Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Jun 9, 2004.
Just because you put on a robe and believe in God doesn't mean you have lost the right to not only decide who you want to vote but also to try to sway others to vote the same. Does not mean you lose your right to free speach. Unless you live in America apparently.
I see nothing wrong with this.
especially with the provision included in it I have marked in red.
Oh, I like this one:
The provision also would allow clergy members to commit three "unintentional violations" of the tax rules on political activity each year without risking the loss of tax-exempt status.
Sounds like an invitation to sin, with instant absolution. Not many churches offer such a deal, but now they'll be getting it.
Man, this is scary. There is a clear reason for the separation of church and state unless of course gw wants to send us back to the dark ages. This, is only the beginning of christianization of US politics if he gets his way.
So would it be ok if teachers started advocating for a candidate the same way as churches? You know, only if they made clear they were doing it in their private capacity, not in the official job capacity of course. I bet that would get some GOP panties up in a knot real fast....
how 'bout Planned Parenthood?
So your saying because someone becomes a priest they stopped being a private citizen? All this is saying is that they can do the same thing as a private citizen can as long as they are not representing the church or using church funds to do it.
Not in a classroom, not on a field trip. But on their day off why not? In fact what stops them from doing it now on their day off?
Oh give me a break. Our whole country was founded on the idea of groups being FREE to express their opinions. Why should religious groups be singled out? Groups like PETA, Planned Parenthood, Greenpeace, all have agendas too. Any group has positions and they have the right to try and convince other people that they are right or wrong. Its up to the people of the country to then decide what should and shouldn't be ok (obviously within the limitations of the Constitution).
Please read the first ammendment. It grants Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion. People who expect people to keep their ideologies and political views seperate simply because they believe in God are taking away the very freedom they are trying to defend.
What the first ammendmant is set up to do is keep the Government from establishing one religion as THE religion in this country. However as long as all religious and other groups have the equal right to express their views their is not a problem.
I'd like to point out that religious groups have championed some very important causes in the history of this country, such as abolitionism and civil rights. Should Martin Luther King not have been allowed to voice his view on equality because he was a minister? I think not.
And if you think for a minute that there is some sort of "Christianization" of the Country occuring you should note that abortion is still legal, gay marriage is becoming legal, the Ten Commandments monument was taken OUT of the courthouse in Alabama, and "Under God" was ruled unconstitutional in the pledge of allegiance.
The freedom for a group, any group to express their views and try and convince others to support those views is the fundemental building block of a free country. So long as that group stays within the bounds of law (i.e. not advocating for an official state religion, or outlawing religion alltogether). If you don't like what they are saying oppose that, but don't oppose their right to say it. That is a dangerous precdent to follow, not allowing people you disagree with to express their views. You should think about that.
Actually, it sure sounds like something that would benefit the Democrats greatly, except that they already have the benefit locked in.
Remember the politicking that goes on in black churches? I think its the Democrats that have like 90% of the black votes.
Overall, I don't see any problem at all with the bill. Also, it does not run counter to the 1st Amendment right to freedom of religion.
In fact, I would like to see it expanded.
Can I get tax-exempt status if I promise to not engage in partisan politics?
Would be nice to never have to fill out a Form 1040 or see any income tax withholding. Heck, I'll promise to not engage in partisan politics in a heartbeat.
Krizoitz, good points (as per usual)...I think what frightens people (myself included) is the power of moral authority that Religion holds...which, of course was why there was a separation of Church and State, to prevent absolutism in power structures. While it is true, that we as a Nation sought to prevent one Church from being the Religion of the State, in real terms Christianity is THE de-facto US religion, whether explicit or not. As far as freedom of opportunity goes, it is true that there is an opportunity for all Religion in America, but Christianity is by far the wealthiest, most influential, and respected/legitimate (if only by it's age and numerical strength), and will disproportionately benefit from this access. It is much like politics, where everyone has an equal opportunity to run for office, but it is the main, established parties and their nominees that actually do.
