Not America! We gave them their country back from the Germans. We pretty much had to destroy it to free it, but that’s the way we roll.
I think you’re getting the hang of it.
Here’s a raft of stupid ideas coming from the GOP contenders now, as they addressed extremist religious groups in Iowa:
Newt Gingrich supports an idea that was literally too conservative even for Mississippi. Genius.: “To limit abortion, former House speaker Newt Gingrich, one of the leading candidates in polls here, proposed a federal law defining ‘personhood’ as starting at conception, similar to a provision backed by abortion opponents that was rejected earlier this month by voters in Mississippi.”
More Gingrich hyper-extremism: “The degree to which the left is prepared to impose intolerance and to drive out of existence traditional religion is a mortal threat to our civilization and deserves to be taken head-on and described as what it is, which is abuse of government to oppress the American people against their own values,” Gingrich said. If this were the SDMB, I’d like to see a cite on that. It is pure demonizing wacko.
Rick Perry took the low road on prejudicial discrimination: “Texas Gov. Rick Perry said he supported provisions that would limit the ability of gay couples to adopt children…”
One more, from Cain: “Herman Cain called for changing provisions in the tax code that restrict churches’ involvement in politics if they want to keep their tax-exempt status.”
Mitt Romney, to his credit, skipped all that crap.
Christ, what a mess. Their main selling point is that they are not him, and his only virtue is he is not them.
Meh. He recognized that, as a Mormon, he had absolutely no chance of scoring points with the almost-uniquely rabid religious wackos of the Iowa pre-Caucus run-up.
That may not be true. With the recent revolving door hitting all the Not-Romney candidates in the ass, he may be able to win Iowa with only 23% of the vote, if all the others split the remaining 77%. I think that is the logic in his recent increase in advertising in Iowa.
This is also the reason why Huntsman skipped it. the Christian Right are not known to be Mormon-friendly. They’re pretty Catholic-lukewarm too. I think this may be because they have a very loose understanding what what it means to be Christian.
Actually, it’s very tight, very restrictive. It’s just asinine as well.
Speaking of personhood, language has been submitted for a third try at a Personhood Amendment here in Colorado. In 2008, it lost 73-27, in 2010, 71-29. That has not seem to provided its proponents a clue.
Like they doubted your intentions before? Look, the people are very clear on what you are trying to do, and they keep shooting you down. There’s a word to describe doing the same thing and expecting different results.
They didn’t skip it. They weren’t invited to it. Those are the two who Bob VanderPlaats will not support. Not Wacko enough. He will spopport Gingrich, though, since Newt backed up a truck load of money to his group in 2010.
According to the article I linked above: “Romney opted against attending the forum, instead campaigning in New Hampshire. Organizers bristled at Romney’s absence, and Bob Vander Platts, head of the Family Leader, predicted before the forum ‘the next president of the United States will be presenting to you tonight.’”
Cite that they weren’t invited?
Pretty standard republican fare…
Wait, how is this a bad thing? This seems like a very anti-religious idea to me… I’d stand behind this, honestly.
Okay, this is nuts.
Not to fear. Gingrich dug his own grave in tonight’s debate by being insufficiently punitive toward illegal aliens.
So he took summary executions off the table then? Pussy.
The current provisions of the tax code allow specifically religious organizations to be tax-exempt while specifically political ones are not. So churches have to abide by certain restrictions on political activity (e.g., they can oppose abortion in general but can’t officially campaign for specific anti-abortion candidates) in order to retain their tax-exempt status. I don’t see anything particularly anti-religious in that.
What Cain is after, AFAICT, is loosening those regulations so that churches can be directly involved in political contests in the same way that political groups are, while still remaining tax-exempt. Personally, I think that’s an inappropriate entanglement of government with religion, and I’m against it.

Here’s a raft of stupid ideas coming from the GOP contenders now, as they addressed extremist religious groups in Iowa:
<snip>
One more, from Cain: “Herman Cain called for changing provisions in the tax code that restrict churches’ involvement in politics if they want to keep their tax-exempt status.”
Theoretically, if Cain can convince the Congress to do it, they could change the rules. The tax-exemption rule is not Constitutionally protected nor sanctioned.
The rational for rule was explained to me this way: When Congress agreed to tax exemption, it was thus limiting its ability to intrude upon that religious organizations First Amendment rights (i. e., religion clause). Conversely, the religious organization agreed not involve themselves directly or explicitly in politics via endorsements and funding (an explicit example of the separation church and state, if you will).
OTOH, historically speaking, I’m at a loss to know if churches and other religious organizations were involved in politics before this law was implemented. I would guess that most of them would have been loathed to engage in this because…
you’ve got ask yourself these questions:
Do I want my religious clergyman and/or assembly endorsing politician(s)?
What if disagree?
What if I disagree strongly?
What if I think that the Pastor/Assembly is now a heretical and evil?
This stuff happens to one degree or another all the time in churches (oh what fun it was when my parents church allowed a gay couple to join). But to mix politics as part of the church’s mission–schisms, rifts, and mass departures are sure to follow like ants to a picnic basket. Cain might as well be the Antichrist…
ETA: Hmm…maybe Cain is the Antichrist
In Greek and Jewish translations, “Cain” refers to the Son of Satan
Yup, y’all can’t get all more antichristie then that…
…Cain’s speaking ability is touted by many to have a ‘miraculous’ capability to turn people to his way of thinking…
Oy.

Theoretically, if Cain can convince the Congress to do it, they could change the rules. The tax-exemption rule is not Constitutionally protected nor sanctioned.
Perhaps, but it is stupid, which is what this thread is about.
If religion can be tax-exempt yet remain politically active, that would surely at some point rub against the establishment clause.
[QUOTE=user_hostile]
OTOH, historically speaking, I’m at a loss to know if churches and other religious organizations were involved in politics before this law was implemented. I would guess that most of them would have been loathed to engage in this because…
[/QUOTE]
Really? I don’t know when that rule was implemented in the U.S., but churches have been involved in politics since churches have been churches. Churches are still (heavily) involved in politics, they just have some guidelines they have to follow in the U.S. if they want to be tax exempt. See - LDS involvement in the Prop 8 fight, conservative churches involved in the abortion debate, liberal churches involved in the immigration debate, etc.

…OTOH, historically speaking, I’m at a loss to know if churches and other religious organizations were involved in politics before this law was implemented. I would guess that most of them would have been loathed to engage in this because…
I would guess just the opposite. Church people are full of self-righteousness, moral certainty, and a willingness to tell everyone in the world exactly how to behave. Telling people how to vote would be a no brainer for them.