Freethought & Rationalism Archive

fromtheright · 10-19-2002, 08:03 PM

I knew you guys would have a comment:
<a href="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/printdl20021019.shtml" target="_blank">David Limbaugh column</a>

kingcrim99 · 10-19-2002, 09:29 PM

The link says "David Limbaugh Column." That's all I need to know.

Seriously, this is a confused little screed. The issue is not related to the establishment clause. I'm not an expert in this sort of thing, but as far as I know, religious organizations are treated the same as other nonprofits, and one of the conditions of their tax status is that they cannot engage in partisan politics.

If churches want to act as part of the RNC or DNC machines, then they should pay their taxes like all the other political advocacy organizations.

Toto · 10-19-2002, 10:49 PM

We've had several prior threads on this issue. The prohibition against non-profits (including both conservative and liberal churches, the Sierra Club, etc..) engaging in partisan politics is not based on the First Amendment. But if the prohibition is going to be dropped, there is no good reason to do it only for churches.

Ronin · 10-19-2002, 11:37 PM

But even if they were advocating a full-blown Christian theocracy, so what?

Democracy ~ a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections

Theocracy ~ government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided

Treason ~ the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance

<a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:1:./temp/~c107r8tGvt:e337983:" target="_blank">Domestic Terrorism 802 (a)(5)(b)(i)(ii)</a>

My personal comment for your review.

[ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: Ronin ]

Kevin Dorner · 10-20-2002, 05:26 AM

The discriminatory part of the rejected bill was that churches would have been able to engage in political promotion without losing their tax-exempt status, but other tax-exempt organizations (charities, educational foundations, even the Internet Infidels) would not have.

Thus the violation of the First Amendment, because the bill was "respecting an establishment of religion" by giving a right to religious organizations that would be denied to secular ones. This would appear to be why the bill was rejected.

[ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]

ksagnostic · 10-20-2002, 06:07 AM

HR2357 was the most cynically partisan piece of legislation I have ever seen. The fact that it specifically exempted churches but not other non-profit organizations is clearly indicative that Republicans (and clearly not all Republicans) were blatantly trying to tilt, indeed tip over, the playing field in their favor.

Grumpy · 10-20-2002, 10:04 AM

To be fair, there are plenty of churches that could swing behind Democrats. That's why Martin Luther King's name was thrown around during the debate.

(Of course, in MLK's day, Democrats were still shaking off the "party of the South" label, while Republicans still clung to Abraham Lincoln.)

[ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: Grumpy ]

RufusAtticus · 10-20-2002, 02:08 PM

What do all these groups have in common?

American Jewish Committee;
the American Jewish Congress;
the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs;
the Central Conference of American Rabbis;
the Church of the Brethren Washington Office;
the Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers);
the General Board of Church and Society, United Methodist Church;
the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA;
the Presbyterian Church (USA), Washington Office;
Seventh-day Adventist Church, General Conference;
Soka Gakkai International -- USA Buddhist Association;
Union of American Hebrew Congregations;
the Unitarian Universalist Association;
the United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries.

They all opposed H.R. 2357.

joedad · 10-20-2002, 05:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus:
What do all these groups have in common?

American Jewish Committee;
the American Jewish Congress;
the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs;
the Central Conference of American Rabbis;
the Church of the Brethren Washington Office;
the Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers);
the General Board of Church and Society, United Methodist Church;
the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA;
the Presbyterian Church (USA), Washington Office;
Seventh-day Adventist Church, General Conference;
Soka Gakkai International -- USA Buddhist Association;
Union of American Hebrew Congregations;
the Unitarian Universalist Association;
the United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries.

They all opposed H.R. 2357.

Thanks for pointing out all of those bad guys.

joe

fromtheright · 10-20-2002, 05:54 PM

RufusAtticus,

And if I can come up with a list as long as yours of churches that support it what would either list prove?

10-19-2002, 08:03 PM	#1
fromtheright Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 633	The good guys lose one I knew you guys would have a comment: <a href="http://www.townhall.com/columnists/davidlimbaugh/printdl20021019.shtml" target="_blank">David Limbaugh column</a>

10-19-2002, 11:37 PM	#4
Ronin Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Mississippi Posts: 5,047	But even if they were advocating a full-blown Christian theocracy, so what? Democracy ~ a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections Theocracy ~ government of a state by immediate divine guidance or by officials who are regarded as divinely guided Treason ~ the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance <a href="http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c107:1:./temp/~c107r8tGvt:e337983:" target="_blank">Domestic Terrorism 802 (a)(5)(b)(i)(ii)</a> My personal comment for your review. [ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: Ronin ]</p>

10-20-2002, 05:26 AM	#5
Kevin Dorner Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada Posts: 762	The discriminatory part of the rejected bill was that churches would have been able to engage in political promotion without losing their tax-exempt status, but other tax-exempt organizations (charities, educational foundations, even the Internet Infidels) would not have. Thus the violation of the First Amendment, because the bill was "respecting an establishment of religion" by giving a right to religious organizations that would be denied to secular ones. This would appear to be why the bill was rejected. [ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: Kevin Dorner ]</p>

10-20-2002, 10:04 AM	#7
Grumpy Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Alaska, USA Posts: 1,535	To be fair, there are plenty of churches that could swing behind Democrats. That's why Martin Luther King's name was thrown around during the debate. (Of course, in MLK's day, Democrats were still shaking off the "party of the South" label, while Republicans still clung to Abraham Lincoln.) [ October 20, 2002: Message edited by: Grumpy ]</p>

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-19-2002, 09:29 PM	#2
kingcrim99 Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: WashDC area Posts: 25	The link says "David Limbaugh Column." That's all I need to know. Seriously, this is a confused little screed. The issue is not related to the establishment clause. I'm not an expert in this sort of thing, but as far as I know, religious organizations are treated the same as other nonprofits, and one of the conditions of their tax status is that they cannot engage in partisan politics. If churches want to act as part of the RNC or DNC machines, then they should pay their taxes like all the other political advocacy organizations.

10-19-2002, 10:49 PM	#3
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	We've had several prior threads on this issue. The prohibition against non-profits (including both conservative and liberal churches, the Sierra Club, etc..) engaging in partisan politics is not based on the First Amendment. But if the prohibition is going to be dropped, there is no good reason to do it only for churches.

10-20-2002, 06:07 AM	#6
ksagnostic Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Wichita, KS, USA Posts: 2,514	HR2357 was the most cynically partisan piece of legislation I have ever seen. The fact that it specifically exempted churches but not other non-profit organizations is clearly indicative that Republicans (and clearly not all Republicans) were blatantly trying to tilt, indeed tip over, the playing field in their favor.

10-20-2002, 02:08 PM	#8
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	What do all these groups have in common? American Jewish Committee; the American Jewish Congress; the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs; the Central Conference of American Rabbis; the Church of the Brethren Washington Office; the Friends Committee on National Legislation (Quakers); the General Board of Church and Society, United Methodist Church; the National Council of Churches of Christ in the USA; the Presbyterian Church (USA), Washington Office; Seventh-day Adventist Church, General Conference; Soka Gakkai International -- USA Buddhist Association; Union of American Hebrew Congregations; the Unitarian Universalist Association; the United Church of Christ Justice and Witness Ministries. They all opposed H.R. 2357.

10-20-2002, 05:54 PM	#10
fromtheright Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 633	RufusAtticus, And if I can come up with a list as long as yours of churches that support it what would either list prove?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.