and that is a very sad occassion, indeed. Usually I am telling some poor soul all is lost because of the placement of a comma. So you see, and I am sure you understand, grammar only brings back horrible scarring memories.

[RJ (151.203.157.69)]

If these are the laws then churches should not be given tax exempt status.

[Dave Drago (66.136.184.165)]

Pastors, Churches and Politics
What May Pastors and Churches Do?

by Mathew D. Staver, Esq.
Copyright © 2004


A growing number of prominent evangelical pastors have been publicly expressing their biblical and moral views on such social and political issues as traditional marriage, abortion and cloning. In his weekly, personal editorial column known as the Falwell Confidential, Dr. Jerry Falwell compared and contrasted the positions of presidential candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry. He personally endorsed President George W. Bush, stating that he could not imagine any other choice. Barry Lynn, with the ultraliberal Americans United for Separation of Church and State, complained that Falwell had "crossed the line" by allegedly violating IRS rules.

Pastors in Kansas received intimidating threats from a small organization billing itself as the "MAINstream Coalition", which warned that the group would send spies to churches on July 11, Protect Marriage Sunday. The group warned that any church urging the congregation to call their United States Senators to vote in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment would be reported to the IRS. Jerry Johnston, pastor of the First Family Church in Overland Park, Kansas, was one of many pastors who urged church members to lobby their Senators to support traditional marriage. The threat of sending spies to churches to monitor sermons caught the attention of Bill O'Reilly, and Pastor Johnston appeared on the O'Reilly Factor to talk about this outrageous intimidation tactic.

On July 11, 2004, Dr. Adrian Rogers hosted a live, national television broadcast from his church in which viewers were asked to call specific Senators, urging them to vote in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment. Throughout the 90-minute program, photographs of the Senators along with their contact information were displayed, and throughout the program their names and contact info scrolled along the bottom of the screen like a ticker-tape. This display of Christian solidarity over the issue of marriage irritated the liberal left because it was successful in causing several Senators to change their positions and vote in favor of the FMA.

On July 4, Ronnie Floyd, pastor of a 14,000 member church in Springdale, Arkansas, preached about the important religious and moral issues at stake in the presidential election. He also spoke of the importance of Christians being active in the political process. While he neither personally nor corporately endorsed either candidate, he did urge his congregation to vote in accordance with biblical principles.

For some evangelical pastors like Dr. Falwell, vocalizing political positions is not new, but many evangelical pastors are beginning to shed their moral laryngitis and are no longer intimidated by threats from Barry Lynn or other similar cohorts. Black churches have historically been very active in political matters, as evidenced by the fact that John Kerry and John Edwards frequently appear in the pulpits of black churches.

So, what are the permissible boundaries regarding political activity or lobbying by pastors and churches? I will first address the issue of endorsing or opposing political candidates, and then the permissible activities of lobbying for or against legislation.

Political Candidates

From the founding of the country until 1954, churches and other nonprofit organizations were permitted to expressly endorse or oppose candidates for political office. That changed when Lyndon Baines Johnson ran for United States Senate. He was opposed by a nonprofit organization (not a church), and after he won the election, he proposed legislation to amend the Internal Revenue Code to prohibit nonprofit organizations, including churches, from endorsing or opposing political candidates. The Code was amended in 1954 without any debate regarding the impact of the bill.

The Internal Revenue Code now expressly prohibits churches and other nonprofit organizations from directly endorsing or opposing political candidates. From 1954 to the present, only one church has ever lost its IRS tax-exempt letter ruling, but even that church did not lose its tax-exempt status for opposing then-Governor Bill Clinton for President in 1992.

The Church at Pierce Creek, located in Binghamton, New York (a church where Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry attended at the time), took out full-page ads in the USA Today and The Washington Times newspapers. The ads opposed Governor Clinton for President because of his position on abortion and homosexuality, and then the ads solicited "tax-deductible donations" to defray the cost of the advertisements. The Church received hundreds of contributions.

After Clinton was elected President, the IRS notified the Church on November 20, 1992, that it intended to conduct an inquiry into the Church's activities. After negotiations with the Church broke down, the IRS revoked the Church's tax-exempt letter ruling and the Church filed suit to get it back.

It is important to understand the critical difference between an IRS tax-exempt letter ruling and tax-exempt status of churches. Every organization, whether a 501(c)(4) (a nonprofit group that primarily lobbies) or a 501(c)(3) (a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization), must file an application with the IRS to be recognized as a nonprofit organization for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code. The IRS then issues a letter ruling specific for the organization, in which the IRS acknowledges that the organization will be recognized as a nonprofit organization, and in the case of a 501(c)(3), that contributions to the organization will be tax-deductible.

Unlike virtually every other nonprofit or tax-exempt organization, churches are not required to obtain an IRS letter ruling. Some churches have an IRS letter and some do not. What is the advantage of a church having a letter ruling as opposed to a church that does not have one? There is no substantive difference. The only difference is one of convenience. If a donor is ever audited and the IRS questioned the contributions to the church, the donor can point the agent to the letter ruling on file with the IRS. However, if a church doesn't have a letter ruling, the church can merely produce an affidavit by the pastor, or present the church bylaws or other evidence to validate that the assembly is a church. Other than mere convenience, there is no substantive difference, as a church with or without a tax-exempt letter ruling is still tax-exempt.

So long as a church is operating and functioning as an organized church body, it is automatically tax-exempt and does not have to apply to the IRS for this determination. This distinction between churches and other tax-exempt organizations is critically important in understanding the impact of the IRS's action against the Church at Pierce Creek.

The Church at Pierce Creek had applied for and received an IRS tax-exempt letter ruling, and the lawsuit was not designed to regain its tax-exempt status (which the Church continued to enjoy), but to receive back its tax-exempt letter ruling. The court noted that "because of the unique treatment churches receive under the Internal Revenue Code, the impact of the revocation is likely to be more symbolic than substantial."

During the oral argument, counsel for the IRS confirmed that if the Church chose not to intervene in future political campaigns, it may continue to hold itself out as a tax-exempt organization and receive all the benefits of that status. The court also pointed out that revocation of the IRS letter ruling did not make the Church liable for the payment of taxes. The IRS also conceded during the oral argument that "the revocation of the exemption [letter] does not convert bona fide donations into income taxable to the church." Contributions given to the Church, even contributions regarding the ad, were never taxed. In the future, if the Church wanted to reapply for its letter, it was free to do so. However, even without the letter, it retained, and continues to retain to this day, its tax-exempt status.

Other than the Church at Pierce Creek, no other church has even lost its tax-exempt letter ruling, let alone its tax-exempt status. In other words, from 1954 to the present, no church has ever lost its tax-exempt status for endorsing or opposing political candidates. This history alone should alleviate unfounded fear.

Outside of express endorsement of or opposition to candidates for political offices, pastors and churches may engage in many other permissible activities. Churches may host voter registration drives, be a host site for balloting, or host a forum where candidates address the congregation or answer questions from a moderator. Candidates visiting the church may be introduced, and political candidates may even preach in the pulpit so long as the pulpit is not used as a political forum to urge the members to vote in favor of the candidate. Churches may also distribute objective voter guides that address the candidates' views on a broad range of issues.

Pastors can preach on biblical, moral and social issues such as homosexuality and abortion. Pastors can urge the congregation to become involved in the political process, urge them to register and vote. Pastors can acknowledge visiting candidates. Pastors can personally endorse or oppose political candidates, personally work for political candidates, and personally contribute to them. Also, a pastor's name may appear in a published ad or letter signifying the pastor's endorsement of the candidate, and the pastor's title and affiliation with the church can also be listed with the notation, "Title and affiliation for identification purposes."

Although the IRS states that a pastor may not personally endorse a candidate while in the pulpit, I believe such a restriction is unconstitutional. No pastor has ever been targeted by the IRS for giving a personal endorsement from the pulpit. My recommendation is that if the pastor wants to personally endorse a candidate, he should feel free to do so, as long as the endorsement is stated as a personal rather than a corporate church endorsement.

It should also be remembered that the restriction on endorsing candidates does not apply to appointed offices. Cabinet or judicial appointments are not political candidates for public office. Therefore, pastors and churches may expressly oppose or support individuals for appointed office.

Lobbying Activity

From the founding of the country until 1934, church and nonprofit organizations were permitted to engage in an unlimited amount of lobbying activity. Lobbying involves support or opposition to local, state or federal legislation, or constitutional amendments. In 1934, the Internal Revenue Code was amended to restrict the amount of lobbying a 501(c)(3) organization may conduct. A 501(c)(4) organization has no restriction on the amount of lobbying it may pursue, but a nonprofit, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization may not devote more than a substantial part of its overall activities toward lobbying. Churches are governed by this provision whether or not they have an IRS tax-exempt letter ruling.

From 1934 to the present, not one church has ever lost either its IRS tax-exempt letter ruling or its tax-exempt status for engaging in too much lobbying.

One IRS case ruled that 5 percent of an organization's overall activity devoted to lobbying was permissible, but another case held that 20 percent was not. From these two cases one could assume the permissible amount of activity lies somewhere between 5 and 20 percent. Neither case involved a church and the IRS has indicated that there is no bright-line rule.

Even assuming the low 5 percent of overall activity is permissible for a tax-exempt organization to devote to lobbying, that is a considerable amount of activity. Take, for example, a church that opens its doors on Sunday morning for worship from the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., and then again on Wednesday evening for a mid-week service from 7:00 to 8:30 p.m. Assume that the church engages in absolutely no other activity and has no volunteer or paid staff. Thus, the church engages in worship and teaching activities for only 4½ hours per week and does nothing else. Four and a half hours amounts to 270 minutes, and 5 percent amounts to 13½ minutes. Thus, a church that only operates 4½ hours per week could devote at lease 13½ minutes each Sunday to lobbying activities. Thus, every Sunday this church could urge its congregation to contact their Senators and Representatives to vote in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment, or any other local, state or national law, including state and federal constitutional amendments.

