Re: Whose Ox is Gored?
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On the eve of the 2004 election, a liberal Christian pastor in Pasadena preached (what is reportedly) a highly political anti-war and anti-poverty sermon with the result that the IRS is threatening to take away the church's tax-exempt status. I haven't read the entire sermon, but it is available on the NPR web site for anyone who is interested. The text of the sermon is here: http://www.allsaints-pas.org/pdf/(10-31-04)%20If%20Jesus%20Debated.pdf#s\ earch=%22regas%20sermon%22 http://www.allsaints-pas.org/pdf/(10-31-04)%20If%20Jesus%20Debated.pdf#\ search=%22regas%20sermon%22 It looks like Dave Land may have spoken too soon. In my first glance at this speech, I see a speech that might get close to the existing legal lines, but does not, in my estimation cross over them. The speech is a little in the gray area, because despite some rhetorical flourishes that attempt to appear to criticize both Kerry and Bush, the speech is, in fact, a systematic knock-down of much of Bush's platform. Nevertheless, I think that expressing opinions on specific issues - even if those positions align with those of a specific candidate - should be permissible for tax-exempt religious organizations. With that being said, I don't understand how the pastor can imagine Jesus saying that the State has no right to impose its view of when human life begins on other people, that there can never be a just law requiring uniformity of behavior on the abortion issue, but that the State has a moral imperative to take other people's property and give it to others. It seems to be that that is getting it exactly backwards - surely if the State can intervene on behalf of property it can intervene on human life. So, I don't find much to like in this sermon - its lofic seems completely fuzzy and faulty, but with that being said, I don't find anything here to jeopardize its tax-exempt status. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Whose Ox is Gored?
On Sep 23, 2006, at 6:05 AM, jdiebremse wrote: ... With that being said, I don't understand how the pastor can imagine Jesus saying that the State has no right to impose its view of when human life begins on other people, that there can never be a just law requiring uniformity of behavior on the abortion issue, but that the State has a moral imperative to take other people's property and give it to others. It seems to be that that is getting it exactly backwards - surely if the State can intervene on behalf of property it can intervene on human life. ... JDG Would that be an equation of property to life, then? - Jonathan - ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Whose Ox is Gored?
At 11:03 AM Saturday 9/23/2006, Gibson Jonathan wrote: On Sep 23, 2006, at 6:05 AM, jdiebremse wrote: ... With that being said, I don't understand how the pastor can imagine Jesus saying that the State has no right to impose its view of when human life begins on other people, that there can never be a just law requiring uniformity of behavior on the abortion issue, but that the State has a moral imperative to take other people's property and give it to others. It seems to be that that is getting it exactly backwards - surely if the State can intervene on behalf of property it can intervene on human life. ... JDG Would that be an equation of property to life, then? Is your living body your property? -- Ronn! :) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Whose Ox is Gored?
On Sep 20, 2006, at 9:02 PM, jdiebremse wrote:
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gibson Jonathan [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
My problem with this particular situation is a serious lack of
evenhandedness shows deepening flaws. For almost two decades I've
watched conservative politicians court and skirt this set of rules -
especially in the South - and more recently listening to my California
mother in-law recount her pastor advocating first Bob Dole and then
the
GwB tickets with strong admonitions to his flock against the other
candidates {with an amazing amount of vitriol towards Kerry}...
On the other hand, there seems to be a much stronger tradition of
Democratic candidates actually campaigning in Churches, than of
Republicans. Of course, these are in historically African-American
Churches, and for whatever reason it doesn't seem to generate much
outrage every four years.
JDG
Sure. Pot calling the kettle black, heh?
Do the ends really justify the means for so-called Conservatives?
As I stated, both situations are worthy of critical review.
In this particular, as I recall, a huge swath of that ONE B-B-B-BILION
PUBLIC DOLLARS went to black churches. Out of, or into, this mulligan
stew of faith-based emotions, gyrating prejudices, and
our-side-can't-be-wrong... came such lovely testaments to brotherly
love as graphic flyers of a black man on his knees to a white man with
messages about gay marriage - just the thing for retrograde southern
demographics whichever color the audience skin!
Karl Rove was humming over that one.
What has changed over the last few decades is the wholesale intermixing
of the tax-free religious machinery with the monster money raising
juggernauts that stalk the landscape now. The scale alone ought to
give one pause. Not content to rig markets, now the monied are fixing
religion firmly to the civic processes directly - to short-circuit the
basic notion of democratic rule. Churches have had a sheltered tax
life under certain constrictions they are ever-more willing to
transgress. They appear just as power-crazed as the political
operatives they champion. Some would call this tax evasion {what's Pat
Robertson worth now, a $ billion?}, while some call it politics. How
about calling it bankrupt morally and fraud prone?
