Maine Marriage Equality (http://www.mainemarriageequality.com/index.html)

Note that they are only requesting that complaints be filed against the churches that disagreed with them.
They have no need/desire to silence those who promoted same sex marriage.

How does taking away their tax exempt status silence them? They can still say whatever they want.
If a church is too involved politically, no matter the issue, they should not have it.

Well, they either remain silent or lose tax exempt status. You're right, that wouldn't "silence" them directly, perhaps it was a dramatic choice of words. But the point is that it's not "the principle of the thing", meaning churches shouldn't be involved, only that the pro-traditional marriage churches shouldn't be speaking up.
I"m not privy to the financials of any church/denomination, but I do think it could cause the closing of many churches, to have a tax burden.

Well, they either remain silent or lose tax exempt status. You're right, that wouldn't "silence" them directly, perhaps it was a dramatic choice of words. But the point is that it's not "the principle of the thing", meaning churches shouldn't be involved, only that the pro-traditional marriage churches shouldn't be speaking up.
I"m not privy to the financials of any church/denomination, but I do think it could cause the closing of many churches, to have a tax burden.

See I do not have an issue with churches speaking out. I believe freedom of speech protects the speech I do not want to hear. But when they (or any tax exempt group for that matter, religious or not) starts using their money to influence a political agenda it becomes a problem and I think they should lose their status.
That being said this is just all my personal opinion and it very general. I also have not been following the Maine case specifically, just little bits here and there, so I cannot say with certainty that this was happening with the churches. I do not blame any group one bit for wanting to look into it though.

sore loosers.
and if the marriage would have passed, they would have been making it a point to only try to get married at those churches that refused to marry them.
once the picked on win one little battle, they just keep trying to force their way into everything.

Like Ive said before, the day will come when gay unions are recognized, but, because of the way they act, I take this moment in time to say.
HAHAHAHAHAHA.

sore loosers.
and if the marriage would have passed, they would have been making it a point to only try to get married at those churches that refused to marry them.
once the picked on win one little battle, they just keep trying to force their way into everything.

Like Ive said before, the day will come when gay unions are recognized, but, because of the way they act, I take this moment in time to say.
HAHAHAHAHAHA.


Let's see "because of the way they act", could it be that gay people only want the same rights, freedoms, and recognition of their "fellow" Americans?! When are you going to stop being a bigot "bcp"?

Well, they either remain silent or lose tax exempt status. You're right, that wouldn't "silence" them directly, perhaps it was a dramatic choice of words. But the point is that it's not "the principle of the thing", meaning churches shouldn't be involved, only that the pro-traditional marriage churches shouldn't be speaking up.
I"m not privy to the financials of any church/denomination, but I do think it could cause the closing of many churches, to have a tax burden.

Then maybe the Churchs should stick to Theocratic affairs ? :shrug: George Soro's and his groups come under fire for being Tax Exempt yet delving into political matters, why should churchs be given protected status for doing the same thing?

Let's see "because of the way they act", could it be that gay people only want the same rights, freedoms, and recognition of their "fellow" Americans?! When are you going to stop being a bigot "bcp"?
You know,
when someone can show me where their rights are being violated, I might think about turning my head to it.
But until then, think of it this way, the majority of people based on the outcome when votes were allowed, think the same way I do.

When will you learn that its perfectly acceptable for someone to think differently than you do.

Then maybe the Churchs should stick to Theocratic affairs ? :shrug: George Soro's and his groups come under fire for being Tax Exempt yet delving into political matters, why should churchs be given protected status for doing the same thing?

I have honestly never heard a sermon in church that was either for, or against homosexuality.
Of course, Ive never heard politics discussed in church either.

Maybe I just go to the wrong churches.

I have honestly never heard a sermon in church that was either for, or against homosexuality.
Of course, Ive never heard politics discussed in church either.

Maybe I just go to the wrong churches.
Then those church's would be safe. But i wasnt talking about those church's the conversation of this thread was about Churchs that do actively participate in the political process (think the Catholic backed Mormons in California)

Then maybe the Churchs should stick to Theocratic affairs ? :shrug: George Soro's and his groups come under fire for being Tax Exempt yet delving into political matters, why should churchs be given protected status for doing the same thing?

Did you miss the point, though? The group only wants to quiet some churches. Maine is my home state and I've followed this quite a bit. They are more than happy to have pastors and ministers speaking up on behalf of gay marriage, but they come out swinging "foul" when the traditional churches speak against their choices. Same happens with abortion.

Did you miss the point, though? The group only wants to quiet some churches. Maine is my home state and I've followed this quite a bit. They are more than happy to have pastors and ministers speaking up on behalf of gay marriage, but they come out swinging "foul" when the traditional churches speak against their choices. Same happens with abortion.

I think they are clear on the churches they want to silence, those that decided to enter the political process. There is a difference between preaching at the pulpit (either for or against) and those that were actively engaged.

Per the IRS this invalidates their Tax Exempt status.

I think they are clear on the churches they want to silence, those that decided to enter the political process. There is a difference between preaching at the pulpit (either for or against) and those that were actively engaged.

Per the IRS this invalidates their Tax Exempt status.

and if that were enforced there would be maybe 2 black churches left in the country with tax exempt status?

but honestly,
If the public can dictate where religious matter is seen, whats the difference when the church tries to do the same with other things?

I think they are clear on the churches they want to silence, those that decided to enter the political process. There is a difference between preaching at the pulpit (either for or against) and those that were actively engaged.

Per the IRS this invalidates their Tax Exempt status.

But others did, NS, with their dollars, their titles and their sermons. No one is suggesting that the pro-gay marriage should have stayed out of the process.

Did you miss the point, though? The group only wants to quiet some churches. Maine is my home state and I've followed this quite a bit. They are more than happy to have pastors and ministers speaking up on behalf of gay marriage, but they come out swinging "foul" when the traditional churches speak against their choices. Same happens with abortion.

Easy enough to solve, start a blog with a form letter asking the IRS to cancel the tax exempt status of any church advocating for gay marriage. Why the drama:cds:

You know,
when someone can show me where their rights are being violated, I might think about turning my head to it.
But until then, think of it this way, the majority of people based on the outcome when votes were allowed, think the same way I do.

When will you learn that its perfectly acceptable for someone to think differently than you do.

