Unhinged losers: Prop. 8 opponents threaten Mormons and Catholics
Gay marriage activists in California refuse to accept the passage of Prop. 8, the traditional marriage initiative.
They’ve marched in Los Angeles. They’re targeting the Mormon Church in Salt Lake City. And they’re threatening to burn down churches and hunt down people of faith who supported the ballot measure:
Decisions by voters in Florida, Arizona and California to join residents of 27 other states with constitutional protections for traditional marriage have prompted threats of violence against Christians and their churches.
“Burn their f—ing churches to the ground, and then tax the charred timbers,” wrote “World O Jeff” on the JoeMyGod blogspot today within hours of California officials declaring Proposition 8 had been approved by a margin of 52 percent to 48 percent. Confirmation on voter approval of amendments in Florida and Arizona came earlier.
The amendments in all three states essentially limit marriage to one man and one woman. In California, the measure states the only marriages “valid and recognized” in the state are those between one man and one woman.
Thirty states now have adopted marriage amendments. However, in California, the vitriol appeared especially high since the state Supreme Court in May created same-sex marriage for homosexuals. Proposition 8 overruled the court decision, readopting the marriage definition California voters adopted in 2000.
On a blog website, “Tread” wrote, “I hope the No on 8 people have a long list and long knives.”
Another contributor to the JoeMyGod website said, “While financially I supported the Vote No, and was vocal to everyone and anyone who would listen, I have never considered being a violent radical extremist for our equal rights. But now I think maybe I should consider becoming one. Perhaps that is the only thing that will affect the change we so desperately need and deserve.”
A contributor identifying himself as “Joe” said, “I swear, I’d murder people with my bare hands this morning.”
The Huffington Post is leading the charge to strip the Mormon church of its status as a religious organization.
A Carlsbad man was arrested after allegedly assaulting an elderly couple over their pro-Prop. 8 sign:
accused of punching an elderly couple because they had Yes On Prop 8 signs in their yard says he’s innocent.
Thursday, Lawrence Pizzicara pleaded not guilty to attacking his neighbors on Monday allegedly during an argument over Prop 8 signs.
The couple suffered numerous injuries.
Pizzicara is being held on $200,000 bail.
But don’t expect to read any condemnations of this insane rage on the NYT front page…
***
Since blacks and Latinos voted overwhelmingly for Prop. 8, I fully expect to see gay zealots marching onto South Central and East L.A. and threatening to burn down houses and businesses there.
Waiting…
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- The Gays Are Angry: Unhinged Prop. 8 opponents threaten Mormons and Catholics | Right Voices
- Prop. 8 opponents threaten Mormons and Catholics | Citizen-Right
- Mike's Noise
- Prop 8 aftermath in California - Sportbikes.net
- Lessons in how not to seek public policy change.. » A Couple Things » A couple things about politics, sports, travel, and other stuff.
- Protesters Gather Outside LDS Temple, don’t seem to realize no one’s there « Sockpuppet Politic
- PoliGazette » Hate in the Service of Tolerance
- State by State Campaign Reform? — The Opposite of Jim Bunning
- Kerfuffles :: Google Is A Book Burner :: November :: 2008
- “Burn Their Churches To The Ground” « Welcome to GayConservative.org
- FreeSpeech.com » Blog Archives » Dear 52
- Confederate Yankee
- HOLY WARS | ARHYTHMATIK
- Papa Mike’s Blog » Blog Archive » Radical California Gays Lash Out at Mormons, Catholics & N***ers
- Yeesh
- Traditional Values Still Fighting On Even Under an Obama Presidency « BUUUUURRRRNING HOT
- Without Objection: Culture Wars: California Gays Riot
- Prop 8 Reactions: Pure Comedy Gold | Democrat=Socialist
- Thuggish Reaction to the Success of Proposition 8
- ChooseTheHero.com » Blog Archive » Thuggish Reactions to the Passage of Prop. 8
- Obama: Go ahead and Kumbaya, while I pretend to be a centrist and then obliterate George Bush’s orders « Sharp Right Turn
- Wochenend-Schaschlik « abseits vom mainstream - heplev
- Classical Values
- Respecting the will of the people « Right Minded Online
- JABbering Stooge :: Demagogue, police thyself! :: November :: 2008
- Michelle Malkin » Schwarzenegger pours fuel on anti-Prop. 8 fire
- David’s Blog of Common Sense » On California Prop. 8, and Gay Marriage, and the Constitution
- Michelle Malkin » Anti-Prop. 8 mob: It’s over. You lost. Move on.
