Categories
Politics Religion

FFRF Sues IRS To Enforce Seperation Of Church And State

 

The Freedom From Religion Foundation is taking the Internal Revenue Service to court over its failure to enforce electioneering restrictions against churches and religious organizations, calling it a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and of FFRF’s equal protection rights. FFRF filed the lawsuit today in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. (View the lawsuit here.)

A widely circulated Bloomberg news article quoted Russell Renwicks, with the IRS’ Tax-Exempt and Government Entities division, saying the IRS has suspended tax audits of churches. Other sources claim the IRS hasn’t been auditing churches since 2009. (See AP Religion Writer Rachel Zoll’s story, “IRS Not Enforcing Rules on Churches and Politics.”) Although an IRS spokesman claimed Renwicks “misspoke,” there appears to be no evidence of IRS inquiries or action in the past three years.

As many as 1,500 clergy reportedly violated the electioneering restrictions on Sunday, Oct. 7, 2012, notes FFRF’s legal complaint. The complaint also references “blatantly political” full-page ads running in the three Sundays leading up to the presidential elections by the Billy Graham Evangelical Association.

FFRF, a state/church watchdog based in Madison, Wis., is asking the the federal court to enjoin IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman from continuing “a policy of non-enforcement of the electioneering restrictions against churches and religious organizations.”

Additionally, FFRF seeks to order Shulman “to authorize a high-ranking official within the IRS to approve and initiate enforcement of the restrictions of §501(c)(3) against churches and religious organizations, including the electioneering restrictions, as required by law.”

FFRF has more than 19,000 members nationwide “who are opposed to government preferences and favoritism toward religion.” FFRF is regularly contacted by its members and members of the public over specific and general violations of church electioneering restrictions, and FFRF staff attorneys regularly ask the IRS to investigate such violations.

This non-enforcement “constitutes preferential treatment to churches and religious organizations that is not provided to other tax-exempt organizations, including FFRF,” the complaint notes. “Churches and religious organizations obtain a significant benefit as a result of being non-exempt from income taxation, while also being able to preferentially engage in electioneering, which is something secular tax-exempt organizations cannot do.”

This preferential tax exemption involves more than $100 billion annually in tax-free contributions to churches and religious organizations in the United States.

In addition to reporting the Graham ministry’s electioneering to the IRS, FFRF has sent letters of complaint to the IRS involving 27 other such violations so far this year. Recent complaints include:

• Green Bay Bishop David L. Ricken, who wrote an article on diocesan letterhead inserted in all parish bulletins about voting and choosing the president and other offices. Ricken warned that if Catholics vote for a party or candidate who supports abortion rights or marriage equality, “you could be morally ‘complicit’ with these choices which are intrinsically evil. This could put your own soul in jeopardy.” (Read full FFRF letter to IRS.)

• Peoria Bishop Daniel R. Jenky, who, in an April homily, sharply criticized President Obama, referencing the 2012 presidential election, saying Obama was “following a similar path” as Hitler and Stalin. Jenky said “every practicing Catholic must vote, and must vote their Catholic consciences. . .” (Read full FFRF letter to IRS.)

• Bishop Robert Morlino of Madison, Wis., who wrote a Nov. 1 article, “Official guidelines for forming a Catholic conscience in the Diocese of Madison,” published in the Catholic Herald, spelling out “non-negotiable” political areas. “No Catholic may, in good conscience, vote for ‘pro-choice’ candidates [or] . . . for candidates who promote ‘same-sex marriage.’ ” (Read full FFRF letter to IRS.)

The lawsuit, FFRF v. IRS, (12-cv-818), was filed by attorney Richard L. Bolton on behalf of FFRF.

donate legal

Click here to request information about FFRF.

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, based in Madison, Wis., a 501(c)(3) nonprofit educational charity, is the nation’s largest association of freethinkers (atheists, agnostics), and has been working since 1978 to keep religion and government separate.

Categories
Religion Sex

Showtime’s Polyamory series

Very very curious to see Showtime’s new series Polyamory.

Of course there are so many ways to structure relationships, and of course a reality show about poly folks is going to have to sensationalize it. But after Sister Wives and Big Love I’m excited to see a portrayal of non-traditional relationship structures minus the religion.

So do I have to get Showtime now?

Categories
Booty Politics Politics Religion Sex

Shame on you, North Carolina.

Oh North Carolina.

