Steve Posted February 5, 2008 Report Share Posted February 5, 2008 Dobson to boycott election if McCain nominated By Christa Marshall The Denver Post Article Last Updated: 02/05/2008 12:52:26 PM MST Dr. James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, in April 2005. (AP)Related Feb 5: Confused Coloradans play catch-up on caucusHuckabee wins West Virginia's 18 delegatesMounds of snow in Durango raise roof collapse concernsSnow departs Denver, lingers on plainsSuper Tuesday weather could snarl voteRaces in states of frenzyActivists calling out Colo. voters; caucuses ready to receiveFeb 4: Parties brace for record Colorado caucus turnoutFeb 5: White stuff a heap of troubleFeb 4: Upload and share your caucus photosHow to caucus in ColoradoFeb 5: Call or e-mail us with caucus colorSaying Sen. John McCain is "not a conservative," Dr. James Dobson proclaimed today he would refrain from voting in the 2008 election if the Arizona senator is the Republican nominee. "Should John McCain capture the nomination as many assume, I believe this general election will offer the worst choices for president in my lifetime. I certainly can't vote for Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama based on their virulently anti-family policy positions. If these are the nominees in November, I simply will not cast a ballot for president for the first time in my life," Dobson said through a prepared statement read on "The Laura Ingraham *********************************** I went to a church once where a lot of the members listed to his show and quoted some things he said. When religious leaders get too heavily involved in politics I start to worry. I think its wrong for him to say that as it inspires his listeners not to participate in the election. EVERY person of influence should be encouraging people to participate in the election as its one of the last remnants left in this republic that we actually have a voice in. Both the large, mostly white southern fundamentalist groups do a lot of political pandering from the public for the Republicans as well as the huge black mega churches as well who let Democratic candidates preach on Sunday morning. Both of the same faith and share the same biblical view of scripture but polar ends of the political spectrum. A bit startling to a certain extent. I give the synagogues and mosques credit for pretty much staying out of the fray for the most part. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Hippie Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 Any religious group/institution etc that gets political should have their tax exempt status pulled. These fucks all cry about religious rights protected by the constitution etc, but then they want to forget the same document separates church and state... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted February 6, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 Agree. You can't get more political than allowing a candidate to get up to the pulpit and give a political speach. I'm no biblical scholar but there has to be some scripture about the sanctity of the pulpit and worship center. To make it worse there isn't even any equal time. At least the networks allow equal time. These churches don't offer the other candidate the chance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 Why not corrupt politicians? They let OJ appear and pronounce his innocence from the pulpit and with his hand on a Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loner w/a boner Posted February 6, 2008 Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 "...last remnants left in this republic..." WOW! Another human being on this Earth who knows that The USA is a republic and not a democracy. I've actually heard people claim that the two were the same--actually quite opposite--the purpose of a constitutional republic is to prevent the "tyranny of the majority" aka: democracy. OH:"...should have their tax exempt status pulled..." What are they doing getting tax exempt status anyway? I understand charities that you give DIRECTLY to, if they give directly to the poor, etc...but that is only a small portion of what church tithe goes for...missions, church operations, etc... "...protected by the constitution...but then they want to forget the same document separates church and state..." Actually, it doesn't say that at all. The constitutional amendment doesn't refer to the behavior/rights of churches or its members, or even the citizenry in general. It refers specifically to the behavior of congress: "Congress shall make no law...". It doesn't state anything other than put a limit on what congress can do. Notice it also doesn't say anything about state legislatures, city councils, courts, the executive branch, etc...since courts and executive aren't suppose to be in the "law making" business anyway, and it inherently respects the tenth amendment: states rights. I am most curious about what level of influence James Dobson and other leaders have in the voting habits of their followers. I think that they probably already think alike, otherwise, they wouldn't be "followers". CS: "...but there has to be some scripture about the sanctity of the pulpit and worship center..." You mean like Jesus beating and casting the moneychangers out of the temple? There's probably always been a strong connection between the political leaders and the "high priests" in any culture. Perhaps leaders are universally aware of the connection between fear/faith/control??? Constantine, the Papacy, Jesse Jackson, Jerry Falwell, and on and on... Ya know, Jesus criticized BOTH the conservatives (pharisees) and the liberals (sadducees): "For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven." Matthew 5:20. I've spent a bit of time in conservative evangelical churches. I once heard a couple of guys (not part of the sermon) discussing if non-Christian parents were capable of really loving their own children!!! Their rationale: if the parents don't know "real" love (God), then how could they feel it. I wanted to hit this one guy in the mouth so fucking bad--right in the teeth. I wonder if he was capable of feeling real pain. I mean, after all, since he's been delivered from "hell and death" and "walks" with God, is he capable of even feeling pain? Okay, off MY pulpit...for now ...so...Did Star of Light ever bring back the black curtains over their bar? Damn shame they changed it. Ruined the place for me. Yours Truly...from Soddam and Gomorrah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steve Posted February 6, 2008 Author Report Share Posted February 6, 2008 Okay, off MY pulpit...for now I grew up in the church as well and for that last statement Jesus said even the unbelievers love their family but you must also love your enemies. The one thing I have found in some churches is that holier than thou attitude when if they truly followed Christ they would be the opposite, humble. The ones who do the fire and brimstone 'you will all go to hell' on the corners are actually going against scripture when it says to be meek and humble and if you enter a town and they do not listen, leave and go to the next. Anyway, you're right in that religious leaders have played a part in just about every society politically. My personal opinion is that a christmas tree on the court lawn is not having a state religion. If some public building in west Detroit (heavy arab/moslem population) wants to have some moslem symbolism on its lawn, so be it. As long as others aren't restrained from practicing their religion, which is how I interpret it, who cares. I certainly understand the argument against any symbolism and I wouldn't be opposed to it. I don't have a problem with it and I interpret it differently than those who want any semblence removed from money, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 Christmas trees have moved beyond religion. I had Jewish neighbours who put up a tree every year because their kids wanted one. (And the papa was a survivor of Buchenwald!) I've seen Christmas trees in Thai schools, where probably 99% of the students were Buddhist. A nativity scene is another matter. That is unquestionably religious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.. Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 My personal opinion is that a christmas tree on the court lawn is not having a state religion. If some public building in west Detroit (heavy arab/moslem population) wants to have some moslem symbolism on its lawn, so be it. As long as others aren't restrained from practicing their religion, which is how I interpret it, who cares. I certainly understand the argument against any symbolism and I wouldn't be opposed to it. I don't have a problem with it and I interpret it differently than those who want any semblence removed from money, etc. I agree with your sentiment, but for pragmatic reasons, it is far easier to say no to all religions (and a legitimate interpretation of separation of church and state) than to try to accommodate all. Because if members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster wants to put something out there, who is to say they are not legitimate. That would lead to chaos as all thee "religions" will want to stake their claim on the public land. Best to just say no. Cheers, SD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashermac Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 << Because if members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster ... >> There ya go, picking on Tom Cruise again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Torneyboy Posted February 7, 2008 Report Share Posted February 7, 2008 Poor Tom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.