- Michelle Malkin » Anti-Prop. 8 mob: It’s over. You lost. Move on.
- Pajamas Media » Raging Over California’s Gay Marriage Proposition
- Prop 8 Madness | TDCMedia
- ChooseTheHero.com » Blog Archive » Prop 8: Enraged Gays Attack Elderly and Minorities
- Conservative Heritage Times » Neocon chickens coming home to roost …
- Militant homosexuality and their anti-Prop 8 efforts « Northern Thoughts And Reflections
- Michelle Malkin » The insane rage of the same-sex marriage mob
- The insane rage of the same-sex marriage mob
- Angry Gay Crowds/Gangs Reject Laws - Attack And Intimidate | BigMouthFrog
- Wizbang
- Up North Mommy Talks Politics » What’s the point of voting in California?
- Leftists circa 2008 Sounding Remarkably Like Missourians circa 1844 — Naomi Win
- Leftists circa 2008 Sounding Remarkably Like Missourians circa 1844 — NAOMI
- Pajamas Media » Memo to Prop 8 Activists: Leave the Mormons Alone!
- Unhinged losers: Prop. 8 opponents threaten Mormons and Catholics « Top Daily Digest Reading
- Religious Freedom and Free Speech trumped by Government Policies and Opposing Side « Insights and Displays of this World of Mine
- Dull Razor » Congratulations, bigots.
- GayPatriot » Does this mean black churches get the Mormon treatment?
- The difference between the Republican and Democratic sides « DaTechguy’s Blog
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Double standards, Proposition 8, Unhinged
Pundit & Pundette
» Westboro haters have enough to go around for everyone
Pundit & Pundette
» Guess what? Hasan frequented strip clubLegal Insurrection
» Pelosi's Abortion Land Mine ExplodesStop The ACLU
» Hasan Tried To Contact al Qaeda. Sounds Like A Jihadi To MeEd Driscoll
» Go Flag Yourself, Mr. President!JustOneMinute
» Stay Classy, Ezra!protein wisdom
» Quote of the Day [Darleen Click]
a little far-reaching, even for you. i thought i’d see how “dedicated” they are to the cause of “destroying any semblance of dignity afforded to gay people” yet their homepage didn’t say one word about it. so then i went to their “around the church” page, and there i read about their canneries, food banks, mormon football players at the university of utah, and mormons in slovenia. also, as it turns out there are actually more mormons outside the u.s. than in it, so i would venture to guess they have other things/people/countries/causes to worry about than just this one.
what staggering “dedication”!!!
flenser said:
Garbage.
Limiting the voting according to age isn’t arbitrary – or at least, not entirely arbitrary.
For obvious reasons, babies, and little kids, should not be able to vote. People mature at different rates, so there is no one-size fits all age. And people mature gradually. So by the nature of the case, some level of arbitrariness is required.
There is nothing wrong with allowing some arbitrariness so long as it is limited to what is necessary/unavoidable.
Being arbitrary just for the sake of arbitrary makes for bad law.
Limiting the definition of marriage to the traditional view is not arbitrary. Allowing same sex couples to marry, but not allowing other forms of marriage is arbitrary.
absolutely true about him and the gay rights movement. they are a bunch of fascists in their starched brown shirts..
Planned Parenthood is no longer a local medical care giver. It is an organisation dedicated to destroying the lives of unborn people. It should have it’s business license revoked, without question.
I can take your argument and twist it 1,000 ways. Do you really want to live in a society that is that stark, that rigid, that intoleraant, that uncompromising, and that totalitarian.
Your approach is singular. You want anything that does not fit your model of a utopian society destroyed. No differing opinions or values can exist. How long will liberty survive where differences are dealt with in the manner you are implying? All who disagree will be crushed. You can be Rahm Emanuel’s assistant.
