Voting for Kerry is now considered a sin.

[Trinity]

It is absolutely clear from the opinion in the case that all racial discrimination is not to allowed in "charatible" organizations because discrimination is established as an overding state interest. This serves as precendent for all discrimination. Further it defines discrimination as "public policy". The oldest public policy in our country is the right of a free vote. The Roman Catholic Church, today violates that public policy in the name of the faith it holds. In a strict interpretation of the Separation of Church and State it would also violate the public policy for discrimination. Should the IRS decline to grant the petition of the Catholics for a Free Choice, that decision could be taken to the federal courts and Bob University v United States would apply.

-pah-

Everything you have said here is your opinion and I can only say that I disagree.

 

[Pah]

Everything you have said here is your opinion and I can only say that I disagree.

With law as your basis, what is your disagreement?

-pah-

 

[Trinity]

With law as your basis, what is your disagreement?

-pah-

You do not seem to basing any of your arguments on the law, rather a strict reading of the outcome of a particular case. In this particular case, the factors are different from the case in which you are applying it to.

 

[Pah]

You do not seem to basing any of your arguments on the law, rather a strict reading of the outcome of a particular case. In this particular case, the factors are different from the case in which you are applying it to.

It is Constitutional Law. That is how all judiciary courts work in this country.

What factors are different? Quote from the case, please

-pah-

 

[Trinity]

It is Constitutional Law. That is how all judiciary courts work in this country.

What factors are different? Quote from the case, please

-pah-

The case is about letting people into a school. The only requirement to learning is that you have a brain and, at least to some degree, are behaved. You are trying to apply this to the employment law. School law and employment law are different animals.

 

[Pah]

The case is about letting people into a school. The only requirement to learning is that you have a brain and, at least to some degree, are behaved. You are trying to apply this to the employment law. School law and employment law are different animals.

Please cite the statements of opinion from the case or any other case that support your interpretation and tell us please why they contramand the statements I quoted.

-pah-

 

[Trinity]

Please cite the statements of opinion from the case or any other case that support your interpretation and tell us please why they contramand the statements I quoted.

It is absolutely clear from the opinion in the case that all racial discrimination is not to allowed in "charatible" organizations because discrimination is established as an overding state interest. This serves as precendent for all discrimination. Further it defines discrimination as "public policy". The oldest public policy in our country is the right of a free vote. The Roman Catholic Church, today violates that public policy in the name of the faith it holds. In a strict interpretation of the Separation of Church and State it would also violate the public policy for discrimination. Should the IRS decline to grant the petition of the Catholics for a Free Choice, that decision could be taken to the federal courts and Bob University v United States would apply.
-pah-

I am not saying the case is opinion, I am saying you are stating opinion.

 

[Pah]

I am not saying the case is opinion, I am saying you are stating opinion.

I am stating the opinion of the case's opinion There are several sections to the written record of a case and the opinion is one of them. Dictum is another as well as the holding. The whole thing is precedent (except dictum - but it has been used to form new opinion).

My opinion was only in the things that could happen if there was a strict interpretation of the First Amendment and that was based on THE opinion of Bob Jones v United States. If you want to argue against my opinion you must find Constitutional opinion that contradicts my opinion.

Civic lesson over.

-pah-

 

[Trinity]

I am stating the opinion of the case's opinion There are several sections to the written record of a case and the opinion is one of them. Dictum is another as well as the holding. The whole thing is precedent (except dictum - but it has been used to form new opinion).

My opinion was only in the things that could happen if there was a strict interpretation of the First Amendment and that was based on THE opinion of Bob Jones v United States. If you want to argue against my opinion you must find Constitutional opinion that contradicts my opinion.

Civic lesson over.

-pah-

I am not arguing against bob v jones. The strict interpretation was all your opinion. This is what I am saying, thank you for helping me to clarify.

 

[croak]

Okay, maybe he agrees in that stuff, but in the end, if the person really wants an abortion, it's her problem, not yours. You allow it, but it's up to the people to support it or not. Whatever they choose is their problem.

 

[croak]

Who cares what he supports? In the end, it doesn't matter if he supports it, it matters that the people themselves decide whether they want it or not. And if they don't want it, they can just ignore it.

