Politics Plus

More and more, Churches are violating the establishment clause in the First Amendment and the 501(c)(3) tax code, from which they derive their tax exempt  status, by endorsing Republican candidates for public office.  The Bush Regime simply ignored the complaints about this.

When South Dakota gubernatorial hopeful Gordon Howie put out a call for pastors to endorse him from the pulpit, the Rev. H. Wayne Williams was quick to respond.

Williams, pastor of Liberty Baptist Tabernacle in Rapid City, endorsed the Republican candidate during a church service on May 16.

An ecstatic Howie, the self-professed “Tea Party” favorite, quickly issued a press release praising the action.

“Last week, Howie challenged South Dakota churches and their pastors to become more politically active in the stretch run to the June 8th primary election, urging pastors to endorse candidates and advocate specific issues from the pulpit,” read the Howie media statement. “Reverend H. Wayne Williams, Pastor of Liberty Baptist Tabernacle in Rapid City, became one of the first to accept the challenge, adding an official endorsement of Gordon Howie for Governor to a message delivered during his Sunday night services.”

The release quoted Williams, who said, “I believe Gordon Howie has clearly demonstrated the courage of character and conviction to take a position that has long been forgotten and lost in this country. I’m glad that this issue has been brought to the forefront of public conversation. It is high time that churches return to the role that they’ve occupied historically in guiding their flocks in making election decisions.”

But not everyone agrees with this kind of blatant church electioneering. Williams seems to have been the only pastor to endorse Howie from the pulpit, and several South Dakota religious leaders spoke out publicly against pulpit partisanship.

Among them was Howie’s own pastor, Bishop Lorenzo Kelly of Faith Temple Church in Rapid City.

“I have encouraged our people to be participants in the political arena and showed them the scriptures that back it up,” Kelly told the Rapid City Journal. “But I have not from the pulpit endorsed him. I wouldn’t do that. I wouldn’t put my church in jeopardy of anything.”

South Dakota voters were also not impressed. On Election Day, Howie, a state senator running against four other Republicans, took fourth place with just 12 percent of the primary vote.

The church endorsement scheme was also legally problematic. Federal law prohibits all non-profit organizations that hold 501(c)(3) status from intervening in elections by endorsing or opposing candidates for public office. The Internal Revenue Service has repeatedly reminded churches to stay out of elections.

Nevertheless, some pastors continue to insist they have a right to tell their congregants which candidates to vote for or against. They are often aided and abetted by the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF), an Arizona-based Religious Right legal group founded by right-wing television and radio preachers in 1993.

Alerted by members in South Dakota, Americans United began investigating the Williams affair. In early June, an Americans United staffer contacted Williams. He not only admitted that he had endorsed Howie during a church service but brazenly asserted that the IRS has no authority over him or his church. He was defiant and argumentative.

On June 10, Americans United filed a formal complaint with the IRS over Williams’ actions.

Americans United Executive Director Barry W. Lynn pointed out that Williams has admitted that he violated the law by endorsing Howie.

“Furthermore, he asserted that the IRS has no authority over his church and that he has a legal right to endorse candidates from the pulpit,” wrote Lynn to the federal tax agency. “Liberty Baptist Tabernacle appears to be in clear violation of federal law. Accordingly, I am asking the IRS to investigate this matter and enforce the law as necessary.”

Although Williams had been combative when he talked with Americans United, the complaint may have given him pause. The minister quickly began backpedaling after the IRS complaint became public, and his story suddenly became fuzzy.

“I simply preach from the pulpit principles, and when someone stands with our principles, I say this person is standing with the same principles we stand on and are worthy of our consideration,” Williams told the Associated Press. “I told them vote on the basis of your own conscience.”

In an interview with the Journal, Williams took an even more curious tack: He insisted that his church never sought 501(c)(3) status, and, although he admitted the church is tax exempt, he claimed the IRS has no power over him… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Alternet>

Many of you have read that I do volunteer work and am on the board of a small nonprofit corporation that helps prisoners learn to change into law abiding citizens and help them transition to community life when released.  I often discuss it here in general terms, but never give specifics.  If you have wondered why, our group is also a 501(c)(3).  Since I regularly endorse and oppose candidates for public office here, I must keep the group I represent completely separate from my political blogging.  I respect the law.

Why won’t the the followers of Supply-side Jesus (the Republican abomination, not the real one) do the same?  They do not respect the Constitution, the law, or even the biblical injunction to render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s.

I hope the Obama administration will strip such churches of their tax exempt status.

The following is just a small part of a fascinating article by Naomi Cahn and June Carbone.  I strongly encourage you to click through and read the rest of this fine piece that examines the cultural difference between Red State and Blue State families.

Families are on the front lines of the culture wars. Controversies over abortion, same-sex marriage, teen pregnancy, singleparenthood, and divorce have all challenged our images of the American family. Some Americans seek a return to the “mom, dad, and apple pie” family of the 1950s, while others embrace all of our families, including single mothers, gay and lesbian parents, and cohabiting couples. These conflicting perspectives on life’s basic choices affect us all—at the national level, in state courts and legislatures, in drafting local ordinances, and in our own families.

In our new book, Red Families vs. Blue Families: Legal Polarization and the Creation of Culture, we go behind the overblown rhetoric and political posturing of the family values conflict. What we have found is that the new information economy is transforming the family—and doing so in ways that create a crisis for marriage-based communities across the country.

