Double Standards

[lockmat]

They exist. Unfortunately, they're everywhere in life. Here's our latest example.

Americans United Asks IRS To Investigate Houston Church That Endorsed Congressional Candidate

http://www.commondreams.org/news2008/0306-04.htm

http://www.khou.com/news/local/stories/kho...s.2bb36fe5.html

And this is just hilarious...

Edited March 25, 2008 by lockmat

[dbigtex56]

Can someone tell me how these people slipped through the cracks? I mean, they're not in the spotlight or anything on a national level. I can understand how it happened, ya know...

Reverend Al Sharpton

Jesse Jackson

Jeremiah Wright

edit: bonus question - who can guess why the three get away with it but this man did not? Kudos for the correct answer.

Perhaps it's because 'this man' endorsed a specific candidate from the pulpit.

[lockmat]

Perhaps it's because 'this man' endorsed a specific candidate from the pulpit.

Actually, he wrote a letter for the politician he was supporting. The only association he made with the church was in signing his name.

http://www.au.org/site/DocServer/Grace_Com....pdf?docID=2481

Edited March 26, 2008 by lockmat

[memebag]

It's because he's white, right? Damn, the white man is being kept down once again!

[sifuwong]

A bit off this topic, but is there going be one day when churches, temples, synagogues, etc. pay property tax? These places are businesses!! I doubt they will be taxed soon, but i'm wondering if government has even thought about it.

Edited March 26, 2008 by sifuwong

[gwilson]

It's because he's white, right? Damn, the white man is being kept down once again!

There is a racial double standard there whether you choose to see it or not. Black history month, black pride clubs/parades, black only dances, hate crime legislation, etc. It isn't popular to talk about, but it exists. There is no justification for it either.

[memebag]

There is a racial double standard there whether you choose to see it or not. Black history month, black pride clubs/parades, black only dances, hate crime legislation, etc. It isn't popular to talk about, but it exists. There is no justification for it either.

Are you high?

[BryanS]

So, is the government blocking religious speech? Or is religion interfering in politics?

Is the question posed in the article. I would say the latter, for sure. When you set up petition signing tables on church grounds, or very near them, and then encourage members to sign the petition (for/against whatever issue - not indicating directly which way "vote," but definitely subtly suggesting) - that is religion interfering in politics, in ways that I think are more dangerous than openly endorsing a candidate, which appears what the newly formed Grace Community PAC wants to do. The IRS should penalize and tax them... If you want to be a church, be a church. If you ant to be a PAC, be a PAC

Edited March 26, 2008 by BryanS

[lockmat]

EDIT: For the bonus question... any of those listed that are active members/leaders of a church, and sign a letter endorsing a candidate, would also be subject to the same IRS scrutiny if turned in. Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, as well as any other pastors from any other church can shoot their mouths off 24x7 over politics in the public square. And they do. But, when you put those views in writing on church stationary with church letterhead and sign it with your credentials as a religious leader/pastor and give it to all your members in your congregation - recommending they vote, even if indirectly, by subtle suggestion, for a particular candidate - that's crossing the line. And the IRS should relentlessly go after you, and revoke your tax exempt status.

You'll have to forgive me for backtracking and posing a question without doing my homework first. My impression is that the church could not take part in any kind of politics. What is the law exactly? I'm gonna go see if I can find it now and post it. Go ahead and do it if you find it before me.

I don't know the detailed history of the three men I mentioned, but I would be absolutely shocked if they did not endorse a politician from the pulpit every time there was an election.

found it: http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=161131,00.html

Edited March 26, 2008 by lockmat

[Mark F. Barnes]

There is a racial double standard there whether you choose to see it or not. Black history month, black pride clubs/parades, black only dances, hate crime legislation, etc. It isn't popular to talk about, but it exists. There is no justification for it either.

