Author: "No More Candy-Assed Christianity"

[talksalot]

I do not know that 'candy assed Christianity' is really all that prevalent. They are already vocal and rather vehement. What is it that you think they are not doing?

Really? Christians rioting, protesting, squatting, blocking the streets, venting on talk shows, shouting down speakers at town hall meetings....? What you got?

 

[Timmy]

The Muslims are cutting off the heads of the Christians. When did the Christians start cutting of the heads of Muslims?

Have you ever read a history book? Christans have had no problem with killing people .

Oh and it's not ancient history. How many hate crimes are we seeing these days? So called christians are attacking people daily.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Nonsense.

Book of Jeremiah PoliticalChic

You cannot deny that there has been an increase of so-called hate crimes against gays, transgender people. blacks, Jews, Hispanics. These include murders.

Nor can you deny that most are committed by self-described "christians".

"Hate Crime" is one of those made-up terms by Liberals.

Nor is there 'hate speech' nor 'thought crimes.'

Except to you totalitarians who demand unthinking submission to their elites.

Re

The Muslims are cutting off the heads of the Christians. When did the Christians start cutting of the heads of Muslims?

Have you ever read a history book? Christans have had no problem with killing people .

Oh and it's not ancient history. How many hate crimes are we seeing these days? So called christians are attacking people daily.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Nonsense.

Book of Jeremiah PoliticalChic

You cannot deny that there has been an increase of so-called hate crimes against gays, transgender people. blacks, Jews, Hispanics. These include murders.

Nor can you deny that most are committed by self-described "christians".

"Hate Crime" is one of those made-up terms by Liberals.

Nor is there 'hate speech' nor 'thought crimes.'

Except to you totalitarians who demand unthinking submission to their elites.

Really? Then there is no such thing as terrorism . It's a form of hate crimes you know .

 

[pinqy]

Although Christianity in its many varieties was the religion of the original colonies, Christianity does not preach operational dominance over the body politic in America.

But many Christians have and do. Or are you claiming anti-sodomy laws were proposed by Muslims? Or that it's Muslims who have pushed for Creationism to be taught in schools? Or for mandatory school prayers? When Congress and town halls etc open with a prayer...what religion is predominant?

Muslim taxi drivers protested having to transport passengers with dogs or alcohol as contrary to their religion. Barely made the national news.
Christians protested having to bake a cake for homosexuals and it's all over the news with vocal support and calls for new legislation.

I have spent many years fighting against Islamic terrorists, and the Taliban...but Islam is not trying to dominate the U.S. at this time. Christians are.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Have you ever read a history book? Christans have had no problem with killing people .

Oh and it's not ancient history. How many hate crimes are we seeing these days? So called christians are attacking people daily.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Nonsense.

Book of Jeremiah PoliticalChic

You cannot deny that there has been an increase of so-called hate crimes against gays, transgender people. blacks, Jews, Hispanics. These include murders.

Nor can you deny that most are committed by self-described "christians".

"Hate Crime" is one of those made-up terms by Liberals.

Nor is there 'hate speech' nor 'thought crimes.'

Except to you totalitarians who demand unthinking submission to their elites.

Re

Have you ever read a history book? Christans have had no problem with killing people .

Oh and it's not ancient history. How many hate crimes are we seeing these days? So called christians are attacking people daily.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Nonsense.

Book of Jeremiah PoliticalChic

You cannot deny that there has been an increase of so-called hate crimes against gays, transgender people. blacks, Jews, Hispanics. These include murders.

Nor can you deny that most are committed by self-described "christians".

"Hate Crime" is one of those made-up terms by Liberals.

Nor is there 'hate speech' nor 'thought crimes.'

Except to you totalitarians who demand unthinking submission to their elites.

Really? Then there is no such thing as terrorism . It's a form of hate crimes you know .

Gads, you're a moron.

I have no problem with the 7th century savages thinking anything they wish....or say.....it's when they act on the atavistic barbarism that I reach for a gun.


You have incorporated every one of the characteristics so prized in the Fascistic government school re-education camps that turn out cookie-cutter zombies, unable to think beyond DNC talking points.


