BS: Break the law-separation of church & state

Subject: RE: BS: Break the law-separation of church & state
From: katlaughing
Date: 28 Sep 08 - 02:08 PM

refresh

Subject: RE: BS: Break the law-separation of church & state
From: pdq
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 12:00 PM

As far as I know, the Roman Catholic Church is the second largest provider of primary education in the United States, behind only the various levels of government. Tax them so they can't afford books? Nice try.

Subject: RE: BS: Break the law-separation of church & state
From: wysiwyg
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 11:51 AM

And let the gummint and paid "helpers" do all the social services we churches do. Old argument.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Break the law-separation of church & state
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 11:29 AM

Tax the churches just like any other businesses.

Subject: RE: BS: Break the law-separation of church & state
From: Donuel
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 11:29 AM

I SAY GREAT

they do anyway but now we can TAX them up the WAZOO

Subject: RE: BS: Break the law-separation of church & state
From: John on the Sunset Coast
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 11:24 AM

I've, just (an hour ago) sent the link to this article to my Progressive (his term) brother.

If these clergy endorse a particular candidate or ballot measure, as such, from their pulpit, I believe I believe their tax exempt status should be removed. This should apply to any part of the religious continuum.

In nearby Pasadena, a liberal Minister come very close to do doing this very thing during the primaries of the past eighteen months. While the IRS took a long, hard look, nothing happened to him or the church.

BTW, I do believe clergy have the right and duty to sermonize on the religious, moral and ethical facets of issues, but should stop short of actual endorsement or telling congregants how to vote

Subject: RE: BS: Break the law-separation of church & state
From: Ebbie
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 10:40 AM

I was at Costco last evening and in their book section they have two new books about Obama, both so-called exposes. One is entitled 'Obama Nation'.

I've been saying that I'm happy that Barack Obama is of mixed-race, that electing him would be a signal to the rest of the world of real change, of solidarity, of maturing, and as If not now, When?

I no longer feel confident that our nation has matured enough.

Subject: RE: BS: Break the law-separation of church & state
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 03:30 AM

Better than the solution we had in the UK when politics was preached from the market cross or the pulpit... we burned the priests.












(OK, so it was the 1500's and it was Henry VIII)

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Break the law-separation of church & state
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 05:06 PM

"what's next?"

oh...privacy, fewer restrictions on gun ownership, voter registration laws changed to control 'things' better, more tax breaks for big companies, gutting of many more environmental laws (like any 'endangered species' laws that interfere with our 'right' to mine, drill, harvest and build anywhere we want...


need I go on?

Subject: RE: BS: Break the law-separation of church & state
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 04:47 PM

The IRS only goes after "liberal" churches.

I got a thing in the mail today from Planned Parenthood--Bush is trying to pull all sorts of stunts on his way out the door.

Support Women's Health
September 2, 2008 (link)

The Bush Administration is rushing through a "parting gift" to anti-choice extremists that would deny women access to family planning information and services.

Last month, a draft was leaked of a proposed regulation that included a sweeping new definition of abortion meant to include common forms of contraception, such as birth control pills.

While this rule lacks the radical re-definition of abortion—in fact, it doesn't define it at all—it is as bad as anticipated. With no clear definition, the door is open for medical providers and organizations to define abortion however they want—and too many consider contraception and abortion to be the same thing!

This is good news to Karen Brauer, president of Pharmacists for Life, who told the Wall Street Journal, "It would be pretty excellent if states lost federal funding over laws requiring pharmacists to fill birth control prescriptions."

You deserve complete care when you come into a doctor's office or pharmacy!

What's At Stake?

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has released a proposed rule supposedly reinforcing existing federal laws that allow doctors and nurses to refuse to provide abortion and sterilization services. However, it goes much further than that.

The Administration wants to give health care providers who receive federal funds the right to refuse to provide any service or information for which they have objections—without having to tell patients such services exists or giving them a referral to another provider.

The proposed rule is so broad it would allow any health care employee to deny services to a patient, even receptionists hired to make appointments.

Even worse, providers such as Planned Parenthood would be forced to employ people who refuse to provide family planning services—or risk losing government funding!

Church and State, Abortion Rights, what's next?

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Break the law-separation of church & state
From: Bill D
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 04:37 PM

If a Republican president gets to appoint the next few Supreme Court justices, the separation of church & state will be an archaic memory and you can look for state sanctioned imposed institutions for many public situations.

Sarah Palin is on record as saying that 'Jesus would want drilling' (trying to find exact quote), and her pastor is on tape saying that Alaska will be "one of the states to serve as a refuge before the last days".!!

What a way we have come!

Subject: RE: BS: Break the law-separation of church & state
From: GUEST,Wesley S
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 04:32 PM

There is a Baptist church not too far from my home that has on it's sign outside "Abortion is an Obama Nation". I would hope that's enough to lose it's taxfree statis. Do you get warnings for a "first offence"?

Subject: RE: BS: Break the law-separation of church & state
From: Amos
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 02:53 PM

Good point, there, Rig.

I think we would do well to make the tax code very simple: ten percent on everything, from everybody. No exceptions, except for poverty level incomes. No exemptions for any organization.

We'd increase tax revenues overall while reducing tax burdens on the employed. The amount of bookkeepipng the Feds would have to do would shrink like magic. and we could put all those darned IRS auditors to work finding waste, fraud and abuse in the Federal budget, and thus double the benefits to our bottom line.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Break the law-separation of church & state
From: Riginslinger
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 02:23 PM

Nothing ever seems to happen to the witch doctors who break the law on this issue. The IRS has enforced it in very few cases that I know of.

Subject: RE: BS: Break the law-separation of church & state
From: Amos
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 10:53 AM

Sure they have the constitutional right to endorse whom they please. At the cost of their tax-exempt status. THey can have it weither way, but probably not both.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Break the law-separation of church & state
From: pdq
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 10:43 AM

Perhaps someone can explain why Rev Al Sharpton, Rev Jesse Jackson and Rev Jeremiah Wright get a free pass on this issue? Perhaps their politics are different?

Subject: RE: BS: Break the law-separation of church & sta
From: Peace
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 10:34 AM

Whoa . . . .

The issue will take a few years to get to the Supremes. Perhaps a new administration will free the Court to rule on points of constitutional law and not the whims of elected officials. One can but hope.

Subject: BS: Break the law-separation of church & sta
From: katlaughing
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 10:28 AM

There is what looks like a concerted, well-planned action which is scheduled for this month whose proponents hope will force the Supreme Court to overturn a law from 1954 which prohibits ministers from preaching political rhetoric from the pulpits. (I thought they already did this, but maybe not actually from the pulpit.) Anyway, here's more:

By Peter Slevin
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 8, 2008; Page A03

CHICAGO -- Declaring that clergy have a constitutional right to endorse political candidates from their pulpits, the socially conservative Alliance Defense Fund is recruiting several dozen pastors to do just that on Sept. 28, in defiance of Internal Revenue Service rules.
You may read the rest of the article HERE.