# Obama leaves Trinity church



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

One wonders what took so long.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

First his grandmother, now he throws his church under the bus.

At least we know he's serious about high-tailing it from Iraq, if it becomes politically inconvenient to stay, anyway.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Speaking of Iraq, May seems to have been the safest month for our troops there since the invasion.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

What bothers me about his announcement was his saying that he can't be a member of that Church while he is a candidate for President. Does that mean he would continue to be a member if he wasn't a candidate? If so, that tells me that he doesn't really disagree with them as much as he is simply doing what is politically expediant.

Actually what is most disturbing to me about all of this is the way the members of the Church were cheering and applauding while both Wright and the Priest were spewing their hatred. I suspect that the members of my Church overwhelmingly support McCain, but I don't think they would ever stand and cheer someone ridiculing either Obama or Clinton like I saw being done in that Church. There is such a thing as common decency, or at least I thought there was.

Cruiser


----------



## Beresford (Mar 30, 2006)

Cruiser said:


> Actually what is most disturbing to me about all of this is the way the members of the Church were cheering and applauding while both Wright and the Priest were spewing their hatred. I suspect that the members of my Church overwhelmingly support McCain, but I don't think they would ever stand and cheer someone ridiculing either Obama or Clinton like I saw being done in that Church. There is such a thing as common decency, or at least I thought there was.
> 
> Cruiser


Hopefully another complaint will be filed with the IRS to strip this "church" of its tax exempt status.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Does it bother anyone else that the government uses taxes to control what people can and can't say in church?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Pedantic Turkey " Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's. Render unto God that which is God's." It is one thing for a polish Cardinal elected Pope to help end communism.It is another to interject one's self in a democratic process with such uncharitable and un christian behavior.This priest's 'performance' belongs properly on the Christian Broadcasting Network with a 'Goths for Jesus' band as backup.


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

So your justification for imposing speech restrictions on churches is _your_ interpretation of scripture.

Ironic. Scary.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> One wonders what took so long.


You are so right. After sitting there in that church listening to that guy Pfleger speak week after week after week.

Oh, wait a minute . . .

Never mind.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

It would be a nice change if a viable presidential candidate didn't have to go into any church in the first place, then leaving one wouldn't be an issue.

Cordially,
Adrian Quay


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Well, if you believe him (and, let's face it, anything Obama says about himself is highly suspect), this church is where Obama found God 20-something years ago. Right around the time he entered politics.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

"Do thy praying quietly, and in private." We could be very eucumenical and invoke buddhism too " If you meet the Buddha in the road, kill him." Roman Catholic priests, nuns and monks have long been on the for front of political activism in South America and Africa and the world at large. They have been beaten,tortured, raped and murdered. Compared to those true christians and martyrs this priest is a walking clusterpuck and should retire to a desert monastery in 29 Palms California, where someday a greying, retired Obama can visit him and reminisce about what went wrong.


----------



## Laxplayer (Apr 26, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Does it bother anyone else that the government uses taxes to control what people can and can't say in church?





PedanticTurkey said:


> So your justification for imposing speech restrictions on churches is _your_ interpretation of scripture.
> 
> Ironic. Scary.


I agree with you. Separation of church and state works both ways.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

Kav said:


> ... with a 'Goths for Jesus' band as backup.


Take heed! You may be infringing on a current ministry:

https://www.gothsforjesus.com/


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

Kav said:


> "Do thy praying quietly, and in private." We could be very eucumenical and invoke buddhism too " If you meet the Buddha in the road, kill him." Roman Catholic priests, nuns and monks have long been on the for front of political activism in South America and Africa and the world at large. They have been beaten,tortured, raped and murdered. Compared to those true christians and martyrs this priest is a walking clusterpuck and should retire to a desert monastery in 29 Palms California, where someday a greying, retired Obama can visit him and reminisce about what went wrong.


What about Islam, which commands its followers to control the government?


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

This argument of 'freedom of speech' reminds me of several cause celeb in the art world. And not a few people were quoted as saying they knew art when they saw it and filth when they saw that. I attended a art exhibit in L.A. many years ago of the works banned and destroyed by the Nazis. There was a lifesized photograph of a very outre wooden crucifix. It so outraged the locals it was chopped up and thrown in a bog. It was 'different' to be sure but I saw not a few nuns bow and cross themselves before it.They 'got it.' And a few years ago I ( reluctantly) went to the annual Halloween parade locally. The young arteest type, platinum blonde I was with thought the near naked lesbian crucified on the float with leather gay boy centurians whipping her was the greatest advancement in social commentary since sliced bread. I thought it was so predicatably contrived I let out a yawn. One can carefully push a wood chisel down a piece of german oak or one can scream and act like an idiot. We do have the freedom to do both. Just don't get upset when people respond to idiots as idiots.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

What about islam? Well, nothing much really. The simple, inescapable fact is those of us embracing 'Western Civilisation' do so, regardless of personal religosity on a base of greek philosophy and christianity, arguments over marble artwork on public property withstanding. Islam, though once the paramount and ascendant force in human affairs has been in a long , painfull eclipse with many angry at the status quo and expressing it via a Kalashnikov, a instrument of the Rus. Until islamic numbers command an Obama to speak Pashtu or arabic, as he recently spoke spanish, the name of the game is Christianity baby. And again, I argue this priest apparently supports the adage "teachers graduate their mistakes" be they Universities or seminaries.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> You are so right. After sitting there in that church listening to that guy Pfleger speak week after week after week.
> 
> Oh, wait a minute . . .
> 
> Never mind.


