Charles Grassley and his probe of mega-churches. For the record, I am an atheist, and I want churches to be taxed like everyone else.
Reader Interactions
66Comments
Comments are closed.
Come for the politics, stay for the snark.
Let’s delete this post and never speak of this again.
Some judge needs to shut this circus down soon.
And we’re all out of bubblegum.
In my day, never was longer.
Presidents are not kings, and Plaintiff is not President.
Let us savor the impending downfall of lawless scoundrels who richly deserve the trouble barreling their way.
It may be funny to you motherfucker, but it’s not funny to me.
Accused of treason; bitches about the ratings. I am in awe.
I’d try pessimism, but it probably wouldn’t work.
Just because you believe it, that doesn’t make it true.
The cruelty is the point; the law be damned.
That’s my take and I am available for criticism at this time.
A last alliance of elves and men. also pet photos.
You cannot shame the shameless.
People are complicated. Love is not.
if you can’t see it, then you are useless in the fight to stop it.
The willow is too close to the house.
Red lights blinking on democracy’s dashboard
🎶 Those boots were made for mockin’ 🎵
They fucked up the fucking up of the fuckup!
Whoever he was, that guy was nuts.
“More of this”, i said to the dog.
I see no possible difficulties whatsoever with this fool-proof plan.
Too often we confuse noise with substance. too often we confuse setbacks with defeat.
Stooleo
Amen to that.
T. Scheisskopf
Jalapeno, Brother Michael! Jalapeno!
Looking at one of the stories on the expenditures by these “churches” and then looking at that story on The Minutemen and Chris Simcox, one thing is clear:
Ain’t any substantive difference between these “preachers” and Simcox and any common conman. They just suck people into the con, get them to believe in the con and set the hook.
Same as it ever was.
KCinDC
As long as “everyone else” includes other nonprofits. I don’t think churches should get special positive or negative treatment because they’re religious.
Michael D.
Religion is a complete con job. I believe Jesus existed. In fact, I believe that’s historically inarguable.
Son of a god? No. I don’t think so.
Dennis-SGMM
I’m not an atheist and I want churches to be taxed but, not for the reason that you might suspect. If all churches paid a modest tax, say 2%, then the IRS would no longer be able to play games with any church’s tax-exempt status. The recent charade involving Pasadena’s All Saints Episcopal Church leads me to believe that IRS enforcement, at least under this administration, has more to do with politics in Washington than it does with the politics of any particular church.
Michael D.
KCinDC: There’s a huge difference between the Lion’s or Kiwanis clubs and the Catholic/Protestant churches.
guyermo
so you’re gay and an atheist. what is it that makes you Republican again?
Andrew
maybe he likes to be dominated?
Michael D.
LOL! Hardly! :-)
Punchy
In related news, Bush announced yesterday he’s going to investigate Cheney’s Iran-meddling, Lieberman is looking into possible illegal influence by the AIPAC, and my mother is launching research to quantify precisely my niceness and handsomeness.
The results, I’m sure, will be shocking. Uh huh.
ThymeZone
is it just me, or does that smiley have kind of a pained expression?
Cyrus
Well, judging by the recycling thing, he’s not a dogmatic libertarian. And he hasn’t written about the war too much, but I have the impression he’s about as critical of it as John, so that can’t be his motivation either. That leaves elitism and racism.
I kid, I kid. He’s said before that he’s a Republican because he believes in and prefers their stated ideals and principles, even though he’s well aware that the current Republican leadership is so far from those ideals that they almost make Nixon look like Lincoln. It’s a way of choosing political affiliations that I don’t understand — everyone says they’re the good guys and their policies work well — but as long as it doesn’t lead to making any horrible decisions, I can only shrug and move on.
Michael D.
Cyrus: Thank you for that. Exactly how I think.
dslak
I’m an atheist, and I’m not big on churches being taxes. I am however intrigued by Dennis’s proposal of a low tax on churches with the elimination of IRS restrictions on political endorsement.
I think allowing churches to preach politics, in the long term, would lead to a lot of theologically conservative but politically moderate to right-of-center people becoming alienated from politics in the church. Letting loose the preachers who want nothing more than to spend each Sunday bashing Democrats might make some into minor celebrities, but I expect that it would lead many of the laity to question just what it is they want out of their churches.
Zifnab
That’s the first thing I thought too. So nice of Senator Grassely to jump on this sort of conartistry before the IRS can get to it. I’m sure he will be in no way complicit in helping shield these Mega-donor Mega-churches from federal wrath.
