Every study I've looked for that actually shows wages adjusted for position, experience, etc, shows this is false.

Corey Booker "hold me beer"

The look on Booker's face when Biden said he supports legalization...

My kids would recognize that look from me when they say they brushed their teeth

FWIW

Gender pay gap in the United States - Wikipedia

The average pay raise in the us is 3% and I would certainly consider a 6% difference significant, ymmv.

Gender Pay Gap Statistics for 2019 | PayScale

Lot more data there. And yes, those numbers SHOULD be one to one. But they're much, much closer than that ridiculous 80% line that gets tossed around all the time.

I think the 'controlled' figure is certainly worth considering, and perhaps even carries more weight than the raw, uncontrolled number, but you can't just throw that raw number out.

If men are getting paid 26% more than women on average, but that difference is only 2% when comparing folks with the same job and experience then that necessarily suggests that there are millions of women working extremely low paying positions that don't employ men (or conversely that all the highest paying jobs go to men), or they have a collective experience gap when compared to men, all of which could just as easily be attributed to cultural bias as the gap in salary. In CW's article it is referred to as the 'opportunity gap'.

We disagree on the value of the raw number, but...

Want to make that raw number go way way way WAY up? Pay teachers (a massively women dominated field) appropriately.

Like teaching, I think of nursing as still being pretty female dominated. I also imagine there's a whole tier of practically invisible, much lower paying jobs, but I dunno how true that is.....when was the last (or first?) time you've ever seen a man working hotel housecleaning, or in a nail salon, for example?

As for the significance of the raw numbers, if most women with the same amount of experience are making 98% of their male colleagues, but the raw wage gap is still at 76% doesn't that suggest that for every single woman making 98% of her male colleague's wages there is another woman making 50% less than the average man (or that the number of women with comparable positions & experience is so low that it has made practically no dent in the raw numbers)?

And home healthcare workers.

IMO, a big piece of the difference are women who make the decision to quit working for a period of years to raise kids. That said, there are some women dominated professions (teaching, nursing, housekeeping) that are underpaid. But men are also underpaid in those professions, so I'm not sure what can be done there. Maybe as time goes on and more dads decide to stay at home, this gap will start to decrease.

What exactly, is "appropriate"?

That's a societal pressure though. One of the issues with the "adjusting for choices" numbers is that for a long time (and still somewhat to this day), it's the woman who is expected to leave work early if the kid is sick; it's the woman who is supposed to take extra time off to raise the kids. Some other countries deal with this a bit differently - one is providing or subsidizing child care which lessens the pressure to stay at home or take a longer maternity leave.

I agree, but there are also a large portion of women who enjoy raising kids. Part of that is society telling them that's how it should be and part of that is experiences with their own mother. I don't know that we will ever completely eradicate that from our society (which isn't a bad thing). I also think you will see more dad's make the decision to stay home with their kids (also not a bad thing).

I think we are in a very competitive job market and there is really no reason for a woman to be underpaid in many professions (hence the 2% diff). But, until women stop making the decision to stay home and raise kids, there will always be that delta.

Honestly, I think many women will continue to make that decision for a long time going forward. And I think it is just as damaging to tell them that forgoing their career is a bad decisions to raise kids, just as bad as it was 20 years ago to tell them they should always quit their career to raise kids. Each woman has what is important to them and being shamed because they quit their career (and then earn less money later) isn't fair to them if they value raising their kids more.

I will say for every woman who wants to stay home and raise kids, there are far more that want the men to do more in the raising of kids or domestic housework. Slowly more men are staying home or doing more, but that's a big part of the difference as well.

I think the nursing field is a good example of how the 'controlled' number can be skewed. Woman and men who were interested in healthcare have been culturally encouraged to take entirely different routes. For most of America's history women in healthcare were told to take nursing jobs, do most of the work, and get paid less than the male doctors. That difference isn't going to show up in the 'controlled' number because the industy has practically been segregated.

FWIW, I think Yang and Buttigieg have improved dramatically over the course of these debates. I don't see either having much of a chance this time around, but Buttigieg in particular will be one to watch in the future.

This still comes down to Biden, Warren, or Sanders. Warren seems to have plateaued. Biden is Biden. He's out of touch in some areas, but connects well with voters and is going to make some horrible gaffes when he speaks. Bernie just seems to spend each debate reminding everyone he's Bernie.

