Dozens of conservative pastors are defying the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) ban on ministers using their pulpits to endorse political candidates. Organized by the Alliance Defense Fund, the ministers are effectively daring the IRS to take away their tax-exempt status. The effort is an obvious set-up for litigation, though they may put conservatives like Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito in a tough position. ADF advocates insist that the ADF’s “Pulpit Initiative” is to intended to show that the “proper role” of pastors is to try to direct the voting of the faithful.
ADF attorney Erik Stanley says that “For so long, there has been this cloud of intimidation over the church. . . . It is the job of the pastors of America to debate the proper role of church in society. It’s not for the government to mandate the role of church in society.”
This is clearly the view of other nations like Saudi Arabia, Iran, and Pakistan where clergy dominate politics and mete out their own sectarian forms of government. Now, the religious right wants to be exempted from taxes while using those tax exempt dollars to expand a church-based political movement.
The ADF was founded in 1994 by Christian conservatives including James C. Dobson of Focus on the Family and William R. Bright, founder of Campus Crusade for Christ. It is viewed as an alternative to the ACLU in pushing a conservative agenda.
It would be an interesting test for Roberts and Alito, who tend to be extremely pro-government except in religion cases and a couple of other areas. Alito particularly assembled a record of virtually blind support for governmental claims in criminal, environmental, and other areas. Now, he would be asked to extend the same extreme deference to the IRS.
For the full story, click here.
So how is taking away their tax exempt status “mandate(ing) the role of church in society”? If they choose to endorse a candidate, they are no longer performing the business of the church, in my opinion. Once that line is crossed, they should loose their status, period.
It is a fundamentally flawed proposition for those in government to trade tax exempt status for an agreement to abridge one’s first amendment rights. One of the foundations of our society is the idea that the constitutionally guaranteed rights are inalienable, that they cannot be bought and sold. If they can be bought and sold you can imagine the Pandora’s box that would open.
Hugh-
The business of a church is for the members of that church to decide.
“The business of a church is for the members of that church to decide.”
From: http://www.au.org/site/News2?abbr=resources&page=NewsArticle&id=9055&security=1441&news_iv_ctrl=2422
The only thing houses of worship may not do is endorse or oppose candidates for public office or use their resources in partisan campaigns. This restriction, which is found in federal tax law, is not limited to churches and other religious ministries. In fact, it is applied to every non-profit organization in the country that holds a tax exemption under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Contrary to the claims of many in the Religious Right, the IRS is not singling out houses of worship for special regulation. Thousands of educational, scientific, charitable and literary organizations hold the 501(c)(3) status, and all must abide by the legal requirement barring involvement in elections.
Why does this rule exist? The answer is obvious upon a moment’s reflection: Non-profit organizations receive tax exemption because their work is charitable, educational or religious. That tax benefit comes with conditions. One requirement is that tax-exempt organizations refrain from involvement in partisan politics. This is a reasonable rule, since tax-exempt groups are supposed to work for the public good, not spend their time and money trying to elect or defeat candidates.
This regulation is also designed to protect the integrity of the election process. Special types of organizations already exist to help political hopefuls win public office. Those groups, such as Political Action Committees, have a different tax status and are organized under a different set of rules than 501(c)(3) groups, rules designed to ensure that the nation’s campaign-finance laws are followed. Blurring the distinction between these two types of organizations would harm both religion and politics.
Hugh-
You have completely missed a very simple point. Besides that the idea that you are going to protect the integrity of an election by limiting free speech seems rather odd.
Mnoble,
There’s no limit on free speech. The church is not a person, and the clergy is free to endorse any candidate they like, as long as it is clear that they are speaking outside of their role in the church.
Gyges-
What if God has told the clergy to endorse a candidate from the pulpit?
mnoble,
That is just silly. God is dead.
Hugh, That is just ridiculous. The Bears beat the Colts. There is obviously a living and loving God.
All seriousness, I don’t see how asking a pastor (rabbi, mullah, whatever) to refrain from having his church endorse a candidate is a limit on free speech. It is obviously different from his/her privately endorsing a candidate.
Gyges- I agree… churches are not people and do not have free speech rights.
JT- I guess that result should have reaffirmed my faith… God is dead for Colts fans…
mnoble,
I think god telling clergy to endorse candidates from the pulpit is precisely the problem. God seems to be a lot like the alien from the former World Wide News–he strangely seems to endorse exactly the same candidate the clergy does.
I think it’s incorrect to say churches can’t have free speech. They can speak as freely as they wish, and in my opinion, clergy do have a right to endorse the candidate they’ve decided god chose.
There’s just no reason for churches to be tax-exempt. If they do choose to be tax-exempt then they must follow the regulations set up for tax exempt status, which as Hugh pointed out, apply to anyone asking for tax exempt status. This benefit from the govt. comes with restrictions. If you don’t want the restrictions, you can still form a church and preach that Satan wants people to vote for McCain. You can preach Baal demands his worshippers vote for Obama. It wouldn’t matter. You just can’t get a financail freebie for your speech.
Mnoble,
Then that the clergy believes God either wants him to break the law, or change the tax status of the church.
Jill,
I think that any organization that meets the qualifications deserves the tax exempt status. A charity run by a church is still a charity. I just don’t think they should get the status automatically for being a church.
Hugh and J.T.,
To quote many a Coloradan Pastor: If God isn’t a Broncos fan, why are sunsets orange and blue?
And before you start in, it’s been a rebuilding decade.
When it comes to this I’m for the Gordian Knot solution. Abolish tax exempt status for all religious institutions and let them take whatever political positions they want to take. The Big Lie for years has been that religious institutions are somehow not businesses. The entire Not-for-Profit concept in the US is also another business model with pretensions of charity and I’ve worked for 3 social services non-profits.
Many of these entities are formed by and pay excellent salaries to their top managers, giving them a good living and spending tens of thousands at year’s end on various toys for their manager’s pleasures, thereby eating up the profits. We perpetuate the myth that all such institutions are charitable in nature (while far too many are really unconcerned for those they serve) as a sop to believing we as a society care for those less fortunate. Some NP’s are of course wonderful, ACLU for instance, but a new paradigm for accomplishing good works is needed.
There should be few limits on free speech and having the IRS make the decision creates very bad solutions. Yet it is obvious that many churches have crossed the line into political advocacy that is quite dangerous as JT’s article points out. Abolishing tax exemptions eliminates hair splitting and political pandering. The devil though is in the details and I don’t know of a politician today with the courage to actually suggest this alternative.
Organizations get 501(c)(3) status because they are charitable, educational or religious in nature. And that status comes with certain conditions, namely that they cannot engage in partisan politics. Ok, so far so good. But the one thing does not obviously follow from the other. What does an organization’s political activity have to do with whether or not it is not-for-profit in nature? Nothing, as far as I can tell. Looks like the law is ripe for challenge to me. To JT: Roberts and Alito may be reliable statists, but I think their politics sometimes comes in to play, too. … In case you didn’t know.
Revenue rulings plus the Establishment clause.
Does it get any uglier?