Is anyone even doubtful as to how this sort of scam has been perpetuated over the last six years? Bush has turned a blind eye to corporate rape and fraud, contractor abuses, political corruption (when it doesn’t involve a political rival), and bureaucratic boondoggles of the worst sort.
Bush has been happy to sic the IRS on ‘liberal’ churches for anti-war protesting, but is anyone surprised that these guys have never even been investigated? This is all par for the course. And I don’t trust Grassely and farther than I can throw him.
chopper
i don’t. there’s no real evidence from his own time of his existence, though there is a buncha stuff written after he died. its all arguable.
The Other Steve
I think the guy I saw on TV asking everybody to send him $1000 so he could pray for them to become millionaires, raised some red flags in my book.
I wish I’d been paying attention to who that fool was.
The Other Steve
He looks good wearing a brown shirt.
Andrew
Please note that Grassley’s investigations have nothing to do with the political endorsements issue, but merely your typical personal enrichment on the backs of the mindless sheeple dort of thing.
guyermo
ahh. michael’s a “do as i say, not as i do” republican. of course most of the policies enacted by this administration are the logical extension of the “conservative platform”.
lower taxes, check.
more military spending, check.
proving big government doesn’t work, check
While Bushco has taken these philosophies to the extreme, they still fall within the “traditional” conservative platform that I was exposed to since I was born in 1982.
The Other Steve
Rightards don’t understand that the seperation of church and state was not designed to protect the state from the church, but rather protect the church from the state.
you are right, overt politicizing in the churches would turn even more people away from religion. The number of religious people in the US has been on the decline since Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson started opening their fat traps.
Michael D.
Woo hooo! It’s an “I hate Michael D.” post all over again! Wheeeeeeeeeeee!!
Because we can never have enough of that, you know!
KCinDC
Sounds like it could be Robert Tilton, but really that behavior probably doesn’t narrow things down much.
Jake
Fine, that covers the Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism…?
I don’t have a problem with religious groups being TE provided they’re all allowed to be TE. Instead, I think we should just reclassify any organization that puts on a weekly or daily production that requires enough sound, lighting, special effects and technicians to make a metal band green with envy as “entertainment.”
Michael D.
I believe faeries rule the world. Should I be tax exempt?
Punchy
A millionaire.
PK
A gay atheist republican! Are you pro-choice? That would be the trifecta!
Billy K
I thought Republicans believed EVERYONE should be tax-exempt. Beginning with the richest among us.
Jake
You’re cute. Read this and tell me what you think.
I’ll give you a hint: The test for TE/NP status isn’t belief.
Bubblegum Tate
Chuck Grassley hates Christianity and wants to ban it! (How long before some wingnut actually says that?)
Being agnostic, I’m often told by radical Christians that my agnosticism is, in fact, a religion. I typically respond that if that’s so, then I should get tax-exempt status as well as all the other little perks churches get to enjoy. But now I see how misguided I was–what I should be getting is tax-exempt status with no oversight!
Cyrus
Well, there’s my joke which I quickly explain away, there’s Andrew’s joke which I guess is arguably homophobic (but you don’t like that word, do you?) but other than that carries little or no judgment on you and your politics, and there’s guyermo. His “do as I say, not as I do thing” almost seems out of left field to me. The point is, while I can see why you didn’t appreciate the hostile welcome you got, this thread doesn’t seems very mild so far.
And yet I was going to ask about your comment replying to mine, which almost makes me feel guilty. I minimize criticism of you right before I ask a kind of pointed question. Oh well.
You said:
Does that also apply to this part?
Cyrus
Ahhh damn, I forgot about TOS’s “brown shirt” remark. Oh well. Disregard the first part of my comment.
Dreggas
I pointed this out in the tax thread yesterday LOL.
As far as religion, I would argue that the Seperation of Church and State was to protect the church from the state and the state from the church.
A lot of it was based off of England where the king ruled the church, but remember that this was merely a case of turnabout being fair play because at one time, namely the middle ages, the church ruled the state since by (at the time) Roman Catholic Law the pope chose the king and the kind swore fealty to the pope as god’s representative on earth.
This is where the “no religious test for office” comes in because to be have powere in England, and before that elsewhere in the catholic regions one had to be christian. Indeed to even own land in some places required it.
In todays case the latter is what the seperation is protecting, that is the state from religion. The fundies want to theocratize the state and unless the left really gets over the PC accomodationist bullshit it might happen from either left or right as it has come close to in the past 7 years.
