Babtist Preacher: DEATH to my tax status critics

[Tock]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...=mostpop_story

Minister: Death To My Tax Status Critics
Calif. Clergyman Condemns Those Who Complained To IRS Criticizing His Political Endorsement Of Huckabee


(AP) A California minister who used church stationery and an Internet radio program to endorse former Gov. Mike Huckabee for president is asking his followers to pray for the deaths of those who filed a complaint against him with the IRS.

The Rev. Wiley S. Drake of the First Southern Baptist Church of Buena Park, Calif., called for "imprecatory prayer" targeting Barry W. Lynn, Joe Conn and Jeremy Leaming of Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

"The prayer does call for serious, serious punishment on people. But I didn't call for that, God did," said Drake, a native of Magnolia who completed a term in June as second vice president of the Southern Baptist Convention.

Huckabee is a Southern Baptist minister.

The Americans United for Separation of Church and State asked the IRS to investigate whether it was proper for Drake to endorse Huckabee. Churches that endorse candidates are subject to losing their tax-exempt status.

Drake said in a telephone interview Thursday that neither he nor the church violated the law and insisted he could use church stationery and the Internet program to "personally" endorse a political candidate. He said the Bible calls for imprecatory prayer when someone "attacks the church."

On his Internet show, in a news release on ChristianNewsWire, and in an e-mail to Americans United, Drake called on others to pray that the Americans United officials be punished.

He gave as examples of imprecatory prayer:

"Persecute them. ... Let them be put to shame and perish."

"Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow."

"Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg."

Americans United, a nonpartisan group based in Washington, D.C., asked the Internal Revenue Service on Tuesday to investigate whether Drake violated federal law by endorsing the Republican candidate on church stationery Aug. 11 and on his Internet program Aug. 13.

In a letter to the IRS, the liberal group said the California church seemed to have "run afoul" of the tax law that bans political campaign involvement by nonprofit groups.

Nancy Mathis, a spokeswoman for the IRS, said Thursday the agency could not comment on matters regarding specific taxpayers. She also would not confirm whether the agency received the request.

Huckabee was campaigning out of state Thursday. Alice Stewart, a campaign spokeswoman, said the campaign did not coordinate with Drake on any of the material he's distributed regarding the Americans United complaint.

"We certainly don't condone the evil comments he's made," she said.

Lynn, executive director of Americans United and an ordained minister of the United Church of Christ, said in a telephone interview that the group had filed about 60 complaints with the IRS in the last 10 years. About half involved Republicans and the other half Democrats, he said.

"Many times, the candidates don't even know what's going on and repudiate it if it happens," Lynn said, adding that he had not spoken to Huckabee and didn't know if he was aware of the group's complaint.

Lynn said Americans United wasn't taking issue with Huckabee or his Iowa campaign manager, Eric Woolson, who appeared on Drake's radio show and promised to arrange an appearance by Huckabee at a later date.

Lynn said, "A prayer for death seems to be a little harsh just for trying to get the tax laws enforced equally and fairly."

Sing Oldham, a spokesman for the Southern Baptist Convention, said the group "exercises no ecclesiastical authority over any individual Baptist or any local church.

"Thus, any Baptist, as an individual, may make pronouncements which reflect his or her own thoughts," he said.

Oldham said the convention also has no record of having discussed or adopted any guidelines on imprecatory prayer. He said imprecatory prayer is mentioned in the Psalms when people called upon God to carry out punishment that they believed was God's to inflict.

[Tock]

Contrary to popular opinion, Christian organizations are not prohibited by law from engaging in politics. Only organizations that file for tax-exempt status as religious or educational or charitible institutions are so restricted. The reason for that is that organizations dedicated to promoting the public good are viewed as beneficial to society, and the gov't releives them of their tax burden so they can devote more resources to doing good.

However, campaigning for or against candidates for political office is not considered something that benefits the general public, and organizations that do so are not allowed tax exemptions.

