Will Julie and Nels embrace the hate ?

[johnb]

Ms Robison and Mr Roseland,

For years now we've all heard politicians uttering the
standard campaign rhetoric that they're trying to
"reach out to the community" and "be inclusive" and so
on and so forth. This week it was demonstrated to me
that there is one political organization in Wake
County not above spewing hateful rhetoric in an effort
to demonize those that disagree with them, comparing
those people to fascists and claiming they want to
create a religious theocracy in America. That
organization is the Wake County Democratic Party. The
partys own website provides the damning evidence, in
fact, the partys county chairman is the offender.

http://wakedems.org/user/9

WakeChair, whom I assume to be Keith Karlsson, the
actual Chair of the Wake County Democratic Party has
posted numerous hate filled diatribes, but these two
stick out:

# Christian Fascists
# Republican Ayatollahs

As someone who has lived in an Islamic nation in the
middle east and has studied Islamic history and
theology this comparision of local evangelical
Christians and political neophytes to Shi'ite clerics
is shocking at the very least. The comparision is
hateful on an emotional level, ridiculous on the
factual level, and gut wrenchingly viscious on a
theological level. It is akin to refering to the rabbi
of the local synogogue as a machine gunner at
Auschwitz.

The "Christian Fascist" article is a bit of mean
spirited propoganda Mr Karlsson simply reposts on the
Wake County Democratic Party Web site. The "Republican
Ayatollah" is an original piece of hate speech penned
by Mr Karlsson himself.

It would be one thing if Mr Karlsson were an anonymous
poster on a political web page, much like
CaryPolitics.com. He is not. He is the party chairman
of the Wake County Democratic Party posting these
hateful diatribes on the partys official web page. I
went to the Wake County Republican Party web page and
the Wake County Libertarian Party web page and
couldn't find anything comparable. Here, search it
yourself:

http://www.wakelp.org/
http://www.wakegop.org/index.php

I even searched the Western Wake GOP page, Cary
Republican Women, and found nothing comparable to the
vile and hateful spewage coming from the pen of the
Wake County Democratic Party Chairman. I'm not sure
how demonizing 1/3 of the electorate is a winning
electoral strategy, but far be it from me to dictate
campaign tactics to the WCDP.

So now I am left wondering Julie and Nels, the Wake
County Democratic Party has links and bios of the two
of you on their web site. You are listed as two of
"their" elected officials.

Is this hate-filled rhetoric from your party chairman
something you feel comfortable taking before the
voters, ie, will we see it on your campaign
literature?

Do you share his hatred and/or contempt for
Evangelical Christians?

Since you have apparently done nothing to distance
yourself from his remarks or rebuke him for his
statements what are we, the voters in the city of
Cary, to think of you with respect to his demonstrated
insensitivity and hate?

Do you approve of the use of inflammatory rhetoric as
a means to incite your base and demonize your
political opponents the way your party chairman does?

Is intolerance and hatred a family value you wish to
protect and propogate or will you take a stand against
it and against your partys county chairman?

Given the attitude of your county party chairman how
can you assure the voters of Cary, who are evangelical
Christians, that you can fairly and honestly represent
them on the City Council?

I look forward to your responses Julie and Nels. The
two of you are the face of the Democratic Party in the
city government. Let not that face be one of hatred.

The offensive and inflammatory comments by your county
party chairman along with the URLs are copied into
this message for your review. A refusal to respond
will have to be construed as your active and willing
support for Mr Karlsson's hate speech.

John Barbara
Cary, NC

=================================
http://www.wakedems.org/node/680
Republican Ayatollahs
Submitted by WakeChair on Sun, 05/01/2005 - 6:17pm.

The Republican Ayatollahs are trying to impose their
extremist religion on the people of Wake County. Check
out called2Action.org. "What began as a gathering of
like-minded people to protest a Raleigh City
Council decision has become a grassroots organization
crossing political, denominational and racial lines to
promote and defend our shared family and social
values." There is a list of 40-some churches allegedly
active in politics. And the list of Republican
politicians and elected officials advising the
Ayatollahs includes Republican State Senator Neal
Hunt, Republican State Representative Russell Capps,
and Republican Wake School Board member Ron Margiotta.
Are the Republican "advisors" telling the Ayatollahs
what to do? Or are the Ayatollahs telling the
Republicans what to do?
» WakeChair's blog

================================
http://www.wakedems.org/node/681

Christian Fascists
Submitted by WakeChair on Sun, 05/01/2005 - 7:02pm.

From the May Harper's Magazine, not yet available on
line, "Feeling the hate with the National Religious
Broadcasters" by Chris Hedges: "I can't help but
recall the words of my ethics professor at Harvard
Divinity School, Dr. James Luther Adams, who told us
that when were his age, and he was then close to
eighty, we would all be fighting the "Christian
fascists." He gave us that warning twenty-five years
ago, when Pat Robertson and other prominent
evangelists began speaking of a new political religion
that would direct its efforts at taking control of all
major American institutions, including mainstream
denominations and the government, so as to transforn
the United States into a global Christian empire. At
the time, it was hard to take such fantastic rhetoric
seriously. But fascism, Adams warned, would not return
wearing swastikas and brown shirts. Its ideological
inheritors would cloak themselves in the language of
the Bible; they would come carrying crosses and
chanting the Pledge of Allegiance. ... too many
liberals failed to understand the power and allure of
evil, and when the radical Christians came, these
people would undoubtedly play by the old, polite rules
of democracy long after those in power had begun to
dismantle the democratic state. ... He knew how
desperately people want to believe lies told by
totalitarian movements, how easily those lies lull
moderates into passivity. Adams told us to watch
closely the Christian right's persecution of
homosexuals and lesbians. Hitler, he reminded us,
promised to restore moral values not long after he
took power in 1933, then imposed a ban on all
homosexual and lesbian organizations and publications.
... Homosexuals and lesbians, Adams said, would be the
first "deviants" singled out by the Christian right.
We would be the next."
================================

I resent evangelicals - and automatically tun(e) them
off. - Stan Norwalk as posted on CaryPolitics.com

[dhyatt]

JohnB,
Simply superb questions. I hope Mr. Curran encourages a response from Julie. If I were running against her, I'd make sure such allegiances became an issue.

[johnb]

Look at the dates Don, that man posted those hate filled messages on the Wake County Democratic Partys official web page THREE MONTHS AGO.

The members and elected officials of that party here in Wake County did NOTHING. Their county party platform is so extensive as to have a section covering offshore drilling for oil, yet they have NOTHING about religious bigotry except the party chairman's comments. That says quite a bit.

[johnb]

Modified for submission to the Cary News and Raleigh N&O:

It is refreshing at times to see a political party say
what they mean. There is one locally not above spewing
hate to demonize those that disagree with them. That
is the Wake County Democratic Party. The party’s
website provides the proof and the offender is the
chairman of the WCDP. He refers to Evangelicals as
fascists, “Republican Ayatollahs”, and hints that they
seek to physically exterminate homosexuals.

As someone who has lived in an Islamic nation and has
studied Islamic history and theology I found this
comparison to Shiite clerics to be shocking and gut
wrenchingly vicious.

Mr. Karlsson has a collection of posts at
http://www.wakedems.org . The “Republican Ayatollahs”
and “Christian Fascists” posts are merely two of the
more obscene. I'm not sure how demonizing 1/3 of the
electorate is a winning electoral strategy, but far be
it from me to dictate campaign tactics to the WCDP.

