Saddleback Church Civil Forum - Obama & McCain 10 of 17

[trinta999]

America should be ashamed. 200 Years after Jefferson and these religious quacks still have an audience. These uneducated people believe dinosaurs died out because they did not fit on Noahs Ark. And what kind of god would send "himself" - YES JESUS IS PART OF THE TRINITY- to be crucified? Does anyone really think about how ridiculous Christian theology really is. A virgin birth, Noahs Ark, Adam and Eve and a talking snake, ...Lincoln and Jefferson would be ashamed by this superstition.

[life0is0just0a0ride]

can someone please tell me why you american's mix religion and politics? i think this is america's biggest fault.

if those people in faith based org. weren't in a faith based org. they would still have tried to help. they didnt help because of there faith they helped because of there own morals.some people will always try to help in times of disaster they dont need faith based orgs to do so.

[Shahfilms]

America has something called "Seperation of Church and State". Can you be a bit more ignorant?

[life0is0just0a0ride]

good i dont live in america so i only can only can what i see. if a non-believer (atheist) wanted to become a senator would that be possible. and is there any?

[Shahfilms]

Of coarse it would be possible. And believe me they're are plenty of senators who don't have a faith in god, although they won't admit that they are atheists.

[life0is0just0a0ride]

why wouldnt they admit it. its not as if its wrong to not believe something theres no prove of. i find it weird america has separation of church and state. yet every senator i see that runs speaks loudly about there faith. its seems a condradiction but ofcourse im not american, so as i said i can only call what i see. it just seems from the outside looking in that a senator needs to be religious to be a leader. i hope im wrong and i properly am. but theres no harm in questioning.

[FujinKage]

Because America was founded on Christianity and it's important to us that the people we are putting in charge have strong morals. I'm not saying we've done a good job of it, but God is in the constitution and every states preamble. For a Satanist or an Atheist or a Musim or something to run for the position of running a state or the country would be RIDICULOUS. They have to swear in. Would a Satanish swear in on the Book of Damnation? The Muslims on the Koran? What would the Atheist swear in on?

[FujinKage]

How could we expect someone of a religion with such different values or someone of no religion at all to uphold what is supported by faith? I'm not explaining this well I think. Sorry.

Also, Those people would have helped if they weren't part of a faith based organization. But it's not guaranteed that they would have helped if they didn't have their faith. Alot of peoples morals are instilled by their faith.

[life0is0just0a0ride]

Are you saying if you/people didnt have faith your/there morals would drop. i really dont think faith gives us are morals. i thinks maybe things in life can effect your morals and faith may alter them but you would have choosen that faith already on a moral choice. but its a hard discussion because ofcourse it cant be tested(i dont think) just hypothesized. so you may have a point i'll certainly ponder on it. thanks for the question. thou i must stress im an atheist but i still have good morals.

[FujinKage]

Oh no no. lol Please don't misunderstand. I am fully aware that that is not the case for all people. That is why I said, "Alot of peoples" I understand that people will decide their morals with or without faith but... Well... lol I'm trying to think of a good way to put this. Ok, *I* believe that someone of faith is more likely to give more of their selves for the sake of others like they have been taught. That's not to say that all people of faith would. lol You're right, its a hard discussion.

[Loriprl]

You need to rewatch part 1 of this interview where Rick Warren explains what you don't get about us Americans. "Saddleback Church Civil Forum - Obama & McCain 1 of 17"

[life0is0just0a0ride]

if ur talking about "Seperation of Church and State" i think america condradicts that when a president has to swear in on a bible. i've already discussed this with someone so i dont really need this arguement. plus i recently came to the conclusion i dont care anymore, america is pointless discussion, to many condradictions and the discussion isn't going to change anything so people can believe whatever they want i dont care anymore.

[tenderglo4]

i understand sometimes these conversations can be frustrating but don't be upset. I hope you reconsider not caring about talking about america . YOU may answer this question in private if you choose just go to my page and send me a message. My question is Why do you not care about discussing the subject America?

