I just checked the Seattle Times op/ed page, and still no apology for their vitriolic attack on Ron Sims back in 1988… or at least a public recognition that Sims was a local visionary on the issue of global warming. Perhaps tomorrow.
(Though they did strongly praise Sims’ proposal to provide health insurance to our county’s 16,000 uninsured children, so I guess I won’t be coming back in 18 years to demand another apology.)
Goldy,
Tim Eyman was just on KISW – you gotta get more ROCK!!!
Since when can churches actively promote voting for or against a specific referendum?
I was just reading on the Seattle Times website, “Effort to repeal state gay-rights law gathers momentum from pulpit”. They blatantly admit that they are using their churches to tell their congregations to vote a certain way. If this is not illegal, it sure as hell should be.
This is just another example of how truly activist churches are actively working to destroy freedom.
It is important to consider what the practical implication of Ron Sims health insurance program would be — if it is adopted, and if people learn to take advantage of it.
The DSHS children’s medical program are probably significantly underutilized. As I pointed out, a single parent with two children making $19 per hour would still qualify for free children’s coverage from DSHS — which goes up to 250% of the federal poverty level.
So why should a parent making $8, $12, $15, or even $19 per hour be paying money out of pocket for a portion of an employer medical insurance plan for the children, when they can simply drop their children from the employer plan, and get coverage for free from DSHS? And with no deductibles, co-pays, or co-insurance through DSHS?
So if this is aggressively promoted, there should be a considerable increase in DSHS coverage. Of course, children with no insurance who are eligible for DSHS will also tend to be signed up for this as well.
Sims says 8,000 children are from families that make too much to be covered by DSHS, but don’t have private coverage. Sims thinks half of these 8,000 come from families that can’t really afford to buy private coverage for their children.
I will ASSUME there will be some income qualification for Sims’ health insurance coverage. Otherwise, a neurosurgeon making $400,000 per year (many doctors, especially surgeons, are technically self-employed) could drop coverage for his children, and then get free county coverage since his children are now “uninsured”.
Let’s establish some reasonable income qualification level. Obviously, it will be higher than the DSHS level — 250% of federal poverty being $4,032 per month for a family of four. Perhaps the county median income of $6,042 per month for a family of four, or something in between.
In any event, there will be a lot of families that qualify under the county income qualification level (i.e. higher than DSHS)that are currently paying for health insurance for their children. Many of them are self-employed or otherwise paying the full premium costs out of pocket. Others are covered by employer group plans — which usually required some payment or even full payment for the cost of covering dependents.
There will probably be a lot of insurance substitution by these families, especially among families that are paying the full cost of insurance out of pocket.
Ron Sims plan may very well be a worthy objective and something that King County should pursue. But it will almost certainly cost a hell of a lot more than Sims is promising or even thinking.
Since when can internet blogs actively promote voting for or against a specific referendum?
I was just reading on the Daily Kos website, “Goldstein urges Horse’s Ass readers to squash anti-gay referendum”. Goldstein blatantly admit that he is using his internet blog to tell his readers to vote a certain way. If this is not illegal, it sure as hell should be.
This is just another example of how truly activist internet blogs are actively working to destroy freedom.
Since the church-and-state issue seems to be rearing its ugly head here, I’ll toss out an item that seems to have gone unnoticed by the secular press. Remember Cardinal Theodore McCarrick of Washington DC, who was instrumtental in putting a lid in 2004 of an effort by several conservative Catholic bishops in the United States to order denial of communion to Catholic politicians who didn’t actively support outlawing abortion, is now retiring and will be replaced by none other than Bishop Donald Wuerl. That latter name should be familiar to a lot of western Washington Catholics.
ARGH! I need to be more careful and at least read through my run-on sentence before punctuating them.
Private health insurance for children is very expensive. Here are the rates charged for individual plans by Premera Blue Cross, effective starting in June 2006:
https://www.premera.com/stellent/groups/public/documents/pdfs/dynwat%3B4877_135118062_3128.pdf
For example, families must pay $252.00 per month per child under the Heritage Preferred Plus 20 plan. This plan carries a general deductible of $1,000 per year per person. After that, you have to pay 20% of the medical costs, up to an additional $2,000 per year per person. There is an additional deductible of $200.00 on prescription drugs, and a $100 emergency room co-pay, among other charges.
https://www.premera.com/stellent/groups/public/documents/pdfs/dynwat%3B4846_88624848_432.pdf
So a sterotypical family of four with two children that has to buy its own health insurance will likely be paid over $8,000 per year for their children’s health care — $3,024 for each child’s annual health insurance, plus deductibles of $1,000 per child, without considering the 20% co-insurance for the expenses over $1,000 per child.
$8,000 is a lot of money, and a major strain on a family budget if the family’s annual income is only $50,000, $60,000 or $70,000 per year — i.e. income levels between the DSHS maximum income and the county median income.
I see lots of families who are breaking their backs to pay for extremely expensive private health insurance for their children taking advantage of Ron Sims’ new health insurance initiative.
For being a lawyer, there seems to be a lot you don’t know about the law, Richard.
Essentially, the New Testament line about rendering unto Caesar has been written into law- and it means that churches CHOOSE to not participate in direct political advocacy as part of their ability to be exempt from taxes- thus saying ‘vote against X’ (X being anything from an anti-discrimination referendum to a law instituting the death penalty for traffic offenses) risks their non-profit exemption. They can say things like “we believe X to be immoral, here’s why” (that’s certainly part of religious teaching and is merely speech and instruction instead of direct advocacy of a political campaign)- but they can’t engage in direct advocacy on a particular issue without risking their non-profit tax exemption.
http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=120703,00.html
The sequel to my comment, BTW, is that Goldy’s not a church and isn’t getting tax exemptions.
Spineless @ 2
I don’t have a problem with preachers or lay leaders encouraging parishioners to vote for or against a referendum…I would have a problem if they dustributed petitions and asked their flock to go forth and gather signatures….
Pope @ 4
Your comedy act sucks
Moose
“they can’t engage in direct advocacy on a particular issue without risking their non-profit tax exemption.”
Commentby eponymous coward— 5/24/06@ 10:11 am
IF THAT IS TRUE, WHY SHOULDN’T ALL OF THE CHURCHES AND RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS OPPOSING THE REFERENDUM 65 PETITION EFFORTS BE SUBJECT TO IRS TAXATION AS WELL?
I would note that the groups include the Jewish Federation and the Washington Association of Churches. The Washington Association of Churches includes many of the wealthier mainline Protestant denominations, such as the Episcopal Church, Evangenical Lutheran Church of America, Presbyterian Church, United Church of Christ, and United Methodist Church:
http://www.thewac.org/memberspartners.asp
I would bet that these Jewish and mainline Protestant churches are a lot wealthier on a per-member basis than the “born again” fundamentalist churches that are promoting the Referendum 65 petition efforts.
Faith-Based Endorsements
Wayside United Church of Christ
University Christian Church (Disciples of Christ)
Admiral Congregational United Church of Christ
University Baptist Church
West Seattle Unitarian Universalist Fellowship
Jewish Federation of Greater Seattle
Langley United Methodist Church Council
Broadview Community United Church of Christ
Washington Association of Churches
Olympia Friends Meeting (Quakers)
Religious Coalition for Equality
Anti-Defamation League
Pacific Northwest Reconciling Ministries Network
National Council of Jewish Women, Seattle Section
Saint Mark’s Cathedral
Woodland Park United Methodist Church
http://www.washingtonwontdiscr.....orsers.php
It is appalling for fundamentalist churches to lobby for the legalization of discrimination against gays. As a Christian, I am embarrassed that anyone would suggest that such discrimination is consistent with Christian principles. The 2006 amendment to RCW 49.60 does not “promote the gay lifestyle.” Rather, the amendment simply promotes fairness in such matters as employment. Gay-bashing is not a Christian value.
The Referendum 65 signature effort must be going pretty well — or at least the liberals think it is.
The “Washington Won’t Discriminate” website isn’t trying to prevent Referendum 65 from qualifying through the petition effort, or urging people not to sign the referendum petitions.
Instead, “Washington Won’t Discriminate” is assuming that Referendum 65 will qualify for the ballot, and is urging people to vote APPROVE in November 2006 so that the measure will become law:
“Washington Won’t Discriminate believes that all people should be protected from discrimination and judged on their individual merits. We will be asking people to vote to APPROVE on Referendum 65 to keep the anti-discrimination law and to protect our families, friends, neighbors and co-workers.”
http://www.washingtonwontdiscr...../index.php
Let’s get this clear. Pope isn’t a lawyer. And everything he says is generally a bald faced lie.