I knew it was only a matter of time until this reared its ugly head. The conservative Christian right has been pushing in this direction for a long time now.
And Bush’s “faith based initiatives” helped pave the way for this mentality.
The Churches are trying to remove the divisions of church and state, and that is a clear and present danger to our democracy.
This should be SQUASHED, and the IRS should SNATCH away the tax exempt status of all churches involved.
Not take. Not remove. But SNATCH their Tax Exempt cards, right out of their fat, greasy little fingers
Gino said;
What does an organization’s political activity have to do with whether or not it is not-for-profit in nature?
The two are seperate items. They must be non profit AND they must stay out of partisan politics.
The law is not ripe for anything other than enforcement.
Oh, ok. I get it now. The law says that they have to be both non-profit *and* stay out of politics. That must be why they have to be non-profit *and* stay out of politics. Glad you cleared that one up.
Well it seemed like you needed it cleared up.
If I am misreading you then by all means elaborate.
I am merely stating that the law is simple, designed to help non profit charitable organizations flourish, thus helping improve conditions for those in need and the impoverished in our society. Regardless of what people think of churches, many provide daily support for millions of impoverished people in our society, and thus are deserving of tax relief.
This is not a bad law. It is a good one. That needs to be enforced. These organizations need to remain independent with regards to partisan politics and not be turning a profit (hence their proceeds go to furthering their efforts and the church, not lining the pockets of the paid clergy) and they in turn deserve a tax break.
But not if they violate the law.
Hugh
1, September 8, 2008 at 11:20 am
Why does this rule exist? The answer is obvious upon a moment’s reflection: Non-profit organizations receive tax exemption because their work is charitable, educational or religious. That tax benefit comes with conditions. One requirement is that tax-exempt organizations refrain from involvement in partisan politics. This is a reasonable rule, since tax-exempt groups are supposed to work for the public good, not spend their time and money trying to elect or defeat candidates.
This regulation is also designed to protect the integrity of the election process. Special types of organizations already exist to help political hopefuls win public office. Those groups, such as Political Action Committees, have a different tax status and are organized under a different set of rules than 501(c)(3) groups, rules designed to ensure that the nation’s campaign-finance laws are followed. Blurring the distinction between these two types of organizations would harm both religion and politics
Hugh said it right.
This whole thing has to do with how much political cover one’s house of worship enjoys. Last year a hippie-liberal church in SoCal got a shot over its bow due to statements made to the flock condeming our whacky mad-capped adventures in Iraq.
(no political cover)
That uber-douchebag Pat Robertson routinely endorses candidates from his electronic pulpit into mobilehomes around the nation
(lots of political cover)
Every black church in my town (chicago) invites the candidates percieved as friendly to “the community” to address their flocks every election cycle. This is Jessie Jackson country. There are several state reps in Illinois who are the ministers at mega-churches.
(lots of cover, and no politician black or white wants to comit political suicide) (p.s. Obama had to join one of these churches to be a political playa in Illinois. So don’t be a playa hater.)
Regent University, Bob Jones (sounds like a decent truck stop )University and their supporting churches and minions? Every Republican (Including McCain, who once,in a moment of clarity,called them out for being the hateful places they are)feels that he must go to these places and lick their balls because they absa-fucking-lutely endorse candidates.
(so connected that half the attorneys in the White House have their mail-order degrees from these places.)
Disney Land isn’t tax exempt. Why the Hell are churches?
For that matter, why does the church of scientology enjoy tax-exempt status?
Because the IRS declared it a religion in the early 90’s.
I wonder if you can buy the complete X-Files on DVD without paying sales tax too.
This kind of repugnant, defiant, in-you-face Christianity simply reinforces that they hate the things that America stands for. America is great BECAUSE we have a seperation of church and state not despite it. These are tax laws that benefit the churches and the rest of our citizens as well. But that’s not good ebnough for these parasites. The incredible arrogance of these churches attempts to subjogate America to their holy book and their god is Taliban-esque. Why are we spending billions every day in Iraq and Afghanistan when these terrorists live among us trying to destroy America?
seamus
1, September 8, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Disney Land isn’t tax exempt. Why the Hell are churches?
The common understanding tends to lean towards social and charitable work done by the churches, however the real reason is based on a founding principle of this country, that is the free expression of religion. Churches rely on donations from membership for their survival, and smaller churches have a harder time collecting those funds than larger churches, simply due to more members donating. Tax exemption for these religions is designed to ease the burden on these churches so as to permit all religious viewpoints the opportunity to flourish in our society, which is an idea as American as apple pie. Religious freedom is a good thing, and this law helps that happen.
Another idea as American as apple pie is the notion of seperation of church and state. And ever since certain churches have sought to blur that line and promote their own religious beliefs onto us all by using their control over their congregations to influence government officals and even get them elected.
I don’t want the local mega church in my town picking our county officals, or town council, or even our dog catcher. Let them teach the people anything about God they like, as long as they keep it the hell out of my govt. But when they want to start deciding who wins elections by preaching partisanship from their pulpits, then its time to remove their Tax exempt status and thats what the IRS should do here.
The law doesn’t have anything to do with whether an organization is properly non-profit or not, but we need the law and it’s a good law because it protects the integrity of the election process by separating non-profits from PACs and other tax exempt political organizations. And I guess we need to smack around those uppity Jesus freaks a little bit, too. Seems like weak tea to me, but I guess it doesn’t take much if you’re inclined to support those kinds of laws in the first place. Go crazy.
Gino
1, September 8, 2008 at 8:55 pm
The law doesn’t have anything to do with whether an organization is properly non-profit or not,
Tell that to the IRS.
“What does an organization’s political activity have to do with whether or not it is not-for-profit in nature?” – Gino
Let’s face it, many of the world’s great religions, including christian, like to be governmental themselves, as in The government. This tax rule is suppposed to protect us against organised politically active, that’s an understatement, politically driving, influential and quite manipulative groups from taking an unfair financial advantage influencing elections over other political parties who operate under a different tax status. For all their faults, at least republicans and democrats declare themselves a political party and pay taxes accordingly. Perhaps Hugh can tell us more about that status. The evangelical movement in this country is in reality an extremely well funded and hard driving christian political party. A preacher telling the congregation how to vote is only the tip of the iceberg. The lie is that their candidates masquerade as republicans AND also as democrats.
I have deep concerns that our country is nearing a theocratic tipping point.
The evangelical movement in this country is in reality an extremely well funded and hard driving christian political party. A preacher telling the congregation how to vote is only the tip of the iceberg. The lie is that their candidates masquerade as republicans AND also as democrats.
I have deep concerns that our country is nearing a theocratic tipping point.
———————————————————————
Amen burbilly! The lust for power is on full display thanks to Palin.
The fact that it’s so open now is one of my few hopes of stopping it.
Historically there do seem to be “tipping points”. I hope people of conscience; either left, right or center see this for what it is and reject it utterly. This is a complete subversion of our Constitution and it WILL ruin this nation.