Klobuchar did well last night but I don't see her gaining traction.

Booker is just consistently solid and overlooked.

Booker is still my favorite. He has a lot of support as a #2, the problem is that everyone's number #1's are still leading him. I still think he could make some progress in this race. Yang is moving up in my book as well.

Buttigieg desperately needs a cabinet level job to boost his profile. There may not be any race in Indiana that he can win other than mayor, and I don't think that's ever going to be good enough.

I don't agree with Pete on everything, but you know what? He's from my generation, and that puts him ahead of the oldsters. Bernie and Liz Have Plans. Cool. They can shape the legislation, Pete can sign it, and the boomers can fuck right off into political retirement as far as the White House goes.

Boomers vs Snowflakes.

BTW, "ok, boomer" is hurtful to many and some say "the n-word of ageism" :)

Heard a snippet from Yang about being in birthplace of MLK and that MLK was fighting for a "universal income". I didn't know this but sure enough ...

https://www.theatlantic.com/business...ricans/279147/

So went to Yang's website. Hey, everyone gets $1,000 per month not just the absolute needy. Have to pay more attention to this guy!

exactly

Definitely a bigot and prejudice aren't you?

:nono:

Meh. Kinda hard to muster up sympathy for the boomer generation on the topic of ageism.

Yeah, it is hurtful and that's the fucking point. They've built an entire party around being against minorities and "outrage culture" etc., so they can fuck off with being offended by jack shit

Just so I understand your point, so "they" is the vast majority, majority, or powerful minority? Would like to know the breadth of your (and others) condemnation.

As John Mulaney has said, if you can't say one of the words, they aren't the same.

It's rich for Boomers to be offended when "Ok, Boomer" is a clapback to a multitude of sneers at Millennials. Suck it up snowflakes.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

This could turn out to be a very interesting discussion top. Clash of the ages.

I'll setup another thread so not to hijack this worthy thread.

Not even a little bit. That word has been around for at least a generation and it's only just now that millennials are pushing back that boomers are going WAHHH AGEISM YOU'RE CALLING US N-WORDS.

Ha. No. Fuck off.


Millennials can't do this, millennials are killing that, millennials are participation trophy snowflakes who - ok, boomer - OH MY GOD AGEISTS ITS AS BAD AS THE N-WORD.

Ha. No. Fuck off.

I guess when we one day try to sort out whose dignity suffered the most from this era, perhaps the religious conservatives will be judged most harshly. Judges, though, I know. Quite the price to pay, however.

Franklin Graham calls anyone opposed to Trump "demonic" pic.twitter.com/8RGywx46GE

— Jason Campbell (@JasonSCampbell) November 21, 2019

I met Franklin Graham 20+ years ago. I was a fan of Billy, but at the time had never heard of Franklin, so he was a completely blank slate to me. My impression at the time was "Sheesh. Billy Graham's son seems like kind of a turd." These last three years have made me feel good about the level of discernment I had when I was in my 20s.

Time to end tax breaks for churches. I truly believe that. He didn't actually say that opponents of trump were demonic, he said "it's almost like a demonic force", then the host said, no it is demonic. So the host was leading the point.



Either way. End the tax breaks for churches. That ends tax breaks for leadership taking salaries in the name of religion, and it, at the very least, puts a bump in the road for all the televangelists, and businesses that operate on donations, "in order to spread the word of god".



I can think of a lot better reasons to give tax breaks and spend donations.

Wasn't tax breaks for religious institutions so there is a separation of church and state?

I would prefer a law (or if it already exists, an enforcement of it) that says if you are a religious institution, or leader of one etc. and you talk politics, then we can withdraw your special status.

Kate McKinnon & Larry David are so good as Warren & Sanders that I want to vote for them just to see them for the next 4 years!

Bloomberg and his money are in

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/202...l-bid-n1090216

Most churches aren't massive cash machines. The donations at my dad's church went to to keep the facility running and for community programs. It was essentially a charity except they talked about God. So a tax would essentially be a penalty for talking about God.

