Freethought & Rationalism Archive

RufusAtticus · 06-14-2002, 07:13 AM

As far as I know, conservatives like Pat Robertson were the only ones abusing 501(c)(3) statis. Liberal organizations like the Sierra Club, have more respect for the law and don't apply for 501(c)(3) statis if they want to be involved in politics.

~~RvFvS~~

hezekiah jones · 06-14-2002, 07:16 AM

pizza, maybe I'm not being clear. The AU was not targeting politicians, it was targeting tax exempt organizations that are forbidden from endorsing particular candidates and/or legislation. That's why I said "apples and oranges."

Yes, the AU was targeting the CC's voter guides, and the affiliated churches that were distributing them. What I want to know is, where are the similarly situated liberal churches that were engaging in the same activity, activity that contravenes the restrictions of 501(c)(3).

If you can show me that the AU was ignoring identical activities on the part of liberal churches, then I will agree it was practicing a double standard. Where politicians go and to whom they speak is irrelevant from a legal standpoint.

<a href="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/501.html" target="_blank">Have a look at 501(c)(3)</a>.

tragic_pizza · 06-14-2002, 07:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by hezekiahjones:
<strong>pizza, maybe I'm not being clear. The AU was not targeting politicians, it was targeting tax exempt organizations that are forbidden from endorsing particular candidates and/or legislation. That's why I said "apples and oranges."

Yes, the AU was targeting the CC's voter guides, and the affiliated churches that were distributing them. What I want to know is, where are the similarly situated liberal churches that were engaging in the same activity, activity that contravenes the restrictions of 501(c)(3).

If you can show me that the AU was ignoring identical activities on the part of liberal churches, then I will agree it was practicing a double standard. Where politicians go and to whom they speak is irrelevant from a legal standpoint.

<a href="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/501.html" target="_blank">Have a look at 501(c)(3)</a>.</strong>

I know all about the 501(c)93), I work for a nonprofit.

Churches are most decidedly NOT 501(c)(3). My point is exactly that the AU was ignoring identical activity.

hezekiah jones · 06-14-2002, 07:46 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by tragic_pizza:
I know all about the 501(c)(3), I work for a nonprofit.

Okay.

Quote:

Churches are most decidedly NOT 501(c)(3).

Oh? I searched the keyword "Church" at Guidestar.org and got 77,361 hits. Surely some of them are churches?

Quote:

My point is exactly that the AU was ignoring identical activity.

I got that. Have you any evidence, that's all I'm asking.

Secular Elation · 06-14-2002, 08:11 AM

Well, regardless of the pro-religiousness or hypocrisy of the AU, I frequently receive their newsletter, and they are quite informative. Even if you think they're pro-religious, there have been many feature articles in the newsletter that have blasted Robertson, Falwell, LaHaye, etc.

Secular Elation · 06-14-2002, 08:12 AM

Also, despite the AU being headed by a minister, a major writer of the newsletter is Rob Boston, who I think is an atheist. (Well, his name appears in the secular humanist magazine Free Inquiry as a member, so...)

Brian63 · 06-14-2002, 08:53 AM

Another church/state separation group is the People for the American Way. Is anyone here a member of that group, or know how they compare with the ACLU, AU, FFRF, etc.? I just visited their website and they seem to be what I'm looking for.

Brian

Toto · 06-14-2002, 09:32 AM

AU responded to charges like tragic_pizza's <a href="http://www.au.org/press/pr102700.htm" target="_blank">here.</a>:

Quote:

As a non-partisan organization, we believe that consistency is vital to making the process fair and even handed. Accordingly, while we have actively opposed churches working on behalf of Republican candidates, we have also opposed church work on behalf of Democratic and even Independent candidates. In fact, our first involvement with this subject came a decade ago with a complaint against Jesse Jackson's attempted use of churches for fundraising during his 1988 presidential campaign. We were also one of a few groups to file a complaint with the IRS against the Buddhist temple that held a fundraiser for Vice President Al Gore in 1996.

