LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY nebris)

A New York Times Editorial

Shortly before the last election, a former rector at All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena, Calif., gave a fiery antipoverty and antiwar sermon. He did not endorse a presidential candidate, but he criticized President Bush's policies in Iraq and at home. Now the Internal Revenue Service has challenged the church's tax-exempt status. It's important to know just how the tax police have chosen this church - and other congregations - to pursue after an election that energized churchgoers of most denominations.

I.R.S. officials have said about 20 churches are being investigated for activities across the political spectrum that could jeopardize their tax status. The agency is barred by law from revealing which churches, but officials have said these targets were chosen by a team of civil servants, not political appointees, at the Treasury Department. The I.R.S. argues that freedom of religion does not grant freedom from taxes if churches engage in politics.

That should mean that the 2004 presidential campaign would be an extremely fertile field. While some churches allowed Democrats to speak from the pulpit, the conservative Christians last year mounted an especially intense - and successful - drive to keep President Bush in office. Some issued voter guides that pointedly showed how their own religion was allied with Mr. Bush's views. Several Roman Catholic bishops even suggested that a vote for John Kerry would be a mortal sin. Since the election, Republicans have held two openly political nationally televised revival meetings at churches to support Mr. Bush's judicial nominations.

If the I.R.S. is pursuing any of those churches, we certainly have not heard from them about it. All Saints in Pasadena has released copies of the letter from the I.R.S., along with tapes of the sermon and a defense of the church's antiwar mission going back to the days when church leaders protested internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II. The I.R.S. letter stated that the agency had "concerns" about a sermon by the Rev. George Regas that The Los Angeles Times called "a searing indictment of the Bush administration's policies in Iraq."

Church leaders have hired lawyers and refused to agree to a settlement that requires them to admit that the sermon was over the line drawn by the I.R.S. The Rev. J. Edwin Bacon, the rector of All Saints, told parishioners that the church would continue to resist the government's efforts. That sounds right. With the feverish courting of religious voters these days, the I.R.S. does have the daunting task of separating politics from church policy. Still, it would seem to be hard to justify picking on a church that has a long record of opposition to wars waged by leaders from both parties.

I know this has been noted here before, but it's nice to a nation news outlet make some noise about it.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

While reading an article on Talk To Action, I found links to two articles about evangelism in the workplace. I thought I'd share them with you.

Christianity in the workplace
Can faith and work share space?

The U.S. Small Business Administration, the Better Business Bureau and the commissioner of the revenue have no category for them. They have no official logo and no trade union. These businesses rank from the Fortune 500 to the not so fortunate. They employ handfuls or hundreds and string from Honolulu to Hartford.

They are Christian-owned and Christian-run businesses, and depending on your persuasion, you may be inclined to swear by them – or at them. But one thing is for certain: It’s harder these days to spot what’s what.

“It’s such an organic thing,” said Randy Singer, an attorney-turned-missions-executive from Hampton Roads who travels across the country teaching what it means to be a Christian businessperson. He is also an adjunct professor at Regent University.

“I’m seeing a lot of blurring between what a Christian business is and what a secular business is. People are integrating spiritual aspects of their lives into the workplace, which is driven by this macro-force of blurring the lines between work and other parts of our lives. Many people are working from home. Fewer people are punching time clocks. When that happens, you can’t compartmentalize faith and work. They blend together.”

But do they blend, or do they slam into a head-on collision? When should Christian employers ’fess up to their faith, and when will their transparency land them in the middle of a lawsuit? What follows is a look at how some Christian business educators and Christian business owners approach those questions, and how a sampling of the secular community responds.

This article has some excellent questions about handling religion in the workplace.

The following article is a stark illustration of that 'stealth dominionism' that is creeping out under the cover of government and starting to strangle our rights.

Justice Unit Puts Its Focus on Faith --
A little-known civil rights office has been busily defending religious groups.

