quote:

ORIGINAL: saved9201

This article out of our local paper. Apparently the preacher is playing to the fears and ignorance of his congregation in order to get his guy elected. Notice the part about how this preacher never intended to offend anyone with the sign.

http://www.nbcaugusta.com/news/local/18009149.html

- Julius

quote:

He took the issue before his congregation Sunday night, and they decided unanimously to keep it.

quote:

only if they devote their efforts to charity instead of political campaigns.

quote:



"It's simply to cause people to realize and to see what possibly could happen if we were to get someone in there that does not believe in Jesus Christ,"

quote:

ORIGINAL: colliefan

quote:

only if they devote their efforts to charity instead of political campaigns.

Then why is it OK for liberal politicians to attend a black church? And what about "Reverends" Sharpton and Jackson?

quote:


Are they really any different from Robertson and Dobson?

quote:


Perhaps the only difference is that they don't claim to represent the views of the church.

quote:

No, both have the same right to speak out on the issues that concern them

quote:

ORIGINAL: colliefan
Didn't Wright claim to represent the views of the church? But the Justice Brothers do claim to represent the views of the church. Why is it that whenever they are interviewed on TV they use the title of Reverend?
Doesn't Peter Gnomes claim the same?

quote:

This is part of the reason that we give churches an incentive to stay out of politics by offering them 401c(3) status only if they devote their efforts to charity instead of political campaigns.

quote:

Are they really any different from Robertson and Dobson?

quote:

What a shameful act! This pastor is no different than Rev. Wright. Whatever happened to the church's mission of seeking and saving the lost?

quote:

What a shameful act!

quote:

"It's simply to cause people to realize and to see what possibly could happen if we were to get someone in there that does not believe in Jesus Christ," he said.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

Yeah, this was a totally obnoxious and unsophisticated maneuver. But it's up to his congregants to decide what should be done about it, not I nor the Federal government.

quote:

Except that the tax-exempt status of the church is based on it using those funds for religious purposes, not for partisan political purposes. The tax laws are pretty clear. Would the congregants be as supportive if they had to pay taxes on their tithes to this church?

The pastor and each congregant are free to place a sign like this on their front lawns. But using tax-exempt funds to carry out political activity is a violation of tax laws of which Christians are not exceptions. Plus the pastor is clearly lying in the interview.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Except that the tax-exempt status of the church is based on it using those funds for religious purposes, not for partisan political purposes. The tax laws are pretty clear. Would the congregants be as supportive if they had to pay taxes on their tithes to this church?

The pastor and each congregant are free to place a sign like this on their front lawns. But using tax-exempt funds to carry out political activity is a violation of tax laws of which Christians are not exceptions. Plus the pastor is clearly lying in the interview.

The problem is now we will need the Federal government to come in and parse a church road sign. Is it a Hillary endorsement? A McCain endorsement? Is it anti-Obama, and does that in and of itself constitute a political statement? What if the sign addressed the religious issues of Rev. Wright's sermons - would that constitute a political message?

When we try to parse these things and separate 'political speech' (which has absolutely no Constitutional basis by the way) from ordinary speech and the free exercise of religion, we inordinately involve the government with the church, which is the reason we have tax exemption to begin with.

quote:


Having John McCain or any candidate speak at the church is not a violation unless the offering is given to him.

quote:

Your histrionics notwithstanding, the tax-exempt regulations assume the church is operating in what a reasonable individual would consider a religious activity. The sign is clearly a political statement. If the church posted a sign opposing a change in a referendum on liquor laws, that could reasonably be considered within the religious realm since it is an issue in which a church could be considered acting on a religious belief. Or, a sign supporting Right to Life is within reason. Having John McCain or any candidate speak at the church is not a violation unless the offering is given to him.

quote:

This action is so clear-cut, the only way to justify it is to say that any religious organization can engage in any political activity, which is not the intent of the tax-exempt regulations as they apply to religious organizations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

First off, the ‘reasonable person’ standard is a moving target. What would be reasonable to one community, or the people within it, wouldn’t be reasonable to another.

quote:

And what is political is clearly contextual. If a local politician was a strong supporter of local liquor laws, and the opposing candidate was against them, then advocacy of those laws could be seen as ‘political’.

quote:

In fact, of all the potential political issues that could be addressed, Obama’s Muslim sounding name is really the least political – indeed, it appeals to something much more base, that is xenophobia.

quote:

The original intent of tax exemption wasn't to prevent political activity, it was to prevent government entanglement with religion, and to acknowledge the benefit that religious and charitable organization are to communites.

quote:

Are you aware of any communities that would consider "Obama and Osama: Are they Brothers" something more religious than political during an election?

quote:

True, but when the local church starts claiming that one of the candidates is related to Timothy McVeigh, one begins to wonder if they have gotten too involved in the political process.

quote:

Why do they even care about Obama, though? (Unless it's in the context of advocacy for Christian morals or anti-abortion; which I don't see here.)

quote:

More importantly, the intent of tax exemption- which was completely rewritten along with the rest of the tax law in tax reforms of 1986- is to give tax-exempt status to charities that "lessen the burdens of government."

Religious organizations that stay focused on charity lessen the burdens of government. Religious organizations that engage in the same activities as PACs don't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Your histrionics notwithstanding, the tax-exempt regulations assume the church is operating in what a reasonable individual would consider a religious activity. The sign is clearly a political statement. If the church posted a sign opposing a change in a referendum on liquor laws, that could reasonably be considered within the religious realm since it is an issue in which a church could be considered acting on a religious belief. Or, a sign supporting Right to Life is within reason. Having John McCain or any candidate speak at the church is not a violation unless the offering is given to him.

First off, the ‘reasonable person’ standard is a moving target. What would be reasonable to one community, or the people within it, wouldn’t be reasonable to another.

And what is political is clearly contextual. If a local politician was a strong supporter of local liquor laws, and the opposing candidate was against them, then advocacy of those laws could be seen as ‘political’.

In fact, of all the potential political issues that could be addressed, Obama’s Muslim sounding name is really the least political – indeed, it appeals to something much more base, that is xenophobia.

quote:

This action is so clear-cut, the only way to justify it is to say that any religious organization can engage in any political activity, which is not the intent of the tax-exempt regulations as they apply to religious organizations.

The original intent of tax exemption wasn't to prevent political activity, it was to prevent government entanglement with religion, and to acknowledge the benefit that religious and charitable organization are to communites.

It was the amendment to the exemption that was an attempt to do this, but it in effect subverts the entire purpose of tax exemption.