It's time to review Trinity Church's tax exempt status. I say this as an Obama supporter

[sfam]

Trinity Church seems to be OK with voicing public support for a specific candidate from the pulpit. This is all fine and good, but this sure seems to violate the separation of church and state. From the IRS, in looking at the Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations:

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=163395,00.html

Clearly, the public displays of lunacy from the Trinity pulpit constitute public statements in support of a candidate. Nevermind that they have a negative effect - they are still wrong and need to be stopped.

So why would I as a fervent Obama supporter who has contributed to his campaign three times care about this issue? Because I think its a HORRID step in an ongoing trend that has reached truly contemptible proportions. Yes, Jerry Fallwell has been doing this for years - that was wrong too. Bottom line, this is a really bad step in transforming our democracy to something totally different.

Whether they wait until after the campaign or not, I really don't care (I would probably be happy if it occurred after November, actually), but the IRS really needs to clamp down on this shit. It will only take one or two churches to lose their status for a year or two for this behavior to stop.

[rateyes]

1. As an Obama supporter,

I agree with you.

[HowHasItComeToThis]

78. WE THE PEOPLE CREATED THIS GENERATION OF RELIGIO-FASCISTS

HOW IS THE HEMPSTEAD MAFIA DOING????????????????

[rateyes]

94. WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT????????

And, why do you have to yell?

[helderheid]

113. I too agree.

[stray cat]

2. That was actually my first thought as well - nothing to do with Obama

but churches on both sides of the political spectrum that campaign for a candidate should not be exempt.

[sfam]

6. Exactly! Its fine if they want to play this roll, but then they and their flock must pay taxes

That's what the rules say, folks. If its tax exempt, and their flock has to look at their contributions as taxable income, this shit WILL stop...like immediately.

[rurallib]

3. Well past time to end tax exemptions for churches period.

[NotThisTime]

60. ALL churches because they ALL talk politics. If a politician isn't lock step, they say so.....

From the pulpit, they tell you which way to vote, or they guide you which way to vote because the candidate doesn't represent what the "church" represents, been there done that, none of them should be tax exempt.

[reflection]

69. My church doesn't do that.

We are extremely apolitical.

[Critters2]

82. I've never told my congregation how to vote.

They all know I'm a lefty Dem, but they don't know it because of what I say in the pulpit. I've spoken out against the war (which is allowable under IRS rules), for universal health care (ditto), even for school referenda (see above). But I've never endorsed a candidate or a party. And I sure as hell never mocked a candidate from the pulpit.

What I saw last night was the least honorable homiletic behavior I've ever witnessed. Trinity needs to be pulled up short. And fast!!

[sfam]

85. Thank you!

I wish I could Rec your response. This is my point exactly. Churches should absolutely talk about issues facing society like the war, AND take positions on those issues. This is different than endorsing a candidate.

They also should be able to register people in their church to vote, etc. This too is not endorsing a candidate.

[Critters2]

122. We can. We can talk about anything but PARTISAN politics.

And I've never seen anything more partisan that what Pfleger did Sunday.

[Bill McBlueState]

175. Serious question --

Does it bother you that the federal government regulates what you can and can't say from the pulpit?

[LisaM]

179. They can say whatever they want

but may have to pay taxes on their business if they can't stay non-partisan.

[Critters2]

182. My task in the pulpit is to expound scripture, not to give my personal opinions.

If I find a text that I believe compels me to take a partisan position, which I can't quite imagine, I'm free to do so. My congregation won't be happy about losing its tax exempt status, but I am free to take that risk.

I take social stands ALL the time. But I do not endorse candidates or parties from the pulpit. In my private life, I'm a very active member of the Dem party. In the pulpit, I'm neutral as to party and individual candidates. It's really not that constraining.

[dsomuah]

186. I don't think it's even very christian

I believe that if you truly study the word of God, you would be hard pressed to find a scripture that compels you to take a partisan position. I think that you could find several scriptures though that imply that a preacher shouldn't be partisan.

I honeslty believe it's not just federal regulations but God's law that should keep preachers from giving their congregation their own political views.

[rateyes]

90. You can bet your last dollar that my church doesn't do that. nt

[Irishonly]

136. My church doesn't

We talk about injustices, world peace and we are involved in the same community organization that Obama was. I am very liberal and my pastor is slightly right of me. I only know because we are friends. She has never done a political sermon and I don't miss very many Sundays. One thing to remember is the priest was a visitor. Maybe his sermons need to be checked out at his home church and Trinity probably will be investigated by the IRS since all I am hearing the MSM doing is scream political sermon. Has anyone listened to the whole thing?

[polmaven]

173. I really disagree with

your statement that the ALL talk politics. Not from the pulpit anyway.

My church most certainly does not. We have a congregation that consists of both sides and in the middle. We all get along very well and the pastor does not preach politics.

There is no "lock step", as you put it, and she knows that, if she tried to endorse a candidate from the pulpit she would not last long. The Bishop would be all over it in a heart beat after being informed of it by the appropriate staff/parish relations committee.

The only mention of voting EVER is only to "remind" people that election day will be coming up soon. No more than that.

[mopinko]

97. ding, ding, ding

we have a winner. make the freakin catholic church pay taxes on their real estate, their parking garages, all their money making operations. maybe we could give broken soldiers everything they need, then.

[calmblueocean]

4. Ditto from this Obama supporter.

If we want the right wing pastors to stay out of the political organizing business, we need to be tough on our own.

[hokies4ever]

5. Why, because it's the church of a presidential candidate?

What about the Kansas archdiocese telling Governor Kathleen Sebelius to stop taking communion because she supports pro-choice legislation? Interesting timing too if you ask me. What about all Catholic parishes who advocate pro-life issues?

Commonsense tells me that tax exempt status should focus on what the money is used for by churches. By all accounts, Trinity United has done the government's job of taking care of its community with things ranging from prison ministries, senior citizen housing, to street violence. If the government did just an ounce of what Trinity has done for its community our nation would be a much better place.

[sfam]

9. Great example. Strip their tax exempt status as well. Truly this shit must stop

I would absolutely support the IRS stripping the Kansas archdiocese's tax exempt status. This is TOTALLY out of bounds.

But to be clear, this is NOT a comment on what Trinity does for their community. By all accounts, they are doing great work. But they ARE breaking the law. It's just that simple.

[hokies4ever]

25. I agree with you in principle

that tax exempt status with churches is something that needs to be looked at and perhaps eventually revoked. However, I live in a place called reality. That's never going to happen. All politicians know that touting your religion or dedication to religion (as long as it's Christianity) will get you more votes. Faith-based initiatives will always be funded by our government. Threatening to defund them will force them into the forefront as a new wedge issue.

