Republican Jesus

**maxx** · February-05-12, 06:16 PM

http://jeffwartman.com/republican-jesus/

**rb336** · February-05-12, 08:10 PM

funny stuff

**Zacha341** · February-06-12, 01:25 PM

Cute! Nice to know that Jesus 'belongs' to the repubs --

-- !

President Obama just recently referenced the Bible [[invoking the words of Jesus) with regards to taxing:

http://money.cnn.com/2012/02/02/news...esus/index.htm

At least [[last I checked) here in America there's freedom to practice ones religion and to the satirists and scorners there will not be violent protests or worse: calls for fatwa.

lit joe · February-07-12, 06:04 AM

Again sent your money to Jesus put my name on the check. and now from the white house its the hour of power with Rev. wright or wrong.

**Zacha341** · February-07-12, 07:25 AM

Yep, the sound of *crickets* [[ala basic silence) when president Obama references religion as an edict for politics/ policy.

When the repubs do it and we start to hear cry for the 'separation of church and state'...

**ghettopalmetto** · February-07-12, 09:48 AM

Originally Posted by Zacha341

Yep, the sound of *crickets* [[ala basic silence) when president Obama references religion as an edict for politics/ policy.

When the repubs do it and we start to hear cry for the 'separation of church and state'...

That's because socially-conservative Republicans want to codify the "Christian faith" [[whatever that means) and establish Biblical rule of law.

Tax policy is hardly a religious belief, unless you're a disciple of Grover Norquist. Props to Obama for highlighting the hypocrisy inherent in the modern GOP.

**Zacha341** · February-07-12, 10:03 AM

Stand by to give Obama more 'props' as the Catholic church programs and institutions come under more scrutiny and dictate:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46274138.../#.TzE7R8hMeec

I don't believe religion should be codified, nor secularism. Yet secularism is often touted as a default position of enlightment and the new mode towards true social justice... And that religion express at any level is a call to codify and mandate a particular religion as position of political and social policy.

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

That's because socially-conservative Republicans want to codify the "Christian faith" [[whatever that means) and establish Biblical rule of law.

Tax policy is hardly a religious belief, unless you're a disciple of Grover Norquist. Props to Obama for highlighting the hypocrisy inherent in the modern GOP.

**ghettopalmetto** · February-07-12, 10:06 AM

Originally Posted by Zacha341

I don't believe religion should be codified, or secularism.

I'm pretty certain the First Amendment to the Constitution established a secular government. With that said, I disagree with the premise of the federal government forcing a religious organization to take action that directly conflicts with its established religious doctrine.

**Zacha341** · February-07-12, 10:18 AM

But institutions and organizations that receive federal funding are not all nuetral in terms of where they derive their values, ways of doing business, policies etc. are they? As I mentioned the government now wants to dictate how many Christian and Catholic institutions conduct their business or which kinds of services they wish to opt out of.

Interestingly secularism always seems a great idea as it comes off as allowing everyone greater freedom and access, except to those who have a moral issue with those areas of freedom and access such as the case with abortion for example and the church. The tolerance and freedom constriction seems to 'emerge' at that point.

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

I'm pretty certain the First Amendment to the Constitution established a secular government. With that said, I disagree with the premise of the federal government forcing a religious organization to take action that directly conflicts with its established religious doctrine.

**ghettopalmetto** · February-07-12, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by Zacha341

Interestingly secularism always seems a great idea as it comes off as allowing everyone greater freedom and access, except to those who have a moral issue with those areas of freedom and access such as the case with abortion for example and the church. The tolerance and freedom constriction seems to 'emerge' at that point.

As soon as someone forces you to have an abortion, I'll be empathetic to your point of view.

**Zacha341** · February-07-12, 10:26 AM

Sigh.... That's the usual response... almost boiler plate. Your not getting the larger point... how do organizations such as Catholic and other Christian institutions respond to increased edicts coming down federally...? Re-read my first paragraph:

'...institutions and organizations that receive federal funding are not all nuetral in terms of where they derive their values, ways of doing business, policies etc. are they? As I mentioned the government now wants to dictate how many Christian and Catholic institutions conduct their business or which kinds of services they wish to opt out of.'

