Fight Restrictions on Free Speech!

[PoliticalChic]

1. "The future of religious freedom depends on a free pulpit to communicate fundamental, biblical principles to congregations across America. Join a growing movement of bold pastors preaching biblical Truth about candidates and elections from their pulpits...



2. The Johnson Amendment was passed by Congress in 1954 as an amendment to section 501(c)(3) of the federal tax code. The Johnson Amendment states that entities who are exempt from federal income tax cannot:
Participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of – or in opposition to – any candidate for public office.

3. The Johnson Amendment was added to the tax code as a result of the political machinations of Lyndon B. Johnson who was running for reelection to the United States Senate.

4. One scholar who studied this extensively concluded that the Johnson Amendment "is not rooted in constitutional provisions for separation of church and state….

5. ...the Johnson Amendment has been applied to prohibit what a pastor says from the pulpit concerning candidates who are running for elective office.




6. This means that under current IRS regulations, a pastor cannot say anything from the pulpit that may constitute support for – or opposition to – a political candidate.

7. [For] the first 200 years of America's history, pastors frequently spoke out with great boldness about the great moral and social issues of the day and about the candidates running for office."
Speak Up : Pulpit Freedom Sunday - History of the Johnson Amendment




8. "On October 7, 2012, hundreds of Christian pastors are going to be taking to their pulpits with overtly political messages in an effort to challenge a restrictive Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) tax code. The calculated event, “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” is an annual initiative that seeks to rally believers against the government’s regulations on pastoral political endorsements.

9. The IRS web site goes on to designate which sorts of activities are permitted and which are banned under current regulations:

10. ...voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention."
Pastors Prepare to Fight IRS Through Pulpit Freedom Sunday | TheBlaze.com




The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, ...

Seems pretty clear....

Time to see who supports the Constitution.

Take it to the Supreme Court!

 

[George Costanza]

Organized religion has caused more trouble over the centuries than any other, single factor in the entire world. The last thing any society needs is "religious guidance" when its members are deciding how to vote.

I will defend to my death your right to be a member of an organized religion. Just keep it the hell out of my face.

 

[dilloduck]

Humans cause all problems. Git rid of em all.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Organized religion has caused more trouble over the centuries than any other, single factor in the entire world. The last thing any society needs is "religious guidance" when its members are deciding how to vote.

I will defend to my death your right to be a member of an organized religion. Just keep it the hell out of my face.

Really an ignorant post, Georgie....

...surprised at you.

1. To embrace the philosophy of the Left, it is almost imperative that one reject the Bible, and religion in general. The urge of the Left to surrender choice and self government for illusion, to insist on statism and government rule rather than citizens ruling the government, is a rejection of the lesson of the Exodus.

2. “The left is atheist, and simply because it is atheist, its religious fanaticism is worse than the other fanaticisms of history. For the romantic of the past has sometimes, if all too rarely, has been restrained by the reality that God is truth. But the atheist fanatic has no reason for such restraint. There is no reason in principle why the revolutionary atheist should regard truth, and it does not seem he does so in practice.”
Sixty five years later it continues to be a brilliant observation. This is why fanatical atheism which seeks to stamp out all mention of God in the public square is to be a concern to all.

3. Justice means choice. The choice must be by recourse and devotion to laws made impartially, without respect to individuals, and applied impartially. This is the great contribution of our Judeo-Christian foundation to Western civilization. The principles of justice are laid down in the Torah and the Gospels, and implemented through human actions memorialized in judicial codes.

a. The written laws and rules are codifications of the unwritten ones worked out over millennia as the result of human interactions and experience.

4. The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible t that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, don not do to your neighbor.” It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden.
The above, mostly, from David Mamet's "The Secret Knowledge.

 

[George Costanza]

Organized religion has caused more trouble over the centuries than any other, single factor in the entire world. The last thing any society needs is "religious guidance" when its members are deciding how to vote.

I will defend to my death your right to be a member of an organized religion. Just keep it the hell out of my face.

Really an ignorant post, Georgie....

...surprised at you.

1. To embrace the philosophy of the Left, it is almost imperative that one reject the Bible, and religion in general. The urge of the Left to surrender choice and self government for illusion, to insist on statism and government rule rather than citizens ruling the government, is a rejection of the lesson of the Exodus.