You exhaust me.

I am cynical enough that I wasn’t surprised by the news that North Carolina voted for an amendment to their state constitution to ban same sex marriage. As if their law banning it wasn’t enough. Better make it double secret safe.

If you have to defend it that hard, when do you come to the realization that obviously your opinions are getting a little silly and outdated.

30 states in the nation are so afraid that they gays might ruin the sanctity of their god fearing marriages that they won’t allow consenting adults to do what they damn please.

One day we’ll get it right, but until then, le sigh…

Categories
Politics Religion Science Sex

Right Wing Homophobes, Really Just Afraid Of Themselves?

My favorite kind of science is the “duh” science. Usually people make fun of it, because the published findings have titles like “Water makes you wet.” or “Hungry people like food.” Sure you can laugh, but without someone going out and doing this basic science, its impossible to move on to more complicated and advanced things. So when I read this recent studies headline “Is Some Homophobia Self-Phobia?” all I could say to myself was “duh!”

Homophobia is more pronounced in individuals with an unacknowledged attraction to the same sex and who grew up with authoritarian parents who forbade such desires, a series of psychology studies demonstrates.

The study is the first to document the role that both parenting and sexual orientation play in the formation of intense and visceral fear of homosexuals, including self-reported homophobic attitudes, discriminatory bias, implicit hostility towards gays, and endorsement of anti-gay policies. Conducted by a team from the University of Rochester, the University of Essex, England, and the University of California in Santa Barbara, the research will be published the April issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

“Individuals who identify as straight but in psychological tests show a strong attraction to the same sex may be threatened by gays and lesbians because homosexuals remind them of similar tendencies within themselves,” explains Netta Weinstein, a lecturer at the University of Essex and the study’s lead author.

“In many cases these are people who are at war with themselves and they are turning this internal conflict outward,” adds co-author Richard Ryan, professor of psychology at the University of Rochester who helped direct the research.

The paper includes four separate experiments, conducted in the United States and Germany, with each study involving an average of 160 college students. The findings provide new empirical evidence to support the psychoanalytic theory that the fear, anxiety, and aversion that some seemingly heterosexual people hold toward gays and lesbians can grow out of their own repressed same-sex desires, Ryan says. The results also support the more modern self-determination theory, developed by Ryan and Edward Deci at the University of Rochester, which links controlling parenting to poorer self-acceptance and difficulty valuing oneself unconditionally.

The findings may help to explain the personal dynamics behind some bullying and hate crimes directed at gays and lesbians, the authors argue. Media coverage of gay-related hate crimes suggests that attackers often perceive some level of threat from homosexuals. People in denial about their sexual orientation may lash out because gay targets threaten and bring this internal conflict to the forefront, the authors write.

The research also sheds light on high profile cases in which anti-gay public figures are caught engaging in same-sex sexual acts. The authors write that this dynamic of inner conflict may be reflected in such examples as Ted Haggard, the evangelical preacher who opposed gay marriage but was exposed in a gay sex scandal in 2006, and Glenn Murphy, Jr., former chairman of the Young Republican National Federation and vocal opponent of gay marriage, who was accused of sexually assaulting a 22-year-old man in 2007.

“We laugh at or make fun of such blatant hypocrisy, but in a real way, these people may often themselves be victims of repression and experience exaggerated feelings of threat,” says Ryan. “Homophobia is not a laughing matter. It can sometimes have tragic consequences,” Ryan says, pointing to cases such as the 1998 murder of Matthew Shepard or the 2011 shooting of Larry King.

To explore participants’ explicit and implicit sexual attraction, the researchers measured the discrepancies between what people say about their sexual orientation and how they react during a split-second timed task. Students were shown words and pictures on a computer screen and asked to put these in “gay” or “straight” categories. Before each of the 50 trials, participants were subliminally primed with either the word “me” or “others” flashed on the screen for 35 milliseconds. They were then shown the words “gay,” “straight,” “homosexual,” and “heterosexual” as well as pictures of straight and gay couples, and the computer tracked precisely their response times. A faster association of “me” with “gay” and a slower association of “me” with “straight” indicated an implicit gay orientation.

A second experiment, in which subjects were free to browse same-sex or opposite-sex photos, provided an additional measure of implicit sexual attraction.