Oh come on ... the Pfleger deal is so obviously a set up.

I can't believe people are falling this.

He cuts ties with the Church over a 'crazy white guy'? Brilliant if not transparent.

Talk about trying to have your cake and eat it too. Obama is a tool.


----------



## Bog (May 13, 2007)

Although it is kind of cheeky of him to say he's leaving just because he is a candidate, at least he's being honest he's doing so for appearances only.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> You are so right. After sitting there in that church listening to that guy Pfleger speak week after week after week.
> 
> Oh, wait a minute . . .
> 
> Never mind.


Jack, 
Your point is well taken however given the speech by Pfleger one has to wonder just how "rare" such comments are there. Obviously this "church" is somewhere where people feel very comfortable speaking like this and the people in attendance feel comfortable listening.

One thing to note however: Notice the reaction from the Catholic community as soon as it was aired. He was immediately taken to task by Cardinal George and other Catholic lay organizations, some even calling for him to be defrocked. Self policing rather than a knee jerk reaction and a circling of the wagons is one mark of a mature and true faith.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Bogdanoff said:


> Although it is kind of cheeky of him to say he's leaving just because he is a candidate, at least he's being honest he's doing so for appearances only.


That's what I thought as well. He didn't exactly say it is because he was appalled and offended. It was because he was a candidate and did not want to bother with the inconvenience. This guy is a light weight. If the Dems had any brains they would toss him overboard, nominate HRC, deal with the consequences and at least have a fighting chance. After all, they have been taking the black vote for granted for 40 years so why stop now.


----------



## Asterix (Jun 7, 2005)

The democrats will be experiencing buyer's remorse in the next few months. :icon_smile_big:


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

pt4u67 said:


> given the speech by Pfleger one has to wonder just how "rare" such comments are there. Obviously this "church" is somewhere where people feel very comfortable speaking like this and the people in attendance feel comfortable listening.


As I said previously, I am less bothered by the fact that Pfleger was saying what he was saying as that can be written off as just one more nut case. I am more concerned by the cheering and applauding of his words by the congregation.

Cruiser


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Obama had to ask his Wife! LOL :icon_smile_big:


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Does it bother anyone else that the government uses taxes to control what people can and can't say in church?


It bothers me more that a church official can spew racial hatred, while being applauded and cheered on by the congregation, and all in the name of religion. Isn't radical religious extremism the precedent for our present involvement in the war on terror(!)? I say, tax the sh*t out of those douche-bags and defrock that 'runaway' priest, Father(?) Pfleger. Now, if you will excuse me, I've got to drop off here to go to church!


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Does it bother anyone else that the government uses taxes to control what people can and can't say in church?


What bothers me is that the government has decided to give preferential treatment to churches so that they don't have to pay taxes on their vast income and property holdings, while other organizations and individuals do.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

What bothers me is how much Obama will get for an American Express commercial after losing to McCain.


----------



## Relayer (Nov 9, 2005)

What is most significant to me is that these nut jobs keep coming out of the woodwork and turn out to be not just supporters, but longtime friends of Obama.

Wright - Pfleger - Meeks 

Obama's "spiritual mentors/advisors' are really something.


----------



## Wayfarer (Mar 19, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> What bothers me is that the government has decided to give preferential treatment to churches so that they don't have to pay taxes on their vast income and property holdings, while other organizations and individuals do.


So are you against all 501(C)3 type organizations or just those with a religious component?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

jackmccullough said:


> What bothers me is that the government has decided to give preferential treatment to churches so that they don't have to pay taxes on their vast income and property holdings, while other organizations and individuals do.


I don't have a problem with a church, any church be it Catholic or otherwise, being tax exempt just like a University or NFP hospital. I do think however that when these organizations cross the line as Trinity obviously has on numerous occasions, the government should reconsider their tax exempt status. I can tell you this much, I have never seen such a concentration of "churches" as I have on the south side of Chicago. Many of these so called pastors are making quite a comfortable living.


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> What bothers me is that the government has decided to give preferential treatment to churches so that they don't have to pay taxes on their vast income and property holdings, while other organizations and individuals do.


You come across as though you think you are really intelligent but when you make statements, as above, you really show how much you don't know. All that wealth you talk about how much really goes to charity? But, like anything there are crooks in everything from churches to cops to judges to professors to proscuters to mayors, and the list goes on and on. Instead of pursuing crooks you demonize whole organizations, which means you are a failure as much as you falsely accuse the church.

Enjoy yourself.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

WA said:


> You come across as though you think you are really intelligent but when you make statements, as above, you really show how much you don't know. All that wealth you talk about how much really goes to charity? But, like anything there are crooks in everything from churches to cops to judges to professors to proscuters to mayors, and the list goes on and on. Instead of pursuing crooks you demonize whole organizations, which means you are a failure as much as you falsely accuse the church.
> 
> Enjoy yourself.


Reread my post. I didn't say anything about what the churches do with the money they raise.