2. “The left is atheist, and simply because it is atheist, its religious fanaticism is worse than the other fanaticisms of history. For the romantic of the past has sometimes, if all too rarely, has been restrained by the reality that God is truth. But the atheist fanatic has no reason for such restraint. There is no reason in principle why the revolutionary atheist should regard truth, and it does not seem he does so in practice.”
Sixty five years later it continues to be a brilliant observation. This is why fanatical atheism which seeks to stamp out all mention of God in the public square is to be a concern to all.

3. Justice means choice. The choice must be by recourse and devotion to laws made impartially, without respect to individuals, and applied impartially. This is the great contribution of our Judeo-Christian foundation to Western civilization. The principles of justice are laid down in the Torah and the Gospels, and implemented through human actions memorialized in judicial codes.

a. The written laws and rules are codifications of the unwritten ones worked out over millennia as the result of human interactions and experience.

4. The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible t that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, don not do to your neighbor.” It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden.
The above, mostly, from David Mamet's "The Secret Knowledge.

What does this have to do with whether or not politics should be discussed from the pulpit? If anything, what you have quoted here makes it rather obvious that religion ought to keep its nose out of politics.

Are you some kind of Fundie, PC? I didn't know.

 

[George Costanza]

Humans cause all problems. Git rid of em all.

As my pal, Jerry Seinfeld once said: "PEOPLE! They're the WORST!"

 

[PoliticalChic]

Organized religion has caused more trouble over the centuries than any other, single factor in the entire world. The last thing any society needs is "religious guidance" when its members are deciding how to vote.

I will defend to my death your right to be a member of an organized religion. Just keep it the hell out of my face.

Really an ignorant post, Georgie....

...surprised at you.

1. To embrace the philosophy of the Left, it is almost imperative that one reject the Bible, and religion in general. The urge of the Left to surrender choice and self government for illusion, to insist on statism and government rule rather than citizens ruling the government, is a rejection of the lesson of the Exodus.

2. “The left is atheist, and simply because it is atheist, its religious fanaticism is worse than the other fanaticisms of history. For the romantic of the past has sometimes, if all too rarely, has been restrained by the reality that God is truth. But the atheist fanatic has no reason for such restraint. There is no reason in principle why the revolutionary atheist should regard truth, and it does not seem he does so in practice.”
Sixty five years later it continues to be a brilliant observation. This is why fanatical atheism which seeks to stamp out all mention of God in the public square is to be a concern to all.

3. Justice means choice. The choice must be by recourse and devotion to laws made impartially, without respect to individuals, and applied impartially. This is the great contribution of our Judeo-Christian foundation to Western civilization. The principles of justice are laid down in the Torah and the Gospels, and implemented through human actions memorialized in judicial codes.

a. The written laws and rules are codifications of the unwritten ones worked out over millennia as the result of human interactions and experience.

4. The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible t that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, don not do to your neighbor.” It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden.
The above, mostly, from David Mamet's "The Secret Knowledge.

What does this have to do with whether or not politics should be discussed from the pulpit? If anything, what you have quoted here makes it rather obvious that religion ought to keep its nose out of politics.

Are you some kind of Fundie, PC? I didn't know.

1. It speaks to this absurd statement of yours: "Organized religion has caused more trouble over the centuries...."
No it hasn't. It has informed our society. And your vocation. That's what the post says.


2. I believe that the US Constitution is the law of the land. Said document is very clear as to what right the government has vis-a-vis preventing free speech: none.

3. Time and again, we see Liberals/Progressives/Democrats searching for reasons to restrict speech.
Yours is a typical Liberals/Progressives/Democrats reaction to religion....and your knee-jerk reaction: shut it down.

4. The America that I honor says to folks like you: you don't like what's said? Don't listen.

5. "Are you some kind of Fundie, PC??
Unlike you, Georgie...I'm a constitutionalist.
My religion is none of your business.

 

[George Costanza]

Really an ignorant post, Georgie....

...surprised at you.

1. To embrace the philosophy of the Left, it is almost imperative that one reject the Bible, and religion in general. The urge of the Left to surrender choice and self government for illusion, to insist on statism and government rule rather than citizens ruling the government, is a rejection of the lesson of the Exodus.