I don't have a problem with different viewpoints. I do have a problem when bigotry gets in the way and Americans (or anyone else for that matter) are denied the same rights and freedoms you enjoy. Do I really have to spell out where the rights of gay people are violated. I realize that you have some problems with bigotry, but you must have some intelligence. Try: the freedom to marry and have that marriage deemed legal (with all the benefits that go with legal marriage); to be employed without the fear of being "let go", based on your sexual/gender preference/identity; to join the military as an "open" gay person; to have the ability to be ordained in a church while also involved in a homosexual relationship/partnership - just a few areas, the list goes on. Voting has no place on this issue, nor does the church. As I have posted before, if this country listened to people like you, women and minorities would not have the freedoms they have today. Your viewpoint is illogical and there is legal/federal precedence that shoots down your argument, please refer to the preceding sentence and interpret. It is time for the federal government to step in and do it's job. I can certainly understand the disappointment that many gay people have with Mr. Obama, and all of his "hope"!

I don't have a problem with different viewpoints. I do have a problem when bigotry gets in the way and Americans (or anyone else for that matter) are denied the same rights and freedoms you enjoy. Do I really have to spell out where the rights of gay people are violated. I realize that you have some problems with bigotry, but you must have some intelligence. Try: the freedom to marry and have that marriage deemed legal (with all the benefits that go with legal marriage); to be employed without the fear of being "let go", based on your sexual/gender preference/identity; to join the military as an "open" gay person; to have the ability to be ordained in a church while also involved in a homosexual relationship/partnership - just a few areas, the list goes on. Voting has no place on this issue, nor does the church. As I have posted before, if this country listened to people like you, women and minorities would not have the freedoms they have today. Your viewpoint is illogical and there is legal/federal precedence that shoots down your argument, please refer to the preceding sentence and interpret. It is time for the federal government to step in and do it's job. I can certainly understand the disappointment that many gay people have with Mr. Obama, and all of his "hope"!

I thought this was just about marriage.

However, I do welcome you to show me where I suggested that homosexuals not be allowed to work, or join the military, or where I have indicated that women and minorites not have the rights they do.. or, on the actual chance you cant show any of those, I might suggest you just STFU.

Can I make that any more simple for your over dramatic mind to understand?

so in short.
where is marriage a right. where are any benefits connected to marriage a right?
I stand firm that no RIGHTS are being violated.
Prove me wrong with direct links to the constitution that concern marriage.

Easy enough to solve, start a blog with a form letter asking the IRS to cancel the tax exempt status of any church advocating for gay marriage. Why the drama:cds:

But I don't have a problem with churches speaking about issues that are clearly moral, even if there are those who would like to define them as strictly political.
I do not want to silence the churches.

But I don't have a problem with churches speaking about issues that are clearly moral, even if there are those who would like to define them as strictly political.
I do not want to silence the churches.

But the problem isn't just a moral issue, it's a political one. Pick one or the other tax exemption or trying to sway public opinion.

I thought this was just about marriage.

However, I do welcome you to show me where I suggested that homosexuals not be allowed to work, or join the military, or where I have indicated that women and minorites not have the rights they do.. or, on the actual chance you cant show any of those, I might suggest you just STFU.

Can I make that any more simple for your over dramatic mind to understand?

so in short.
where is marriage a right. where are any benefits connected to marriage a right?
I stand firm that no RIGHTS are being violated.
Prove me wrong with direct links to the constitution that concern marriage.


I had graciously given you the benefit of the doubt that you might possess some intelligence, but I believe I will have to rescind that suggestion. Exactly how ignorant are you? Do you know how to read? Better yet, do you know how to c-o-m-p-r-e-h-e-n-d w-h-a-t y-o-u r-e-a-d? You have proven yourself to be wrong. Reread what you wrote!

How does taking away their tax exempt status silence them? They can still say whatever they want.
If a church is too involved politically, no matter the issue, they should not have it.

If a church isn't involved in ministering to the homeless and the poor, then they should not have tax exempt status, period.

It was soo hard for me to restrain myself when I was preaching in the church and teaching Sunday school around 1995-1997. I really wanted to dive into the political side of things. I even went as far as telling the people that our church should give up it's tax exempt status so we can say what we want, but they weren't overjoyed with that idea. COWARDS! I solved the problem of their complacency; I left soon after that. I'd rather speak freely and lose the tax exempt status than worry about a government RAT sitting in my congregation waiting to rat us out...funny how Soros gets away with it???

Mr Steed you have no room to call bcp ignorant. You have no idea how your liberal stupidity will ruin you in the future. Whether you're gay and/or a liberal, you're obviously ungodly. Your point of view on gays in marriage, military, employment & church involvement is a dead giveaway but I can't argue religious issues with a lost person. You're not equipped to understand...

Then those church's would be safe. But i wasnt talking about those church's the conversation of this thread was about Churchs that do actively participate in the political process (think the Catholic backed Mormons in California)

Catholic backed Mormons?? REALLY?

The Catholics provided financial support? Signs?

The liberals, as always, needed an enemy to blame for their defeat. They blamed the Mormon church, which resulted in a "terrosit attack" on THE temple in Salt Lake City.

It's not what the people want, we didn't get defeated, it's THEIR fault.

Insert George W Bush, Mormons, or anyone else they can think to blame.

It was soo hard for me to restrain myself when I was preaching in the church and teaching Sunday school around 1995-1997. I really wanted to dive into the political side of things. I even went as far as telling the people that our church should give up it's tax exempt status so we can say what we want, but they weren't overjoyed with that idea. COWARDS! I solved the problem of their complacency; I left soon after that. I'd rather speak freely and lose the tax exempt status than worry about a government RAT sitting in my congregation waiting to rat us out...funny how Soros gets away with it???

Mr Steed you have no room to call bcp ignorant. You have no idea how your liberal stupidity will ruin you in the future. Whether you're gay and/or a liberal, you're obviously ungodly. Your point of view on gays in marriage, military, employment & church involvement is a dead giveaway but I can't argue religious issues with a lost person. You're not equipped to understand...


Quite frankly, "in the name of religion", has caused more suffering and death on this planet, than anything else. You are correct to possibly assume that I adhere to no religion, ABSOLUTELY NOT! I am always amused at those who speak about religion with such fervor and self-righteous, as if you have some direct connection to whomever or whatever it is that created this world. Sadly, folks like you, and there are many (let's include the mindless "bcp"), use religion to exclude and promote hatred. In my book, you are no better than Hitler's gestapo or American skinheads or the KKK. I don't require your absurd faith to understand that the only tenet humans need to follow, and that is, to "try" (although that can be a challenge) to be kind to one another, to other creatures, and to the earth, the rest is just pure bunk. Really "ItSt", that's all you need. I will praise the day when Catholicism, Mormonism, Islam, and any other sanctimonious religion dies - it can't be soon enough. In an historical context, your religions are just mere drops in the bucket of time. And just to let you know, I consider myself a spiritual person.

