NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been saying this for a couple of years now, but there's only so much outrage I can build up in any given day, and then I feel overwhelmed. This is one of those times.

from the LA Times: (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-allsaints7nov07,0,6769876.story?coll=la-home-headlines)
The Internal Revenue Service has warned one of Southern California's largest and most liberal churches that it is at risk of losing its tax-exempt status because of an antiwar sermon two days before the 2004 presidential election.

Rector J. Edwin Bacon of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena told many congregants during morning services Sunday that a guest sermon by the church's former rector, the Rev. George F. Regas, on Oct. 31, 2004, had prompted a letter from the IRS.

In his sermon, Regas, who from the pulpit opposed both the Vietnam War and 1991's Gulf War, imagined Jesus participating in a political debate with then-candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry. Regas said that "good people of profound faith" could vote for either man, and did not tell parishioners whom to support.

But he criticized the war in Iraq, saying that Jesus would have told Bush, "Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine. Forcibly changing the regime of an enemy that posed no imminent threat has led to disaster."

On June 9, the church received a letter from the IRS stating that "a reasonable belief exists that you may not be tax-exempt as a church … " The federal tax code prohibits tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from intervening in political campaigns and elections.

The letter went on to say that "our concerns are based on a Nov. 1, 2004, newspaper article in the Los Angeles Times and a sermon presented at the All Saints Church discussed in the article."
Now here's the question--and the hypocrisy: How many right-wing churches do tell their parishioners how to vote, and how many of them still have tax-exempt status? Why the hell does James Dobson's Church still have a tax exemption if the IRS is going after this church? What about Jerry Falwell? Pat Robertson?

Now personally--and this may surprise some of you--I'd just as soon that none of these groups had tax exemptions, or that at the very least, they'd be very limited in scope, such as only for money that went directly to charitable works (but not the overhead) and for the buildings themselves (but not ancillary buildings like a parsonage). But if we're going to play this little game, then let's be straight up about it, and bitchslap everyone who's breaking the rules.

BTW--that last sentence is not an admission that the church in question was breaking the rules--treading close to them perhaps, but not breaking the letter of the rule.

Sorry, but they hurt Georgie's feelings and when he's upset, countries don't get bombed... :rolleyes:

That church didn't do its job. It was allowing people to think...

Where are the letters threatening all the churches that contributed to the George W. Bush campaign, and encouraging voters to vote for him, and having him speak there?

Where are the letters threatening all the churches that contributed to the George W. Bush campaign, and encouraging voters to vote for him, and having him speak there?
Again, I don't know. I mean, it's not like using the IRS to go after political enemies is anything new (for either party), but this is really blatant.

I've been saying this for a couple of years now, but there's only so much outrage I can build up in any given day, and then I feel overwhelmed. This is one of those times.

from the LA Times: (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-allsaints7nov07,0,6769876.story?coll=la-home-headlines)

Now here's the question--and the hypocrisy: How many right-wing churches do tell their parishioners how to vote, and how many of them still have tax-exempt status? Why the hell does James Dobson's Church still have a tax exemption if the IRS is going after this church? What about Jerry Falwell? Pat Robertson?

Now personally--and this may surprise some of you--I'd just as soon that none of these groups had tax exemptions, or that at the very least, they'd be very limited in scope, such as only for money that went directly to charitable works (but not the overhead) and for the buildings themselves (but not ancillary buildings like a parsonage). But if we're going to play this little game, then let's be straight up about it, and bitchslap everyone who's breaking the rules.

BTW--that last sentence is not an admission that the church in question was breaking the rules--treading close to them perhaps, but not breaking the letter of the rule.
I agree on the issue of tax exempt status for churches. Except for charities and the buildings themselves (but not any non-church properties they may own) they should be paying taxes like any other enterprise or organization.

As for this little lapse, it's one or both of two things -- (1) the feds are targeting any group or organization that displeases them and the hell with the 1st Amendment, and/or (2) those right-wing gangs aren't churches at all but just frontmen for the party, so they have the right to do politics when churches don't (a rule nobody knew existed before).