More programs and institutions are come under more scrutiny and dictate:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46274138.../#.TzE7R8hMeec

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/07/146511...-the-catholics

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

As soon as someone forces you to have an abortion, I'll be empathetic to your point of view.

**HistoryNotHisStory** · February-07-12, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by maxx

http://jeffwartman.com/republican-jesus/

I love it.

People in this country adamantly claims that they are Christians, but do not follow Jesus teachings.

Name: republican-jesus-300x258.jpg
Views: 5941
Size: 30.0 KB

Name: republican-jesus-300x258.jpg
Views: 5941
Size: 30.0 KB

**maxx** · February-07-12, 04:06 PM

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11...ublican-jesus/

If religious institutions don't want to give their members/clients choices the federal gov. demands, they should not accept federal tax dollars.

**ghettopalmetto** · February-07-12, 04:27 PM

Originally Posted by maxx

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11...ublican-jesus/

If religious institutions don't want to give their members/clients choices the federal gov. demands, they should not accept federal tax dollars.

Extortion > First Amendment?

**Zacha341** · February-07-12, 04:39 PM

Agreed [[ironically).

As I've stated elsewhere, as time goes on more discerning churches are realizing that with government 'goodies' such as tax exemptions there comes the broader price such as how the government can control and dictate how that entity functions and defines itself.

The tax exempt status for religious institutions is coming to and end and that is not all bad!

"Compliance" is becoming more of an issue for non-profits in general. Less dictates when the government is not involved.

Originally Posted by maxx

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11...ublican-jesus/

If religious institutions don't want to give their members/clients choices the federal gov. demands, they should not accept federal tax dollars.

**rb336** · February-07-12, 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by maxx

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11...ublican-jesus/

If religious institutions don't want to give their members/clients choices the federal gov. demands, they should not accept federal tax dollars.

And, first and foremost, they should give up their tax-exempt status

**ghettopalmetto** · February-07-12, 06:44 PM

Originally Posted by Zacha341

Agreed [[ironically).

As I've stated elsewhere, as time goes on more discerning churches are realizing that with government 'goodies' such as tax exemptions there comes the broader price such as how the government can control and dictate how that entity functions and defines itself.

The tax exempt status for religious institutions is coming to and end and that is not all bad!

"Compliance" is becoming more of an issue for non-profits in general. Less dictates when the government is not involved.

Where do you get this stuff? The federal government has no power to dictate religious doctrine--tax exemptions or not.

Sorry. If the new requirement is enforced, you bet your ass the Catholic Church is going to break the law. Do you think a global organization with over a billion members, not beholden to any one particular nation, is going to tap dance around the United States government? The Church will go to court before it compromises its doctrine.

Catholics comprise 25% of the United States population, and Obama won 54% of the Catholic vote in 2008. There's no way in hell he forces the Church into an untenable position.

**Zacha341** · February-07-12, 06:48 PM

"....the federal gov. demands".....

Yep. Religious institutions, charities and churches best opt out of tax exemption, lest the government 'demand' as we see from recent rulings...

Originally Posted by maxx

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/11...ublican-jesus/

If religious institutions don't want to give their members/clients choices the federal gov. demands, they should not accept federal tax dollars.

**ghettopalmetto** · February-07-12, 10:02 PM

Originally Posted by Zacha341

"....the federal gov. demands".....

Yep. Religious institutions, charities and churches best opt out of tax exemption, lest the government 'demand' as we see from recent rulings...

And which court rulings would those be, exactly?

Seems to me the First Amendment precludes the federal government, or any subordinate government, from dictating religious doctrine.

**Zacha341** · February-07-12, 11:09 PM

The federal government is now demanding that faith based organizations [[specifically Catholic social and health services agencies and institutions) provide services that may contradict their core doctrine/ teachings...