Let's say you give $100 to your church because you think they will use it to make the world a better place, and I give $100 to my political party because I think they will use it to make the world a better place; you get to deduct your $100 contribution from income when you file your taxes next year, and I do not.

Let's say your church owns a building in which it conducts its business, and my political party owns a building worth the same amount in which it conducts its business. Your church doesn't pay property taxes on its building, while my political party does.

Do you see the difference? Can you understand that this demonstrates that your church is receiving preferential treatment from the government?


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

PedanticTurkey said:


> Well, if you believe him (and, let's face it, anything Obama says about himself is highly suspect), this church is where Obama found God 20-something years ago. Right around the time he entered politics.


How convenient...

I suppose it doesnt really matter though...the soft brained will continue to believe that he walks on water...after all, he "inspires them"...to do what is anybody's guess...


----------



## PedanticTurkey (Jan 26, 2008)

One that was e-mailed to me a while back:



Heh. Somehow I don't see that guy getting the same support.


----------



## Acct2000 (Sep 24, 2005)

I think the difference between charitable organizations and political parties is probably easier to see (assuming you want to see that.)

For a lot of people, when churches are staying out of the political arena, it is easy to see how a contribution to a church is charitable.

(In the case of politics, it is doubtful that most people really want the world to "be a better place." Most politics is motivated by personal cynicism. Ideally, at least, churches are not supposed to be outlets for that sort of thing. People, unfortunately misuse churches, at least sometimes.)


----------



## Leather man (Mar 11, 2007)

Churches are charities , political parties are not. End of. You might not like Churches having charity status but then what other charities will you "defrock" of such favoured status? People who tend to have a passionate campaign against one organisation usually don't know where to stop. 

I saw a tape of Obama's minister and what he said was shocking. However do we know what he says Sunday by Sunday? Maybe it is spiritually edifying? Certainly I think Obama should have distanced himself sooner but I think it could feel like betrayal to a man who was led to the Lord by that man and his church - it has been his spiritual family for a long time. Let's cut Obama some slack on this one - he has cut the ties now, even if it has been too long in coming.

Free speech is a difficult one. Often those who promote it loudest demand the silencing of people they regard as extremists. I think we deny free speech at our peril. On the other hand a society can never have totally free speech - hence anti hatred laws. Nothing in life is ever that simple!


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Forsberg, Leatherman, 

Thanks for posting thoughtful replies.

I can easily see the distinction between a charitable endeavor and a political party. I can also easily see the distinction between a charitable endeavor and a church. While it is true that some, possibly most, churches devote some of their activites to helping those in need, they don't need to do so to qualify for a tax exemption. Even if all the members of the church did was to get together on Sunday, talk to each other about their religious beliefs, pray, enjoy the fellowship of the other parishioners, and otherwise do things that benefit themselves and nobody else, that church would be a tax exempt organization.


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

The Gabba Goul said:


> How convenient...
> 
> I suppose it doesnt really matter though...the soft brained will continue to believe that he walks on water...after all, he "inspires them"...to do what is anybody's guess...


So if somebody believes that somebody else is able to walk on water they are "soft brained"?

Hmmm. . .


----------



## The Gabba Goul (Feb 11, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> So if somebody believes that somebody else is able to walk on water they are "soft brained"?
> 
> Hmmm. . .


you can intentionally misunderstand me all you want...you know exactly what I meant...


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

It's my personal view *after long experience and observation *that the Church in and of themselves should be taxed and church programs such as a rehabilitation and halfway houses, organizing and administering food and clothing programs, prison ministries, etc. should be separate entities from the church itself and tax-exempt just like non-faith-based charities and foundations if they can meet the same standards.

I find no basis for which proselytizing should be a tax-exempt enterprise. I've worked on major charities and foundations since I was five years old because of my Father's various positions. I've seen more idiot preachers driving Cadillacs and dating strippers on the tithes of the church than I care to recall. Jesus said giveth unto Caesar and I see no Biblical basis for special treatment. Jesus didn't ask to be treated special under the Law and he despised the Pharisees. When a group is treated as though they are above both Man's Laws and God's Laws the level of immorality and corruption is unmentionable. I've seen it all and it makes me sick.

The IRS is the most intimidating agency in the world and churches don't fear them one bit. The average foundation is petrified of losing their status or committing a single error of any kind.

When fiduciary responsibility is a stronger motivation than the fear of God, we have a problem. We (believers and non-believers alike) should recognize it and adjust accordingly.

If someone is truly doing "good works" it's not that hard to "document." In addition, the extra management pays dividends and the good people are thrilled to have extra budget to provide more services to more people.

JMO. ICBW, BIN. 

I'm also frankly amazed that somehow people in America (many of them supposedly educated and experienced businesspeople) have come to believe that removing the "profit motive" from whole industries is a smart move. Our entire way of life is based solely on the accountability to lenders and stockholders. We "freak out" over an Enron which threatens it, but we collectively take a group of people and turn them completely lose because they supposedly Fear God and we can "trust" them. When are we going to smarten-up and realize there is a reason so many hustlers are attracted to ministries and not something like insurance?

I'll get off my soapbox now ...


----------



## Xhine23 (Jan 17, 2008)

Cruiser said:


> As I said previously, I am less bothered by the fact that Pfleger was saying what he was saying as that can be written off as just one more nut case. I am more concerned by the cheering and applauding of his words by the congregation.
> 
> Cruiser


Christians are supposed to forgive each other.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Leather man said:


> Churches are charities


No, they are not.

The Church means "the called out." Churches are now known as the buildings "the called out" meet in. At the time of the Apostle Paul, "the called out" met in homes, in small groups, and "dialogued" with each other.

~300 years later, Constantine institutionalized the Church after the Battle of Milvian bridge. This consisted of him authorizing Christians to have full-time, professional, paid priests, administer the buildings he gave them, and give speeches (sermons) like the pagan sun-worshippers. He wanted to raise up Christians to the level of the pagans. Specifically, he legislated Christians to meet in the Churches on Sunday, so that *HE COULD TAX THEM*.

It was after the Council of Nicaea, that Constantine exempted those priests from the taxes that agreed to enforce the _Creed of Nicaea._

Charity never had anything to do with it. Nor does it today. Churches are not required to perform charity to maintain tax-exempt status.

If you look at the IRS code Churches are carried in a separate group from Charities under Other 503(c) Organizations.



> An organization may qualify for exemption from federal income tax if it is organized and operated exclusively for one or more of the following purposes.
> *Charitable.Religious.*Educational.Scientific.Literary.Testing for public safety.Fostering national or international amateur sports competition (but only if none of its activities involve providing athletic facilities or equipment; however, see _Amateur Athletic Organizations, _later in this chapter). The prevention of cruelty to children or animals.
> 
> To qualify, the organization must be a corporation, community chest, fund, or foundation. A trust is a fund or foundation and will qualify. However, an individual or a partnership will not qualify.





> *Churches.* Although a church, its integrated auxiliaries, or a convention or association of churches is not required to file Form 1023 to be exempt from federal income tax or to receive tax deductible contributions, the organization may find it advantageous to obtain recognition of exemption. In this event, you should submit information showing that your organization is a church, synagogue, association or convention of churches, religious order, or religious organization that is an integral part of a church, and that it is engaged in carrying out the function of a church.


The confusion comes from the fact that donations to a church are considered "charitable contributions", but churches are not charities.



> Charities, Churches and Politics
> 
> Contributions
> 
> Contributions to domestic organizations described in this chapter, except organizations testing for public safety, are deductible as charitable contributions on the donor's federal income tax return.


----------



## Xhine23 (Jan 17, 2008)

jackmccullough said:


> Reread my post. I didn't say anything about what the churches do with the money they raise.
> 
> Let's say you give $100 to your church because you think they will use it to make the world a better place, and I give $100 to my political party because I think they will use it to make the world a better place; you get to deduct your $100 contribution from income when you file your taxes next year, and I do not.
> 
> ...


Just mention one political party that does charity work comparable to churches


----------



## jackmccullough (May 10, 2006)

Xhine23 said:


> Just mention one political party that does charity work comparable to churches


I'll refer you to ksinc's post, immediately above. As he points out, churches are not required to do anything charitable to qualify for the tax exemption.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

FWIW the _Hell's Angels_ motorcycle club also does a lot of charity. :devil:


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

ksinc said:


> It's my personal view *after long experience and observation *that the Church in and of themselves should be taxed and Church programs such as a rehabilitation and halfway houses...


What percentage do you think is not worth the tax exemption? You make it sound like every Church is corrupt. There certainly needs to be some accountablity of some sort.

My dad, a preachers kid. He says being a preacher is not easy. Meeting peoples needs 24hrs. a day, like getting up at 1am, and sometimes, driving an hour or two one way, because of and auto accident or house fire, etc. Sorting out those in need from charlatans. Shrinks cost lots of money, whereas, preachers are free when people need counseling. Many non-Church go'ers use preachers and Churches when have variouse needs too- Church is not just a club for those who belong to it.

When I look at the Red Cross and see the person in charge is being paid over $200,000, it gits charity status. The person can easily drive a cad with that wage! I think that kind of pay is way to much for charity work. Many charities have over priced wages, nowadays.

This community has used charity, instead of tax, for many uses. Boys and Girls homes around here are paid for by Church charities and for decades with no tax money. Some prisoners have spent their "prison" time at a mens home run by Church base Charites, instead of behind bars paid by taxes. The use of Church Charities goes on and on. No doubt there are charlatan preachers and on the boards and elder, etc.- these thieves need to be cleaned out and placed behind bars-not tax Churches. Taxing Churches is ill-responsible and running away from responsibility by hurting those that are responsible instead of hurting those that choose not to be responsible. Punishing the wrong people is just simply wrong!


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

ksinc said:


> The Church means "the called out." Churches are now known as the buildings "the called out" meet in. At the time of the Apostle Paul, "the called out" met in homes, in small groups, and "dialogued" with each other.


So you expected the early Church to build Church buildings so the Roman Gov. could grab Christians for easy lion feed?

Church buildings are the easiest way to help Churchs do their job as God clearly showed with the Temple and Synagogues. You seem to missunderstand why history is the way it is.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

A hermit, living alone in a desert cave has the capacity to do physical, psychological and spiritual harm to himself. Get two hermits together and the same pitfall waits. Anything over three and the ancestors of Hagee,Olsteen, Guru Ma and Bagwan Sri Rashneesh show up. The trick is to find the monk living a spiritual life and give him, through God a loaf of bread. The monk jerking off next door or demanding two loafs should be avoided.


