I dont think any of us can say "most Christians"...I dont think we have very accurate data. Most, evangelical, GOP-donating Christians...yes.
Dobson Divorces Self From the Truth
- Thread starter JollyRoger
- Start date
I dont think any of us can say "most Christians"...I dont think we have very accurate data. Most, evangelical, GOP-donating Christians...yes.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
How do you know that?
It was in a poll earlier this year....
Again, thats not what he said. I believe the quote was he wasnt sure he was a christian. Did he say anything about him being an atheist? I mean come on, what part of this:
Is calling him an atheist?
Oh please. You just dont want the guy to have an opinion for the simple reason he IS an evangelical. Give it a rest.
oh well, I guess it's his right, personally I try to make out if a person is moral in my view without taking his religion into the picture, but I know that many people (unfortunately, IMHO) don't do this.
I would never vote for a guy who thinks that him being a christian is a reason to vote for him (likewise I wouldn't vote for a atheist who thinks him being not a christian is a reason)
but then, I don't get to vote in american elections anyway, so it's a moot point
I would never vote for a guy who thinks that him being a christian is a reason to vote for him (likewise I wouldn't vote for a atheist who thinks him being not a christian is a reason)
but then, I don't get to vote in american elections anyway, so it's a moot point
How does a man lose his tax-free status by engaging in politics? I don't understand, really, how this man has not crossed the line? Isn't endorsing someone forbidden by people who have tax-free status?
Then you're being disingenuous by mentioning it as if it is a fact, considering that you don't believe that polls are reliable. In fact, you deliberately attempted to discredit the science of polling previously in another thread.
It was in a poll earlier this year....
Then you're being disingenuous by mentioning it as if it is a fact, considering that you don't believe that polls are reliable. In fact, you deliberately attempted to discredit the science of polling previously in another thread.
classical_hero
In whom I trust
This is a pointless thread. 
Obviously it is wrong for someone to speak about another person.
Obviously it is wrong for someone to speak about another person.
Er, that's not the issue, Classical Hero. The issue is whether he should be able to keep his tax-free status if he's going to express political opinions.
Does he? I thought Focus on the Family was actually a PAC.
Then either Mr. Dobson is a moron, or he's wanting to put a stake in Thompson's presidential bid without taking ownership of it.
Given that something like 70% of the US is Christian, and I'd guess the figure is even higher for white men born in Alabama, higher still for "pro-family" types among them. For Dobson to consider Thompson "not a Christian" based on "no data" (i.e. not referring to it) is disingenuous BS. Dobson just got done giving Newt Gingrich a forum for coming clean on his marital infidelities, after all, and one would reasonably infer that he's thereby pushing Gingrich as a candidate.
What Dobson is too self-absorbed to realize is that Newt can't beat Hillary or Obama. In fact, Newt is the Hillary of the Right - he's a polarizing figure that has extremely high negative numbers already. In that, I'm surprised you're not castigating him for causing people to stupidly waste their votes.
Here's an article from Newsmax.com on the topic offering some clarification on the comments. To my knowledge, Fred Thompson hasn't announced he is running for President and my not intend to anyway. Besides, whoever heard of an actor becoming President?
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/3/28/151351.shtml?s=ic
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2007/3/28/151351.shtml?s=ic
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
Men dont have tax free status....churches do. The man is giving his opinion as a man, as he has a right to do, not giving an endorsement of his church.
For the most part I still dont. But you do. So perhaps you should give it some thought.
Discredit the science? Hardly. I think polls are good propaganda and easily crafted to indicate what information you want. Polls are like communisim. They look good on paper, but only really work if eveyone involved is honest - something not usually humanly possible.
except when they prove something that I like...then I'll gladly use them in an argument.
waaaaaait for it..
there!
I didn't really need to give it thought. I already knew that there were people who would use material they thought was propaganda in order to disparage minority groups. I'm constantly startled at the lack of intellectual honesty, I guess.
There will always be people who are willing to deceive to mold society the way they want; the best you can do is expose them.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
]
Being intellectual and honest has nothing to do with it. People who believe in religion dont like atheists who say we belong in an institution. Atheists like Skadistic directly lead to polls that indicate such things as atheists are the least trusted group of people in the USA.
Deceive? Mold? Again, that has nothing to do with how utterly nasty some atheists can be in regards to peoples faith.
I thought that priest's salaries are not taxed? Am I off about that? Or does Dobson not fall into this category?
Well, both Dobson and Jolly Roger can say what they want. But in this case, what Dobson said is kind of silly.
You should see the circular firing squads his quote is setting off on the more conservative forums like RedState and FreeRepublic. Mission Accomplished, Dobson.
MobBoss
Off-Topic Overlord
You are off on that. Priests, Pastors, Preachers.....if they earn an income they pay taxes right along with the rest of us.
I dont hang out in those places. I guess I am not as much a neoconservative as you are.
Huh, learn something every day. I thought there were three layers of tax-exemption (our donations are tax-free, the church doesn't pay tax, and neither does the priest). I guess there are only two.
I also thought he was a pastor. Oops. A quick wiki hints that he isn't.
Redstate is sometimes readable and is a decent place to go for arguments that might actually influence me to change my mind on an issue. FreeRepublic is for comic relief.I dont hang out in those places. I guess I am not as much a neoconservative as you are.
Hardly any of them admit to being neoconservatives - anymore. The Bush bashing that goes on on those sites today is pretty funny - the main difference between me and them was that I was bashing Bush before it was kewl.
Come on, it was kewl to bash Bush before he was elected.
Similar threads
