Biden Wants Pastors, Rabbis and Nuns to Tell Their Flocks: Enacting More Gun Control Is the Moral Thing to Do

[Dirty Dan Dawkins]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/05/07/biden-wants-pastors-rabbis-and-nuns-to-tell-their-flocks-enacting-more-gun-control-is-the-moral-thing-to-do/

[Knarley Bob]

"Praise the Lord & pass the ammunition!"

What planet is this anyway?

Knarley

[Subdeacon Joe]

So, "Blast Away" Joe wants clergy to use the pulpit for political purposes. Sounds like a violation of the separation of Church and State. Or, it is if they talk about abortion or same sex marriage.

[Dirty Dan Dawkins]

So, "Blast Away" Joe wants clergy to use the pulpit for political purposes. Sounds like a violation of the separation of Church and State. Or, it is if they talk about abortion or same sex marriage.

Reminds me of war. Every side claims god is with them.

Unless you are communist. Then everything is called noble, just and fair in crushing the bourgeois, capitalist, imperialist oppressors, which is somewhat the case here. My observation of the left is that they have such a broad (political) interpretation of faith there is no faith. There are no principles left. Which leads us to another thing, the real conflict is a political interpretation of religion/faith.

[Gen Lew Wallace]

I hate to pick nits here, but there is no church/state violation; and that is exactly why "Hair plug Joe" is trying to push it from the holy rollers environment. To be exact about church/state all it boils down to is that the government will not establish a state religion. This was paramount in the founders' minds because of the old world where the state and the church were a double headed beast in charge of all their subjects every move.

 

State run health care apparently is ok...

[Subdeacon Joe]

I hate to pick nits here, but there is no church/state violation; and that is exactly why "Hair plug Joe" is trying to push it from the holy rollers environment. To be exact about church/state all it boils down to is that the government will not establish a state religion. This was paramount in the founders' minds because of the old world where the state and the church were a double headed beast in charge of all their subjects every move. State run health care apparently is ok...

 

If pastors urging their congregations to lobby against abortion or same sex marriage is a violation of the separation of church and state, then this must also be a violation. Especially since the VP seems to be bullying the clergy to support the administrations desires. Parishes have faced threats of lawsuits for their preachers using the pulpit to oppose abortion and same sex marriage. This should be no different.

[Gen Lew Wallace]

Pard, I don't want to argue with you on this; but the first amendment clearly states what the ground rules are. All the different religious orders can say and/or do, or push any agenda they wish. It is no different than a lobbying group for big oil, the NRA, or Sarah Brady's gun hater group pushing an agenda. I think I'll follow ol Forrest Gump here and say "that's all I have to say about that".

[Captain Bill Burt]

I think Subdeacon Joe may be referring to the fact that Church's that engage in certain types of political activity can lose their tax exempt status. They're perfectly free to endorse candidates, or to recommend political positions, but doing so may mean they'll have to start paying taxes.

 

In exchange for the receipt of tax-exempt status, I.R.C. § 501©(3) absolutely prohibits churches and other tax-exempt organizations from campaigning for or against a candidate for public office. If a church participates or interferes, directly or indirectly, in any political campaign for or against any candidate for public office by publishing and distributing certain written material or making oral statements regarding the candidate, then a church can lose its tax-exempt status for violating the campaigning ban. I.R.C. § 1.501©(3)-1©(3)(iii). Quite simply courts have interpreted 501©(3) to ban any degree of participation or intervention in a campaign for public office. Ass’n of the Bar of N.Y. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 858 F.2d 876, 879 (2d Cir. 1988).

 

The IRS has also conditioned a church's tax-exempt status on the requirement that "no substantial part of the activities" of the organization may constitute "carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation." I.R.C. § 501©(3).

[Badlands Beady]

 

Pard, I don't want to argue with you on this; but the first amendment clearly states what the ground rules are. All the different religious orders can say and/or do, or push any agenda they wish. It is no different than a lobbying group for big oil, the NRA, or Sarah Brady's gun hater group pushing an agenda. I think I'll follow ol Forrest Gump here and say "that's all I have to say about that".

Hope you don't mind a little assist from a "liberal." I believe the only government definition of "church" appears in the tax code. Otherwise, a church that accepts no government funds (say, for church-run schools) is no different from a private individual and, as a body, can hold any political opinion or conversation that it wants, and can perform any political action. I know that practicing clergymen have served in Congress, and representatives like Michelle Bachman (and presidents like Bush the younger) have had no problem in openly pushing their religious beliefs into their political agendas. It's generally not a problem when someone in your own party does it, but it's treason when someone on the other side does it.

[Subdeacon Joe]

I think Subdeacon Joe may be referring to the fact that Church's that engage in certain types of political activity can lose their tax exempt status. They're perfectly free to endorse candidates, or to recommend political positions, but doing so may mean they'll have to start paying taxes.

 

In exchange for the receipt of tax-exempt status, I.R.C. § 501©(3) absolutely prohibits churches and other tax-exempt organizations from campaigning for or against a candidate for public office. If a church participates or interferes, directly or indirectly, in any political campaign for or against any candidate for public office by publishing and distributing certain written material or making oral statements regarding the candidate, then a church can lose its tax-exempt status for violating the campaigning ban. I.R.C. § 1.501©(3)-1©(3)(iii). Quite simply courts have interpreted 501©(3) to ban any degree of participation or intervention in a campaign for public office. Ass’n of the Bar of N.Y. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 858 F.2d 876, 879 (2d Cir. 1988).

 

The IRS has also conditioned a church's tax-exempt status on the requirement that "no substantial part of the activities" of the organization may constitute "carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation." I.R.C. § 501©(3).