As for trying to compare churches, which are in fact taxpayer funded with a private blog, that just shows how rediculous Pope-A-Dope really is. If Goldy were taxpayer funded, he’d have limits on his political activity. Churches ARE taxpayer funded and accordingly should not be able to campaign in the political area. Personally, this episode has merely hardened my resolve to do everything I can to make life miserable for Christians, their church and their way of life. Fuck em all!
“Churches ARE taxpayer funded”
Commentby LeftTurn— 5/24/06@ 10:33 am
What an ignorant dumbass! Churches are not taxpayer funded. Moreover, it would be unconstitutional — a violation of the separation of church and state principle enshrined in the First Amendment — for government at any level to fund the religious activities of a church or other religious organization.
Churches have the same freedom of speech rights as David Goldstein.
“Gay-bashing is not a Christian value.”
Commentby proud leftist— 5/24/06@ 10:25 am
None of the pastors opposing Referendum 65 are trying to claim that it is.
Jesus stopped the stoning of the woman who committed adultery. The principle to be derived from this is that no one should be criminally punished for an immoral act that does not harm innocent victims. It doesn’t say that we should endorse adultery, or that we shouldn’t be allowed to shun unrepentant persons who are committing adultery.
LeftTurn @ 14
I think you meant that churches are generally funded by people who happen to be taxpayers, not that they are funded directly from taxes.
“Washington Won’t Discriminate” has the following morsel of wisdom on their website:
“Discrimination against anyone is wrong.”
http://www.washingtonwontdiscr...../index.php
Why should churches opposing HB 2661 (i.e. those promoting Referendum 65 petition efforts) be denied tax-exempt status due to political advocacy, while churches supporting retention of HB 2661 (stop the petition, vote APPROVE if it is on the ballot) be allowed to retain tax-exempt status in spite of political advocacy on the opposite side of the same issue?
THIS WOULD BE DISCRIMINATION, PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
And it would be worse than the anti-gay discrimination that HB 2661 professes to prohibit.
Discrimination in tax-exempt status based on political viewpoint would be discrimination by the government. Politically offensive churches have to pay taxes to the government, while politically correct churches remain tax-exempt.
On the other hand, it is already illegal for government to discriminate against gay people in most areas. The equal protection clause of the constitution applies, except when the government has a very compelling interest (perhaps in the case of gay marriage bans, but not in almost any other areas).
So HB 2661 will only additionally prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation by private individuals and businesses, since the same acts of discrimination by the government are already illegal.
Needless to say, it is much more serious for government to discriminate, than it is for private individuals and businesses to discriminate.
Why are the advocates of HB 2661 such hypocrites?
Dope @ 15
Churches do not have the same freedoms as David Goldstein. As it has been mentioned already, churches are prohibited (that means, not allowed to) speak on behalf of any candidate or ballot measure. They may advocate (that means, speak in favor of) the position that is encompassed by a measure, but to act directly on behalf of a specific candidate or measure is in violation of their tax-exampt status.
Mr. Goldstein, to my knowledge, is not a church or other tax-exempt entity. Therefore, he is permitted to speak and act on behalf of any candidate or measure he so choses. You also have this right. Though, your church, place of worship or other entity of a tax-exempt nature, may not.
I hope that this is clear to you.
So, in review. The Northshore Baptist Church in Bothell is in violation of their tax-exempt status. The institutions listed at http://www.washingtonwontdiscr.....orsers.php are not because they are not speaking for or against Ref 65. They are merely advocating for equal rights for all.
While you may not because to comprehend this difference, it is a very stark difference to those who are advocating for or against Ref 65.
16
Your comment suggests you believe civil law should follow conform to some anointed religious leader’s conception of what Christian morality demands. Are you advocating for a theocracy? The separation of church and state not only protects the state from religion, but religion from the state. For instance, mandating prayer in school cheapens prayer. And, let’s be honest about what these evangelical ministers are doing–they are bashing gays. They are, however, smart enough (just barely) to couch their hate in phrases calculated to hide their true motivations.
“churches are generally funded by people who happen to be taxpayers”
Commentby Spineless— 5/24/06@ 10:54 am
That is just terrible! We need to do something about that! How dare that people who happen to be taxpayers fund churches!
Maybe they should pass a law making it illegal for people who pay taxes to fund churches. That will dry up funding for churches and make them go out of business rather quickly.
Better yet, pass a law so that people who fund churches (let’s say a documented 10% biblical tithe) no longer have to pay any taxes to the government. That will fill the pews every Sunday!
LefTurn at 14:
Assuming Richard Pope is his real name (and not a name co-opted by someone else), he is indeed a lawyer, WSBA licence # 21118. You can check it out on the WSBA web site: http://pro.wsba.org/PublicView....._ID=765024.
