Church used at political endorsement? Perish the thought! by badkarma00

REAL WORLD EVENT DISCUSSIONS

Church used at political endorsement? Perish the thought!

POSTED BY: BADKARMA00
UPDATED: Tuesday, January 22, 2008 09:07
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 1942
PAGE 1 of 1

Monday, January 21, 2008 7:43 AM

The Rev. Calvin Butts, a supporter of the former first lady, introduced her at a service in the Abyssinian Baptist Church as someone who "has been our friend" before officially endorsing her. As dozens of Obama supporters shouted "Harlem for Obama," Clinton's supporters tried to drown them out by shouting "Hil-la-ry!"

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080121/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp

Just out of curiosity, does this mean that the church in questions loses it's tax-exempt status, since it became a political platform?

Comments?

Bad_karma
Great and Exalted Grand Pooba, International Brotherhood of Moonshiners, Rednecks, and Good Old Boys.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 21, 2008 8:05 AM

FREMDFIRMA

That would depend (seemingly) entirely on political affiliation and denomination.

Certain churches have gone as far as to pass out voting guides suggesting candidates, with the hymnbooks and never been so much as upbraided for it... and yet a church making an anti-war statement was lambasted and beseiged for it, although that case went into the media black hole and no one seems to know what came of it.

A VERY erm.. specifically uneven enforcement of the rules has been an ongoing thing for the past coupla years, topped and passed on by Christian-ONLY "faith-based initiatives".

Hell, MY belief system ain't even recognized by the state, but that's ok, it doesn't recognize the state as legitimate either - in part since imma Anarchist, meh.

Coupla comments have been made recently, almost tongue in cheek, but the truth of them is undeniable, a lot of politics could technically be called a religion, couldn't it ?

I don't believe religious organisations should be tax-exempt whatsoever, especially when they recognize only state-approved "official" belief systems and reject others, that smacks of a First Amendment Violation via Tax Law by favoring some over others.

So.. moot point, strip em all, and let em push whoever the hell (pun intended) they want, if they please to do so.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 21, 2008 10:29 AM

BADKARMA00

It's not just 'anti-war' sentiments that are getting trashed, although the looney left would have us think that.

In fact, several conservative congregations have been taken to task, so to speak, for speaking out against gay marriage, abortion, and other such 'domestic' issues.

But this one, that I highlighted here, doesn't even raise a speed bump. To folks like me, the message is clear. So long as it's for people like Hialrious Clinton, it's okay.

But, that's just my take, and as people are so fond of asking, what do I know anyway?

Bad_karma

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 21, 2008 10:50 AM

GRIZWALD

Dontcha mean PARISH the thought? Har har.

___________________________________________________
High Priestess of Pork and Ag-Related Activities of the MYTHICAL LAND OF IOWA

Click on my profile for my Annoyingly Long List of Firefly Links.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Monday, January 21, 2008 6:00 PM

BADKARMA00

Hee Hee! Didn't think of that! Good one!

Bad_karma
Great and Exalted Grand Pooba, International Brotherhood of Moonshiners, Rednecks, and Good Old Boys.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 1:39 AM

FREMDFIRMA

BK, it seems to depend a great deal on the general politics of the region and the rabidity of local officials - you have extreme left churches being flamed by extreme right politicos and vice versa, so it's not really one "side" or another - but it is annoying as all hell (pun intended) that the great unwashed masses seem to think there's only ONE "official" religious belief in this country, with a few oddball permutations like Mormonism.

Bit of a sore spot with me ever since that psycho Representative Istook tried to downright outlaw portions of my belief system in the mid-late 1990's.

Don't let either side's partisan spouting confuse you to the fact that both of them rabidly support only one belief system to unconstitutional levels.

There's also the consideration that mixing religion with politics results in exactly the same kind of zealotry we're having a problem with being directed at us - do you really think fanatic christian zealots with government approval and support would not be capable of the same level of bloodshed and atrocity, given their history of it ?

I'm just sayin that Tax Law, Tax Exemption, should be no part of it whatsoever, because when the FedGov favors one belief system with Tax Exemption while denying it to others, they are by that action favoring it.

So I don't think any belief system should be tax exempt, and if they WANT to make political statements, fine - but using religion to set policy is another matter entire, and why the Constitution expressly forbids it, like it does standing armies... not that this ever stops em from either one, but there you have it.

-Frem

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 2:04 AM

BADKARMA00

Oh, I'm not confused, Frem, just making a point. The fact is that there are just as many loons on the right, and I know cause I've seen them, as there are on the left.

People who simply refuse to engage in any sort of compromise that might prevent them from making everyone live their way.

Myself, I have very definite views on most things, as I'm sure you do. All I want is to not have THEIR views forced on me and mine. And I'm more than willing to return the favor.

I noted the article I used to post this thread simply because it brings into full focus the lengths that people like the Clintonistas will go to in order to make sure THEIR message gets heard, so long as no one else's does.

And I can see your point, and agree, that if any belief systems are tax-exempt, then all should be, if we intend to claim that everyone has equal protection under the law.

But I think you know as well as I do that we DONT all have that protection. Usually, especially in criminal cases, it's how much justice you can afford, not how much is afforded to you. That's another topic though.

I myself believe that no government has the right to intrude on other's religious beliefs, so long as those beliefs are not harmful to others. Have to draw the line at human sacrifice, and what not,

Anyway, I just found it very ironic that not long ago, many liberal lawmakers were pandering to make it downright illegal for a church to 'preach' against abortion, etc., without the risk of the loss of their status as tax exempt, yet it's perfectly okay with them to step into a podium during a Sunday service, after a rousing endorement by the preacher.

