Lynn v. Sekulow

Lynn v. Sekulow


Enough With The Church Politicking

posted by Rev. Barry W. Lynn

Jay,

I’m not sure if you heard all the ruckus recently coming out of Sioux City, Iowa.

Americans United filed a complaint with the Internal Revenue Service over a Sioux City church that insists it should receive a tax exemption while still being able to act as a political machine.

We learned Cornerstone World Outreach, a Sioux City congregation, is sponsoring a church-based campaign to unseat three justices from the Iowa Supreme Court. Project Jeremiah, as the church calls it, seeks to defeat the judges because they ruled in favor of extending civil-marriage rights to same-sex couples.



The church had sent out a letter signed by Cornerstone Pastor Cary K.
Gordon, that states, “pastors who join this effort are asked to commit
to confront the injustice and ungodly decisions of the Iowa Supreme
Court by boldly calling upon their flocks to ‘vote no on judicial
retention’ for the three consecutive Sundays prior to Election Day.”

Federal
tax law forbids 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches, from
intervening in elections in support of or opposition to any candidate.

It’s
obvious this church knows, just as we know, that they are violating the
law. Gordon was just begging to be called out. After AU filed its
complaint, he said in a press release:
“So let the battle between state and church begin. True pastors, in the
fashion of Christ, will not and cannot bow before the arrogance of
Caesar and Herod. We have learned from our past mistakes. We will not
repeat the mistake made by Lutheran pastors when confronted with German
fascism.”

Gordon’s response doesn’t make much sense. No one is asking him to “bow” to anyone. It’s simple -
his church receives a tax exemption, and therefore his church must play
by the same rules as all other groups that receive tax exemptions. If
he wants to use his church to tell people how to vote, he’s free to
forgo this benefit pay all his taxes.

Most Americans agree with me. Americans overwhelmingly oppose electioneering by churches. A recent survey
by the Pew Forum found that 70 percent of Americans say churches should
not endorse political candidates. Only 24 percent agree with the ADF.

Even
some pastors in Sioux City cannot support Cornerstone’s actions. The
Rev. Dan Lozer, a pastor of Mayflower Church in Sioux City and
Associated Church in Hawarden, Iowa, told the Journal that he didn’t even read most of the letter he received from Pastor Gordon.

“You
can declare your beliefs. What you can’t do is say, ‘On this ballot
proposition, I want you to vote like this,” he said, agreeing that it’s
a rule he will continue to follow.

And Kristie Arlt,
spokewoman for the Diocese of Sioux City, said the diocese does not
support individual political candidates or parties.

“We focus on issues, not political candidates,” she said.

That’s how it should be. We hope the IRS does its job and sets the Cornerstone pastor straight.



Advertisement
Comments read comments(91)
post a comment
swill

posted October 6, 2010 at 8:36 pm


What is more important a tax break or standing up for our values.Who is our provider GOD or government.We don`t need the tax break if they want to use it to shut us up.Who is greater GOD or governmet.



report abuse
 

CncrndCtzns

posted October 6, 2010 at 8:58 pm


A better discussion would be to ask why churches or other nonprofits cannot voice support support (no funds given) for a political candiate or issue. The Supreme Court just ruled that corporations can pour as much money into political campaigns as they desire; the net effect is that the government is now for sale to the highest bidder. Labor Unions support candidates of their choice. So why is the church or any other charity denied the right to voice support for a candidate. I can understand not giving donated funds to political campaigns; people give becasue they want the charitable work to do forth. However if money is not spent on campaigns I see no reason why opinions cannot be voiced. The fact that charities receive a tax exemption should not mean they lose the same rights as other organizations. What is the rationale behind that kind of antiquated thinking? While it is the law, I agree that this church should abide by it; but the law needs to be revisited and changed.



report abuse
 

HG

posted October 6, 2010 at 11:08 pm


I think the law serves a proper purpose in denoting differing spheres of influence, religious and governmental. I don’t want Senators preaching in church any more than I want religious leaders trying to govern from the church, synagogue, or mosque. If they do, then they are no longer seeking to influence religious belief, and should lose their status entirely.
I question whether certain organizations shouldn’t be disqualified on other grounds as well. Those religious sects which would seek to overthrow our government by subterfuge and violence should not qualify, and all should be made to repudiate such activities if promoted anywhere within their religious texts. Tolerance of religious beliefs does not extend so far as to countenance the presence of those who would destroy our system of government while sheltering under its protection. But the call has to be made with all due diligence and force of law.



report abuse
 

John

posted October 6, 2010 at 11:22 pm


Yet tax-exempt labor unions can – and do – pour tens of millions of dollars and provide huge numbers of ‘foot soldiers’ and resources to candidates.
I use my Catholic faith to guide my civic life and see no problem with it. When I am confronted by adversaries who scream ‘who are you to impose your beliefs on me?”, I respond that I am just another special interest group. When the unions, the advocacy groups, and other organizations stay out of the political arena, perhaps I will as well.



report abuse
 

Goodguyex

posted October 7, 2010 at 1:29 am


President Obama recently told his supporters to get back to their “churches” and start to work on the upcoming elections.
So do not tell me that this is either a right or a left issue.
Churches are just people and ours has always been and should continue to be a religion friendly country. There should be no overt endorsement of candidates but it is quite acceptable for religious groups to engage in the public square.



report abuse
 

Alan Harris

posted October 7, 2010 at 2:38 am


Prior to 1954 ministers freely endorsed candidates from their pulpits. Then Senator Lyndon Johnson became angry because he was opposed by several non profit groups. He used his influence to change the IRS code. It was and still is an infringement upon the freedom of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment. For almost 60 years the church has been intimidated by this ridiculus law and it needs to be challenged and overturned. The IRS is openly being challenged to take churches to court. It’s a battle we want and intend to win!



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who will cast out none who come to Him!

posted October 7, 2010 at 4:21 am


AU says Church and State must be separate, that Church must not involve itself in the affairs of State, and that the State should not involve itself with the affairs of Chruch. Yet, now, AU wants the State to interfere with Church. Which is it?