2. “The left is atheist, and simply because it is atheist, its religious fanaticism is worse than the other fanaticisms of history. For the romantic of the past has sometimes, if all too rarely, has been restrained by the reality that God is truth. But the atheist fanatic has no reason for such restraint. There is no reason in principle why the revolutionary atheist should regard truth, and it does not seem he does so in practice.”
Sixty five years later it continues to be a brilliant observation. This is why fanatical atheism which seeks to stamp out all mention of God in the public square is to be a concern to all.

3. Justice means choice. The choice must be by recourse and devotion to laws made impartially, without respect to individuals, and applied impartially. This is the great contribution of our Judeo-Christian foundation to Western civilization. The principles of justice are laid down in the Torah and the Gospels, and implemented through human actions memorialized in judicial codes.

a. The written laws and rules are codifications of the unwritten ones worked out over millennia as the result of human interactions and experience.

4. The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible t that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, don not do to your neighbor.” It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden.
The above, mostly, from David Mamet's "The Secret Knowledge.

What does this have to do with whether or not politics should be discussed from the pulpit? If anything, what you have quoted here makes it rather obvious that religion ought to keep its nose out of politics.

Are you some kind of Fundie, PC? I didn't know.

1. It speaks to this absurd statement of yours: "Organized religion has caused more trouble over the centuries...."
No it hasn't. It has informed our society. And your vocation. That's what the post says.


2. I believe that the US Constitution is the law of the land. Said document is very clear as to what right the government has vis-a-vis preventing free speech: none.

3. Time and again, we see Liberals/Progressives/Democrats searching for reasons to restrict speech.
Yours is a typical Liberals/Progressives/Democrats reaction to religion....and your knee-jerk reaction: shut it down.

4. The America that I honor says to folks like you: you don't like what's said? Don't listen.

5. "Are you some kind of Fundie, PC??
Unlike you, Georgie...I'm a constitutionalist.
My religion is none of your business.

Come back when you're feeling a little better. Then we can talk.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What does this have to do with whether or not politics should be discussed from the pulpit? If anything, what you have quoted here makes it rather obvious that religion ought to keep its nose out of politics.

Are you some kind of Fundie, PC? I didn't know.

1. It speaks to this absurd statement of yours: "Organized religion has caused more trouble over the centuries...."
No it hasn't. It has informed our society. And your vocation. That's what the post says.


2. I believe that the US Constitution is the law of the land. Said document is very clear as to what right the government has vis-a-vis preventing free speech: none.

3. Time and again, we see Liberals/Progressives/Democrats searching for reasons to restrict speech.
Yours is a typical Liberals/Progressives/Democrats reaction to religion....and your knee-jerk reaction: shut it down.

4. The America that I honor says to folks like you: you don't like what's said? Don't listen.

5. "Are you some kind of Fundie, PC??
Unlike you, Georgie...I'm a constitutionalist.
My religion is none of your business.

Come back when you're feeling a little better. Then we can talk.

Why would you think I'm not feeling well....'cause I didn't swoon over your brilliant Liberal critique of religion?


Georgie, you're clearly suffering from the delusions of those who live in the Liberal echo chamber.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

1. "The future of religious freedom depends on a free pulpit to communicate fundamental, biblical principles to congregations across America. Join a growing movement of bold pastors preaching biblical Truth about candidates and elections from their pulpits...



2. The Johnson Amendment was passed by Congress in 1954 as an amendment to section 501(c)(3) of the federal tax code. The Johnson Amendment states that entities who are exempt from federal income tax cannot:
Participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of – or in opposition to – any candidate for public office.

3. The Johnson Amendment was added to the tax code as a result of the political machinations of Lyndon B. Johnson who was running for reelection to the United States Senate.

4. One scholar who studied this extensively concluded that the Johnson Amendment "is not rooted in constitutional provisions for separation of church and state….

5. ...the Johnson Amendment has been applied to prohibit what a pastor says from the pulpit concerning candidates who are running for elective office.




6. This means that under current IRS regulations, a pastor cannot say anything from the pulpit that may constitute support for – or opposition to – a political candidate.

