Comments on: John Kerry and Jeremiah

By: Lynn

Lynn — Wed, 27 Oct 2004 04:10:32 +0000

Going to church is sacred, and very personal. It is beyond disgusting that Kerry would use the church to try to get people to vote for him, but also to make himself seem appointed by a “higher power”. And doesn’t Sharpton have any pride? I read an article where Clinton was called the “first Black president” and Kerry commented to Amer. Urban Radio Network that “he would like to be the second”. Kerry will stoop to any level to get people to vote for him…what’s next, putting on a skirt & makeup?

By: Helen Cochran

Helen Cochran — Mon, 25 Oct 2004 14:19:02 +0000

La Shawn…..

You are a shining light….please continue sharing your perspectives as you listen to that Inner Voice.

Best wishes always’

Helen Cochran

By: Stephen

Stephen — Mon, 18 Oct 2004 17:20:25 +0000

IRS Asked To Investigate Miami Church

A church-state group has asked the Internal Revenue Service to investigate another church for appearing to endorse a presidential candidate this election season.

Americans United for Separation of Church and State has asked the IRS to investigate Friendship Missionary Baptist Church in Miami for hosting a rally with Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee, in a worship service Oct. 10.

The service featured Kerry as well as African-American Democratic leaders Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton. Introducing Kerry, the church’s pastor, Gaston Smith, called Kerry “the next president of the United States” and said to the congregation, “To bring our country out of despair, despondency and disgust, God has a John Kerry.”

Tax-exempt non-profit groups, such as churches, organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the federal tax codes are not allowed to endorse political candidates or parties.

Barry Lynn, Americans United’s executive director, told IRS officials the church appeared to have breached the law. “This appears to have been a clear case of a church hosting a partisan political rally,” Lynn said, in a letter to the agency. “I believe the obvious aim of this event was to endorse Kerry’ s candidacy and spur congregants to vote for him. As such, the church has run afoul of federal tax law.”

The letter marks the eighth time this year that Americans United has complained to the IRS about churches engaging in partisan campaigning. The other incidents have involved complaints about the pastor of a conservative Southern Baptist church in Arkansas appearing to endorse the re-election of President Bush, and an African Methodist Episcopal church in Massachusetts appearing to endorse Kerry.

Source is Maranatha Christian News Service at mcjonline.com

By: firebird

firebird — Sun, 17 Oct 2004 22:07:55 +0000

Kerry is a phony he pretends to be progun and prosecond amendment but he is a big gun control freak he wears blaze orange as camouflage now he its trying to be a man of god? what a dweeb he is he dont fool old firebird at all

By: Aaron's Rantblog, aka Aaron the Liberal Slayer

Aaron's Rantblog, aka Aaron the Liberal Slayer — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:40:55 +0000

News Links for the Day

Kerry panders to fisting fans. Any dems willing to drink a bottle of vodka if pander-boy-Kerry mentions the Red Sox in tonight’s debate?
You’re once, twice, thirty-five times a voter, and the Dems love you-uuuuuuuu! Related story on Dem vote fra…

By: Stephen

Stephen — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 19:24:02 +0000

I was just trying to say that churches and politics co-existed quite well prior to 1954. Johnson’s attempt to silence his personal opposition had unintended consequence.

In today’s world it gives rise to such group as “American’s United for the Seperation of Church and State” which is nothing more than a tool for the irreligious left to mute conservatives. There is no equivalent group on the right monitoring leftist churches.

As I tried to say in a prior post, when pastors can’t teach their congregation the Biblical truths for fear of government backlash, then government has effectively muzzled freedom of speech and freedom of worship.

La Shawn – You are in my prayers daily. God Bless.

By: Andy

Andy — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 02:07:16 +0000

Another thoughtt: LBJ is an example of an “unelected” President that probably wouldn’t have made it on his own. And now we have Edwards who, if elected, would be just a heartbeat or a Botox-Gone-Bad away from CinC.

By: Mark Slater

Mark Slater — Fri, 15 Oct 2004 01:41:54 +0000

Senator/President Johnson made a career of stepping on his opposition. He would make laws and orders for his own aggrandisement and all would have to live with the far-reaching consequences. Thanks, ‘old man’ Stephen for your research.

