Obama hanged

Blackwater Babe said:

...In effigy

So, is it all just about grabbing as many media minutes as possible, or is he genuinely unhinged? Either way Worst. Christian Love. Evar!

Click to expand...

Hanging? No.

Lynching? Yes.

It is lynching by proxy.

-CryptoLutheran

I can see Jesus has more love than I do.
"We may be surprised at the people we find in heaven. God has a soft spot for sinners. His standards are quite low."

He should expect a visit from the FBI and the Secret Service. You don't make that kind of threat/suggestion against the President. It's a Class D felony.

Blackwater Babe said:

...In effigy

So, is it all just about grabbing as many media minutes as possible, or is he genuinely unhinged? Either way Worst. Christian Love. Evar!

Click to expand...

The first sentence in the segment of the article you posted pretty much answers that question. Unhinged is a conservative description.

Zaac said:

He should expect a visit from the FBI and the Secret Service. You don't make that kind of threat/suggestion against the President. It's a Class D felony.

Click to expand...

I guarantee he will have a visit from them. When some idiot did the same thing at George Fox University a few years ago (prior to the election), our school had all kinds of people on and around campus for a couple of weeks.

Blackwater Babe said:

...In effigy

So, is it all just about grabbing as many media minutes as possible, or is he genuinely unhinged? Either way Worst. Christian Love. Evar!

Click to expand...

May God have mercy on Mr. Jones soul.

Blackwater Babe said:

...In effigy

So, is it all just about grabbing as many media minutes as possible, or is he genuinely unhinged?

Click to expand...

It can be both, ya know.

Either way Worst. Christian Love. Evar!

Click to expand...

...Spanish Inquisition?

Hey WBS, this time I am glad Jones' Obama is an empty suit!

This guy Jones, did he graduate from Westboro U. or his he just in competition with Westboro Baptist Church of Topeka?

Definitely a candidate for the front page cover of "Eisegesis Gone Wild".

This whole discussion reminds me an old sports joke. Frank Lauterbur was the coach at the University of Iowa for three years, 1971-73. In three years, he managed to win just four games. At the end of that third season, Mad Magazine reported that Lauterbur had been hung in effigy -- going on to say that Effigy "is a small town just outside Iowa City."

is it all just about grabbing as many media minutes as possible

Click to expand...

I wonder if the pastor knows that this gives up his non-profit status? I think that this is something that needs to be cracked down on both sides. Pastors can absolutely talk about political policies, but the moment that they do something like this they are no longer protected as a non-profit and give up their non-taxation status. And this is true of both sides. The ting that is often missed is that this separation of Church and State was (and still is) in place to protect the Church, not the other way around. If pastors want to start playing the politics game then that places the churches in serious danger and that should concern us all, no matter what side of the political spectrum we are on.

BeforeTheFoundation said:

I wonder if the pastor knows that this gives up his non-profit status? I think that this is something that needs to be cracked down on both sides. Pastors can absolutely talk about political policies, but the moment that they do something like this they are no longer protected as a non-profit and give up their non-taxation status. And this is true of both sides. The ting that is often missed is that this separation of Church and State was (and still is) in place to protect the Church, not the other way around. If pastors want to start playing the politics game then that places the churches in serious danger and that should concern us all, no matter what side of the political spectrum we are on.

Click to expand...

Right, good point, except for separation of church & state view. I think it is that government will not establish (establishment clause) a religion. No national religion by the government. The Exercise Clause is making no law the prohibits free exercise of religion.
Which means to me that the Church, Mosque, Temple, etc, and it's congregants can do as they please within the laws of local, State & Federal. Except when they are a IRS non-profit organization upon certain conditions. For me that means that the church volunteers to be a puppet on the government string. For it is all about the money.

The church or any other entity should not have tax exempt status as far as I'm concerned. To me all that is a subsidy, where the government lets the church keep it's money with conditions, such as you pointed out.





Subsidy;
1. Monetary assistance granted by a government to a person or group in support of an enterprise regarded as being in the public interest.
2. Financial assistance given by one person or government to another.

Sad thing about people like Terry Jones who claim to represent Christ is people now a days have a bad habit of labeling an entire group of people just because one bad apple. At least concerning religion they do. Terry Jones and the Westboro cult will only continue to smear the name of our Lord, and it seems like they are doing it so ignorantly too.

I know a lot of people that don't like Obama but as Christians we are to pray for those in authority and rule over us, regardless of if we care for them or not, but coincidentally we are to love everyone, hmmm. How man of us can claim to obey that scripture? I hope we all can, but I would be shocked to find even a small percentage of Christians that do not, especially if they want him removed from office.