----------



## Cruiser (Jul 21, 2006)

Xhine23 said:


> Christians are supposed to forgive each other.


I'm unclear as to how this statement relates to what I said. The fact that I find the actions of a person or group of people disturbing has nothing to do with whether I forgive them or not.

Besides, in this case I have no standing to offer forgiveness anyway. That can only legitimately come from the person or group who was wronged, which in this case would be Sen. Clinton; although I guess I could say that as a White person I was wronged by the racial implications made by the Father.

But again, the issue of forgiveness has nothing to do with being disturbed by the words of the Priest and the apparent approval of the congregation.

Cruiser


----------



## Apthorpe (Apr 8, 2008)

ksinc said:


> FWIW the _Hell's Angels_ motorcycle club also does a lot of charity. :devil:


I think they could be, and maybe are, tax-exempt. There are a number of purely social organizations that are tax-exempt, even if contributions to those organizations are not tax-deductible. Freemasons for example.

As to organizations with respect to which contributors can deduct their contributions, the list is longer than merely "charitable" organizations. It includes entities organized for purely religious, scientific, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition. This has the two-fold effect of promoting the common good and reducing the tax burden of good citizens. Which seems like a pretty good thing to me, even if it means the occasional crack smoking preacher or foundation CEO gets a good deal.


----------



## Gurdon (Feb 7, 2005)

Quay said:


> It would be a nice change if a viable presidential candidate didn't have to go into any church in the first place, then leaving one wouldn't be an issue.
> 
> Cordially,
> Adrian Quay


Amen!

Regards,
Gurdon


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WA said:


> What percentage do you think is not worth the tax exemption? You make it sound like every Church is corrupt. There certainly needs to be some accountablity of some sort.
> 
> My dad, a preachers kid. He says being a preacher is not easy. Meeting peoples needs 24hrs. a day, like getting up at 1am, and sometimes, driving an hour or two one way, because of and auto accident or house fire, etc. Sorting out those in need from charlatans. Shrinks cost lots of money, whereas, preachers are free when people need counseling. Many non-Church go'ers use preachers and Churches when have variouse needs too- Church is not just a club for those who belong to it.
> 
> ...


No, I did not make it sound like every church was corrupt. I very clearly stated a distinction between proselytizing and charitable works.

The history of the insitutional church is factual record. I'm sorry if it "bursts your bubble" so-to-speak on some level.

If you would read and try to comprehend my post I think you might learn something you can apply to your last paragraph. Perhaps you stopped reading? I dunno, but you have no idea what I said. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and let you go re-collect your thoughts.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WA said:


> So you expected the early Church to build Church buildings so the Roman Gov. could grab Christians for easy lion feed?
> 
> Church buildings are the easiest way to help Churchs do their job as God clearly showed with the Temple and Synagogues. You seem to missunderstand why history is the way it is.


NO! A thousand times NO! The Church is the PEOPLE. The "job" of the church is not best done in a building.

I'm sure you think you're right, but you're wrong. It's historical fact and record in the greek. I won't teach you, but you can learn on your own. You'll learn alot of things that will shake up world if you are sincere and go digging.

Let's make this nice and simple, where did Paul command the church to erect buildings once it was safe from lions?


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc said:


> .... Obama is a tool.


If this is the case who or what is wielding him? Apparently it's not a preacher, pastor or priest.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Quay said:


> If this is the case who or what is wielding him? Apparently it's not a preacher, pastor or priest.
> 
> Cordially,
> A.Q.


Assuming Ksinc is not referring to "tool" in its more modern vernacular (i.e. loser) Obama is a tool to his own pretensions, narcissism and naivety. He doesn't know much but he is too self delusional to understand his short comings. Look past the Oprahesque feel good language and the crowds and what we have is an empty shell. A modern day Elmer Gantry of whom, on a daily basis, we are learning more and more surprising revelations.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> Assuming Ksinc is not referring to "tool" in its more modern vernacular (i.e. loser) Obama is a tool to his own pretensions, narcissism and naivety. He doesn't know much but he is too self delusional to understand his short comings. Look past the Oprahesque feel good language and the crowds and what we have is an empty shell. A modern day Elmer Gantry of whom, on a daily basis, we are learning more and more surprising revelations.


Oh how funny! Nearly the exact same things were said about another politician years ago, Ronald Reagan.

_"Reagan is a fool of his own concrete pretensions, self-congratulatory adulation and naïveté. He know very little and is also too self-satisfied by his own charm to understand where he might be wrong. If you look past the "morning in America" feel-good-ism he and his supporters spout and the cheering, glazed-eyed crowds, all you have is an unoccupied suit. A modern day Elmer Gantry whose real, off-camera life is full of frightening revelations."_

I love it when it's as Shirley Bassey sings, "all just little bits of history repeating."

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

pt4u67 said:


> Assuming Ksinc is not referring to "tool" in its more modern vernacular (i.e. loser) Obama is a tool to his own pretensions, narcissism and naivety. He doesn't know much but he is too self delusional to understand his short comings. Look past the Oprahesque feel good language and the crowds and what we have is an empty shell. A modern day Elmer Gantry of whom, on a daily basis, we are learning more and more surprising revelations.


