Politics – "You know, my husband and I have been married 28 years and we have filed separate tax returns for 28 years. This is a privacy issue. My husband is the candidate,"
Sorry, but that just won't wash! A tithe to the church is a tithe to the church and not its pastor! Obama was supporting the programs of the church and not paying the preachers salary directly, but hey you have nothing so I guess you have to make garbage up!
It sounds to me that you have a very fickle congregation if they won't support the church even while having problems with the minister.
As listed above, I've heard a number of his sermons that were on line when this first hit. For a minister of hate to say what he said for as long as he said it, had to have had the permission of their council or board of elders. That would mean the whole congregation supported it.
On tithing, I'm not sure what church you're taking about, most people don't even come close and haven't for many years. As to our congregation, the former minister decided he would rather dedicate himself to writing books and worked with the congregation about 2 hours a week while collecting a full-time pay check. It split the congregation. Most liked him but when you needed his help you often had to track down supply pastors for funerals, weddings and the like. The final straw for the council was when they got a bill from sermons.com for his weekly messages. Our synod was too worried about his needs and less so about the congregation. It's taken time but I'm told it growing again.
If you want full disclosure of tax information from both the candidate and his or her spouse then have
it written into law.
Otherwise keep your nose out of peoples private lives.
When a person runs for President, their lives are NOT private any more - for NONE of the candidates.
And the Republicans should keep their noses out of Obama's private life.
On the money, I agree, you want that info available, change the laws. On Obama, it should be questioned. He made his church attendance a huge part of his campaign in the past. It was supposedly a huge part of his life. He's not the first candidate who feels religion is important, but that church's former leader is a bad guy. He's preached hate and anti-white American crap for 23 years. For Barack not to understand hate speech is confusing at best. He contributed thousands and attended hundreds of services. How could he miss the hate spewing from Wright's mouth. He either agrees with the hate or is stupid. As a candidate for president, I'm not sure what scared me more.
As some of your right-wing buddies have noted regarding Cindy - to diminish this whole story and/or its merits - Wright is NOT the one running for President.
AGAIN - you do NOT know that Wright has "preached race-hatred and damnation of the United States" for the past 20 years because you are basing that on media soundbites.
You have absolutely NO idea whether or not Wright has "preached hate and anti-white American crap for 23 years" unless you sat in that church every Sunday for the past 23 years. You are good at blanket generalizations based on a few phrases from a few sermons and/or interviews.
So, there may have been NO hate to "miss" - you don't know that it was ever there outside of what you have heard on TV.
What IS scary is that McCain SOUGHT the endorsement of hate-monger 'preachers' like Hagee, Roberston, and Parsely. McCain apparently believes "that" kind of religion is important. That DOES scare me ....
I don't see the big deal on Cindy's tax records. As to Wright, I've heard enough to know a racist bigot when I hear one. You guy took Imus off the air for talking stupid. It wasn't meant to be racist it was just an old guy trying to be funny. Well, his show was taken off the air. We have a guy who has on more than one occasion claimed the American government wanted to kill all black people. His sermon that I heard referred to white Americans as crackers. I'd say that's racist. Then the "not God Bless America but God D--n America" kind of ended the question for me.
On your other comments, I don't really know them. In searching for them it seems they're ministers but that's really the extend of my search. Now they may have baggage I don't know. What I do know, none of them have ever made comments as hateful as Wright did.
Wright hasn't been "on the air" and I didn't do anything about whether or not Imus was ON the air. I don't like him but I don't LISTEN to him.
There isn't a big deal about her tax records.
But when Theresa Heinz Kerry didn't want to release her tax records, the media and the Republicans consistently complained about it. It is very likely that after this story dies there will be NO complaining by the media and any Democratic complaints will never get any media attention.
McCain's preacher endorsers HAVE made hateful comments.
ohn Hagee has called the Catholic Church the "Great 'hore'" and has also equated it with Nazis. He said that the Anti-Christ will rise out of the European Union and will also be Jewish. He said all Muslims are trained to kill. John McCain says he is proud of Hagee's endorsement.