There is a guaranteed cure for your problems: the next time you’re playing Donkey Kong, practice bomb disposal at the same time.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Although Christianity in its many varieties was the religion of the original colonies, Christianity does not preach operational dominance over the body politic in America.

But many Christians have and do. Or are you claiming anti-sodomy laws were proposed by Muslims? Or that it's Muslims who have pushed for Creationism to be taught in schools? Or for mandatory school prayers? When Congress and town halls etc open with a prayer...what religion is predominant?

Muslim taxi drivers protested having to transport passengers with dogs or alcohol as contrary to their religion. Barely made the national news.
Christians protested having to bake a cake for homosexuals and it's all over the news with vocal support and calls for new legislation.

I have spent many years fighting against Islamic terrorists, and the Taliban...but Islam is not trying to dominate the U.S. at this time. Christians are.

As you've reached for some imagined 'Christian' law with which you have a personal dislike, allow me to give an actual political attempt by your side to turn America into the gulag you aim for.....


Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

Can you explain what you Fascists have against the first amendment???




And....not too hidden in the above question is an explanation for the affection Democrats/Liberals have for Islam....
Both demand submission.

 

[hobelim]

Muslims and Christians are the same. Thank god the Jesus freaky have evolved where they don't really follow the religion . Bunch of fakers .

Yeah...you know how those Christians are constantly beheading people and setting off bombs around the world.

I've seen them eat the brains of babies while their parents and family stood there and did nothing as if they were turned into zombies during some bizarre ceremony.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Although Christianity in its many varieties was the religion of the original colonies, Christianity does not preach operational dominance over the body politic in America.

But many Christians have and do. Or are you claiming anti-sodomy laws were proposed by Muslims? Or that it's Muslims who have pushed for Creationism to be taught in schools? Or for mandatory school prayers? When Congress and town halls etc open with a prayer...what religion is predominant?

Muslim taxi drivers protested having to transport passengers with dogs or alcohol as contrary to their religion. Barely made the national news.
Christians protested having to bake a cake for homosexuals and it's all over the news with vocal support and calls for new legislation.

I have spent many years fighting against Islamic terrorists, and the Taliban...but Islam is not trying to dominate the U.S. at this time. Christians are.

"Muslim taxi drivers protested having to transport passengers with dogs or alcohol as contrary to their religion. Barely made the national news.
Christians protested having to bake a cake for homosexuals and it's all over the news with vocal support and calls for new legislation."

Were the Muslim taxi drivers deprived of their livlihood as a result?
This is the penalty for said cab drivers: "Currently, drivers who refuse to take passengers must go to the end of the taxi line." Somali Taxi Drivers in Minnesota in Dispute Over Passengers with Pets, Alcohol
The Christians were.
Were the Muslims forbidden to speak about the issue under penalty of law?
The Christians were.

 

[pinqy]

Although Christianity in its many varieties was the religion of the original colonies, Christianity does not preach operational dominance over the body politic in America.

But many Christians have and do. Or are you claiming anti-sodomy laws were proposed by Muslims? Or that it's Muslims who have pushed for Creationism to be taught in schools? Or for mandatory school prayers? When Congress and town halls etc open with a prayer...what religion is predominant?

Muslim taxi drivers protested having to transport passengers with dogs or alcohol as contrary to their religion. Barely made the national news.
Christians protested having to bake a cake for homosexuals and it's all over the news with vocal support and calls for new legislation.

I have spent many years fighting against Islamic terrorists, and the Taliban...but Islam is not trying to dominate the U.S. at this time. Christians are.

As you've reached for some imagined 'Christian' law with which you have a personal dislike, allow me to give an actual political attempt by your side to turn America into the gulag you aim for.....


Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????
.

Are you claiming the law ONLY applied to pastors? Or was it a general law for certain types of organizations that desired a special tax exemption? I'll remind you that churches actually got a special exception and didn't have to file or prove their status as other 501(c)(3) organizations did. I note that you're not complaining about non church noprofits.

And the Supreme Court has had a ruling on the topic: Regan v. Taxation With Representation 461 U.S. 540 (1983)
"Section 501(c)(3) does not violate the First Amendment. Congress has not infringed any First Amendment rights or regulated any First Amendment activity, but has simply chosen not to subsidize TWR's lobbying out of public funds. ... A legislature's decision not to subsidize the exercise of a fundamental right does not infringe that right,..."