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who does not take His eye off the Righteous!

posted October 7, 2010 at 4:29 am


Barry says:
We hope the IRS does its job and sets the Cornerstone pastor straight.
Mr. Incredible says:
Lobbying the IRS to “do its job,” and going to the State in the manner of lawsuits to impose beliefs on a church doesn’t sound like “separation of Church and State.”
It sounds more like “State over Church when we wanna stop somebody from saying something we don’t like.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus, the ONLY Way to the Father!

posted October 7, 2010 at 4:34 am


We are told that the First Amendment is absolute, secular “holiness.” We are told that FA rules in all cases.
The question:Do pastors have access to the First Amendment, or not?It appears that AU thinks they do not.



report abuse
 

Online Watcher

posted October 7, 2010 at 11:22 am


Christian Brothers,
It is time for us to stop selling our souls for the deduction available on the contributions which we give to our churches.
Most of us give far less than 10% of our incomes and in reality it is more like 2 – 3.5% on average. The meager savings we get on this small amount of money pails in light of the price we pay for silence.
If we cannot change the law, give up these paltry “savings” and speak out!



report abuse
 

God is a Pretend Thing

posted October 7, 2010 at 11:41 am


Christain Brothers, you have no souls, you have no brains, you make no sense.



report abuse
 

Henrietta22

posted October 7, 2010 at 11:48 am


This Church wants to get rid of the Justices who extended civil-marriage rights to SS couples. It’s that one more “bully-thing” they can attempt to do before GLBT has the same guaranteed freedoms that we all have, and that they, the GLBT, have never had but should have. They don’t want to listen to “Caesar” they say, but the Bible says give to Caesar what is his and to God what is His. It’s probably good that the Churches don’t pay taxes, if they did it would be a bigger mess than it is already.



report abuse
 

ds0490

posted October 7, 2010 at 12:44 pm


The Incredible Fist-Puppet of God asks: “The question:Do pastors have access to the First Amendment, or not?It appears that AU thinks they do not.”
Where does the first amendment say that churches must be tax exempt? I have absolutely no problem if the church wishes to campaign against anyone during the election season. What they say from their pulpit and in their publications is their own business.
The law is clear…if they wish to receive government support through tax exemption, they need to follow the rules. Just like other welfare recipients. Disobey the rules and lose the support.
You’d think conservatives would be on board with this concept.



report abuse
 

Gwyddion9

posted October 7, 2010 at 12:44 pm


IF these institutions want to play in politics, fine, allow it but take their Federal tax law 501(c)(3) away and start taxing everything they have like any other business! Too many have become a business rather than a church anyway.



report abuse
 

ds0490

posted October 7, 2010 at 12:49 pm


Another misguided soul says: “While it is the law, I agree that this church should abide by it; but the law needs to be revisited and changed.”
So do I, but not as you suggest. Your comparison with the corporations mentioned in the recent Citizens United decision (a decision that does an injustice to our political system) and non-profits fails. Corporations that contribute to political campaigns pay taxes (or at least make the appearance of paying them). Churches and other non-profits do not.
If you want to level the playing field between Churches and other corporations simply remove the tax exempt status. These corporations can then do whatever they wish with their funds and time.



report abuse
 

ds0490

posted October 7, 2010 at 12:52 pm


“Yet tax-exempt labor unions can – and do – pour tens of millions of dollars and provide huge numbers of ‘foot soldiers’ and resources to candidates.”
And they should lose their tax exempt status as well. But that is not the thrust of this case. Here we have a church willfully flaunting the law. If that pastor really wished to have the freedom to endorse candidates he would instruct his church to inform the IRS and the state that they are no longer a non-profit corporation.
The fact that they choose instead to complain and whine tells me that this is not about freedom of speech. Instead it is about the money.



report abuse
 

ds0490

posted October 7, 2010 at 12:55 pm


“Churches are just people and ours has always been and should continue to be a religion friendly country. There should be no overt endorsement of candidates but it is quite acceptable for religious groups to engage in the public square.”
But in this case there is an endorsement (or anti-endorsement) of three candidates on the ballot. The law is clear, and the pastor knows this.
My question is will his followers still support the church when they can no longer deduct their contributions? And what of those members who object to the way their tithes are being used? Should there be a law to protect their interests similar to the law the GOP proposed to protect those who disagreed with how unions were spending their dues?



report abuse
 

Troy

posted October 7, 2010 at 2:14 pm


All excellent points ds0490. Tax exempt status should never have been granted for religious institutions and should be revoked across the board. Why enable them to protect child molesters, restrict individual freedoms, and insist upon the subjugation of others any longer?



report abuse
 

David

posted October 7, 2010 at 2:37 pm


Why is it when a church takes a stand as they should their blasted even by the body. Is it not the same when libs hit all the black churches in America and use the pulpit to give their views. Don’t understand this double standard. If it wasn’t for the pulpit back in the revolutionary period we would be all bowing to the king and I don’t mean the righteous One. freedom of speech covers ALL AMERICANS!!!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 7, 2010 at 2:42 pm


So does tax law.



report abuse
 

ds0490

posted October 7, 2010 at 3:11 pm


David, it’s really very simple. Nobody is forcing the church to file as a 501(c)3 organization. It maintains that status of its own free will. At the time of incorporation with the state the incorporators and board members at the time signed a paper saying they would abide by the laws governing 501(c)3 groups.
If they no long wish to abide by those rules all they need to do is contact their Secretary of State office in writing to request that the charter of incorporation be terminated. At that point they can operate as any other group in this nation, free of restrictions of their tax-exempt status.
Why is it that when conservatives find themselves in a trap of their own making they whine for the courts to fix the problem instead of fixing it themselves?



report abuse
 

ds0490

posted October 7, 2010 at 3:13 pm


David: ” freedom of speech covers ALL AMERICANS!!!”
Please show me in the First Amendment where it states that churches must be tax exempt, or where it prohibits churches (or any other entity) from voluntarily surrendering their right to free speech for monetary compensation?
Because we all know that is what this is about…the money the congregation saves their parishoners by being a tax exempt group. They want to have their cake and eat it, too.



report abuse
 

Pharmk673

posted October 7, 2010 at 6:48 pm


Hello! eceagad interesting eceagad site!



report abuse
 

ShaCappone

posted October 8, 2010 at 1:29 pm


Here’s what I have to say to anyone listening. If the 501(c)3 is intended to close the mouth of any people, the church, then the church should give it up and then speak. I believe if what the church speaks glorified the Lord Jesus Christ, no doubt, Jesus Himself will afford any MONEY the church needs. Being Christian doesn’t mean we close our eyes to the issues. On the contrary, it’s because we’re Christian that we care. Nevertheless, one ought to abide by what is written, 501(c)3, or drop it like it’s hot, then do what one knows is right to do. We, Christians, also while flawed, try to live by another “writing”, The Bible. And while we don’t “live it” just right, we’re not hiding behide anything, as another writer stated! Nor do we need or want the courts to free us from anything. For we have been made FREE in the Son. And if we cannot look to HIM for our freedoms, yes, in all things, then we are a people most miserable. Because our deliverance is not in mankind. We’re all human beings with many points of view, about everything, from God to the color of our hair. We will NEVER all “just getting along”, said Rodey King. But we really NEED to respect one another’s differences. PEACE!