So just to clear this up.
If we don't support gay marriage, we are promoting hate?

I just want to be clear on this.

Quite frankly, "in the name of religion", has caused more suffering and death on this planet, than anything else. You are correct to possibly assume that I adhere to no religion, ABSOLUTELY NOT! I am always amused at those who speak about religion with such fervor and self-righteous, as if you have some direct connection to whomever or whatever it is that created this world. Sadly, folks like you, and there are many (let's include the mindless "bcp"), use religion to exclude and promote hatred. In my book, you are no better than Hitler's gestapo or American skinheads or the KKK. I don't require your absurd faith to understand that the only tenet humans need to follow, and that is, to "try" (although that can be a challenge) to be kind to one another, to other creatures, and to the earth, the rest is just pure bunk. Really "ItSt", that's all you need. I will praise the day when Catholicism, Mormonism, Islam, and any other sanctimonious religion dies - it can't be soon enough. In an historical context, your religions are just mere drops in the bucket of time. And just to let you know, I consider myself a spiritual person. You're also an ass and not worth responding too. Your bigotry is quite evident.

You're also an ass and not worth responding too. Your bigotry is quite evident.
Not worth it Vince.
If you dont agree with gay marriage, its obvious that you want all gays rounded up and killed.
Not any different than saying you are against affirmative action, and the supporters telling you that you are a racist that wants blacks to be back on the farm picking the cotton
or, maybe you dont think abortion should be used for a birth control method, or not used after a certain point in the pregnancy, you are suddenly insisting that rape victims and incest victims be forced to carry the baby to full term.

its just all or nothing with some people.

See I do not have an issue with churches speaking out. I believe freedom of speech protects the speech I do not want to hear. But when they (or any tax exempt group for that matter, religious or not) starts using their money to influence a political agenda it becomes a problem and I think they should lose their status.
That being said this is just all my personal opinion and it very general. I also have not been following the Maine case specifically, just little bits here and there, so I cannot say with certainty that this was happening with the churches. I do not blame any group one bit for wanting to look into it though.

Did you know MoveOn is tax exempt?

There are several tax exempt statuses for politically active organizations.

Not worth it Vince.
If you dont agree with gay marriage, its obvious that you want all gays rounded up and killed.
Not any different than saying you are against affirmative action, and the supporters telling you that you are a racist that wants blacks to be back on the farm picking the cotton
or, maybe you dont think abortion should be used for a birth control method, or not used after a certain point in the pregnancy, you are suddenly insisting that rape victims and incest victims be forced to carry the baby to full term.

its just all or nothing with some people.:lol: That must be it. I must be all that since I don't agree with gay marriage.....or just Mr. Steed would say so.

The truth is, I don't care if gays get married or not as long as they don't force it on any particular church to marry them. I don't want them forcing their agenda or teachings on anyone, especially our children. :shrug: While it's true the Catholic church doesn't believe homosexuality is right, and I happen to agree, I have never heard a Catholic priest say anything against gays or taken a political stance against them.

Did you know MoveOn is tax exempt?

There are several tax exempt statuses for politically active organizations.

No I did not and I do not agree that they should be at all. What justification do they have for it?

1) Quite frankly, "in the name of religion", has caused more suffering and death on this planet, than anything else.

2) I am always amused at those who speak about religion with such fervor and self-righteous, as if you have some direct connection to whomever or whatever it is that created this world.

3) Sadly, folks like you, and there are many (let's include the mindless "bcp"), use religion to exclude and promote hatred.

4) ...I don't require your absurd faith to understand that the only tenet humans need to follow, and that is, to "try" (although that can be a challenge) to be kind to one another, to other creatures, and to the earth, the rest is just pure bunk. Really "ItSt", that's all you need.

5) I will praise the day when Catholicism, Mormonism, Islam, and any other sanctimonious religion dies - it can't be soon enough.
And just to let you know, I consider myself a spiritual person.
1) Agreed but for reasons that you CANNOT understand (because you refuse
to)

2) I DO; but, again, you wouldn't understand because you refuse to

3) It's only hatred in the eyes of those who refuse to understand it (notice a
pattern here with you Mr. Steed??)

4) Which shows clearly that, again, you refuse to understand why Jesus died.

5) All religions will "die" one day, THEN you will understand...

Would you care to describe your "spirituality"? Mainly, what you based it on.
It always amazes me that people will believe the teachings of almost any man on earth EXCEPT the most important one that ever lived...:shrug:

:lol: That must be it. I must be all that since I don't agree with gay marriage.....or just Mr. Steed would say so.

The truth is, I don't care if gays get married or not as long as they don't force it on any particular church to marry them. I don't want them forcing their agenda or teachings on anyone, especially our children. :shrug: While it's true the Catholic church doesn't believe homosexuality is right, and I happen to agree, I have never heard a Catholic priest say anything against gays or taken a political stance against them.

Another bigot, apparently the shoe fits this one too! I wasn't aware that gay people have "agendas and teachings", that's very interesting. And it is also very interesting that there are many gay people who have and love children; and who are much better equipped to raise a child vs. many of the posters on SoMDOnLine. Considering that you have not heard all Catholic priests say anything against gay people, your statement holds no water (holy water that is). Let us not forget that not only is the Catholic church homophobic, it is sinfully sexist! I have never understood how any woman can endear herself to Catholicism. By doing so, these poor misguided women accept the lower status that the Pope and his boys (and let's not forget that gang of disciples) have placed upon females - it is most bewildering. Personally, I would like to see religiously sanctioned marriages recognized only as ceremonial, and that only civil marriages between two consenting adults be recognized as legal. This way everyone wins, we have a true separation of church and state.

You're also an ass and not worth responding too. Your bigotry is quite evident.

Come on son, you can do better than that.