Exactly. Basically, it becomes a political group, not a church in the eyes of the state.

 

ADDED:

Also, I'm seeing this from a Californians perspective. I've seen the "no hint of any religion" crowd go into tizzy fits at city council meetings when a council member said "God bless you" to a person who sneezed. :"Violation of the establishment clause! You are setting up a state religion!" they cried. And disrupted the meeting until the "religious fanatic forcing his religion on us" was forced to apologize.

 

We have directives to state workers to not wear even a small cross pendent on a necklace, can't even have a desk calendar with a religious theme at their desk in their cubby.

 

With those examples, I'll stick by what I said, Biden is violating the separation clause by trying to bully clergy into doing the governments dirty work, and if the clergy caves in, it would be violating the separation clause by doing the governments dirty work.

[Badlands Beady]

 

We have directives to state workers to not wear even a small cross pendent on a necklace, can't even have a desk calendar with a religious theme at their desk in their cubby

I work in a Federal office with no public contact. We can have pretty much anything we want in our cubicles, providing they're not overtly visible from outside the cubicle. I've got an atheist "A" standing next to a statue of Shiva.

[Marshal Slim Chisum SASS #15622]

I think Subdeacon Joe may be referring to the fact that Church's that engage in certain types of political activity can lose their tax exempt status. They're perfectly free to endorse candidates, or to recommend political positions, but doing so may mean they'll have to start paying taxes.

 

In exchange for the receipt of tax-exempt status, I.R.C. § 501©(3) absolutely prohibits churches and other tax-exempt organizations from campaigning for or against a candidate for public office. If a church participates or interferes, directly or indirectly, in any political campaign for or against any candidate for public office by publishing and distributing certain written material or making oral statements regarding the candidate, then a church can lose its tax-exempt status for violating the campaigning ban. I.R.C. § 1.501©(3)-1©(3)(iii). Quite simply courts have interpreted 501©(3) to ban any degree of participation or intervention in a campaign for public office. Ass’n of the Bar of N.Y. v. Comm'r of Internal Revenue, 858 F.2d 876, 879 (2d Cir. 1988).

 

The IRS has also conditioned a church's tax-exempt status on the requirement that "no substantial part of the activities" of the organization may constitute "carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation." I.R.C. § 501©(3).

 

I believe Capt. Bill is right on this... could cause some issues with their tax exempt status. Of course, I have always personally believed that church's should not be tax exempt that way they may freely endorse the candidate's of their choice.

[Gen Lew Wallace]

Fair enough pard. Remember, I'm on your side; I wrote a letter to support you in the local paper. I'm glad we could discuss this in a good natured manner. I agree wholeheartedly about religious orders violating tax exempt status.

[Subdeacon Joe]

No problem, Gen. I saw that we were not meshing gears, but was unable to figure out how to double clutch it so I meshed with you. Fortunately, the good Capt. came to my rescue.

 

Something that is still irksome to me is that at a time when the city of Santa Rosa CA was busy trying to remove some crosses from public view, they also, with appropriate ceremony, installed some "stone grandfathers" (gifts from a Korean sister city) in a city park - essentially putting protective gods on public property. No one on the city council could understand when I tried to point out that if having crosses on public property was violating the establishment clause, putting the totems on public property also violated the establishment clause. Equal protection and all that. And that, I guess, is my whole point - either allow it all, or ban it all, but be even handed across the boards.

[Badlands Beady]

 

Something that is still irksome to me is that at a time when the city of Santa Rosa CA was busy trying to remove some crosses from public view, they also, with appropriate ceremony, installed some "stone grandfathers" (gifts from a Korean sister city) in a city park - essentially putting protective gods on public property. No one on the city council could understand when I tried to point out that if having crosses on public property was violating the establishment clause

It's a matter of perception. Your god is my cultural curiosity, and is no more divine than a neolithic fertility symbol.

[Subdeacon Joe]

 

It's a matter of perception. Your god is my cultural curiosity, and is no more divine than a neolithic fertility symbol.

 

I just want consistency. Don't ban one symbol while putting in a different one - and on that is itself considered a protective god - on public land. Either take out all, or allow all. One way or the other.

[Virgil Ray Hality, SASS# 37355]

Religious leaders are banding together to fight this. I know from attending a rally in Phili that Pastor George Cook is asking people to help revive the Black Robe Regiment. Pastor George Cook mentioed this at the Memorial Day weekend rally in Phili that I attended. Pass the word and the ammo.

[Brasspounder]

Biden = jackass.

 

bp

[Dubious Don #56333]

Ever notice that the 'other side' reacts the same way when their arguments fall apart like toilet paper in water? Their first tactic, maybe the most popular is emotion. Find a tragedy, exploit it, whip the public into a frenzy and then use that momentum to pass the laws they want. When that fails they start in on this 'moral' 'right thing to do' or 'its for the children' business. They do this because their arguments are illogical. They don't work and never have.

 

If gun control worked, Chicago would be Mayberry, not Thunderdome!

[Subdeacon Joe]

Ever notice that the 'other side' reacts the same way when their arguments fall apart like toilet paper in water? Their first tactic, maybe the most popular is emotion. Find a tragedy, exploit it, whip the public into a frenzy and then use that momentum to pass the laws they want. When that fails they start in on this 'moral' 'right thing to do' or 'its for the children' business. They do this because their arguments are illogical. They don't work and never have.

 

If gun control worked, Chicago would be Mayberry, not Thunderdome!

 

The new mantra, at least by the Hon. Mr. Mike Thompson, is "the victims of Newtown deserve a vote." on new gun control. His facebook page if full of his sycophants echoing that mantra. https://www.facebook.com/RepMikeThompson