One of the fascinating aspects of this election is the effort by a group of black conservative ministers to get their congregations, and black Americans in general, to stop supporting the Democratic party over gay rights and abortion and support the Republicans instead. Here’s Bishop E.W. Jackson, writing in the Moonie Times, about it:
I was raised to be an FDR Democrat because my father was a young man during the Depression and credited President Roosevelt with saving him from starvation. “The Republicans only care about rich people,” I was told. This was more than 40 years ago. In spite of my childhood indoctrination, as a young man newly committed to my Christian faith, I had a crisis of conscience in the late 1970s. Massachusetts Democrat Barney Frank was pushing the homosexual agenda. How could I, as a Christian, be committed to a party led by Mr. Frank? In the end, I could not. My desire to be in a right relationship with God and my faith was greater than my desire to be approved by my father, my family or the black community. My wife and I, then Massachusetts residents, left the Democratic Party in 1980 and never looked back.
Democrats now have fully embraced an abortion policy that amounts to infanticide. They have also made the lesbian-homosexual-bisexual-transgender agenda their vision for America. How have they managed to hold on to black Christians in spite of an agenda worthy of the Antichrist?
Amusingly, he seems to think that the sound of his own voice indicates some sort of trend:
For the first time in 50 years, there is a discussion going on in the black community as to whether their loyalty to the Democratic Party is deserved. Many black pastors are telling their members to stay home, rather than vote for a black president who has done more to advance the cause of homosexuality and abortion than that of black Americans.
We are hearing the rumblings of a fissure between black Christians and the Democratic Party. My organization, Staying True to America’s National Destiny (Stand), is calling for a mass exodus of Christians from the Democratic Party. We held a news conference at the National Press Club on Sept. 10 and produced several videos. This not only has prompted discussion, but perhaps has launched a movement. Mr. Obama’s commitment to the radical left’s anti-Christian, anti-God politics may cost him the election, because a constituency he has taken for granted has awakened to the truth that being the first black president is not enough.
And yet the polls show that Obama is getting 94% of the black vote, as he did in 2008. All this raging from this guy, Bishop Harry Jackson, Jesse Lee Patterson and others appears to be them talking only to themselves.
40 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Gvlgeologist, FCD
October 6, 2012 at 11:11 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Why, he almost sounds like a white southern Democrat in the 1960s and ’70s leaving the Democratic party because of its support for civil rights for African-Americans! I guess we really do live in a post-racial America!
Gvlgeologist, FCD
October 6, 2012 at 11:14 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The only difference is that bigoted southerners found a home in the Republican party, whereas African-Americans are viewed by much of the Reps as scum.
Michael Heath
October 6, 2012 at 11:51 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
E.W. Jackson writes:
It’s my conclusion that Mr. Jackson is attempting to justify his bigotry by unjustifiably smearing all Christians for his bigotry, rather than just politically and theologically conservative Christians. I also have news for Mr. Jackson, in a generation or two the politically conservative Christians who aren’t theological conservatives most likely won’t be hating on gays as they do now; and if that turns out to be true, at least some a la Glenn Beck will be falsely claiming they were the leaders who secured gays their equal rights.
The more interesting question is how theologically conservative Christians will react to a society that is will soon begin to more pervasively condemn their hatred and bigotry towards gays. Theologically conservative denominations have been successful at taking minimal heat for most but not all of those denominations’ systemic bigotry directed at adult females. But this population seems to sense, where I concur, that their bigotry towards gays will be increasingly more difficult to defend compared to their relative success discriminating against adult females. And I see no easy way out short- or intermediate-term.
One way out is to change their interpretation of certain biblical passages regarding same-sex rape and sexual relations. That would allow them to promote the same monogamous nuclear family units the young evangelicals do now in regards to heterosexual families. This is the valid conservative argument for gay marriage as best promoted by Andrew Sullivan.
