Las Vegas Sun

June 4, 2012

Currently: 97° | Complete forecast | Log in

Letter to the editor:

Obama’s tax pitch was inappropriate

Joseph Schillmoeller, Las Vegas

Monday, Feb. 6, 2012 | 2:01 a.m.

As a Christian, I was appalled to see the president of the United States using the National Prayer Breakfast as a campaign stop to propose higher taxes on the rich. He recited the Gospel according to Luke by saying, “To whom much is given, much is expected,” as if this pertained to tax policy.

First, the majority of those people he has targeted were “given” nothing — they earned it through hard work and enterprise. Second, the president is not an agent of God and does not know the wishes of our creator regarding whether taxes should be raised 2 percent or dropped 2 percent. Third, the tax returns filed by the president don’t seem to indicate he is following Luke’s scripture, as his personal charitable giving can be called nothing but anemic.

Finally, considering that the president has rammed through legislation that is forcing the Catholic Church to implement policies that fly directly in the face of its beliefs, Mr. Obama should have taken this opportunity to ask for forgiveness for forcing his ideology on millions of Christians. This was a shameful spectacle that each and every Christian should remember as the election nears.

Discussion: 54 comments so far…

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy. Additionally, we now display comments from trusted commenters by default. Those wishing to become a trusted commenter need to verify their identity or sign in with Facebook Connect to tie their Facebook account to their Las Vegas Sun account. For more on this change, read our story about how it works and why we did it.

Only trusted comments are displayed on this page. Untrusted comments have expired from this story.

  1. By boftx
    Feb. 6, 2012
    2:32 a.m.
    Flag

    Joesph,

    Some of your points are absolutely correct, but others are completely full of crap. :)

    I look forward to a lively debate on this but I need to get some sleep first.

  2. By PISCES41 (Jim Weber)
    Feb. 6, 2012
    4:53 a.m.
    Flag

    awh Joe! Is the Big Bad President picking on the Poor Widdle Catolic Church?

    The new rule you refer to stems from the 2010 healthcare law, which requires employers to provide insurance coverage for contraceptives to patients who want them. Churches and other houses of worship are exempt, but Catholic hospitals and universities are not. It does NOT force anyone to use contraception.

    The Catholic Church opposes government and private efforts providing condoms in areas of the world where AIDS is rampant. Is that really what Jesus would do?

    Most American Catholic women favor the availability of affordable and effective contraceptives as do most American women.

    Maybe YOU are forcing your ideology on millions of Christians.

  3. By lvfacts101 (Jerry Fink)
    Feb. 6, 2012
    5:20 a.m.
    Flag

    My questions are: why does insurance have to cover a $30 monthly cost in the first place? If one is working and wants the pill, why can't they shell out the 30 bucks from their own pocket? After all, it's elective in nature. And where does a government bureaucrat get the authority to mandate that the cost be covered? Anyone with a modicum of sense realizes that covering $30 costs is not the purpose of health insurance. Health insurance is there to protect the insured from catastrophic costs, not niggling $30 outlays. What's next on Osama Obama's list? Face lifts & tummy tucks?

  4. By dipstick
    Feb. 6, 2012
    5:57 a.m.
    Flag

    its ironic that the letter writer says that Obama is shoving ideology down our throat when joey is the biggest culprit on these posts with his frequent outbursts of shoving HIS propaganda down our throat. sorry, lady gaga, you lost me somewhere. read the 3rd secret of Fatima and see what happens to your church.

  5. By staralioflundnv (Star Ali Mistriel-Kogan)
    Feb. 6, 2012
    6:30 a.m.
    Flag

    It would seem to me, if in our public schools, we MUST acommodate those students with objections due to their faith, exempt them from the activity and provide an alternative, then, the government should be doing likewise!

    Faith based operations should be respected and be allowed to NOT have to do what the government dictates (within reason). Church members who don't completely follow their church's doctrines/policies, can independently secure whatever they need/desire and pay for it out of their own pockets---it is the price of choice. So if the Catholic Healthcare providers refuse to supply goods and services that are against the tennants of their faith, they should not be forced to do so by the government. Members who desire such, will simply have to go elsewhere and possibly pay out of pocket for such goods and services. It is that simple.

    President Obama should have kept this "Prayer Breakfast" meeting as an opportunity to get to know his constituents, hear them, not him campaigning or promoting his pet political projects. That is where he crossed the line of being appropriate in my mind.

    Blessings and Peace,
    Star

  6. By mschaffer (Mark Schaffer)
    Feb. 6, 2012
    6:36 a.m.
    Flag

    So says the money changer outside the temple...

  7. By gmag39
    Feb. 6, 2012
    7:02 a.m.
    Flag

    Good Lord...

    Nearly ALL CATHOLIC WOMEN use some form of birth control that the Catholic Church considers unacceptable.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/04/1...

    According to Carmen, that makes nearly 100% of Catholic women persona non-grata and 'non-believers'...

    Joe's letter is nonsense & politically partisan, and Carmen's judgement and pronouncement is a sad commentary on religious dogma long since removed from the realities of modern life.

    I'm sure the 70% of worldwide AIDS-infected peoples that reside in Africa ought to be banned from using protection, too...because it conflicts with the Pope's pronouncement.

  8. By PISCES41 (Jim Weber)
    Feb. 6, 2012
    7:03 a.m.
    Flag

    Mark - Good one!