report abuse
 

Crazy Christains

posted October 8, 2010 at 2:11 pm


Another schizophrenic writer says “then the church should give it up (tax emempt status) and then speak…Nevertheless, one ought to abide by what is written, 501(c)3, or drop it like it’s hot, then do what one knows is right to do.”
Is that a vote to give up tax emempt status or a vote to abide by the laws governing 501(c)3 entities? They always manage to speak out of both sides of their mouths.
“Thou shalt not kill!”…”Unless and except…then KILL, KILL, KILL!”
Very similar to the Muslims. Seems like they’re all kind of nutty, weak-minded, people.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Whose Blood paid for sins!

posted October 8, 2010 at 3:46 pm


“Thou shalt not kill!”…
Mr. Incredible says:
Except that it says, “Thou shalt not murder.” Not all killing is murder.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who says, "Keep My sayings!"

posted October 8, 2010 at 3:50 pm


ds0490 says:
Please show me in the First Amendment where it states that churches must be tax exempt, or where it prohibits churches (or any other entity) from voluntarily surrendering their right to free speech for monetary compensation?
Mr. Incredible says:
Please show us in the First Amendment where it states the requirement, “separation of Church and State.”



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus, the Chief Cornerstone!

posted October 8, 2010 at 4:28 pm


“Crazy Christains”
Mr. Incredible asks:
What about us Christians?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 8, 2010 at 4:42 pm


Ow yes, and let us not forget the unforgettable judgemental socialist who believe their educatioin will save them from the burning hot vapors…
And the arrogance of the ability to judge the less fortunate from the wealth of their pocket book and turn their heads to another bit of selfishness..
One would hope they would see their error, but they do not… they reckon all for me and none for you with the judgement of a god of sorts, that they composed themselves of to mask their incredible sins of mankind…
The God of the Bible is a bit different then their selfish god…



report abuse
 

Lf. Rev. Tamas G. G. Murray, jr.

posted October 8, 2010 at 5:08 pm


The good Christian church must have tax-exempt status, majority control over America (and, ultimately, the rest of the world) and rulership of political parties and anti-democratic insurgencies. The Devil’s children, meanwhile (that’s US), refuse all tax-exempt status and salaried clergy; it’s against our Heathen Satanic religious beliefs. (We have guns, but they’re for shooting deer and Funditards, not the President.)
Gosh! We’re so awful: Ain’t it wunnerfull that we done got them thar good, hole-y Christian people to put us in our place and learn us no to be a-steelin’ Masa’s chickens.
Praise Satan! All Hail, Babylon! Please, oh Horned’ Master, let the evil sorceresses, O’donnell and Palin make even MORE speeches! And please give Pastor Gordon his own show on Fox: Nema and Nema!!!
“To Worship Christ is to fornicate with a dead Cockroach.”
— Witch’s proverb



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 8, 2010 at 6:02 pm


To worship Christ is to know that God is God and giving your thankfulness to his devine nature….
I don’t like cockroaches…. they are creepy.. although withes may make some sort of stew for their liking out of them… I don’t know…



report abuse
 

gfine

posted October 8, 2010 at 7:37 pm


Mr. I,
Are you for real? You can’t be that dumb.
This is Tax Code. File for a 501(c)3 and you abide by its rules, or lose the tax break. PERIOD. End of discussion.
The seperation of church and state is a phrase coined from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. It was a simple explanation of why the church (religion) and the state (government) should remain seperate.
Our forefathers (before the Founding Fathers) came to this country to escape from religious persecution by governments that were run by religious zealots. Our founding fathers were wise enough to prevent Congress from passing any law (or resolution) that promotes religion. It is called the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
I often hear the Religious Right say “Freedom of Religion” but the First Amendment also provides ‘Freedom from Religion’ as well.
In a nutshell what this means is that I can practice any religion I want to and although you are a religious zealot Congress can not make a law that forces me to believe what you do, or vice versa.
The Rev. filed a 501(c)3 and filing a 501(c)3 is voluntary and has rules attached to it. One of the 501(c)3 rules states No electioneering. Period. You file it , and you are stating you will take the tax break by adhering to its rules.
But then you get guys like this that break the agreement. rav. Lynn is right. You should lose the 501(c3) protection from taxation.



report abuse
 

DSJulian

posted October 8, 2010 at 10:57 pm


Only an idiot would claim that the concept of the separation of church and state us not evident on the Constitution.
Article VI.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Amendment I.
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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
It is important to note that minutes of the entire proceedings of the 1st Congress were taken and all of the discussion surrounding the Bill of Rights was carefully recorded. You can read them yourself at the Library of Congress, online at http://memory.loc.gov. Simply query for “establishment of religion”.
These minutes include the original drafts of the amendments, and most importantly show two things: (1) the current wording of Article VI and Amendment I — demanding that the Government remain neutral, neither respecting (giving advantage to) nor prohibiting (giving disadvantage to) any religious establishment — was in fact the intention of the majority of the framers of the Constitution; and (2) those asserting otherwise cannot claim ignorance, but are obviously and intentionally distorting and misrepresenting the true facts for their own aggrandizement.
The Bill of Rights is a list of the Federally guaranteed civil rights of the individual citizen, regardless of the will of the majority.
But it is the last paragraph of Article 6 that most simply and clearly separates religion from “any Office or Public Trust” in our secular, constitutional, democratic republic. In order to come into the Union (and into compliance with the Federal Law), the individual States had to ratify this Constitution, including both Article VI and Amendment I.



report abuse
 

the_storie_goes_on

posted October 8, 2010 at 11:05 pm


Pastors who oppose Pastor Cary Gordon need to reevaluate their walk with God. How can you call yourself godly men and women and come against the ethics and morals that are made known in the bible. Rev. Barry i think you need to study your bible and stop talking.



report abuse
 

Debra Drummond

posted October 9, 2010 at 2:03 pm


All Pastors of all religions should think very seriously about this. A justice system went against the voters by over turning a law that they found morally unexceptable.These same justice systems are the ones pushing laws against anything from the Bible such as the Ten commandments and so on from public view because a few found them offensive.If allowed to proceed as they have the day will come when they will pass a law that religion can no longer be taught, erasing God from our lives and worshipping a chosen leader. Read Revelations it tells it all.This is our time to stand up not just Pastors but the people as well.



report abuse
 

Ceci Warren

posted October 9, 2010 at 3:21 pm


Yes, please show us how many of you are truly insane. It would be nice to know the percentage of people who take Revelations as the literal, inerrant, word of God.
Our justice system DID go against voters when they appointed George Bush as president (Gore had more votes), and again when they bestowed the rights of people upon corporations (putting actual, voting, people at a disadvantage); however, they have obviously done anything but outlaw religion, nor expressed any intention of doing so.
It will all come down to educating the peoples of the world, and this will take considerable time. Yes, stand up and be counted, give us an idea of just how long it may take.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus, in Whom we are more than conquerors!

