In any case, they’re (afa) still fuckin hypocrites, which I’m glad is something that people everywhere agree upon. It’s what earns the “christians” in my life their quotation marks. There are people, for whatever reason, that want really badly to call themselves Christians. It’s one of the driving forces of their lives. Living according to the teachings of Christianity, however, is entirely optional to these fine quotation marked hypocrites.
There is, I always say, enuff shyt in the Bible without making up stuff. I just reread the whole chapter and find no reference in three different translations to children being driven out of anywhere by God Jr.
Warning or fine for what?
For trying to influence legislation as a 501(c)(3)?
If so, then by that logic any 501(c)(3) that tried to influence legislation *in favor of *amnesty for illegals would also have to get warned or fined.
(I’m not getting into the whole “substantial portion of activities” issue; suffice it to say that a rule cuts both ways.)
The point was that the ones in favor are more correct regarding the humanitarian angle of this, the other groups are lying to influence congress.
To me it would be ok to give then a warning or a fine even to the ones in favor if they are indeed misrepresenting the basic facts and a court or arbiter establishes that.
Legally, sure. But, based on their stated religious beliefs, then I disagree. I am (or at least was) the type of Christian these people are. I do know that the government is itself judged by what Scripture says. Roe v. Wade is considered evil because it violates what they think Scripture says about abortion. Engel v Vital was Satan himself removing prayer from school.
The idea that the Bible is just a document for individuals is just not a part of version of Christianity they claim to be with their statement of faith. To adhere to that statement and what it represents, they have to promote laws they believe do not violate Christian morality.
There can be a debate about how to interpret what the Bible says about foreigners in our lands, but there is no room to argue that they can disregard what the Bible says. Not as biblical literalists. It would be like Scalia ignoring the plain text of the constitution.
BTW, I think this is far from the only supposedly Christian organization that has decided to be political first and Christian second. And I do think calling yourself a Christian organization when you do so is dishonest. If you are going to call yourself a Christian organization, then Christianity needs to be your priority. Otherwise you are just using Christianity as a gimmick to get more people to agree with you.
No, you don’t suggest it. You support it in every way fathomable. Every aspect of your political arguments is based on your religious beliefs.
That’s a good question. The first thing I want to point is that your hypothetical doesn’t provide enough information to say for sure. Remember, the AFA claims to be organized around the idea that (paraphrasing from memory) “the Bible is the one and only inerrant word of God.” To my mind anyway, that makes them fundamentalists. Is the Islamic group you posit a Koranic-fundamentalist organization, or are they more like Unitarian Muslims, the type who will let facts and reason hold sway if something in the scripture doesn’t stand up to critical analysis (here in the universe described by physical laws; there can always be a spiritual meaning to scripture that doesn’t make sense otherwise)?
If they are Koranic fundamentalists, we have to ask if they hold these kinds of beliefs, from here:
Which prompts the question: can a group whose message is, “Jews are apes and pigs; Death to America, Death to Israel” even get 501(c)(3) status? I don’t know the answer; the AFA is considered a hate group and they yet retain their tax exemption, so maybe, maybe not. I’m just not familiar enough with the legal details.
But to answer your question directly, if the group is this strident about hating Jews, but completely disregards other parts of the Koran, like the prohibition against pork, I think it clearly counts as a mark against their religious sincerity (assuming their application for tax-exempt status hinges on their Islamic bona fides). But to draw a true parallel between the AFA and your hypothetical, you’d have to include all the hate, all the hypocrisy, AND the attempts to influence legislation in ways that expose the lie of the basis for their application for tax-exempt status, something I’m not sure is even possible when we’re talking about the other white meat.
So I’m tempted to say you need a better hypothetical, but let me continue on to answering Bricker in the spirit of continuing my response to you.
First of all, whatever position I take on these issues is going to have a response that says, “no, you’re wrong, clearly they are in Christian territory here.” Which position is the one that is truly Christian, Bricker? And if you can’t answer that, you risk falling into a position where “Christian” is simply a bunch of meaningless bullshit, at which point there is no point in recognizing it for the purposes of justifying 501(c)(3) status. If it means nothing, or if it can mean anything at all, how can we nail it down and determine if it is sufficient to qualify a group for tax-exempt status?
Second, the wiggliness of the points you raise gives me, I believe, more than enough latitude to ignore the whole question by pointing out that your hypothetical simply does not address the issue at hand, namely, the AFA’s craven advocacy for legislation in stark contrast to the basis of their application for 501(c)(3) status. This one isn’t ambiguous at all; in case you missed it, let me remind you:
If the AFA weren’t defrauding the IRS, they would never make an issue out of citizenship, all of us having, according to their stated beliefs, primarily and more importantly than worldly divisions, “citizenship in heaven”. But they do make an issue out of it, to the point of advocating for legislation that is pointedly and clearly in contradiction of the position they used to qualify for 501(c)(3) status in the first place. The reason being, as has been pointed out already, that they exist to advocate for political ends, in a shameful defrauding of the purpose of the existence of the 501(c)(3) category.
