Easy decision:

Take them to Federal Court, and if found guilty......fine them, send them to jail, and ban them as a non-profit agency/organization.

//End of Protest//

THROW THE CHARLATANS IN JAIL, religion is nothing but social control for the ignorant

Indeed. Forcing churches to pay taxes on profits would essentially force them to use their sheep's hard-earned money for more worthwhile endeavors if nothing else.The way these idiot pastors are acting, they should be taken to court. Ah, but we protect belief in fairy tales over just about anything else... now THAT is criminal.

They want to be in politics... fine... pull their tax exemptions keep them pulled!!

If Greenpeace should lose its tax-exempt status for political speech (as it did), why should these churches not lose theirs?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Rev Rotola needs to do a little secular studying before pronouncing seperation of church and governement is only intended to be a one way directions.. What a load of malarky...

I would also love to see how they "biblically" pronounce voting for one candidate over the other. It is nothing more than a conservative grab for power.

Atheists unite! Strip tax-exempt status from ALL churches!

Take away all tax exempt status from all churches. It's one GIANT scam and everyone knows it.

And if God does not like it he/she/it ( whatever the sheep believe in ) can kiss my butt.

You forgot to throw in something about the global warming "hoax" there JD

NBC ran this story to poke fun at the brainwashed conservatives who think they have a serious candidate who can waive his magic underwear and make things all better.

Dan,

That's funny coming from someone who wants to vote for Barack Obama again. The man who claimed he would someone "Stop the rise of the Oceans."

Just go look at the unbelievable things the President promised during his first campaign.

The large organized religions are the tail wagging the dog all over the world except perhaps in China. If they break the law, arrest and charge them. Most are merely franchise salesmen offering a lisence to beg tax free. They are also permitted to sell the heaven and hell myth as a tool to get compliance to their bullcrap. The Vatican is likely the worst in the western world while the Islamic Mullhas are strong and as evil over most of the rest of the planet.

On top of all that, history will show they are responsible for more deaths than most governments.

People have the right to believe what they want but keep it private lest it becomes dangerous to others.

When I wore a soldiers uniform, I could not endorse any political party, because to some it might appear that I was speaking for the whole government, these pastors need to be forced to adhere to the same standard. Clearly if their gods wanted a specific candidate to win, then he/she/it wouldn't have told one to preach about Romney and then told another pastor down the road to tell his congregation to vote for Obama. Opinions are like rectal openings, everyone has one, and they should keep them to themselves, or lose your tax-exempt status.

Every one of them should have their tax exempt status stripped. Not just their current church, but ANY church they might go to in the future.

I'm a little biased, I think we should strip tax-exempt status from all churches, it's the year 2012, time to come out of the cave guys, the lightning is caused by static electricity not because your god is angry at your burnt offering, oh and dying sucks, but we all die, so suck it up and get over it.

churches are CLUBS not charities and they should be paying taxes like everyone else. if they perform charity, then they can deduct taxes for the charity they perform. but just paying dues to keep your club going is not charity. getting a tax cut for it is dishonest.

Now that both corporations and churches are people, they should both be taxed at our personal tax rates, be held accountable for normal taxes and fees on property owned, and be eligible for the death penalty. Oh, and I'm divorcing both of them as of today... do I get compensated for supporting them for so many years?

Nice scheme, if you ask me.

You give me 10% of your income, I'll build you 6 story temples with acres of surrounding grounds and buildings, so you can run businesses and schools and "Not"-for-profit ("Surely"-good pay) corporations, and otherwise support the people in this club in their business endeavors... so they may be successful and continue to give us 10%.... TAX FREE!!!

Religions have turned into mini isolated economies of their own... amassing wealth and property and power well beyond any city or state while having exactly NO responsibilities for paying for schools, roads, security, etc. And they enjoty a tax free status so they do not effect our government in any direct way... so we do not become a theocratic nation... a fair trade.

BUT, and this is a big BUTT, now they want to play politics and drive the elections in this nation?

Fine. Pay your f@#king taxes then. Disclose your books and pay your taxes. It's THAT easy.

Investigate and prosecute.

Here is another scam by Romney using his "Church" for cover. This guy continues to amaze me with his lack of a moral compass. I can't understand how anymore would be brainwashed enough to vote for him. Santorum was so right,when he said of his own Republican party,"we'll never be the party of the smart people" :

Romney Avoids Taxes via Loophole Cutting Mormon Donations

By Jesse Drucker - Oct 28, 2012 11:01 PM CT

In 1997, Congress cracked down on a popular tax shelter that allowed rich people to take advantage of the exempt status of charities without actually giving away much money.

Individuals who had already set up these vehicles were allowed to keep them. That included Mitt Romney, then the chief executive officer of Bain Capital, who had just established such an arrangement in June 1996.

The charitable remainder unitrust, as it is known, is one of several strategies Romney has adopted over his career to reduce his tax bill. While Romney’s tax avoidance is legal and common among high-net-worth individuals, it has become an issue in the campaign. President Barack Obama attacked him in their second debate for paying “lower tax rates than somebody who makes a lot less.”

In this instance, Romney used the tax-exempt status of a charity -- the Mormon Church, according to a 2007 filing -- to defer taxes for more than 15 years. At the same time he is benefiting, the trust will probably leave the church with less than what current law requires, according to tax returns obtained by Bloomberg this month through a Freedom of Information Act request.

In general, charities don’t owe capital gains taxes when they sell assets for a profit. Trusts like Romney’s permit funders to benefit from that tax-free treatment, said Jonathan Blattmachr, a trusts and estates lawyer who set up hundreds of such vehicles in the 1990s.

Near Zero

“The main benefit from a charitable remainder trust is therenting from your favorite charity of its exemption from taxation,” Blattmachr said. Despite the name, giving a gift or getting a charitable deduction “is just a throwaway,” he said. “I used to structure them so the value dedicated to charity was as close to zero as possible without being zero.”

When individuals fund a charitable remainder unitrust, or “CRUT,” they defer capital gains taxes on any profit from the sale of the assets, and receive a small upfront charitable deduction and a stream of yearly cash payments. Like anindividual retirement account, the trust allows money to grow tax deferred, while like an annuity it also pays Romney a steady income. After the funder’s death, the trust’s remaining assets go to a designated charity.

Romney’s CRUT, which is only a small part of the $250 million that Romney’s campaign cites as his net worth, has been paying him 8 percent of its assets each year. As the Romneys have received these payments, the money that will potentially be left for charity has declined from at least $750,000 in 2001 to $421,203 at the end of 2011.

Tax Returns

The Romney campaign declined to answer written questions about the trust.

“The trust has operated in accordance with the law,” Michele Davis, a campaign spokeswoman, said in an e-mail.

Paul Comstock, a financial adviser to LDS Philanthropies, an arm of the Mormon Church, said that while he wasn’t familiar with the trust, Romney and his trustee might arrange to compensate the church for the dwindling amount with other gifts.

“It may be that they’ve made provisions for the charity someplace else that will make up for what this isn’t going to give them,” Comstock said.

Bloomberg News obtained the trust’s tax returns from 2007 to 2011 from the Internal Revenue Service. Romney hasn’t disclosed the trust’s tax returns and is under no legal obligation to do so. He did make some disclosures about the trust’s investments in Massachusetts filings from 2002 to 2007 and as a presidential candidate in the current campaign.

After Death

Funds held by Romney’s trust are scheduled to be distributed after the death of Romney and his wife to “a charitable organization to be designated by Romney,” according to the 2007 filing, disclosing assets he held while governor of Massachusetts. “In the absence of such a designation the funds will go to the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.”

Davis declined to comment on whether Romney has designated another charity since then.

Romney has been an active member of the church, which expects members to donate 10 percent of their income. Over the years, he has donated millions of dollars of stock in Bain-owned companies to the church, securities filings show.

The church recommends such trusts on its website as one of many options for donors.

“Probably one of the advantages of a charitable remainder trust is that it helps with capital gains tax,” said Carl McLelland, an attorney in the planned giving office for LDS Philanthropies.

Capital Gains

CRUTs were more common in the 1990s when capital gains rates were higher. In 1996, when Romney set up his trust in Massachusetts, the federal rate was 28 percent, compared with 15 percent today. At the time, a Massachusetts state resident who sold shares for a gain of $1 million could have faced a combined state and federal capital gains tax of as much as 40 percent, reducing his take to $600,000.

By contrast, if he contributed the stock to a CRUT, and it sold the shares, it typically wouldn’t owe any tax since it is a charitable trust. The CRUT could reinvest the $1 million and earn a return on the full amount.

“The power of this is the tax deferral,” said Jay A. Friedman, a partner at accounting firm Perelson Weiner LLP in New York. “The money is all growing tax free and he only pays tax on what is distributed to him.”

Concerned that CRUTS weren’t sufficiently philanthropic, Congress mandated in July 1997 that the present value of what was projected to be left for charity must equal at least 10 percent of the initial contribution. Existing CRUTS weren’t affected by the new law.

Dwindling Principal

Romney’s trust was projected to leave to charity an amount with a present value of a little less than 8 percent of the initial contribution, according to an analysis by Friedman. Thus, the specifics of Romney’s trust wouldn’t have passed legal muster if it had been set up 13 months later, he said.

Because the trust’s investments have been earning a return far below its annual payouts to the Romneys, its principal has dwindled rapidly.

In 2001, five years after it was established, the trust had a value of between $750,000 and $1.25 million. Since then, it has pursued a conservative investment strategy -- regardless of the ups and downs of the stock market -- buying a mix of money- market funds, federally-backed bonds and federal bond funds. Since 2007, it has moved its assets entirely into cash. By 2011, its investments earned a return of $48, down from between $60,001 and $100,000 in 2001. It paid $36,696 to the Romneys in 2011.

Romneys Favored

The current investing strategy favors the Romneys over the charity because they get a guaranteed payout, said Michael Arlein, a trusts and estates lawyer at Patterson Belknap Webb & Tyler LLP.

“The Romneys get theirs off the top and the charity gets what’s left,” he said. “So by definition, if it’s not performing as well, the charity gets harmed more.”

The trustee for Romney’s CRUT is R. Bradford Malt, chairman of the law firm Ropes & Gray LLP, and manager for Romney’s various family trusts as well as his personal attorney. Ropes & Gray has also been for years the main outside counsel for Bain Capital.

If the CRUT maintains the same investing strategy, assets will continue to shrink, said Jerome M. Hesch, a tax and estate planning attorney at the law firm Carlton Fields. The trustee acted prudently in protecting against losses during a stock market decline, he said.

Nevertheless, “what’s going to go to charity is probably close to nothing,” Hesch said.

To contact the reporter on this story: Jesse Drucker in New York at jdrucker4@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Jonathan Kaufman atjkaufman17@bloomberg.net

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-29/romney-avoids-taxes-via-loophole-cutting-mormon-donations.html

These article explains Romney's core beliefs better than any I've seen.This is why we need to reject him this Tuesday.

Romneyism

By now, in these last remaining days before theelection of 2012, we have learned enough about the beliefs of the Republican presidential candidate to see them as a worldview all its own -- a kind of creed that explains Mitt Romney. Those who say he has no principles are selling him short.

Despite its contradictions and ellipses, Romneyism has an internal coherence. It is different from conservatism, because it does not intend to conserve or protect any particular institutions or values. It is also distinct from Republicanism, in that it is not rooted in traditional small-town American values, nationalism, or states' rights.

The ten guiding principles of Romneyism are:

1. Corporations are the basic units of society. Corporations are people, and the overriding purpose of an economy is to maximize corporate profits. When profits are maximized, the economy grows fastest. This growth benefits everyone in the form greater output, better products and services, and higher share prices.

2. Workers are a means to the goal of maximizing corporate profits. If workers do not contribute to that goal, they should be fired. If they cannot then find other work that helps maximize profits in another company, their wages must be too high, and they must therefore accept steadily lower wages until they find a job.

3. All factors of production -- capital, physical plant and equipment, workers -- are fungible and should be treated the same. Any that fail to deliver high competitive returns should be replaced or discarded. This keeps an economy efficient. Fairness is and should be irrelevant.

4. Pollution, unsafe products, unsafe working conditions, financial fraud, and other negative side effects of the pursuit of profits are the price society pays for profit-driven growth. They should not be used as excuses to constrain the pursuit of profits through regulation.

5. Individual worth depends on net worth -- how much money one has made, and the value of the assets that money has been invested in. Any person with enough intelligence and ambition can make a fortune. Failure to do so is sign of moral and intellectual inferiority.

6. People who fail in the economy should not be coddled. They should not receive food stamps, Medicaid, or any other form of social subsidy. Coddling leads to a weaker society and a weaker economy.

7. Taxes are inherently bad because they constrain profit-making. It is the right and responsibility of individuals and corporations to exploit every tax loophole they (and their tax attorneys) can find in order to pay the lowest taxes possible.

8. Politics is a game whose only purpose is to win. Any means used to win the game is legitimate even if it involves lying and cheating, as long as it gains more supporters than it loses.

9. Democracy is dangerous because it is forever vulnerable to the votes of a majority intent on capturing the wealth of the successful minority, on whom the economy depends. The rich must therefore do whatever is necessary to prevent the majority from exercising its will, including spending large sums of money on lobbyists and political campaigns. The most virtuous among the rich will go a step further and run for president.

10. The three most important aspects of life are family, religion, and money. Patriotism is a matter of guarding our economy from unfair traders and undocumented immigrants, rather than joining together for the common good. We owe nothing to one another as citizens of the same society.

On Tuesday we'll decide whether these should be the guiding principles of America.

ROBERT B. REICH, Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley, was Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration. Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the last century. He has written thirteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock" and "The Work of Nations." His latest is an e-book, "Beyond Outrage," now available in paperback. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine and chairman of Common Cause.

ttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-10-29/romney-avoids-taxes-via-loophole-cutting-mormon-donations.html

@FedUP...

Yes, it is OK for "Barry" to encourage people to go to church and talk about the election. Many of the people who go to church, AKA, the congregation, are not actual representatives of the church. See how that works? People who are not involved in administration are perfectly allowed to talk about politics in church; just not from the pulpit or acting as a member of the clergy. Nuance between those two things lost on you? Don't see the difference?

Oh, and since you quoted some of your favorite bedtime stories, I think I should quote some thing that were written by people who actually knew something about America and freedom:

Thomas Jefferson: ( you know, the guy that authored the US Constitution; the document upon which we have based the entire American civilization. And yeah, he was a LIBERAL too.)

I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.

Thomas Paine: (credited with writing the book that called the nation to revolt against the English; key player in creation of the nation)

I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible).

Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible).

It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible.

Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance.

The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty.

James Madison: (PRESIDENT, Founding father, and badass)

What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.

John Adams: (President, legal scholar, really smart guy)

Where do we find a precept (commandment) in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery (adj. meaning showy but worthless) that we find religion encumbered with in these days?

Benjamin Franklin: (American diplomat, statesman, president, inventor and lady's man)

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies."