I am left wondering how the voters of Wake County, who
happen to be Evangelical Christians, should approach
elected Democratic Party officials. I would ask the
following:

Is this rhetoric from your party chairman something
the elected Democrats feel comfortable taking before
the voters, i.e., will we see it on their campaign
literature?

Do they share his hatred and/or contempt for
Evangelical Christians?

These hateful remarks were posted on the WCDP’s
official web page on May 1st. Why have NO elected
Democrats said anything about this?

How quickly will those pages be removed?

John Barbara
Cary, NC

[johnb]

So far Julie and Nels seem to be quite comfortable with their county party chairman spouting hateful diatribes on the Wake Democratic Partys official web site.

It is ashame that Ernie, Jack, and Mike don't put a motion forward at the next city council condemning the Wake County Democratic Party chairman for being a hatemongering and demonizing 1/3 of the electorate on behalf of his party and his partys elected officials.

Let's get Julie and Nels on the record, officially, either supporting or condemning the hate of their county chairman.

Curran should be putting this stuff together for use in a flyer to be distributed at church parking lots across Cary.

[HW]

Um :?
What does Nels and Julie have to do with Keith Karlson's blogs?
Why don't you debate him for what he has said rather than posting here?
OR
Why don't you invite him to blog here?
While I would love to see the debate I really don't want to debate this one. However, I will admit that Western Wake Republicans can get pretty nasty themselves. Just an observation when I was in office.

HW

[johnb]

1-He is their party chairman here in Wake County.

2-They are identified on the WCDP web site as "their" elected officials in the city of Cary.

3-Their party chairman has made some vicious and divisive statement on the party's official website and he did this as the party chairman, not as Joe Private Citizen.

4-They are members of and leaders within the WCDP. The citizens of Cary have a right to know if they embrace the hatred their leader, Keith Karlsson, articulates against Evangelical Christians. Seeing how 1/3 of the citizens of Cary are Evangelical Christians they have a right to know if their city council representatives are incapable of faithfully and honesty representing them because of religious bigotry and hatred.

5-*IF* the Wake GOP party chairman posted nasty rhetoric demonizing 1/3 of the electorate and calling them fascists on the partys official website, yeah, I'd ask Joyce, McAlister, and Smith if they agreed with and shared those sentiments.

6-I'm not going to bother attempting to convince Keith Karlsson he's wrong. I doubt bigotry can be reasoned with, only identified and isolated from decent society. He's free to be a bigot, the rest of us are free to ask the members and elected officials from his party if they share his prejudice and hate.

So far it appears that aside from sending you out to test the waters Harold that JULIEFORCARY! and Nels are actually quite comfortable with the inherent hatred oozing from their party chairman.

As a member of the WCDP and former elected official do you agree with Karlsson's statements Harold? I'm curious how widespread that religious bigotry is within the Wake Democratic Party.

[SteveG]

Karlson should apologize for his lack of sensitivity, but there are a lot of reasonable people who don't interpret his gross exaggerations as bigotry.

I considered myself a Christian when I first moved to North Carolina from New Hampshire. But my exposure to outspoken Evangelicals via the local media and social circles since I moved here caused me great concern. The level of hate these so-called "Christians" aimed toward people I cared deeply about was more than I could bear. Whether they tried to deny the best available medical care for my cousin who died of Aids or treated scientists as heretics, I was thoroughly offended. I had always thought that being a Christian meant doing good, intelligent things to promote the welfare of others. Instead, the message I kept hearing from Evangelicals was that one should do awful, illogical things to promote Christianity.

I know that most Christians, like most Muslims, don't support such hate and stupidity. But, if we are to blame entire groups for the actions of their leaders, then I had better not be considered a Christian. I will continue to do what I think is good, ethical, and logical, and if others want to consider these to be Christian acts, that's fine with me, but I will do them because they seem right, not because they seem to be Christian.

[johnb]

Instead, the message I kept hearing from Evangelicals was that one should do awful, illogical things to promote Christianity.

I have yet to hear anything like that.

I've no idea who or what you may or may not have heard but the hateful diatribe unloaded by Karlson was quite direct and without parallel from opposing partys.

I would hope Steve, that you don't subscribe to the nonsensical view that
"hate" means "the thoughts and actions of people I don't like or otherwise disagree with". I stick with the operative definition that hate in a political setting is the use of emotionally charged rhetoric to create, sustain, and increase feelings of superiority over and bigotry towards members of a class that one wishes to demonize and attack as a means to rally and inspire others to ones own cause/party.

It's all the more hilarious because the WCDP had gibberish on their web page claiming they were "open" and "inclusive" and blah, blah, blah. Except, not really.

Oh, Steve, you do understand there is a difference between the private views of an individual and the public statements by an elected official or party leader don't you?

[HW]

So far it appears that aside from sending you out to test the waters Harold that JULIEFORCARY! and Nels are actually quite comfortable with the inherent hatred oozing from their party chairman.
:lol:
Sorry John but nobody sends me out to test anything. You should know by now that I am my own person and make up my own mine.

While I get frequent emails from Keith, I hardly ever hear from Nels and Julie. I have only seen Julie at some of the Wake Democratic meetings and don't ever remember seeing Nels. Thus, I don't think Julie and Nels even know of Keith's blogs. I know I didn't until I read them here.

I was just asking you to debate so I could see the points from both extremes.

As a member of the WCDP and former elected official do you agree with Karlsson's statements Harold? I'm curious how widespread that religious bigotry is within the Wake Democratic Party.
JohnB,
I was unafiliated all my life until December 2003.

As far as my religous beliefs. They are Presbyterian, which by southern standards, is liberal. I have belonged to this church for over a decade and have taught Sunday School for years and have served as an officer. We don't believe in judging or excluding anyone or anybody for their beliefs or actions. Like Jesus said, "let those without sin cast the first stone." All are welcome in our church at any time (including you).

I joined the Democratic party because I seem to align with most of their basic principals. I don't by any means embrace all of them. I won't defend all of them. But I will defend/attack something I do believe in. For example, I believe Cary is, for the most part, controlled by homebuilders. While there are some wonderful developers in Cary, like Bill Sears, there are several greedy, selfish ones. I will use any leverage, any political party, and any group to stop the influence of the special interest/homebuilders/chamber/Ernie's/whatever from continually degrading my QOL. That is what I am all about. Not the Democratic Party and not Keith Karlson. For the record, I think you are both on the extreme ends of the spectrum. And I would still like to see you debate because I think you would both make good points.:wink:

HW

[johnb]

Harold,

Sorry John but nobody sends me out to test anything.

I can see that, you're prone to wandering off the reservation at times. ;)

Membership in an organization says certain things about the individual, in varying degrees. For Karlson, as party leader, it says more about him than it does Joe Democrat who is registered but not active in party politics. In between those extremes are the elected members of the party and precinct workers.

I'm always amazed that people will make an argument that active membership in an organization means nothing to/about any individual. To take it to an extreme level I'm left wondering what then was the problem with people joining the Klan. Do you really subscribe to the belief that group membership is that pointless? Normally people join or affiliate with an organization because they share it's goals or interests. Racists joined the Klan for obvious reasons. I assume you joined the Presbyterian Church because you believe it's doctrines and agree with it's goals. I don't assume you joined because you had open space in your daytimer on Sunday mornings you needed to fill.

Even there, what you believe about the PCUSA is one thing, what your pastor believes is something else. You may disagree with some fundamental doctrine of the denomination. So what. If your pastor disagreed with some fundamental doctrine of the denomination that would be a different matter entirely. Which goes right back to Karlson, he's the "pastor" in the analogy and the elected D's are the deacons/elders or whatever you wish to call them.

He was using his official position and the WCDP's official web page to push his personal bigotry into the public space.

The citizens in Wake County have every right to ask their elected D's if they share that hateful attitude. If the elected D's do the citizens have every right to worry about the ability of those elected D's to honestly and properly represent them. It would be no different than having black citizens 'represented' by a Klansman. Think they'd have cause to doubt their "representation" in government? Of course they would.

And that, Harold, is the point. Let the bigots run for office. I'm all for it. *BUT* let's have all the cards on the table so everyone knows ahead of time who is dancing to what tune. That's what I'm asking for here, full disclosure.

For example, I believe Cary is, for the most part, controlled by homebuilders.

Gee, you don't say?

I joined the Democratic party because I seem to align with most of their basic principals. I don't by any means embrace all of them. I won't defend all of them.

That's where my point about vary levels of meaning come in. Since you are just Joe Democrat now, not an elected official nor a party official (to my knowledge), it would be foolish to assume you are on board with every jot and tittle in the party platform and every utterance from the county party leader. Julie and Nels aren't Joe Democrat. They supposedly represent us and as one of us I want to know if they agree with Karlson because that bigotry would be a serious defect in their ability to actually represent all of us.

Oh, I left the Democratic Party and later the GOP because I found I could not align either partys desire to direct the affairs of other people's lives with my own bedrock political principles: 1-mind your own business, 2-keep your hands to yourself. Neither party respects 2 at all and gives only lipservice to 1.

[HW]

OK. :?
So my membership to an organization means something to you. It means something to me too. It is a means and a way to achieve change in my community. Not a representation of my religious beliefs.

I believe in separation of church and state. I also believe candidates should be elected on the accumulation of their qualifications and their platform regardless of religious beliefs. Note that I believe religion and morals are two different things. It is my observation that some candidates will be against something that is controversial religiously for political gain. I think that is wrong. I think the majority of Democrats view Republicans as using religion for political gain. And that makes some of them (including the wake chair) very angry and they are expressing themselves. While I can't blame the chair for being angry and speaking out, I can't condone using insulting phrases. That is not my belief, personality, or responsibility even though I belong to the same organization. On that point we disagree. :-D
HW

[SteveG]

I stick with the operative definition that hate in a political setting is the use of emotionally charged rhetoric to create, sustain, and increase feelings of superiority over and bigotry towards members of a class that one wishes to demonize and attack as a means to rally and inspire others to ones own cause/party.

Yes, that's exactly the kind of hate I see coming from Evangelicals, aimed at anybody who doesn't fit their mold. Now, if they simply hurled insults at others, that would be no big deal, but the Evangelicals make it clear that want to do harm to those they hate by assigning them inferior rights, imprisoning them, convincing violent people to assault them, or whatever, and they want our goverment to assist in this process.

[StanN]

One thing should be made clear - call2action efforts in the last election were illegal as well as immoral.

Here us an excert from a recent ruling by the IRS regarding non-profit organizations.


Organization C has been recognized as exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Code by the Internal Revenue Service. Organization C undertakes a "voter education" activity patterned after that of Organization B in Situation 2. It sends a questionnaire to candidates for major public offices and uses the responses to prepare a voters guide which is distributed during an election campaign. Some questions evidence a bias on certain issues. By using a questionnaire structured in this way, Organization C is participating in a political campagn in contravention of the provisions of section 501(c)(3) and is disqualified as exempt under that section.

That is exactly what those bigots did in the last election. It will be interesting to see if their lawyers allow them to do that again. They deseve to lose their tax exemption as does any other organization who goes down that path.

stan

[Wuptdo]

You guys are in deep, but what about:

MoveOn.Org (George Soros - foreign national) & VoteorDie.Org (Pee Diddie & MTV). I sure there is plenty of hate on both sides and hate is a very powerful motivator.

Wuptdo B-)

[Wuptdo]

You guys are in deep, but what about:

MoveOn.Org (George Soros - foreign national) & VoteorDie.Org (Pee Diddie & MTV). I sure there is plenty of hate on both sides and hate is a very powerful motivator.

Wuptdo B-)

[johnb]

I believe in separation of church and state. I also believe candidates should be elected on the accumulation of their qualifications and their platform regardless of religious beliefs.

I don't believe anyone has articulated a belief that election to public office should be based on any theological or ideological litmust test Harold. I'm not sure why you felt compelled to throw that in. Whatever causes one to vote for a candidate is irrelevant to me really. What I don't care for is politicians and party leaders demonizing people who are actively employing their First Amendment rights to free speech and right to vote. If that cannot be tolerated without the mean spirited attacks by party leaders there is a fundamental problem at the WCDP.

I think the majority of Democrats view Republicans as using religion for political gain.

I agree with you insofar as I believe some number of Democrats do in fact believe that. Now, that said, I also believe that there are a large number of Christians who have left the Democratic Party because of the perception that that party is hostile towards Christianity in general and conservative Christians in particular. These are perceptions that have roots in a political realignment taking place nationwide. The average Democrat has a much looser and infrequent attachment and incidence of participation or membership in a religious congregation than does the average Republican. The Democrats are a far more secular party and too some degree at a national level have lost the ability to speak to people for whom church and faith are among the most important aspects of their lives.

When large numbers of evangelicals bail out of the Democratic party because the party is committed to issues they, as a group, generally oppose (unrestricted abortion for example) does that necessarily make the evangelicals "fascists" and why is that saying anything at all about the GOP? The Democrats position on abortion is driven from the top down and is quite probably the single biggest wedge issue driving evangelicals out of that party. There is nothing they could ever do to change that position. That's the Democrats choice, the party has no right to take positions offensive to large blocks of voters and then act surprised when those voters walk away from them.

[HW]

The Democrats position on abortion is driven from the top down and is quite probably the single biggest wedge issue driving evangelicals out of that party.

This is true. But I think it is sad that people base their votes on one issue. It is my observation that most one issue voters tend to be voters that are not knowlegable on major key issues. So they tend to unknowingly vote for candidates that don't support issues they believe in. This is especially true on state and local levels.

HW

[johnb]

But I think it is sad that people base their votes on one issue.

I used to think that same thing Harold.

However, the more I contemplate the question I keep coming back to the matter of "how many?". How many issues are people supposed to base their vote on? You know from your time on the council that the range of issues you had to confront was surpassed only by the complexity of most of them.

How in the world are voters supposed to factor, scale, weight, and analyze all the myriad of issues and come up with a "vote for" or "vote against" answer? That'd be a hell of an equation.

I've come to a stasis on the matter and believe most people will flag an issue or two then attempt to determine whether the candidates character is such that they'd trust the individual making routine decisions without the voter bothering to master the subject. Of course, that does invite abuse from unscrupulous politicians and political movements. On the whole, however, I believe politically the situation raises up the individual needed at that intersection of time and place. We muddle through.

[Don]

I know that most Christians, like most Muslims, don't support such hate and stupidity. But, if we are to blame entire groups for the actions of their leaders, then I had better not be considered a Christian. I will continue to do what I think is good, ethical, and logical, and if others want to consider these to be Christian acts, that's fine with me, but I will do them because they seem right, not because they seem to be Christian.

Thank you for being a good person and a good Christian Steve.

Presidential/National elections aside, until now I had never read such hate or stupidity from a political party's leader. I agree with John that when I search the GOP's site, the Libertarian's site, or WWGOP's site I see nothing that comes close to comparison with Karlson's remarks. This man is full of anger and hate...plain and simple.