  9. By KillerB
    Feb. 6, 2012
    7:34 a.m.
    Flag

    "...Mr. Obama should have taken this opportunity to ask for forgiveness for forcing his ideology on millions of Christians."

    Schillmoeller -- I see little difference between how Obama did it and your letter did it, except for the size of the audience.

    Never forget, despite their oaths to support, etc., the Constitution -- particularly the promise to keep churches out of politics, and the Founders' near-uniform distaste for christian dogma -- Congress has constantly used christianity as a tool. You see it on our currency, our Pledge of Allegiance was contaminated by it, and prayers at their sessions, meetings, &c.

    "President Obama should have kept this "Prayer Breakfast" meeting as an opportunity to get to know his constituents, hear them, not him campaigning or promoting his pet political projects."

    star -- can you say "pander"?

    "Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful." -- attributed to Seneca the Younger (executed by Nero in 65 A.C.E.)

  10. By ksand99 (Kevin Sandoval)
    Feb. 6, 2012
    8:22 a.m.
    Flag

    Joe Shillmoeller has supported Mitt Romney consistently in the Sun's comment section. He's made excuses for Romney, and has taken any and all opportunities to criticize the President for any slight, imagined or real.

    So it strikes me as odd that Joe would write this letter, claiming Obama has infringed on the rights of Catholics, when Mitt Romney did it YEARS ago!

    "In December 2005, Romney required all Massachusetts hospitals, including Catholic ones, to provide emergency contraception to rape victims, even though some Catholics view the morning-after pill as a form of abortion."

    "He said he was acting on his legal counsel's interpretation of a new state law - one passed by lawmakers despite his veto - but he also said that "in his heart of hearts,'' he believed that rape victims should have access to emergency contraception."

    What did the executive director of the Catholic Action League of Massachusetts say about this?

    "The initial injury to Catholic religious freedom came not from the Obama administration but from the Romney administration. President Obama's plan certainly constitutes an assault on the constitutional rights of Catholics, but I'm not sure Governor Romney is in a position to assert that, given his own very mixed record on this."

    So beside the fact that this shameful, pandering letter to the editor got published, it also exposed Romney-supporting Joe as one who stands in judgment of others who he disagrees with, while giving those he agrees with a free pass.

    It's a double-standard only a hypocrite could love.

  11. By ColinFromLasVegas
    Feb. 6, 2012
    8:31 a.m.
    Flag

    This letter is ridiculously hilarious.

    First, President Obama was attacked for being at war with the Christian faith of all denominations.

    Now, when he openly shows and proves he is a Christian, he is STILL attacked.

    You stupid partisan Conservative Christians are showing your true colors. You keep throwing out there subtle references any way you can to say that President Obama is not one of us. That he will never be one of us. He shouldn't be President. How dare he occupy the White House?

    Get used to it, white collar ultra-conservative Christians. An African American is the President of the United States of America. And, even worse in your eyes, he is doing a good job.

    I personally like the policies President Obama is doing. Because nothing the other side of the aisle offers is a better alternative at all. The only thing they throw out there is criticism of every little thing he does, not only in his job, but in his personal life, in his religious beliefs, to include even polticizing his wife. She's fair game for mockery in your eyes too.

    To hell with you holier than thou Christian Conservatives.

    Your shameful attempts to interject yourself into politics are absolutely horrible.

    As a side note, I usually don't respond to any of Mr. Schillmoeller's comments nor articles, but I make an exception here because of the nutball topic he throws out there. The reason I usually don't is because he attacked a military veteran on a post once. Not because of his viewpoints, but because he was a military veteran. To this day, he STILL hasn't apologized for this despicable attack. I said this numerous times to him in comments and I'll say it again: Please go commit an unnatural sex act upon yourself, Mr. Schillmoeller. So, I will now revert back to the unsaid policy that if you haven't got anything good to say about someone, then just keep quiet.

  12. By Judy
    Feb. 6, 2012
    9:20 a.m.
    Flag

    Mr. Schillmoeller doesn't seem to realize that the church must follow the law. If they want to provide health care or any other service to the public they will need to follow the law. They can't pick and choose what part of the law they agree with and what they don't agree with. The churches in the US enjoy tax free status and along with that benefit comes rules and regulations. Perhaps we should not offer tax free status to religious organizations who enter the political, health care, or any other business?

  13. By KillerB
    Feb. 6, 2012
    9:23 a.m.
    Flag

    "I wonder how the Pope feels about the Mormon's Baptism of the Dead ritual?"

    LastThroes -- how is that even remotely relevant to this Discussion? It's not like they dug up bodies and baptized them. It's a ritual done off public records by volunteers behind closed doors. It's no big deal at all.

    "Religion is the opium of the people" -- Karl Marx from the introduction of his 1843 "Contribution to Critique of Hegel's Philosophy of Right"

  14. By lericgoodman (Leric Goodman)
    Feb. 6, 2012
    9:37 a.m.
    Flag

    An individual attending a prayer breakfast, takes a quote from the Gospels, repeats it, and then explains what he thinks it means. What could our letter writer find objectionable in that? Is it not the duty of a Christian to spread the Good News and explain it in reference to life????

    Our letter writer claims that he is offended by this particular Christian doing a Christian duty of quoting the Christian Canon and attempting to explain its possible application to life. Our letter writer claims this to be offensive since no individual who is not the Pope or a Priest ordained under the Authority of the Pope can quote or apply the Gospels. This is dangerous ground because it reopens a very old very deep wound of long standing.