I do encounter some non-conservative Christians making that argument, e.g., a recent viral video by a young Christian; perhaps the most compelling argument I’ve seen for biblical support of equal rights and inclusion of gays is Peter Gomes’ book, The Good Book. The moral thing for the current set of bigots to do if they actually wanted to end their bigotry would be to research and test the premises they use to justify their bigotry and promotion of that bigotry in their churches. Many of those premises of course are false where I think the survivors are entirely uncompelling. Those remainders are certain biblical passages used to justify hatred towards gays. As Gomes and the young man in the video reveal, the language is not necessarily condemning GLBTs and/or there are ways to ignore these passages just like they ignore other immoral or evil passages’ edicts on how to react in a given situation.
lofgren
October 6, 2012 at 11:53 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
For the first time? What did he think Al Sharpton meant when he said the black community had no choice but to climb on this mule and see how far it could take [them]? It’s hard to see that speech as anything but critical of the Democratic party for taking the black vote for granted. This discussion is at least as old as Martin Luther King Jr.
mikeyb
October 6, 2012 at 12:06 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The current GOP is a dying party, demographically it is 90% white. Romney is betting on a bad economy, voter suppression (not working), Obama collapse (maybe??) to convince enough independent voters to win the election. Though gerrymandering will probably keep the house pretty republican through 2020, barring an economic collapse, this will probably be the last competitive presidential election for some time. Notice how Romney pretended to be moderate in the last debate.
This is the last time that the GOP will be able to use the southern strategy. The problem – social attitudes and demographics. Socially the country is becoming much more progressive. Its only a matter of time before gay marriage becomes the predominant view. I predict in another generation I predict, atheism will be much more in the open and socially acceptable.
The GOP has another problem – the Latino problem (discloser I am a Latino). Latinos now make up 16% or so of the electorate. Latinos and other minorities (Asians) are growing at a disproportionate rate to other groups. Only ~50% of Latinos vote compared to ~65% with other groups. Bush got 44% of the Latino vote, probably largely because of his more liberal immigration policies. Unless the GOP becomes a more moderate party, through demographics alone, Texas will eventually become a blue state – and then the party is over for the GOP.
Also eventually I believe problems like the grotesque inequality of our country, and global warming will become so readily apparent to everyone, that brain dead ideas that new tax cuts will solve all our problems will show themselves to be hollow to the core.
So if we hold on for a while, I think the future is bright for progressive ideas. The Glenn Becks of the world are on the way to extinction.
Michael Heath
October 6, 2012 at 12:17 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
E.W. Jackson writes:
There is a moral argument worth considering when it comes to restricting abortion rights; not that activist anti-abortion rights activists make that argument with any moral credibility given their antipathy for sex education, education in general, birth control, and post-birth support of those in need. I’ve yet to encounter any morally defensible arguments to discriminate against gays and instead promote hatred and practice bigotry towards them and their families. So why the conflate the two? It seems to weaken the argument that animates conservative Christians in the public square the most, abortion.
I found my answer in the early-2000s when I began to observe conservative Christians quickly and now predominately rejecting or ignoring what science has to say about the threat of global warming. I was befuddled because there’s no biblically clear case to do so; nor is there for abortion either but more so than there is for denying a dangerously warming planet.
My casual research had me finding that their leaders were telling them to reject this theory, where given the dynamics of RWAs, they blindly follow their leaders’ example. The most parsimonious reason I found that motivated these leaders’ denialism was their apparent realization a large swath of the financial interests which fund the Republican party would not be supporting climate change mitigation, as evidenced at time their disbelief was growing by policies in the Bush/Cheney administration. Where it also obvious a significant portion of the GOP’s financial supporters would require their elected officials to oppose all mitigation efforts as best they could. A movement which had complete success, virtually no Republicans at the national level now argue we need to address the threat but instead argue we should act in a manner that effectively pulls in the threat and maximizes the effects – especially Mitt Romney. They’ve also effectively taken the entire debate off the table for this electoral season, e.g., no mention of climate change in this past week’s debate.
So those religious leaders would risk a split in their sheeple’s unified support of the GOP given a split between abortion and taking climate change seriously. Such a split would risk the loss of money, influence, and power. So as long as these conservative Chrstians can keep the Republican party officials sufficiently anti-abortion rights, we’ll observe:
a) conservative Christian leaders condemning all policies* which threaten an emigration away from the GOP to the Democratic camp and
b) their sheep blindly following along just as Thomas Franks observed and predicted and Bob Aletemeyer and other scientists empirically validate regarding why they follow blindly.
*Even if they were merely skeptical about AGW, this position remains incoherent and downright evil. The only reasonable response to a risk at the level predicted by scientists if one doubted them, would be to still insure for it by seeking to mitigate the effects. Especially the path to mitigation is the optimal and only viable long-term path anyway.
