quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

You're not understanding. You mentioned the seperation of church and state. You had the right amendment but the wrong part. It's a free speech issue. ALL speech must always be free for everyone or it means nothing.

Yes, churches are tax exempt but that has nothing to do with the right of free speech. There's no linkage. Essentially, you're saying if any church makes any statement that could be remotely associated with politics, they cease to be a religion? Does that mean that a politician that has ever attended a church service should be barred from politics?


Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

You're not understanding. You mentioned the seperation of church and state. You had the right amendment but the wrong part. It's a free speech issue. ALL speech must always be free for everyone or it means nothing.

Yes, churches are tax exempt but that has nothing to do with the right of free speech. There's no linkage. Essentially, you're saying if any church makes any statement that could be remotely associated with politics, they cease to be a religion? Does that mean that a politician that has ever attended a church service should be barred from politics?


Michael

Preachers can say anything they want. When they endorse particular politicians, or particular legislation, or particular parties, they cross the line into political advocacy, and become political activists. At that point, they forfeit (or should, in a secular society) any privileges granted by society.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper

quote:

Proof that the Girl Scouts of America support Planned Parenthood:
1. GSA is composed of girls.
2. Girls grow up to be mothers.
3. Mothers need medical care.
4. Planned Parenthood provides a lot of medical care for women.
QED: GSA supports Planned Parenthood...
(note that by the same logic, the Catholic Church supports Planned Parenthood LOL)

That's not proof that's allegation ... but you're battin 1000 tonight anyway ... saw your horneyguy post RE Limbaugh earlier... haven't gone back since the thread is mostly likely either a) a shitstorm or b)you apologizing to half the female posters on the planet

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

Michael, please reread my post. If churches with to take political stances, that's cool. But they shouldn't keep their tax exempt status if they do so.

Regardless of the political stance they show.

I read the entire post. You're not understanding. You mentioned the seperation of church and state. You had the right amendment but the wrong part. It's a free speech issue. ALL speech must always be free for everyone or it means nothing.

I HATE the nazis but, I have to support their right to march and print their leaflets. If I don't, someday, someone will come along and want to silence me or a group to which I belong.

Yes, churches are tax exempt but that has nothing to do with the right of free speech. There's no linkage. Essentially, you're saying if any church makes any statement that could be remotely associated with politics, they cease to be a religion? Does that mean that a politician that has ever attended a church service should be barred from politics?

I have to go to karaoke but ... No, no. No, no, no. No.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

quote:

Why doesn't that ever seem to be an issue when a preacher advocates or endorses a Democrat? I don't see other Dems throwing hissy fits when that happens.

quote:

Actually they just laughed, though one gal said she was too fat to post a nude vid...

quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper

quote:

Why doesn't that ever seem to be an issue when a preacher advocates or endorses a Democrat? I don't see other Dems throwing hissy fits when that happens.

It could be that ETHICAL Clergy know better than to screw with the people's right to a government free of church control and they do it by casting their ONE VOTE.
Trust me, they're rare, but they're out there.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper

quote:

Actually they just laughed, though one gal said she was too fat to post a nude vid...

Easy now, she's probably a friend.

quote:

And, they aren't "selling" politics. If the GSA was in league with PP (and I'm not saying it is, so don't jump my ass to provide a stupid link), wouldn't the barring of the GSA from activities on church property coincide with their stance against PP? Btw, that answer is yes.

quote:

Actually, I was gonna tell her to post the vid and I'd bet her that I'd get a woody from it. But I figured I'd already pushed my luck...

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

Not a case of hatred. Hell, I attended Catholic masses for fifteen years when married to a Catholic. It's just that when churches tell us how to vote, they've overstepped a line.

How is this a case of them telling us how to vote? Are you serious? It's a case of: "We don't like who you associate with. I'm sorry but you can no longer use our facility (at a very nominal fee)"

I have attended many an AA meeting in many a Catholic church basement. I have seen meetings "thrown out" because of some of the things that went on at the meetings (fights, failure to clean up, after, etc.). By your logic, the church wants people to be hopeless drunks?

Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: searching4mysir

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

You're not understanding. You mentioned the seperation of church and state. You had the right amendment but the wrong part. It's a free speech issue. ALL speech must always be free for everyone or it means nothing.

Yes, churches are tax exempt but that has nothing to do with the right of free speech. There's no linkage. Essentially, you're saying if any church makes any statement that could be remotely associated with politics, they cease to be a religion? Does that mean that a politician that has ever attended a church service should be barred from politics?


Michael

Preachers can say anything they want. When they endorse particular politicians, or particular legislation, or particular parties, they cross the line into political advocacy, and become political activists. At that point, they forfeit (or should, in a secular society) any privileges granted by society.

Why doesn't that ever seem to be an issue when a preacher advocates or endorses a Democrat? I don't see other Dems throwing hissy fits when that happens.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

Not a case of hatred. Hell, I attended Catholic masses for fifteen years when married to a Catholic. It's just that when churches tell us how to vote, they've overstepped a line.

How is this a case of them telling us how to vote? Are you serious? It's a case of: "We don't like who you associate with. I'm sorry but you can no longer use our facility (at a very nominal fee)"

I have attended many an AA meeting in many a Catholic church basement. I have seen meetings "thrown out" because of some of the things that went on at the meetings (fights, failure to clean up, after, etc.). By your logic, the church wants people to be hopeless drunks?