Zifnab
Honestly, I think Michael just has a bad case of the “Theoretical Democrats are worse” disorder. This is actually a rather benign case of the more general “Democrats Are Worse” syndrome that swept much of the US during ’04, but lingering symptoms persist such as:
Insisting that Republicans support reduced government spending.
Insisting that Republicans support reduced government intervention in your job/home/uterus.
Believing anything from Gingrich’s Con(tract) With America
Inability to detect rampant corruption and cronyism on a nationwide scale as being inherent to the party structure.
Insisting that Republicans support lower taxes while supporting Toll Roads, privatization that inevitably results in increased cost of living through, and government subsidized monopolies or oligopolies.
Calling Martin Luther King, Abraham Lincoln, or Winston Churchill a modern day Republican.
Calling George Washington, Christopher Columbus, or Jesus a modern day Republican.
And generally pissing on peoples feet while explaining that it is raining.
Andrew
THIS CASE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICAL SPEECH IN CHURCH
Ahem.
Face
Whats with the “brown shirts” ref’s I see on here from time to time? Is this some Nazi thing? I’m serious–my history would probably shiv me right now, but I honestly don’t remember any of this from my generic, mostly-cracker high school classes.
Face
Should be a “teacher” after “history” up there….sigh.
jenniebee
Been there, done that? Come on – it was Falwell back in the mid-seventies who decided that the prevailing wisdom of the time, that churches should avoid becoming involved in politics, was maybe not such a good idea. He founded the Moral Majority and started the mega-church trend, which you see today. And the result? They got 5/7 presidential elections, beginning with Reagan, but they also got the backlash that’s just now coming to a head. I can’t find the link to the poll right now, but it’s just been this last month that polling found that young people are moving away from churches in large part because they see the churches as too political. They’re losing a generation.
As for the “churches should pay taxes like everybody else” – isn’t it enough that you don’t want a welfare state, you have to start taxing charitable institutions now too? Yeesh.
ImJohnGalt
Well, it’s much easier to put words into the mouths of commenters [Seriously, we hate you?] and then dismiss what you pretend they said than it is to actually, you know, have a discussion about why, given all the many current and historical contradictions between his value set and the Republicans, he still identifies with their party.
I mean, Jenniebee had quite a long post a few threads back which tried to address that. No response from Michael. In another thread, Michael asserted that FairTax was great because it addresses those financial issues unique to homosexuals. When we asked him what those economic issues were, we got no reply. Instead, we get posts in every thread that accuse us of calling him a self-loathing homosexual, and that we hate him. WTF?
Seriously, Michael, you seem fairly intelligent, and obviously have a sense of humour. Thin skin just won’t work around here. You may have been here “before (all) of (us)”, but I’ve rarely seen you post in the comments. As JWW said in another thread, if you want us to respect your intelligence and writing, earn it by showing us some respect. Mix it up in the comments, rather than crying every time someone checks you into the boards. Around here, respect is earned. That’s why I don’t get any.
You raise interesting points and questions in your initial posts, but then when you actually participate in the threads you start, you’re either pithy to the point of ridiculous, absent, or unable to take the snark that pretty much characterizes this site.
I recognize that you may need to grow into your new position, but can I suggest that perhaps you call Balco for some HGH to hurry along the process.
ImJohnGalt
Note: the previous post was not hate speech, nor were any self-loathing homosexuals harmed in the creation of it.
Zifnab
Honestly, I think its been somewhat of a mixed bag. Yes, there are factions of the Christian Right that want to make the President just another word for American Pope, but those people – while both rich and loud – are a relative minority. The real game has been trying to convert Christians to Republicanism. Through a combination of sticks and carrots – a mix of “The Liberals Want To Outlaw God!” and “Be a Good Church And We’ll Give You Federal Faith-Based Initative Funding” – Republicans wanted to seize American Religion as a bloc no less loyal than African Americans were to the Democrats.
But, in this case, Republicans have been far more aggressive in Republicanizing the church than the church has been in evangelizing the Republican Party. The rash of gay outings and straight sexual escapades shows who is really in the drivers seat in the marriage of Party and Piety. Hot Tub Tom and “Spank Me” Vitter can screw an entire whore house and still win the religious vote. Larry Craig’s wide stance and Ted Haggard’s meth massages haven’t significantly rattled the faith of the True Believers, and even Rudy “If I Marry Myself, Does That Make Me My Fourth Wife” Guliani has received the nod from Pat Robertson.
guyermo
It’s nothing against you Michael. It’s against republicans in general. In fact, I think that you (like dixiecrats and John about a year ago) are in denial that your party no longer represents you
Dreggas
Yes it is.
les
It would be a great time to re-assess exempt status for churches. Not only income tax, based on both politics and personal enrichment; but more importantly to towns and cities, property tax. The megachurches, both denominational and generic, are running fitness centers, coffee shops, restaurants, concert/convention centers, party/meeting centers, etc. ad nauseam. It’s total b.s.
