Religious leaders say they are speaking about public policies, not candidates --- sure they do ... and fly the xian and US flag side by side at the alter.
On Nov 6, 12:02 pm, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > Hey Plain Ol'; > > I don't know if my highlighted quote from your article came through or not > on my last post Plain Ol. In general, I don't at all disagree with the > separation of "Church" and "Political Campaigns". I do see where there can > be a dilemma when a Church is advocatiing a part and parcel of it's tenets > and separating these tenets from a particular candidate. The Catholics, > and the Democrats position on free contraceptives, to be supplied by > Catholic Charities, is a classic example. > > *...."The tax code allows a wide range of political activity by houses of > worship, including speaking out on social issues and organizing congregants > to vote. But churches cannot endorse a candidate or engage in partisan > advocacy. The presidential election has seen a series of statements by > clergy that critics say amount to political endorsements. Religious leaders > say they are speaking about public policies, not candidates, and have every > right to do so."....* > > On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 6:31 PM, plainolamerican > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > churches cannot endorse a candidate or engage in partisan > > advocacy. > > --- > > and should be held accountable when they do. > > who is keeping the IRS from prosecuting these churches and religious > > organizations? > > > Attorney General Eric Holder, the IRS, and ACLU lawyers plan to hold > > briefings for hundreds of black pastors to advise them how to best > > “participate” in the 2012 elections, according to The Washington > > Examiner. In other words, the pastors will be taught by the federal > > government how to campaign for President Obama in a “legal” fashion. > > > We will have representatives from nine denominations who actually > > pastor somewhere in the neighborhood of about 10 million people, and > > we’re going to first of all equip them with the information they need > > to know about what they can say and what they cannot say in the church > > that would violate their 501c3 status with the IRS,” Rep. Emanuel > > Cleaver, D-Mo., told MSNBC today. > > > …We want to let [the pastors] know that there is a theological > > responsibility to participate in the political process,” Cleaver > > summarized. > > > Welcome To The Soviet Socialist Republics of Amerika, > > Having central government officials tell church officials what their > > “theological responsibility” is, at the behest of the ruler of the > > country, sounds like a directive right out of the old Soviet Union, or > > perhaps the current “elected” officials of Cuba or North Korea. > > > And only black churches will receive this “advice.” The implication > > is that black churches have a pass to campaign for Barack Obama, but > > white churches or any others will similarly have, by implication, a > > threat hanging over their tax exempt status should they campaign > > against Barack Obama. This is the coercive power of the State in a > > blatant and racist power grab to rig the election in favor of the Anti- > > President. Coming on the heels of the lawsuits filed by Catholic > > organizations against Obama’s attack on their religious freedom, does > > anyone doubt this is retaliation against non-black churches? > > > What Happened To Separation of Church and State? > > It’s well known that liberals only care about separation of church and > > state when the church is against a liberal state. For example, when > > churches were stridently anti-Bush, the media wrote stories supporting > > them against any IRS investigation into violations of their tax exempt > > status. Now, being against Obama gets you stories in favor of > > revoking said church’s tax exempt status. > > > Even though the bishop never explicitly said not to vote for Obama in > > 2012, Americans United (for the Separation of Church and State) said > > his controversial remarks still ran afoul of the law. > > > When can we expect them to similarly complain about Holder and the IRS > > doing this? > > > In this case, the IRS is going to actively tell churches how to > > campaign on only one side. The federal government is going to use > > black churches to effectively campaign for the Anti-President, and the > > media will have no problem with it. And why would they? They are > > also arms of the State. > > > Where then are the infamously rabid “separation of church and state” > > lawyers of the ACLU? Oh, that’s right. The ACLU, the biggest > > litigation-happy bunch of liberal, hypocritical trolls masquerading as > > “civil rights” crusaders in history, is actually helping the > > government with its little tax law skirting project. > > > “In fact, we’re going to have the IRS administrator there, we’re going > > to have the Attorney General Eric Holder there, we’re going to have > > the lawyers’ organization from around the country, the ACLU — all > > giving ministers guidance about what