Through a series of questionnaires, participants also reported on the type of parenting they experienced growing up, from authoritarian to democratic. Students were asked to agree or disagree with statements like: “I felt controlled and pressured in certain ways,” and “I felt free to be who I am.” For gauging the level of homophobia in a household, subjects responded to items like: “It would be upsetting for my mom to find out she was alone with a lesbian” or “My dad avoids gay men whenever possible.”

Finally, the researcher measured participants’ level of homophobia – both overt, as expressed in questionnaires on social policy and beliefs, and implicit, as revealed in word-completion tasks. In the latter, students wrote down the first three words that came to mind, for example for the prompt “k i _ _”. The study tracked the increase in the amount of aggressive words elicited after subliminally priming subjects with the word “gay” for 35 milliseconds.

Across all the studies, participants with supportive and accepting parents were more in touch with their implicit sexual orientation, while participants from authoritarian homes revealed the most discrepancy between explicit and implicit attraction.

“In a predominately heterosexual society, ‘know thyself’ can be a challenge for many gay individuals. But in controlling and homophobic homes, embracing a minority sexual orientation can be terrifying,” explains Weinstein. These individuals risk losing the love and approval of their parents if they admit to same sex attractions, so many people deny or repress that part of themselves, she said.

In addition, participants who reported themselves to be more heterosexual than their performance on the reaction time task indicated were most likely to react with hostility to gay others, the studies showed. That incongruence between implicit and explicit measures of sexual orientation predicted a variety of homophobic behaviors, including self-reported anti-gay attitudes, implicit hostility towards gays, endorsement of anti-gay policies, and discriminatory bias such as the assignment of harsher punishments for homosexuals, the authors conclude.

“This study shows that if you are feeling that kind of visceral reaction to an out-group, ask yourself, ‘Why?'” says Ryan. “Those intense emotions should serve as a call to self-reflection.”

The study had several limitations, the authors write. All participants were college students, so it may be helpful in future research to test these effects in younger adolescents still living at home and in older adults who have had more time to establish lives independent of their parents and to look at attitudes as they change over time.

Other contributors to the paper include Cody DeHaan and Nicole Legate from the University of Rochester, Andrew Przybylski from the University of Essex, and William Ryan from the University of California in Santa Barbara. (via)

Categories
Politics Religion

Rick Santorum Doesn’t Believe In Separation Of Church And State

He also thinks Kennedy was a chump for assuring the public that his Catholic views wouldn’t lead his policy…

WASHINGTON – Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum said Sunday that he doesn’t believe in the separation of church and state, adding that he was sickened by John F. Kennedy’s assurances to Baptist ministers 52 years ago that he would not impose his Catholic faith on them.

“I don’t believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,” Santorum, a devout Catholic, said in an interview from Michigan on ABC’s “This Week.”

“The First Amendment means the free exercise of religion and that means bringing people and their faith into the public square.”(via)

Not only is this foolish, do we really want to live in a theocracy? But it shows that this man has very little understanding of history, or the American Constitution. The only way to maintain freedom of religion in this country is to maintain freedom FROM religion. Look at any political state that instates an “official” religion. They either become barbaric theocracies (Iran, Israel, Palestine, etc etc), or the public by and large become atheist (most of Europe). And you know why most of Europe is now atheist? Because they remember the dark ages, the last time theocracy ran the world. I am all for people becoming atheists, but not if it means we have to have a second dark age.

The sad part about this is that Santorum actually thinks these things, and that a large number of Americans do to.

Categories
Booty Politics Politics Religion Sex

The (sexist) week in review.

The week in review.

So, this has been an enraging week. On so many levels. I feel like I was so overwhelmed with all the mayhem I couldn’t even bring myself to blog about it every day. So here is the week in review. All of my rage in a quick summary.

We had PETA’s not so surprising ad campaign depicting a vegan boyfriend fucking a girl so good she ends up with a broken neck.

We had the grammys welcoming Chris Brown with open and forgiving arms a mere 3 years after he beat then-girlfriend Rihanna just nights before the grammys.

There was the male dominated birth control hearing, producing the now infamous photo of dudes making crucial contraception decisions.

Let’s not forget Virginia’s new bill that would require women who want and abortion to get an ultrasound.

And finally, we had the charming and quaint declaration of millionaire backer of Rick Santorum that “gals” should just hold an aspirin between their knees as a form of contraception. I had one of those moments thinking that Foster Friess is like your creepy sexist uncle of yours who keeps saying inappropriate shit and you know one day you are just gonna crack and yell at him for being a sexists fuck. Then I realized I actually have that uncle. And he actually said that aspirin thing and old dudes actually think things like that.