He also once ran for public office as King County Assessor:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....chard.html
http://www.munileague.org/cec/...../PopeR.htm
That doesn’t mean I agree with everything he says, including this issue. Well, to be honest, I seldom agree with what he says. He does, however, have an occassional rational thought, and sometimes does some pretty good research, when he is back on his meds.
Personally, I think we should do away with the IRS requirement restriciting political activity by non-profits. It has been abused by both sides too much. In the 1950’s and 1960’s churches and synagogues became leaders in the Civil Rights movement, without much interference that I am aware of. But following the 2004 election a church in California was informed that its non-profit status was subject to being revoked because a visiting (liberal) pastor gave a sermon which indicated Jesus, as a proponant of peace, would have been against the U.S. involvement in Iraq. Now conservative churches are pushing back against Gay Rights legislation.
The dividing line between “proper” and “improper” political activity is pretty grey. I once saw a pastor tread that line very carefully, giving a pre-election sermon on the “necessity of Christians to be good citizens, and to take Christian values into account when casting their vote”. He didn’t name any candidates, or say anything about candidates specific positions. Relieved that he had tread through the minefield unscathed, he turned it over to the church elder for the final prayer before dismissing the congregation, only to have the elder conclude the prayer by saying “…and help us vote that rotten President ****** out of office!”.
Whether or not a church can maintain its non-profit status should not be subject to the vagaries of who is in office at a particular time. If a parishinor doesn’t like politics (or specific politics) being espoused from the pulpit, then he can vote with his feet and his pocketbook, taking his tithes and donations elsewhere.
“So, in review. The Northshore Baptist Church in Bothell is in violation of their tax-exempt status. The institutions listed at http://www.washingtonwontdiscr.....orsers.php are not because they are not speaking for or against Ref 65. They are merely advocating for equal rights for all.”
Commentby Brainless— 5/24/06@ 11:04 am
Really? How profound! “Washington Won’t Discriminate” is urging voters to APPROVE the law if Referendum 65 makes it onto the ballot. And the religious organizations and churches listed are endorsing this position.
Imagine if the “George Bush for President” website listed a whole bunch of churches under “Endorsements”. Would it make you feel any better if the churches claimed that they really weren’t urging people to vote for Bush, but merely advocating for the general principles for which Bush claims to stand?
Or if a website urging REJECT on the Referendum 65 law listed a whole bunch of churches under “Endorsements”. But the churches claiming that weren’t really urging a REJECT vote on R-65, but were merely advocating for the “biblical principles of morality” that they claim be offended by HB 2661 becoming law?
There’s no proof that the person posting here as Richard Pope is the lawyer listed in the WA Bar. And to say that churches aren’t taxpayer funded is pure semantics. Do churches PAY taxes? Nope. Why? They get an IRS exemption. That means MY taxes go to foot at least part of their bill whether I like them or agree with them or not. If they weren’t tax exempt, I would not care how much hate speech they sprew.
It is appalling for fundamentalist churches to lobby for the legalization of discrimination against gays. As a Christian, I am embarrassed that anyone would suggest that such discrimination is consistent with Christian principles. The 2006 amendment to RCW 49.60 does not “promote the gay lifestyle.” Rather, the amendment simply promotes fairness in such matters as employment. Gay-bashing is not a Christian value.
Commentby proud leftist— 5/24/06@ 10:25 am
Proud leftist there is no law on the books that has not been broken by its citizens. What make you think that making a law about gay lifestyles will prevent Gay-bashing? The only laws that should be made are to protect public safety not for political correctness or support some left wing ideologist for the day. All laws that have not been used in the last ten years should be reviewed and remove from the books. Any law that cannot pass the common since rule should also be removed. The last thing anyone would want to do is make a law to promote fairness for nothing in this world is FAIR. We are all born different and all rules do not promote fairness. There is no government that ever exist that promoted fairness and justices for all. Today this country is still dealing with making justice for all but not required making it fair for everyone. Last but not least Christian bashing is not a value that anyone should embrace today, but some people have substituted that for gay- bashing. “Sophistry n. misleading but cleaver reasoning” one of Donnageddon new words but it really fits your arguments.
That means MY taxes go to foot at least part of their bill whether I like them or agree with them or not. If they weren’t tax exempt, I would not care how much hate speech they sprew.