 

[PoliticalChic]

Although Christianity in its many varieties was the religion of the original colonies, Christianity does not preach operational dominance over the body politic in America.

But many Christians have and do. Or are you claiming anti-sodomy laws were proposed by Muslims? Or that it's Muslims who have pushed for Creationism to be taught in schools? Or for mandatory school prayers? When Congress and town halls etc open with a prayer...what religion is predominant?

Muslim taxi drivers protested having to transport passengers with dogs or alcohol as contrary to their religion. Barely made the national news.
Christians protested having to bake a cake for homosexuals and it's all over the news with vocal support and calls for new legislation.

I have spent many years fighting against Islamic terrorists, and the Taliban...but Islam is not trying to dominate the U.S. at this time. Christians are.

As you've reached for some imagined 'Christian' law with which you have a personal dislike, allow me to give an actual political attempt by your side to turn America into the gulag you aim for.....


Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????
.

Are you claiming the law ONLY applied to pastors? Or was it a general law for certain types of organizations that desired a special tax exemption? I'll remind you that churches actually got a special exception and didn't have to file or prove their status as other 501(c)(3) organizations did. I note that you're not complaining about non church noprofits.

And the Supreme Court has had a ruling on the topic: Regan v. Taxation With Representation 461 U.S. 540 (1983)
"Section 501(c)(3) does not violate the First Amendment. Congress has not infringed any First Amendment rights or regulated any First Amendment activity, but has simply chosen not to subsidize TWR's lobbying out of public funds. ... A legislature's decision not to subsidize the exercise of a fundamental right does not infringe that right,..."

The law of the land clearly states

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Any alteration of same is under the auspices of some view foreign to that of America.

 

[pinqy]

Although Christianity in its many varieties was the religion of the original colonies, Christianity does not preach operational dominance over the body politic in America.

But many Christians have and do. Or are you claiming anti-sodomy laws were proposed by Muslims? Or that it's Muslims who have pushed for Creationism to be taught in schools? Or for mandatory school prayers? When Congress and town halls etc open with a prayer...what religion is predominant?

Muslim taxi drivers protested having to transport passengers with dogs or alcohol as contrary to their religion. Barely made the national news.
Christians protested having to bake a cake for homosexuals and it's all over the news with vocal support and calls for new legislation.

I have spent many years fighting against Islamic terrorists, and the Taliban...but Islam is not trying to dominate the U.S. at this time. Christians are.

As you've reached for some imagined 'Christian' law with which you have a personal dislike, allow me to give an actual political attempt by your side to turn America into the gulag you aim for.....


Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????
.

Are you claiming the law ONLY applied to pastors? Or was it a general law for certain types of organizations that desired a special tax exemption? I'll remind you that churches actually got a special exception and didn't have to file or prove their status as other 501(c)(3) organizations did. I note that you're not complaining about non church noprofits.

And the Supreme Court has had a ruling on the topic: Regan v. Taxation With Representation 461 U.S. 540 (1983)
"Section 501(c)(3) does not violate the First Amendment. Congress has not infringed any First Amendment rights or regulated any First Amendment activity, but has simply chosen not to subsidize TWR's lobbying out of public funds. ... A legislature's decision not to subsidize the exercise of a fundamental right does not infringe that right,..."

The law of the land clearly states

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Any alteration of same is under the auspices of some view foreign to that of America.

And no law was passed abridging the freedom of speech. If a church wants to lobby it can...it just can't do it as a 501(c)(3) organization. Is there a right to or requirement for 501(c)(3) status that I am unaware of?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Although Christianity in its many varieties was the religion of the original colonies, Christianity does not preach operational dominance over the body politic in America.

But many Christians have and do. Or are you claiming anti-sodomy laws were proposed by Muslims? Or that it's Muslims who have pushed for Creationism to be taught in schools? Or for mandatory school prayers? When Congress and town halls etc open with a prayer...what religion is predominant?

Muslim taxi drivers protested having to transport passengers with dogs or alcohol as contrary to their religion. Barely made the national news.
Christians protested having to bake a cake for homosexuals and it's all over the news with vocal support and calls for new legislation.