So, it seems that this preacher was caught using church property to endorse a candidate for president. Ha . . . well, therefore, according to IRS rules, they can't keep their tax exemptions. On the other side, though, since they won't have tax exemptions, this preacher will be absolutely free to preach not only the Gospel of Christ, but the Gospel of the Republican Party as much as he likes.

I hope he and his congregation enjoy themselves.

[Logan13]

Do I need to take the gloves off again?

[Tock]

Do I need to take the gloves off again?

Look, Logan, if you can find a bona fide news source (like CBS news or a regular newspaper, etc) reporting crazy things that gays or atheists or whatever do, that's fine by me. I cheerfully admit that the sort of people you dislike (such as myself) are as apt to do stupid things as are the sorts of people that you like (such as preachers and Republican officeholders). But IMHO, posting the ravings from religious organizations that have a decided bias, and whose articles are heavy-laden with dogma, as you have done in the past, don't qualify as news, and therefore, don't belong in this NEWS forum. AR used to have a Religion forum, and ravings posted from such wild-eyed religious organizations as www.lifesitenews.com (a religious anti-abortion group).

So . . . play according to the rules; there's no need to post mish-mash from religious group's websites or doctrinairre BS from political candidate's websites. Stick to NEWS, and you and I will continue to be good friends.

Actually, I'd be happy to read about the foibles of my fellow gays and atheists. I'm sure the news media have some interesting adventures to report from time to time; I'd be much obliged if you'd bring them to my attention.

One thing you might want to keep in mind, though -- you might not want to take either me or yourself too seriously. Retaliating when I post CBSnews stories by "Taking the gloves off again" is beneath you. Learn to laugh a bit at yourself. Relax. You've only got a few decades left to live, you may as well enjoy it while you can.

[RA]

Contrary to popular opinion, Christian organizations are not prohibited by law from engaging in politics. Only organizations that file for tax-exempt status as religious or educational or charitible institutions are so restricted. The reason for that is that organizations dedicated to promoting the public good are viewed as beneficial to society, and the gov't releives them of their tax burden so they can devote more resources to doing good.

However, campaigning for or against candidates for political office is not considered something that benefits the general public, and organizations that do so are not allowed tax exemptions.

So, it seems that this preacher was caught using church property to endorse a candidate for president. Ha . . . well, therefore, according to IRS rules, they can't keep their tax exemptions. On the other side, though, since they won't have tax exemptions, this preacher will be absolutely free to preach not only the Gospel of Christ, but the Gospel of the Republican Party as much as he likes.

I hope he and his congregation enjoy themselves.

Its complete and utter bullshit tock. You know how many 401 and 501 organizations are out there that are 100% liberal and make no bones about it? Even the rainbow push coalition is exempt...tell me thats not bs.

As far as the separation of church and state it was began to keep the state out of the church, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

Having said all that, these prayers for death do seem a bit...um..odd.

[kfrost06]

AR used to have a Religion forum, and ravings posted from such wild-eyed religious organizations as www.lifesitenews.com (a religious anti-abortion group).

I take pride in the fact that I am the one that posted news from that site you so often point out and I did so afte you claimed "fair is fair" when Logan said he was going to counter your news from gay sites. Funny how you now cry about it now, actually not funny but typical.

[Tock]

Its complete and utter bullshit tock. You know how many 401 and 501 organizations are out there that are 100% liberal and make no bones about it? Even the rainbow push coalition is exempt...tell me thats not bs.

Think again, mon petite.
The rules allow organizations to advocate for issues, like better housing for the poor, or voting rights for everyone, or universal health care, or even for prayer in school. But, the rules ban tax exempt organizations from advocating or campaigning for individual candidates.
Show me a church that's supporting a particular candidate, and I'll show you a church that's about to get its tax exempt status revoked.

As far as the separation of church and state it was began to keep the state out of the church, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND.

