Westboro members must post cash bond during appeal

[SomeKid]

churches can and do preach whatever they want.  they do have to stop short of actively serving as an active arm for any particular candidate

But they should not. And yes, I am aware that it goes both ways. As it currently stands, conservative churches get nailed, liberal churches get a pass.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

could you point to a conservative church thats been "nailed"?

[Perd Hapley]

I'm sitting here trying to figure out what is so terrible about a church being politically active, in accordance with the law. 

Hmmm.

Hmmm.

Just can't come up with anything.   

[280plus]

Well if you could it would be your fault. 

[SomeKid]

You asked specifically for an example of a conservative church being nailed, here you go. Not just a news article either...

http://1stam.umn.edu/archive/fedctapp/branch-ministries.txt

You can scroll down the very bottom to see that the conservative church in the end was screwed.

I looked for others, attempting to find a liberal church getting this treatment, and could not find anything. I found plenty of articles talking about investigations, almost all focused on conservative churches too I might add.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

"Four days before the 1992 presi-
dential election, Branch Ministries, a tax-exempt church,
placed full-page advertisements in two newspapers in which it
urged Christians not to vote for then-presidential candidate
Bill Clinton because of his positions on certain moral issues. 
The Internal Revenue Service concluded that the placement
of the advertisements violated the statutory restrictions on
organizations exempt from taxation and, for the first time in
its history, it revoked a bona fide church's tax-exempt status
because of its involvement in politics.  Branch Ministries and
its pastor, Dan Little, challenge the revocation on the
grounds that (1) the Service acted beyond its statutory au-
thority, (2) the revocation violated its right to the free exer-
cise of religion guaranteed by the First Amendment and the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act, and (3) it was the victim
of selective prosecution in violation of the Fifth Amendment. 
Because these objections are without merit, we affirm the
district court's grant of summary judgment to the Service."


what part of the above was unclear to you?
they screwed themselves. the guidelines of whats allowable are pretty cleare and they made a choice to go past em.

the catholic church has been warned about pushing the envelope regarding abortion and the solution is to establish seperate political action groups for that kinda stuff. they are not tax exempt. you can't have your tax exempt cake one day and play at being a pac the next
similarly i believe obamas church is being investigated and i think it qualifies as being liberal.  the church in the case you cited was prosecuted for being arrogantly stupid.


perhaps instead of scrolling down you should take the time to read all the lil words in the middle

[Perd Hapley]

c'sdaddy, I think by "screwed" he just meant that they were investigated and duly convicted, while lefty churches were overlooked. 

There was another conservative Christian church that was recently "screwed" for endorsing Huckabee. 

I was looking for some info about Obama's church about a week ago, and it appears so far there are no charges being leveled.  But if by church you mean his denomination, yes, it is under investigation, following a speech by Obama at their annual convention. 


I can give you a link for info on those two investigations, if you like.  Some news articles I found. 

[SomeKid]

CD,

That is what I am railing against. Churches should be able to do what that church did without being investigated/punished. As is, it is forbidden, but only conservative churches actually get punished. I would rather see no churches punished for being political. Failing that, I would much rather see all churches treated the same.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

the reason a church ia barred is that donations to a church are a tax deduction. they wanna play politics they lose that tax dodge for their members.  the rules are pretty plain and nothin new.  the church you cited was arrogantly stupid and deserved the ruling it got. now if a church wants to give up its tax dodge status they are free to do anything. their choice

[SomeKid]

CD, maybe you are missing the point of what I am saying.

The laws need changed so churches can do what they are currently prohibited from doing, or failing that, I want the law evenly applied to liberal churches as well. I am not disputing for a second that the church in question violated current federal law.

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

can you show me a liberal church stupid enough to take out full page ads endorsing a specific candidate?what were they thinking?who the heck advises them legally?  i hope they don't pay for legal services.  or were they thinking god was gonna intervene?
if they didn't bust chops for that kinda nonsense dirtbags would write off all their political grease by funneling it through churches

[SomeKid]

CD, http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/black-churchgoers-debate-primary-choice/

They did not take adds out, but they canceled church services in favor of spending time on this, which I think is pretty telling. More importantly, what they did should have bright the IRS down upon them, but will not, as they are liberal and endorsing a Democrat.

As you can see here a conservative group followed the law, and did far less than the liberal black church above. Yet note who gets investigated. I know part of the reason is liberals are more effective at using the government to attack their opponents, which is one more reason to lift the restriction.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9900E4D6143AF935A25754C0A9629C8B63

You can keep your eyes closed and demand more and more citation backing what I say, but by now you ought to see the truth: The rules are used primarily to silence one POV, and we would be better off with *gasp* less regulation!

[cassandra and sara's daddy]

in your version of reallity a church holding a meeting of its members, and GASP , cancelling a service to do so is somehow comparable to taking out ads in newspapers?  wow...


and what penalty did the irs exact from mr falwell for his actions in the second "cite"?


" In an interview yesterday, Mr. Falwell said that an affiliated tax-exempt lobbying organization, not his religious organization, Jerry Falwell Ministries, had paid for the e-mail message and the Web site. Mr. Falwell also argued that his comments constituted only his personal view, and not an endorsement by his lobbying organization, Liberty Alliance. "

i can't find any indication of a penalty  can you help me out?

this
 "In 1993, the tax-exempt religious organization that produces Mr. Falwell's Old Time Gospel Hour television program agreed to pay $50,000 in tax penalties for political activity in 1986 and 1987. "
was for stuff he did well before and i can assure you falwell has good lawyers  the odds of him getting tagged twice are slim. but maybe i missed the penalty asessed him?

[Perd Hapley]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iT7xQJrqUQ8