Posted February 13th, 2009 by Michael Airhart

Twenty antigay Oklahoma politicians including state Rep. Sally Kern — who recently enjoyed the enthusiastic public support of Oklahoma-based Exodus ex-gay activist Stephen Black — voted to suppress the public record of the opening prayer for the Oklahoma House of Representatives. (Sixty-seven voted in favor of recording it.)

Here is the entirety of the prayer that they hated: (Read More)

Posted January 2nd, 2009 by Michael Airhart

Focus on the Family and Alliance Defense Fund inaccurately reported today:

The New Jersey Civil Rights Division has ruled that a church group broke the law by refusing to rent out its beachfront property to a same-sex couple for a civil-union ceremony.

“Our position remains the same,” said Brian Raum, senior legal counsel for ADF. “Religious organizations have a right to use their property in a way that’s consistent with their religious beliefs.

“It’s clear, based on Supreme Court decisions, that religious organizations have a First Amendment right to associate with messages that they agree with.”

According to the Newark Star-Ledger, the civil rights division ruled that a lawsuit may proceed, not that any law had been broken.

The Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association violated the terms of a special tax exemption which it received in exchange for granting public access to public boardwalk pavilion.

In short, the association sought, accepted for years, and ultimately misused public tax benefits to discriminate against members of the general public.

At no time was the association required to use its private property in a manner inconsistent with its beliefs.

The Star-Ledger elaborates:

Lawrence Lustberg, cooperating attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union, called the decision “a spectacular victory.”

“The primary message of the decision is once you open your facility to the general public, then it’s got to remain open on a non-discriminatory basis,” Lustberg said.

The New York Blade adds:

In a second ruling Monday, the Civil Rights Division said that the Camp Meeting Association did not discriminate against another lesbian couple that applied to use the pavilion for their civil union ceremony in April 2007. That’s because by then, the group had stopped renting out the pavilion entirely.

The association and its religious-right allies — preoccupied with financial gain at taxpayer expense — continue to distract public attention from a very simple choice that they face:

Either treat all taxpayers equally, or refuse taxpayer subsidies.

Posted November 19th, 2008 by Michael Airhart

The United States government has a long history of subsidizing churches, indirectly, for benefits that churches and other ostensibly non-profit organizations are perceived to provide to communities.

Churches are subsidized primarily in the form of public services for which they are exempted from tax collection. Churches’ neighbors, on the other hand, pay for air and surface transportation infrastructure and regulation; clean air, water, and food; schools; national defense; Social Security, and more.

Until President Bush’s White House popularized “faith-based initiatives” costing taxpayers billions of dollars that have been funneled to churches with little accountability, churches were required not to channel the free services that they receive into the pockets and campaigns of corrupt political partisans.

“Faith-based initiatives,” while well-intentioned, became a revolving door for billions of federal taxpayer dollars to be channeled from the pockets of taxpayers into thinly disguised projects that support Republican political causes.

In 2008, shameless church leaders abandoned even the pretense if non-partisanship, as they used generously taxpayer-aided pulpits to declare the Christian Barack Obama an antichrist and to crown the nominally agnostic John McCain and other Republicans as their anointed leaders. These religious leaders knew, of course, that the politicians receiving their support would send additional billions of taxpayer dollars into church employees’ pockets. The churches, in turn, become pawns of politicians who gain effective control of churches’ annual budgets.

Various petitions such as this one are now circulating, seeking to revoke the tax-exempt status of churches that channel taxpayer support into partisan political bribery and racketeering.

Advocates of a more libertarian or fair-tax approach seek instead to revoke the tax-exempt status of all churches.

Do churches provide services that justify tax-exempt status?

Should some or all churches be required to pay taxes like everyone else?

Discuss.