Well, we can disagree on this point, I suppose, but it's my understanding that the folks who came up with the first 10 amendments to the US Constitution (particularly the first one) had the horrors of the Spanish Inquisition fresh in their minds when they wrote the Bill of Rights. It was the late 1700's, and the Inquisition (which, for your information, still exists today, but in a dormant state) still worked with European and South American governments to ferret out infidels.
The Inquisition depended on a church-state interaction that the founding fathers rightfully regarded as vile. The Church would prevail on the King to pass laws mandating strict conformance to church rules. If someone was reported to the Inquisition for breaking a rule, he was forcibly taken before an Inquisitor and told to "Confess or else!" Once the Church found him guilty of heresy, they would send him to the civil authorities for them to jail or execute him. Meanwhile, all his worldly belongings were confiscated, and half went to the King and half went to the Church. If the poor fellow had a wife or children, well, they went penniless. The income to the church provided a big incentive for Inquisitors to roam the countryside looking for heretics, blasphemers, sabbath breakers, etc.

The founding fathers of the US were aware of this horrible abuse of civil authority, so they endeavored to prohibit forever any such unification of church and state power in the new nation. IMHO, it's a very good idea, too.

It was under the authority of the 1st Amendment, the freedom from religion clause, that in 1835 the US Supreme Court ruled that state and local governments could not tax property and give the $$$ to churches. In 1962, the Supreme Government ruled that a government-run school could not require students to pray. And there's lots more interesting things that the 1st Amendment saves us citizens from . . .

Having said all that, these prayers for death do seem a bit...um..odd.

Ya, it's the sort of thing that a raving lunatic would do. This guy was one of the #2 guys in the leadership of the Southern Babtist Church not too long ago . . . kinda explains their ravings back then, eh?

[Logan13]

It was under the authority of the 1st Amendment, the freedom from religion clause, that in 1835 the US Supreme Court ruled that state and local governments could not tax property and give the $$$ to churches. In 1962, the Supreme Government ruled that a government-run school could not require students to pray. And there's lots more interesting things that the 1st Amendment saves us citizens from . . .

Which amendment saves us from whiny minority groups who demand respect, but give none?

[RA]

Think again, mon petite.
The rules allow organizations to advocate for issues, like better housing for the poor, or voting rights for everyone, or universal health care, or even for prayer in school. But, the rules ban tax exempt organizations from advocating or campaigning for individual candidates.
Show me a church that's supporting a particular candidate, and I'll show you a church that's about to get its tax exempt status revoked.

That was my point tock, orgainzations like rainbow push do support political candidates. Check out their photo gallery. Notice any Democrats?

No way this church should get its exemption revoked unless we clean up both sides of the aisle.

[Tock]

Logan said he was going to counter your news from gay sites.

Counter or retaliate?

Look, I know there are plenty of eye-popping gay websites out there posting any number of sexual activities that I can only hope to someday enjoy. There are also lots of wacked-out Christian websites, too, like http://www.sexinchrist.com/ and http://sweetchristians.com/ . But there is nothing about any of them that's particularly newsworthy. This is a NEWS forum, and things really should focus on news items.

Given that 3% of the population is gay and the rest is (more or less) heterosexual, that means that there are 32 times as many heterosexuals as gays, which also means that, all things being equal, there will be 32 times as many stories of wacked-out heterosexuals (including Christians) as there will be stories of wacked-out gays. As you may have noticed, it's been fairly easy to come up with some wild tales of heterosexual excess, and you've had a tougher job finding similar newsworthy tales of gay nonsense. Well, considering that y'all outnumber us by such a large margin, that's just how things are. Nevertheless, I'm sure that when you take into account the number of odd news stories proportionate to the percentage of the gay vs. straight population, it's likely that there are just as many bizarre heterosexuals as there are gays in the general population.