I have spent many years fighting against Islamic terrorists, and the Taliban...but Islam is not trying to dominate the U.S. at this time. Christians are.

As you've reached for some imagined 'Christian' law with which you have a personal dislike, allow me to give an actual political attempt by your side to turn America into the gulag you aim for.....


Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????
.

Are you claiming the law ONLY applied to pastors? Or was it a general law for certain types of organizations that desired a special tax exemption? I'll remind you that churches actually got a special exception and didn't have to file or prove their status as other 501(c)(3) organizations did. I note that you're not complaining about non church noprofits.

And the Supreme Court has had a ruling on the topic: Regan v. Taxation With Representation 461 U.S. 540 (1983)
"Section 501(c)(3) does not violate the First Amendment. Congress has not infringed any First Amendment rights or regulated any First Amendment activity, but has simply chosen not to subsidize TWR's lobbying out of public funds. ... A legislature's decision not to subsidize the exercise of a fundamental right does not infringe that right,..."

The law of the land clearly states

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Any alteration of same is under the auspices of some view foreign to that of America.

And no law was passed abridging the freedom of speech. If a church wants to lobby it can...it just can't do it as a 501(c)(3) organization. Is there a right to or requirement for 501(c)(3) status that I am unaware of?

Stop tap-dancing.....the statute is a restriction on the free speech of pastors.

Only a totalitarian would attempt to deny exactly what this is.

Answer the question:
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

 

[PoliticalChic]

Although Christianity in its many varieties was the religion of the original colonies, Christianity does not preach operational dominance over the body politic in America.

But many Christians have and do. Or are you claiming anti-sodomy laws were proposed by Muslims? Or that it's Muslims who have pushed for Creationism to be taught in schools? Or for mandatory school prayers? When Congress and town halls etc open with a prayer...what religion is predominant?

Muslim taxi drivers protested having to transport passengers with dogs or alcohol as contrary to their religion. Barely made the national news.
Christians protested having to bake a cake for homosexuals and it's all over the news with vocal support and calls for new legislation.

I have spent many years fighting against Islamic terrorists, and the Taliban...but Islam is not trying to dominate the U.S. at this time. Christians are.

As you've reached for some imagined 'Christian' law with which you have a personal dislike, allow me to give an actual political attempt by your side to turn America into the gulag you aim for.....


Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????
.

Are you claiming the law ONLY applied to pastors? Or was it a general law for certain types of organizations that desired a special tax exemption? I'll remind you that churches actually got a special exception and didn't have to file or prove their status as other 501(c)(3) organizations did. I note that you're not complaining about non church noprofits.

And the Supreme Court has had a ruling on the topic: Regan v. Taxation With Representation 461 U.S. 540 (1983)
"Section 501(c)(3) does not violate the First Amendment. Congress has not infringed any First Amendment rights or regulated any First Amendment activity, but has simply chosen not to subsidize TWR's lobbying out of public funds. ... A legislature's decision not to subsidize the exercise of a fundamental right does not infringe that right,..."

The law of the land clearly states

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Any alteration of same is under the auspices of some view foreign to that of America.

And no law was passed abridging the freedom of speech. If a church wants to lobby it can...it just can't do it as a 501(c)(3) organization. Is there a right to or requirement for 501(c)(3) status that I am unaware of?

I wrote:
Stop tap-dancing.....the statute is a restriction on the free speech of pastors.

Only a totalitarian would attempt to deny exactly what this is.

Answer the question:
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????


But our 'pink' pal ran off and wouldn't answer the question.

Soooo, I will answer for him.


The movement to ban and/or marginalize religion in the public arena comes directly from the predecessors of the Democrats/Liberals/Progressives.




Here, in their own words:

1. There is no God:
"This concept is an essential element of Marxism. As Lenin stated: "Atheism is a natural and inseparable portion of Marxism, of the theory and practice of Scientific Socialism." If God exists and is in supreme command of the universe, He possesses discretionary power, and His actions cannot always be calculated accurately in advance. The whole edifice of Marxism collapses.