Now personally--and this may surprise some of you--I'd just as soon that none of these groups had tax exemptions, or that at the very least, they'd be very limited in scope, such as only for money that went directly to charitable works (but not the overhead) and for the buildings themselves (but not ancillary buildings like a parsonage). But if we're going to play this little game, then let's be straight up about it, and bitchslap everyone who's breaking the rules.
Don't faint, but I happen to agree with you on this. The tax-exempt status of all religious organizations should be eliminated. IMHO, it constitutes a subsidy to religion, which should be unconstitutional. If people truly believe that God is GOD, then they should also believe that he will provide for his church.

This is sad. Including in your sermon that Jesus might not have been for war is far from involving yourself or your organization in politics. Imagine the precedent and its consequences: "No longer may sermons cover these topics: 'Crime,' 'Taxes,' 'Governments,' 'Prisons,' etc." Jesus himself spoke of these several times. I don't know whether to laugh, cry, or scream.

Don't faint, but I happen to agree with you on this. The tax-exempt status of all religious organizations should be eliminated. IMHO, it constitutes a subsidy to religion, which should be unconstitutional. If people truly believe that God is GOD, then they should also believe that he will provide for his church.There is something to be said for the argument that giving churches tax exempt status is a way of keeping church and state separate in that the government isn't able to use burdensome taxation as a hammer with which to pound churches into submission, but what's happening here is no different. It's still a hammer, and in this case, it looks suspiciously partisan.

I've been saying this for a couple of years now, but there's only so much outrage I can build up in any given day, and then I feel overwhelmed. This is one of those times.

from the LA Times: (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-allsaints7nov07,0,6769876.story?coll=la-home-headlines)

Now here's the question--and the hypocrisy: How many right-wing churches do tell their parishioners how to vote, and how many of them still have tax-exempt status? Why the hell does James Dobson's Church still have a tax exemption if the IRS is going after this church? What about Jerry Falwell? Pat Robertson?

Now personally--and this may surprise some of you--I'd just as soon that none of these groups had tax exemptions, or that at the very least, they'd be very limited in scope, such as only for money that went directly to charitable works (but not the overhead) and for the buildings themselves (but not ancillary buildings like a parsonage). But if we're going to play this little game, then let's be straight up about it, and bitchslap everyone who's breaking the rules.

BTW--that last sentence is not an admission that the church in question was breaking the rules--treading close to them perhaps, but not breaking the letter of the rule.

#1: Churches are businesses. They should be taxed like one.

#2: And Yet, the Hypocricy of Liberal Preachers like Moore, Franken, et al continues to get a pass.

Let's reprise what our leaders had to say on our little Iraqi Debacle. First, here's the president:

"If he refuses or continues to evade his obligations through more tactics of delay and deception, he and he alone will be to blame for the consequences. … Now, let's imagine the future. What if he fails to comply, and we fail to act, or we take some ambiguous third route which gives him yet more opportunities to develop this program of weapons of mass destruction…? Well, he will conclude that the international community has lost its will. He will then conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction. And some day, some way, I guarantee you, he'll use the arsenal. And I think every one of you who's really worked on this for any length of time believes that, too."

Here is the vice president:

"If you allow someone like Saddam Hussein to get nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, biological weapons, how many people is he going to kill with such weapons? He's already demonstrated a willingness to use these weapons. He poison-gassed his own people. He used poison gas and other weapons of mass destruction against his neighbors. This man has no compunction about killing lots and lots of people. So this is a way to save lives and to save the stability and peace of a region of the world that is important to the peace and security of the entire world."

Here's the hitch: That was Clinton and Gore in 1998, not Bush and Dick Cheney in 2002.

How about:

"I don’t own a single share of stock!” filmmaker Michael Moore proudly proclaimed.

He’s right. He doesn’t own a single share. He owns tens of thousands of shares – including nearly 2,000 shares of Boeing, nearly 1,000 of Sonoco, more than 4,000 of Best Foods, more than 3,000 of Eli Lilly, more than 8,000 of Bank One and more than 2,000 of Halliburton, the company most vilified by Moore in “Fahrenheit 9/11."

Barbra Streisand is another proponent of environmentalism, yet she drives an SUV, lives in a mansion and has a $22,000 annual water bill. In the past, she has driven to appointments in Beverly Hills in a motor home because of her aversion to using public bathrooms.

Rules are really just for the little people.