More recently, we have filed formal complaints with the IRS against several churches for engaging in partisan activities on behalf of Democratic candidates. Just this year, AU filed complaints against the Third New Hope Missionary Baptist Church in Detroit, Mich., for opposing George W. Bush's candidacy and the Allen African Methodist Episcopal Church in New York for endorsing Vice President Gore. Last year we reported the Asia Baptist Church in New Orleans for supporting a Democratic candidate for governor.

Just this month, when The New York Times reported that Gore had asked a number of African-American pastors to support his campaign from their pulpits, Americans United wrote to Gore the next day, complaining that his request was "highly inappropriate," and warning that his requested endorsements "could put the tax-exempt status of those churches at risk."

Accordingly, the suggestion that we are acting under some kind of double standard is inaccurate and unfair. Our efforts have been non-partisan and without bias, and our record clearly proves this fact.

GaryP · 06-14-2002, 06:24 PM

I belong to PFAW also. But I really don't know a whole lot about them.

I do get e-mail action alerts periodically. They suggest issues which you may want to contact your elected officials about.

I think they are the ones who sent me information about the ID debare in Ohio and gave addresses of the state Bd. of Education members.

They also were pretty prominent in opposing the Ashcroft nomination last year.

tragic_pizza · 06-20-2002, 06:22 AM

The AU's campaign against Republicans is obviously much moe vociferous than its opposition to Democratic candidates.

I remain convinced that the AU is partisan and untrustworthy. However, having researched the issue I can see that my recollection is faulty, and I was wrong about my initial allegations.

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

06-14-2002, 07:13 AM	#11
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	As far as I know, conservatives like Pat Robertson were the only ones abusing 501(c)(3) statis. Liberal organizations like the Sierra Club, have more respect for the law and don't apply for 501(c)(3) statis if they want to be involved in politics. ~~RvFvS~~

06-14-2002, 07:16 AM	#12
hezekiah jones Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: WI Posts: 4,357	pizza, maybe I'm not being clear. The AU was not targeting politicians, it was targeting tax exempt organizations that are forbidden from endorsing particular candidates and/or legislation. That's why I said "apples and oranges." Yes, the AU was targeting the CC's voter guides, and the affiliated churches that were distributing them. What I want to know is, where are the similarly situated liberal churches that were engaging in the same activity, activity that contravenes the restrictions of 501(c)(3). If you can show me that the AU was ignoring identical activities on the part of liberal churches, then I will agree it was practicing a double standard. Where politicians go and to whom they speak is irrelevant from a legal standpoint. <a href="http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/501.html" target="_blank">Have a look at 501(c)(3)</a>.

06-14-2002, 08:11 AM	#15
Secular Elation Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: California Posts: 6,196	Well, regardless of the pro-religiousness or hypocrisy of the AU, I frequently receive their newsletter, and they are quite informative. Even if you think they're pro-religious, there have been many feature articles in the newsletter that have blasted Robertson, Falwell, LaHaye, etc.

06-14-2002, 08:12 AM	#16
Secular Elation Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: California Posts: 6,196	Also, despite the AU being headed by a minister, a major writer of the newsletter is Rob Boston, who I think is an atheist. (Well, his name appears in the secular humanist magazine Free Inquiry as a member, so...)

06-14-2002, 08:53 AM	#17
Brian63 Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: My own little fantasy world Posts: 8,911	Another church/state separation group is the People for the American Way. Is anyone here a member of that group, or know how they compare with the ACLU, AU, FFRF, etc.? I just visited their website and they seem to be what I'm looking for. Brian

06-14-2002, 06:24 PM	#19
GaryP Veteran Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Lancaster, OH Posts: 1,792	I belong to PFAW also. But I really don't know a whole lot about them. I do get e-mail action alerts periodically. They suggest issues which you may want to contact your elected officials about. I think they are the ones who sent me information about the ID debare in Ohio and gave addresses of the state Bd. of Education members. They also were pretty prominent in opposing the Ashcroft nomination last year.

06-20-2002, 06:22 AM	#20
tragic_pizza Regular Member Join Date: Aug 2001 Posts: 108	The AU's campaign against Republicans is obviously much moe vociferous than its opposition to Democratic candidates. I remain convinced that the AU is partisan and untrustworthy. However, having researched the issue I can see that my recollection is faulty, and I was wrong about my initial allegations.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.