IRS Strikes Deal With Atheists To Monitor Sermons And Homilies

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

When I read this:

She said she was encouraged to apply, and that she was honest and open about her sexual orientation throughout the hiring process.

I see something far different than "they had an understanding."

Again, there is nothing wrong with the church hiring a celibate homosexual. Nothing. During the interview process, the priest can't ask about her sex life, so if she said she was gay but volunteered no further details, it's not grounds to not hire her. She willingly agreed to the terms of conduct, even though she apparently had no intention of actually following them, and by publicly breaking them, she gave them grounds for dismissal.

And it doesn't matter if a local parish knowingly hires someone who intends to violate the terms of conduct, because the parish is under the diocese, and they are the ones who set policy. When the bishop hears that some church is "going mustang", he's the one who cracks down, so even if she "had an understanding", unless that was with the bishop, which it clearly was not, she has no grounds to complain.

a reply to: adjensen

And it doesn't matter if a local parish knowingly hires someone who intends to violate the terms of conduct, because the parish is under the diocese, and they are the ones who set policy. When the bishop hears that some church is "going mustang", he's the one who cracks down, so even if she "had an understanding", unless that was with the bishop, which it clearly was not, she has no grounds to complain.

Going Mustang... :-)

You know - I just suggested that in my last post. If you don't want to read what I'm writing - or what's written in the article - again - what can I say? I know you're assuming when they hired her that they spelled out that she could be gay - she just couldn't live gay. Maybe they did. Maybe she did sign something saying she promised to be celibate - though, going by what I read in the article, doesn't seem like it...

After this, Simon said it was time to "ask with a different voice" and decided to file a lawsuit charging "fraudulent inducement" against the diocese and Bishop Finn, who she alleges compelled the church to fire her. She is seeking reinstatement, lost wages and damages.

See? :-)

They have a case. None of this has anything to do with this thread. Still, it will be interesting to see how this goes

a reply to: adjensen

Churches are prohibited from endorsing political candidates under tax law. If they violate this, they would be a PAC. I don't know how much simpler to state it to you.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Right, so what's the difference, since they're both tax exempt non-profits?

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

So then the church files as a PAC and then they are cool.

Well, that is one way to get IRS employees to go to church. They will probably fall asleep or zone out during the sermon like the rest of us. They won't remember a thing.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Annee

originally posted by: NavyDoc

One issue I see is that "political activism" can be very subjective. A sermon against abortion, for example, would be very much a religious sermon to the people there . . .

I agree with everything you said, except: religion should have no political power over personal choice.

Would Planned Parenthood have need to politically fight against religious belief if that belief didn't infringe in the first place.

The American Atheist focus is separation of church and state. Not anti theism.

Doesn't matter why they do what they do nor what their focus is, they are politically active non-profits, one of which uses taxpayer dollars to lobby for more taxpayer dollars. Why should one non-profit lose it's tax exempt status and another does not for doing the same thing--political activism?

Because religion is a belief.

Planned Parenthood is not trying to restrict personal choices via a forced ideology.

And didn't someone post that it is stated that in the tax deduction requirements churches can't be political, or something like that.

Sorry, I'm on Xbox kid duty. Only a quickie post to keep my brain fom being eaten by Pacman

But they are still a politically active non-profit and still use taxpayer dollars to do it to boot. Is it that non-profits being politically active when they shouldn't that bother you or just Christians?

Planned Parenthood is politically active for what reason?

Why should there even be opposition to Planned Parenthood?

How is it anyone's business except those seeking help and info.

You are seriously comparing them to forcing a faith belief ideology?

Planned parenthood was started by Margaret Sanger for purposes of eugenics--to keep the populations of undesirables down.

It is everybody's business if they are using tax dollars, yes? I wouldn't really care what they did if they were not using my money it would be none of my business.

The point is, not that they have faith or not--that is irrelevant--the point is that they are politically active and a non-profit. If we are going to remove tax exemption from one sort of non-profit due to political activity, we should remove it from all non-profits who engage in political activity. Or is it really the faith based non-profits you want to restrict? Singling out non-profits only because of religion and leaving others alone would be unjust and unconstitutional.

Do you think I don't know the history of Planned Parenthood? It's history really has nothing to do with today.

I consider all areas of reproduction an every citizen issue. There is a real vital society need for what Planned Parenthood does.

I really don't see your argument of religion vs Planned Parenthood. If anything it is political religion that forces Planned Parenthood to be political.

So, yes I support Planned Parenthood as non-profit tax exemption because what they do is vital to all of society.

Religion is a faith based ideology. It has no business trying to run this government or politically interfere with reproduction.

I do follow American Atheist. I know they use law and the court system to fight for absolute separation of church and state.

So what you are saying is that you don't mind if a non-profit is tax exempt and political as long as they are not religious. Don't you see that as failing an equal protection under the law test? That we should enforce the laws unequally as long as we like what the group is doing? I would hope you can see what a dangerous precedent that gives us.

I am not using the terminology "I don't mind". Personally I find it kind of childish.

Let's be clear what I said. Reproduction affects everyone in a society. That includes the religious.

a reply to: tsingtao

"i would just ask you, who does hold the ultimate truth?"

We each hold our own truth.
If you believe that God is the ultimate truth,
Then that is a truth that is ultimately determined and accepted by you.

a reply to: beezzer

If cults want to tax-exempt status, they can follow rules and regulations and jump through whatever hoops they are told to. Otherwise, they can pay tax like every other business.

a reply to: BasementWarriorKryptonite

I don't believe any entity should be tax exempt.

Period.

Why should the government reward some entities and punish others?

a reply to: beezzer

Exactly. I'm ignorant of any law that says religious organisations can't preach politics - is that the case?

When a church projects onto the political arena, it's not religion, its a political action committee.

Which because of the cash flow going through said PACs makes it well within the scope of the IRS.