Example: [[Headline from link below) Catholics Unite Against Law's Birth Control Mandate

From article: The federal government now mandates that religious institutions provide health insurance coverage for birth control. The provision has created a battle between religious freedom and government requirements.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/...trol-Mandate-/

And the original links I provided that apparently remained 'UNREAD':

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46274138.../#.TzE7R8hMeec

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/07/146511...-the-catholics

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

And which court rulings would those be, exactly?

Seems to me the First Amendment precludes the federal government, or any subordinate government, from dictating religious doctrine.

**gazhekwe** · February-08-12, 10:19 AM

A policy mandate does not equal a court decision, but I am sure there will be court decisions about this.

I do think it is nuts for the government to put health care onto employers in the first place. If we want uniform health care, it needs to be government provided, not employer provided. That puts too heavy a burden on employers.

**rb336** · February-08-12, 11:43 AM

Here's a new wrinkle:

http://www.newser.com/story/139192/c...date-poll.html

**firstandten** · February-08-12, 12:10 PM

Originally Posted by gazhekwe

I do think it is nuts for the government to put health care onto employers in the first place. If we want uniform health care, it needs to be government provided, not employer provided. That puts too heavy a burden on employers.

I agree, but much of employer provided health care arose out of WWII. Employers used health care benefits to compete for employees because wages were low across the board but companies could expand health care benefits.

So even though that concept has outlived its usefulness it has become ingrained into our society.

**ghettopalmetto** · February-08-12, 01:27 PM

Originally Posted by Zacha341

The federal government is now demanding that faith based organizations [[specifically Catholic social and health services agencies and institutions) provide services that may contradict their core doctrine/ teachings...

Example: [[Headline from link below) Catholics Unite Against Law's Birth Control Mandate

From article: The federal government now mandates that religious institutions provide health insurance coverage for birth control. The provision has created a battle between religious freedom and government requirements.

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/politics/...trol-Mandate-/

And the original links I provided that apparently remained 'UNREAD':

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/46274138.../#.TzE7R8hMeec

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/07/146511...-the-catholics

Zacha, you asserted that court decisions have affirmed the right of the federal government to dictate religious doctrine, due to the tax-exempt status of religious institutions. I asked you to cite these court cases, and you provided three links to news articles.

Of the three articles you linked, only ONE [[a piece from the right-wing Weekly Standard) cites a court case. And that case rebuked the Administration for its intrusion into religious doctrine. I quote:

Last month, the Supreme Court struck down another attempt by the administration to bully religious believers in the Hosanna-Tabor case. In that instance, Obama's Equal Employment Opportunity Commission argued that a religious organization does not have the right to control its hiring and firing according to its religious belief. The Court struck down this argument 9-0.

So I can only conclude that you're being hysterical, or you're just making shit up.

**Zacha341** · February-08-12, 03:02 PM

Per your dismissive, insulting response you have proven once again that if news comes from a particular source you dismiss it out of hand and send people [[those so inclined) on endless searches to find further info you continue to dismiss if not based in the citation, then per your assessment and disdain of the poster. That's not happening here with me...

You know good and well what is going on with regards to religious rights in this country, albeit the level can be argued--I get that. Other readers do as well I am certain.

This is not a freshman college class--you are not the professor to determine the level of proof I need to provide, especially considering you ignored the original points and links in the first place. Nor is your "final" grade: profanity, useful. It ONLY measures your lack of ability to engage in meaningful dialogue.

Good day...

Originally Posted by ghettopalmetto

Zacha, you asserted that court decisions have affirmed the right of the federal government to dictate religious doctrine, due to the tax-exempt status of religious institutions. I asked you to cite these court cases, and you provided three links to news articles.

Of the three articles you linked, only ONE [[a piece from the right-wing Weekly Standard) cites a court case. And that case rebuked the Administration for its intrusion into religious doctrine. I quote:

So I can only conclude that you're being hysterical, or you're just making shit up.