When Marx and the Communists deny the existence of God, they simultaneously deny the authority of the Ten Commandments, the existence of absolute standards of right and wrong, of good and evil; and man is left on the playing fields of the universe without a referee, without a book of rules. The winning side in any conflict can decide on what rules of conduct to apply. Morality is the creation of the victor." http://www.schwarzreport.org/resources/essays/why-communism-kills


2. As a result of Franklin Roosevelt's tireless efforts to make a home for communism in America, note the following and compare it to the Progressive/Liberal/Democrat view of religion in secular America:

"Just because any religious idea, any idea of any god at all, any flirtation even with a god, is the most inexpressible foulness, particularly tolerantly (and often even favourably) accepted by the democratic bourgeoisie—for that very reason it is the most dangerous foulness, the most shameful “infection.” A million physicalsins, dirty tricks, acts of violence and infections are much more easily discovered by the crowd, and therefore are much less dangerous, than the nubile, spiritual idea of god, dressed up in the most attractive “ideological” costumes." Letter from Lenin to Maxim Gorky, Written on November 13 or 14, 1913 Lenin 55. TO MAXIM GORKY

This is the basis, the explanation, for the anti-Religion view you've been taught in government schools, and by the secular media.


3. "Stalin remained a consistent advocate of the scientific and materialistic basis of all knowledge....Any manifestation of a challenge to the worldview of Soviet communism was met throughout with a relentless hostility."
"The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia," by Richard Overy, p. 277






And the Liberal version of the above:
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

 

[pinqy]

Stop tap-dancing.....the statute is a restriction on the free speech of pastors.

No, it's not. IF any organization wants tax exempt status and IF in particular it wants 501(c)(3) status, THEN as a requirement in exchange, it must primarily engage in religious, scientific, or educational activities and NOT use those as a front for lobbying or promoting candidates. An organization CAN say that they hold position X on topic Y and that they hope their members will vote accordingly,

If those restrictions are a bit much, then the organization could file as 501(c)(4) tax exempt status and only pay taxes on those funds spent on political activities.

Only a totalitarian would attempt to deny exactly what this is.

That's demonstrably untrue. I am not a totalitarian. I think pastors should have pure freedom of speech...and pay taxes like everyone else. But if we're going to give tax breaks to organizations so they can engage in charity work, then I think that restrictions on political activity are entirely appropriate.

Answer the question:
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

I deny the premise that the Johnson Amendment deprived pastors of their right of free speech.

 

[pinqy]

But many Christians have and do. Or are you claiming anti-sodomy laws were proposed by Muslims? Or that it's Muslims who have pushed for Creationism to be taught in schools? Or for mandatory school prayers? When Congress and town halls etc open with a prayer...what religion is predominant?

Muslim taxi drivers protested having to transport passengers with dogs or alcohol as contrary to their religion. Barely made the national news.
Christians protested having to bake a cake for homosexuals and it's all over the news with vocal support and calls for new legislation.

I have spent many years fighting against Islamic terrorists, and the Taliban...but Islam is not trying to dominate the U.S. at this time. Christians are.

As you've reached for some imagined 'Christian' law with which you have a personal dislike, allow me to give an actual political attempt by your side to turn America into the gulag you aim for.....


Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????
.

Are you claiming the law ONLY applied to pastors? Or was it a general law for certain types of organizations that desired a special tax exemption? I'll remind you that churches actually got a special exception and didn't have to file or prove their status as other 501(c)(3) organizations did. I note that you're not complaining about non church noprofits.

And the Supreme Court has had a ruling on the topic: Regan v. Taxation With Representation 461 U.S. 540 (1983)
"Section 501(c)(3) does not violate the First Amendment. Congress has not infringed any First Amendment rights or regulated any First Amendment activity, but has simply chosen not to subsidize TWR's lobbying out of public funds. ... A legislature's decision not to subsidize the exercise of a fundamental right does not infringe that right,..."

The law of the land clearly states

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Any alteration of same is under the auspices of some view foreign to that of America.

And no law was passed abridging the freedom of speech. If a church wants to lobby it can...it just can't do it as a 501(c)(3) organization. Is there a right to or requirement for 501(c)(3) status that I am unaware of?

I wrote:
Stop tap-dancing.....the statute is a restriction on the free speech of pastors.