So you're saying one Christian church is attacking another one. You say one is protestant and the other is Roman Catholic. Wow, 500 years ago the RC was burning people alive for not believing and you want me to take a side here? While I may not agree with his comments, at least the ones I've found, I haven't found the same level of crap that Wright said. As to Wright, we've heard several interviews he's done over the last couple of days and he's not helping Barack at all. As to his sermons or messages, they had most of his sermons on line you could order the CD's or down load them. When this hit the fan, that part of the site went dark.
Rod Parsley believes America was founded to destroy Islam and that Islam is an "anti-Christ religion" brought down from a "demon spirit." McCain says that Parsley is "a spiritual guide".
Interesting. Islam seems to be at war with the USA and one of us will have to win. So he's more right than wrong there. As to the demon spirit, that's a good description of a suicide bomber, wouldn't you agree? Strapping bombs to you chest to kill innocent civilians? That's not a nice person, sounds like a demon to me.
I knew when I saw the story title this was going to be a liberal love fest.
I was right.
End of course it is, what else can they do? The way they've managed to screw up their nomination process, what can you say. And this is the party that wants the power. Scary!
If the Republicans put Jesus Christ himself up on the ticket he would get torn apart simply because he had a R behind his name
It's a strange idea, abntv:
Jesus addressing the Republican National Convention; and denouncing the love of money as the root of all evil, and condemning those that love to pray in the open for show; commanding everyone to no longer return evil for evil;
saying to the Bush's base: "give all that you have to the poor, then come, follow me".
Ok, at that point I see him being torn to pieces; but the dems are just holding the coats.
Jesus also supported marriage between a man and a woman. He wasn't liberal. If you hurt a child he recommended the millstone and jumping into a well as being better punishment then what faced you on judgment day. Suicide was forbidden by Jewish Law. I suspect he'd have something to say to the Pro-Death, I mean pro-choice crowd at the DNC.
As to giving everything up, you're missing the bigger picture preached by Christ. He made it clear those who followed him would have to sacrifice everything to follow him. But to those who believed but didn't actually drop everything and follow had a place too. You had your shepherds and you sheep. All have a place according to Christ. I hope I didn't go too preachy but this is how I see things.
If you want to turn a scripture on its head, draw a bigger picture around it. Don't we all know that trick?
Jesus forbade divorce. Those who divorced and remarried were adulterers. McCain, Rush, Newt, and Reagan excepted, of course.
Jesus called money unclean, he said love of it was the root of all evil, he said it was impossible for a rich man to be saved.
But strangely, this does not prevent churches from preaching that God wants them to be wealthy today.
He forbade violence, and revenge and retribution. These are modern conservative values.
And hey, last, for the record, if you hurt a child, I also recommend the millstone-around-your-neck method of correction. You can draw a bigger picture of that as you plunge downwards.
I would agree divorce is a bad thing and should be avoided however the bible, the old Testament did show reasons for divorce. As to Christ forbidding it, you're getting your testaments mixed up. The Scripture that commands us not to pull apart "what God has put together" deals with "what GOD has put together!" If God did not put the marriage together, we shouldn't be in it in the first place. If we are in such a marriage, we can get out.
As to some of your other comments, I won't disagree on money or power for that matter, being a root to evil. But used properly they can be the roots of great joy when used for good. As to your last comments, I was speaking of abortion directly. The pro-choice crowd likes the term choice when in the end it usually means the death of the fetus. That would be Pro-Death. But as liberals, it's difficult to sell death so choice it is.
Wow and all over Cindy's refusal to share her financials.
Nuh uhh.
You know the text as well as I do.
Jesus said:
"Moses allowed divorce, because of the hardness of your hearts. However, in the beginning, it was not so; what God has brought together, let no man put apart.
Anyone who divorces their spouse and takes another, except it be for adultery, commits adultery; and caused another to commit adultery."
His words are exact and clear; and your interpretation is exactly meant to unclear it.
Not to get on anyone's case; most of my friends are divorced.
But my point is what I said before; that if Jesus were to appear at a political convention, he would say hard things; and those who consider they have God in their pocket, would be outraged by his words.
Jesus also was NOT judgmental of sinners and he DID associate with them and was drawn TO them. He did NOT shun or berate "sinners".
In fact, it was the Pharisees that criticized Jesus BECAUSE he associated with "sinners".
Jesus would have the same thing to say to the lovers of money or the pro-choice or the adulterers or the divorcers or the child molesters -- if he sees them as "sinners" he would tell them that they should seek forgiveness from God and he would tell the other people around him that are "holier than thou" to either cast the first stone or move along.