By your standards, I think all the important founding fathers were godless liberals. Huh. Whattdya think about them apples?

Every one of these churches should have their tax exempt status revoked. If they want to engage in partisan politics they should not be tax exempt, the law is very clear on this matter. Of course the Obama administration will not do anything about this because they are afraid they will be accused of only going after them because they are largely endorsing Romney. As far as I am concerned, this is a cop out. These churches are breaking the law and the law should be enforced, and I say this as someone who is definitely not an Obama supporter. If these preachers want to endorse Romney let them do it from a position in a tax paying, political organization. They should not be allowed to maintain their tax exempt status if they are going to engage in partisan politics.

The left should have their tax exempt status revoked. They have supported Democrat Presidential candidates out in the open, why should the conservative churches comply with what the Liberal churches don't comply with?

@DB Akron:

Did you read the article? That's kind of the point. None of them should have tax exempt status if they break the law. That's how the law is supposed to work.

BTW, the organization that is challenging the law is a conservative one. I really don't get how you read this as being mostly a liberal thing.

Regular citizens talking about politics at church don't have tax exempt status, thus can talk about politics whereever they are. Churches and their clergy DO have tax exempt status thus cannot use their church as a political vehicle.

I'd start collecting back taxes beginning on the date they declared themselves ineligible for the exemption.

"The left should have their tax exempt status revoked" DB Akron, wow, you are biased. ALL churches who get involved in politics should have their Tax exemption revoked. It doesn't matter which candidate they endorse.

Ido - there is a chill wind blowing in hell this morning for I actually agree with you on this. This just feels weird. :-/

Chris

My point is that the conservative churches have complied with the law and the liberal churches blatantly don't.

BTW. You really don't want to revoke the tax exempt status of churches. when you do, you increase those who are dependent upon the government for help.

If we're going to have the so called rich "...pay a little more..." (President Obama) seems that these churches are a great place to start. The law is the law; enforce it.

As Pastor of The Church of the Living God I feel its my fiscal duty to point out the peril that you heathans are placing yourself in. This stubborn refusal to grant a tax free existence so I can tend to my faithful flock of 3 Aunts, 6 Uncles, and 9 cousins, will result in the wrath of my faithfull falling on the Heathan authorities without mercy.

This Political interference in my tax free life will not be tolerated - you have been warned.

...it's bad when a Church does it but okay when a University does it why?

DB Akron - As usual, you seem to look at a headline and make up your own facts. Did you miss this from the article?

So it's no surprise that an unscientific survey of the posted endorsements indicates that they skewed overwhelmingly in favor of Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, as in these representative samples:

DB Akron - Like that church in Leakey, Tx who put up the sign saying, "Vote for the Mormon, not the Muslim. Vote for the capitalist, not the communist"? Like that? I think you would find that a much larger proportion of conservative churches would be the offenders. Just like you would find that a much larger proportion of church-goers in general are conservative.

Its all irrelevant anyway. Which ever side they are on, they should be subject to sanction under the law.

Chris

My point is that the conservative churches have complied with the law and the liberal churches blatantly don't.

BTW. You really don't want to revoke the tax exempt status of churches. when you do, you increase those who are dependent upon the government for help.

DB Akron, did you even READ the article? Apparently not.

There are none so blind as those who will not see....

A minister endorsing a politician is NOT breaking the law.

/palmface.

It's not against the law, but they should lose their tax exempt status when doing so.

Again, major /palmface

Here:

. . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . ,.-‘”. . . . . . . . . .``~.,
. . . . . . . .. . . . . .,.-”. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .“-.,
. . . . .. . . . . . ..,/. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ”:,
. . . . . . . .. .,?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\,
. . . . . . . . . /. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,}
. . . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`^`.}
. . . . . . . ./. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:”. . . ./
. . . . . . .?. . . __. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . :`. . . ./
. . . . . . . /__.(. . .“~-,_. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ,:`. . . .. ./
. . . . . . /(_. . ”~,_. . . ..“~,_. . . . . . . . . .,:`. . . . _/
. . . .. .{.._$;_. . .”=,_. . . .“-,_. . . ,.-~-,}, .~”; /. .. .}
. . .. . .((. . .*~_. . . .”=-._. . .“;,,./`. . /” . . . ./. .. ../
. . . .. . .\`~,. . ..“~.,. . . . . . . . . ..`. . .}. . . . . . ../
. . . . . .(. ..`=-,,. . . .`. . . . . . . . . . . ..(. . . ;_,,-”
. . . . . ../.`~,. . ..`-.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..\. . /\
. . . . . . \`~.*-,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..|,./.....\,__
,,_. . . . . }.>-._\. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .|. . . . . . ..`=~-,
. .. `=~-,_\_. . . `\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . .`=~-,,.\,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .\
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `:,, . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\. . . . . . ..__
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .`=-,. . . . . . . . . .,%`>--==``
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . _\. . . . . ._,-%. . . ..`

The "Reverends" Jesse and Al have been doing it their whole careers - nothing will be done if it is a minority telling their congregation how to vote!

Well, if I was a member of a congregation that preached as much hate as these churches are preaching against President Obama or anyone for that matter, I would run from them as fast as I could...The God I serve loves everyone, and any so called "church" that endorses candidates and preach hate from the pulpit needs to have their tax exempt status pulled...period....they are not churches, they are social clubs..When Preisdent Obama is reelected, I hope that's the first thing he does is to have IRS send each one of them a letter advising them of this...They think they are above the law....

As a non-xtian I rather like that xtians are becoming more aligned with the extreme right, GOP & TeaBaggers.

When a religion becomes political the lines are blurred and the failings of the political party become the failings of the religion.

With the many unsavory revelations of the xtian backed romney and ryan and other GOP candidates it simply makes the xtian religion look more and more like an arm of the extremist Right.

When you have TeaBagger political crazies like Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin, and other extremist GOPers (Akin, Santorum, Perry, etc), wrapping themselves in the American Flag all the while holding up the xtian bible and yelling "Take Back America", it simply politicizes religion.

So too when you have preachers claiming that they speak for god and that god says to vote for romney and the GOP, it solidifies their alignment with the far right.

Is it any surprise that the ranks of Americans (especially young) that have moved away from xtianity have grown (Wiccan, etc) and Americans claiming NO religion at all has increased from 14% in the mid 90's to just over 20% today?

As a liberal and a Humanist I tend to like it. As the xtian religion becomes more stridently Right Wing it becomes far less inclusive. It's aliening vast numbers of Americans, both religious and non.

It works for me.

The law serves a reasonable purpose and these churches are not above the law. If the pastors do not want to abide by the law, revoke their tax-exempt status and make them file federal and state tax returns.

Parkwaync...Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are not pastors of a church..They are civil rights activists..this doesn't even apply to them..Please find another lame and sorry excuse if you can...The fact that you have brought their names up indicates that this election to you is about black and white..not about what candidate is the most qualified for the job...If Barak Obama was a white man, we wouldn't even be having this discussion...I feel sorry for people like you...

All organized religion is a scam. Tax them all.

Religious fraudsters in America do all sorts of scams with more or less total impunity. So much for the 'kingdom not of this earth' doctrine.

They are breaking the law and I don't care who they recommend...STOP! This isn't about whether it's my candidate or not getting votes, but it's about using that pulpit for a reason that is just WRONG. The authority of a church's pastor for some people is strong and telling people for whom to vote is wrong.

Now telling everyone in your congregation to go vote is fine, but NOT which candidate is the right one. And that goes for all sides. I think it is shameful that nothing is done about this, and it is for any candidate, not just the ones I like. Yes, say go vote. No, don't mention candidates or you lose your status and should be prosecuted in my opinion.

And Flame, your post is full of nonsense. If you think that Democrats don't give and help (or attend church, for that matter, since many or most do...and if they don't it is none of your business anyway) you are wearing blinders to suit your views. Did you know that you can help people in need without calling yourself a church, too? Wow...what a concept.

It's not right -- whomever is doing it "in the name of religion". Pull their status -- let's collect the tax. While they are add it -- get the "Under god" line pulled from the Pledge of allegiance (a 1954 anti-communist plant) as well as "In god we trust" off the money -- another anti-communist scare tactic from the 1950's.

I am not a religious man -- but to use "god" as a political weapon is as bad as using politics for religion...

Unbelievable, but questions about Greenpeace and Universities being able to be political and keep tax exempt status has been brought up...

It's the Constitution of the United States, and it's Articles. About 3 bucks at Barnes & Noble. Read it. Seperations of CHURCH and State. Nothing from the Founding Fathers about non-profits or educational institutions not influencing government. Originally churches did not have a tax exemption.

The leeches are in Washington DC.

No news here. The liberal "preachers" have always done this. Jesse jack a$$ jackson and al sharptongue ring a bell??

truetexan

No news here. The liberal "preachers" have always done this. Jesse jack a$$ jackson and al sharptongue ring a bell??

As has already been mentioned, Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton do not preside over a church and when they express a political standpoint, it is as an individual rather than the representative of a church. It makes quite a difference, you know.

Pull their tax exempt status! That what the law calls for and that's what should happen.

It's time to tax all these mudder-fudders.

OBAMA 2012

Gwenie- wrong

The Reverend Al Sharpton is a longtime civil rights activist and community organizer. He is an assistant pastor at Bethany Baptist Church in Brooklyn

http://civilliberty.about.com/od/profiles/p/al_sharpton.htm

Reverend Sharpton still preaches throughout the United States and abroad on most Sundays, and averages 80 formal sermons a year. Reverend Sharpton says his religious convictions are the basis for his life.

http://www.zoominfo.com/people/Al%20Sharpton_Kathy_1293695103.aspx

It is so amazing, how Bias MSNBC is. The article talks mainly how pastor are telling their congregations to vote for Mitt Romney. But the articles does not mention how Pro-Obama Churches are busing in their congregation in order to vote for Obama.

One word HYPOCRISY!

When acting as a private citizen (for example, if a priest is out to lunch with a friend and is not at that moment representing his church), feel free to endorse whomever you want. However, as soon as you put on your "Sunday best" and step up in front of the congregation, you are a representative of the church, and thus cannot advocate any particular candidate (urging people to just go out and vote in general is ok, specific endorsement is not). Tax-exempt status should be removed for any church (regardless of denomination or which candidate/political party) that has done this.

Same goes for public universities/schools. Feel free to do whatever as a private citizen, but as soon as you are representing the school (when you are teaching or if you are participating in a school-sponsored event), no endorsements of candidates or religions.

Chris - Just a quick fact check for you - Thomas Jefferson did not write the US COnstitution that would be James Madison with a lot of others helping. Jefferson is creidted with the Declaration of Independence which was also done by committee.

The notion that churches can replace the need for government assistance for some is ludicrous. Through volunteer work I have known many poor people. (NO, they haven't owned flat-screen TV's or ipads, many don't own a vehicle or if they do they are not able to keep it working reliably on their income). Assistance from private charities for them has consisted of things like help towards a month rent here and there--never the total rent amount, and at most once a year--used clothing and donated food. Incidentally, a lot of the food donated may be near or past expiration date. One woman, who had stage IV breast cancer, got free wigs from the American Cancer Society but the more serious problem was no phone or working vehicle to get to chemo or to have phone contact with her healthcare providers; another was no child care in the summer when she needed to get chemo. Attempts to provide some help through a non-profit I volunteered for had minimal results, because the organization did not have funds it could spend for her particular needs. A few people stepped up and helped with school supplies and some meals but that was about it. Not to mention, how is a woman with cancer, no phone, no car, and three kids at home supposed to slog around to seek assistance from multiple charities? Got more mileage helping set her up with county health agencies that were able to arrange for some in-home services--paid by the government. Also, private charities don't have the ability public agencies do to verify income and assets and by limiting the amount of help they provide, they protect themselves from scammers.

I'd like to see the IRS have the power to simply change these churches to a 501 c(4), so the churches could keep their own exemptions but have to sent notices to donors saying their deductions were no longer valid.

Chris, to use Thomas Jefferson as your moral compass is stupidity. He was for the evils of the French Revolution and thought that the guillotine should be used in the USA. He was for Committees of Public Safety which dictated support for their Revolution and punished Loyalists. And he was a slave owner who raped his female slaves. He also believed in constant revolution and murder of our leaders.

Separation of church and state ... period. You want to spout politics from the pulpit? That's fine, but you crossed the line and you should lose your tax exempt status.

Politics from the pulpit means you changed the focus of your "tax-exempt business" and have entered into politics ... you have become a political body, not the personification of the body of Christ.

Teach your flock the way you want them to believe and allow them to make up their own minds about who best will serve the needs of the people of this nation.

Tax them ALL...their god will sort them out!

truetexan:

RE: your post #1.63

"back your bags and leave....."

Want to bet $10,000 dollars on that statement?

You probably will say yes! No surprise, Republicans almost always make the WRONG decisions!

My point is that the conservative churches have complied with the law and the liberal churches blatantly don't.

So now Romney is what a liberal?

Some are saying it is ok for churches to disobey laws they do not like but private citizens cannot! Tax exempt status is not a right! It is a priveledge which is grante because donations are intended to keep the churches on operation so they can continue charitqable actions for their flocks not participate in choosing who wins elections. The catholic church and all who participate in public displays for either candidate should have their tax exempt status removed and that would include not only churches but other organizations hiding under the exmpt status and are purely political. I am against anyone who violates the law not just the Romney lovers.

I grew up in the church and I can say I never heard not one of our pastors telling my mother how to vote or I when I grew to the voting age. I can read and dig up the information I need to make my own choice and would have no part of an institution that dogged me to vote a certain way. I do think that if pastors are going to get into poltics then the church needs to lose the tax exempt status. Modern day churches give God and Religion a bad name.

I watched the most amazing film the other day. It's called "Deliver Us From Your Followers". It was made by an Evangelical, and he traveled across the country just talking to people, civilly about their religious beliefs, and asking them why some people had a negative view of Christianity.

Before any Christians start screaming, "Help, help, I'm being oppressed" I seriously encourage you to watch this movie. It did not bash you guys at all, but it did illustrate what exactly is going on that pisses some of us off so much. I also encourage NON Christians to watch it. It actually gave me hope, that we can reconcile these differences.

2 choices to deal with the Crutches of America.

A: Strip away ALL tax exempt status from said Crutches, ALL types, DENOMinations, and religious affiliations, make them open their books to examination by the IRS and show exactly how much they receive in contributions versus actually report to the feds.

B: Force them to stick to the 1954 law and only preach about their lies in whatever book the read from. If they don't jail them under the law based solely on that law. No retaliation. Just based on the rule of law. Aren't we a nation of laws? Or do only the Republicants get the break them??

...they have RR sign in their yards ,two days until we know if I am moving to Canada

Whoo Hooo!

URQ is moving to Canada!

Romney/Ryan 2012! Vote against the Big-Eared Bandit and his laughing sidekick like your life depends on it!

Amazing and outrageous for two reasons: (1) political donations are not tax diductible, but church donations are. Imagine the Koch Brothers giving Pat Robertson $50million to air anti-Obama ads, and then getting a tax break for that $50 million!!! We've got to be subservient sheep to accept that.