7. [For] the first 200 years of America's history, pastors frequently spoke out with great boldness about the great moral and social issues of the day and about the candidates running for office."
Speak Up : Pulpit Freedom Sunday - History of the Johnson Amendment




8. "On October 7, 2012, hundreds of Christian pastors are going to be taking to their pulpits with overtly political messages in an effort to challenge a restrictive Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) tax code. The calculated event, “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” is an annual initiative that seeks to rally believers against the government’s regulations on pastoral political endorsements.

9. The IRS web site goes on to designate which sorts of activities are permitted and which are banned under current regulations:

10. ...voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention."
Pastors Prepare to Fight IRS Through Pulpit Freedom Sunday | TheBlaze.com




The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, ...

Seems pretty clear....

Time to see who supports the Constitution.

Take it to the Supreme Court!

Be careful what you wish for, it’s highly unlikely the Johnson Amendment will be ruled un-Constitutional. In Regan v. Taxation With Representation (1983), the Supreme Court upheld Section 501(c)(3), reasoning that the requirement to form two separate organizations – one charitable and tax exempt, the other engaged in political advocacy – does not violate the First Amendment.

Religious organization are therefore free to engage in political speech provided the separate political entity is established per Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code; Regan v. TWR has been upheld by subsequent Court rulings – it is considered settled law, and claims of government ‘violation’ of Free Speech baseless.

Donald T. REGAN, Secretary of the Treasury, et al., Appellants, v. TAXATION WITH REPRESENTATION OF WASHINGTON. TAXATION WITH REPRESENTATION OF WASHINGTON, Appellant, v. Donald T. REGAN, Secretary of the Treasury, et al. | Supreme Court | LII / Legal

 

[idb]

1. "The future of religious freedom depends on a free pulpit to communicate fundamental, biblical principles to congregations across America. Join a growing movement of bold pastors preaching biblical Truth about candidates and elections from their pulpits...



2. The Johnson Amendment was passed by Congress in 1954 as an amendment to section 501(c)(3) of the federal tax code. The Johnson Amendment states that entities who are exempt from federal income tax cannot:
Participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of – or in opposition to – any candidate for public office.

3. The Johnson Amendment was added to the tax code as a result of the political machinations of Lyndon B. Johnson who was running for reelection to the United States Senate.

4. One scholar who studied this extensively concluded that the Johnson Amendment "is not rooted in constitutional provisions for separation of church and state….

5. ...the Johnson Amendment has been applied to prohibit what a pastor says from the pulpit concerning candidates who are running for elective office.




6. This means that under current IRS regulations, a pastor cannot say anything from the pulpit that may constitute support for – or opposition to – a political candidate.

7. [For] the first 200 years of America's history, pastors frequently spoke out with great boldness about the great moral and social issues of the day and about the candidates running for office."
Speak Up : Pulpit Freedom Sunday - History of the Johnson Amendment




8. "On October 7, 2012, hundreds of Christian pastors are going to be taking to their pulpits with overtly political messages in an effort to challenge a restrictive Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) tax code. The calculated event, “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” is an annual initiative that seeks to rally believers against the government’s regulations on pastoral political endorsements.

9. The IRS web site goes on to designate which sorts of activities are permitted and which are banned under current regulations:

10. ...voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention."
Pastors Prepare to Fight IRS Through Pulpit Freedom Sunday | TheBlaze.com




The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, ...

Seems pretty clear....

Time to see who supports the Constitution.

Take it to the Supreme Court!

No more breaking up Occupy rallies?
No more barricading sections of a city while political conferences are on?

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "The future of religious freedom depends on a free pulpit to communicate fundamental, biblical principles to congregations across America. Join a growing movement of bold pastors preaching biblical Truth about candidates and elections from their pulpits...



2. The Johnson Amendment was passed by Congress in 1954 as an amendment to section 501(c)(3) of the federal tax code. The Johnson Amendment states that entities who are exempt from federal income tax cannot:
Participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of – or in opposition to – any candidate for public office.

3. The Johnson Amendment was added to the tax code as a result of the political machinations of Lyndon B. Johnson who was running for reelection to the United States Senate.

4. One scholar who studied this extensively concluded that the Johnson Amendment "is not rooted in constitutional provisions for separation of church and state….

5. ...the Johnson Amendment has been applied to prohibit what a pastor says from the pulpit concerning candidates who are running for elective office.




6. This means that under current IRS regulations, a pastor cannot say anything from the pulpit that may constitute support for – or opposition to – a political candidate.