Another bigot, apparently the shoe fits this one too! I wasn't aware that gay people have "agendas and teachings", that's very interesting. And it is also very interesting that there are many gay people who have and love children; and who are much better equipped to raise a child vs. many of the posters on SoMDOnLine. Considering that you have not heard all Catholic priests say anything against gay people, your statement holds no water (holy water that is). Let us not forget that not only is the Catholic church homophobic, it is sinfully sexist! I have never understood how any woman can endear herself to Catholicism. By doing so, these poor misguided women accept the lower status that the Pope and his boys (and let's not forget that gang of disciples) have placed upon females - it is most bewildering. Personally, I would like to see religiously sanctioned marriages recognized only as ceremonial, and that only civil marriages between two consenting adults be recognized as legal. This way everyone wins, we have a true separation of church and state.
Of course gay people have an agenda, who doesnt?

what level of professional degree do you claim to have that would determine the ability of posters to raise children?

Considering that a large number of Catholic Priests have turned out to be gay, I don't think that using the Catholic Church as a point of reference is really all that reliable.

Basically, as far as the government goes, all marriages are civil now, they don't care who does the ceremony, as long as that person is licensed to do so in the state they reside in.

where does the constitution say separation of church and state? I really cant find it.

I hate to get in on this one since so many people have such set ideas, but it is my opinion that the Churches are not getting into politics, but that politics is getting into Churches.

The Church's stance against homosexuality is not new, it is in fact to some biblical.
The same goes for abortion, to most Church's abortion is murder,
The Government is proposing to make Catholic Church's and Catholic Doctors perform abortion which is a sin to them.
The Government proposes to make it illegal for a Pharmacist to refuse to fill prescriptions for the morning after pill.

These Church's stances are not new they are as old as the Church, so people here say when the Church fights Government invading their tenets the Church is supposed to change? How does that involve the Church getting into Government business. Morals IS the Church's business, not that of Government ,to force them to lower their morals or change their religious strcuture and beliefs. To force a religious group to perform abortions is like telling a Jew he must eat ham or telling a Hindu he must work in a butcher shop. To tell catholics they must marry homosexuals is a direct invasion of the Government upon religion. Not the other way around.

If the Government wants a Judge to marry Homosexuals they can do that ,and call it anything they want to call it, but they cannot tell a church it has to marry them and call it marriage. Not according to the Constitution anyay,but then this administration has already violated the Constitution.

Now the Government wants to force the Church to not speak out against people violating what they feel is their moral duty by taking away a tax break, How does that jibe with the Church invading politics.

No: The Church isnt invading politics, Politics is harassing Church's and violating the Constitutional rights of Church's to practice their religion .

I hate to get in on this one since so many people have such set ideas, but it is my opinion that the Churches are not getting into politics, but that politics is getting into Churches.

The Church's stance against homosexuality is not new, it is in fact to some biblical.
The same goes for abortion, to most Church's abortion is murder,
The Government is proposing to make Catholic Church's and Catholic Doctors perform abortion which is a sin to them.
The Government proposes to make it illegal for a Pharmacist to refuse to fill prescriptions for the morning after pill.

These Church's stances are not new they are as old as the Church, so people here say when the Church fights Government invading their tenets the Church is supposed to change? How does that involve the Church getting into Government business. Morals IS the Church's business, not that of Government ,to force them to lower their morals or change their religious strcuture and beliefs. To force a religious group to perform abortions is like telling a Jew he must eat ham or telling a Hindu he must work in a butcher shop. To tell catholics they must marry homosexuals is a direct invasion of the Government upon religion. Not the other way around.

If the Government wants a Judge to marry Homosexuals they can do that ,and call it anything they want to call it, but they cannot tell a church it has to marry them and call it marriage. Not according to the Constitution anyay,but then this administration has already violated the Constitution.

Now the Government wants to force the Church to not speak out against people violating what they feel is their moral duty by taking away a tax break, How does that jibe with the Church invading politics.

No: The Church isnt invading politics, Politics is harassing Church's and violating the Constitutional rights of Church's to practice their religion .

To paraphrase Thisperson, where in the constitution is it written that churches are entitled to tax exempt status?

To paraphrase Thisperson, where in the constitution is it written that churches are entitled to tax exempt status?

You tell me where it says Move-On is entitled to a tax exempt status and I will try to get an answer to your question.

You tell me where it says Move-On is entitled to a tax exempt status and I will try to get an answer to your question.

It's in the same section where you'll find that married heterosexual couples are given tax benefits while married gay couples are not.

It's in the same section where you'll find that married heterosexual couples are given tax benefits while married gay couples are not.

That's a good section then. Can you tell me where that is I would love to read it.

If we are to be honest, And I think that if we, are going to talk about the tax rates of married couples vs single people, the tax in many ways is backwards.

Example, lets say Im single, I dont get those tax breaks for being married, and I dont get the exemptions for each kid I happen to own for that tax year.
But, if you think about it, that makes it so the single guy is paying more into things like schools than the married guy with the kids. Matter of fact, in the case of an octomom, she can basically fill a classroom with her litter all by herself costing the counties well over 100k per year, yet after all her deductions, she not only pays no tax, she gets an earned income credit returned to her.

just totally unfair.

but as far as gays go, its not an issue right now, since gay marriage is not recognized, the can not be getting treated differently for tax purposes.

That's a good section then. Can you tell me where that is I would love to read it.

We'll just have to wait on Thisperson to show up since it's his argument.

To paraphrase Thisperson, where in the constitution is it written that churches are entitled to tax exempt status?

You tell me where it says Move-On is entitled to a tax exempt status and I will try to get an answer to your question.

It's in the same section where you'll find that married heterosexual couples are given tax benefits while married gay couples are not.

That's a good section then. Can you tell me where that is I would love to read it.

If you all aren't just asking rhetorically, and really want an answer to your questions - the authority for such policies comes from the Tax and Spend Clause found in Section 8 of Article I, as interpreted by the Supreme Court (which is the natural condition that underlies every legally applicable reading of the Constitution).

It gives Congress broad power, and substantial discretion, to tax and spend as it sees fit in order to promote goals that it deems desirable. So, there is little doubt that a legal basis for such policies is currently provided by the Constitution. The more engaging question is, are there other parts of the Constitution that prohibit them?

where does the constitution say separation of church and state? I really cant find it.

Again, the actual written text does not use the words 'separation of church and state'. However, that is what the words of the First Amendment mean legally, because that is what the Supreme Court says they were intended to mean. For most practical purposes, none of the words of the Constitution can be legally effectuated except through interpretation by the courts, because none of them anticipate and precisely reference the specific circumstances that might be at hand at a particular moment. Though the words of the Constitution, in the aggregate, are beautiful, they are also fairly general and succinct. They have to be given specificity, over time, in order to have power. We can only hope that the specificity they are given comports, as best as is possible, with the general intent behind their drafting and ratification. Sometimes it does, but sometimes it doesn't, in my opinion.

