Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. El Paso’s mayor, John Cook, told a constituent: “You can take your freedom of speech outside.” You gotta give the mayor credit for originality. He practically wiped out the First Amendment in one sentence. In addition to prohibiting freedom of speech at a peaceful council meeting the mayor abolished all of the other First Amendment Rights except freedom of the press. Presumably, Mayor Cook has no problem with freedom of the press because it has become a government Right. Religion was at the heart of the council’s problems with the people they serve. The mayor and some council members attacked the Catholic Church: Beto O'Rourke referenced the "moral failings of the church" and accused representatives of trying "to take the moral high ground" in the debate. "I want to know why this for you has become the burning issue of its day and how you can stand here with a straight face and say that this is a priority for the church and, and I can think of two obvious cases where the church has failed on a global level, uh, for one, I know in the very recent past the pope, our current pope, was in Africa, telling the people in that country (sic) who are suffering a holocaust of HIV and AIDS infection not to use condoms. I can think of another very significant and serious problem within the Catholic church which is the proven widespread abuse of children within the care of the Catholic church. I wonder where your outspokenness is on those issues…" Am I misinterpreting the above, or did O’Rourke ignore the doctrine of the separation of church and state when he, a government official, attacked the Catholic Church and, by extension, Catholics? He certainly prohibited the free exercise of religion at the same time he was plugging his own religion; i.e., worldwide socialism. As far as the Roman Catholic Church’s moral failings go let me remind everyone of global collectivism’s failures in the areas O’Rourke singled out. This is from 2002 Washington Times article about a child sex book given out at a United Nations summit: “An accompanying workshop book produced by the U.N. Children’s Fund (UNICEF) tells Latin American mothers and teens: ‘Situations in which you can obtain sexual pleasure: 1. Masturbation. 2. Sexual relations with a partner — whether heterosexual, homosexual, or bisexual. 3. A sexual response that is directed toward inanimate objects, animals, minors, non-consenting persons’.” http://www.beaconoftruth.com/unbooklet.htm Based on the practices Mr. O’Rourke’s religion advocates he should at least to tell us how his religion prevents HIV/AIDS? No one whose own religion promotes infanticide should ever talk about another religion abusing children. Of course, O’Rourke and Mayor Cook would deny they are devotees of the Socialist faith. Denial notwithstanding, their words give them away. Using their positions to implement the morality of a state religion clinches it. The words “. . . global level. . .” are especially telling. The federal government’s commitment to global government is well-known, but when an obscure council member in El Paso talks about global levels it shows how deeply collectivist thinking is entrenched at the local level. The Catholic lady that Mayor Cook chastised should have told him: “Pay attention to what is happening here in El Paso. That’s what you’re paid for. Whatever the Pope did or said in Africa is none of your business.” Finally, I’ve covered every aspect of “Socialism is a religion” many times; so I won’t go over it here. I do suggest that anyone who runs into government officials like Cook and O’Rourke nail them for establishing a state religion. It’s high time such people defended their religion as such. Mayor: Freedom of speech is over In pitched battle with churches, orders critic to leave city meeting Posted: December 03, 2011 9:00 pm Eastern By Bob Unruh El Paso, Texas, mayor John Cook, who has been in a pitched battle with local churches and the faith-oriented members in his community in recent months and could end up facing a recall election, apparently doesn't have much empathy for those who support the religious element in his community. A video has surfaced that shows he gave a woman who was addressing the city council on the issue of its criticism of faith and churches only some 70 seconds to talk, and then he told her to take her "freedom of speech outside." The long- and still-running conflict dates back to the latter part of 2010 when the city's voters by popular petition passed an ordinance prohibiting the city from extending benefits to unmarried domestic partners, which would include homosexual duos. Some members of the city council didn't like what the voters had done, and voted to rescind the voters' work. The mayor approved the move, which promptly triggered a grassroots campaign – which included church members and leaders – to circulate a petition demanding a recall of the offenders. Cook then filed suit alleging the Word of Life Church of El Paso, Pastor Tom Brown, ElPasoans for Traditional Family Values and others violated Texas election law by circulating the petitions, which succeeded at prompting a recall election scheduled in the spring. According to local news reports, the recall election for Cook and two others now is scheduled to proceed, after Judge Javier Alvarez denied Cook's demand to stop the recall effort that names him and city officials Susie Byrd and Steve Ortega. That election now apparently is scheduled for April During the heat of those arguments, Father Michael Rodriguez asked the city council not to extend benefits to same-sex couples. That request prompted a member of the council to blast representatives of the Christian faith. Beto O'Rourke referenced the "moral failings of the church" and accused representatives of trying "to take the moral high ground" in the debate. "I want to know why this for you has become the burning issue of its day and how you can stand here with a straight face and say that this is a priority for the church and, and I can think of two obvious cases where the church has failed on a global level, uh, for one, I know in the very recent past the pope, our