One of the main jobs at the Justice Department is enforcing the nation's civil rights laws. So when a nonprofit group was accused of employment discrimination last year in New York, the department moved swiftly to intervene -- but not on the side one might expect.

The Salvation Army was accused in a lawsuit of imposing a new religious litmus test on employees hired with millions of dollars in public funds.

When employees complained that they were being required to embrace Jesus Christ to keep their jobs, the Justice Department's civil rights division took the side of the Salvation Army.

Defending the right of an employer using public funds to discriminate is one of the more provocative steps taken by a little-known arm of the civil rights division and its special counsel for religious discrimination.

The Justice Department's religious-rights unit, established three years ago, has launched a quiet but ambitious effort aimed at rectifying what the Bush administration views as years of illegal discrimination against religious groups and their followers.

Many court decisions have affirmed the rights of individuals in the public sector not to have religious beliefs imposed on them -- the Supreme Court ruling banning school-sponsored prayer in public schools among them. And courts have ruled that the rights of religious groups sometimes need protection too -- upholding, for example, their right to have access to public buildings for meetings.

But the argument that a religious institution spending public funds has the right to require employees to embrace its beliefs -- and that it will be backed by the Justice Department in doing so -- has changed the debate. It is an argument the Bush administration is making in Congress as well as in the courts.

If anyone knows if this case has been ruled on yet, let me know. It's a very critical case, as you can see.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY kalibex)

'The judge ruled that preventing the group from meeting at the school was a violation of its right to free expression. '

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY cheap_laugh)

Church... State....
Antiwar Sermon Brings IRS Warning
All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena risks losing its tax-exempt status because of a former rector's remarks in 2004.
By Patricia Ward Biederman and Jason Felch
Times Staff Writers

November 7, 2005

The Internal Revenue Service has warned one of Southern California's largest and most liberal churches that it is at risk of losing its tax-exempt status because of an antiwar sermon two days before the 2004 presidential election.

Rector J. Edwin Bacon of All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena told many congregants during morning services Sunday that a guest sermon by the church's former rector, the Rev. George F. Regas, on Oct. 31, 2004, had prompted a letter from the IRS.

In his sermon, Regas, who from the pulpit opposed both the Vietnam War and 1991's Gulf War, imagined Jesus participating in a political debate with then-candidates George W. Bush and John Kerry. Regas said that "good people of profound faith" could vote for either man, and did not tell parishioners whom to support.

But he criticized the war in Iraq, saying that Jesus would have told Bush, "Mr. President, your doctrine of preemptive war is a failed doctrine. Forcibly changing the regime of an enemy that posed no imminent threat has led to disaster."


Isn't his just unbelievable? Politics fromt eh pulpit is ok, ifyou support dubyapaloozer and his wartiers.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY nebris)

"To be tax-exempt as an organization described in IRC Section 501(c)(3) of the Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for one or more of the purposes set forth in IRC Section 501(c)(3) and none of the earnings of the organization may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate at all in campaign activity for or against political candidates." [italics are mine]

~I was doing some research and I happened upon this on the IRS website. I suspect quite a few Dominionist churches could have their tax exempt status revoked if this was ever really enforced.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY seshen)

Former President Jimmy Carter said Thursday that "fundamentalism" under George W. Bush has resulted in a "dramatic and profound and unprecedented change" in American policy that threatens the United States at home and abroad.

Carter, who is promoting a new book critical of Bush, faulted the Bush administration for "an unprecedented and overt ... merger of the church and state, of religion and politics."

He said the natural "arrogance" of second-term presidents is exacerbated by a fundamentalism under Bush that causes many of his supporters and those who work in his administration to believe that "I am right because I am close to God (and) anybody who disagrees with me is inherently wrong, and therefore inferior."

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

This NYT article talks about the evangelical version of 'sexual purity' and how it's being seeded in the military along with some very nasty misogyny:

Sex and the Faithful Soldier
By JOHN LELAND

ADD another item to the well-equipped soldier's duffel. An evangelical radio ministry has developed a book kit meant to help soldiers protect their sexual purity, and is raising money to send 6,000 kits to chaplains who have requested them.