Some more:

Originally posted by PaperbackDigital (http://www.paperbackdigital.com/t_ebook.php?s=3&c=3&tid=9037)

Members of the liberal left exude an air of moral certitude. They pride themselves on being selflessly committed to the highest ideals and seem particularly confident of the purity of their motives and the evil nature of their opponents. To correct economic and social injustice, liberals support a whole litany of policies and principles: progressive taxes, affirmative action, greater regulation of corporations, raising the inheritance tax, strict environmental regulations, children’s rights, consumer rights, and much, much more.

But do they actually live by these beliefs? Peter Schweizer decided to investigate in depth the private lives of some prominent liberals: politicians like the Clintons, Nancy Pelosi, the Kennedys, and Ralph Nader; commentators like Michael Moore, Al Franken, Noam Chomsky, and Cornel West; entertainers and philanthropists like Barbra Streisand and George Soros. Using everything from real estate transactions, IRS records, court depositions, and their own public statements, he sought to examine whether they really live by the principles they so confidently advocate.

What he found was a long list of glaring contradictions. Michael Moore denounces oil and defense contractors as war profiteers. He also claims to have no stock portfolio, yet he owns shares in Halliburton, Boeing, and Honeywell and does his postproduction film work in Canada to avoid paying union wages in the United States. Noam Chomsky opposes the very concept of private property and calls the Pentagon “the worst institution in human history,” yet he and his wife have made millions of dollars in contract work for the Department of Defense and own two luxurious homes. Barbra Streisand prides herself as an environmental activist, yet she owns shares in a notorious strip-mining company. Hillary Clinton supports the right of thirteen-year-old girls to have abortions without parental consent, yet she forbade thirteen-year-old Chelsea to pierce her ears and enrolled her in a school that would not distribute condoms to minors. Nancy Pelosi received the 2002 Cesar Chavez Award from the United Farm Workers, yet she and her husband own a Napa Valley vineyard that uses nonunion labor.

Schweizer’s conclusion is simple: liberalism in the end forces its adherents to become hypocrites. They adopt one pose in public, but when it comes to what matters most in their own lives—their property, their privacy, and their children—they jettison their liberal principles and embrace conservative ones. Schweizer thus exposes the contradiction at the core of liberalism: if these ideas don’t work for the very individuals who promote them, how can they work for the rest of us?
Oh Yay. So Conservative Nannys are hypocritical about morality (what parent isn't?) while Liberal Nannys are hypocritical about economics/taxes.

But just which of the two bits of hypocricy really affects the most people? Sleeping around or taking my money at gunpoint? Taking drugs or taking my land?

Don't talk to me about hypocrisy.

I've been saying this for a couple of years now, but there's only so much outrage I can build up in any given day, and then I feel overwhelmed. This is one of those times.

from the LA Times: (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-allsaints7nov07,0,6769876.story?coll=la-home-headlines)

Now here's the question--and the hypocrisy: How many right-wing churches do tell their parishioners how to vote, and how many of them still have tax-exempt status? Why the hell does James Dobson's Church still have a tax exemption if the IRS is going after this church? What about Jerry Falwell? Pat Robertson?
I don't see much difference between this and the case of the South Carolina church that kicked out all of its members who voted for John Kerry. That church was also threated with losing its tax-exempt status.

#2: And Yet, the Hypocricy of Liberal Preachers like Moore, Franken, et al continues to get a pass.

That's about the stupidest fucking thing you've ever written around here, and you've got a pretty high bar to clear. Neither Moore nor Franken are preachers--they're pundits, and unless you're willing to give up Limbaugh and all his ilk, which outnumber the liberal pundits about 40 to 1, I'd say you need to pull your head out of your ass.

*snip*

So.....what? Are you condemning this piece of particulary partisan persecution or do you agree with it? You post seemed to go off on rather a large tangent which had little to do with the thread.

I don't see much difference between this and the case of the South Carolina church that kicked out all of its members who voted for John Kerry. That church was also threated with losing its tax-exempt status.
In that case, the church was never threatened by the IRS. Many people suggested that they ought to be investigated, but they never were, because the church took care of the situation itself--it booted the minister who had led the charge and reinstated the members who had been kicked out.

I don't see much difference between this and the case of the South Carolina church that kicked out all of its members who voted for John Kerry. That church was also threated with losing its tax-exempt status.