If you want a society where there are those in charge, those subjugated, those disposed of and those inside the wire of a facility with “Arbeit Macht Frei” over the front gate, congratulations you are off to a great start.
So when gays attack straight folks what is it then? Straight Bashing!? Sounds like a hate crime to me. Quick, somebody call the ACLU. Oh yeah, thats right. Christians and straight people are not an “oppressed minority”. Given the way things are going? That may change and quick.
I would also suggest to angry SF gays. You might want to re-think going into Catholic churches dressed in drag (along with other anti- Christian nonsense) and then take the Holy Communion. Way to bring folks to your side. Thats using the old noodle.
Poster children for the old adage,
“Life is tough; it’s tougher when you’re stupid.”
Any church that uses their funds for political purposes should have their tax-exempt status yanked. I don’t care if they’re using it again abortion, for abortion, against gay marriage, for gay marriage, whatever. The rules are there for a reason and shouldn’t be abused.
Flyoverman–that had me in stitches. My coworkers are all wondering what in God’s name I’m laughing at over here.
Omu–oh, no. Please don’t start that again. I know plenty of Mormons who are wonderful people, and not one of them hates me.
Mookie–I’ve seen pastors talk about laws up for a vote in services, but I didn’t see any of them using church money OR allowing fundraising on church property either yay or nay for these laws. There is a difference. Trust me, if they’d run afoul of those laws, the IRS woulda been on ‘em like flies on a cowpie.
Wow! THANK YOU!!
Thank you!!
To redpeach and all those with kinds & supportive words: thank you!
This bodes ill for the Republic, folks. The Liberals, in their euphoria are showing their true selves. We need to stand firm & even if we lose Talk Radio, the internet, etc, REMEMBER: We, none of us, are alone. We are a people who love the ideals set forth in the Constitution. even if separated & unable to communicate, we need to keep that in mind and vote as the Constitution and other Founding Documents teach.
Even isolated in a place where the government may try its best to emulate Mao’s China, secret police & all, if we learn the foundation we don’t have to communicate! We’ll understand how to vote because we’ll understand the why!
Oh, yeah–as an add-on to Spackle’s comment, the “Sisters of Perpetual Indulgence?” Gag me. It’s all about the shock value at this point, and I’m quite certain they ain’t winnin’ any converts.
Someone get me a barf bag…
The LDS church actively campaigned for Prop. 8 and solicited donations from their members.
http://mormonsfor8.com/
Just because someone belongs to a church doesn’t make them a Christian. I’ve seen lots of the same cars parked at a church on Sunday morning at bars and strip joints the night before.
Of course in all this ranting we can see the infantilism that is probably at the root of their malformed sexuality. Its kind of pitiable. Most of us overcome the inevitable mistakes of our parents and go on to make a few parenting mistakes of our own but these poor babes are aborted souls. Whatever did mommy and daddy to to cause you to act like this?
Anyway go to Massachusetts. Gays there are starting to rue their marriages. When it comes to divorce time suddenly they weren’t really married.
The rules are already constantly abused and should be tossed in the dumpster. And they would be, if they were ever used to go after black churches.
I’ll agree to that, when states which interfere in non-state issues like marriage get their own status revoked.
The state can’t make everything political and then complain that others are involved in politics.
When he told the “story” my mother literally laughed until she cried. Glad you liked it.
You don’t think the state should issue marriage licenses?
I don’t think the state has any business revising the definition of marriage. That is just one of the several million things which are none of it’s business.
The state is supposed to be the peoples servant, not their master.
Why do I get the feeling that I’m introducing you to the ABC’s of conservative thought here?
Count me in as another one of those rare gay conservative Christians. I have so little in common with these losers Michelle blogs about that they sicken me probably as much they do most everyone else reading about them. But, if you think they are being intolerant to heterosexuals, especially conservatives and the religious, you should see how I’m treated by them. The hatred and rage I’ve seen directed at me and other gay conservatives is shocking. I’ve had someone I thought was a friend look squarely at me and say “I hope all Republicans burn in hell.” Needless to say, for the past few months, I’ve been hanging with my straight friends most of the time; I didn’t need the extra stress of dreading when conversations were going to turn to the election.