[Benhurst]

7. I agree. And there are a lot of other churches which need to be examined as well.

[stray cat]

12. Especially on the conservative side of the political spectrum

[Lisa0825]

169. Bingo!

If all churches were looked at fairly, I imagine way more right wing churches than left wing churches would lose their exempt status.

[Renew Deal]

8. This was looked at last week and they were cleared.

Anything else?

[sfam]

17. Yes, its time to review it again.

Truly, this stuff is incredibly harmful to our democracy. There is a reason these organizations are tax exempt. If we remove that reason, then the status should change as well.

Bottom line, the contributors of Trinity are supporting a political spokesperson who uses the church pulpit to make their point.

[Renew Deal]

30. This is anti-christian BS.

Pastors are allowed to make political commentary. I bet you don't have a problem with them praying to stop the war (and suffering). There's a difference between talking about the issues of the day and using the church to organize.

[sfam]

62. I have NO problem with them speaking about the issues of the day. I do have a problem with...

them speaking out against a candidate or for a candidate. This isn't really that difficult a position to understand, but feel free to slime me as an anti-christian jerk. It seems that you're going to regardless what my responses are.

[Renew Deal]

67. You might have a problem with it, but it's not illegal.

And he didn't tell people to vote one way or another. All he did was poke fun at Hillary. There's nothing illegal about that. To silence that is to silence free speech.

[Critters2]

91. Actually it is. Churches cannot endorse a specific candidate.

You may not like the rules, but they exist nonetheless.

[Renew Deal]

99. Did he endorse someone?

What did he say that endorsed a candidate? I want the quote.

[sfam]

106. This really is a "definition of 'is' is" type defense...it makes no sense...

No more than Bill's did at the time. He CLEARLY spoke out against Hillary. This was CLEARLY a political speech. He EVEN MENTIONED he was making a political speech.

[Renew Deal]

111. Political speech is not illegal.

Again, he didn't say "vote against Hillary." That would have gotten him into trouble. If someone can post the offensive quote, then we have something to argue about.

[Critters2]

124. He was telling that congregation who to vote for.

Trinity needs to start paying taxes.

[Renew Deal]

129. Post the offensive quote.

Or stop posting bullshit. You can't prove what you're saying because it never happened.

[Critters2]

120. He was claerly telling people to vote for Obama.

Only an idiot would see this in any other way. There was no reason to even raise the issue. What I'd like to know is what text he was preaching. Where in scripture does God or any writer, suggest mocking Hillary Clinton. The task of a preacher is to expound a text. Please, tell me what text he was preaching.

[Renew Deal]

132. Where did he tell people to vote for Obama.

Post the offensive quote. You're wrong and you know it.

[sfam]

92. You've repeated this about 8 times now...I've answered you each time...

Do we really need to go down every discussion here repeating the same thing? I get it - you think churches should be able to have folks come and attack other candidates seeking political office AND still maintain their tax exempt status. I disagree. Furthermore my reading of the statue appears to be different from yours. Mkay?

[Renew Deal]

101. It's one of those agree to disagree situations.

It's not my fault you're wrong. :D

[Critters2]

89. Pastors are NOT allowed to endorse a specific party or candidate.

Pfleger was in flagrant violation.

[Renew Deal]

103. Really?

What did he say? I want the quote that shows he endorsed someone.

[Critters2]

83. The denomination was cleared. The investigation of Trinity is

still on-going. And the Pfleger fiasco took place this past Sunday. This church should lose its 501c3 status.

[Critters2]

84. Delete. Dupe. Oops! nt

[JVS]

10. I think they've been under review for some time. Maybe it's been revoked and they're getting,,,

their money's worth.

[LSparkle]

11. I feel badly for the UCC ... Trinity is only one of thousands of churches

in the United Church of Christ, and the vast majority of
them are NOTHING like Trinity. My father was a UCC minister
and he could NEVER have gotten away with mentioning any-
thing political from the pulpit ... He couldn't even run
for School Board because the church elders told him the
parishioners didn't want their pastor involved in politics,
even at the LOCAL LEVEL. I agree that perhaps Trinity's
tax exempt status should be reviewed, but to paint the
entire United Church of Christ with such a broad brush
(which I fear might occur) would be patently unfair.

[Max_powers94]

13. The media got you all by the balls :smh:

[Jersey Devil]

72. Exactly - both sides are ridiculous on this issue now

Due to the media, Clinton supporters can't play it up enough and Obama supporters can't apologize enough.

The OP is so absurd - sure, revoke tax exempt status for Trinity Church for a political joke (whether good or bad is irrelevant) told by a guest lecturer who isn't even a member of the church.

What next? The electric chair?

[Connie_Corleone]

14. The public statements made were not on behalf of the church.

[sfam]

18. Really...so where were these statements made exactly?

Please. They CLEARLY were made on behalf of the church. This WAS political speech, enabled by Trinity Church.

There's a really simple solution here - tell those who take the pulpit to stop endorsing candidates FROM the pulpit.

[JVS]

20. Are you sure that a brutal mocking of one candidate legally qualifies as an endorsement of the other

[sfam]

44. Um, yeah...at least that's what the statutue says...

"organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office."

[Bluenorthwest]

63. The law:

Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

Thus spake the IRS. Doing the candidate promotion or oppostion is illegal uder tax exempt status. By the way, no church is required to remain tax exempt. They are free to pony up and campaign away.

My Baptist Mom lead our family up and out of the chruch that married and baptized our family when the pastor endorsed a local candidate from the pulpit. Walked out as he spoke. He was endorsing the candidate my family supported, but that was not the point. Mom got up and left because as she said ' I'm not going to go to hell for tainting the House of God, even if I agree with what is said.'
We never went back. Mom was correct, as a Christian and as an American.

[sfam]

65. Exactly! I wish I could Rec you...nt

[Bluenorthwest]

76. Well Mom was right

And she and Dad taught me well. Those who love both chruch and state will never allow one to corrupt the other. Those who wish to politicize the church already have no chruch. They just don't know it. See 'God vs Mammon' for the religious reasons for that, the US Constitution for the secular.

[Critters2]

95. Please tell me you're kidding.

If that wasn't an endorsement of Obama, I'm the pope!

[Critters2]

125. Yes. I'm sure. And I know these things professionally. nt

[Connie_Corleone]

32. The priest wasn't representing the church. He was not a spokesperson for the church.

That's what "on behalf of" means.

[sfam]

48. Bullshit. He was speaking from their pulpit. There's a REALLY easy solution to this...

Trinity can give clear guidance to guest pastors prior to their talking the pulpit that states what is absolutely prohibited. If someone does this after receiving this guidance, Trinity can then denounce this crap and show whatever they had the pastor sign prior to speaking.

