RSS Feed
The Christian Right and the IRS
On September 28th the socially conservative Alliance Defense Fund is going to goad, stoke and provoke a federal agency that most Americans hope will never, ever take notice of them. That agency would be the Internal Revenue Service and let me add that you must really be devoted to an issue, or certain of victory, or a masochist it you want to publicly draw a line in the sand with this office of government.
The ADF wishes to protest a 54-year ban on tax-exempt religious organizations offering endorsements of politicians and more generally engaging in political activities. To this end, it has rounded up a few dozen pastors in twenty states who are vowing to advocate on behalf of given candidates from their pulpits.
It's going to get messy, what with questioning the governmenthood of the IRS and all that. In the ADF's own words:
"At ADF, we do not welcome attacks but understand they will come as we humbly seek to do God's will to defend these pastors who love God and want to serve Him. We expect complaints will be made to the IRS. We will pray and stand firm. We will represent these pastors should they come under fire and we will fight this battle all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, if necessary." (Alliance Defense Fund, "Pulpit Freedom")
These activities are presently illegal and can lead to loss of tax-exempt status. Looking over the ADF's history (it was founded in 1994 by James Dobson and representatives of 34 other ministries) I am guessing that the praises of Barack Obama will not be sung in those scofflaw churches on "Pulpit Freedom Sunday."
An attorney for the group told The Washington Post: "It is the job of the pastors of America to debate the proper role of church in society. It's not for the government to mandate the role of church in society."
Begging to differ is a counter-association of clergy affiliated with the United Church of Christ. They have already promised to preach sermons in favor of Church-State separation as a sort of preemptive strike. Too, they are suggesting that the IRS might want to send a few agents to witness next Sunday's law breaking (Can somebody from an organization representing non-belief take the UCC people out to lunch?).
In any case, this development calls attention to how central a role the courts are going to play in coming arguments about the Wall of Separation. On the back stroke, it also confirms something that many students of right-wing Christian groups know very well. Namely, that these Americans are ready, willing and able to engage in lengthy, complex and costly legal battles in an effort to achieve their ends.
If those secular believers and secular nonbelievers ever get around to lunch they might chat about how to raise tens of millions of dollars to hire skilled legal teams whose talent and commitment to the cause must be equal to that of their adversaries. They will need to confront an opponent which is actively looking for a protracted legal scrum and is so supremely confident of its strength that it is actually daring the IRS to go ahead and make its day.
By Jacques Berlinerblau |
September 21, 2008; 10:32 PM ET
Share: Email a Friend | 
Technorati
| Del.icio.us | Digg | Facebook
Previous: Faith to the Fore on Malaria |
Next: John McCain: Harlem Globetrotter
Posted by: Achshav | September 29, 2008 1:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Rabbis and Muslim Imams for Obama must come under strict scrutiny too. All politicians and religions must be given the same treatment.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 27, 2008 1:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment
IRS ought to revisit why Scientology was given the status of a religion considering every other country with half a grain of sense knows it for what it is, even its own founder Hubbard did.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 26, 2008 3:13 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Dear Dr. Berlinerblau:
My name is Leslie Kern. I was the architect of the initiative against the ADF's Pulpit Freedom Sunday - and of two complaints that were filed in 2006 against the World Harvest Church and the Fairfield Christian Church - the two Ohio churches that handed an Electoral College victory to GW Bush in 2004 through their introduction of State Ballot Issue 1 - banning gay marriage in the State of Ohio and turning out conservative voters in sufficient numbers to give the GOP the edge that it needed to win Ohio and secure the Bush White House for a second term. When the same two churches flagrantly endorsed the gubernatorial candidacy of Kenneth Blackwell in 2006, we filed our first two complaints. I wonder if I might chat with you, particularly about the implications of the document submitted to the Office of Professional Responsibility by Mort Caplin, former Commissioner, Cono Namorato, immediate past OPR Examiner, and Marc Owens, Former EO Director. It has the potential to cause lawyers at the ADF to be barred from practice before the IRS - a development that would be potentially devastating to the legal infrastructure of the religious right.
My email is EW4LK@columbus.rr.com. I share that address with the clergy spokesperson for our effort, my husband, Eric Williams.
Thank you for your consideration of this request. And thank you very, very much for your thoughtful editorial - for the cogency, clarity and competence of your thinking and your writing.
Best,
- Leslie
Posted by: Leslie Kern | September 25, 2008 9:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I have to say,Farnaz, after reading the drivel from Erik Stanley's post- I am inclining more to your assertions.
Posted by: VICTORIA | September 25, 2008 2:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I doubt Farnaz appreciates you using her as an excuse to foment your deeply disturbing hate-speech.
I sincerely doubt she is any more of a fan of Ahmadinejad's extremist dictatoriship than I am.
I also think she has the brains to understand that the Diest ethics that this country was philisophically fromed from, allow both of us, differing faiths and non-faiths that we may be- to live tranquilly and peacefully within the borders of our country.
Should the USA remove the tax exempt status of churches?
I don't believe so.
Should there be oversight of the financial practices of said chruches?
Absolutely.
Farnaz does raise a good point when she raises the red flags of abuses by clergy- one that should be furthered explored.
I don't want to live in a theocratic society, and like America as it is now.
Since you haven't expressed an opinion on the actual topic here,Janet, shall I assume that you share the ideas expressed and are an atheist who believes that churches should be taxed like any other organization?
Posted by: VICTORIA | September 25, 2008 2:17 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Contrary to your mania Janet- - I have actually worked to protect holocaust survivors, and suceeded.
Some of us have more to offer than hatred.
It is our actions- words are empty.
That was Victoria in the previous post.
In 1987, Reagan granted amnesty to all illegal immigrants in California.
I lived in Venice Beach at the time.
Here is what happened- thise who had beenlivng and saving money illegally in America for years- took their cash out if the bank- went back across the border they had not been able to cross, and came back with a boatload of relatives.
I knew a woman who had been a housekeeper for 20 years and took her $40,000.00 she had saved back to her town.
In one week- 10,000 people came into L.A.
10,000 people! And the city had to build a tent city, for the first time in who knows how long- there was dysentery and cholera outbreaks, no sanitation- no capacity to are for a small city springing up overnight.
I was on the town council in Venice- and with 2 Hindus, (i was a christian) we incorporated ourselves as a non-profit, and fed about 100 people a day for over a year--we just fed people and directed them to hostels, and various orgs-
(we also filed a class action suit to keep the rent contrlled apartments guaranteed to the residents of the hotel we cooked in- jewish holocaust survivors who were being shoved out by real estate interests- we won)
I did not touch money- our whole opertion was donated- by GOODS- but we had to tabulate our resources- and we didn't pay taxes.
We never made = a tiny single penny- we broke even- it was an enormous blessing and small miracle of faith
We also prayed and meditated and played music and a variety of religiously oriented activites-
I'm sure glad you weren't around to shut us down.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 25, 2008 2:00 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Farnaz- No it doesn't mean clergy and families are tripping off to fat vacation packages at your expense-
Inurement/Private Benefit - Charitable Organizations
A section 501(c)(3) organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, such as the creator or the creator's family, shareholders of the organization, other designated individuals, or persons controlled directly or indirectly by such private interests. No part of the net earnings of a section 501(c)(3) organization may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. A private shareholder or individual is a person having a personal and private interest in the activities of the organization.