current pope, was in Africa, telling the people in that country (sic) who are suffering a holocaust of HIV and AIDS infection not to use condoms. I can think of another very significant and serious problem within the Catholic church which is the proven widespread abuse of children within the care of the Catholic church. I wonder where your outspokenness is on those issues…" The mayor did not halt the attack on Christians. In light of that attack a woman, Elizabeth Branham, approached the podium during the public comment section of the next meeting, a week later. "I'm here not to chastise you for your obvious lack of civility and decorum, nor address your permissiveness in allowing certain council members to personalize their attacks on certain speakers at this podium. Mayor, you specifically stated at last week's city council meeting June the 14th that you would not allow personal attacks yet you let it happen anyway. Mr. O'Rourke, you stated at last week's public hearings that you want to be remembered for decades for the decisions you made at city council. You will be remembered, sir, for many things. Last week, you wrongfully and disrespectfully attacked Father Michael Rodriguez and the moral failings of the Catholic church. You stated that Fr. Rodriguez was taking the moral high ground in this debate and I quote you as stating. I think there is fair folks, totally out of line…" "Thank you, your time is over," said Cook. "I you can't remove yourself from the podium, I'll have you removed. Yeah. You can take your freedom of speech outside." See it: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7o3DOB3p00U&feature=player_embedded"]ATTACKS ON CHURCHES, PRIESTS AND FREE SPEECH IN EL PASO - YouTube[/ame] The Times said some 15,000 people had signed the petition seeking the recall. The mayor earlier threatened the pastors involved with felony charges over their involvement, saying that corporations [churches] were not allowed to assist in a recall. The church leaders said if that's the law, it's unconstitutional because it infringes on free speech. Jesus Chapel and its pastor, H. Warren Hoyt, with the help of attorneys from the Alliance Defense Fund, have asked a federal court to strike down the election law Cook is cited as unconstitutional censorship of free speech. "Pastors and churches shouldn't live in fear of being punished by the government for exercising their constitutionally protected right to free speech," said ADF Senior Legal Counsel Joel Oster in a statement. "No law or government official can rob a faith group of its constitutionally protected rights just because that official would prefer not to be removed from office." The ADF lawsuit insists that Jesus Chapel and Pastor Hoyt merely want to be able to "fully participate as citizens within the community, including circulating petitions to hold recall elections, without fear of punishment arising from the enforcement of an unconstitutional state election law against them." http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=373989
Churches are provided with numerous tax exemptions because they are considered religious and not political in nature. If they want to forefeit these tax exemptions then I see no problem with them becoming political entities. If they don't forefeit these tax exemptions then they should not get involved in political issues. If they get involved in political issues then their tax exempt status should be revoked by the government. It's really that simple. They cannot receive special tax considerations because they are apolitical and then become political entities. They can't have it both ways.
To Shiva_TD: I agree when it is applied to every religion. It isnt. Socialism is a religion that keeps all other religions out of government. Until the Socialist priesthood, along with the parasite class they created, is driven away the public trough every Supreme Deity religion must be allowed to engage in politics and still keep their tax exemption. The only way Socialism can work for Socialists is for everyone to obey when Socialists tell them what they must do rather than what they must not do. Without the power of government in their hands they would be laughed out of town trying to enforce their sick morality by telling millions what to do to. In fact, their morality is the tax collectors morality. Without the tax on income their is no morality to enforce. Supreme Deity priesthoods lack the political power to enforce their morality. Supreme Deity priesthoods must rely on voluntary contributions just to preach their gospel. Bottom line: Repeal the tax on income and Socialism/Communism will parish because those people who benefit from Socialism without being necessary to government would have to fund their religion, their morality, out of their own pockets. In other words, the tax dollars Socialists receive is their exemption; so make them justify that exemption in relation to the First Amendment. If that is not done in the near future a full-fledged Socialist/Communist theocracy is inevitable. Americas Founders saw that limited government was the best and only way to hold the evils twins of government and organized religion at bay. Since limited government is in full retreat because of the Socialist religion the only way to save what is left of individual liberty is to let every religion in, or legally define Socialism as the religion it is and apply the First Amendment. Unlike Socialists, I am not advocating utopia. Government and religion will always plague mankind. The trick is to limit government and keep religion voluntary. Socialists do the opposite; they grow government and make their religion compulsory through taxation. Finally, I meant this thread to be primarily about the Constitution even though I could not avoid including religion. With everything that is known about the Founding Fathers, it is not too far-fetched to say they would have identified Socialism/Communism as an organized religion, and opposed it because of its views on God, individual liberties, and private property. My point: the First Amendment shows that the Framers were not enthralled with government-imposed collectivism either.