The kits, from New Life Ministries, which broadcasts on 150 stations nationally, is intended to promote Bible-based abstinence from pornography, adultery, nonmarital sex and masturbation. "Your goal is sexual purity," the authors write. "You are sexually pure when no sexual gratification comes from anyone or anything but your wife."( Read more... )

The Revealer has some additional thoughts on this program:

NYT Chuckles at Fundies, and Does Their Work For Them
30 October 2005

Jeff Sharlet: Are U.S. military chaplains promoting homophobia and discrimination against non-Christian women on taxpayer time? The New York Times reports that New Life Ministries plans to send 6,000 sexual abstinence kits, titled "Every Soldier's Battle," to U.S. military chaplains who've requested them as counseling tools for soldiers. The Times notes that the kits are a spin-off of the bestselling "Every Man's Battle" series, but reporter John Leland doesn't bother to investigate the source of kits, books created to help conservative evangelical men erase lust, masturbation, wet dreams, and women who don't conform to the books' vision of "male headship" from their lives. Women, meanwhile, must help men by wearing chaste clothing and not bending over in their presence. Married women must provide for their husband's satisfaction at regular intervals, regardless of their own desires.

Last spring, I wrote about the series for Rolling Stone: "The authors of the books hold up the books of Joshua and Ezekiel as armor against non-Christian women. 'Mixture,' they write, 'can destroy a people.'" The authors refer to sexually active, unmarried women with the name "Betty Jo 'B.J.' Blowers," and consider homosexuality a satanic deception to be cured through vigorous Bible study. According to the Times, "Sgt. First Class Daniel L. Roberts, a chaplain's assistant at Fort Jackson in South Carolina, requested 200 kits for troops in basic combat training." Another chaplain's assistant, Michael Music, led 100 men through the program while stationed in Iraq.

The Times seems to find it all amusing, if perhaps helpful to soldiers struggling to keep their marriages together. The peddlers of the "Every Man's Battle" series, meanwhile, must appreciate this infographic from the paper of record, tongue so firmly in cheek that it functions as advertising you couldn't buy.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

Welcome to Faith-Based America
By Stephen Pizzo, News for Real
Posted on October 22, 2005, Printed on October 22, 2005
From AlterNet

What's wrong with this picture?

As part of President Bush's "faith-based initiative," US taxpayers gave the Salvation Army's children services division $47 million this year -- 95% of its total budget. Several Salvation Army employees refused to take the Salvation Army's pledge "proclaiming Jesus Christ as Savior and Lord," reveal which church they belong to or identify gay co-workers -- and were summarily fired.

Let's parse this event out. The money came from American taxpayers, many of whom are not Christians. Nevertheless the workers were fired for refusing to pledge allegiance to the Christian prophet. They were also fired for failing to disclose their own religious affiliations, if any. And finally, they were fired for refusing to rat out their co-workers.

Sounds like something that would happen in Communist China, doesn't it? And, if it had happened in China, and it was Christians getting fired, you can bet your sweet bippy the Bush administration and America's Christian right would be screaming bloody murder about it.( Read more... )

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY ns_kumiho)

The University of California at Berkeley is being sued for running a website for school teachers called Understanding Evolution.

Anti-evolutionists claim that the site breaches the American constitution on the separation of church and state because it links to religious organisations which believe faith can be reconciled with Darwin's theory of evolution, reported the website Inside Higher Ed today.

The University of California is already under legal attack for its refusal to certify high school courses on creationism and "intelligent design" as meeting its entry requirements for admission.

What the...?

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY idragosani)

http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?sid=594781&nid=25

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY kalibex)

'Psychologist Rex Rosenberg believes in demons.


'He believes its possible to measure demonic influence with a survey he created.