(2) But more importantly, it exposes the hypocrisy of the conservative preachers themselves.

I hope ALL the lefty loonies leave this country. You are cancers on America!

So Christian of you.

They need their tax exempt status revoked immediately.

See These pastors who recommend Romney are recommending a bishop in a religion that claims they (the pastors) are using a corruption of the Bible to mislead their flock to Hell. How can these guys throw Jesus under the bus?

Hello Texan,

I'm great. Getting ready to go eat some faces.

But tell me, does your Christian religion advocate for calling people "Cancers on America" and "Loonies"?

IF you dont like the way America is suppose to be...

I thought it was supposed to be a melting pot of ideas, freedom of expression and equality? Which would make your statement, that it's only supposed to be the way YOU want it to be, the only truly unAmerican sentiment one could have.

And yes, I remember now, "On the third day, Jesus preacheth to the crowd, 'Go forth and disparage your bretheren. Call thy brothers names and the kingdom of heaven will be yours, so long as thou types the disclaimer, I don't wish thoust harm'".

True,

Great, then let's be honest.

Does your Christian scripture tell you to be rude, partisan, exclude other people's viewpoints, inhospitable (you did tell us to leave) and call names?

I mean, it's a yes or no question. Should be easy enough to answer.

That’s a lie.

Despite hundreds of thousands of threatening letters sent by these liberal outfits (and as many complaints filed with the IRS) not a single church has ever lost tax-exemption for socio-political activity – zip, zero, nada. Not even for endorsing candidates from the pulpit. The left has cried wolf far too many times. No one will come running. Especially not the IRS.

That’s because churches, unlike other nonprofit organizations, don’t need a letter of tax exemption from the Internal Revenue Service. Churches are constitutionally tax-exempt simply by virtue of existence. It’s automatic. The only way the IRS could revoke a church’s tax-exempt status would be to disband the church, which, obviously, the government has no authority to do. It’s simple. Pastors, if you get a letter from the ACLU, PFAW or AU, I suggest a singular use for it: bird-cage liner.

Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/11/irs-surrenders-time-for-churches-to-get-political/#ixzz2BMfzlsI3

I just find it incredibly bizarre that the fundametalist "christian" right is so racist and hate-filled that they will risk their tax exemption to tell people to vote for non-Christian Mormon. What next, Buddhists?

Let's let God solve the issue. Remove church's tax exempt status. Take the tax money and throw it into the air. What God wants, God will take. The rest goes to the IRS.

It's easy. Just disallow a tax deduction for contributions given to churches. It should be put on a federal ballot for the people to decide because with the number of religious nuts in congress it would never get anywhere there.

Truetexan - actually, I would say, if you don't like the way America is, change it. If you can get enough people behind you, it can happen. I do like America. There are some things I would change- get rid of the two party system, drastically change campaign finance law so corporate interests could not have a bigger voice than the average citizen. But on the whole we are on the right track. So, I'm staying.

This a lie, it is written by a leftist athiest news source for the ignorat democrats who if they say follow me off this cliff they would. Pastors, stand up and tell your congregation to not vote for Obama, he is anti-Christian, he is for murdering unborn babies, he is for homosexuality, he is against the natural marriage between one man and one women. Tell them do not vote for Obama.

Despite hundreds of thousands of threatening letters sent by these liberal outfits (and as many complaints filed with the IRS) not a single church has ever lost tax-exemption for socio-political activity – zip, zero, nada. Not even for endorsing candidates from the pulpit. The left has cried wolf far too many times. No one will come running. Especially not the IRS.

That’s because churches, unlike other nonprofit organizations, don’t need a letter of tax exemption from the Internal Revenue Service. Churches are constitutionally tax-exempt simply by virtue of existence. It’s automatic. The only way the IRS could revoke a church’s tax-exempt status would be to disband the church, which, obviously, the government has no authority to do. It’s simple. Pastors, if you get a letter from the ACLU, PFAW or AU, I suggest a singular use for it: bird-cage liner.

Read more: http://politicaloutcast.com/2012/11/irs-surrenders-time-for-churches-to-get-political/#ixzz2BMfzlsI3

TrueTexan,

Excuses. All you have to do is respond yes or no...

Does your Christian scripture tell you to be rude, partisan, exclude other people's viewpoints, inhospitable (you did tell us to leave) and call names?

Look at your posts, yes or no, would your Jesus approve of their tone?

truetexan reported for numerous violations of the CoH across even just this post set.

If you speak from the pulpit no matter which way you lean you should lose your exemption. That is the law. I have no issues with churches being tax exempt if they follow the laws. Our pastor even mentioned the law and refused to step over the line and endorse any canadate from the pulpit.

If you call yourself a Christian as I do, How do you justify not trying to help the less fortunate as we have been called to. How do you call someone a Muslim who goes to a Christian church just like you do?

Yes, I am voting for the for Obama as Romney clearly believes that 90% of people are beneath him and therefore don't deserve to breath the same air.

What COH would Jesus violate, True Texan???

True,

You still haven't answered...

Does your Christian scripture tell you to be rude, partisan, exclude other people's viewpoints, inhospitable (you did tell us to leave) and call names?

Look at your posts, yes or no, would your Jesus approve of their tone?

Jerry-1927474

This a lie, it is written by a leftist athiest news source for the ignorat democrats who if they say follow me off this cliff they would.

Hey Jerry, is that more Neoconservative projection? Seems to me it's fundamentalist Christians who have a bad habit of blindly following wack jobs in the name of their invisible, omnipotent, mythic deity...you know like David Koresh, Jim Jones, Joseph Smith, etc.

truetexan

It just amazzzzes me how people dont like the way it is where they live (be another state or country) because it is so screwed up and move some other place and try to make it JUST like the arm pit they just left. Stupid is as stupid does! LEAVE!

Nope. Stayin'. Maybe I just might move from New York City back to Texas! They seem like they could use a little more liberal influence. My son works in the West Texas petroleum industry. We're already there and evangelizing the conservatives! >:-)

TrueTexan,

I just don't get why you won't answer such easy questions. All the answer takes is a single word? Instead you get all defensive. Why is that?

Does your Christian scripture tell you to be rude, partisan, exclude other people's viewpoints, inhospitable (you did tell us to leave) and call names?

Look at your posts, yes or no, would your Jesus approve of their tone?

Sarah- He hasn't read up to Matthhew 22:21 yet. It takes time.

And yes, Texan I know that verse does not say anything about how you should treat other people, but it is at the heart of this topic.

Religious institutions enjoy a special exemption due to the, CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, not by acts of Congress; a couple of years ago, the EEOC brought a case of employment discrimination against a large church group; Supreme court rules 9-0, that their exemptions are based in the bill of rights, not by acts of Congress, we would not have a United States if it were not for the bill of rights, no State would have ratified it; that is why the IRS is not challenging speech from the pulpit, it is part of American heritage, exempt from Congress in regard to their preachings .

truetexan

Hal, You aint gettin anywhere . Bozo has demonized "big oil" so bad I cant see anybody in that industry voting for him. The problem is "BIG GOV."!

Big oil does a good enough job of demonizing themselves. They don't need Barrack Obama's help. By BIG GOV you mean like the Department of Homeland Security? ...TSA? You mean like government making reproductive decisions for women, deciding who can and can't get married and invading sovereign nations?

...oh, that BIG GOV.

Yes Sarah, in some cases Jesus would approve of their anger, he would approve our anger when it is against the murdering of babies, he would approve of our anger when we condone homosexuality, he would approve our anger when we cry out at thos ewho are trying to tear down the marriage of one man and one woman. Obama is a wolf in sheeps clothing, he got elected by lying, as a Christian ( if you are one) you cannot vote for Obama and not expect God to not be angry with you, he is your Father and as a human Father would do he gets mad when you do something that he tells you is a wrong and a sin.

There is a perception that to be a follower of Jesus means that you are never angry, always have a smile on your face, never get mad, and always say things like, “Bless your heart” when you really want to say something far different. It seems to stem from an idea about Jesus that looks at him as some very quiet, meek, introspective wise-man. It also seems to come from an idea that if God is love it means that he is more of a sweet grandfather who never corrects us or challenges us.

Many people think that to get angry is a sin. The fact is, the Bible has a very different view of anger. There are times when it is not only appropriate to be angry but in fact there are situations that if we were not angry it would be tantamount to sin. Our example comes from the oft misunderstood event in the life of Jesus when he cleared the money changers out of the Temple in Jerusalem.

¹⁴ In the temple he found those who were selling oxen and sheep and pigeons, and the money-changers sitting there. ¹⁵And making a whip of cords, he drove them all out of the temple, with the sheep and oxen. And he poured out the coins of the money-changers and overturned their tables. ¹⁶And he told those who sold the pigeons, “Take these things away; do not make my Father’s house a house of trade.” John 2:14-16 (ESV)

There are other times when the Bible is clear that anger is justified. God’s repeated calls for justice for the oppressed, the care of widows and orphans, the feeding of the hungry, and hospitality for the foreigner should tell us something of God’s character. When these things are not done, God is not happy. When there is injustice and oppression we should be angry. How can you not get angry when you learn that there are more people in slavery today that at any time in the worlds history? How can you not get angry when you find out that millions of children are victims of the global sex-slave industry? How can you not get angry when you are confronted with blatant racism or barbaric cruelty? Yes there are times when anger is what is called for; righteous anger, just anger, biblically based Christ-like anger.

Tax the church!

I don't care who, what or when they endorse, TAX THEM! Catholic, Baptist, Methodist, Scientology, Mormon, Hebrew, Islam, Buddhist, or Pastaferian, tax them! Tax them all!

Call it a form of religious patriotism to help pay down the deficit. Ear-mark all those dollars for the deficit. Heck, I"ll bet the Mormons alone could reduce the deficit by 10%.

saxon

Religious institutions enjoy a special exemption due to the, CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES, not by acts of Congress; a couple of years ago, the EEOC brought a case of employment discrimination against a large church group; Supreme court rules 9-0, that their exemptions are based in the bill of rights, not by acts of Congress, we would not have a United States if it were not for the bill of rights, no State would have ratified it; that is why the IRS is not challenging speech from the pulpit, it is part of American heritage, exempt from Congress in regard to their preachings .

Are you guys really that separated from reality. I don't know exactly how to break this to you but the Constitution and the Bill of Rights WERE acts of Congress. Where do you think they came from? Moses carted them down from the mountain? That which Congress can pass, Congress can amend or repeal.

Flame 77 said;

A minister endorsing a politician is NOT breaking the law.

Yes, they are, breaking both secular law and church law. See this from the article:

The 1954 law they are challenging prohibits charitable groups, including most churches, from making candidate endorsements, but doesn't bar ministers, priests, rabbis and imams from speaking out on other ballot issues, like voter initiatives, or organizing get-out-the-vote drives and education efforts around elections themselves.

You can speak about politics, urge people to vote, and make clear YOUR religion's stance on current election issues, but you cannot come straight out and say 'vote for such-and-so.' The Church (as an organization) has said they can't do this:

...defying the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops' directive that church leaders "are to avoid endorsing or opposing candidates or telling people how to vote."

The current fracas the Church is having with the nuns based on their non-adherence to pushing Church doctrine, and I've heard words such as 'excommunicated' being tossed around. So if these churches are violating this part of Church doctrine, then should they not also be excommunicated?

And by the way, it's not just Christians, the Jews and Muslims have religious rules about this too;

In a statement, the Council on American-Islamic Relations said it had reminded imams and khateebs (those who give the sermon during Friday prayers) that tax-exempt mosques "cannot explicitly or implicitly endorse candidates." Likewise, the Jewish Council for Public Affairs pointed to its standing directive that "organizations may not rate, endorse or oppose candidates for public office."

But the government says 'okay, you want to get into politics then here, just change your exemption group and then you CAN be a tax-exempt organization and preach politics.'

(As it happens, there is a legal way for churches to endorse candidates and still not pay taxes, by registering with the IRS under a different section of the tax code, 501(c)4. But nearly all religious institutions reject that choice because individuals who give money to 501(c)4 groups aren't allowed to claim tax deductions for their donations. Donations to 501(c)3 groups are deductible.)

So if the Church in question wants to do so, they can, their parishioners simply won't be able to deduct their donation from their taxes. Now, if the church doesn't want to change their status from 501(c)3 to 501(c)4, then that must mean that they think their parishioners are giving to them ONLY because they can get something back--and that would be the wrong reason to donate. In my opinion, you donate because you genuinely WANT to hep, to assist your fellow man though your church's charities, not because you want to lower your tax liability.

If I were a member of one of these churches (not), my reason for attending is spiritual and has nothing to do with politics. I think I would complain to the pastor that I wanted to hear more about Jesus and nothing about Caesar, or I would take my tithings elsewhere.

Jerry,

I didn't ask if he would be okay with you being angry. Can you quote where I said Jesus doesn't want us to be angry.

I asked this...

Does your Christian scripture tell you to be rude, partisan, exclude other people's viewpoints, inhospitable (you did tell us to leave) and call names?

Do you really think it's impossible to be angry, without doing those things?

Yeah they need to be taxed if they are going to be running campaigns from churches I dont care who they campaign for.

TrueTexan,

You just can't answer the questions.

Does your Christian scripture tell you to be rude, partisan, exclude other people's viewpoints, inhospitable (you did tell us to leave) and call names?

Yes/No.

Do you really think you can't tell the truth (YOUR truth by the way, what you perceive as truth is NOT universal) without doing those things?

A minister endorsing a political agenda is not against the law, a church endorsing a political agenda is. When it is done in a church publication, on church signs, from the pulpit or otherwise as a representative of a church then it is most definitely in violation of the law.

Sorry It wouldnt post my comment.

Jerry-1927474

Yes Sarah, in some cases Jesus would approve of their anger, he would approve our anger when it is against the murdering of babies, he would approve of our anger when we condone homosexuality, he would approve our anger when we cry out at thos ewho are trying to tear down the marriage of one man and one woman.

Let's look an your beliefs. I assume in the first sentence you refer to abortion. An unborn fetus in Jewish law is not considered a person until it has been born. The fetus is regarded as a part of the mother’s body and not a separate being until it begins to egress from the womb during childbirth. In fact, until forty days after conception, the fertilized egg is considered as “mere fluid.” Since Jesus was a Jew, unless it's a late term abortion I doubt he'd have an opinion. He'd probably be a lot more pissed with the death penalty and unnecessary wars.

Please quote a New Testament verse concerning Jesus Christ's views on homosexuality.

Traditional Hebrew marriage could involve taking your dead brother's wife as your own along with you're own wife. There are also passages concerning fornication between father and daughters...so I don't think "one man and one woman" was on the top of his priority list.

What else do you think Jesus believed in...Trickle-Down Economics? The planet Kolob? Magic underwear?

I don't care what you believe or where you stand in your beliefs but churches supporting a select candidate, and telling or encouraging people how to vote is wrong. Even more wrong with they willfully cite the law and admit to breaking it.