Friess is responsible for about 40% of the funds of this super PAC behind Rick Santorum. As if money in politics wasn’t bad enough before, it simply baffles me that super PAC’s ever became acceptable. Can’t we just immediately outlaw shit that insane? Without thinking about it, debating it, or mulling it over? Super PAC’s make it possible for one sexist old man to nearly singlehandedly support one crazy candidate and have it be somehow okay.

I feel like the best option here would just be to embarrass the crap out of the man. “Oh, btdubs, Foster, you could actually still fuck with your knees together. Have you never had sex from behind? Oh, you are totally missing out, you should try it sometime.”

There is never going to be an acceptable contraceptive solution that suggests we all be a little more prudish. So just get the fuck over it. People fuck. They don’t necessarily want babies. This isn’t the 1950’s.

As far as I can tell, this week needs to simply vanish. I mean really.

The one and only moment of sanity in all this madness:

Thank god for constructive comedy.

Categories
Politics Religion Sex

Love Is Not A Poltical Statement

You know I really didn’t like “Princess Diaries”, but after seeing “Love and Other Drugs” and this, I am really starting to like Anne Hathaway.

With Rick Santorum once again “surging” (headline writers have to understand the pun they are making right…right?!) it looks like the republicans are going to, once again, drag out the old culture war shit. If you can’t win on the strength of your ideas,

I am so tired of bigoted homophobes making any of the following idiotic statements:

“My imaginary friend says two boys can’t get married”
“Two girls getting hitched will ruin my marriage”
“My imaginary friend wrote a book, it says two boys kissing is wrong”

Its even worse when they start saying things like this:

“We should make it illegal for two adults who love each other to get tax breaks for getting married because they both happen to be boys”
“Two girls who love each other can’t visit each other in the hospital even if one is dying”
“Two boys who love each other can’t adopt a baby that no one (including other people in our church) wants”

If you ask them WHY any of the previous statements should be true, they refer you to the first three. So basically the republicans have no good reason why gay people shouldn’t have all the rights as straight people. Not a single logical reason, not a single legal reasons, not a single good reason. They are simply bigots, pure and simple. In much the same way that we see racism as patently stupid, we will see homophobia one day. These people are going to go down as the villains of history. If only they could see this now, it would solve us all a lot of trouble.

Categories
Politics Religion Sex

New Survey Shows Majority Of Catholics Favor Birth Control Coverage

In what seems like an unending serious of WTF moments in our nation, a bunch of Catholics are upset because they are going to be forced to cover birth control in health care they give their employees To be clear, Churches are exempt, but Catholic charities, hospitals, etc. will have to offer the coverage.

More results here

Obama is taking is on the chin from these people.

The president’s tone was polite but not contrite, a person briefed on the calls told POLITICO: He explained that while his health care law exempted Catholic churches from the requirement, he wouldn’t carve out other Catholic institutions even though the Vatican views artificial birth control as contrary to the will of God.

Aides say Obama’s move, which has sparked thunderous denunciations as he prepares to address the National Prayer Breakfast Thursday, was motivated by personal conviction and his long-held belief that all health plans need to provide birth control to women.(via)

If I am an atheist and work at a catholic hospital I can’t get birth control covered under my health care plan, because some guy in Rome says its against his imaginary friends rules? Even if I am a Protestant, a Jew, or Hindu; because Rome says no birth control doesn’t get covered. I applaud Obama for standing up for the rights of these workers. Just because you work for a Catholic doesn’t mean you have to do every incomprehensible thing their leader says.

Just to get an idea of how silly this whole thing is. These are the same people who waited hundreds of years to admit the earth goes around the sun long after an overwhelming amount of evidence. They almost put a man to death for saying the same, and their main justification for these decisions, God told us to. Are these really the kind of people we should let help us decide important things?

I am not alone it seems, in fact a majority of Catholics themselves think that the catholic church should cover birth control.

A majority (55%) of Americans agree that “employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception and birth control at no cost.” Four-in-ten (40%) disagree with this requirement.

Key breakdowns

58% of all Catholics agree employers should be required to provide their employees with health care plans that cover contraception. That slides down to 52% for Catholic voters, 50% for white Catholics.
61% of religiously unaffiliated Americans say employer plans should cover contraception.
50%of white mainline Protestants want the coverage. However, for evangelical Protestants, that drops to 38%.

