Shouldn't the church that John Edwards (dem pres canidate) gave his POLITICAL (not religous) speech at have to pay taxes now?
Since the Dems are very much for this separation I think it's only appropriate. Don't you?
2007-01-19 11:28:44 · 15 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Of course not, Edwards is a Democrat. The rules are different for him.
How funny was it when he was looking for a PS3 and his staff called a local Wal Mart the same day he gave an anti-Wal Mart rally. They told him to stuff it .
2007-01-19 11:54:07 · answer #1 · answered by Chainsaw 6 · 2⤊ 3⤋
What, you would take his freedom of speech? Why? You need to get your facts straight. You have it backwards, it's when the Pasteur of the Church gives a speech that includes "a vote for a Democrat is a vote against God." That's when the Church should not be tax exempt. Edwards is free to say what he wants where he wants, even in a church gathering place. Now tell me. Why is it that Jerry Fallwell and Pat Robertson both run down Democrats on TV and in Church?
2007-01-19 19:48:56 · answer #2 · answered by jl_jack09 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Everyone gives speeches at churches. Actually, the IRS is threatening church 501(c)(3) status for politically active churches, which are on both sides of the aisle. But, fundamentally, your confusing the 1st amendment issue. It's government funding and establishment of religion that is a violation. Anyone can go to church and say anything they want. It's the opposite scenarios that are worrisome: prayer in schools, public funding of parochial schools, etc.
2007-01-19 19:38:03 · answer #3 · answered by Angry Daisy 4 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Sorry to inform you of this, but politicians of either party are allowed to give political speeches anywhere they want, even in churches, as long as they refrain from endorsing any specific candidate or political issue, which I think Mr. Edwards did.
But you do have a valid point in your statement, albeit unintentionally, because now that the conservative Christians in this country feel disenfranchised from their own party by the numerous corruption scandals in Congress last year, Democrats are trying more and more to court them, which means they are going to have to lower that "wall of separation" at least until a Democrat is elected President.
2007-01-19 19:45:07 · answer #4 · answered by STILL standing 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Since when is "appropriate" an acceptable reason to violate the Constitution?
Study up on what Separation of Church and State really means.
You are referring to 501(c)(3). This is the IRS code. Do not confuse it with the Constitution.
EDIT: Hold onto your hats, here. I know this might blow you away, but Pat Robertson isn't the pastor of ANY church.
2007-01-19 19:39:55 · answer #5 · answered by ? 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
http://johnedwards.com/media/video/mlk-day-riverside-church/
I think they should go watch it for themselves. It was a special service commemorating Martin Luther King, Jr. Day at the church. It was far from the right wing badly veiled campaigning I witnessed at several churches I attended.
2007-01-19 19:53:52 · answer #6 · answered by Slimsmom 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
One isolated incident does not ammount to much. I don't know the particulars but I assure you whether devotional or confessional in ones practice, not to exclude Bhuddists, Muslims, Jews, or anyone else...yes there is a definate need to have this barrier. It stands between us and a theocracy.
2007-01-19 19:58:49 · answer #7 · answered by planksheer 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Interesting
Are you suggesting that Democrats are joining the NeoCon religion
Go big Red Go
2007-01-19 19:34:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 2⤋
I think he has the freedom to use his speech where ever he chooses in this country.
2007-01-19 19:38:53 · answer #9 · answered by Osama W. Bush 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
He shouldn't be speaking at churches, but I won't vote for the smarmy dope anyway.
Churches shouldn't be tax exempt at all.
2007-01-19 19:40:33 · answer #10 · answered by bradcymru 4 · 0⤊ 2⤋