What we see in this Republican-Christian axis is a fine-tuned
demographic slicing machine geared to shave a few points off my
demographic here, add a few more to yours there, playing into their 50%
+1 vote methodology for winning. In fact, I think if Democrats don't
get off their asses soonest, the Republican savants will win again this
fall. Forget actually governing - it's all about winning. And
carrying big sticks. And don't bother us with the facts because our
minds are made up. One wonders just what contextual frame Rove's gay
father puts all this. Supposedly they get along well - belying his own
church propaganda that gay-ness is incompatible with family. That
moral leaders are so willing to glad-hand Karl Rove and the tactics
he embodies makes a mockery of rose-tinted claims to superiority these
churches espouse - and those people outside the stained glass see this
clearly for what it is.
We all lose when a minority rules a majority through chicanery and this
hardly makes for a stable structure.
A big wag of the finger at Americans for sitting still for all this so
long.
Jonathan Gibson
www.formandfunction.com/word
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Whose Ox is Gored?
On 9/18/06, Dave Land [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On the eve of the 2004 election, a liberal Christian pastor in Pasadena preached (what is reportedly) a highly political anti-war and anti-poverty sermon with the result that the IRS is threatening to take away the church's tax-exempt status. I haven't read the entire sermon, but it is available on the NPR web site for anyone who is interested. The text of the sermon is here: http://www.allsaints-pas.org/pdf/(10-31-04)%20If%20Jesus%20Debated.pdf#search=%22regas%20sermon%22 Non-profits are not prohibited from being political, not by any means. They are *only* prohibited from endorsing candidates. They can endorse laws and policies. I see no endorsement of a candidate in that sermon. In fact, although he is more critical of the administration's policies, he certainly challenges Kerry along with Bush. The scenario is a debate among Jesus, Bush and Kerry... and the winner is Jesus, so that's where his endorsement goes. I suppose that the IRS could accuse him of endorsing an undeclared, illegal (since he isn't a U.S. citizen) candidate named Jesus, but that would be truly ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with pastor saying, Here are some things to think about before deciding who to vote for, which is what this one did. I think the IRS is way out of line. I would hope that more pastors would be willing to challenge their members' thinking about war and poverty.. and the Americanized hijacking of Christianity by the religious right. Our pastor did so a couple of weeks ago and caught some grief for it from some of our members... but more power to him. Imagine a country in which churches and other non-profits are not free to speak out against war, poverty and other social ills. That's hardly what our Constitution describes and not a system in which I would want to live. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Whose Ox is Gored?
In case anybody wants the wording of the IRS code: 'prohibits these organizations from participating in, or intervening in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.' It seems as though a lot of people stop reading at any political campaign. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Whose Ox is Gored?
Hullo Dave, all,
I applaud your gesture of even-handedness as this is a useful reminder
for maintaining a civil tone and maybe, just maybe, getting to root
issues. A problem well-stated is a problem half-solved, and all. I
just wished our system actually worked as we are sold it does.
My problem with this particular situation is a serious lack of
evenhandedness shows deepening flaws. For almost two decades I've
watched conservative politicians court and skirt this set of rules -
especially in the South - and more recently listening to my California
mother in-law recount her pastor advocating first Bob Dole and then the
GwB tickets with strong admonitions to his flock against the other
candidates {with an amazing amount of vitriol towards Kerry}... all the
while declaring these Abramhoff-Delay empowered figures hold the true
chalice of god in their goals and actions. I've watched the
Republican-Church axis exercise all manner of illegal cross-pollination
from mailing list sharing to clergy passing out Republican flack-sheets
for the faithful to blanket parking lots, to bold political fund
raising in churches w/nary a peep from our bureaucracy.
Given this administrations' proclivity to seek the advocacy of such
imagination-rich organizations and fear-centric groups it's important
to note they've actively been shoveling public cash {$1B last I heard}
into churches sympathetic to administration talking points: and RoveCo
is counting on this to establish a one party state.
It's no accident so many religious ills are associated with
Conservative movements, because the incompatible views of these
religions each demand they are right, they each speak solo God's word -
and when you sprinkle in old paternal cultural excuses for squelching
social dissent it makes for a plethora of handy excuses ripe for
bipolar fanatics and the craven to abuse. This is true here in America
as well as in the Middle-East. Today, it's the swarthy guy with the
funny name getting hauled away in secret for rendition like a piece
of slaughterhouse meat, next it's the smart aleck guy who likes boys
who gets a rough version of justice, then it's the nay-sayer who makes
noise about religious paradoxes, etc.