In turn, a lot of community rehab and treatment facilities resemble churches in a lot of ways. They talk about God, there's religious services. But their most direct mission is addiction treatment. Should they pay a god tax? What if they, or a church, keep the god part vague enough where it's more about broader spiritual enlightenment?

Today my father is 80 and still preaches around Sunday at various rural New England churches that don't have full time pastors. It's a much different version of church and Christianity that you hear about in these big churches.

I think there's pastors that embezzle and enrich themselves, but I don't think that's a tax exemption issue. But even when a church allowed a pastor to make a decent living (which is getting rarer and rarer), it's done through voluntary contributions from members who have already paid taxes on that income.

No, that is what supporters of it would say, but that is not entirely accurate. The original concept for allowing tax breaks for churches was because they were providing services to people that the government didn't have to, and that was a way of providing some reciprocity.



To your second point, that is already the letter of the law. However, it isn't enforced, and in fact, trump created an executive order basically stopping anyone under him from enforcing it, even though it wasn't being enforced anyway. The SC ruled that there is no law or protection for or against freedom from taxation for churches and religious groups. It's solely at the discretion of the government.

Churches don't pay corporate income taxes because they are non-profit organizations. Same reason the ACLU or NRA (among many others) don't pay corporate income taxes. The individual pastors, of course, pay personal income taxes.

Churches don't pay property taxes due to separation.

I'll echo molson - the vast majority of churches don't make money. At best they break even or if they take in more than they spend that money goes toward fixing up aging buildings. Of course even with that churches are closing at a very quick rate and are having problems paying full time pastors.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

I just happened to see this as I was browsing the site tonight and I sort of felt compelled to say just what a bad take this is.

I don't know much about how things are in other faiths other than my own but my brother in law is a priest in a diocese. His "salary" is barely enough to be called that and he has to pay income taxes like everyone else and he's certainly not being paid so little just so the parish can sit on a fat stack of cash. The rectory where he lives...they had a microwave that legitimately took minutes to heat up anything. Now most of us would just go on Amazon, ordered a new one and be done with it but their pastor had decided it wasn't the best use of the limited funds they have to replace it (so we bought one and donated it).

Think of what it costs to heat, light, take care of these churches - many of which are VERY old and certainly do not have the latest in energy efficient anything. Our church takes up an extra collection once a month to help families who are struggling to pay the tuition at the school. You really want to tax them for that?

You might not care for organized religion or be cynical about churches and that's your choice but that doesn't mean that they don't provide an important service to millions of other people. That parish priest doesn't get to say "no, I can't come to the hospital tonight because it's after five o'clock". He doesn't get to call in sick for a wedding because he wanted to go to opening day or tell a family he can't perform a funeral because that's supposed to be his day off. And how much does the church take in for these things? Nothing. You might be paying $20 per day to have TV in your hospital room and a few hundred dollars an hour to stay there but you don't get a bill from the church later on because you asked a priest to come and pray for your sick loved one.

There are so many churches that barely take in enough to keep things up and I have to think its the same in other faiths. If you decide to tax them that will be the end of many of them. How will they replace that money? You going to have a monthly membership fee to attend a church? Just expect the members of the church to come up with more out of their own pockets to cover the expenses that will not be met? It's not a fitness center and people have limited means to what they can give.

It doesn't cost you anything for a church to exist. Your property taxes aren't going to support it. Why should you be against what they mean for so many other people just because it doesn't mean that for you? You can say that's not how you feel but it really would ring hollow when you know that forcing them to pay taxes would be the end for so many of them.

There are massive number of companies and organizations that provide an important service for millions and still pay taxes. That's not a very good argument.

There's also no reason a small church that actually follows its 501c3 guidelines against political campaigning shouldn't continue to be tax exempt. However any political lobbying, donations, or campaigning should result in an immediate revocation of that congregation's tax exempt status.

Mega churches absolutely should be taxed regardless of the service they provide. When you're flying around on your own personal private jet paid for by your congregation you shouldn't be tax exempt.

And yet, there has to be some recognition that there are plenty of churches, take Scientology as a great example, that serve very little purpose other than to be a shelter for money. A shelter for members who donate, and a shelter for those who run it.



There are so many churches that take in millions and millions and they are the ones that the other churches should be concerned about. It's become a profitable industry and they become the most visible examples of the religion. It's actually a blight on the service that other provide.