 

[Trinity]

Who cares what he supports? In the end, it doesn't matter if he supports it, it matters that the people themselves decide whether they want it or not. And if they don't want it, they can just ignore it.

I agree with your point, but is this on the topic of a vote for kerry is a sin?

 

[Yerda]

Late as ever. I wish I'd noticed this earlier, because this is possibly the most ridiculous and yet hilarious thing I've heard in ages. God bless America (nobody else will).

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Late as ever. I wish I'd noticed this earlier, because this is possibly the most ridiculous and yet hilarious thing I've heard in ages. God bless America (nobody else will).

What is ridiculous? Do you mean the entire thread, or are you responding to a specific post?

Thanks,
TVOR

 

[linwood]

I just read in my paper this morning that a cathoilc group is suing these Churches to remove their tax exempt status for this.

I can`t find a link yet, has anyone else seen this anywhere?

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Linwood -

Pah posted some great info on the group and their filing (I can't remember which thread - it might even be earlier in this one). No - it's in the Abortion vs. Adoption thread, I believe. At any rate, the group is called Catholics for Free Choice or something to that effect. You might do a Google search for them - try the acronym CFFC.

Good luck,
TVOR

 

[Trinity]

I just read in my paper this morning that a cathoilc group is suing these Churches to remove their tax exempt status for this.

I can`t find a link yet, has anyone else seen this anywhere?

It is on page 10 of this thread.

For Immediate Release
October 26, 2004
Media Contact:
Michelle Ringuette
+1 (202) 986 6093;
+1 (202) 550 1321
Catholics for a Free Choice Files IRS Complaint
Against Archdiocese of St. Louis
St. Louis Archbishop Raymond Burke violates election law
with consistent and rigid instruction to voters.
Statement of Frances Kissling, President, Catholics for a Free Choice

Washington, DC—One week before the United States presidential election, Catholics for a Free Choice (CFFC) has filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service against the Archdiocese of St. Louis, MO, for Archbishop Raymond Burke’s statements in violation of its status as a public charity and his illegal interventions in campaigns for public office.

Archbishop Burke, the leader of the archdiocese, has used official archdiocese communications to explicitly urge Catholics to vote against candidates who support abortion rights, euthanasia, reproductive cloning, gay marriage and embryonic stem cell research. Additionally, he has issued overt directions to Catholics to vote against candidates who support positions opposed by the archdiocese, a clear violation of the restrictions placed on all tax-exempt organizations.

CFFC has called on the IRS to “immediately exercise [its] authority to revoke the tax-exempt status of the Archdiocese of St. Louis and bring an action to enjoin it from conducting further efforts to intervene in the imminent elections.”

The Archdiocese of St. Louis and Archbishop Burke have patently violated their tax-exempt status by releasing an official Pastoral Letter aimed at Catholic voters, specifically instructing them how to vote in the upcoming election. The letter informs voters about church teachings and implores Catholics to vote accordingly. Through his letter “On Our Civil Responsibility for the Common Good,” the archbishop presents a step-by-step protocol for voters when choosing a candidate. He states that Catholics are “morally bound” to choose voters according to the archdiocese’s plan, a plan that includes the requirement of Catholic voters to consider a candidate’s stance on abortion, embryonic stem cell research and euthanasia “above every other consideration.”

Archbishop Burke’s letter outlines a number of different scenarios involving hypothetical candidates and their positions. These hypotheticals, suspiciously reminiscent of presidential candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry, instruct members of the archdiocese to pick the proper candidate at the risk of “assisting another to achieve evil…which is never morally permissible.”

The archbishop’s directives have also been consistently articulated in the St. Louis Review, the weekly archdiocesan newspaper.

Through the Pastoral Letter and the St. Louis Reporter, Archbishop Burke and the archdiocese have clearly crossed the line into political intervention because these materials invite the audience to compare a candidate’s positions with the organization’s own views, another violation of IRS restrictions.

This year, CFFC has filed complaints with the IRS against Catholic Answers, Inc., Operation Rescue West, the Culture of Life Foundation, Priests for Life and the Archdiocese of Denver for their flagrant violations of their tax-exempt status.