As you can see, when you consider all of the activities a church engages in throughout the week, it will certainly be more than 4½ hours. To determine this amount, you would need to calculate the time of all the volunteer and paid staff throughout the entire year. The substantial part test is not determined by merely looking at a particular event in isolation of others, but in conjunction with the church's overall activities. Thus, a church could devote a significant amount of time to lobbying activities during part of the year and a small amount of time during the remainder of the year. And this is only at the 5 percent level. The 5 percent amount is only the minimum, not the maximum amount of time 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations can devote to lobbying. Finally, remember that no church has ever lost its tax-exempt status or IRS letter ruling for engaging in too much lobbying.

In summary, while liberal groups seek to silence pastors and churches, I would encourage pastors to throw off their muzzle and pick up a megaphone. It's time pastors and churches became the moral conscience of the community.

http://www.lc.org/Resources/pastors_churches_politics.htm

[Dave Drago (66.136.184.165)]

Pastors, Churches and Politics
What May Pastors and Churches Do?

by Mathew D. Staver, Esq.
Copyright © 2004


A growing number of prominent evangelical pastors have been publicly expressing their biblical and moral views on such social and political issues as traditional marriage, abortion and cloning. In his weekly, personal editorial column known as the Falwell Confidential, Dr. Jerry Falwell compared and contrasted the positions of presidential candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry. He personally endorsed President George W. Bush, stating that he could not imagine any other choice. Barry Lynn, with the ultraliberal Americans United for Separation of Church and State, complained that Falwell had "crossed the line" by allegedly violating IRS rules.

Pastors in Kansas received intimidating threats from a small organization billing itself as the "MAINstream Coalition", which warned that the group would send spies to churches on July 11, Protect Marriage Sunday. The group warned that any church urging the congregation to call their United States Senators to vote in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment would be reported to the IRS. Jerry Johnston, pastor of the First Family Church in Overland Park, Kansas, was one of many pastors who urged church members to lobby their Senators to support traditional marriage. The threat of sending spies to churches to monitor sermons caught the attention of Bill O'Reilly, and Pastor Johnston appeared on the O'Reilly Factor to talk about this outrageous intimidation tactic.

On July 11, 2004, Dr. Adrian Rogers hosted a live, national television broadcast from his church in which viewers were asked to call specific Senators, urging them to vote in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment. Throughout the 90-minute program, photographs of the Senators along with their contact information were displayed, and throughout the program their names and contact info scrolled along the bottom of the screen like a ticker-tape. This display of Christian solidarity over the issue of marriage irritated the liberal left because it was successful in causing several Senators to change their positions and vote in favor of the FMA.

On July 4, Ronnie Floyd, pastor of a 14,000 member church in Springdale, Arkansas, preached about the important religious and moral issues at stake in the presidential election. He also spoke of the importance of Christians being active in the political process. While he neither personally nor corporately endorsed either candidate, he did urge his congregation to vote in accordance with biblical principles.

For some evangelical pastors like Dr. Falwell, vocalizing political positions is not new, but many evangelical pastors are beginning to shed their moral laryngitis and are no longer intimidated by threats from Barry Lynn or other similar cohorts. Black churches have historically been very active in political matters, as evidenced by the fact that John Kerry and John Edwards frequently appear in the pulpits of black churches.

So, what are the permissible boundaries regarding political activity or lobbying by pastors and churches? I will first address the issue of endorsing or opposing political candidates, and then the permissible activities of lobbying for or against legislation.

Political Candidates

From the founding of the country until 1954, churches and other nonprofit organizations were permitted to expressly endorse or oppose candidates for political office. That changed when Lyndon Baines Johnson ran for United States Senate. He was opposed by a nonprofit organization (not a church), and after he won the election, he proposed legislation to amend the Internal Revenue Code to prohibit nonprofit organizations, including churches, from endorsing or opposing political candidates. The Code was amended in 1954 without any debate regarding the impact of the bill.

The Internal Revenue Code now expressly prohibits churches and other nonprofit organizations from directly endorsing or opposing political candidates. From 1954 to the present, only one church has ever lost its IRS tax-exempt letter ruling, but even that church did not lose its tax-exempt status for opposing then-Governor Bill Clinton for President in 1992.

The Church at Pierce Creek, located in Binghamton, New York (a church where Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry attended at the time), took out full-page ads in the USA Today and The Washington Times newspapers. The ads opposed Governor Clinton for President because of his position on abortion and homosexuality, and then the ads solicited "tax-deductible donations" to defray the cost of the advertisements. The Church received hundreds of contributions.

After Clinton was elected President, the IRS notified the Church on November 20, 1992, that it intended to conduct an inquiry into the Church's activities. After negotiations with the Church broke down, the IRS revoked the Church's tax-exempt letter ruling and the Church filed suit to get it back.

It is important to understand the critical difference between an IRS tax-exempt letter ruling and tax-exempt status of churches. Every organization, whether a 501(c)(4) (a nonprofit group that primarily lobbies) or a 501(c)(3) (a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization), must file an application with the IRS to be recognized as a nonprofit organization for purposes of the Internal Revenue Code. The IRS then issues a letter ruling specific for the organization, in which the IRS acknowledges that the organization will be recognized as a nonprofit organization, and in the case of a 501(c)(3), that contributions to the organization will be tax-deductible.

Unlike virtually every other nonprofit or tax-exempt organization, churches are not required to obtain an IRS letter ruling. Some churches have an IRS letter and some do not. What is the advantage of a church having a letter ruling as opposed to a church that does not have one? There is no substantive difference. The only difference is one of convenience. If a donor is ever audited and the IRS questioned the contributions to the church, the donor can point the agent to the letter ruling on file with the IRS. However, if a church doesn't have a letter ruling, the church can merely produce an affidavit by the pastor, or present the church bylaws or other evidence to validate that the assembly is a church. Other than mere convenience, there is no substantive difference, as a church with or without a tax-exempt letter ruling is still tax-exempt.

So long as a church is operating and functioning as an organized church body, it is automatically tax-exempt and does not have to apply to the IRS for this determination. This distinction between churches and other tax-exempt organizations is critically important in understanding the impact of the IRS's action against the Church at Pierce Creek.

The Church at Pierce Creek had applied for and received an IRS tax-exempt letter ruling, and the lawsuit was not designed to regain its tax-exempt status (which the Church continued to enjoy), but to receive back its tax-exempt letter ruling. The court noted that "because of the unique treatment churches receive under the Internal Revenue Code, the impact of the revocation is likely to be more symbolic than substantial."

During the oral argument, counsel for the IRS confirmed that if the Church chose not to intervene in future political campaigns, it may continue to hold itself out as a tax-exempt organization and receive all the benefits of that status. The court also pointed out that revocation of the IRS letter ruling did not make the Church liable for the payment of taxes. The IRS also conceded during the oral argument that "the revocation of the exemption [letter] does not convert bona fide donations into income taxable to the church." Contributions given to the Church, even contributions regarding the ad, were never taxed. In the future, if the Church wanted to reapply for its letter, it was free to do so. However, even without the letter, it retained, and continues to retain to this day, its tax-exempt status.

Other than the Church at Pierce Creek, no other church has even lost its tax-exempt letter ruling, let alone its tax-exempt status. In other words, from 1954 to the present, no church has ever lost its tax-exempt status for endorsing or opposing political candidates. This history alone should alleviate unfounded fear.

Outside of express endorsement of or opposition to candidates for political offices, pastors and churches may engage in many other permissible activities. Churches may host voter registration drives, be a host site for balloting, or host a forum where candidates address the congregation or answer questions from a moderator. Candidates visiting the church may be introduced, and political candidates may even preach in the pulpit so long as the pulpit is not used as a political forum to urge the members to vote in favor of the candidate. Churches may also distribute objective voter guides that address the candidates' views on a broad range of issues.

Pastors can preach on biblical, moral and social issues such as homosexuality and abortion. Pastors can urge the congregation to become involved in the political process, urge them to register and vote. Pastors can acknowledge visiting candidates. Pastors can personally endorse or oppose political candidates, personally work for political candidates, and personally contribute to them. Also, a pastor's name may appear in a published ad or letter signifying the pastor's endorsement of the candidate, and the pastor's title and affiliation with the church can also be listed with the notation, "Title and affiliation for identification purposes."

Although the IRS states that a pastor may not personally endorse a candidate while in the pulpit, I believe such a restriction is unconstitutional. No pastor has ever been targeted by the IRS for giving a personal endorsement from the pulpit. My recommendation is that if the pastor wants to personally endorse a candidate, he should feel free to do so, as long as the endorsement is stated as a personal rather than a corporate church endorsement.

It should also be remembered that the restriction on endorsing candidates does not apply to appointed offices. Cabinet or judicial appointments are not political candidates for public office. Therefore, pastors and churches may expressly oppose or support individuals for appointed office.

Lobbying Activity

From the founding of the country until 1934, church and nonprofit organizations were permitted to engage in an unlimited amount of lobbying activity. Lobbying involves support or opposition to local, state or federal legislation, or constitutional amendments. In 1934, the Internal Revenue Code was amended to restrict the amount of lobbying a 501(c)(3) organization may conduct. A 501(c)(4) organization has no restriction on the amount of lobbying it may pursue, but a nonprofit, tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization may not devote more than a substantial part of its overall activities toward lobbying. Churches are governed by this provision whether or not they have an IRS tax-exempt letter ruling.

From 1934 to the present, not one church has ever lost either its IRS tax-exempt letter ruling or its tax-exempt status for engaging in too much lobbying.

One IRS case ruled that 5 percent of an organization's overall activity devoted to lobbying was permissible, but another case held that 20 percent was not. From these two cases one could assume the permissible amount of activity lies somewhere between 5 and 20 percent. Neither case involved a church and the IRS has indicated that there is no bright-line rule.