[jjmcoates]

Obama, Abortion rates have fallen since Bush has been in office and since republicans started passing pro life laws around the USA.

The Guttmacher Institute, reports a more than 25% decline from 1990 to 2005 in the abortion rate, with the number of abortions down 9% since the year 2000 and down to the levels of 30 years ago.

[pah0123]

Once again Obama takes twice as long to answer the questions than McCain does. He has to uh and oh and be so careful no to say anything wrong or that will offend any potential voters. McCain jumps out there and tells it like it is!!!!

[issacky]

Love how Mccain's answers are so definite and resolved, unlike Obama's droning which goes on and on and on and on...

[plslyjordan]

I am keeping score and so far, McCain is in the lead 10-0. It is his style of answering. If you were interviewing someone, you prefer the candidate who gives a direct answer instead of a wishy washy...on one hand you got this and on the other hand you got this... This is my objective opinion, even though I am leaning towards voting Obama.

[pah0123]

I agree 100% but can't imagine why you are leaning towards Obama? If he can't even give a straight answer how can he lead our country??

[FellowPatriot]

It would probably be better to stay away from Federal funds—it only gives organizations such as the whiny ACLU something to sue over. <_<

[ls1z28chris]

Wow, I've never heard someone portray a group devoted to defending liberties guaranteed in the Constitution as a bunch of whiners. Usually people who believe in the Constitution and devote their lives to its defense are called patriots.

[1iceman2004]

The ACLU in conception may have had more noble ideals but todays ACLU are not patriots by any liberal stretch of the definition.

[ls1z28chris]

Give me some examples of cases they've brought into the judiciary that illustrate them not fulfilling the the principle of protecting the liberties ensured by our Constitution.

[1iceman2004]

Everson v. Board of Education redefining the meaning of separation of church and state. U.S. v. Seeger, anti-war case extending conscientious objector status. Furman v. Georgia. First anti-capital punishment case arguing "cruel and unusual punishment". Holtzman v. Schlesinger. Anti-war lawsuit attempting to halt the bombing of Cambodia. Lats but not least their opposition to metal detectors in schools and/or the expulsion of children found in possession of firearms in the schools. Just a few.

[ls1z28chris]

Each of your examples are cases where the ACLU is supporting, rather than subverting, the Constitution. Do you want me to go down the list case by case and tell you why?

[1iceman2004]

No need to recant the ACLU's arguments, many that found their footing with the Warren court. By the way, they didn't win all of the cases listed or many they've brought to the courts since so they're not always defending but attempting to infuse their own spin on it. Roe vs. Wade introduced us to the concept of "eminations of an idea" when not clearly addressed constitution.

The bottom line is that they're responsible for watering down laws and embolding criminals.

[ls1z28chris]

The phrase "attempting to infuse their own spin" could be applied to any Constitutional argument by any party, not just the ACLU.  It is most appropriately applied to the dubious Constitutional arguments made by the Bush administration to support expanded FISA powers and the Patriot Act.

I disagree with the notion that the ACLU abdicates the Constitution and are not patriots on the basis that they think differently than you.

[1iceman2004]

Let's not forget that the legislative body makes admendments to the Constitution and create the laws, ie: FISA, Patriot Act, etc. and that the Executive Branch enforces and excercises them with the Judicial supervising, for lack of a better term. So when has the SC determined that the executive has violated those authorities? Until at such time, the idea of the Executives arguements being "dubious" is still to be determined by the Justices.

[billrah]

Faith based initiatives SHOULD NOT be funded by Federal, State, or Local governments.

They should be funded by individuals donating to what they want through their charitable donations only.

[ls1z28chris]

I'm with you on that, though I'd go one step further and advocate the abolition of tax free status for religious groups.

These cults and their Bentley driving charlatans should not be allowed to hide behind superstition and should be required to pay taxes like any other for profit institution.

[billrah]

I agree the churches shouldn't be tax free.

Some of them have more riches than the biggest corporations.

[OmniNorth]

There is no rationale for taxing churches.

[billrah]

Are you saying you don't think churches make a profit on their endeavors ?