posted October 10, 2010 at 3:11 am


Ceci Warren says:
It would be nice to know the percentage of people who take Revelations as the literal, inerrant, word of God.
Mr. Incredible says:
“Revelations”?? Where is that?
“word”??
Why would it be nice to know? You won’t believe it anyway. So, what’s the point?
Ceci Warren says:
Our justice system DID go against voters when they appointed George Bush as president (Gore had more votes)…
Mr. Incredible says:
Irrelevant. Our election system relies on the Electoral College. If you didn’t want Al Gore to challenge the vote count in Florida, you should’ve told him not to take it all the way to SCOTUS.
Al Gore never won ANY count in Florida. Even the media recounts. He lost every count but 1: if you counted only Democratic counties and threw out ALL the military votes. Not even he had the stones to ask for that one. He lost pure an simple.
The US supreme court did not “stop the counting,” nor “decide the winner” either. The decision in Bush v Gore simply said the counting could continue until Florida’s statuatory end date. The Democrats were trying to move that date thru the courts – after the fact.
Liberals will always wail about the US Supreme court. The fact is it was evenly divided at the time. The florida supreme court had 7 democrats, but libs NEVER whine about any bias there.
In the following years, it was with much satisfaction that Floridians voted them out – except the Chief Justice, who said all along that the FLSC decisions were “nonsense.”
Ceci Warren says:
And again when they bestowed the rights of people upon corporations (putting actual, voting, people at a disadvantage)…
Mr. Incredible says:
Corporations are what the law calls “jural persons.” They have an interest in the operations of government. They also have Free Speech.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in Jesus' Name -- the Name above ALL names!

posted October 10, 2010 at 3:34 am


DSJulian says:
Only an idiot would claim that the concept of the separation of church and state us not evident on the Constitution.
Mr. Incredible says:
If it’s evident, it should be there. So-called “separation of Church and State” is not in the Constitution. Anyone can SAY that the words of the Constitution AMOUNT to the so-called “separation of Church and State.” That, however, doesn’t mean that the “separation of Church and State” is there.
DSJulian says:
Article VI.
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Who/what is prohibited from applying a religious test? I’m not.
DSJulian says:
Amendment I.
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; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Mr. Incredible says:
Nothing in there about separating the so-called “separation of Church and State.”
DSJulian says:
It is important to note that minutes of the entire proceedings of the 1st Congress were taken and all of the discussion surrounding the Bill of Rights was carefully recorded. You can read them yourself at the Library of Congress, online at http://memory.loc.gov. Simply query for “establishment of religion”.
Mr. Incredible says:
However, having been given the chance to include the phrasing, “separation of Church and State,” in the First Amendment, they didn’t. In any case, the only “separation” there can be is “trickle-down” separation, not “trickle up” separation. In other words, the threat is from the State, not the People.
DSJulian says:
These minutes include the original drafts of the amendments, and most importantly show two things: (1) the current wording of Article VI and Amendment I — demanding that the Government remain neutral, neither respecting (giving advantage to) nor prohibiting (giving disadvantage to) any religious establishment — was in fact the intention of the majority of the framers of the Constitution; and (2) those asserting otherwise cannot claim ignorance, but are obviously and intentionally distorting and misrepresenting the true facts for their own aggrandizement.
Mr. Incredible says:
Of course, that’s YOUR interpretation.
The First Amendment tells us how the State is to remain neutral; the State, through Congress, is prohibited from enacting a law that establishes a religion.
DSJulian says:
The Bill of Rights is a list of the Federally guaranteed civil rights of the individual citizen, regardless of the will of the majority.
Mr. Incredible says:
It is the Will of the majority, through representatives, that of voters restricted in his Freedom of Expression at the polling place.
It is said that it is the Will of the majority, through representatives, that the pulpit is prohibited from endorsing political candidates.
Those are two instances where the Bill of Rights is not effective. What happened?
DSJulian says:
But it is the last paragraph of Article 6 that most simply and clearly separates religion from “any Office or Public Trust” in our secular, constitutional, democratic republic.
Mr. Incredible says:
No it doesn’t. The only separation, for lack of a better term, is that Congress may not act. And it doesn’t stop me from taking the doctrine of God, through Christ, into the voting booth. It doesn’t stop me, a juror, from taking the doctrine of God, through Christ, into the jury room.
DSJulian says:
In order to come into the Union (and into compliance with the Federal Law), the individual States had to ratify this Constitution, including both Article VI and Amendment I.
Mr. Incredible says:
What is “compliance,” and by whose interpretation?? YOURS??

JESUS IS LORD ! THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD OVER THE HILLS AND THROUGH THE VALLEYS, TROUNCING GIANTS !



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who will cast out none who come to Him!