they can and cannot do,” he > > noted. > > > Bragging About Election Law Violations. > > Representative Emanuel Cleaver, whose Congressional Black Caucus, says > > quite plainly what his little project is all about. > > > Cleaver said they would not tell pastors which candidate to support. > > They will let them know who to regard as the bad guys, though (hint: > > not Democrats). > > > “President Obama is going to get 95 percent of the [African American] > > vote,” and wants to keep that turnout high. > > > And using the Attorney General of the United States and the IRS to > > directly do that constitutes multiple violations of the Hatch Act. > > The most obvious one is this: > > > May not knowingly solicit or discourage the participation in any > > political activity of anyone who has business pending before their > > employing office. > > > Every one of these churches (and the churches not getting the special > > “advice,” for that matter), by virtue of their tax exempt status, > > perpetually has business pending before the IRS. That’s what makes > > this particular and blatant partisan encouragement of black churches > > to pontificate on policy so egregious. > > > It Is Once Again Time To Impeach This President. > > These officials should be brought up on charges, and so should anyone > > involved in this in the Obama campaign or White House. It’s time for > > a new special prosecutor, and it’s long time for the House to begin > > impeachment….as if they didn’t already have enough reasons. Maybe > > John Boehner could dry his tears and detach his lips from Obama’s > > behind long enough to do his job as Speaker for a change. > > > Catholic and any other non-black church should file a massive combined > > suit against the federal government immediately, citing racial and > > religious discrimination, and complaints to the Federal Election > > Commission should be filed as well. > > > On Nov 6, 9:22 am, Keith In Tampa <[email protected]> wrote: > > > A thin line here, no question..... > > > > *"The tax code allows a wide range of political activity by houses of > > > worship, including speaking out on social issues and organizing > > congregants > > > to vote. But churches cannot endorse a candidate or engage in partisan > > > advocacy. The presidential election has seen a series of statements by > > > clergy that critics say amount to political endorsements. Religious > > leaders > > > say they are speaking about public policies, not candidates, and have > > every > > > right to do so." > > > * > > > > On Tue, Nov 6, 2012 at 4:12 PM, plainolamerican > > > <[email protected]>wrote: > > > > > For the past three years, the Internal Revenue Service hasn't been > > > > investigating complaints of partisan political activity by churches, > > > > leaving religious groups who make direct or thinly veiled endorsements > > > > of political candidates unchallenged. > > > > Associated Press > > > > New York > > > > Nov 5, 2012 > > > > > The IRS monitors religious and other nonprofits on everything from > > > > salaries to spending, and that oversight continues. However, Russell > > > > Renwicks, a manager in the IRS Mid-Atlantic region, recently said the > > > > agency had suspended audits of churches suspected of breaching federal > > > > restrictions on political activity. A 2009 federal court ruling > > > > required the IRS to clarify which high-ranking official could > > > > authorize audits over the tax code's political rules. The IRS has yet > > > > to do so. > > > > > Dean Patterson, an IRS spokesman in Washington, said Renwicks, who > > > > examines large tax-exempt groups, "misspoke." Patterson would not > > > > provide any specifics beyond saying that "the IRS continues to run a > > > > balanced program that follows up on potential noncompliance." > > > > > However, attorneys who specialize in tax law for religious groups, as > > > > well as advocacy groups who monitor the cases, say they know of no IRS > > > > inquiries in the past three years into claims of partisanship by > > > > houses of worship. IRS church audits are confidential, but usually > > > > become public as the targeted religious groups fight to maintain their > > > > nonprofit status. > > > > > "The impression created is that no one is minding the store," said > > > > Melissa Rogers, a legal scholar and director of the Center for > > > > Religion and Public Affairs at Wake Forest University Divinity School > > > > in North Carolina. "When there's an impression the IRS is not > > > > enforcing the restriction — that seems to embolden some to cross the > > > > line." > > > > > The issue is closely watched by a cadre of attorneys and former IRS > > > > officials who specialize in tax-exempt law, along with watchdog groups > > > > on competing sides of the church-state debate. > > > > > Americans United for Separation of Church and State, which seeks > > > > strict limits on religious involvement in politics, and the Alliance > > > > Defending Freedom, which considers the regulations unconstitutional > > > > government > > ... > > read more » -- Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more.