Even assuming the low 5 percent of overall activity is permissible for a tax-exempt organization to devote to lobbying, that is a considerable amount of activity. Take, for example, a church that opens its doors on Sunday morning for worship from the hours of 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., and then again on Wednesday evening for a mid-week service from 7:00 to 8:30 p.m. Assume that the church engages in absolutely no other activity and has no volunteer or paid staff. Thus, the church engages in worship and teaching activities for only 4½ hours per week and does nothing else. Four and a half hours amounts to 270 minutes, and 5 percent amounts to 13½ minutes. Thus, a church that only operates 4½ hours per week could devote at lease 13½ minutes each Sunday to lobbying activities. Thus, every Sunday this church could urge its congregation to contact their Senators and Representatives to vote in favor of the Federal Marriage Amendment, or any other local, state or national law, including state and federal constitutional amendments.

As you can see, when you consider all of the activities a church engages in throughout the week, it will certainly be more than 4½ hours. To determine this amount, you would need to calculate the time of all the volunteer and paid staff throughout the entire year. The substantial part test is not determined by merely looking at a particular event in isolation of others, but in conjunction with the church's overall activities. Thus, a church could devote a significant amount of time to lobbying activities during part of the year and a small amount of time during the remainder of the year. And this is only at the 5 percent level. The 5 percent amount is only the minimum, not the maximum amount of time 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations can devote to lobbying. Finally, remember that no church has ever lost its tax-exempt status or IRS letter ruling for engaging in too much lobbying.

In summary, while liberal groups seek to silence pastors and churches, I would encourage pastors to throw off their muzzle and pick up a megaphone. It's time pastors and churches became the moral conscience of the community.

http://www.lc.org/Resources/pastors_churches_politics.htm

[RJ (151.203.157.69)]

This above may be true for normal churches, but does in no wway apply to cults like GGWO. They spend 24 hours 7 days a week employing manipulative mind control and in so doing do not have the morality of the community as a motivator.

[Arguendo (64.12.117.13)]

"If these are the laws then churches should not be given tax exempt status."

huh?

[Dave Drago (66.136.184.165)]

Freedom of speech is not always pleasant. But it beats the alternative.

[RJ (151.203.157.69)]

Telling the congregation that you cannot be a real Christian and vote Democrat is doing a little bit more than lobbying...This I heard straight from Carl and Cronies for years.

I have also heard Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson say the same thing. It is a lie and meant to control the government in America using the religious right (whom I consider extremeists).

[Dave Drago (66.136.184.165)]

Again, you are entitled to your opinion. http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/happy.gif

[Dave Drago (66.136.184.165)]

As one pundit said in my neighborhood, "I vote early and I vote often,it is the American Way"
See you at the poles.

[Arguendo (64.12.117.13)]

So only the religious right has an agenda?

And your gonna limit everyone's rights to get at the religious right?

Good grief. Put that one back in the oven.

[RJ (151.203.157.69)]

Arguendo, the statement about tax exempt status comes from wondering why the principle of the seperation of church and state can be overshadowed so often by Christian extremists and yet the governmant still allows them to retain exempt status. I have been to other churches who encouraged their people to vote and be involved in their government, but not with an agenda or focus upon the theocratic hopes of the religios right.

The theocratic bent from the Ralph Reed crowd I think is a dangerous one, and wonder if they have not crossed the line with some of the vote swapping that has been going on this year.

The last report I heard is that is the goal of some groups is to unduly inflluence the election in key districts with this (I believe) legal vote swapping practice.

Is this not considered unethical if not illegal?

I have no answers to these questions, mind...I am simply wondering oout loud/oin writing about the practices I find uncomfortable and questionable. I am not a law student...so I ask.

[Arguendo (64.12.117.13)]

Pesonally I'd like to see a community out reach requirement for all religious tax exemptions. Sure would mess with scientology.

[RJ (151.203.157.69)]

I didn't say ONLY the religious right has an agenda...but that the "religious" part of it concerns me. I am all for everone being allowed freedom of speech as well as freedom to worship as one chooses.

The theocratic government that I hear spoken of from some factions of the right does bother me, yes. Because speech is a freedom we all enjoy, but the freedom to choose how and where to worship is as important. Keeping the church and government seperate seems a necessity and of late the boundary is more elusive than ever...

[Dave Drago (66.136.184.165)]

Did you know that Thomas Jefferson personally funded several church starts and allowed the Federal buildings to be used by christians as a place to worship?

[RJ (151.203.157.69)]

Meaning what, Dave? He also kept slaves as did many of the so called Christian founding fathers? Did you know that jefferson rejected ortodox Christianity in his day? The Jeffersonian Bible that one can buy today is a replica of the one he made for himself and carried.

He literally cut out only the words of Jesus, glued them onto pages and had them bound.

In 2004, the Republican/Christian radicals (for lack of a better word) are advocationg for an American theocracy, and in my mind this is a treason worse than any other for it wants to deny people the rights they have under our constitution. I am speaking of extremists, not the everyday churchgoer...the people with the money power to change our nation. I am not in favor of many of the extreme liberal issues, but neither am I in favor of this country becoming an extremist Christian right controlled one.

[Dave Drago (66.136.184.165)]

Did you know he also authorized federal funds for missionaries?
United States Congress (December 3, 1803), ratified A Treaty Between the United States and the Kaskaskia Tribe of Indians. This treaty, which had been recommended by President Thomas Jefferson, included the annual support of a Catholic missionary priest of $100, to be paid out of the Federal treasury. At a later date two other treaties with similar provisions were made: the Treaty with the Wyandots etc., in 1805 and the Treaty with the Cherokees in 1806. The treaty provided:

And whereas the greater part of the said tribe have been baptized and received into the Catholic Church, to which they are much attached, the United States will give annually, for seven years, one hundred dollars toward the support of a priest of that religion, who will engage to perform for said tribe the duties of his office, and also to instruct as many of their children as possible, in the rudiments of literature, and the United States will further give the sum of three hundred dollars, to assist the said tribe in the erection of a church i.



i . United States Congress. December 3, 1803, President Thomas Jefferson signs the Treaty with the Kaskaskia Indians, 1806 with the Wyandotte Indians, and 1807 Cherokee Indians. Costanzo, Federal Aid to Education and Religious Liberty, 36 U. of Det. L.J., 1, 15 (1958). Charles E. Rice, The Supreme Court and Public Prayer (New York: Fordham University Press, 1964), p. 64. Daniel L. Driesbach, Real Threat and Mere Shadow: Religious Liberty and the First Amendment (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1987), p. 127. Richard Peters, ed., The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1846), A Treaty Between the United States and the Kaskaskia Tribe of Indians, 23 December 1803, Art. III, Vol. VII, pp. 78-79., Treaty with the Wyandots, etc., 1805, Vol. VII, Art. IV, p. 88, Treaty with the Cherokees, 1806, vol.VII, Art. II, p. 102. Robert L. Cord, Separation of Church and State (NY: Lambeta Press, 1982), p. 39. "A Treaty Between the United States of America and the Kaskaskian Tribe of Indians." 7 Stat. 78-9 (1846). Daniel L. Driesbach, Real Threat and Mere Shadow - Religious Liberty and the First Amendment (Westchester, IL: Crossway Books, 1987), p. 127.
Back to i




Permission granted to use quotations, provided acknowledgement given to American Quotations by William J. Federer. Quotations may not be stored in a data retrieval system or combined with software products for sale without written permission.

Copyright - William J. Federer -All Rights Reserved. AmeriSearch, Incorporated - Post Office Box 20163 - Saint Louis, Missouri 63123- USA - 1-888-USA-WORD - 1-314-487-4395

[Arguendo (64.12.117.13)]

RJ, I am pretty absolute when it comes to free speech and free association. I have no problem with churches running right smack up against the boundaries, no matter what they believe.

[Dave Drago (66.136.184.165)]

Do you also know he believed in Freedom of religion not freedom from religion?
Virginia, Statute of Religious Liberty of (January 16, 1786), stated:

Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend not only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our Religion, who, being Lord both of the body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercion on either, as was in His almighty power to do:

Be it, therefore, enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry, whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities i.



i . Virginia, Statute of Religious Liberty of. January 16, 1786. H.A. Washington, ed., The Writings of Thomas Jefferson - Being His Autobiography, Correspondence, Reports, Messages, Addresses, and Other Writings, Official and Private, 9 vols. (NY: Derby & Jackson, 1859, Washington, 1853-1854. Vol. 8, Philadelphia, 1871), Vol. VIII, pp. 454-456. Benjamin Franklin Morris, The Christian Life and Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States (Philadelphia, PA: L. Johnson & Co., 1863; George W. Childs, 1864), p. 232. William Taylor Thom, The Struggle for Religious Freedom in Virginia - The Baptists, Johns Hopkins Studies in Historical and Political Science, Herbert B. Adams, ed., (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1900), p. 79. The Annals of America, 20 vols. (Chicago, IL: Encyclopedia Britannica, 1968), Vol. 3, p. 53. Norman Cousins, In God We Trust - The Religious Beliefs and Ideas of the American Founding Fathers (NY: Harper & Brothers, 1958), p. 124. Pat Robertson, America's Dates with Destiny (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1986), p. 83. "Our Christian Heritage," Letter from Plymouth Rock (Marlborough, NH: The Plymouth Rock Foundation), p. 4. Stephen McDowell and Mark Beliles, "The Providential Perspective" (Charlottesville, VA: The Providence Foundation, P.O. Box 6759, Charlottesville, Va. 22906, January 1994), Vol. 9, No. 1, p. 2.
Back to i




Permission granted to use quotations, provided acknowledgement given to American Quotations by William J. Federer. Quotations may not be stored in a data retrieval system or combined with software products for sale without written permission.

Copyright - William J. Federer -All Rights Reserved. AmeriSearch, Incorporated - Post Office Box 20163 - Saint Louis, Missouri 63123- USA - 1-888-USA-WORD - 1-314-487-4395

[Arguendo (64.12.117.13)]

So what, Dave? This is kind of a non sequitor.

[RJ (151.203.157.69)]

"Do you also know he believed in Freedom of religion not freedom from religion?"

This means what?...I believe in freedom for all to worship in what ever way they choose without unde influence or governmental interference.

I also believe those that choose not to worship are free to do as well.

[RJ (151.203.157.69)]

"RJ, I am pretty absolute when it comes to free speech and free association. I have no problem with churches running right smack up against the boundaries, no matter what they believe."