In filing these complaints, Catholics for A Free Choice does not infringe on either the right to free speech or the practice of religion. Each of these groups made a contract with the federal government and the IRS when they sought to be exempt from paying taxes. In return for such a privilege they agreed not to participate in election campaigns in ways that constitute an endorsement or opposition to specific candidates, explicitly or implicitly. In much the same way that campaign involvement by individuals and profit making corporations is regulated by law, the involvement of tax exempt organizations is regulated to prevent the indirect use of taxpayer funds in political campaigns. We think these laws are equitable and we call on all tax exempt organizations to follow them.

 

[[email protected]]

First of all, I am a Jehovah's Witiness and this is what I believe.​

​

There are clear principles set out in the Bible that enable servants of God to take a proper view of this matter. However, there appears to be no principle against the practice of voting itself. For example, there is no reason why a board of directors should not take a vote in order to arrive at decisions affecting their corporation.​

​

What, though, of voting in political elections? Of course, in some democratic lands, as many as 50 percent of the population do not turn out to vote on election day. As for Jehovah’s Witnesses, they do not interfere with the right of others to vote; neither do they in any way campaign against political elections. They respect and cooperate with the authorities who are duly elected in such elections. (Romans 13:1-7) As to whether they will personally vote for someone running in an election, each one of Jehovah’s Witnesses makes a decision based on his Bible-trained conscience and an understanding of his responsibility to God and to the State. (Matthew 22:21; 1 Peter 3:16) In making this personal decision, the Witnesses consider a number of factors.​

First, Jesus Christ said of his followers: "They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world." (John 17:14) Jehovah’s Witnesses take this principle seriously. Being "no part of the world," they are neutral in the political affairs of the world.—John 18:36.
​

Second, the apostle Paul referred to himself as an "ambassador" representing Christ to the people of his day. (Ephesians 6:20; 2 Corinthians 5:20) Jehovah’s Witnesses believe that Christ Jesus is now the enthroned King of God’s heavenly Kingdom, and they, like ambassadors, must announce this to the nations. (Matthew 24:14; Revelation 11:15) Ambassadors are expected to be neutral and not to interfere in the internal affairs of the countries to which they are sent. As representatives of God’s heavenly Kingdom, Jehovah’s Witnesses feel a similar obligation not to interfere in the politics of the countries where they reside.
​

A third factor to consider is that those who have a part in voting a person into office may become responsible for what he does. (Compare 1 Timothy 5:22, The New English Bible.) Christians have to consider carefully whether they want to shoulder that responsibility.
​

Fourth, Jehovah’s Witnesses greatly value their Christian unity. (Colossians 3:14) When religions get involved in politics, the result is often division among their members. In imitation of Jesus Christ, Jehovah’s Witnesses avoid becoming involved in politics and thus maintain their Christian unity.—Matthew 12:25; John 6:15; 18:36, 37.
​

Fifth and finally, their keeping out of politics gives Jehovah’s Witnesses freeness of speech to approach people of all political persuasions with the important message of the Kingdom.—Hebrews 10:35.

 

[DrM]

report | Refer someone to this site! · post: #118

Today, 12:06 PM
[email protected]
I understand your points as they relate to the bible. The authors' are viewing their political and cultural dimensions of their life at that time. Whether they were aware of the future is highly suspicious. Do you really think that information recorded so long ago and handed down at least one generation before it was written can be that reliable today? Difficult for me to accept.

 

[The Voice of Reason]

Aniset -

Great to have you here, sharing your beliefs. One quick request - TURN DOWN THE VOLUME, please. On the internet, it is considered the same as shouting to use all capitals or to use an overly large font.

On to your post - I always refrain from commenting on posts that rely on scripture for the basis of their argument, because I do not accept the Bible as the word of God (inspired or otherwise). That said, I do respect your right to believe this, and I will never quibble with you (or anyone else) on how they interpret what the Bible has to say. But I am curious - do I understand you correctly - are you saying that as a rule, Jehovah's Witnesses do not vote in elections?

Thanks (and welcome),
TVOR