I’m glad that Prop 8 passed. Most gays can’t be happy with civil unions; instead, they demand it be called “marriage”. It’s the in-your-face attitude so many of them have. I’m convinced they couldn’t care less what it’s called; they just want to poke the religious right in the eye. Of course, I want the same rights a married couple has, but I have no desire for it to be called marriage. I’m very happy living in a quiet suburban neighborhood, with a successful career in a great company which offers partner benefits (although I am single), and living the most non-stereotypical gay life one could imagine. And in my free time, I’m mountain biking, hiking, mountain climbing, volunteering in maintaining a local park, etc… so unless you paid close attention and notice I don’t date women, you’d never know. I like what one commenter called us, a rugged individualist. And another thing, so many gays think one must “come out” to the world; not me, those who need to know, do, otherwise, it’s none of their business. And, I don’t need any special rights because of it.
So, these losers Michelle writes of are just that. It embarrasses me that just because I’m gay, I’m lumped in with them most of the time. I have attended one Gay Pride event and I walked away very quickly thinking to myself “never again”. Michelle’s blogs about events going on in our schools and on the streets of San Francisco; these events should in no way be tolerated.
Sorry for the long comment, but the intolerance shown by the majority of gays on the left angers me a great deal. I don’t need the government to basically force people to accept me because I gay. I’m quite happy being a proud American first, and if you want to be my friend, that’s fine with me.
Wow… I wish I was in California… I would wear one of those Prop. 8 Shirts …
I cant help it… I love pissing off liberals… if they want to be all socialist… why not expose them for the true people they are: Angry, Evil, Ignorant, Violent, Power Hungry People
The Mormon Church did not use church funds for prop 8, individual church members donated money to the campaign. The money never went through church channels like tithing, fast offerings, etc. does. A volunteer in each ward collected checks/cash from individuals (bundling, a democratic staple) and other individuals went directly to the yes on 8 campaign website and donated directly.
I did donate money and time to the yes on 8. I stood on street corners waiving signs and went door to door to all registered voters.
To me, the overriding factor for supporting 8 were the activist judges.
Nothing is preventing gays from going through the ballet initiative method to approve homosexual marriage. Instead they want to go through the courts and have it mandated to us peasants. Homey don’t play that game. Get the majority of society to agree with you, not one or two judges. Society has the right to determine for itself what is moral, correct and right. Society does not have to accept your definition of what you want marriage to mean. This society has decided that marriage should be defined as one man, one woman. Live with it or go through the initiative process and get society to change its collective mind.
Don’t flatter yourself. You said states shouldn’t interfere with non-state issues like marriage. States are the ones who issue marriage licenses so by your logic, they should have nothing at all to do with marriage.
Forgive me if anyone else brought up this point, but isn’t Obama’s Trinity United Church of Christ still a tax-exempt organization? That was rather political.
Don’t feel bad, it’s the “left” part that makes them intolerant bigots rather than the gay part.
If that’s the case, why is money from Mormons for 8 being paid out to individual churches for services rendered?
It sounds like a lot of self-doubt to me if you need a piece of paper called a marriage license to have “any semblance of dignity.” Would granting quick marriages and quick divorces to Johns and prostitutes give “dignity” to their unions? There are plenty of people out there who believe they were not born to be monogamous. Shouldn’t they have dignity, too?
The intent of marriage is to provide a stable environment with both a father and a mother to raise the next generation. It’s not our “dignity” but our survival as a people that depends on it. Reality often falls short of the ideal when it comes to marriage, but deliberately watering down the definition of marriage to make gays feel better about themselves does not help marriage or society.
Gays are free to privately define their unions any way they want to. They should not be forced to accept traditional beliefs. On the same hand, gays do not have the right to force everyone else to accept their redefinition of marriage or to change longstanding traditions and beliefs just to give them a false sense of dignity. Tolerance works both ways.
