Politics from the Pulpit

[TacticalEvilDan]

“Abrasive, alarmist, and dismissive, all without addressing anything I actually said.” - TacticalEvilDan

Guess you must have missed the part where I said that “[c]hurches had the right to speak freely until 1954 and at no time was the Republic ever threatened” as evidence that your comment is “outrageous, unsubstantiated, ludicrous and fundamentally-stupid”

No. You just totally missed how I framed my statement. You see "religion + politics = automatic disaster" and nothing else, but that isn't what I said.

 

[tryreading]

“Yes, Johnson did want said law. But if you don't want to follow the law, don't take the money.” - tryreading

I got a better idea--let’s overturn the law for what it is…unconstitutional.

Fine. And let's abolish 501 C (3) status.

You obviously think its right for religious entities to attempt to sway the democratic process with government money. That's corrupt.

Government money, our money. The church didn't pay in.

 

[The Baron]

“I agree. If the property they are standing on gets fully taxed just like the property I'm sitting on is, then they can say what they wish from their paid for pulpit. This is the point teh Baron refuses to recognize above.” - RosieS

The thing you fail to understand is that your First Amendment rights, as well as those of preachers, etc., is your right.

You don’t have to pay for it in the form of taxes to be able to practice that right.

 

[The Baron]

“You obviously think its right for religious entities to attempt to sway the democratic process with government money. That's corrupt.” - tryreading

Another fundamentally stupid comment.

How is it any more "corrupting" for churches to play a role in our democratic process than for the ACLU, ACORN, The Rainbow Coalition, the teacher’s unions, etc.?

 

[The Baron]

"No. You just totally missed how I framed my statement. You see "religion + politics = automatic disaster" and nothing else, but that isn't what I said." - TacticalEvilDan

No, you've adopted a fundamentally stupid point-of-view that has now been proven false and you've been called on it.

Period.

 

[tryreading]

“Yes, Johnson did want said law. But if you don't want to follow the law, don't take the money.” - tryreading

I got a better idea--let’s overturn the law for what it is…unconstitutional.

One other point: The law controls a corporation, prohibits it from spending our money to promote a politician. It only limits the preacher when involved in his duties under that corporation.

In his personal life he is not prohibited.

 

[tryreading]

“You obviously think its right for religious entities to attempt to sway the democratic process with government money. That's corrupt.” - tryreading

Another fundamentally stupid comment.

How is it any more "corrupting" for churches to play a role in our democratic process than for the ACLU, ACORN, The Rainbow Coalition, the teacher’s unions, etc.?

Anybody using charity money, free money from taxpayers, to intervene politically should be stopped.

Prove that with any of the entities you name and you should pursue enactment of law to prohibit their activities.

Or are you too fundamentally stupid to follow that?

 

[Ned Racine]

Anybody using charity money, free money from taxpayers, to intervene politically should be stopped.

Prove that with any of the entities you name and you should pursue enactment of law to prohibit their activities.

Or are you too fundamentally stupid to follow that?

Acorn Never got an Public Money(???) Like 100% in Never (??) Can one write a check to the ACLU and get any write off(??) How about the Southern Poverty Law Center (??)

 

[tryreading]

Acorn Never got an Public Money(???) Like 100% in Never (??) Can one write a check to the ACLU and get any write off(??) How about the Southern Poverty Law Center (??)

I never said they did or didn't. That's his point to make, not mine.

This thread is about politics from the pulpit, and that's what I'm doing.

 

[TacticalEvilDan]

No, you've adopted a fundamentally stupid point-of-view that has now been proven false and you've been called on it.

By all means, continue to substitute insults for reasoned argument. If you want to be a joke, that's fine by me. :lol:

 

[Ned Racine]

Recent History has shown that Religous involvement by some Church's if they tilt Progressive gets a full pass from most media, and is never portrayed as an irregularity - but when The Christian Right fully emerged in the 70's then there was concern by Intellectuals as to the proper course in these matters.

The late Coretta Scott King after her husbands death endorsed, supported, worked for, appeared with and raised Money for scores of Liberal Democrats including attending Debates as part of the Democrat core support group. Nobody in media raised an objection to this.

BTW - in 1969 she also endorsed desertion from the US Armed Forces.

 

[tryreading]

Recent History has shown that Religous involvement by some Church's if they tilt Progressive gets a full pass from most media, and is never portrayed as an irregularity - but when The Christian Right fully emerged in the 70's then there was concern by Intellectuals as to the proper course in these matters.

The late Coretta Scott King after her husbands death endorsed, supported, worked for, appeared with and raised Money for scores of Liberal Democrats including attending Debates as part of the Democrat core support group. Nobody in media raised an objection to this.

BTW - in 1969 she also endorsed desertion from the US Armed Forces.

Have the links to all these profound facts been wiped out by the liberal media?

 

[Ned Racine]

One profound fact was her giving an endorsenent to the Ordination of an individual to Minister to US Draft Dodgers & Deserters abroad. It happened. CBS has the tape.

In 1974 She and her Father in Law Martin Sr. openly endorsed then Democrat Congressman Hugh Carey (NY) for Governor. It happened. CBS has the tape.

In 1980 She along with Jesse Jackson Appeared with then President Jimmy Carter in his one debate in Cleveland and were in the post debate congratulatory line. ABC has the tape.

 

[tryreading]

One profound fact was her giving an endorsenent to the Ordination of an individual to Minister to US Draft Dodgers & Deserters abroad. It happened. CBS has the tape.

In 1974 She and her Father in Law Martin Sr. openly endorsed then Democrat Congressman Hugh Carey (NY) for Governor. It happened. CBS has the tape.

In 1980 She along with Jesse Jackson Appeared with then President Jimmy Carter in his one debate in Cleveland and were in the post debate congratulatory line. ABC has the tape.