The “blue families” of our title are on one side of the cultural controversy. These families have reaped the handsome rewards available to the well-educated middle class who are able to invest in both their daughters’ and sons’ earning potential. Their children defer family formation until both partners reach emotional maturity and financial independence. Blue family champions celebrate the commitment to equality that makes companionate relationships possible and the sexual freedom that allows women to fully participate in society. Those who have embraced the blue family model have low divorce rates, relatively few teen births, and good incomes. Yet, the ability to realize the advantages of the new blue family system appears to be very much a class-based affair. Women who graduate from college are the only women in American society whose marriage rates have increased, and they and their partners form the group whose divorce rates have most appreciably declined.

The terms of the successful blue family order—embrace the pill, encourage education, and accept sexuality as a matter of private choice—are a direct affront to the “red families” of our title and to social conservatives who see their families in peril. Driven by religious teachings about sin and guilt and based in communities whose social life centers around married couples with children, the red family paradigm continues to celebrate the unity of sex, marriage, and procreation. Red family champions correctly point out that the growing numbers of single-parent families threaten the well-being of the next generation, and they accurately observe that greater male fidelity and female “virtue” strengthen relationships. Yet, red regions of the country have higher teen pregnancy rates, more shotgun marriages, and lower average ages at marriage and first birth. What the red family paradigm has not acknowledged is that the changing economy has undermined the path from abstinence through courtship to marriage. As a result, abstinence into the mid-20s is unrealistic, shotgun marriages correspond with escalating divorce rates, and early marriages, whether prompted by love or necessity, often founder on the economic realities of the modern economy, which disproportionately rewards investment in higher education. Efforts to insist on a return to traditional pieties thus inevitably clash with the structure of the modern economy and produce recurring cries of moral crisis… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Alternet>

This article confirms what I have known for some time.  The hallmark of red state ideals is ignorance.  Often time we impugn the morality of these people, and I confess to joining-in, but for the most part, those who hold red state views are good people.  They want the same things we want.  They work too hard for too little.  They are just too ignorant to understand that they are trying to carry 19th century ideas into the 21st century.  They have been brainwashed to believe that the very ideas, needed to achieve the happiness and stability for their families that they seek, are a threat to them.  The irony is that people, who hold views opposite to theirs, are far more likely to achieve the family values they espouse than they are.  The true villains in this are the purveyors of the lies that imprison them, not the red staters themselves.  The true villains exploit their labor for slave wages.  The the true villains demand their obedience to Supply-side Jesus (the GOP invention, not the real one) and his gospel of war, greed and hate.  The true villains undermine their education to keep them ignorant enough to enthrall.  The true villains are the Republican party and their corporate masters.

The machinations of the religious right never cease to amaze me.  Lady brood mares, your service is required! 😉

The AFA’s Bryan Fischer points to an article reporting on a study that has found that more American women are choosing not to have children and sees in it an opportunity for Christians to ultimately gain complete social, cultural, and political dominance by simply breeding more [theocrat delinked]:

What this means quite simply is that liberals are breeding themselves out of existence … All this represents a marvelous opportunity for conservatives. We can regain political control of this country by simply following the biblical mandate to “be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth.” This cultural mandate from God, as recorded in Genesis 1:28, has never been rescinded. It is as much in effect today as the moment it was first uttered.

…

Since we need to make up for the childbearing aversion of our secular fundamentalist friends, perhaps each conservative family can set out to have at least four children. It won’t be too long before our poor, outflanked elites will be so badly outnumbered by a new generation imbued with the values of the Judeo-Christian tradition they may have to start having children of their own just to fight back and retain a sliver of cultural influence…  [emphasis added]

Inserted from <Right Wing Watch>

I can see only one way that we on the left can overcome this vile Machiavellian plot.  We must invest our precious bodily fluids and beat them to the bedroom.  I’m not sure about my status as a warrior, as I may have forgotten how, but if one of you needs my assistance, I’d be happy to try to remember. 😉

I often have occasion to question the mental health of several of the people GOP sheeple elect.  In this case, there’s no question about it.

Oklahoma State Senator Rex Duncan (R) is pushing for a ballot measure that would prohibit courts from considering international or sharia law when deciding cases. He says the measure is a "preemptive strike" against "liberal judges" who want to "undermine those founding principles" of America.

The "Save Our State" amendment would require Oklahoma courts to use state and federal laws only when ruling, and Duncan explained on MSNBC today that he wants to ensure "that our courts are not used to undermine those founding principles, and turn Oklahoma into something that our founding fathers and our great grandparents wouldn’t recognize."

He said that "Oklahomans recognize that America was founded on Judeo-Christian principles," and that his measure "is a pre-emptive strike to make sure that liberal judges don’t take to the bench in an effort to use their position to undermine" those principles by considering international or sharia law.

When asked if there was a danger of judges doing this, Duncan maintained that though it hasn’t happened yet, "it’s not just a danger. It’s a reality."… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <TPM>

I have some news for Duncan.  Our founding fathers gave Islam equal status with Christianity when they ratified the First Amendment.  Furthermore, those Muslims that insist on strict observance of Sharia are not the liberals, just like those Christians who insist on strict observance of Old Testament Law, they are the most rabid right-wingers.  Finally, I am completely unaware of any legal case where a US Judge has decided a case based on Sharia.

Run, Mr. Duncan, do not walk, to the closest psychiatrist.  You are suffering from Teabuggery Disorder.