'Does the subject of the survey smell foul odors? Are they homosexual? Do they deny Jesus of Nazareth is God?


'If the answer is yes to these or the other survey questions, that could indicate demonic possession.


'Some say Rosenberg shouldn’t be the state’s chief evaluator of who is committed to the state’s sexual predator program at Larned State Hospital...'

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY seshen)

Alderman Darrel Leftwich is proposing that the city establish new Sunday hours for White House Municipal Park so sporting events could only be held in the afternoon. “I am concerned that we are not sending the right message to the community by having tournaments and league play during worship hours," Leftwich said.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY kalibex)

'An issue raised by the Feds that Kenyon found distasteful: an instruction that chaplains bless recovered bodies. A company source said the Feds are insisting on this, and the first chaplains are supposed to go out this week. Asked if that was mixing church and state, a FEMA spokeswoman responded: "A prayer is not necessarily religious. Everybody prays."'

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY divabel)

http://www.suntimes.com/output/hunter/cst-ftr-scribble14.html
September 14, 2005
BY S. JENNIFER HUNTER

( ... )
So why, you might ask, did the Ontario government, that politically correct legislature, consider a proposal to accept Sharia law? It cited the cause of multiculturalism.

In 1991, the Ontario government passed the Ontario Arbitration Act, which allowed Jews and Christians to take civil and marital cases before religious arbitration. Rabbis could then adjudicate fights over inheritances and priests over disputes between parishes. Muslim groups in Ontario, quite understandably, wanted the same rights.

Ontario had thus backed itself into a corner. It was forced to either undo the Arbitration Act or give Muslims the same latitude as Jewish and Christian mediators. In fact, the discussion about including Sharia law brought protests from Orthodox Jewish women who claimed the Arbitration Act took away some of their rights. ( ... )

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

In this speech repeated on Salon.com, Bill Moyers talks about the religious bullies that threaten America's religious freedom. Here are some excerpts:

Hostages to fear

The bullies using Sept. 11 to threaten America's religious and moral freedom must be opposed with a stubbornness to match their own.

Editor's note: This article is excerpted from Bill Moyer's address at the Union Theological Seminary in New York on Sept. 7.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Bill Moyers

Sept. 11, 2005 | At the Central Baptist Church in Marshall, Texas, where I was baptized in the faith, we believed in a free church in a free state. I still do. My spiritual forebears did not take kindly to living under theocrats who embraced religious liberty for themselves but denied it to others. "Forced worship stinks in God's nostrils," thundered dissenter Roger Williams as he was banished from Massachusetts for denying Puritan authority over his conscience. Baptists there were a "pitiful negligible minority," but they were agitators for freedom and therefore denounced as "incendiaries of the commonwealth" for holding to their belief in that great democracy of faith -- the priesthood of all believers. For refusing to pay tribute to the state religion they were fined flogged, and exiled.

In 1651 Baptist Obadiah Holmes was given 30 stripes with a three-corded whip after he violated the law and took forbidden Communion with another Baptist in Lynn, Mass. His friends offered to pay his fine for his release but he refused. They offered him strong drink to anesthetize the pain of the flogging. Again he refused. It is the love of liberty, he said, "that must free the soul."

Such revolutionary ideas made the new nation with its Constitution and Bill of Rights "a haven for the cause of conscience." No longer could magistrates order citizens to support churches they did not attend and recite creeds that they did not believe. No longer would "the loathsome combination of church and state" -- as Thomas Jefferson described it -- be the settled order. Unlike the Old World that had been racked with religious wars and persecution, the government of America would take no sides in the religious free-for-all that liberty would make possible and politics would make inevitable.( This is a must-read! )

(Edited to make it a bit clearer that the dominionists *lost* for once. Never ever type before coffee :3)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,165696,00.html

Apparently, town with dominionist influence--which was actually invoking Jesus before town council meeting--gets sued by Wiccan, and the Wiccan *wins* (for once).