Only a totalitarian would attempt to deny exactly what this is.

Answer the question:
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????


But our 'pink' pal ran off and wouldn't answer the question.?

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware there was a time limit to answer. I had other things to do. It's kind of ironic that you wrote this while I was, in fact, finally responding.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Stop tap-dancing.....the statute is a restriction on the free speech of pastors.

No, it's not. IF any organization wants tax exempt status and IF in particular it wants 501(c)(3) status, THEN as a requirement in exchange, it must primarily engage in religious, scientific, or educational activities and NOT use those as a front for lobbying or promoting candidates. An organization CAN say that they hold position X on topic Y and that they hope their members will vote accordingly,

If those restrictions are a bit much, then the organization could file as 501(c)(4) tax exempt status and only pay taxes on those funds spent on political activities.

Only a totalitarian would attempt to deny exactly what this is.

That's demonstrably untrue. I am not a totalitarian. I think pastors should have pure freedom of speech...and pay taxes like everyone else. But if we're going to give tax breaks to organizations so they can engage in charity work, then I think that restrictions on political activity are entirely appropriate.

Answer the question:
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

I deny the premise that the Johnson Amendment deprived pastors of their right of free speech.

Stop lying, you Fascist pipsqueak


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



Your views, and that of the Democrats, are the American version of this:


"Stalin was the driving force behind a magnified anti-religious campaign....an new law....8 April 1929...No religion was permitted any longer to engage in what was loosely called religious propaganda....Clerics were permitted to perform divine service and nothing more." " The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia," Richard Overy, p. 275

 

[PoliticalChic]

As you've reached for some imagined 'Christian' law with which you have a personal dislike, allow me to give an actual political attempt by your side to turn America into the gulag you aim for.....


Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????
.

Are you claiming the law ONLY applied to pastors? Or was it a general law for certain types of organizations that desired a special tax exemption? I'll remind you that churches actually got a special exception and didn't have to file or prove their status as other 501(c)(3) organizations did. I note that you're not complaining about non church noprofits.

And the Supreme Court has had a ruling on the topic: Regan v. Taxation With Representation 461 U.S. 540 (1983)
"Section 501(c)(3) does not violate the First Amendment. Congress has not infringed any First Amendment rights or regulated any First Amendment activity, but has simply chosen not to subsidize TWR's lobbying out of public funds. ... A legislature's decision not to subsidize the exercise of a fundamental right does not infringe that right,..."

The law of the land clearly states

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Any alteration of same is under the auspices of some view foreign to that of America.

And no law was passed abridging the freedom of speech. If a church wants to lobby it can...it just can't do it as a 501(c)(3) organization. Is there a right to or requirement for 501(c)(3) status that I am unaware of?

I wrote:
Stop tap-dancing.....the statute is a restriction on the free speech of pastors.

Only a totalitarian would attempt to deny exactly what this is.

Answer the question:
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????


But our 'pink' pal ran off and wouldn't answer the question.?

I'm sorry, I wasn't aware there was a time limit to answer. I had other things to do. It's kind of ironic that you wrote this while I was, in fact, finally responding.

I'll administer your spanking whenever you like.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Stop tap-dancing.....the statute is a restriction on the free speech of pastors.

No, it's not. IF any organization wants tax exempt status and IF in particular it wants 501(c)(3) status, THEN as a requirement in exchange, it must primarily engage in religious, scientific, or educational activities and NOT use those as a front for lobbying or promoting candidates. An organization CAN say that they hold position X on topic Y and that they hope their members will vote accordingly,

If those restrictions are a bit much, then the organization could file as 501(c)(4) tax exempt status and only pay taxes on those funds spent on political activities.

Only a totalitarian would attempt to deny exactly what this is.

That's demonstrably untrue. I am not a totalitarian. I think pastors should have pure freedom of speech...and pay taxes like everyone else. But if we're going to give tax breaks to organizations so they can engage in charity work, then I think that restrictions on political activity are entirely appropriate.

Answer the question:
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

I deny the premise that the Johnson Amendment deprived pastors of their right of free speech.

