Congress amended the tax code in 1954 to state that certain nonprofit groups, including secular charities and places of worship, can lose their tax-exempt status for intervening in a campaign involving candidates.
Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said hundreds of churches volunteered to take part in "Pulpit Freedom Sunday." Thirty-three were chosen, in part for "strategic criteria related to litigation" Stanley wouldn't discuss.
I honestly can't figure out which way this will play out. As more information becomes available I'll be able to speculate, but right now I have no idea. Alliance Defense Fund may be religious nuts, but they are not stupid. And they are deeply connected to the GOP through People like James Dobson (Focus on the Family) and Erik Prince, (Blackwater Worldwide) This was announced weeks ago. The powers that be in the GOP had plenty of time to figure out their positions. If they thought it was going to hurt the party they would have stopped it. So they must think this will help.
One part of me thinks. Fuck 'em. They campaigned form the pulpit they lose their tax exemption. The law is clear. But the ADF is a litigation group. The action at the pulpit is just the prologue. The real show starts when they sue the IRS for invalidly taking away their tax status on freedom of expression grounds. There will be a thick black and white line drawn. And people will be asked what side of the line they are on. Are you on God's side? Or the other side? The republicans have control of both parties in the litigation. The powers that be can sit down and plan just how to play this little piece of political theater. They can schedule when they will take each of their actions in turn so as to take maximum advantage of the press. The first act was scheduled to coincide with the first presidential debate. Any bets on when the next steps will play out? The IRS will have to announce that it is acting against the churches. Then the ADF has to announce that it is suing the IRS. We have 2 presidential and one VP debate left.
God Vs the IRS is more interesting and simpler to understand than a bunch of analysts deconstructing the debate.
"A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not." - Ronald Reagan 1987
Alliance Defense Fund may be religious nuts, but they are not stupid.
Oh yes they are. You worry too much.
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant
"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.
The IRS is controlled by the republican party right now. They could wait till Nov 5 but it would not serve the greater purpose. The goal here is to influence the election. Not to prevent influence.
"A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not." - Ronald Reagan 1987
When they say "Congress" they really mean Johnson, who put the amendment in place to stifle a specific non-profit group that oppossed him in Texas.
I will always fall on the side of free speech. Let them say whatever they want to say in any forum.
And before you go all "Seperation of Church and State" on me remember these simple things....
1) It was perfectly fine to address political issues from the pulpit until 1954. How did this country ever survive from the 1790's until then"
2) The Constitution says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". I would argue that the 1954 law certainly curtails the speech of a pastor in his church and rises to the level of a prohibiting law on the free exercise of religion. If a politicians stances are at extreme odds with your particular creed or religion then why not discuss it with the congregation.
Instead of thinking how this law helps your side of the aisle think about how we should not be infringing on the First Amendment.
How does the law prevent them from saying what they want to? The only thing it does is says that if you take a political stance one way or the other then you lose your tax free status. Personally I don't think religions should have a tax free status anyway, which would solve the entire issue.
I don't think allowing politics to enter into the church is going to change the playing field at all for one party or the other, but it certainly would bring a great deal of corruption into the church.
I enjoy my church being free of politics personally. I don't go there to talk about which politician is going to save us, we generally have a pretty good idea who that is and it's not a politician.
The only thing it does is says that if you take a political stance one way or the other then you lose your tax free status. Personally I don't think religions should have a tax free status anyway, which would solve the entire issue.
Ah, but therein lies the Constitutional rights violation. Taxing religious organization WOULD violate the establishment clause allowing the government (federal, state, and local) to tax churches they disagreed with unfairly thereby eliminating some churches. You could attempt to tax them all fairly but I do not trust any level of government to do so.
I don't think allowing politics to enter into the church is going to change the playing field at all for one party or the other
I agree.
but it certainly would bring a great deal of corruption into the church.
Explain.
I enjoy my church being free of politics personally. I don't go there to talk about which politician is going to save us, we generally have a pretty good idea who that is and it's not a politician.
Precisely so. Churches will not become overly political overnight. The ones that do will most likely either lose a large following or the people that go there already had those leanings anyway.
Any stifling of free speech is contrary to our way of life imho.
My fear is that this could corrupt church leaders. If they are allowed to be pulpits of political influence, you are going to have seedy elements of both parties trying to buy-off influential clergyman. After all, subtely telling people strong in their faith that voting for one side or the other is a vote for evil, is pretty powerful stuff. You can say people are smarter than that, but it's not about intelligence, it's about faith and the trust that a congregation has in its leader.
Church leaders aren't saints, they are human just like everyone else, so I like the idea of that particular temptation not being there.
You're all too late by about 140 years or so. And Tax 'Em All.
