Getty Images
First up from the God Machine this week is something called "Pulpit Freedom Sunday," which is scheduled for tomorrow, and which intends to test religio-political boundaries in interesting ways.
To briefly summarize federal tax law, tax-exempt houses of worship and religious ministration are prohibited from intervening in political campaigns, either in support of or opposition to a candidate or a party. Those who violate the law run the risk of IRS penalties, up to and including the loss of their tax-exempt status.
With this in mind, groups like American United for Separation of Church and State, hoping to prevent the religious right from creating a church-based political machine, reminds religious leaders every four years of the law, urging them to reject the advances of parties and candidates.
Some on the right are trying a very different strategy -- conservative activists acknowledge the law, but are urging conservative Christian pastors to break the law, deliberately.
On Sunday, October 7, pastors around the country will try to bait the federal government into investigating them by preaching explicitly partisan sermons. As part of a conservative movement organizers call "Pulpit Freedom Sunday," some religious leaders will endorse Mitt Romney from the pulpit. Others may refrain from an endorsement but vigorously criticize President Obama. And some will tell their congregations that a good Christian can only vote for a candidate who opposes gay marriage and abortion. Then they'll send tapes of their sermons to the Internal Revenue Service in the hopes of being audited.
Mike Huckabee and Glenn Beck have both used their media platforms recently to help promote the event.
There are a few angles to this. First, the organizers of "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" generally believe the IRS is bluffing and won't actually crack down on churches that intervene in elections. If the law isn't going to be enforced, the argument goes, then there's no reason conservative pastors shouldn't use their pulpits to help elect a Republican presidential candidate.
Second, if the IRS isn't bluffing and it cracks down on churches that knowingly flout the law, then there will be litigation the right thinks it can win. By forcing test cases, conservatives believe they can have the existing law overturned altogether.
And third, if the IRS takes any action at all, conservative churches will play the martyr card -- the big bad Obama administration is waging a "war on religion" by going after innocent churches.
For the record, the law is only limited to partisan campaigns -- religious leaders who want to use their pulpits to preach for or against marriage rights, abortion, the death penalty, or any other issues are free to do so. The trouble kicks in when pastors start telling their congregations who to vote for, and scrapping the law really isn't a good idea.
Also from the God Machine this week:
* The "Red Mass" was last week, an annual tradition in which several sitting Supreme Court justices -- in this instance, six of the nine -- attend a Roman Catholic mass at the Cathedral of St. Matthew the Apostle in Washington the Sunday before the Supreme Court begins its new term. The practice began in 1953.
* The Washington Post's Sally Quinn suggested in print this week that Americans' identity is intertwined with religiosity. Raising atheists' eyebrows, Quinn argued, "Part of claiming your citizenship is claiming a belief in God, even if you are not Christian."
* Radical TV preacher Pat Robertson and Family Research Council president Tony Perkins helped headline "The America for Jesus 2012" prayer rally at Independence Mall in Philadelphia last weekend.
* And speaking of Robertson, the televangelist told supporters this week that God may "take down the wall of protection around this nation" unless America starts agreeing with him on gay rights, reproductive freedom, and secular government.
Leave a Comment:
Forcing the right of churches to campaign directly for their brand of president isn't their only push. I think their efforts to ban abortions and voter ID laws are among their other efforts to push the issue to the Supremes where they now think they can overturn affirmaive action, right to privacy and separation of church and state. It's going to get real ugly.
Yes, even uglier than it already is.
Lenny
Don't you mean 'Allowing' the right of churches... Do you really want churches under government control???
No more freeloader churches.
The government doesn't want to control churches, dear. The government wants to maintain a strict separation of church and state so that we don't become a theocracy.
Look, I am a Christian, but I certainly don't want a theocratic government that will control my life. If I wanted that, I'd become Catholic.
Churches are people, too. People need to pay their own way. To pay their own way, people need to get a job. So churches need to get a job and pay their own way.
No more freeloading red state churches.
These apostates and heretics need to stop shouting and start obeying the commandment of their own prophet, Jesus Christ.
Mark 12: 17; Matthew 22: 21.
He demanded a strict separation of church and state. Why can't these power-hungry psychotics just listen to His message, and concentrate on straightening up their own spiritual lives, and helping others do the same?
It's what Jesus wanted us to do.
As always the fanatics are counting on our civility and tolerance of their uncivil intolerance.
Paul...,
In effect, they are routinely granted special rights.
There is a tips web page at the IRS where you can upload a YouTube video showing political crimes violating 501(c)3 statutes.
http://www.irs.gov/Individuals/How-Do-You-Report-Suspected-Tax-Fraud-Activity%3F
Violating 501 charity statutes is tax fraud.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/501
The IRS offers rewards for turning in offenders.
http://www.irs.gov/uac/Whistleblower---Informant-Award
The criteria for statute violation is a public meeting approved by the board of directors that includes political discussion between when the meeting is convened and until the meeting is ended (i.e.: church services).
Any organization with over 3 infractions needs to loose their non-profit status for a trial period.
I believe that period is 3 years.
You are entitled to part of the penalties for taxes and penalties that are collected when you turn in criminals for tax evasion.
That including organizations where priests, pastors, bishops, and nuns that become involved in political advocacy during meetings where the public is invited.
Organizations that violate these statutes may be able to avoid penalties by demoting or firing offenders.
No Texas he meant forced, not allow. You are either deliberately misunderstanding lenny's point or you accidentally misunderstood his point. His argument was that the churches (NOT government) were forcing their beliefs onto others. And then he went on to say that this 'push-my-god-onto-you' attitude wasn't limited to just the issue of the separation clause.
I personally don't want government telling religions what to do so long as that religion isn't, say, pushing it's congregates to go out and murder people or something harmful to society like that. With that said I also DO NOT want those religious institutions to force their beliefs onto me. I have a right to believe what I want to believe. If I am a Catholic I want to remain a Catholic and I don't want to be forced into Islam or Protestantism. If I am a Protestant I don't want to be forced into Islam or Catholicism. If I am a Muslim I don't want to be forced into Christianity period. That's the idea of separation of church and state. The concept of separation isn't just about protecting a bunch of whiny atheists who are rebelling against god (that is not my belief about atheists, rather I am saying this is how I think fundamentalist Christians view it); it is also about your right to be a worshiper of the god you want to worship. You are inhibited from worshiping your god when everyone else is able to force you into worshiping THEIR god.
Do you people not understand that if you're going to shut down this church, you'll have to shut down every southern African-American church also? Does anyone believe Rev Wright's church was apolitical? Not a chance.
