|
|
|
|
|
 |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| |||||||||||||||
Date: 6/4/2004 6:13:00 AM
From Authorid: 8024
ABB is what I think for the 2004 election ... c  |
Date: 6/4/2004 8:47:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Didn't Bush have an audience with Pope Paul II just yesterday?  |
|
Date: 6/4/2004 8:48:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
CC, what is "ABB"? |
Date: 6/4/2004 9:23:00 AM
From Authorid: 47296
To clarify one item, churches are not required to file 501c3 tax exempt status. They are recognized as being tax exempt by the law based on the 1st Ammendment of the Constitution. However, to remain in that status as a church, they are required to follow certain rules and laws. As Lynn pointed out, there are laws that churches must follow, whether they are registered or not, or they do lose their legal tax exempt status. There are numerous churches which are presently in violation of such laws, although enforcement is a problem. Bush's desire to bring the churches into the politcal arena does not surprise me. A look at his most recent statements on faith based initiatives should show that he has no concerns for the Constitution, nor for keeping religion seperate from politics.  |
|
Date: 6/4/2004 9:24:00 AM
From Authorid: 47296
I should have written "nor for keeping religion seperate from government." |
Date: 6/4/2004 9:48:00 AM
From Authorid: 36704
The problem with this is that Bush is being singled out and the rest aren't. Political candidates at the city, state and federal level often use churches as a means to garner votes. Churches have guidelines they must follow but are allowed to hand out pamphlets etc. that put the candidates views on certain items and list the things the candidates stand for. They must list all candidates though and can't say they approve of one candidate over the other etc. Also the churches are not using their money to pay for these items generally but they are given to them by the candidates. The reason the Americans for Separation of Church and State are not actually taken seriously as far as the judicial system is because they have a history of only going after conservative candidates and churches. While the church can't take an official stand against or for a candidate under the tax laws, church members and volunteers can lobby around a political candidate it's their first amendment right.  |
|
Date: 6/4/2004 10:32:00 AM
From Authorid: 36704
Also, this has nothing to do with separation of church and state. This a tax law that applies to all non profit organizations whether they're religiously affiliated or not. Where is the outcry when non profit organizations back a political candidate when they're breaking the same law. A church has the right to speak on moral issues of the day and are protected under the constituion Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444. They can speak for or against a candidate and are protected. This a tax law and a tax law only and while they can lose their tax exempt status by not following the laws which do allow for areas of leniency it in no way has anything to do with separation of church and state. |
|
Date: 6/4/2004 10:55:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
BUSH gave a Medal to the Pope and said: "We appreciate the strong symbol of freedom that you have stood for and we recognize the power of freedom to change societies and to change the world". FREEDOM!!?? Pastor Bush, the Founding fathers just flipped over in their graves! "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Horatio G. Spafford, March 17, 1814 |
|
Date: 6/4/2004 10:57:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/06/04/bush.italy/index.html |
|
Date: 6/4/2004 11:15:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
"Opponents of Bush's initiative, launched in the early days of his administration, worry that government would wind up paying for religion. They also object to allowing taxpayer-funded groups to hire and fire based on religious persuasion. But the proposal is popular with religious groups, a key political constituency of Bush's, and he is pushing it as an election-year initiative. . . . "Bush's support for faith-based initiatives rings hollows," said Jano Cabrera, a Democratic National Committee spokesman. "With his right hand, Bush is providing minimal support to faith-based groups but with his left, he's planning to cut the social safety net wholecloth if he wins in November." Critics cite other problems, not just the question of constitutional legitimacy. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, a Washington religious liberty watchdog group, said other social program are receiving less funding as a result of the increase in spending for faith-based programs. "What the White House never tells you are the stories of all the people whose benefits and programs have been cut off so that money can be diverted to these religious operations," Lynn said. "This is still much more smoke and mirrors than it is a substantive program to aid the poor." |
|
Date: 6/4/2004 11:29:00 AM
From Authorid: 36704
Then the founding fathers must have rolled in their graves when other presidents did the same thing also. In 1996 when Clinton gave it to Cardinal Joseph Bernadin and when he gave it to Monsignor George Higgins. Maybe they rolled over also when Clinton gave it to Edgar Bronfman the President of the World Jewish Congress. Once again Bush is being singled out as a bad guy for following in his predeccesors footsteps. And what does the Presidential Medal of Freedom have to do with your initial post? |
|