I have inside knowledge of how Pentacostal churches operate. For those of you curious as to how, let’s just say Thanksgiving is awkward. By way of explanation, the Constitution is the most important legal document. Freedom of religion is essential. However, that being said, there are some religious traditions so at odds with reality that I think it’s a disqualifier from being allowed to hold office. Simply, would you want the President to be an adherent to a belief that requires human sacrifice? No. You get someone just as crazy as that in Palin. You should fear this woman worse than Herr Bush. He’s just a fascist who pretended to be a religious loon so he could start illegal wars for profit. She’s the real deal – a full on religious nut case. I will say this without reservation – it is a faith so twisted that being a member should AUTOMATICALLY preclude one from being able to run for office. Why such an extreme view? It’s a death cult, plain and simple. They desire the end of the world so they can meet Jesus in person. They actively teach that anything you can do to bring about said end of the world IS A GOOD THING. That, by any reasonable definition, is insanity. Both from a logical and theological standpoint. Trust me, I know all the arguments – thinking about it makes me taste cranberries and turkey stuffing. It also brings to mind an image of my uncle’s head about to explode.
Palin as Bush?
No, no . . . it’s much worse than that.
Obama-sama,
You are right to say it’s a death cult and Palin is the real deal. As you point out, bush is a poseur. I completely agree with your analysis except for one thing, we cannot break faith with our Constitution, no exceptions. Doing so has gotten us to the point we’re at now.
I’m scared. You, burbilly and others are telling the truth about the christian right. But we have to hold firm to fundamental principles even when we’re terrified (that would be me, now!).
Keep speaking out and showing these people for who they are. Oppose them at every turn. Expose them in every way possible, but hold true to principle. I will say that one reason I believe Obama is not doing very well as a candidate is he appears to have no real principles. He cannot speak forcefully to address the problems of this nation because they are not known to him at a deep level. It is easy for Palin to outmanoeuver him as, even though her principles are evil. they are still her principles.
There is only one way to counteract principles that are evil. That is through the articulation and passion for priciples that are good.
mnoble:
“The business of a church is for the members of that church to decide.”
**************
That’s the logic endorsed by such religious men as Jim Jones, David Koresh, and the infamous UFO religion, the Heaven’s Gate death cult. Sorry but nobody get a pass from the law and, more importantly, from the public opinion of the citizens in a democracy.
And by the way, I would loathe any concentration of political or economic power in a single source. Nowhere are Acton’s words any more prophentic than in the amphitheaters of these monoliths to power and greed. That these robots, high stepping from the pulpit into the political Main Street, are tolerated by a secular democracy is one of the great curiosities of this Country.
Mespo- “That these robots, high stepping from the pulpit into the political Main Street, are tolerated by a secular democracy is one of the great curiosities of this Country.”
Amen, brother! Well said. I have often puzzled over their acceptance myself.
Mespo- “That these robots, high stepping from the pulpit into the political Main Street, are tolerated by a secular democracy is one of the great curiosities of this Country.”
Because in a tolerant democracy everyone would shout down these superstitious freaks? Kind of puts new definitions on tolerance and democracy, doesn’t it?
Hugh and mespo,
Do you have any theories on above? I think, in part, it has to do with unaddressed issues of class in our society. We don’t have a social safety net. The power imbalance between rich and poor is more like a banana republic than what a wealthy democracy could be. People feel powerless and enraged, that’s what I hear in many, many conversations.
What does the christian taliban offer its followers? Not greater social equality, not a job with a living wage, not health care, not good schools, not any of the things people desperately need and aren’t able to readily secure in this society. But they do offer the promise of a taste of power. It will be their “values”, their church, their god who will rule over this nation. Thus the powerless are given power, and it is not fake power, it’s real. They really will be able to teach creationism, choose to end the mother’s life, go to war for jesus, force the gays from jobs etc. These are not inconsiderable powers.
The christian taliban works to further empower the rich, who will never subject themselves to the laws of their footsoldiers. It will never address the most pressing problems of our time, but it does offer that taste of power to the powerless. I think that’s why it works.
Gino,
Who is shouting down all the freaks? The screaming I’m hearing is coming from the christian taliban. That is a large, vocal group dedicated to taking away the rights of everyone they don’t like or don’t agree with. The christian right is not an abused minority. It’s an abusive minority.
Jill — You say these things as if they are self evident truths. That this is objective reality. Try not to forget that these are people, with sincerely held beliefs, who think that the country is headed in the wrong direction, who vote and are sometimes outspoken. You can lump them all together, call it religion, and make generalizations based on a few bad actors, but the influence of religion in society and government is not going away any time soon. Casting them as the enemy in shrill terms doesn’t make your side, whatever it is, sound more reasonable. Honestly, I come here often, but I still can’t make you people out.
Gino,
It is objective reality. People do hold sincere beliefs, I agree with you on that. Just because a belief is sincere doesn’t mean it can’t be critically analyzed. It’s not just a few bad actors, as in 6 to 8 people. It’s a large group of people who are acting badly. Not everyone’s motives are malicious, but when people refuse to think through the reasons for their bad actions it’s still not right for them to act badly. The belief system of the christian right does not honor our Constitution, our nation or the rights of others. It may be uncomfortable to hear that but it’s not wrong to point that out.
When you say, “you people” who do you mean?
Gino
1, September 9, 2008 at 1:31 pm
I come here often, but I still can’t make you people out.
Then I’d quit trying to make out with us.
Jill,
I don’t know who he meant by “you people,” but I did enjoy the phrase coming at the end of a post about how one shouldn’t lump people together and make generalizations.
Don’t forget that I once said, “You people are nuts.” Jill shamed me into backtracking and saying, “You people may not be entirely mentally stable.” Does it help that by “you people” I mean the commenters here? Probably not.
Don’t forget that I once said, “You people are nuts.” Jill shamed me into backtracking and saying, “You people may not be entirely mentally stable.” Does it help that by “you people” I mean the commenters here? Probably not.
*******
You were right the first time, Gino. Jill attracts the yahoos,
and I try to get rid of them.
Gino,
I am really willing to talk about things with you. Many of the people who post here are willing to listen to others and thoughtfully respond. Check out the posts on Utah water. I have been reading them and thinking, well that’s a good point, about 30 times!
Like Gyges, I did get a laugh when you wrote, “you people” after saying it was wrong to lump people together. I’ll never claim to be “entirely mentally stable” but I will listen to a sincere argument and so will others. So, how do you see the situation?
This blog used to be geared toward legal discussion – not religion
or the ‘persecuted’.
****
‘… The christian taliban works to further empower the rich, who will never subject themselves to the laws of their footsoldiers. It will never address the most pressing problems of our time, but it does offer that taste of power to the powerless. I think that’s why it works.’
L. Ron Hubbard, in my opinion, created The Church of Scientology because he was smart enough to realize the economic and power potential of having his own religion. From the beginning it was set up to be a way of making money and avoiding taxes. In the US for many years this has been the way many so-called religious leaders have made their way in the world, accumulating wealth and power along the way. Sinclair Lewis laid it out in “Elmer Gantry” as did Zane Grey in “Riders of the Purple Sage.” In all probability though, the scam goes back to the beginnings of civilization.