Not that I agree with any of the rest, I will just consider it opinion, however, Hate crimes legislation is something different entirely and was brought about to enhance the punish-ability of a perpetrator that targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, usually defined by race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation. I actually believe it was first brought about and martyred by the horrific killing of Matthew Shepard, a University of Wyoming student. It was not racially motivated in any way, it was white on white crime. However they killed this man because of his sexual preference. He was tortured and staked out on a fence in rural Wyoming, and left to die. He was found 18 hrs later near death and in a coma, someone had thought he was a scarecrow when they first found him. To nonchalantly group this bit of tragic history into a group of opinion-laced conjecture, is really a low point in this thread. And in my honest opinion, absolute bullshit, but hey that's just me.

[lockmat]

Not that I agree with any of the rest, I will just consider it opinion, however, Hate crimes legislation is something different entirely and was brought about to enhance the punish-ability of a perpetrator that targets a victim because of his or her membership in a certain social group, usually defined by race, religion, sexual orientation, disability, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, gender identity, or political affiliation. I actually believe it was first brought about and martyred by the horrific killing of Matthew Shepard, a University of Wyoming student. It was not racially motivated in any way, it was white on white crime. However they killed this man because of his sexual preference. He was tortured and staked out on a fence in rural Wyoming, and left to die. He was found 18 hrs later near death and in a coma, someone had thought he was a scarecrow when they first found him. To nonchalantly group this bit of tragic history into a group of opinion-laced conjecture, is really a low point in this thread. And in my honest opinion, absolute bullshit, but hey that's just me.

So an additional penalty is imposed if the crime was done in hate because of religion, race etc? Isn't that an unnecessary redundancy in the law? Or is there some other nuance to it? Guess I'll go ahead and look that one up too.

[Mark F. Barnes]

Red could probably chime in on that, somebody pull his chain before he gets tied up in court all day.

[Mark F. Barnes]

Can't find a Tar heel Shyster when you need one.......

[houstonmacbro]

A bit off this topic, but is there going be one day when churches, temples, synagogues, etc. pay property tax? These places are businesses!! I doubt they will be taxed soon, but i'm wondering if government has even thought about it.

I agree! Most of them SHOULD be taxed as many of these mega churches are rolling in loot! Oh, sorry ... tithes.

[lockmat]

I agree! Most of them SHOULD be taxed as many of these mega churches are rolling in loot! Oh, sorry ... tithes.

What's sad is that although they won't say it to your face, I'm sure a lot of 'pastors' and 'leaders' of those churches are in it for the business, or some other selfish reasons related to that. I won't object. But that's not the true purpose of the church, obviously, and never will it or should it be.

[TJones]

gwilson said:

There is a racial double standard there whether you choose to see it or not. Black history month, black pride clubs/parades, black only dances, hate crime legislation, etc. It isn't popular to talk about, but it exists. There is no justification for it either.

Wilson, you can't be upset about "black history month", because the other 11 are always "white history months" !!! MLK parade, St. paddy's Day parade, BOTH have about the same turnout, the difference is that some black people actually go to the St. Paddy's Parade.

[musicman]

Wilson, you can't be upset about "black history month", because the other 11 are always "white history months" !!! MLK parade, St. paddy's Day parade, BOTH have about the same turnout, the difference is that some black people actually go to the St. Paddy's Parade.

LOL not sure i've EVER heard white history month.

[lockmat]

Red could probably chime in on that, somebody pull his chain before he gets tied up in court all day.

Found it: http://www.fbi.gov/hq/cid/civilrights/overview.htm

"Hate itself is not a crime"

...

"A 1994 federal law also increased penalties for offenses proven to be hate crimes"

If hate itself is not a crime then why is the penalty increased? So basically what they're saying is because in addition you hated them, your punishment will be worse, even though hating is not a crime. Are there other laws that do such a similar thing?

[Fringe]

A bit off this topic, but is there going be one day when churches, temples, synagogues, etc. pay property tax? These places are businesses!! I doubt they will be taxed soon, but i'm wondering if government has even thought about it.

I have always thought churches should be taxed. They receive the same services as any other property

Edited March 27, 2008 by LunaticFringe

[crunchtastic]

tax 'em, tax 'em, tax 'em.

Help relieve the burden on homeowners and help fix Texas' school funding problem.

[CDeb]

For those of you that think churches are too involved in politics NOW, subjecting them to taxation is the LAST thing you want.

