Feisty Bishop defends the unborn
We read:
"A church-state watchdog group has asked the Internal Revenue Service to investigate whether the Roman Catholic bishop of Paterson, N.J., violated tax laws by denouncing Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama. In a letter sent to the IRS on Wednesday (Oct. 22), Americans United for Separation of Church and State accused Paterson Bishop Arthur Serratelli of illegal partisanship for lambasting Obama's support of abortion rights.
In a column posted on the Diocese of Paterson's website and published in its weekly newspaper, Serratelli also compared Obama to King Herod, the biblical monarch who ordered the death of John the Baptist. The bishop did not refer to Obama by name but only as "the present democratic (sic) candidate."
Under federal tax law, nonprofit groups - including religious organizations - are prohibited from intervening in campaigns for public office by endorsing or opposing candidates.
Serratelli wrote that Obama has pledged, if elected president, to sign the Freedom of Choice Act, abortion-rights legislation the Catholic Church vehemently opposes. "If this politician fulfills his promise, not only will many of our freedoms as Americans be taken from us, but the innocent and vulnerable will spill their blood," Serratelli wrote.
Source
Defence of what they see as God-given life is a huge concern of the Catholic church so if a Catholic bishop cannot advocate in favor of that position there is no freedom of religion in America.
Various Protestant groups believe the IRS restriction is in violation of the 1st Amendment so we may have a test case on that soon.
22 comments:
When I go into the voting booth, no past, present, or future political, racial, financial, or international issue will sway my decision. My decision will be simple: I will vote for the candidate who opposes abortion.
Any person who supports the killing of the unborn has no place in leadership in any society.
You must stand firm when voting. Do not let polls, internet emails, news reports, or anything sway you from fundamental, core beliefs and issues.
Pastors and clergy should absolutely be protected by 1st Amendment rights. We are slowly allowing what is fundamental to the U.S. Constitution to be chipped away.
Consider current "hate crime" legislation. Yes, "hate" crimes are horrible, but why are they classified any differently from other crimes? They are crimes and should be treated as such. We do not need any more hate crime legislation, which Str. Obama wants to expand (don't take my word for it, go to his site and read his take on "Civil Rights".)
What we need is parents, schools, and churches to pick up the ball that they dropped back in the 60's and start teaching and instructing children about morality, virtue, and integrity. And it can be done in a non-religious way. Unfortunately, this requires that the adults understand about morality, virtue, and integrity, and that may be a stretch.
Does this mean they'll also punish all the synagogues, mosques, black churches, and every other religious institution that involves itself in political matters? Or is it simply "pick on the Christians again"?
Churches cannot "have their cake and eat it" as regards tax-breaks. They can talk in general terms about abortion but not bring party poltics into if they want the tax breaks as well. There is also the saying "put your money where your mouth is"!
Tax the churches. Tax their real estate holdings. Tax their income. Tax them all.
Labor unions are also tax-exempt entities.
Not only do they participate in political discourse, they also spend, without authorization of the union members, union funds in support of specific candidates and issues.
Is there a double standard there?
There is a clear double standard and it has existed for a long, long time. Labor unions have devolved into nothing more than political action committees for liberal candidates. Also, is Americans United for Separation of Church and State fully taxed? I honestly don't know, which is why I'm asking.
The power to tax is the power to control. If churches are taxed then we do not have freedom of religion.
Abortion is not only a political item but a moral one also. Churches should have the freedom to speak on those matters.
Behind every dark cloud, lies a silver lining.
This is just the law needed to gag the Rev Jesse Jackson!
Push is a non-profit organization, therefore it too shouldn’t be giving out endorsements.
Arrest Jesse and shutdown PUSH.
Works for me!
Mobius
"Tax the churches. Tax their real estate holdings. Tax their income. Tax them all."
So it's just Churches (Christian place of worship) that should be punished for violating "a concept" (it's not a law) which in and of itself violates the First Amendment?
I would agree with that (if) it applies to "every religion and every tax-exempt labor and special interest group" as well.
The amazing thing to me is that during the founding years of America, churches were regularly used as a town meeting place to discuss, inform and plan the American Revolution.