posted October 10, 2010 at 4:05 am


gfine says:
Mr. I,
Are you for real?
Mr. Incredible says:
Lemme see. Uhhh, yup.
gfine says:
You can’t be that dumb.
Mr. Incredible says:
I’m glad you agree that I’m not dumb.
gfine says:
This is Tax Code. File for a 501(c)3 and you abide by its rules, or lose the tax break. PERIOD. End of discussion.
Mr. Incredible says:
Then, stop discussing it, and we’ll go on discussing it.
Of course, there seems to be some disagreement about the meaning of those rules.
gfine says:
The seperation of church and state…
Mr. Incredible says:
So-called.
gfine says:
… is a phrase coined from [sic] Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. It was a simple explanation of why the church (religion) and the state (government) should remain seperate.
Mr. Incredible says:
Jefferson was telling the Baptists – assuring them – that the State would not interfere with them. THAT’S what he meant.
In any case, however, Jefferson was not involved in the drafting of the Constitution. He was in France at the time.
gfine says:
Our forefathers (before the Founding Fathers) came to this country to escape from religious persecution by governments that were run by religious zealots.
Mr. Incredible says:
Not true.
They came here to, as they, themselves, say, “advance Christianity.”
The Church of England, with the king as high priest, insisted, by law, that worshipers gain access to God through the Church. They were prohibited from accessing God through God’s Word. After they left England, they were accused of treason.
They left cuz-a imposition on THEM by the government, through the Church, not by their imposing on the Church and the government.
gfine says:
Our founding fathers were wise enough to prevent Congress from passing any law (or resolution) that promotes religion.
Mr. Incredible says:
Congress may not pass a law that RESPECTS a particular establishment of “religion.” It is not prohibited from respecting – having courtesy, or noticing – “religion,” in general. It may even call attention to a particular “religion” without promoting that “religion.” Not every utterance of Congress, nor of any public official, constitutes “promotion.”
gfine says:
It is called the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
Mr. Incredible says:
However, Congress is not prohibited from enacting a law that promotes free exercise.
gfine says:
I often hear the Religious Right…
Mr. Incredible asks:
Where is this so-called “Religious Right”?
gfine says:
…say “Freedom of Religion” but the First Amendment also provides ‘Freedom from Religion’ as well.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Where does the First Amendment “provide” “Freedom from Religion”?
If you exercise this so-called “Freedom from Religion,” it means that you don’t practice, nor worship. Therefore, the First Amendment doesn’t apply to you. That’s cuz the First Amendment is not a statement in negation. It provides. It doesn’t provide something that’s not needed.
gfine says:
In a nutshell what this means is that I can practice any religion I want to and although you are a religious zealot Congress can not make a law that forces me to believe what you do, or vice versa.
Mr. Incredible says:
Who says I wanna law that forces you to believe anything I believe?
gfine says:
The Rev. filed a 501(c)3 and filing a 501(c)3 is voluntary and has rules attached to it. One of the 501(c)3 rules states No electioneering. Period. You file it , and you are stating you will take the tax break by adhering to its rules.
Mr. Incredible says:
Where does it say, “no ‘electioneering’”?
The IRS says, “… it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.”
That means that NO 501(c)3 organization, as a substantial part of its activities, may TRY to influence legislation. No church is doing that to the extent that what they do is prohibited.
It also means that a church may not participate in a campaign for, or against, political CANDIDATES. So, as long as they’re not mentioning particular candidates, the congregation can draw their own conclusions.
We understand why you wanna misrepresent the issue.
gfine says:
But then you get guys like this that break the agreement. rav. Lynn is right. You should lose the 501(c3) protection from taxation.
Mr. Incredible says:
We should lose the protection IF we break the law, as I explain above, according to the IRS.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who came in Grace and Truth!

posted October 10, 2010 at 8:52 am


Just about three weeks to the mid-course correction. Then, we head straight for ’12, when we make another correction.
In the Name of Jesus — CONSERVATIVE VICTORY 2010!



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 10, 2010 at 4:32 pm


Romans 13
1
Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. for there is no power but of God: the poweres that be are ordianed of God.
2
Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation.
3
For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same:
4
For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for lhe beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to exeute wrath upon him that doeth evil.
5
Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake.
6
For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing.
7
Render therfore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour.
8
Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9
For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10
Love worketh no ill to his neighbour; therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.
11
And that, knowing the time, that now it is high time to awake out of sleep: for now is our salvation nearer than when we believed.
12
The night is far spent, the day is at hand; let us therefore cast off the works of darkness, and let us put on the armour of light.
13
Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.
14
But put ye on the lOrd Jesus Christ, and make not provision for the flesh, to fulfil the lusts therof. C



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 10, 2010 at 4:35 pm


ordained…………cc
So sorry, typo-o again….



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Whose Grace is sufficient!

posted October 11, 2010 at 6:26 am


Okay. Romans 13:1-14. What’s your point, Cara?
To those who are born again, the ungodly powers are not higher powers.



report abuse
 

George

posted October 11, 2010 at 4:30 pm


To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), … and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.
Crystal clear. Revoke their tax exempt status immediately.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus, in Whom we are more than conquerors!

posted October 11, 2010 at 5:54 pm


George says:
To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), … and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.
Crystal clear. Revoke their tax exempt status immediately.
Mr. Incredible says:
“Campaign activity for or against political candidates.” Candidates.
Which church, as an organization, not individuals, participates in any campaign activity — whatever THAT is — for, or against, named, particular, political candidates? The organization, itself, must participate. Individual pastors/ministers/priests are not precluded from exercizing their First Amendment Rights; individuals may participate in campaign activity.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in Jesus' Name -- the Name above ALL names!

posted October 11, 2010 at 6:01 pm


When the pastor/minister/priest speaks while in the pulpit, is he speaking for the organization, or himself? After all, HE writes the sermon, or speaks a stream of conscience. His speaking is not necessarily the organization’s speaking.
If he names a political candidate while there, is he necessarily participating in “campaign activity”? No. Merely mentioning a name while talking about an issue is not necessarily “campaign activity.” Talkig issues not “campaign activity” even IF the issue can be connected to a particular campaign and the congregation can connect the dots.
It’s not as clear as you think emotionally.



report abuse
 

God withdraws not His eye from the Righteous!

posted October 11, 2010 at 6:02 pm


CORRECTION
Talkig issues not —–> Talking issues is not



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 11, 2010 at 6:22 pm


Clear- what is clear anymore?
When things appear white, and you find out that they are black. When things appear dark and you find out that they are white..
And clear would be honesty and straight forward integrity.
And not a lot of people are that anymore… I mean the world taints…, and we are still in the world …
As for talking behind a pulpit, and discussing things , it can be a bit of both, some of oneself, some of the organization, and some of the flesh to contend with to be crusified.. So like anything else, it should be strained through the Word of God, to see what is correct and what is not…
For if we do not use the Word of God as our standard to recognize when we fall short of the mark, then we are comparing ourselves to our own agenda. and own ideals… not necessarily God’s view or intent… for the world is a dark place, and yes we can create bubbles of light ot bring a bit of heaven down , but it does not mean because others have more or appear to have things going in a possitive direction that it is a Godly thing…
Loves..c



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 11, 2010 at 6:24 pm


crucified
to
****C



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who does not take His eye off the Righteous!

posted October 11, 2010 at 6:54 pm


501(c)(3) does not trump the First Amendment.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who came in Grace and Truth!

posted October 11, 2010 at 7:14 pm


Cara asks:
Clear- what is clear anymore?
Mr. Incredible says:
Unrighteousness clouds the eye which, Jesus said, is the light of the world. In this case, the eye is like a pane of glass. Unrighteousness, like a dirty rag, smears the eye.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who says, "Keep My saying!"

posted October 11, 2010 at 7:27 pm


MAJOR CORRECTION
Unrighteousness clouds the eye which, Jesus said, is the light of the world. – – > Unrighteousness clouds the eye which, Jesus said, is the light of the body.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus, in Whom we are more than conquerors!

posted October 11, 2010 at 7:56 pm


The First Amendment says that we are free to worship and practice.
501(c)(3), if enforced the way atheists and other secularists wanted enforced – which is not according to its terms – denies free worship and practice.

“THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK UNTO YOU, THEY ARE SPIRIT, AND THEY ARE LIFE.” — Jesus



report abuse
 

John Easterbrooke

posted October 11, 2010 at 11:36 pm


I have been reading the comments and I don’t understand. The first amendment guarantees the right of freedom of religion, (incidentally, this includes, Muslims, Buddists and even Scientologists). The amendment is strengthened and enforced by having a government that is neutral and not affiliated with any religious movement. Without this separation the government would fail to protect all citizens of different faiths and it would essentially fall into a religious theocracy. It would most likely be a Christian one, but not necessarily. So if this were to happen then people of other religions and atheists would be what, crucified as heretics? What is with you people? You talk about freedom and the constitution and then spit at it! You disgust me!



report abuse
 

Ceci Warren

posted October 12, 2010 at 12:07 am


I’ve stopped reading most of them John E., but I like that you stress the importance of our political structure and its religious neutrality. The Judiciary is a very important part of our governmental, political, system and so this obvious infraction of IRS rules desperately requires punishment to the full extent of the law.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Whose Grace is sufficient!

posted October 12, 2010 at 3:18 am


JESUS IS LORD ! THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD OVER THE HILLS AND THROUGH THE VALLEYS, TROUNCING GIANTS !

Ceci Warren says:
…this obvious infraction of IRS rules desperately requires punishment to the full extent of the law.
Mr. Incredible says:
“Obvious infraction”?? What’s the “obvious infraction,” according to the PRECISE terms of the law? And how does the law trump the First Amendment?
The law says that such-a church organization may not participate in any so-called “campaign activity.” What does THAT mean? Does it mean that the organization may not join an organized campaign, wearing straw hats, carrying signs and flags? Does it mean that the pastor/priest/minister may not participate outside the workings of his church? Or does it refer only to what he does inside the church? Does it refer to the organization, or the pastor/priest/minister?
If the pastor/priest/minister is a citizen of voting age, and he has the Right to vote, is the Constitution suspended for him?



report abuse
 

Gary Anderson

posted October 12, 2010 at 11:10 am


The constitution is very clear on the matter of seperation of church and state.
If the churches want to pay taxes (which they should anyway) then it should be conceded that they can politic and proselityze to their masses.
Most Americans will have to agree to this proposal.



report abuse
 

Troy

posted October 13, 2010 at 1:17 pm


Great idea Gary, taxing the income and property of religious institutions will give them an incentive to keep taxes low, and would probably balance the budget within five years!
Then they can mix politics into their religion all they want.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 14, 2010 at 4:35 pm


There is no righteousness which is not through Jesus.
So the very mention of others saying that their sinful nature is in right standing because they had a warm cup of coffee and walked an old lady across the street, does not rectify their situation… Heart…c



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 14, 2010 at 4:37 pm


Re: Ceci Warren…
Some people are out of a job and can not pay taxes, and have been denied unemployment for whatever reason, and keep doing what is in their power to pay their taxes if it were possible…c



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 14, 2010 at 4:45 pm


John 10: 9
I am the gate; whoever enters through me will be saved. He will come in and go out, and find pasture..
Psalm 100: 4
Enter his gates with thanksgiving and his courts with praise; give thaniks to him and praise his name.
Mathew 16: 18
And I tell you that you are Peter, and on hthis rock I will build my church, and the gates of Hades will not overcome it.
19
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; whatever you bind on earth will be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be loosed in heaven.
As for what are our tax dollars being used for? Are they still being used to fund elective services of abortion through Health Care packages…? c



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 14, 2010 at 4:53 pm


Heaven-
21: 1
Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there waw no longer any sea.
2
I saw the Hly City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband.
3
And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, ” Now the dwelling of God is withmen, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God.
4
He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”
5
He who was seated on the throne said, ” I am making everything new!” Then he said, ” Write this down, for these words are trust worthy and true.”
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 14, 2010 at 4:54 pm


I am not looking to you for approval or to say if I am good or bad..cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 14, 2010 at 4:55 pm


was*



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 14, 2010 at 4:59 pm


Holy*
I like to write, I am certainly not doing it for you to correct me or to write so you can cut me down in a public form to make it appear as if your literature is somehow more informative then mine…
End of story…..
So if you see a type-o , like I wrote before, they are typo-o’s.
So get over your arrogent self in your educational philosophies of this or that which somehow you put yourself on a higher plank of reality then the next… For to me worldly nature is arrogant..cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 15, 2010 at 4:51 pm


No new laws in regard to religion, and you are not required to be any religion to take office..
end of story..
Now, if your asking us to leave our faith at the door, that is not going to happen, as well….!!!!!
CC



report abuse
 

HG

posted October 15, 2010 at 5:59 pm


Hey CC, how’ve you been? Glad to see you’re still interested in the Constitution. Of course, not making laws respecting religion doesn’t mean that law might not impact religion. I mean, laws against polygamy had an impact on those whose religions allowed it; and there must be some definition of what qualifies, legally, as a religion. In the future, religions which engender religious violence and oppression may be found to not qualify as legitimate religions. Those who practice such religions may be judged criminal, and barred from entry or locked behind steel doors. Oh frabjous day.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 16, 2010 at 3:25 pm


Ow and what religion would qualify for voilence, would that be the practice of rape?
And for those who practice such religious acitivy would then not be thought of as a criminal behind bars instead of a leader in the making..?
And for those who act out in violence against such criminal defence in a violent way to defend would be found not guilty for they would be practicing self defence…
And for poligomy for those who wish to screw and leave after making such a marriage arrangement and then proceeding to visit with another claiming them as a wife, then they would be in fact the one in violation of that law, instead of the one believing in the Holy matrimony of two becoming one flesh..
And for that one that they keep doing these frequet stops of misguiding her into believing that they love her and she is being faithful.. , and then turning around and screwing someone else the next day and putting such activity in front of their face , I would hope that this particular activity would in fact be put behind steel bars instead of leading our country astray one way or another with God knows what kind of bull…..Have a good one…!
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 16, 2010 at 3:27 pm


And how the hell are those elective abortions funded by., would that be by our administration , or would that be by their own dollar…?
eh senior amigo…
Did that signature not get signed into legislation, just wondering… to protect those innocent lives from our jadicial system of murdering our Posterity at large through abortion and what not…?
Just wondering… ? Were we lead astray?
cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 16, 2010 at 3:31 pm


So sorry…
judicial…
Of, relating to, or proper to courts of law or to the administration of justice….
________
**** Notice the word proper…… What do they consider proper these days anymore….. huh….?