Lest you forget, the ONLY people Jesus criticized and lamented were the Pharisees, the RELIGIOUS LEADERS of his day.
You said it yourself - ALL have a place according to Christ that follow him. Your judgmental opinion of pro-choice people or of people who commit suicide or of gays is the type of judgment that Jesus criticized the Pharisees for.
That depends upon how you look at things. He will judge us in the end. As to associating with sinners, you have to read more into that. In that time period, by simply talking to them was considered sinful by the Old Testament. You wouldn't think of eating with them much less anything else. In the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus says, "Don't judge lest you be judged yourselves," he also says, "Beware of false prophets. They have the appearance of harmless sheep when all the while they are fierce wolves eager to eat you alive." Isn't it obvious, now, that a judgment has to be made here? Doesn't Jesus himself insist that we make a judgment of some sort? How else are we to distinguish between defenseless sheep and marauding wolf? How else survive?
Immediately after warning us disciples about dust-speck and pine tree and how we mustn't be blind to our own depravity, Jesus adds, "Don't give what is holy to the dogs; and don't throw pearls before pigs â;; because pigs and dogs (he's speaking here of humans) don't appreciate the value of what you put in front of them. They will only turn on you and devour you." Plainly Jesus is telling us that either we exercise judgment here or else we invite victimization.
Yes ... intellectual and spiritual judgment. That is NOT the same thing as "passing judgment" on who is the sinner.
Jesus wants us to continue to be able to KNOW what is right and what is wrong, what is of God and what is not.
But, standing in the place of Jesus or God by pronouncing condemnation or by shunning or ostracizing the "sinners" is the OPPOSITE of what Jesus taught.
Re-read the parables of the woman caught in adultery and the rich young ruler.
Yes, Jesus will judge us in the end. But he did not give us the right to judge other LIKE HE WILL judge.
He didn't say to be ignorant of sin - he said, and the other New Testament books say - to love the sinner, be good to your enemies.
"The truth shall set you free". He said to be careful to know the truth, but he didn't say to destroy or hunt down or berate those "false prophets".
Make an intellectual and a SPIRITUAL judgment, but don't look down on others and consider yourself superior because you know better. Reach out to those people instead of condemning them.
Your 'point' about the Pharisees and the Old Testament is EXACTLY what Jesus was pointing out. He brought a new understanding of God and of how to treat our fellow man. The Pharisees were so ingrained in their legalistic traditions, and they were so into their own self-righteousness, that they totally missed it.
If the Republicans put Jesus Christ himself up on the ticket he would get torn apart simply because he had a R behind his name
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of course the PROBLEM with that is that Jesus Christ would NEVER be willing to support the Platform of the Republican Party.....HATE. Hate toward..... immigrants (legal or otherwise), homosexuals (wasn't Mary Magdalene a prostitute? Didn't he help leper? Didn't he work for the 'worst of the worst'?)
And if Charles Manson ran for President as a Republican the Republican's would vote for him JUST because he had an R behind his name.
Abortion.
The Bible is largely silent on abortion except to say that the death of an unborn child clearly does NOT rise to the level of the death of a born person.
"If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.
"And if any mischief follow, then thou shalt give life for life, Eye for eye, tooth for tooth . . ."--Ex. 21:22-25
Jesus wouldn't support the Democrat platform either because they kill babies.
I never SUGGESTED that he WOULD support the Democratic platform.
I just find it SOOOO ironic that the Republican seem to feel, act and SUGGEST that they are 'standing for GOD's work' when their very position of hate and intolerance COMPLETELY contradicts the LIFE that Jesus lived.
If Republican's ACTUALLY answered the question "What would Jesus do?" their WHOLE platform would be reduced to dust.
The pro-lifers are JUST that and NO more.
Once the baby pops out of the womb, they could care LESS if it survives.
The Republicans' version of "less government" is no health insurance for children, no food or housing assistance for children, no adequate protection from child abuse and molestation and murder, and no decent education.
After all, gotta spend all that money on WAR - can't afford to spend it on the LIVING children and adults in THIS country.
Then you clearly don't understand the GOP. Most don't like McCain. Why do you think he's spending so much time trying to kiss up to the conservative base? Without them, he's done. I think you're getting the GOP mixed up with the DNC. Public school right? They tend to vote straight ticket, at least in Wisconsin. No clue what the issues are, as long as there's a "D" by the name that's all that matters.