Town has only $15,000 insurance, and may have to end up paying over $65,000 in court costs in result (the courts are still ruling on whether court costs are to be awarded).

(Of minor interest--one of the major folks supporting the dominionists is (shock, shock) an AoG preacher at a church with a not-terribly-dissimilar name to the one I walked away from (though in a completely different state). They've claimed if the courts rule for payment of court costs by the town, the church will cover it...I dare say the next step after *that* should be revocation of the church's tax exempt status. If they can shell out $65,000 for court costs to spite someone who sued for violation of the *Constitution*, I think they can afford to pay their damned taxes.)

EDIT:

( Backgrounder )

For what it's worth, South Carolina is also a state that has been specifically targeted by dominionists for invasion with the goal of ultimate secession.

( the hive of scum and villany responsible )

Some further backgrounder:

http://www.religioustolerance.org/wicgf.htm

Info on the other case that could be tried with this (should this go to the Supremes, as the dominionists are threatening to):

http://www.wildhunt.org/2004/11/catching-up-so-much-of-my-and-worlds.html

EDIT AGAIN:

Here's the actual court docket, for the legal minded:

http://pacer.ca4.uscourts.gov/opinion.pdf/032069.P.pdf

Fark.com has been reporting on this and many of the links regarding information are from the discussion thread (http://forums.fark.com/cgi/fark/comments.pl?IDLink=1622014). Props where props are deserved :3

EDIT YET AGAIN:

Apparently, per at least one source, the Supremes refused to review the case, hence the court ruling stands (This per the Religioustolerance.org link above).

Also, not only is she *still* not being heard at town hall meetings (regarding a matter of public safety, at that), but the town is making noises about possibly defying the court ruling:
http://www.heraldonline.com/local/story/4987993p-4556234c.html

http://www.cjrdaily.org/archives/001727.asp
http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/news/recent_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001010563

Martin, the new head of the Federal Communications Commission, has recently appointed Penny Nance as advisor.

Nance is associated with a fair number of dominionist groups, including:

• Concerned Women for America


• Center for Reclaiming America (which is a blatantly Christian Reconstructionist group)


• "Kids First Coalition" (a dominionist group that also specialises in "stealth evangelism" and targets teenage moms)

Very interestingly, all of the groups she has worked for have pushed senators to ban peer-to-peer applications using dominionist arguments (not the "oh my god they're violating copyright" arguments, rather, "oh my god they could be trading KIDDIE PORN").

It's actually bad enough that very nearly 100 percent of complaints to the FCC on "indecency" in radio and television are from a single dominionist group, the Parent's Television Council.

(Yes, I feel safe in calling PTC dominionist. Two major funders are the DeVos Foundation (the bankroll foundation set up by the founders of Amway specifically for dominionist causes) and Castle Rock Foundation (one of *several* groups set up by the Coors family to bankroll dominionists); the previous article and http://www.mediatransparency.org/story.php?storyID=62 also have further info on dominionist links with PTC. The parent group of PTC, Media Research Council, is also known to be linked to dominionist groups and has pretty much stated they won't be happy unless ALL networks are essentially turned to PAX TV fare.)

The scary thing is, we are likely now to have someone on the boards of the FCC even *friendlier* to their complaint...

UPDATE 10/25/05:

It appears that--per this FCC release--Penny Nance may be operating as the public relations folks for the division of the FCC's Enforcement Bureau specifically dealing with obscene/indecent broadcast. Especially considering Penny Nance's known history of working for dominionist pro-censorship groups this is especially disturbing.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

From the Toronto Star:

Rapture politics

HENRY A. GIROUX
SPECIAL TO THE STAR

"Unique among nations, America recognized the source of our character as being godly and eternal, not being civic and temporal. And because we have understood that our source is eternal, America has been different. We have no king but Jesus."

— John Ashcroft, former U.S. attorney general

Since the re-election of George W. Bush last November, religious fundamentalists have been in overdrive in their effort to define American politics through a reductive and fanatical moralism.