Are the boundaries in place enough to keep the balance. Again, I am not in contention with you here for I do not know the answer. Are they?

[Dave Drago (66.136.184.165)]

I know well who he was. He made that bible for the Indians as a tool for missionaries.
What I am saying is, we have the freedom to influence the moral course of this nation. Moreover, we have the responsibility as beleivers to voice our beliefs. This right you and I both exercise, (as does the Rev. Jackson who ran for president, as does the Rev.Robertson (who ran for president). We just have different opinions. I respect your right of free speech. Even though we do not see it the same way
In Christ,
Dave

[Dave Drago (66.136.184.165)]

Arguendo,
I am not a lawyer. I beleive it is relevant because it demonstrates that our Founders were not A-religious. In fact, they welcomed the moral light that christianity brings to the country.

[Arguendo (64.12.117.13)]

The marketplace is the balance and I am talking about religious tax exempt organizations, what are you talking about?

[RJ (151.203.157.69)]

Dave, we are not in disagreement on that point...but are you of the group who have determined that the United States is a Christian nation and needs be a theocracy?

[RJ (151.203.157.69)]

I was speaking of the church and state seperation and the church's influence on governments via lobbying etc. not only tax exemtions, Arguendo.

Are the legal boundaries/laws in place capable of keepin ght balance between the government influencing the church unduly and the church from undly influencing the government....that is what I was trying to get to.

[Arguendo (64.12.117.13)]

Okay, Dave. But its a big country, things change, and we let all kinds of people in the door.

What I think is interesting is that we talk about the founding father's at all when it comes to the First Amendment. Most of what we know to be our First Amendment rights have been defined in the last 100 years. It has ben a slow but certain evolution. It just seems to me that people have nostalgia for a time when they had very few rights at all.

[RJ (151.203.157.69)]

I agree the founders were not all a-religious. But they also did know the fruits of the churchs over influencing the governments of Europe. And not every founder was Christian or moral.

Thomas Paine comes to mind on the dangers of unde influence upon government from the church. I also think the church should be free from undue influence from government...a balance.

[RJ (151.203.157.69)]

"Most of what we know to be our First Amendment rights have been defined in the last 100 years."

That's a good point. It is evolving slowly, true.

[RJ (151.203.157.69)]

please forgive the typos...I think faster than the old finger can move...*LOL*

[dave drago (66.136.184.165)]

Roberta,
I do not want a theocracy. I recognize our nation has been profoundly influenced by christian thought and values. I am a Separatist. I do not want a state run religion. I want freedom for religion.
For Him,
Dave

[RJ (151.203.157.69)]

Dave, my friend...on this we are in total agreement and with your gift for articulation you said it perfectly.

Sending this *hug* and tell Chris it is for her too..*s*

[Dave Drago (66.136.184.165)]

Arguendo,
1. Yes, we are a very diverse culture. And, I believe that morality will not save a nation but it will preserve and protect it. Scripture says,"Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to ANY people."

2. Therefore, I will work with ALL moral people who want to protect life, preserve the family as we know it and protect our children from pornography and other predators. We are salt and light.

3. Side Bar (may I approach?)
I also say that as a conservative christian we should be proactive in our social obligations to the needy. Unfortunately, many evangelicals overlook the salt and light and focus only on the spiritual without providing the physical needs. We should do both. Jesus addresses the physical and spiritual.
For Him,
Dave

[Dave Drago (66.136.184.165)]

RJ,
thank you. I hope Scott is well. Shake his hand for me (LOL). Naw, give him a hug from me to both of you!
in Christ,
Dave

[boss_martian (boss_martian)]

"Did you know that jefferson rejected ortodox Christianity in his day? The Jeffersonian Bible that one can buy today is a replica of the one he made for himself and carried."

Jefferson was a Deist, not a Christian, as was Ben Franklin.

I have a copy of the Jefferson Bible, by the way. It is called the "Life and Morals of Jesus".

I haven't read any reference of it being for the Indians.

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

Hey Boss has another book! Better get a bigger shelf!

[boss_martian (boss_martian)]

Don't need another shelf, Jim. Once I color 'em in, I get rid of the coloring books.

May be hard for you to believe, but I'm an "inside the lines" type of guy.

Boss Martian

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

Don't worry Boss....he is only being "nice" to Jack these days...*LOL*

Good to have you back and posting again Boss!

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

Try tearing out the pages and putting them on the fridge with a cute little magnet.

This site has lots of downloadable coloring stuff just for you:

Just For Boss! (http://barbie.everythinggirl.com/)

[boss_martian (boss_martian)]

DUDE!!!!!! My life has meaning once again!

I think I'm in trouble already. I think I just sent a picture of Malibu Barbie to my manager instead of the aircraft status report!

Seriously, one of the guys just came up behind me, took a long incredulous look at the web page, shook his head and walked away.

I am tarnished!

Good one, Jim.

Boss Martian

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

Always more where that came from:

More for Boss! (http://disney.go.com/playhouse/today/index.html)

Enjoy!

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

I found it an interesting bit of commentary on the news today that an exit poll of evangelicals showed that their vote was based on morality issues.

I understand that this is a normal criteria for all people of conscience, but to overlook the fact that the man who was voted back into office by these voters is a liar amazed me. Even more than this, his lies have led to dead sons and daughters on a battlefield other than Afghanistan's.

I spoke to a friend this afternoon and as she is a fundamentalist to her core, I asked her this very question...she said that Bush is a Christian and no matter what, the lie must have been a right thing to do. After all "he is God's man and that makes what he does right". And no...she is not a GGer.

Needless to say I winced. She used the "bozo logic" we all used when cult members, and it was just too strange....and to think the larger part of the 52% of the country's voters who voted for Bush believe this too is astounding.

"Gun, God and Gay Bashers Unite" was a sign I saw in a crowd cheering the President. *more wincing* Mostly I am hoping against hope that the "cowboy" ratchets back the rhetoric so that we can ease out of Iraq, get back to spending more $$ in Afghanistan and stop Bin Laden before the rich just keep getting richer...and we create more terrorists in the world.

Please God? Help the new administration become more of a uniter than a divider. Let him take this next 4 years to do the country some good with help for the working poor, health care for those who need it, no more body bags... Give them the wisdom to work with the other countries of the world in a unifying way rather than alienating them? Please God...let him hear more of you, teach him to listen with humble ears?

God....please bless America and ALL of it's citizens with less hate for each other?

Amen.

[boss_martian (boss_martian)]

Why is it that people only have an interest in what you're looking at on the net when it's something embarrassing?

I have been officially labelled the "Fifth Teletubby".

Thanks Jim. Thanks a LOT!

Boss Martian

[lee (lee)]

Roberta,

Jack tells me that everyone in BPS is depressed today because Kerry lost.....they think that education will be slashed even more. All that, while kids that he serves face harder issues than most.

Anyway, if indeed the man is back in the white house because of morality issues, then why didn't Kerry speak up about late term abortions???? Really, he could have told us all how thats where he draws the line......or, perhaps he could have said he favors equal rights for gays but marraige is beyond him.....all the gay people I am really friendly with tell me that they are not in favor of marraige but in equal rights.....Why didn't he speak at some time about the perverts in his church? I think if Kerry would have taken leadership and taken a stand, he may have made it. Honestly, I don't think I've heard John Kerry's voice since his post Vietnam days, and he was our senator for years.
Voting this time was the hardest.....I circled the polling place, got a parking place right in front, pulled in and prayed then pulled right out again......I'm surprised at how double minded I am on this issue. It's really unlike me because I hav no trouble usually is making decisions. This time was agony......you would've thought my vote really counted for something. I've realized what a true moderate I really am.

[lee (lee)]

I also think that we as people tend to measure and compare sins.....by that I mean we attach values to them. Homosexuality is the worst, then abortion may come after that, then adultery and so on......lying, well, who hasn't lied? Maligning, slandering? We have seen that in most political campaigns. I also think that for those of us who were brought up catholic, this is particularly true. We were taught about mortal sins, which could take you to hell, then there were the venial ones, like white lies......you did this when you wanted to spare someones feelings, or thought it best they didn't get involved, or know something......I still think many people think CHS is okay cause he knows God best, so its okay for him to slip up every now and then. Like he gets more grace than everyone else.

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

Tinky Winky, Dipsy, Laa Laa, Po and Waddlepop?

If You Liked The Tellytubbies, You'll Love These Critters (http://pbskids.org/boohbah/dance.html)

It helps when you have a two-year old.

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

Can't you two go play elsewhere? Like on your thread with Jack?

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

I think the worst sin is rejecting Christ, whether for believers or unbelievers; and the second is like to it: the rejection of the Holy Spirit.

Roberta, I might remind you that cats like to play with their food...before they eat it.}

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

The Fat Lady has finished singing and John Kerry and George Bush have exchanged gracious comments with one another with calls to unity to the opponent’s supporters. I spoke with my son, a member of the “yout’” crowd of 18 to 29 year olds who were courted heavily by the left with barrages of propaganda from everyone from P. Diddy to Michael Moore to MTV and Madonna. They turned out in barely a trickle. My son did not vote. He said it was like voting for the puppet on the right hand or the puppet on the left hand. Arguendo seems to echo this perspective.

I am a baby-boomer and along with our immediate elders we turned out in droves and were the determining force in the election. We were very engaged and very divided. I have refrained from offering too much political perspective on this board other than to state that I was for Bush. But then, ostensibly, I fit the profile: middle-aged, conservative, pro-life, evangelical, middle class, Southerner, married to a security mom, etc. Totally predictable.

But one of my favorite political philosophers was Jonas Savimbi, an African rebel against the communist government in Angola who was killed not long ago. He once said that every man’s political story reads like a book—from left to right. He began on the left, was converted to Christianity and moved to the right. I began my involvement in politics in 1971 while I was still in the Navy, as an adherent to the views of the Viet-Nam Veterans Against the War, whose leader at the time was John Kerry. I remember John Kerry from the 70s and I don’t believe he has been half the flip flopper that he has been painted up to be. Philosophically he is still the same, although he like any politician attempts to appear more ‘central’ than left during an election.

