I’m curious why they haven’t gotten other non-church non-profit organization to be involved in this along with them - or are they seeking a special exemption just for churches?
My best guess is that not too many other types of non-profits collect masses of the public every week and lecture to them about how to live their lives.
Actually, they’ve probably got to give up abortion too. The Bible doesn’t say much more than that life begins with the first breath..
…and? There is no rule against any non-profit doing that. There is simply a rule that non-profits cannot tell people which candidate to vote for, which is being considered for challenging by churches, but not other non-profits. There are plenty of non-profits that would LOVE to send out a mailing in late October saying, “Vote for Candidate A - he cares about us, and Candidate B is a dick”.
Something tells me that this is poorly thought out, and the IRS will be having a whole new era of revocations of exemptions. (‘Hey, guys, let’s tell the guys who aren’t taking our money from us, that we have our rights! We’ll see if this government can close us down or put us in jail! Or even, tax us out of existence!’) The churches cannot get away with something that other groups can. There isn’t enough unity among them, and not enough support for them from outsiders.
If Madelyn Murray O’hair (sp?) were still around, I’d say that she had finally infiltrated them. I cannot believe that it came from within their ranks.
What are you basing this statement on?
If you are a Christian, do you realize that Jesus would be called a bleeding heart liberal, were he alive today? He told the young man to sell what he had and give it to the poor. He spent his time with sinners, and chided the Pharisees(the conservatives of his day! He made exceptions to the law, when the people were going to stone the Adultress!
Many churches and religions do try to influence the laws, they tell their people that certain things are sinful. Maybe it is to them, but that is not everyone’s belief,their push against woman’s choice is an example, even birth control in some churches. like the RC’s. many of their people pay no attention to it. I do recall when Ralph Reed (at the time head of the Christian coalition), stated that they were going to get their people elected and join forces with the RC to get the goverment to push( what he called) the Christian ideals as law. These were not his actual words, but I took the meaning as that, and it seems that is what happened.
Where does it say that?
Regards,
Shodan
Which they are allowed to do. What they are not allowed to do is specifically endorse individual candidates.
I think the IRS has discovered that it’s nearly impossible to draw a workable line between partisan advocacy and moral advocacy in the modern political environment. So they just go after the most egregious cases of partisan advocacy and leave the rest alone. We actually do that all the time in the law. The problem only arises when it comes to restrictions on speech, which of course this is. Whether we need to do anything about it turns on whether we actually believe the ADF’s allegation that pastors are being chilled. Do we?
As a constitutional question, I don’t think it’s that interesting. If the condition on 501©(3) status is unconstitutional, that is so as a matter of free speech doctrine and in particular the unconstitutional conditions doctrine, and not because of the establishment clause or the free exercise clause. So a victory means all 501©(3)s would be permitted to engage in political advocacy, which as a practical matter probably means we would just get rid of the designation altogether.
It is a proven fact that “Life” began eon’s ago. Human life like all other species is a past on thing.
What does that have to do with the question?
[QUOTE=SmartAlecCat]
Actually, they’ve probably got to give up abortion too. The Bible doesn’t say much more than that life begins with the first breath..
[/QUOTE]
Where in the Bible does it say that life begins with the first breath?
Regards,
Shodan
As a director of a 501(c)(3) (but not a church), I agree. And I don’t see such a result as beneficial to those organizations whose chosen missions are a-political. If charitable donations become even more competitive due to re-direction into political advocacy, then we are likely to be the losers. I don’t know if this effect is a part of the unspoken intention behind the action or not, but it wouldn’t surprise me.
I also suspect, as mentioned upthread, that a significant motivator is the chance that the IRS will take action before the election, and the Administration can be condemned for putting its IRS jackboots onto the necks of all those poor, well intentioned churches.
Genesis 2:7.
The Bible doesn’t really say anything about whether a fetus is a person or not, but it doesn’t seem to have much problem with killing either fetuses or babies.
They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.
Hosea 13:16
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every women that hath known man by lying with him [i.e. women who might be pregnant].
Numbers 31:7
Then Menahem smote Tiphsah, and all that [were] therein, and the coasts thereof from Tirzah: because they opened not [to him], therefore he smote [it; and] all the women therein that were with child he ripped up.
2 Kings 15:16
Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
1 Samuel 15:3
Happy [shall he be], that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones.
Psalm 137:9
In Exodus, God even commands the Israelites to sacrifice their firstborn babies.
“Consecrate to me all the firstborn. Whatever is the first to open the womb among the people of Israel, both of man and of beast, is mine.”
Exodus 13:3
Not a lot of people seem to be aware of that last one.
Numbers also contains instructions to give an abortifacient to any wife suspected of cheating.
Nothing anywhere in the Bible says that “life begins at conception” or any other such rot. Quite the contrary, it seems to view even born babies as little more than livestock. It views women the same way, of course.
This is one of those cases (as with homosexuality or marriage) where people imagine the Bible says things it doesn’t say.
Not that the Bible has any legal relevance anyway.
Since when does “consecrate” mean “sacrifice?”
It doesn’t. The Hebrew word qadash means sacrifice. That is the standard Hebrew word used throughout the Old Testament for animal sacrifice. There is no semantic weasel available to you here, believe me.
By the way, do you have any comment on the commands to rip pregnant women open with swords, to slaughter “infants and sucklings,” or to bash babies’ brains out on rocks?
Could you maybe start a new thread on that completely different subject? This one’s about the IRS.
I believe that it is regarded as a not good thing for the mother, and not a recommended method of planned parenthood.