Originally Posted by Dr.Lecter
Do you guys see why I can't stand DB now? He's even said in this thread that he thinks what this bishop is doing is disgusting, but he can't stop defending him.
I mean seriously, how devoid of intellectual integrity do you have to be to say "I think it's disgusting, but that doesn't mean he's doing anything wrong" with a straight face?
Last edited by ICRockets; 11-02-2012 at 05:44 PM.
I think the bishop is dead wrong to require that of his priests. With all due respect to Gibby, the top down approach to church government is one of the reasons I'm not a Roman Catholic. You can have individual church pastors that venture too close to becoming political, and all you have is one church that is influenced. But when you've got a bishop, every priest under him is going to feel some obligation to follow orders, whether or not they actually follow through. In all fairness, I have seen a lot of news reports over the years where democratic candidates for office have been invited to speak from the pulpit in a lot of city churches. I don't know if anyone could ever come up with numbers to indicate which party gets more of a push from churches, but it does go both ways.
I've made up my mind. Don't confuse me with the facts.
A wise man doesn't waste effort telling the world he's wise. If it's true, it will be self-evident.
Nah, I forgot who I was talking to.
But at the risk of witnessing one of those dumbass, rambling tyrades you exhibited at the Range...it goes like this...
In the very first post of this thread, after posting the article..the poster brought up the 501 (c) (3) issue, the "tax thingy".
Others in the thread were agreeing
"No...Churches CANNOT endorse a candidate:"
"corporations and papers don't receive tax-exempt status partially on the basis of being apolitical."
"I don't know if "illegal" is the right term, as the punishment would not be a legal one, but they are not supposed to endorse candidates if they are receiving tax-exempt status. So, they either need to STFU or start paying taxes."
DB is questioning whether this is a violation of 501(c)(3). In fact, he says it isn't.
I think it is a closer call, based on IRS Rev. Rul. 2007-41
In particular, it states:
Section 501(c)(3) organizations may
take positions on public policy issues,
including issues that divide candidates
in an election for public office. How*
ever, section 501(c)(3) organizations must
avoid any issue advocacy that functions
as political campaign intervention. Even
if a statement does not expressly tell an
audience to vote for or against a specific
candidate, an organization delivering the
statement is at risk of violating the polit*
ical campaign intervention prohibition if
there is any message favoring or opposing
a candidate. A statement can identify a
candidate not only by stating the candi*
date’s name but also by other means such
as showing a picture of the candidate,
referring to political party affiliations, or
other distinctive features of a candidate’s
platform or biography. All the facts and
circumstances need to be considered to
determine if the advocacy is political cam*
It then has a laundry list of some of the factors it considers when making a determination.
Most of the factors are of the who, what, where, how, and why variety.
Did it name a specific candidate?
Was it one in a series of issue statements made by the 501(c)(3)?
Was it made close to an election or made close to a vote on a specific bill?
Is it an issue specific or is it candidate specific?
It isn't black and white, no matter what people want to believe. It isn't as simple as "HA, he made a statement on a political issue, strike the tax exemption!"
In 2004, Julian Bond, Chairman of the NAACP, spoke at their national convention and brought up the issue of whether Republicans had suppressed, if not stole, the black vote in the 2000 election and demanded of his members that they not tolerate that (Republican) conduct in the future. Bush was brought up by name in the speech.
Some Neocon senators went to the IRS and demanded that the NAACP's status as a 501(c)(3) be revoked.
I don't see much difference here, except for the change in party affiliation.
I don't see a lot of sustained arguments that it's illegal, though. People aren't upset that this guy isn't going to jail over it. They're upset that he's such a flagrant *******. But somehow, a guy who agrees that he's being a ******* is defending him.
Long you live and high you fly And smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry And all you touch and all you see Is all your life will ever be.
It's exactly the 'intellectual integrity' that has long been missing from our representation at most levels of gov't. Check your personal moral code at the door, dumbass...you're there to legislate based on protecting and upholding the Constitution, not enforce your own individual views on everybody else's lives.
Read it out loud, and you can almost hear Fred Phelps speaking "I mean seriously, how devoid of intellectual integrity do you have to be to say "I think it's disgusting, but that doesn't mean he's doing anything wrong" with a straight face?".
I guess this is becoming a huge issue!
Pulpit politics: Pastors endorse candidates, thumbing noses at the IRS
With the presidential election a dead heat and many other races too close to call, hundreds of religious leaders nationwide are urging their congregations to vote for a specific candidate. They break the law when they do so — that's the point — but it's unclear whether there's any real penalty for pastors who make such endorsements from the pulpit.
About 1,600 pastors across the country violated a 58-year-old ban on political endorsements by churches in October by explicitly backing political candidates in their Sunday sermons, according to the Alliance Defending Freedom of Scottsdale, Ariz., a conservative Christian legal organization behind a campaign called Pulpit Freedom Sunday.
The 1954 law they are challenging prohibits charitable groups, including most churches, from making candidate endorsements, but doesn't bar ministers, priests, rabbis and imams from speaking out on other ballot issues, like voter initiatives, or organizing get-out-the-vote drives and education efforts around elections themselves.
The alliance is seeking to force a court showdown over the constitutionality of the law, violation of which can cost churches their tax-exempt status. Since Oct. 7, the original Pulpit Freedom Day, many pastors who participated in the protest have posted their remarks online or sent them to the Internal Revenue Service, essentially daring the agency charged with enforcing the prohibition to put up or shut up.
So far, the IRS has done the latter.
It seems pretty clear to me that the statement is "at risk of violating the political campaign intervention prohibition".Section 501(c)(3) organizations may take positions on public policy issues, including issues that divide candidates in an election for public office. However, section 501(c)(3) organizations must avoid any issue advocacy that functions as political campaign intervention. Even if a statement does not expressly tell an audience to vote for or against a specific candidate, an organization delivering the statement is at risk of violating the political campaign intervention prohibition if there is any message favoring or opposing a candidate. A statement can identify a candidate not only by stating the candidate’s name but also by other means such as showing a picture of the candidate, referring to political party affiliations, or platform or biography. All the facts and circumstances need to be considered to determine if the advocacy is political campaign intervention.
Of course, if the IRS isn't going to go after the Mor(m)ons for their stance against gay marriage and the Westboro Baptist Church for its stance against sanity, there's little chance they will do anything against the monolithic church no matter how wrong and out of step they are.
Solution: extermination. All priests are hereby ordered to go to their local purple-roofed Ethical Suicidal Parlor.
Gailey's history. He just doesn't know it yet.
There is no better place than church to talk about political issues because they are ultimately moral issues, First Lady Michelle Obama told a church gathering on Thursday.
“To anyone who says that church is no place to talk about these issues, you tell them there is no place better – no place better,” Obama told the African Methodist Episcopal Church’s 49th general conference, held in in Nashville, Tenn.
“Because ultimately, these are not just political issues – they are moral issues,” she said. “They’re issues that have to do with human dignity and human potential, and the future we want for our kids and our grandkids.”