I would have voted for McGovern in 1972, had I not been visiting a friend in Pennsylvania—this in spite of Carl Stevens’s endorsement of Richard Nixon. I was in England in 1976, but supported Jimmy Carter, partly because he was not afraid to speak of his faith. In 1980, I was not convinced that Ronald Reagan was the right person for the job and was during my whole time in college an officer in the Young Democrats at Southwest Texas State University—LBJ’s alma mater. It was not until 1982 that I began to notice a change in the Democratic Party in the South becoming more and more liberal and less reflective of a variety of views. Other Texas Democrats like Phil Gramm saw the same trend, as has Zell Miller and John Breaux from other southern states. So the party left us.

The national Electoral College vote map reflects this trend. The red states represent the great “flyover” part of the nation unconvinced by the media, entertainment, tree-hugger, labor or academic effete snobs on either coast or in the Rust Belt, which remain the only strongholds for what was once a national party. Even the minorities are beginning to wake up to the fact that their plight has not improved because of promises the Democrats have been making but rather because they are benefiting from the same national trends as everyone else.

From 1984 to 1993, I found myself becoming more and more conservative, perhaps in reaction to the rhetoric heating up on the left—but also because of the relationship that I saw between Mrs. Thatcher (who I did support in Britain on most issues except the damn fool poll tax) and Ronald Reagan. They both represent the reason that we are no longer facing global communism in a cold war. We no longer face “mutually assured destruction” policies on either side. I am amazed that there are not more monuments to Ronald Reagan in the old eastern block, but I am not surprised that the most faithful allies in our coalition in Iraq are from those very nations. They, unlike our French and German “friends” know the meaning of gratitude. It was not until I returned home in 1993, that I even knew what conservative talk radio was. I did not vote in a Presidential election until 1996, when I finally voted for Bob Dole. I am sure that I am not dissimilar to thousands of others my age, and I wonder if we are not being largely misread by many who study and comment on demographics.

If Christians are looking to the conservative political agenda as a panacea for what is wrong in America, we are more deceived than any other ideologues on the left who say that the dead will rise and get up out of wheelchairs when their man comes to town. We are more deceived than those who really believe George Bush intentionally lied and “kids” died if we think that this past election was an answer to our woes.

The one token evangelical on the President’s cabinet looks set to take a hike, and it appears that a fight is ahead on any significant strict constructionist taking a seat on the Supreme Court. The Republicans can not get into office without the conservative evangelical vote, and we can only morally and realistically support conservative Republicans. So the relationship is symbiotic. What is wrong with America is the same thing that has always been wrong with the world and that is sin and the answer to sin is Christ. No political strategy can help here. Until the Father finally answers the petition contained in the Lord’s Prayer—“on earth as it is in heaven”--we ought to view politics with a great deal of skepticism and participate in politics with a view to maintaining or expanding the liberties of religion that we are currently enjoy. And we ought more conscientiously to take advantage of those liberties in reaching out to those who face poverty, single childbirth, discrimination because of race, inability to secure meaningful employment, inadequate healthcare, old age and disability with the love of Christ through the gospel which first meets the supreme but most unfelt real need—righteousness to stand before God because of Christ’s sacrifice.

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

Well...I am still thrilled that my Red Sox beat the Yankees, won the World Series and that is enough for any life long fan to be happy about.

One miracle a year...I can live with that. I am thrilled that Ashcroft is leaving, not convinced George can accomplish much before be becomes the "lame duck"...not convinced the Republican controlled congress can actually accomplish their agenda, and am going to pray these next years that John McCain will consider running in 2008...yes, I am a Democrat who adores McCain....don't faint.

(My World Series ball cap arrived today and I still am feasting on the miracle)

[arguendo (arguendo)]

JF:

1. I'm at least 10 years older than your son.
2. I think that not voting is the equivalent of spitting on the graves of soldiers that have fought and died for this country, so I don't think your son and I share the same perspective.
3. I what I said to Dave Carson was (1) that most politicians are undeserving of the faith and support they receive from their constituents and that all politicians are flawed, (2) that politicans use mudslinging at opponents to take the heat off of themselves when it comes to delivering on their promises, and (3) that what was going to change the country was to stop worrying what the opposing side is doing and start making your candidate accountable to you and your values.
4. If you can't accurately paraphrase what someone says, I suggest that you resort to copying and pasting.
5. From my perspective you are little better than an arm chair quarterback. You voted for the President, I voted for my boss.

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

OK, Argue-endo JD, you share some of the same perspective. I cannot remember your entire post, but I do remember the cynical flavor of it, in that I think I am not wrong.

Politicians are representative, and I would agree that they are flawed and that we must hold them accountable.

I think calling into question an opponent's record, past performance and statements as a reasonable predictor of future expectations is a legitimate part of the process. Folks that can't take the heat should stay out of the kitchen.

I don't think "worrying" is an apt discription of putting forward legitimate criticism of an opponent--nor is warning "worrying" the public--who are largely historically ignorant--of the possible consequences of electing that person in question.

I apologize for misquoting, but I think I captured the cynicism. Do you deny it?

I have been a precinct chair, a delegate to my county and state conventions and was an ardent author and very vocal proponent for a variety of resolutions passed by our conventions. I also worked to promote a number of local candidates. You want to call me an armchair quarterback--wallow in your ignorance. Without folks like me you wouldn't have a boss.
(edited)

(Message edited by Jim Faucett on November 04, 2004)

[arguendo (arguendo)]

JF, you're wrong about what I said and you're wrong about my cynicism. I had an excellent civics teacher in the eight grade and no matter what I see or experience in DC, I always see the potential for American Government in the positive way he presented it. So don't misquote me and don't attribute false opinions and feelings to me.

Twice you use the word "legitimate" describing criticism. I would argue that legitimate criticism is rarely heard beyond the beltway. There's lots of spin and lots of heat, but not a lot of substance.

As long as there's a President, I'll have a boss, but I'll let the folks down the street know they need your OK.

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

The problem with you folks inside the beltway is that every now and then you need a wake up call-- did you not once say that your little town was crawling with Texans? You get that wake up call from those of us in flyover land. This year is a superb example--look at the map. Ask Tom Daschle if he didn't get one, as he is now ready to get back to untassling instead of playing obstructionist games in the Senate.

My single "ok" is the same as yours or anybody else's , no matter who you work for or how important you think you are. And as long as there is a President, he will need our "ok."

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

The red and blue map is deceptive. Many of the "flyover" states were very divided in their support of the candidates, which is why Bush did not win by very much.

The map I found most interesting was the map that tallied the votes by the counties in each state. I saw it as more representative of the divided nature of the country than the traditional simple red and blue. It showed that nealy every state was divided.

Winning the popular vote by 51-2% is no landslide, nor is it a mandate. Bush may have won the election but regardless of the bravado today at the lectern, he presides over a sharply divided nation.

Arguendo...

"2. I think that not voting is the equivalent of spitting on the graves of soldiers that have fought and died for this country, so I don't think your son and I share the same perspective.
3. I what I said to Dave Carson was (1) that most politicians are undeserving of the faith and support they receive from their constituents and that all politicians are flawed, (2) that politicans use mudslinging at opponents to take the heat off of themselves when it comes to delivering on their promises, and (3) that what was going to change the country was to stop worrying what the opposing side is doing and start making your candidate accountable to you and your values."

I couldn't agree more on these points.

[lee (lee)]

I realize I probably left the impression that I didn't vote at all, but the truth is, I went back,circled for a parking spot, stood in line and voted. I can still feel the wrath of my veteran parents if I didn't. It was just so difficult for me. That says, I really have to reevaluate what is valuable to me.
I've not felt so afraid for our country as I do now. I also feel that neither candidate, no matter how hard they campaigned really won my vote. I reluctantly gave it to Bush......the reason? because he needs to finish what he started and I do believe a democracy in the middle east will speak loudly to those there. I gave it to him because some women and children will be free and educated, even at the cost of our young men. I'm willing to sacrafice for a couple years if it means freedom for some. After all, we aren't exactly poor here in this nation. I could get better health care, I would like to see more care given to the environment, I care less about oil for huge ridiculous cars, I could go on but won't.
This election showed me how divided we are, that this nation can't abide with an aloof Kerry.....hopefully, we'll do as the posters above have stated, and that is to work to see our polititians do as they say.......or as we have said. Easier said then done.

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

The county by county map is even more red than the electoral map!

Bush got more of the popular vote than any President since 1988 and more coattails since 1936.

The Very Red Map! (http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm)

[lee (lee)]

I've been very surprised by the amount of conservative Black people I know and the young conservatives here in Ma. I've wondered how representative of the populus they are. These aren't necessarily church going people. They are primarily educated here in Ma....where you would think they would get a steady diet of liberalism. They think to the bottom line of things......not so much in causes, as we once did. They tend to worry about the economy, jobs, ed, and environment and aren't happy with Bush there. Could this be a trend? Or maybe here in Liberalville they just stick out. I'm intrigued with them.

[minutus (minutus)]

"Everyone who celebrates Bush’s victory must have his or her own personal post-election schadenfreude list. Perhaps you especially savor Michael Moore’s humiliation — or Terry McAuliffe’s, or Dan Rather’s. So many liberal hate-mongers, so little time."

Donald Luskin, economist

How about FACTNet readers? I feel especially sorry for Osama and Zarqawi, who had so pinned their hopes on JFnK.

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

Osama is thrilled that Bush is re-elected. Bush is so hated in the Mid-East and has added incredibly to the terrorist numbers with his cowboy routine. They must be high fiving all over the place.

What I still don't understand, although I suppose I should having believed Carl's lies for so long...is how the right backs Bush pointing to the moral issues as a reason for voting for him, when he blatantly LIED about the WMD as a reason for a preemtive strike on Iraq. That he is not as honest and upright as any other polititian is obvious, and yet the people adore him like GGers adore Carl...almost mindlessly.

The rich will get richer, more men will die, we are at greater risk for another terrorist attack and he has alienated so many other countries around the world....I am still shaking my head. I was not a Kerry supporter, but my conscience could not let me vote for more of Bush.