As it stands now, Father Pfleger clearly was using Trinity's pulpit for a political speech. Trinity enabled this, and thus, participated in the political process.

[Connie_Corleone]

59. You're wrong according to the law.

All the hyperventilating in the world isn't going to change that.

[sfam]

64. Simply stating "You're wrong" is not a very motivating argument...

Sorry, you didn't convince me. Perhaps if you said, "your wrong" 3 more times without providing any more detail...

[Renew Deal]

87. He didn't convince you that you're wrong?

Shocking

[Critters2]

98. He was speaking on behalf of the congregation. That was clear.

Trinity needs to start paying taxes. And I say this as a UCC pastor.

[Renew Deal]

108. It doesn't matter who he was speaking on behalf of.

He didn't say anything illegal.

[Critters2]

118. If he was telling people who to vote for, and he clearly was,

he violated the church's 501 c3 status.

[Renew Deal]

121. Good, so why won't you post the offensive quote?

What is so hard about that? Post the quote or admit you're wrong.

[sfam]

134. Give me a break...

"I said before I don’t want this to be political because, you know, I’m very unpolitical (mocking tone, huge laughter).

…When Hillary was crying (gesturing tears, uproarious laughter from audience)–and people said that was put on–I really don’t believe it was put on.

I really believe that she just always thought ‘This is mine’ (laughter, hoots). ‘I’m Bill’s wife. I’m WHITE. And this is mine. And I jus’ gotta get up. And step into the plate. And then out of nowhere came, ‘Hey, I’m Barack Obama.’ And she said: ‘Oh, damn!’ WHERE DID YOU COME FROM!?!?! (Crowd going nuts, Pfleger screaming). I’M WHITE! I’M ENTITLED! THERE’S A BLACK MAN STEALING MY SHOW. (SOBS!) SHE WASN’T THE ONLY ONE CRYING! THERE WAS A WHOLE LOTTA WHITE PEOPLE CRYING!"

[Renew Deal]

139. Thanks!

Now, where does he tell people to vote for or against Hillary or Barack?

[sfam]

142. I get it..."your" narrow definition is only restricted to "vote for or against.."

whereas the IRS refers to "organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office"

Notice it does not say, "organizations are allowed to say anything they want when participating in a political campaign as long as they don't say these words, "Vote for (or against) candidate X""

[Renew Deal]

145. "directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign"

Sorry, but this doesn't constitute participating in or intervening in a campaign. Participation or intervention is the stuff I listed before (fundraising, organizing, asking for votes, contributing, etc.).

[sfam]

154. You forgot to mention "public statements" made in support of or opposition to...

That absolutely constitutes participation in a campaign, as the IRS states. The only defense you could raise to this is whether Pfleger did it on behalf of the organization - which others have raised in this thread. We can agree or disagree on this, but this isn't the position you are stating. You're taking the extremely bizarre stance of ignoring completely what he said because he didn't use the words "Vote against Hillary."

Again, your position is fairly indefensible, whether you realize it or not.

[Renew Deal]

157. lol

I'm not ignoring what he said. There's just not anything illegal about it.

Actually, it's very defensible. That's why you're spending so much time disagreeing with me. Also, others in this thread agree with me. You're wrong on this one.

[sfam]

158. No, I am only responding for completeness, not because you are making a point...

I see that this is wasted effort on my part, as you appear to be one of those who always wants to get the last word. So please - add one more, "No, he didn't say that..." response and we'll call it a day.

[Renew Deal]

180. I said before that we can agree to disagree.

And of course, this is nothing personal. It has nothing to do with the last word. I could say the same thing about you. ;)

[musicblind]

178. No I hate to say it, but it appears that the other poster is correct.

This is certainly saying something in opposition about another candidate.

Also, according to webster. Here is their definition of Endorse. "to approve openly"

Now it is clear via the manner in which the Reverand spoke that he does approve openly of Obama as a black candidate much more so than he does Hillary as the white candidate. He has clearly with opposition to Hillary (a candidate) and her perceived attitude.

You are making yourself look bad in this argument by constantly ignoring the valid information, and valid quote, provided to you by the other poster. Instead you keep arguing your same talking points by claiming "there is nothing illegal about it" or "you are wrong" when the other poster has clearly demonstrated why that quote is illegal and has proven that they are not wrong.

You can merely choose to ignore the overwhelming evidence (do not asking for it again, because it has been shown to you) or accept the evidence.

It is similar to this:

Person 1: The sky is blue.
Person 2: No it's not, prove it.
Person 1: Here, see, look up, it's a blue sky.
Person 2: You didn't prove anything. I asked you to prove it.
Person 1: No seriously, look up! The sky is blue!
Person 2: But what is the meaning of blue? How do you know that I see the color blue as blue? You have proven nothing.
Person 1: What?


I'm not trying to be mean, so if I am being mean I apologize to you. I certainly respect you as a poster and respect your opinions. I am just trying to demonstrate the way this discussion is coming off. It is being very facetious to look at the Rev.'s quote and claim that he has expressed no approval or disapproval of either candidate. And seeing as the definition of endorse is to "approve openly" according to webster ....

[Renew Deal]

181. No one has clearly demonstrated that the quote is illegal.

Because the quote is not contradictory with the law. And your analogy is incorrect. It's more like this:

Reverend at church: The sky is blue.
The IRS: It is illegal for a reverand at church to make the sky blue and/or to make sure there are no clouds.
Poster at DU: It is illegal to say that the sky is blue.

Your analogy doesn't work.

Also, look at the law being quoted: "or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity."

Show me where it says "endorse." Your Websters definition of endorse is irrelevant.

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

15. KEEP CHURH & STATE SEPARATE!!!

That's the problem with our government and politics today. Keep them separate for the preservation of BOTH!!

[ProSense]

16. Don't be ridiculous.

IRS clears United Church of Christ of wrongdoing in Obama speech

[sfam]

19. Check out current events...this was from May 22 nt

[stray cat]

21. Its a different case - Obama as a member of the church could speak

as long as nothing was mentioned about a campaign or politics - And Obama followed the rules.

[sfam]

24. My complaint is NOT at all with Obama...its with the churches...

Just to be clear. Obama DID follow the rules, my issue is with both this church and many others.

[Renew Deal]

34. Right, it's anti-Christian

Because no matter what we stick together on at DU, there's always atheists and others ready to bash Christians.

[sfam]

38. My problem is NOT with Christians...its with using churches as political tools...

Why is this so hard to understand? Do you really think that these churches should be able to collect revenue from their flock in a tax-exempt status and then use it to prop up a candidate?

