Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: demonrum

It is time to redefine what is meant by politicking by tax exempt organizations. I think some religious organizations have abused the privilege for a long time, especially in the so-called "black churches" where political candidates appear and give "sermons" which are little more than campaign speeches dressed up with biblical quotes. In addition, a lot of "liberal" churches are defining true religion as the quest for "social justice" which is highly reminiscent of a certain failed political ideology.

So should the IRS look into this? To the extent the law is vague, I support an attempt to clarify it. Now this reverend thinks it is intimidation in the shadow of mid-term elections but this is a cyclical issue so it will almost always be near election times when the definition of a sermon becomes relevant. And it seems to me that the IRS has selected a "white" congregation probably to pursue this rather than going after the black congregations where one hears a lot of questionable sermons and "guest preachers" like Clinton, Kerry, Chavez, Castro, etc.

Should the IRS be able to dictate content of sermons? It seems like a pretty difficult issue. What constitutes campaigning for a political candidate? Mentioning him or her by name or preaching sermons and campaigning for the issues that define his or her campaign? Like the pastor online, I support the ability to speak out plainly and let the chips fall where they may but at the same time I believe many religious sects has become so empty of true religion that they have become little more than political action committees: anything to keep from mentioning unpopular things like sin, redemption, morality.

In fact I support getting rid of all these "crimes by mouth" that plague the country (except fire in the theater). We're only fooling ourselves to believe that changing the words people can speak is somehow changing their character also. Truth will out and if a church or other gagged party wants to support a particular cause,it will find a way anyway.

I say this as one who has been at the forefront of a fight with the IRS with my faith. The IRS can clearly abuse its privileges also. In our case, a scam resulted in the donation to my church of parcels in land in Nevada which had been fraudulently valued by the scammer and sold to various parties with the idea that they could donate the worthless land to charitable organizations and claim the inflated valuations on their tax returns. It was not just our church that was involved. It included the Boy Scouts, the Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc etc. At any rate, the IRS caught onto the scam and subpoenaed the records of those who donated to our church and school. We cooperated fully with that subpoena. But then the IRS decided that the scam gave it the right to subpoena information about any and all in-kind (i.e., non-cash) donations and this we resisted. As a legal representative of the school, I can well recall an IRS agent's advice to me to pack a toothbrush because I was going to be jailed if I continued to refuse their demands. (No, I didn't end up in jail.) So abuse is definitely a hallmark of the IRS but maybe we need a better definition of this law or a repeal of the law for everyone's sake. If the church wants to put together a coalitian to fight this, more power to it.


8 posted on 09/22/2006 6:12:42 AM PDT by caseinpoint (Don't get thickly involved in thin things.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]


To: caseinpoint
In fact I support getting rid of all these "crimes by mouth" that plague the country (except fire in the theater).

I think we need to keep fire in the theater & incitement to riot. Beyond that, I agree.

We're only fooling ourselves to believe that changing the words people can speak is somehow changing their character also.

If you haven't read, "Political Correctness — The Revenge of Marxism", IMHO, it is well worth reading.

Theodore Dalrymple: Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.

http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/06/political-correctness-revenge-of.html

12 posted on 09/22/2006 11:57:58 AM PDT by GoLightly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


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