And now the arrogance of the right rears it's head again, which I suppose is inevitable. How does this unite the country as Bush said with a smirk yesterday? It doesn't and a divided America is what the religious right and the terrorists really want.

Michael Moore raises questions the right doesn't want asked or answered...and we all know how the religious right demonizes all who oppose them....Carl fits this paradigm as does Bush. I am sorry that more of the winners aren't as gracious as Kerry and Edwards were in their concession speeches. Oh well...nothing changes.

Dare I hope that the Republican evangelicals are praying for Mrs. Edwards who has been diagnosed with breast cancer? I do hope they will, for she is a courageous lady.

It becomes easier to see as the years go by just why it has been so difficult to expose Carl.

I am just relieved that Bush has only two years to clean up his legacy before he becomes the lame duck. Then I can beg John McCain to run in 2008.

And I am glad the election is over...sooooooo glad the BS ads on both sides will stop.

Still too high on the Red Sox win to be too down about the election. Thankfully even Bush has to work within the system and I think the American system has enough checks and balances, even with a Republican controlled legislature and soon to be high court for him to wreak too much more damage than he already has.

I am praying still every day that no more 911 attacks come to our soil. Would have done that if Kerry had been elected. Neighter man is more important than the man on the street.

[minutus (minutus)]

RJ,

So what was this lie you keep mentioning? While the intelligence the whole world (including all Democrat politicians and the UN) believed about WMDs was incomplete, the jury is still out on the extent of weapons development in Iraq and their current location. There are plenty of documented connections between Saddam and terrorism, including his granting diplomatic status to the killers of Leon Klinghoffer and other American citizens. In the rarified atmosphere of "international law" that constitutes an adequate casus belli. For a Bible-thumping blood-thirsty war-mongering hate-filled racist sexist homothume white male Christian like me, that works. Have a nice next four years http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/wink.gif. Next stop - a free Iran!

Dave C

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

Believe what you want to, Dave. It seems obvious you are ever the elitist bent on being right and condescending to anyone who believes or thinks differently than you. If it pleases you to reckon you are better than me, smarter, more correct and you wish to continue to be sarcastic, arrogant and unwilling to have an adult conversation with others, you are not acting with the Christian values you say you believe in. Not sure why you are so insecure that a normal conversation isn't possible, but so be it.

Dave Drago and I have had our disagreements on many issues and we have learned the respect each other's views though we may not ascribe to them. I enjoy conversing with him as he is intelligent, thoughtful, thought provoking, and can actually speak to a liberal Christian without arrogance. I have come to a better understanding of the evangelical (non cultic) views through our discussions, and am glad he and I can be good Christians and respect each other.

Why is this a difficulty for you? You are intelligent, well read and well traveled, but though we disagree, I and others who do not share your views also are well read, intelligent, and well traveled. You respond to their posts as you do mine....with language that reeks of self righteousness and arrogance. Isn't it time to put the foolishness of pride and arrogance aside? Or do you not have any respect for anyone here except those that think like you? Your use of vocabulary and sentence structure says no. This medium is limited and if you are not as condescending as you "sound" perhaps a change in vocabulary might work? Otherwise I would assume you are in Jim's league where "the meaner the better" seems to be the norm a good part of the time (unless he is talking to Jack Leonard).

I cannot understand why both liberal and conservative Christian...if both are loving our neighbor as ourself...cannot learn to converse and speak together with out this condescending attitude your posts exude.

Isn't mutual respect and humility in our discourse a more appropriate way to discuss issues?

If not, why not?

[minutus (minutus)]

I asked for a simple answer and get called:

elitist
condescending
sarcastic
arrogant
unwilling to have an adult conversation
not acting with Christian values
insecure
incapable of having a normal conversation
self-righteous
proud
disrespectful

That seems to be your typical response to my requests for information. Sorry that my language offends you and is inferior to others on FACTNet. Could you answer the question? Or just save us all the time and simply refuse to answer instead of attacking. I will easily take "no" for an answer and bother you no more.

[minutus (minutus)]

PS: I did pray for Mrs. Edwards. I guess that dooms her, if your judgement of me is correct.

[minutus (minutus)]

PPS: I will add you to my schadenfreude list, Roberta. You're obviously not taking this very well.

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

You proved my point, Dave I am sorry to say. And as for answering your " simple question"? You already answered it in your post. If you want answers to questions, don't answer them beforehand and tip off those you are baiting and plan to condescend to. Bad form and not at all Christian. *s*

Yes, according to the contents of this conversation at least you are all the things on that list I am afraid. Not exactly sure why, though. *shrug* BTW,I am not in the least bit concerned with the next 4 years...Bush will do what he will do. I believe in the American system, and he will be a lame duck soon enough. I can live with that.

I am sorry you are in need of belittling me. I remember when we were friends and will continue to think of you that way no matter how you behave toward me now. I hope you can someday learn to understand that just because others aren't like you or believe the way you do that they at least deserve respect...the same respect others have afforded you though your behavior is less than Christian in its manner at times.

Disagreements can be had without sarcasm and condescention...I and others are praying that you and Jim can somehow understand that. Jim's manner with Jack was exemplary and what I know he is really like. The disconnect with his other personality that shows up here is a head trip *s*, but he's invaluable as you are...when anyone can actually converse, that is.

I may disagree with many people here and they with me, but I have learned a lot from them and I hope they have from me through civil discourse.

And as it is your penchant to have the last word, I leave this conversation here. Please, in the spirit of good will and Christ, consider my words? They are offered with no agenda other than a ceasing of this divisive attitude. There are people who find FactNet for help...watching the nastiness doesn't help. We all are to blame therefore all have the responsibility to cease. That incluses you and me.

The choice is yours. I hope we can bridge the gap, but if not, fare thee well and rock on, brother.

My love to Outi and Tom.

[minutus (minutus)]

Thank you, Roberta. I will accept my place as the FACTNet meany and all-around bad person.

For any new readers, my name is Dave Carson.

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

God told me to vote green. Cobb? I thought he was a dead baseball player.

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

For those wishing to express their care and support for Elizabeth and Sen. Edwards during this trying time for them, please click on this link:

Contact John Edwards (http://edwards.senate.gov/mailform.html)

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

Hey you, Dave, get off of my cloud!

<u><font color="ff0000">I</font></u> am the all around factnet meany and bad person!

Just ask the British Spongehead Squarebrain Pants on Backwards.

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

Thanks Jim for the link. You big meany *wink*

[minutus (minutus)]

"Many took for granted the fact that Mr. Bush would be defeated. They were wrong. The mistake committed by those who create caricatures is that they believe that normal people are going to substitute reality with caricature."

Jose Maria Aznar on the President's re-election.
Definitely not on the schadenfreude list.

[minutus (minutus)]

The leftist UK paper The Guardian (the paper that called for the President's assassination) has written that Bush's victory "catapaulted liberal Britain into collective depression."

[minutus (minutus)]

Ladies and gentlemen, drop your borders

Now that George W. Bush has been officially elected, single, sexy, American liberals - already a threatened species - will be desperate to escape.
These lonely, afraid (did we mention really hot?) progressives will need a safe haven.
You can help. Open your heart, and your home. Marry an American. Legions of Canadians have already pledged to sacrifice their singlehood to save our southern neighbours from four more years of cowboy conservatism.

http://www.marryanamerican.ca/

[minutus (minutus)]

Quote of the day:

But the same insularity that caused many liberals to lose touch with the rest of the country now causes them to simplify, misunderstand and condescend to the people who voted for Bush. If you want to understand why Democrats keep losing elections, just listen to some coastal and university town liberals talk about how conformist and intolerant people in Red America are. It makes you wonder: why is it that people who are completely closed-minded talk endlessly about how open-minded they are?

David Brooks
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/opinion/06brooks.html

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

I can think of other places that I would just love to "catapult liberal Britain" -- but depression is good.

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

If you think depression is good, it's time for you to do some serious research.

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

You need to get outside the 'context' of your own prejudices and start thinking in terms of a bit of compassion for individuals; even when they're jerks. I also want people to change for the better. I don't want them to go through depression unless that's part of the process for them to get to better places. We're supposed to love our enemies, and pray for those who despitefully use us, not lust for bad ends for them.

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

Bob, step over here to this catapult...

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

Yep. It's the same old story. Get rid of everyone you disagree with. Line up or get out.

[minutus (minutus)]

Depression is often part of the healing process. The goal for Democrats is not to become Republicans, but to reconnect to those unique roots of their political heritage which are healthy and positive, as well as the needs of the American people.

Believe it or not I came from a Democrat family and used to vote for them, but they left me (and others in my family) behind in a quest to re-engineer American society along European socialist lines, reviling folks like me in the process (as Roberta would say, "Demonize, demonize, demonize".) I did not become a Republican to kill off Grandma, despoil the earth, and enslave the world to corporate greed - it's just that the Democrat Party has zero tolerance for my views and priorities. They wrote off voters with traditional values years ago and I don't think that Hillary Clinton will do any better at reconnecting with people like me four years from now.

I really believe a healthy start for the rehabilitation of the Democrat Party would be their accepting responsibility for the political legitimaziton of the subjugation of African-Americans through the institutions of slavery, Jim Crow, and the current "urban plantation" of welfare. All of these institutions were pillars of Democrat policy. They should apologize and pay reparations. Then we can all move on to a brighter and less guilt-filled future.

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

I am an Independent. That means I'm not a Republican or a Democrat or Green or Communist or Whig or what-have-you. The Democrats have serious imbalances which I intensely dislike. They are much too liberal for me. The Republicans bend for the rich and don't seem to much care for the working poor (that's most of us) or the aged or whether we're wrecking our environment. These things also are not acceptable to me. All issues are dead meat in this two party system. If one party comes out with something, the other just automatically takes the opposite position. This is an insane solution. The whole thing should be put to sleep. But it won't be. You're stuck. Is there someplace better to go? I doubt it. The whole world seems entangled in this kind of idiocy. So let's serve God instead of mammon. Pray. Lead someone to Christ. Edify and encourage others. Speak light into dark places. Think about that which is good. Seek healing for others, and spiritual unity where God gives it. Obey Him today. It's more important than politics. We can take down the signs now, can't we?