For all legal purposes, save one very specific one, the First Amendment erected 'a wall of separation between Church and State', just as surely as it would have had those exact words actually been on the original parchment.

If we are to be honest, And I think that if we, are going to talk about the tax rates of married couples vs single people, the tax in many ways is backwards.

Example, lets say Im single, I dont get those tax breaks for being married, and I dont get the exemptions for each kid I happen to own for that tax year.
But, if you think about it, that makes it so the single guy is paying more into things like schools than the married guy with the kids. Matter of fact, in the case of an octomom, she can basically fill a classroom with her litter all by herself costing the counties well over 100k per year, yet after all her deductions, she not only pays no tax, she gets an earned income credit returned to her.

just totally unfair.

but as far as gays go, its not an issue right now, since gay marriage is not recognized, the can not be getting treated differently for tax purposes.

I agree.

Another bigot, apparently the shoe fits this one too! I wasn't aware that gay people have "agendas and teachings", that's very interesting. And it is also very interesting that there are many gay people who have and love children; and who are much better equipped to raise a child vs. many of the posters on SoMDOnLine. Considering that you have not heard all Catholic priests say anything against gay people, your statement holds no water (holy water that is). Let us not forget that not only is the Catholic church homophobic, it is sinfully sexist! I have never understood how any woman can endear herself to Catholicism. By doing so, these poor misguided women accept the lower status that the Pope and his boys (and let's not forget that gang of disciples) have placed upon females - it is most bewildering. Personally, I would like to see religiously sanctioned marriages recognized only as ceremonial, and that only civil marriages between two consenting adults be recognized as legal. This way everyone wins, we have a true separation of church and state.Who ever said anything about raising children. Never said I disliked gay people, just that I disagreed with their choice. I was wrong. You're not an azz, you're just ignorant and definitely have trouble with reading comprehension. And if you bothered listening to the news sonny, you'd find out that the teaching of the gay lifestyle is exactly what they're trying to do in California. And then you poke at the Catholic religion, of course. Stupid people make my head hurt. I'd better put you on ignore with the rest.

I hate to get in on this one since so many people have such set ideas, but it is my opinion that the Churches are not getting into politics, but that politics is getting into Churches.

The Church's stance against homosexuality is not new, it is in fact to some biblical.
The same goes for abortion, to most Church's abortion is murder,
The Government is proposing to make Catholic Church's and Catholic Doctors perform abortion which is a sin to them.
The Government proposes to make it illegal for a Pharmacist to refuse to fill prescriptions for the morning after pill.

These Church's stances are not new they are as old as the Church, so people here say when the Church fights Government invading their tenets the Church is supposed to change? How does that involve the Church getting into Government business. Morals IS the Church's business, not that of Government ,to force them to lower their morals or change their religious strcuture and beliefs. To force a religious group to perform abortions is like telling a Jew he must eat ham or telling a Hindu he must work in a butcher shop. To tell catholics they must marry homosexuals is a direct invasion of the Government upon religion. Not the other way around.

If the Government wants a Judge to marry Homosexuals they can do that ,and call it anything they want to call it, but they cannot tell a church it has to marry them and call it marriage. Not according to the Constitution anyay,but then this administration has already violated the Constitution.

Now the Government wants to force the Church to not speak out against people violating what they feel is their moral duty by taking away a tax break, How does that jibe with the Church invading politics.

No: The Church isnt invading politics, Politics is harassing Church's and violating the Constitutional rights of Church's to practice their religion .


I'm sorry "ImnoMensa", but there are parts of this post that are so illogical and ridiculous, it's not worth commenting. Please people, THINK, stop swallowing the swill from radical conservatives. In part, this swill is no better than fear mongering. In fact, this kind of rhetoric is no different that Orson Well's "War of the Worlds" broadcast. Where on earth do you people dig this stuff up from?

Of course gay people have an agenda, who doesnt?

what level of professional degree do you claim to have that would determine the ability of posters to raise children?

Considering that a large number of Catholic Priests have turned out to be gay, I don't think that using the Catholic Church as a point of reference is really all that reliable.

Basically, as far as the government goes, all marriages are civil now, they don't care who does the ceremony, as long as that person is licensed to do so in the state they reside in.

where does the constitution say separation of church and state? I really cant find it.


You really are irrational "bpc". By the way, just to enlighten you, I haven't referenced the Constitution once. To repeat myself, please look at what you are reading and saying vs. applying an interpretation based on miscomprehension.

. This way everyone wins, we have a true separation of church and state.
so, exactly what were you referring to?

you certainly do like to show your idiocy dont you.

I'm sorry "ImnoMensa", but there are parts of this post that are so illogical and ridiculous, it's not worth commenting. Please people, THINK, stop swallowing the swill from radical conservatives. In part, this swill is no better than fear mongering. In fact, this kind of rhetoric is no different that Orson Well's "War of the Worlds" broadcast. Where on earth do you people dig this stuff up from?

Then don't comment on it you dumb ass.

I'm sorry "ImnoMensa", but there are parts of this post that are so illogical and ridiculous, it's not worth commenting. Please people, THINK, stop swallowing the swill from radical conservatives. In part, this swill is no better than fear mongering. In fact, this kind of rhetoric is no different that Orson Well's "War of the Worlds" broadcast. Where on earth do you people dig this stuff up from?

Can you point out what parts because even though I disagree with him his statements are completely rational and logical within his belief system.

so, exactly what were you referring to?

you certainly do like to show your idiocy dont you.Steed still being an idiot. I put him on ignore. He's too stupid to pay attention to.

If you all aren't just asking rhetorically, and really want an answer to your questions - the authority for such policies comes from the Tax and Spend Clause found in Section 8 of Article I, as interpreted by the Supreme Court (which is the natural condition that underlies every legally applicable reading of the Constitution).

It gives Congress broad power, and substantial discretion, to tax and spend as it sees fit in order to promote goals that it deems desirable. So, there is little doubt that a legal basis for such policies is currently provided by the Constitution. The more engaging question is, are there other parts of the Constitution that prohibit them?This is the jist of my argument on this.....

The government has the right to encourage, through tax laws, actions it deems favorable to society - and does so often.