I do not believe Karlson's remarks reflect the thoughts of "most" democrats and I would hope they work to correct their party leaders mistakes....and soon.

I am NOT pointing fingers since both parties are guilty here, but any party that constantly accuses the other for dividing or polarizing this country while at the same time spews hate speach such as this which further divides and polarizes this country needs a wake up call.....and only the membership can force that - leadership will continue on the same path until forced to do otherwise.

I too would love to see John debate Karlson....Karlson wouldn't know what hit him. :wink:

[Wuptdo]

DonF wrote:

I too would love to see John debate Karlson....Karlson wouldn't know what hit him.

Heck, I would pay $25 dollars a ticket to see that.

Good post, DonF.

Wuptdo B-)

[johnb]

I do not believe Karlson's remarks reflect the thoughts of "most" democrats and I would hope they work to correct their party leaders mistakes....and soon.


That's the key. If he were NOT a party official nor an elected official, it wouldn't matter. The fact that he is the leader of the county party is the problem and that problem is aggravated by the fact that those posts have been up on the WCDP's official web page since May 1st without anyone complaining.

He didn't post those comments here, another party member did. They weren't hidden. How that type of commentary can be considered suitable for that type of venue is mystifying to me.

[HW]

Good point on the number of issues one should consider when voting.

Knowing that Religious people are both Democrat and Republican and neither, AND knowing that the abortion issue is one of the biggest issues, made me want to address that further (even though I know it is not wise).

I know there are Democrats that believe that women have the right to choose and abortion should be legal period. On the other hand I believe there are many Democrats like me. I don't believe in abortion except in the case of incest and rape. Even then it makes me sick to think about it. However, I also don't believe removing legal abortion options will stop abortions. I remember the 60s and the closehanger abortions that resulted in two deaths instead of one. Some conservative "evangelical" might say it serves them right. I wouldn't. My point is there are life and death consequences no matter which side of the decision you are on. There are also taxpayer consequences as well though I consider those trivial compared to the life or death consequences. Thus, the topic is controversial. Given that thought process, it makes it extremely difficult to accept that one position is correct and one is not. Which is the reason some Democrats don't consider this a major issue or one to base your vote on. And that gets back to the perception that this issue is just used for political gain. (I apologize for the psuedo math logic type of approach)

HW

[johnb]

the abortion issue is one of the biggest issues, made me want to address that further (even though I know it is not wise).

You're not going to get an argument from me on the topic Harold. I rarely get into a discussion of it other than to acknowledge that it is the termination of a human life. It's a situation with no solution save changing the parents prior to conception. The horror of the procedure is a shock surpassed only by those who insist there is no question of morality involved because the child is not a human but a parasite at best.

[StanN]

So John, is it ok for the Preident and the moral leader of the Republican Party to get involved in supporting born-again religion and anti-abortion causes ...to the point of denying support for stem cell research? Isn't it clear that he is pandering to the right wing, conservative Christian vote. Is that the right thing to do because it gains some votes?

And should Democratic leaders at any level run from the feld of debate and hide their true feelings about an orgainzation like call2action? I don't believe so. Rather Democrats should express their support for religious values in general and for religion as a uniting, healing force...and denounce those who use them for such pernicious divisive purposes as call2action, especially when their methods are clearly illegal.

stan

[StanN]

DonH said,

Simply superb questions. I hope Mr. Curran encourages a response from Julie. If I were running against her, I'd make sure such allegiances became an issue

I would like to hear all candidates answer the question of whether or not they supported the incursion of church into political and state affairs as call2action does. That indeed would be revealing, without your obvious party bias. I think such a discussion would be a lot better than sweeping the basic issue under the rug.

You make it sound like voters should decide on the basis of loyalty to local party leaders rather than on important issues. Is that the way you vote?

stan
stan

[StanN]

Perhaps Mr. Curran should be asked if he supports the Christian Exodus group.

http://christianexodus.org/index.php?module=PostWrap&page=position

All they want to do is to establish SC as a true Christan state. Above is their platform. They invite all true believers to move to SC and help them. Sounds good to me. GWB could retire to St. Simons.

Note their position on the 14th Ammendment - apparently they want to return blacks to slavery or something close to that.


stan

[Brent]

DonF wrote:

I too would love to see John debate Karlson....Karlson wouldn't know what hit him.

Heck, I would pay $25 dollars a ticket to see that.

Good post, DonF.

Wuptdo B-)

I bid $26 (but not for lawn seats!). :-D

[johnb]

Perhaps Mr. Curran should be asked if he supports the Christian Exodus group.

Stan, you are, without a doubt, not an intelligent, wise, nor prudent man. *IF* the Wake GOP Party Chairman posted the hateful rants of that group on the official Wake GOP web page you'd have a point. It hasn't happened as such you don't. The problem here is that chairman of the Wake County Democratic Party posted what can only be described, if done honestly, as hate speech attacking Evangelical Christians on the WCDP's official web page in his role as county party chairman. It doesn't matter what the Klan, this "Christian Exodus" group or any other folks put up on the web. That is their concern. OUR CONCERN is that the party leader of the Wake County Democratic party is posting anti-evangelical hate speech on his partys official web page. Get over yourself and your foolish misconceptions, stop trying to obfuscate and cloud the issue. You dishonor yourself even further old man.

[johnb]

I would like to hear all candidates answer the question of whether or not they supported the incursion of church into political and state affairs as call2action does.

LIAR where did did call2action articulate this allleged support for the "incursion of church"(es) into political and state affairs?

You are so hateful of evangelical Christians you want to exclude them from any and all participation in the political process Stan. Your prior articulated hatred for evangelicals was just the tip of the iceberg evidently Stan.

[StanN]

In the last election called2action sent a questionaire to all candidates full of loaded questions regarding abortion, sex education and other related issues of concern to them. The questionaire called for yes/no answers without any allowance for explanations. The results of the candidates survey were printed up and sent to tens of thusands of call2action supporters and others.

This type of activity has been found by the IRS as grounds for loss of 501c3 tax exempt status. Could it be that the IRS regrded this as an intrusion of church into state affairs, an activity prohibited to churches (and other non-profits) in return for their tax exempt status?

called2ction distributed its voters guide through churches that support it.

called2action actively solicits support from church leaders and pastors and individual churches.

called2action uses those churches as a means of promoting its political agenda.

I don't know what your standard is for defining incursion of churches into political and state affairs but it is pretty obvious that is exactly what called2action is about.

Evangelicals of any faith have every right to become involved in politics. They have a right to organize together. But when they start using churches to recruit, to carry their message to organize to influence political matters - they have gone over the line.

Now that you for the umteenth time have chosen to personally attack me, why don't you explain why their activities dont involve incursion of churches into state affairs.

stan

[johnb]

Stan,

You move quick pal. You throw accusations and claims out and when those get disproven you've already moved on to new and exciting avenues of attack. Frankly, I am still waiting for you to come clean on the Krugman article you posted in which Krugman lied and attributed a statement to the Canadian Auto Manufacturing Association representative that man denied making, this before Krugman wrote his hit peice. Neither you nor Krugman will come clean.

You move on to make some rather odd insinuations about automobile manufacturing in Alabama, which, contrary to your assertions is actually growing quite robustly with investment from a number of high quality foreign owned sources. No mea culpa there either.