Commentby LeftTurn— 5/24/06@ 11:31 am
“Sophistry n. misleading but cleaver reasoning” one of Donnageddon new words but it really fits your arguments
There you go again.
“Personally, I think we should do away with the IRS requirement restricting political activity by non-profits.”
Commentby rhp6033— 5/24/06@ 11:09 am
That seems to be one of the few really sensible solutions.
The issue here is with tax-deductible tax-exempt non-profit organizations. For example, you get a tax deduction giving money to a church, and they don’t pay taxes on contribution income.
There are plenty of non-tax-deductible tax-exempt non-profit organizations. For example, you don’t get a tax deduction giving money to the Democrat Party, but they don’t pay taxes on contribution income.
Perhaps tax-deductible tax-exempt non-profit organizations should simply pay an excise tax on the money spent for political purposes. Something equivalent to the percentage of taxes that their donors are able to save by being able to deduct contributions on their tax returns. For example, if donors save an average of 20% on their taxes for contributions in general, then they would have to pay an excise tax of 20% on political spending.
Perhaps tax-deductible tax-exempt non-profit organizations should simply pay an excise tax on the money spent for political purposes. Something equivalent to the percentage of taxes that their donors are able to save by being able to deduct contributions on their tax returns. For example, if donors save an average of 20% on their taxes for contributions in general, then they would have to pay an excise tax of 20% on political spending.
Commentby Richard Pope— 5/24/06@ 11:34 am
Richard what a great idea, but the Unions should by more if they support only one party.
“16
Your comment suggests you believe civil law should follow conform to some anointed religious leader’s conception of what Christian morality demands.”
Commentby proud leftist— 5/24/06@ 11:06 am
I said no such thing. All I say was my interpretation of Jesus’ teaching from the lesson of the woman who committed adultery, but was spared from stoning:
“The principle to be derived from this is that no one should be criminally punished for an immoral act that does not harm innocent victims.”
Civil law should conform to whatever results from the legislative process. If religious beliefs go into the lawmaking process, then so be it. Our lawmaking bodies, unlike those in some countries (Iran for example, and dozens of countries on family status laws — including Israel), are not composed of religious leaders per se. But nothing prevents religious leaders or religious believers from being elected to lawmaking bodies or taking part in initiatives, referenda, or influencing lawmaking bodies.
“Richard what a great idea, but the Unions should by more if they support only one party.”
Commentby klake— 5/24/06@ 11:41 am
You have an excellent point. Contributions to unions (i.e. union dues) are tax deductible. However (unlike churches and most other tax-deductible non-profits), there is absolutely nothing in federal tax law to prohibit unions from being some or most (or even nearly all) of their dues for political purposes.
A uniform excise tax on all political expenditures by all tax-deductible non-profits would level the playing field, and eliminate the decidedly unfair advantage that labor unions have in this regard.
“Do churches PAY taxes? Nope. Why? They get an IRS exemption. That means MY taxes go to foot at least part of their bill whether I like them or agree with them or not. If they weren’t tax exempt, I would not care how much hate speech they sprew.”
Commentby LeftTurn— 5/24/06@ 11:31 am
How terrible! Churches pay 0% in taxes on their contributions, so they have 100% of their money to engage in activities and beliefs that you disagree with. Therefore, your taxes are supporting these activities and beliefs.
Let’s suppose that I pay 20% in taxes on my income, so that I have 80% of my money left over to engage in activities and beliefs that you disagree with.
Does this mean that your taxes are supporting my activities and beliefs as well?
I guess the only solution is for the government to impose a 100% tax against churches, and against people and organizations who have beliefs or activities that you disagree with?
Or would you prefer a more drastic solution, since it is outrageous that government allows these people to even live and breathe in the first place? How about concentration camps and gas chambers for people you disagree with?
re 4 : Ricardo Popay: By what twisted logic do you arrive at the conclusion that trying to politically beat people who are actively trying to tell others who are harming no one that their activities are disapproved of and that they are going to PREVENT them from exercising their rights and try to prevent the unconstitutional preventers from preventing is taking away their freedom is incredibly obtuse and wrong.
Klake at 25
Whoa, son, did you ever take a civics course? A government that fails to promote fairness and justice fails the test of legitimacy and will, inevitably, provoke insurrection. And, as the old adage provides, where there is no justice, there is no security. With regard to the particular law we are talking about, let me assure you that RCW 49.60.030 is hardly a dead letter. Civil claims are brought under 49.60 in our state’s courts all the time. If that statute was repealed, this state would once again permit employers to fire employees because they are Christian, or black, or crosseyed, or married. Do you think that would be a good thing, a Christian thing?