Socialism obviously isn't a religion. Until you move past that idiocy, nobody can have an intelligent discussion about you on this or any related topic.
The founders of America were some of the most intelligent men our nation has ever produced and they would not have confused a political/economic philosophy with a religion. We must also realize that they created a secular nation and not a sectarian nation and religion has no place in the government of the United States. As I've also noted if a church wants to get involved in politics then it only needs to stop accepting the tax benefits of being a non-political religious entity. They would rightfully be considered as a Political Action Committee and would be required to subject themselves to the laws related to PAC's including the maximum individual contribution limitation of $5000/yr by the members. Is there a complaint about complying with the laws that address political action committees and forefeiting the tax exemptions that were provided for churches that are NOT political entities? There are no Constitutional protections against a church paying taxes or comply with the election and campaigning laws. There is a Constitutional protection against the government establishment of religion and we could easily see that allowing churches to become involved in politics would be a violation of the First Amendment.
To HonestJoe: I’m flattered that you think I am a conversation piece, but I have to wonder why would anyone want to have a conversation about me? Socialism and Religion: the similarities that can't be denied Posted by Cork It is a great irony that socialists hate religion, considering that socialism has all the defining characteristics of a religion. Let's have some fun examining the obvious similarities. 1) Socialism and religion are both completely unproven dogmas that have zero actual evidence to back them up. In fact, there is plenty of evidence against both. Therefore, belief in religion or socialism can only come from completely blind, irrational faith. The faith that theists and socialists have in their doctrines is very strong, bordering on hysterical. Why is it so strong? Because the idea that they may be devoting their lives to a stupid pipe dream (cough) is too much for them to handle. They don't want anyone blowing on the house of cards that is their belief structure. 2) Socialism and religion both promise that we can eventually reach a state of "heaven." And in the process, they've both brought us hell on Earth. Socialists and theists have yet to apologize for all the atrocities their belief systems have generated. If you point to the Soviet Union, socialists will answer that it wasn't "real" socialism. If you point to hideous rights violations in Middle Eastern countries, you'll be told that "real" Islam is a "peaceful" religion, despite all the evidence to the contrary. 3) Socialism and religion both maintain that everything would be chaos without central planning running the show. But in reality, neither the economy nor the universe could ever be "planned." Both are just the result of a ton of spontaneous s--t happening. This lack of control horrifies both socialists and theists. 4) Socialists and theists both believe that those of us who simply laugh at their dumb beliefs are evil and working against all that is good and right. We are trapped in the hands of Satan, or in the pay of the "capitalist class" (defined as anyone who works for a living). 5) Socialism and religion both fulfill a similar psychological need: the need to believe in a "higher power," or the "common good." Neither exist, but they are both comforting to believe in. Comforting lies are always far more pleasant than the truth. http://www.skepticaleye.com/2009/06/socialism-and-religion-similarities.html To Shiva_TD: I know that you do not include Socialism because you do not see it as a religion, but is Islam violating the First Amendment? Muslims have been combining government and religion (church & state) for centuries. Today’s Muslim clerics are working to transform the countries they infiltrate into Islamic theocracies. So do you consider Islam a religion or a political movement? Let me add that Socialism should be legally defined as a religion, while Islam should be defined as a political movement. Do both and the First Amendment would kick in on the side of individual liberties.
This is BS as religion is founded upon a belief in god whereas socialism and even communism have no relationship to an individual's beliefs in god. A socialist can be a religious believer or not as can a communist. There is no prohibition related to such beliefs as both socialism and communism are political/economic philosophies that are unrelated to personal beliefs in the existance of non-existance of god. If we were to look at Christianity specifically then Jesus taught socialism as a personal practice although he generally avoided any political connection to it. In fact he taught personal austerity and would be decidedly anti-capitalist in today's economic environment. The fact remains that if a church wants to be involved in politics at all then it would, at the least, be required to register as a Political Action Committee and be governed by the relevant laws and it would also forefeit many tax advantages and also sacrifice potential contributions based upon compliance with the laws.