This is not about shutting down churches.
This is about collecting taxes from organizations that are committing tax fraud.
It is OK for Rev. Wright to speak about political issues so long as this is not part of church activity -- i.e.: OK when the political activity does not occur inside a church facility exempt from property tax, does not occur during church services, does not occur while wearing church garments, ....
Church officials are well aware of the law and they know how to conduct themselves in public without violating the law.
There are organizations that accept donations from churches in order to lobby politicians. That is perfectly OK.
It is also OK to inform church members that there will be a "car pool to the polling place" immediately before church services begin and again after church services end.
Ministers and priests can participate in political discussions when not related to worship (i.e.: talk radio, tv shows, ...). Most do not because political activity is considered sinful by most spiritual organizations (i.e.: risk of excommunication).
No church has ever been shut down by taxes on profits because churches just have to hire an accountant to pay capitol gains on funds that are sent to parent organizations when charity status is revoked on the local level. Churches are otherwise unaffected because they have to pay payroll taxes just like everyone else.
The big issue normally involves tax exempt status for the real estate that is occupied by the church, and that is a county issue. Property tax normally costs enough that it will cut off payroll for church officials.
The threat is sufficient.
No more freeloaders! No more moochers! No more takers!
Shooter apparently thinks people who are too poor to pay taxes should pay, but that churches who are too poor shouldn't.
For the record no one says that churches should be shut down unless they do something like advocate for someone to be killed or some other overtly harmful action against society. Otherwise they should be allowed to preach their gospel relatively unimpeded. People are debating whether or not churches should have tax exempt status because people believe that their contribution to political campaigns violates current federal law with regards to how an entity establishes and maintains it's credibility as a 501c3. You are free to disagree with the conclusion, but do not strawman the premise.
Cannon law prohibits political activity.
Priests and Bishops can be demoted or excommunicated for violations.
The Cardinal would normally be contacted when a priest or bishop violates cannon law in an official capacity.
Other organizations are not as strict because they have not had to deal with as much oppression by government leaders.
Look. Right wingers like airball just aren't very good at reading comprehension. It's why they do so poorly on the English portion of the SATs. Don't tease them. It's an affliction.
Still, the IRS doesn't give a whit about said affliction(ignorance of the law is no excuse) and if you veer from merely political speech into telling people specifically how to vote, don't expect the rest of us to support your sorry ass by granting you tax-exempt status.
BTW, a once a year political stunt like this is probably protected under the free-speech clause because, regardless of its content, the act itself is a political expression. Spend 35 Sundays a year telling people that they're going to hELL unless they let you fill out their slate for them and THEN you'll be in trouble.
Church leaders that see 100 cell phones recording them on video during the sermon will not violate the law tomorrow.
Stupid, Stupid, Stupid!
How very short sighted of the Religious Right. The future of the church are the young, not the old. Given the big strides that the acceptance of Gay Rights has seen among the youth, do you really think it is a good idea to be staunchly against it at the pulpit and start telling people how to vote? And young women in this nation realize that reproductive rights are necessary for their full participation and Independence in the economy. Will they be sanguine about being told who to vote for? There is a reason we say "Don't talk about Politics or Religion at Thanks Giving Dinner", both are divisive topics people feel impassioned over; and it is usually a divide between young and old. The more Religion pushes on politics, the more they will push the young away.
DisgustedWithItAll . . . Since churches don't pay federal income taxes, are they part of the 47%?
doubt it - depending on the physical location and sect, many are affiliated with the "other 53%"
The zealots would like to thank you for your support. Your contributions via the Faith Based Initiative make these efforts possible.
That's exactly right, mpguy! We can't do anything to make them care about or take charge of their own lives. Our job is not to worry about them. We have to cut them off.
Waitresses, waiters, servers have to report and pay taxes on their tips. Churches should have to report and pay taxes on their tithes.
No more freeloaders! No more moochers! No more takers! No more freeloading red state churches.
Get a job freeloading red state churches!!!!!
If churches are allowed to campaign for political candidates/parties, and still maintain their tax exempt status, then I want to be able to deduct my donations to a candidate/party as a gift! There is no difference!
Please follow up on this issue? It's an important one.
No one wants the gov't to control churches, Texas Scarborough, but you can't sidestep the issue with that false distraction. Many folks don't want to subsidize religious organizations by exempting them from taxes that the rest of us have to make up for. A tax exempt status is a privilege, not a right, and there are many folks, like myself, who don't think the privilege should be extended to religious organizations merely because they're religious..
The 501(c)(3) tax exemption is like a Cayman Islands tax dodge, except it's written into the tax code. Whether it should be in the code is a debatable question, but no person or organization is entitled to it unless he/she/it meets all the requirements. If a religious organization fails to meet, or violates, any of the requirements, their priests/pastors/rabbis/imams are still free to spew the vilest and most politically directed crap they can think of, without threat of government control of any kind. They can even tell their congregants that it's their religious duty to vote for a specific candidate. By doing so, they will merely lose their tax exempt status; the ability to force the rest of us to make up for the taxes they don't have to pay. Cries of government control and war on religion are like phony arsenals of phantom WMDs in this debate.
Freeloading red state churches need to get "skin in the game" or they'll just sit there wanting the government to take care of them.
No more red state mooching! No more takers! Red state Socialist freeloading churches do not create wealth. Get up off your ass, red state Socialist freeloading churches! Pull your weight. This country can't afford freeloading red state churches any more. The military we all pay for defends these moochers. They need to pay their fair share of the defense they profit from.
I find it difficult to believe you guys can state such things and expect anyone to take you seriously. Yes, lets tax an organization that contributes billions of dollars in charity to take care of our fellow man, thereby taking some of the burden off of government. It's only fair, right?
People would counter by arguing that many religious institutions don't subsidize charities- that they subsidize their own operations and falsely claim that it's charitable. You're somewhat falsely labeling the issue, although I'm thinking that this is more a miscommunication issue than it is anything else.
They see it as at least some churches abuse the tax system in order to be shadow SuperPACs and at the very least the public should be given access to that money on a level playing field (so, in other words, Super PACs justly have to pay taxes so these shadow PACs should have to, too). In some cases I do think churches do this; however I'd be hard pressed to believe it's universal- I know plenty of churches (like the one I go to) which don't spend any of their time talking about political issues and only dedicate themselves to providing services to the public. It's just trying to define that line of when are people being open and honest and when are people being abusive. With that said in the case of Disgusted he is using the arguments given by conservatives with regards to the poor and why the poor should pay taxes to make the case that by this same logic that would mean churches should pay taxes. He's attempting to point out that hypocrisy of the circumstance.
