(no subject)

[theweaselking]

Churches that don't support the War On Terra in sermons may lose their tax-exempt status in the USA.

Newest argument against homosexual marriage: "The anus is holy"

Dictator's astrologer's orders mean that Rangoon is no longer the capital of Burma

Taking a hint from a Hollywood scriptwriter, Scottish youth escapes prison by posing as his own identical twin.

Grape-flavoured blasphemy:


On the list of things that cause cancer:
Hair dyes.

Comments

[harald387.livejournal.com]

A church, whose tax-exempt status rests on not interfering in political campaigns or elections, is at risk of losing that status because of a sermon given on the evening of election 2004 criticizing the war and the existing government's policy in Iraq.

A church in Binghamton, New York, lost its status after running advertisements against Bill Clinton's candidacy before the 1992 presidential election.

This plainly isn't just on one side of the aisle, either.

Separation of church and state goes both ways.

-K

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Saying "war is bad, this war especially bad" when one of the fundamental tenets of your religion is "blessed are the peacemakers" is not the same, at all, as saying "Don't vote for Clinton". There's absolutely nothing in any law that stops a church from criticising policy, or from saying "the position of our church is pro-life and you should support that" before an election between a pro-lifer and a sane person. Remember the Catholics doing that?

As well, there was the Baptist church that ejected members for voting Kerry, stated that Democrats were "ungodly", and got nothing for it. That's just as blatant as the one 15 years ago, was wider publicised, and wasn't touched. This *is* one-sided.

As well, there are churches on both sides of the "aisle" upset about this one. (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-irs8nov08,0,2552376.story?coll=la-home-headlines)

[anivair.livejournal.com]

Agreed. if the church of bush is going to crack down on this then there's no reason they shouldn't start fining all those churches who demanded that their parishioners came out to vote republican last november.

but are we surprised by the hypocricy anymore?

[theweaselking.livejournal.com]

Not surprised. Just documenting.

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

Churches shouldn't be automatically tax-exempt in the first place. They should have to prove, just like any secular organization, that they're charitable organizations. Giving them tax-exempt status because they're religious organizations is a blatant violation of the 1st Admendment: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. There shouldn't be federally recognized religions, just like there shouldn't be outlawed religions; the secular law should never mention religion.

[cmseward.livejournal.com]

A key ingredient in products used by men to disguise grey hair has been banned by Health Canada because it is suspected of being a carcinogen, as well as a reproductive toxin.

Well, duh, isn't the whole point of covering the grey hair to increase the chance at reproduction?

[ursulav.livejournal.com]

I have always maintained that 99% of the arguments against homosexuality are, at heart, about the sanctity of the rectum.