1) Does free speech apply to a myth?
It’s not a church that’s trying exercise free speech, although the claim has been made that that’s what politically activist churches are doing. But what they are really doing is perporting to be the free speech voice of a god who has no voice in reality, no corporeal substance, no proof of existance or a legal ID. Forget political activism, we give a tax exemption for this? And we bitch that illegal aliens might get some health care? Ha ha ha ha ha !

2) Does freedom of religion protect the religious rights of children? Not very well. Or does it protect the right of parents to choose for them? Pretty much it does. Does it give parents a right to teach creationism as the only true science? There is plenty of parents getting away with it.
Once you take your kid out of school you can indoctrinate them however you want, and the evangelical right is there to help with “science” books illustrating man’s co-existance with dinosaurs and a heavenly host of ignorant myths. All supported with great pictures co-opted from real science and used to inspire wonder and awe.If you’ve ever looked at these books, it’s at this moment of wonder that get hijacked and steered down a logically falacious road of insidous design. And I say this having one of my four kids home schooled and several friend families’ kids who’ve done very well in their higher educations. I’m not against home-schooling. But, give evangelicals control of our school systems for one generation and democracy will sink like a stone. But back to my question. We all love, cherish and will do anything to protect our kids, but they’re not our property per se. They can be removed from our custody. But to do so because religious indoctrination is crushing their hopes of ever really understanding freedom would be an exercise in futility and exacerbate the issue.

I never really understood the beauty of not taking the lord’s name in vain until I became an athiest.

I did/do take it in a good spirit.

Jill

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Not the level of discourse I had hoped for on this site. But appearently all that you are capable of.

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.

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.

If so then please accept my apologies.

It certainly is a rich and fascinating culture.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

1954, lol.

Heck, even a 4th graders smarter’n that.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

What? The Church of England was created by Henry VIII.

I’m always eager to learn about other peoples cultures.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Just curious, I opened a tab and Googled “Brian McLaren Kingdom Now” and 325,000 entries turned up.

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.

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.

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.

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

Again I ask you, and perhaps you can honestly answer this time, why are you so afraid of what they may say?

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.

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?

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.