Religions > Atheism > A California church may lose tax- exempt status over an anti-war sermon by
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"" |
| Date: |
22 Nov 2005 05:21:28 PM |
| Object: |
A California church may lose tax- exempt status over an anti-war sermon by |
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=421579&category=OPINION&newsdate=11/20/2005
[excerpt]
A California church may lose tax- exempt status over an anti-war sermon by
a former rector
First published: Sunday, November 20, 2005
Last May, the Rev. Chan Chandler, pastor of East Waynesville Baptist Church
in North Carolina, told nine members of his congregation to leave. Their
offense? They were Democrats, and the Rev. Chandler was staunchly
Republican and staunchly pro-Bush. To their credit, other members of the
congregation, including Republicans, strongly objected and said so on
national television. The Rev. Chandler resigned, saying he had been
misunderstood.
But there was no misunderstanding. The incident was an outrageous breach of
church-state separation -- far more serious than what the Internal Revenue
Service is alleging an Episcopal church in California did by allowing a
former rector to deliver an anti-war sermon.
The tax-exempt rules are clear: Churches cannot tell congregants how to
vote, engage in partisan politics, or actively support or oppose a
particular candidate. But under the First Amendment, they have as much
right as any citizen to discuss political issues and policies.
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
| User: "Steve Knight" |
|
| Title: Re: A California church may lose tax- exempt status over an anti-war sermon by |
23 Nov 2005 02:18:12 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 22 Nov 2005 12:21:28 -0500, wrote:
snip
The tax-exempt rules are clear: Churches cannot tell congregants how to
vote, engage in partisan politics, or actively support or oppose a
particular candidate. But under the First Amendment, they have as much
right as any citizen to discuss political issues and policies.
Begin rant:
It's a joke. A very sick travesty of our system. The IRS can
destroy anyone they want without the slightest inquiry. They are the
Gestapo of the US. And they depend on that image to keep them secure.
Sure, they tell us they're 'nice guys' but it's all propaganda
*****. They use the same vein religion uses, believe everything I
say or I'll ***** you forever.
But do assholes like Robertson or Falwell lose their exemption?
***** no! They're connected! Robertson ran for PRESIDENT!
JESBUS H. *****!!!!!!!!
The head of the christian coalition running for president doesn't
lose his exemption!?
Right, Bush. I'm not a patriot or citizen (Using your fathers
words) and I can say I now understand a McVeigh because we have no
power against or representation in your self serving system.
You rape my wallet and spit on me.
End rant:
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "fred" |
|
| Title: Re: A California church may lose tax- exempt status over an anti-war sermon by; fails 10th Amendment test |
22 Nov 2005 08:27:45 PM |
|
|
alt.education removed.
buckeye-ELO@nospam.net wrote:
http://www.timesunion.com/AspStories/story.asp?storyID=3D421579&categ=
ory=3DOPINION&newsdate=3D11/20/2005
[excerpt]
A California church may lose tax- exempt status over an anti-war sermon =
by
a former rector
First published: Sunday, November 20, 2005
Last May, the Rev. Chan Chandler, pastor of East Waynesville Baptist Chur=
ch
in North Carolina, told nine members of his congregation to leave. Their
offense? They were Democrats, and the Rev. Chandler was staunchly
Republican and staunchly pro-Bush. To their credit, other members of the
congregation, including Republicans, strongly objected and said so on
national television. The Rev. Chandler resigned, saying he had been
misunderstood.
But there was no misunderstanding. The incident was an outrageous breach =
of
church-state separation -- far more serious than what the Internal Revenue
Service is alleging an Episcopal church in California did by allowing a
former rector to deliver an anti-war sermon.
The sleight-of-hand wording above concerning the "outrageous breach of
church-state separation" is undoubtedly intended to lead people to
presume that some law was broken; this is what activist judges,
separationists and atheists undoubtedly want everybody to think anyway.
But there is no such thing as a federal church-state separation law as
evidenced by the fact that the 1st A. prohibits Congress from making
religious laws. I'm not saying that Rev. Chandler did nothing wrong,
but this is why separationists and atheists necessarily have to take
religious expression related cases before activist judges who are
willing to unlawfully legislate anti-religious expression "laws" from
the bench.
The reason that separationists, atheists and activist judges are
getting away with this crapola is because the American people are
constitutionally ignorant and consequently don't understand
constitutional checks and balances on legislative and judicial power.
Both Lincoln and Jefferson warned about the abuse of judicial power:
"We the People are the rightful master of both congress and the courts
- not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who
pervert the Constitution." -- Abraham Lincoln; Political Debates
Between Lincoln and Douglas. 1897
"One single object... [will merit] the endless gratitude of society:
that of restraining the judges from usurping legislation." --Thomas
Jefferson to Edward Livingston, 1825. ME 16:113
The tax-exempt rules are clear: Churches cannot tell congregants how to
vote, engage in partisan politics, or actively support or oppose a
particular candidate. But under the First Amendment, they have as much
right as any citizen to discuss political issues and policies.