I’m not impugning religion by stating this, nor am I casting aspersions on the many sincere religious prophets. However, there are no doubt wolves among each ministry shearing the sheep, before they eat them. After all, to people of predatory bent it’s obviously a perfect setup. How better to scam people than by preying upon their fear of death? The problem posed here is both how to we protect our country from these predators and how do we allow true believers to practice their faiths? While current IRS law offers a means, its enforcement is predicated upon the Administration in power and the political clout of the phony practitioner.
Since I don’t believe that we can create legislation that will effectively allow for religious freedom, while ensuring that said freedom does not allow a given faith to become a means of political control, I assert that all churches and non-profits should not be tax exempt. Their tax rates can be smaller than current business taxation, but they would be required to provide full financial disclosure. Are there holes in this argument, no doubt about it, but I think it points out a direction to move in. The infestation of our political narrative by religion has become frightening and dangerous.
Mike,
I’d like to see the full financial disclosure as well. Lack of disclosure hides a multitude of sins in churches and in other non-profits as you explained before. I think the financial disclosure would show what burbilly said was accurate and help explain the increased entwinement of politics and religion.
Gino:
“Because in a tolerant democracy everyone would shout down these superstitious freaks? Kind of puts new definitions on tolerance and democracy, doesn’t it?”
*******************
Not really! Tolerance, like most virtues, is not an absolute lest we permit the classic outcry in a crowded theatre of “Fire, Fire,” or alow murderers to walk the streets. That a society refuses to “tolerate” those who would subvert its fundamental ideals does not strike me as a vice–indeed it is likely a virtue. The point is that we need not scurry away from the label of “intolerant,” if that which we are asked to “tolerate” is in fact intolerable.
‘L. Ron Hubbard, in my opinion, created The Church of Scientology because he was smart enough to realize the economic and power potential of having his own religion.’
***
So did est’s Werner Erhard (a/k/a Jack Rosenberg/Landmark Education), although he chose not to go the non-profit route. That didn’t keep him from getting in trouble with the IRS, courtesy of L Ron. or them
from getting kicked out of France all on their own, either!
——–
Erhard and Scientology
In the late 1960s, Erhard studied Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard became a significant influence. Scientologists to this day accuse Erhard of having stolen his main ideas for est from Hubbard. We do know that when Erhard set up est he considered making it a non-profit, as Hubbard had done with dianetics and the Church of Scientology. But Erhard decided to incorporate as an educational firm for profit in a broad market.
Erhard and his supporters accuse Scientology of being behind various attempts to discredit Erhard, including hounding by the IRS and accusations of incest by his children. Erhard won a lawsuit against the IRS and the incest accusations were recanted. Erhard has claimed he has good evidence that Scientologists made a strong and concerted effort to destroy him.
The point is that we need not scurry away from the label of “intolerant,” if that which we are asked to “tolerate” is in fact intolerable.
***
Here, here!
Anybody questioning what I’m finding ‘intolerable’ these days?
I think a more pertinent question would be, does anybody care?
Patty C
1, September 9, 2008 at 3:19 pm
*******
You were right the first time, Gino. Jill attracts the yahoos,
and I try to get rid of them
The “yahoos” of course being anyone who doesn’t agree with her opinion.
I know the conversation has moved on, but I can’t seem to help myself.
God is dead for Raiders fans as well.
I have it on good authority that God hates the Raiders. He told my uncle that right after he told him that the Apocalypse is a good thing and before He told him that, yes, avocado pits do need to be that large.
Signed,
A Chiefs fan.
Jill,
Perhaps I should have been clearer.
Feel free to believe what you want, just keep it off my Constitution. I am fully aware of how the Establishment Clause operates. Palin and her ilk are the type of people that will eviscerate the Est. Cl. to promote their religious agenda – to Hell with Lemmon and excessive entanglement. They’re theocrats. They’d have you say The Lord’s Prayer before the Pledge of Allegiance. Theocrats insist on ruling by beliefs, not facts. That’s just as crazy as being in a death cult so they get the double whammy.
And crazy qualifies for intolerance for those scoring at home. I’ll tolerate anyone’s beliefs as long as they don’t endanger my life or the lives of those I care about. If they do pose a real physical threat, I’ll be glad to take appropriate action to stop the True Believers up to and including violence if need be (always the last resort). Just because you think God says it’s okay to kill me doesn’t mean I’m going to let you.
I’m curious to know which pastors join in this effort (which definitely wouldn’t fly in the churches I fellowship with). Mike, I’m with you on abolishing the tax exemption.
I disagree with removing the exemptions for religion. Religious freedom was a founding principle this nation was built on and tax exemption for actual religions helps smaller faiths survive in the world of the “mega-church”.
Whether or not you like religion is moot. Its part of our heritage and part of our society, and thus leveling the playing field so that smaller religions can survive helps with religious diversity, which is a good thing.
So, we have a tax law that restricts the speech and political activity of religious and other charitable organizations. The law has no apparent relationship to an organization’s non-profit nature, but that’s okay. The law is good because it moderates the (largely perceived) negative influence of religion on politics. By all accounts, however, the law doesn’t work. It’s being flouted by both conservative and liberal religious leaders, and is openly defied by some on the religious right as a prelude to a legal challenge.
You know, I’m starting to feel pretty good about all of this.
The law doesn’t restrict their speech. They are free to speak what they want, but if they want tax exemption, they’ll honor the time proven cornerstone principle of seperation of church and state.
If they wish to ignore that sound doctrine, and merge religion with politics, then they are free to do so.
They just won’t get tax exemption.
Patty,
I agree with your linkage of Erhard to Hubbard. Both men cynically used people’s weakness as a money making scheme. For EST itself though it borrowed heavily from Fritz Perl’s Gestalt Therapy for technique. The difference was that under the EST aegis Gestalt therapy was turned into something monstrous, that had never been intended by Perl’s or Gestalt practitioners. I had at least two patients who I treated after EST weekends. They had been treated harshly and when “broken down” and in a depressed state, were shuffled out of the room and ignored. EST preyed upon people who had problems and offered little solutions except to spend more money.
As for religious tax exemption, it is not the general concept that bothers me, it is the ability to game the system. I’m cognizant of the Constitutional reasons for tax exemptions, but the execution of preventing religious abuse is woefully lacking. I offered the examples I did to get across the idea that the “scammers” know how to get around the regulations and the IRS is hamstrung by political interference. If a law is virtually unenforceable, then it shouldn’t exist and the identified problem should be dealt with via another modality. That’s why I’m against tax exemptions for religious institutions
Check out the participants for the “Values” voter summit!
Entire Values Voter Summit 2008 to be webcast live on AFA.net this Friday and Saturday
Webcast is free but registration is required. Register Today!
September 9, 2008
Here is your opportunity to be a part of the largest pro-family, social conservative event of the year for free and without ever leaving home!
AFA.net will offer a free stream the Values Voter Summit 2008 (Sept. 12-14), the largest meeting of social conservatives this year, live on the internet. The event begins this coming Friday morning and ends on Saturday evening. The entire conference will be streamed live on AFA.net.
