Never thought of it this way (political)

[cloudy]

On Sunday at least 35 religious leaders from churches across the country will give sermons officially endorsing a Presidential candidate.

"Pastors will tell their congregations which presidential candidate they should vote for, according to the Scriptures. These endorsements represent a direct challenge to federal tax law, which prohibits tax-exempt organizations from engaging in partisan political activity."

The goal here isn't to really influence the 2008 election, it's to challenge the Constitutional ban of the separation of church and state and, more specifically, a 1954 law passed by Congress that makes it illegal for tax-exempt groups to support or oppose political candidates publicly."

Basically by preaching politics openly these churches would, by law, forgo their tax-exempt status. And religious leaders, bolstered by the Alliance Defense Fund or ADF, argue "the IRS tax code violates the free speech of religious leaders."

But wait there's more....

Now a challenge like this isn't new. It's been tried before, but not with the type of organized protest which will happen Sunday. In fact...

The 1954 statute has been upheld in the courts. In three cases, courts have concluded it does not violate the Constitution's free speech clause, according to Robert Tuttle, professor of law and religion at George Washington University in Washington.

In a national poll released in August, two-thirds of American adults say that churches should not come out in favor of one political candidate over another. The Pew poll shows widespread agreement, including among Republicans and white Evangelicals (both at 64 percent).

"Also, under the IRS rules, clergy are free to discuss any issues of public concern in their sermons, and houses of worship can engage in nonpartisan voter-registration and civic education."

*********
That's fucked up....seriously. People are always yelling about the Constitution, McCain says he wants to go back to the basics of the Constitution, yadda, yadda, yadda. WTF? The Constitution they scream to high heaven about says THEY CAN'T DO THIS.

I always knew they were hypocrites. This just proves it.

 

[rgraham666]

I hadn't known about this. I had assumed it was otherwise since so many churches do endorse a candidate.

But I agree. If they're going to engage in politics they're coming down on the state side of the church/state separation. And so they lose their tax exempt status.

Put up or shut up.

 

[Salvor-Hardon]

I, for one, hope that the 35 pastors do lose their tax exempt status. That will force the parishioners to consider are they giving because they believe in the work or because its a good tax write off, more often than not it cripples a church.

I'm not a fan of either party, but worship services should be about finding a connection with the divine, not about "we win you lose" that American politics devolves into so easily. Eventually that mentality means we all lose.

 

[Safe_Bet]

On Sunday at least 35 religious leaders from churches across the country will give sermons officially endorsing a Presidential candidate.

"Pastors will tell their congregations which presidential candidate they should vote for, according to the Scriptures. These endorsements represent a direct challenge to federal tax law, which prohibits tax-exempt organizations from engaging in partisan political activity."

The goal here isn't to really influence the 2008 election, it's to challenge the Constitutional ban of the separation of church and state and, more specifically, a 1954 law passed by Congress that makes it illegal for tax-exempt groups to support or oppose political candidates publicly."

Basically by preaching politics openly these churches would, by law, forgo their tax-exempt status. And religious leaders, bolstered by the Alliance Defense Fund or ADF, argue "the IRS tax code violates the free speech of religious leaders."

But wait there's more....

Now a challenge like this isn't new. It's been tried before, but not with the type of organized protest which will happen Sunday. In fact...

The 1954 statute has been upheld in the courts. In three cases, courts have concluded it does not violate the Constitution's free speech clause, according to Robert Tuttle, professor of law and religion at George Washington University in Washington.

In a national poll released in August, two-thirds of American adults say that churches should not come out in favor of one political candidate over another. The Pew poll shows widespread agreement, including among Republicans and white Evangelicals (both at 64 percent).

"Also, under the IRS rules, clergy are free to discuss any issues of public concern in their sermons, and houses of worship can engage in nonpartisan voter-registration and civic education."

*********
That's fucked up....seriously. People are always yelling about the Constitution, McCain says he wants to go back to the basics of the Constitution, yadda, yadda, yadda. WTF? The Constitution they scream to high heaven about says THEY CAN'T DO THIS.

I always knew they were hypocrites. This just proves it.

Don't EVEN get me started on these hateful SOBs.

If they do this and they don't bitch slap the shit out of them, IMMEDIATELY, it will show just how corrupt the government has become. The same goes for BOTH presidential candidates, if they don't condemn this specific action.

For me this is serious "litmus test" stuff.

 

[3113]

Well, I don't think churches should be tax exempt anyway. Not unless they can truly and honestly prove that they are 100% non-profit. I say, pull the plug on a the tax exemptions for churches and let them say what they want. We certainly could use the money.

I mean, come on, they do anyway. "Anyone who is against creationism is working for the devil," pretty much tells the congregation which way to vote, doesn't it? No need to name names.