[Renew Deal]

39. Because you're saying two different things.

"Do you really think that these churches should be able to collect revenue from their flock in a tax-exempt status and then use it to prop up a candidate?"

No, but that's not what we're talking about.

[sfam]

43. That's what I'm talking about...perhaps I misunderstand you...what are you saying? nt

[Renew Deal]

46. That's not what the church is doing.

And that's not what Pfelger did.

[sfam]

49. You have some serious blinders on to make that case

How is it that Father Pfleger was not participating in the political process? He was clearly speaking in opposition of Hillary Clinton. His speech was clearly enabled by Trinity. This seems rather black and white to me.

[Renew Deal]

66. It was free speech.

Not political organizing. You're permitted to talk about what's happening in church. It's a problem when the church donates money to a campaign, organizes events, sends their lists to a campaign.

It's not a problem to make fun of a candidate.

[sfam]

70. One more time...Tax exempt "free speech" in support of a candidate is illegal...

Sorry to be the one to break it to you, but it is. Your sentence, "It's a problem when the church donates money to a campaign" is the problem in a nutshell. When the church engages in support or in opposition of a candidate for political office, their the supporters of that church ARE donating money to a campaign. This is why it is illegal for the church to engage in those activities.

Again, if they want to engage in political attacks or political supporting speeches, I have no problem with that. I DO have a problem with them doing this while their supporters are removing their contributions from their taxable income. So yes, free speech is fine, but their organization is NOT ALLOWED to engage in the political debate - this is what they gave up in order to get tax-exempt status.

[Renew Deal]

93. Yes, it is illegal.

But that's not what Pfelger did. He didn't say "vote for Obama" or "vote against Hillary." What you don't seem to get is that they are allowed to make political attacks and politically supporting speeches if they don't advocate for candidates. The bottom line is that making fun of a candidate alone, is not illegal.

[Critters2]

146. Actually, any behavior which speaks in a partisan way is a violation.

Trinity needs to pay its tax bill.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

115. No...It's not.

A minister certainly does have the right to criticize elected leaders from the pulpit. The key term in the Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3) is "substantial" as in:

no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

The notion that the clergy are somehow under a "gag rule" with it comes to current events and politics is absurd.

[sfam]

140. The issue not elected leaders, but those currently running for political office...

"organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office"

This is different, for instance, from bashing Bush and his drive towards war. He is already elected and is not currently running for political office. Nobody is saying there is a gag rule related to current events, just to participation in an ongoing political campaign.

[Renew Deal]

148. So the question is: What constitutes participation?

We have to find the case books. ;)

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

160. Happy Hunting...

That's precisely the problem. The IRS has never provided definite guidelines to congregations as to what constitutes "going over the line" with regard to their participation.

All Saints in Pasadena was the subject of a three-year probe by the IRS because their former Rector delivered a blistering, anti-war sermon on the Sunday before the 2004 election, and then urged his congregation to "vote their values" on Tuesday. At the end of the investigation, the IRS simply said that the sermon constituted a "one time intervention" in the political process and, presumably, was allowable.

Nowhere in the Internal Revenue Code or in any IRS Ruling does the phrase "one time intervention" turn up -- so nobody knows when in the hell all that meant. The church is demanding an explanation.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

159. Criticism is criticism...

No matter how un-priestly his comments might have been, making comments critical of a candidate for public office does not violate the Internal Revenue Code. The fact is that clergy have always spoken out on political issues and they rarely face sanctions because their "intervention" in the campaign is verbal and not considered substantial. Specifically, individual clergy may endorse candidates, provided that its clear that they're speaking for themselves and not on behalf of their congregation or denomination.

[sfam]

163. Apparently the Obama campaign and the Catholic Church disagrees with you...

Pfleger was removed from being a member of "Catholics for Obama" for this very issue. This from the Chicago Sun Times:

"The cardinal has made it clear to Father Pfleger in the past on more than one occasion that it's inappropriate to speak about political issues from the pulpit and that his own personal opinions are his own personal opinions."

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/05/pfleger_warned_about_pulpit_po.html

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

172. Embarrassing? Yes. Inappropriate? Yes.

Illegal. Nope.

[Critters2]

144. You're mistaken. 501c3 orgs are not allowed to engage in any behavior--

including speech--which endorses one candidate or political party over another. Or which speaks against one candidate or party in favor of another. There is no gray area here. Pfleger clearly violated Trinity's 501c3 status.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

168. I am not mistaken

In my real life, I am an Enrolled Agent with the Internal Revenue Service.

I've watched the YouTube video and I've read the transcript, and he didn't get anywhere within shouting distance of violating the IRC. He simply made the observation that Hillary, as a white person, felt that the nomination was hers for the asking -- in the context of talking about White Entitlement. He was using her candidacy as an illustration or his larger point, and that does not constitute a political endorsement of Barak Obama.

[Critters2]

171. What was that larger point, exactly? nt

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

174. White folks get the benefit of having been born white...

It's about white entitlement.

Not that I agree with that, mind you.

[ProSense]

29. I don't care if it's not the same thing.

The comments do not rise to the level of separation of church and state, and churches always have speakers commenting on everything going on in society.

If they were cleared for Obama's speech, why on earth would a this comment be reason for investigation?

People need to get a friggin grip. Condemning the congregation. Free speech, remember it? Democracy, remember that?

[sfam]

41. It matters because it's illegal.

"organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office."

Trinity church and MANY others on the right are clearly doing this. The IRS needs to grow some balls in the next administration and take care of this problem.

[ProSense]

45. What are you talking about? n/t

[sfam]

50. That's from the IRS statutue cited above. It's illegal. Trinity should lose their tax exempt status.

[ProSense]

55. What you cited has nothing to do with the current situation. Nothing! n/t

[Critters2]

128. Obama's speech wasn't an endorsement. He was simply a

church member sharing his experiences in the church. He never asked for votes nor made political statements. I was there. He was very careful to NOT violate 501c3 rules.

Michael Pfleger did violate them.

[uberblonde]

22. Not the same thing!

That was for Obama making a speech at the church. This is for the church advocating for a specific candidate, and it's not permitted.

[Critters2]

130. Obama's speech wasn't at Trinity. It was at the denomination's

national meeting. Completely different incidents, different investigations.

[Critters2]

104. Different incident. The decision you cite was the denominational convention,

the General Synod, which took place last summer. Obama was invited as a keynote speaker, and made an apolitical speech about his faith and relationship to the UCC. Nothing at all to do with Trinity.

Trinity, the congregation, is still being investigated, completely separately from the investigation of the UCC.