There are many records of sermons from that era in which the pastor preaches revolution and uprising against the British. There were calls for days of prayers and fasting made be the Congress and relayed to the people through their local churches.
Somehow now, in this day and age, a church that has a political viewpoint is seen as being wrong and actually being punished for exercising the same type of activities that helped found this country.
There is something terribly sad about those who forget the past.
In those days the churches were not getting a tax concession for not discussing governmental politics and confining themselves to religion (and of course churches today are not prevented from discussing abortion per se).
In those days the IRS didn't exist - that's why
In those days the IRS didn't exist - that's why
Yet in those times people still paid taxes on homes, property, and some goods. (Samuel Adams for example, was a tax collector.)
If the government is saying that a church must pay taxes in order to comment on political issues, that is charging individuals and organizations for the ability to practice the right of free speech.
In addition, if the government wants to tax churches, that is a restriction on their ability to practice their religion in the manner and way they choose.
Either way, saying a church or a pastor cannot express a political opinion or have a political point of view is contrary to the letter and spirit of the First amendment.
So why should any organization pay taxes as that would be restricting their right of assembly and right to organize - by that argument!
So why should any organization pay taxes as that would be restricting their right of assembly and right to organize - by that argument!
Because there is no tax on organization and assembly. The only thing comparable is a permit for a parade or march, but that is for the police and security from the governmental agencies. Overly burdensome permits for parades and marches have been found to be unConstitutional.
In the case of a church, the members and the pastors are speaking on their own property, and do not require any type of police assistance.
The fact that the tax kicks in only when political speech is made or a political position is made within a church clearly shows that the tax is content based. Restriction of free speech based on content - especially political content - has been and always should be unConstitutional.
Unfortunately, this is nothing more than another ongoing attempt to reduce or remove Christianity from mainstream society. Arguments about tax status and the like are completely unfounded, and are nothing more than an attempt to prevent inherent 1st amendment rights. Continuing down this road MUST require EVERY publically-supported entity to be brought under the same hard scruitiny. That means schools, colleges, universities, police departments, fire departments, hospitals, churches, mosques, synagogues, the list is staggering.
Well then churches should voluntarily give up tax-concessions and be free of such government conditions to be able to say what they like. Would they put their money where their mouth is? Probably not!
Well then churches should voluntarily give up tax-concessions and be free of such government conditions to be able to say what they like.
So you agree that there is a restriction on what churches and pastors may say?
What part of Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, ... do you not understand?
If the government can tell someone to shut up based on content, how is that not a violation of freedom of speech?
If the government wants to charge someone for the right to speak, how is that not a violation of "freedom of speech?"
Would they put their money where their mouth is?
Why should anyone have to pay for a right guaranteed by the Constitution?
Because it's a voluntary deal - you can give up a certain amount of freedom of expression in exchange for a tax-cut. Don't you have to pay taxes? If such a deal were offered to you by the government, would you accept it?
It is utterly absurd that even fisting as a form of pornography is government-protected "speech" but churches expressing a political message is not.
Because it's a voluntary deal - you can give up a certain amount of freedom of expression in exchange for a tax-cut.
So you agree that it is a charge for freedom of expression?
What allows the government to charge for free speech or even to make such a "deal?"
Furthermore, it should be remembered that the taxes we are talking about at taxes that would be paid upon "income" to the church through contributions, donations, etc. (Property taxes are local and state issues, not Federal where this charge is coming from.)
What other charity has to pay taxes on donations?
The answer is, as far as I know, none.
So you can have a charity that feeds homeless, and is a political advocate for the homeless and they are not under the same restrictions of speech that a church is despite the first amendment singling out religion and free speech as something that the government cannot impede or restrict, and yet the government does just that.
Don't you have to pay taxes?
Yes I do pay taxes - none of which have an effect of either allowing or squashing my right to free speech.
If such a deal were offered to you by the government, would you accept it?
Sure I would. Not because the deal benefits me, but because the deal itself is illegal and contrary to the Constitution. The government wouldn't be saying "you can speek only on these topics if you stop paying taxes," they would be saying "stop paying taxes" simply because the Constitution does not allow them to make such a deal to restrict the rights of free speech.
The government has no legal or moral right to charge you for what is protected within the Constitution.
Post a Comment