I clearly meant "with you". If this dishonesty something of an uncontrollable affliction for you? So socialism is just like a religion now? Try to make you mind up before posting. The explanation you post is a deliberate misrepresentation of both socialism and religion by someone out to "have some fun" rather than make any kind of salient point. A bad stereotype of any political philosophy could be presented in as poor a light and would be as meaningless. And after all of that, none of this has a thing to do with the real issues raised in the OP. You let you hatred run away with you.
Flanders: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. El Pasos mayor, John Cook, told a constituent: You can take your freedom of speech outside. Flanders, that was your post. Are you incapapble of making a point in less than 12 inches of aimless rhetoric. And, how about, "You can have your free speech as long as you don't say anything hateful, use any unapproved words, or don't upset any liberals." How about, "You can have free speech as long as you don't infringe on my freedome of assembly. If you infringe on my freedom of assembly you can practice your free speech outside." Or, how about, "You can certainly have your free speech but not with my audience." I understand free speech is contantly under attack by the left and often by the right and we need to defend free speech but reasonable time and place are even more important than classifying (*)(*)(*)(*)ting on a flag in public as free speech.
To Shiva_TD: Dont be so quick to call something you did not research BS. religion (noun) Abbr. rel., relig. 1. a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. b. A personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. 2. The life or condition of a person in a religious order. 3. A set of beliefs, values, and practices based on the teachings of a spiritual leader. 4. A cause, a principle, or an activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion. In addition to definition number 4. being completely applicable, a good case can be made for definition number 3. in that the Socialist laity see Karl Marx, Lenin, Mao, and even Hussein as spiritual leaders. To HonestJoe: [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBzJGckMYO4&feature=player_detailpage"]Porky Pig Cartoon Ending "That's All Folks!" - YouTube[/ame] To PatrickT: Aside from the fact that the lengths of my messages is none of your business, why do you open them up when you know what youre going to find?
Just try to get a religious tax exemption from the government based upon this definition of religion: People need to be serious instead of throwing out hyperbole as if it's a valid argument. Apples and nuclear weapons have certain characteristics in common but no one in their right mind would confuse an apple with a nuclear weapon.
To Shiva_TD: You said: "This is BS as religion is founded upon a belief in god whereas socialism and even communism have no relationship to an individual's beliefs in god." I pointed out that by definition your statement was not true in every instance. Now youre running to the tax exemption.
Is there any case where the term religion would be applicable under the law based upon the abscure definition that was provided. I've certainly never used the term in that manner and from a legal standpoint I doubt there is any argument that it doesn't refer to a belief in god which has absolutely nothing to do with the political/economic philosophy of either socialism or communism. Socialism and communism do not have any relationship to a religious belief in god and a church is exempted from certain taxes and afforded certain benefits because they are non-political in nature. Once again if a "church" wants to deal in politics it needs to forefeit any tax exemptions or benefits, register as a Political Action Committee and comply with the related laws. Is there any argument whatsoever with this requirement?
Flanders: "To PatrickT: Aside from the fact that the lengths of my messages is none of your business, why do you open them up when you know what youre going to find?" Perhaps I'm a latent masochist. Now, for a 22 inch cut and paste job.
To Shiva_TD: Of course not. Compliance is the issue. If compliance was enforced ISLAM would be a PAC not a religion.
I'm unaware of any Muslim mosque attempting to be involved in the US political system. Can an example of this similiar to what this Christian church is attempting be provided or is this merely smoke and mirrors?
Any person or group should have the right to speak to and about our system. It does not matter if they are individuals, corperations, or orginised groups. If the Nazi's can patition our government I think it should be ok for a Church.
Well, I guess when a member creates a thread and then every argument presented by the OP is dismissed or disproven with facts and logic the best the author can do is admit defeat and leave. That's understandable. Why keep bailing the water out of the boat after the boat's sitting on the bottom of the ocean?
Churches receive certain tax advantages and exemptions because they are not political in nature. If they want to enter into the political arena then it is logical that they forefeit these tax advantages and exemptions and comply with the campaign laws which would make them a Political Action Committee that have certain financial limitations and reporting requirements under US law.