And can be sanctioned in an excess benefit clause.
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=123303,00.html
As for your theory-
"All of the services currently provided by institutionalized religions are available through government agencies. By removing their tax exempt status, we would enable those agencies would be able to improve and expand service delivery."
Where in the WORLD do you get THIS iidea?
In one sentence you rail against the national socialism - with securities and mrotgage banking-
and in the next you are asserting that the government already has a socialist service system in place!
Where have you been livning for the past 15 years???
The welfare system in America was gutted and thrown out years ago!
Have you ever actually TRIED to access these alleged services the gov is supposedly already supplying??
They don't exist.
Are you reading an old history book from the 70's or something?
I have been a negotiator for PWA's (people with aids) for almost 20 years- And on the west, east coast, and midwest.
and I promise you- if such services existed- I would have found them for my clients.
Without faith based charities, many people wouldn't have a bed to sleep in, nor a place to live- or someone to come and clean their home when they can't get out of bed- wash soiled laundry- care for pets- or just keep company
nor many of the most basic amenities of life, the list goes on and on and on.
You are just making this up- or imagining what you think exists.
No thanks- for whatever pittance you imagine is coming out of your pocket- many of us have been doing the down nd dirty work for a long time- and aren't begrudging the care given.
You are in a dreamworld if you imagine the government steps in and has socialized programs that care for those who slip through the cracks.
As we speak, there is a program by this admin to eliminate all homeless shelters with 5 years.
As soomeone who worked in one, and has actually read the notices sent out by our government TO the adminstrators of homesless shelters all over america warning them fo the impending laws to eliminate their existence-
I can tell you quite firmly- you have no idea whatyou are talking about.
And you think such social programs will be free?
Where will the money come from?
Taxpayers pockets!
If America wanted to be a socialist country - it would be one.
You sound like Scrooge, when asked for a donation for the poor, who said, "Are there no workhouses?"
The meaning is, it doesn't affect you personally- and why doesn't someone else take care of the 'problem' of the poor and sick?
Someone already does, chariy orgs that you are proposing we strip of their status.
Because you have some fantasy that someone else soemwhere will pick up the slack.
Farnaz:
Let me clarify: To audit religious institutions is a very difficult thing to do, given the limitations the IRS has placed on itself.
Now, if all the activities of the church were strictly in keeping with 501(c)3, why all the protections from audits?
Posted by: VICTORIA | September 25, 2008 1:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Note to Christians and Catholics. Here's a nice juicy bit from the Quoran for you. More to come.
5:72-73: They do blaspheme who say: "God is Christ the son of Mary." But said Christ: "O Children of Israel! worship God, my Lord and your Lord." Whoever joins other gods with God, - God will forbid him the garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrongdoers be no one to help. They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except One God. If they desist not from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.
Posted by: Dan | September 25, 2008 10:03 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"But let me ask you Farnaz- when it comes to religions, except your own culturalized and former one, you go off-
Nut it is those same philisophical foundations which are allowing you to live in tranquility in America as an atheist."
Victoria can try to bait me from now until the end of time. That will not stop the fact that she has wrongly accused Farnaz who has defended other religious/racial groups when they'be been the subject of prejudice. Both Muslims and Catholics come to mind. Everyone knows this so there is no point in my scampering around like a fool gathering "evidence." (Evidently, other than rant bigoted garbage, Victoria has little else to do.)
Second, for her to condescend to Farnaz about what allows her to live here is laughable. We (she, I, everyone else) allows the likes of a bigot like Victoria to live here and for that ysaid bigot should be grateful.
************************************
She accuses me of being anit-Muslim because like so many Muslims I have contempt for AhkmAhmad who is known as a racist world wide.
I DON'T HAVE TO LOOK FOR EVIDENCE TO SHOW YOU'RE A RACIST, VICTORIA. NOT ONLY HAVE YOU SPEWED RACIST XENOPHOBIC FILTH ABOUT FARNAZ BUT YOU ALLIGN YOURSELF WITH AHMADINEJAD.
VICTORIA ISN'T VERY SMART, BUT THEN BIGOTS NEVER ARE. HAVE FUN WITH YOUR BUDDY AHKMADINEJAD. OH, AND VICTORIA, IF YOU'VE READ FARNAZ'S POSTS YOU KNOW SHE STILL HAS MANY FRIENDS IN IRAN.
SINCE VICTORIA IS SO UNHAPPY HERE AND SUCH AN AHKMADINEJAD LOVER, MAYBE WE CAN ENLIST FARNAZ'S HELP IN ARRANGING FOR RACIST VICTORIA TO MOVE TO IRAN TO LIVE. HE'D LOVE HER RACIST GARBAGE AND WOULD BE FLATTERED AT HOW MUCH SHE LOVES HIS.
HER ANTI-SEMITIC RACIST FILTH AND XENOPHOBIC GARBAGE WOULD BE MOST WELCOME THERE, NO DOUBT.
Posted by: Janet | September 25, 2008 9:26 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I stated earlier-
"Frankly Janet, your own xenophobia of muslims is well documented on these boards."
Janet responded-
"That's a lie and you're a bigot. Lying about me won't get you any further than lying about Farnaz."
I did not have to even look for proof- Janet has been busy spreading the love-
This is only what she has written today-
-------------------------
Janet:
That anti-semitic pig isn't my brother. He isn't the brother of any Bahai either since he's busy killing and torturing them. His only "brothers" are other pigs like him.
September 24, 2008 4:23 PM
--------------------------------
NO, it isn't, which is something the anti-semitic pig president of Iran ought to check out. Jews is spelled with a captial letter, namie, and you can bet your nasty, bigoted ass that if I were a Jew I would say so. We Christians don't have much to be proud of these days.
September 24, 2008 10:42 PM |
---------------------------------
This is not the first time I've seen a racist find honor in being so designated so consider yourself Ahmadinejad's brother. If you would like to tell us what in his address to the UN was not anti-semitic racist garbage, I'd like to know.
For you anti-Jewish racism equals "justice." Yes, I agree with your self-assessment. You are a racist pig.
September 24, 2008 10:47 PM
---------------------------------------
Shutting up would be a very good thing for you to do. The pig president of Iran is a Holocaust denying racist who belongs in a pigpen with ill mannered cretins such as your dictatorial self.
September 24, 2008 10:49 PM
--------------------------------------
Posted by: VICTORIA | September 25, 2008 6:20 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Basically Janet- despite your hysterical accusations- Farnaz can certainly speak for herself-
If she thinks that observing that her own inclinations may color her perspective- she can call me a racist for it herself is she perceives it thusly.
However, I depend upon her love of a good debate on the actual issues presented.
Posted by: VICTORIA | September 24, 2008 5:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
I wish Farnaz's contention that social services were provided by the government were actually true.
It would be more of a socialist america- but I would like to see it.
It would be good to see an audit of social services provided- one of the problems in charity orgs is that services can sometimes be duplicated.
And resources wasted-
One major benefit with the advent of the internet is being able to easily see if services actually are duplicated, and coalescing resources within orgs.
It wasn't very easy before- you may make choices to favor one service over another- only to discover later that someone else was providing it- and the disfavored service could have been provided all along.
Posted by: VICTORIA | September 24, 2008 5:08 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Now you got me thinking about whether or not my own biases as a believer may affect how I view government intervention for religious charity organizations.