And perhaps of greater note among election-watchers:

Women are significantly more likely than men to agree that employers should be required to provide health care plans that cover contraception (62% vs. 47% respectively).

A second poll, also released today from Public Policy Polling, has similar findings. This poll, conducted at the request of Planned Parenthood, finds

…a majority of voters, including a majority of Catholics, don’t believe Catholic hospitals and universities should be exempted from providing the benefit.

…Independent voters support this benefit by a 55/36 margin; in fact, a majority of voters in every racial, age and religious category that we track express support. In particular, a 53 percent majority of Catholic voters, who were oversampled as part of this poll, favor the benefit, including fully 62 percent of Catholics who identify themselves as independents.(via)

In fact 98% of Catholics ALREADY have used birth control, so of course they want it covered under their insurance plan.

Why should the opinion of Catholics merit any consideration in this decision? There have been a million crazy ideas over the eons, from the idea that humors are what made you sick (and must be balanced with mercury), to the one that an invisible friend doesn’t want you to be on the pill. We wouldn’t allow someone who thinks the earth is flat to attend our geography convention, why do we let Catholics help us decide what gets covered under our health care?

I am glad Obama stood up to these folks, maybe there is hope yet for this nation.

Categories
Politics Religion

The Atheist Guide To The Elections

While I’m not the biggest fan of Penn Jillette, he breaks it down pretty good here.

Categories
Politics Religion Science

Breast Cancer Doesn’t Care About Your Religion

I have been increasingly frustrated by the right wing “pro-life” religious forces in this country. I understand their imaginary friend wrote a book and that book tells them a bunch of nonsense. I am a firm supporter of their right to think any crazy idea they want. In fact our country was founded on their right to believe that nonsense. Heck, I would even go so far as to fight for their right to believe that foolishness. I think its the American thing to do, fight for everyone’s right to believe anything they want.

However when your imaginary friend tells you to spend your life trying to deny funding to organizations who provide abortions, you are not being American. This country was founded on the freedom FROM religion as much as the freedom of religion. That means you are free to NOT get abortions, you are free NOT to give your money to cancer research, but when you actively work to de-fund these things for others you are imposing your religious views on people who may not share them. Its no different than a Catholic telling you that you are legally prohibited from eating meat on Fridays. It’s not how this country is supposed to work.

Cancer kills roughly half a million men and women every year in this country. There have been roughly 50 million abortions provided legally in this country since 1973, which works out to roughly 1.2 million per year. Roughly 5%-20% of that number were because of risk of health to the fetus or the mother.

Fighting against groups like Planned Parenthood isn’t “pro-life.” If you are really “pro-life” You would also care about the 1 in 2 people who will be diagnosed with cancer in their lifetime, and the 500,000+ of them that die from it every year. I would hope that the “promotion of life” doesn’t end once the baby is born. As such pro-lifers have just as much responsibility to fund cancer diagnosis, prevention, treatment, and research as you do fight abortion providers. All of which are done at places like Planned Parenthood.

It’s a pity that people are unable to understand complex and nuanced issues. They think Planned Parenthood = abortion. Their imaginary friend told them abortion is bad, so they hate Planned Parenthood. The reality of the situation is much more complex. Planned Parenthood also provides birth control (can’t have an abortion if you don’t get pregnant), breast cancer screening, STD tests (HPV causes cervical cancer), and a whole host of other treatments that save lives.

I am not sure one bolsters their “pro-life” credentials by keeping much needed and life saving treatments out of the hands of men and women. It boggles my mind that the major political party in this country that is linked to the pro-life movement, is also the one against HPV vaccines, universal health care, public funding of birth control, and sex education.

What further boggles my mind is that the inspiration for this stance is based on the ramblings of bronze age goat herders that was translated over and over again before undergoing 2000 years of politically based revision, translated a couple more times, and finally spoon fed by the powerful to the weak. We are talking about people who think that human beings can rise from the dead and that virgins can give birth, these are not the kind of people who we should be taking advice from!

The “pro-life” religious right should be regulated to the fringe of this discussion, instead they seem to be at its center. We have a group with a tenuous grip on reality, the constitution, and science trying to dictate what women should do with their own bodies. Any way you slice it they don’t appear to be up to the task of making that decision.