***Participants include Sean Hannity, Chuck Colson, Newt Gingrich, Maggie Gallagher, Phyllis Schlafly, Star Parker, Alveda King, Bill Bennett, Ken Blackwell, Bishop Harry Jackson, Jonathan Falwell, and a host of others. The line-up is a virtual who’s who of social conservatives. Click here to see the line-up.
We encourage you to register now for the free live webcast. Then, on Friday, all you have to do is to enter your e-mail address! A complete schedule of when each participant will be speaking can be found here so you can pick and chose which speakers you want to listen to.
Hugh-
How can God be dead when he was just telling Nancy Pelosi that Obama is the candidate he has graced us with?
Mnoble,
Maybe God’s a zombie.
Getting back to article at the top here, the “cloud of intimidation over the church” must be felt within the church they know that for over a century they’ve been commiting tax fraud. The 501(c) status they’ve enjoyed has allowed them to milk the government, through non-payment of taxes, for probably billions of dollars. The church was politically involved getting prohibition in place, which was initiated by Rockefeller and succeeded in driving alcohol off the market as a fuel. For 80 years now big oil has enjoyed a lack of competition from alternative energy sources as a direct result of that. How is this a charitable action of the church’s part?
I am for abolishing the tax exemption for religious organizations. It would not be the first time that the excesses of some has ruined a privilege for the many. And 501(a) tax status is a privilege, not a right. I think it’s a good idea in the interest of national security. Like I mentioned earlier it would be more honest of the christian church at large to come out of political hiding and redefine itself as a Theocratic political party and share the same tax status with Republicans, Democrats, Independents, Libertarians etc.
Burbilly,
Lumping all Christians together is just lazy thinking. There are a huge variety of beliefs and doctrines that all fall under the umbrella of Christianity. It’s especially lazy to think that all Christians have the same political views.
I agree, Gyges, that lumping people together does deny them some element their individuality. I don’t mean to lump christians anymore than we lump republicans or democrats about their platfroms. There are some strong currents of belief that creationist doctrine should be imposed on science classes in public schools. That birth control and sex education should be restricted to the limitations of moral doctrine, however ineffective that may be at preventing teen pregnancies. These and other such scary propositions do exist on a fundamentalist christian platform. I think it’s cheating for such political activity to benefit from tax exempt status. It violates separation of church and state.
If you espouse a specific political agenda from the pulpit, you have crossed the line and the IRS needs to enforce it. With that said, the Bush regime will never do that as long as Bush or McCain are President.
Gyges-
You’ve got it backwards, Nancy Pelosi is the zombie.
Rafflaw-
We certainly wouldn’t want free speech in a church and certainly would want the IRSS to crush any resistance.
But seriously why are you guys so afraid of free speech?
Why are you so afraid of one of the cornerstone principles of our democracy? Seperation of Church and state.
Once more, no one is limiting free speech.
Churches are in no way “forced” into tax exemption.
They choose it, by applying for it.
Tax exemption is a privilege for these churches, not a right. It is given to them for merely honoring several principles and one of them is our founding principle of seperation of church and state.
If they choose not to honor that, and try to mingle their religion with government, then they are not eligible for tax exemption.
There is no free speech issue here. They’re free to say what they want without penalty. But if they want privilege, then they need to comply with the requirements.
You endlessly try to rationalize abridgement of free speech.
Again I ask you, and perhaps you can honestly answer this time, why are you so afraid of what they may say?
mnoble,
How do you see the church’s free speech being curtailed? I’m confused because I believe others have given very good explanations as to why there is not curtailment of free speech. I am missing something here.
For my own part I am not afraid to hear what any religious group has to say. I will say WHAT some religious people say is scary to me but that doesn’t mean I think they should not or do not have a right to say it.
Help me understand what you mean.
Thanks,
Jill
http://www.toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080911/NEWS09/809110405
Mrs. Obama stresses need for faith, prayer in Ohio stop
Ohio Baptists give her warm welcome
I think this is a big mistake on the Obamas’ part. There are messianic elements to what Mrs. Obama says which echo Mr. Obama’s earlier statements about bringing the kingdom of god here on earth. The religious right is by and large taken. Why not go before the church as a person who cares about the poor? This approach would mean a lot to both religious and non-religious people.
mnoble
1, September 11, 2008 at 10:03 am
You endlessly try to rationalize abridgement of free speech.
No.
You endlessly try to invent issues of free speech where none exist.
At least thats what you’re doing here.
Please explain how exactly someone is restricting their ‘free speech’.
Tax exemption is not a right, but you are blindly pretending it is, to try and sell your point.
Tax exemption is something you “APPLY” for.
Like a drivers license.
It is NOT a right.
In order to obtain a drivers license you must comply with the guidelines, laws and requirements. You even have to take a test.
And not one, but two tests.
Thus, driving is not a right. Its a privilege that is given to those who comply with the defined requirements and guidelines.
And Tax Exemption is NOT a right either.
In order to obtain Tax Exemption you must comply with the guidelines, laws and requirements.
And one of those requirements is keeping your Theocracy out of my Democracy.
Tax Exemption is a privilege given to those who comply with the requirements for tax exempt status.
Thus, if someone wishes to ignore those requirements they can. They merely do not get to be tax exempt.
That in no way restricts their free speech. They are free to say what they want, and even form a religion and say what they want.
But if they want the PRIVILEGE of tax exemption, then they will need to comply with the requirements.
Your position that we are endorsing the restriction of free speech rests solely on the false notion that Tax Exemption is a given right.
It’s not. It’s a privilege.
You’re free to try and make the case that Tax Exemption is a right and not a privilege if you like.
I wouldn’t if I were you, as it is wholly untenable, but you’re welcome to try.
Otherwise you’ll want to retract your bogus claims that any of us are advocating the restrictions of free speech, because we are not.
We are supporting the founding principle that hopefully we all learned in elementary school, that is, the seperation of church and state.
A principle that does not seem to sit too well with you, for some reason.
Jill, Obama’s faith in action call for renewal stuff is the Kingdom of God on earth movement! Basically there were some extreme fringe nonrepresentative Religious Right folks (“Reconstructionists”, “Dominionists,” etc), that though still around, really had been so marginalized to irrelevance, but now that Obama has based his campaign largely on the religo-political semi-socialistic “social justice” network theology (Jim Wallis, Brian McLaren, Tony Campolo, Jimmy Carter, Sabeel, Palestinian Liberation Theology, etc) and it’s whole ecumenical program is “we are the change”, we can redeem society, we can create the Kingdom on Earth, the far right nutcases are actually realigning and joining with the Obama side, I kid you not!
Just curious, I opened a tab and Googled “Brian McLaren Kingdom Now” and 325,000 entries turned up.
Jill-
If you speak as we wish you to we will reward you, if you speak as we do not want you to we will punish you.
It can not be more plain than that.
Yes, it can be much more plain than that.
Your position still relies on the notion that Tax exemption is a right, which it is not.
Your position ignores this fact.
It is a privilege. And privileges are awarded based on compliance with requirements.
And one of the requirements for a church to be tax exempt is keeping out of partisan politics.