[dave_drago (dave_drago)]

We Need To Be Reminded (An OP-ED by Dave Drago)

1. I am relieved that all the pre-election banter is over. I am very encouraged to see that America turned out to vote their values…regardless of their religious background. My prayer now is for our nation to work diligently with a single focus and determined purpose to find, fix and finish all the militant extremist Islamo-Facist terrorists whose avowed purpose in life is to kill my fellow Americans. We need to be reminded who our enemy is.

2. We need to be reminded of the challenges we face. I want to comment that regardless of who was President on September 11, 2001 (be he Republican or Democrat) we would have faced the same challenges. What challenges did our nation face? We faced the challenges of a renewed security effort, a cooperating intelligence effort, an economy that was dealt a serious blow and a political system that needed to unite.

3. We need to be reminded that we were attacked. Make no mistake, The Pentagon, the symbol of our Military might was attacked. Make no mistake, The World Trade Center, the symbol of our economic strength was attacked and lay smoldering in a rubble pile of steel, ash and lost lives. And, make no mistake, that a failed attempt to attack our capitol buildings, the symbol of our political strength was narrowly missed.

4. We need to be reminded that there are those who would destroy our nation. Who would destroy a nation that offers hope and freedom to so many individuals? For instance, the Freedom of Religion, Freedom of Economic Opportunity and Freedom of Thought that we all took for granted on September 10, 2001. Who would destroy America the Beautiful? Who would attack the nation that proclaims:

Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses, yearning to breath free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore,
Send these, the homeless, tempest tossed,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door.

The answer is the radical fanatical Islamo-Facist Terrorist who labels America as the Great Satan.

5. We need to be reminded where the blame rests. Who should take the blame for the problems we face as a nation? The blame does not rest on the shoulders of the liberals or the conservatives. The blame rests squarely on the shoulders of those individuals and nations who desire to see our demise. The partisan rancor I witnessed leading up to the election sickened me. I am ashamed that at times I was guilty of this too. I believe the the current administration is doing their best to fight the ongoing War on Terror. Given the opportunity, I believe a Democratic administration would have done the same. This broad War on Terror is not about Republican or Democrat it is about the safety and protection of our great Nation.

6. We need to be reminded who our enemy is. Our enemy is not competing political parties. Our enemy is not Red America or Blue America. Our enemy is the radical Islamo-Facist ideologues and demagogues who desire to end our way of life. Sadly, we cannot negotiate with these extremists. They believe that in their suicide death they earn God’s favor. There is zero room for negotiation. We need to remember this.

7. We need to be reminded to pray. America, as we fight the War on Terror, and we recognize our enemies we should pray on three levels.

A. That as a nation, as we stay strong and ready to fight we will seek the providential protection of the Almighty. Like the Psalmist said in Psalm 20:7:

Some nations boast of their armies and weapons,
but we boast in the LORD our God. (NLT)

B. That we as individuals will pray for the enemies that we are forced to fight against. We need to be reminded of the words of Jesus in Matthew 5:44

“But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you” (ESV)

C. That our victories will not make us proud but thankful before the Maker of Heaven and earth who sends the rain on the wicked and the good and directs us in Micah 6:8, in the way we should live.

“O people, the LORD has already told you what is good, and this is what he requires: to do what is right, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with your God.”(NLT)

May the Almighty God continue to bless America with humility, dedication and victory in the cause that is just and right.

For Him,
Dave Drago

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

I agree Dave. Our government does need to address the terrorist situation. And I don't feel informed accurately enough to know how well they are doing that. I, for one, still don't know if attacking Iraq was right for us to do; but I don't know that it wasn't right either. I wish that this were not viewed as being between the political parties; but people seem to want to consider it so.

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

Bob,
Read this first from Dave Carson:
The leftist UK paper The Guardian (the paper that called for the President's assassination) has written that Bush's victory "catapaulted liberal Britain into collective depression."

Now this is from me:
I can think of other places that I would just love to "catapult liberal Britain" -- but depression is good.


And this is from you:
If you think depression is good, it's time for you to do some serious research.

Drago, puh-leeze, make that popping sound for Bob and explain what is going on. I am going to go get some duct tape to keep my head from exploding.

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

I am assuming that 'liberal Britain' refers to millions of individual people there who are liberal. I am not assuming that each of these is promoting assassination of the president. Are you?

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

Bob, please consider the genre of writing--are you being a newspaper op-ed literalist here?

Ask yourself this--do you think the original writer was speaking of a literal catapult? Was he actually implying that the results of the election sent liberals into a collective literal clinical depression?

Do you think that I am by my statement wishing literal clinical depression on millions of people or do you think that I am not bothered that they are unhappy with the results of our election?
Do you think I am suggesting that I would like to take millions of liberals and put them on a literal catapult?

Bob, Bob, Bob. Which tellytubby are you?

(Message edited by Jim Faucett on November 06, 2004)

[minutus (minutus)]

Cataputam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabris, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam.

Translation: I have a catapult. Give me all your money or I will fling a huge rock at your head.

I've been waiting to use this phrase for a long time and this seemed like the best chance I would ever get http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/lol.gif

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A218882

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

"We Need To Be Reminded (An OP-ED by Dave Drago)"

Dave I find myself in total agreement with every statement.

In the days since the election I have been finding that the disconnect between the so called red and blue states has troubled me. I think I may finally be understanding what the disconnet is about and it has challenged me.

I think I see why the "fly over" states feel disenfranchised and voted for Bush. Looking at things from a fresh perspective I see that the entertainment media has not taken into account the grassroots type of American. And many view our society as defined by what is seen on the tube and hear from the media outlets these days.

I think I understand why the blue state people, of which I am asscoiated, fail to understand that though we have embraced the edges of societal growth...meaning the liberal ideas about gay marriage, embryionic stem cell research, abortion etc, our brothers and sisters in less populated or less liberal areas have not generally done so.

Their idea and understanding of America is based on the family, church, job, patriotism and old fashioned Americanism (I do not say this is a condescending fashion, only that this is their view). Their vote for Bush likely had less to do with being pro-George, but had more to do with the fact that he portrays himself as one of them as being against the aforementioned issues.

I personally ans skeptical that he is one of them. I believe that Carl Rove knew how best to scare them with issues from the far left to make Bush look more palatable, but nevertheless, they embrace the less radical societial views and gravitated to the candidate that best portrays them.

Do they truly feel disenfranchised in America? Coming from where I have been...in a repressive and abusive right wing conservative aberrational organization who touted these values, I was hard pressed always to understand the Americans who seem not to want progress. I am now beginning to understand that perhaps because of my own wounds I have not seen this about our society.

It does make sense ...thinking out loud here...that if one really sees the media offerings out there today one might conclude that less liberal Americans would feel threatened.

How can this disconnect be repaired? I don't know other than to say it might be thought about by people on both sides of the issue.

I would very much like others who feel threatened by "liberals" to understand that not all of us have understood this disconnect and that maybe some good can come from this past election. If we meet each other halfway at least in an open dialog, perhaps we can become a less divided and people and nation.

I must say it is teaching me much I had not before seen.

(Message edited by Rjfernalld on November 06, 2004)

[minutus (minutus)]

Various views on red and blue:

Confessions of a "Moral Issues" Voter
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04311/407502.stm

Revolt of the Jacksonians
http://www.techcentralstation.com/110504J.html

Nicholas Kristof on Reshaping the Democrats
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/06/opinion/06kristof.html

"So Democrats need to give a more prominent voice to Middle American, wheat-hugging, gun-shooting, Spanish-speaking, beer-guzzling, Bible-toting centrists. (They can tote The Times, too, in a plain brown wrapper.) For a nominee who could lead the Democrats to victory, think of John Edwards, Bill Richardson or Evan Bayh, or anyone who knows the difference between straw and hay."

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

Jim...you play nice with Bob or there will be no rhemas for you today...*s*

[franklin (franklin)]

Just because I speak against immorality does not mean I am advocating that certain (victimless) immoralties becomes illegal.

I want Howard Stern and Bubba, the hate sponge, off the air. Not through FCC censorship, but through public and sponsor rejection of them.

When government outlaws immorality it thrives. Look at the results of prohibition. When public awareness prevails, such as STD awareness, immorality diminshes on it's own without government dictates.

Some vices need to be outlawed. Such as prostitution because of human and child exploitation. The next step after the legalization of prostitution is child enslavement and sex in public. That would not be a healthy enviroment to raise children.

People can accomplish more in a community by being aware and outspoken than a law can. Your railing against the Christian "right" needs to distinguish between the ones who want to legislate morality (Sen. Orren Hatch, for one) versus the ones who just preach against immorality.

Preaching against immorality is called freedom of speech.

Freedom of Religion is in the constitution. Seperation of church and state is not. We are free to believe or not believe. But natural law that protects the freedom and rights of individuals from victimization is not legislated morality. It is essential for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Anything less is anarchy.

[franklin (franklin)]

The so-called blue states are not "states" but enclaves. Look at the election county by county. The vast majority of counties of all of the blue states, with the exceptions of the New England states, voted for Bush. Just a few major population centers of the blue states voted for Kerry.

Too many rats in a rat cage makes them crazy. When all you see is the filth and suffering in a big city, a taxpayer paid government solution is tempting but illusional.

This country is in better shape than we used to give it credit for. The average American can spot vote buying phonies like Kerry and Edwards quicker than anyone else in the world.

We all have reasons now to be optimistic. We have more faith now in our fellow Americans to make the right decisions.

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

Nobody likes a sore winner....yikes.

[franklin (franklin)]

Give everyone in the inner cities on welfare or homeless, an acre of government land in the red states, a mule and some seed and by the next election, they will be Republicans too.

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

Wait a second, what happened to the 40 acre deal?

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

"Your railing against the Christian "right" needs to distinguish between the ones who want to legislate morality (Sen. Orren Hatch, for one) versus the ones who just preach against immorality."

All lawmaking is legislating someone's idea of morality or perversion of it. Laws by their nature either prohibit or permit based on someone's concept of what is good or evil, fair or not fair.

