Reply #64: SO lets reverse this for a moment [View All]

[daveskilt]

The sermon was titled "If jesus debated senator Kerry and President Bush" - and lets say instead of talking about the war (no specific use of the word endorsement) they said that jesus would not support Senator Kerry as he was a wicked baby murderer who supported gay abortion doctors getting married, stealing your guns, and socializing medicine which jesus would never never never want.

Hundreds of churches don't "endorse" specific republican candidates BUT they have an implicit endorsement by saying stupid things like who a guy from 2000 years ago would vote for based on issues that didn't exist when he was alive. Saying I am not specifically endorsing anyone just telling the flock which way their god would vote is nothing but a tax dodge.

tax em all if they want to get involved in telling people who to vote for - GodPAC still a PAC.
If they want to read fairy tales to each other and go out and actually do some good - feed the poor, visit the sick, comfort the widows etc as their book says to do then great - they are exempt. Pretend you know which team god likes best and try to influence people's vote based on that - you are a PAC and should be treated as one.

on edit: now if this is framed as a question of free speech and state interference in church then it gets be a dueling set of constitutional questions - and that is kinda cool.