The one thing that differentiates bizarre gays from bizarre heterosexuals is that bizarre gays don't parade around trying to make people think that we're better and more moral than anyone else. So, it seems to me that the reason your panties get tied up in a wad when I post news stories of famous preachers who get caught in sex scandals is that you really want to beleive that your heros actually are more moral than anyone else. And this, to your disappointment, is not the case.

Well, wake up and smell the coffee, listen to the glockenspiel, feel the fudgies, and taste the chocolate. We're all human; them, me, and you. When it comes to sex, we're all dogs. There's no need to make beleive we (or they, or you) aren't.

In short, get over yourself. You're no more moral than a gay person just because you're religious or heterosexual. And these news stories that I post illustrate how other self-righteous Christian heterosexuals are no better (and sometimes worse) than the rest of us.

. . . end of rant . . .

[Tock]

That was my point tock, orgainzations like rainbow push do support political candidates. Check out their photo gallery. Notice any Democrats?

I just went to their site www.rainbowpush.org but no, I didn't recognize any politicians at all. They do have a few comments on illegal guns, and offer some scathing remarks about Karl Rove, but that's about it.

[RA]

Sorry bro, I would have copied and pasted if I could but the site wouldnt let me. If you look in the photo gallery there is a pic of him with Obama.

I just went to their site www.rainbowpush.org but no, I didn't recognize any politicians at all. They do have a few comments on illegal guns, and offer some scathing remarks about Karl Rove, but that's about it.

[RA]

Counter or retaliate?

Look, I know there are plenty of eye-popping gay websites out there posting any number of sexual activities that I can only hope to someday enjoy. There are also lots of wacked-out Christian websites, too, like http://www.sexinchrist.com/ and http://sweetchristians.com/ . But there is nothing about any of them that's particularly newsworthy. This is a NEWS forum, and things really should focus on news items.

Given that 3% of the population is gay and the rest is (more or less) heterosexual, that means that there are 32 times as many heterosexuals as gays, which also means that, all things being equal, there will be 32 times as many stories of wacked-out heterosexuals (including Christians) as there will be stories of wacked-out gays. As you may have noticed, it's been fairly easy to come up with some wild tales of heterosexual excess, and you've had a tougher job finding similar newsworthy tales of gay nonsense. Well, considering that y'all outnumber us by such a large margin, that's just how things are. Nevertheless, I'm sure that when you take into account the number of odd news stories proportionate to the percentage of the gay vs. straight population, it's likely that there are just as many bizarre heterosexuals as there are gays in the general population.

The one thing that differentiates bizarre gays from bizarre heterosexuals is that bizarre gays don't parade around trying to make people think that we're better and more moral than anyone else. So, it seems to me that the reason your panties get tied up in a wad when I post news stories of famous preachers who get caught in sex scandals is that you really want to beleive that your heros actually are more moral than anyone else. And this, to your disappointment, is not the case.

Well, wake up and smell the coffee, listen to the glockenspiel, feel the fudgies, and taste the chocolate. We're all human; them, me, and you. When it comes to sex, we're all dogs. There's no need to make beleive we (or they, or you) aren't.

In short, get over yourself. You're no more moral than a gay person just because you're religious or heterosexual. And these news stories that I post illustrate how other self-righteous Christian heterosexuals are no better (and sometimes worse) than the rest of us.

. . . end of rant . . .

I thought I had seen everything..."fisting and gods will" ug

[brewerpi]

I am against tax exempt status period. Run your operation any way you see fit, right off your LEGITIMATE operating expenses and pay taxes on the rest.

[Tock]

I am against tax exempt status period. Run your operation any way you see fit, right off your LEGITIMATE operating expenses and pay taxes on the rest.

I suppose it's getting off-topic, but I'm against the IRS period. Replace the IRS with something like a national flat tax or national sales tax, and we won't have these issues. Plus, it'll make figuring out how much we owe the gov't a lot easier.

But that's another story for another thread . . .