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 16, 2010 at 3:38 pm


And no, I don’t think that all sexual activity is considered rape, especially when one or the other is not aware that the other is in a full conscienc state of mind, so your off the hook on that one..
And for those who just came in and violenty did their deed while screeming and what not, know that would be a rape.. and who did it..
And for the boyfriend that just couldn’t stop what he was doing when she was saying no before penetration, now that would be rape, even though she may or may not love the guy…
And for the one who consensually said it was ok to have sex and then in the middle of it said stop….. , I think the guy needs to learn how to stop… especially when she is screeming and yelling and kicking to stop…. for whatever reason, regardless if she said yes in the first place….
This too, could be considered rape…cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 16, 2010 at 3:44 pm


Ow and I forgot, as for the one who took advantage of the girl who was unconscious, or semi-conscious,
And decided to put his male organ in her regardless if she knew him or not,…. and thought he would just stick it in her..
That could be considered rape as well, unless he was under the impression that she was conscious and that she was in full agreement.
Now if he knew that she was under the influence of something or was not all their at the very least it would be completely uncalled for and possibly still be considered a rape…… end of story…..cc



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted October 16, 2010 at 4:01 pm


there
And if he was married and she was under the impression that he was divorced , he would be involving her in something that she may not or may wish to be involved in… depending on her state of mind in the matter…
For if she was under a drug given to her by somebody else, or had been unconscious for any duratin the time beforehand in the unagreeable consent then this to would be considered rape..
For if she was brought in front of a church under these conditions and made to look as the the culprit of the crime instead of the one that had been assaulted or been abused in the very least, that could be grounds for a law suit in regards to publically taking her in a location against her will and doing God knows what to her in a period of time with this one and that one and then trying to make it look like it was her fault… and you say you are not going to use her… at the very least she should be looked as as a victim in all of that… and not the perpetrator and let God be God and pay back seven fold for those who treated her improperely during that time period to make it look like she was the queen of adultry instead of the virgin marry, as to which she wanted to play..
So her conduct during this duration of activity afterward if it looked to be unsightly or of not of proper order, it was because this or that happened to her, of which she did not want to disclose to make a puplic specticul of herself… she decided to let the chips fall where they may… instead of go after them with the law, for she did not know their perspective on the whole situation… So she just saw them as hypocritical leaders…cc



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus Who will cast out none who come to Him!

posted October 17, 2010 at 8:08 am


AND THE LIGHT SHINETH IN DARKNESS; AND THE DARKNESS COMPREHENDED IT NOT.

Gary Anderson says:
The constitution is very clear on the matter of seperation [sic] of church and state.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Oh, goody! Then, tell us where it is.
Gary Anderson says:
If the churches want to pay taxes (which they should anyway)…
Mr. Incredible asks:
What, then, about the so-called “separation of Church and State”?
Gary Anderson says:
…then it should be conceded that they can politic and proselityze to their masses.
Mr. Incredible says:
The law doesn’t prohibit “politicking.”
Gary Anderson says:
Most Americans will have to agree to this proposal.
Mr. Incredible asks:
Will “have to”? Or else what?



report abuse
 

drmusker

posted October 21, 2010 at 3:43 am


Under the current law, (howbeit unconstitutional) there is a fine line between informing voters about the positions of political candidates on key issues and actually telling them “vote for _________”. the vast majority of candidates want to be identified as “Christian” and yet may differ significantly from Biblical Christian positions. This is the situation that churches and pastors are well within their constitutional rights to address. The law should not prohibit free speech anywhere, in or out of church. However, churches are not currently allowed to use their funding to support candidates.



report abuse
 

Mrs. Incredibly worried about our marriage despite Jesus's love

posted October 21, 2010 at 5:13 pm


Please, please PLEASE bloggers and comboxers, do NOT engage my husband any further. As you can see, he’s off his meds and one of the many manifestations is that he is compelled to repeat and repeat and repeat again his name (and in bold no less!) dozens of times per post. His delusion is (or should be) obvious to all, but the sad part is, the inordinate amount of time he spends here is ruining our marriage.
Please help him (and me).
Thank you all.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus, the ONLY Way to the Father!

posted October 24, 2010 at 9:12 am


==the inordinate amount of time he spends here is ruining our marriage.==
Mr. Incredible says:
You’ll have-ta get over it.

JESUS IS LORD ! THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD OVER THE HILLS AND THROUGH THE VALLEYS, TROUNCING GIANTS !



report abuse
 

B. Wendzel

posted October 29, 2010 at 1:35 pm


Reverend Lynn, it would be interesting to know how much of this is going on, and what our government’s response is. There seems to be more church politicking than usual this year, and it would be nice to know the law is being enforced. Thank you for your efforts.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus

posted October 30, 2010 at 4:17 am


B. Wendzel says:
There seems to be more church politicking than usual this year, and it would be nice to know the law is being enforced.
Mr. Incredible says:
Nothing precludes a church organization from “politicking.”
The law is specific:
The church organization, not the individual pastor, or priest, may not engage in a political campaign, whatever THAT is. The church organization may not endorse a particular candidate. That doesn’t mean the pastor cannot talk about the issues identified with a particular side of an argument and leave the impression that the focus is on a particular candidate.
So, before you go off the deep end about it, read the law first.



report abuse
 

B. Wendzel

posted October 30, 2010 at 11:27 am


I don’t go off the deep end. I’ll leave that to law enforcement, but I wouldn’t be surprised, or unhappy, if these churches lost tax exempt status and the law breakers wind up preaching as inmates. Again, my thanks to Reverend Lynn and the ACLU for the important work they do, my contribution is on the way.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in Jesus' Name

posted October 30, 2010 at 5:52 pm


B. Wendzel says:
I don’t go off the deep end.
Mr. Incredible says:
Well, yes, you did.
B. Wendzel says:
…I wouldn’t be surprised, or unhappy, if these churches lost tax exempt status…
Mr. Incredible asks:
For doing what, SPECIFICALLY?
B. Wendzel says:
… and the law breakers…
Mr. Incredible asks:
SPECIFICALLY, what law and what provisions of it?
B. Wendzel says:
…wind up preaching as inmates.
Mr. Incredible says:
That would be ok. After all, Paul was in prison and preached, and an angel freed him. It would be an important ministry to preach to cons. So, you’re not hurting MY feelings.
B. Wendzel says:
Again, my thanks to Reverend Lynn and the ACLU for the important work they do…
Mr. Incredible says:
As though the first time didn’t take.
B. Wendzel says:
…my contribution is on the way.
Mr. Incredible says:
Mine isn’t, and my not contributing cancels out your contributing.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus, the ONLY Way to the Father!

posted October 31, 2010 at 11:10 pm


“THE WORDS THAT I SPEAK UNTO YOU, THEY ARE SPIRIT, AND THEY ARE LIFE.” — Jesus

ds0490 says:
Where does the first amendment say that churches must be tax exempt?
Mr. Incredible says:
In the same place where it says “separation of Church and State,” and, elsewhere, where it says “the Right to abortion.”