I have never understood how any woman can endear herself to Catholicism. By doing so, these poor misguided women accept the lower status that the Pope and his boys (and let's not forget that gang of disciples) have placed upon females

Off topic, but I've gotta answer. According to the Catholic Church, the single greatest, holiest human being that ever walked this earth is Mary, the mother of Jesus Christ. She is held up as the example of perfect discipleship, as she was there from His conception to His Death.
The Catholic Church and her doctrines recognizes the value and dignity of being a woman, the unique design of a woman, and the tremendous gift we have been given in the cooperation with God in bringing new life into the world.
Carry on.

This is the jist of my argument on this.....

The government has the right to encourage, through tax laws, actions it deems favorable to society - and does so often.

Yep, unfortunately. That is, of course, unless it violates another portion of the Constitution in doing so.

Yep, unfortunately. That is, of course, unless it violates another portion of the Constitution in doing so.Why is it unfortunate?

It allows for charitable organizations to exist. It forces those more successful to help those less successful get by. It provides incentive to help others.

Why is it unfortunate?

It allows for charitable organizations to exist. It forces those more successful to help those less successful get by. It provides incentive to help others.
but we don't want people helping people, it reduces dependency on government programs.

Why is it unfortunate?

It allows for charitable organizations to exist. It forces those more successful to help those less successful get by. It provides incentive to help others.

I'm talking about the broad power of Congress to tax and spend to the extent that it sees fit, in order to provide for the general welfare of the nation. They have that authority through a perverse interpretation of the Tax and Spend Clause, which has given them way too much power. That clause was only intended to give them taxing powers necessary to effectuate their enumerated powers - and that's as I wish it would have remained - that is to say, such that they only had the authority to do a limited number of specified things.

That's because I want the federal government to be less involved in people's lives, not more. It's because I want the federal government to have less power, not more. It's because I want the federal government to have less opportunities to make decisions about what is good and bad for people, not more. That's because it isn't good at making such decisions, and it isn't guided by sound principles when it comes to making such decisions - it makes them for reasons of political expediency, with little regard for whether or not they are sound. I would prefer society to be characterized more by those conditions that evolve naturally in the context of limited government meddling, and less by those conditions which are artificially imposed by the tyranny of the majority which happens to hold sway at a given moment. In short, I believe in republican principles of government, and a limited role of government in people's lives.

You're talking about one specific embodiment of that power - which is a whole other conversation that I won't get lost in right now - promoting charity. I'm talking about, and lamenting, the vast power of Congress to tax and spend as it sees fit.

Catholic backed Mormons?? REALLY?

The Catholics provided financial support? Signs?

The liberals, as always, needed an enemy to blame for their defeat. They blamed the Mormon church, which resulted in a "terrosit attack" on THE temple in Salt Lake City.

It's not what the people want, we didn't get defeated, it's THEIR fault.

Insert George W Bush, Mormons, or anyone else they can think to blame.

Bob, the Mormon Church can not deny its part in the Prop 8 passage. especially since an (low) estimated $25.5 million (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463078466356397.html) of the financing for Prop 8 came from LDS in Utah (for a California bill). I'd hardly call the Wall Street Journal a liberal rag.

Bob, the Mormon Church can not deny its part in the Prop 8 passage. especially since an (low) estimated $25.5 million (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122463078466356397.html) of the financing for Prop 8 came from LDS in Utah (for a California bill). I'd hardly call the Wall Street Journal a liberal rag.

Key word.. ESTIMATED.. in other words they have no idea.

AND since the LDS business office, finances, and banking accounts are in UTAH, who's to say that "money from Utah" wasn't acturally money from California??

And it still doesn't answer the "Catholic Connection!"

Gays needed someone to blame.. The liberals have learned this lesson well.. They have to have an enemy that caused their defeat. SOmeone to center their cause on.


AND even if that is the case.. does it warrant, or even help their cause, to plan a fake terrorist attack against the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City??

Between 30% and 40% of the $25.5 million in donations raised as of last week by the "Yes" campaign has come from the Utah-based Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, supporters of the measure say. "Yes" campaigners say the Mormons are just one of many religious groups that support the ban.

So 25 million didn't come from Utah, but a PERCENTAGE of it may have.. and it didn't come from Utah, but a Utah based church.. oh snap, I actually read the article!!

Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints contributed between 30% and 40% of the $25.5 million in donations raised as of last week by supporters of a measure to ban gay marriage in California. This article about the measure incorrectly said the donations were from the church.

DAMN, and i read it ALL!! It wasn't the church at all, but MEMBERS of the church.. of course I'd have to question their ability to detemine where the $25 donation I made came from, and for them to figure out what church I belong to from there.

So member of the LDS church who lives in California donates to a cause he/she believes in, in turn the gays attack a temple in Utah.. Yep, makes total sense to me.

When do they plan on attacking the Vatican?? I'm sure at least ONE member of the Catholic church donated too..

Key word.. ESTIMATED.. in other words they have no idea.

AND since the LDS business office, finances, and banking accounts are in UTAH, who's to say that "money from Utah" wasn't acturally money from California??

And it still doesn't answer the "Catholic Connection!"

Gays needed someone to blame.. The liberals have learned this lesson well.. They have to have an enemy that caused their defeat. SOmeone to center their cause on.


AND even if that is the case.. does it warrant, or even help their cause, to plan a fake terrorist attack against the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City??

The Wall Street Journal article was secretly written by "in the closet" Gay reporters with an agenda against the evil Mormons.

The Wall Street Journal article was secretly written by "in the closet" Gay reporters with an agenda against the evil Mormons.

No, what you wrote was misleading and NOT what the article stated.


Maybe you should go back and re-read the article, and compare it to what you posted.

The Wall Street Journal article was secretly written by "in the closet" Gay reporters with an agenda against the evil Mormons.

Amazing you posted 20 minutes after my edited post, yet you forgot to carry the quotes from the article into your reply..

You're a democrat aren't you??

Amazing you posted 20 minutes after my edited post, yet you forgot to carry the quotes from the article into your reply..

You're a democrat aren't you??

Bob,
just because that is when i posted my response, that doesnt mean that was when i originally clicked the reply button.

I dont always compose the message and hit the "Submit" button right away. There are times that i keep the message open (on another tab) while i go about my day, and then get back to it.

Key word.. ESTIMATED.. in other words they have no idea.

AND since the LDS business office, finances, and banking accounts are in UTAH, who's to say that "money from Utah" wasn't acturally money from California??

