 sj |
||
|
||
A Quiet Constitutional Crisis
|
|
|
Subject: A Quiet Constitutional Crisis From: Amos Date: 26 Sep 08 - 10:58 AM Ministers to Defy I.R.S. by Endorsing Candidates Reprints Save Share Digg Mixx Yahoo! Buzz Permalink By LAURIE GOODSTEIN Published: September 25, 2008 Defying a federal tax law they consider unjust, 33 ministers across the country will take to their pulpits this Sunday and publicly endorse a candidate for president. Skip to next paragraph Blog The Caucus The latest political news from around the nation. Join the discussion. Election Guide | More Politics News They plan to then send copies of their sermons to the Internal Revenue Service, hoping to provoke a challenge to a law that bars religious organizations and other nonprofits that accept tax-deductible contributions from involvement in partisan political campaigns. The protest, called Pulpit Freedom Sunday, was organized by the Alliance Defense Fund, a consortium of Christian lawyers that fights for conservative religious and social causes. When the fund first announced the protest this year, it said it planned to have 50 ministers taking part. As of Thursday it said it had hundreds of volunteers, but had selected only 33 who were fully aware of the risks and benefits. The fund did not make the list of participants public, saying that it had received phone calls threatening to disrupt the sermons. One participant reached by telephone said he could not talk about it. Another participant, the Rev. Luke Emrich of New Life Church, a small evangelical church in West Bend, Wis., demurred when asked which candidate he planned to endorse on Sunday. "I would say endorsement is a strong word," he said. "I'm planning to make a recommendation. I'm going to evaluate each candidate's positions in light of Scripture and make a recommendation to my congregation as to which candidate aligns more so." The fund provides legal support for religious conservatives who have long felt aggrieved at what they say are limits on their religious expression. Organizers said they wanted a range of clergy of various faiths and political persuasions to join the protest, but acknowledged that the participants might be "weighted" toward the conservative end of the spectrum and more likely to support the Republican candidate, Senator John McCain, than the Democrat, Senator Barack Obama. Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel with the Alliance Defense Fund, said: "This is not something these churches want to do in secrecy and hiding. In fact, they don't believe they're doing anything wrong. They don't believe they're violating the law. "What they're doing is talking to their congregations about biblical issues related to candidates and elections, and they believe they have the constitutional right to do that." The protest is challenging an amendment to the tax code passed by Congress in 1954 saying that charitable organizations known as 501(c)(3)'s, which accept tax-deductible contributions, cannot intervene in political campaigns. The legislation was intended to prevent nonprofit organizations from funneling money and resources to political candidates. Many members of the clergy support the ban on politicking from the pulpit. Nearly 30 clergy members, some leaders of denominations, signed a pledge recently vowing to refrain from endorsing candidates. The pledge was distributed by the Interfaith Alliance, a liberal religious advocacy group. In the last decade, church politicking has drawn increasing scrutiny. Organizations like Americans United for Separation of Church and State have made a show of reporting churches to the I.R.S. to deter transgressors. The Rev. Barry Lynn, of Americans United, said of the protest on Sunday: "They act like this is a massive act of civil disobedience, but this is not like sitting in at a lunch counter. This is trying to change the law to give certain conservative churches even more political clout." A spokesman for the I.R.S. said that the agency was aware of Pulpit Freedom Sunday and "will monitor the situation and take action as appropriate." Experts in tax law say it is more likely that the Alliance Defense Fund and its lawyers will face legal sanctions than the ministers, who may simply receive warnings to avoid politicking in the future. (NYT) For two hundred years, we have lived under a system of law that recognizes the necessary separation between matters of the public weal, and matters of religious belief. Our Constitution asserts there shall be no law in favor of a religious institution, and that there shall be no religious test for public office. An effort to inject any dogmatic religious scripture into the political process is, by its nature, an effort to break this separation and to invest political power into the organs of religion. THis is a deep and possibly fatal error. It returns us from post-Enlightenment thought into the gloomy doctrinaire mindset of the Middle Ages, but with much more powerful weapons and toys. It discards progress and projects a humiliating abandonment of reason in favor of safe but misguided herd-form of thought, in which the unqualified use the unreal to control the thoughts of the unreasoning. Let us hope this potential crisis in our national commitment to seek the best forms of secular life, independent of the baneful dictation of churches, will not break the back of the nation. Injecting imaginary playmates into the serious business of the nation is a huge mistake. A |
