U.S. Senate
See Full Big Line
(D) J. Hickenlooper*
(R) Somebody
80%
20%
Governor
See Full Big Line
(D) Phil Weiser
(D) Joe Neguse
(D) Jena Griswold
60%
60%
40%↓
Att. General
See Full Big Line
(D) M. Dougherty
(D) Alexis King
(D) Brian Mason
40%
40%
30%
Sec. of State
See Full Big Line
(D) A. Gonzalez
(D) George Stern
(R) Sheri Davis
50%↑
40%
30%
State Treasurer
See Full Big Line
(D) Brianna Titone
(R) Kevin Grantham
(D) Jerry DiTullio
60%
30%
20%
CO-01 (Denver)
See Full Big Line
(D) Diana DeGette*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-02 (Boulder-ish)
See Full Big Line
(D) Joe Neguse*
(R) Somebody
90%
2%
CO-03 (West & Southern CO)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Hurd*
(D) Somebody
80%
40%
CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado)
See Full Big Line
(R) Lauren Boebert*
(D) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-05 (Colorado Springs)
See Full Big Line
(R) Jeff Crank*
(D) Somebody
80%
20%
CO-06 (Aurora)
See Full Big Line
(D) Jason Crow*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-07 (Jefferson County)
See Full Big Line
(D) B. Pettersen*
(R) Somebody
90%
10%
CO-08 (Northern Colo.)
See Full Big Line
(R) Gabe Evans*
(D) Yadira Caraveo
(D) Joe Salazar
50%
40%
40%
State Senate Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
80%
20%
State House Majority
See Full Big Line
DEMOCRATS
REPUBLICANS
95%
5%
October 24, 2008 05:28 PM UTC
22 Comments
HIs attacks on Udall don’t seem to be effective.
Go for the Marxist in the room.
If a bishop pops off, that’s one thing. If he issues a statement on his organization’s letterhead, is that different?
What constitutes a violation of the IRS rules?
Obama thugs can sue just for the hell of it and to cost the church some legal fees, knowing they don’t have a case. That’s intimidation. Thuggery. Typical Obama supporters.
Can’t answer the question.
You’re alleging intimidation and violation of free speech based on what? That someone wants the authorities – those who understand the law – to see if there’s a violation?
It IS scary – scary that citizens can’t ask for this stuff to be checked out without McCarthyesque accusations of thuggery being hurled at them.
AS, I asked you to explain how tax exempt status and free speech are linked; how taking away the one violates the other. Can you do it?
AS, I asked you to explain how tax exempt status and free speech are linked; how taking away the one violates the other. Can you do it?
I’d tell Chaput any day of the week to shut his trap. AS, you ever heard of Natural Law or the Separation of Church and State?
Since when does taking away tax exempt status equal violating first amendment rights?
Explain that, if you think you can.
Chaput (or any other) is free to say what ever they like. However, the tax exemption is only given to non-political otganizations.
When they start denying communion or opposing candidates for supporting the war in Iraq I would still think they were being political since different arch diocese are different.
but I certainly see a problem with a government granting tax exempt status selectively to some organizations and not others on the basis of which moral positions they advocate. This is, at a bare minimum, a flagrant violation of the intent of the U.S. constitution’s anti-establishment clause, even if not the letter (which I’ll let constitutional scholars decide). I’m equally peeved at liberal churches that have far more often been the target of this sort of thing recently. I’d be upset if a non-religious group (say, for example, the Pikes Peak Justice and Peace Commission, which advocates against the death penalty and war), were the target of something like this.
I don’t agree with my church leaders all the time… heck, they don’t agree between themselves all the time, either. But I’ll fight for their right to organize to get out their moral message, without paying what are essentially punitive taxes versus other organizations doing essentially the same thing. Like it or not, to a large group of people, abortion isn’t “politics”. It’s morality. And exhorting people to not let themselves be unwitting accomplices to abortion is not, in the end, much different from saying the same thing about other big moral issues of the day. Where do we stop? Next election cycle, can a church get in trouble with the IRS for exhorting its members not to stand by and let someone be slandered, or assaulted, or… where’s the end of this path?