[OmniNorth]

I'm saying that taxing churches would be bad.

Much like taxing private homes and family farms is bad.

[jesseakers]

not a biblical church- they would give their profit to the poor....

[billrah]

1. defina a "biblical" chuch for me.

2. How many pastors of these churches are living in multi-million dollar homes ?

[Gutcheckcoming]

1. A church that follows sola scriptura

2. thatd be impossible to know for sure but I'd say none most likely.

[billrah]

Do you think Sen. Obama's old church follows

"sola scriptura" ?

If yes you've found one that had a pastor who lives in a multi-million dollar home.

[Gutcheckcoming]

heck no obama's pastors a mad man,i wasnt defending obama, i actually fear the man, i was answering the 2 questions listed , i had no idea what they were in response to.

[billrah]

the original two were in response to jesseakers comment.

I also fear Obama, but the second question was to you especially your response to

How many pastors of these churches are living in multi-million dollar homes ?

Contrary to your thoughts , I would say there are many, and Rev. Wright is one of them.

[Gutcheckcoming]

rev. wright teaches black liberation theology. Liberation theology is not biblical.

[billrah]

Are you telling me that TUCC doesn't preach from the bible ?

I know they have their own interpretations, but all churches do , don't they.

Give me the names of some churches you consider to be biblical.

Is the Catholic church biblical ?

How about Baptist denominations ?

[Gutcheckcoming]

preaching from the bible and biblical is different. Its the ones that add things that are no where in the bible that are not biblical. Their is no scripture for the tucc or alot of the catholic churches practices , they are traditions carried out based on the generations before them rather than what is in the bible.I don't think any denomination as a whole is biblical , but some churches using the tag could possibly be.

[billrah]

Lets forget about which churches are biblical or not, but you brought it up and haven't named one yet that you think is.

The question began on whether churches should be taxed or not. I still say they should.

They make profits, it is questionable to say the least how much of that profit is used for the poor, and the GOOD work of the particular church.

I contend that many of the people who run the churches live high off the hog, and trickle down little to their constituents.

[Gutcheckcoming]

my church doesn't make profits, they stay on budget exactly with the money they get with a small emergency fund to cover one months land tax if their aren't many donations that month.

[billrah]

One last time

I'm not asking you about your church.

You made a claim that you thought a church that did make profits would give them to the poor.

Then you talked about "biblical" churches.

You have not answered any questions posed about either one.

If you don't answer my questions then this conversation is over.

And by the way what is the name of your church ?

[stabnore]

I personally have no issue with a pastor living well. Paul didn't bring a wife along with him but Peter did...

So, if a Pastor is not damaging his own conscience then let him have what he agrees with the deacons to make.

That said many will have a kind of "Schindler's list" moment where they realize that all these trappings could have purchased much more for the people who needed their help.

[billrah]

Living well is one thing.

Living well beyond the means of their congregation is comparible to me with the disparity between CEO lifestyles, and the average worker.

If we want to complain about the superrich living extravagant lifestyles, we should have the same standard for the "religious" sect, maybe even stricter.

Personally I think everyone should be free to live as well as they can by "legitimate" means.

[stabnore]

I don't want to complain about the super rich.

The biblical principle people seam to over look when bashing people who have more than they do is: Thou Shalt not Covet.

[ls1z28chris]

The rationale for taxing churches is the same for taxing any for profit organization.

Your contention that private homes and family farms aren't taxed is perplexing. Who, then, pays property taxes? (That's a rhetorical question, by the way.)

[OmniNorth]

I wrote that taxing private homes and family farms IS bad.

Present tense.

Something happening right now.

The government should decrease the number of spheres it taxes instead of increasing that number.

[ls1z28chris]

Gotcha, my misunderstanding.

My point is that cults/churches shouldn't get a special tax free status.

[OmniNorth]

Federal funding of faith based organizations will result in someone like Obama compelling those faith based organizations to hire people who willfully engage in gay conduct, even though such conduct runs completely counter to the doctrine of the faith based organizations getting the funds.