Sure you are. I can respect a conservative who says “I’m doing this conservative thing because I’m a conservative.”
I don’t respect people who claim to be Christians while not following commandments that are clearly Christian.
He was just trying to be…thorough.
The point is, helping the unfortunate is not a minor aside in the Bible. It’s a major theme. Now, if one were to recite a full list of verses where the Bible condemns homosexuality (something the AFA is emphatic that we take heed of), it would consist of 3 or 4 items at best. So if we have something the Bible repeats over and over and over again, one might think that the AFA would think that even more important than hating on the gays.
But apparently not.
Pitting of hypocritical so called christians endorsed and supported by bobot!
I can’t tell for sure because the link just goes to a general page, not a specific page with this story in it. But reading the link seems to tell me this is not about the current crisis of children crossing the border (it speaks of 5-6M illegal immigrants taking jobs). Rather, it’s about adult illegal aliens in the US. The objection seems to be about not securing the border, which I think even a proper Christian can expect the government to do.
Further, once again we seem to have a poster who is confusing what an individual Christian should do with what a Christian should expect its government to do. In this case, the OP is upset that the group wants the government NOT to do something the individuals perhaps should be doing. But what if this same group had been lobbying FOR the government to declare the country to be ruled by Christian principles? Then the OP would be pitting them for doing something that, ostensibly, is in line with their Christian beliefs.
So which is it? Or does it depend on whether the action is in line with what you want the government to do? Bad when Christian groups oppose “X action which is nominally Christian” but also bad when Christian groups favor “Y action which is nominally Christian”? It all depends on whether you, yourself, support X or Y.
Well, perhaps. As a Roman Catholic, of course, I hold that Scripture and Holy Tradition are of equal import, and that Jesus nominated Peter to lead His church on Earth, with the full authority to do so. (“Whatever you bind on Earth…”)
So I don’t declare the Bible as an absolute and infallible direction in life.
Do these people?
Ha! There was a lot that I left out. But as has been pointed out already, the consistency of this theme throughout the Bible is a big part of the point- it isn’t just some side remark.
Rats! Thanks for the clarification though.
From the IRS definition of a 501(c)(3):
Now go back and read the statement quoted in the OP. Doesn’t it look like they are behaving as an action organization, in direct contradiction of their stated values? Doesn’t it look like they are trying to influence legislation? So my point stands- they ought to be stripped of their tax-exempt status because clearly they exist for political and not religious purposes.
I know, you are going to argue the ‘substantial part of its activities’ part, and how does one draw that line? All I can say is that everyone who pays attention understands that 501(c)(3) status is basically a bullshit gaming of the system, but one the lawyers of the world will probably successfully defend in most instances regardless.
There’s a hypocrisy by non-Christians who claim that America isn’t a “Christian country” - which it arguably isn’t - but then demand that America apply what they consider a “Christian approach” to certain issues, such as welcoming illegal immigrants.
These non-Christians, by the way, wouldn’t want America to apply a “Christian approach” to abortion or homosexuality.
The same Bible also commanded Israelite parents to stone rebellious sons to death. Do you want that in America, too?
I don’t think that’s the point of this pitting. The AFA leads with the alleged Christian beliefs. Otherwise, no one is talking Christianity.
Well, wait. If you can’t say with certainty what the “substantial part” test is, then how is it you’re certain there’s bullshit gaming going on?
Uh…doesn’t this sound uncomfortably similar to the sort of thing conservatives say?
Godamn eight year old starving Honduran kids, “taking jobs that rightfully belong to American citizens.”
I, for one, and sick of third graders threatening my health, public safety and national security. Will nobody think of the…uh, ok…nevermind.
If he’s really holding Christian values, then the answer should be the same in both cases: the individual, and his government, should be Christ-like.
Saying, “I, as an individual, would give a man the shirt off my back, but my government should send them back to privation and misery” seems hypocritical. It’s just standing aside and letting the government be the bad guy. Not very “Christian.”
I consider myself (to a proportional degree) responsible for the things my government does. When they sin, my morality is tainted.
At very least, the Christian should be advocating for positions that are more Christlike. He should be asking his government to help, not to harm.
Did you read the OP? “We believe the Bible to be the inspired, the only infallible, authoritative Word of God.”
But then they turn around and ignore the Bible when they don’t agree with what it says.
Again, I have no problem with people that say they follow some parts of the Bible and don’t follow others. As long as you’re honest about your beliefs, there’s no hypocrisy there.
But if you’re going to talk the talk, you’d better walk the walk.
That’s not the issue we’re talking about. We’re talking about the hypocrisy of a group declaring its absolute support for a set of rules and then failing to themselves abide by those rules. It’s not that we want America to be run by Christian principles. But the people who are calling for American to be run by Christian principles should follow the principles they’re advocating. If they can’t live by their own rules, what business do they have telling other people what rules to live by?
Nope. I, as an individual, will give you the shirt off my back, but I will not force my neighbor to give the shirt off his back. That is my neighbor’s decision to make.
There’s some irony there, no doubt. Do conservatives have a monopoly on this line of thinking? Can we only say these things when we’re full of shit and are masking our own gaming of the system to the detriment of the vulnerable? Do you approve of defrauding the IRS? The point is, one group is a legitimate target of Christian charity, while another group, self-professed providers of Christian charity (so that they can get their tax exemption), aren’t following through, but instead doing the exact opposite of their stated mission. Why should the IRS extend charity to a group that is lying about its charity provider status? The tax cheating by groups like the AFA is one of the reasons these refugees are,
It is as if the AFA is run by Satan himself. They blame the kids in need, which exposes their true freeloading, as opposed to the demagogic accusations you hear from the right these days on this theme.
I can’t remember a clearer example of hypocrisy. Ever.
I don’t have to resort to the substantial part business, the bullshit gaming is obvious.
We’ve got a clear example of the AFA committing fraud against the IRS by claiming certain religious convictions in order to receive the benefit of tax-exempt status, and then violating the terms of the agreement. The burden now is for them to prove that they deserve it, not the other way around.
Surely you know the definition of 501(c)(3)- it is for charitable organizations. If you read that definition together with the self-professed values of the AFA, can you look me in the eye and tell me they are being either charitable or Christian? Can you tell me they aren’t using their position to take pot-shots at the President and attempting to influence legislation, in clear violation of a straigtforward reading of the IRS definition of a 501(c)(3)? I don’t doubt you can find a way, but I’ll be darned if I can predict what it will be.
That isn’t quite what governments do.
A Christian would vote for tax money to be spent on buying/making shirts, to be given to those in need of them.
He would also probably vote to give sanctuary to people fleeing from crime, poverty, and war.
Exactly. This. They may claim to be Christians, but they are acting very much in opposition to what Christ said.