Exactly. Where do you think the money for Rev. Wright’s new house came from. When his comments were revealed, people were clamoring for Trinity’s tax exempt status to be pulled. It’s as hypocritical as the whole Shut Up and Sing nonsense. I don’t care what church it is and who they do or don’t support. You play, you pay.
behiker said:
I bet. Much like the Jews hated the Samaritans worse than the Gentiles. Or how black conservatives are treated – not just the enemy, but something even worse: traitors.
behiker said:
I disagree with you on the Christian gay thing, but putting that aside, I think I love you. Not in a gay way, but in a platonic sense.
Because Mookie, it is not.
Tell a lie, keep repeating the lie, and maybe the people with the feeble minds will start to believe the lie as truth. Classic propaganda.
Mookie said:
Tony Rezko?
Why did the Skyline Church receive $18,000 for “Pastoral Services”?
Mookie, Per the quote on you website you linked, members donated to protectmarriage.com, not the Mormon Church. Mormons do not get a refund of unused monies from the campaign. They will sit there for the next campaign or legal action to protect the citizens vote from judicial activists.
Have a good day, and please use fact instead of propaganda.
Why did the Skyline Church receive $18,000 for “Pastoral Services”?
Democraps gone wild (again).
And what does the Skyline Church have to do with the Mormon Church?
Additionally, I have no idea what denomination the Skyline Church is, but it is probably not a Mormon Chapel. Mormons do not name their churches, only the wards that meet in them usually based on location. i.e. Oakland 1st Ward, 2nd Ward, etc or the Oakland Temple.
However, Skyline might have provided a service that protectmarriage organization was willing to pay for. What this service was, I have no idea, but I think you need to research this a little bit more.
BTW, Mormons do not have Pastors,the have unpaid Bishops for each ward. They do not get paid, repeat, they do not get paid. There is no paid clergy at the stake/ward level.
When the light of truth comes out, the darkness of lies and ignorance falls away. In other words in modern vampire folklore, when the sun hits the vampires, the vampires disintegrate.
So your “rules” trump free speech and the constitution. If abortion is a political rather than a moral issue in your opinion, can you give us a list of issues that are not political? What can churches talk about that would be OK with you?
Thou shalt not murder?
No, that would relate too closely to abortion.
Thou shalt not steal?
No, that would tresspass on the politics of “sharing the wealth.”
Thou shalt not commit adultery?
No, that would delve too deeply into the private lives of too many politicians.
Thou shalt not covet?
No, that would put a damper on the Democratic Party by condemning class warfare and punishing the rich.
So, what issues can churches legally get involved with in your strange little Utopia, Mookie? I would really like to know.
Go back and read what I wrote. I don’t care what side they’re on. I don’t care if it’s Rev. Wright or the Mormons.
Mookie, I have a new name that you can use, Fascist Mookie! Free speech for me, not for thee
All individuals and organizations have the protection of the FIRST AMENDMENT. Try reading it someday.
Well Mookie, when that happens, you get back to me and whine about the hypocrisy.
You didn’t answer the question, Mookie. I asked for a topic that churches could publicly support without being “political” and losing their tax-exempt status. Churches need some guidance here so they don’t break your “rules.”
I suspect that you don’t want churches speaking out on any issues. Can you even give us one issue that would not meet your definition of “political”?
Let’s see. Those who propose abortion, and same sex marriage can impose new and radically different of morality on the people through clever creative judical interpretation of the constitution and that’s fine, because they aren’t religious.
But if a church or two encourages members to exercise their rights as citizens, vote, and encourage their neighbors to also oppose this redefiniton of morality, that’s “imposing religion”.
As General McCauliffe famously said, “Nuts”.
Of course a church can talk about abortion or gay marriage. It’s when they start campaigning from the pulpit at election time on a specific ballot issue or candidate that crosses the line. The IRS went after a church in 2004 for encouraging its members to vote for John Kerry and they were right.
I wondered where Mookie got that
“Skyline Church” stuff, so I looked around online.
Yeah, Mook’s a fascist thug all right.
Good post, Confutus, you hit the nail on the head. If they can silence churches, the next target will be anyone who belongs to a church. Then there will be virtually no opposition to their liberal agenda.
Then you’re cool with them, since they did nothing of the sort here.
Ah, so you want revenge.
It should have already happened. That’s the whole damn point.
pdv, I’m more than willing to have a normal debate with you about this but the fascist thing is boring and predictable.
