Semper Ubi Sub Ubi

At the risk of being classified a fool, where are the facts to support your characterization of Lynn? Those entered into evidence, thus far, are contained in the excerpt you quoted. A complaint was filed against a pastor for preaching a sermon promoting a particular political candidate. The alleged motivation of the complainant, evident from the name of the organization, was that the action of the pastor violated the separation of church and state. Several things can be done with this. You might agree that a sermon should not be political in this manner, but question whether or not such a sermon was actually preached. How accurate is Lynn's interpretation? You might think that it is acceptable for a sermon to have an explicit political bias, and question Lynn's understanding of the Establishment clause. You may not, however, conclude that "Barry Lynn and his henchmen are out to silence pastors who disagree with their liberal views..." You may not conclude that this, necessarily, is a one-sided political orchestration; nor may you conclude that Lynn is godless. You may not question the intellectual integrity of those who do not agree with you. I'm not denying the possibility that you are right; nonetheless, you have yet to offer any warrant for the zeal of your conclusions. By all means, muster any supporting facts and argue your case. As it stands now, however, it can either be interpreted as an exercise in sloppy reasoning or in dishonesty (the latter which I, personally, shall not do, giving you the sincere benefit of the doubt). Either way, it reflects poorly on the faith that you are trying to defend.

What about the case itself? If Lynn's allegations are correct, that is, if the sermon was as clearly partisan as he has claimed, then there would be no injustice in denying the church its tax-exempt status. A church's exemption from taxes is not related to the Establishment clause; rather, this is a simple matter of IRS code for non-profit organizations. That Lynn believes this to be a church-state issue does not make it so; nor does it make him evil. Say that there is a ruling against the church. I would want to know the basis thereof. If it is tax-code, then I see no harm done. If it is the Establishment clause, then a dangerous Constitutional precedent has been set. What would there be to prevent a law that criminalized any political speech in the pulpit? I probably agree with you here: the Establishment clause has nothing to do with the popular conception of separation of church and state. However, despite supporting Pastor Floyd's Constitutional right to say whatever he wants to from the pulpit, I have serious theological objections to politicizing a sermon.

This is not much of a response, but I haven't time for much more.

I will readily admit simply spewing forth in anger about this case. The facts of the case are rather simple, however. Lynn is targeting SPECIFIC churches with his "spies", people who are to "listen in" to find out if pastors "cross the line". What churches is he targetting? Not historically Democratic churches, for instance... no, just those conservative churches. There is more than a little irony in this, and more than a little hypocrisy with respect to his group's stated cause. When have we EVER seen Lynn going after the churches in which Democratic candidates ROUTINELY go to speak? EVER? If there's a case of this, I'll back off, but Lynn has a very specific subset of the political spectrum which he seems interested in dealing with. The fact that he would have the gall to go into churches to "spy out" their activities is appalling to me.

What about the case itself? If Lynn's allegations are correct, that is, if the sermon was as clearly partisan as he has claimed, then there would be no injustice in denying the church its tax-exempt status. A church's exemption from taxes is not related to the Establishment clause; rather, this is a simple matter of IRS code for non-profit organizations.

I beg to differ as to whether the tax-exemption rule has to do with establishement issues. Planned Parenthood has, to my knowledge, never been investigated by the IRS for political activities, yet it is one of the most politically active non-profit entities I know of.

Okay, I'll grant that sending spies into churches is in poor taste, so long as we include any kind of church. This may be cause for being upset with Lynn. Still, it is not cause to say that he is "godless." Nor have you presented any positive evidence for the allegation that this is a case of liberal tactics designed to silence Christians. The statement, "Lynn is targeting SPECIFIC churches," needs just a bit more behind it. As it is, it's open to too much interpretation to count as a simple fact. Obviously, Lynn has only gone to specific churches, but does this mean that these were targeted? And what if they were? What was the criteria for targeting? It could be everything you imply. Or, perhaps, he was targeting these churches based solely on what he has heard about their practice. It could have nothing to do with their perceived political or theological leanings. It is also possible that Lynn has sent spies into those churches in which Democratic candidates speak, but that he has never found them in violation of anything. The charge is specific and, legally, these cases may be quite unrelated. Your condemnation of Lynn is, thus far, based on innuendo. Have we ever seen him go to such and such a church? Well, no I haven't, but neither had I heard of the man before reading your post. Suddenly, the burden of proof is on the accused. Much better, I would think, to withhold judgment until there was evidence that he had done nothing after going into a church with the same kind of endorsement of a liberal politician. Your case would be much stronger if there weren't so much hypothesis contrary to fact. You go on to say that you'll "back off" if he ever has gone after such a church. Why? Isn't the issue supposed to be that he shouldn't be spying on churches at all in an attempt to silence Christians? Or is it your contention that Democrats and Chirstians are mutually exclusive? I'm seeing more partisanship here than any genuine defense of the Faith. I suspect that you might be confusing liberal politics with Liberal theology.

I don't follow your last statement. The fact that Planned Parenthood, a non-profit organization, has never been investigated by the IRS for political activities, even if this can be shown to represent gross hypocrisy, has nothing to do with the Establishment clause. The most it could imply is inconsistency in the application of the tax-code. On the other hand, it could be the case that their political activities stop just short of what is prohibited. Consider this quote from one of the articles you referenced:

"According to IRS regulations, tax-exempt organizations 'are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position, verbal or written, made 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'."

We can't make the broadest definition possible of political activity and then cry "Unfair!" when everyone else isn't targeted. This goes for Planned Parenthood as well as for Democratic candidates who 'preach.' The criteria for violating the tax-code can only be as broad as the code itself. Assuming that Lynn was accurate in his allegations, Pastor Floyd crossed the line. He is perfectly within his rights to preach against sin, even sin that may be politicized. He can even say something like, "We need national leaders who will stand against abortion." It's a another thing, though, when he says this during a campaign season while presenting a smiling picture of the current President on cue. Some might say that this is a specific endorsement of a candidate.

hehe... and all you people say you have no time for anything... :D love u todd!