I do also think he is a tool as in loser. I realize that's just personal, but I find him to be a complete goof; worse than Bush even.

As to Quay's context, I would say Obama is a tool and is being used by the radical left as a non-threatening personality/spokesperson to enable a subversive power grab. Something like a makeover. The same theories and policies with a new face.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> Oh how funny! Nearly the exact same things were said about another politician years ago, Ronald Reagan.
> 
> _"Reagan is a fool of his own concrete pretensions, self-congratulatory adulation and naïveté. He know very little and is also too self-satisfied by his own charm to understand where he might be wrong. If you look past the "morning in America" feel-good-ism he and his supporters spout and the cheering, glazed-eyed crowds, all you have is an unoccupied suit. A modern day Elmer Gantry whose real, off-camera life is full of frightening revelations."_
> 
> ...


Shouldn't you tell us who said that? Attribute the quotation?


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Quay, 
Then roll the dice and vote for Obama. I don't really care for what words are used to describe politicians. For the record I had never seen or heard that quote so the similarity is due entirely to serendipity.

There is one reason why the remark about Reagan can be discounted and mine about Obama may carry some credence: Reagan had a track record of public service including being Gov. of California and years of writings and actions which were public record. Obama has virtually none.

We do know however that he felt very comfortable for 20 years in the presence of a man who is blatantly anti-American, cozied up to a known terrorist for political gain. With regard to the most pressing issue of our generation (terrorism, war) he is quite incoherent:

_"Let me be clear: There is no military solution in Iraq. There never was," he said. "'The best way to protect our security and to pressure Iraq's leaders to resolve their civil war is to immediately begin to remove our combat troops. Not in six months or one year - now." - _Obama (Sept. 2007)

_"We can't totally disengage from Iraq any more than we can disengage with any other part of the world. And we've got both strategic interests and humanitarian interests in the region, but what my plan calls for would continue to involve US troops protecting a US embassy and US personnel there, and US troops who are able to strike at terrorist targets inside Iraq, although the troops themselves and the strike forces might not have to be deployed inside Iraq."_ - Obama (Sept. 2007)


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

I edited a couple of posts to WA. I was a little loopy and grouchy as I just came back from the dentist. I hope these are clearer and less "overtly blunt."


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

pt4u67,
You might be surprised at my preferences in the upcoming election. :icon_smile: My files containing the Reagan quote aren't in very good shape but I believe it came from _The Nation_ many years ago. I left that out somehow. I do not accuse you of even having ever read a single copy of that magazine.  Serendipity sounds good to me.

The quotes you cite from Obama aren't incoherent per se, they're the hairsplitting talk one sees quite often from those with legal training. Closely examined, they have a coherence but not one that might lead a reasoning person to believe the speaker really believes what he is saying.

And anyone running for office that plays with the definition of "combat troops" much less their planned deployment deserves a great deal of scrutiny.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> pt4u67,
> You might be surprised at my preferences in the upcoming election. :icon_smile: My files containing the Reagan quote aren't in very good shape but I believe it came from _The Nation_ many years ago. I left that out somehow. I do not accuse you of even having ever read a single copy of that magazine.  Serendipity sounds good to me.
> 
> The quotes you cite from Obama aren't incoherent per se, they're the hairsplitting talk one sees quite often from those with legal training. Closely examined, they have a coherence but not one that might lead a reasoning person to believe the speaker really believes what he is saying.
> ...


I hope you didn't get that quote from the same place that poem about the South came from.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc said:


> ...As to Quay's context, I would say Obama is a tool and is being used by the radical left as a non-threatening personality/spokesperson to enable a subversive power grab. Something like a makeover. The same theories and policies with a new face.


So something like the Kennedy factions & their allies in the US, those with a lot of money and who base their power on left-leaning messages to appeal for support and to voters? People not exactly interested in a real change of agenda from the last eight years but simply a change as to who is in power and using a "new face" to achieve these goals?

Or do you think it's that plus a real desire to radically (in the real sense of that word) change the face and function of federal government?

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc said:


> I hope you didn't get that quote from the same place that poem about the South came from.


No, Florence King or her fans can't be credited with that one. At least I don't think she ever wrote anything for _The Nation_.

You alleged faux-Southerners are a touchy lot. 

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc said:


> NO! A thousand times NO! The Church is the PEOPLE. The "job" of the church is not best done in a building....


Good gracious...I thought this was established beyond reasonable doubt. I'm startled to think folks think otherwise and wonder how it's even possible. The Greek and Latin of "upon this rock..." and all that either refers to people or a truth or both and all that is quite clear in any edition of the Bible I've ever come across.

Then again maybe I missed something. Perhaps the Gnostics had a chapter on real estate that was excluded?

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Apthorpe said:


> I think they could be, and maybe are, tax-exempt. There are a number of purely social organizations that are tax-exempt, even if contributions to those organizations are not tax-deductible. Freemasons for example.
> 
> *As to organizations with respect to which contributors can deduct their contributions, the list is longer than merely "charitable" organizations. It includes entities organized for purely religious, scientific, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition. *This has the two-fold effect of promoting the common good and reducing the tax burden of good citizens. Which seems like a pretty good thing to me, even if it means the occasional crack smoking preacher or foundation CEO gets a good deal.