Instead of asking us what we’re all “so afraid they’ll say” you should be asking yourself why you’re so afraid of the concept of seperation of church and state.
mnoble,
I don’t think things are as you describe. As Hugh, CroMM and others have said, tax exemption is a privledge. The rules for obtaining it obtain to any group who applies for it. It is not necessary to apply for it but once you apply for it you follow the rules of it (ideally). This is the same with any other tax laws, for example if you don’t own a home you can’t apply for a mortgage interest deduction.
Where your argument would come into play is should the govt. forbid a religious organization to exist at all, or if it allows it to exist, forbid it free speech. Every religious organization has a right to exist and put forth their teachings. What you envision may well happen after the next election. We may indeed be heading towards a christian theocracy where only certain christian churches will be tolerated in the US.
Cro Magnum Man-
My position does not rely on the notion that tax exemption is a right. Rather my position is that the elitists running the government should not treat people differently based on how they exercise their right to free speech.
The elitist idea that the government should be awarding “privileges” based on “compliance” with the wishes of that elite is counterproductive to the cause of liberty.
Perhaps you should research the origin of the 1954 amendment in question, you may find it as illuminating as I did.
Jill-
I believe you have nothing to fear from the free and unabridged exercise of free speech. What you should fear are the elitists running an increasingly tyrannical government.
mnoble: “What you should fear are the elitists running an increasingly tyrannical government.”
So, a pastor talks to God and God tells him to endorse McCain from the pulpit. That is, the pastor has been commanded to say, “I have talked to God, and God wants us all to vote for John McCain.”
How is this pastor not elitist?
Now let’s fast-forward to a world in which this pastor becomes President of the United States and in which this pastor’s like-minded friends form a majority of the Supreme Court. Over a short period of time, the separation of church and state is removed from the Constitution and many federal and state laws are enacted which implement a certain set of Christian values — fundamentalist ones, which are theologically and culturally at odds with other sets of Christian values, not to mention being at odds with non-Christian values. Ultimately, the Constitution is amended to require all federal and state laws to conform with fundamentalist Christian values. The United States is then not any kind of democracy, but a theocracy.
How is such a government not tyrannical?
Finally, to return to the present, note that the government in no way curtails the pastor’s freedom of speech in a way that any other person’s freedom of speech is not curtailed. The government does require certain kinds of tax-exempt charities (the ones that are exempt under 501(c)(3)) to refrain from electioneering, which is very reasonable: You’re not a charitable organization if you’re endorsing candidates, so you can’t be tax exempt as a charitable organization if you’re endorsing candidates.
Pastors who wish to endorse a candidate from the pulpit are in no kind of quandary. They simply need to withdraw their 501(c)(3) tax exemption and proceed to endorse away.
mnoble
1, September 13, 2008 at 4:46 pm
My position does not rely on the notion that tax exemption is a right. Rather my position is that the elitists running the government should not treat people differently based on how they exercise their right to free speech.
It most certainly does.
In order for the govt to be restricting their freedom of speech they would have to be penalizing them in some way.
They are not.
Tax exemption is a PRIVILEGE, not a RIGHT.
If they wish to APPLY for it, then they will have to comply with the rules and the rules are based on the seperation of Church and State.
mnoble
1, September 13, 2008 at 4:46 pm
The elitist idea that the government should be awarding “privileges” based on “compliance” with the wishes of that elite is counterproductive to the cause of liberty
The “cause” of liberty here in America, includes the seperation of Church and State.
Apparenlty you are not American, otherwise you’d be familiar with this concept.
No worries, I talk to furriners too, so allow me to help.
In this country, still smarting from a thousand years of tryannical persecution by the mother Church at England, our founding fathers decided that religion should keep its faithfilled mitts out of the affairs of government.
Thus, America became a Democracy, instead of a THEOCRACY.
You however apparently live in a Theocracy, like Iran or something.
In these govts, religious belief is mingled with the affairs of state, and as we see from the September 11th attacks, they produce horrific results.
Thus, if you wish to move here to America, you will be required to understand the simply concept, of the seperation of Church and State.
Because we believe in Democracy.
Not Theocracy.
But please feel free to elaborate as to why in your country, the concept of seperation of Church and State, is considered a bad thing.
I’m always eager to learn about other peoples cultures.
CroMM: “a thousand years of tryannical persecution by the mother Church at England”
What? The Church of England was created by Henry VIII.
Again your arguments completely miss the point. Your appearent extreme hatred of churches and church goers seems to blind you. Ironically you express a religious hatred of religion.
If the 1954 amendment were overturned we would return to the condition existing in 1953 in regards this issue. There was no theocracy nor any chance of one in 1953, neither would there be today.
And for someone who proclaims democracy you seem very afraid of what the people may freely choose to do.
mnoble
1, September 14, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Again your arguments completely miss the point. Your appearent extreme hatred of churches and church goers seems to blind you.
lol, I tell you theres enough strawmen in this room sometimes to form a small army.
Newsflash mnoble.
I do not hate churches and I do not hate church goers so you can take back your straw men and stick to the facts.
Cro Magnum Man
1, September 14, 2008 at 8:08 pm
And for someone who proclaims democracy you seem very afraid of what the people may freely choose to do
Another empty claim. Just a general statement accusing me of “being afraid” without any actual specific rebuke of the issue.
So lets talk about what YOU seem to be “afraid” of.
A. You choose to avoid the fact that privileges are based on compliance with guidelines, and that tax exemption is a privilege with guidelines.
B. You choose to avoid even mentioning the long held standing on seperation of church and state, a founding principle of this country.
C. You seem oblivious of the historical disasters with regards to societies whose governments were mingled with religion. You seem to have forgotten that those who attacked us were countries where religion was allowed to mingle with affairs of state. And worse, you seem to have amnesia as to the last 7 and a half years where our country fell under the rule of a government that mingled religious faith with affairs of state, resulting in disasters like the hiring of underqualified high level government personnel, the US Attorney Firing Scandals, etc.
So given the above, am I afraid of America moving further away from the core American principle of seperation of church and state?
You bet.
Am I afraid of America electing another President and Vice President based on religious beliefs and in turn, that President staffing the highest levels of government with unqualified bumpkins simply because they go to the same church?
Absolutely.
But given A, B and C above, it appears you are likewise afraid. Afraid of the facts, afraid of acknowledging history, and afraid of our time honored core principle of the seperation of church and state.
As the amendment in question dates only to 1954 it can hardly be considered a founding principle of this country.
What I am addressing is the amendment to the Internal Revenue Code in question while you seem to be ranting in general about your obsession with the “separation of church and state” and your unfounded belief that I would like a theocracy.
The constitution states in the first amendment: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,…” And what will most likely be argued in court by real lawyers is that by granting some churches tax exemption and others not based on their exercise of free speech the government has violated the first amendment in two ways.
And while you say you do not hate churches and church goers you certainly at least do not trust them to exercise judgement as good as you think yours is.
P.S. What we actually have is a republic not a democracy. Additionally your name calling, “furriners”, makes you appear childish.
mnoble
1, September 14, 2008 at 11:51 pm
As the amendment in question dates only to 1954 it can hardly be considered a founding principle of this country
So I was right, you are from outside of the US?