Michael, are you a tad touchy to be doing this blogging thing?
guyermo
oh and cyrus, the ‘do as i say, not as i do’ isn’t entirely out of left field (i’d say shortstop). my understanding of your argument (which Michael agreed with completely) was that he’s a republican because of the platform (do as i say), rather than the policies enacted once they’re elected (not as i do).
Dreggas
Zif,
Oh it was easy to see the “Party” was using religion, but over the past 6 years the lines have been blurred to a great degree. I mean seriously a mormon running for president is deemed not fit to be president based on his religion, a muslim taking the oath of office is chastized?
It’s where the old Neitsche canard about fighting monsters comes into play, you need to make sure you don’t become one. As for the fact we are talking a political party being hijacked by, or hijacking religion, the reality is the party in question is not the state even though they have tried that as well.
If there ever was a textbook lesson as to why we have seperation of church and state this presidency, and the last few congress’ are pure source material.
guyermo
The brown shirts, if my memory recalls were the SA and the black shirts were the SS. and regardless of the religious/political situation in the U.S., i think we can all agree that it’s better than how they do things in Germany.
There you register your religion and are then taxed to help support the costs of maintaining the various churches, cathedrals, synagogues, and mosques of your selected religion.
Dreggas
Face:
Brownshirts
jenniebee
See, people here aren’t piling on to you because you’re “conservative.” They’re piling on because you post some truly asinine arguments.
Case. In. Point. If you get some people to give you money to talk about your belief that faeries rule the world and you file the paperwork to get an exempt status for those donations then more power to you. The nature of the belief is absolutely irrelevant – what is important is that your income is generated through voluntary donations.
About ten years ago a teeny tiny journal I used to read called Thunderbear decided that the only way to keep itself going was to declare that it was not so much a journal as it was a religious publication, spreading the message of Ursinianism (followers of the Great Bear, who could fly and had a bandolier that was never quite filled with cans of cheap beer). It didn’t take, mostly because subscribers sent in extra dollars in appreciation of the rampant silliness of the Grand Church of Ursa’s doctrines, but if you’re really interested in getting set up in your own pulpit, I’d recommend capitalizing on their efforts. Admit it, you’d rather have people worshiping bears than faeries.
Just saying.
Brachiator
Not quite. In this, as well as most other constitutional issues, the primary impulse is to preserve the rights of the people (and I note that the original sentiment of a “wall of separation between church and state is not in the Constitution itself but was a statement by Jefferson, echoed by other founders, on the degree to which the state should favor religion).
Some early American communities, both before and after the Revolution, deliberately shoveled tax dollars to the main religion of the community or state, and some states required that a person be Anglican, Baptist, etc., in order to run for office. But the trend was moving away from this and was enshrined at the federal level in the idea that there would be no religious test for public office.
By contrast, not only is the king of England the titular head of the Church of England, but by law, the sovereign and his wife must be Protestants. The Act of Settlement states that Roman Catholics and those who marry Roman Catholics are barred from ascending the throne “for ever”.
The founders looked at the European nations which, depending on who was the sovereign, persecuted Catholics or Protestants, barred them from public office and the vote, and used tax dollars to support “establishments of religion,” and explicitly decided to have none of it.
By the way, while I don’t have much of a problem with Churches being tax-exempt, I am repelled by the notion, embraced by some evangelicals and most of the Republican presidential candidates, that the US and its government should somehow “be” Christian, an idea explicitly rejected by the founders. And I am absolutely disgusted by the Bush Administration’s funneling of tax dollars to “faith based organizations,” which is essentially taxation without representation, and again an idea which was rejected by the founders when they refused in any way, shape or form, to establish or recognize any particular religion or sect as an “official religion” of the United States, to be maintained or supported by the citizens or the government.
Cinderella Ferret
Good for Grassley. Churches are free to accept or reject tax-exempt status. Once they accept the tax-exempt status they set themselves up for the scrutiny now proposed. The selective enforcement of the IRS Code is what was objectionable in the Pasadena case. Imagine that! The former Cheerleader and his gang of war criminals selectively enforcing the law for political purposes? Couldn’t see that one coming, could we?