[brewerpi]

I suppose it's getting off-topic, but I'm against the IRS period. Replace the IRS with something like a national flat tax or national sales tax, and we won't have these issues. Plus, it'll make figuring out how much we owe the gov't a lot easier.

But that's another story for another thread . . .

I'm with you on a simplification of the tax system.

[Logan13]

I suppose it's getting off-topic, but I'm against the IRS period. Replace the IRS with something like a national flat tax or national sales tax, and we won't have these issues. Plus, it'll make figuring out how much we owe the gov't a lot easier.

But that's another story for another thread . . .

The "poor" will be paying more in taxes if this happens.

[alphaman]

*sigh*


I see that there is still much allowance for questioning (or attacking) God and the church here -- which I welcome -- but I'm also sure that if I said anything to biblically defend the faith here I would be banned or suspended, or at the very least censored.

I check in here every once in a while and the reason for my decision to take off is always reaffirmed.

Funny how this place embraces liberalism, yet censors the speech that makes certain people uncomfortable. Aren't liberals against censorship?

[alphaman]

Stick to NEWS, and you and I will continue to be good friends.

And for the record -- I want to address the fact that it's absolutely ridiculous for Tock to make the above statement.

Stick to the News? Are you kidding Tock? Someone should seriously go back through the threads you've started since the PRW forum was closed and see what percentage of them were about some scandal associated with the church. I'd be willing to bet it's over 90%.

[Tock]

And for the record -- I want to address the fact that it's absolutely ridiculous for Tock to make the above statement.

Stick to the News? Are you kidding Tock? Someone should seriously go back through the threads you've started since the PRW forum was closed and see what percentage of them were about some scandal associated with the church. I'd be willing to bet it's over 90%.

As I mentioned before, there's a difference between what's reported by news organizations and what's reported by fundamentalist religious organizations. Reliability is one characteristic that comes to mind. Verifiabiltiy is another.

News reported by CBS or the Washington Post is more likely to be based in fact than something that CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network) or James Dobson's Focus On The Family organization, because they don't need to tailor their reports to conform to fundamentalist theology.


You might want to read post #10 in this thread; I've made a few points there that I really don't want to take the effort to re-hash in this post.

I will add, though, that it's more fun to post scandals about clergy and Republican right-wing politicians than it is about gays, because gays don't pretend to be more moral than anyone else, and preachers and uptight Republicans do.
I'm wondering which TV evangelist I'll be posting about next -- maybe it'll be that old fart who runs the Trinity Broadcasting Network. You do know that there were rumors that he was involved in a gay scandal that was hushed up with $$$ a few years ago, yes? http://springfield.news-leader.com/c...ca-197679.html
Well, maybe he'll be next. Or maybe it'll be some other self-righteous nut, who pretends to be more moral than me because he's heterosexual and I'm not.

Anyway, when someone like a Rev. Ted Haggard or a Jimmy Swaggart preaches about the horrors of sexual sin, and are discovered to be paying for sex and drugs, well, that's a good news story about lies, deceit, and fraud. If a preacher wants his people to pray for his critic's death, well, that's gonna get some news coverage, too.
I can't help it if there's been a lot of those types of news stories around lately. Neither can I help it if you're embarrassed by your hero's failures. You're just gonna have to accept the fact that your hero's are just as human as gay people are, and are no better or more moral than anyone else.

sigh . . .

[Logan13]

As I mentioned before, there's a difference between what's reported by news organizations and what's reported by fundamentalist religious organizations. Reliability is one characteristic that comes to mind. Verifiabiltiy is another.

News reported by CBS or the Washington Post is more likely to be based in fact than something that CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network) or James Dobson's Focus On The Family organization, because they don't need to tailor their reports to conform to fundamentalist theology.


You might want to read post #10 in this thread; I've made a few points there that I really don't want to take the effort to re-hash in this post.