Next you repost an original piece of hate speech from your county party chairman demonizing a large block of the electorate because of their religious faith. Now, don't start with the cute denials Stan, did you not state just last week that you didn't like Evangelicals and you tune them out? Which is fine for you as a private citizen, but when your party chairman displays a, um let's say much stronger negative reaction, on the party's official web site and does so in his role as party leader he crossed the line and we, the citizens of Wake County, have a right to know if the members of his party elected to public office share his hatred and bigotry. This is a fundamental difference between the two of us Stan. I will not sacrifice anything of value for party politics. If the Wake GOP or the Wake Libertarian party chairmen/women had done what Karlsson has done I'd scorch them with equal ferocity. You, on the other hand, are willing to cruxify evangelicals for exercising their First Amendment rights while excusing Karlsson's hatemongering nonstop. That is the triumph of ideology over reason.

Now, on to your latest attack.

In the last election called2action sent a questionaire to all candidates full of loaded questions regarding abortion, sex education and other related issues of concern to them.

Called2action is allowed the same rights as labor unions, environmental groups, and others to question political candidates on issues important to their constituency. I realize that the concept of an Evangelical group such as c2a operating like the Sierra Club or any number of leftleaning labor groups offends you Stanley but it is legal and it's ethical.

The questionaire called for yes/no answers without any allowance for explanations.

Some call that being blunt. Some may consider it a means to disallow politicians to hide behind paragraphs of non-answers. It is neither illegal nor unethical. What angers you about that Stan? That politicians aren't given the opportunity to obfuscate, confuse, or hide behind excessive verbage? Be proud to take that stand.

The results of the candidates survey were printed up and sent to tens of thusands of call2action supporters and others.

THE HORROR! THE HORROR!

This type of activity has been found by the IRS as grounds for loss of 501c3 tax exempt status.

We'll have to start a new thread to discuss this. You are not right to say the least Stan. c2a is not breaking any laws nor are they in danger of loosing their tax exempt status anywhere but in your imagination.

Could it be that the IRS regrded this as an intrusion of church into state affairs, an activity prohibited to churches (and other non-profits) in return for their tax exempt status?

C2A is not a church Stanley. You keep claiming an imagined intrusion of some "church" into "state affairs" when there is no church here. This is speculation, surrounded by innuendo, frosted with deception.

called2ction distributed its voters guide through churches that support it.

Somehow I doubt you would find the Sierra Club distributing it's voters guides at the local synagogues, Unitarian Churches, et al, quite so shocking and threatening Stan. It's an interesting accusation since distributing voters guides actually isn't illegal.

called2action actively solicits support from church leaders and pastors and individual churches.

Pastors, et al, have the same first amendment rights you and I do Stan. Sorry about that. What is more, it is perfectly legal or a pastor to address matters of faith and conscience from the pulpit. Whether that touches on abortion, the death penalty (somehow I doubt you would find a leftleaning pastor damning the death penalty from the pulpit and asking the congregation to keep that issue before them as election day approaches shocking in the least) or any number of issues there most certainly is room at the table for people of faith, whether pastors or congregants. Even if we don't necessarily agree with them they have a right to be involved, let a thousand flowers bloom Stan.

called2action uses those churches as a means of promoting its political agenda.

Interesting take Stan. Are you sure it isn't that Evangelicals congregations are made up of people for whom c2a's agenda is actually their agenda as well? Are you sure it isn't that the people at c2a are themselves Evangelicals and they came together as a means of educating as many of their fellow Evangelicals about which politicians support and which are hostile to their shared interest set? You aren't against Evangelicals knowing and difussing information of this type to the members of Evangelical congregations are you Stan? How is that different that the (I believe it is the sierra club but may be audobon) Sierra Club Scorecards in which they rate how "environmentally friendly" different politicians are?

At the core of the matter Stan I think we can both conclude that what is angering you is that Evangelicals are having an impact on local politics and you don't like 1-that they are driving elections and campaigns 2-that their concerns and issues are either not your concerns or issues or are antagonistic to them. That said, the fact that people who have aspirations and goals you don't like are now increasingly active in local politics does not mean that those people are crimminals, fascists, or any other pejorative you and Karlsson may wish to drop on them.

Here from the C2A web site is what they actually cite as their policy/practice with regards to outreach to churches. It's somewhat different from what has been alleged.

How to Plug In at C2A
Churches

Quick Links: Download Church Involvement Packet

Dear Pastor or Church Leader,

Thank you for considering becoming a partner of Called2Action. You must already know that we are in a battle for the survival of our society. We have a shortened window of freedom in which to operate, and momentous decisions are being made that affect our lives and families and that threaten the moral and legal fabric of our nation –

* Proliferation of abortion
* Widespread sexual immorality
* An inundating plague of pornography
* Homosexual "marriage"
* Attempts to silence God’s name from the public arena & to erase the Judeo-Christian legacy from our history books
* Human embryonic stem-cell research
* Physician-assisted suicide
* Government officials preventing free speech protests against immorality

Some decisions are being made through overt legislation. Most are being made by judges that radically reinterpret our constitution, ignore the will of the people and violate the laws of our country. Behind these decisions is a spiritual climate of aggressive immorality and injustice fostered by the Enemy of the souls of all mankind. This climate is promoted by a handful of well-funded organizations and protected by misguided officials. It is nurtured in academic institutions, by our media and by the entertainment industry. But this climate has also been fed by something closer to home – by the absence and ineffectiveness of Christian involvement in the public arena.

It is time to break that silence and take a stand in –

* Extraordinary prayer
* Proclamation and application of God’s truth about morality & justice
* Winsome witness and life-changing love
* Mobilizing the church to actively represent Christ in our culture
* Effective political involvement by people committed to rebuilding a nation that broadly acknowledges and honors God.

At Called2Action, we are convinced that the key to the future is given to the people of God. As a pastor or church leader, you have enormous opportunity and responsibility to influence a disproportionately large number of God’s people for prayer and action. Becoming a Called2Action Church Partner will enable you to do that.

Nothing illegal there. They cite rather broad issues and disavow party affiliation. The fact that the Democrats can't or won't talk or work with them is not C2A's fault/problem. The Democrats need to figure out if their core supporters would allow them to address C2A's issues. If the answer is no that also is not C2A's problem. It doesn't make C2A crimminal or fascist, sorry Stan, it just means the Democrats tent isn't as big as they claim.

[StanN]

Mr. Barbara:

Uou are dead wrong. Your facts are wrong.

Pastors and other church leaders do not have the free speech rights you say. They represent tax free organizations. There are obligations that go along with that tax free status. If they are willing to give up their tax free status they have the full rights of free seech.

Here is a counter opinion.

Politics from the pulpit: free speech or partisan danger?
Inside the First Amendment

By Charles C. Haynes
First Amendment Center senior scholar
10.03.04
When Pastor Ronnie Floyd called on his congregation to “vote God,” he didn’t mention George Bush or John Kerry by name.

But by the end of Floyd’s July 4 sermon to the First Baptist Church of Springdale, Ark., everyone in the congregation knew exactly how their preacher wanted them to cast their vote.

Free speech? Or tax-code violation? Churches are getting conflicting advice.

In a letter sent Sept. 22 to churches throughout the country, Americans United for Separation of Church and State reminds church leaders that Internal Revenue Service regulations forbid all tax-exempt, 501(c)(3) organizations — including churches — from promoting or endorsing candidates. According to Americans United, this means no partisan preaching or electioneering from the pulpit.

To make its point, Americans United filed a complaint in July with the IRS against Floyd’s church for engaging in partisan politics. Then in August, AU asked the IRS to investigate a political rally at an African-American church in Miami.