7. [For] the first 200 years of America's history, pastors frequently spoke out with great boldness about the great moral and social issues of the day and about the candidates running for office."
Speak Up : Pulpit Freedom Sunday - History of the Johnson Amendment




8. "On October 7, 2012, hundreds of Christian pastors are going to be taking to their pulpits with overtly political messages in an effort to challenge a restrictive Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) tax code. The calculated event, “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” is an annual initiative that seeks to rally believers against the government’s regulations on pastoral political endorsements.

9. The IRS web site goes on to designate which sorts of activities are permitted and which are banned under current regulations:

10. ...voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention."
Pastors Prepare to Fight IRS Through Pulpit Freedom Sunday | TheBlaze.com




The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, ...

Seems pretty clear....

Time to see who supports the Constitution.

Take it to the Supreme Court!

Be careful what you wish for, it’s highly unlikely the Johnson Amendment will be ruled un-Constitutional. In Regan v. Taxation With Representation (1983), the Supreme Court upheld Section 501(c)(3), reasoning that the requirement to form two separate organizations – one charitable and tax exempt, the other engaged in political advocacy – does not violate the First Amendment.

Religious organization are therefore free to engage in political speech provided the separate political entity is established per Section 501(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code; Regan v. TWR has been upheld by subsequent Court rulings – it is considered settled law, and claims of government ‘violation’ of Free Speech baseless.

Donald T. REGAN, Secretary of the Treasury, et al., Appellants, v. TAXATION WITH REPRESENTATION OF WASHINGTON. TAXATION WITH REPRESENTATION OF WASHINGTON, Appellant, v. Donald T. REGAN, Secretary of the Treasury, et al. | Supreme Court | LII / Legal

The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, ...


"Religious organization are therefore free to engage in political speech provided ...blah blah blah"


C'mon, now, torte..…work hard to free up the congealed gears of your mind…


"...prohibits the making of any law ... abridging the freedom of speech, ..."

You see the inconsistency, I'm sure.

Unless you want to burnish your Lib creds by doing one of those 'living Constitution' rants.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. "The future of religious freedom depends on a free pulpit to communicate fundamental, biblical principles to congregations across America. Join a growing movement of bold pastors preaching biblical Truth about candidates and elections from their pulpits...



2. The Johnson Amendment was passed by Congress in 1954 as an amendment to section 501(c)(3) of the federal tax code. The Johnson Amendment states that entities who are exempt from federal income tax cannot:
Participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of – or in opposition to – any candidate for public office.

3. The Johnson Amendment was added to the tax code as a result of the political machinations of Lyndon B. Johnson who was running for reelection to the United States Senate.

4. One scholar who studied this extensively concluded that the Johnson Amendment "is not rooted in constitutional provisions for separation of church and state….

5. ...the Johnson Amendment has been applied to prohibit what a pastor says from the pulpit concerning candidates who are running for elective office.




6. This means that under current IRS regulations, a pastor cannot say anything from the pulpit that may constitute support for – or opposition to – a political candidate.

7. [For] the first 200 years of America's history, pastors frequently spoke out with great boldness about the great moral and social issues of the day and about the candidates running for office."
Speak Up : Pulpit Freedom Sunday - History of the Johnson Amendment




8. "On October 7, 2012, hundreds of Christian pastors are going to be taking to their pulpits with overtly political messages in an effort to challenge a restrictive Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) tax code. The calculated event, “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” is an annual initiative that seeks to rally believers against the government’s regulations on pastoral political endorsements.

9. The IRS web site goes on to designate which sorts of activities are permitted and which are banned under current regulations:

10. ...voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention."
Pastors Prepare to Fight IRS Through Pulpit Freedom Sunday | TheBlaze.com




The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, ...

Seems pretty clear....

Time to see who supports the Constitution.

Take it to the Supreme Court!

No more breaking up Occupy rallies?
No more barricading sections of a city while political conferences are on?

See, BVD's....as soon as you try to post on topics about which you have...'limited' knowledge, you sound like Charlie Brown's teacher....

Stick to undies....discuss elastic vs. draw string....

 

[PoliticalChic]

Organized religion has caused more trouble over the centuries than any other, single factor in the entire world. The last thing any society needs is "religious guidance" when its members are deciding how to vote.