Michael Heath
October 6, 2012 at 12:35 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
E.W. Jackson writes:
Ed responds:
Pew has the GOP party make-up by religious affiliation here; black protestants make-up 1% of the GOP. The monied interests which controls most GOP domestic policy also increasingly harms black Americans. In addition the Republicans, especially in the Bible Belt, have been more overt about their racism in the past four years, where one has to go back to the early-1970s and of course prior to that to find worse behavior than we’ve seen from Republicans since 2008. So I doubt we’ll see many “Christians” as Jackson defines his audience abandoning the Democratic party; neither the current set of white Christian Democrats, black-Christians, or otherwise.
I sense this guy wants to be the reincarnation of Jerry Falwell and realizes that ain’t going to be happening in the Democratic party but could in the GOP. It’d be interesting to test his congregation for the pervasiveness of right wing authoritarian thinking.
chrislrob
October 6, 2012 at 1:15 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I’m a straight, married, black man from a fundamentalist Christian background. Jackson is full of shit. These afroturfers are not the vanguard to anything, they are collectors of wingnut welfare spitting into the wind. You’ll notice that no major denomination with a large black membership has signaled its members to not support Democratic candidates. And they’re not going to.
It is absolutely true that lots of black people, particularly religious ones, have a major issue with abortion rights and gay rights (just like lots of white people). But I’ve been saying (okay, crowing) for months on black websites that black Christians are not going to give the country over to racist Ayn Randians just to deny their choir directors the right to marry. Black Christians had a choice to make make earlier this year when the president came out for gay marriage. They did a lot of grumbling, but they made it. It’s over.
And the reason why is simple. Opposing gay rights is wrong. And I say that believing that the bible opposes homosexuality. I think it is clearly there and there is no denying it. But so what? The bible opposes or supports many things that are wrong. But Christians rarely give up on Christianity because of it. Instead, they simply re-interpret the bible to support the CORRECT moral view. If that could happen with slavery, it can happen with anything. It is happening with gay rights now.
And if there’s some “movement” to abandon the “Democratic plantation” for the Republican one, where’s the action? Where are the marches? The protests? The boycotts? Assholes like Jackson can get back to me when they can do more than rent an eighth of a hotel meeting room, hang a banner, and call a press conference.
They’re in it for the money and I’m cool with that. Every dollar they get is a dollar some Repug candidate didn’t get. I love money sinks like this. I hope they spend more money on Latinos. And then spend even more money on the Jewish vote. You can win their votes GOP, I know you can!
As an aside, many days I toy with the idea of starting some black conservative bullshit organization of my own. I’ll bet the money’s pretty good. And I’ve even got *some* conservative views. But the first time I tried to state publicly that MLK was a Republican and would support the vote-suppressing sonsofbitches in the GOP, my head would explode.
ema
October 6, 2012 at 1:29 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
There is a moral argument worth considering when it comes to restricting abortion rights….
I’m curious, what would that argument be?
Chiroptera
October 6, 2012 at 1:33 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
E. W. Jackson: How could I, as a Christian, be committed to a party led by Mr. Frank?
Your father already answered this:
…my father was a young man during the Depression and credited President Roosevelt with saving him from starvation.
Which party and which candidate is more likely to help people not starve? At the very least, which party is going to do the least to help people to starve?
And which party and which candidate is going to help more (or impede less) African Americans take their rightful place as free and equal citizens of our republic?
I mean, really? Men having sex with men is a greater affront to your sensibilities than denying poor people the resources they need to lead their lives, to promoting equlity, liberty, and justice?
Gvlgeologist, FCD
October 6, 2012 at 1:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
chrislrob – that was beautiful.
heddle
October 6, 2012 at 1:45 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
chrislrob ,
That makes sense, given that Ayn Rand was not just an atheist but an anti-theist, and the Ayn Rand Institute is still uses her writings in their faqs to answer questions on religion (hell no) abortion (yes, up until birth) charity (a vice, not a virtue) etc. I can see why no Christian, white or black or yellow, would want to give up the country to the dreadful Ayn Randians.
SallyStrange: Elite Femi-Fascist Genius
October 6, 2012 at 2:05 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Naturally, that there’s something about being inside a woman’s uterus, rather than simply needing blood, bone marrow, or heart donations, that somehow confers the moral right to compel another human being to donate the use of their body against their will.
laurentweppe
October 6, 2012 at 2:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Black homosexuals?