Honestly I would think those that consider themselves the true Christians would be appalled by this. In most cases going to church is about learning from the Bible and, hopefully, focusing on the positive things Jesus did and the parables found in the bible that or more or less metaphoric words of wisdom that one can reflect on and hopefully learn a lessen from. Not to be swayed or lied to about which way they should vote (same for other controversial issues). There is no place for this in church.

My views and thoughts on religion aside I can tell you that if I was at church and the priest, pastor, preacher, (pick a title) chose to tell me who and how to vote, regardless of who it was I would get up and leave. Church is for church end of story. I do hope the IRS goes after those who have willfully and loudly proclaimed to of broken this law. And some wonder why people are leaving traditional religion? This is a reason why right here!

It is time

Texan, I seem to remember that during the Vietnam years, all the right-wing war-mongers demanded that those who opposed the war "Love it or leave it!" Is that really all you bone-heads have in your arsenal -- that every time someone disagrees with you that they have to leave the country? I strongly suggest you read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the words at the base of the Statue of Liberty. You and all your tea-bagging freaks are an insult to true and patriotic conservatives. You are the true radicals. You are the ones who wish to destroy this country.

People who go to church should not even be allowed to vote!

If you are grown and believe in fairy tales then you have no business making decisions that effect the entire country.

Half of the population of this country need to pull their head out of their ass and replace it with their bible!

Give me a stadium and a few thousand hungry lions and I will fix this problem right up.

Never mind.

www.bible.ca/mor-god-had-sex-with-mary.htm
I have covered mister obama like a BLANKET the 2 years I have been on FB, and 10 months on youtube. I havent covered romney much, BUT when I found this, I almost FAINTED. I am FILLED WITH RIGHTEOUS...
ANGER.!!!!
I have shared with you all the times romney had LIED to one group of women who are pro abortion and told them he is also, then LIED to another group of christian women saying he is 100% ANTI abortion. He now also has the republican SODOMITE party group (log cabin republicans) on his side, by telling them he will approve ALL their SODOMITE rights requests, while telling christians he is 100% ANTI SODOMITE.

I now must also share this link with you. I have done MANY video's on mormons BUT am just now discovering their FINAL NAIL IN THE COFFIN for ANYONE CLAIMING TO BE A CHRISTIAN. Mormons, whom romney WAS A PREACHER FOR 10 YEARS, and he BELIEVES ALL THEY TEACH, TEACH THAT "JEHOVAH GOD HAD PHYSICAL SEXUAL INTERCOURSE WITH MARY, AND JESUS WAS THE RESULT OF THIS". They say joseph was her 2ND HUSBAND after God.

ANYONE CALLING THEMSELVES A CHRISTIAN WHO WOULD VOTE FOR EITHER THIS MAN, OR MISTER OBAMA...WELL, I THINK YOU CAN ANSWER FOR YOURSELF WHETHER YOU TRULY FOLLOW "CHRIST" OR NOT...

I believe that our Nation was founded on certain religious beliefs ( the majority of the founders were believers), however, they foresaw that religion and government should be separate and that is especially relevant today. If a church, religious group, or any other groups wish to support and promote any candidate, they should be registered as a political party and lose all tax exemptions, or they should keep their political views to themselves and stay out of governing. There would be nothing worse than living under religious laws, then your freedoms would be in jeopardy. If God wanted to rule over the people he wouldn't need a Pope, Imam, or Pastor to tell the people, He would just do it !!!

So, TrueTexan, in your opinion Jesus preached that you should call people names, i.e. Cancers, Loonies and Zombies. He also preached being inhospitable, telling people that didn't agree with him to leave. He preached division and partisanship, as in only liberals or only conservatives are welcome.

And he said that was all okay, as long as you think you're telling the truth.

So you're saying YES, that's what the Christian scripture teaches you.

THAT is the greatest excuse and attempt to justify hypocrisy I have ever read. And I've read a LOT.

Your an idiot!

Another Jesus sanctioned insult, because he/she thinks it's the truth.

I think you've pretty much lost any credibility to discuss what Jesus thought about anything.

P.S. I tend to dislike grammar monitors on the Vine, but if you're going to insult someone specifically about their intelligence, you should at least use the correct form of "your". As in, you are an idiot, you're.

I'm sorry, but I don't think Livinginthewoods, is claiming to be a follower of Jesus or a Christian. While I don't agree with the sentiment in his post, EVERYONE SHOULD VOTE, at least he/she isn't a raging hypocrite.

truetexan:

I noticed that your vocabulary is rather limited. I also noted how you would not accept my $10,000 offer to bet on the outcome of the 2012 presidential election. All you do is deflect and evade, kinda like your right-wing nuts do. No sensible answer, always accuse, deflect, and evade. I know Texans are a straight forward bunch At least they were when I went to UT! You sound more like misses-sippi!

Sarah and I don't always see eye-to-eye, but she does have a valid point in this situation. What EXACTLY is "Christian like" about the name calling and mud slinging that is being done on this board. Or the infantile, boorish behaviour evidenced below?

sara, why do you think I call you sara zombie. You just dont get it or refuse to get it. That is a zombie.

Allswell, cant take it? LMAO! MOMMY, MOMMY, HAHAHAHAHA

Truetexan, you know it's possible to address others in a reasonable manner, not like a three year old holding a temper tantrum? Or perhaps you don't.

You also seem to feel that YOUR truth should be EVERYONE'S truth. That's not the way it works. You are entitled to believe as you wish (as long as you don't impose it upon others). Once you start imposing your religious beliefs on others, then you are wrong and little better than those trying to impose Sharia law in the Middle East.

It's simple, the U.S. is NOT a theocracy.

Now, if you wish to express your views in an adult and respectful manner, I'm sure you would be listened to. If not, please go back and sit in the corner until you have finished with your tantrum.

truetexan

WRONG! Back then if you aborted your "CHILD" you could be stoned o death because they knew that the children was the future. You dont know anything of Jewish laws. You may be a little senile though.

I may be a little senile as opposed to just making crap up like yourself?

I can provide links citing Jewish law...why don't you do the same with your claim about abortion?

http://www.jewfaq.org/birth.htm

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Issues/Bioethics/Abortion/Fetus_in_Jewish_Law.shtml

"Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and Talmud, states clearly of the fetus 'lav nefesh hu--it is not a person.' The Talmud contains the expression 'ubar yerech imo--the fetus is as the thigh of its mother,' i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman's body." This is grounded in Exodus 21:22. That biblical passage outlines the Mosaic law in a case where a man is responsible for causing a woman's miscarriage, which kills the fetus If the woman survives, then the perpetrator has to pay a fine to the woman's husband. If the woman dies, then the perpetrator is also killed. This indicates that the fetus has value, but does not have the status of a person." - http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm

Yeah I know that my post 1.117 was ridiculously over the top and completely out of touch with reality.

I just wanted to show you what you look like to all of us.

he would approve of our anger when we condone homosexuality, he would approve our anger when we cry out at thos ewho are trying to tear down the marriage of one man and one woman

Jesus never condemns homosexuality, nor does he dictate that marriage is to be only between a man and a woman.

You obviously don't know your own bible.

truetexan - you're posts really are some of the most offensive I've read on the vine. I'm truly surprised you haven't been banned. You act like a 3 year old with a foul mouth.

Sally, "foul mouth"? OH HOW FUNNY!!

This must be the first time on here. That or you dont read or care what the loony left post. FUNNY STUFF here.

trutexan:

I don't know a lot about you but, what I do know is you will always have someone to love you -- YOURSELF!

Your right about this one. You know nothing about me.

Please explain how they are any different from the 501C3 groups mailing out flyers for Democrats, I get 4-5 every day endorsing local and state Democrats and in the area where the stamp should be are the words Non-profit 501C3 organization.

How is it that the non-profit 501C3 groups supporting Dems are any different than churches.

truetexan #1.73~~You and your ilk are causing the world view of America, to be an un-civil, un-patriotic, un-Christian, he** hole, that is not worth living in, visiting in, or fighting for. Continue on! Hopefully, real, proud Americans, will out-number, and speak louder than anti-American, greedy, selfish bast**ds.

Sara - have you not learned arguing with a rock is a waste of time.

tt, I know a lot of republicans on disability not just democrats. Now I find myself reading comments by one that surely should be in an asylum. Furthermore, anyone witnessing Jesus in the Flesh wouldn't be buying coffee, tea, or a beer, but would be on their knees asking for forgiveness, You obviously know a far different Jesus than I.

LOVE your liberal hatred greatgran! Please continue! I enjoy it.

You see sara? I dont think I have said ANY of the kind of things YOUR side does. Just sayin. :)

Gene, It was a JOKE! No humor what so ever huh. Pitiful.

Yeah, because I'm pretty sure he hates himself too! Every single post just drips with misery and self loathing. Typical conservative, hates himself and the whole world.

The fact that you sling insults left and right but never touch an actual issue is very telling. You respond to statements but you never answer a direct question.

Your little joke seemed a bit inappropriate too, since most beer guzzling losers defrauding the government of disability, that I know are all conservative republicans.

I was born, raised, and lived all my life in TX so, I should know, they are @!$%#ing left and right everywhere around here.

Ignorant rednecks, thumping a bible they never read, getting every single cent they can from the government while working under the table for decent money and bitching about "ghetto ni**er welfare queens" doing the same thing. Screaming that fa**ots are gonna destroy the sanctity of marriage while they live with a woman they won't marry so she can keep getting food stamps.

How many of you own friends, and family get some sort of check from the government? Do you spout out all this bull@!$%# at them too? Or, do you think they actually need it, that they are the exceptions to the rule?

Or, more likely I think, do you not have any friends or family? That would explain a lot!

The "separation of church and state" was meant to keep the STATE out of the CHURCH.... not the other way around............

So, who is surprised that a bunch of high ranking military guys would be backing a @!$%#ing war monger?

What is next a list of corporate CEOs that are supporting robme?

Why don't you find out how many research scientists are supporting romney? Or, school teachers/principals, stay at home parents? How about enlisted military personnel as opposed to pentagon level officers? Those are the types of people whose opinions I respect, not the war mongers and moneygrubbers that you seem to worship.

Steve, that is only your opinion and countless legal precedents have proven you wrong!

livinginthewoods, Are you sure your not a comedian? You should be. OH, BTW, not one single person in MY family are on the public dole, not one. But nice try. I still think your funny. Ever time you open that pie hole you prove my point.

Whatta ya say sara. This is YOUR party on display. Typical loser living in the woods because thats where the backward ideas belong.

PLEASE continue notliving.

OH, BTH sara, you never answered MY question on your OWS,ers vs: the teaparty. I can only quess why.

Steve, YOU SIR win the big cigar! On point. The left will NEVER admit it though. Its because they either dont know the constitution OR like BOZO doesnt like the constitution.

Gee whiz texas

doesn't Jesus prefer peace and brotherly love

and yet you posted a whole list of war mongers which I can only assume backs up your need to hate everyone who does not bow to your God.

Jesus was a hippie liberal... and you know it

An earlier poster, 1.1, is well worth repeating, with @189 thumbs up, Ido said,

Easy decision: Take them to Federal Court, and if found guilty......fine them, send them to jail, and ban them as a non-profit agency/organization.

//End of Protest// 189

• !

#1.1 -

"hippie liberal" BWHAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Just goes to show you liberal mental midgets for what you are. hippie liberal HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Still nothing from Sara huh? Oh well.

Dong, I forgot only the people you libs like are worth having on your side and ALL...ALL of the others...well you know the end of that story.

The Taliban Rulers of the World=Wars upon rumors of Wars.

Now suppose Tom Cruise becomes a presidential contender, how will the reverends like Billy Graham no longer call Scientology a cult.

If a Voodoo High Priest becomes a Republican, he will be accepted as long as he has the MONEY

TrueTexan,

Sorry, I was riding the subway, since I know you must have been SUPER anxious to hear back from me...

sara, at the teaparty protests, how many killings and rapes took place?? ZERO! At the loony left's OWS'ers protests how many rapes and murders took place?? MANY! Open drug use, useing the "bathroom" (saying it nicely) everywhere, and much more.

Do you really think one can catch "rapist" or "litterbug" from joining a particular movement? And do you also really believe that no member of the GOP/TP has ever raped or littered or broke the law?

People who do those things, don't do them because of their political ideology, they do them because they're @!$%#s, and every one knows there are @!$%#s all up and down the political spectrum.

The teaparty people even picked up their own garbage and you people demonize THEM!!?? Talk about hypocrites!

Can you quote where I said something about the TP?

Clean up your own house before you demonize another.

My house is awfully clean already, and it's laughable that you have the balls to talk about demonizing others, with your Jesus sanctioned name calling.

Everyone should vote! If my wife wanted to vote democRAT I wouldnt be angry at her what so ever!! Do you know why? Because its HER vote!

Didn't I just say in that last post that everyone should post. Go read it again.

~ BUT if I was a liberal, with the liberal mindset I would be outraged if my wife voted republican.

You sure do know a lot about "liberals", perhaps you're a closet liberal? Otherwise you've spoken to every liberal in the nation, and have probed them in depth about their views on voting?

Or perhaps you're just generalizing and talking out of your ass?

YOU know this is true!

I do?

So you can climb down off your high horse at any time because you and your loony left dont have a leg to stand on.

No thanks, I like it up here, and they are doing wonderful things with prosthetics these days.

And Thats really all you have, grammer?? YEP, thats it!

It wasn't so much about the grammar as it was about the hypocrisy of calling someone an idiot, but using the wrong form of the rather simple word "your".

The left has the hate mongers and of course you cant see it thats why I call you sarazombie.

Coming from the person who so far has called his fellow HUMAN BEINGS cancerous, zombies, idiots, and told them they weren't welcome.

By your logic, as long as we're being honest, we can be as hateful and call as many names as we want. Unless that only applies to you???

I am to busy for blind stupidity. I HOPE my grammer was correct enough for you to understand.

Actually, you spelled grammar wrong every time, but I guess that's more about spelling. However, again, if you're going to accuse someone of blind stupidity, you might want to at least click spell check. That way you won't come across as even more stupid than the people who you're calling that.

An earlier poster, 1.1, is well worth repeating, with @189 thumbs up, Ido said,

Yeah I practically never agree with that guy but, he was spot on today.

Must be a libertarian. Those are my kind of conservatives.

My hope is that after romney gets his ass handed to him tomorrow that the Tbaggers and evangelicals will lose power to the libertarians.

Take the corporate money and religious bull@!$%# out of the conservative side of politics and I can go back to not voting a straight ticket all the time.

I have never appreciated the nanny state aspect of the democrats but that does not mean I want big money and religious nut jobs running the county either.

Don't know about you guys, but I've had enough of truetexan's rudeness. Here is the webmaster's address to complain about this guy: sally@newsvine.com

No, as long as he has GOOD ideas on running not RUINNING the country!

@mozzie, MOMMY MOMMY MOMMY. OHHH MY GOD, This is funny! MOMMY MOMMY HAHAHAHAHAHA MOMMY MOMMY!