|
Subject: RE: A Quiet Constitutional Crisis From: Amos Date: 26 Sep 08 - 10:58 AM PLease move to BS |
|
Subject: RE: A Quiet Constitutional Crisis From: Rapparee Date: 26 Sep 08 - 11:43 AM I'd rather move to the quiet conservative mindset of the Renaissance or the Enlightenment. |
|
Subject: RE: A Quiet Constitutional Crisis From: beardedbruce Date: 26 Sep 08 - 11:50 AM Any 501(c)(3) that actively endorses any candidate, or uses organizational assets to do so should lose it's tax-exempt status. This goes for the conservative groups above, and inner city Black churches working for Obama. You deal with politics, you pay the same taxes as other businesses. |
|
Subject: RE: A Quiet Constitutional Crisis From: Donuel Date: 26 Sep 08 - 12:06 PM An even more immediate crises please click http://usera.imagecave.com/donuel/bail.jpg |
|
Subject: RE: A Quiet Constitutional Crisis From: Stilly River Sage Date: 26 Sep 08 - 12:31 PM I'd rather move to the quiet conservative mindset of the Renaissance or the Enlightenment. I wouldn't. The way they "enlightened" people and communities, especially those crude heathen folks, was really hard on them, often fatal. |
|
Subject: RE: A Quiet Constitutional Crisis From: Donuel Date: 26 Sep 08 - 12:58 PM The political appointees of Bush are all making their final push. They are also in the midst of making contraception equal to abortion and abortion punishable by prison and fines for all inolved. There is nothing that isn't currently being tried to accomplish their goals. As a nearly failed coup, the result is also a great depression that will concentrate the theocratic evangelists. |
|
Subject: RE: A Quiet Constitutional Crisis From: Jim Dixon Date: 26 Sep 08 - 02:34 PM If a minister stands up in his own pulpit and endorses a candidate, and the only people who can hear him are those sitting in the pews, I'd say, fine, that ought to be allowed: it's protected free speech. However, if the church happens to own a radio or TV station, and they use it to broadcast his sermons, I'd say that's going too far. There ought to be a place somewhere in between to draw a line, although I haven't quite figured out where it is. Whatever rule is adopted, it ought to apply to liberal and conservative churches alike. That's my own opinion about what the law ought to say; it's not an interpretation of what the law now says. |
|
Subject: RE: A Quiet Constitutional Crisis From: GUEST,beardedbruce Date: 26 Sep 08 - 02:39 PM "If a minister stands up in his own pulpit and endorses a candidate, and the only people who can hear him are those sitting in the pews, I'd say, fine, that ought to be allowed: it's protected free speech." He/she CAN do so, but to use property/buildings/equipment that has been treated as TAX-FREE for such a purpose is the problem. Let him/her go off Church property, and rent space like any othe taxable group. |
|
Subject: RE: A Quiet Constitutional Crisis From: wysiwyg Date: 26 Sep 08 - 02:41 PM He/she CAN do so, but to use property/buildings/equipment that has been treated as TAX-FREE for such a purpose is the problem. Let him/her go off Church property, and rent space like any othe taxable group. Ko-rect. And on his own time, not his church-salary paid time. ~S~ |
|
Subject: RE: A Quiet Constitutional Crisis From: Ebbie Date: 26 Sep 08 - 02:41 PM I think it's fine if they do that. As spiritual leaders in their communities they may easily see the political arena as being part of their purview. However, doing so should be a signal to the US government that they are immediately renouncing their tax free status. I hope the IRS sends each one of the silly buggers a prompt determination to that effect. |
|
Subject: RE: A Quiet Constitutional Crisis From: John on the Sunset Coast Date: 26 Sep 08 - 02:55 PM I have had discussions about this type of thing on several occsions prior to reading that (or a similar) article a couple of days ago. Let the pastors, priests, imams, rabbis and ministers speak their mind from the pulpit. Allow churches, synagogues, and mosques endorse candidates or voting issues. The trade off is loss of tax exemption. Fine by me. Actually, I believe that religious organizations shouldn't have tax-exempt status under any circumstance...and certainly none of their property, except the main sanctuary (maybe), should be free of property taxes. |
|
Subject: RE: A Quiet Constitutional Crisis From: artbrooks Date: 26 Sep 08 - 03:38 PM It isn't just the tax-free status of the church itself that may be in danger - it is the charitable contributions made by the parishioners and, in turn, the potential for back taxes and penalties for each one of them. |
|
Subject: RE: A Quiet Constitutional Crisis From: Donuel Date: 26 Sep 08 - 03:47 PM Down with Democracy Up with Theocracy Support our Fundamental Evangelical Christian University where the leaders of tommorrow are trained. FEC U. |
|