[City Lights]

23. The IRS just investigated and cleared UCC.

Unless they want to look like they're piling on, I don't see them investigating Trinity unless they investigate the political activities of other churches as well.

IRS clears United Church of Christ of wrongdoing in Obama speech
By Robert Marus

Published May 22, 2008

WASHINGTON (ABP) -- Barack Obama’s denomination did nothing wrong in hearing a speech from the Democratic presidential candidate, the Internal Revenue Service has told officials of the United Church of Christ.

The denomination announced the move on its website May 21, releasing a May 13 IRS letter that cleared the church of violating the law for a speech the Illinois senator delivered at the UCC’s biennial General Synod last June. It closed an investigation that church officials first made public in February.

The letter said the UCC’s response to the investigation “established that the United Church of Christ had verbally communicated to those in attendance that Sen. Obama was there as a member of the church and not as a candidate for office, that the audience should not attempt to engage in any political activities, and that the church's legal counsel had advised Sen. Obama's campaign on the ground rules for the speech.”

Churches and other non-profit groups organized under Section 501(c)(3) of the federal tax code are barred from endorsing or opposing candidates and political parties. If they do so, they risk losing their tax-exempt status. The prohibition extends to activities that would appear to endorse a candidate, including allowing the politician to speak in his or her capacity as a candidate at a worship service or church meeting.

The UCC is generally considered the nation’s most liberal large Protestant body. Obama, the front-runner for the Democratic nomination, has been an active member of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago for more than two decades. Trinity is the UCC’s biggest congregation.

more... http://www.abpnews.com/3195.article

[sfam]

31. Again, this seems pretty clear to me...looks like they need to re-investigate

A new event has occurred. If Father Pfleger's comments don't constitute political speech, then this law ia a total waste of time.

And frankly that's my fear. To me, this type of stuff seems incredibly harmful to our democracy. If a law change is required, fine - I'm all for it. But tax exempt religious organizations should NOT be able to use their fundraising capabilities to augment political campaigns. Period.

[City Lights]

52. I'm in favor of the IRS investigating Trinity, but only if they investigate

others as well. This stuff goes on all the time, but rarely makes the news. For example, at the church my dad attends, there was a blurb in the Sunday program a few weeks back asking that parishioners pray for Republican candidates. No mention of praying for Democratic candidates though.

[sfam]

58. FULLY agree with you. This trend needs to be totally quashed.

Again, I think Obama is the most inspirational candidate I've ever known. I love the guy. No way do I want Trinity to be bringing him down. That's not my point. I'm using Trinity as an example for the larger trend. They all need to be stopped. My point is that sticking it to a few churches will stop all of them.

[Critters2]

The denomination, not Trinity. See post no. 104. nt

[Thrill]

26. I could careless about this

[Goblinmonger]

27. What is really going to piss me off

is that if they do lose their tax-exempt status, it will just stop there and not lead to an investigation of right-wing churches that are just as bad or worse.

[NatBurner]

33. basically

[sfam]

35. I beg to differ...this will send a chilling message to ALL churches...

All it will take is one or two organizations to have all their contributions lose their tax exempt status and this shit WILL stop. Why? Because their contributions will drop through the floor.

[Renew Deal]

37. Why do you want to silence free speech?

Because this isn't a separation of church and state issue. This is about free speech.

[sfam]

51. I wish to silence "tax exempt" free speech. They can engage in free speech all they like...

If they want to function as a political organization, more power to them. But the contributors to that church can no longer remove their contributions from their taxable income.

For instance, my contributions to Obama's campaign are not tax exempt. Neither should those contributing to Trinity be tax exempt as long as the church is engaging in the political campaign.

[Renew Deal]

71. They're not functioning as a political organization.

And they are not engaging in a campaign. Stating an opinion about the actions of a candidate does no constitute engaging in a campaign or political organization. That's the point.

Now, if they collect money to send to a candidate, or send their list to a campaign, or hand out slate cards, that's completely different.

[sfam]

74. Try reading the statue again. It IS illegal. They ARE engaging in the political campaign...

You can make your statement repeatedly here, but it won't change the facts. Free speech for political campaigns is fine...AS LONG AS the organization is not tax exempt.

When they stick a pastor on their pulpit who attacks a political candidate going for public office, they ARE engaging in the political campaign. That's what the statue says. So in effect, the flock IS collecting money in support of a candidate. Worse, they are doing so without paying taxes on it.

[Renew Deal]

86. I did, now you try.

"or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity."

This is saying that a tax exempt organization can't say vote for or against A or B or C.

He didn't say vote for Obama or vote against Hillary. He just made fun of her. That's not illegal.

[sfam]

88. So your position is he was not making a statement in opposition of Hillary??

Wow...just wow. Can't even see how you write that with a straight face, but then again, there is no camera shot...

[Renew Deal]

96. Sorry, but that's how it is.

Now if the IRS pulls their tax exempt status, I will admit that I'm wrong. But that's not going to happen (at least on this case).

[Critters2]

151. Not at all. Churches are absolutely free to engage in partisan politics

as Pfleger did Sunday...IF they also agree to pay taxes. The issue is continuation of Trinity's 501c3 status. Anyone can say anything from the pulpit. But if they engage in partisan politics, they also have to pay taxes. The courts have ruled time and again that this is not an infringement on free speech.

[Goblinmonger]

57. I hope you are right

but there is a not-so-little voice in my head that says the government will teach those black liberals a lesson and that will be as far as it goes.

[Renew Deal]

109. Most of these arguments are anti-Christian

That's where a lot of this sort of thing is coming from.

[sfam]

119. Do you slime everyone you disagree with, or is this thread unique?

There is nothing anti-Christian in anything I've posted. At all. This is a legal question. I personally am concerned about the direction our democracy has turned in the last 20 years or so. This is one among many issues.

But this thread is in no way anti-Christian, nor is anything I have said anti-Christian. However, you and a few others here seem to enjoy using this as an attack similar to how Hillary does her sexist responses. Enjoy yourself if you must, but don't expect me to take you seriously.

I have NO problem with the pastors speaking out against the war, poverty, government corruption, horrid educational systems or anything else like that. I DO have a problem with them endorsing or attacking people running for political office - as long as they maintain their tax exempt status. If they want to forgoe that, I have no problem at all them either endorsing or attacking anyone they please.

And again, its not necessary for you to post yet a 10th time your belief that Pfleger wasn't endorsing or attacking a candidate. He even mentioned he was giving a political speech - but again we've had that discussion 10 times.

It is rather sad that you decide to slime me this way repeatedly now though.

[Renew Deal]

127. This thread is unique.

There is an underlying anti-Christian, anti-religion sentiment on DU. You can't possibly disagree with that.