For instance, we Muslims are coming up to the end of Ramdan next Monday. And by that time we must give our zakat, or charity.
However, the current administration has forbidden muslims from giving money to the charity of our choice.
All muslim charities have been restricted.
Muslims asked for a list from our government stating which charities we would be premitted to contribute to-
Being good citizens, living within the guidelines of laws set- whether fairly or unfairly, and civic concern for our national security motivated such a request.
The answer we receved is that NO mulsim charities are permitted!
We are actually being restricted from fulfilling our religious obligations, as giving this zakat at this time is one of the 5 pillars of our religion and without it we are not allowed to compete ou religious obligations.
Now, I could react ot this unfair intervention of a very real restiction on my ability to practice my religion- in a variety of ways.
My choice is to understand that it is the charity that matters, and who receives it, and the spirit with which I give it.
So I find ways to distribute my obligation where it will do the most benefit.
And I don't look at christians and say, hey- those churches have plenty of money- and they are taking it out of my pocket- and I am not a christian so why should I care?
But I look at them as people with generous hearts, doing what good they can- who should be enabled to continue doing that good.
I wouldn't want non-profit atheist orgs to pay taxes either.
It is the charity, the genrosity, the giving hearts I advocate for-
the denominations or lack thereof- have no bearing (or should not- except in the case of muslims of course) on the necessity of their work.
Of course they should be accountable, as any charity should be.
But calling to eradicate status for reasons that are emotionally based- or simply anti-religion deserve no more consideration than reasons based on any other prejudices.
Certainly I have paid my taxes for decades- but I do not begrudge the good and noble motives of others by opposing them.
Posted by: VICTORIA | September 24, 2008 4:58 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Victoria:
"Frankly Janet, your own xenophobia of muslims is well documented on these boards."
That's a lie and you're a bigot. Lying about me won't get you any further than lying about Farnaz.
What you say of Farnaz proves it and its not the first time:
"But let me ask you Farnaz- when it comes to religions, except your own culturalized and former one, you go off-
Nut it is those same philisophical foundations which are allowing you to live in tranquility in America as an atheist."
Farnaz has blogged in defense of Muslims and against Quinn's reporting on having taken communion. Who the hell are you to tell someone of her intellect and depth about what "this country allows" her?
It allows you your hatred. Let it allow her her wisdom.
Posted by: Janet | September 24, 2008 4:29 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Frankly Janet, your own xenophobia of muslims is well documented on these boards.
If I were not a Muslim who speaks reasonably, and you feel especially compelled to try to discredit- you would never make such an outrageous claim.
Farnaz makes no secret about being an atheist.
Just as I may consider a post that remarks on my own slanted views as beinng plausible-
To obeserve and commen on a bias does not xenophobia make- nor your previous heavily emotionlly laden "racist" remark.
Peopel throw that term around with far too much ease when they have no substantial point to counter or make.
Posted by: VICTORIA | September 24, 2008 4:01 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Victoria-
"Stating someone has an obvious bias is hardly racist-
Having a bias is normal- we all have inclinations that we favor or disfavor."
You're the only one with the bias and xenophobia, not Farnaz.
Posted by: Janet | September 24, 2008 3:02 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Stating someone has an obvious bias is hardly racist-
Having a bias is normal- we all have inclinations that we favor or disfavor.
It is when those biases turn into bigotry by dehumanizing and vilifying entire groups, that we must speak up.
I never suggested any group should be allowed to operate without any oversight.
If abuses are suspected, of course they should be audited.
But a call to audit every single church is a bureaucratic and financial nightmare.
Especially if it is based on mollifying a questionable bias against religion.
There are much MUCH better folks we could call for blanket audits for right now.
People who have ruined our market for instance?
Posted by: VICTORIA | September 24, 2008 2:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Victoria:
"But let me ask you Farnaz- when it comes to religions, except your own culturalized and former one, you go off-
Nut it is those same philisophical foundations which are allowing you to live in tranquility in America as an atheist."
I know Farnaz can speak for herself, but this is a racist, xenophobic thing to say. Your also completely wrong about 501(3)C and churches should be audited like every other institution tax exempt and otherwise.
As for the rest of your foolishness, without the churches tax exemptions paying for the pensions, etc., as described by Mr. Waters and many others, much more would be available for the poor.
In the meantime, keep your racist xenophobic garbage to yourself. If you don't like living in this country with Farnaz get out. She's so far ahead of you, it's a joke.
Posted by: Janet | September 24, 2008 10:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
END OF STORY:
Roy calls foul--
Roy, that is most likely just your upper lip.
______________________
Oh really?
At least I'm not an Republican neosocialist.
Posted by: Roy | September 24, 2008 8:55 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The solution is quite simple: get rid of the government subsidy for religion. No religious exemption from the IRS. Tax the churches like the rest of us.
Posted by: Gareth Harris | September 24, 2008 8:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I think the pulpit should stay out fo the political endorsement arena myself.
But let me ask you Farnaz- when it comes to religions, except your own culturalized and former one, you go off-
Nut it is those same philisophical foundations which are allowing you to live in tranquility in America as an atheist.
What athesit societies can you give as an example that have allowed such tolerance towards the religious?
Look at the militaristic oppression in Turkey- under an observant, but secular religious prime minister- Turkey is finally achieving a degree of economic and political prosperity-
After 80 years of generals in charge and atheist secularism- the overwhelming religiously inclined populace has had enough- and the atheists are STILL screaming about letting girls wear headscarves to attend univeristy!!
In China, countless adherents of Falun Dafa Chi-Qong have been vrutalized , imprisoned, and murdered by the government.
When the atheists are in power, oppression and imprisonment have been the order of the day.
What atheist society has proven to have a superior humanity?
Posted by: VICTORIA | September 24, 2008 3:56 AM
Report Offensive Comment
That was Victoria in the previous post.
In 1987, Reagan granted amnesty to all illegal immigrants in California.
I lived in Venice Beach at the time.
Here is what happened- thise who had beenlivng and saving money illegally in America for years- took their cash out if the bank- went back across the border they had not been able to cross, and came back with a boatload of relatives.
I knew a woman who had been a housekeeper for 20 years and took her $40,000.00 she had saved back to her town.
In one week- 10,000 people came into L.A.
10,000 people! And the city had to build a tent city, for the first time in who knows how long- there was dysentery and cholera outbreaks, no sanitation- no capacity to are for a small city springing up overnight.
I was on the town council in Venice- and with 2 Hindus, (i was a christian) we incorporated ourselves as a non-profit, and fed about 100 people a day for over a year--we just fed people and directed them to hostels, and various orgs-
(we also filed a class action suit to keep the rent contrlled apartments guaranteed to the residents of the hotel we cooked in- jewish holocaust survivors who were being shoved out by real estate interests- we won)
I did not touch money- our whole opertion was donated- by GOODS- but we had to tabulate our resources- and we didn't pay taxes.
We never made = a tiny single penny- we broke even- it was an enormous blessing and small miracle of faith
We also prayed and meditated and played music and a variety of religiously oriented activites-
I'm sure glad you weren't around to shut us down.
Posted by: VICTORIA | September 24, 2008 3:28 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Farnaz- No it doesn't mean clergy and families are tripping off to fat vacation packages at your expense-
Inurement/Private Benefit - Charitable Organizations
A section 501(c)(3) organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, such as the creator or the creator's family, shareholders of the organization, other designated individuals, or persons controlled directly or indirectly by such private interests. No part of the net earnings of a section 501(c)(3) organization may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. A private shareholder or individual is a person having a personal and private interest in the activities of the organization.