Stop tap-dancing.....the statute is a restriction on the free speech of pastors.
"No, it's not. IF any organization wants tax exempt status and IF in particular it wants 501(c)(3) status, THEN as a requirement in exchange,..."

A lie.

The Constitution forbids any such requirement to speak one's mind.

Isn't that the truth, Comrade Pink?

 

[pinqy]

Stop tap-dancing.....the statute is a restriction on the free speech of pastors.

No, it's not. IF any organization wants tax exempt status and IF in particular it wants 501(c)(3) status, THEN as a requirement in exchange, it must primarily engage in religious, scientific, or educational activities and NOT use those as a front for lobbying or promoting candidates. An organization CAN say that they hold position X on topic Y and that they hope their members will vote accordingly,

If those restrictions are a bit much, then the organization could file as 501(c)(4) tax exempt status and only pay taxes on those funds spent on political activities.

Only a totalitarian would attempt to deny exactly what this is.

That's demonstrably untrue. I am not a totalitarian. I think pastors should have pure freedom of speech...and pay taxes like everyone else. But if we're going to give tax breaks to organizations so they can engage in charity work, then I think that restrictions on political activity are entirely appropriate.

Answer the question:
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

I deny the premise that the Johnson Amendment deprived pastors of their right of free speech.

Stop lying, you Fascist pipsqueak


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



Your views, and that of the Democrats, are the American version of this:


"Stalin was the driving force behind a magnified anti-religious campaign....an new law....8 April 1929...No religion was permitted any longer to engage in what was loosely called religious propaganda....Clerics were permitted to perform divine service and nothing more." " The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia," Richard Overy, p. 275

Freedom of Speech is not abridged by the Johnson Amendment. You seem to think freedom of speech is absolute and that restrictions can never be required. Let's check:
10 U.S. Code § 888 Contempt toward officials
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

10 U.S. Code § 891 - Art. 91. Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer
Any warrant officer or enlisted member who - ...
(3) treats with contempt or is disrespectful in language or deportment toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, while that officer is in the execution of his office

18 U.S.C. § 871 : US Code - Section 871: Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

All espionage laws.

All pornography and obscenity laws.

All Libel and Slander Laws.

All laws against false advertising, fraud, and deception.

These are all restrictions on Freedom of Speech.

Will you state that they are all unconstitutional?


What makes the Johnson Amendment unconstitutional, but not other restrictions? Why are you saying the Johnson amendment ONLY affects pastors, and not, say, the ACLU Foundation, or NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, which are also 501(c)(3) organizations?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Stop tap-dancing.....the statute is a restriction on the free speech of pastors.

No, it's not. IF any organization wants tax exempt status and IF in particular it wants 501(c)(3) status, THEN as a requirement in exchange, it must primarily engage in religious, scientific, or educational activities and NOT use those as a front for lobbying or promoting candidates. An organization CAN say that they hold position X on topic Y and that they hope their members will vote accordingly,

If those restrictions are a bit much, then the organization could file as 501(c)(4) tax exempt status and only pay taxes on those funds spent on political activities.

Only a totalitarian would attempt to deny exactly what this is.

That's demonstrably untrue. I am not a totalitarian. I think pastors should have pure freedom of speech...and pay taxes like everyone else. But if we're going to give tax breaks to organizations so they can engage in charity work, then I think that restrictions on political activity are entirely appropriate.

Answer the question:
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

I deny the premise that the Johnson Amendment deprived pastors of their right of free speech.

Stop lying, you Fascist pipsqueak


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



Your views, and that of the Democrats, are the American version of this:


"Stalin was the driving force behind a magnified anti-religious campaign....an new law....8 April 1929...No religion was permitted any longer to engage in what was loosely called religious propaganda....Clerics were permitted to perform divine service and nothing more." " The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia," Richard Overy, p. 275

Freedom of Speech is not abridged by the Johnson Amendment. You seem to think freedom of speech is absolute and that restrictions can never be required. Let's check:
10 U.S. Code § 888 Contempt toward officials
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

10 U.S. Code § 891 - Art. 91. Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer
Any warrant officer or enlisted member who - ...
(3) treats with contempt or is disrespectful in language or deportment toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, while that officer is in the execution of his office

18 U.S.C. § 871 : US Code - Section 871: Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

All espionage laws.