I didn’t have the patience to read through this entire thread – but just wanted to share that 501(c)3 organizations are allowed to do work on initiative and referendum campaigns (up to a certain percentage of their budget), and are able to say “vote No on I-XXX” or “vote Yes or R-XX”. They are, however, prohibited from participating in candidate races (thus all the outcry about conservative churches urging their flock to vote for Bush, etc).
Once again Pope-A-Dope is trying to twist the facts. Here are the facts. Churches are tax exempt. In return, they are not allowed to engage in certain political activity. As a pretend lawyer, you should know this Dickey.
My argument is so simple that even an inbred right winger like you can get it. The churches have a choice. They can be tax exempt and live within the rules, or they can pay taxes just like I have to, and then they can do what they like.
You right wingers go fucking nuts if we want to spend $100 on public art but have no problem giving churches tens of thousands of dollars of tax money to preach their message. Once again, your stock and trade, situational ethics.
I am filing complaints with the IRS against the two churches my wife and I visited. We got videotape evidence of code violations. If the IRS doesn’t act on it, we’ll turn the tape over to the local media and they can put pressure on the IRS and expose the churches for the hypocrites they are.
As for your earlier question, I see no reason to put to death those I disagree with. I know that is the GOP way. But I don’t fear different opinions. I just don’t like paying for them.
I repeat there’s no proof the person posting here is the Richard Pope who is a member of the WA bar.
re 25: “The only laws that should be made are to protect the public safety.” That statement can not be right.
I’m not saying laws that protect the public safety are not good laws, but I can think of manty examples where the public safety is compromised by laws that purportedly protect private property rights. But , klake, you are making great strides in becoming a Progressive — if what you said is what you believe and not the typical conservative technique of saying whatever you need to to win an argument.
Which is it , klake?
Richard Pope is a graduate of a state school in upsate New York. His Hubble lists no significant legal contribution. No law review. No big firms. A know-nothing state law degree. Sounds like the kind of person we wouldn’t want to elect to office using Janet S’ standards. No wonder this guy didn’t win his campaign for port commish.
By the way, there’s no proof that the person posting on this forum is the same Richard Pope.
“My argument is so simple that even an inbred right winger like you can get it. The churches have a choice. They can be tax exempt and live within the rules, or they can pay taxes just like I have to, and then they can do what they like.”
Commentby LeftTurn— 5/24/06@ 12:21 pm
MoveOn.Org, NARAL, Sierra Club, Anti-Defamation League, Jewish Federation, and ACLU are also tax-exempt, and they engage in political activity. You don’t have any qualms with this. So your objection is purely viewpoint based — groups that don’t share your political philosophy should be denied their tax exemptions.
Civil claims are brought under 49.60 in our state’s courts all the time. If that statute was repealed, this state would once again permit employers to fire employees because they are Christian, or black, or crosseyed, or married. Do you think that would be a good thing, a Christian thing?
Commentby proud leftist— 5/24/06@ 12:14 pm
What makes you think they do not do this today with all your laws? Do you really want to work for some one who hates you for what you are or repsent? The real Christian thing to do is leave and find a better place to work or live. Laws do not change the under line problem, but understanding the root cause could help.
Klake
I strongly believe that our civil rights laws make a difference. Laws can most certainly change attitudes or, at least, behavior. Moreover, if someone maintains discriminatory attitudes and acts upon them to another’s detriment, then, by God, suing that person is a very positive act. Punish the bastard. The consequences for unlawful discrimination should be financially painful. I would also disagree with you that “the Christian thing to do” when seeing injustice is to pack up and move away. The Christian thing to do is to confront injustice and try to overcome it. You must really be a bend over kind of guy. That’s no way to go about life.
Pope the fact that you are lying and distorting the facts shows exactly how poor your argument is. The statutes govern what churches can do and what the MoveOn.Orgs can do and IF you were a lawyer, you’d know the statutes are different. Anyone who calls themselves a lawyer should know that there are different provisions of the IRS code governing non-profits. Churches specifically are forbidden to engage in certain political activity. MoveOn.Org does not share that same restriction. You either know or should know that and accordingly, you’re either a liar or a bad lawyer or both. There’s no legitimate way to compare what the churches have been doing. They SUPPOSEDLY exist to promote God. The political organizations like MoveOb exist to promote a point of view. They ARE NOT subject to the same rules. Don’t like it? Try to change the law, but don’t lie about it.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12953015/
More on the republican culture of corruption…Bush official gets involved in JACKOFF!