I will defend to my death your right to be a member of an organized religion. Just keep it the hell out of my face.

Sometimes you surprise me, Georgie...you seem to be an intelligent fellow...they the tape gets stuck on some Liberal meme, one which can so easily be disproven by rational thought..

1. For folks persuaded that there is no God, there is no finer pleasure than recounting the history of religious brutality and persecution. In “The End of Faith,” Sam Harris gives the lurid details of the torture methods of the Spanish Inquisition. There is no arguing the point: religious fanaticism caused a great deal of suffering. And the Moslem world is quite ready to carry the burden of exuberant depravity. Yet…there is this awkward fact: the 20th century, while not an age of faith, certainly was awful. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot…hardly religious leaders.
Berlinski, "The Devil's Delusion"

A simple calculation will show how much more misery, murder and mayhem is caused by lack of religion, than religion.



2. Even in the 19th century, as religious conviction waned, the warnings were there. Ivan Karamazov, in “The Brothers Karamazov,” exclaimed ‘if God does not exist, then everything is permitted.’



3. In 2007, physicists Steven Weinberg addressed the “Beyond Belief: Science, Religion, Reason, and Survival” conference. This Nobel Prize winner claimed “Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it, you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing bad things, but for good people to do bad things, it takes religion.” He was warmly applauded.

a. What was the religious provenance of poison gas, barbed wire, high explosives, experiments in eugenics, Zyklon B, heavy artillery, napalm, nuclear weapons?


4. What did Christopher Hitchens write…” God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything!”
Well, then how do with reconcile science with abortion, fetal stem-cell research, euthanasia, infanticide, cloning, animal-human hybrids, among the other ‘gifts’ of science, an ideology bereft of any sense of responsibility to human nature.
Berlinski, Ibid.


5. . Princeton philosopher Richard Rorty noted the change in authorship of morality: “The West has cobbled together, in the course of the last two hundred years, a specifically secularist moral tradition — one that regards the free consensus of the citizens of a democratic society, rather then the Divine Will, as the source of moral imperatives.” Last Words from Richard Rorty | The Progressive

While Rorty considered this a great advance, consider how this fits the actions of Nazi Germany, in tune with its free consensus.

 

[pinqy]

Let's be clear...there are absolutely no rules or laws restricting what can be said from the pulpit.
ALL organizations wishing to declare 501(c)(3) status as a Charity must conform to rules set by the IRS to qualify as a Charity. This status is NOT a right, it is an OPTION. If an organization does not care for the restricitions, it does not need to claim the tax exempt status. Note that this is an EXEMPTION, meaning the staus quo would be for an organization to pay taxes.

So.....

• Since there is no obligation or necessity to claim 501(c)(3) status
• Since 501(c)(3) does not apply solely to religions but to all "Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals."
• Since there are other tax exempt options (such as 501(c)(4)

Therefore the rules are not a restriction on religion, but only on those groups that request tax-exempt status.

There are churches and other religious groups (most notabley Bob Jones University) that do not claim tax exempt status in order to be free of the rules and regulations they would have to comply with.

If you apply for and accept tax exempt status, you are AGREEING to abide by the rules. Since it is a VOLUNTARY agreement, there is no 1st Ammendment Violation.

Neither the Establishment Clause nor the Free Exercise Clause means that relgion is exempt from obeying the laws or rules.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's be clear...there are absolutely no rules or laws restricting what can be said from the pulpit.
ALL organizations wishing to declare 501(c)(3) status as a Charity must conform to rules set by the IRS to qualify as a Charity. This status is NOT a right, it is an OPTION. If an organization does not care for the restricitions, it does not need to claim the tax exempt status. Note that this is an EXEMPTION, meaning the staus quo would be for an organization to pay taxes.

So.....

• Since there is no obligation or necessity to claim 501(c)(3) status
• Since 501(c)(3) does not apply solely to religions but to all "Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals."
• Since there are other tax exempt options (such as 501(c)(4)

Therefore the rules are not a restriction on religion, but only on those groups that request tax-exempt status.

There are churches and other religious groups (most notabley Bob Jones University) that do not claim tax exempt status in order to be free of the rules and regulations they would have to comply with.