@Drakkonis: Hahahahahahahahahahahaha....
C'mon, man.
Throughout history every religion established by the state (witness the Irish under Protestant England, the Jews under Catholic Spain, the Christians under pagan Rome) attempted to some degree to hold other faiths under their thumb. While religions generally and churches everywhere are mostly positive influences on family life and community (things we all agree are good?) they cease being that in this country when they try to directly influence government. Too much grief, terror and suffering follows from having one religion in the position to DICTATE what is right and wrong to EVER allow the line between church and state be crossed. Pastors that try to dictate political outcomes from the pulpit as if it is the word of God and not their own opinion risk more that a church's tax exempt status.
Joseph,
Great post. Couldn't agree more. The longer I live the more I'm convinced political power is the bane of Christianity. If I had the choice between political power or persecution I'll take persecution every time. I'd rather suffer for my faith than make someone else suffer for it.
Someone needs to learn to logic.
How about, please go 'carry your cross', or whatever, someplace else. Free thinking progressives do not buy it any longer.
Retro Slogan:
"Love it or Leave it" -
IE, don't let the door hit ya in the arse, and may God bless you in Her wisdom. Have a nice Sunday, ya'l.
What Atheists aren't allowed to claim their citizenship?
It appears that these Religious Zealots and our Religious leaders have forgotten God's true teachings: tolerance, unconditional love and forgiveness. I was taught by the Priests and Nuns of my time that we are all sons and daughters of God regardless of our gender, race, color or sexual orientation.
Today our religious leaders and these so called "Good Christians" have reinvented God and want to give him our worst human characteristics, vengeance, hate, intolerance and condemnation. Remaining silent with the acts of hatred, racism and bigotry is in direct opposition of what God's teaching are. Our religious leaders and these "Good Christians" would rather we live with horror and fear of a condemning vengeful God. Why that gives them comfort is beyond my comprehension...it seems to be a mindset of those who are morally and spiratually bankrupt.. It's as if they need to be afraid.
Where did Quinn pull that notion out of? Her ... ?
Religion seems to have taken a tack of "If you're not with us, you're against us." Feeds into the persecution story they've written for themselves.
You know that game you play, where you say something into a persons' ear & it goes on that way, person to person, & comes out at the end differently than how it started? I think this is how the, "word of God", started. Or, maybe it was the start of a joke, this guy walks into a burning bush.......
Most religious nonsense involving politics is based on the delusional idea that living cellular material contains a spirit.
Cancer cells satisfy the definition of life that is being used by most churches to justify political activity (i.e.: living cells).
Cancer cells live but do not have a spirit (i.e.: cancer does not go to heaven or hell when it dies).
Embryonic material is not living until it can be sustained outside the mother's body, and that does not occur until after 6 months have passed since gestation begins.
Any law regarding abortion before that 6 month window ends is prohibited by the first amendment to the US constitution. Birth before that is less than 50% likely to survive.
Sally Quinn was a bimbo moron 40 years ago. I think the only reason a guy like Ben Bradlee could stand her was because she was extremely skilled at things you can't talk about on a site like this.
In any case the Churches violating this law will not be prosecuted till after the election. the slow hand of justice....But recordings of offences will be lucrative.
some late breaking "twig" news
(AP) — The pope's butler was convicted Saturday of stealing the pontiff's private documents and leaking them to a journalist in the gravest Vatican security breach in recent memory. He was sentenced to 18 months in prison, but the Vatican said a papal pardon was likely.
http://news.yahoo.com/popes-butler-convicted-leaks-given-18-months-102852754.html
Sorry, Russell, but the gravest breach in Vatican security has been the revelation that the KKKatholic KKKurch is a safe haven for homosexual pedophiles.
After all the damage they've done, this document dump is small potatoes. But anything that helps uncover the true activities of this pack of perverts is good news for decent people.
The current pope is the one that established an official church policy of moving priests accused of statutory rape.
Catholic archdiocese caught violating US tax law need to loose charity status tomorrow.
How can a pardon be denied? Does Christ not demand we offer the other cheek?
Kindly remember that the subject here is churches involved in politics. We can condemn pedophile priests some other time.
After reading y'alls responses on the subject, I see why the mention of GOD was intentionally eft out of the DNC platform. How did y'all like the heavy handed way the Party forced the addendum to the Platform through the convention. It was obvious that the majority of the delegates in attendance would agree with your notion that Israel and GOD should not have a part in your politics.
It looked like the Party just jammed that through despite what the delegates thought, didn't it. Delegates were just pawns, the power resides with the POTUS and he will gladly sacrifice you for his political gain. Interesting isn't it???
Actually Texas the amendment was voted on and approved by the majority. The party platform- when presented to delegates- is presented in the format of a long form that includes all the different positions over various issues that the party will stand for. While items can be gone through line by line, usually they are voted on in sections to make it go faster. The odds are no one noticed the omission of the statement of "god" (this is especially true considering that there were statements to a creator and the like, just not saying the term "god"). When it was brought to the attention of the platform the party had a vote and the majority of delegates agreed to add the term back in. There was no authoritarian top down decision unless you consider that to be peer pressure from the outside.
As for the Israel issue- the Israeli people and the UN don't recognize Jerusalem as the capital. In fact there are very few nations in the world who do recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. So I'm not at all sure why the Democratic Party reflecting as much is controversial.
I am also not sure what these posts have to do on the issue of the party platform? The post given by Russell and all responders was over the issue of the Vatican sentencing someone for a security breech. Nothing stated by Russell or those responding to him is or was even remotely related to the issue of the Democratic Party platform. Not sure why you decided to link these two.
Cartoon,
The denial of GOD 3 times when the addendum was brought to e floor at the DNC was very interesting, and I for one was stunned. But after reading the hate of church, preachers, religion and GOD expressed in these post I am started understanding that the Democratic Party is in a Post-Christian phase of its life.
So naturally I wondered how this group felt about having tha amendment not only added to the platform, but obviously rammed through against the delegates wishes. Anyone with ears could tell the nays had it, and the chairman, I think as stunned as I was, simply ruled against the majority.
What posts here have expressed hatred of church, preachers, and religion? Please do clarify.