Black women
Naaaaah, these don’t exist, they’re like natural selection and global warming and employment below 8%: all propaganda of the gaymuslimatheistcommienazi conspiracy.
***
Oh? Because you think that the bigoted southerners and religious extremists are not viewed by the nobility as scum? They ended up in the GOP voting base because its leaders thought they could tame them as useful idiots.
If anything, they might think that since poor whites in the south accepted to become the lackeys of their inbred overlords in exchange of the great privilege of not being as low as blacks on the social-food chain, the same trick will work with heterosexuals endorsing a social structure which hurts them in exchange of being not completely in bottom of said social structure.
What would make a difference is if the upper-class had somehow developed the capacity to learn from previous mistakes.
d.c.wilson
October 6, 2012 at 2:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
laurentweppe @14:
The question is, will bigoted white Christian southerners be able to coexist in the same party as bigoted black Christian southerners?
Not that it matters much when Mitt Romney’s support among African-Americans is equal to the margin of error.
laurentweppe
October 6, 2012 at 2:29 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
That’s what Muslims are for, no? Providing them with a common target. In Europe, it worked at pushing bigoted Atheists and bigoted Christians in each others’ arms
LightningRose
October 6, 2012 at 2:51 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
In the spirit of Harry Jackson’s self appointed title, from now on you may all refer to me as Her Holiness Pope Lightning Rose.
You’re all very welcome.
Hercules Grytpype-Thynne
October 6, 2012 at 3:13 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
If it’s destiny, why do you have to stay true to it? Won’t it happen anyway? Being “destiny” and all.
And while we’re on the subject, why does God need a starship?
Michael Heath
October 6, 2012 at 3:18 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
chrislrob writes:
heddle responds:
chrislrob is making an accurate observation given that both men on this season’s Republican presidential ticket take Randian positions, use Randian rhetoric (though with Romney it’s not for our viewing pleasure – see 47% video and other clips he’s not popularizing which are not gaffes), and in the case of Paul Ryan, subscribes to much of what Any Rand promoted when it came to the relationship between an individual and government – particularly on economic policy, regulations, the social safety net, and entitlements.
Ayn Rand didn’t make a name for herself because she was an atheist. She made a name for herself because of her extreme libertarian political philosophy; where she just happened to be an atheist. And the reason a Christian would give up the country to Randians when it comes to Randian economic policy and the social safety net is also something we already observe conservative Christians more than willing to do given their support for the Romney/Ryan ticket; especially ironic given Barack Obama is a centrist establishmentarian Christian Burkean-style politician. Their motivation is observed as follows:
Reason one is that we observe conservative Christians in the public square taking on a narrow sub-set of plutocratic objectives mostly emanating out of the fossil-fuel industry – even those that directly harm their personal interests. Thomas Frank’s What’s the Matter with Kansas is the most popular treatment of this finding; where this attribute is far stronger than than in early-2000s when he first popularized what political scientists and economists were observing.
Reason two is that conservative Christians are predominately rightwing authoritarians highly submissive to social dominators and ‘double-highs’, social dominators who are also authoritarians, which Romney and Ryan both appear to be. Bob Altemeyer and the work of scientists reported in both Mooney’s books on Republicans cover how and why.
Thirdly, conservative Christian antipathy of Barack Obama is distinguishes them among other sub-populations. No other large voting group has both concluded and promoted more falsehoods about Barack Obama than this group. All with the same theme, “he’s not one of us”. He’s not an American, he’s not pro-American, he’s not a Republican or a Democrat, conservative or liberal. Instead they lie by claiming he’s a Kenyan, he’s a Muslim, he’s a Marxist, he’s a European-style socialists, he’s a Manchurian-like candidate whose really an al Qaeda infiltrator – which is one of the most popular memes being spread via conservative Christian viral email. I know entire families convinced he’s part of al Qaeda, imagine the cognitive dissonance that had to be overcome to continue to believe that after the president authorized a mission to kill Osama bin Laden when that mission succeeded. But it was, this group’s ability to craft alternative realities is really quite something.