Yes, that's why they were listed in my quote from the IRS site.

My opinion, is that the exemption should be based on actually performing the good in a measurable way. For reference, I also support things like the FCAT. So, that's just my SOP. IMHO If we are subsidizing something as tax payers we should be getting what we pay for. Tax-exempt status is a benefit. They should have to prove they earn it just like I have to document my own corporate and personal deductions to the IRS.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> No, Florence King or her fans can't be credited with that one. At least I don't think she ever wrote anything for _The Nation_.
> 
> You alleged faux-Southerners are a touchy lot.
> 
> ...


Don't even kid like that, Hollywood. :devil:

I was watching The Ultimate Fighter the other night and some guy put lime juice in one guy's dip. It was interesting to watch the various levels of comprehension of the offense.


----------



## pt4u67 (Apr 27, 2006)

Quay said:


> The quotes you cite from Obama aren't incoherent per se, they're the hairsplitting talk one sees quite often from those with legal training. Closely examined, they have a coherence but not one that might lead a reasoning person to believe the speaker really believes what he is saying.
> 
> And anyone running for office that plays with the definition of "combat troops" much less their planned deployment deserves a great deal of scrutiny.


Hairsplitting and playing with definitions are not something we need right now, at least with the task at hand. That's for things like farm/highway bills and other nonsense. We need lucid and thoughtful policy. We are not in this in a vacuum. Many nations are watching. Unfortunately in the Hobbesian jungle that is the middle east vacillation=weakness. The Arabs don't respect wimps! TE Lawrence won the respect of the Arabs because he could lead in battle, not because he knew how to talk to the Turks.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Don't even kid like that, Hollywood. :devil:
> 
> I was watching The Ultimate Fighter the other night and some guy put lime juice in one guy's dip. It was interesting to watch the various levels of comprehension of the offense.


"Dip" must be referring to a person or part of a person in attendance then? Lime juice must chafe even the most hardened skin. :icon_smile_big:

But I shall try my best to refrain from kidding you lest you start calling me something worse than "Hollywood." What that would be I can't imagine but theoretically it must exist.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

pt4u67 said:


> Hairsplitting and playing with definitions are not something we need right now, at least with the task at hand. That's for things like farm/highway bills and other nonsense. We need lucid and thoughtful policy. We are not in this in a vacuum. Many nations are watching. Unfortunately in the Hobbesian jungle that is the middle east vacillation=weakness. The Arabs don't respect wimps! TE Lawrence won the respect of the Arabs because he could lead in battle, not because he knew how to talk to the Turks.


Well said, sir. I especially appreciate the Lawrence reference which would make a dandy media campaign assuming enough folks remember that vivid account and history.

Although living in the Freeway State I'm not so sure we need the highway bills played with very much. As someone said a while back Californians take their cars as seriously as Texans take their guns.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> Good gracious...I thought this was established beyond reasonable doubt. I'm startled to think folks think otherwise and wonder how it's even possible. The Greek and Latin of "upon this rock..." and all that either refers to people or a truth or both and all that is quite clear in any edition of the Bible I've ever come across.
> 
> Then again maybe I missed something. Perhaps the Gnostics had a chapter on real estate that was excluded?
> 
> ...


Not only is it clearly ecclesia (the gathering of the called out), but the greek words used in the new testament translate as to dialogue and to hold discussions in order to teach. They are not the words for monologues. They are erroneously translated as "preaching."

Can you have a discussion, a dialogue with several thousand people in an auditorium? Can you minister one to another? No, you cannot.

You can however stand at a pulpit and berate the sheep for an hour and then take a collection. Buildings are great for that purpose. Highly efficient.


----------



## Apthorpe (Apr 8, 2008)

ksinc said:


> My opinion, is that the exemption should be based on actually performing the good in a measurable way.


While that's an opinion, it's not the law. The policy underlying the exemption is probably more along the lines of not taxing entities that are not engaged in profit seeking.

Organizations to which you can deduct contributions are a much narrow class, and represent entities that traditionally were considered to do good in a measurable (or at least self evident) way. Which of course includes religious organizations.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Apthorpe said:


> While that's an opinion, it's not the law. The policy underlying the exemption is probably more along the lines of not taxing entities that are not engaged in profit seeking.
> 
> Organizations to which you can deduct contributions are a much narrow class, and represent entities that traditionally were considered to do good in a measurable (or at least self evident) way. Which of course includes religious organizations.


Yes. That's why I said "should." The current law is moot to me. I think we should change the law to something that makes sense and is practical.

My problem is more along the lines of say Catholic priests who take a vow of poverty vs. evangelists wearing italian suits, driving $45,000 cars, and dating their secretaries.

Even I would have to side with the Catholics on that one. They run schools and all sorts of demonstrable charitable works. It's not a high bar to meet and we should make religious groups meet it.