If you apply for and accept tax exempt status, you are AGREEING to abide by the rules. Since it is a VOLUNTARY agreement, there is no 1st Ammendment Violation.

Neither the Establishment Clause nor the Free Exercise Clause means that relgion is exempt from obeying the laws or rules.

1. Let's be even clearer: The Constitution is ostensibly the 'law of the land.'

It 'clearly' says that no law may abridge the right of free speech.
Not....'not abridged unless you want to stay in business and may say something we don't agree with.'

2. Religious institutions are not profit making and are given the tax break so that them may continue to operate. As a buffer against the power of government, they serve the public interest.

3. Which came first...churches, or the tax code?

4. Spin…altering the truth without altering the facts.
You are correct about the code....but it's about time the religious folks bridled at being muzzled.

Only if you see big government as being daddy who can take away your allowance should you see this as a just function of government.
That is, pretty much, the Liberal perspective.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Organized religion has caused more trouble over the centuries than any other, single factor in the entire world. The last thing any society needs is "religious guidance" when its members are deciding how to vote.

I will defend to my death your right to be a member of an organized religion. Just keep it the hell out of my face.

Preachers were the Civic Leaders of the Revolution in 1776. That's why Gov't wants to shut them up through 501(c)(3).

And of course, people like you go right along with it.

 

[pinqy]

Let's be clear...there are absolutely no rules or laws restricting what can be said from the pulpit.
ALL organizations wishing to declare 501(c)(3) status as a Charity must conform to rules set by the IRS to qualify as a Charity. This status is NOT a right, it is an OPTION. If an organization does not care for the restricitions, it does not need to claim the tax exempt status. Note that this is an EXEMPTION, meaning the staus quo would be for an organization to pay taxes.

So.....

• Since there is no obligation or necessity to claim 501(c)(3) status
• Since 501(c)(3) does not apply solely to religions but to all "Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals."
• Since there are other tax exempt options (such as 501(c)(4)

Therefore the rules are not a restriction on religion, but only on those groups that request tax-exempt status.

There are churches and other religious groups (most notabley Bob Jones University) that do not claim tax exempt status in order to be free of the rules and regulations they would have to comply with.

If you apply for and accept tax exempt status, you are AGREEING to abide by the rules. Since it is a VOLUNTARY agreement, there is no 1st Ammendment Violation.

Neither the Establishment Clause nor the Free Exercise Clause means that relgion is exempt from obeying the laws or rules.

1. Let's be even clearer: The Constitution is ostensibly the 'law of the land.'

It 'clearly' says that no law may abridge the right of free speech.

let's stop there. what about perjury, false statements to the police, fraud, UCMJ laws against disrespect, revealing classified information, child porn, the classic fire in a crowded movie theater, incitement to riot etc, etc, etc? No rights are absolute, but restrictions must be reasonable and serve s purpose.

But in any case, that.s not even relevant when it comes to OPTIONAL matters. A law that simply forbid political speech would be Unconstitutional. A regulation setting requirements in order to receive a benefit is not.

Not....'not abridged unless you want to stay in business and may say something we don't agree with.'

Except it's not a requirement to stay in business. They don't like the condition, they don't have to apply for tax exempt status.

2. Religious institutions are not profit making and are given the tax break so that them may continue to operate. As a buffer against the power of government, they serve the public interest.

PUBLIC interest, not political. They and other charities are given the exemption for the purpose of public service, not political advocacy. There are other provisions in the tax code to support political advocacy.

 

[idb]

1. "The future of religious freedom depends on a free pulpit to communicate fundamental, biblical principles to congregations across America. Join a growing movement of bold pastors preaching biblical Truth about candidates and elections from their pulpits...



2. The Johnson Amendment was passed by Congress in 1954 as an amendment to section 501(c)(3) of the federal tax code. The Johnson Amendment states that entities who are exempt from federal income tax cannot:
Participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of – or in opposition to – any candidate for public office.

3. The Johnson Amendment was added to the tax code as a result of the political machinations of Lyndon B. Johnson who was running for reelection to the United States Senate.

4. One scholar who studied this extensively concluded that the Johnson Amendment "is not rooted in constitutional provisions for separation of church and state….

5. ...the Johnson Amendment has been applied to prohibit what a pastor says from the pulpit concerning candidates who are running for elective office.