I think you figured this out on your own. There's no difference between Pfelger talking about the issues that you listed and making fun of Hillary. It goes back to the "in favor of or in opposition" issue. And he didn't say that people should vote against her.

[Goblinmonger]

150. ...

:boring: It gets old listening to the majority talk about being persecuted.

[Zodiak]

107. You are correct

Principles of law almost always get applied unequally to benefit the right and destroy the left

Remember IOKIYR

Going on a witch-hunt to take down this church will not have a chilling effect on RW churches. The RW knows no one will come after them and feel free to act with impunity. This condition has existed in this country for many years, now, so I do not see why suddenly it has gone away.

I'm sorry...this is just more media driven bullshit. Those DUers riding on this horse should know better, but alas, here we are.

[shadowknows69]

28. Personally I think this should hold true with any church

But I agree if there is a pattern of politics from this pulpit.

[npincus]

36. great idea! Let's have this debate AFTER the GE.

That's all the repukes would love to do... spend the rest of the GE season talking about Obama's church, Rev. Wirght, etc. and not Mccain's competence and politics.

[sfam]

53. I'm all for that. Truly, it will take a change of leadership at the IRS anyways...

Just imagine, a competent IRS...would be nice.

[ecstatic]

40. only if Hagee and Parsley are examined first

:eyes:

[sfam]

54. Examine them all in parallel. This stuff really needs to be stopped. nt

[spooky3]

102. totally agree with you. This violates the spirit AND the letter of the law.

It's a free country, but people who are receiving tax breaks don't have an unfettered right to do and say whatever they wish AND retain those breaks. I gave money to the California church that had to fight the IRS (and they won) over the allegation that they supported Kerry, which the church won. But what they did was entirely different - they were making anti-war comments, not pro-one-candidate comments. Why was that church singled out, when far more obvious violations have been occurring for years (mostly by right wing pastors)?

And, as an entirely separate issue, from a political standpoint, the sexist and racist comments like Pfleger's and Wright's intended to be supportive of one candidate and hostile toward another harm BOTH of them, and help McCain. Unfortunately, due to media laziness or worse, Hagee's haven't had the same effect in the opposite direction. These people need to keep their nasty biases to themselves.

[NatBurner]

42. before we do all that, can we get the troops home?

get gas back down to $3.00?

u know, something important?

yeesh

[TexasObserver]

47. Jesus Christ in the morning! Now with the Rightwing Talking Points.

If you are an Obama supporter, then you shouldn't be talking ad nauseam about this incident, which has only the most tenuous of connections to Obama. If you are an Obama supporter, you should know that churches all over America have preachers who insinuate political rhetoric into their sermons. If you can believe tax exempt status is fine for your local Catholic church but not for this church, you really need to reexamine your own political and religious prejudices.

I find your desire to call their tax exempt status into question appalling. It's the kind of fascist approach I expect from Bush supporters, not Obama supporters. For decades the Republicans have attacked the tax exempt status of black churches alleging exactly what you have alleged.

[sfam]

61. Bullshit. Our democracy is slipping away. This is just one more instance...

Again, my point is not to affect the current campaign. I would be thrilled if this is addressed after November. What I am concerned about is:

- Gerrymandering of all our house seats, so that nobody in congress has accountability. Even in 2006, over 90% of them kept their job.
- Loss of interest in politics due to the vast majority of people in the US not having their vote count for anything (if you live in a clear red or blue state, your vote for president truly doesn't matter)
- Loss of civil liberties
- Transformation of a free press to an infotainment vehicle that truly doesn't check power
- Insane influence of special interests in our campaigns

And now, the continuing removal of the separation of church and state. This is a trend that has been ongoing since the 80s. I don't need my prejudices questioned. What I need to see is tax exempt organizations agreeing to the rules they signed up to.

[TexasObserver]

68. No, this is you not knowing what you're talking about.

No one has ever paid you to explain the IRC and no one ever will. That's because you lack the expertise to understand the Code.

You have badly misconstrued the section you quoted, mainly because you think a layman's reading of the IRC is adequate. You think "this is what I think it means, so it must mean that." What you fail to understand is the difference between an action being one attributed to THE ORGANIZATION, and one merely occurring at an event at that organization. It's a huge difference, and it's the reason politicians can visit churches all over America and not have the tax exempt status of the churches questioned or removed.

If you want to have a tax code where all churches are considered taxable entities, that is a position that makes sense. However, if you want to try to apply the Code provisions to punish entire churches for the likes of this mouthy priest, you're simply off base. The recent investigation of Trinity Church by the IRS was a good example of selective enforcement by a government that is being used in every possible way by the Bush administration. Such investigations are highly unusual for any church, and are inevitably the result of such churches being singled out because of how they lean, not for the fact that they lean politically.

[sfam]

81. Well gosh, I guess that makes two of us...

Spare me the "your an idiot" crap, please. While I don't work at the IRS, I do regularly look at and interpret Federal statues for my job. CLEARLY this is an issue that the IRS is looking into. Not just for Trinity. Here's a recent news release from the IRS:

IRS Continues Program on Political Campaign Activity by Charities; Stresses Education and Enforcement


IR-2008-61, April 17, 2008

Audio: Charities and Politics

WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service today announced its Political Activities Compliance Initiative (PACI) once again will be in effect for the 2008 election season. The PACI program seeks to educate section 501(c)(3) organizations such as charities and churches about the federal law concerning political campaign activity and to enforce the law in this area.

By law, organizations exempt from tax under Internal Revenue Code section 501(c)(3) may not “participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”

“We take very seriously our obligation to ensure that tax-exempt organizations have the information they need to make the right decisions about political campaign activities,” said Steven T. Miller, Commissioner of IRS’ Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division. “The vast majority of organizations want to do the right thing, and as in past years, we will continue our efforts to make sure they have the information they need.”

The prohibition against political campaign activity has been in effect for more than half a century and bars certain tax-exempt organizations from intervening on behalf of or in opposition to political candidates. However, these organizations can engage in advocating for or against issues and, to a limited extent, ballot initiatives or other legislative activities.

The IRS is making extensive efforts to educate 501(c)(3) organizations, political parties and candidates. Letters are being sent to the national political party committees explaining the law’s prohibition regarding charities and churches. In March, a letter was published in the Federal Election Commission’s monthly newsletter, asking candidates to ensure that their contacts with charitable organizations do not inadvertently jeopardize the tax-exempt status of any charity. The IRS has issued a news release on the subject in every presidential election year since 1992.