    For over 400 years the Catholic church used its' Inquisition to stamp out "heresy" which included such things as: translating the Bible from Latin into local languages, reading of the Bible by anyone other than ordained Priests, explanation of the Bible by individuals rather than by Priests. The Inquisition often burned "Heretics" at the stake as an example to others. For about a hundred years or so there was open warfare in Europe over these things, and others, between Catholics and Protestants. This warfare included the wholesale slaughter of villagers or the inhabitants of towns for being on the wrong side of these issues. What is served by reviving that conflict between Christians?

    Previously, the letter writer has written often and stridently of his passionate dislike of the current President. That passionate dislike does not excuse re-opening the Protestant-Catholic chasm.

    One other dangerous thing our letter writer does: He unintentionally opens the way for Sharia law. He is so consumed with his diatribe about the imposition of minimum standards on Catholic charities taking government money, that he argues that a Religion can set its' own standards for how it spends government money. He of course meant only that the Catholic Church could do so, without understanding that if the Catholics could use Religion, so could Islam. If Catholics get to follow their Religious Law in spending government money, then an Islamic charity could follow Sharia in spending government money. (What can we say, except: Oops!)

  15. By edgewise (Lon Miller)
    Feb. 6, 2012
    9:50 a.m.
    Flag

    I'm not sure I understand what the issue is, here.

    This pathetic, cheap shot at the President is a joke, right? First they criticize him for not being sufficiently Christian, now he's too Christian? He's not allowed to reference scripture?

    And given Romney's support for taxpayer-paid abortions in Mass., as well as the recently uncovered Romney administration's call to force Catholic hospitals to offer the abortion pill, the Sun editors should apologize for running this absurd, counterfactual attack on the President.

    Of all the things to attack Obama over, this has to be the most petty, childish attack yet. Congratulations, Mr. Schillmoeller.

  16. By ColinFromLasVegas
    Feb. 6, 2012
    10:51 a.m.
    Flag

    truthiness asks: "Why does the government hold prayer meetings, anyway? I'm appalled."

    Enjoy your comments, and I'll take a stab at answering your question.

    President Obama attended this prayer breakfast not to change his image or to throw out something to the people, nor was it to campaign. And not even some kind of nefarious plot stirred up by neo-conservative zealots.

    Even though it may look like any of the above, the simple fact is that the K Street crowd of evangelicals ALWAYS hold this prayer breakfast. Not sure if it always happens the same time of the year, but nevertheless, it is a standing tradition that ALL U.S. Presidents attend.

    So, he attended based on precedence of the Office of the United States of America.

    Nothing else.

    But the right wing nuts spin it how they want.

    Because, in their eyes, if by some weird happenstance President Obama miraculously turned water into wine, the Tea/Republican crowd would start jumping up and down preaching temperance, he drinks too much, look at him, he's drunk, and that he's attempting to turn all God fearing people into alcoholics, how dare he shove wine at us, and it's cheap merlot too, not that good Johannesburg Reisling.

    It never ends. Sheesh....

  17. By edgewise (Lon Miller)
    Feb. 6, 2012
    10:55 a.m.
    Flag

    As others have noted, this is a false controversy, drummed up by desperate, scummy political beasts.

    Read his speech.

    "But matter of fact, Obama did not claim Jesus as co-author of his policies: He merely suggested that they are influenced by the values taught by Jesus, as he understands them. He went far out of his way to try to make that clear, saying: "Our goal should not be to declare our policies as biblical. It is God who is infallible, not us."
    http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/politic...

    This childish tripe is beneath public discourse. Gogo should be ashamed.

  18. By TEA (Mark Traeger)
    Feb. 6, 2012
    11:01 a.m.
    Flag

    When will the Obama supporters wake up. The middle class gets hammered by this liberal. News you won't see in thesun:

    (CBS News) Just before Christmas, American workers got a rare gift from Washington politicians - the current payroll tax cut would be extended for two more months.

    But there's something the politicians weren't bragging about - the fact that they're paying for the two-month tax cut with what has turned into a brand new fee on home buyers.

    The new fee is a minimum of one-tenth of 1 percent on Fannie Mae- and Freddie Mac-backed loans, and is likely to go much higher.

    It will be imposed for the next 10 years on most mortgages and refinancings and it lasts for the life of the loan.

    For every $200,000, it amounts to an extra $15 dollars a month.

    It's bad news for Patty Anderson, who's buying a home in Virginia.

    Anderson will save a couple hundred dollars from having her payroll tax cut extended but her mortgage broker told her the new fee would cost her almost $9,500.

    "I was absolutely startled that it would add up to that much," she said.

    The $35.7 billion collected in fees won't go into the Social Security fund to replace the lost payroll tax. It goes to the general treasury where Congress can spend it however they please.

    Bill Burnett, Anderson's broker and president of the Virginia Association of Mortgage Brokers, said you won't see Congress' new charge in the paperwork, but it's there.

    "It's actually built into this [interest] rate. You would never see the fee as a cost to you," he said.

    Burnett said the fee will affect a "very large number" of homeowners.

    "Your pocketbook is being raided in order to pay for a tax policy issue decided at the last minute by probably people who didn't understand fully what they were legislating on."

    CBS News went to Capitol Hill ask what Congress was thinking when they passed the mortgage fee hike. Boehner pointed the finger at the Senate.

    "As you're well aware, this bill came over from the Senate. I don't know how they justified it. We would rather have offset that two-month extension with reductions in spending," he said.

    One congressman, Florida Republican Allen West, said he tried to blow the whistle on the whole thing before Christmas.

    "I read the legislation and raised the flag. Unfortunately nobody paid attention to what I was saying at the time," he said, calling the fee a backdoor tax increase on the middle class. "It absolutely is because you're talking about the homeowners - when you're talking about the people that are gonna be using the Fannie Mae, the Freddie Mac, the government-sponsored enterprises -it is absolutely a tax increase on them."

    Patty Anderson only knows that for the next 30 years, she'll be haunted by the Washington ghost of Christmas past.

    "I think it just looks like Washington grabbing more money," she said.

    TEA: Ya think?

  19. By VernosB (vernos branco)
    Feb. 6, 2012
    11:16 a.m.
    Flag

    Another letter written because no matter what Obama does, those on the right will nick pick an issue to find fault. They will find any assinine excuse to dump on the president. I have little doubt some are annoyed because they still believe Obama is a foreign born Muslim.

    "Render unto Ceasar" is moot. If churches participate in politics they should be taxed and treated as other secular organizations. Using a religious pulpit to sway political opinions is the same as any other politician speaking. Religion is politics in it's most basic form. The proof? Why have different sects of the same religion waged war on one another? Christians have killed Christians because they believed their views weren't compatible.

  20. By wtplv (Michael Casler)
    Feb. 6, 2012
    11:33 a.m.
    Flag

    Do those of you on the left that support President Obama believe that using the gospel as justification for increased taxes on the wealthy is appropriate?

    It's a simple question that should have a simple answer.

    Michael

  21. By dipstick
    Feb. 6, 2012
    11:43 a.m.
    Flag

    lady gaga; your run of the mill assertions add up to nothing. people who purport themselves to be christians are a dime a dozen, especially from the republican crowd. if you insist on belonging to a religious organization that wants tax free status, be prepared to pay the price.

  22. By ksand99 (Kevin Sandoval)
    Feb. 6, 2012
    12:01 p.m.
    Flag

    For decades, the GOP has used religious themes, biblical quotes and imagery in service of their political message.

    Where was your outrage, then?

    Sharron Angle:

    "We all have plans, but at the end of the day we need to be content with that thought that God has ordered this day and that he will work it to get it for our good according to Romans 8:28. And also those things in the Old Testament where he says the world means it for bad, but God means it for good."

    "And these programs that you mentioned -- that Obama has going with Reid and Pelosi pushing them forward -- are all entitlement programs built to make government our God. And that's really what's happening in this country is a violation of the First Commandment. We have become a country entrenched in idolatry, and that idolatry is the dependency upon our government. We're supposed to depend upon God for our protection and our provision and for our daily bread, not for our government. And you've just identified the real crux of the problem. I've also been endorsed by a PAC out of Washington D.C. and the name of that PAC is Government is not God. And I thought that that was so appropriate because that is really what's happening in our society and we need to take our country back."

    And now we have two Sharron Angle supporters condemning Obama for talking about his faith and how it informs his decisions!

    Hypocrites.

  23. By lericgoodman (Leric Goodman)
    Feb. 6, 2012
    12:08 p.m.
    Flag

    I recall that there have been some pretty controversial speeches at the President's Prayer Breakfast (that is what is was called for many years) -- including some really uncompromising moralizing over the Vietnam War.

  24. By BChap (Bradley Chapline)
    Feb. 6, 2012
    12:09 p.m.
    Flag

    At a prayer breakfast, it was the wrong time and the wrong place for President Obama to bring up the issue of raising taxes.

    However, raising taxes on any class of people or businesses is going to accomplish absolutely no good whatsoever on the nations debt as long as those newly imposed tax revenues are spent on other government initiatives.

    I cannot go with any increase of taxes until government spending is cut to the bone. It is not unreasonable to cut several trillion dollars in one year. Absolutely, this is first. The Republicans are precisely right in fighting more government expenditures in this area of their political platform.

    Democrats are crying foul that corporations are hoarding billions of dollars in record profits and not hiring new positions that are level with those profits. Government must give businesses not only incentives, but safety nets as well for them to compete, develop and expand with the global free markets. Once the spending cuts have taken place in our nation's budget, drastically lower the capital gains tax. This, in itself would spur a huge hiring spree since businesses could develop and expand with few concerns of keeping the ink of profits in the black. Then, and only then would it be fair to bring the wealthy to the table of discussion in increasing personal income taxes on this socioeconomic group.

    But, the Democrats must do their part, too. Restructuring qualifications and reducing benefits of the Social Security, Medicare and the Welfare systems. No more extensions of unemployment benefits, or lowering the payroll tax ratios, etc.. No more bailouts. With the exception of Israel, ending foreign aid to the majority of countries in the world, especially those countries who are hostile and unsupportive towards the United States. The list goes on and on in how we can better manage our money and have productive lives.

    Here, it all comes down to these two sentences. "America prospers when it works hard and handles its finances logically. America falters when it becomes lazy and expects the government to support them."

  25. By wtplv (Michael Casler)
    Feb. 6, 2012
    12:14 p.m.
    Flag

    Kevin,

    Before you foam at the mouth, remember that I did not say that people should not support President Obama because he used the gospel to support asking the wealthy to pay higher taxes. I also never said I agreed that Angle should have used the gospel.

    I always cringe a little when public figures invoke the gospel, whether they be R's or D's.

    I simply asked a question. Do you think it is appropriate?

    This is part of what is wrong in this country. People are so reluctant to admit that someone on 'their' side might have used less than stellar judgment and that just because the other side does it, it makes it ok to do.

    Personally, I don't think the gospel should be used to push any political goal. What do you think?

    Michael

  26. By edgewise (Lon Miller)
    Feb. 6, 2012
    12:41 p.m.
    Flag

    Gogo, I don't believe that's the case.

    1. Where is your letter to the editor last year bemoaning Angle's use of religion and her religious beliefs? Please, point us to it, or admit you've got a double standard.

    2. I now expect you to regularly criticize any and all politicians who use the Bible or references to the gospel. I'll wait to read the next letter to the editor.

    3. In the spirit of your non-partisan beliefs, why not give us some examples of heinous gospel abuse by those on the right? You know, since you ALWAYS take it as a mark against them., and "IT IS NEVER APPROPRIATE!" Who's the worst offenders in the Republican party? Wasn't Sharron Angle one of them? If it's so inappropriate, how could you vote for her?

  27. By edgewise (Lon Miller)
    Feb. 6, 2012
    12:45 p.m.
    Flag

    "He robbed a 7-11, so why can't I?"

    1. That's not the argument here, Gogo. It's all about having a consistent standard. You write letters to the editors criticizing Obama when he explains how his faith interacts with his policymaking, but do not do the same when the Republicans do so.

    2. If two people break the law, they should suffer the same consequence, right? But, in this case, the only person suffering a consequence is the Democrat. Why is that?

    3. Expecting rationality or consistency from someone who thinks birth control and cocaine are analogous? What am I thinking?

  28. By edgewise (Lon Miller)
    Feb. 6, 2012
    1:15 p.m.
    Flag

    Gogo,

    The argument is that you let this activity slide when it's a Republican. You've yet to criticize a single Republican for this. You've yet to write a single letter to the editor. You still haven't condemned Sharron Angle for her comments from last year.

    How is anyone supposed to take you seriously? You're obviously a partisan hack who's criticism of Obama isn't led by principle, but by politics.

    You've yet to effectively rebut the charge that you have a double standard.

  29. By boftx
    Feb. 6, 2012
    1:41 p.m.
    Flag

    Let me start by saying that I am an agnostic today, though for the first half of my life I had what many would call a strong faith and would have been considered an evangelical.

    That said, I absolutely deplore the use of religion to justify any legislation or policy. Anything that is moral should be able to stand on its own without religious justification. If the only argument against something is based upon religious faith, then it is not inherently moral (and quite possibly immoral.)

    I will take issue with Joseph when he says the people targeted (wealthy citizens) were not "given" anything, that they earned it. This is a matter of context. Yes, they might have earned every penny, but in the context of the parable *everything* is a gift from God in one form or another.

    Again, the New Testament makes it clear that there should be no connection between Church and secular power and further that followers should not force beliefs upon anyone, but rather "shake the dust from your feet" and move on.

    I left the Republican Party in the 80s because the increasing influence of the religious right, even though I was still an active believer with a position of responsibility in my church. I found the mix of religion and politics to be obnoxious, bordering on obscene then and I find it to be the same today, whether it is a Republican or the President using it to chase after votes.

    Religion has no place in lawmaking. At the same time, use solid theology to refute the actions of those who say they believe.

  30. By VernosB (vernos branco)
    Feb. 6, 2012
    1:55 p.m.
    Flag

    CarmineD - "One of the Commandments tells us that Sunday is the Lord's day."

    Really? And which commandment would that be? You fail to realize the Sabbath was instituted by Jews a thousand years earlier than the birth of Christ. Today that Sabbath is on Saturday. Not to mention our calendar is different than the one used in the days of Christ, there were only ten months.

  31. By boftx
    Feb. 6, 2012
    2:02 p.m.
    Flag

    Vernos,

    Really? You know very well what Carmine was getting at and the principle is valid, even if cultural changes need be taken into account. Since when have you become someone who insists on the Bible being the literal word of God?

    That was a cheap shot and beneath you.

    Many of the Republican Party wear their religion on their sleeves. It is no less disgusting when Mr. Obama and other Democrats do the same.

  32. By transplanted (AJ Kircher)
    Feb. 6, 2012
    2:09 p.m.

    Comment removed by moderator. - -

  33. By edgewise (Lon Miller)
    Feb. 6, 2012
    3:08 p.m.
    Flag

    "Let's use your example, Edge. Barack Obama believes - as he has stated -that marriage should be between a man and a woman. You MUST believe that because you have let Barack "slide" on this issue and YOU have posted no commentary to refute that statement, therefor YOU must believe it to be true!"

    This is where I point out three things I've said in the past, and one you've said in the past.

    1. Obama is wrong, historically, legally and morally for his stance against marriage equality.

    2. Obama has been a vocal proponent of civil unions, and voted against the federal marriage amendment every time it came up to a vote in the Senate.

    3. "There is absolutely ZERO difference under the law. As far as the legal boundaries of the law are concerned "Marriage" and Civil Unions are EXACTLY the same." That's a quote from Gogo. So if Obama's an advocate of civil unions, doesn't that make him an advocate of marriage equality, given that you stipulated they are "EXACTLY the same?"

    4. Sharron Angle used religion to justify her entrance into the Senate race, declaring "I believe that God has been in this from the beginning and because of that when he has a plan and a purpose for your life and you fit into that, what he calls you to he always equipped you for." Did you write a letter to the editor about that?

    5. Are you ONLY angry this was done at a prayer breakfast? If your contention is that faith and gospel should "NEVER" be used to inform a decision or position, why does the location of the speech matter? It doesn't.

    6. If I recall correctly, you never did criticize Angle for declaring that rape and incest are part of "God's plan." In response to a question about allowing abortion in the cases of rape and incest, she said, "You know, I'm a Christian and I believe that God has a plan and a purpose for each one of our lives and that he can intercede in all kinds of situations and we need to have a little faith in many things."

  34. By edgewise (Lon Miller)
    Feb. 6, 2012
    3:08 p.m.
    Flag

    7. "But don't post that someone talks about their faith and how it guides them through life and call it the same thing that Obama did." Actually, that's exactly what he did. Read his speech, he was citing Christian, Islamic and Jewish tenets in relation to himself:

    Quote: "And when I talk about shared responsibility, it's because I genuinely believe that in a time when many folks are struggling, at a time when we have enormous deficits, it's hard for me to ask seniors on a fixed income, or young people with student loans, or middle-class families who can barely pay the bills to shoulder the burden alone. And I think to myself, if I'm willing to give something up as somebody who's been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that's going to make economic sense. But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus's teaching that "for unto whom much is given, much shall be required." It mirrors the Islamic belief that those who've been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, or the Jewish doctrine of moderation and consideration for others."

    8. You don't find it strange or inconsistent in any way that you're criticizing Obama for the decision on Catholic hospitals when Mitt Romney, someone you support to replace Obama, did the exact same thing? It's an example of your double standard. Where is your letter to the editor crying about Romney forcing hospitals to carry the morning after pill?

  35. By edgewise (Lon Miller)
    Feb. 6, 2012
    3:52 p.m.
    Flag

    "But how about his personal policy and how his "faith" has guided him?"

    Who is the subject of his sentences? Himself.

    He says that he's willing to give up tax breaks.

    He understands his personal responsibility to do so, based on his understanding of scripture.

    "And I think to myself, if I'm willing to give something up as somebody who's been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that's going to make economic sense. But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus's teaching that "for unto whom much is given, much shall be required." It mirrors the Islamic belief that those who've been blessed have an obligation to use those blessings to help others, or the Jewish doctrine of moderation and consideration for others."

    Let me repaste that so you can read it again:

    "And I think to myself, if I'm willing to give something up as somebody who's been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that's going to make economic sense. "

    "I, I'm, I, I"

    He's not demanding everyone foresake everything, he saying he understands his personal responsibility, as guided by, not only scripture, but Jewish tradition and even Islamic law.

    You've twisted it into something it's not.

    "And I think to myself, if I'm willing to give something up as somebody who's been extraordinarily blessed, and give up some of the tax breaks that I enjoy, I actually think that's going to make economic sense."

    "I, I'm, I, I"

    It's a statement of his personal responsibility, Gogo. Too bad you can't understand that. Too bad in your nihilistic quest to smear Obama, you have to twist it into something political.

  36. By edgewise (Lon Miller)
    Feb. 6, 2012
    3:53 p.m.
    Flag

    Here's a link to his remarks, Gogo.

    Why don't you detail the political passages?

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/n...

    If any reasonable person reads this speech, they'll laugh at your desperate smear.

  37. By wtplv (Michael Casler)
    Feb. 6, 2012
    4 p.m.
    Flag

    The President's campaign to raise taxes on the wealthy, unless combined with an overhaul of the income tax code to remove deductions and loopholes used by the wealthy and business, and ensure all Americans with an income pay some income tax is meaningless... whether he uses scripture to justify it or not.

    16 trillion dollars in debt and 1 trillion dollar yearly deficits dwarf anything that increasing taxes on the rich will do.

    Unless the President and the R's start taking action on major income tax overhaul, reduced military spending, changes to SS and Medicare, cutting waste and abuse in government spending and alot more, all this crap about religion is a bunch of 'noise'.

    Michael

  38. By edgewise (Lon Miller)
    Feb. 6, 2012
    4:28 p.m.
    Flag

    Gogo's rhetoric: "Third, the tax returns filed by the president don't seem to indicate he is following Luke's scripture, as his personal charitable giving can be called nothing but anemic."

    The Truth: In 2010, the Obamas donated $245,075 to charities, or 14.2 percent of their adjusted gross income of $1.7 million.

    That was a slightly higher rate than that of Mitt Romney.

    Another Gogo smear, relegated to the trash heap.

    Next!

  39. By VernosB (vernos branco)
    Feb. 6, 2012
    4:29 p.m.
    Flag

    boftx - "Since when have you become someone who insists on the Bible being the literal word of God? That was a cheap shot and beneath you."

    Boftx I have little doubt CarmineD actually believes what he posts about religion. It wasn't very long ago that he posted Jesus was a Christian and refused to acknowledge that Jesus was a Jew and praticed Hebrew traditions.

    That is why I asked "really?"

    To add, any preacher or priest using the pulpit to sway political opinions is delving into the secular world, they are no longer tax exempt.

  40. By edgewise (Lon Miller)
    Feb. 6, 2012
    4:31 p.m.
    Flag

    "After reading that last line, the President than went on to buttress his desire for tax increases THROUGH citing scripture!"

    Great, quote him saying so, Gogo. You cited the line from Luke's gospel, which I proved he was speaking in terms of himself.

    Where's Obama's direct call to legislative or policy action by way of scripture?

    I don't see it. Quote it.

  41. By edgewise (Lon Miller)
    Feb. 6, 2012
    4:35 p.m.
    Flag

    I'll also note, Obama never tried to sell his charitable donations as if they were taxes.

    Romney: "Well, actually, I released two years of taxes and I think the average is almost 15 percent. And then also, on top of that, I gave another more 15 percent to charity. When you add it together with all of the taxes and the charity, particularly in the last year, I think it reaches almost 40 percent that I gave back to the community."

    Romney sees taxes as "giving back to the community." He sees it as charitable. And one of the largest percentage of his donations to charity? Tithing to the LDS church.

    Taxing = charity = giving back to the community = church donations, in Romney's mind.

  42. By edgewise (Lon Miller)
    Feb. 6, 2012
    4:45 p.m.
    Flag

    "and from 200-2006 he gave 1% of his income to charity!"

    This is not true.

    "The Obamas increased the amount they gave to charity when their income rose in 2005 and 2006 after the Illinois senator published a bestselling book. The $137,622 they gave over those two years amounted to more than 5 percent of their $2.6 million income."

    FACT: Gogo just lied.

    Gogo forgets Obama donated the 1.4 million from the Nobel prize, as well:

    "In addition to paying $1.8 million in federal taxes, the Obamas donated $329,100 to charity plus the full amount of the $1.4 million he won for receiving the Nobel Peace Prize in 2009."

    How much have you donated, Gogo? Tell you what, don't bother answering that. We all know you'll self-aggrandize and brag based on statements which can't be confirmed!

  43. By edgewise (Lon Miller)
    Feb. 6, 2012
    4:47 p.m.
    Flag

    "When no one was looking Obama gave virtually NOTHING to charity....."

    Here we go again!

    FACT: From 2000-2006, the Obamas donated around $150,000 to charity. What's that about "virtually nothing" again?

  44. By Det__Munch
    Feb. 6, 2012
    5:20 p.m.
    Flag

    <<Then these women are Catholic in name only not belief>>

    As a woman who is Catholic and not just in name only but having a deep and immovable belief in Christ's teaching....I say BS to that!!!! Wake up, Mr. DiFazio. Catholic women have choices, too. They don't need the Church, which 99.9% are men who are in charge of rules, telling them what to do. We can think for ourselves and STILL believe in the teachings of Christ.

  45. By edgewise (Lon Miller)
    Feb. 6, 2012
    5:32 p.m.
    Flag

    "Seems as if that part of the tithe you made fun of actually goes to helping millions around the world who suffer from hunger, disease, dirty water, etc."

    Actually, Gogo, the LDS church funded and organized part the Prop 8 anti-gay proposition in California, so I don't view the LDS church as much of a charity.

    What kind of charity works to deny equality?

    The LDS church is a political organization.

    "During Wednesday's taped satellite broadcast, church leaders asked for 30 members from each California congregation to donate four hours a week to the campaign. They also called on young married couples and single Mormons to use the Internet, text messaging, blogging and other forms of computer technology to help pass the initiative, saying the church has created a new Web site -- PreservingMarriage.org -- with materials they can download and post on their own social networking sites."

    "Church elder L. Whitney Clayton, who has been working as a liaison between the LDS leaders and the Proposition 8 campaign, said before the event that it was meant to energize Mormons for the weeks remaining before Election Day."

    Clayton: "It's a political campaign, and time is short and there's a lot to do."

    Funding a political campaign, distributing disinformation via the web...

    What kind of a charity wages a political campaign?

    Romney's "charity."

  46. By edgewise (Lon Miller)
    Feb. 6, 2012
    5:37 p.m.
    Flag

    Oh, wait. I thought you said from "200-2006." Now you're debunking your own argument? The facts show that the Obamas donated $150,000 between 2000-2006.

    And how fair is it to criticize Obama for not donating 1760 years before his birth?

    "Oh, and by the way Edge, Romney gave TEN TIMES the amount Obama did to charity. "

    Yet, as a percentage of income, Obama's given more. That gambit's easy to see. While you try to mislead people with "Romney's donated more," you fail to understand that Obama's a higher percentage of his wealth than Romney.

    That 1.4 million donation? That's was more than they earn in a year!

    Meanwhile Romney's "charity" is working to bring discrimination to California. I think you may want to stop arguing now.

    As for your personal donations: prove it.

  47. By edgewise (Lon Miller)
    Feb. 6, 2012
    5:39 p.m.
    Flag

    "Gee, Edge, can't attack my post destroying your false claims about the Obama remarks at the NPB?"

    What post? Where? You took a few sentences out of context. I linked to the entire speech. I think people should read it and then they'll see how misleading you're being.

    "Thus, this is a call to IMPLEMENT PUBLIC POLICY and NOT a call to follow one's faith....."

    Great, quote him saying so. You still haven't done so.

  48. By Det__Munch
    Feb. 6, 2012
    6 p.m.
    Flag

    <<Judgment is a spiritual work of mercy for all Catholic Christians. Condemnation rightfully belongs only to God>>

    Mr. Di Fazio: Then who are YOU to judge Catholic women who practice birth control and say they are "non-believers"??

    <<One of the Commandments tells us that Sunday is the Lord's day.>>

    MMmm. You don't know WHICH Commandment that is?

    <<If you accept the doctrine that the Pope is the apostolic successor of Jesus, as Catholics do...>

    I find it funny this letter goes out under the signatures of the same people that turned a blind eye to the child molesters in their midst for the last 60 years. But will condemn everyone else for things that are no business of their's. How can you honestly accept the Pope's infallibility when a couple of them turned a blind eye to that abuse in their Church by their priests? It's okay to molest kids, but you women in the Church better not be using birth control because it is a sin and you will burn in hell. Women, you are only here to procreate.

    I have always had a problem with the dictates out of Rome. The only Pope who understood the world had changed and the Church must keep up was John Paul II. He was progressive and many came back to the Church during his time as Pope. He understood people. He understood the Church had to change to keep the people coming back. This new Pope Benedict is too hardline and still living in the 18th Century (and possibly before).

    PS I admire your strong beliefs of the Church of Rome but they are way behind the times. (And when I say "Church of Rome", that does not include Christ's teachings, but those man made laws the Church has been forcing on us over the years). Remember - no meat Fridays, not just during Lent? Jesus didn't say don't eat meat on Friday, Rome told us we couldn't. Then they changed it. Now it's only during Lent. Some of their "laws" were archaic and unfair. I can go on for an hour about this but I won't (I grew up in the 50's going to Catholic School and believed it all!!). Just because someone doesn't follow all those "laws", doesn't mean they are committing a sin and going to hell.

  49. By Xtlman (Mark Dunton)
    Feb. 6, 2012
    6:36 p.m.
    Flag

    Forcing his will on the Catholic Church? I think starting in about 1290, the Catholic Church decided to FORCE ITS WILL on the non-Christians. I think they called it.....THE CRUSADES.... Then the Second Ecumenical Council compiled the bible we know today, removing those sections that did not conform to the Catholic way of thinking.

    Obama is just clueless. He will do or say anything now just as a matter of damage control. The only problem is, that both parties are just as corrupt. If you have a president (that is NOT a member of the good-old-boys club), he spends most of his time running around in circles with his hand out asking "can I have more". The president has been reduced to a figure-head, bouncing between the Senate and Congress, not really getting anything accomplished, with both sides of the The House pulling his strings like a puppet master.

    In case @Joseph forgot, this is America and any political figure can do the most inappropriate things, or even (might I say it) exercise ones right to free speech (just like you did @Joseph). Mr. Obama is just about to the unemployment line, no political office to step into, should be interesting to see how Jackie Kennedy Obama likes returning to plain folk life.

  50. By edgewise (Lon Miller)
    Feb. 6, 2012
    6:38 p.m.
    Flag

    Geez, you can't even get the basics right. Donating to PP is tax deductible, but donating to PPAF is not. PPAF is it's political arm. But the LDS church can accept donations as "charity" while spending it on political campaigns to enact bigotry.

    Nor can you provide a single shred of proof you've donated a single dime. You think people will take your word for it?

    You're damn right criticizing the LDS church as a political organization is a value judgement, and it's right! Their own Elders demanded they get involved, the church paid for anti-equality websites, etc.

    That's not a charity, that's a PAC.

    And the amount of money on charitable work compared to proselytizing? That ratio is skewed further toward revenue enhancements for the church's business model than providing charity for the needy.

    The LDS as a group do good, but their church uses too much of the members' funds on the church's political agenda. And before you even begin: I was born LDS.

  51. By UTE (William Finch)
    Feb. 7, 2012
    1:27 a.m.
    Flag

    Is it Christian to lie, Mr. Schillmoeller?
    In 2009 alone Obama gave $329,100 to charity. And, that does NOT include the $1.4 million he won for receiving the Nobel Peace Prize - which he also donated.
    Are you donating that same portion of your income to charity, Mr. Schillmoeller?

  52. By SunJon (Jon Becker)
    Feb. 7, 2012
    2:43 a.m.
    Flag

    Matthew 19:24 States: "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God."

    That doesn't seem to bother any of the GOP Presidential Candidates. Witness a group of people that defend the Bible and ignore it at the same time, in full view of the lights and cameras.

    They defend their Faith, but their Faith is nothing more then a political, social and financial Action Committee with the greatest Faith in money. Their prayers have no effect in this Universe, that's why they chase the Golden Calf which ultimately matures into the Wall Street Bull.

    It's quite a laugh to listen to Millionaire Conservatives argue about who is the true Christian. They insist on taxing the middle class at 25% while reducing taxes on the wealthy below 15%.

    The fact is that the American Christian Religion is operated by some of the wealthiest people in the Country. 100's of millions and billions of tax free donation dollars are controlled by a few Religious Leaders who put this money in Wall Street investment funds for greater income.

    The American Christian Church fights for the rich because the Faith is operated by the rich. Being a Christian in America means accepting the political philosophy of the rich leaders while 'not passing judgement' on their own hypocrisy.

    I'm glad that I am not a Christian. These are the same money changers that Jesus originally threw out of the Temple. If he ever does return and talk about caring for the poor, the American Christians will be the first to put him back on the Cross for heresy. Glad I'm not a Christian.

  53. By dipstick
    Feb. 7, 2012
    6:19 a.m.
    Flag

    rock; youre making me laugh too early in the morning. bush was incompetent as the people who voted for him.

  54. By mschaffer (Mark Schaffer)
    Feb. 7, 2012
    11:02 a.m.
    Flag

    Who here believes anything posted by lady gaga?

Post a comment

Commenting requires registration.

Comments are moderated by Las Vegas Sun editors. Our goal is not to limit the discussion, but rather to elevate it. Comments should be relevant and contain no abusive language. Comments that are off-topic, vulgar, profane or include personal attacks will be removed. Full comments policy.

If you would like to submit your comment as a letter to the editor, you may submit it here.

Most Popular