1. I’m not saying laws that protect the public safety are not good laws, but I can think of manty examples where the public safety is compromised by laws that purportedly protect private property rights. But , klake, you are making great strides in becoming a Progressive – if what you said is what you believe and not the typical conservative technique of saying whatever you need to to win an argument.
Which is it , klake?
Commentby Gorditos de los Alberto— 5/24/06@ 12:28 pm
Gorditos de los Alberto your reference too many examples where public safety is compromised by laws that purportedly protect private property rights requires more detail in where you are coming from. There are many different types of laws on the books today that are purportedly. The fact that the legislators refuse to review these old laws and remove them from the books makes no sense. Private property rights are covered in the United States Constitution and the State Constitution and are not written for public safety like all those RCWs you read on the government web sites. Now (today) some groups are behind the scene taking away those private property rights with code enforcement and environmental laws. As for your last statement I’m not using the word “Sophistry n. misleading but cleaver reasoning” one of Donnageddon new words but it really fits your arguments. But that word you use is quite interesting purportedly “purport for n. 1. to profess or claim as its meaning 2. To give the appearance often falsely, of being, intending, etc. purported adj. purportedly adv.”. I have never seen it used the way you have express it.
“The statutes govern what churches can do and what the MoveOn.Orgs can do [and are different]”
Commentby LeftTurn— 5/24/06@ 2:51 pm
Yes, the statutes are different. Especially since you can deduct a contribution to a church, but not a contribution to MoveOn.Org.
But your objection was that churches don’t pay taxes on their income. MoveOn.Org doesn’t pay taxes on its income either.
Under your logic, you are subsidizing my church and I am subsidizing MoveOn.Org, since neither organization pays taxes.
1. The consequences for unlawful discrimination should be financially painful. I would also disagree with you that “the Christian thing to do” when seeing injustice is to pack up and move away. The Christian thing to do is to confront injustice and try to overcome it. You must really be a bend over kind of guy. That’s no way to go about life.
Commentby proud leftist— 5/24/06@ 2:36 pm
Proud leftist you have never live around folks who discriminate or are bigots, no law you write or try to enforce will change their minds, attitudes, or behaviors. They will adapt to your laws and covertly deal with you in a different manner. You can sue the chap all day long but they have nothing to take of any value. Punishment will get you no ware and he feels that the price he pays to get even with those who think like yourself. Most of these folks like in areas where they live with their sick values and most of the time leave folks like you alone unless provoked otherwise. Now suing can be one of those provokes that could be a very negative act on yourself. They could bring harm to your family, property, and your friends which you would have to prove they committed. As you can see it is a never ending cycle and stirring up a bees nest would not be the best thing. Now there is other lest destructive ways to fix this problem and I’m open for your input.
What say you? is Ann right or not?
GODLESS is the most explosive book yet from #1 New York Times bestselling author Ann Coulter. In this completely original and thoroughly controversial work, Coulter writes, “Liberals love to boast that they are not ‘religious,’ which is what one would expect to hear from the state-sanctioned religion. Of course liberalism is a religion. It has its own cosmology, its own miracles, its own beliefs in the supernatural, its own churches, its own high priests, its own saints, its own total worldview, and its own explanation of the existence of the universe. In other words, liberalism contains all the attributes of what is generally known as ‘religion.’ ”
GODLESS throws open the doors of the “Church of Liberalism.”
Klake at 45, 46
Sometimes I read your posts and think down deep maybe you’re not that bad a fellow, misguided but not fundamentally nasty. Then, you go lauding Ann Coulter. She is precisely what is wrong with American discourse right now. She forgot what our parents taught us: “If you don’t have anything good to say about someone, don’t say anything at all.” I can’t begin to decipher the quote above from her. Her claim is sheer fiction. Substitute “conservatism” for “liberalism” in her quote and the quote makes just as much, or as little, sense. Ann Coulter is not a Christian. She is a mean-spirited, bigoted, charlatan who will do or say anything to stay in the public eye and fetch a paycheck. And, by the way, I’ve sued plenty of bigots. Whether their attitude changes or not, at least some of them learn to turn off their vitriol in public. That is worth something. Taking their money is worth something too.
by your own words if you dont have anything good to say about someone dont say anything.hell if that be the case there would be no post including mine.
LEFT TURN IS A CROSS DRESSER.HEY SHOVE THOSE TAPES UP YOUR ASS.LET US KNOW WHAT THE IRS SAYS YOU FUCKING IDIOT.