It was not rammed through against the delegates wishes. What you are referring to here, again, is the word "god." Other words were chosen such as creator to be less offensive because there were multiple religions involved. There was a final vote to include the addition of god back in and it won a majority. If it got a majority vote then you cannot argue it was against the wishes of the delegates. Even if it took more than one vote to get it passed this doesn't mean it was against the wishes of the delegates. You are assuming the motivation of individuals without evidence or reason. How do you know that their qualm was hatred of religion and not, say, the fact that they don't like being bullied by inconsiderate conservatives like you whom they see as using god as a tool to pretend to be Christian when you're clearly not? How do you know they didn't want to offend other religions? It can't be the other, non-scandalous reasons, it must only be your one conspiratorial reason? Because you know everything and know exactly what people are thinking and therefore are in a position to judge? Because you're Jesus, right?
You are using selective reasoning to come to a conclusion you already believed beforehand. If it wasn't the issue of god you'd find some other thing to be outraged by simply because you want to reinforce your belief that only Republicans and you understand god and faith. It's never occurred to you that you could be wrong, that you aren't in a position to judge other people's beliefs or reasons, and that by doing so you are affronting the very religion that you pretend to believe in.
Nope it's gotta be for your one reason right Texas? And if it's something else well that's "spin." Only you know the real truth- the truth of the true truthiness, right?
Sheesh. What IS IT with conservatives and their OVERWHELMING ego, condescension, and just overall hate-filled attitude towards ANYONE who has the audacity to think differently?!
Cartoon,
Didn't realize it was still that tender. Sorry I asked.
No nothing here but love for Christians, GOD, churches and faith you can feel the love.
Reminds of the respect shown to faith groups by Mao, Stalin and the rest of Socialism.
Wow the level of douche here is amazing.
It isn't a sensitive subject- you didn't touch a nerve. The fact that I challenge you isn't evidence that I'm scared. Get over yourself.
The point here is that you're making an accusation against Democrats that isn't based in fact, that isn't based in solid reason, and that isn't based on sound logic. You then condescend to anyone who challenges you suggesting that you must've hit a sore spot because how ELSE could it be that someone disagrees with you- and especially when they disagree by pointing out how arrogant you're being. It's like humility doesn't even exist in your own vocabulary, which is absolutely stunning.
Look you want to have a factual, rational, logical discussion I'm all for it. But the only reason you brought this up was for a piss poor attempt at attacking Democrats on a completely unrelated subject for the sole purpose of "defending" what you incorrectly perceived to be attacks against your religion. A. nobody attacked your religion (which has been brought up to you several times) and B. even if people were attacking your religion your comments wouldn't prove those attacks wrong. It's basically a giant distraction that you're employing for god knows what reason. The whole point I was getting at is that you need to stop talking down to people like you're better than they are and like you know everything about everything. YOU DON'T. And you DON'T know why god was omitted from the platform unless you ASK people why it was. But you didn't do this now did you? You didn't do research on the subject now did you? No. All you did was say yup that's them damn Demmiecrats agin' bein' alls aginst gawd and such!!! And it's that judgementalism and hate that people are responding to. It's your actions, not your message.
Again please show me where people aren't expressing love for Christians, god, church, and faith.
I have no idea what you're referring to since the last groups aren't religions (Mao and Stalin are people and Socialism is a governing philosophy). No one here said that this was their religion or that they see the 2 individuals named as prophets. BUT what people DO see is your arrogant attitude to point to these people and say see you disagree with me so you MUST like Mao. It can't be that people have legitimate disagreements with you. It must be that you're correct and anyone who disagrees is just stupid or evil, right? That's what people are responding to. It's your arrogance. It's your actions. If you don't LIKE the way people are responding then change your behavior and people will change theirs. That's called being an adult and taking personal responsibility.
Those on the right certainly seem totally incapable of getting over themselves, as they continually demonstrate,day after day after day...
"The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long
rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the
corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without legal incorporation of
religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A mutual independence is
found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political
prosperity." James Madison - Letter to F.L. Schaeffer, Dec. 3, 1821
The idea that the Church had any place in our Government is disproven time and again by the words of the founders themselves. The idea or notion that they "weren't really serious" or that somehow the godless have distorted their intent is nothing but desperate grasping by those who seek to pervert the courses of both religion and civil government for their own ends.
I don't even care what the Founders thought. But it's nice to see they had more sense than the idiotic folks running around with their Imaginary Friend 225 years later.
What the founders were thinking is that people that are schizophrenic tend to be attracted to religious activity and some of those people are responsible for burning at the stake LGBT and people that want equal rights for women.
That is why separation between church and state is the FIRST amendment to the US constitution.
The "voice of god" only religious people can hear sometimes tells them to kill people.
It is not OK for people like that to influence elections.
By the same token, it is not OK for government to influence religion except when laws are violated.
I agree in full! Therefore, let us remove tax exemption to ALL places of worship immediately, and allow them to prove their worth to the community on the free market as conservatives are so fond of suggesting at every turn today.
It amuses me to no end that in conservative land, what is good for the goose is rarely good for the gander. They want all "hand outs and freeloaders" to loose their publicly funded benefits but expect tax handouts to their churches. I can't help but notice all the pretty props, windows and silk robes they're wearing. They can't be that poor.
The_Strange_Remain
There is a lot in what you say, but it will be tricky to characterize what churches do as 'commerce' to be regulated and taxed. Going after a pastor's stipend for violations is another matter.
In 1960 I belonged to a Baptist church with as liberal a pastor as Baptists were ever as likely to have. Educated in Boston at Andover Newton, he was as for the separation of church and state and as ecumenical as the founder of Rhode Island Roger Williams. It was Rhode Islands inclusiveness that the Founders looked to for the principle enshrined in the Constitution and the highly independent Baptists have historically been among the most enthusiastic for the 'separation principle' until quite recently.
Yet, at the last Sunday before the election of John F. Kennedy, perhaps at the insistence of a well-to-do parishioner, he preached against the possibilities he said might come of electing a Roman Catholic. That was the beginning of my disillusionment with the powers behind religious pronouncements, and religion in general.
Churches, you keep your nose out of government business, and government will keep it's nose out of yours. That isn't a Christian you're trying to get elected. Shall we try One Nation Under Cultism for a nice break?
But they are becoming more and more bold. At the last TWIG installment, the video was taken down. (Does the "Church" have copyrights over their sermons or teachings?)The Catholic spokesman Bishop Paprocki was shown violating their own agreements made at their conference on political activity.
"DO NOT
• Provide parishioner or school lists to any candidate or party.
• Make Church-owned buildings and properties available to just one candidate or party.
• Allow the distribution of partisan campaign materials through official Church or parish channels, including on Church-owned parking lots.