And last, antipathy for the president, I think because he’s a smart articulate black Democrat, has led Republicans in general, not just conservative Christians, to take positions no sane reasonable person would have predicted prior to 2000. And yet here we are. So it seems to me most conservative Christians aren’t looking under the hood of their own two presidential candidates very carefully; that’s simply because their hatred of Barack Obama is so deep they’ll fall for any counter-measure which “takes him out”. And I use those words because I’ve seen the rhetoric these Christians have used even early in President Obama’s term when it comes to their desire to destroy this president, even it means taking the country down as well as we encounter from Mitch McConnell, Paul Ryan, and congressional Republicans when we had the credit rating crisis. Just a few weeks ago I received a popular conservatie viral email from a conservative Christian who claimed the president was reading a book on that was the plan to be used for how to destroy America; it was Fareed Zakaria’s Post-American World and promotes the exact opposite.
Michael Heath
October 6, 2012 at 3:35 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I wrote earlier:
ema responds:
The competing rights argument, most prominently featured in Roe v. Wade and Gallup polls which haven’t moved much since the early-1960s.
Most Americans, I think it’s usually about 70% or a little above, support legal access to abortion in the early part of a pregnancy. As a pregnancy advances, less Americans are willing to support the continuation of legal access for an abortion unless the life or health of the mother is threatened. So Americans mostly perceive the unborn with no effective right to life at conception but not only recognize a right to life at the end of a pregnancy, but that this right is worthy of government protection over the right of the pregnant female to an abortion unless again, the life or health of the mother is at stake.
When it comes to where this pivotal juncture begins, where the unborn’s right to life should be protected over the right for an abortion unless there are the previously mentioned extenuating circumstances, the most pervasive argument I’ve seen is when the unborn begins to experience suffering.
That’s the essential argument. It’s clearly an argument smack in the middle of the abortion-rights continuum and not the anti-abortion rights movement. That’s one reason why I noted the so-called pro-lifers won’t make this argument.
heddle
October 6, 2012 at 3:46 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael Heath,
Are you on ‘luudes? She certainly did make a name for herself for being an atheist. The inconceivably one-dimensional protagonists in her two blockbuster novels were atheists (and the lead male atheist raped the lead female atheist, to her delight.) And in every opportunity Ayn Rand proclaimed her atheism. I don’t think it is very relevant, she’s just one atheist of millions–though she happened to be a particularly odious one. But you are just engaging in revisionism to minimize the inconvenience that she was an atheist, when in fact it it was a huge part of her identity and philosophy. It was her atheism that attracted me to her in my high school and college days when I came within an inch of being a Randoid.
By the way, she hated libertarians. From wikipedia
Staunchly atheist.
Radically pro abortion.
Despised libertarians.
Yep, sounds like a conservative Christian, Sarah Palin worshipping, Sean Hannity loving child-abuser to me! I’m sure if she were still kicking she’d have assumed the leadership of the teapartiers.
slc1
October 6, 2012 at 4:45 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Re Michael Heath @ #20
Let us not forget that both Romney and Ryan support the bill in the House that would declare that life begins at conception (e.g. fertilization). This is the position of the Raping Children Church, as well as the right wing Christians and Mormons. I still have yet to see anyone in the lamestream media ask either candidate how they could support such a bill, given that it would effectively outlaw IVF, which 2 of Romney’s children with low sperm counts had to use to produce children.
Michael Heath
October 6, 2012 at 5:54 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
heddle,
I’m cognizant of Ayn Rand’s notoriety. My point, which I think still holds, is that we’d never have heard of her if it hadn’t been for how her economic arguments resonated. If people were attracted to her because of her atheism and because of that promoted her economic arguments, well that sounds like the approach people take when it comes to liking Lady Gaga.
heddle quotes Rand:
Just because she claimed she wasn’t a libertarian and despised them doesn’t mean her economic arguments weren’t libertarian, which they effectively are. Which is why she’s a hit with some contemporaneous libertarians.
heddle rants:
This is incoherent. I think you badly need a drink, which is what I’m going to do right now with my 95 year-old grandma, who still likes to cocktail it a couple of times a week.
macallan
October 6, 2012 at 6:01 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Here is your card.
macallan
October 6, 2012 at 6:02 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Dammit, where did that link go?
heddle
October 6, 2012 at 6:08 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael Heath,
Now that we can agree on. In fact, coincidentally, my wife just stepped in the room and said “let’s get drunk.” Cheers.
lofgren
October 6, 2012 at 6:16 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Jesus doesn’t sound particularly teabaggerly either, but it doesn’t stop all of those people from claiming to worship him.
laurentweppe
October 6, 2012 at 6:56 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The difference between Ayn Rand and the Teabaggers is that they justify their bigotry by proclaiming that it came from God while she justified her bigotry by proclaiming that it came from her unfathomably superior intellect.