They may have the tapes, but you're supposed to supply the links. To back up your claims.

But, just to humor you, how do these things violate IRS law per 501 C (3)?

 

[Ned Racine]

They may have the tapes, but you're supposed to supply the links. To back up your claims.

But, just to humor you, how do these things violate IRS law per 501 C (3)?

You can humor me into oblivion if you like. The point IS the media since the Christian Right emerged has been critical of them and their Political involvements , but overlooked the Left at other points in time. Insofar as Jesse Jackson openly raising cash in Black Church's in 1984 & 1988 - Well , Most informed people knew NOTHING would be done about it.

BTW - I've done this Link Game tit for tat on other forums. Most of those doing it are not exactly being honest.

 

[Aunt Spiker]

So? Everybody who makes an income has to pay income taxes and SE tax if self employed. And if you don't pay in the proper amount through the year, you have to make up for the remainder at the end of the year.

There's no 'gleening' from him. Why shouldn't he pay income tax? Everybody else does.

I wasn't saying "he shouldn't pay his income/property/etc tax from his paycheck." What I was saying is that "he pays his personal taxes - but his personal speech and religious freedoms are quelched all for the sake of the church's tax-exemption status."

They're forced to choose one or the other.

People shouldn't have to choose "free speech" or "no free speech"

 

[Cephus]

Far too many churches struggle just to keep the lights on and will not risk raising the ire of the IRS to practice their right to free speech.

If they cannot stay in business, maybe they ought to go out of business. It's entirely up to them, as it is with any business, profit or non, to attract customers, entice "sales", etc. If they can't do it, close their doors and let a business that can support itself take over the property. Churches are nothing special, nor should they be treated as such.

 

[cpwill]

exactly. which is frankly how it should be; and even that commentary shouldn't be direct.

 

[Josie]

Exactly. The church, synagogue or mosque that attempts to combine itself with the state should be shut down and a true church, synagogue, or mosque can be invited to take its place for as long as they adhere to the Constitutionally mandated separation of church and state.

There's a large difference between a church, synagogue or mosque combining themselves with the state (that requires the state's participation as well) and a preacher speaking about politics from the pulpit. The first is unConstitutional (as well as the state trying to take over churches and tell them what to do). The second is Constitutional under freedom of speech.

All that said, I HATE it when preachers talk politics from the pulpit....that's not their job.

 

[The Baron]

“One other point: The law controls a corporation, prohibits it from spending our money…” - tryreading

So a corporations money is “our money”? How very Socialist of you.

“…to promote a politician. It only limits the preacher when involved in his duties under that corporation.” - tryreading

The state has no right to “limit” a preacher. Try reading the First Amendment.

“Prove that with any of the entities you name and you should pursue enactment of law to prohibit their activities.” - tryreading

Just the fact that you asked this speaks volumes.

 

[tryreading]

I wasn't saying "he shouldn't pay his income/property/etc tax from his paycheck." What I was saying is that "he pays his personal taxes - but his personal speech and religious freedoms are quelched all for the sake of the church's tax-exemption status."

They're forced to choose one or the other.

People shouldn't have to choose "free speech" or "no free speech"

That's wrong. In his corporate position there are certain restrictions. In his personal life he can endorse whomever he likes whenever he wants.

 

[tryreading]

“One other point: The law controls a corporation, prohibits it from spending our money…” - tryreading

So a corporations money is “our money”? How very Socialist of you.

“…to promote a politician. It only limits the preacher when involved in his duties under that corporation.” - tryreading

The state has no right to “limit” a preacher. Try reading the First Amendment.

“Prove that with any of the entities you name and you should pursue enactment of law to prohibit their activities.” - tryreading

Just the fact that you asked this speaks volumes.

I guess I wasn't clear.

The existing law controls a 501 C3 corporation, not an individual. The corporation essentially gets to keep tax money for itself (which would be public money), if it follows the laws that accompany incorporation. If it doesn't follow those laws, it must pay those taxes.

And the state does have the right to control certain actions, even speech or religious ones. Try praying out loud in a court room that is in session. You will be forced to stop.

I am a capitalist, by the way. What I was saying was if the entities you named are a certain type of corporation it is possible that they could be and should be prevented from using public money to intervene in politics.

 

[The Baron]

"The existing law controls a 501 C3 corporation, not an individual." - tryreading

Corporations are made up of people who have a First Amendment right to engage in the political process as they see fit. The fact that you and others do not care for the idea is the reason that we have the First Amendment in the first place.

 

[Cephus]

There's a large difference between a church, synagogue or mosque combining themselves with the state (that requires the state's participation as well) and a preacher speaking about politics from the pulpit. The first is unConstitutional (as well as the state trying to take over churches and tell them what to do). The second is Constitutional under freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech, indeed any freedom, is never unlimited. A preacher has every right to step out of the pulpit, take off their collar and speak about anything they want as an individual. However, while in the pulpit, wearing the collar, they are not speaking as an individual but as a representative of the church and as such, they have limits concerning what they can and cannot speak about. The same is true of many different groups. Soldiers, wearing the uniform, cannot say the same thing as they can wearing their civilian clothes. There are limits to free speech and consequences to failing to recognize those limitations.

 

[tryreading]

"The existing law controls a 501 C3 corporation, not an individual." - tryreading

Corporations are made up of people who have a First Amendment right to engage in the political process as they see fit. The fact that you and others do not care for the idea is the reason that we have the First Amendment in the first place.

You finally got it right. A corporation is not a person. It is actually an artificial person. And like you say, the people, the actual individuals when not cunducting business for that corporation, have a right to engage as they see fit.

Of course the corporation, and its officers, in exchange for getting a huge financial break - from the government - must follow certain rules that accompany that break.