Subject: RE: A Quiet Constitutional Crisis From: Amos Date: 26 Sep 08 - 03:52 PM Did they change their name from the Findamental Universalist Christian Knowledge University? A |
|
Subject: RE: A Quiet Constitutional Crisis From: Wesley S Date: 26 Sep 08 - 04:35 PM It really makes me wonder how some people are influenced to vote for a particular canidate. Are you really going to vote for someone because the car ahead of you in traffic has a bumper sticker promoting canidate X? Or from your neighbors yardsign? There are very few people who might influence my vote. My minister is not won of them. I like the guys but they aren't going to make me change my mind about a candidate. Why do the terms "sheep" and "flock" come to mind? |
|
Subject: RE: A Quiet Constitutional Crisis From: Peace Date: 26 Sep 08 - 04:39 PM Well, if they are going by scriptural writings, they maybe better look at what happened to Jesus when he took religion into the area of politics. |
|
Subject: RE: A Quiet Constitutional Crisis From: Richard Bridge Date: 26 Sep 08 - 04:54 PM The situation goes back a very long way into the common law determination of what a charity is - far further than the separation of the USA and the UK. One of the classic heads (there has been recent statutory interference in the UK) of "charity" is religion. A charity is only a charity if everything it does is charitable. As soon as it does ANTYHING that is not, the charity is no longer a charity (and so is no longer tax exempt, and incidentally is no longer free from the rule against perpetuities - a long story there). That is why charities set up their trading arms as corporations that are not charitable. Dead easy. Say what you like. But if your words or acts are political, you are not a charity any more. It's a tightrope walked by far worthier oranisations, like Amnesty International. |
|
Subject: RE: A Quiet Constitutional Crisis From: Amos Date: 27 Sep 08 - 02:10 PM "Call it an act of faith or call it a political ploy, but 33 ministers plan to endorse a presidential candidate from their Sunday pulpits in defiance of federal law. The Board Blog Additional commentary, background information and other items by Times editorial writers. Go to The Board » The ministers and the conservative group organizing them know they are breaking a 54-year-old law barring tax-exempt organizations from using their sheltered status to support a political candidate. They want to be taken to court, quickly, in hopes of overturning it. The pastors complain that the statute limits their free expression. We take any challenge to free speech very seriously, but this is not a challenge to free speech. This is about protecting the collection plate while using the power of the pulpit to influence elections. Shepherds are entirely free to tell their flocks whom to vote for. They just cannot expect taxpayers to subsidize turning their churches into campaign offices. The tax code mandate they are challenging has protected the separation of church and state by denying tax deductions for contributions to charitable organizations that engage in secular campaigning. The ministers haven't announced their preferences, although Senator John McCain is expected to be favored. Senator Barack Obama has blurred church-state lines in promising more subsidies for social programs run by religious-based groups. But Mr. McCain has gone much farther, proclaiming America to be "a Christian nation." A (tax-exempt) consortium of Christian lawyers that presses conservative causes — the Alliance Defense Fund — has organized the ministers' protest as Pulpit Freedom Sunday. They argue that the tax code restricts their right to be "talking to their congregations about biblical issues related to candidates and elections." Taxpayers of any faith should see this as an election-year gambit to dash the pillar of church-state separation. Other clergy, mindful of being spiritual not political ministers, have organized to say no thanks to Pulpit Freedom Sunday. We expect the courts and the Internal Revenue Service to say those preachers are in the right." (NYT) |
|
Subject: RE: A Quiet Constitutional Crisis From: Amos Date: 27 Sep 08 - 02:12 PM Commentary by the Rev. Barry W. Lynn - Sep 26, 2008 It's disgraceful that the Religious Right is trying to forge America's houses of worship into a partisan political machine. The good news is that a growing number of clergy are speaking out against it. They realize that a pastor's job is to bring people together – Republicans, Democrats and independents – not use the pulpit to drive wedges into congregations. I am confident that the religious community and the American people at large will reject this reckless scheme. |
|
Subject: RE: A Quiet Constitutional Crisis From: beardedbruce Date: 28 Sep 08 - 07:07 AM Any 501(c)(3) that actively endorses any candidate, or uses organizational assets to do so should lose it's tax-exempt status. This goes for the conservative groups above, and inner city Black churches working for Obama. It has to apply equally to all sides. |
|
Subject: RE: A Quiet Constitutional Crisis From: Amos Date: 28 Sep 08 - 01:17 PM The criteria should be uniform, Bruce, but I get the impression a lot more oxen will be gored on the manic Right than among us moonbats. A |