So many smaller churches are going to end up closing anyway. So many of them are going to lose their support. I'm sure there's a more reasonable solution. A system that has no threshold for participation can't be a good system. Money donated isn't necessarily money taxed with the donations being tax deductible for donors.



I know it's a much more complicated situation, however, if feels like there are enough bad actors, theft, fraud etc and for nothing in exchange that it should be reevaluated. Then you throw in that politics and church are closer than they have ever been here. The current president (and vice) would remove all barriers to separation if they could. I don't see the no tax argument being the magic pill that keeps them apart. Not when they are actively involved politically.

There are various reasons, but one that the Supreme Court gave (in an unrelated case, but it's the same principle): "the power to tax involves the power to destroy."

So, in principle, I'm okay with churches being exempt from taxes...right up until the point where churches get involved in politics.

"B-b-but First Amendment" is bullshit when one religion holds so much sway over society that its involvement in politics could render harm to people of another faith.

The government cannot prefer one faith over another, and when you start courting political speech and cash money from a particular faith, you essentially confer government favor on that faith.

Tax breaks? Cool. Church wants to use the money it accrues by not having to pay taxes to get involved in politics? That's a no from me.

501(c)(3)'s are allowed to lobby on behalf of specific legislation (up to a certain percentage of its annual expenditures). They are not allowed to campaign for a particular candidate.

For example, the American Cancer Society, a 501(c)(3), lobbies on behalf of cancer research. The ASPCA lobbies on behalf of animal cruelty statutes.

This is far more complex than "I'm mad because this mega-church pastor flies around in a jet, so let's punish all churches." Even punishing all "megachurches" would be throwing out the baby with the bathwater. The 10,000-member whorehouse I belonged to down in the Lowcountry, for example, puts a ton of resources into reducing crime in an area that--before the church got involved--was one of the most crime-infested in the country, provides free health and dental care to the uninsured, has a huge free food pantry, will feed thousands (little over 4,000 last year) of poor and homeless people on Thanksgiving for the 12th-ish year in a row, and I could go on and on. It's fair to say that hurting that church financially would do serious damage to vulnerable people groups in that area.


Punish the people who break the rules.

Specifically going back to the mega church pastors that fly around in private jets, they are breaking the rules. The IRS requires compensation for non profit executives to be reasonable and private jets are not a job requirement and therefore should be considered part of their pay.

For the mega churches that are actually run like a non-profit, that's great. They're playing within the rules. However, those that aren't should be punished whether they're saving those within a community or not.

Do you consider the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, etc, as being "involved in politics?" Wherever the line is drawn, do you think it should be the same for those organizations as churches?

I'm trying to figure out if we're talking about organizations endorsing candidates and starting political parties, or if it's just speech and expressing positions that could resemble political opinions (which I think is pretty impossible to avoid if the non-profit has any purpose at all).

Tax them all and let God sort them out.

I just saw my first Bloomberg ad!!!!!!!*squee*

I've seen like ten already.

I had deluded myself into believing some fairy tale that Bloomberg was running purely to run negative ads about Trump in battleground states, and less about necessarily promoting himself. That does not appear to be the case.

As has been pointed out, there's a difference between a political lobby and a church. Legally, even. Political lobbies play under different rules. 501(c)(3)s are even supposed to be primarily apolitical. That doesn't mean they can't engage in political activity, but it isn't supposed to be their primary focus.

That's where a bunch of those "Tea Party" 501 (c)(3)s got into trouble under the Obama Administration. They were improperly registered political groups that were trying to take advantage of the rules surrounding 501(c)(3) organizations to keep their donors secret while engaging in primarily political activity.

But even above and beyond that, the Catholic Church, the Latter-Day Saints, etc, can certainly set up political lobbies separate from the pulpit. A church lobbying the government, while I find that somewhat distasteful, is different from, say, a public pronouncement that adherents who are pro-choice should be denied Holy Communion, or a prelate using his pulpit to tell his flock "If you vote for Bob on Tuesday, you're probably going to hell."

There's a difference between lobbying the government and using your tax-advantaged bullhorn to tell millions of Americans on Fridays, Saturdays, or Sundays that God Will Smite You if you Vote Democratic (or Republican, if the congregation is more liberally-minded).