All human laws are in some way based on one of the Ten Commandments, or a perversion of them.

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

Franklin, you seem to be advocating vote buying...and Jim's right....the old deal was 40 acres...keep the mule, I want a ranch house with a view and a pool... thanks loads!

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

'All human laws are in some way based on one of the Ten Commandments, or a perversion of them.'

Were there no human laws previous to the giving of the Ten? Are you projecting this backward in time to cover them as well? Who've you been reading now? On what do you base this extraordinary statement? Does the Bible tell you so?

[minutus (minutus)]

Post-election comity

President Bush's re-election caused many shocked and angry Kerry supporters to become absolutely apoplectic this week. Peeks into websites, such as Slate and the Democratic Underground, found comments about the ushering in of a new fascist state, calls to secede from the Union and plans to live in exile in Canada or France until sanity returned to the republic.

However, this reporter witnessed a scene that proves that even dedicated partisans can let the rancor go and move on in peace and kindness after one of the most rancorous elections in the nation's history.

After landing at Reagan National Airport on a flight from Philadelphia Wednesday night, a Kerry supporter -- still sporting his political buttons on his hat -- and a Bush supporter -- wearing his "W" pullover -- stood next to each other while washing their hands in the men's room.

"Hey, you guys ran a good race. Congratulations," said the Bush campaign volunteer.
"Thanks. It was tough. You guys did a great job, better than us, obviously. You're the one who deserves congratulations," said the Kerry supporter, a burly black man who, it turns out, was part of the NAACP's get-out-the-vote effort in Philadelphia.

The two men continued their conversation while waiting at baggage claim. The Bush supporter helped the Kerry supporter get his large bag off the conveyer belt. And the Kerry supporter continued the calm political conversation as the Bush supporter grabbed his smaller bag as it rolled by.

The two men shook hands, slapped each other on the back and continued talking as they walked to the taxi stand -- the Bush man, repeatedly, offering his condolences, and the Kerry man graciously accepting. Both men agreed that the bitterness of this race should be quickly left behind and wished each other well.

Democracy in action, and purely American.

-- James G. Lakely, White House correspondent

posted at 1:01 PM

From the Washington Times Politics blog

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

Romans 2:14-16 (ESV)
For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. [15] They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them
[16] on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.

The Ten Commandments are called the moral law for the very reason that they are internal to human nature. Men make laws based on their nature or some perversion of it. Adam had the moral law written on his heart, how else could he be created in "true righteousness and holiness" in the "image of God?" You don't go any further back in time than that.

[minutus (minutus)]

Believe it or not, it wasn't just rednecks who voted for Bush
By Mark Steyn
(Filed: 07/11/2004)

The big question after Tuesday was: will it just be more of the same in George W Bush's second term, or will there be a change of tone? And apparently it's the latter. The great European thinkers have decided that instead of doing another four years of lame Bush-is-a-moron cracks they're going to do four years of lame Americans-are-morons cracks.
Inaugurating the new second-term outreach was Brian Reade in the Daily Mirror, who attributed the President's victory to: "The self-righteous, gun-totin', military-lovin', sister-marryin', abortion-hatin', gay-loathin', foreigner-despisin', non-passport-ownin' rednecks, who believe God gave America the biggest dick in the world so it could urinate on the rest of us and make their land 'free and strong'."

Well, that's certainly why I supported Bush, but I'm not sure it entirely accounts for the other 59,459,765.

Read the rest at:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2004/11/07/do0704.xml&amp;sSheet=/opinion/2004/11/07/ixop.html

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

I don't blame the world for not liking Bush. He has alienated so many of the allies we used to have, and by his invasion of Iraq has done the best recruitment job for the terrorist than they could have imagined. Heard Noam Chomsky say the other day that the invasion was a war crime under the Neuremberg laws...good heavens. I wouldn't go that far but it was a wrong move that will cost us so mcu in lives and prstige that we needn't have lost.

Are we safer without Saddam...who knows. But we aren't safer with Bush unfortunately. I so wish he had worked harder to keep the alliances we had when his father was in office.

Sounds like he is losing most of his cabinet as well, Powell, Ashcroft, possibly Rumsfeld and so many others. Says he has "political capital" to spend...me may have less than he thinks if the country is attacked again, God forbid.

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

The Europeans have a worse economy than we do, a higher suicide rate, more drug abuse and alcoholism, higher divorce rate, more screwed up thinking, more stupid laws, more terrorist attacks even though they have really liberal politicians--and they want to make us like them?

Okay, sure.

Where the hell is Mrs. Thatcher when we need her?

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

I liked her...I love what she said when President Reagan passed away. She was such a class act.

Think America will ever allow a woman to be president (and NO I do not want Hillary Clinton to run...she is better in the Senate)? I'd like to think there might be a woman leader in America in our lifetime...but it seems unlikely unless someone very special comes along.

(Message edited by Rjfernalld on November 07, 2004)

[franklin (franklin)]

Screw France. Screw Germany. They were behind our backs selling weapons and chemicals to Saddam, violating the very treaty they voted for.

So you don't think we should have invaded Afghanistan? They were harboring terrorists as well as Iraq. You maybe a pacifist, but the majority of Americans are not. Or are you even an American?

The elections over. Kerry didn't even believe the garbage he was spewing during the campaign. He would have said anything to get elected. Too bad for him, and good for the country, there were not enough gullible people, like you, to fall for that crap.

Get over it. We're Americans. We'll kick butt anywhere we have to. And we're not going to check with the French or Germans first.

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

Let's run J.C. Watts and Condi Rice on the Republican ticket and Barack Obama and Sheila Jackson Lee on the Democrat side--and I don't care who runs for what. That way we can get the whole "first black" whatever thing over with no matter who wins...

And that is a Republican ticket I would vote for.

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

I don't know if I really trust Condi Rice, but she is an extremely smart woman, there's no doubt.

I was very impressed with Barak Obabma at the dem convention, but more so when I heard him say the other day that the Democrats need to come to a better undertanding of the people of faith in the nation. He is someone so far I enjoy listening to.

Personally I hope John McCain will run for the presidency. I find him a very refreshing political type, I admire his practicality and courage. He would do well for the nation I think.

Maybe he could get Condi to VP for him.

[anon_brief (anon_brief)]

Not if they all keep crying on camera.

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

"So you don't think we should have invaded Afghanistan? They were harboring terrorists as well as Iraq. You maybe a pacifist, but the majority of Americans are not. Or are you even an American?"

Afghanistan yes, of course we should have gone there. That is where we SHOULD be fighting.

Iraq no. I don't agree with the war in Iraq. I think the forces sent to Iraq should have been sent to get Osama in Afghanistan FIRST.

"The elections over. Kerry didn't even believe the garbage he was spewing during the campaign. He would have said anything to get elected. Too bad for him, and good for the country, there were not enough gullible people, like you, to fall for that crap. Get over it."

No one likes a sore winner.

[franklin (franklin)]

Osama is teetering between Pakistan and Afghanistan. We can't go into Pakistan, so for now he remains elusive. Who do you think we are fighting now in Iraq? Al Queda, no doubt.
After 911, Bush said wherever the terrorists are we will go there and destroy them. The whole nation was behind him then. But now that it was election time, the demofacists needed issues. So they picked on the dead American soldier's corpses like vultures to win the White House and get their idiot cousins a government job. Can't you see through the hype?

No, I will not forget the lies that have been told to buy votes. Stop listening to CNN and NPR and think independently for a change. Last words in American is I Can. Last words in Republican is I Can. Last word in Democrat is RAT.

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

Gee...nothing partisan about you. *LOL*

The election is over, Bush is still in the White House. Franklin, you can relax now. No one is still fighting over it. No need to tell me to think independently...I am about as independent as it comes. And simply because I disagree does not mean I am a non-thinker or a demofacist. I am quite capable of seeing through the Republican's hype, the Democrat's hype and yes, even your hype.

Your guy won. Get over it. Smile and be happy. Everything is going to be okay now. The soldiers are not leaving Iraq the Republicans have a legislative and soon to be judical majority, plus the executive branch. You should really be taking this better, my friend.

BTW, I hate to burst your bubble, but the word "publican" also can be found in Republican if you really want to be snarky...it's in the Bible. Look it up. (Sorry...I just couldn't resist)

And don't worry...be happy...please.

(Message edited by rjfernalld on November 08, 2004)

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

The best thing about the word Republican is that it has the word pub in the middle of it. Maybe we should consider going back under the UK's authority so we could have pubs too. Or maybe we could just start a grass roots movement to change our bars and lounges into the real thing. Do you ever get the feeling that America is a cartoon?

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

Have a firkin good time (http://www.firkinpubs.com/)

And no I am not being profane. So shut up already.

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

*LOL*

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

Franklin, I found you a playmate:

The End is Here
http://onespiritproject.com/Shelly/theend.html

[minutus (minutus)]

I just got a compliment from my favorite liberal at work. He's an engineer educated at Berkeley (where else?) and I haven't seen him since the election. He stopped by the cubicle today and said he just realized that I look like the evil genius Karl Rove. That made my day!

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

You're weird...*LOL*

Have you met franklin? I think he believes all the same things about anyone who dares to be liberal as you do! I am afraid franklin isn't taking any joy at all that his guy won the election...poor fellow.

[jim_faucett (jim_faucett)]

Hey It's Franklin He's A Coming to Your House! (http://www.tvtome.com/tvtome/servlet/ShowMainServlet/showid-7945/Franklin/)

[bob_brinton (bob_brinton)]

Gee, Albany's not far off. I bet my son Dan would like to check one out.

[franklin (franklin)]

http://www.factnet.org/discus/clipart/rofl.gif

[rjfernalld (rjfernalld)]

Hey...good to see you happier, Franklin!

[franklin (franklin)]

Never been happier! Thanks.

[minutus (minutus)]

WARNING! Beware of "theologically based cultural norms!"

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/10/31/Perspective/Political_thuggery_in.shtml

[franklin (franklin)]

What does John Edwards know? He couldn't even carry his hometown, much less his state of North Carolina.