|
Subject: RE: A Quiet Constitutional Crisis From: Jim Dixon Date: 28 Sep 08 - 11:57 PM I am reconsidering the position I took earlier. My main concern was that it is impractical and probably counterproductive to try to keep religious organizations out of politics entirely. A lot of good has been done by religious people who preached about moral issues that related to politics. Look at Martin Luther King, for example, and all the churches, black and white, that organized to support the civil rights movement. Then it was pointed out to me that MLK never endorsed a candidate. OK, if MLK could exert as much political force as he did without endorsing specific candidates or parties, then other churches and other political persuasions should be able to do it, too. Let the rule be: let the preachers preach from their pulpits about morals and politics as much as they want as long as they don't endorse a specific candidate or a specific party. Does that seem viable? |
|
Subject: RE: A Quiet Constitutional Crisis From: Barry Finn Date: 29 Sep 08 - 12:58 AM MLK not only never endorsed, he never sought to back a perticular canidate based on their beliefs. He wasn't a coward, he took on the issues, head on. Like Civil Rights & the Viet Nam war, he took a stance against issues & policies. This is a play for the right wing religious groups to make a power play for political power which is self serving on their part. Send them to hell or at the very least make them start paying taxes, dam freeloaders. Barry |
|
Subject: RE: A Quiet Constitutional Crisis From: Donuel Date: 29 Sep 08 - 10:38 AM MLK certainly critisized LBJ |
|
Subject: RE: A Quiet Constitutional Crisis From: Amos Date: 29 Sep 08 - 10:44 AM The core issue is taxation and exemption from it, versus the core civil rights of the individual to speak and assemble freely. I think the sane resolution of this is to cancel ALL tax exemptions, imposing instead a very low baseline tax rate of, say, ten percent, against all net revenues, with strong (but only civil) penalties for abuse. A consitutional principle of great importance, such as the separation of church and state, is difficult to enforce directly, because there are weasels on all sides always ready to twist and distort things for their own benefit. The art is to reflect them in enforceable laws, such as the tax code. A |
|
Subject: RE: A Quiet Constitutional Crisis From: Stilly River Sage Date: 29 Sep 08 - 10:46 AM Much of MLK's speaking was in public venues away from churches. He was allowed as a citizen to criticise LBJ. But the place is what makes the difference. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: A Quiet Constitutional Crisis From: Donuel Date: 29 Sep 08 - 11:07 AM I will found the POLITE Church of Faith. I will be tax free in all revenue pertaining to the church. All members of the Polite Church of Faith will be known as Politicians. We may sometimes find ourselves at odds with the Fundamentalist Universal Christian Kingdom University FUCK U. or the splinter church Polite Church of Belief... PCB , but overall we will speak freely of our fellow politicians and our faith in them. |
|
Subject: RE: A Quiet Constitutional Crisis From: Jim Dixon Date: 29 Sep 08 - 03:18 PM If you were going to revoke the tax-exempt status of *all* nonprofit organizations (I don't see how you can legally distinguish between churches and other nonprofits), how would you do it? Would you make the organizations pay directly, or would you remove the deductibility of the donations that are made to them? Or both? Remember, whatever rule you adopt would have to apply to churches, schools, universities, art museums, public TV and radio stations, symphony orchestras, charitable institutions of all kinds, many hospitals, nursing homes, maybe even your local folk-music venue. |
|
Subject: RE: A Quiet Constitutional Crisis From: Stilly River Sage Date: 29 Sep 08 - 04:00 PM Remove their ability to avoid tax on church property. You'd be amazed at the large businesses owned by churches. Last time I heard, Albertson's was owned by the Mormons. There used to be some of the sugar companies and such also--I remember my mother wouldn't buy U&I sugar, only C&H. The U was Utah and the Mormon's didn't pay tax on that sugar profit. These are a tiny tiny tip of the iceberg, I am certain. This is probably really old news as far as who owns what, obsolete possibly. But it is to illustrate the point. If the church owns it, they aren't taxed on it. SRS |
|
Subject: RE: A Quiet Constitutional Crisis From: Stringsinger Date: 30 Sep 08 - 03:48 PM bb, I agree with you for once. All churches should have tax-exempt status lifted if they preach politics from the pulpit. It's interesting how those of us on opposite sides of a political fence can get together once in a while. It makes me encouraged about America. Pulpit Freedom Sunday is not about "freedom" but forced "proselytizing". Young children should not be abused by having to have religion forced down their throats. They should be able to make up their own minds. Jefferson and Madison would turn over in their graves. |
| Share Thread: |
