Once again I am left virtually speechless but the sheer blind rage in this election. The moral leaders of the Church in the Valley in Leakey, Texas felt that it was appropriate to post this sign reading: “Vote for the Mormon, not the Muslim! The capitalist, not the communist!” Putting aside the violation of its tax-exempt status, church leaders thought nothing of the lesson given their children in making such false and prejudicial statements. It shows the dangerously thin line that separates the faithful from the hateful in our society.
Of course, in addition to repeating the false statement about President Obama’s religion, the sign adds the common and equally ridiculous mantra about his being a communist. A term that, when pressed, seems beyond definition for some of these protesters.
The Church in the Valley headed by Pastor Ray Miller (who came up with the idea of the sign) sees nothing wrong is defining people primarily by their alleged faith — whether it is falsely Obama as a Muslim or Romney as a Mormon.
Equally disgusting is the response of a least one local businessman who insist that the controversy will be good for business. Damon White is quoted as saying “I love it. Even if it’s bad attention, bring it on. Come to town, see what it’s about.” Well, Mr. White, we certainly now know what you are about. It does not matter if it is unfair, prejudicial, and disrespectful, it is good for business. Now there is a lesson for the children of Leakey, Texas.
Notably, on its website, the Church proclaims “We believe our faith should be visible in concrete forms and models of personal and social behavior.” That model appears to include insulting and prejudicial statements about people with whom you disagree as well as use of false claims to achieve your political ends. I don’t recall the passage where Jesus Christ led the smear campaign against Pontius Pilatus. Indeed, I seem to recall something out “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.” Perhaps but it does not sum up Paster Miller or the good people of the Church of the Valley.
Source: KENS as first seen on Reddit.
Darren? What went wrong? did not produce underlined text. nor ´cancel it.
Enoch,
Thank you for the courtesy of an answer.
No, since I see that I must contribute via my taxes to the oil depletion allowance, even though I do NOT qualify for them either.
Do you see your fallacy? (guessing that that will prouce an underline. I did htis skit in 1970 when assembler programming.
Idealist – Food stamps are not universally available: I, for example, do not qualify for them. I may not have them. They are not available to me.
Do you see the error of your position?
Enoch:
“This presents a rather nasty dilemma for all concerned, but most of all, for those who argue that right and wrong evolve and change.”
Yes, there has to be an objective moral/ethical system of government which is based on some unchanging standard. Human life is the supreme value seems a good place to start.
Life, Liberty and Property is a good foundation on which to build a system of government. What else is there? Keep within those walls and individual rights are protected/preserved.
Get rid of any one of them and the whole thing falls apart. You cannot assault life and liberty directly but you can assault property with little dissent.
Regarding right or wrong evolving and changing as if there was something wrong with that, in my own lifetime I have seen this evoving change and some of it was good.
Jim Crow no longer was constitutional.
Jews were no longer discriminated against.
Homsexuality was no longer a crime.
For instance. I could go on and on with change.
eNOCH:
“This presents a rather nasty dilemma for all concerned, but most of all, for those who argue that right and wrong evolve and change.”
Thank you, Darren.
Enoch:
To italicize type the following:
<i> text for italics goes here </i>
for bold type the following:
<b> text here </b>
the “b” means bold and the /b means “cancel bold”
Enforce the IRS rules when it is certainly being violated by these churches, though I would be concerned that this might become rather draconian where the churches are threatened financially for censorship purposes.
Otteray,
What about the tax-exempt political groups?
Tax-Exempt Groups Shield Political Gifts of Businesses
By MIKE McINTIRE and NICHOLAS CONFESSORE
Published: July 7, 2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/08/us/politics/groups-shield-political-gifts-of-businesses.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0
Excerpt:
American Electric Power, one of the country’s largest utilities, gave $1 million last November to the Founding Fund, a new tax-exempt group that intends to raise most of its money from corporations and push for limited government.
The giant insurer Aetna directed more than $3 million last year to the American Action Network, a Republican-leaning nonprofit organization that has spent millions of dollars attacking lawmakers who voted for President Obama’s health care bill — even as Aetna’s president publicly voiced support for the legislation.
Other corporations, including Prudential Financial, Dow Chemical and the drugmaker Merck, have poured millions of dollars more into the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a tax-exempt trade group that has pledged to spend at least $50 million on political advertising this election cycle.
Two years after the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision opened the door for corporate spending on elections, relatively little money has flowed from company treasuries into “super PACs,” which can accept unlimited contributions but must also disclose donors. Instead, there is growing evidence that large corporations are trying to influence campaigns by donating money to tax-exempt organizations that can spend millions of dollars without being subject to the disclosure requirements that apply to candidates, parties and PACs.
The secrecy shrouding these groups makes a full accounting of corporate influence on the electoral process impossible. But glimpses of their donors emerged in a New York Times review of corporate governance reports, tax returns of nonprofit organizations and regulatory filings by insurers and labor unions.
The review found that corporate donations — many of them previously unreported — went to groups large and small, dedicated to shaping public policy on the state and national levels. From a redistricting fight in Minnesota to the sprawling battleground of the 2012 presidential and Congressional elections, corporations are opening their wallets and altering the political world.