Now we see why the GOP House leader was so against the FBI search of Jefferson’s office….
ABC:
The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert, is under investigation by the FBI, which is seeking to determine his role in an ongoing public corruption probe into members of Congress, ABC News has learned from high level government sources.
Federal officials say the information implicating Hastert was developed from convicted lobbyists who are now cooperating with the government.
Part of the investigation involves a letter Hastert wrote three years ago, urging the Secretary of the Interior to block a casino on an Indian reservation that would have competed with other tribes.
The other tribes were represented by convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff who reportedly has provided details of his dealings with Hastert as part of his plea agreement with the government.
The letter was written shortly after a fund-raiser for Hastert at a restaurant owned by Abramoff. Abramoff and his clients contributed more than $26,000 at the time.
Let’s see if the righties are as excited to promote this scandal as they were the Jeffereson set up. Me thinks not!
Once again Pope you’re trying to spin the facts. I agree that we are both subsidizing things we don’t agree with. Here’s the difference. On one hand, I am helping a church that is VIOLATING THE LAW by engaging in politics. And on the other hand, you are helping a political organization that is NOT violating the law. For a lawyer, you seem to have a pathetic grip on rule of law.
Wonder if the FBI is going to be raiding his office:
The Speaker of the House of Representatives, Dennis Hastert, is under investigation by the FBI, which is seeking to determine his role in an ongoing public corruption probe into members of Congress, ABC News has learned from senior U.S. law enforcement officials.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/thebl.....ficia.html
1. Klake at 45, 46
Sometimes I read your posts and think down deep maybe you’re not that bad a fellow, misguided but not fundamentally nasty. Then, you go lauding Ann Coulter. She is precisely what is wrong with American discourse right now. She forgot what our parents taught us: “If you don’t have anything good to say about someone, don’t say anything at all.” I can’t begin to decipher the quote above from her. Her claim is sheer fiction. Substitute “conservatism” for “liberalism” in her quote and the quote makes just as much, or as little, sense. Ann Coulter is not a Christian. She is a mean-spirited, bigoted, charlatan who will do or say anything to stay in the public eye and fetch a paycheck. And, by the way, I’ve sued plenty of bigots. Whether their attitude changes or not, at least some of them learn to turn off their vitriol in public. That is worth something. Taking their money is worth something too.
Commentby proud leftist— 5/24/06@ 3:47 pm
Proud leftist your post is interesting, but I read everything from all over the world trying to understand where people are coming from. My mind is a blend of other cultures and ideas and I will adapt to anything that is acceptable. I look for the good in people not the bad and I will say anything if there is a treat, or it will change anything for the better. Now you know I try to acquire as much perspective about a subject matter no matter who is expressing it or how they are expressing themselves. My way of changing other persons mind, attitudes, or lifestyles would make you uncomfortable to say the least.
YOSUCKSBIGDICKS YOUR A FUCKIN IDIOT.HASTERT IS NOT UNDER INVESTIGATION.AS USUAL YOUR NOTHING MORE THAN A FUCKING LEFTIST LIAR.AS YOU LIKE TO SAY YOUR PROFF.THOUGHT SO
More erudite commentary from “YO”.
Clap you hands, ladies and gentlemen for “YO”.
How can anyone deny evolution with “YO” as an example.
GOP Leader is in fact under investigation. ABC is sticking by its story. Denny’s going to the big house with the rest of the republican crooks. Where they all belong!
LeftTurn at 35 said:
“I am filing complaints with the IRS against the two churches my wife and I visited. We got videotape evidence of code violations. If the IRS doesn’t act on it, we’ll turn the tape over to the local media and they can put pressure on the IRS and expose the churches for the hypocrites they are.”
I sincerely hope that you remembered to turn off the sound before you made the videotape recording. Making a recording of another person, without their consent or a court order, is illegal in Washington State, and subject to criminal prosecution. If you think it will be ignored, take a look at the difficulty one of our own local Congressmen has endured when he was given a recording of an intercepted cell-phone conversation involving New Gingrich, the former Speaker of the House, who in the conversation was entering into a conspiracy to violate the terms of his ethics censure. I doubt news media would accept the tape (and potential liability it carries) under those circmstances.
Of course, a videotape of a pastor’s sermon, without the sound, is unlikely to yield much useful evidence. But some churches record their sermons regularly and make them available upon request – in such cases consent could be implied.