The IRS also has posted on its Web site a “program letter” to its Exempt Organizations employees. The letter explains the PACI objectives for 2008 and emphasizes the IRS’ priority both to educate the public and tax-exempt community about the law pertaining to political campaign intervention and to maintain a meaningful enforcement presence in this area.

Exempt Organizations Director Lois G. Lerner noted that PACI’s enforcement procedures will remain in the hands of career IRS employees who are experts in the tax law in this area.

“As in the past, we will continue to use existing procedures, including a committee of career civil servants, to determine which cases to pursue,” Lerner said. “We will focus on cases involving allegations of egregious violations.”

Lerner said the IRS Exempt Organizations function plans a report on the 2008 election year which will be based on the experience of prior election cycles, and will continue working with the tax-exempt community to identify areas for additional guidance.

“By continuing to work closely with the tax-exempt community, we can provide guidance and education to help charities and churches comply with the law,“ Lerner said. “We also must continue to monitor the actions of tax-exempt organizations involving political campaigns, in order to carry out our obligation to administer the tax law consistent with congressional intent.”

In June 2007, the IRS released a Report on the Political Activity Compliance Initiative for the 2006 election cycle. This report, PACI 2006, follows the report on prohibited political campaign intervention in the 2004 election cycle, which was issued in February 2006.

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=181570,00.html

To say that nobody is concerned with this is bullshit. As for what I want, I want the IRS to do exactly what this memo says - to crack down on egregious violations. More specifically I want them to TAKE ACTION on one or two of these violations so that this shit stops. Call this a right wing talking point if you like, but you are the one missing something then.

[TexasObserver]

117. The difference is I do know what I'm talking about.

I get paid to give legal advice, tax advice, to charities, foundations, and trusts on this very point: How to be in compliance with the IRS on matters contained in the IRC.

Unless this country is prepared to (1) make churches for profit, taxable entities or (2) force churches to stop having any politically tinged speech or activities (the country isn't going to do either of those), your position will never be the law. There will always be some political bent to many churches. If you had read the entire section from which you quoted, you would have seen that many, many political activities by churches are allowed.

If we want to know how the reg is construed, we look at the actions and non actions of the IRS regarding such regs. It is a fact that they do nothing about 99.9% or more of the political activities in churches. Nada. Zilch. They whip it out FOR POLITICAL REASONS ONLY. So, you are advocating using very selective enforcement of the regs and very tortured construction of the regs, just so you can shut up some church that has speakers whose political comments you don't like.

Yes, your post and comments are rightwing talking points and rightwing politics, using the IRS to punish entire organizations for the political speech of some visiting priest. Why do you think the Bush administration's IRS sent out the memo in April directed at churches being in compliance? It's because Republicans use all manner of government to intimidate their political opponents. You can be assured that the Bush IRS will not be investigating any fundie churches that actively and weekly speak in favor of the Bush agenda from their pulpits. The GOP always tries to intimidate black churches at election time, and never say a word about the white churches that TELL their parishers how to vote straight Republican.

[sfam]

123. Yes, I'm advocating #2 - stopping them for supporting or denouncing candidates for public office...

just as the statute suggests. Whether my post here on DU will make that happen, I rather doubt it, but yes, that is my position, as I think I've made PERFECTLY clear. I've also stating MANY times that I don't think this has been enforced very well at all to date. I am in no way propping up right wing churches who have done this for years, as I've ALSO made perfectly clear. Nor have I attacked you personally - but I guess that only applies to one of us.

[woolldog]

131. I really hate when non-lawyers give legal opinions and try to interpret statutes

[sfam]

137. You must really hate those working for the Federal government then...

Its sort of their job ya know...and the vast majority of them are not lawyers. Not to mention state and local officials.

[woolldog]

166. nt

[ShortnFiery]

56. We have more important work than to vent "Self-Righteous Indignation" toward Trinity.

The Parish I used to belong to handed out "Bush/Cheney" bumper stickers after Masses in the Parish Parking lot. We even received "a letter from our Bishop" coincidentally timed to be handed out the Sunday before the 2004 G.E. which essentially implied, "We Catholics will burn in hell if we dare vote for Kerry."

Instead of DESTROYING a "inner city parish" which does excellent works for the poor and disenfranchised, how about we keep our EYE ON THE PRIZE?

What can this piddly little Priest who serves an inner city parish do to YOU PERSONALLY?

Time to "get a grip" and stick to the issues. :thumbsup:

[Kaylee]

73. Thank you.

[ShortnFiery]

100. You're welcome - It's perhaps the liberal Catholic in me.

I go to mass every week and have to fight myself not to doze off. Not that our Priests are not good people but they are scared to death.

This Priest is blessed, in a way, to work in the inner city. When people are HURTING, they find hope in the social gospel. In our boring middle class white neighborhood, people want pablum so they can IMO, somehow get their "mass points." :(

I personally believe that HRC is getting more "passes" for being "a Clinton" rather than being White, but the Priest is entitled to his point and it is historically relevant.

People are "uncomfortable" when ministers have the courage to express their social-justice views.

The people who I FEAR the most are POLITICIANS, not MINISTERS ... Powerful people who "say the right things" but later financially stab you in the back with Senseless Wars and Corporate WELFARE bills.

[nichomachus]

75. End the tax exemption for all "churches" -- problem solved

And think of what a boost it will be to the economy -- all that tax revenue coming in.

[Critters2]

77. I agree. And I say this as UCC clergy. nt

[polichick]

79. No church should be tax exempt imo.

[rucky]

80. You're right.

It's too bad, too. They seem to do alot for the community.

[crankychatter]

105. jeezus h christ, ya'all are some of the most thin skinned, anti-religious zealots I ever encountered

fucking unbelievable

further, ya'all apparently, don't know any Black people

I find ALL of these pastor-castigating posts annoying and trite

it's not bias either... there is a far cry between hagee's crazy assed Christio-Zionism... Sun Myung Moon-esque fascism... and African American people having a preacher in the pulpit that listens to them, and helps them make sense of the world FROM THEIR OWN PERSPECTIVE.

This is a cultural phenomenon, not truly political at all... not even religious...

Since I'm not religious, I enjoy hearing a religious body, vocalize the collective feelings of the people

they can be as "sectarian" as they want... I just don't give a shit about their tax status... or how they effect campaigns in this year of "guilt by association."

I don't care anymore about this than I care about where Bill Clinton sticks his dick.

[Critters2]

112. I'm a pastor, in the UCC, and I think Trinity should lose its status.

They're free to say whatever they want, but if they endorse a candidate from the pulpit, they should pay taxes. Simple as that.

[Renew Deal]

114. If it's so simple, post a quote.

Post the quote where they "endorsed a candidate." I've been waiting and you still haven't posted anything.