And can be sanctioned in an excess benefit clause.
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=123303,00.html
As for your theory-
"All of the services currently provided by institutionalized religions are available through government agencies. By removing their tax exempt status, we would enable those agencies would be able to improve and expand service delivery."
Where in the WORLD do you get THIS iidea?
In one sentence you rail against the national socialism - with securities and mrotgage banking-
and in the next you are asserting that the government already has a socialist service system in place!
Where have you been livning for the past 15 years???
The welfare system in America was gutted and thrown out years ago!
Have you ever actually TRIED to access these alleged services the gov is supposedly already supplying??
They don't exist.
Are you reading an old history book from the 70's or something?
I have been a negotiator for PWA's (people with aids) for almost 20 years- And on the west, east coast, and midwest.
and I promise you- if such services existed- I would have found them for my clients.
Without faith based charities, many people wouldn't have a bed to sleep in, nor a place to live- or someone to come and clean their home when they can't get out of bed- wash soiled laundry- care for pets- or just keep company
nor many of the most basic amenities of life, the list goes on and on and on.
You are just making this up- or imagining what you think exists.
No thanks- for whatever pittance you imagine is coming out of your pocket- many of us have been doing the down nd dirty work for a long time- and aren't begrudging the care given.
You are in a dreamworld if you imagine the government steps in and has socialized programs that care for those who slip through the cracks.
As we speak, there is a program by this admin to eliminate all homeless shelters with 5 years.
As soomeone who worked in one, and has actually read the notices sent out by our government TO the adminstrators of homesless shelters all over america warning them fo the impending laws to eliminate their existence-
I can tell you quite firmly- you have no idea whatyou are talking about.
And you think such social programs will be free?
Where will the money come from?
Taxpayers pockets!
If America wanted to be a socialist country - it would be one.
You sound like Scrooge, when asked for a donation for the poor, who said, "Are there no workhouses?"
The meaning is, it doesn't affect you personally- and why doesn't someone else take care of the 'problem' of the poor and sick?
Someone already does, chariy orgs that you are proposing we strip of their status.
Because you have some fantasy that someone else soemwhere will pick up the slack.
Posted by: Anonymous | September 24, 2008 3:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Let me clarify: To audit religious institutions is a very difficult thing to do, given the limitations the IRS has placed on itself.
Now, if all the activities of the church were strictly in keeping with 501(c)3, why all the protections from audits?
Posted by: Farnaz | September 24, 2008 1:09 AM
Report Offensive Comment
After reading DB's post, I decided to do a bit of investigating of 501(c)3 on tax exemptions.
After glancing at the form, I searched for "church," and found among other things this curious description limiting the ability of the IRS to audit churches. Read, and weep. This means that our tax dollars are paying for those big fat retirement packages of so many clergy, their vacation homes, trips, etc.
This is simple theft, nothing more. If my tax dollars are going to pay for these institutions, I'm entitled to see how my money's being spent.
TITLE 26 -INTERNAL REVENUE CODE Subtitle F -Procedure and Administration CHAPTER 78 -DISCOVERY OF LIABILITY AND ENFORCEMENT OF TITLE Subchapter A -Examination and Inspection
§ 7611. Restrictions on church tax inquiries and examinations
(a) Restrictions on inquiries
(1) In general
The Secretary may begin a church tax inquiry only if—
(A)the reasonable belief requirements of paragraph (2), and
(B)the notice requirements of paragraph (3), have been met.
(2) Reasonable belief requirements
The requirements of this paragraph are met with respect to any church tax inquiry if an appropriate high-level Treasury official reasonably believes (on the basis of facts and circumstances recorded in writing) that the church—
(A)may not be exempt, by reason of its status as a church, from tax under section 501 (a), or
(B)may be carrying on an unrelated trade or business (within the meaning of section 513) or otherwise engaged in activities subject to taxation under this title.
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html
Posted by: Farnaz | September 24, 2008 1:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Roy, you write:
"Nationalization of AIG and socializing Wall Street Losses is Socialist. Go look for a new scapegoat name to call anyone or anyone you disagree with but you neocons have lost the right to use "socialist"
Actually, I'm indebted to PaganPlace for her call on this one. What is afoot with AIG is most accurately described as "national socialism," also known as fascism.
All of the services currently provided by institutionalized religions are available through government agencies. By removing their tax exempt status, we would enable those agencies would be able to improve and expand service delivery.
In the meantime, we're subsidizing the likes of Reverend Wright with his lavish vacations, multi-million dollar home building, flights to hobnob with the Lybians, and gazillion dollar retirement package. Socialism for churches? No such animal.
Fascism? A gigantic swindle?
There is a word familiar to the IRS: AUDIT. Every single congregation should be audited.
THEN END THE HANDOUTS FOR ORGANIZED RELIGION.
Posted by: Farnaz | September 23, 2008 8:12 PM
Report Offensive Comment
End all religious/church tax exemptions - period.
Have all the political opinions you want, forthwith. Preach whatever political gospel suits your purposes - no problem.
Just pay your income/property taxes and live free.
Posted by: common sense | September 23, 2008 7:36 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Being a pastor myself, I recently did a two part sermon on the relationship of the church to politics. I tried to be fair to the many perspectives on it.
I have mixed feelings about it. On one hand I do think this is a freedom of speech issue. If congregations don't mind their pastors telling them how to vote, then why should the IRS? But on the other hand, I would never presume to tell my people how they must vote. Nor would I attend a church that tried to tell me how to vote. This is not to say that I do not care or have opinions. My goal as a pastor is to help persons better understand their faith and the issues of our time, staying informed and involved as their conscience leads them. I want them to really think about these things and not just take my word or anyone else's. Too many religious people, I think, are lazy. It's easier to be told how to think and vote than to do the kind of study, refelction and struggle required to make good choices.
Thanks for a great blog. We are beginning a kind of forum in our church to discuss current issues of all kinds from a more ecumenical perspective. I wonder if you might come and speak sometime?
Bass Mitchell, Pastor
Epiphany UMC
Vienna, VA
Posted by: Bass Mitchell | September 23, 2008 5:25 PM
Report Offensive Comment
fr EarlC:
>...It is fast approaching the time that the government should give the religious right what it wants. ...
NO. The rr has already overstepped its boundaries by wailing and shrieking at every little move the pro-GLBT or pro-choice advocates make; why make it worse?
Posted by: Alex | September 23, 2008 3:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
It is fast approaching the time that the government should give the religious right what it wants. Let the churches make political endorsements from their pulpits. Afterall, we do also have free speech in our country. At the same time, remove the ability of individuals to claim contributions to religious organizations as an itemized deduction. Up until now, the Federal government has aided religion in this country by allowing this deduction.
Posted by: EarlC | September 23, 2008 2:27 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Curious. Have you ever visited a black church around election season? The black church has a long history of political endorsement from the pulpit.
Posted by: rrbranch | September 23, 2008 2:09 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Erik Stanley (Counsel to the ADF) wrote:
"Tax exemption of churches is not a benefit but a right under the Constitution."
"Government violation of First Amendment rights is not the answer."