Well, it’s the Super-Monroe Doctrine: “Get off our oil, people who dress funny!” - M. Bouffant
"You're a bad captain, Zarde. People like you only learn by being touched, and hard. And you will greatly disapprove of where these men put their hands." - M. Vanderbeam.
My fear is that this could corrupt church leaders. If they are allowed to be pulpits of political influence, you are going to have seedy elements of both parties trying to buy-off influential clergyman. After all, subtely telling people strong in their faith that voting for one side or the other is a vote for evil, is pretty powerful stuff. You can say people are smarter than that, but it's not about intelligence, it's about faith and the trust that a congregation has in its leader.
Church leaders aren't saints, they are human just like everyone else, so I like the idea of that particular temptation not being there
You have a strong point but not strong enough to abridge their Constitutional freedom of speech.
I can't really argue with that, because giving it some thought, it's just like the strong argument for the Patriot Act. I don't feel there is a good enough argument to take away personal freedoms or rights to privacy.
So, it's about taking away freedom to protect the better good of a church, which really is arguing against my beliefs regarding personal rights.
I'm basically thinking out loud here, so forgive the incoherence of that.
So, it's about taking away freedom to protect the better good of a church, which really is arguing against my beliefs regarding personal rights.
I'm basically thinking out loud here, so forgive the incoherence of that.
There is nothing to forgive. It is not like I did not have the same thoughts on the matter before concluding that the 1st Amendment trumped those thoughts.
Trollbait wrote:Taxing religious organization WOULD violate the establishment clause allowing the government (federal, state, and local) to tax churches they disagreed with unfairly thereby eliminating some churches. You could attempt to tax them all fairly but I do not trust any level of government to do so.
The problem with not taxing them all as a business is you have to set some criteria on what is and isn't a religion. Is Scientology a religion (for example)? How about the "First Church of the Democratic Party"? If you allow political positions in a tax-free organization then you're opening the floodgates for complete abuse by the political system.
If you just say that they are a business and tax them identically to Citigroup then it can't be anything but fair.
I can't really argue with that, because giving it some thought, it's just like the strong argument for the Patriot Act. I don't feel there is a good enough argument to take away personal freedoms or rights to privacy.
So, it's about taking away freedom to protect the better good of a church, which really is arguing against my beliefs regarding personal rights.
I'm basically thinking out loud here, so forgive the incoherence of that.
Then it comes down to the congregation to pressure the leaders not to. And if they do anyway, to move away from it. Hopefully people are responsible enough to do that instead of blindly following. :\
I can't really argue with that, because giving it some thought, it's just like the strong argument for the Patriot Act. I don't feel there is a good enough argument to take away personal freedoms or rights to privacy.
So, it's about taking away freedom to protect the better good of a church, which really is arguing against my beliefs regarding personal rights.
I'm basically thinking out loud here, so forgive the incoherence of that.
Then it comes down to the congregation to pressure the leaders not to. And if they do anyway, to move away from it. Hopefully people are responsible enough to do that instead of blindly following. :\
Where religion is concerned, I don't have a lot of confidence in people NOT blindly following. People do the most cruel and irrational things in the name of religion. It's not one of those areas people look at with the cold, hard eye of reason.
Bigotry is the word you are looking for Harlowe......people do the most cruel and irrational things because of bigotry. Religious bigotry is just one form and probably the most predominant form over the last 2000 years.
A leading theocon, given a major position in the Vatican, is using his ecclesiastical authority to attack one party in the United States, and intervene in the US election:
[Archbishop Raymond] Burke, who was named prefect of the Vatican’s Supreme Court of the Apostolic Signature in June, told the Italian Catholic newspaper Avvenire that the U.S. Democratic Party risked “transforming itself definitively into a party of death for its decisions on bioethical issues.” He then attacked two of the party’s most high profile Catholics — vice presidential candidate Joe Biden and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi — for misrepresenting Church teaching on abortion. He said Biden and Pelosi, “while presenting themselves as good Catholics, have presented Church doctrine on abortion in a false and tendentious way.”
Theocon Republican, Ramesh Ponnuru, wrote a book called "The Party Of Death," to stigmatize the Democrats among American Catholics. The goal of Ponnuru and George and Hudson and Neuhaus is to transform the American Catholic church into a wing of the Republican party, and to use the sacred authority of Christ's church to target Democratic candidates, along the culture war lines pioneered by Rove and Bush. This is not new, of course, and I detail the abuse of religion by the theocons for their partisan purposes - and their own power - in my book, "The Conservative Soul."
I'm really failing to see how this is "abuse of power". If the Catholic church at some point decides to go hardline against anyone practicing or promoting abortion......that has little to do with politics and everything to do with church doctrine. Certain politicians may not like it......but they are free to worship God outside the bounds of structured religion.