[crankychatter]

147. mocking Clinton isn't necessarily advocating Obama... the issue of White privelege is fair game

further... it's the position of a visiting Pastor... not the church itself

and I don't hear ANY SQUAWKING about the Far Right's Christio-Fascism... at this moment, with THIS, on Fox news... echoing GOP bullshit is wrong

Ya'all need to focus appropriately

and if you're one of the Pastor's at Trinity advocating an unprecedented loss of tax exempt status for ONE visiting pastor's statements... ONE TIME... I'll kiss your ass on Main Street

edit: oh, UCC?... wtf is UCC?

I got mine from Rev. Hensley in Modustbowl, CA... does that give ME credibility on THIS issue?

[Critters2]

153. UCC is the denomination of which Trinity is a member congregation.

Jeremiah Wright is a colleague of mine. Otis Moss II would be, if he'd move his standing as he should.

So, no, I don't have a mail order ordination certificate. I do know these rules and regulations.

[sfam]

167. Apparently the Obama campaign and the Catholic Church disagrees with you...

Pfleger was removed from being a member of "Catholics for Obama" for this very issue. This from the Chicago Sun Times:

"The cardinal has made it clear to Father Pfleger in the past on more than one occasion that it's inappropriate to speak about political issues from the pulpit and that his own personal opinions are his own personal opinions."

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/05/pfleger_warned_about_pulpit_po.html

[Lerkfish]

110. sure, as soon as we get those RW churches that proppe up Delay and Frist

a few months back.

but otherwise, I"m in the column that tax exempt status should not be accorded to any church.

[Bad Thoughts]

116. This is a tough one

Pfleger's sermon was over the top. What he said has highly inappropriate, and designed to be hurtful. But I don't think it is so much advocating a political position as defending one of its members. It was a personal attack, not political. Just because Clinton is a candidate does not mean she is immune from attention from religious organizations.

[SeaLyons]

126. K&R

[ccharles000]

133. I agree.

[Overseas]

135. No it is just more desperate last minute Obama bashing from the Clintons. //nt

[sfam]

138. Try rereading the OP. This is not about Obama or Hillary and I am NOT a Hillary supporter...

At all.

Nor am I in any way defending the Clinton campaign's attempt to try to make political hay out of this. She should have left the race months ago.

[crankychatter]

143. i read it... i get it... and i disagree with it...

Obama supporters echoing the "right" out of "concern" only exacerbate an issue... and in the matter of NON-ISSUES like this one?

very counter-productive

You can believe this, but subscribing to the attacks on our candidate in any form, even in a nuanced way... does NOT HELP... believe it, but IMHO, keep mum until inauguration day

believe it... just don't broadcast it

I despised Bill Clinton, but twice... if anyone were to listen to me... he could do no wrong

I'm MOST upset about Clinton supporters and Clinton herself, echoing right wing talking points against a fellow Dem

I didn't like that shit in 2000, in 2004, and it's unacceptable now

[shayes51]

161. Excuse me. Did Hillary say these things?

[sfam]

164. No, but she used this as yet another method of attack well after the nomination has been..

determined, but that's another thread.

[Critters2]

183. Father Pfleger made the statements. Did he seriously think they'd be ignored? nt

[crankychatter]

141. If there were no Black churches of this type there would've been NO CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT

If there had been no civil rights movement, it's questionable if there had been a "women's liberation" movement... or any and MANY of the other societal shifts in the last 40 years...

a lot of them are GOOD changes

Clinton does have a sense of entitlement due to her former First Lady status and WHITE PRIVELEGE...

If you think she OR Obama are driven by pure altruism... I have a used car for you

this is faux outrage... we need to stop putting Trinity under the damn magnifying glass

[Critters2]

149. The issue isn't political speech. The issue is PARTISAN political speech.

Churches are not allowed to endorse a party or candidate. Well, they can, but then they have to pay taxes. Trinity is free to continue in this way...and to pay taxes on its property.

[crankychatter]

152. wrong.... you're focussed on a poor people's church

the issues for them are ECONOMIC... they are Obama's HOME CHURCH

and they have refrained from outright "endorsing" him

there is no endorsement in this visiting Pastor's statement... and HE doesn't represent the body

you HAVE NO CASE

[Critters2]

155. According to the rulings, if he stands in the pulpit at a worship service,

he's seen as representing the organization. I agree that the issues are economic, which is why the leadership of the congregation should not have allowed this. But they did, and they need to be held accountable. I don't see any way that the IRS will ignore this instance. It's just too blatant.

[sfam]

156. I don't see the word "outright" in the IRS language...it seems a significantlly

lessor standard than that.

[crankychatter]

165. he apologized... he didn't represent Trinity... he didn't specifically endorse... you have NO CASE

further... the only explanation I can find for your conduct is misrepresentation of yourselves as "Obama supporters"

This is the WAR PROFITEER OWNED MSM, meme... echoed by Fox news and the Clinton Campaign on marching orders to try to crush the Obama nomination

subscribing to it belies your motives

ya'all can go play checkers in the bin with the rest of them, until this BULLSHIT is over

[Critters2]

170. I'm not an Obama supporter. I voted for Edwards, and wish he were still running.

Never claimed to be an Obama supporter. Not a Clinton supporter, either. Just an interested bystander.

[shayes51]

162. They should not be tax exempt.

[Vinca]

176. As an atheist, I resent any church being tax exempt.

They're usually sitting on prime real estate that could bring in much needed tax dollars to communities. Instead, those of us who don't believe the fairy tale get to make up the difference.

[sfam]

177. Just to be clear, as an agnostic, I totally support their tax exempt status, as long as...

I don't have a problem at all with churches being tax exempt. I think they are critical for good functioning of societies. We tend to hear about the outliers in the press, not the vast majority. Especially as communities continue to get atomized due to strange suburban layouts that maximize corporate and home builder profits, churches serve a very vital roll in maintaining the community, helping the homeless, etc.

But they shouldn't be participating in political campaigns while maintaining that tax exempt status.

That's my only hang-up. Well, that and attempts to bastardize science education in schools, but that's a different discussion.

[Voltaire99]

184. I think YOU'RE the lunatic.

Stop trying to turn Obama into your safe little pet.

And don't try to represent your reactionary politics as some purer expression of "democracy."

You're just another intolerant, finger-wagging authoritarian. Piss off!

[dsomuah]

185. I think most churches need to lose their tax-exempt status

I think all the churches whose pastors have endorsed McCain, and all churches who preach politics, give their membership lists to political fundraisers, give their membershsip lists to people conducting voters registration excercises, all churches that invite candidates to their church to speak to the congregation, all churches with preachers that express political views.