Sara, always making excuses for the left. Thats why I call you sarazombie.

Have a Great one people, Its been a blast!! Gotta go.

Sara, always making excuses for the left. Thats why I call you sarazombie.

You do realize that simply posting something, doesn't make it truth right? Of course you don't, what am I thinking?

Oh wait, I AM thinking, that's the point.

Can you explain why jesus was not liberal or why he was supposedly conservative?

I see nothing of substance coming from you at all. Can you actually answer this question?

Personally, I don't care what some guy in the middle east 2000 years ago thought but from what I have read about the guy he was pretty much the stereotypical liberal hippy. Fed the poor, healed the sick, hated the rich, talked @!$%# to government leaders. Maybe I should become a christian! I don't believe he was the son of any god but, he sure sounds like a hell of a guy!

Oh! I almost forgot the biggest difference between jesus and the neocons. Jesus believed in paying your @!$%#ing taxes like a responsible citizen!!!!

Sarah, Hope I didn't spoil all the fun you were having with the texan since he took his blankie and went home.

:(

Truetexan-

And Hal, I have read the BIBLE cover to cover. Have you? I have done hours upon hours of study and research. Have you? Like Jesus said, "the truth is not in you".

Absolutely, I have. Though I am not a Christian, I feel it is important to be very familiar with a body of literature for which so many cultural references have been derived. I am most familiar with the King James version.

I am only starting to familiarize myself with the Qu'ran. And my knowledge of the Bagavad Gita is quite rusty. I honestly find these ancient stories to be very interesting for putting the ancient world into context.

If you use other pieces of writing from the place and time, it can really give you a perspective of 1st and 2nd century Palestine that the Bible alone does not convey. Things that make you think about the Those books in a completely different way. You should expand your literacy beyond the Biblical canon.

Steve-446003 #1.144~~When "Muslim,Sharia Law" steps in/over your Christian theocracy government, You will just have to STFU. With your way of thinking, any religion can take over government.

Mozzie,

Nah, I do have like three papers I should be working on, so I guess I'll let it go this time.

Now that "truetexan" is apparently down for a much needed nap, perhaps an adult conversation?

I was especially interested in "Hal's" comment.

If you use other pieces of writing from the place and time, it can really give you a perspective of 1st and 2nd century Palestine that the Bible alone does not convey. Things that make you think about the Those books in a completely different way. You should expand your literacy beyond the Biblical canon.

This is a point I have tried to make several times. What we know of as the Bible is only a small amount of written works that were created during Christ's life and the years immediately following. The original books of the Bible were hand-picked to bolster the beliefs of the dominant Christian sect at the time, what is now known as Roman Catholic. Any other books were heresy and the various sects either destroyed them (keeping them was a death sentence) or hid them very well (as in the Dead Sea Scrolls).

Then the protestants came along and didn't like some of THOSE books - known as apocryphal. So the Bible changed yet again. And of course, don't forget, lots of violence over THAT change as well.

I agree with Hal, no matter what your belief system is, it's a good thing to become familiar with the basic religious works. It helps everyone understand each other better.

As to the topic at hand, before we were derailed by a petulant child, here's my opinion ...

If a church wants to retain its tax-free status (the validity of which is for a different discussion) then the paster should not be able to preach politics. It's a pretty simple concept, really.

Now, I can honestly see the SCOTUS coming along and saying "wait, churches are people and have the 1st Amendment rights". Well, OK. If so, then the church has the obligation to pay taxes, like corporations are SUPPOSED to.

To the "other discussion". I actually understand the concept of not taxing churches for INCOME tax. I can actually agree with that and also agree with not having churches pay school tax, etc. Where I draw the line is property taxes for items that the church USES -- such as infrastructure (streets, sewer, electrical -- not service, infrastructure), police and fire protection, etc. By them NOT paying, yet expecting those services, the rest of us are paying a de facto "church tax".

By the same token, I feel that any church that is receiving tax dollars should also follow all federal law.

We have at least 1,600 pastors in The United States Of America, who need to learn HOW TO BE AN AMERICAN, and also HOW TO BE A CHRISTIAN WHO FOLLOWS THE TEACHINGS OF JESUS CHRIST. There is no scripture, in the Holy Bible, that authorizes any one of these pastors to deny President Obamas' self-proclaimed Christianity and label him Muslim. They were calling Mormonism a "cult" and saying Romney is not a Christian, but they will hold their nose and vote for him, worshiping the republican party over and above their Christian faith. Hey pastors, "God is watching"

James 3:17
But the wisdom that is from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, and easy to be intreated, full of mercy and good fruits, without partiality, and without hypocrisy.

Ol_Doc

truetexan

WRONG! Back then if you aborted your "CHILD" you could be stoned o death because they knew that the children was the future. You dont know anything of Jewish laws. You may be a little senile though.

I may be a little senile as opposed to just making crap up like yourself?

I can provide links citing Jewish law...why don't you do the same with your claim about abortion?

http://www.jewfaq.org/birth.htm

http://www.myjewishlearning.com/beliefs/Issues/Bioethics/Abortion/Fetus_in_Jewish_Law.shtml

"Rashi, the great 12th century commentator on the Bible and Talmud, states clearly of the fetus 'lav nefesh hu--it is not a person.' The Talmud contains the expression 'ubar yerech imo--the fetus is as the thigh of its mother,' i.e., the fetus is deemed to be part and parcel of the pregnant woman's body." This is grounded in Exodus 21:22. That biblical passage outlines the Mosaic law in a case where a man is responsible for causing a woman's miscarriage, which kills the fetus If the woman survives, then the perpetrator has to pay a fine to the woman's husband. If the woman dies, then the perpetrator is also killed. This indicates that the fetus has value, but does not have the status of a person." - http://www.religioustolerance.org/jud_abor.htm

Hey Texan...I'm still waiting for your response!

Beth, If a church wants to retain its tax-free status (the validity of which is for a different discussion) then the pastor should not be able to preach politics. It's a pretty simple concept, really.

I agree with your comments. Nicely stated. One argument I have heard from the church's side is that they do a lot of humanitarian work (marriage counseling, child care, etc.) and if they have to pay taxes, they would be required to cut down on the services they provide to the community since they have lots of overhead to support those megachurchs (we have three in our neighborhood that are available night and day and consequently are disruptive to the area; especially the damn bells). Apparently, this is a valid argument with the IRS.

Beth - ... the Bible is only a small amount of written works that were created during Christ's life and the years immediately following. The original books of the Bible were hand-picked to bolster the beliefs of the dominant Christian sect at the time, what is now known as Roman Catholic. ... Then the protestants came along and didn't like some of THOSE books ... [s]o the Bible changed yet again.

True. In addition, the original Bible was written in Christ's language, Aramaic (now obsolete); then translated into Greek, then into Latin then into many other languages. The problem with this sequence is that at each step along the way, because there was no definition for many of the words, the translator had to substitute his own words to come as close as possible to what he believed the meaning to be. Case in point, the word "suffer" as in "suffer the little children to come unto me." Well, this instruction had nothing to do with pain. "Suffer" in the ancient language meant merely to "allow"...the children to come unto me.

My point is that with each step along the way, words were left out or mis-interpreted or mis-translated, or as you say various groups picked what they liked and left out the rest, so actually, not one word of the original Bible still exists. And the final result, which no doubt is far removed from what Jesus intended, is what the clergy want their parishioners to follow to the letter. Interesting concept.

Thanks Mozzie. There are so many different ideas and beliefs out there, it's really a shame that we can't listen to each other. Sigh.

Ol_Doc - Hey Texan...I'm still waiting for your response!

See post #1.169. Texan's response would not be worth waiting for, for me. He has nothing to say that I would appreciate hearing.

Beth - There are so many different ideas and beliefs out there, it's really a shame that we can't listen to each other.

Isn't it. Cooperation and kindness to one another (as Jesus espoused) go a lot further toward mutual accord than anger and hatred. I do believe we could actually end war on this planet if we just could drop our defenses - and our guns - and talk to one another. We would find that we have more similarities than differences.

Tylers judgment cometh and that right soon! HaHaHaHa!

Don't let the door hit you on the way out!

I'm gonna miss him by this time tomorrow when we're all whoohoo! and @!$%# and he is not here to rub romneys loss in his face.

I don't think anyone or anything should be tax exempt. PERIOD! That includes government.

We complaint about people with Swiss bank accounts but a greater tax evasion schemes go on right under our noses i.e. American Red Cross, Unicef, United Way, etc. We complaint about CEO's of big corporations, has anyone looked at the salaries of these CEO's?

Wonder who Jeramiah Wright endorsed Sunday from the pulpit?

STAND DOWN, AMERICA!! Surrender you sheep

NObama 2012!!!

Obamanos! Remember our family members that were told to get back to make Islamic refugees (Hamas) citizens ahead of them. Viva La Raza!

truetexan,you're suspended for a month for violating #1 of the Code of Honor. 5th suspension of the year. Last chance.

Thank you, Tyler. Its sad that some people aren't learning from their mistakes.

And of course Paul remains valueless.

But, I will get deleted for my values! You will remain for your cluelessness!

STAND DOWN, AMERICA!! Surrender you sheep!

NObama 2012!!!

Obamanos!! Remember Obama's priorities citizenship to islam, the rest get back!! How many of your family members were bypassed to accommodate Hamas refugees? Viva La Raza!!

you DO mean refugees FROM (as in RUNNING FROM) Hamas, right (oh, never mind - we KNOW you are "right"-wing) HAMAS is classified as a TERRORIST ORGANIZATION

allswell - And of course Paul remains valueless.

Maybe he'll shut up by tomorrow, when he can't see through all that egg on his face.

I do believe we could actually end war on this planet if we just could drop our defenses - and our guns - and talk to one another. We would find that we have more similarities than differences

It's a nice thought. That' was the purpose of the UN. But then you have those nutcases who are more worried about a "One world order" than peaceful coexistence!

canary-in-the-coal-mine

Daaah!

STAND DOWN, AMERICA!! Surrender you sheep

NObama 2012!!!

Obamanos! Remember our family members that were told to get back to make Islamic refugees (Hamas) citizens ahead of them. Viva La Raza!

Paul: Would you please give us a break and go to another chat site? You are awfully annoying, and your comments don't make sense. Thank you! :)

Paul reported for comment spamming.

Beth - But then you have those nutcases who are more worried about a "One world order" than peaceful coexistence!

Very worthwhile information at the New American Century Project website:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/

Part of their proposal:

We aim to ... rally support for American global leadership. As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power... Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

and none other than (millionaires if not billionaires) Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Steve Forbes, Elliot Abrams, Dan Quayle and other recognizable figures have signed it.

This should be frightening to everyone.

allswell: I think Paul is a recycle of truetexan poster who was banned - same type of idiotic comments. He just can't stand to keep his mouth shut.

If he is then he's a multi-accounter rather than a rereg, Paul signed up in 2010.

To Paul ... OOPS! :)

Agreed - separation of church and state in the First Amendment of the Constitution. Keep religion out of my government - and I'll keep my government out of your religion.

Yes, I think both religion and government remain clearer when they are understood as separate spheres of influence. No one need check their personal beliefs at the door, but for one to tell another how God wants them to Vote is pretty sleazy to my way of thinking.

We can use the extra taxes to fully fund Planned Parenthood and make sure the churches fined and taxed know that. Boycott church!

There is a separation of church and state. I hope these morons keep at it. I would love to see them all lose their tax exempt status.

Oh by the way, I'm starting a new religion. There is an invisible 900 ft tall God in my back yard. He speaks only to me. I'll tell you from week to week what he wants you to do.

Services will be at noon on Sunday. (I like to sleep in).

Bring your checkbooks.

This country was founded on Christian principles and 94% of all the quotes from our founding fathers were based on the Bible and incorporated into our government.

Bearing false witness are we? Uh oh. Someone is going to be damned to hell for all eternity. Sucks to be you bro.

Hallelujah, Owen! What does this awesome God look like? What's His name? What does he have to say to ME? Who does He want me to vote for? Where do I send my check?

I suggest you do a bit of your own reading there mittens.

Most people know the words are not in the first amendment. What people don't bother to look up is where the phrase came from and how the first amendment has been interpreted in supreme court rulings. Hint: 1947.

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State." - Thomas Jefferson

"practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government is essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States." - James Madison

As being found on Christian principles:

"As the government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian Religion"

Treaty of Tripoli unanimously ratified by the United States Senate - 1797

It's why there is no mention of god, christianity the bible etc in the constitution or the amendments except to say that " no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" Article VI, paragraph 3

And, then there's this:

"Finally, I believe in an America where religious intolerance will someday end—where all men and all churches are treated as equal—where every man has the same right to attend or not attend the church of his choice—where there is no Catholic vote, no anti-Catholic vote, no bloc voting of any kind—and where Catholics, Protestants and Jews, at both the lay and pastoral level, will refrain from those attitudes of disdain and division which have so often marred their works in the past, and promote instead the American ideal of brotherhood." - John F. Kennedy

LMAO... the Founding Fathers were DEISTS, AGNOSTICS and HUMANISTS... not CHRISTIANS and they for the most part LOATHED Christianity. Our gov't and Constitution are in NO WAY based on the Christian bible and there is INTENTIONALLY no mention of a 'god' in our Constitution and the "god" referred to in the Declaration is GENERIC. Just who the HELL do you people think you are anyway ? There most certainly IS a SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE. It's sad that Redumblikkkans have to have everything spelled for them in black and white like school children. Also try looking up the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE genius. SCOTUS ruled that Thomas Jeffersons words... " a wall of separation between church and state" DISTINCTLY apply to the 1st amendment and are to be accepted and adhered to VERBATIM.

In the twentieth century, the Supreme Court more closely scrutinized government activity involving religious institutions. In Everson v. Board of Education (1947), the Supreme Court upheld a New Jersey statute funding student transportation to schools, whether parochial or not. Justice Hugo Black held,

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the federal government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

The ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE ^^

Then there's the LEMON TEST from the ruling Lemon v. Kurtzman 1971

The following paragraph is taken from the Lemon v Kurtzman opinion and establishes the rules of the test:

Three ... tests may be gleaned from our cases. First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.

http://www.usconstitution.net/lemon.html

You might also educate yourself on the Treaty of Tripoli - Article 11 which states :

Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/treaty_tripoli.html

Gemini, I see our brains were in synch replying to mittens.

Obviously divinely inspired by His Noodly Appendage of the FSM...

@Chefaz:

HA! Goes to show what you know about Lincoln. He was, at the very most, agnostic; definitely not a christian. He said so directly repeatedly in his private letters but he sure did know how to work a crowd though didn't he? Which is why when talking to the mob, he told them exactly what they wanted to hear in order to get them to do what he felt was the right and moral thing to do.

Notice how that sentence you quoted says absolutely nothing about the role of government regarding the church or vice versa.

He also DID NOT found the nation; not a founding father.

Here's a couple other good ones:

"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long, complicated statements of Christian dogma." —Abraham Lincoln, American president (1809-1865).