• Allow any diocesan or parish entity or organization to endorse, oppose, contribute funds to, or campaign for or against any political party, candidate, or political action committee."
http://www.mdcathcon.org/main.asp?page=1551
The video was pulled down, but the quote was as follows"
http://maddowblog.msnbc.com/_news/2012/09/29/14150715-this-week-in-god?commentId=70620008#c70620008
This is a little rehash, but I think it's important. Yes, the political influence of "church" has always been, but does that mean we now must enshrine it into our laws? I believe there is a very wrongly interpreted and one sided definition of freedom of religion. The omission the very first part the non establishment part.
It's very typical of "pick and choose" or "cafeteria". It's done in the Bible and Constitution, both.
"I believe there is a very wrongly interpreted and one sided definition of freedom of religion."
I see it as a deliberate, self-serving misinterpretation of "freedom of religion", which they conveniently take to mean there must be no restrictions on their religion, which they flatter themselves is the true religion.
Can't argue with that, because that is how I see it as well.
Your freedom of religion ends at the tip if my nose.
Actually, in 1960, all Baptist preachers were strongly in favor of the separation of church and state. It's why John Kennedy had to appear before them and disavow any thoughts of tearing down the wall of separation, as well as declare himself strongly in favor of separation, to avoid having them come out against his candidacy for President.
In fact, it was the evangelicals and the Baptists who most strongly pushed for the First Amendment, to insure separation of church and state and thus insure their survival in an atmosphere of religious equality since they as "Disenters" were discriminated against in Britain.
Religious freedom ends at the tip of the believer's nose! I don't want them anywhere near me!
Criticizing, insulting, defaming another for their religious beliefs is not only rude but the most crude form of religious persecution. It is, on its face, Un-American.
Having a reasonable discussion on the topic is good, particularly those that approach it from a thoughtful, rational and intellectual point of view.
Others, unfortunately, see these posting sites as an opportunity to vent their hatred, bigotry, narrow-mindedness, thereby showing their true selves.
I'm an old man. I've been around the world, literallly, a couple of times, have a very diverse formal education and was introduced to computers about twelve years ago. the greatest teclnological achievenment that I can remember as a child was when they replaced the steam locomotivenwith a beautiful 'streamliner' that ran onthe C&EI track that ran near my home. Then, in my early teens, came Television. Then, of course, the computer.
Just think,having the accumilated knowledge of the world at your fingertips. Awsome. But nthen, there are the computer games. I have seen kids play these games for hours and hours. Do you think sometimes what they could accomplishif they spent that time in the study of Physics, or Chemistry or some applied science? What a terrible waste How appalling.
blow it out your what ran? I'm free to berate religion for all the substance it DOESN'T have (and those deluded brainwashed idiots who subscribe to the mental placebo as well). An opinion is rather like an anus - everybody HAS ONE.
IF you choose to subjugate to "SOME MYTHICAL SUPREME ENTITY, THEN SO BE IT" Just don't try to make me feel guilty for telling you that the "emperor is NAKED, GODDAMIT, NAKED" (the only time I use "god" it's followed by "dammit")
Matthew 7:12 KJV: "Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets."
These conservative activists and pastors need to think this through.
If they think it is OK for THEM to intervene in political campaigns, either in support of or opposition to a candidate or a party, then - according to THEIR Bible - it is OK for OTHERS to do the same.
They use their God as a weapon and Jesus as a mascot. Their hatred of' others who look, think and believe different then themselves comes straight outta the hell they made up to scare their followers into submission.
How can these so called christian church's endorse a man like Romney.He picked an avid supporter of Ayn Rand,a known athiest and believer in crushing the poor.Both of which are against teaching's of their church's.Talk about a bunch of hypocrite's!
Romney adopted the slogan "Save America for Americans" which was also a KKK slogan that was used in 1922.
People forget Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints was a white supremacist organization until 1979 when racism was dropped after their tax-exempt status was threatened.
The Mormon church is a racist-friendly organization (click here).
Romney will be the first white supremacist elected since 1928 if he wins.
Imagine the government injecting itself into selecting the church's leadership as they plan to in selecting our political leaders - no, wait, we do not have to imagine! The Soviet Union, Communist China, Napoelon and Hitler are all examples and all disasters.
It is a limitation of language, I suppose, but all through these posts are the words 'them' and 'their' as if there is some separate kind of human being than the speaker. Jesus saw all as brothers and sisters. Those who do not follow this example separate THEMSELVES from the common good, not the good from some enemy. Let us not accomplish what this divisive conduct aims at here.
Some Food For Thought From Brainy Quote :
~ ~ ~ ~
Religion is for people who are afraid of going to hell.
Spirituality is for people who have already been there.
~ Bonnie Raitt
Faith must be enforced by reason . . . When faith becomes blind it dies.
~ Gandhi
Few love to hear the sins they love to act.
~ William Shakespeare
All religions are the same: Religion is basically guilt, with different holidays.
~ Cathy Ladman
If I were personally to define religion, I would say that it is a bandage
that man has invented to protect a soul made bloody by circumstances.
~ Theodore Dreiser, 1941
The wages of sin are death, but after they take the taxes out,
it's more like a tired feeling, really.
~ Paula Poundstone
Subject opinion to coercion: whom will you make your inquisitors? Fallible
men; men governed by bad passions, by private as well as public reasons. And why
subject it to coercion? To produce uniformity. But is uniformity of opinion
desirable? No more than of face and stature. (Thomas Jefferson, Notes on
Virginia, 1782; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New
Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 363)
"I will never, by any word or act, bow to the shrine of intolerance, or admit a
right of inquiry into the religious opinions of others." (Thomas Jefferson,
letter to Edward Dowse, April 19, 1803. From Gorton Carruth and Eugene Ehrlich,
eds., The Harper Book of American Quotations, New York: Harper & Row, 1988,
p. 499.)
Have you googled this? It seems google has the habit again of putting conservative blogs and drivel ahead of factual accounts.
OMG Paul . . . truly stunning stuff.
I am not so sure that these right wing pastors can win the litigation. If the IRS sues it will be for a declaratory judgment that these churches lose their tax exempt status and must register as political lobbyists. They are still free to pursue their religion without government interference so it is hard to find any infringement on that freedom or for that matter, any infringement on their 1st Amendment rights by making them pay taxes and registering as lobbyists. A federal court is going to have make a real stretch to find an infringement.
I agree. The courts could very easily just reject the whole issue and simply declare that the 'participants' knowingly and willfully elected to change their tax status. Process 'em up and send them a tax bill. Pretty simple and totally within the laws. If 'they' make a big fuss.... then look at fines and so forth.
I don't think the Repugs truly understand how ugly 'killing' or modifying a key Amendment can get.