Religious institutions have brought this upon themselves for accepting the tax-exempt status. If they want to preach politics from the pulpit–fine–just make sure you pay your fair share of taxes like the rest of us.
Any wonder so many people no longer self-identify as Republicans? Jesus Babbling Christ! You can’t even call this administration a bunch of rat-bastard lowlifes for fear of giving all rat-bastard low-lifes a bad name.
Yes. The Lions and Kiwanis have responsible adult leadership.
Cinderella Ferret
Jenniebee said:
Is this some sort of double entendre with respect to gay lifestyles? What with Faeries and Bears and all. And Michael D, you really should respond to your preference. Bears? Faeries? Inquiring minds want to know!
Andrew
THIS CASE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH POLITICAL SPEECH IN CHURCH
I wonder when my point will get across.
tBone
Right, but does it have anything to do with political speech in church? ‘Cuz that’s bad, mmmm-kay?
Rob
Wow, you need to get out more. It looks to me like you know as much about Christianity as the average Christian.
There is NO evidence that Jesus lived. The gospels were written way after Jesus was supposed to have died. No one that met Jesus ever wrote about him.
A Jewish historian of the time wrote volume’s but never mentioned Jesus.
I think the evidence is fairly clear that Jesus did not exist.
Zifnab
Explicitly, yes. But implicitly, you’re totally wrong. If this was an evil liberal ACLU-sponsored gay-marrying abortion-sanctifying hallowed hell of the Democratic Party, it would never have received the gentle embrace of the Gentleman from Iowa to shield it from the rigorous investigation of the IRS. And that’s all Grassely’s grandstanding is – make no mistake. He isn’t investigating Without Walls International Church, he’s preemptively shielding it.
Why is he shielding it? Because Without Walls has been espousing political beliefs that his party offically supports.
Grassely is sticking out his neck to defend a political ally. It has everything to do with political speech in church, because it is the political speech occurring within the church that offers the church this special immunity. Investigating and prosecuting a criminal is no more damning than NOT investigating and prosecuting a criminal.
RSA
There seems like a straightforward fix for this:
Just start asking churches to behave like other nonprofits. You know, itemizing their costs: $500 per month for live snakes; $1,000 per month for live white chickens, minus the proceeds from the church dinner that follows; $10,000 per month for wine, etc.
The Other Steve
You guys took the brownshirt way too literally!
I was making a gay stereotype joke about fashion. Sheesh. :-)
Dreggas
it does, but I figured Michael was a top…
Dreggas
Actually I got the joke, and my half gay side (after seeing Michael’s youtube question) thought, yeah he would look good in brown.
grumpy realist
1. The Economist’s latest issue has a special section on religion and its entanglement with gov’t. Very good overview–will be interesting to see if their analysis of the virulence of the Islam vs. Everyone Else dogfight as opposed to the Sunni vs. Shia catfight holds true. (They’re saying the Sunni vs. Shia bruhaha will end up being worse.)
2. Actually, the idea that the Pope “elected” the secular ruler was something that most of the kings of Europe (especially the Holy Roman Emperor) had very little truck with and refused to indulge the Pope in. (Witness Frederick Barbarossa, who had a long fight with the Pope over this very topic. He would accept getting crowned by the Pope as “recognition” of secular authority, but in no way was he going to allow the Pope to be able to “bestow” authority. ) Large amounts of juristic ink spilled over who had authority over whom, with the support (as expected) split among jurists. Also complicated by nationalistic splits–the kings of France and the French clergy REALLY didn’t like a Roman Pope telling them what to do and were never happier than when the Papacy was at Avignon–although they still fought the Pope’s authority.
3. As has been noted by many people, separation of Church and State in fact protects the Church….the Religious Right are never going to admit it, but if the US ever became a theocracy, the next day after it would be embroiled in a religious civil war.
jake
Based on involuntary contact with Evanjellycals, I can say some of those dumb fucks are eager for a religious war, specifically one that pits Real Christians against The ScarletDevilHarlotWoman (AKA RCC).
chopper
if you’re talking about josephus, he did mention jesus. however, josephus was born around the time jesus died and published antiquities around 93ACE. he wasn’t a contemporary.
chopper
…although the bits on jesus are not considered authentic by many.
Kynn
See, this is why Michael D’s a Republican.
It’s all about the victimhood.
rob
No -Philo Judaeus who died in 50 CE
we have no proof that josephus did mentioned jesus, eusebius said that josephus mentioned jesus. And eusebius wasn’t even born until 275.