Mayor Pete continues to get bludgeoned on twitter, mostly from the AA community. Primaries really are a game of whack-a-mole. Once someones head pops up, they get hammered.

Just read that essay, man did that eviscerate him.

We need a candidate who with get the AA community to vote. If they stay home it is 4 more years of Trump. I would imagine this severely damages his chances.

curios to see how he spins it. If he doubles down or if he says that was a long time ago and his perspective has changed.

That may be the current law, I'm asking about the perspectives expressed here that the tax exemption for churches should be removed entirely, or removed if the church "is involved with politics", and what the scope of that was. And mostly what the root of the difference in these opinions is between a church and another inherently non-political non-profit that may engage in some kind of speech that touches upon politics, based on its mission. Obviously that's a different answer for every person.

I understand what you're saying but that's also kind of the point of the church isn't it?

Why should the church not tell its members that the church says abortion is wrong and that those who are pro-choice are not in line with teachings of the church? That's not a political statement - its the truth. Abortion is not a grey area in the church or an opinion by the priest of that parish - the church should absolutely be saying this from the pulpit and not just during an election cycle. The faithful of the church should be reminded constantly just what exactly their faith represents and stands for.

You can't tell the church that it doesn't have the right to teach its doctrine (or be penalized with what essentially will shut down many churches) just because that doctrine is the opposite of what virtually every candidate on one side stands for and that's what the issue really is. It's that an issue like abortion is almost always a dividing line in politics and one side proclaims they agree with the church and one side doesn't. It's not the church opposing a political party - its a political party opposing the church. Do you really think that if the democratic party suddenly gave up certain stances that the church would start speaking out against medicare for all or something simply to oppose the democratic party?

The church is not an arm of the republican party - the church is what it is. The doctrines do not change based on who's running for office. It does not matter if one declares themselves a republican, democrat or anything else. Unlike a political party it's core beliefs are not changed based on who's at the top of the ticket nor are they meant to change to fit what people in society feel like doing today.

If the church was simply endorsing one party (which it doesn't do) just because it felt like it or got money from a candidate that would be wrong and I would agree with you but that's not what is going on. The church should have every right to speak out against issues that oppose it's beliefs and allow its members to let those beliefs weigh in their decision of who they vote for.

This has nothing to do with the taxation issue, but...

There isn't one church and there isn't one set of beliefs.

There are plenty of more progressive churches.

Are we talking churches or religions?

There is definitely an effort (probably a funded effort) to keep AA riled against Pete. It may be the same money working against Warren (Warren had several paid AA protesters working against her while in Atlanta). It is a smart tactic. Without the AA vote, you are really crippled in the primaries. It is where Biden's strength is. The first person to erode that strength is going to be in the best position to win.

Wouldn't be surprised, after all entities like Russia helped spur the growth of groups like BLM.

Churches.

Presumably (most) people don't want to tax private religious worship, just when people get together to do it.

Edit: Oh, maybe you were responding to JPhillips. There's plenty of progressive churches. Mine back home does gay weddings, has gay pastors, and supports refugees (politics!!) I know of a couple of town in Boise that seem to be primarily service-based - a place and community to organize outreach and service projects. I don't know if that makes them progressive, but I know they have plenty of gay members and don't preach traditional politically conservative values. But, like any mission-based organizations, they can't help but be occasionally political.

I was responding to Gary's insinuation that the church is conservative in its beliefs. In the sense of modern American politics, it is far from monolithic.

Nice to see Obama crawl out from under his stack Of Wall Street money to defend "hope and change". Opps.. Defeat hope and change...

Krystal Ball: What will Obama do to stop Bernie Sanders - YouTube

I'll show myself out...

I know you love Bernie, but the democrats best hope is closer to center.

1st Democrat I'll say this about...

Tulsi 2020

She at least says all the right things. She seems to be the closest to a non-establishment dem candidate with legit experience.

Tulsi is essentially playing the role in this primary that Trump did in the 2016 R primary. Will attack all of the other candidates, doesn't really go along with any of the party line, has her greatest fans among a) the fringe of the party, b) disaffected younger men, or c) those who aren't actually part of the party. She's the chaos candidate. Oh, and the Russians love her because again, chaos.