 

[cloudy]

Well, I don't think churches should be tax exempt anyway. Not unless they can truly and honestly prove that they are 100% non-profit. I say, pull the plug on a the tax exemptions for churches and let them say what they want. We certainly could use the money.

I mean, come on, they do anyway. "Anyone who is against creationism is working for the devil," pretty much tells the congregation which way to vote, doesn't it? No need to name names.

Yeah, I know they do it anyway, I was just struck by the gigantic hypocrisy, that's all.

 

[Liar]

What utter bullshit.

Of course the law doesn't violate their free speech rights. A church is in no way, shape or form banned from playing politics.

If they want to play politics, they are free to play politics. And then they are taxed like normal people and organizations.

There's a government incentive for chuches to abstain from playing politics - tax extemption.

In fact, that makes chuches priviliged, doesn't it? Or does all organizatinos get such a sweet deal?

 

[Edward Teach]

A little research on Pat Robertson's American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ), its cheif attorney, Jay Sekulow (sp?), and some of the positions they have taken over the years will turn most sane folks gray.

I once saw Sekulow on TV urging churches to defy the IRS code against political advocacy by churches. He said that it was the Christian Church's duty to defy it.

I have long considered Robertson one of the most dangerous men in the world. I used to keep track of him and his groups but haven't in a several years. Here's a link to the ACLJ web site. I find it chilling.

http://www.aclj.org/Content/?f=68

Robertson once stated on TV that his ACLJ, formed in approximately 1976, had filed over 100,000 lawsuits.

Make no mistake, this group seeks world domination (Dominion Theory). If they gained power, they would jail Presbyterians and burn Catholics at the stake.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Kiss my ass. Black churches have been endorsing candidates forever. Ditto for the Roman Catholics.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

1. There a whole bunch of allegedly non-profit organizations that have 'tax exempt' status. I believe PETA is one.

2. These 35 pastors are a fringe of the fringe. Mainline denomenations know better and would find it unconcienceable to suggest voting in a particular direction.

3. Every time I hear some yahoo talking about "the Scriptures" it's a clear message that he/she doesn't have half a handle on what they say and I can guarantee that said twerp doesn't read either Greek or Hebrew.

4. If we're going to start 'voting the Scriptures', how about "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy mind and with all thy spirit. And thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Real Christianity in a nutshell.

 

[cloudy]

If we're going to start 'voting the Scriptures', how about "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, with all thy mind and with all thy spirit. And thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself." Real Christianity in a nutshell.

Indeed.

I can't wait until Jesus comes back....he's gonna be so pissed off.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Indeed.

I can't wait until Jesus comes back....he's gonna be so pissed off.

Ya think? Here is my take on religion is general:

Poet's Creed
by Safe_Bet©

Me and God had a little chat. It was cool,
but we’re both pissed at all the religions of this world

Religions where -
Dancing is a sin, but calling children abominations isn’t.
Protests against queers at a straight soldier’s grave is god’s will,
but his mother’s shattered heart is of no importance.
Brightly plumed, pompous peacocks dressed to molest.

So we’re gonna start our own religion–
The religion of the farm – baby chicks playing in the dirt;
kids romping in the hay till the cows come home;
mom’s cherry pie – not eaten but taken to a sick neighbor;
saying grace for what we do have; not what we don’t.

And our own church –
James Brown as our minister,
with readings from the gospel according to Anais Nin.
Filled with icons of sunsets and penguins and real cotton candy;
full of the God of my happy children, not the god of my fathers.

 

[cloudy]

Ya think? Here is my take on religion is general:

Poet's Creed
by Safe_Bet©

Me and God had a little chat. It was cool,
but we’re both pissed at all the religions of this world

Religions where -
Dancing is a sin, but calling children abominations isn’t.
Protests against queers at a straight soldier’s grave is god’s will,
but his mother’s shattered heart is of no importance.
Brightly plumed, pompous peacocks dressed to molest.

So we’re gonna start our own religion–
The religion of the farm – baby chicks playing in the dirt;
kids romping in the hay till the cows come home;
mom’s cherry pie – not eaten but taken to a sick neighbor;
saying grace for what we do have; not what we don’t.

And our own church –
James Brown as our minister,
with readings from the gospel according to Anais Nin.
Filled with icons of sunsets and penguins and real cotton candy;
full of the God of my happy children, not the god of my fathers.

Very nice.

(it's actually very close to our religion)

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Not too sure about the penguins, though. They smell really bad.

 

[Safe_Bet]

Not too sure about the penguins, though. They smell really bad.

Nah, we are going to get some from the Catholics. They are already trained and don't have any bad "habits".