Area Man
October 6, 2012 at 8:43 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Amusingly, he makes no argument that this has changed.
Area Man
October 6, 2012 at 8:52 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
As much as I admired Barney Frank, he never held a real leadership position. Committee chairman was his highest honor.
I guess Mr. Jackson thinks that being queer makes one automatically the head honcho. Conservatives seem to believe that Teh Gay is equivalent to having superpowers.
d.c.wilson
October 6, 2012 at 10:10 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
You’re being far too limiting. She hated anyone who didn’t have the good sense to be Ayn Rand.
dingojack
October 7, 2012 at 12:26 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
mikeyb (#5) = “So if we hold on for a while, I think the future is bright for progressive ideas. The Glenn Becks of the world are on the way to extinction”.
Yeah and I predict that in the year 2000 we’ll all be driving flying cars. @@
chrislrob (#7) – firstly, ‘afroturfers’ what a fantastic turn of phrase!
Secondly, I think (for what it’s worth) you’ve hit the nail square on the head.
Now I’ve got a vision of the Heddles and Michael H and his dear ol’ Granny drinking Manhattans out on the patio.
Gad, how sophisticated! [/Great Gatsby] :D
Dingo
Rodney Nelson
October 7, 2012 at 9:45 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
d.c.wilson #31
That’s certainly my understanding of Rand’s relationship with anyone who wasn’t a sycophant.
bachalon
October 7, 2012 at 10:04 am (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Michael Heath, the difference between Rand and libertarians is this: their starting points. Many libertarians begin with a principle of non-aggression (however they’re defining it), and Objectivists begin with the axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity. The conclusions are similar if looked at superficially, but there’s a reason why Rand didn’t like them.
lofgren
October 7, 2012 at 12:25 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Well sure, how else do you explain how sexy and alluring all gay men are, able to turn the most macho, heterosexual, manly man into a swooning sissy?
…I mean, everybody else feels that way, too, right?
…Right?
magistramarla
October 7, 2012 at 3:46 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
The lines of separation of church and state are really being challenged lately. I’m outraged at the group of preachers who are challenging the rule that they are not to use the pulpit for political purposes. I’m hoping that the IRS comes down hard on them, but I know that this is what they are hoping for.
I think that they are hoping to force the SCOTUS to have to make a ruling on the separation of church and state.
It makes it even more important to re-elect President Obama. I would hate to see such a case go to a SCOTUS with Romney appointees.
Michael Heath
October 7, 2012 at 6:18 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
magistramarla writes:
Preachers’ rights to use their pulpits for political purposes is a protected right with one exception and one caveat. The exception is the promotion of a particular candidate running for office and the caveat is if they’re not paying federal income taxes.
So do you oppose free political speech from the pulpit or like the law as it is and therefore are outraged they’re supporting candidates while not paying taxes?
For me I support the protection of their right to political speech from the pulpit. However I oppose all religious institutions and their colleges’ tax-free status. So I have a hard time getting outraged over this though I think the IRS should apply the law aggressively and consistently.
jonhendry
October 7, 2012 at 7:46 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
I don’t know what Barney Frank was doing legislatively in the 70s, as far as advancing gay interests, but he didn’t come out as gay himself until 1987.
Wouldn’t surprise me if this guy was making up the chronology for convenience.
Ing:Intellectual Terrorist "Starting Tonight, People will Whine"
October 7, 2012 at 9:59 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
Competing rights, you know in the same way it was a real dilemma that a slave’s right to not be a slave competed with the slave owners right to property.
caseloweraz
October 8, 2012 at 1:01 pm (UTC -4) Link to this comment
laurentweppe wrote: “The difference between Ayn Rand and the Teabaggers is that they justify their bigotry by proclaiming that it came from God while she justified her bigotry by proclaiming that it came from her unfathomably superior intellect.”
KahnAyn —I’mWe’re laughing at the superior intellect.(Couldn’t resist, after Hercules Grytpype-Thynne’s reference in #18.)