Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Volunteers 'Monitoring' Church Services; Ashcroft Asked to Investigate
Talon News / GOP USA ^ | July 27, 2004 | Jeremy Reynalds

Posted on 07/27/2004 8:40:23 AM PDT by prairiebreeze

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-191 last
To: dirtboy

Um, okay.


181 posted on 07/28/2004 6:23:36 AM PDT by subterfuge (Liberalism is, as liberalism does.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Old Professer

And so is worshipping the Creator of the entire Universe.


182 posted on 07/28/2004 6:54:12 AM PDT by chs68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: mvpel
"That's what happens when you ask for special treatment from the IRS in the form of a tax exemption - the government then gets to tell you what you can and can't do and say." I don't think that is quite the case.

I seem to recall an incident in which the Mayor Of New York City attempted to have a Museum in Brooklyn not show a certain exhibit because it contained what the Mayor felt was inappropriate.

And I recall rather clearly that the Mayor was told that the since the museum in Brooklyn received funds from the government of New York City, it was unconsttutional for the government to impose "content restrictions" on what the museum displayed.

If giving money to a musuem means that the government cannot control what the museum displays, how is it then, exactly, that a church which receives an exemption from taxes is required by the government to exercise restriant on the "content" of sermons preached from its pulpit?

183 posted on 07/28/2004 7:02:46 AM PDT by chs68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 160 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
"Why should the rest of us subsidize your church if it isn't willing to follow the rules?" Why should I subsidize artists whose notion of "art" is a status of Mary smeared with dung?
184 posted on 07/28/2004 7:06:29 AM PDT by chs68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: chs68

Who said anything about the law being consistent or making any sense? Certainly not I.


185 posted on 07/28/2004 7:18:32 AM PDT by mvpel (Michael Pelletier)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 183 | View Replies]

To: chs68
Why should I subsidize artists whose notion of "art" is a status of Mary smeared with dung?

You shouldn't. I'm opposed to government subsidies for the arts.

186 posted on 07/28/2004 8:04:49 AM PDT by Modernman ("I have nothing to declare except my genius." -Oscar Wilde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 184 | View Replies]

To: GretchenM
I did not say that we give pornographers tax-exempt status. You did.

No, I didn't.

I said that we encourage it as free speech (supported by the USSC)

No, we don't. Just because something is legal and constitutionally protected doesn't mean society or the government encourages it. As an example, Nazis have freedom of speech in this country, but that doesn't mean society or government encourages their brain-dead diatribes.

and we muzzle preachers (on politics)

Preachers can say anything they want on politics so long as they're not using a tax-payer subsidized platform for their political expression. Outside of their official capacities, they can say whatever they want. And, like I've said numerous times, a church is free to not claim tax-exempt status if it feels the rules are too onerous.

suppressing their free speech as Americans (because of the job they hold).

No. The reason behind the no-politics for tax-exempt organizations is simple: Since we, the taxpayers, are subsidizing these churches by giving them tax breaks, we should not be forced to pay for political campaigning we may not agree with. Put more simply, do you want your tax dollars to pay for a liberal church's support of John Kerry?

BEFORE the Sixteenth Amendment, pastors / ministers were not forced into the choice between free speech or tax-exempt status as they are now.

True, but irrelevent.

187 posted on 07/28/2004 8:14:42 AM PDT by Modernman ("I have nothing to declare except my genius." -Oscar Wilde)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 180 | View Replies]

To: MEGoody

Seems to me, that since the churches welcome everyone, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. Makes sense for the ministers in the area to encourage their members to attend meetings of this so called mainstream group that is infiltrating their churches. What better way to get a hold on its foundations, intentions and creepiness.


188 posted on 07/28/2004 8:24:12 AM PDT by Republic (joe wilson is a LIAR-but since he is a democrat-the mainstream press is OK with it :^()
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: dirtboy
I am curious - if a church has a sign out from that it is open to all and someone from this group attends a service and notes what is said - how is that a criminal act?

It's as criminal as observing the "travelling road show" that is the knock & drag get out the vote movement that trucks the same voters from poll to poll to give 100%+ voting in minority communities...just TRY to watch/record THAT and see what happens!

189 posted on 07/28/2004 9:29:34 AM PDT by Itzlzha (The avalanche has already started...it is too late for the pebbles to vote!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Modernman
"Preachers can say anything they want on politics so long as they're not using a tax-payer subsidized platform for their political expression. Outside of their official capacities, they can say whatever they want. And, like I've said numerous times, a church is free to not claim tax-exempt status if it feels the rules are too onerous."

How about this, then?

Let's allow pastors, priests, rabbis, and any other preachers to declare their sermons and homilies "art".

IIRC, the Courts ruled, in cases involving what some of us considered to be blasphemously obscene art, that since the government subsidized art, it could not impose any "content restrictions" on the art it subsidizes without violating the Consitutional rights of the artists.

So, if the sermons and homilies are subsidized by the Government (in the form of IRS exemptions to the houses of worship where the sermons and homilies are delivered), then the Government could not impose and "content restrictions" on the artistic priests, pastors, ministers, rabbis, etc., without violating thier constitutional right to free speech.

190 posted on 07/28/2004 10:58:39 AM PDT by chs68
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Republic
"Makes sense for the ministers in the area to encourage their members to attend meetings of this so called mainstream group that is infiltrating their churches."

Great idea. And they need to make sure it 'accidentally' gets out to the public that these 'mainstream' churches are being watched to make sure they don't step over the line 'separating church and state.' That way, these churches will be experiencing the same feeling of harrassment as the more conservative churches are feeling.

191 posted on 07/28/2004 2:19:14 PM PDT by MEGoody (Flush the Johns - vote Bush/Cheney 04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180181-191 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson