Is That Legal?

The IRS will surely be send a letter shortly to revoke the church's non-profit status, He might have a few more unhappy members when they find out their contributions are no longer tax deductible.

Holy crap.

Having lost almost fifty members, I wonder how many he's got left? That's the interesting question as far as I'm concerned: not that he did it, which is just mildly beyond what's becoming normal in a big slice of the politicized churches, but whether enough of his congregation supported it for it to be a viable m.o. Frankly, whether I'm steamed or not depends a great deal on whether this is an outlier who will help us define limits on civilized discourse, or a pioneer who is going to be followed and imitated.

Screw 'em.

Ironically, Walter Jones, US Congressman from NE NC (not my rep, but his district is three miles away), has proposed legislation permitting churches to promote political candidates openly, without any fear of losing their tax-exempt status. This recent incident at this small (getting smaller!) church is just further proof at just how irresponsible Jones's bill is, for all that would do is encourage more of the same. And that would be sad not only for our political system, but for religion.

Screw them? I think not. For those of us who value both our citizenship and our faith, this is a sad day when both are put in jeopardy.

As a Presbyterian who was raised Baptist, even going as far as attending a Baptist university (History major, religion minor), I can say that this particular incident is par for the course. Fundamentalist Baptist churches are renowned for their dictatorical polity, for pastors obsessed with power (and sometimes the money that goes with it). Separation of powers has no place in such a system. Fortunately, mainline Protestants tend to have more a republican system of church government.

Of course, they are godless communistic liberals going to hell. So I heard, growing up.

1. What this minister did is wrong

2. It should be legal for ministers to practice their now law-impinged constitutional right to free speech.

If this man feels the need to make an ass of himself and destroy his church in the same stroke, that should be (unfortunately) his right to do as a free American and the leader (used loosely) of his Church. His church-goers need to deal with him, not the Federal government through the IRS. Besides, he could just file to become a 527 and say anything he wants, even if it's a lie.

i think the prohibition on partisan advocacy and endorsement makes a ton of sense, especially given the rise of megachurches that may have as many as three different services broadcast on television, not to mention sophisicated mail compaigns and other ministries that might be confused as political advertising. i for sure don't need my tax dollars subsidizing a jesus-flavored propaganda juggernaut. i say, if you wanna preach politics to the masses, pay for it like everyone else.

Chan should be indicted for felony intimidation in connection with a civil right - the right to vote freely.

Chan has offered a reward for voting his way (continued property interest in the curch) and conversely charged a fee for voting against his wishes (The loss of property interest in a community group ie church)

If Chan wants to run a political party, he should register as one.

I think he's a few glasses shy of a kool-aid party and the community needs to be protected before he encourages people to kill themselves.

"needs to be protected?"

A little much. I err on the side of keeping the government "protectors" out of religous institutions. And you can't seriously equate this with Jonestown.

First, your reporting is incorrect and irresponsible. If you'd like to read something closer to the truth of what happened, then go here:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/10/church.politics.ap/index.html

Second, "i for sure don't need my tax dollars subsidizing a jesus-flavored propaganda juggernaut", is a rather ridiculous statement for more than one reason. 100 members does not a juggernaut make. Churches don't receive money from the government, parishioners can write their donations off on their taxes. How is that subsidy?

Third, "continued property interest in the curch" is also ridiculous. Membership in the church does not make you an "owner" of property. If it did, you include the church building as your asset when you apply for a loan.

BTW, for everyone that actually read and believed the original article as written, how does that hook, line, and sinker taste?

you people are too funny. No wonder the democratic party is in shambles...

[sigh]

Joe