---------------------
Your argument, Mr. Stanly, is fundamentally flawed. The First Amendment states, in part, that "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]; or abridging the freedom of speech..." This is a proscription against action on the part of government to limit speech and religion. The pastors and churches you represent are absolutely free to make whatever comments they choose from the pulpit. The exemption rules of 501(c)(3) were created as a reward to those organizations who limit their activities to those, inter alia, PURELY charitable, educational or religious. The churches are free to say whatever they wish, but they should not expect to get the reward of tax-exempt status which is reserved for groups abiding by specific statutory standards. And certainly the Constitution is not violated if a church CHOOSES to accept tax-exempt status in return for limiting its own activities. Your argument is even more difficult to make because exempt organizations do not belong to any suspect class and therefore the statutory provision will not be subject to strict scrutiny.
But, please, feel free to advocate that your client violates the law and still call yourself an officer of the court. That seems totally consistent.
Posted by: db | September 23, 2008 1:39 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Think Reagan and air traffic controllers.........
the IRS should revoke every one of their tax ememptions.
Posted by: BSquare | September 23, 2008 1:23 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Erik Stanley has written the following: "Tax exemption of churches is not a benefit but a right under the Constitution. As the U.S. Supreme Court has noted, the power to tax involves the power to destroy, and churches are exempt from taxation under the principle that there is no surer way to destroy religion than to begin taxing it."
This is simply not true. The constitution guarantees no right to churches to be free of taxation. There is no such language in the constitution, nor has the U.S. Supreme Court ever ruled that such a right exists.
Churches, like other non-profits, may apply for tax-exempt status. They are essentially like other non-profits in this regard. To be tax exempt is not a right of churches; it is something allowed to non-profits under federal law. If churches, like other non-profits, want to be exempt from paying federal taxes, they have to play by the rules established by the federal government in order to have tax-exempt status.
To suggest, as Erik Stanley does here, that the government is out to "destroy" the churches by taxing them is nonsense, and it's disingenuous. The federal government's rules apply to non-profits generally. Churches do not enjoy a special right to escape paying taxes. Nor are they the targets of the federal government. It's Mr. Stanley's organization that is stepping out of bounds, by encouraging churches to break the law and put their tax exempt status in jeopardy.
The government is not trying to destroy the churches by taxing them; a few churches, goaded on by Mr. Stanley's organization, are planning to break the law in an effort to get special privileges not accorded to other non-profits. They want to have their cake and eat it to, to be able to advocate for candidates and be exempt from paying taxes. This is contrary to our current law.
Churches as tax-exempt non-profits can engage in issue advocacy. They are not allowed, as tax-exempt non-profits, to campaign for or endorse candidates. This is a fair law, applied equally to non-profits. I am active in my church, and we advocate on issues all the time. We do not endorse candidates. This is required of us by federal law if we want to keep our tax-exempt status.
Mr. Stanley distorts the meaning of the constitution in his post. His arguments should be soundly rejected by all thoughtful Americans.
I am a person of faith.
Posted by: Alivo | September 23, 2008 1:22 PM
Report Offensive Comment
You would think that, with all the lawyers the ADF has at its disposal, they would realize that the IRS has nothing to do with it. This is a statutory issue. Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code (passed by Congress) mandates that exemption only be provided if a number of qualifications are met - including that the organization "does not 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." The IRS cannot legally ignore this provision. And the Supreme Court has already held it to be constitutional. Maybe all the ADF lawyers graduated from Regent University and are therefore excusably ingnorant of how the law works.
The bottom line is that, though they choose to phrase it as a free speech issue, no one is focing these churches to stay mum on political issues - including endorsements. It's just that these churches want to be able to speak on these issues AND retain exempt status. Each of these organizations filed an application with the IRS, assuring the Service that it would not participate in such activities. In return, they got to get out of the taxes that every other organization (not qualified under (c)(3)) has to pay. Now they want to go back on their agreement and expect to be rewarded with continued tax exemption.
I hope they revoke the statuses of each of these organization retroactive to their incorporation.
Posted by: Dan | September 23, 2008 1:10 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The Gospel certainly has political implications, particularly the radical calls to feed the hungry and the care for the poor. The Church is consistently called to be a radically different culture based on humility and service, where the leaders are the servants of all, and the outcast in society is given the place of honor. Much of the rest of the New Testament calls for a community that elevates the position of women, demands equity and humane treatment in labor practices, and peaceful resistance to corruption and evil.
In saying this, I do not know if a pastor truly has any candidate they can wholeheartedly support that truly seeks to be the servant to the least, yet to suggest that the Church is apolitical and should not engage the culture or its politics doesn't make sense since the Gospel demands it. Perhaps the engagement is less about voting though and more about living out the radical community that Jesus taught about. Not all churches are diehard pro-McCain or pro-Obama, some come to the conclusion that the Church should not seek power or support power, rather it it should be an agent of change and humble love and service.
Posted by: Nivek | September 23, 2008 1:03 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The US needs to end the personal tax deduction for tithes and offerings, as a safeguard against the same naked greed in the pulpit that has destroyed our economy. All enrichment in the Bible is spiritual in nature, yet our church poobahs have come to believe that living a lavish lifestyle should be their guarantee, making slaves of pew-sitters in the great pyramid scheme we call church. Tithing is for Jews alone and any preacher who implies that tithes should be paid is awash in self-serving sin and false teaching.
Posted by: BennyFactor | September 23, 2008 12:45 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Stanley's comment is misleading. The Supreme Court NEVER has held that churches have a Constitutional right to tax exemption. The dicta that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy" comes from McCulloch v. Maryland, in which Marshall denied the state of Maryland the power to tax the Bank of the United States. Many exemptions of churches from taxes actually post-date the 1789 Constitution: New York in 1799 and the city of Washington in 1802. The Seventh Congress also passed a property tax exemption in 1802. If taxing churches always has been unconstitutional, how was it that these statutory exemptions were necessary?
Why should Nonprofit A, simply because it calls itself a church or claims religious ties, be able to advocate for a candidate and retain its tax exemption, when Nonprofit B, which does equal amount of charitable work but claims no religious ties, cannot engage in advocacy without losing such an exemption?
Posted by: PG | September 23, 2008 12:44 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Churches that have Pastors that want to endorse candidates from the pulpit will simply be "preaching to the choir". This kind of church will invariably be conservative, thus will endorse Repubicans. Pew-sitters will already be Rubulicans, because such churches would not tolerate moderate or liberal Democrats in their membership. Such outsiders would either not be attracted to such a church, would not be allowed to join, or would be pressured out by the Pastor or by the pew-sitters. Does a Catholic Priest who preaches against abortion endorse anti-abortion politicians simply by inference? I'd say yes. I'd also say that pro-life Catholics won't attend a church where the Priest constantly rails against abortion. Birds of a feather flock together. I would tend to say that there are a lot of non-profit organizations that are given tax-free benefits that are run and staffed by people who have specific religious/political bents, conservative or liberal, and that there are "litmus-tests" for prospective employees along the belief-system of the organizers. So, should we refuse tax benefits to all churchs or non-profits? To be fair, I think there should be no tax benefits at all. Then everyone is on a level playing field.
Posted by: Mike | September 23, 2008 12:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The Alliance Defense Fund believes that taxation is a violation of free speech rights, and that an institution that engages in political speech endorsing particular candidates should be able to receive donations that count for charitable deductions and to make transactions without paying taxes.