This kind of religious zealotry has a long tradition in American history, extending from the arrival of Puritanism in the 17th century to the current spread of Pentecostalism. This often ignored history, imbued with theocratic certainty and absolute moralism, has been powerful in providing religious justification to the likes of the Ku Klux Klan, the parlance of the Robber Barons, the patriarchal discourse of "family values," the National Association of Evangelicals' declared war on "the bias of aggressive secularism," and the current attack on a judiciary that is allegedly waging war on people of faith.

But American religious fundamentalism in its most recent incarnation extends far beyond the parameters of extremist sects or the isolated comments of radical Christian politicians, evangelical leaders and pundits; it is now operative in the highest reaches of government and "more radical and far-reaching than in the past," according to the conservative commentator Andrew Sullivan.

The fundamentalist tendencies of President Bush are now commonplace and can be seen in his official recognition of "Jesus Day" while governor of Texas, his ongoing faith-based initiatives and his endless use of religious references and imagery in his speeches.( Read more... )

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY sunfell)

From Mainstream Baptist comes this critique of the Supreme Court nominee John Roberts:

If the report from People for the American Way is reliable, then Roberts is clearly an advocate for the government to extend special privileges and endorsements of majoritarian religious expression.

Roberts was co-author of a brief in the landmark Lee v. Weisman decision that argued in favor of prayers at public high school graduations. He argued that graduates opposed to religious exercises were free to voluntarily skip participating in their graduation exercises. SCOTUS ruled against Roberts opinion in that decision.

Roberts has also argued that the "Lemon test" should be jettisoned. The "Lemon test" is the standard that SCOTUS set forth in the landmark "Lemon v. Kurtzman" decision that gave guidance on how government legislation on religion could be considered constitutional. The "Lemon test" says the government's action must have 1) a legitimate secular purpose, 2) it must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion, and 3) it must not result in an "excessive entanglement" of government and religion.

In my opinion, Roberts opinions demonstrate extreme insensitivity toward the rights of religious minorities. When the hubris that demands special privilege is coupled with the obsequity that grants it, it inevitably creates enough outrage at such injustice that the privileged become despised and the privileges are rejected.

Links are on the blog page.

LJ-SEC: (ORIGINALLY POSTED BY deridetenebras)

a truly WEIRD article by a man named Lou Engle concerning the resignation of Sandra Day O'Connor. includes: prophetic dreams, the merging of church and state, convoluted logic, and spiritual warfare-- all the things we love best about our dominionist friends.

Two years ago, on Fourth of July, I was prophetically led to decree Psalm 2 over the Supreme Court justices: "Now therefore, O kings, show discernment; Take warning, o judges of the earth..." On that very same day, Sandra Day O'Connor was in Philadelphia to dedicate the then-new Constitution Museum. As she pulled ribbons to reveal a massive mural hanging above the stage, a heavy metal beam that was part of the framework of the mural came crashing down above her head. Only stopping inches above her head, O'Connor exclaimed that the fallen beam could have killed her.

I felt that the Lord was saying that because most of the Supreme Court justices were not grounded in truth, they were morally lightweight and unable to bear the framework of the Constitution as articulated by our Founding Fathers. I knew that the Lord was shouting that He was ready to deal with the renegade courts and the issue of abortion.

[...]Finally, last night, one of the leaders of the Justice House of Prayer had a dream where President Bush was in his room and had two pairs of shoes in front of him. One pair was dress shoes and the other was a pair of cowboy boots. In the dream, the President was going somewhere and was asking us which pair of shoes he should wear. We answered, "the cowboy boots...the cowboy boots..." We believe that this dream is saying that the houses of prayer must lift this man up day and night in intercession so that he can be the man that God has called him to be.

[...]We are calling for believers all across America, and especially those on the East Coast, to come rush to this battle, not only in prayer and fasting, but in holy activism.[...] The next few weeks are critical – come to DC and engage in this battle. This day, we fight!

full article here