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted November 11, 2010 at 12:53 pm


@CncrndCtzns
October 6, 2010 8:58 PM
“A better discussion would be to ask why churches or other nonprofits cannot voice support support (no funds given) for a political candiate or issue.”
Because they’re TAX EXEMPT. That’s why.
Some CncrndCtzns shd gt a clu.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted November 11, 2010 at 1:01 pm


@David
October 7, 2010 2:37 PM
“Why is it when a church takes a stand as they should their blasted even by the body.”
Um, maybe because “the Church” (TM, all rights reserved) has taken a stand that goes against the Constitution.
Just guessin’.
I remember a time when “The Church” stood for justice. Sad to see it no longer is.



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Person

posted November 11, 2010 at 1:07 pm


Odd that not a single person has commented since the election. Three of the 7 judges were, indeed, voted out of office. I’m very curious as to why the other four weren’t. Nor were the 2 lower court judges.
The decision (that barring gay citizens from equal access to soicety’s institution of marriage is UN-Constitutional) was unanimous. Because, of course, it IS UN-Constitutional to treat one minority different from the rest of the population.
This whole discussion (and I use the term loosely) has been about tax-exempt status of Churches (and quite a bit of bloviating about what Jesus/God wants, strangely enuff, in a country that ‘guarantees’ – or used to – freedom of religion to all its citizens) and not about the UN-Constitutionality of the ban on same gender marriages. Odd, that.



report abuse
 

Your Name

posted November 11, 2010 at 1:11 pm


WWLRHD?
(trans.: What Would L. Ron Hubbard Do?)
I mean, that’s just as pertinent to a discussion on the mixing of Church and State as what any (soi-disant) “Christian” religion feels on any matter.
Or, What Would Aqua Buddha Do? Same difference.
Buncha ‘religious’ supremacists, if you ask me.



report abuse
 

HG

posted November 11, 2010 at 3:40 pm


Here’s to “The Old Soldier” who, alas, joined the great majority a year ago this very day; and to my “Young Soldier”, who, I very much hope, has not.



report abuse
 

Grumpy Old Perrson

posted November 19, 2010 at 1:00 pm


Can NO ONe (even from Iowa) answer my question of November 11, 2010 1:07 PM???



report abuse
 

Diogeron

posted November 22, 2010 at 2:18 pm


I totally agree. As a member of AU, I strongly urge that AU issue a press release condemning the request by those who want to build the mosque near ground zero for federal grants as noted in The Daily Beast today. Irrespective of what one thinks about the mosque (or any other religious “cultural center”, taxpayer dollars should not be involved in funding it.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in the Name of Jesus, the ONLY Way to the Father!

posted November 24, 2010 at 4:28 pm


AND THE LIGHT SHINETH IN DARKNESS; AND THE DARKNESS COMPREHENDED IT NOT.

Grumpy Old Person says:
The decision (that barring gay citizens from equal access to soicety’s institution of marriage is UN-Constitutional) was unanimous.
Mr. Incredible says:
Those who claim to be homosexual already HAVE equal access to marriage:
A heterosexual man may marry a heterosexual woman.
A heterosexual man may marry a woman who claims to be homosexual.
A man who claims to be homosexual may marry a heterosexual woman.
A man who claims to be homosexual may marry a woman who claims to be homosexual.
A heterosexual woman may marry a heterosexual man.
A heterosexual woman may marry a man who claims to be homosexual.
A woman who claims to be homosexual may marry a heterosexual man.
A woman who claims to be homosexual may marry a man who claims to be homosexual.
NO heterosexual man — not one — may marry a heterosexual man.
NO heterosexual man — not one — may marry a man who claims to be homosexual.
NO man — not one — who claims to be homosexual may marry a heterosexual man.
NO man — not one — who claims to be homosexual may marry a man who claims to be homosexual.
NO heterosexual woman — not one — may marry a heterosexual woman.
NO heterosexual woman — not one — may marry a woman who claims to be homosexual.
NO woman — not one — who claims to be homosexual may marry a heterosexual woman.
NO woman — not one — who claims to be homosexual may marry a woman who claims to be homosexual.
There are only two sexes in the world: male and female. Those who claim to be homosexual fall into one of those categories; they are either male, or female. There is no third sex.
There is no discrimination in the law that defines “marriage” as the union of a man, as husband, and a woman, as his wife, given that everyone is either male, or female. No one is excluded.
Each man may do what other men do.
Each woman may do what other women do.
No man is a stopped from doing what other men do.
No woman is stopped from doing what other women do.
This is equal and equitable treatment and application of the law.
Grumpy Old Person says:
Because, of course, it IS UN-Constitutional to treat one minority different from the rest of the population.
Mr. Incredible says:
Those who claim to be homosexual are not part of an officially-recognized minority group. It is only their ideas that separate them from everybody else. That’s not enough.



report abuse
 

Mr. Incredible, in Jesus' Name, the Name above ALL names!

posted December 7, 2010 at 3:26 pm


Grumpy Old Person
The decision (that barring gay citizens from equal access to soicety’s institution of marriage…
Mr. Incredible asks:
What access to marriage do I have that a man who claims to be homosexual doesn’t have?



report abuse
 



Previous Posts

Another Blog To Enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting LynnvSekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow: Faith and Justice  Happy Reading!

posted 11:26:38am Aug. 16, 2012 | read full post »

Another blog to enjoy!!!
Thank you for visiting Lynn V. Sekulow. This blog is no longer being updated. Please enjoy the archives. Here is another blog you may also enjoy: Jay Sekulow's Faith and Justice Happy Reading!!!

posted 10:36:04am Jul. 06, 2012 | read full post »

More to Come
Barry,   It's hard to believe that we've been debating these constitutional issues for more than two years now in this space.  I have tremendous respect for you and wish you all the best in your new endeavors.   My friend, I'm sure we will continue to square off in other forums - on n

posted 4:52:22pm Dec. 02, 2010 | read full post »

Thanks for the Memories
Well Jay, the time has come for me to say goodbye. Note to people who are really happy about this: I'm not leaving the planet, just this blog.As I noted in a personal email, after much thought, I have decided to end my participation and contribution to Lynn v. Sekulow and will be doing some blogging

posted 12:24:43pm Nov. 21, 2010 | read full post »

President Obama: Does He Get It?
Barry,   I would not use that label to identify the President.  I will say, however, that President Obama continues to embrace and promote pro-abortion policies that many Americans strongly disagree with.   Take the outcome of the election - an unmistakable repudiation of the Preside

posted 11:46:49am Nov. 05, 2010 | read full post »




Report as Inappropriate

You are reporting this content because it violates the Terms of Service.

All reported content is logged for investigation.