HERESY said:
Candidate #1: "I am pro choice, I believe in destroying Israel, I am the antichrist, and we need to abolish the constitution."
Candidate #2: "I am pro life, I believe in helping Israel and the entire mid east, I am a christian, and I believe that the constitution should remain."
Would you consider candidate #1 to be a christian? Would you agree that a "christian church" would not vote for candidate #1 and would oppose him? Would you agree that the "christian" religion teaches that #1 should be opposed? Would you agree that 501c3 limits the christian church in their opposition to candidate #1?
No to the first, Yes to the others.
What is a church to do? Is the church to remain silent, or is the church to speak out against the wrongs and ills of society?
It is obviously the churches job to speak out.
If they have attempted to overturn it why is it now a part of homeland security? What would be the reason for making it part of homeland security?
The DHS is under Bush's direct control net. Presidents have long placed their pet programs under the umbrellas of their appointees. A faith-based program under the jurisdiction of the Legislature or a Particular Finance Committee would likely get axed in the case of a Democratic coup in the House/Senate.
Executive Orders have long been implemented by Presidents to run their own agendas when they wouldn't pass muster in the Legislature. By placing the Faith-Based program in the DHS, Bush can insulate it from cuts. (Anyone who tries to attack it will be portrayed as attempting to weaken Homeland Security). This is atypical politician move, especially a lame duck president move. Clinton signed quite a few Executive Orders before leaving office.
Another scenario states that the arm of DHS not dealing with security threats deals with facilitation of the administration of social services, and Bush's FB grants and funding deal with organizations that provide this.
Is it true that one can speak out against a certain individual or a group and be considered a "terrorist" based on homeland security and the patriot act?
I honestly am not sure. Is speaking out against someone sufficient cause for a "terrorist" label? I doubt the Patriot Act even, goes that far. Even if our dumbshit media was asleep, watchdog groups who regularly parse through passed legislation would have pointed it out. Though that text or stipulation may exist in the legislation, I will admit I am not sufficiently well-versed.
So, if bush has been attempting to overturn this, why did he sign the recent executive order that Eternal posted?
The connection between the moving of Bush's faith-based programs to DHS control is not directly connected with IRS enforcement/investigation. The article posted, and the executive order signed, simply state that Faith-Based programs have been moved to the DHS Umbrella. Equating that with instant gestapo tactics, while possibly true, is not logically complete imo. The move to DHS likely has more to do with ensuring the program's survival when Bush's term is over, or ensuring that it will be under the charge of a conservative after 08.
In fact, the EO states that the goal of this agency is the facilitation of fluidity in distribution and organization of faith-based services.
For one, they should not preach a violent overthrow of the government, but if a candidate comes forth and he preaches something that is 100% AGAINST the christian church, God, the bible, etc guess what? The 501c3 church CANNOT speak out against him.
Churches still make political statements, though there are varying degrees of subtlety in the way in which they publicly speak their message. The danger here does exist that churches could be censored, but the danger on the flipside is that you give money to a Cancer research foundation (which I do) and it is spent shilling for John Kerry or whoever the fuck.
Would you agree that this rule places restriction on the free will of the church members or churches who want to campaign and lobby for a candidate they feel is hand picked by God?
Yes, but the rule was in place possibly hundreds of years before Bush signed this order. What is the problem in this instance is the way in which it has been recently enforced.
First of all, will you agree that the recent changes in homeland security were made as a result of acts of so-called terrorism? Would you also, agree that recent changes in homeland security (and the patriot act) have placed more restrictions on the american people?
Obviously yes on both counts. However, to believe that at any time, in any circumstance, the level of civil liberties must always remain the same or increase is incongruent with history. Situations often necessitate the
temporary or permanent revoke or revision of the rights of citizenry.
European fliers, for example, have had slow, cumbersome airline security similar to ours far before 9/11. Up until September 11th, Did they have to wait much longer than we did in line? Were they permitted to carry fewer types of items onboard? Yes. But they dealt with airline terrorism, and during that time, we didn't.
We could simply allow anyone and anything to get on any plane at any time with any cargo, and that would be an example of very high civil liberties. We could remove border checkpoints for American citizens, and that would increase our level of civil liberties, but would most likely be a bad choice.
With that being said can you tell us why the 501c3 status is even connected with homeland security?
It isn't. You're connecting disparate points. Faith-Based programs distribute grants and funding. Faith-Based programs are now under the DHS umbrella.
The articles you posted are examples of IRS enforcement in regards to rules about "political neutrality" of nonprofits.
The two are not directly linked.
Faith-based funding, even under the DHS, is not directly or indirectly to IRS taxation penalties or enforcement. The two occur seperately, under seperate mandates and areas of influence. This is another thing the article
speculates about but doesn't actually show or prove.
Yes, but the issue here is selective or overzealous enforcement. The possible IRS revoke and penalization based on criticism of American Operatins in Iraq have nothing to do with a DHS seal appearing at the top of official Faith-Based letterheads. Faith-Based funding, grants, or other federal loans of credit are for the most part gifts. It is no different than federally allocated research or collegiate grants.
Finally, does the IRS have regulations pertaining to 501c3 churches? If so can you post them?
I know you've studied a bit of business law. If so you know that anything that the government is even remotely connected to has scores of pages of rules and regulations.
They could possibly treat churches like any other Charity organization, or they could have a volume seperate, specific rules. In either case, I don't know.
The total number of churhces investigated since 2004 is what, 40?
You are probably just as well in danger of faulty prosecution by a cop, financial manipulation, aggressive lawsuits by expanding property owners, etc.
A million things can go wrong in the business and financial climate of any country.
To assume that 96% of 501c3 churches are filled with sheep because Bush's Faith-Based Programs got moved to the DHS is a bit of a stretch in my opinion. I've been to churches who spoke for and against the war in Iraq. If the climate portrayed really does exist, they would be under some sort of scrutiny by now.
The reality is you are dealing with an issue of selective enforcement on a fairly small scale. A few churches may be unduly punished, but the worst possible outcome would be a 10 percent tax on annual monies collected levied at the church. That isn't exactly shilling for George Bush with an M16 to your temple.