Date: 6/4/2004 1:13:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Base, Of Course, politicians have always pandered to the religious, since time began. But, NO ONE has used and abused as much as our current President! "Singled out"?? He IS in the highest office in the land. And it has never been as bad as HE has shown, with regards to total ignoring the Seperation Of Church and state. I think my example of his meeting with the Pope, clearly shows his pandering to the Catholics is just one more example; and since it was just yesterday, and this is about him courting the religious to vote for him.....well, that answers your question as to what this has to do with the initial post. Considering the generally ANTI-catholic leanings of the evangelicals, plus, the history of the church in denying freedoms all over the place; the pandering and the Medal of Freedom is downright ridiculous. I know I am not alone in seeing the hypocrisy in such actions. ackkk! I'm sure there will be much more to come 'tween now and November. |
Date: 6/4/2004 1:19:00 PM
From Authorid: 34912
Don't worry, Thinker. I don't even think that pandering to churches is going to save him now  ~good post here> I can't stand this kind of phoney campaingning.  |
|
Date: 6/4/2004 2:48:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Hi Pacific, Thanks for your reply, but I'm not so sure. You see, even though there are many truly great and wonderful THINKING Christians out there, who do support seperation of church and state; the fact remains that Bush's overwhelming support comes from the HUGE voting base which consist of the far religious right. Out here in the heartland, there are huge masses of people who will vote for Bush MERELY because he is a christian, and they do not care what the other issues are. I've even heard many say things like "All I know is Bush is against abortion, and that's good enough for me" or similar sentiments. Do you remember Jimmy Carter? He was very much a Christian, but he was for seperation of church and state, and always ended his speeches or televised appearances with "Thank you and good night" or something of this nature. He didn't USE his stature and position or office as a pulpit. |
|
Date: 6/4/2004 2:56:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
"But, NO ONE has used and abused as much as our current President!" "He IS in the highest office in the land. And it has never been as bad as HE has shown, with regards to total ignoring the Seperation Of Church and state." Really, because it wasn't Bush who was in office when In God We Trust was placed on our currency, it wasn't Bush who was in office when under God was added to the pledge, it wasn't Bush when most of the religious things were added to our country so if 99% of the things were there before Bush how you come to your claim of it never being that bad is obviously your opinion but has no historical veracity. As for him courting the Catholics, is that what Clinton was doing when he was giving out the Medal to people with religious affiliation, courting the Catholics and Jews also? Or could it be that most of the time just like everything else there's a committee that recommends to the President their nominees for the recipients of the medal and neither Bush, Clinton or any other president really even does anything but hand out the award to the person who the committee nominates. Less than five percent of the Medals awarded by Clinton or Bush were to people with any religious affiliation, but the minute there's someone who's religious involved, people have to start complaining. |
|
Date: 6/4/2004 3:22:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Sorry Base, but citing other examples of other politicians courting the religious vote is all well and fine, but again, nothing has ever been like that of George Bush. I remember way back to Truman (for seperation of church and state); I remember John Kennedy and the uproar and vehemence thrown at him by the Republicans over his being the First Catholic to run for Presidency and the 1st Catholic President. They hated him; especially down in Texas. JFK stated that he was not a puppet of the Catholic church and would not speak for him. No one has ever "preached" the way Bush has; or at least been so blatantly obvious, in pushing all the "faith based" agenda, in America, as Bush has. |
|
Date: 6/4/2004 3:36:00 PM
From Authorid: 36704
Yes, I can see how citing history and other presidents as examples to compare to the current president is well and good but useless. I must only use opinions of other people and never facts when coming to any conclusion. The 1800's and early 1900's and all the religious presidents with their fervor during that time must just be delusions of the historians minds. |
Date: 6/4/2004 4:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 36967
There are ways that a Pastor and other church Officers can vebarally support a canidate. In private conversation. The way I interperate what Bush is saying, Pastors need to get church people to support canidates, or loose their rights.  |
|
Date: 6/4/2004 4:48:00 PM
From Authorid: 36967
They cannot do it from the Pupit. They are allowed to give out literature, to show what views canidates support. That is also allowed. They just cannot tell people who to vote for or fund canidates. |
Date: 6/4/2004 7:14:00 PM
From Authorid: 52489
I thought there was supposed to be a separation of Church & State in the Constitution. This could be an impeachable offense.  |
|
Date: 6/5/2004 5:47:00 AM
From Authorid: 36967
