just for once, can sc do something good that's post-worthy? i mean, it's starting to affect my self esteem being from here and all. and if, for some crazy reason, this all ends in civil war, and my fellow carolinians take up the arms which they bought during our 2nd ammendment tax-free holiday, can you guys/obama get me out of here before my family is hung for treason because of my obama tshirt?

Sounds pretty high minded coming from a representative of an organization that protects pedophiles.

I mean the priest, of course, not tangoblahblahblah.

Revoke. Tax. Free. Status.

It is so funny/sad that this pro-life people would support a war in a heartbeat - were many people will die, especially civilians who also consist of children… but the fetus is more worthy to be protected?!

So dear Father Newman would sure as hell provide for all the unwanted children… I don't want to make light of abortion (esp. late term) but in the first months the embryos can't live without support. And about a 3rd of pregnancies fail anyway.

And let's not forget: a lot of pro-choice people wouldn't consider an abortion themselves. They just believe in choice.

To believe in a god is always just this: a believe. And I leave it at that because otherwise I start to rant.

I guess he's never heard of separation of church and state.

Hey Lisa (or anyone who knows):

I've heard the tax free status thing before, but is there somewhere I can read more about it, or can someone give me a general understanding about it. I'm just wondering how it conflicts with free speech…?

Well said, Uncle Walt.
I was going to say the same thing, but now all I got is something about not sinning and throwing stones.

Simply put, Elizabeth, the problem with giving churches tax exemption is that there's no one monitoring how corrupt these churches might be. For example, there's a church in my city here in the South that keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger and bigger, while the preachers get richer and richer not having to pay taxes and tithes and contributions and whatnot. It's like giving free shit to people just because they say they believe in God. It's fucking wrong. Half the time these churches aren't even doing anything good for the community, just bothering the rest of the city with their self-righteous spew about how everyone else is going to Hell.

*taxes ON tithes and contributions

To be fair, he's just echoing the catholic church's view on abortion, however irrational it may be.

Its people like this who time and time again convince me of the necessity of separation of church and state.

Elizabeth: basically to enjoy tax free status, different groups have had to make concessions. My rough and ready understanding is that a 501(c)3 org is to be mainly for outreach not activism. Here is an IRS paper about it: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

Arguably this letter is not enough to revoke tax benefits - I was being a bit glib. What would Tom Cruise say?!

Anyways, hope that helps/is interesting.

Elizabeth: it keeps eating my comments but basically: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

And I was being a bit glib above - the letter alone is likely not enough to jeopardize their tax exemptosity.

DANG! I hate you Wordpress! If more show up, I am sorry peoples.

coexxi - i don't think you get it. Have you ever heard of JUST WAR THEORY? I suggest you study up. I am so tired of ignorant people speaking in this country

here's what drives me crazy about this: the president does not decide whether or not abortions are legal. that's totally not his job. if it were, wouldn't abortions already be illegal, since a republican is the current president? (full disclosure: i admit to not being super-knowledable about bush's policy on abortion. because it doesn't matter.)
yes, the president does appoint supreme court judges, but if you think that he should base his appointments on their positions on a single issue, especially one as random as abortion? i think you're nuts. scotus justices deal with a lot more than abortion.
aaaaand breath.

Then by all means STFU Jeanne.

Excuse me jeanne, but you're a goddamn idiot if you think the war we're currently involved in is just.

Man, I hate it when people's point consists of, "look it up." Not to sound like a broken record, but if it is YOUR point, then it is YOUR job to spell it out and advocate for it. It isn't OUR job to "look it up" and then try to reason out what your point is. Don't be so lazy!

Thanks for all the info… it does say, under the heading of Jeopardizing tax exempt status that "[churches] must not participate in, or intervene in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."

Also, "A church or religious organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative
body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation."

Further, "Contributions to political campaign
funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise tax."

And lastly, "religious leaders cannot make partisan comments in official organization publications or at official church functions."

Pretty interesting.

16. jeanne

1st: you can rest in peace: I'm not living in the US.

2nd: you are aware that it is "just" a theory?

So it is very unlikely that there is a "last war" which ends "all wars" in the future and that it is absurd to think only "military targets" will get hit… and so on. This is just to make people feel good about war. In reality there is nothing "good" about a war.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not against every military action. I "just" don't think it is "just" to say once yeah and once nay to human life…

The wrinkle here Elizabeth, is that the letter is after the fact - so is it a violation of attempting legislation if you talk after the legislation has passed? I don't know, I am just throwing that out there.

(*note I am talking generally about legislation. I guess the Q here is supporting a political candidate)

PRO-CHOICE does not mean PRO-ABORTION…..That is so wrong in everyway to say something like that. Im Pro-Choice and would NEVER have a Abortion. So get your facts straight Preacher.

Also. Is it not said that only GOD can Judge. Who are you to Judge Anyone!!!!!!

Totally true Lisa, but I know of some priests/bishops who spoke openly about not voting for Obama before the election, and I had remembered reading about the problem that presents with their tax free exemption status, so when you mentioned it above, I was interested.

Also, although the election has passed, Father Newman could still be seen as lobbying for legislation to overturn Roe v. Wade, which it seems is strictly prohibited.

Who knows, I just think the whole thing is interesting… I bet if it were actually looked into, I'll bet a lot of religious people/organizations who enjoy tax exempt status are breaking these "rules."

