Comments on: Church/State Group Goes After Democrats http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/10/31/churchstate-group-goes-after-democrats/ Atheism with Positivity Sun, 22 Nov 2009 07:36:26 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: Chris Bradley http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/10/31/churchstate-group-goes-after-democrats/comment-page-1/#comment-242291 Chris Bradley Sat, 01 Nov 2008 21:24:44 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=5414#comment-242291 I enjoy watching people defend religion when it's in the service of <I>their</i> ideology. So, when "fundies" support Republicans it's <I>bad</i>. When kind-hearted black religious folks support Obama, it's <I>good</i> because there's been a long history between black churches and civil rights. Therefore, it's okay for Michelle Obama to ignore the law! And if you bring this up, you're <I>against civil rights</i>. Obviously. For my part, I hope Hemant was not being sarcastic because I feel he's right. If it was Cindy McCain in front of a church campaigning for her husband there'd be no doubt in people's minds, hereabouts, that it is a violation of church and state boundaries. I enjoy watching people defend religion when it’s in the service of their ideology. So, when “fundies” support Republicans it’s bad. When kind-hearted black religious folks support Obama, it’s good because there’s been a long history between black churches and civil rights. Therefore, it’s okay for Michelle Obama to ignore the law! And if you bring this up, you’re against civil rights. Obviously.

For my part, I hope Hemant was not being sarcastic because I feel he’s right. If it was Cindy McCain in front of a church campaigning for her husband there’d be no doubt in people’s minds, hereabouts, that it is a violation of church and state boundaries.

]]> By: Justin http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/10/31/churchstate-group-goes-after-democrats/comment-page-1/#comment-242255 Justin Sat, 01 Nov 2008 16:55:24 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=5414#comment-242255 Pick battles, I say. Is this really going to be constructive? I doubt it. If a church allows a particular candidate to speak or be represented, but not any of the opposing candidates, how likely is it that the congregation isn't already behind that one person? McCain rallies at churches only happen at churches where the congregation already backs McCain. Obama rallies at churches only happen at churches where the congregation already backs Obama. Nader rallies at churches only happen at churches where the congregation already backs Nader. I say let them have their masturbatory rallies and find something more constructive to accomplish, yeah? Pick battles, I say. Is this really going to be constructive? I doubt it. If a church allows a particular candidate to speak or be represented, but not any of the opposing candidates, how likely is it that the congregation isn’t already behind that one person?

McCain rallies at churches only happen at churches where the congregation already backs McCain. Obama rallies at churches only happen at churches where the congregation already backs Obama. Nader rallies at churches only happen at churches where the congregation already backs Nader.

I say let them have their masturbatory rallies and find something more constructive to accomplish, yeah?

]]> By: timplausible http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/10/31/churchstate-group-goes-after-democrats/comment-page-1/#comment-242250 timplausible Sat, 01 Nov 2008 16:21:04 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=5414#comment-242250 American's United is a great organization. They take their mission seriously, and although the nature of political discourse in the country means that they most often find themselves opposing religious-political entanglements on the right, they have the integrity to fight for church state separation wherever they find it. Bully for them. It's the way it should be. American’s United is a great organization. They take their mission seriously, and although the nature of political discourse in the country means that they most often find themselves opposing religious-political entanglements on the right, they have the integrity to fight for church state separation wherever they find it. Bully for them. It’s the way it should be.

]]> By: Ubi Dubium http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/10/31/churchstate-group-goes-after-democrats/comment-page-1/#comment-242229 Ubi Dubium Sat, 01 Nov 2008 11:19:42 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=5414#comment-242229 I'm glad to see AU being properly non-partisan in this. The right-wing churches accuse them of only picking on churches who support Republicans, so it's a good thing to see them leaning on the Democrats too. As an Obama supporter, I was uncomfortable with the appropriateness of Michelle's appearance at this gathering, so I approve of AU taking action here. I’m glad to see AU being properly non-partisan in this. The right-wing churches accuse them of only picking on churches who support Republicans, so it’s a good thing to see them leaning on the Democrats too. As an Obama supporter, I was uncomfortable with the appropriateness of Michelle’s appearance at this gathering, so I approve of AU taking action here.