6. This means that under current IRS regulations, a pastor cannot say anything from the pulpit that may constitute support for – or opposition to – a political candidate.

7. [For] the first 200 years of America's history, pastors frequently spoke out with great boldness about the great moral and social issues of the day and about the candidates running for office."
Speak Up : Pulpit Freedom Sunday - History of the Johnson Amendment




8. "On October 7, 2012, hundreds of Christian pastors are going to be taking to their pulpits with overtly political messages in an effort to challenge a restrictive Internal Revenue Service’s (IRS) tax code. The calculated event, “Pulpit Freedom Sunday,” is an annual initiative that seeks to rally believers against the government’s regulations on pastoral political endorsements.

9. The IRS web site goes on to designate which sorts of activities are permitted and which are banned under current regulations:

10. ...voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention."
Pastors Prepare to Fight IRS Through Pulpit Freedom Sunday | TheBlaze.com




The First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution is part of the Bill of Rights. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, ...

Seems pretty clear....

Time to see who supports the Constitution.

Take it to the Supreme Court!

No more breaking up Occupy rallies?
No more barricading sections of a city while political conferences are on?

See, BVD's....as soon as you try to post on topics about which you have...'limited' knowledge, you sound like Charlie Brown's teacher....

Stick to undies....discuss elastic vs. draw string....

What?
No appropriate cut-and-paste to hand?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let's be clear...there are absolutely no rules or laws restricting what can be said from the pulpit.
ALL organizations wishing to declare 501(c)(3) status as a Charity must conform to rules set by the IRS to qualify as a Charity. This status is NOT a right, it is an OPTION. If an organization does not care for the restricitions, it does not need to claim the tax exempt status. Note that this is an EXEMPTION, meaning the staus quo would be for an organization to pay taxes.

So.....

• Since there is no obligation or necessity to claim 501(c)(3) status
• Since 501(c)(3) does not apply solely to religions but to all "Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals."
• Since there are other tax exempt options (such as 501(c)(4)

Therefore the rules are not a restriction on religion, but only on those groups that request tax-exempt status.

There are churches and other religious groups (most notabley Bob Jones University) that do not claim tax exempt status in order to be free of the rules and regulations they would have to comply with.

If you apply for and accept tax exempt status, you are AGREEING to abide by the rules. Since it is a VOLUNTARY agreement, there is no 1st Ammendment Violation.

Neither the Establishment Clause nor the Free Exercise Clause means that relgion is exempt from obeying the laws or rules.

1. Let's be even clearer: The Constitution is ostensibly the 'law of the land.'

It 'clearly' says that no law may abridge the right of free speech.

let's stop there. what about perjury, false statements to the police, fraud, UCMJ laws against disrespect, revealing classified information, child porn, the classic fire in a crowded movie theater, incitement to riot etc, etc, etc? No rights are absolute, but restrictions must be reasonable and serve s purpose.

But in any case, that.s not even relevant when it comes to OPTIONAL matters. A law that simply forbid political speech would be Unconstitutional. A regulation setting requirements in order to receive a benefit is not.

Not....'not abridged unless you want to stay in business and may say something we don't agree with.'

Except it's not a requirement to stay in business. They don't like the condition, they don't have to apply for tax exempt status.

2. Religious institutions are not profit making and are given the tax break so that them may continue to operate. As a buffer against the power of government, they serve the public interest.

PUBLIC interest, not political. They and other charities are given the exemption for the purpose of public service, not political advocacy. There are other provisions in the tax code to support political advocacy.

"No rights are absolute, but restrictions must be reasonable and serve s purpose."

Are you actually comparing a minister, pastor, rabbi, imam, using his chosen religious text to inform his parishioners to perjury, false statements to the police, fraud, UCMJ laws against disrespect, revealing classified information, child porn, the classic fire in a crowded movie theater, incitement to riot"

Really?

I don't believe you're prepared to do that.


When this aspect of the tax code was written, clergy should have been specifically excused,

Or...would you make the claim that the Jewish clergy should have to wear a big yellow star to be eligible for the exemption?
No, you wouldn't.

This should go to the Supreme Court, one that honors the Constitution.



"PUBLIC interest, not political."

Possibly you missed the last century: under Liberal/Progressive rule, every aspect of life is political.