The RC church should come down hard on this priest for bullying parishioners.

Dammit, SC is better than the idiots that make the news.

How is the church going to know who voted for Obama?

Seriously. As Lisa said: Tax exempt status, give it here. *opens palm*

I'm also not even sure if Republicans actually would benefit from criminalizing abortion if they had the choice. They really need it as an election issue to rally the base, so if they all of a sudden lost it as a divisive issue, people might be less inclined to vote for them. They'd lose all the anti-choice one issue voters.

When McCain said he'd was anti-choice, but he'd appoint people to the Supreme Court (who are in charge of this decision) regardless of their standpoint on abortion, it kind of made me think this might be the case.

I don't know. It's not that I don't think Republicans would take away abortion rights if they could, but I wonder if some of them realize it would be a stupid move, politically…

"And if men struggle and strike a woman with child so that she has a miscarriage, yet there is no further injury, he shall be fined as the woman's husband may demand of him, and he shall pay as the judges decide. But if there is any further injury, then you shall appoint as a penalty life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise." Exodus 21:22-25

where do Christians get the idea that the Bible prohibits abortion? The above passage from Exodus seems to state pretty clearly that a fetus does not have the same rights as a full grown person.

ie. Fetus dies = monetary sum determined by husband of wife, means of payment through judges. Wife dies or other injury = life for a life, eye for an eye, etc.

does anyone know of passages, that deal specifically with the fetus or pregnant women that contradict this one?

It felt really aweosme to flip off the antichoice activists picketing outside Planned Parenthood the other day. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Dear Father Newman,

You suck.

I agree Elizabeth. While I don't think this letter alone is enough, I would be surprised if this were the only instance of a politics from the publit - at least for this church. The proof is the problem, you know? There is a fine line becuase for many there is religion as politics. If you preach that abortion is bad, is that enough? Probably not. If you say "vote for X, he is pro-life?" Probably. I haven't read enough to know the ins and outs or even who would enforce/strip the tax exempt status. IRS I guess?

wow luuk. i'd never seen that.

it's crazy, sar! I never thought to question it before, but I can't find a single reference to a fetus being equivalent to a human being. I'm certainly no biblical scholar, but from just thumbing through Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, I've already found several passages that actually seem to indicate the Bible DOESN'T consider a fetus a human being.

Leviticus 27:6 - this is where the Lord tells Moses of the monetary value of persons. He only assigns values to people one month and older!

Numbers 3:15 - a census of the Levites has to be made - again only counting those (males) one month and older (a total of 7,500 sons of Levi).

Not even live children under a month old seem to qualify as human according to God, let alone a fetus.

Luuk, I second sar's comment.

that's something else!

surely wouldn't be the first time that an organized religion (re)interpreted the bible in a way to suit it's political needs.

Luuk, the problem is you're quoting Leviticus, Numbers and Exodus .. all books of the Hebrew Bible. The lines you sited do give a good reason for why most jews are pro-birth control and pro-choice.

The problem is that Protestants and Catholics subscribed to the old testament on a more ala carte, buffet style. They will claim that Jesus gave them anew testament, a new covenant. So, a lot of them only go to the OT for the bits that they like, not the bits that they don't.

The point being that they are NOT rational people … it's so hard to argue with people that have no rational base.

Ok… I'm not about to blow the dust off my Bible (or locate it, for that matter) but then I'd be curious to know what it says in the New Testament that would damn abortion.

Also, there is some effed up shit in the New Testament. I would think the fact that it *does* condone cutting a woman into eight parts and mailing her to the farthest corners of the land would make me a little iffy about its pro-lifeyness.

Alice, I visited a few anti-abortion websites and can't help but agree with you.
It's pretty ironic too, considering the New Testament is only cited once (Luke 1:41 - when Mary and Elizabeth meet, pregnant with Jesus and John the Baptist, and Elizabeth's baby jumped at the words of Mary). Judging by their arguments, the New Testament seems to have even less to say about the rights of a fetus than the OT.

I was not surprised to find Exodus 21 used to support their case. They interpret it as having the baby survive a violently induced birth, and the "further injury" being applied to it, not the woman. Problematic for a number of reasons:
1 - unlikely any baby would have survived premature birth 3,000 years ago.
2 - unlikely they would be born with teeth, so penalty of a tooth for a tooth makes no sense

what did you say again about rational people? hehe

@Holly- Yes! I hate the semantic bullcrap of calling someone "Pro-Abortion". No one is pro-abortion! It's not like Obama won and went "Wooo! Abortions for the house are on me!"

I can't abide by abortion personally, but I always want to ask Pro-Lifers if they'll put their money where their mouth is and pony up a nice big chunk of taxes to cover everything that comes with an additional 3 million unloved, unwanted children being born into society every year to parents forced to bear kids they know they can't raise. Because the state is going to have to provide a whole lot more in food aid, foster care, social work, education, healthcare, psychological services, and (oh yeah) prisons, just to cover a few bases there.

@Alice and @Luuk- Oh yeah, and until the baby "quickened" (moved) sometime around 3-4 months, abortion was totally fine. Anything done to "restore menstruation" was OK by the Church until the 18th century.

that is so awful. you shouldn't have to apologize to God for voting for a black president! and that barack hussein stuff is getting old.

Very interesting stuff indeed, Luuk.

And Lisa?

You know you're my better half.