For John Kerry?? Hell no. I’ll be happy if Obama brings him into his cabinet just to get him out of MA. I used him as an example of the IRS getting involved. If you can find another one, that’s cool too.
#229
That’s correct, pdv.
Including our young men & women who serve as missionaries, and the elderly couples serving as missionaries also.
2yrs for most missions, and in many families, the funds that a young missionaries uses are only those he himself has earned.
BTW, once a person interested in the workings of the the Church asked if anyone gets paid. The Stake president who was with me, (we were directing traffic at pagent), spouted up with: “only the janitors!”… not quite accurate, the physical installation managers/building support are paid, as are other support positions.
From what I understand the President, (Thomas S. Monson currently,) and others at the World level sign over their chattels to the Church, since they’re on call 24/7.
The Skyline Church stuff is on MormonsFor8’s expenditure report.
Mookie stopped responding to my posts. I think that truth is like “Troll Away.” The roaches fun for cover. My apology to any roach that was offended in my comparison.
Mook, you should let the thugs at “Mormons for Prop 8″ know that Skyline Church is not Mormon.
They don’t claim that they anything illegal happened, btw. They just publish the info so that the gay mafia can sneak around to Skyline some night and spray graffiti on the walls.
Mormons for Prop 8 is not run by Mormons, and it’s an anti Prop 8 site.
Or were you too dim to grasp that?
Why is any church receiving money from them? It doesn’t matter if it’s Skyline or Trinity or whoever.
pdv, I haven’t gone anywhere. You just haven’t said anything worth responding to.
I never said it was. They’ve posted the public expenditure reports from various Prop. 8 groups.
You’re quite the little fascist thug, ain’t you, in spite of your faux concern for the law?
Why is it any business of yours or anybody else who gives money to Skyline? Have you been digging through the tens of millions of dollars donated to the other side and demanding to know why anybody donated money to it?
You’re a natural Obamunist, Mookie.
How can one have a normal debate when one party state lies as facts? fascism relies on both propaganda and stifling the speech of one’s opponent through intimidation. Intimidation can be accomplished through thug tactics such as assaulting those in disagreement or by using the force of government to jail or otherwise take the livelihood from the opposing voice.
So, tell me how your not a fascists, you have written lies easily discounted on this thread, and your brothers in thought are using violent intimidation on the street.
No, you were too dim to grasp it until I told you.
With the aim of intimidating people into not giving money, a tactic which a thug like you is on board with.
You’re so funny, flenser. We’ve had this discussion before. Would you like to see my McCain donation?
Find a single word I said condoning violent intimidation. I’ll wait.
There mookie, I fixed it for you.;-)
Anyway, have a good evening.
Supporting political candidates and supporting moral issues are two different things. But I’m glad to know that it’s alright with you for churches to speak out on moral issues like abortion as long as it’s not an issue in the election. At least you concede that the First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion exist part of the time.
However, since campaigning for the next election now begins as soon as the last one is over, and since abortion and gay rights are always an issue in every election, I’m still left to wonder how long churches have to speak out before it’s “election time” again. How big is that window, exactly?
You’re funny, Mookie. Still waiting for you to explain why it’s any of your business who gives money to either side in the Prop 8 fight.
Can I expect you to denounce Hollywood for raising millions of dollars to help gay marriage? Or is that fine with you?
Yes. Show it to me.
You too, pdv. I’d like to continue this discussion at another time if you’re willing. I don’t think we’ve crossed paths before but I hope you’ll see I’m not a raving lunatic or fascist. We just don’t agree on some things.
Papa Louie, that’s a good question about the election time window and one that I don’t have an answer to. Let me present a scenario here that maybe makes what I’m trying to get at a little clearer. Let’s say there’s a ballot initiative to remove parental consent for abortions in a state where it’s applicable. A liberal church in that state decides they support the initiative and encourages its members to vote for it. They also encourage their members to donate to a Yes on Prop. Whatever fundraising group. Do you think that church should have its tax exempt status yanked?
I have to do a quick store (ok, beer) run so my response might be delayed a bit. I don’t want anyone to think I’m cutting and running.
