What's good for the goose...

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

This statement is irrelevant to the topic at hand. GD's talking about churches and their exempt status. We aren't talking about other organizations.

Well, actually, I see it as completely relevant. The tax exempt status of both churches and the NAACP is linked, in part, to them being "non-political". And I didn't make a big issue of it. It was one sentence of a few posts I've put here in this thread.

I guess it's OK for you to bring up ancient history of Kerry and denial of communion in relation to this debate, but apparently, based on your post, it's irrelevant to bring up Clinton and his policies and failures and how they have directly impacted the Bush Presidency. So which is it? Is it OK to bring up the past when you view it as relevant to a debate, or is it not?

I clearly stated that the church should not directly endorse candidates. That is clear and I do not dispute that. But religious issues do become political, and this does not mean that the church then has to bow out.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I guess it's OK for you to bring up ancient history of Kerry and denial of communion in relation to this debate...

Anctient history? That happened at the exact same time as the events in the original article.

And as GC mentioned, it's not a problem that he's a polititcian and they tried to deny him communion. It's a problem that they tried to deny him communion because he's politician.

[scaeagles]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

Anctient history? That happened at the exact same time as the events in the original article.

I'm being sarcastic here, GD. Of course it isn't ancient history. Of course it is relevant. I just grow tired of posters telling me that things I think are relevant to current events that involve the previous administration - handling of terrorism, handling of Iraq, whatever - are irrelevant. It is annoying when posters tell me that making a comparison between one non-profit and another non-profit that are both supposed to be non-political is irrelevant because one is religious and another is not.

If "you" find it to be "irrelevant", then don't comment on it and elevate the status of said comment into a position of prominence - especially when the comment was a short off-hand remark. Perhaps explaining why you don't think it applies would be better.

Yes, what GD posted was about non-profit churches and if the laws are being applied equitably. I didn't think it out of line to suggest that this problem exists outside the religious community as well, especially when it was not being used as any form of an excuse as to why churches should be permitted to violate the law. In fact, I clearly stated that direct endorsement of candidates is absolutely wrong.