But we have seperation, he's not going to push them as Christian
values means nothing when he pushes the same thing with the
religious tag stripped off, with a whole branch of criticism not
avaliable entirely due to the tag stripping.
AndrewC
He's right up to a point. The civil peace he enjoys now is several
centuries from King James personally splitting Presbyterian shins. I
don't know if it's laws or social expectations that keep religion in
check there currently. My knowledge of British law social customs is
weaker than of American, but I don't see any reason why greater
intolerance couldn't return there too. Get enough Red Bull mixed
drinks into a crowd of skinheads and you have riots, enough skinheads
in the population and all hell breaks loose across the nation.
Our own traditions in America stem from the steady flow of refugees
unable to practice their own flavors of faith. That and the Kings'
East India Company monopolies left a bad taste in our mouths and the
Founders and Framers took pains to exclude the abuses of power. It
worked - mostly, and for a while, but appears to be waning now for lack
of populace support and a concerted effort by the monied. I personally
believe religion is feel-good fantasy, but so is self-medicating with
alcohol Viagra and I can leave it aside for this discussion.
Both our systems share a common history generally marked by the Magna
Carta with touchstones around the English Revolution that
institutionalized the limits of a King. There is nothing that I am
aware of that would stop this from happening again here in America, or
in England, if the populace became fearful and overly paranoid and the
state became sufficiently overbearing and maniacal.
Madison Avenue as left the Agora and entered the Forum following a
trail of gold spilling from money-changer pockets. Anything can be
sold with enough funds singing carefully scripted topics laid out by
ever-fewer media owners - what's the difference between this and the
old Soviet/Pravda lock on public discussion we used to feel smug
comparing?
Look at how our {mis} leadership under GwB seeks this very week to
remove Habeas Corpus {or, where is the proof} from the American lexicon
- and even the John McCain / Republican rump rebellions fail to include
such terms again showing just how easily norms can change when
anxiety and fear-mongering are given loose reins. So much for the
staunch defenders of Liberty - more like wimps knee-jerking at shadowa
- and that Democrats are mute on this topic is a congenital lack of
courage and leadership. Now Busheviks want to codify this so
abduction, abuse, incarceration w/o facing accusers - or even proof, is
legal. This, and
Re: Whose Ox is Gored?
--- In [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gibson Jonathan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
My problem with this particular situation is a serious lack of
evenhandedness shows deepening flaws. For almost two decades I've
watched conservative politicians court and skirt this set of rules -
especially in the South - and more recently listening to my California
mother in-law recount her pastor advocating first Bob Dole and then
the
GwB tickets with strong admonitions to his flock against the other
candidates {with an amazing amount of vitriol towards Kerry}...
On the other hand, there seems to be a much stronger tradition of
Democratic candidates actually campaigning in Churches, than of
Republicans. Of course, these are in historically African-American
Churches, and for whatever reason it doesn't seem to generate much
outrage every four years.
JDG
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Whose Ox is Gored?
On 18 Sep 2006 at 20:00, Dave Land wrote: Folks, Time and time again, the charge is leveled by one Brineller against another that the accused would not be so outraged (at least to the point of posting to Brin-L) over some political or religious shenanigans if the result had favored his or her position. It doesn't matter whether the preacher was saying something that I agree with or was holding forth with the kind of dominionist stuff that I would rather just go away: the principle needs to stand, or the bargain between these two highly powerful forces in our lives will go wildly out of balance. Dave, I hope you're aware that you, with your last paragraph did precisely what you complain about with your first? Just because it's an issue relevent to all America doesn't mean all of us are American. The principle you're upholding is used, in every case I can find about this, as a shield to push - usually religious - views in a way which defys criticism on those grounds. Nothing else. Britian has had an established, religious monarchy for centuries, and has no principle of seperation whatsoever. There are candidates who are Christian, and talk about Christian values. A few. In fact, it's considered basically counterproductive because people who dislike christian values can openly discuss the views and the candidate. But we have seperation, he's not going to push them as Christian values means nothing when he pushes the same thing with the religious tag stripped off, with a whole branch of criticism not avaliable entirely due to the tag stripping. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Whose Ox is Gored?
Dave Land wrote: Comes now the case of the IRS vs. All Saints Church. Yikes. The IRS is the Absolute Evil everywhere. I side with whoever is against it, be it a pedophile, a taliban or Al Capone. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