Very serious question, and from a very committed Obama voter. The issue here isn’t which side the bishop and his diocese took in the presidential election… this is an effort to stop him from speaking on a pressing moral question.
He basically is saying that left wing thugs are trying to silence Catholic bishops. My own point, echoed by Danny above, is that threatening to take away tax exempt status is not the same as threatening to silence someone.
Now, if you want to get into a discussion about what is or is not fair about the limits on political activity that may be taken in conjunction with tax exempt status, that is certainly worthy of discussion. I understand that the limit is one that isn’t too hard to comply with – according to wikipedia’s entry on 501(c) organizations:
So it seems easy to me. If I were a minister, I’d be able to talk about the moral issues of the day that might also be in the news and in the political arenas, such as abortion, the war, stem cell research, marriage equality, poverty, and so forth, and probably be able to urge the churchgoers to keep that in mind when voting. I wouldn’t have to name any candidate or party, thus I wouldn’t be “conducting political campaign activities to influence elections to public office.” I’m pretty sure that’s the case because churches talk about that stuff all the time.
So, getting back to the bishop, it seems that he may have violated that provision because he named Obama. So a watchdog group is urging that he be investigated.
You seem to be speaking about a different sort of thing. You say:
If my reading is correct, the organizations you name have nothing to worry about. It’s one thing to take moral stands and preach them (isn’t that one of the primary functions of church?) but you can do it and not cross the line by telling people who they should or should not vote for.
I have read about the 16 (?) evangelical churches that recently urged their parishes to vote McCain at the urging of some legal group that wants to challenge this tie in the courts. That makes me want to look up the history of how they came to tie exemption to staying explicitly away from politics. Wikipedia wasn’t any help there…
but I think the line is in a different place. My reading was that this Bishop was giving his opinion about Barack Obama’s stance on abortion. There’s certainly nothing wrong with that. If there is something legally wrong with it, then that law should be changed. Now if he were telling people not to vote for Barack Obama, that would be a different matter.
They aren’t the same thing; I too disagree vehemently with Barack’s stance on abortion, but had I not already voted early, I’d dare you to put an army between me and the county clerk’s office to go vote for the guy.
Similarly, there was an important difference in 2004 between Michael Sheridan (the Catholic bishop of Colorado Springs), who was clearly over the line and speaking out of place when he told Catholics that, because of his position on abortion, they couldn’t vote for John Kerry and be in good standing with the Church… and another bishop from Oregon who caught the same flack, but made a much more defensible statement — namely, that the teaching of the Church would prevent someone from voting for John Kerry specifically because of his position on abortion.
It’s complicated, but I did a very short paper on LBJ in college. Here goes.
Back when he was Sen. Johnson he worked to add churches to the tax code, in 1954?, as a way to keep them out of public policy. Technically he sold it as a favor to churches, even though I don’t think they had been taxed before.
IIRC there is an argument that tax exempt status is never a right. The counter is that taxing would be in direct conflict of the 1st amendment, churches are not under the jurisdiction of the US government.
I’ve read that at the time it was against the threat of the Catholic Church, or that two major churches were worked against his re-election. That’s not what I was covering, so beats me.
I’d love to source and provide more information, but the only information mostly comes from the Angry Christian Right.
Maybe some enterprising journalist or political scientist can draw up a history of how that’s worked out.
I’m glad someone reported this to the IRS. That bishop has every right to make those statements – but if he does, he doesn’t get to share in MY TAX MONEY through his 501(c)(3) tax exemption.
If that’s being a thug, call me a thug.
of wanting to give random, unearned government handouts to non-tax payers, are you?
…to cover up the actions of pedophile priests.
we’re Obamatrons.
Get it right.
🙂
thats good too
🙂
.
But they cross the line when they act on those beliefs.
.
This is about so-called intimidation via tax status. The good bishop is free to say what he wants but not free to keep his tax exempt status if he is conducting a political campaign. Your comment is off topic.
get it?
cross?