This all ties in with my real fear, is that various groups will basically use God's name in vain (blaspheme), using the authority of the Church to advance a very un-Christian agenda...if you substitute the authority of a Nation in these same means, you get Fascism...so I am a little wary...
I know that you are a decent and fair Christian and person, Krizoitz, but many who call themselves your brethren are not. I am sorry that you are made to personally suffer, as a result of dealing with the lowest-common denominator.
Nobody's brought this up yet, but if an organization enjoys a tax exemption under section 501(c)(3) of the tax code, they're effectively barred from becoming involved with political activities. I wonder if any thinks this limitation is "unfair" or a violation of the First Amendment -- or does it only become a problem when it applies to religious organizations?
But do they get 3 'unintentional violations per year' or would they be fired for their first offense?
You ignore the fact that Hispanics make up the largest ethnic minority in the US and are much more likely to be religious than any other group. The Hispanic vote is much less Democrat oriented than the Black vote is. Also, Hispanics are by and large Catholic. There's also the question of Muslim clerics being able to support the candidate of their choice and the potential for conflict with the (Un) Patriot Act.
This is a stupid idea. Religious leaders have every right to condone or condemn whomsoever they desire on their own time. One of the conditions of tax exempt status is to refrain from politics while at the pulpit. If the country has a problem with that then it needs to go through Congress not through the WH.
Nope they don't even get fired for their 4th offense if they have tenure. Teachers been using there classes as a means to brain wash their students for years.
Apparently they aren't or there wouldn't be a need to make a law saying it is ok for them to preach their politics when they are off duty from preaching there religion. Of course an argument could be made that a preacher is always on duty.
Thats only a recent occurrence. Prior to that, blacks were the largest minority group in the United States.
Tax exempt status, I'm ambivalent about that. Seems that the tax-exempt status is being used as a wedge in order to stop organizations (and their members) from exercising their constitutional rights.
i don't think that's the right way of looking at it. not-for-profit groups that exist for humanitarian reasons are given favorable tax status because they are supposed to help all people equally, w/o prejudice.
Seem like the government is infringing on peoples freedom of religion and speech, but its ok as long as its aimed at Christianity, or atleast thats what the left wants us to believe.
I think some arguments would be going differently here if the religious organizations were Wicca, Islam, Buddhist, etc.
THe problem I've personally seen with churches is that they insist one follow their religious tenants while receiving their benefits.
Examples: I volunteered in a home where girls who were pregnant and could not live with their own families went. The home was a non-profit and decidedly religious. The girl I was partnered with became very "Christian" up until her baby was born and she was able to move out on her own. I would personally prefer to see sincereity in religious belief/practice than manipulated (as was her case by her house parents).
I also know of homeless sanctuaries that force people through a 2 hourish religious service before providing food etc.
I don't think this is what Jesus had in mind...
If someone is not paying taxes, should they be allowed to use that tax free status to promote the politician of their choice? I don't think so. It's not just a matter of Christianity. Or have you forgotten the wide range of religon in the US?
The point of this is to avoid the promotion of any one religion. In order to be applied fairly it has to be applied across the board. Take a look at Europe and the middle east, politics and religion don't mix.
I agree with Neserk, if Jesus' teachings were what most "Christians" followed, then there would be no need for the law. Sadly, few Christians follow Christ's path.
This isn't about allowing a tax free institution to spread their political beliefs but about individuals not being allowed to spread their political beliefs because they are a member of a tax free institution. This is about individual rights. When he's not wearing a robe and he's not using church funds to do it he should be free to politic any way he sees fit.
You need to remember that the left doesn't like competititon.
The left wants you to worship government and the state. Why else are they trying their hardest to make sure that you are subservient and dependent on the state?
You forgot to capitalize. It's The Left when you are making those sweeping generalizations that you like so much.