This is a case of civil disobedience that they believe they can win, but for that to happen people would have to believe that the law was wrong and were willing to let it be changed. That said there is I believe an element of the supreme court that would be willing to overturn it based on the fact that there is no provision that prohibits it "Expressly" (Private thoughts of the framers not withstanding).
Even in the short run, it's a bad strategy.
IRS has to think about the ramifications of intentional violations of the law. If it acts as it should, it will pull the not-for-profit status from the churches that participate. The most important immediate effect is that their donors will no longer be able to deduct contributions. Fighting that administrative ruling is both time consuming and expensive. It's also likely to be unsuccessful.
If the IRS doesn't act (and it is fully cognizant of the consequences of NOT acting against those churches), then it really can't require compliance of any other parts of the 501(c) code--or any other part of tax law, for that matter.
This is like challenging your parents or your employer. That seldom ends well.
Church taxes can go toward that debt they're sooooo worried about....
How many mansions and limos and maids and butlers and chefs and gardeners and etc., etc., etc., are covered under that tax exempt status? And they demand at least 10% tithe or more from their followers for their prayers to be answered. That's quite a gimmick they have going.
Don't get ahead of yourselves. As I said above, the 'stunt' quality of this probably gives them a little protection. Think performance art. It's main benefit is probably to make the preachers and congregations puff out their collective chest and say, "See, We is bigger and stronger than government". It's the Catholic bishop from last week who's serving himself up some trouble because he's come to believe in his own omnipotence. As soon as the IRS rattles the sabre of taxation, he's gonna find himself in Rome. The Holy See has very recently had a local taste of taxation when Italy decided to tax church property that was being used for income rather than ecclesiastical purposes. And in proportion thereof, so no consecrating the apartment manager's breakfast nook and declaring the property wholly a church.
Telling people that they will find their soul eternally damned if they don't vote the way you tell them to is voter intimidation and that's a federal crime. A lawyer would be helpful here, but I'm pretty sure a victim only needs to feel the threat credible. A Catholic Bishop is only one step down from a Cardinal(which is all the pope is, the Cardinal of Rome, the most equal of equals), so a parishioner might consider him authoritative and credible.
These Father Coughlins come along every once in a while. Mostly they tend to fade away when they get too big for their britches.
And then...
"I don’t know how you feel, but I’m pretty sick of church people. You know
what they ought to do with churches? Tax them! If holy people are so concerned
with politics, government and public policy, let them pay the price of admission
like everyone else. The Catholic Church alone could wipe out the national debt
if all you did was tax their real estate." - George Carlin
Second the motion.
Tax exempt status needs to be revoked.
Especially so considering the current pope was involved with human rights violations associated with protecting priests and bishops that rape children.
not forgetting that someone said "The power to tax includes the power to destroy" (or words to that effect)
I wish Pat Robertson would hurry up and get his a$$ to heaven.
I don't think that's the direction he's headed.
Yeah, I know. But I couldn't just come out and say ...
Or maybe I could.
God has enough religious posers up there, what he needed was tech support. RIP Steve Jobs.
Click here to see what is going to happen to Pat Buchanan.
I can. If such a thing as an afterlife exists, and should it include the just deserts of a life spent in fealty to one fundamentalist attitude or another, then Pat Robertson is definitely going to find himself in Hell. May the money he bilked from the ignorant, the old and the frightened be used to stoke the fire over which his festering soul is barbequed.
I don't see why you couldn't. Since Robertson routinely says vile things, he is (by the argument of Matthew 12:33-38) revealing himself as a vile person. So, go ahead and judge him by what he says. Robertson can't complain, because Jesus' own formulation condemns him. The irony is thick enough to hack through with a machete.
Whatever rationalizations Pat Robertson has for his own conduct will survive our judgements. Just remember it is Jesus who condemns sin but forgives the sinner.
Well, my initial comment wasn't really about him getting to heaven, but him just getting the hell out of here. If you get my drift. Yeah, I would have absolutely no problem dealing with his departure from this reality; wouldn't bother me a bit. So I hope he gets on with it.
I was not thinking about Heaven, either. What I was thinking is if we start judging people instead of ideas (like Pat Robertson does) we risk going down his road of identifying and dividing people as worthy of being saved and not. Identify ideas as worthy or not and champion worthy policies. Leave the judgements to God.
In GOOD NEWS, in Washington State we have an ad running with four pastors and their wives touting 'marriage equality'. It's pretty effective.
Separation of church and state benefits both. Those on the far right see their political power as being ascendant, allowing them to force their religious beliefs on others.
However, breaking down those walls can damage religious freedom. Political trends shift over time. If religious dogma can be pushed onto the state, the state can also force itself into the church.
The "Pulpit Freedom Sunday" folks might want to consider how they would feel if--or, if they're successful, when--that happens.
You are correct that the religious right is seeking power and wants to tear down wall of separation between church and state. In order to understand what is going on with the various claims about freedom of religion by the right, you have look at history for the last 60 years. Before the 1950's, religion was a very powerful influence in people's lives and the religious leaders had great power over their followers.
But that power began to erode in the post WWII era. Beginning in the 1950's the Warren Court issued various rulings about the wall of separation between church and state. The major decision was the prayer in public schools decision which triggered the outrage by some of the the religious leaders. Later that was followed by the decision that freedom of religion included freedom FROM religion. These decisions were then followed by various decisions on racial discrimination, contraception, abortion and other social issues. The erosion of the power of the religious leaders over their congregations continued its steep decline with the 1960's sexual revolution by which time, the leaders had little control over the Baby Boomer generation. The religious leaders scapegoated the government for the decline in "morals" by blaming the Supreme Court and its decisions. This has been the steady drumbeat by religious since those decisions.
When Reagan united the religious right with the conservatives, these religious leaders saw an opening to get the government to restore their power over people. Reagan stroked these people with his waxing nostalgic about the "earlier and simpler time" in this country. As soon as he was elected, Reagan paid lip service to their political demands and ignored the religious right. However, the religious right saw the Republican party as a springboard to power and proceeded to supplant the liberal and moderates in the party by using abortion as a political litmus test. Then came the purges of the liberals and moderates which continues to this day. This gave the radical right an opening and that is how the Tea Party took over the Republican party.
These religious leaders have used the abortion issue to put legislators in office on the federal and state levels. Now the bill has come due for the religious right to cash in on their power with the support of the Republicans. These leaders make religious freedom an issue for anything they oppose and to maintain their political power in the Republican party. There is no government war on religion but this is a war on the government by the religious leaders who are being helped by Republicans/Tea Party. These Republicans are using the social issues to conduct their real agenda which is to destroy everything that remains from the New Deal, the Great Society, give huge tax cuts for the wealthy and destroy any obstacles to the business interests including the banks and Wall Street. Our election laws have allowed this unholy alliance to seize power and the Republicans, Tea Party radicals and religious right are not going to give that power up. Even if they lose control over parts of the federal government, they maintain their control over state governments.