If that's so, given all the Republican rhetoric claiming that Obama acts like the Chosen One, I will start the Church of Obama. We will accept tax-exempt donations of up to $2300 per individual every two years, have weekly services in which we praise The One and preach sermons based on His canonical texts (books and speeches). We teach salvation comes through accepting Obama into your voting booth as our nation's Savior. Repent of your former support for other candidates!
He doesn't look a thing like Jesus...
Posted by: PG | September 23, 2008 12:30 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Tax exemption of churches is not a benefit but a right under the Constitution. As the U.S. Supreme Court has noted, the power to tax involves the power to destroy, and churches are exempt from taxation under the principle that there is no surer way to destroy religion than to begin taxing it.
Yet a rule in the tax code has been used to silence the church since 1954. That's when then-senator Lyndon Johnson introduced it to silence some non-profit groups who were opposing his re-election to the Senate. Scholars attest to the fact that the "Johnson Amendment" wasn't intended to restrict the speech of churches, but it has been used for that purpose. Those groups that howl the most about the so-called separation of church and state talk out of both sides of their mouths when they argue that the IRS has the right to monitor a pastor's sermon.
The Pulpit Initiative is not a demand that a church discuss candidate positions. The point is that it's up to the church to decide. Government violation of First Amendment rights is not the answer.
Erik Stanley
Senior Legal Counsel
Alliance Defense Fund
Posted by: Erik Stanley | September 23, 2008 12:28 PM
Report Offensive Comment
MORE PROOF THAT RELIGION POISONS EVERYTHING IT TOUCHES!!
Posted by: William kraal | September 23, 2008 11:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"It's not for the government to mandate the role of church in society."
It's not the role of church in society that is at issue. It is the role of church in government.
The founding fathers demanded separation of church and state as the result of the ritual extermination that happened every time a new King was crowned and a new official religion of the state took over.
Iraq had a state religion. So does Turkey, Afghanistan, Iran, N. Korea, and China. When religion and state are one, people die.
For this reason, the churches are given tax exempt status on the condition that they stay out of politics. Dobson is an irrational extremist, running an organization that is exactly the sort of devisive influence the separation of church and state was designed to keep out of government.
Posted by: GZiemann | September 23, 2008 11:42 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"When the Son of Man comes will he find faith on the earth?"
Thomas Baum, please remember you ought always to pray and not faint.
Posted by: JUST REMEMBER | September 23, 2008 11:35 AM
Report Offensive Comment
When the son of man comes will he find faith?
Take care, be ready.
Sincerely, Thomas Paul Moses Baum.
Posted by: Thomas Baum | September 23, 2008 11:15 AM
Report Offensive Comment
All the churches should lose tax exemption. Why subsidize those who mislead the people?
Posted by: candide | September 23, 2008 9:44 AM
Report Offensive Comment
The issue is about raw political power. The complainers want fame and probably fortune.
There is ample opportunity for clerics to teach ethical and moral behavior with no conflict
with current IRS regulations. Any one complaining about the IRS regulations is identifying themselves as an incompetent who should be fired.
Those who are taking issue with the very generous regulations do not possess the ability to explain to their churches in the manner that Jesus did. Recall also that Fred Rogers was an ordained minister who “didn’t need to talk about God”, yet was immensely beneficial in the lives of tens of millions of children. He understood morality and ethics and could explain them.
Posted by: Patient | September 23, 2008 9:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I agree with Farnaz. Religious groups should have to play by the same rules as every other group.
Posted by: DAN78 | September 23, 2008 9:16 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Businesses can advocate for a political candidate. Businesses pay taxes (or are supposed to). If a church wants to advocate for a political party or candidate, then it stands to reason that it should also lose it's tax exempt status. Fair is fair, you want a voice in politics, you have to pay for it.
Posted by: Michael D. Houst | September 23, 2008 8:46 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Roy calls foul--
Roy, that is most likely just your upper lip.
Posted by: END OF STORY | September 23, 2008 8:02 AM
Report Offensive Comment
END OF STORY:
"I've never seen anti-religious hatred in Jacques, and certainly, I have none. I oppose tax exemptions for organized religions, period. All the services listed above can and should be provided for by government run community-based agencies."
Farnaz clearly does not realize where she lives and should remove herself to a socialist country post haste.
______________________
I call foul. Branding everthing as "socialist" doesn't work anymore. Farnaz already lives in a socialist country - The United States of America
Nationalization of AIG and socializing Wall Street Losses is Socialist. Go look for a new scapegoat name to call anyone or anyone you disagree with but you neocons have lost the right to use "socialist"
Posted by: Roy | September 23, 2008 7:39 AM
Report Offensive Comment
Why do we let neocons and neochristians bully us into more situations where the rules apply to everyone else but them?
Dobsonites bash gays while Foley, Haggard and Craig have their little flings? Were they ever prosecuted?
Universal health care and regulation of the highest pharmaceutical costs in the world are socialist while nationalizing AIG and socializing Wall Street losses are not.
Churches are held to the requirements of keeping their tax exempt status but now neochristians want special exemptions for themselves to tell their sheep how to vote from the pulpit.
We need to take back America from these bullies including Sarah Palin and her intolerant white evangelical ilk who believe they are all above the law like Dick Cheney.
Posted by: Roy | September 23, 2008 7:27 AM
Report Offensive Comment
"I've never seen anti-religious hatred in Jacques, and certainly, I have none. I oppose tax exemptions for organized religions, period. All the services listed above can and should be provided for by government run community-based agencies."
Farnaz clearly does not realize where she lives and should remove herself to a socialist country post haste.
Posted by: END OF STORY | September 23, 2008 5:05 AM
Report Offensive Comment
I wouldn't be so sure about them losing- Pat Robertson's Regent University has been churning out lawyers by the boatload- specifically for the purpose of affecting american law.
Much of the volunteer work I have done in my life has been church related- NO WAY do I want the government involved in that.
Churches and their charity works are good people with good intentions doing valuable services for their immediate communities.
Most immigrants who come to america penniless go through the Catholic Charities.
I don't think people relaize just how far reaching and effective a safety net church and religious orgs are.
besides, there are plenty of NGO's and NPO's, and many of them don't pay taxes either.
If you are blessed enough to have never needed their help- good for you- but one shouldn't begrudge the care given to those who really need it.
To imagine that the government is going to care about it's poorest citizens, and actually do something to take care of them the way religious orgs do- is extremely naive, and history does not
in any way support that supposition.
History has pretty well proven that the poor are on their own.
And I for one, could never in good conscience- leave them to the tender mercies of our government.
Even GOP Ronald Reagan stated, "The scariest words anyone can ever hear are- I'm from the government and I'm here to help you."
Posted by: VICTORIA | September 23, 2008 3:25 AM
Report Offensive Comment
No one is preventing these religious fanatics from saying anything. They need no tax exemption to engage in politics. Tax exemptions are a matter of legislative grace (no pun intended).
I would LOVE to see these leeches on society stand on their own 2 feet and take personal responsibility for their actions. Pay your fair share of fire and police protection. Stop making the rest of us subsidize you.
Unless these people know something about Justice Kennedy that we don't, they'll lose in the Supreme Court.