Flenser, give me your email address and I’ll send you the info as soon as I’m back.
flenser44 at aol dot com.
Is that supposed to be a joke?
No.
By all means explain your thinking here, if you’re able.
This is clearly news to you, but in this country we have these things called freedom of religion, freedom of association, and freedom of speech.
I can only assume that you just moved here from Russia, so I encourage you to investigate these things.
About churches getting in trouble with the IRS. Here is how the argument goes:
Churches can talk about issues, but they are forbidden from endorsing/rejecting specific candidates. If they do that, they can have their tax-exempt status revoked.
There is a group currently fighting this out. The churches argue that it is a freedom of speech/religion issue, and the IRS should butt out.
The opposition answers by saying that they are not infringing upon their freedom of speech/religion rights, since they still have the right to speak, they just lose their tax exempt status.
My response to this is, that is effectively infringing upon one’s freedom of speech/religion. It is hurting some churches based upon what they teach, intimidating them.
Do we really want to make life harder for churches? Churches do a lot of good. Removing their tax exempt status means the government has more money to waste, and the church has less money to do good things.
In any case, the IRS hasn’t always had this power over churches. They only gained this power a few decades ago. Before that, preaching from the pulpit about politics & candidates was pretty common.
Personally, I think the IRS should butt out. Do you really trust the IRS? Particular, do you trust the IRS to determine when something crosses the line of being too political in our churches? If nothing else, for practical reasons, this law should be kicked to curb.
No, I don’t think the church’s tax-exempt status should be yanked in the case you presented, even though I disagree with their position. If they promoted a specific candidate or party, they would be crossing the line. (Although, Black Churches seem to be exempt from that rule.) But taking a stance on an issue, especially one that has moral implications, should be allowed. Let all parties have their say and let the people decide.
Hey Mookie – Are they going after Reverend Wrights church or the MANY MANY churches b. Hussein spoke at while he was campaigning???
*crickets chirping*
PS Mookie – that’s one of the main reasons listed for my Church to come out for this ammendment. Because if they are allowed to be marriage, we would then be open to Hate Crimes laws if we refuse.
Now, when are these despicable people going to picket Black and Latino communities for being the main voting blocks of the proposition?
And here is another UGLY video from these people picketing in front of one of our Temples:
HERE
Vile…
Yeah, that’s all well and good, but you forget the left has the remarkable knack of shifting definitions to suit their ends.
Ergo, they define even mentioning something like abortion, or gay marriage, or euthanasia in a church is a violation of non-profit status.
We can nitpick at this all we want, folks, but here’s what it boils down to:
Most people on the left have no use for religion and hold it in utmost disdain and contempt. It is their ultimate goal to figure out a way – through activist courts and/or legislation – to shut down as many churches as possible.
They operate, of course, under the illusion (delusion) that freedom from religion (specifically historical Christianity and orthodox Judaism) will bring them supreme happiness.
So, since the 1960s, they’ve embraced free love, abortion, secularism, etc. in a frantic pursuit of nirvana.
And it still alludes them.
But my supreme happiness lies in the Eucharist, and my faith, and my parish and living out the tenets of my faith and defending my faith…to the death, if necessary.
Studies confirm that people with sincere and active faith lives are significantly happier than atheists or agnostics.
I think that shows. Here and elsewhere.
That video also said the ACLU has already filed suit to stop prop 8 from becoming law. Can they overturn an ammendment???
Somehow I can see the California Supreme Court trying to overturn Prop 8. Then there will be a fight all the way to the SCOTUS.
I don’t know if they are but they should be, especially after seeing that gigantic house.
I’ve been wondering the same thing.
Maybe someone can clear this up for me. Does a church have to play by a different set of rules than a non-religious tax exempt group? I’ve looked at the guidelines and it’s muddy at best. Can a group like PETA (ugh) come right out and endorse a candidate?
Yes. ACORN is non-profit, and clearly they don’t give a crap about neutrality laws.
True dat. So what’s the rationale behind the restrictions on the church?
Mookie – there is no rational, it’s simply one rule for conservative groups of all kinds and another for leftists… it’s really that simple.
As Joy said, there is no rationale. It’s the meme now that traditional Christianity and, to a lesser extent, orthodox Judaism are evil, oppressive, and must be destroyed.