 

[Liar]

1. There a whole bunch of allegedly non-profit organizations that have 'tax exempt' status. I believe PETA is one.

Ah, well that changes things... maybe. Can they play partisan politics and still dodge taxes?

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Just don't get the penguins from Catholic schools. They have a reputation of being really mean.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Ah, well that changes things... maybe. Can they play partisan politics and still dodge taxes?

Probably not but since both candidates enjoy a good steak or fried chicken, it's unlikely that they'd back anyone so they're free to continue their feath . . Uh, petal-brained campaigns, tax-exempt.

 

[Selena_Kitt]

Ya think? Here is my take on religion is general:

Poet's Creed
by Safe_Bet©

Me and God had a little chat. It was cool,
but we’re both pissed at all the religions of this world

Religions where -
Dancing is a sin, but calling children abominations isn’t.
Protests against queers at a straight soldier’s grave is god’s will,
but his mother’s shattered heart is of no importance.
Brightly plumed, pompous peacocks dressed to molest.

So we’re gonna start our own religion–
The religion of the farm – baby chicks playing in the dirt;
kids romping in the hay till the cows come home;
mom’s cherry pie – not eaten but taken to a sick neighbor;
saying grace for what we do have; not what we don’t.

And our own church –
James Brown as our minister,
with readings from the gospel according to Anais Nin.
Filled with icons of sunsets and penguins and real cotton candy;
full of the God of my happy children, not the god of my fathers.

Amen, sistah!

 

[Belegon]

The original argument for the separation of church and state...

And he said unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which be Caesar's, and unto God the things which be God's.

...and ya know, it was VERY controversial at the time.

 

[voluptuary_manque]

Magapoint for Bel! That's also a serious argument against the cult of martyrdom that reigned in the following centuries. If you know that a god is false, tossing a coin into Ceaser's offering bowl isn't a religious offense, it's a political statement. Could have saved the Church a lot of grief had suffering not been so admired.

 

[only_more_so]

That's fucked up....seriously. People are always yelling about the Constitution, McCain says he wants to go back to the basics of the Constitution, yadda, yadda, yadda. WTF? The Constitution they scream to high heaven about says THEY CAN'T DO THIS.

I always knew they were hypocrites. This just proves it.

This isn't a constitutional issue, it is an issue about a tax law. The only thing preventing pastors/clergy from preaching politics is their tax exempt status.

The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" which says absolutely nothing about restrictions on establishments of religion.

Actually, that same clause can be read to say that laws that dictate what preachers are allowed to say from the pulpit is unconstitutional. Not to mention the next clause about freedom of speach.

What the government can do is decide who gets a tax exemption. There is a clause in the tax-exemption code which states, basically, that a political organization cannot be tax-exempt. So if a pastor tells his congregation who to vote for, he's changing the non-political entity of the church into a political entity making it no longer tax-exempt.

Groups like the ACLU get around this by having two halves to their organization, a tax-exempt side (for which your donations are "charitable") and a lobbying side which is not tax-exempt. Both sides have separate books and money can't go back and forth.

So, the only way this is a constitutional matter is whether the tax-exemption law violates the constitution. All the preachers are doing is risking their tax-exemption status.

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

Churches probably should not be taxed because the power to tax is the power to destroy and this would potentially insert government way to much into church affairs (just imagine chuch lobbyists maneuvering for various exemptions and tax breaks and politicians exploiting and playing games with that - it's an ugly picture.)

Churches should be able to endorse whoever they want. There is no justification for this limitation on free speech.

As JJ says black churches have been doing this for decades, and no one ever says boo. The double standard impicit in that shows the danger of this unholy infringement of free speech. (It's free speech that's holy to me, not churches.)

 

[Roxanne Appleby]

The original argument for the separation of church and state...



...and ya know, it was VERY controversial at the time.

Care to define it? It always seemed hopelessly fuzzy to me, to the point of unmeaningfuless.

 

[Elianna]

I think churches endorse candidates all the time. I remember that my church as a child ALWAYS endorsed the Republican candidate because he stood for "pro-life" and therefore was "good."

I suppose it goes back to what is the purpose of church? I believe the purpose of a church is to serve its community. (Or so says the Bible) Now, just because it's church does that mean it's immune to corruption? Um duh... I think we've seen enough church corruption to know about that.

So... what it comes back to is ideology. You know the IDEA of democracy is something we all believe in. Democracy the way we practice it... corruption, BIG TIME!

So church. The idea is good, but in practice... duh.

Maybe we should wait until democracy is perfect and it lives up to the ideology, before we go picking on churches.

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your owwn eye? Matthew 7: 3-4

Besides do you really want to sit through the sermon?

JMHO