Posted by: Garak | September 22, 2008 5:46 PM
Report Offensive Comment
"Think before you speak your anti-religous hatred. Churches provide an extremely valuable service to the community BECAUSE they are tax-exempt, allowing them to provide much-needed assistance to the poor, homeless, those who are ill, single mothers, etc. etc. etc. Most of those programs are provided free of charge. Think about that before you are so quick to assauge their tax-exempt status."
I've never seen anti-religious hatred in Jacques, and certainly, I have none. I oppose tax exemptions for organized religions, period. All the services listed above can and should be provided for by government run community-based agencies.
Further, not all churches, synagogues, mosqs provide said services, which means that a public audit of each and every congregation should get underway immediately. Members of congregations can and should support their own institutions. The wealthier should give to the less wealthy.
End of story. There is no discussion here. No one is suggesting that anyone give up his/her religious observance. In the same way, those who wish to read Emerson, waterpaint, etc., should be free to do so, and organize or even institutionalize. DON'T TAKE MY MONEY FOR IT. Do not tax the poor to pay for wealthy churches, etc. Pay for your own pastimes.
If you, personally, wish to contribute money to your house of worship, you, of course, are free to do so. SERVICES to THOSE IN NEED SHOULD BE PROVIDED ON A NONSECTARIAN BASIS.
END THE HANDOUTS TO RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS.
Posted by: Farnaz | September 22, 2008 5:37 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Think before you speak your anti-religous hatred. Churches provide an extremely valuable service to the community BECAUSE they are tax-exempt, allowing them to provide much-needed assistance to the poor, homeless, those who are ill, single mothers, etc. etc. etc. Most of those programs are provided free of charge. Think about that before you are so quick to assauge their tax-exempt status.
Posted by: JohnWayne | September 22, 2008 5:21 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Again, there is NO REASON for religious institutions to have tax exempt status. Whatever social welfare programs some may run can be put under the auspices of government agencies, thus assuring equal nonsectarian access.
It is scandalous that this has gone on for so long, that persons who don't belong to a religious institution are forced to underwrite those who do. That some institutions get bigger tax breaks than others is something we all should consider as well.
We are in a recession, soon to get worse. END THE HANDOUTS TO ORGANIZED RELIGION.
Posted by: Farnaz | September 22, 2008 3:38 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Violence is cyclic - Forces of Evil.
Todays cyclic leadup of violence in relation to the inability of States to like the Catholic Church find themselves unable to deal with the situation appropriately (clergy and sexual abuse, domestic violence, murder, drug use, mental health ... ) - this like in all of us is due to a dysfunctionality on our own part - due to the way we understand the world - how we were brought up and how the world was acting. When a leadership trend such as we have experienced politically where the primary focus has been on budgetary and business aspects (the economy, and yes it is important, however its is not more important than the health and well being of us as a society - we have many ills - many ills which can be called aftershocks of major trauma. That in fact was not one but 2 traumas of global magnitude. WW1 and WW2.
Where are the bigger social thinkers and rational leaders. People always wanted more money, everybody wants more money; a great deal of them need more money and much of that will not be cured by providing more jobs - they really need to focus and focus seriously on the 20%.
If leadership spends it time counting the pennies and oiling the works to give that all a smooth go and it forgets the facts of war and the basics of our current understandings in psychology and a growing emporium of research and the mountains of anecdotal evidence then - then what - then we get situations that are difficult to deal with.
Anecdotal evidence is simply evidence which has never been collected. An evidence which has never been collected and should be gathered and researched. In the light of the clergy abuse issue the de-identified data should also provide as data facts in regards the religious activities and beliefs of sexual abusers. Simply good practice as it can be used to identify those which stray and get factions involved in what we call terrorism and anti-social behaviours such as the sexual abuse of children.
5 million Australians. 20% of Australians are survivors of sexual abuse. We know and acknowledge many of the issues that surrounds sexual abuse and domestic violence and those who have vested and other interests. These are violence, domestic violence, family breakup (divorce and fractured and fracturing family structures), alcohol abuse (binge drinking), drug use, suicide, murder, graft, corruption, political persuasion, religious practices, business interests, marketing and promotion ...
The Napoleonic wars cycled through one of those violence related rolls through history, there was the Crimean war and many others, these are facts of our history and a few rolls further WW1 and rapidly into WW2. Then Korea the cold war then the war on terror. All of this brings dysfunctionality to us and our society.
Most leaders just like ours are no different in that they want to "crush" something or somebody and they are willing to go to war as a means of doing that - just like in almost all the wars before somebody had a need to "crush" something and they like to get to be leaders because then they can genuinely use all that is available to them to crush whatever it is they want to crush - things like weapons of mass destruction (after the recent global trauma of 9/11) - - - - - no matter - we are OK - we know what we are doing. We are looking after the economy and the need to keep the wheels of business well oiled and running smoothly. We have not got time to look and understand social ills such as clergy abuse and the sexual abuse of 20% of the population at any one time. Now that is appalling. However they will tell us loudly that they will crush whatever is in the way of justice and democracy - a lunatic no less in the words of many. They cling to power and weild every bit of their covert and overt energy and the energy of the people and the State in a war on something or simply their desire to crush something - no matter what that is called or how it got to be that way the fact is that if you attempt to expose that they will try to crush you. An example of this can be found in the the human rights breaches and the unconstitutionality in some countries through the existence of statute of limitations laws. The Catholic Church just like some governments cant and never will be able to understand the needs of victims - its flock simply because its hierachy and its advisors want to crush the clergy abuse issue under the table and out of sight. If they did have the ability to understand then like the majority of us they would understand that you have a problem when your actions are supremely louder than your words and the hypocrisy of that is obvious to all and has at times reached points where they became internationally the but of religious sarcasm and the growth globally of what do you give a pedophile in our folkloric history - a history not seen, a history not observed, a history not measured by our governments and even some of those a prepared as Morris Iemma was to step outside our legal boundaries to crush a viewpoint - one he was out of touch on - one we acknowledged above to be dysfunctional. That does not make him dysfunctional in all areas - that simply is an absurdity. It does remain however that that dysfunctionality was surrounded by the apology of the pope in regards the sexual abuse of children by clergy (sexual abuse). By Mr Iemma and cohorts abusing their and their willingness to go outside of own legal system (the Catholic Church teachers that the rule of the Church comes before all else - logically that for Mr Iemma and like many other good Catholics in regards issues surrounding their faith means above the law of the country. Mr Iemma simply acted as a good Catholic in the way they have been taught, he simply was trying to protect the good name of the Catholic Church. How wrong he was, how seriously wrong he was. Benedict IV was on his way and it was known that he had already spoken of the issue of sexual abuse - he was likely to speak of it again on arrival [the good name has a lousy name according to Benedict IV] Iemma mis-read this and simply acted as Catholics had done so many times in the past - protect the good name of the Catholic Church - crush whoever and whatever says otherwise (this is the reason why the Church is unable to provide genuine repair to those it victimised - the hierarchy needs to keep it crushed else their complicity and stupidity and their lack of ability to actually act in the way they teach and say we should act is blatantly obvious. Their silence and their inability to provide those basic things enshrined in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is one serious consideration, to add to that their use of seemingly endless billions as in the USA to legally fight each case while at the same time expending huge sums in maintaining statute of limitation laws globally. Statute of limitation laws are a pox which encompasses the whole physical and emotional being which humans beings are - it affect their sensibilities, they find these things socially and morally wrong, they find them to be unjust, they find them to be a part of the Catholic Church at work trying to crush those who regardless of the crimes committed against them might damage the good name of the church. There is a child-like simplicity in knowing that the Church simply does not have a good name - according to Benedict IV in regards the sexual abuse of children - according to many many legal findings the Church does not have a good name to protect, according to commissions where they have been permitted (the idea was crushed and can easily be justified as protecting the good name of the Church - whether it meets our laws is easily managed through the fact that the rule of the Church comes before the rule of the land - that was easy - whats next to that needs to be crushed?).