Some of the biggest recipients of corporate money are organized under Section 501(c)(4) of the tax code, the federal designation for “social welfare” groups dedicated to advancing broad community interests. Because they are not technically political organizations, they do not have to register with or disclose their donors to the Federal Election Commission, potentially shielding corporate contributors from shareholders or others unhappy with their political positions.
Bron – Where the majority is the ONLY rule (and if someone would like to teach me how to italicize, I’d be grateful), then, yes: if even a simple majority votes for any proposition, from incinerating Jews to chattel slavery or any other horrible thing you can imagine, such is the law.
And if we are to believe that some things are so wrong that no majority can legitimately impose it, we must now figure out the origins, foundations and terms of whatever it is that will let us believe so.
This sets up an inevitable conflict between what seems right, and what our schedule of ethics dictates. If we allow our intuition to trump that schedule of ethics, we’re right back where we started: deciding right and wrong by the weight of those who would follow the trump.
This presents a rather nasty dilemma for all concerned, but most of all, for those who argue that right and wrong evolve and change.
If the IRS actually enforced their own rules, the coffers of the US Treasury would start filling up as tax exemptions were pulled from alleged non-profits, such as churches. Violating that bright line between church and political advocacy should result in revocation of the exemption.
Gene,
Whenever the meaning of a word is in doubt – MY doubt, Gene, not yours – I use the Oxford dictionaries – the Universal, 1955 ed. mostly, and occasionally the on-line Oxford. I use “etymologyonline.com” when the Oxford Universal doesn’t give a thorough enough history of a word. For legal terms, I use any one of several on-line legal dictionaries. For foreign words and expressions, I have several foreign language dictionaries.
I would gladly go farther into the matter with you, except you will not agree to be bound by any of these. Without agreement regarding what either of us means, there is no common ground from which to debate.
So, go take your pills. Enjoy the universe you inhabit alone, and simply accept the fact that I don’t consider a fundamentally dishonest person worthy of my debate.
Oh. One more thing. Post what you like, I will not reply to you.
Enoch,
“I didn’t say anything against shared contributions (from my original post) “[…] for a[ny] good that is not unconditionally, universally and equally available to all.””
Lots of things are universally available. Food stamps, minimum wages—-or as Voltaire said: “sleeping under the bridges of Paris.” But the rich do not avail themselves
of them.
Nor do the poor avail themselves of oil depletion allowances for tax reductions, nor of agrobusiness subsidies either, etc.
Do you see your fallacy? I hope so.
Beyond any smokescreen of of particular political differences the mostly unspoken, but absolutely real fact of Barack Obama’s Presidency has been the racist undertone of much of his most virulent opposition. This man is a political centrist in the mold of Bill Clinton. In action he would fit in well with the political actions of Eisenhower, Nixon and Ford. While this is not my particular political cup of tea I’m realistic enough to know that most Americans think themselves centrists even if they ignore the particulars of that position, which are inimical to their self interests.
That the President has been so vilified with ridiculous allegations of being simultaneously a Communist, NAZI, Muslim and Kenyan, really are used as “code” that he is a Black man. While there are many legitimate reasons to disagree with the President’s policies. I do in many areas, deeming him far too establishment in thought and action for my tastes. The overarching continuous attacks on him by the minions of the Right are at bottom based on his skin color. After the passage of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, the racists in this country modified their savage rhetoric into “code” words that everyone understood referred to peoples skin color.
1964 also coincided with the defeat of Barry Goldwater and the determination of some of this nation’s monied elite that they must spend their wealth in a campaign to use propaganda and advertising techniques to re-frame the debate between Liberals and Conservatives in a manner that would demonize
“liberals” and sanitize the fact that most “conservative” thinking was in the interests of the few, thus structurally limiting its mass appeal.
Along the way, so to speak, they infiltrated the Church Pews of Fundamentalist
Christians (mainly Southern Baptists whose teachings had previously sanctified both slavery and racism. The infiltration was financial. The result is that in the minds of these “fundamentalists” Christ’s message has become one of Capitalism and hatred, mainly racially based. The insanity of this particular church is merely another example of the fruits of this long term initiative.
Enoch:
I guess what you are saying is that if 3/4’s of the states agree that daughters can be held in common, then have at her.
Democracy is a very messy thing or it can be if the people are uneducated and have no regard for each other.
ElaineM,
“A line of separation? I’ve witnessed many of the faithful in this country who are hateful. For such people religion is a ruse of holiness.”
I think their use of religion hides their “sins” and their hatefullness from themselves.
BUD,
Gandhi is quoted as saying the following in return to a question of how he liked the British civilization (he attended Oxford or some such).
“Which? I did not note any.”
Paraphrase of cxourse.
Enoch,
Just got back, directly to answer you, bypassing other comments.
Only if she wore garments of wool and linen mixed!
Silly examples prove no principles. It was realism I sought, and you did not come with it. I gave you support against motor mouth, but expect no quarter otherwise.
No expertise nor ad hominems either. If my arguments don’t bite, then I don’t have to prove anything here.
Hear, hear, Justice Holmes!
No one has a right to a tax exemption! Tax exemptions are privileges based on the fulfillment of certain criteria. One of them is to stay out of partisan politics. For every dollar of exemption this “church” enjoys the rest of us pays a bit more. I for one am tired of it. It is time, high tint, for the IRS to go after churches who think they are above the law.