And it still doesn't answer the "Catholic Connection!"
Google Arch Bishop George Niederauer and Proposition 8
Gays needed someone to blame.. The liberals have learned this lesson well.. They have to have an enemy that caused their defeat. SOmeone to center their cause on.
And a Mormon persecution complex has you believing everyone is out to get the Mormons, even when the Mormon Church admits their own involvement.
AND even if that is the case.. does it warrant, or even help their cause, to plan a fake terrorist attack against the Mormon Temple in Salt Lake City??
What the hell does that have to do with anything? The Mormon Church's self admitted involvement in Prop 8 does not justify any type of criminal revenge. But then i never said it does so i'm not sure why this is germain.
So 25 million didn't come from Utah, but a PERCENTAGE of it may have.. and it didn't come from Utah, but a Utah based church.. oh snap, I actually read the article!!

DAMN, and i read it ALL!! It wasn't the church at all, but MEMBERS of the church.. of course I'd have to question their ability to detemine where the $25 donation I made came from, and for them to figure out what church I belong to from there.
What was the Mormon Church's response to criticism? (hint its in the article)

A Mormon Church spokesman said it is acting only as a part of a broad coalition of groups opposed to gay marriage. "The campaign has had the support of over 60,000 individual contributors, the majority of which are not Mormons," Mormon spokesman Michael Purdy said in a statement. Mormon leaders, on the church's official Web site, ask their followers to support the California ballot measure to reinforce church teachings that "marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God."

Who does the Mormon Church spokesman, who admits the church involvement in Prop 8, work for if its not the Mormon Church?
:shrug:
So member of the LDS church who lives in California donates to a cause he/she believes in, in turn the gays attack a temple in Utah.. Yep, makes total sense to me.
No, but then that wasnt the topic of conversation. The Mormon Church who actively participated in the political process, should lose its Tax Exempt status, just like Soro's groups, since that is the regulations of the IRS.
When do they plan on attacking the Vatican?? I'm sure at least ONE member of the Catholic church donated too..
How did you twist, whether or not a Church who enjoys tax exempt status, should lose that status when it violates the terms it agrees to, into supporting criminal acts?

No, what you wrote was misleading and NOT what the article stated.


Maybe you should go back and re-read the article, and compare it to what you posted.
One article i posted, talks about the Money spent by the Mormon Church, and is evidence the Mormon Church admits its involvement in Proposition 8.

One article.

This one (http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/september/34.74.html), by another In the Closet Gay Homosexual violent radical, outlines Mitt Romney's work in getting the President of the Mormon Church and Jerry Fallwell together to fight Gay Marriage in California
I don't know that there's been a significant change relating to doctrine. [But] several months ago, not long before he died, I had the occasion of having the Rev. Jerry Falwell at our home. He said that when he was getting ready to oppose same-sex marriage in California, he met with the president of my church in Salt Lake City, and they agreed to work together in a campaign in California. He said, "Far be it from me to suggest that we don't have the same values and the same objectives."
Who does the President of the Mormon Church represent??

Take it for what its worth, Dail KOS (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/11/3/15369/3779)has supposed memo's from both the Mormon and Catholic Church on their collusion to defeat Gay Marriage

Catholic Archbishop George Niederauer (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/11/10/MNU1140AQQ.DTL)
Months before the first ads would run on Proposition 8, San Francisco Catholic Archbishop George Niederauer reached out to a group he knew well, Mormons. Niederauer had made critical inroads into improving Catholic-Mormon relations while he was Bishop of Salt Lake City for 11 years. And now he asked them for help on Prop. 8, the ballot measure that sought to ban same-sex marriages in California. The June letter from Niederauer drew in the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and proved to be a critical move in building a multi-religious coalition - the backbone of the fundraising, organizing and voting support for the successful ballot measure. By bringing together Mormons and Catholics, Niederauer would align the two most powerful religious institutions in the Prop. 8 battle.
Who does the Catholic Archbishop speak for if not the Catholic Church?

So, if a church speaks out on what IT considers a religious/moral issue, how is that not consistent with it's role?

One article i posted, talks about the Money spent by the Mormon Church, and is evidence the Mormon Church admits its involvement in Proposition 8.


Your loss of credibilty by misrepresenting an articles message intent, and even it's actual words is not helped by you quoting the "Daily Kos".

You lost any and all credibility in this debate.

...................:popcorn:

So, if a church speaks out on what IT considers a religious/moral issue, how is that not consistent with it's role?

Because our laws are not subject to the whims of Religious doctrine. Speakign out and actively campaigning in a political process are 2 different things.

Your loss of credibilty by misrepresenting an articles message intent, and even it's actual words is not helped by you quoting the "Daily Kos".

You lost any and all credibility in this debate.

Your claim the Mormon church, backed by the Catholic church, was not involved, which was my original post, was refuted by the article i posted (the reason i posted it, since you claimed it wasnt the church but members).

Spin it however you like, the Mormon church has not hidden its participation in the political proceedings in California. Per the statues, the Mormon and Catholic church agreed to, this violates the law and they should have their tax exempt status revoked.

Your loss of credibilty by misrepresenting an articles message intent, and even it's actual words is not helped by you quoting the "Daily Kos".

You lost any and all credibility in this debate.

And you claimed it was liberals going after the Mormon church, for its participation in Prop 8. Except for the KOS link (one of fourt that were posted) the articles cited were from "Conservative" sources outlining the Mormons churchs response, and admission to getting Proposition 8 put onto the ballot and advertisments.

Keep looking for them black helicopters.

Mormon Backing Paves Way for Salt Lake Gay-Rights Laws - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125795766243843803.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_MIDDLTopStories)

This would seem to fold into the conversation rather well.


SALT LAKE CITY -- The Mormon church for the first time announced its support of gay-rights legislation, an endorsement that helped gain unanimous approval for Salt Lake City laws banning discrimination against gays in housing and employment.

The Utah-based church's support ahead of Tuesday night's vote came despite its opposition to gay marriage, reflected in the high-profile role it played last year in California's Proposition 8 ballot measure that barred such unions.

"The church supports these ordinances because they are fair and reasonable and do not do violence to the institution of marriage," said Michael Otterson, the director of public affairs for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Passage made Salt Lake City the first Utah community to prohibit bias based on sexual orientation or gender identity. Under the two new ordinances, it is illegal to fire someone from their job or evict someone from their residence because they are lesbian, bisexual, gay or transgender.

Utah lawmakers tend to quickly fall in line when the influential church makes a rare foray into legislative politics. So Tuesday's action could have broad effects in this highly conservative state where more than 80% of lawmakers and the governor are church members.

"What happened here tonight I do believe is a historic event," said Brandie Balken, director of the gay-rights advocacy group Equality Utah. "I think it establishes that we can stand together on common ground that we don't have to agree on everything, but there are lot of things that we can work on and be allies."