There is a huge difference between, "Jesus would've been a pacifist," and "YOU WILL VOTE THIS WAY OR WE WILL KICK YOU OUT!"

In the first, there is a general statment made with no actual reference to politics. The statement may have poltical ramifications, but what statement doesn't? In the second, the church is pushing a very specific political view at the expense of its parishioners. They are using money (since the church is run by money) to push and espouse a vote for a particular candidate (campaigning).

-snip-
This has nothing to do with the topic. And that is a seriously flawed conclusion. All that the man has discovered is that some prominent liberals (and it's a vast stretch to put Noam Chomsky and Hillary Clinton in the same category) are hypocrites. So five liberals are hypocrites, that certainly doesn't mean that we all are.

And your "taking my money at gunpoint" emotional argument doesn't work either. As a former soldier you should know all about taking things at gunpoint.

There is a huge difference between, "Jesus would've been a pacifist," and "YOU WILL VOTE THIS WAY OR WE WILL KICK YOU OUT!"

In the first, there is a general statment made with no actual reference to politics.
I have no problem with priests talking about war and pacifism in general from the pulpit, but this guy was much more specific about it.

In his sermon, Regas, who from the pulpit opposed both the Vietnam War and 1991's Gulf War, imagined Jesus participating in a political debate with then-candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry. Regas said that "good people of profound faith" could vote for either man, and did not tell parishioners whom to support.

But he criticized the war in Iraq, saying that Jesus would have told Bush, "Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine. Forcibly changing the regime of an enemy that posed no imminent threat has led to disaster."
This is pretty strongly political stuff. He's made it quite clear what side he is on.

This is pretty strongly political stuff. He's made it quite clear what side he is on.It's not like he did Kerry any favors--Kerry wasn't running as an anti-war candidate. Trust me--I wish he had been. I might not have felt like I needed a shower after I voted for the douchebag.

This is pretty strongly political stuff. He's made it quite clear what side he is on.

And yet didn't, in any way, push his parishioners to vote a particular way.

The article explicitly said that he stated a person of faith could vote for either with good conscience. And if the debate was actually supposed to be between Christ, Bush, and Kerry, I would bet that Christ had some things to say to Kerry too.

It's not like he did Kerry any favors--Kerry wasn't running as an anti-war candidate. Trust me--I wish he had been. I might not have felt like I needed a shower after I voted for the douchebag.
lol, remember www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com ?

That's about the stupidest fucking thing you've ever written around here, and you've got a pretty high bar to clear. Nice language, but pretty pathetic flame-bait if you ask me. How about using some substance rather than just vitreol eh? Neither Moore nor Franken are preachers--they're pundits, and unless you're willing to give up Limbaugh and all his ilk, which outnumber the liberal pundits about 40 to 1, I'd say you need to pull your head out of your ass.
All Preachers are pundits. All Pundits are preachers. Both should be taxed and neither should get away with hypocrisy.

If you advocate Zero Tollerance for Drug Use, use drugs and go to jail (bye Rush). If you agitate for Affermative Action, Corporate Divestment and High Taxes, you better damn-well have a "racially representative staff, no stocks and no tax shelters. It's only fair.

And yes, you can "have" Limbaugh if you really want him. I'll stick with the pundits from Reason.org thank you.

Nice language, but pretty pathetic flame-bait if you ask me. How about using some substance rather than just vitreol eh? Physician, heal thyself.
All Preachers are pundits. All Pundits are preachers. Both should be taxed and neither should get away with hypocrisy.

If you advocate Zero Tollerance for Drug Use, use drugs and go to jail (bye Rush). If you agitate for Affermative Action, Corporate Divestment and High Taxes, you better damn-well have a "racially representative staff, no stocks and no tax shelters. It's only fair.

And yes, you can "have" Limbaugh if you really want him. I'll stick with the pundits from Reason.org thank you.All pundits are not preachers and all preachers are not pundits, and your eagerness to speak in such absolutes shows your poverty of thought. Are there liberal hypocrites? Sure--what does that have to do with this thread? Not a goddamn thing. You've started your own thread on the subject--thanks. Now keep it over there, if you don't mind.