Edited March 26, 2008 by CDeb

[houstonmacbro]

For those of you that think churches are too involved in politics NOW, subjecting them to taxation is the LAST thing you want.

You got a point there.

[crunchtastic]

For those of you that think churches are too involved in politics NOW, subjecting them to taxation is the LAST thing you want.

eh, not buying it. Political power is influenced by many things, property tax status isn't one of them.

The i-banks having the political power to enable the BS buyout didn't, I'm guessing, have much to do with the fact that they pay property taxes in New York. Fill in the relevant blanks with any lobby or industry group.

Churches are private entities who own property, benefit from the value of that property, and use publice services. They should be taxed accordingly. Remember they ain't building mega churches from the tithe bucket, they're earning and leveraging big money in the form of tax-free income from invesmtents and trusts. It's time to stop the free ride at the local level.

[CDeb]

eh, not buying it. Political power is influenced by many things, property tax status isn't one of them.

You're saying that many churches are wielding too much political influence.

You're saying that many churches are very much concerned with the monetary bottom line.

And now you're saying that they won't get more involved with politics when those politics have a direct hand in that bottom line?

THAT is something I don't buy.

EDIT for poor grammar.

Edited March 26, 2008 by CDeb

[ricco67]

As far as I'm concerned, if a church gets involved in politics in any way, then they should be threatened (and eventually lose) their tax exempt status.

A church should help the immediate community, its parishioners, or charity work. Period.

[lockmat]

As far as I'm concerned, if a church gets involved in politics in any way, then they should be threatened (and eventually lose) their tax exempt status.

A church should help the immediate community, its parishioners, or charity work. Period.

Here are the rules along with many factual situations per the IRS: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/rr2007-41.pdf

I'm almost done reading up on it. According to one of the situations, which I can't remember, I think Riggles is guilty because he's officially representing the church b/c of the letterhead and his signature.

Are violations for these one and done chances? Or do they get a warning first or can they ever regain their exemption status?

[TJones]

LOL not sure i've EVER heard white history month.

Well, all the white people already knew about it. They call it American History in high school, then February rolls around and they change gears a little bit, and the kids are already out of school for the Juneteenth celebration, so they pack it all in to February, and Musicman, have you noticed that they give black history month to the shortest month of the year ??? Coincidence, I think NOT !.

Edited March 26, 2008 by TJones

[crunchtastic]

You're saying that many churches are wielding too much political influence.

You're saying that many churches are very much concerned with the monetary bottom line.

And now you're saying that they won't get more involved with politics when those politics have a direct hand in that bottom line?

THAT is something I don't buy.

EDIT for poor grammar.

I didn't say any of those things, and I certainly didn't claim that they wouldn't attempt to influence politics more. It's natural that they would. What I did say was that the fact they pay property taxes wouldn't increase their actual power and influence. Real poltical leverage is based on other factors. If they attempt to increase their influence--which I'm sure they will (attempt, that is) --there are plenty of extenal pressures that will determine whether they are successful or not. At any rate, the threat of increased political pressure does not change my mind at all: I trust reason, democracy and the rule of law to keep us from backsliding into the dark ages. Churches should pay property taxes.

If they would prefer not to pay tax, I believe the constitution covers the right to congregate in a fashion other than a $4 million dollar building on prime real estate--underneath the Pierce Elevated, say.

Edited March 27, 2008 by crunchtastic

[musicman]

Well, all the white people already knew about it. They call it American History in high school, then February rolls around and they change gears a little bit, and the kids are already out of school for the Juneteenth celebration, so they pack it all in to February,

I guess YOU would.

to me it will always be history, no matter what color. i still get surprised sometimes though. someone in their 30's came up and asks me if the holocaust happened.

and Musicman, have you noticed that they give black history month to the shortest month of the year ??? Coincidence, I think NOT !.

to be honest, i never thought of it. Edited March 26, 2008 by musicman

[crunchtastic]

to me it will always be history, no matter what color. i still get surprised sometimes though. someone in their 30's came up and asks me if the holocaust happened.

that gives me chills....and that "theory" is out there in easily accessible media now for a whole new generation who are too lazy and self absorbed to filter their content, much less think critically.