In summary, the struggle is about control and power by the religious right who are conducting a war on the government. They see the government as a means to regain power over people. The religious leaders are not going to stop their push for power since they have taken a taste of it. But if the government fights back and hits the religious right in the pocketbook, it is going to put a big hurt on them and hamstring their fight for power.
Excellent post, Mike. It is critical to remember many of these folks believe they are called by God/Christ to convert non-believers. Not all truly believe this; many are using it as a way to exert power and influence. Regardless of intent, they will not be satisfied until they convert people to their brand of religion or at least have the power to impose their beliefs and will on the lives of others ..... as many others as possible. Frightening prospect!
And when we reach that point, we will be the other countries we condemn for doing this exact thing, but of course, THIS is different.
With all the earthquakes we have been having in areas that don't normally have them, I tend to believe it's our founding fathers rolling in their graves rather than fracking.
No, it's fracking.
it's all fracking IRRITATING...
People want to say people are for President Obama, because he is black. That in a sense is nonsense, since President Obama is so much better than Romney. You know President Obama has the qualities to be a President and is actually very good at it. Now you take a look at Romney and you soon realize he is not in control of his greed. Romney is obsessed with money and hoards it hiding it away so no one might take it. Romney will do anything to make money even to lying, deceiving, racist slurs he has other people do him, cheating, and stealing. Romney has more or less even paid off Republicans to manipulate and change regulations and laws so the rich can get away with outright crimes. Don’t worry Romney was probably very instrumental and all for tax cuts for offshoring jobs and companies. After, Romney even has to make money there too in his uncontrolled greed. And with Romney’s income tax evasion makes him an outright criminal. We already had criminals in the White House with Bush and Chenney, why would we want more of those bums there again. Romney has no morals or ethics where he will get people to do his dirty work even to the point of brutally attacking someone to get what Romney wants. When you watched Romney at the debate, you did see the Romney enjoying trying to brutalize and bully President Obama. And how Romney looked like he was going to cry at the thought he might actually have to pay his fair share in taxes. Romney wasn’t looking at President Obama in disappointment, he was belly aching he might have to pay a penny more in taxes. People forget too easily how Bain Capital said Romney was a cheap bastard and it killed Romney if he had to spend a penny more unless he made huge profits at the very cost of people’s lives. Now there is a limit to everything, but to put others into misery, despair, violence, and death just to make a lot of money is just WRONG.
I think the more simple question is then are white people voting for Romney because he is white? Black folks have been voting primarily for democrats for years. No questions were raised. Now, because there is a black candidate, that must be the only reason that black folks vote for him. Well, let's look at the last election. I was going to vote for Hillary. I thought she was the best qualified and i was impressed with her ideas for running the government. Prior to that, I sort of liked McCain. However, I heard a speech by Michelle regarding her husband which made me do some research. The more I researched the more impressed I became. Funny thing is, I really never thought of him as a black guy because he was raised only by his white mother and white grandmother in Hawaii. Not the typical environment for a "black" person.
My response as to why people keep trying to say blacks are only voting for Obama because he's black:
Joe doesn't like Obama and can't understand how anyone else on the planet would think differently than Joe and actually vote for the current president. Therefore Joe must come up with a reason for why people are voting for Obama even though Joe isn't voting for him and that violates Joe's very self-centered world view. He pulls up a dart board listing various traits pertaining to Obama and then throws a dart at the board. It lands on "Obama is a black guy." And voila! Joe has now concluded why it is that people are voting for Obama based on his 'scientific' method of deduction.
They're voting for Obama because....*throws dart*....he's a black guy!
Well, it's called the WHITE House!
That was supposed to be a clue!
You know that if Hillary had won, we'd be hearing all about how menopause informs her decision-making...
These people have no shame, no perspective and no validity.
Ms. Quinn's bizarre take on the appropriateness of ATHEISTS, (we're very special, we deserve all caps), to be considered as American's is being reassuringly roasted, toasted, and excoriated in the WaPo comments section.
There are many that are excellent, but I'll include one here:
mustang4me 4:46 AM PDT
"Sally Quinn, you have shown yourself to be unconscionably anti-American with your idiot rant about citizenship requiring belief in imaginary beings. Let me remind you what the United States Constitution says in Article VI: "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States." I would put the status of citizen under the heading of "public Trust". It matters not what unconstitutional verbiage has been thrust onto our currency or into the Pledge (yes, those were laws a pandering Congress passed respecting an establishment of religion), nor does the illegitimate use of public funds to hire chaplains to illegaly promote religion. And as for the Declaration, which is not law, the "creator" isn't necessarily a deity - I consider my "creator" to be a double helix of deoxyribonucleic acid (Oooh, reality intrudes!)."
"To be clear - I am an atheist. I am a veteran. And I will NOT allow my citizenship or patriotism to be impugned by any god-bothering sap who is incapable or reading or understanding our Constitution and the religious freedom it guarantees, which includes the absolute right to reject foolish religious fairy tales."
A-fecking-men.
As a Christian pastor, I am totally disturbed by this nonsense, which is most un-Christian and un-constitutional. If any of these creepy people ever approach me about such a thing, they will get an earful. These forays into crazyville make all Christians look like fools because many people assume we all think the same way. Nothing could be further from the truth.
That I am afraid is (forgive me) the cross that the religious right has forced on many people of faith in this country. They have reduced God to a sideshow carnival attraction that they use to peddle patent medicine politics.
More Christians need to speak up about this craziness from religious extremists, who wish to circumvent and abuse our tax laws, with an ignorant sense of impunity. It's about time the IRS came down very hard on these churches, for claiming a tax exemption, while actively participating in elections, by avocating particular political partys, or particular politicians. Their behavior is unacceptable and they should be punished to the fullest extent of the law. This crap has got to stop and unless we the people stand up to these religious bully's, standing behind pulpits while preaching politics, they will go as far as they can. They need to know their behavior will not be tolerated by fellow Americans and the government.
Religion+Politics = Corruption.
Far too often, either "religion" or "politics" equals "corruption".
Combine them, reach critical mass!
Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I recall from the Gospels something about the Pharisees binding up burdens to put on other people's shoulders. It is time we gave them back to those who deserve them.
The IRS will avoid letting them play the "martyr" card, at least between now and the election. Even if the IRS wasn't a bureaucracy, all they have to do is wait until the second week of November to start investigating.
Hey Pat Robertson didn't you get it yet. God is fighting against you because you are power craving, corrupt, greedy, a hypocrite, arrogant, and a deceiver you fool.
I personally, would love to see some of those equality minded churches VOLUNTARILY give up tax exempt status, so they can go after the evil people directly!
Then, when the court case comes up, it can be used as PRECEDENT!
Guess what churches, you can't have your cake and eat it too :P
There is nothing so effective in reinforcing my conviction that there is no god than men standing behind the protection of their pulpits preaching division and hate. Thank you, preachers. I hope you get taxed out of business.
Because no one knows about god and money better than Pat Robertson
If this were a progressive church movement the Right would be the 1st to scream separation of church and state, Every fiber in me wants the churches that do this to lose there except status. However this would change the subject to what they want to talk about, we need to keep control of the conversation. The people in the pews are already for Romney, so I say take away the tax status after the election! don’t let them make this about some insane accusation that Obama wants to take away religious rights.
this is the groundwork for that argument and for use not just against Obama but against any and all who might oppose them. Support of this will become another question on the ideological purity litmus test the hard right has been forcing their candidates to take.
in additional "twig" news
various jewish groups have filed an anti-doma friends-of-the-court brief
http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/113151/jewish-organizations-join-doma-appeal?utm_source=tabletmagazinelist&utm_campaign=236c204702-10_3_2012&utm_medium=email
religious groups respond to pam geller's anti-islam subway hate campaign with tolerance ads
http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/04/pro-muslim-subway-ads-to-hang-near-anti-jihad-ads/?smid=tw-share
sheldon anderson bankrolls anti-obama ads aimed at swing state jewish voters
http://www.truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/item/17560-gambling-baron-sheldon-adelson-uses-million-dollar-war-chest-in-swing-states-to-convince-jewish-voters-to-abandon-democratic-party
birth control law pits philippine president vs catholic church
http://news.yahoo.com/philippines-defies-church-push-family-planning-003457226.html
pennsylvania judge tosses lawsuit over gop "year of the bible" resolution
http://news.yahoo.com/pa-bible-resolution-suit-dismissed-042249878.html
us evangelical tv spreads in israel
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-israel-evangelical-20121001,0,6110978.story
and finally
michele bachmann walks into a synagogue....
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-09-29/news/ct-talk-michele-bachmann-yom-kippur-0930-20120929_1_michele-bachmann-jewish-service-congregation
one more from talking points memo:
in a speech at the liberty baptist church sportsman’s banquet last month, rep. paul broun (r-ga) said “All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell. And it’s lies to try to keep me and all the folks who were taught that from understanding that they need a savior.”
He continued, “You see, there are a lot of scientific data that I’ve found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I don’t believe that the Earth’s but about 9,000 years old. I believe it was created in six days as we know them. That’s what the Bible says.”
http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/rep-paul-broun-r-ga-evolution-big-bang-lies-straight-from-the-pit-of-hell.php
Like Akin, Broun is a member of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology.
(the absurdity of it is breathtaking)
Michigan joins the Christo-Nationalist bandwagon regarding the "Pledge of Allegiance". Notice the disingenuous weasel words in the first paragraph:
"Gov. Rick Snyder has signed laws that give kids the opportunity to say the Pledge of Allegiance each day in Michigan public schools."
http://www.freep.com/article/20121006/NEWS06/121006008/Pledge-of-Allegiance-in-school-is-the-law-in-Michigan
What they really mean is that this law gives students (and staff) the opportunity to indentify those who are not Theologically Correct/Ideologically Sound and punish them for it.
Conservative politics is why the US lags behind the rest of the developed world when it comes to math and science.
even worse - Broun is a DOCTOR (which is to ask if he discounts the evolution of germs as well? Or does the magical sky fairy just keep making them "better"?)
Here's the thing, though. We now may have a handle on which doctor(s) told Akin that "Women have a way of shutting that whole thing down".
This notion of qualified citizenship is pretty funny, if you consider I don't believe in anybodys gawd(z) but you listen to Mitt Rmoney (et al) then hierarchically, am I not a better citizen by being employed for 35 years, never once using unemployment benefits and single status tax paying? Which do we worship in this country? Money or gawd? I dare say, according to Mitt Rmoney (et al), I am a better citizen by far than some inbred, hick-feck on foodstamps who says Praise Jebus (too much).. Sorry, I had to borrow the broad brush, et al and self promote don'tcha know!
worship? money of course - was there ever any DOUBT?
I don't mind worship of money so much. It's self serving but at least it's not self deluding.
Trollop
Congratulations on your exemplary life but it still does not qualify you or anybody to determine who is a citizen and what rights and responsibilities that confers upon a person. Those are enshrined in the Constitution, which prohibits discrimination of these rights by race or gender and is silent about any other 'qualification'. Conservatives want to change that. They want citizens to be those who agree with them - anybody else is too irrational to make decisions for them. This way of thinking invites NO ONE in while the history of this nation is a chronicle of people expressing ANY WAY OF THINKING THEY CHOOSE without fear. Which of these is better for Americans?
When Jesus came to the earth, He rebuked the scribes and Pharisees for their misuse of authority (see Matthew 21:23-46; 23:1-39). His disciples were preoccupied with acquiring positions of authority. Jesus had to continually contrast the servanthood which was to characterize the Christian in power to the self-seeking of the unbeliever who abused his power (see Mark 10:35-45).
All of this must be in the sincere republican interest of creating jobs. That's what matters. Also, it's to uphold the principles of their religion of truth and honoring the deity they believe in. Everyone knows it's a basic religious tenet to pray to defeat individuals or get a House majority.
I would fully support the IRS changing the tax-exempt status of any church which chooses to break the law intentionally. They can ex-communicate us in return. We can cry all the way to the bank.
Atheism without persecution is an American right.
Respectfully, Eese, not if another human being with enough power and money takes it away, it isn't.
Rights are an illusion held in place only by the awareness of the people and the continued good will of their leaders. We have a nation being purposefully led into choosing belief over facts and science, and an increasing number of leaders completely lacking in good will.
Exactly right. Atheism, being a devout Muslim, being a Mormon or conservative Christian, etc. all need to be respected, protected, and completely removed from influence by government, and from influencing government. The good intention that all of these beliefs promote at their core can inform policy, but NO personal belief system should be allowed to usurp the secular nature of our government. We need to stand up as a nation and stop the bullying by those who use religious argument instead of law, and cry persecution if someone tries to halt that behavior.