Michael

False Comparision (Analogy). The use of the Pulpit by clergy for the purpose of advocating legislation, or the support of a politician, has nothing to do with the use of the facilities.

quote:

Preachers can say anything they want. When they endorse particular politicians, or particular legislation, or particular parties, they cross the line into political advocacy, and become political activists. At that point, they forfeit (or should, in a secular society) any privileges granted by society.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SoftBonds

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hippiekinkster

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

Not a case of hatred. Hell, I attended Catholic masses for fifteen years when married to a Catholic. It's just that when churches tell us how to vote, they've overstepped a line.

How is this a case of them telling us how to vote? Are you serious? It's a case of: "We don't like who you associate with. I'm sorry but you can no longer use our facility (at a very nominal fee)"

I have attended many an AA meeting in many a Catholic church basement. I have seen meetings "thrown out" because of some of the things that went on at the meetings (fights, failure to clean up, after, etc.). By your logic, the church wants people to be hopeless drunks?

Michael

False Comparision (Analogy). The use of the Pulpit by clergy for the purpose of advocating legislation, or the support of a politician, has nothing to do with the use of the facilities.

I think there is a miscommunication here.
DarkSteven, and Hippie, are both talking about the way the church spoke against the current President's policies, not the church telling the girl scouts to find someplace else to meet.
I'm pretty sure Michael thought the issue was that the GSA was kicked out by the church.
Hope everyone is on the same page now...

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr


Well, that's originally what it was then, when I successfully refuted that it became "seperation of church and state and the catholic church has become a PAC (Some of which pay no taxes, also {moveon.org}). Then, when I put that one to bed, it became about churches had no right to comment on what they perceive to be bad law.

1) It's just build straw man
B) attack the straw man
3) Wait to be shown how you're wrong so you can build another strawman

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

The trouble is; I have some respect for DS and I know that quite a few people do, here. Being so reckless with picking battles that are actually wrong is important.

By the way, Re: dems and religion? Reverend Wright.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

I think the problem here is assuming that churches are the only nonprofits who are prohibited from political activity to maintain their status.
I think the tax code # is 401c nonprofit.
Even fraternal organizations such as Elks and Moose are prohibited from political activity in their meetings or they lose their non profit status. You can talk about politics in the lounge all you want but in any official capacity or in meetings, it is explicitly VERBOTEN by the charter of the organization.
If the local lodge said "Vote for X (even if he is a member)" during a meeting, they lose their status and national can revoke their charter.
Churches are SUPPOSED to abide by the same rules. They're above the law so they don't.
As soon as a minister puts on his vestments, he is acting as an officer of that organization and as such is prohibited by IRS tax code, not the constitution, from talking politics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

I think the problem here is assuming that churches are the only nonprofits who are prohibited from political activity to maintain their status.
I think the tax code # is 401c nonprofit.
Even fraternal organizations such as Elks and Moose are prohibited from political activity in their meetings or they lose their non profit status. You can talk about politics in the lounge all you want but in any official capacity or in meetings, it is explicitly VERBOTEN by the charter of the organization.
If the local lodge said "Vote for X (even if he is a member)" during a meeting, they lose their status and national can revoke their charter.
Churches are SUPPOSED to abide by the same rules. They're above the law so they don't.
As soon as a minister puts on his vestments, he is acting as an officer of that organization and as such is prohibited by IRS tax code, not the constitution, from talking politics.

Sorry, HW. The issue here is "If you are a non-taxed entity, you can have no say in politics". That's a nice fairy tale but the truth is just about every PAC in the country is a non-taxed entity and the IRS code is 527 (The term used to describe tax-exempt PACs). Now, if we want to make the issue: "No one with tax-exempt status can offer a political opinion", I'm all for it. But, that means ALL such organizations; not just the ones that we don't want to have a voice.

That would be really fun. Every PAC would have to pay taxes on the donations they receive. With a lot of them receiving well over $1,000,000 per year, that puts them squarely in the 50% bracket.

I'm down for that.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

quote:

ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr

quote:

ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam

I think the problem here is assuming that churches are the only nonprofits who are prohibited from political activity to maintain their status.
I think the tax code # is 401c nonprofit.
Even fraternal organizations such as Elks and Moose are prohibited from political activity in their meetings or they lose their non profit status. You can talk about politics in the lounge all you want but in any official capacity or in meetings, it is explicitly VERBOTEN by the charter of the organization.
If the local lodge said "Vote for X (even if he is a member)" during a meeting, they lose their status and national can revoke their charter.
Churches are SUPPOSED to abide by the same rules. They're above the law so they don't.
As soon as a minister puts on his vestments, he is acting as an officer of that organization and as such is prohibited by IRS tax code, not the constitution, from talking politics.

Sorry, HW. The issue here is "If you are a non-taxed entity, you can have no say in politics". That's a nice fairy tale but the truth is just about every PAC in the country is a non-taxed entity and the IRS code is 527 (The term used to describe tax-exempt PACs). Now, if we want to make the issue: "No one with tax-exempt status can offer a political opinion", I'm all for it. But, that means ALL such organizations; not just the ones that we don't want to have a voice.

That would be really fun. Every PAC would have to pay taxes on the donations they receive. With a lot of them receiving well over $1,000,000 per year, that puts them squarely in the 50% bracket.

I'm down for that.



Peace and comfort,



Michael

Thats the diff between a 401c and a 527. As I said though, it isnt the constitution as many claim. It's the IRS.