Arion1, look at my last two comments. To see that this is not a violation of the seperation of church and state. Clinton did something worse. Bush is following the consitution. |
|
Date: 6/5/2004 6:30:00 AM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 24924
Drkptrs, The email sent out by Luke Bernstein said, "We plan to undertake activities such as distributing general information/updates or voter registration materials in a place accessible to the congregation." HOWEVER........ THIS>>>>>>"The Bush-Cheney '04 national headquarters in Virginia has asked us to identify 1600 'Friendly Congregations' in Pennsylvania where voters friendly to President Bush might gather on a regular basis." IS ENDORSING A PARTICULAR CANDIDATE! Yes, Drkptrs, churches DO tell people who to vote for. On these television "church" programs, I see it all the time. Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson and David Kennedy are just a few who are PRO-REPUBLICAN BUSH supporters. And, just what did Clinton do that was worse than Bush? |
|
Date: 6/5/2004 11:33:00 AM
From Authorid: 36704
And the problem there Thinker? "The Bush-Cheney '04 national headquarters in Virginia has asked us to identify 1600 'Friendly Congregations' in Pennyslvania where voters friendly to President Bush might gather on a regular basis." The email says the campaign would like to "identify a volunteer coordinator who can help distribute general information to other supporters." "We plan to undertake activities such as distributing general information/updates or voter registration materials in a place accessible to the congregation." Why would the Bush campaign waste their campaign money in congregations that aren't Bush friendly since it's only general information and updates and voter registration materials. It's obvious by the general information and voter registration materials that the Bush election team is well aware of the tax laws and staying within them. But, even if he's hoping to find people to campaign for him within the churches he's still doing nothing wrong. |
Date: 6/5/2004 11:35:00 AM
From Authorid: 36704
"Though a church is forbidden from certain political conduct, the Internal Revenue Code provides an alternate means by which a church could communicate its sentiments about candidates for political office. See Branch Ministries v. Rossotti, 211 F.3d 137, 143 (D.C. Cir. 2000). Just as a lobbying group could use its § 501(c)(3) organization for its nonlobbying activities and may create a § 501(c)(4) affiliate to pursue its charitable goals through lobbying," id. (Regan v. Taxation With Representation, 461 U.S. 540, 552 (1983) (Blackmun, J., concurring)), a church has such an avenue available to it. Rossotti, 211 F.3d at 143. A related organization under section 501(c)(4) may then form political action committees to engage in political campaigns and lobbying. Id. Churches that wish to create a 501(c)(4) organization must proceed carefully. The 501(c)(4) organization must be separately incorporated from the church. The church-created 501(c)(4) organization, not the church itself, may then form a political action committee ("PAC" "that would be free to participate in political campaigns." Id.; see also 26 C.F.R. § 1.527-6(f), (g) (1999). Note that it is the PAC of the 501(c)(4) organization that may engage in political activities, not the 501(c)(4) organization." |
|
Date: 6/5/2004 11:37:00 AM
From Authorid: 36704
You don't like one of his campaign strategies, peddling to the Christians, fair enough, but it has nothing to do with separation of church and state that's not even an issue here. They haven't broken a tax law so far and it is within their rights to choose this campaign method. |
|
Date: 6/5/2004 12:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 36967
He lied to a grand jury. |
Date: 6/5/2004 9:57:00 PM
From Authorid: 34487
I'm in agreement with BASE here.  |
|
Date: 6/6/2004 9:21:00 AM
From Authorid: 47296
Base, they can indeed have a PAC, but that PAC is restriccted in what actions it can take within the confines of the 501c3 and their property. Also, there is a quesion of money's used by PACs. If money is donated to a church to meet it's needs as a church, that money cannot be funneled to the PAC. Donations to the PAC must be seperatefrom those donations to the church, and it must be made clear that those donations are to be used for specific purposes. Having worked with a 501c3 with a 501c4 activist group, we fell under the same guidelines as churchs tha wish to form PACs. The problem comes when the church approaches people asking them to donate to the PAC. Then the church begins to cross the line between being a church, and being an integral part of teh PAC. |
|
Date: 6/6/2004 11:43:00 AM
From Authorid: 36704
Yes Two Spirit, there are guidelines that must be followed, I already agreed with that. This whole article is about an email. An email that has broken no laws and is well within the rights of Bush to do so as it is for all political candidates. Yet, Bush and the churches are being accused of breaking laws and violating separation of church and state from an email. They're doing neither yet they're being portrayed as if they are by people with their own agenda. If the churches fail to follow the guidelines they should no longer be allowed to be a non profit organization, but so far they've done nothing wrong so why are people trying to condemn them? |
Renasoft is the proud sponsor of the Unsolved Mystery Publications website.
See: www.rensoft.com Personal Site server, Power to build Personal Web Sites and Personal Web Pages
All stories are copyright protected and may not be reproduced in any form, except by specific written authorization