But another letter sent to 300,000 churches in September, this one from the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, challenges the view that preaching from the pulpit constitutes intervening in a political campaign. When speaking to their own congregations, the letter argues, pastors are exercising their freedom of speech and religion under the First Amendment.

The IRS disagrees. The Becket Fund recognizes this, but still urges religious leaders to speak freely from the pulpit — and offers to “defend free of charge any good-faith religious message — left, right, or center, wisdom or nonsense — preached from the pulpit.”

Both sides can agree on this much: IRS regulations allow clergy to preach about moral or political issues, as long as they don’t favor one candidate over another. But as Ronnie Floyd’s case illustrates, some ministers push the envelope by providing a “voter guide” that some argue is a thinly disguised endorsement of one party or candidate.

Of course, the current fight over politics from the pulpit isn’t new. From charges against Jerry Falwell for using his ministry to support Republicans to charges against African-American churches for endorsing Democrats, the IRS code has triggered bitter disputes and lawsuits for many years.

But the tone of the dispute seems to have become especially bitter during this hotly contested political campaign. The rhetoric started to heat up in July during a debate in Kansas over a state amendment banning same-sex marriage. After a local minister began organizing to defeat candidates who voted against the amendment, an advocacy group called Mainstream Coalition sent volunteers into churches to monitor political activity.

Outraged by the actions of Mainstream Coalition (and complaining about what they view as a “double standard” focus on conservative churches), some conservative Christian leaders have decided to retaliate. In August, William Murray (evangelical son of atheist Madalyn Murray O'Hair) started Big Brother Church Watch with a Web site called “Rat Out a Church” to recruit volunteers. Murray claims to have already placed monitors in liberal churches to end what he describes as “radical left-wing politics in the pulpit.”

Meanwhile in Washington, D.C., a bill currently before Congress would amend the IRS Code to allow political endorsements during worship services — or at other church-sponsored gatherings. The bill, dubbed the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act, has 165 co-sponsors (mostly Republicans).

It appears that Republican leaders in the House want to rush this legislation into law by attaching it to a bill now before a House-Senate conference committee.

That would be a mistake. However persuasive the free-speech argument may be to some Americans, the risks of opening the door to partisan politics from the pulpit should be a matter of full public debate.

What are the long-term implications for religious groups if clergy begin endorsing candidates for public office from the pulpit? Will this change mean more freedom of religion and speech — or turn houses of worship into campaign vehicles, dividing congregations along partisan lines? Questions like these merit serious consideration — not a quick fix rushed through Congress by the majority party.

For anyone who cares about the First Amendment, the question of church involvement in partisan politics should be a principled discussion of tax exemption for religious groups, church-state relations, and the meaning of free exercise of religion in America.

But for partisans on both sides of the political divide, “pulpit politics” is less about the tax code or free speech and more about winning elections. The left worries about the growing influence of conservative churches in the Republican Party — while the right complains about the political activism for Democrats in African-American churches and liberal religious groups.

Most Americans currently oppose churches endorsing political candidates (65% in a recent poll by the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life). At the same time, however, few of us want the IRS to be the “speech police” in order to keep that from happening.

And the specter of citizen spies — liberal or conservative — taking notes in pews is an offense to religious freedom.

Is it possible to have a civil, thoughtful dialogue about political activity in houses of worship? Not before Nov. 2. Then we should try.

[StanN]

Here is a legal opinion on what churches can do. Note that churches have (infrequently) lost their tax exempt status by violating these laws.

Politics and the Pulpit
by Milton Cerny
Caplin & Drysdale, Chartered

Another election season is upon us and with it a flurry of information — and misinformation — about what churches and other religious organizations can and cannot do. Fortunately for religious leaders, the law is relatively clear.

THE LAW
Like all organizations that are exempt from federal income tax under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code and eligible to receive tax deductible contributions under section 170(c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code, churches are prohibited from supporting or opposing any candidate for elected public office. This prohibition applies to candidates for federal, state or local offices. The IRS enforces this prohibition though audits, fines, and loss of tax-exempt status.

Q: Doesn’t the First Amendment allow churches to support and oppose candidates?
A: No. Churches, like all organizations tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, are absolutely prohibited from supporting or opposing candidates for elected public office. As recently as 2000, a federal appellate court squarely rejected a church’s claim that the First Amendment’s free exercise of religion clause allowed the church to urge the public to vote against a candidate. Branch Ministries and Dan Little, Pastor v. Rossotti, 211 F.3d 137 (D.C. Cir. 2000); see also Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574, 603 (1983) (Supreme Court held that “not all burdens on religion are unconstitutional . . . . The state may justify a limitation on religious liberty by showing that it is essential to accomplish an overriding governmental interest.” (citation omitted)). The fact that a church may be motivated by its religious principles will therefore not prevent a church from losing its tax-exempt status and facing other penalties if it supports or opposes any candidate.

WHAT IS SUPPORTING OR OPPOSING A CANDIDATE?
The courts and the IRS consider all of the relevant facts and circumstances in determining whether a church has supported or opposed a candidate. While making donations to candidates, raising funds for candidates and endorsing candidates are prohibited, so are more subtle efforts to support or oppose candidates. In its recently updated Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations (Publication 1828), the IRS provides the following examples of prohibited activities by churches:

Sermon. Minister D is the minister of Church M. During regular services of Church M shortly before the election, Minister D preached on a number of issues, including the importance of voting in the upcoming election, and concludes by stating, “It is important that you all do your duty in the election and vote for Candidate W.” Since Minister D’s remarks indicating support for Candidate W were made during an official church service, they constitute political campaign intervention attributable to Church M.
Church Newsletter. Minister B is the minister of Church K. Church K publishes a monthly church newsletter that is distributed to all church members. In each issue, Minister B has a column titled “My Views.” The month before the election, Minister B states in the “My Views” column, “It is my personal opinion that Candidate U should be reelected.” For that one issue, Minister B pays from his personal funds the portion of the cost of the newsletter attributable to the “My Views” column. Even though he paid part of the cost of the newsletter, the newsletter is an official publication of the church. Since the endorsement appeared in an official publication of Church K, it constitutes campaign intervention attributed to Church K.
Candidate Invitation. Minister F is the minister of Church O. The Sunday before the November election, Minister F invited Senate Candidate X to preach to her congregation during worship services. During his remarks, Candidate X stated, “I am asking not only for your votes, but for your enthusiasm and dedication, for your willingness to go the extra mile to get a very large turnout on Tuesday.” Minister F invited no other candidate to address her congregation during the Senatorial campaign. Because these activities took place during official church services, they are attributed to Church O. By selectively providing church facilities to allow Candidate X to speak in support of his campaign, Church O’s actions constitute political campaign intervention.
Voter Guides. Church S distributes a voter guide during an election campaign. The voter guide is prepared using the responses of candidates to a questionnaire sent to candidates for major public offices. Although the questionnaire covers a wide range of topics, the wording of the questions evidences a bias on certain issues. By using a questionnaire structured in this way, Church S is participating or intervening in a political campaign.
Court decisions, IRS rulings and IRS publications provide the following additional examples of prohibited activity:

Statements. Publishing or distributing written or printed statements or making oral statements on behalf of or in opposition to a candidate. Treasury Regulation § 1.501(c)(3)-1(c)(3)(iii); Christian Echoes National Ministry, Inc. v. United States, 470 F.2d 849 (10th Cir. 1972), cert. denied, 414 U.S. 864 (1973).
Evaluating Candidates. Considering the qualifications of all candidates, selecting those determined to be best qualified or evaluating the candidates based on objective and nonpartisan criteria, and publicizing the results of that selection or evaluation. Association of the Bar of the City of New York v. Commissioner, 858 F.2d 876 (2d Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1030 (1989); Revenue Ruling 67-71.
Distributing Others’ Evaluations of Candidates. Distributing the evaluations of candidates by others, such as the views of the audience for a candidate forum. Technical Advice Memorandum 9635003 (Apr. 19, 1996).
Legislative Voter Records. Publishing a compilation of the voting records of incumbents on a narrow range of issues, such as land conservation, and distributing the compilation widely among the electorate, even if the guide does not include express statements in support of or in opposition to any candidate. Revenue Ruling 78-248, Situation 4.
Campaign Material. Distributing voter education material prepared by a candidate, political party or PAC. Kindell & Reilly, “Election Year Issues,” IRS Exempt Organizations Continuing Professional Education Technical Instruction Program for FY2002, at 372.
Allowing Use of Space, Services or Mailing List. Selling or renting space, services or mailing lists to a candidate unless available to all candidates on an equal basis, also available to the public on the same basis, and provided on a regular basis (not provided for the first time to a candidate). Kindell & Reilly, “Election Year Issues,” IRS Exempt Organizations Continuing Professional Education Technical Instruction Program for FY2002, at 383-84.
Loan Funds. Making a loan to, or guaranteeing a loan to, a candidate, political party or PAC. Technical Advice Memorandum 9812001 (Aug. 21, 1996).
Q: Does this mean churches and pastors can’t do anything related to an election?
A: No. Churches are allowed to engage in strictly non-partisan election-related activities. For example, churches can encourage their members to register to vote and to vote as long as they do not encourage them to support or oppose particular candidates or parties. Encouraging support of a candidate includes oblique references, such as, for example, referring to a candidate for re-election as President by talking about all of the progress made during the “past 3-1/2 years” immediately before the election and discussing the importance of protecting the “conservative” (or “liberal”) agenda, even if the candidate is not mentioned by name.

Pastors are also allowed to personally support and even endorse candidates, but they must not use any church resources, such as letterhead, newsletters or facilities, to do so and must make it clear that they are speaking on their own behalf and not on behalf of the church.

Q: Does this mean churches can’t speak out on public policy issues?
A: No. Churches can speak out on public policy issues as long as such messages are not attempts to urge support for or opposition to any candidate. Churches can also engage in lobbying (supporting or opposing legislation, including ballot initiatives) as long as doing so remains an insubstantial part of the church’s total activities. Neither the IRS nor the courts have set a bright line for what is “insubstantial,” but generally spending less than five percent of the church’s expenditures, time, etc. on such activities should be insubstantial.

WHAT CAN HAPPEN IF A CHURCH SUPPORTS OR OPPOSES A CANDIDATE?
A church that supports or opposes a candidate can find itself facing an IRS audit, fines and loss of tax-exempt status. Public information about IRS audits is relatively scarce because the IRS is not permitted to release such information, but here are a few examples of what has happened to some churches and other religious organizations:

Branch Ministries (The Church at Pierce Creek). Four days before the 1992 presidential election, this church placed full-page advertisements in two newspapers in which it urged Christians not to vote for then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton because of his positions on certain moral issues. The IRS began an inquiry of the church within a matter of weeks. Eight years later, after extensive litigation, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the IRS’s revocation of the church’s tax-exempt status.
Christian Broadcasting Network. In the mid-1980s, this ministry supported the presidential campaign of its founder, Rev. Pat Robertson, according to the IRS. Ten years later CBN settled with the IRS by agreeing to the revocation of its tax-exempt status for 1986 and 1987, the revocation of the tax-exempt statuses of three former affiliates, making a “significant payment” to the IRS, avoiding partisan campaign activities in the future, placing more outside directors on its board, and implementing other organizational and operational changes to ensure tax law compliance.
Old Time Gospel Hour. In 1986 and 1987, this ministry affiliated with Rev. Jerry Falwell raised money for a PAC, according to the IRS. After a four-year audit by the IRS, the IRS revoked the tax-exempt status of the ministry retroactively for 1986 and 1987 and the ministry agreed to pay the IRS $50,000 in taxes for those years and to change its organizational structure so that no future political campaign intervention activities would occur.
These examples illustrate the following burdens churches that support or oppose candidates may face:

IRS Audit: The IRS can only open a church tax inquiry, which can then lead to an audit, if it has sufficient evidence to create a reasonable belief that the church has in fact violated federal tax law. Evidence of a single incident of a pastor endorsing a candidate from the pulpit or of a church hosting a candidate or PAC fundraiser is enough to meet this standard, however. As shown by the above examples, such audits can take years to resolve, costing tens of thousands of dollars in legal fees and distracting church staff from their other responsibilities and duties.
Fines: The Internal Revenue Code imposes a 10% excise tax on amounts expended for supporting or opposing a candidate by a section 501(c)(3) organization, including a church, and a 2.5% excise tax (up to a maximum of $5,000) payable by any manager who approved the expenditure knowing it was against the law. The Code imposes additional taxes if a church or other section 501(c)(3) organization refuses to correct the violation. Correction involves recovering the political expenditures to the degree possible and taking steps to prevent future violations.
Injunction and Immediate Taxation: Congress has also given the IRS the authority to seek an immediate injunction in the case of flagrant violations of the prohibition on supporting or opposing candidates, and authority to immediately assess tax for willful and flagrant violations of the prohibition.
Revocation of Tax-exempt Status: The IRS can revoke the tax-exempt status of a church that supports or opposes a candidate. For churches that only receive income in the form of contributions, revocation itself does not have any financial consequences because gifts are generally not taxable. For churches with investment or other income, however, becoming taxable for one or more years results in that income becoming taxable.
Changes in Operations and Organization: The IRS may agree not to revoke the tax-exempt status of a church or to impose the maximum financial penalties, but only if a church agrees to take certain steps to prevent future violations of the law. These steps may range from requiring a church’s leaders to agree to a written policy against supporting or imposing candidates to seeking changes in a church’s governance structure to the degree that structure is not based on specific religious convictions.
Election Law: Supporting or opposing a candidate may also violate federal or state election law. For example, a church that is incorporated and which makes a contribution to a candidate’s campaign has violated federal election law. Violations of election law can lead to an investigation by the Federal Election Commission or its state equivalent, the imposition of fines, and even criminal penalties.
Other Consequences: A church that improperly supports or opposes a candidate may face negative publicity. It may also face loss of state or local tax-exempt status, including property tax exemption, if that exemption is based on federal exemption or applies the same criteria as federal exemption. The IRS is required to inform state authorities of any revocation of tax-exempt status.
Q: Isn’t loss of tax-exempt status only “symbolic” and so there is no real penalty for a church that supports or opposes a candidate?
A: Mathew D. Staver, President and General Counsel of Liberty Counsel, has stated that because churches can easily reclaim tax-exempt status and donations to churches are not taxable as income, “churches do not need to fear the loss of their tax-exempt status” as a result of supporting or opposing candidates. He bases this view on the result of the Branch Ministries case, described above. This position is wrong for several reasons.

Even if a church does not suffer any financial penalty from the loss of tax-exempt status for one or more years because its only income is contributions, a church will still bear the burden of responding to an IRS inquiry and possible audit. More importantly, an IRS investigation will almost certainly distract church leaders from their other responsibilities and duties, often for several years.