The above tax-exempt rule is an attack on free religious expression
which is also an attack on free speech as evidenced by the following:
"One of the amendments to the Constitution... expressly declares that
'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of
speech, or of the press,' thereby guarding in the same sentence and
under the same words, the freedom of religion, of speech, and of the
press; insomuch that whatever violates either throws down the sanctuary
which covers the others." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky
Resolutions, 1798. ME 17:382
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS =B7 Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why =
"a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisne=
r,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A California church may lose tax- exempt status over an anti-war sermon by; fails 10th Amendment test |
23 Nov 2005 03:27:03 AM |
|
|
On 22 Nov 2005 12:27:45 -0800, "fred"
<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
But there is no such thing as a federal church-state separation law as
evidenced by the fact that the 1st A. prohibits Congress from making
religious laws.
The constitution doesn't say that
IT says that congress can't "establish religion"
It also says that ALL citizens are entitled to the SAME
protection under law-----State laws included.
It precludes GOVERNMENT (state, local and federal) from
religious dogma used as law.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: A California church may lose tax- exempt status over an anti-war sermon by; fails 10th Amendment test |
23 Nov 2005 07:14:04 PM |
|
|
wrote:
:|On 22 Nov 2005 12:27:45 -0800, "fred"
:|<clarma1@gmail.com> wrote:
:|
:|
:|> But there is no such thing as a federal church-state separation law as
:|>evidenced by the fact that the 1st A. prohibits Congress from making
:|>religious laws.
:|
:|The constitution doesn't say that
:|
:|IT says that congress can't "establish religion"
What is says is no law respecting an establishment of religion
That in turn after a study of the history of the times and founders was
interpreted to mean:
The USSC defined the Establishment Clause in Everson v. Bd of Ed and here
is what they used to define it:
ESTABLISHMENT CLAUSE: [This is based on Madison's view]
In spite of all that Rehnquist and his buddies have done this remains the
definition for the Establishment Clause: (The no aid portion has been
battered, to be sure, but as Locke v Davey shows, it still has some bite
left in it. Nyquist also remains good law)
The Establishment Clause as defined by the USSC in Everson v. Bd of Ed,
1947
The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at
least this:
(1) neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church.
(2) Neither can pass laws which aid one religion,
(2a) aid all religions,
(2b) or prefer one religion over another.
(3) Neither can force
(3a) nor influence a person to go to
(3b) or to remain away from church against his will
(3c) or force him to profess a belief
(3d) or disbelief in any religion.
(4) No person can be punished for entertaining [p*16]
(4a) or professing religious beliefs
(4b) or disbeliefs,
(4c) for church attendance
(4d) or non-attendance.
(5) No tax in any amount,
(5a) large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities
(5b) or institutions, whatever they may be called,
(5c) or whatever form they may adopt to teach
(5d) or practice religion.
(6) Neither a state
(6a) nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the
(6b) affairs of any religious organizations
(6c) or groups,
(6d) and vice versa.
Everson v. Bd of Ed, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)
**************************************************************
Posting and reading from alt.politics.usa.constitution OR alt.education
You are invited to check out the following:
The Rise of the Theocratic States of America
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocracy.htm
American Theocrats - Past and Present
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/theocrats.htm
The Constitutional Principle: Separation of Church and State
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
[and to join the discussion group for the above site and/or Separation of
Church and State in general, listed below]
HRSepCnS · Hampton Roads [Virginia] SepChurch&State
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/HRSepCnS/
[Its not just Hampton Roads folks who are members, there are members from
all over the U.S. and a couple from overseas as well]
***************************************************************
.. . . You can't understand a phrase such as "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion" by syllogistic reasoning. Words
take their meaning from social as well as textual contexts, which is why "a
page of history is worth a volume of logic." New York Trust Co. v. Eisner,
256 U.S. 345, 349, 41 S.Ct. 506, 507, 65 L.Ed. 963 (1921) (Holmes, J.).
Sherman v. Community Consol. Dist. 21, 980 F.2d 437, 445 (7th Cir. 1992)
.. . .
****************************************************************
THE CONSTITUTIONAL PRINCIPLE:
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE
http://members.tripod.com/~candst/index.html
****************************************************************
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Still hearing Crickets, Freddie........... |
08 Mar 2006 07:14:22 PM |
|
|
What is says is no law respecting an establishment of religion
That in turn after a study of the history of the times and founders was
interpreted to mean:
What the "founders" interpreted isn't law, Freddie
Only the constitution and the resulting law decided
after the constitution was in place is relevant.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