But the church has pointed out an inherent dispute it has with gay relationships. Mormonism considers traditional marriages central to God's plan. Gays are welcome in church but must remain celibate to retain church callings and full membership.

Its strong support for Prop 8 in California last year drew a sharp reaction from gay-rights supporters nationwide, with many protesting outside temples that singled out Mormons as the key culprits in restricting the rights of gay couples.

Because our laws are not subject to the whims of Religious doctrine. Speakign out and actively campaigning in a political process are 2 different things.Did they campaign for a political process, or a moral issue?

And you claimed it was liberals going after the Mormon church, for its participation in Prop 8. Except for the KOS link (one of fourt that were posted) the articles cited were from "Conservative" sources outlining the Mormons churchs response, and admission to getting Proposition 8 put onto the ballot and advertisments.

Keep looking for them black helicopters.

And YOu said the Mormon CHURCH gave 28 million dollars to the cause to defeat proposition 8, yet the article you posted the link to said the church didn't give ANYTHING to the supporters, the individual members gave THEIR OWN MONEY. ALl of your articles say the church voiced it's OPINION against the proposition, but none of them state anything the CHURCH actually did. Apparently there was no money involved on the churches part.

You lied, and you knowingly decieved.

I'm assuming you know how to read so that would leave only one reason for you doing what you did.

:twitch:

Every time I come into this thread, all I see is the "All Gay Exotic Carribean Cruise" ad.


I'm cool with the ad - but I feel so inadequate when I see the picture of all the beefcake in the advertisement :bawl:


Why do they taunt me?

:twitch:

Every time I come into this thread, all I see is the "All Gay Exotic Carribean Cruise" ad.


I'm cool with the ad - but I feel so inadequate when I see the picture of all the beefcake in the advertisement :bawl:


Why do they taunt me?Focus on the one that looks like Mathew Perry - you'll feel better.

Did they campaign for a political process, or a moral issue?
According to the information posted by the group that started this thread (I am assuming the laws, rules and regulations they posted are correct). A tax exempt organization, who agreed to abide by the rules, regulations and laws pertaining to a tax exempt organization, violated those agreements by attempting to influence the political process.

According to the information posted by the group that started this thread (I am assuming the laws, rules and regulations they posted are correct). A tax exempt organization, who agreed to abide by the rules, regulations and laws pertaining to a tax exempt organization, violated those agreements by attempting to influence the political process.How?

And YOu said the Mormon CHURCH gave 28 million dollars to the cause to defeat proposition 8, yet the article you posted the link to said the church didn't give ANYTHING to the supporters, the individual members gave THEIR OWN MONEY. ALl of your articles say the church voiced it's OPINION against the proposition, but none of them state anything the CHURCH actually did. Apparently there was no money involved on the churches part.

You lied, and you knowingly decieved.

I'm assuming you know how to read so that would leave only one reason for you doing what you did.
I'm assuming you dont know how to read, especially when the Mormon Church admits its own involvement.

But keep thinking Liberal (and Conservative) outlets lied when they quote the Mormon church admitting its own involvement in Gay Marriage politics.

How?

There are rules regarding a tax exempt organization and what it can and can not do in regards to politic'ing. They can not campaign for a candidate, and while they can campaign for bills there are limits. The Mormon Churchs (own admitted) involvement in organizing and campaigning for Prop 8 went beyond what was allowed.

The site that started this thread has details of how and why they feel they are justified.

There are rules regarding a tax exempt organization and what it can and can not do in regards to politic'ing. They can not campaign for a candidate, and while they can campaign for bills there are limits. The Mormon Churchs (own admitted) involvement in organizing and campaigning for Prop 8 went beyond what was allowed.

The site that started this thread has details of how and why they feel they are justified.This is your opinion, or adjudicated fact?

Then maybe the Churchs should stick to Theocratic affairs ? :shrug: George Soro's and his groups come under fire for being Tax Exempt yet delving into political matters, why should churchs be given protected status for doing the same thing?

and how many democrats hold rallys @ churches during Sunday service


when a demorat wants to give a speech @ a black church it is accepted

and how many democrats hold rallys @ churches during Sunday service


when a demorat wants to give a speech @ a black church it is accepted

Your making my point for me. Although i will add there are allowed activities. A candidate holding a rally at a church maybe allowed. A Church campaigning for a candidate is not.

Your making my point for me. Although i will add there are allowed activities. A candidate holding a rally at a church maybe allowed. A Church campaigning for a candidate is not.


hmm ...


if a church wishes to post on its sign out front that says homosexuality is wrong

or the pastor preaches a sermon of the evils of X, and reminds the members Nucklesac is running on a platform contrary to doctrine .... I have no issue with that, because the pastor is not telling members how to vote, but rather letting their conscious be their guide - even though it is kinda obvious the message .... members are not being told what to do ....


I was thinking Churches have just as much right to Freedom of Speech ... other non religious groups gather to voice their opinion's or have leaders give marching orders but because it is a "Church" somehow it should be limited ... hmmm

and if you believe Soros or Imelt does not hand down doctrine to be followed, I have a bridge to sell you ....


I do not believe a church, black or otherwise should be hosting politicians (during election season or otherwise) on stage speaking from the pulpit.


if a Pol wants to speak @ a gathering and the "Church" building is the place, let be sometime other than Sunday service

Bill Clinton was famous for showing up @ Sunday Service - obviously politicking

hmm ...


if a church wishes to post on its sign out front that says homosexuality is wrong

or the pastor preaches a sermon of the evils of X, and reminds the members Nucklesac is running on a platform contrary to doctrine .... I have no issue with that, because the pastor is not telling members how to vote, but rather letting their conscious be their guide - even though it is kinda obvious the message .... members are not being told what to do ....


I was thinking Churches have just as much right to Freedom of Speech ... other non religious groups gather to voice their opinion's or have leaders give marching orders but because it is a "Church" somehow it should be limited ... hmmm

and if you believe Soros or Imelt does not hand down doctrine to be followed, I have a bridge to sell you ....


I do not believe a church, black or otherwise should be hosting politicians (during election season or otherwise) on stage speaking from the pulpit.


if a Pol wants to speak @ a gathering and the "Church" building is the place, let be sometime other than Sunday service

Bill Clinton was famous for showing up @ Sunday Service - obviously politicking

Thats why i said :

A candidate holding a rally at a church maybe allowed
I dont know enough to know if it was legal.