A church may also face financial penalties. The IRS may assess excise taxes on both the church and its leaders. If the church received investment or other non-contribution income during the year for which it is no longer tax-exempt, it may be required to file IRS Form 1120 (corporate income tax return) and pay tax on that income. State or local authorities may also demand taxes for that period as well, including property taxes.

Rev. Jerry Falwell, in the July 21, 2004 edition of his e-newsletter Falwell Confidential, cites Mr. Staver’s views and states that Branch Ministries only lost its “IRS letter” for one day. This is simply incorrect. The IRS revoked the tax-exempt status of Branch Ministries on January 19, 1995 retroactively to January 1, 1992 and the courts upheld that revocation. The only reason this may not have resulted in tax was if Branch Ministries’ sole source of income was contributions.

Rev. Falwell also states that no church has ever really lost its tax-exempt status. This is clearly false. A simple search of IRS announcements for the word “church” reveals that on average about one church a year loses its tax-exempt status.

The greatest penalty, however, may be reputational. If the church becomes, fairly or not, primarily known in the community as the church that violated the law by supporting or opposing particular candidates, its ability to witness to the community may be irrevocably damaged.

[johnb]

Mr. Barbara:

Uou are dead wrong. Your facts are wrong.

Pastors and other church leaders do not have the free speech rights you say. They represent tax free organizations.

...

To make its point, Americans United filed a complaint in July with the IRS against Floyd’s church for engaging in partisan politics.

Where am I wrong Stan?

Pastor's most certainly do have the same First Amendment rights you and I do. What they cannot do is stand at the pulpit during church services and endorse candidates. They most certainly can join organizations such as c2a. That is neither illegal nor unethical. You can't or won't get it through your head that c2a isn't a church. You keep repeating an argument that has no applicability to the issue at hand. Interesting tactic Stanley but I'm not sure I see how it benefits you.

The article you cite complements my point:

According to Americans United, this means no partisan preaching or electioneering from the pulpit.

c2a has no pulpit as it isn't a church. If c2a is "risking it's tax free status" by producing voters guides or sending questionaires to politicians then so is the Sierra Club, the Audobon Society, WWF, and any number of environmental organizations. And this really comes at an odd time Stan. Did you not notice the AFL-CIO fracturing because the departed unions thought the AFL had become nothing more than your partys ATM machine at the expense of organizing workers? That was phenominal, that "non-profit" spends tens of millions in cash each election cycle on the Democratic Party. Nary a peep from you. ;) Funny how that works.

Oh, nice way to divert the attention away from the fact that your party chairman here in Wake County is the author of a piece of political hate speech and you spread it around. Is the point to this exercise such that you think that if you demonize the people in c2a that you can justify the hate speech directed against them? Just curious.

[StanN]

Yes Mr. Barbara, c2A is not a church. They apparently do not even have tax exempt status. They can say and do about anything they want. Here is what they say:

At Called2Action, we are convinced that the key to the future is given to the people of God. As a pastor or church leader, you have enormous opportunity and responsibility to influence a disproportionately large number of God’s people for prayer and action. Becoming a Called2Action Church Partner will enable you to do that.

Please begin the process of making the decision to be a Called2Action Partner Church by downloading a request for a Church Involvement Packet. We will contact you shortly to discuss any questions you may have and to assist you in the decision-making process.

You are not alone in your concern and desire to make a difference. We would like to partner with you to fulfill God’s calling to spread the gospel of the Kingdom of God into our culture. We will provide guidance, resources, and support for effective response to the political and social issues facing the citizens of Wake County. Please join the growing band of Christian leaders, churches and organizations that are fighting to stem the tide of immorality and injustice that threatens our future as a nation.

On behalf of Called2Action and the Church Mobilization Committee,

Pastor Steve Breedlove
----------------------------------------
So they walk right up to the line of inducing church leaders into illegal behavior without out actually saying so. What wuld you expect them to do - advise breaking thhe law on their website? Sneaky is the word. Then its upt to the church leader as to far he will go - after all who's watching and who is going to enforce the law? Any church leaer who handed out their voting guide in church was breaking the law. How about in the pastors office? How about just outside the front door? Too cute for me.

The whole thing has a rotten odor ... violating the spirit of the law without violating the letter. And who has got proof of anything. Does that sort of sneaky behavior appeal to you?

stan

[johnb]

As long as they are obeying the letter of the law that is all anyone has a right to be concerned with.

Be honest Stan, if the shoe were on the other, ie, this were Unitarians, UCC'ers or AME Zion congregations or other traditional Democratic leaning groups you'd be cheering them on as they walked up to and all over that line. Sorry Stan, the rules that apply to one side get applied to both sides, we don't live in a banana republic.

c2a is obeying the law as far as I am concerned until evidence is produced to convince me or a district attorney otherwise. Short of that you're just angry and conspiracy minded.

Yes Mr. Barbara, c2A is not a church. They apparently do not even have tax exempt status. They can say and do about anything they want.

Troubling isn't it? Free people speaking their mind, joining with others of similar interests and organizing to propogate their message....all of which angers you because they're not secular leftists. D@mn them!

[johnb]

Well...first we're pushing 3 days and Nels and Julie are still cool with Karlsson's religious bigotry.

Also, check this out:

http://wakedems.org/node/2469

Meeker gets Chairman Bigot appointed to a city commission. OUCH!

Great stuff...so the Wake Democrats are running around trying to figure out what to do.....Stan I'm sure is one of Karlsson's attack dogs. I love how they ask Karlsson's permission in order to "tear me a new one".

Let me help you Keith: face attack dog, in stern voice say:

SIT! STAY!


Julie and Nels are still waiting to be told what to do, while Ernie and Mike and Jack are laughing their @sses off at these incompetant boobs. Someone will have to explain it slowly to the RINO.

So, the county comission, the Raleigh city council, and others ;) have now gotten the original email expanded a bit. The Democrats are going to have to either stand and support the bigot or condemn his hatred. There is no alternative.

[johnb]

Okay, got a response 75 hours later....

=========================
Mr. Barbara,

I have no knowledge of or association with any of the statements you refer to below, nor do I support making such statements in any forum. Such statements only belong to those who made them, and certainly do not represent my views or actions in any way, shape or fashion.

As for your public records request, I do not have any public records on this
matter at all. I have not been in conversation with the Democratic Party,
with Mr. Norwalk or Mr. Karlson, or you on this matter. I will not, and do
not intend to engage in such divisive and hurtful conversation or be
associated with it any way.

Sincerely, Julie

Julie Aberg Robison
=================================

Paragraph 1- not unreasonable on Julie's part. She is wrong insofar as those statements do, in part, belong to her since Karlsson was writing as the chairman of her political party. But as far as the rest of paragraph 1, not bad at all.

Paragraph 2-the first sentence is not accurate, she has the first email I sent. What she didn't know was that there were numerous other's copied as BCC's including Ernie and both were at the townofcary.org address. The only way she wouldn't have the original is if she deleted it. Her second sentence is dead on, that is how a politician should have handled that, 3 days ago.

==================================

I just had another elected official, on the school board, respond as well. Looks like the **** is breaking.

So now, here in Cary it's just Nels holding out at Fort Bigotry with Karlsson.

[Brent]

Paragraph 2-the first sentence is not accurate, she has the first email I sent.

John, if I had received this public records request, I would assume that anything that was sent to/from you had already filled the bill. That is, why should I produce copies of something you sent to me or I sent back to you? You already have that, right? I suppose you could insist that parties produce what you already have, but why?

[johnb]

True, that's not my point. Just wanting to ensure we're not going to play the "I stood up as soon as I became aware of it" game.