This isn’t an isolated example in the specific case of the AFA. It is a pattern of behavior. They knew they couldn’t put on their application for 501(c)(3) status, “We just don’t want to pay taxes, but we want to take donations to lobby for anti-Christian legislation.” So they lied, and that lie is exposed. Now it is time to strip them of their tax-exempt status, according to the letter of the law you so recently claimed your allegiance to in the Hobby Lobby thread.
I argue in favor of legislative adoption of same-sex marriage. That’s certainly not consistent with Catholic belief.
All of the issues I raise have been supported by Christians, and opposed by other. Christians. They are famous historical issues which have divided Christian communities.
Do you understand that even though different Christian groups have taken different sides of those issues, from a legal perspective “Christian” is still a meaningful religious designation?
Again I point out that 501(c)(3) organizations are permitted to advocate for political ends. I cited the case law in post 47.
You want the government to decide if a particular position is Christian.
Do you understand that the First Amendment generally prohibits that? Do you understand that if someone comes along and says, “I am a Christian, and the Christian principles I support says that the government must end the death penalty,” that’s just as defensible as someone who comes along and says, “I am a Christian, and the Christian principles I support says that the government must enforce the death penalty?”
You continue to argue two points that are factually incorrect, and have been rebutted with citations to IRS regulation and case law.
You don’t offer any cites at all in your opposition. You simply announce your opinion as though it is fact.
So: specifically, please provide the facts that would allow the government to revoke the 501(c)(3) status of the AFA.
It’s not consistent with Catholic doctrine, but it is certainly consistent with American Catholics’ beliefs.
http://publicreligion.org/research/2014/02/2014-lgbt-survey/
Fair enough. And I advocate that, in the context of public discourse, they should be required to actually make and defend those arguments, up to and including pointing out how they are in concordance with their statement of faith.
I’d like to see these guys go on record with the tortuous convolutions I anticipate such a public defense would entail.
Because, in truthfulness, I don’t believe they are motivated (at least wrt the issue in the OP) by anything except the opportunity to oppose anything the Democratic President wants, simply because he is a Democrat. It would be nice if they could be compelled, through public scrutiny, to stop pretending otherwise.
So there are, I guess, countless examples of pro-pork Islamic advocacy groups that Velocity and Bricker are champing at the bit to fling in our faces as a triumphant GOTCHA? I halfway wish someone would step into the snare just so I can hear who they are.
So…if I hold a position that is in accord with American Catholics’ belief, but not consistent with Catholic doctrine, is Frank correct?
How about if another position I hold is consistent with Catholic doctrine, but inconsistent with American Catholic belief? Is he still correct?
In other words, does his comment get the best of both worlds?
Let’s talk gun control.
I certainly don’t agree with that 62% of Catholics, or Fr. Martin. I have argued against such controls.
How is that political argument of mine “based on [my] religious beliefs?”
You don’t see any First Amendment entanglement problems with that?
Let’s imagine two Christian-based 501(c)(3) groups. One advocates for the imposition of the death penalty for accidentally causing a miscarriage, citing Exodus 21:22-23. One opposes the death penalty for that identical act, citing Ezekiel 18:23 and Romans 12:19. Neither devote a substantial portion of their activity to the advocacy.
Which group is in danger of losing their tax-exempt status?
But, just imagine how that could fuck with the Mormons! 
Not a single anti-AFA poster so far has convincingly answered the question of, “Who or what in the government gets to decide if a religious 501©(3)'s words/actions are truly in accordance with its religion or not?”
Not really, because, as I evidently failed to make clear, I envision the guardians of our First Amendment rights (the so-called “liberal” media :dubious:) as being the entity holding their damn feet to the fire.
My apologies for not phrasing it is such a way that it could not be interpreted as a desire that the gummint take that role.
Actually, I don’t even have any interest in being involved in the conversation about tax-exempt statuses within this thread.
I don’t think so. I think the AFA would still take the same stance against illegal immigration even if a Republican were president.
I don’t think they were taking a stance against illegal immigration; I think they were taking a stance in favor of congressional Republicans making life difficult for President Obama.
If they really were taking a stance against illegal immigration I would LOVE for some print journalist to insist, that they elucidate, on the record, exactly what that stance is, and exactly how they reached it, in light of their statement of faith.
P.S. Don’t ever use the word “illegal” as a noun again; it indicates poor breeding, and a willingness to suggest that some people are less human than others.
Got it. Your hope is that the media would report on the positions taken, and contrast those positions with Christian doctrine to publicly highlight the inconsistency?