Fight Restrictions on Free Speech!

[PoliticalChic]

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?

The strongest rebuttal you have is the format of my posts???

Stick to undies.

 

[idb]

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?

The strongest rebuttal you have is the format of my posts???

Stick to undies.

There was nothing to rebut, only a line of puerile and unimaginative invective.
But I guess that shows what you really have when the cut-and-paste runs out...not much at all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Simple. A tax-sheltered religious organization cannot engage in political speech over the pulpit.

Quite clear.

Quite Constitutional.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

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.

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.

None of this is an argument, Chic. In your first paragraph, you've simply scoffed at the idea that you could compare a religious leader delivering a sermon with forms of speech that are prohibited. I get where you're coming from, but you actually offered no argument as to -why- you shouldn't compare these.

On top of that, it was stated in the post to which you're responding that the above argument has nothing to do with the argument at hand.

Next, having to wear something to clearly identify yourself as a clergyman has absolutely -nothing- to do with any of the above.

Now, even though I'm sure you'd like to believe that churches/synagogues/mosques aren't out for profit (and, in terms of intent, you're probably correct more often than not), the fact remains that, via the donations of their congregations, these organizations do profit. The pastor at the church in which I grew up was ballin. You know what he did for his livelihood? He ran his church. That money wasn't materializing out of thin air. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to say he was a bad person by any means. . . there's nothing wrong with profit. However, profiting (making income) implies that you owe the government a cut (taxes). Many religious organizations, due to the charity work they do in their respective communities, are given the OPTION of applying for 501(c)(3) status. This isn't owed to them: they profit, they owe taxes. It is granted to them provided they follow the guidelines that qualify them for it. If they'd prefer to be political pundits as well as religious organizations, they're free to claim their charitable donations as a deduction just like the rest of us.

Look, as a libertarian who holds the American Constitution in high regard (by far the best founding document I've read, in my own not so humble opinion), freedom of speech and freedom of religion are things I consider absolutely fundamental. That said, I really don't see how you have an argument, here.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Simple. A tax-sheltered religious organization cannot engage in political speech over the pulpit.

Quite clear.

Quite Constitutional.

Where in the Constitution?

 

[JakeStarkey]

If the tax-exempt religious institution wants to have political speech, they can have it: give up the tax exemption.

PoliticalChick knows this is the law, and that is the end of it.

She needs to argue "why not", not ask "why", because the burden is hers.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Once again...government power or unalienable rights.

Which one you pick tells all.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Then don't accept tax-exemption, which is a government power.

Pastors, including my own, don't understand they can't have it both ways.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Then don't accept tax-exemption, which is a government power.

Pastors, including my own, don't understand they can't have it both ways.

Au contraire, my little excrescense.


One power is superior to the other.
For a conservative, the right to free speech, unrestricted by pecuniary obligation is the very basis of the America the Founders envisioned.


For the totalitarian of any variety, it is the other.
So, once again, you have inadvertently revealed your true colors.



I contend, further, that the reason for the tax-code-restriction is less about money,....for, in reality, religious institutons sans the tax benefits of the system, would add very little to the fisc.
No...it is big government progressives' (redundant?) attempt to silence possible opposition...via moral strictures....that is behind the gambit.
No surprise it came about during the tenure of an anti-constutionalist President.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Nonsense, you have demonstrated you have no common sense. Tax-exempt status means one becomes non-political. You are truly unAmerican in your political philosophy. But of course libertarianism has no roots in the Founders' teachings.

But freedom of speech allows you to disagree with me. What a great country!

 

[PoliticalChic]

Nonsense, you have demonstrated you have no common sense. Tax-exempt status means one becomes non-political. You are truly unAmerican in your political philosophy. But of course libertarianism has no roots in the Founders' teachings.

But freedom of speech allows you to disagree with me. What a great country!

"...no common sense..."?

Is that what you rely on as you stumble through life???

Explains so much.



Common sense is what tells one that two plumb lines are parallel.

 

[JakeStarkey]

PoliticalChick continues to demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding about the American narrative, politics, and government.

Not all that amazing since she comes from a fundamentally flawed philosophy: libertarianism.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PoliticalChick continues to demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding about the American narrative, politics, and government.

Not all that amazing since she comes from a fundamentally flawed philosophy: libertarianism.

One of the great joys in my day is exploring the differences between your views and mine.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fundamentally challenged like you are blessed by such interchanges.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The fundamentally challenged like you are blessed by such interchanges.

And the education that I provide should be a blessing to folks like you...



...then again, you know what they say about old dogs and new tricks.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Unless, of course, we factor in governments and communism. Given that neither of those things of those things have ever actually existed in the real world, I have to admit that religion is the worst thing ever.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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.

Why shouldn't politics be discussed from the pulpit? Shouldn't Christians be free to discuss their beliefs even if they happen to be preachers? Black churches do it all the time, go visit one on the Sunday before an election if you don't believe me.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

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?

I can agree with both of those. Unfortunately, you still oppose free speech in various other forms, including telling people they cannot get together and spend money on an political ads.

By the way, you do know that it was Democrats that first came up with the idea of prohibiting protests around conventions after they looked bad in 1968, don't you?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Then don't accept tax-exemption, which is a government power.

Pastors, including my own, don't understand they can't have it both ways.

Why can you have tax exempt status to run a political organization to talk about religion, but not have tax exempt status to run a religious organization that talks about politics? Could it be that the reason your pastor doesn't understand that because he can think and you can't?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Nonsense, you have demonstrated you have no common sense. Tax-exempt status means one becomes non-political. You are truly unAmerican in your political philosophy. But of course libertarianism has no roots in the Founders' teachings.

But freedom of speech allows you to disagree with me. What a great country!

Are you trying to tell me that the DNC and the RNC are both non political organizations because they are tax exempt?

No wonder you don't understand why your pastor is confused, you are a fucking idiot.