(For the record I am not a Obama supporter, I am just speaking the Word of God for the situation)

Right, good point, except for separation of church & state view. I think it is that government will not establish (establishment clause) a religion. No national religion by the government. The Exercise Clause is making no law the prohibits free exercise of religion.
Which means to me that the Church, Mosque, Temple, etc, and it's congregants can do as they please within the laws of local, State & Federal. Except when they are a IRS non-profit organization upon certain conditions. For me that means that the church volunteers to be a puppet on the government string. For it is all about the money.

The church or any other entity should not have tax exempt status as far as I'm concerned. To me all that is a subsidy, where the government lets the church keep it's money with conditions, such as you pointed out.

Click to expand...

I was talking purely on historical grounds. The rationale for the separation of Church and State was not soley to protect the State from the Church (as is often claimed today) but rather was also to protect the Church from the meddling hands of the State. Pastors that get all up in arms about people telling them to stay out of politics, they need to realize that one of the main original reasons for that very separation was to protect them not the other way around.

BeforeTheFoundation said:

I was talking purely on historical grounds. The rationale for the separation of Church and State was not soley to protect the State from the Church (as is often claimed today) but rather was also to protect the Church from the meddling hands of the State. Pastors that get all up in arms about people telling them to stay out of politics, they need to realize that one of the main original reasons for that very separation was to protect them not the other way around.

Click to expand...

yes, I see your point and agree.

BeforeTheFoundation said:

I was talking purely on historical grounds. The rationale for the separation of Church and State was not soley to protect the State from the Church (as is often claimed today) but rather was also to protect the Church from the meddling hands of the State. Pastors that get all up in arms about people telling them to stay out of politics, they need to realize that one of the main original reasons for that very separation was to protect them not the other way around.

Click to expand...

You have it wrong. There is nothing in the First Amendment which is offered as protection for the church from the state. The only provision of the First Amendment relative to the church is that a state-established church cannot be ordained. At the time of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights being debated, several states had officials churches, much as England had the Church of England as the "official church" of that nation. Constitutionally, that was outlawed. That is the Establishment Clause. There is no reciprocating expression of prevention from the church being involved in government affairs. The next phrase outlaws the prevention of the free practice of religion. There is no reciprocating expression of prevention of the church exercising its freedom of speech in engaging in political activity. What very few people realize is that when the IRS tax code addressing non-profit corporations - which most churches are - a clause was written that prevents churches from engaging in political activities. This is in fact a violation of the Free Exercise Clause. But it has been in place for 58 years and is unlikely to changed now.

I am well aware of what the Constitution says. I think we are talking past each other. I am saying that the rationale at the time included, not only the protection of the State from the Church but also protection of the Church from the State.

BeforeTheFoundation said:

I am well aware of what the Constitution says. I think we are talking past each other. I am saying that the rationale at the time included, not only the protection of the State from the Church but also protection of the Church from the State.

Click to expand...

If that is the case, then why is there no mention of that aspect of their thinking included in thier verbiage of the document? There was nothing vague about the founders' language throughout their history of building a nation, from the Declaration through the Constitution. So if your belief of what the rationale was is correct, doesn't it follow there would be evidence of it in the First Amendment language?

If that is the case, then why is there no mention of that aspect of their thinking included in thier verbiage of the document? There was nothing vague about the founders' language throughout their history of building a nation, from the Declaration through the Constitution. So if your belief of what the rationale was is correct, doesn't it follow there would be evidence of it in the First Amendment language?

Click to expand...

Below you will find quotes from Jefferson and Madison concerning the necessity of the Separation of Church and State. It is clear that their intent (and recall who wrote the Constitution) was to protect the Church from the State as much as the State from the Church. (emphasis is mine).

James Madison said:

practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.

Click to expand...

Madison said:

We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts. do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Govt.

Click to expand...

Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom authored by Jefferson endorsed by Madison said:

That it [not having separation] tends only to corrupt the principles of that very Religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments those who will externally profess and conform to it;

Click to expand...

Same said:

That to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;

Click to expand...

Madison said:

Because if Religion be exempt from the authority of the Society at large, still less can it be subject to that of the Legislative Body.

Click to expand...

In my experience many people have complained that the Separation of Church and State is to 'protect' the State from the Church. They go on to point out that (in their opinions) the Church is simply trying to bring common morality back to the State. My point is this. Opening that can of worms is dangerous. The Separation of Church and State, as is made clear above, was just as much to keep the States influence away from the Church as it was to keep us from turning into a theocracy.