Oh, were it forty years ago and we had a *real* choice for presidential leadership. We chose wrongly.

“Moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.”

By: Andy

Andy — Thu, 14 Oct 2004 23:12:24 +0000

Stephen, nonetheless, that is interesting and I certainly won’t mind if that issue is revisited and struck out as it appears to be the part and parcel of illiberal attempts to stifle dissent. Especially since the notion of non-profit organizations being tax-free predates the incumbent’s right to cruise thru reelections — can you hear me now McCain-Feingold?

By: Stephen

Stephen — Thu, 14 Oct 2004 22:39:44 +0000

I made a mistake. It was Johnson but the year was 1954. Johnson was angry with a couple of non-profit organizations – not chruches – that had backed his opponent in 1954. Johnson got his revenge by amending the IRS code to prohibit all tax-exempt organizations from endorsing political candidates.

I found this quote: “On July 2, 1954, the Congressional Record reveals Senator Johnson proposed an amendment to a house bill that was under consideration by the Senate. His amendment called for a change in section 501(c)(3) of the tax code. Johnson told the Senate: “This amendment seeks to extend the provisions of section 501 of the House bill, denying tax-exempt status to not only those people who influence legislation but also to those who intervene in any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for any public office.””

Sorry for the mix-up!

By: Stephen

Stephen — Thu, 14 Oct 2004 21:33:46 +0000

La Shawn,

As far as I can tell there is no “rational basis for prohibiting the endorsement of political candidates…”. The current IRS rules are, as I understand them, a product of the Johnson administration in the 1960’s. Finding specific information is a little difficult. It seems that LBJ was unhappy that some pastors across America were uniting in opposition to some of his Great Society programs. LBJ had his friends in Congress add rules to the IRS code forbidding endorsement of political candidates. These rules were inserted into a bill (that may have had nothing else to do with the IRS) simply to silence the voices of dissent. The rest, as they say, is history. Maybe somebody with better access to 1960’s records can either verify or deny my memory of this.

I do know for fact that before Johnson the church I attended sometimes discussed political matters. Nobody back in those days was worried about the government revoking their tax-exempt status. That’s the problem with being an old guy like me … memories … but hey, I’m having fun!

God Bless you La Shawn, and the great work you do on this blog! We love ya in Nevada!!!

By: Mark Slater

Mark Slater — Thu, 14 Oct 2004 04:49:49 +0000

Stephen has a point. Today, churches cannot endorse candidates (something they should not do anyway, but that is an ecclesiastical matter). Tomorrow, churches are forbidden from citing key scripture verses for being “hateful”. Oh, and abolish the IRS.

By: LawWife

LawWife — Thu, 14 Oct 2004 01:44:00 +0000

SCSI – I still don’t understand why a pastor couldn’t say something along these lines w/out fearing the loss of tax-exempt status: “The Bible says X. Candidate A says Y, and Candidate B says X.” No, I don’t think the pastor should necessarily tell his flock to vote for one party or for one particular candidate, but informing the congregation where the candidates in a race stand in relation to moral/Biblical issues seems almost like an obligation for a pastor who takes his role as shepherd and overseer seriously.

By: SCSIwuzzy

SCSIwuzzy — Thu, 14 Oct 2004 00:27:01 +0000

Stephen,
Look at it this way… the government agrees to keep out of the affairs of organized religion, and in return, organized religion keeps out of the business of government.
What a preacher says on his own time, is fully protected by the 1st ammendment. What a preacher says in his capacity as a representative of God, is not.

By: La Shawn

La Shawn — Wed, 13 Oct 2004 22:58:47 +0000

So what responsibilities should tax-exempt organizations have? They’re exempt for a reason. If there’s a rational basis for prohibiting the endorsement of political candidates, then it should stand and apply to all such organizations.

You do have a point about what’s happening in Canada, but endorsing a politician in the pulpit (one party over another) while benefiting from tax exemptions seems foul to me. If a particular church or denomination wants to preach and pander, they should pay taxes like everyone else. The issue turns on taxes, Stephen, not whether their FA rights are being violated. They can say what they want and endorse who they want. And pay taxes.