The non conformer's Canadian Weblog

September 26, 2008

Evangelcial Pastors do not have to break the law.

  
0noplace1 

 
“Endorsing from the Pulpit Pastors launch challenge of IRS rules on endorsements.    Pastor Gus Booth remembers when he used to simply encourage his congregation of 150 in Warroad, Minn., to vote each Election Day. Now, he thinks it’s important to tell them which candidate should get their vote. On Sunday, as part of the “Pulpit Initiative” organized by an Arizona-based conservative Christian legal group, Booth is set to join dozens of clergy nationwide in challenging Internal Revenue Service rules that prohibit churches from politicking by supporting or opposing candidates. “If we can tell you what to do in the bedroom, we can certainly tell you what to do in the voting booth,” said the Minnesota minister, an evangelical leader of a nondenominational church, who expects to endorse Republican John McCain during his “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” sermon. “The voting booth is not some sort of sacred cow that you can’t talk about. You’re supposed to bring the gospel into every area of life.” The Alliance Defense Fund announced the initiative last May as a way to challenge IRS rules that date to 1954. ADF spokesman Greg Scott said the organization contacted “pastors, priests and rabbis from every major denomination,” and knows of 33 clergy in 23 states who intend to take part on Sunday. At least one clergyman who was contacted joined in filing a complaint against the initiative with the IRS. “We’re basically aiming to get these rules declared unconstitutional so that pastors have the right to speak freely from the pulpit without fear of punishment,” said Dale Schowengerdt, legal counsel for the ADF. “http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/septemberweb-only/139-41.0.html
 
“Pulpit Initiative About Freedom, not Politics The purpose of the Alliance Defense Fund’s Pulpit Initiative is to restore the right of pastors to speak freely from the pulpit without fear of punishment by the government for doing what churches do: speak on any number of cultural and societal issues from a biblical perspective. The purpose of the Pulpit Initiative is not – as some have said to confuse the issue – about whether pastors should or should not “endorse” candidates. The issue with which ADF is concerned is over who regulates what may be said from the pulpit.

So, the Pulpit Initiative is not about…

· turning the church into a Political Action Committee
· allowing contributions to candidates
· any particular candidate or political party
· “political” speech
· endorsing or opposing candidates

The Pulpit Initiative is…

· a bold defense of the First Amendment’s Establishment, Free Exercise, and Free Speech clauses
· about protecting core religious expression
· only related to what a pastor says from his pulpit, for example, on a Sunday morning (i.e., not about voter guides, candidate appearances, or other “political” activities)

Certainly, congregations and a church’s leadership can tell pastors they don’t want names of candidates spoken from the pulpit. But that is very different from government censorship. To government regulators, today’s “Gospel” may well be words that are tomorrow’s “politics.” ADF has already defended Americans in many cases where publicly preaching words straight from the Gospel has led to censorship…and even jail.  The bottom line is that no enforcement agency of the federal government should be telling a pastor what he can or cannot say from his pulpit about the Bible and his church’s teaching on the issues of the hour – even if the pastor’s sermon applies Scripture and church teaching to candidates and elections. Such agencies certainly cannot condition tax-exempt status–a status churches have always been constitutionally guaranteed since our founding–on the surrender of cherished First Amendment rights. In fact, for 166 years, churches freely preached directly on political candidates’ qualifications for office. That was no problem when the Constitution was signed, or when the first Commissioner of Internal Revenue was appointed in 1862, or when the federal income tax was authorized by the 16th Amendment in 1913. Nor were churches transformed into political machines. When the IRS code was amended in 1954 to ban “intervention” in political campaigns, it was an act of political retaliation by then-Sen. Lyndon Johnson against two anti-communist groups. It had nothing to do with “church politicking,” and scholars agree that churches were not the target of the regulation. ADF has the U.S. Constitution and the weight of American history on its side. Those who oppose the Pulpit Initiative have yet to make one constitutionally-derived argument against it. It is ironic that they laud the “separation of church and state” in opposition to the Pulpit Initiative, but by opposing the initiative, are asking for continued government control and censorship of a pastor’s sermon.The pulpit is no place for government regulators.
http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/guestvoices/2008/09/pulpit_initiative_about_freedo.html

Pastors do not have to break the law. They can merely live by faith in God to provide and now discontinue from giving out tax receipts on all donations and thus be free to speak as any ordinary citizen can. The Bible does not prohibit them from doing this now as well l ike Rev George Mueller did too. http://postedat.wordpress.com/2009/05/28/rev-george-muller/

 
  see first https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2009/03/27/ontario-judge-orders-website-to-reveal-identity/
It is still up to the courts or the Human Rights commissions  firstly to confirm, to define what is actually libelous, slanderous, a hate email message..  and someone’s else’s  statement and opinions  on the subject does not count. But to be on the safe side if you want to avoid court costs, ligation, if you are unsure if what you write is libel, slanderous, prosecutable better not post it on the net. Wrongfully accusing someone of posting a hate message or being a racists clearly can  be challenged in courts as a hate message itself and prosecutable.

September 6, 2008

appears to be unconcerned by this matter

“Quebec couple battles corporate giant and wins  Canwest News Service 
 
A former Quebec couple has scored a key legal victory for cellphone customers after a judge ruled they were duped into signing three-year contracts with Telus Mobility Inc. with a misleading promotion.Son Le-Tien and Thi Nguyen broke their contracts with Rogers and signed up with Telus after a 2004 promotion promised a free trip for two to a choice of 25 international cities. After discovering not all was as advertised from promotions partner Free Air fare, the Montreal-area couple tried to cancel their contracts.Telus retailer Contact Com DL Communications of Laval, Que., slapped them with penalties totalled of $1,794.72; all Telus contracts stipulate customers must pay $20 per month in penalty fees for every month remaining on a broken contract.When the couple refused to pay, the retailer handed the file over to a collection agency.The couple sued the Telus retailer in small claims court, and just won a key victory that industry watchers say should send a message to wireless phone companies about misleading promotions and about their billing practices.The couple signed up with Telus after they confirmed Sydney, Australia was part of the promotions package put together by the local Telus dealer. But when they tracked down an official with the travel company working out of an apartment building, they were informed Sydney and Asian cities were off limits. In her decision, Micheline Sasseville of the Quebec Court awarded the couple an additional $2,000, “given the seriousness of the violations” and the attitude of the defendant, who ” appears to be unconcerned by this matter.Technology consultant and telecommunication experts Jesse Hirsch says this response speaks volumes about the attitude of the cellphone industry. The outcome of the lawsuit, however, should be a wake-up call to them, he said.”There are so many Canadians who don’t understand the contracts they sign with their wireless providers and the marketing that leads them to sign them is misleading. But people don’t have the time, money and courage to fight back,” said Hirsch.”It shows that when people fight back, they win, but what a hassle.”

Michael Geist, Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce law at the University of Ottawa added: “The bigger issue here is it places the spotlight on these long-term contracts, which are becoming enormously problematic . . . It may embolden other consumers to similarly take action in this instance.”” 
 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 
Sadly this practice of false, misleading adverting is too often had even been done by some Internet service providers who also were, are  appears to be “unconcerned by this matter” and due to the millions of consumer involved the governments themselves should firstly step in, regulate and enforce the matters.. not the courts.
do see also
http://postedat.wordpress.com/2008/09/05/and-i-used-to-think-that-politicians-were-big-liars/
 
do see also https://thenonconformer.wordpress.com/2008/08/12/apple-mr-jobs-has-admitted-privacy-invasion-iphone/

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.