If chaos is doing your job for the people, then give me chaos. It's rather sad if that is considered chaos. Get rid of both parties. No party money. Clean house and get rid of corporate and party shills like that moron Graham.

The faithful of the Catholic church should probably study the Bible a little more closely. Catholic dogma may currently hold that life begins at conception and all that jazz and that babies are super precious in the sight of the Lord, but, uh...

well, the Old Testament talks about God wiping out EVERYONE in "Jerusalem and all the towns of Judah" - including infants and children - because adults were worshiping other gods.

Hosea 9 talks about God punishing idolaters by making the women barren and killing any children they DO happen to conceive.

Hosea 13 says "welp, the unfaithful are going to have their infants' brains dashed against the stones and their pregnant women eviscerated."

Numbers 5 says that women suspected of infidelity should be fed an abortifacient tea, and if they miscarry, it's proof of infidelity and they'll be cursed etc. Note that they're to be made to take that "purity test" even if the husband has no proof of his claim. All he has to be is jealous, and she has to bear the entire burden. The faithful might say "well clearly God would only allow her to miscarry if the child were not her husband's," but even if you could guarantee that, that's certainly not an unquestioned "right to life."

That's the sins of the father being visited on his offspring (but as far as the OT is concerned, it's the sins of the mother; she has to take the purity test, but Numbers hasn't a thing to say about the man with whom she was unfaithful).

Isaiah has a prophecy about dudes God is pissed at falling by the sword, their infants being murdered, and their wives being raped.

Jump to the New Testament, and even Christ says "yeah, it's gonna suck for pregnant women and babies in the Last Days." There's no special protection/concern for them. All that's promised them is woe.

Catholic liturgy omits an entire part of Psalm 137 because the idea of singing about murdering babies in revenge kind of squicks them out, you know?

Catholic doctrine being adamantly opposed to abortion is not reconcilable with its own holy text. I'm not saying they should go ALL WOMEN MUST HAVE ABORTIONS, but the Church's stance on abortion comes from cherry-picking the verses in the Bible that give folks the warm fuzzies and ignoring all the bits of the Bible that are kinda lethal to babies and fetuses.


The church can teach its doctrine, even if that doctrine is an invention of men and not wholly supported by its own holy book. That's not, of itself, political. Political is "if you vote for Democrats, you should be denied the ability to commune with your God, and should probably go to hell because abortion."

Theologically, that's a suspect argument. That places abortion prevention on a pedestal higher than feeding the hungry, housing the homeless, or clothing the poor - all of which are things Christ tells his followers "when you did those things to the least among you, you did them also to me."

That argues that it's okay if Republicans vote to slash the social safety net (which safety net does all of the things in the prior paragraph) as long as they pass ever more draconian laws against abortion, and that the faithful should reward those votes for anti-abortion laws and turn a blind eye to the dozens of ways in which their Republican representatives straight up ignore Biblical commands when following them would be inconvenient.

The Church is free to teach its doctrine, but when that doctrine gets expressly political and suggests, either overtly or slyly, that a vote for That Person is a Ticket To Hell, it becomes more like a political advocacy wrapping itself in the cloth to get a tax break that would otherwise be denied it.


"Certain stances"? So, which, all of them?


I'm so old I remember when religious leaders praised a thrice-married guy who bragged about committing sexual assault because he could as a "baby Christian" - and therefore beyond reproach for all of the multitude of ways in which he is clearly NOT representative of Christ's love and teachings - who was clearly God's cure for everything that ails the country.

TL;DR: bull. I can repeat that with some expletives to spice it up, but the Church is bound up so tightly with the Republican Party that if you COULD somehow excise the one from the other, it would be the death of the GOP.

Biden is kicking off his "No Malarky" bus tour. I believe his stump speech is that he swears to end Prohibition and give women the vote.

FWIW, I do agree that fundamentalists cherry pick passages that support their stance and often ignore/rationalize others.

I do think you need to make a distinction between Old vs New Testament. Not a scholar but as my fundamentalist friend would say "Jesus brought us a New Covenant" which in many ways supersedes the Old.

Interested in this passage. Can you provide the specific passage?

Quote:

Jump to the New Testament, and even Christ says "yeah, it's gonna suck for pregnant women and babies in the Last Days." There's no special protection/concern for them. All that's promised them is woe.