Because the 1st Amendment in the United States Constitution, was ratified in 1751.
A few years earlier than your countries Amendment.
When you’re done purchasing a new encylopedia, you might want to look up early Americans and events like Thomas Jefferson, William Penn, the Flushing Remonstrance, and the histories of other founding fathers and the drive to seperate Church and State, well before the writing of the first Amendment.
Because at the end of the day, your statement about “the amendment in question” is just another in a series of straw arguments.
I never, ever said my argument was based on the 1st Amendments seperation of church and state. In fact I never even mentioned it.
You, in your obvious ignorance of early American history just assumed that one in a myriad of events, documents, speeches and statements, as well as local actions and legislations, that comprise the “founding principle” of seperation of church and state.
In your pitiful comprehension of the founding of this country you manufacture a weak, monotone position for me, then assign it to me, and proceed to debate it.
I suggest you open a history book and learn a little about this country before trying to push your simple minded doctrine of mingling church and state.
Because our founding fathers, were way ahead of you, centuries ago.
And by the way, before I’d accuse anyone of looking “childish” for simply making a little joke, I’d make sure I actually knew something about the straw argument I was attempting to manufacture.
1954, lol.
Heck, even a 4th graders smarter’n that.
Cro Magnum Man -
Try actually reading the news article Mr. Turley has so kindly linked to above. Quote from the article in question: Such endorsements are prohibited by a 1954 amendment to the Internal Revenue Code that says nonprofit, tax-exempt entities may not “participate in, or intervene in . . . any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office.”
The 1954 amendment is going to be challenged as violating the 1st amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
You know it really helps if you actually read and understand what is being discussed.
And by the way your little joke might be taken as a little racist.
I’m familiar enough with 501c, you were talking about an amendment and claiming I was calling that amendment a founding principle of our democracy.
You said “the amendment in question” which since I am talking about the seperation of church and state, the amendment you went on to quote, I assumed you meant the 1st Amendment.
So now I see instead what you were trying to do, was create yet ANOTHER straw argument by claiming that I was claiming that 501c and religious exemption would constitute a founding principle of our democracy. So you’re lying again.
And when you can step up and explain why you call someone honoring the seperation of church and state “obsessed” and when you can ADDRESS the seperation of church and state, let me know.
In the meantime you can stop lying by way of inventing positions for me, attributing them to me, and then proceeding to debate them as if you were actually debating something I said.
A. I never called the First Ammendment a founding principle of our country.
B. I never called 501c or the Tax code, a founding principle of our country.
C. If you actually knew something about history, you’d know about how this country was formed and the role of seperation of church and state.
If you want your church mingled with your government I suggest moving to Iran, or perhaps Pakistan. You’ll be much happier there slick.
mnoble
1, September 14, 2008 at 11:51 pm
What we actually have is a republic not a democracy
No Cornwallace, its a DEMOCRACY.
A DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC.
If you knew anything about this country, or democracy for that matter, you’d know that;
A. They overlap, Democracies and Republics
B. You don’t bring your freaking church into one.
Or more technically, a Constitutional Republic.
And whatever you’d like to call it, you still need to keep your church out of it.
When you’re ready to address the inherint seperation of church and state, I’ll be listening. Until then, you can stop inventing arguments for me.
ignoble
1, September 15, 2008 at 2:56 am
And by the way your little joke might be taken as a little racist
Only if you’re George W Bush, who everyone knows it is mocking. Otherwise this is just another one of your lies trying to invent intent or content that was never there.
Of course, I guess you might be offended by that if you’re an inbred.
Are you an inbred?
Just asking mind you.
If so then please accept my apologies.
It certainly is a rich and fascinating culture.
Cro,
I bet you’re from the south.
Why?
To paraphrase, “Don’t be foolish! Know what you’re talking about before you say something stupid again. What’s that? Did that bad ol’ joke HURT you? Are you inbred, honey? Well bless your heart!”.
If not southern, it’s a good imitation.
CroMM,
I have to admit I get perplexed by your responses. You often make great arguments and funny statements. Then you do make personal attacks. I understand that other people on this site have made personal attacks against you but why respond to them? How you respond is about you, their attacks are about them.
As to mnoble, I confess I do not understand why he is unsatisfied with the responses of many to what he is saying. I also agree that he is not originally from the US, but so what? I am with you on your responses to the actual points mnoble makes, but I’m not with you on personally attacking him. At a certain point all you can do is make your argument and if it doesn’t get understood, it just doesn’t get understood.
I’m not trying to be mean or attack you here so please don’t take it that way.
Cro Magnum Man -
“furriners”
“Cornwallace”
“freaking”
“ignoble”
“inbred”
Not the level of discourse I had hoped for on this site. But appearently all that you are capable of.
Jill
Then you do make personal attacks. I understand that other people on this site have made personal attacks against you but why respond to them?
Well I probably shouldn’t respond.
But why is it folks always get upset for me responding to them rather than acknowleging the personal attacks I’m responding to in the first place?
mnoble took pleasure all night in fabricating positions (LYING) for me and then had the nerve to imply I was a RACIST.
Perhaps one of the ugliest insults you could imagine, calling someone racist when they clearly are not, hardly compares to a little fun being poked back at them.
I didn’t call him any names, I modified his handle, in fun, and made a couple jokes.
If he can’t take it, then he probably shouldn’t lie about me, or launch personal attacks by calling people racists.
Yomama-sama
1, September 15, 2008 at 7:02 am
Cro,
I bet you’re from the south.
Why?
To paraphrase, “Don’t be foolish! Know what you’re talking about before you say something stupid again. What’s that? Did that bad ol’ joke HURT you? Are you inbred, honey? Well bless your heart!”.
If not southern, it’s a good imitation
No, I’m from New York.
And as for knowing what I am talking about, I’m not the one suggesting there is no seperation of church and state in our democracy. He was.
So perhaps you should try thinking next time before taking another mouthcrap without any facts to back it up.
How’s that sound, slick?
mnoble
1, September 15, 2008 at 9:48 am
Cro Magnum Man -
“furriners”
“Cornwallace”
“freaking”
“ignoble”
“inbred”
Not the level of discourse I had hoped for on this site. But appearently all that you are capable of
Just targeting my opponents intellectual level.
And by the way Junior, better add RACIST to your list, as well as the other insults, lies and strawmen you created trying to sell your halfwit idea that religion should be mingled with the affairs of government.
CroMM,
You have been attacked on this site and it has been in a very ugly way. I have hated those attacks. I can only tell you what it’s like to read back and forth personal attack posts that seem to last a very long time (sometimes days).
It’s really hard to post on a site with all these personal attacks. It keeps real issues from being addressed and it takes away a lot of the wonderful, fanciful humor displayed by many of the people (including you) who post here.
I just want to read what others have to say that is either funny or thoughtful. The rest is stuff that everyone has to skip or scroll through.
I am very sympathetic about being personally attacked, but what the hell, people do stupid stuff. For the sake of your fellow posters, how about just ignoring it, or if that’s not possible, one attack back and just leave it at that? I’m writing this to you because you seem like someone who would consider how your actions effect others. I won’t bring it up again.