All pornography and obscenity laws.

All Libel and Slander Laws.

All laws against false advertising, fraud, and deception.

These are all restrictions on Freedom of Speech. I don't think that you would consider all of these to be unconstitutional, so the question is what standard are you applying?
What makes the Johnson Amendment unconstitutional, but not other restrictions? Why are you saying the Johnson amendment ONLY affects pastors, and not, say, the ACLU Foundation, or NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, which are also 501(c)(3) organizations?

Answer the question, Comrade Pink:
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

 

[PoliticalChic]

Stop tap-dancing.....the statute is a restriction on the free speech of pastors.

No, it's not. IF any organization wants tax exempt status and IF in particular it wants 501(c)(3) status, THEN as a requirement in exchange, it must primarily engage in religious, scientific, or educational activities and NOT use those as a front for lobbying or promoting candidates. An organization CAN say that they hold position X on topic Y and that they hope their members will vote accordingly,

If those restrictions are a bit much, then the organization could file as 501(c)(4) tax exempt status and only pay taxes on those funds spent on political activities.

Only a totalitarian would attempt to deny exactly what this is.

That's demonstrably untrue. I am not a totalitarian. I think pastors should have pure freedom of speech...and pay taxes like everyone else. But if we're going to give tax breaks to organizations so they can engage in charity work, then I think that restrictions on political activity are entirely appropriate.

Answer the question:
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

I deny the premise that the Johnson Amendment deprived pastors of their right of free speech.

Stop lying, you Fascist pipsqueak


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.



Your views, and that of the Democrats, are the American version of this:


"Stalin was the driving force behind a magnified anti-religious campaign....an new law....8 April 1929...No religion was permitted any longer to engage in what was loosely called religious propaganda....Clerics were permitted to perform divine service and nothing more." " The Dictators: Hitler's Germany, Stalin's Russia," Richard Overy, p. 275

Freedom of Speech is not abridged by the Johnson Amendment. You seem to think freedom of speech is absolute and that restrictions can never be required. Let's check:
10 U.S. Code § 888 Contempt toward officials
Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous words against the President, the Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of Homeland Security, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

10 U.S. Code § 891 - Art. 91. Insubordinate conduct toward warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer
Any warrant officer or enlisted member who - ...
(3) treats with contempt or is disrespectful in language or deportment toward a warrant officer, noncommissioned officer, or petty officer, while that officer is in the execution of his office

18 U.S.C. § 871 : US Code - Section 871: Threats against President and successors to the Presidency
Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits for conveyance in the mail or for a delivery from any post office or by any letter carrier any letter, paper, writing, print, missive, or document containing any threat to take the life of, to kidnap, or to inflict bodily harm upon the President of the United States, the President-elect, the Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President of the United States, or the Vice President-elect, or knowingly and willfully otherwise makes any such threat against the President, President-elect, Vice President or other officer next in the order of succession to the office of President, or Vice President-elect, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

All espionage laws.

All pornography and obscenity laws.

All Libel and Slander Laws.

All laws against false advertising, fraud, and deception.

These are all restrictions on Freedom of Speech.

Will you state that they are all unconstitutional?


What makes the Johnson Amendment unconstitutional, but not other restrictions? Why are you saying the Johnson amendment ONLY affects pastors, and not, say, the ACLU Foundation, or NARAL Pro-Choice America Foundation, which are also 501(c)(3) organizations?

"Freedom of Speech is not abridged by the Johnson Amendment."

And now you're begging for a lesson in the English language?????


Certainly, Comrade.

Abridge: curtail (rights or privileges).
Google


cur·tail
kərˈtāl/
verb

1. reduce in extent or quantity; impose a restriction on.
   "civil liberties were further curtailed"
   synonyms: reduce, cut, cut down, decrease, lessen, pare down, trim, retrench; Morearchaic
   • deprive someone of (something).
     "I that am curtailed of this fair proportion"

You should endeavor to use words with precision.....as I do.



Now, if a religious institution loses its IRS benefits if it says something that the government doesn't like.....
....has it's constitutional rights been abridged, curtailed, or restricted?

C'mon, Comrade Pink....focus like a laser: you can do it.