Governments do have the right in light of this globally public admission by Benedict IV. They also have a responsibility no matter whether that is written into a law or not. It seems that it is taking a while for the leaders of our country to catch on to that.
The disconcerting thing for Iemmaites is that Benedict IV in declaring to the world that the sexual abuse of children by priests is wrong and it has in fact given it a bad name globally. He identified Bishops as the ones who need help. We understand that. The global facts support and cement that. Its just a small problem when dealing with this type of dysfunctionality - they wont let go, they will not relinquish their power and will use all that is at their disposal to crush opposition, that naturally for them includes the power and the might of God - and yes they are willing to use it to crush Governments and good people if they feel threatened enough.
How do you remove them. They get their power from the mis use of Church money. It needs big money to keep up with the legal battles it fights (let alone other areas which it fights legally where they attempt to control the lives of all occupants of a country - you can only starve them out financially and move them off for retirement and say to the next leadership "get it right, or we starve you of funds to move you on and we will continue to do that until we get it right.
If the Bishops did have a true understanding and an ability to show empathy towards the victims we would have responses better than those the Church sets up for its own priests and on into their retirement. That is simply logical according to the teachings. However to do otherwise is an act of acknowledgment that the Church has a bad name and it has need to be protected at all costs at times - relying on the short-sightedness of that approach (supported by Bishops ..) flies in the face of the teaching - you simply cannot administer what the Bible preaches to victims of clergy abuse (and their supporters) whilst at the same time the necessity exists for some within the Church to crush those who for whatever reason may bring the Church a bad name.
Iemmaite Catholics have been duped into aiding and abetting the dysfunctionality (for whatever reason) of those in their hierarchy who simply oppose a more logical way forward.
If they did have a true understanding they would simply acknowledge that they had got it wrong and with that understanding they would likely sit down with victims and government and say look this is a terrible thing and we need to all come together and forge a solution. It is a fact that the effects of sexual abuse domestic violence, clergy abuse etc are a factor of major proportions within our society - if we are unable to deal with these due to the need to protect the good name of the Catholic church.
When this has come about on a global scale it becomes a cancer in all societies. The fear then is that the Church will fall - collapse destruction Armageddon - the truth is that it is not the Church which is at fault - it is the hierarchy. The silence from the pulpit simply comes from the fear of having their chance at everlasting life and salvation taken away from them should they permit the good name of the Church to be sullied.
When a hierarchy is made up of men and women who are unable to feel empathy for those genuinely harmed and those people have the power and position they will simply use all at their disposal to enforce their point of view - no matter what stands in their way and they can do that because they repeatedly do use the power of God and everlasting life and eternal happiness and peace as a weapon against their own believers.
Men and women who do not have this empathy just as the men and women in our government departments and leadership, in our policing and in our health systems are not appropriate people to be provided with power or authority whilst the drive to protect the good name of the Church comes before the bandaging up and the healing and the apologies and the repair which needs to take place.
The real social terrorist is the Iemmaite Catholic. Just how many of them are out there in positions of power and authority, in decision making positions, in our policing and our health and in all our local government and all public services. Thanks to Benedict IV and his acknowledgment of the bad name the Catholic Church has in this regard and due to the need of our Government to protect (public collateral - a financial resource - humans as fodder) as a part of the National interest. [This although it was poorly executed was attempted in the Aboriginal intervention. Based on the evidence of the Canadian truth Commission it was bound to find real evidence and was bound eventually to fail. Might be described down the line as a failed human experiment which left many unprotected from the need to protect the good name of the Church wherever it had an historic interest and it did indeed have many.].
It seems Iemmaite Catholics are through their religious teaching and the deception of a Iemmaite hierarchy are bound to uphold the good name of the Church regardless of the facts. They have the ability to justify the bending, swaying, breaking and defending of the law who are simply doing what they believe is their duty to their Church and their religion when in fact it is a need of their hierarchy. They too are powerless in the face of the power and the might of the hierarchy particularly when it uses doctrine and faith as simply one of its weapons, others include being dragged through the legal system in a never ending stream of defamation suits which cowers many of our own newspapers and television reporting - thats simply how and why it can exists and come into being in the first place.
The only force able to change this situation and it appears they are deaf to the plea of Benedict (they remain silent and ineffective) is at a Government level and its best tool is to put a choke on the purse strings until the hypocrisy on this issue is gone. It is not an attack on the Church or on the religion. It simply is the only available means which can be used to move these unfeeling men on. Only an unfeeling Government, one without empathy itself can ignore the cause of the collapse of the good name of the Church and the failure of Government to act against this disruption in a religious institution simply shows how disastrous it is when we have men and women who want to count the money and do the business before they want to look after the sexual safety of 5 million of their fellow human beings.
May be there is an Iemmaite politician or are they simply Iemmaite Catholics and Iemmaite Anglicans and politician, policemen etc. simply tilting at windmills and causing real damage and harm in our society in the process?
If Catholic Bishops could treat the abused victims of their clergy as the children of God (which they are) there simply would be no need to have to intervene. That that is not the case also simply says it does become the responsability of our Governments to act in our best interest in this matter.
John Brown
Posted by: John Brown | September 22, 2008 3:31 PM
Report Offensive Comment
Seems to me that tax exempt status ought to only belong to those organizations that are spending most of their money doing something worthwhile for the country. What percentage of that status is being used by scam artists?
1%?
90%?
Of course if Dobson is involved, you know it's un-Christian, un-American, and probably evil.
Posted by: Marc Edward | September 22, 2008 3:26 PM
Report Offensive Comment
This should open up quite a can of worms, and I wonder if the fallout will be worth the price to ADF of the can opener. No one, believer or no, who adheres to separation of C&S will want to see ADF succeed, but the question of endorsing candidates is bound to generate other questions.
For instance, what about an organization that all but endorses, by, for example, endlessly stressing its "pro-life" position in all venues open to it. Should such organized religions be forced to surrender their tax exempt status?
With less organized religions, should individual clergymen and their institutions, which preach "positions" rather than endorse specific candidates be forced to do the same?
Then, what about a situation such as rabbis for Obama, which raises the who cares questions for most Jews?
IMHO, politics and religion are an unholy mix. This ADF deviltry could provide us with an excellent opportunity either to relieve ALL religious institutions of tax exempt status or to make very clear that we draw the line at any mixing of religion and politics.
IMHO, do the former and get rid of tax exemptions. Let the preachers of all denominations preach what they wish. Just don't put the rest of us in a position to fund them. Whatever social welfare work religious institutions provide can be provided through secular, nonsectarian agencies.
Let "socialized religionism" come to a quiet end.
Posted by: Farnaz | September 22, 2008 2:24 PM
Report Offensive Comment
The comments to this entry are closed.
I agree that this effort to breach the wall of separation between church and state is supremely undesirable, but I'm skeptical that it's mainstream. I believe it will fail for lack of interest, let alone support. It could even backfire.