I've been saying this for a couple of years now, but there's only so much outrage I can build up in any given day, and then I feel overwhelmed. This is one of those times.

from the LA Times: (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-allsaints7nov07,0,6769876.story?coll=la-home-headlines)

Now here's the question--and the hypocrisy: How many right-wing churches do tell their parishioners how to vote, and how many of them still have tax-exempt status? Why the hell does James Dobson's Church still have a tax exemption if the IRS is going after this church? What about Jerry Falwell? Pat Robertson?

Now personally--and this may surprise some of you--I'd just as soon that none of these groups had tax exemptions, or that at the very least, they'd be very limited in scope, such as only for money that went directly to charitable works (but not the overhead) and for the buildings themselves (but not ancillary buildings like a parsonage). But if we're going to play this little game, then let's be straight up about it, and bitchslap everyone who's breaking the rules.

BTW--that last sentence is not an admission that the church in question was breaking the rules--treading close to them perhaps, but not breaking the letter of the rule.


This happens more often than you think. This one made the papers because it was a left-leaning pastor. There are right-leaning pastors in my area who have been bitchslapped.

This has nothing to do with the topic. And that is a seriously flawed conclusion. All that the man has discovered is that some prominent liberals (and it's a vast stretch to put Noam Chomsky and Hillary Clinton in the same category) are hypocrites. So five liberals are hypocrites, that certainly doesn't mean that we all are.Ah, but if one is not "religious" - i.e. does not attend a church one still recieves moral/ethical/political "preaching". "Preaching" is not a specifically religious concept. The topic was about preaching, hypocrisy and taxation. There seems to be a disconnect when it is considered hypocritical to go after party (A) for abusing its (illigitimate IMO) tax exempt status when party (B) preaches for more taxes, yet shelters vast wealth. That's all I was pointing out.
And your "taking my money at gunpoint" emotional argument doesn't work either. As a former soldier you should know all about taking things at gunpoint.Actually, I mostly prevented things from being taken...
I have no problem with priests talking about war and pacifism in general from the pulpit, but this guy was much more specific about it. This is pretty strongly political stuff. He's made it quite clear what side he is on.I agree.

But there is more to it than "OMG BUSH SUXXORZ AGAIN!" :rolleyes:

This happens more often than you think. This one made the papers because it was a left-leaning pastor. There are right-leaning pastors in my area who have been bitchslapped.
A wrong thing to do in both cases. Isn't the 1st Amendment speech clause supposed to guarantee everyone's right to express political opinions, and isn't the 1st Amendment religion clause supposed to separate church and state so that they can't tell each other what they are allowed to do? At any rate, that's the way I read it. Churches can't dictate law or control how their members vote, and the government similarly has no right to tell churches and/or preachers what they can and can't sermonize about.

But I still think churches should pay tax. Hey, if they didn't have tax exempt status, they couldn't be threatened with having it revoked.

Damnit, now I'm all psyched up and ready kick ass!:mad:

This happens more often than you think. This one made the papers because it was a left-leaning pastor. There are right-leaning pastors in my area who have been bitchslapped.
Citing some specific examples would help the conversation along. So far, the only example that's been mentioned involved a church where the IRS didn't get involved because the church handled the matter itself.

A wrong thing to do in both cases. Isn't the 1st Amendment speech clause supposed to guarantee everyone's right to express political opinions, and isn't the 1st Amendment religion clause supposed to separate church and state so that they can't tell each other what they are allowed to do? At any rate, that's the way I read it. Churches can't dictate law or control how their members vote, and the government similarly has no right to tell churches and/or preachers what they can and can't sermonize about.

But I still think churches should pay tax. Hey, if they didn't have tax exempt status, they couldn't be threatened with having it revoked.

On this matter, it has been discovered that the power to tax is the power to destroy. If you could tax churches, you could tax religion out of existence.

On this matter, it has been discovered that the power to tax is the power to destroy. If you could tax churches, you could tax religion out of existence.
Yeah, I noted that in a comment to Eutrusca earlier. But to me, this seems like just another hammer with which to hit churches. I wouldn't want the exemption gone completely, but it could be more restrictive--I don't see why a church ought to be exempt from taxes on stuff that either brings in income (like broadcasts or satellite programming) or on commercial property that isn't used in the direct purpose of the church.

So now when my rabbi talks about Israel, my synagogue might lose its exempt status? I doubt it. It seems to be that the bar was raised for this particular congregation.