]]> By: Aj http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/10/31/churchstate-group-goes-after-democrats/comment-page-1/#comment-242207 Aj Sat, 01 Nov 2008 05:38:35 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=5414#comment-242207 My understanding comes from secular non-profits that explain their actions in relation to the same laws that apply to them. It doesn't matter whether the building is a church, it's what kind of meeting is going on in the building. It doesn't matter whether it's a church official endorsing candidates or those who they invite officially to speak at their events. My understanding comes from secular non-profits that explain their actions in relation to the same laws that apply to them. It doesn’t matter whether the building is a church, it’s what kind of meeting is going on in the building. It doesn’t matter whether it’s a church official endorsing candidates or those who they invite officially to speak at their events.

]]> By: nontheist http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/10/31/churchstate-group-goes-after-democrats/comment-page-1/#comment-242206 nontheist Sat, 01 Nov 2008 05:28:06 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=5414#comment-242206 The meeting was not held in church though and it was a convention so the person in charge is guilty? A good idea to look into it though I am unsure whether this particular case is a violation. Were attendees Ministers, or other lay people? Are the churches endorsing him to their parishioners? So many questions, so few answers. The meeting was not held in church though and it was a convention so the person in charge is guilty? A good idea to look into it though I am unsure whether this particular case is a violation. Were attendees Ministers, or other lay people? Are the churches endorsing him to their parishioners? So many questions, so few answers.

]]> By: Aj http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/10/31/churchstate-group-goes-after-democrats/comment-page-1/#comment-242196 Aj Sat, 01 Nov 2008 03:58:28 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=5414#comment-242196 I read it as sarcastic. Otherwise it's telling us we should be racists otherwise we're narrow minded jerks, which would be hilarious. I read it as sarcastic. Otherwise it’s telling us we should be racists otherwise we’re narrow minded jerks, which would be hilarious.

]]> By: Epistaxis http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/10/31/churchstate-group-goes-after-democrats/comment-page-1/#comment-242189 Epistaxis Sat, 01 Nov 2008 03:09:59 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=5414#comment-242189 I can't tell if the above message is supposed to be sarcastic, but the IRS shouldn't be in the position of deciding which churches deserve a special exception from the law, and it's good to see that Americans United likewise calls out violations regardless of which party commits them (even though one makes church-state entanglement part of its platform). I can’t tell if the above message is supposed to be sarcastic, but the IRS shouldn’t be in the position of deciding which churches deserve a special exception from the law, and it’s good to see that Americans United likewise calls out violations regardless of which party commits them (even though one makes church-state entanglement part of its platform).

]]> By: Darwin's Dagger http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/10/31/churchstate-group-goes-after-democrats/comment-page-1/#comment-242188 Darwin's Dagger Sat, 01 Nov 2008 02:55:43 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=5414#comment-242188 Never mind the deep historical connections between African-American religious communities and the Civil Rights movement, let's piss all over their celebration of the first viable presidential candidacy of an African-American by being a bunch narrow minded atheists jerks. No wonder people hate you guys! Never mind the deep historical connections between African-American religious communities and the Civil Rights movement, let’s piss all over their celebration of the first viable presidential candidacy of an African-American by being a bunch narrow minded atheists jerks.

No wonder people hate you guys!

]]> By: Trouble http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/10/31/churchstate-group-goes-after-democrats/comment-page-1/#comment-242183 Trouble Sat, 01 Nov 2008 02:25:08 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/?p=5414#comment-242183 Nothing would please the Christian folk more than those GodlessCommieSocialistTerroristMarxistNaziSatanist heathens to come after a Christian woman. This is great news! For Obama. ;) Nothing would please the Christian folk more than those GodlessCommieSocialistTerroristMarxistNaziSatanist heathens to come after a Christian woman.

This is great news!

For Obama. ;)

]]>