I will add, though, that it's more fun to post scandals about clergy and Republican right-wing politicians than it is about gays, because gays don't pretend to be more moral than anyone else, and preachers and uptight Republicans do.
I'm wondering which TV evangelist I'll be posting about next -- maybe it'll be that old fart who runs the Trinity Broadcasting Network. You do know that there were rumors that he was involved in a gay scandal that was hushed up with $$$ a few years ago, yes? http://springfield.news-leader.com/c...ca-197679.html
Well, maybe he'll be next. Or maybe it'll be some other self-righteous nut, who pretends to be more moral than me because he's heterosexual and I'm not.

Anyway, when someone like a Rev. Ted Haggard or a Jimmy Swaggart preaches about the horrors of sexual sin, and are discovered to be paying for sex and drugs, well, that's a good news story about lies, deceit, and fraud. If a preacher wants his people to pray for his critic's death, well, that's gonna get some news coverage, too.
I can't help it if there's been a lot of those types of news stories around lately. Neither can I help it if you're embarrassed by your hero's failures. You're just gonna have to accept the fact that your hero's are just as human as gay people are, and are no better or more moral than anyone else.

sigh . . .

Again, I guess that means that Jeffrey Dahmer and Armin M. Menschenfresser were your heroes, if we follow your "reasoning" in the other direction...........

[alphaman]

As I mentioned before, there's a difference between what's reported by news organizations and what's reported by fundamentalist religious organizations. Reliability is one characteristic that comes to mind. Verifiabiltiy is another.

News reported by CBS or the Washington Post is more likely to be based in fact than something that CBN (Christian Broadcasting Network) or James Dobson's Focus On The Family organization, because they don't need to tailor their reports to conform to fundamentalist theology.


You might want to read post #10 in this thread; I've made a few points there that I really don't want to take the effort to re-hash in this post.

I will add, though, that it's more fun to post scandals about clergy and Republican right-wing politicians than it is about gays, because gays don't pretend to be more moral than anyone else, and preachers and uptight Republicans do.
I'm wondering which TV evangelist I'll be posting about next -- maybe it'll be that old fart who runs the Trinity Broadcasting Network. You do know that there were rumors that he was involved in a gay scandal that was hushed up with $$$ a few years ago, yes? http://springfield.news-leader.com/c...ca-197679.html
Well, maybe he'll be next. Or maybe it'll be some other self-righteous nut, who pretends to be more moral than me because he's heterosexual and I'm not.

Anyway, when someone like a Rev. Ted Haggard or a Jimmy Swaggart preaches about the horrors of sexual sin, and are discovered to be paying for sex and drugs, well, that's a good news story about lies, deceit, and fraud. If a preacher wants his people to pray for his critic's death, well, that's gonna get some news coverage, too.
I can't help it if there's been a lot of those types of news stories around lately. Neither can I help it if you're embarrassed by your hero's failures. You're just gonna have to accept the fact that your hero's are just as human as gay people are, and are no better or more moral than anyone else.

sigh . . .

Yeah. I'm sure the fact that all you post about fallen preachers (most of which have fallen into homosexual sin) doesn't have anything to do your past.

[kfrost06]

Yeah. I'm sure the fact that all you post about fallen preachers (most of which have fallen into homosexual sin) doesn't have anything to do your past.

[Tock]

Yeah. I'm sure the fact that all you post about fallen preachers (most of which have fallen into homosexual sin) doesn't have anything to do your past.

Homosexual sin? There isn't any such thing.

There are, however, preachers and right-wing conservative Republicans who denounce gays, but who go out on the sly and pay for hookers (both gay and heterosexual). That's not sin, that's hypocrisy.

---------

And, it might interest you to know that I post about hypocritical heterosexual preachers more than hypocritical gay preachers for the simple reason that there are far more hypocritical heterosexual preachers than there are hypocritical gay preachers.

Find me some hypocritical gay preachers, and sure, I'll rag on them so much that it'll make you want to like me.