Actually, McCain's only chance was to remain the centrist 'Maverick' who might have soaked up the potentially embittered Democrats who's nominee didn't make it.
As it is, he's flip-flopped his positions more and more in alignment with the Bush administration and sought out the endorsement of the Religious Right who are increasingly out of step with mainstream religion.
When Hillary(D) considered herself 'anointed' as the Dem nominee, I seriously considered McCain(R). But then he flipped on abortion, tax cuts for the wealthy, campaign finance reform, torture, ethanol, and on and on and on...
McCain has a very good chance of winning this election without the traditional GOP base. He's going to pull a lot of the Reagan Democrats into his camp. The longer Obama fails to really explain himself the easier it will be to win. I was in Wisconsin when he visited last year. For all of the words he used, he said nothing of substance. His message is still the same. Add to that the gaffs of his wife and his church, the easier a target he's making for himself. The worst thing the DNC can do is make this a black/white thing and that's just what Michelle did last month or so.
McCain, the more I research him, the more I'm liking him. He's more a conservative than a maverick. But if that's what you need to do to get the press attention, so be it.
Obama hasn't even begun to address McCain the way he can - the way any two year old can. If McCain decides to get down and dirty with Obama, the kid has all the ammo he needs to bury the old coot.
People who change positions on key issues like they change their clothes obviously have no shortage of cover-up items. Principles? There comes a point where "extreme flexibilty" is just pure pretzel logic. McCain conjures images of neo-con auto****** and a naked emperor. I'm not even sure if that's his own dick. Looks like a loaner from GW or the Rev. Moon to me.
Vote your conscience! LOL!
I don't really care about how much she has or pays. I don't really care about that for all the candidates. They are all pretty much crooked in one way or another. A good CPA tax man can make all kind of things work for you. These people have the money for some of the best.
What makes you think you are even looking at a true picture of their income or dealings?
My real question is who are they in bed with financially and who stands to profit the most from their election? We all know who will suffer the most.
I agree Cowboygrandpa. The Dem Rep issues, double standards re. Obama or Heinz are another issue entirely. The only issue under debate, in my opinion, should be if the spouse of the candidate should be( out of some type of public"duty" as some have suggested) or is legally required to publicly disclose their tax returns.
Cindy doesn't pay taxes
With that kind of income and a good tax attorney
She is probably on the receiving end of federal funds.
(Yours and My tax dollars)
Thanks Ronny Raygun and the Bushes.
So why would She (or John) want that info public.
And I'm hear risking my butt to defend your right to free speech....
How does President Reagan's name get dragged into this one. Tax cuts? I think we've seen they do help the economy. If that's your point, okay, I guess. The reason you don't give the tax cut to the poor most people under $30K don't pay much in taxes. Then again, how much do you make answering those surveys from your mommy's basement?
I'm certain there isn't a double standard now, is there? (sarcasm off)
I thought that the screeching that went on about Teresa Heinz Kerry releasing her returns was ridiculous
It's her money and she was NOT running for office
I feel the same way about Cindy McCain
I wonder how many demanding that Cindy McCain release her returns were also calling for Teresa Heinz Kerry to release hers????
Democrats Barack Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton filed joint tax returns with their spouses. THEY FILED JOINTLY, THEY ARE THE CANIDATE . the IRS saw her tax return she is not the canidate so she is not obligated to give anyone finacial statements . it would just give Mcains oponents something else to complain about ,so stop whining . I like to see bill clinton order his wife what to do . or barack for that matter both women are strong and independent . so Mcain married a ritch ,indepenent, beuteyfull blond now thats a offence worth punishment
Not a member? Sign-up today!
478)
That sermon where the "damn" quote was taken from was not a sermon full of hate. That quote was taken out of context. Wright was talking about the sins of the American government, and there have been plenty of them.
But I am sure you didn't read or listen to all of the sermon.
And it is not necessarily a surprise that you have "never heard a minister 'attack' or make a comment like God D--n America", as I would expect that it doesn't happen very often.
But that doesn't mean that other preachers are perfect while Wright is not.
And your attempt at sarcasm about who's comments I could find 'good' in is lame ...