But, as I've said so many times, what do I know?

Bad_karma
Great and Exalted Grand Pooba, International Brotherhood of Moonshiners, Rednecks, and Good Old Boys.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 4:42 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
yet a church making an anti-war statement was lambasted and beseiged for it

That wasn't because they were anti-war. Its because they go around celebrating the death of US servicemen at military funerals saying that every death is God's punishment for tolerating homosexuals. They're pretty wacky...and as a prosecutor, I have great understanding for the folks who suddenly find it reasonable and proper to punch said folks in the nose (noting that I'd still prosecute them...but I'd plead it down to Disorderly Conduct, Minor Misdemeanor with a suspended fine and a 'don't do it again'). Its an assumption of risk argument (you protest a military funeral saying the soldier deserved to die...you might expect to get punched by the family or the dead fella's buddies).

As for tax exemption, I agree, it makes no legal sense...except when you consider that the majority of folks in this country have always been church going types and they elect people to carry out the will of the majority NOT to tax churches or other non-profit agencies. Seems that if the majority changes its mind on this issue then we'll see churches get taxed. So while it makes no legal sense...it does make Democratic sense.

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 5:44 AM

FREMDFIRMA

"All I want is to not have THEIR views forced on me and mine."

Amen, indeed.

"Have to draw the line at human sacrifice, and what not,"

Oh man, you mean we're gonna have to use LAWYERS now ?

Speakin o which...

No Zero, I wasn't talking about Westboro you twerp, I was speaking of All Saints Episcopal, which came under fire for an anti-war, anti-poverty sermon that sponsored no particular candidate, a case which was apparently only recently dropped this past September - whilst First Baptist of Springdale was not even investigated for blatant sponsorship of a particular candidate during the same time frame.

And once again, yes, I know you don't care, cause you make your living off the fact that our entire legal system is based on pissing all over the Constitution - but the fact is, by "sponsoring" certain religions with Tax Exemption while denying others, it DOES violate the First Amendment in spirit and practice.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It violates the first provision by the practice of exemptions only for Government-"approved" belief systems only - and it violates the freedom of speech provision in turn by threatening revokation for political speech.

You can make all the UnConstitutional laws and decisions in the world, and apply them for decades, it still does not make them right.

The Gov is utterly forbidden to interfere in any way in religious practice, for good or ill, and no amount of legal contortionism is gonna convince anyone but another bloodsuckin lawyer anyhows.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 5:55 AM

WULFENSTAR

http://youtu.be/VUnGTXRxGHg

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I believe this also covers the issue of gay marriage. Since marriage is a religious institution, the government has no say in it one way or the other.

Neither can they allow it, nor forbid it.

Civil unions, on the other hand, may be a different story.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 6:20 AM

FLETCH2

Quote:
Originally posted by Wulfenstar:

I believe this also covers the issue of gay marriage. Since marriage is a religious institution, the government has no say in it one way or the other.

Neither can they allow it, nor forbid it.

Civil unions, on the other hand, may be a different story.

I don't know that that's true. It's the government that decides if you are married or not, not religion. You get a marriage license issued by the state, some state officials can marry you legally while religious leaders have to present their credentials to the government to make any of their marriages "legal."

In addition government can chose to simply ignore some marriages, if you ask a Muslim or a polygamist you will find that only the first marriage is recognized in law even though their religion recognizes the subsequent ones.

My view is the best way around this is to entirely separate the two concepts. Have the government issue a civil union license to all applicants instead of a marriage license. It would be that document that defines a couple from a government/legal standpoint and will entitle the spouse to whatever benefits the government currently gives people (like teh ability to make medical decisions, be considered next of kin, tax code joint status.)

Meanwhile people can marry anyway they want through any religious mechanism they like but they don't get any government related benefit from it until they register the union.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:07 AM

HERO

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
You can make all the UnConstitutional laws and decisions in the world, and apply them for decades, it still does not make them right.

The Gov is utterly forbidden to interfere in any way in religious practice, for good or ill, and no amount of legal contortionism is gonna convince anyone but another bloodsuckin lawyer anyhows.

On this we agree. Just don't go sacrificing any goats...health codes...

I think Courts need to tread very carefully on deciding what is or is not a valid religious practice. For example, a group of folks practicing ancient Aztec ritual human sacrifice raises certain questions which simply cannot be ignored. The question comes down to due process. A person cannot be denied their freedom of to speak, think, or worship as they choose without due process of law (limited intrusion, compelling interest, alternatives, a hearing, etc).

In the end, nobody says you can't worship the Sun God Ra, but if your faith requires you enslave folks to build huge temples for you...then we're going to have a problem. If your faith requires you to forcibly convert non-believers...then we're going to have a problem. If your God demands you take numerous underage child brides...then we're going to have a problem. If your Daddy is also your brother...then you might be a redneck.

Speaking of rednecks, I've got relatives who are a bit too friendly with snakes on Sundays...thats their business. Good folks, lots of fun at parties. Wont be tagging along to Sunday School. Nice to have relatives like that...they are always good for a case or two every year to make some extra money (usually drunk driving or some kind of minor drug related thing).

H

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

YOUR OPTIONS

SHARE THREAD

NEW POSTS TODAY

USER	POST DATE

USER

POST DATE