English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I have found myself doubting what almost anybody tells me. The Church says that they are against abortion and are for family values, yet when I organize a rally to remove the Democrats from the local political scene, the preachers wimp out. In fact one local politician was concerned one day, but called back the next, and said that she had called old Brother So and So and he said that there was not going to be anything to my rallying of the Saints. Politicians do not go to Church until Voting time and then they stand up and testafy. Arn't you hungry to see someone with enough backbone to say what they believe? You cannot read the Bible and be for the Democratic Party. And if you want to kill a tree you chop off it's roots. Vote out the Demoncrats from the dog catcher up to the Senators.

2006-07-27 08:30:29 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Politics

5 answers

First. Learn to use paragraphs. If I have to work too hard to see what you are saying I won't be able to answer your questions.

Now to your question. Clergy people have to be careful when addressing political issues. Their churches, temples, synagogues, mosques could loose their tax exempt status (though some seem to be able to get away with political statements).

Also, you may be a good Christian/Buddhist/Jew/Muslim/other and still agree with the Ds on a lot of issues.

I do agree that many politicians use their religious connections only to garner votes. SHAME ON THEM.

Some are deeply religious. Joe Lieberman [D Senator from Connecticut] and President Bush are two that I think believe in their faiths without using public displays to garner votes.

2006-07-27 08:47:20 · answer #1 · answered by SPLATT 7 · 1 0

One argument is "Irreducible complexity". Some matters would possibly not role in any respect till they're totally assembled. Just suppose of male & feminine reproductive organs. What well is establishing a male side, if there's no feminine side to head with it? Wouldn't or not it's a drawback to have a couple of further vain components for no less than a couple of million years, and now not be competent to make use of them? In order for an asexual being to broaden right into a male or feminine, they might must live to tell the tale for a couple of thousand or million generations as a "survival of the mis-have compatibility". Of path, if such components have been divinely designed, and created, this situation is solved. Another, is the concept of religion. I pass a bridge day-to-day to paintings, through automobile. I do not give up to do a whole engineering and fabric technological know-how evaluation at the bridge, or the automobile, earlier than trusting the bridge will keep me up or the automobile will begin. I take a step of religion, and get to paintings on time. While preventing to do evaluation could be 'rational', there may be an impracticality approximately it, certainly should you believe the architects, engineers and so on. Same is going for theology.

2016-08-28 16:57:40 · answer #2 · answered by ? 4 · 0 0

That's it. Get the preachers to support candidates for office--they lose their churches tax exempt status!!!!



PS--I'm glad to know that you as a Republican are against the Death Penalty. It's quite refreshing. Glad you listened to the "Thou Shall Not Kill" Commandment.

2006-07-27 08:36:21 · answer #3 · answered by Salem 5 · 0 0

Keep religion and politics seperate like it is meant to be. Only fools mix these things, and fools lose.

2006-07-27 08:54:43 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

good question .beacuse i don't

2006-07-27 08:32:42 · answer #5 · answered by idontkno 7 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers