Cobol - OT: McCain's religion was Re: Eliot Spitzer, antismoking leader, self-destructs

Author

OT: McCain's religion was Re: Eliot Spitzer, antismoking leader, self-destructs

Clark F Morris

2008-03-21, 6:55 pm

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 04:20:48 -0700 (PDT), Alistair
<alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>
>And many christians in the mix too. Now it looks as if you are going
>to replace one inept god-guided maniac with another (McCain).

Sof far as I know, McCain is mainline Protestant (maybe even
Episcopalian - Anglican). He is not an evangelical Christian and that
branch in the Republican party is divided on whether to support him.

SkippyPB

2008-03-22, 6:55 pm

On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 13:24:00 -0300, Clark F Morris
<cfmpublic@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote:

>On Fri, 21 Mar 2008 04:20:48 -0700 (PDT), Alistair
><alistair@ld50macca.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>Sof far as I know, McCain is mainline Protestant (maybe even
>Episcopalian - Anglican). He is not an evangelical Christian and that
>branch in the Republican party is divided on whether to support him.

He is Episcopalian. McCain supports overturning Roe v. Wade and
banning abortion except in cases of rape, incest or threat to the life
of the mother. He has an anti-abortion voting record, and has
promised, if elected, to appoint justices who "strictly interpret the
Constitution of the United States and do not legislate from the
bench." (Where have we heard that before and what was the outcome?)

McCain supports the death penalty for federal crimes and he opposed a
federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, . I think this
puts him at odds with the Republican Evangelicals.

Religious right leader James Dobson on John McCain before McCain
wrapped up the Republican primary: "Speaking as a private individual,
I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances. The McCain
Feingold Bill kept us from telling the truth right before elections …
and there are a lot of other things. He's not in favor of traditional
marriage, and I pray that we won't get stuck with him."

Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-

"I wan' all dem kids to do what I do, to look up to me. I wan' all the kids to
copulate me."
-- ex-Chicago Cubs outfielder Andre Dawson on being a role model
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve

Howard Brazee

2008-03-24, 6:55 pm

On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 11:39:22 -0400, SkippyPB
<swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:

>He is Episcopalian. McCain supports overturning Roe v. Wade and
>banning abortion except in cases of rape, incest or threat to the life
>of the mother. He has an anti-abortion voting record, and has
>promised, if elected, to appoint justices who "strictly interpret the
>Constitution of the United States and do not legislate from the
>bench." (Where have we heard that before and what was the outcome?)

If he's in favor of rape in cases of rape or incest, obviously he does
not believe an embryo or fetus is a person.

So does he have a reason for his position?

>McCain supports the death penalty for federal crimes and he opposed a
>federal constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, . I think this
>puts him at odds with the Republican Evangelicals.

But the Libertarian wing of his party is in favor of leaving the Feds
out of the marriage issue.

>Religious right leader James Dobson on John McCain before McCain
>wrapped up the Republican primary: "Speaking as a private individual,
>I would not vote for John McCain under any circumstances. The McCain
>Feingold Bill kept us from telling the truth right before elections …
>and there are a lot of other things. He's not in favor of traditional
>marriage, and I pray that we won't get stuck with him."

Let the churches handle sacraments such as marriage.

SkippyPB

2008-03-24, 6:55 pm

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 07:49:23 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
wrote:

>On Sat, 22 Mar 2008 11:39:22 -0400, SkippyPB
><swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>If he's in favor of rape in cases of rape or incest, obviously he does
>not believe an embryo or fetus is a person.
>
>So does he have a reason for his position?
>

I'm sure he does, but I don't know what it is. He doesn't favor
embryo stem cell research either.

>
>But the Libertarian wing of his party is in favor of leaving the Feds
>out of the marriage issue.
>

That's true. He doesn't favor civil unions either.

>
>Let the churches handle sacraments such as marriage.

I agree with that.

Regards,
////
(o o)
-oOO--(_)--OOo-

"He treats us like men. He lets us wear earrings."
-- Torrin Polk, University of Houston receiver,
on his coach, John Jenkins
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Remove nospam to email me.

Steve

Howard Brazee

2008-03-24, 6:55 pm

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 12:00:07 -0400, SkippyPB
<swiegand@nospam.neo.rr.com> wrote:

Oops, I mean "abortion in cases of rape or incest".
[color=darkred]
>
>I'm sure he does, but I don't know what it is. He doesn't favor
>embryo stem cell research either.

Lots of politicians have as their true reason "to get votes".

But lots of opinions are "it's not right", without being reasoned.

Robert

2008-03-24, 6:55 pm

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 07:49:23 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

>Let the churches handle sacraments such as marriage.

OK, start by cancelling the tax advantage of joint returns, make everyone file as single.
And cancel widow benefits under Social Security.

Someone counted more than 1,000 federal programs that use marital status.

A candidate advocating that wouldn't get many female votes.

Howard Brazee

2008-03-24, 6:55 pm

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:35:43 -0600, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:

(They would pull out legal contracts as well for support and such -
but the sacrament itself is separate from that contract).
[color=darkred]
>OK, start by cancelling the tax advantage of joint returns, make everyone file as single.
>And cancel widow benefits under Social Security.

Or allow for other partnerships - let me declare my social security
beneficiary to be my infirmed brother or mother.

>Someone counted more than 1,000 federal programs that use marital status.

And lots also apply to people who aren't actually married. Child
support, palimony, etc. are enforced. As are other contractual
partnership between people (we don't need sexual contact to be legal
partners).

>A candidate advocating that wouldn't get many female votes.

Why?

If I have a housewife supporting me for 30 years of my career, I
retire, get a divorce, and re-marry - why should my new bride get the
benefit of my social security, instead of the old wife?

Robert

2008-03-24, 9:57 pm

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:00:13 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 13:35:43 -0600, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>
>(They would pull out legal contracts as well for support and such -
>but the sacrament itself is separate from that contract).
>
>
>Or allow for other partnerships - let me declare my social security
>beneficiary to be my infirmed brother or mother.

If you die and were providing more than half your monther's support, she is eligible for
'survivor benefits.

>
>And lots also apply to people who aren't actually married. Child
>support, palimony, etc. are enforced. As are other contractual
>partnership between people (we don't need sexual contact to be legal
>partners).

Those are civil contracts between cohabitants. I was talking about government handouts and
other privileges granted only to spouses.

>
>Why?
>
>If I have a housewife supporting me for 30 years of my career, I
>retire, get a divorce, and re-marry - why should my new bride get the
>benefit of my social security, instead of the old wife?

She doesn't get any of your benefits while you're alive. After you die, your unmarried ex
AND current wife are entitled to survivor benefits when they hit retirement age (65-67).
They are entitled at any age if they have kids under 17.

Oddly, their survivor benefits can be higher than yours were.

Howard Brazee

2008-03-25, 6:55 pm

On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:28:10 -0600, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:

>
>If you die and were providing more than half your monther's support, she is eligible for
>'survivor benefits.

Good. But she doesn't get my "spousal" benefit while I'm alive even
though I'm buying just as much social security insurance as the
married guy next door.

>
>Those are civil contracts between cohabitants. I was talking about government handouts and
>other privileges granted only to spouses.

I don't believe there should be such hand-outs based upon marital
status - base them on need. My example of supporting my mother or
my brother should get the same consideration as my supporting my wife.

>
>She doesn't get any of your benefits while you're alive. After you die, your unmarried ex
>AND current wife are entitled to survivor benefits when they hit retirement age (65-67).
>They are entitled at any age if they have kids under 17.
>
>Oddly, their survivor benefits can be higher than yours were.

But why shouldn't she be able to get my insurance benefit while I'm
alive?

Robert

2008-03-25, 6:56 pm

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 07:42:55 -0600, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

>On Mon, 24 Mar 2008 21:28:10 -0600, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:
>
>
>Good. But she doesn't get my "spousal" benefit while I'm alive even
>though I'm buying just as much social security insurance as the
>married guy next door.

There is no spousal benefit while you're alive. YOU get a retirement benefit based on YOUR
(not joint) earnings. If she's retired, she gets her own retirement benefit. You get the
same as the married guy next door.

>
>I don't believe there should be such hand-outs based upon marital
>status - base them on need. My example of supporting my mother or
>my brother should get the same consideration as my supporting my wife.

That's welfare, not insurance. Your 401K, life and health insurance don't pay out based on
need. Social Security was sold to the people as an insurance program, not welfare.
Generally, states administer welfare.

>
>But why shouldn't she be able to get my insurance benefit while I'm
>alive?

Because it was set up during the 1930s, when the model was big strong man breadwinner
taking care of family while alive.

The biggest gap in the system is medical insurance. If you're over 65 & retired, YOU are
covered by Medicare. Your under 65 wife is not. Her only options are private insurance and
getting it through work. Your Social Security retirement benefit isn't enough to pay her
private insurance primium, typically $1,000/mo. If she can't work, the choices are move to
another country or get divorced and she goes on welfare.

Howard Brazee

2008-03-25, 6:56 pm

On Tue, 25 Mar 2008 12:40:07 -0600, Robert <no@e.mail> wrote:

>
>That's welfare, not insurance. Your 401K, life and health insurance don't pay out based on
>need. Social Security was sold to the people as an insurance program, not welfare.
>Generally, states administer welfare.

As the breadwinner, I should have been able to select my (Social
Security) insurance beneficiary even if I'm not married.

Sponsored Links