"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life, I absenteed myself from Christian assemblies." —quote by Benjamin Franklin; from the book TOWARD THE MYSTERY by Rev. William Edelen

"The Christian god can easily be pictured as virtually the same god as the many ancient gods of past civilizations. The Christian god is a three headed monster; cruel, vengeful and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites." —Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President, author, scientist, architect, educator, and diplomat

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man." —Thomas Jefferson, U.S. President, author, scientist, architect, educator, and diplomat

First, you should probably point out the obvious fallacies of their statements. There were several treaties made with the Muslim Barbary Countries over the course of the Barbary Wars. The treaty they are referencing was made in 1797. A second minor point is that Washington never approved the treaty. In fact, he never saw it. It did not arrive in America until several months after Washington left office. No secure email back then. But none of this gets to the crux of the issue…it just reduces the credibility of the history major.

The real issue is the statement itself. The above mentioned line was indeed in the treaty of 1797, but as you can imagine, that was not the only line. Here is the surrounding text of article XI of that treaty:

“As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion as it has in itself no character of enmity [hatred] against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] and as the said States [America] have never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.”

The second half (or rather 4/5ths) of the statement is pretty important. “Is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion” is qualified with what that means in this instance. The Americans knew the history of the wars between Muslims and Christians in Europe. Wars fought over religion. This statement in its entirety was expressing to these Muslim nations that America’s Christianity was different than that of Europe. We had no intention of fighting a war solely based upon religion (although neither was Europe but not from the point of view of the Muslims). It is also important to know that these Barbary countries were also fighting England, France, Spain, and Denmark during this time (because they were Christian…see a pattern). Our diplomats wanted to distinguish the US and these counties in an effort to protect our merchant ships because at the time we did not have the naval power to protect them. The results were treaties such as this one and protection payments (jizya tax) among other things. Those that have studied Islam know that the jizya tax is a tax imposed upon nonbelievers in order to allow them to live in dhimma status. According to Islam, it was convert, pay the tax and live in dhimma status, or die. These nations were following this precedent set by Muhammad. I guess if you want to get technical, you can say that Muslims threw the first stone…so much for that America got what it deserved argument…but that is a whole other conversation.

The bottom line is that when you read the entire article in context it shows that the intention of the line was not to say that the nation was not founded upon Christian principles. I think any honest historian would be compelled to agree with this stance, even if they have a personal disdain for Christianity. But as further confirmation, I think it is good to look at the man who actually did sign the treaty, John Adams. Here are a few quotes from John Adams that add credibility to the argument.

“Human government is more or less perfect as it approaches nearer or diverges farther from the imitation of this perfect plan of divine and moral government.”

“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

“Statesmen by dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand . . . . The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a great Measure, than they have it now, they may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty.”

“The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . . . I will avow that I then believed, and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature.”

These comments are indicative of not only John Adams view of government, but also most of the other founding fathers. They contradict the revisionist argument and support the full reading in context. Since he obviously believed that Christianity had a significant role in the formation of our government, it does not make sense for critics to interpret the wording of the treaty in the way they have.

http://thesteadyconservative.com/wordpress/2011/12/16/revisionism-of-1797-treaty-of-tripoli/comment-page-1/

@FedUp:

You are missing the careful wording of what John Adams said.

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity. . .

Key word there, GENERAL; not specific principles. Specifically, the founding fathers were pretty obviously keenly aware of the specific problems inherent to the various wordings of christian documents and arguments.

Nuance. Get to know the word; its important... you know, for CONTEXT.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people.

Considering that the Constitution was authored by Thomas Jefferson... and Jefferson was SPECIFICALLY not a christian... hows that CONTEXT working out for you?

Secondly, nice slant on things there... I like how your argument generally ignores the implications of that interpretation of the Treaty of Tripoli.

How exactly can our country be simultaneously founded on christianity, as you claim, and NOT founded on christianity? How can it be both a christian nation and a non-christian nation?

It is clearly NOT intended to be a christian nation. It is intended to be a secular stronghold of individualism, liberalism and equality.

How many quotes from founding fathers would I have to put up showing that they most of the important ones didn't consider themselves christians at all? Sure, they were able to talk about divinity, religion and god when it suited them, but when it came to being flatly honest they were clearly not friendly to theocracy or religious encroachment in government.

None of the founding fathers were such fools as to believe they could just push their religious beliefs on the public; nor were they fool enough to allow the religious beliefs of the public to control the government.

I'm honestly shocked that the establishment clause has lasted this long considering the lengths foolish people will go to control the rest of us (who actually value freedom for everybody and not tyranny masquerading as freedom).

John Adams:

Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed

Talk about Revisionism. Woof. I often wonder what its like to be able to totally ignore just about everything the founding fathers actually said and just hear the cherry picked parts one wants to hear.

Like that crazy book that Glenn Beck wrote about Thomas Paine... holy crap, it's like the guy is selectively blind and deaf.

"Like that crazy book that Glenn Beck wrote....blind and deaf." And dumb.

@FedUp:

Just for the S's and G's

"And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors." —Thomas Jefferson, Letter to John Adams, April 11, 1823

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are 20 gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose. " — Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

"Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites" –Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782.

"Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."

"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ."

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

Chris you know even less

Abraham Lincoln was private about the religious aspect of his beliefs. He was not a member of a church, but was known to read his Bible on a regular basis. His wife, Mary, stated that he was a Christian. After his assassination, she was quoted as saying, "From the time of the death of our little Edward, I believe my husband's heart was directed towards religion & as time passed on - when Mr. Lincoln became elevated to Office - with the care of a great Nation, upon his shoulders - when devastating war was upon us then indeed to my knowledge - did his great heart go up daily, hourly, in prayer to God - for his sustaining power." He had a business partner that tried to dispel her statements, and to say that he was not. However, she claimed their statements were false. This has left Abraham's Lincoln's beliefs up for controversy. It is up to the person inquiring to decide who knew him the best, his wife or business partner. Keep in mind when you are reading articles on this that many people will write skewed articles in order to support their cause. If you are reading on an atheist site, they are more likely to present him as an atheist. Likewise, if you are reading on a Christian site it may be leaned that way. Take care to find neutral materials while making your decision.

Abraham Lincoln became a Christian when he was in the White House. However, he
often did attend the New York Avenue Presbyterian Church, where the family pew
he rented is marked by a plaque.

Starting in the 1960’s an increasing number of writers have sought to selectively quote Lincoln, ( usually without respect to the historical, or personnel context ) in order either exalt him into a paragon or dam him as a pariah because he had to grow into views that we take for granted.While ” The Real Lincoln” doesn’t go that far the authors use of quotes does demonstrate a string desire to chop Lincoln down to size.As for whether or not Lincoln ever became a Christian, all I can say is that no one has ever produced definitive proof one way or the other.

Our world is in a mode to deny christ and promote self in a last ditch effort to promote that there is no creator, and that anyone in history ascribed to christianity be disproven.

Cheating the IRS? Hey, if they can do it, why shouldn't I?

His wife, Mary, stated that he was a Christian.

Oh really?

"Mr. Lincoln's maxim and philosophy were: 'What is to be, will be, and no prayers of ours can arrest the decree.' He never joined any Church. He was a religious man always, I think, but was not a technical Christian."
-- Mary Todd Lincoln in William Herndon's Religion of Lincoln, quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beleifs of Our Presidents, p. 118

Mrs. Lincoln: No Hope or Faith in Usual Sense

"Mr. Lincoln had no hope, and no faith, in the usual acceptation of those words."
-- Mary Todd Lincoln, to Colonel Ward H Lamon, in his Life of Abraham Lincoln, p. 459, quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beleifs of Our Presidents, p. 1

My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them.
-- Abraham Lincoln, to Judge J S Wakefield, after Willie Lincoln's death (Willie died in 1862), quoted by Joseph Lewis in "Lincoln the Freethinker," also appearing in Remsburg's "Six Historic Americans" (Authenticity questioned by some because it allegedly does not appear in Wakefield's papers [Andrew Lutes, persistent picker of insignificant separationist nits]; authenticity questioned by others who claim that Wakefield did not exist [forgotten web site which also featured all the regular and long-refuted arguments for Lincoln's Christian piety]. Go figure!)

Nelson: Same Opinion as Ingersoll

"In religion, Mr. Lincoln was about of the same opinion as Bob Ingersoll, and there is no account of his ever having changed. He went to church a few times with his family while he was President, but so far as I have been able to find out, he remained an unbeliever. Mr. Lincoln in his younger days wrote a book, in which he endeavored to prove the fallacy of the plan of salvation and the divinity of Christ."
-- Judge James M Nelson, who had an intimate acquaintance with Lincoln in Washington, in the Louisville Times, in 1887, quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beleifs of Our Presidents, p. 137

World: Partially Concealed Infidel, Not a Christian

"While it may be fairly said that Mr. Lincoln entertained many Christian sentiments, it cannot be said that he was himself a Christian in faith or practice. He was no disciple of Jesus of Nazareth. He did not believe in his divinity and was not a member of his Church.
"He was at first a writing Infidel of the school of Paine and Volney, and afterwards a talking Infidel of the school of Parker and Channing....
"If the Churches had grown cold -- if the Christians had taken a stand aloof -- that instant the Union would have perished. Mr. Lincoln regulated his religious manifestations accordingly. He declared frequently that he would do anything to save the Union, and among the many things he did was the partial concealment of his individual religious opinions. Is this a blot upon his fame? Or shall we all agree that it was a conscientious and patriotic sacrifice?"
-- The New York World (about 1875), quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beleifs of Our Presidents, pp. 138-39

Globe: Tad's 'Bible' is a Photo Album

"The pretty little story about the picture of President Lincoln and his son Tad reading the Bible is now corrected for the one-hundredth time. The Bible was Photographer Brady's picture album, which the President was examining with his son while some ladies stood by. The artist begged the President to remain quiet, and the picture was taken. The truth is better than fiction, even if its recital conflicts with a pleasing theory."
-- The Boston Globe, quoted in Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, p. 139

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/quotes/lincoln.htm

As for the Presbyterian Church:

There was the strangest combination of church influence against me. Baker is a Campbellite; and therefore, as I suppose with few exceptions, got all of that Church. My wife had some relations in the Presbyterian churches, and some in the Episcopal churches; and therefore, wherever it would tell, I was set down as either one or the other, while it was everywhere contended that no Christian ought to vote for me because I belonged to no Church, and was suspected of being a Deist and had talked of fighting a duel.
-- Abraham Lincoln, letter to Martin M Morris (March 26, 1843), in The Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln (Nicolay & Hay Edition, volume 1, page 80), quoted from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents (page 112)

The day religion and government mix, is the day I run away. I've read the bible multiple times, and if people start adhering to it as law, we are all screwed but atheists will be screwed first. Even the new testament and jesus advocate killing people like me (Luke 19:27). Not only will I not allow my tax dollars to go towards the funding of killing me, but I could never get behind any nation that kills people for simply wearing a cotton/wool blend (Leviticus).

Now before you say "we don't follow those parts anymore", tell me where it lists the "parts" you plan to follow, and the "parts" you agree are fairy-tales? The same place you right-wing people cite for why being gay is wrong is the same place that says not to shave, or eat old leftovers. What will your orders be to the police in this "Christian nation" of yours.

The founding fathers knew what happens when religion mixes with government, they saw it first hand, you right-wingers think that's want you want, but if you knew what they knew, you'd take back every wish you've ever put forward towards it. If they wanted it in there, it would have started with "With the one true christian god as our witness..", it didn't, get over it or move to your sister country Iran, your religions are almost the same, they come from the same place, hell, they came from the same stories (both are Abrahamic religions from the middle east) . Iran is exactly what would the U.S. would be like as a "Christian Nation".

So Chris, you still think Thomas Jefferson is someone to emulate. So you want to own slaves and rape female slaves, then disown the children born from those rapes.

Our founding fathers were smart enough to know that ruling by religion only destroys your nation in the long run. Our nation was NOT, IS NOT, NEVER WAS founded on Christian ideals. Sorry but America was founded because of the religious persecution taking place in England at the time. The King wanted 1 religious rule throughout the Kingdom. Something the Christian extremists & Tea-Baggers are trying to do in America today. They are doing this through laws passed at the local and state levels and by laws passed in Congress.

We must stop using religion to justify everything. Religions divide. Religions are the main reason the world is at a tipping point of war. Google this term my fellow posters: RAHOWA

I agree that the founding fathers were more rebels against religion than supporters of it. Heck - all of our institutions and politicla ideas are from pagan Rome and pagan Greece, even the architecture of the White House and other structures are from pre-Christian classicalism.

But I am still stunned that those who are saying "our country is founded on Christianity and the Bible" don't know that the Mormon church views their Bible as a Satanic corruption (read the Mormon book of Nephi). How can these pastors support a man who went on a mission to teach that they are leading their flock to Hell? How can these posters who say the USA is based on the Bible support a guy who says that the Bible is leading people to Hell. I just don't get the theology, unless, and I guess this is the truth, not even the self-professed Christians and evangelicals believe this stuff.

I notice that while the right wingers constantly try to twist the words of our Founding Fathers to make it seem that they tacitly approved of "christianity", they never mention Thomas Paine.

owencoffin

Oh by the way, I'm starting a new religion. There is an invisible 900 ft tall God in my back yard. He speaks only to me. I'll tell you from week to week what he wants you to do.

What's his name? I think he's been wondering my neighborhood for the last couple of days.

And BTW: The relationhip between Sally Hemmings and Thomas Jefferson is a lot more complicated than just a slave owner "raping" slave. Jefferson's wife was the love of his life but died very, very young. Sally Hemmings was her half-sister (same father and a slave mother) who was almost exactly the same age and was raised with her as a "companion slave." They were educated together and lived together all their lives with Sally accompanying her as a part of her wedding dowry. People at the time said that they had to look twice to see whether it was Sally or Jefferson's wife who entered the room because they looked a great deal alike and sounded like twins. Sally even dressed in Jefferson's wife's older clothes.

And when Jefferson's wife died, his bipolar disorder became much worse ad he became fixated with his two nieces and Sally Hemmings. Most historians believe that this was not so much a case of a slave owner as a person trying desparately to cling to his dead wife through Sally Hemings and his nieces.

Dan-528180

Gemini, I see our brains were in synch replying to mittens.

Obviously divinely inspired by His Noodly Appendage of the FSM...

All hail the FSM... and his mighty gluten-free brother. May their carbohydrate blessings freely flow upon the unworthy!

Ster2

The King wanting one religion. . . Sounds like Obama and his Muslim Brotherhood,one religion indeed.

You're just making crap up. That's pure American Taliban!

It's a waste of time analyzing FOunding Fathers statements and parsing them for the desired meaning. THey are not the word of GOd. Rather than worrry about Thom J's personal beliefs, concentrate, rather, on your own.

Wow--interesting article, and interesting comments! Where do I start?