Yeah, I've been in conversations with my evangelical friend where once saved, always saved regardless of what happens later. The argument is ... have these saved people, who now do "bad" things, were they really saved in the first place? The Catholic dogma of purgatory is much more reassuring to me.

Quote:

I'm so old I remember when religious leaders praised a thrice-married guy who bragged about committing sexual assault because he could as a "baby Christian" - and therefore beyond reproach for all of the multitude of ways in which he is clearly NOT representative of Christ's love and teachings - who was clearly God's cure for everything that ails the country.

I agree. The church should tell members abortion is wrong if that is their belief. But I don't think they (churches, religious institutions etc.) should take political sides - leave out Dems, GOP, Presidency etc. otherwise let's revoke their tax free status.

My guess this is happening mostly in the super-mega churches who can afford to be taxed if they wish to get political.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gary Gorski View Post I understand what you're saying but that's also kind of the point of the church isn't it? Why should the church not tell its members that the church says abortion is wrong and that those who are pro-choice are not in line with teachings of the church? That's not a political statement - its the truth. Abortion is not a grey area in the church or an opinion by the priest of that parish - the church should absolutely be saying this from the pulpit and not just during an election cycle. The faithful of the church should be reminded constantly just what exactly their faith represents and stands for.

IMO, defending the Old & New Testament as the literal word of God and both should be followed is problematic for me. I take it as a set of books, inspired in the belief of the Christian God, to be a guide on what one should believe and how one should live their lives.

Defending a book created by a king as a way to control the minds of his people is a hollow action, if you ask me.

Very similar to acting like an amendment created to ensure the country would have a way of defending itself before the days of a national military should still mean what some interpret it to mean today.

Time changes, new knowledge is learned, progress is made, our understanding should adjust accordingly... yet we still see morons who think the world is flat and vaccinations are some government conspiracy.

The comparison fits. Trump wasn't really a republican and Tulsi isn't really a dem. The GOP ticket was Trump's only path to being elected and Tulsi would very likely run as a moderate Republican or Independent in any state other than Hawaii.

"I have come not to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets, but to fulfill them."

Christ may have brought a New Covenant, but that was to graft the Gentiles onto the Tree of Life, not to retcon stuff from the Old Testament that future generations might find problematic.


It's repeated a few times in the Gospels. Matthew 24, Mark 13, Luke 21, when the disciples ask Christ about the signs of His return and of the end of the world.


It's not even that they can "afford" to be taxed. Many of them are doing it as an explicit dare to the government. "Yeah I'm not allowed to do this thing but I'm gonna do it anyway. You know you don't have the balls to enforce the law."


The Old Testament is the Law and the Prophets. The New Testament is partly the Gospels and a whole lot of Paul imposing his own house rules. But again, Matthew 5:17. The New Covenant was for all the peoples of the world, to graft the Gentiles onto the Tree of Life. He didn't come to abolish the Law, and the Old Testament is pretty explicit in Numbers and (I believe) Leviticus that there is to be no double standard. That is, no "Jews must follow the Law I have set down, but you may make different laws for the Gentiles."

So between that and Christ's assertion that he didn't come to abolish the Law, there's a convincing argument to be made that Christians should be giving the Old Testament more than just lip service in their faith.

And if they aren't willing to do that, "Love thy neighbor" pretty much means "stop being cherry picking dinks trying to use the Law as an excuse to hate other people."

Where Biden's support is coming from.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/01/polit...eek/index.html

Yup. Older black voters tend to be more conservative, and are more concerned with elect-ability than anything else. It is going to be interesting to see if a Biden slide happens in the early states, if that will erode his strength in South Carolina at all.

I believe the Catholic Church's position on abortion comes from the actions of the early Church (more so than any Scriptural basis). One of the things that the early Church was known for was its opposition to abortion (the prohibition is found in the Didache, for example). Now there whens of abortion and when human life begins were left up for debate. And, of course, other, Protestant, churches have different theologies on the matter (Eastern Orthodox is also anti-abortion).


Malarkey has always been a favorite word of Biden. Most famously against Paul Ryan in 2012. He's used it for ages now, that one correlates him with the phrase. So I think it's less of a put off than some may think.

My sons' response to the motto, "Well, if it worked for McKinely...". It sounds so old. It was outdated when I was young, and that was when we used rotary phones. Maybe something a little less has-been sounding? Like "The bees knees" or something.

We lose Steve Bullock and Joe Sestack from the list of candidates. Both might have been interesting possibilities in some years, but they couldn't get oxygen in this huge field. More winnowing should be coming soon.

A thought Bullock was pretty good in the debates. But it seems that unless you're a former VP or have big spending plans then you aren't going far in this race.

Mayor Pete has neither, nor did he have name recognition. With a crowded field, you need something to stand out. Name recognition makes a big difference, but to really break out you have to have some kind of political savvy. Bullock was fine, but he didn't really have the "it" factor to make it. Heck, I think Booker is a much better candidate than Bullock, and he can't get anywhere either. You have to be able to either grab something that will propel you, or be able to create it.

Bullock's also from Montana. You need to be from a bigger state (population wise) than that. And even then you can have issues - Booker, Klobuchar, Delaney, etc.

Lots of rumors that Kamala Harris is dropping out.

Big news. Wonder where her supports will go?

Sent from my Pixel 4 XL using Tapatalk

Lil' Kamala sheds a tear.

I know it's a big field, but that's a really stunning outcome, given her posture heading into this thing. I guess Scott Walker comes to mind as a parallel... definitely among the handful of favorites in a big field, but he popped like a balloon after one debate with Trump. KH actually had a little bit of a run, and since then has just flamed out. Incredible autopsy awaits there.

Probably wise to deselect when you’d have 0 support in Iowa and virtually none in NH.

Just spitballing here, but Kamala as a VP for Biden looks pretty good for both. Biden could use a woman VP, and Kamala might be able to take the mantle as early as 2024.

Harris would have to swallow her ego... especially considering her first big bump was an attack on him.

Sure, but that is not really all that uncommon from future VP's. Of course, I am still holding out hope that Biden won't win. I really don't think she is going to rush to endorse anyone. Her campaign seemed to be very poorly run. Her mistakes are different than Booker's, but both are so far a lesson of how not to run a Presidential campaign.

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

I could see that, but as ISiddiqui mentioned her ego. I would not mind a Biden/Booker ticket in the least.

I remember how Biden was flirting with announcing "a ticket" when he threw his hat in the ring and the name Stacey Abrams was floated around. I think if Biden wants a black women, he'd go for Abrams which may help with the South. After all, as the primaries have shown, Biden does not need to shore up African-American support. Picking a Senator from California or New Jersey for Vice President may not be where he wants to go.

I'd bet Biden would far more like to have Klobuchar as his VP - a Midwestern woman. You'll note that Klobuchar doesn't go after Joe much, even though she's fighting for the same moderate vote.

(I've long thought Biden could beat Trump in 2020 - though I also think Warren or Sanders have good shots as well - by flipping Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania while winning the popular vote by a good deal less than Hillary Clinton did in 2016)

I'd hate to see Abrams pulled out of GA. I think she can do a lot with registration and get out the vote even if she doesn't run for office again.

I do think if Biden wins he has to pick a woman. Women are the most motivated and anti-Trump group.

Tammy Duckworth would be a hell of a VP candidate.

Bloomberg vs. Trump? While making for entertaining reality TV, as they hate each other, our country is going down a dark path if that happens.

I really don't know if Abrams would. She has openly said she is not interested in the position. Her registration work played roles in Kentucky and Louisiana this cycle. I think she wants to be all in on that work in the next election. It really could be THE difference.

I'm slowly coming to the realization that Biden is going to be the nominee. I think Harris's dropping out of the race and Booker struggling to even get on the stage in December, combined with Warren's and Buttigieg's complete inability to gain African-American support, made me realize just how rock solid Biden's support among African-American voters is. Even if he struggles in Iowa and New Hampshire, I don't see the older African-American voters in South Carolina (or the Latino voters in Nevada) jumping ship.

The only one who may be able to get some of those voters is Sanders - but he generally does well with younger African-American and Latino voters, not the older ones who come out and vote.

It's just a slow dawning realization that Biden's Teflon was much stronger than I figured.

Yes I agree but I saw an article a few days ago that said he was also considering the senator from NH Sheehan and also Abrams from Georgia