Any grade school kid in America is aware of the founding principle of seperation of church and state.
It was expressed into our Bill of Rights under the very 1st Amendment to our Constitution, and that Amendment did not signal the onset of the concept, but the ratification of it as a nation.
The idea itself was a strong committment in the original colonies and was well documented in speeches, trials, acts, laws, etc.
mnoble spent the night arguing as if it didn’t exist and in doing so mocked us, calling us afraid of free speech, implying I was a RACIST, accused me of name calling although I called him none, and in turn, I poked a little fun back at him in response.
If he doesn’t like it, then he shouldn’t climb onto his smug-wagon, and start tossing lies, insults and other stuff to sell his Anti-American ideas.
Jill…
I am very sympathetic about being personally attacked, but what the hell, people do stupid stuff. For the sake of your fellow posters, how about just ignoring it, or if that’s not possible, one attack back and just leave it at that
I didn’t “attack” him Jill. I cracked a few jokes in response to a guy who was LYING about my positions, and calling me a racist.
Theres a big difference.
And I didn’t call him an inbred. I asked if he was one, since he seemed offended by my making fun of President Bush’s speech patterns.
Lets keep the facts straight Jill.
I never “attacked him” and I never called him names.
After being attacked, lied about, implying I was a Racist, etc, I modifed his handle in good fun, and I jokingly referred to him as “Cornwallace”.
Big whoopdy doo.
Jill
1, September 15, 2008 at 8:44 am
CroMM,
I’m not trying to be mean or attack you here so please don’t take it that way
I know Jill. Its all good.
I will say this to you Jill, and I hope you recieve it in the spirit it is given.
Your complaints here about me “responding” to other peoples “attacks” is exactly why democracts keep losing the elections to the republicans.
Its because you can’t “enjoy a good fight”.
Not a fist fight. Not a gun or knife fight. But a “good fight”.
A debate.
A disagreement.
A discussion.
The republicans love a good fight, and they’ll call you out everytime. And when they do, the democrats, invariably begin to cry.
They cry about “playing nice”.
They cry about “mean spirited attacks”.
They cry about the republicans making a joke at their expense.
Only after the public rejects them do they even think of standing up to the fight, and then its always too overboard and too late.
They get mad, instead of getting even and then blow a simple thing, all out of whack.
And that same prinicple I see demonstrated in this blog, every day.
This is a blog. A blog hosted by an Attorney, and a Professor of Law.
ANYONE involved in the law, should by definition enjoy a good debate. A good “fight”.
But few in here do. I think Rafflaw does. I think you do, at times. And there are others.
But for the most part all I hear is people crying about someone engaging in a little clean fun. A little mental wrestling. A little verbal pugilism. A little debate, with some good fun jabs, quips and feints thrown in for good measure.
When people cry about this, and whine about the sheer torment of having to see someones words that you don’t agree with, it really does make them look pathetic. Particularly when certain members (not you) brag about their haughty superiorty due to education, breeding, profession, etc.
If the democrats want to win, then the democrats need to learn to step up to a fight.
I don’t mean a fist fight. I mean a verbal fight. Because thats what politics are at the end of the day.
Crying about “playing nice” and saying things like “just because jimmy calls you names doesn’t mean you have to call him names back” just makes the democrats and liberals in here, and everywhere, look weak. Weak and hollow.
Which is why we keep losing elections.
In 2000 the republicans didn’t beat anyone up in Florida. They just shouted and yelled until the democrats caved, mealy mouthingly saying “its too much” and giving up the count and slinking away to their safe zones.
If they had hung tough, or better yet, shouted back, then we might have not been blessed with the last 8 years of hell and disaster under Trelane, our own little Squire of Gothos who has run America into the ground.
In 2004, if they’d stood up to the republican nonsense about Kerry and his war record, they’d have won then too. But instead they whined about it for a month or so until finally doing something about it, and then of course it was too little too late, and as always, over the top with the bloviating fake indignation.
And now, here we are again, 4 years later, losing again. The war in Iraq was proven to be based on false premises and is as we speak, a disaster, Afghanistan is out of control, gasoline costs 4 bucks a gallon, companies are going under left and right, the Airlines are bankrupt, the Mortgage industry is bankrupt, the banks themselves are now failing daily, and we’re hated by nearly 2/3rds of the world. In fact, the Stock Market effectively CRASHED today, as we speak, dropping 500 points.
And on this same day, we’re notified by the press that John McCain has moved into the lead.
And yet, you guys still want to whine about “playing nice”.
Well, keep on “playing nice”, and come this November, when you’re all sitting here scratching your collective arses and talking about how “we’ll get em in 2012″, then you might begin to get it.
We don’t lose because we’re wrong.
We lose because we’re weak.
Because we’re more worried about “playing nicely” so afraid of a little open debate where people take a few pot shots at each other, that we waste our time whining instead of winning.
I’m from New York. In New York, we don’t like whiners. We like winners. And most people I know, are quite the “characters”. In fact, as I used to say about my old neighborhood, “theres a Don [as in Rickles] on every block“.
A little bantar never hurt anyone, and yet in here, “some” people act like its killing them.
Here you are in a thread thats over a week old, and you’re worried about me mocking my opponent a little in a debate you should be on my side on, by calling him “Cornwallace”.
Ohhhhhh, I called him Cornwallace. OMG, the horror.
You get it Jill? It doesn’t mean anything. Its a joke. And a little one at that, meant to portray my opponent as an opponent to our early democracy, which he is, if he seeks the mingling of church and state.
Not a horrible thing to say about an outsider. Not a terrible accusation. Just a little fun, to put things in perspective.
Yet you write me twice, interupting the debate, to ask me to try and “play nice”.
Well Jill, if you guys (Democrats and Liberals) want to play nice, then I suggest getting out of politics. Because what I did, WAS nice, compared to what the republicans say about the democrats every day, and your Mrs Sally, Romper Room mentality of everyone “getting along” is what has cost the democrats the race for the last 8 years.
And don’t give me 06. We didn’t win sh$t in 06.
Not enough to make any difference, whatsover.
They just let us get slightly numerically ahead, so they could blame stuff on us too.
We’re probably going to lose this November, which means for the next 4 years, a senile old man and a Pentacostal soccer mom from wormwood Alaska is going to be running the country for the next 4 years.
And the reason its going to happen, is because the democrats are too busy crying about playing nice, and then, when they see the voters don’t like crybabies, they start throwing tantrums, over the top indignatious hubris to try and counter a fight that they’ve already lost.
When the liberals and democrats can learn to stop taking everything so personal and learn to stand up to the republicans verbal fights, then the democrats will win one.
Unfortunately for us all, it might not happen this year.
Hey CroMM,
I did/do take it in a good spirit.
Jill
You rule Jill.
Cro magnum man has way too much time on his hands. Go do something useful. You seem like a state paid agitator. There’s plenty of them on the internet so I don’t see why you couldn’t potentially be one. Since I could care less about interacting with you I guess I’ll never know. =)