MacGyver-2750749 Since your comment is right before me (#2.22), I will say this--Luke 19:27 is part of a parable where one of the characters in the parable is quoted as saying that his enemies are to be executed. Jesus has said in other parts of the gospel, that we are to love our enemies, and pray for those who persecute us, do good to those that hate us -- and that is no part of a parable--it is a direct commandment!

I realize that many of our founding fathers were Deists. They also recognized the positive influences of Jesus, and the negative influences of organized powerful religions. Indeed, there needs to be a wall between church and state. And there needs to be a moral compass by which free people can govern themselves. If my world view can incorporate the ideals behind "Love thy neighbor as thyself", and "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you" regardless of my particular belief system, then I am able to successfully govern myself. I won't kill, I won't steal, I won't cheat, I won't hurt others to get ahead or get my way.

Finally, I would like to say that I do NOT want to live in a theocracy. Inevitably, in a theocracy, it comes down to "My way or the highway". I want to be free to choose, and to be free to be the best influence I can be in the free market place of ideas. Personally, I am GLAD that the pastor of my church does NOT tell me who to vote for. In fact, the only thing I've heard him say is that church members from both sides have approached him in a panic about what will happen if "the other guy" wins. He just says that life will go on, and that whoever wins is going to need our prayers!

Oh, and by the way--I'm voting for a third party :)

LisaC said:

Oh, and by the way--I'm voting for a third party :)

THANK YOU!

There's so much fuss n hype right around the Democrats and Republicans that barely any mention has been made of Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Party's candidate for President, or Jill Stein, the Green Party's candidate.

You know, I remember a time when the televised debates were open to EVERYONE running for President, no matter who your party was and how much money they had. Now it's become all about The Big Two, and people have lost sight of the fact that there's more than two parties in our government.

Why weren't these two candidates invited to the debates? We as an american people have the right to hear from EVERYONE running for president.

Lisa - great post! It is ironic to see how some claim to be true Americans and support American values and what our country was built on but in this case see no reason why church and state can't go together. There are very good and very strong reasons why that is and ignoring those reason completely undermines what this country was really built on, which included separate church and state, and any principals or influence religious thinking of the day had on the creation of the constitution does not mean one group gets a pass or stronger voice than others and also needs to be put in context of society at that time.

I have nothing against religion and to each his own, I have my own views on the subject many of which don't align with mainstream religious thinking, but I know one thing is for sure, keeping church and state separate and following the law is in the best interest of all of us.

And yes kudos on the third option. We badly need to remove the two party only system and debates. We need equal representation of two or three additional parties.

Why is FREEDOM OF SPEECH only allowed for liberals?

Separation of church and state only applies to keeping the STATE out of the CHURCH.......................

Separation of church and state only applies to keeping the STATE out of the CHURCH.......................

False as evidenced by the writings of the founding fathers on the issue. They were firm believers in keeping the church out of controlling the state.

Thank you Amanda and It is time, and allswell. I do believe that our 2 party system is broken. And if we keep doing what we always did, we will keep getting what we always got. The thing I like about BOTH the Libertarians and the Green Party, is that as far as I can tell, neither one is in the pockets of big business, etc.

Steve-446003--For what it's worth, I believe that the same laws need to apply to everybody--liberals, conservatives, whoever. Above all, I believe that what our founding fathers desired was BALANCE OF POWER--it is NOT good to have power in the hands of just a few, or in the hands of just one ideal. They were well aware that "power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely". Yes, they wanted to keep the state out of the church, but they also wanted to keep the church out of the state. Put another way, they also wanted to keep any belief system from creating a state that prevents other belief systems from having equal power and rights. Balance of power is a delicate dance on a tightrope, but for our democracy within our republic, it is the only way for it to truly work.

@Fed... come back when you can show us something CREDIBLE that doesn't come from a biased RW website that cherrypicks in order to do it's own attempt at "revision".

Steve,

Go study the establishment clause.

Your 1st Amendment has a little something called the ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE.

See...

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71 , 333 U.S. 203 (1948)

Court finds religious instruction in public schools a violation of the establishment clause and therefore unconstitutional.

Burstyn v. Wilson , 72 S. Ct. 777 (1952)

Government may not censor a motion picture because it is offensive to religious beliefs.

Torcaso v. Watkins , 367 U.S. 488 (1961)

Court holds that the state of Maryland cannot require applicants for public office to swear that they believed in the existence of God. The court unanimously rules that a religious test violates the Establishment Clause.

Engel v. Vitale , 82 S. Ct. 1261 (1962)

Any kind of prayer, composed by public school districts, even nondenominational prayer, is unconstitutional government sponsorship of religion.

Abington School District v. Schempp , 374 U.S. 203 (1963)

Court finds Bible reading over school intercom unconstitutional and Murray v. Curlett, 374 U.S. 203 (1963) - Court finds forcing a child to participate in Bible reading and prayer unconstitutional.

Epperson v. Arkansas , 89 S. Ct. 266 (1968)

State statue banning teaching of evolution is unconstitutional. A state cannot alter any element in a course of study in order to promote a religious point of view. A state's attempt to hide behind a nonreligious motivation will not be given credence unless that state can show a secular reason as the foundation for its actions.

Lemon v. Kurtzman , 91 S. Ct. 2105 (1971)

Established the three part test for determining if an action of government violates First Amendment's separation of church and state:
1) the government action must have a secular purpose;
2) its primary purpose must not be to inhibit or to advance religion;
3) there must be no excessive entanglement between government and religion.

Stone v. Graham , 449 U.S. 39 (1980)

Court finds posting of the Ten Commandments in schools unconstitutional.

Wallace v. Jaffree , 105 S. Ct. 2479 (1985)

State's moment of silence at public school statute is unconstitutional where legislative record reveals that motivation for statute was the encouragement of prayer. Court majority silent on whether "pure" moment of silence scheme, with no bias in favor of prayer or any other mental process, would be constitutional.

Edwards v. Aquillard , 107 S. Ct. 2573 (1987)

Unconstitutional for state to require teaching of "creation science" in all instances in which evolution is taught. Statute had a clear religious motivation.

Allegheny County v. ACLU , 492 U.S. 573 (1989)

Court finds that a nativity scene displayed inside a government building violatesthe Establishment Clause.

Lee v. Weisman , 112 S. Ct. 2649 (1992)

Unconstitutional for a school district to provide any clergy to perform nondenominational prayer at elementary or secondary school graduation. It involves government sponsorship of worship. Court majority was particularly concerned about psychological coercion to which children, as opposed to adults, would be subjected, by having prayers that may violate their beliefs recited at their graduation ceremonies.

So, that 1st Amendment, is what decrees religion HAS NO legal or governing standing. You can practice it, but you CAN'T govern with it.

Thomas Jefferson

"But the greatest of all reformers of the depraved religion of his own country, was Jesus of Nazareth. Abstracting what is really his from the rubbish in which it is buried, easily distinguished by its lustre from the dross of his biographers, and as separable from that as the diamond from the dunghill, we have the outlines of a system of the most sublime morality which has ever fallen from the lips of man. The establishment of the innocent and genuine character of this benevolent morality, and the rescuing it from the imputation of imposture, which has resulted from artificial systems, invented by ultra-Christian sects (The immaculate conception of Jesus, his deification, the creation of the world by him, his miraculous powers, his resurrection and visible ascension, his corporeal presence in the Eucharist, the Trinity; original sin, atonement, regeneration, election, orders of the Hierarchy, etc.) is a most desirable object."
..........To W. Short, Oct. 31, 1819

"The Christian god is a three headed monster, cruel, vengeful, and capricious. If one wishes to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and hypocrites."

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."

I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and state.
..........Letter to the Danbury Baptist Association, January 1, 1802

And

John Adams

"As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?"
..........To F.A. Van der Kamp, Dec. 27, 1816

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"
..........To Thomas Jefferson

"What havoc has been made of books through every century of the Christian era? Where are fifty gospels, condemned as spurious by the bull of Pope Gelasius? Where are the forty wagon-loads of Hebrew manuscripts burned in France, by order of another pope, because suspected of heresy? Remember the 'index expurgatorius', the inquisition, the stake, the axe, the halter and the guillotine."
..........To John Taylor

And

James Madison

"Every new and successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance"
..........James Madison, 1822, Writings, 9:101

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion and Government in the Constitution of the United States, the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history"
..........James Madison, undated, William and Mary Quarterly, 1946, 3:555

"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

And...

Benjamin Franklin

"I wish it (Christianity) were more productive of good works ... I mean real good works ... not holy-day keeping, sermon-hearing ... or making long prayers, filled with flatteries and compliments despised by wise men, and much less capable of pleasing the Deity."
..........Works, Vol. VII, p. 75

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.
-- Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758

"As to Jesus of Nazareth...I think the system of morals and his religion, as he left them to us, the best the world ever saw or is likely to see; but I apprehend it has received various corrupting changes, and I have, with most of the present dissenters in England, some doubts as to his divinity."

DBAkron:

All the things you describe Abe Lincoln as having done and experienced, questioning, praying or meditating for guidance, reading the Bible....these are all requiremments for a person who wished to understand men to better lead men. The Bible, the Torah, the Quran are all books of men and to understand the men, you must experience the books. I do all three and I am Atheist/Agnostic. (The two are essentially the same: while I know currently there is no proof of a god and therfore none likely exists, if god appeared over the Superbowl game I would say "wow, I was wrong; praise God" due to having recieved proof.)

I daresay that the principles, not the dogma but the PRINCIPLES of the Bible and the Torah and The Quran are great sources of wisdom and a helpful guide in learning how to be a productive member of society (again, WITHOUT the hocus-pocus parts) as well as an implicit instruction on how to keep HOCUS-POCUS OUT of the civil area of said society. That still does NOT mean that Lincoln used them for any more than that purpose or somehow "saw the light" that his previously great leadership had been wrong due to his lack of religion!

Using the tools that your neighbor uses is the only way to understand the community around you, that does NOT mean the Wall of Separation of Church and State is less necessary or somehow wasn't intended even though repeatedly upheld by our Founding Fathers, Presidents, all important legal documents and every RESPONSIBLE citizen of this country.

For there to remain a free society, we must always maintain a wall between fantasy and fact; religion is unprovable fantasy and fact is all that is provable, wishing to mix the two is a thing done by the occupants of an insane asylum.

The preachers who fly in the face of the foundational laws of this Republic must be legally stopped for they are compromising the basis of freedom in this Great Country. I wish they weren't, but they are and they must be stopped. I've never before this day rooted for the IRS but.....

The IRS needs to strip 501 (C) 3 status from ALL churches that took part. If the Alliance Defense Fund sues, the US Supreme Court should dis-bar the entire organization. We have 501 (C)3 for a reason. To make sure Non-profits are neutral non-political.

And thats my opinion.

Magnum - "We have 501 (C) 3 for a reason. To make sure Non-Profits are neutral non-political." Really - could you explain why we see ads that are thinly weiled support of candidates (just dont say the name) the so called issue ads funded by many 501 (C) 3 groups.

What we really need is to get everyone out of advertising candidates and issues. We need political campaigns that are publiclly funded, of a limited time frame, and the media required to give up good airtime to allow candidates to present their views and plans (preferrably not the same old dtump speach), and expect candidates to truly debate issues not just shoot of zingers and sound bites.

Holly,

Since this article deals with religion, I feel the need to give you an "Amen".

You are correct dude, but spell it out. We can take the shock.

What's the deal with not spelling out the word "God"? I don't get that.

Jesus people are weird.

That's mostly a Jewish or Muslim thing. It's supposed to be disrespectful if you spell GOD GOD GOD GOD GOD. The things ppl will do to please their imaginary friends.... sheesh.

I think your spelling is wrong (Santa Clause) is the correct spelling of the word god.

That would be Santa Claus. The Santa Clause is a little known legal gambit used to extort children into good behavior.

And it's also a series of Christmas videos featuring Tim Allen.... LMAO :) Just had to throw that in there.

Let's just do away with tax exemption for all churches and non-profits. Abolish non-profit postage rates, making it all standard rate for bulk mailings. Tax all churches and non-profits as we do any business. Tax their incomes the same, and tax their property the same. Eliminate the special tax favors for the clergy - personal income is personal income, regardless of how it is earned.

Also eliminate tax deductions for donations to non-profits. If it is a worthwhile activity, donors will give their after-tax money to support it.

This country would end up much like Saudi Arabia. An Oligarchy disguised as a Theocracy.

In the end GR, ANY religion would be just as bad as those that now hold sway over the middle eastern countries after a short time in power. Power breeds corruption and contempt.

Nora -- human nature breeds corruption and contempt, power or no power...

if churches want to do this then they should be made to pay taxes and our debt would come down does anyone realize how many churches there are in the US and they pay no taxes and it would be one less tax shelter for the rich every American taxes would come down by at least 15% think about this they have freeloaded off us to long as it is

SURPRISE SURPRISE.... the Xtians think that Romney is one of them ( great job of DECEPTION and PROPAGANDA by the LDS Church in making them fall hook, line and sinker ). They do fully intend to install a religious gov't. Only thing is... it will be a MORMON gov't because these nutbags think that THEY are the "lost tribes" of Jerusalem and that they are going to convert everyone to Mormonism in preparation for THEIR version of Christ and his 2nd coming. They are fulfilling something called the WHITE HORSE PROPHECY.

What most people don't know... and even Mormons who have not been through the Temple Ordinances ( who naively think they're Xtians ).... is that Mormonism is an OCCULT based religion based in FREEMASONRY and KABALLAH. They do not worship the same god/jesus , they believe Jesus and Satan are brothers, God is a mortal man who had actual sex a/w goddess wife on his planet near the star Kolob. MITT ROMNEY believes that he will ALSO become a 'god', rule his own planet and have multiple goddess wives who will be 100% submissive and subservient and will spend all of eternity having "spirit" babies to populate other worlds.

WTF... this is the LUNATIC/PSYCHOPATH people are going to vote for.

I suggest everyone watch this documentary that exposes the truth about the LDS Church and their role in Politics and why Romney is running for POTUS.

The God Makers 1 & 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlE6pUUEbWg

Dominionism is real and it's very scary. Read about it on the Yurica Reports.

I have also read about the plan of fundamental Christianity. It needs to be made public and kept in front of people on a daily basis, so they are less likely to be manipulated. This movement is hardly "Christian". it is tyranny.

@Govtreform

We are already a Plutocratic Oligarchy. The Theocratic arm only acts as ignorant mass control.

I say remove all tax exempt status from these tools immediately !

@gemini618:

The God Makers is about as accurate to Mormon belief as Saturday morning cartoons are to the laws of physics. It's a disinformation campaign.

We (Mormons) believe that the government and religion will be combined AFTER the second coming of Christ, so until He shows up in power and glory in a way that all the world will know, you're safe. The LDS church has repeatedly stated that it does not believe in the White Horse prophecy.

Stating that we believe Jesus and Satan are brothers is about as accurate as stating that my cat is your aunt. Spiritually we believe that God created all things. This means you, me, Christ, and Satan. And my cat. We don't believe that Satan was ever born on earth.