"Profit" and "profit seeking" are too broad IMHO. By some definition GE isn't engaged in profit seeking either. LOL

I've really turned into the Grinch that stole Christmas tonight, I'm against: tax-exempt proselytizing, wildfire amnesty, and changing the priorities of the WHO budget to quell the pangs of the moment. I will also confess I never liked the Easter bunny :devil:


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

ksinc said:


> I edited a couple of posts to WA. I was a little loopy and grouchy as I just came back from the dentist. I hope these are clearer and less "overtly blunt."


What was done in the past was not always the best way. When the Church can have bricks and mortar that is the best way for everybody. Proselytizing is the Call. Taxes is a recent method of charities. Before that it was the Church. And, before that the Temple and Synagogues. Even with your mother-inlaw your youth does not recognize the burdens of life. If you look at the early Church you will see charity was part of it, when it could, but the main purpose is Proselytizing and pursuing to live the Christian life better.

People who take advantage of "Church" for profit should be tarred and feathered, of course, the guillotine works better (wouldn't see Benny Hinn again).


----------



## 16412 (Apr 1, 2005)

jackmccullough said:


> Reread my post. I didn't say anything about what the churches do with the money they raise.
> 
> Let's say you give $100 to your church because you think they will use it to make the world a better place, and I give $100 to my political party because I think they will use it to make the world a better place; you get to deduct your $100 contribution from income when you file your taxes next year, and I do not.
> 
> ...


If it bothers you so much about your political party paying taxes on its buildings then get the laws changed.

Why do you blame the Church?


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> No, Florence King or her fans can't be credited with that one. At least I don't think she ever wrote anything for _The Nation_.
> 
> You alleged faux-Southerners are a touchy lot.
> 
> ...


Florence King wrote that tripe?! I'm amazed.

I knew she wrote for _National Review_. Are you sure about _The Nation?_

BTW, you'll _LOVE_ this one.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

WA said:


> What was done in the past was not always the best way. When the Church can have bricks and mortar that is the best way for everybody. Proselytizing is the Call. Taxes is a recent method of charities. Before that it was the Church. And, before that the Temple and Synagogues. Even with your mother-inlaw your youth does not recognize the burdens of life. If you look at the early Church you will see charity was part of it, when it could, but the main purpose is Proselytizing and pursuing to live the Christian life better.
> 
> People who take advantage of "Church" for profit should be tarred and feathered, of course, the guillotine works better (wouldn't see Benny Hinn again).


NO! To be charitable is the responsibility of individual Christians, not the Church building. We cannot 'out-souce' our works to the institution. Performing charitable acts is about more than giving money. Giving money does not absolve one from the responsibility to actually perform the acts themselves. It's an unBiblical justification for full-time priests that takes advantage of the slothfullness of men.

FWIW, I actually know Benny Hinn and grew up with the girl that is now his Wife.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc said:


> Florence King wrote that tripe?! I'm amazed.
> 
> I knew she wrote for _National Review_. Are you sure about _The Nation?_
> 
> BTW, you'll _LOVE_ this one.


I don't think you're reading that closely here, but that's not surprising as you're also battling revisionist church history, a far more important affair. :icon_smile: Miss King has been published many places but not in _The Nation_ as far as anyone knows unless it was under a pseudonym. She's credited with discovering that bit of verse you love and celebrate so well but hasn't copped to being the author.

I always enjoy her writings. She's my favorite lesbian author.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## ksinc (May 30, 2005)

Quay said:


> I don't think you're reading that closely here, but that's not surprising as you're also battling revisionist church history, a far more important affair. :icon_smile: Miss King has been published many places but not in _The Nation_ as far as anyone knows unless it was under a pseudonym. She's credited with discovering that bit of verse you love and celebrate so well but hasn't copped to being the author.
> 
> I always enjoy her writings. She's my favorite lesbian author.
> 
> ...


That sounds special!


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

ksinc said:


> That sounds special!


She is. :icon_smile:

"No matter which sex I went to bed with, I never smoked on the street." -- Florence King

And even though Mr. Obama is a man the fact he smoked on the street counts against him anyway.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------



## Kav (Jun 19, 2005)

Uncle Ronnie, Benny Hin, Lesbian authors and radical Democrats OH MY! If we look past this dog and pony show, a whole lot of people are tired of no bang for their buck. It doesn't matter what your political stripe ( as in skunk) is anymore. These collective bobbleheads better start showing real results or they won't be bobbling very long. I have a pamphlet on building small homes for under $200 from some Mother Earth type catalog. I opted for a Yurt, but I see a near future of gutted SUVs being used as homes and people standing in line for water at $4. 12 a gallon, including taxes for the strategic reserve. I just hope I buy the green Sam Hober tie in time for my candidacy with the breakaway Deep Forest Green party ( pro guns, pro fair trade coffee and chocolate, public dress codes and a living wage factoring in Bespoke suits.) And I will attend jewish, buddhist and christian services WITH FAMILY MEMBERS of those persuasions. The sweat lodge and peyote past will be avoided and Wayfarer bought off with either Bagpipe exemptions from Noise pollution regulations or deportation to Banff if he doesn't listen to reason from my Apache emmisaries.


----------



## Quay (Mar 29, 2008)

^ Well, if the bread starts to be either too expensive or scarce the people might start to question the current playbill of the circus. Jefferson was quite right about the necessity of a little "housecleaning" now and then, especially when things get so long-entrenched they become gangrenous.

Cordially,
A.Q.


----------