They’re really just rehashing the same tired arguments atheists have had since the dawn of time…
I’m confused. Last night on The O’Reilly Factor, there was a woman, I don’t know her name, who said that Latinos did not support the measure via their votes.
Any clarification?
Sigh. It’s been a long week, hasn’t it?
If I offended anyone here, I apologize. The last thing I’m trying to do is squash anyone’s freedom of speech or religion. I have gay friends whose hearts were broken Tuesday night so for me, the fight is personal. But these same friends would never, ever condone any kind of violence or threats of violence. Never.
The whole thing is all wrong, EQ1. A church should be the one place where people can openly speak their minds about anything or anyone, including issues, laws, politicians and candidates without fear of government interference or reprisal. Why should people of faith be denied their right to free speech in their own places of worship?
Okay – here’s a question, and I mean this sincerely:
Would they support the behavior of some in the gay-rights movement to force churches and religious persons or organizations to accept gay marriage and perform religious ceremonies? OR the force teaching of homosexuality in public schools, even against the wishes of parents?
Because, quite frankly, I wouldn’t have a problem with these unions under the condition that they respect the rights of free citizens to worship, raise their children according to their beliefs, and stop what I see is the harrassment of those who disagree with them ideologically.
But when their “rights” transform into the “right” not to be offended or hurt by anyone else, or to supercede the First Amendment rights of people who have deep religious conviction, I have to draw the line.
And, I need to ask about what sdillard said earlier. He said CA had civil union laws that already protected couples. Is this true?
Mooks – If they’ve discovered for the first time that life is not Santa Claus to give them whatever they demand, they were very long due the rude awakening and the “welcome” to reality.
Despicable hypocrisy. However, I bet they looked fabulous while rioting.
Absolutely not and I think that’s the feeling of most gays who are looking for marriage equality. They don’t want to storm the churches and schools. They don’t want to get involved in any way with your kids. They simply want the same validation and protection that marriage provides.
As far as the civil unions go, I don’t have an answer. I know that you can register as domestic partners but I don’t know if the protections given with that are the same that were given with the marriages.
Yes it is true.
English Queen and Mookie – The problem is that in Canada and other countries that allow gay marriage there are already litigations against churches and Pastors, etc. who speak out against homosexuality. It is a very real threat against churches.
I have a two gay friends who feel hurt. I’m sorry they feel hurt. I have empathy for the struggle they face. But the facts are that they have an avenue that gains them all the rights they want, it is simply not called marriage. Which shows me that is not what they are after.
Mookie – BULL… they absolutely will force, through litigation, their will. Speaking out against gay marriage will be a hate crime. As I said in my previous post, it is already happening in Canada and elsewhere (such as the Netherlands). And MM has already blogged concerning a teacher who took her class a on field trips to her gay wedding. They will have to teach gay marriage as normal in public schools.
Okay – so why, if most feel this way, don’t they work language into the legislation to protect the rights of those who disagree?
It never happens.
They have let the minority overthrow the majority, in that case, and need to close those problems.
Individuals who enguage in homo action need to keep it behind close doors. If they attack individuals, or buildings deadly force can be used. The majority of voters has spoken.
She asked about my friends and I know with absolute certainty none of them would ever do that. It’s also my opinion that most gays would do the same. Are there extremists who want want you’re suggesting? Absolutely. But there are extremists in every religion and every cause. There are vegetarians who just avoid eating meat and don’t care what anyone else does. Then there are the Ingrid Newkirks of the world who want you charged with murder if you eat a chicken wing.
It does happen. It happens all the time. The problem is that it doesn’t draw any attention. It’s not as interesting as people wanting to storm churches. The majority of people who supported Obama celebrated peacefully on Tuesday night. You don’t hear about those people. You only hear about the bad apples like the ones Michelle has posted. Normalcy never draws attention.
Mookie – Since civil unions grant them the same rights as marriage, why do they feel the need to pass a law redefining what the word marriage means?
Part of it has to do with the idea of separate but equal. Another part has to do with the tax code. I’m sure there are a multitude of other reasons but those are the two most important ones.