We don't believe we will ever rule a planet. We believe that marriage is an equal partnership. We believe God is perfect and divine. We don't believe God showed up on earth and had sex with anyone.

Are you really going to believe a source that says Mormon women have a heavenly goal of being eternally pregnant? I don't think any woman or man in their right mind would want that. And yet for some reason people think that this is what we actually believe. If you want to know what we actually believe, go to the LDS website and go read all the manuals we use for Sunday School and find out what we REALLY teach. It's available to the public.

Early, same an be Sid for any and all charitable organizations, religious or secular. You prepared to say the size to Planned Parenthood, or breast cancer charities?

same an be what size?

Let's just do away with TAXATION for everyone....

And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription?

They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. Matt: 22:20-21

Therefore..ELKMEADOW..I think that speaks for the separation of church and state and that means we can tax them!

No, the scripture does not say, "render the things of God unto Caesar." Tithing belongs to God--Malachi 3:10. After Joseph took Mary to Bethlehem for the taxes, they then went to the temple and brought the two two young pigeons to offer for sacrifice. The pigeons were not for Caesar.

.

God also says if you see someone working on Saturday you should stone them to death. How many people did you stone to death last weekend?

Awww sheet we are quoting bible passages !!!

Cmon Elk your next then me !

Ohh and you are not allowed to use the "I don't believe in the old testament" cop-out, B.S. line.

Sayth The Obamanation.
I've had to listen to my Union throw-up their political beliefs and give my money to a political party I don't agree with,how bout we take away their right to impose their beliefs and take our money(union members)and give to someone we wouldn't support unless held at gunpoint. . . .thats probley next,and you one sided brainwashed Libz only like things when you can manipulate things going your way,very crafty.
BTW most Christians already vote conservative anyway,and you know it,that's why you Hate Christians so much,the bible doesn't have political names like we have categorized them,but its very clear on what kind of beliefs that work with Gods plan for us,and Libs just have most of it very wrong and God tells us what will happen when we put a Tyrant like Obama in Office,and we are clearly paying the price,you people can bash those of us that love God(and I feel sorry for you if you do and pray for your soul) But God will get his way,one way or another.
Romney/Ryan 2012

Blah blah blah yada yada yada.... GOD IS A MYTH.... a FIGMENT OF YOUR IMAGINATION and has NO POWER.

We could get back taxes from Romney then. He is only about 12 years behind.

I found this the other day, it was a pretty interesting read about Rmoney's taxes...

********

Harry Reid was right. Bloomberg finally cracked the story...

Using a tax shelter called a CRUT (charitable remainder unitrust) that was held by the Church of Latter Day Saints (Mormons), Mitt Romney was able to pay zero taxes (legally) every single year from 1996 to 2009. Why did he stop in 2009? Because he would make public his 2010 tax return, that is why.

This tax loophole was killed by Congress in 1997. However those including Romney that were already using it were allowed to continue it. The way it works, is that Romney makes a "charitable" contribution to the Church of Latter Day Saints and it goes into a trust. Since the trust is held by the church, the money is tax deferred. Any capital gains, are non taxed because of the charities status. Like an annuity, the donor gets a charitable tax deduction and an stream of cash payments. When Romney dies, the church accepts full ownership..

Bloomsberg's attorneys estimate as the Romneys have received these payments, the money that will potentially be left for charity has declined from at least $750,000 in 2001 to $421,203 at the end of 2011.....

Romney has refused to answer any thing on this topic. His campaign puts out that it was all legal....

Legal perhaps. Ethical for the president of the United States? Well, only if you want a crook running the country.... Imagine! Legally stealing from your church!.

Except Atheism, reference Stalin and Mao for example.

@jogrinder: I'm curious, did Stalin or Mao kill in the name of Atheism? Real easy to point at people and say oooh look, bad atheist. Except they didn't spread their rule through Atheism. What, you think the Russian Orthodox Church which largely controlled Russia at the time would seriously put up with Stalin pushing an Atheist agenda? Think again.

If that's all you have, as if this is some kind of ooh Atheists are bad to, so let the religious be bad also. You're sorely mistaken.

Wrong, B Murphy. Stalin and Mao may not have "spread their rule" VIA atheism, but state sponsored atheism FACILITATED THAT. To say that Stalin couldn't have had an atheist agenda because the Russian Orthodox Church would not have put up with it is ridiculous. The Communist Party in Russia destroyed churches, religious art, and monasteries. Stalin had one cathedral blown up, intending to replace it with a public swimming pool. The Russians of today have rebuilt it. The Party turned some buildings into party propaganda "museums". It imprisoned and killed bishops, priests, monks and nuns who defied it, set up a "puppet church" that it controlled, and put Communist Party cronies into high church positions.

I actually do NOT believe that atheists are bad. I believe that some people are, and anything, be it a political party, religion, OR atheism, can be used to further agendas tied to the marginalization and oppression of people in the name of a "belief".

Perhaps religious donations are one of the tax loopholes Mr. Romney will close to balance the budget???

Bmurphy, Nikolous' response works well for what I would have said. Atheism makes justifiable just as many despicable acts as does religion. It allowed Stalin and Mao to justify the tremendous evil they perpetrated on mankind. An no, the Russian Orthodox Church did not just stand by and let it happen -- it was completely steamrolled by Stalin's regime. dont know where you get that the church controlled Russia. You think again, and look up a little basic history on the subject. Mao as well crushed religion and religious expression in China. Despite those efforts Christianity thrives in China today and it has for years as an underground movement of faith because it gives people real hope in the real God.

"Atheism makes justifiable just as many despicable acts as does religion."
This is the crux of the problem, jogrinder. You're asserting that someone's version of god is what drives the human moral compass and that without it, people are enticed to do evil - problem is, it doesn't work that way.
Theism has nothing to do with moral behavior unless you're such an ingrate that you need an authoritative father figure to keep you from doing bad. Atheists do not incite holy wars, go on suicide bombing missions or carry signs that say thank god for dead soldiers. In fact atheism is not a belief in it's own (despite what theists say) just as there are no beliefs devoted to non-stamp collecting or non-bowling. I'm a non-Muslim, a non-Buddhist, a non-Jew who just also happens to be a non-Christian and I don't feel a need to have some interpretation of a set of self-contradictory fables to tell me how to behave.
As to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, non-belief was not a driving factor nor a contributing factor to their actions against the established church. What was a factor is that organized religion represented a political threat to their nefarious designs. To be the biggest, badest thug on the block, you have to beat down the next biggest badest thug on the block. Simple as that.

"Atheism makes justifiable just as many
despicable acts as does religion."

This is the crux of the problem, jogrinder.
You're asserting that someone's version of god is what drives the human moral
compass and that without it, people are enticed to do evil but, it doesn't work
that way.

Theism has nothing to do with moral
behavior unless you're such an ingrate that you need an authoritative father
figure to keep you from doing bad. Atheists do not incite holy wars, go on
suicide bombing missions or carry signs that say thank god for dead soldiers.
In fact atheism is not a belief in it's own (despite what theists say) just as
there are no organizations devoted to non-stamp collecting or non-bowling. I'm a non-Muslim, a non-Buddhist,
a non-Jew who just also happens to be a non-Christian and I don't feel a need
to have some interpretation of a set of self-contradictory fables to tell me
how to behave.

As to Hitler, Stalin, Mao, non-belief was
not a driving factor or a contributing factor to their actions against the
established church. What was a factor is that organized religion represented a
political threat to their nefarious designs. To be the biggest, badest thug on
the block, you have to beat down the next biggest badest thug on the block.
Simple as that.

Sorry for the double post..

FYI... Hitler was NOT an atheist. He was and remained a DEVOUT CATHOLIC and in fact the Vatican supported his reign of terror both financially and spiritually. LOOK IT UP.

Dan, Atheism allowed Stalin and Mao to do their evil deeds precisely because they had no fear of a higher power to which they would be held accountable. That's not to say that every atheist will do the same, any more than religious people will do in the name of religion the evil that has been perpetrated by some "religious" people. The Atheist does not believe in ultimate moral authority, and it's a very small step to recognize only their own sense of morality, and when power and opportunity are added to the mix then why would they not do whatever they want or need to do to accomplish their ends?

The Atheist does not believe in ultimate moral authority, and it's a very small step to recognize only their own sense of morality

This is a false equivalency. No higher authority (in the sense of a deity) is necessary to be held to a set of common social morals. Nor does the existence of a deity imply a higher moral standard, as evidenced throughout history by the atrocities committed by the religious (which, it should be noted, far outweigh those of the non-religious).

@gemini618: Wrong on all counts, unless you can show Hitler attending a Catholic Church after he joined the German Army? When he married Eva Braun it was a civil ceremony. Given the number of Catholics the Nazis massacred (Polish priests in particular), I think you'll be hard pressed to find a shred of evidence that Hitler was Catholic.

Oh, and that crazy pontif Pope Pius XII? Show where the Holy See was anything besides neutral.

I'm sure they are - they're a business expense.

More bigotry, hate and intolerance form those claiming to be against bigotry,hate and intolerance.

Or is it that you have the option of choosing your bigotry,hate and intolerance.

yep its ok to make fun of mormon beliefs but if you dare question the mental health of two men that want to get married and play house together then you are an intolerant hateful bigot. irony at its finest.

Two men wanting to get married actually makes sense and there can be valid reasons cited for that desire. Mormonism on the other hand...

Just sayin'.

Uncle Henry,

When they try to ACTIVELY PASS LEGISLATION that bans Mormonism, it will be an on point comparison to the ban on gay marriage and those who support it.

of course we won't say anything about the brainwashed billions who need the mental placebo of religion like a drug for their poor widdle atrophied "brains"

Where've you been David9000? Religious influence has been exerted in government for eons. And it's not expanding, it's contracting. And with its diminishing influence we become worse and worse off. Get a history book, an older one where they still reflected some semblance of truth instead of revised political correctness propaganda.

@JoGrinder: Again, you're wrong. You're mistaking the decline in people who view themselves as religious as equal to a decline in the religious among the Government. Which is quite an inaccurate assumption to make. Most politicians identify themselves as religious in some form or another. Why do you think the Republican party was so ill at ease over Romney in the beginning? Because he's a Mormon, and the Conservative Right is traditionally Christian.

When it became clear he was their only option, they swallowed their principles, and backed him fully because hey, most politicians will sell their souls just for power. The day we completely remove religion from the Government will be a great day. The Government isn't there to tell you your faith, or to rule in accordance with theirs. It's to oversee the best possible rule of law, for a great many people who believe a great many things. It's extremely difficult to have a Christian Government, when you have hundreds of belief systems throughout the country.

You think a history book is somehow more truthful than things nowadays? Really? Right now, no one can really keep much secret, simply because it's so easy to spread information on the internet. Back then, all a religion had to do was crush it's opposition, murder all of their historians, and write whatever they wanted. Bam, there's your truth. Whatever they 'felt' served their own ends.

For sure. Instead we should rely on the politicians as the source of truth and integrity. We can count on them to keep it real an make this world a better place. Good old unbiased, honest, and public serving politicians. We should trust the government,not the churches, because the government would never steer us wrong, would they?

If you rely upon a church for truth you are in pretty bad shape.

Why are the black churches NOT investigated for their involvement in throwing the 2008 election?

@Steve,

You should probably try a little harder to conceal your blatant racism. It bleeds out of every post you make, rendering all of them without any credibility at all.

If it was wrong then, it must be wrong now. Or are you just another "conservative" hypocrite?

Do you really think that the same black churches are not endorsing candidates? I guarantee you Reverend Wright and other ministers of radical black churches will continue to do what they want and the IRS and politicians like Barack Obama and Eric Holder and the Clintons will look the other way. I think that this is exactly why these religious leaders are doing this, it draws attention to the unequal treatment. IRS go ahead make their day, they will take it to the Supreme Court, it may be OK to have a law that prevents tax exempt organizations from endorsing a politician, and it probably the right thing to do, but it is not OK to apply that law unequally based on race or political alignment of the organization.

I agree...tax the churches. Since we are a secular nation with a recognized separation of church and state, tax the churches- then they can say anything they want. Either that, or enforce the ban on political candidate endorsements from the pulpit and punish those who violate the rule by taking away their tax exempt status...problem solved. Isn't it the "Christian" way to give for the common good anyway, and didn't Christ say something like "It is easier for a camel to pass throught the eye of a needle that a rich man to enter the kingdon of heaven", which I also apply to the churches as meaning they should be giving away all of their wealth in helping those less needy!

First Amendment of the Constitution include the SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE - keep your inane religion out of my government and we'll keep the government (and taxation) out of your religion. Also - the U.S. is not just a Christian nation - but also an Islam nation, a Jewish nation, a Hindu nation, a Buddhist nation, an atheist nation, etc. To raise "Christian beliefs" above anyone else is illegal and morally reprehensible.

I hope you are charged to the full extent of for flaunting and breaking this law.

the clause "separation of church and state" is not contained in the first amendment, nor anywhere else in the constitution...not that you've ever read it...

That's all well and good Larry, I respect your freedom of speech no matter how much I disagree with you, but if you want to endorse political candidates, GIVE UP YOUR TAX EXEMPTION!!

Larry your right you should speak your mind from the pulpit, however when you become involved with politics you should also be taxed. We all see from other countries how religious leaders become the rulers of their countries and how they treat their citizens, frankly a religious theocracy is the worst government there is. I dont want Shara law here but I also dont want some fundamentalist christian telling me how to live my life either.

the 1954 law is unconstitutional. You cannot restrict the free speech rights of pastors.

Show me where the Constitution has an exception in the first amendment for pastors

It is a straw man argument to suggest this has anything to do with establishing a theocracy. Again to all you who want to restrict free speech, show me where the 1st Amendment allows the Govt to restrict ONLY pastors from the right to speak out

kurt, the tax exemption is to specifically create a separation between church and state. In Europe where there is no separation of church and state, the churches are state churches and receive taxpayer subsidies from the govt.

Even if they took away our tax exemptions we would never pay taxes. As nonprofits, we would simply write off our expenses the same way as businesses do and the net result would be the same as it is now.

1) If it's unconstitutional why hasn't it been judged so by any court in the land?

2) If you want the right of free speech guarenteed to every law abiding citizen, start paying taxes like every law abiding citizen.

3) Show me where in the 1st Amendment pastors have the right to molest small children.

IF you think the law is unconstitutional then take it to court, but as it stands you are breaking the tax code by endorsing a candidate as a nonprofit, tax free organization. You are breaking the law and your response is that you don't like the law. Does not fly, Larry.

As a non-profit, you'd be required to report earnings to the IRS and distribute all retained earnings. I hope you're not providing tax advice to your "flock".

By the way, God tells me you and your's are doomed.

1. there has been no test case to be ruled upon because the Govt doesn't enforce the law

2. so only those who pay taxes have 1st amendment rights? show me where that is stated in the constitution. And I do pay income taxes from my businesses and my wife's job.

3. It doesn't. Child molesters should receive the maximum penalty possible if convicted. Another straw man argument from an ignorant liberal