"Pastor Roger Byrd said that he just wanted to get people thinking. So last Thursday, he put a new message on the sign at the Jonesville Church of God.He is just asking, mind you--just TRYING TO GET PEOPLE TO THINK. HE ISN'T A RACIST OR A MORON OR AN IDIOT.
It reads: 'Obama, Osama, hmm, are they brothers?'"
Sigh. Amazing that these people get to vote, drive cars, and carry weapons. Worse, of course, is his assumption that if Obama were a Muslim, that would make him the same as bin Laden.
12 comments:
You know my penchant for lousy church signs, and this ranks right up there with one of the worst.
I think even worse than the outright denial that it was not meant to be offensive, racial, hurtful, or just plain mean, is the pastor's assumption that faith in Christ is a prerequisite for office.
Not only that Christian faith is a prerequisite for office, but for being a non-terrorist.
"Byrd, Nerd, Turd, hmm....."
Glad this made the paper. Maybe the IRS will yank their tax exempt status.
BB
Maybe the IRS will yank their tax exempt status.
I hope so. I have heard similar talk about Rev. Wright's church. I am fine with them entering this arena, but they shouldn't expect some favored tax status.
This doesn't seem like a tax exempt issue to me. It isn't that people like Reverend Wright or this guy can't talk about political issues, right? It is about whether they openly endorse a candidate as an official of the church?
I think they have a right to be this stupid. I just hate that they are this stupid.
Tax exemption would not apply here. Their tax exemption is only threatened if they openly endorse a candidate in some sort of official capacity, as in a worship service or in a wily sort of way...
And this is blatant stupidity. In the video, the pastor reminded me of the guys that news crews always find to describe a car accident or when a tornado strikes a trailer park.
I agree that this isn't 'endorsement' of one candidate, but doesn't going after one candidate to create doubt about him at least qualify as 'wiley'? tis guy's a small fish and probably just ignorant (in the true definition of the word). I had the same post-tornado interview image.
With Wright I actually agree with alot of what he has said. I do get uncomfortable when in his sermons he' s obviously endosing one candidate (Obama) over the other (Clinton). I didn't like it when Fallwell did it either. I think there's a line between the prophet speaking truth to power and being partisan while also getting church and clergy tax advantages. Of course these are legal technicalities I'll need Tony to help me with. Later-BB
I understand your point, BB, I guess one of my criticisms of the modern evangelical church is their lack of prophetic voice. For example, I would love it if that church sign said, "Christians don't torture," or "Christians don't invade countries because they have daddy issues."
I think this moron has a right to speak to the muslim issue. I just think he is dumber than a sack of hammers and, unfortunately, not as rare as we would like.
Melissa Rogers notes the church took down the sign and also addresses the IRS rules. I think she knows this stuff better than most, so I will defer to her.
In terms of the IRS rules, the red flag here was more in terms of an implied statement of opposition to a candidate for elective public office rather than an implied endorsement of a such candidate, but both are equally problematic under those rules. The IRS has said: "Even if a statement does not expressly tell an audience to vote for or against a specific candidate, an organization delivering the statement is at risk of violating the political campaign intervention prohibition if there is any message favoring or opposing a candidate." So the Church of God is properly taking steps to distance itself from the Jonesville church's action, protect its own status as a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt entity, and send a message to local church bodies, including the Jonesville church.
Having said that, it would have been better if the denomination had spoken more directly and emphatically to the issues of Christian ethics that were raised here. After all, the single goal and purpose of the Church that is enumerated in its statement certainly has been damaged by this episode. In my view, the fact that this denomination may be organized such that local churches have autonomy to make their own decisions does not mean that a national body cannot say what it thinks about those decisions in appropriate cases. Given the national attention that this case has received, it seems to me that this is one of those cases. Perhaps the Church of God will have more to say about this case in other statements or communications.
In any case, I hope the Jonesville Church of God and its pastor have had a change of heart as well as a change of their sign's message.
Streak beat me to it. I had read Melissa's post on this earlier and after reading the bootlegger's comment, I decided it would be better to reference her. She stated it much better than I could have.
I would add though, the IRS code is a little vague ("...is at risk...") and it allowed Falwell and continues to allow Drake to get away with that kind of foolishness, whereas if a Jeremiah Wright calls it like he sees it, someone invariably will call "foul" and "IRS".
Tony- How does that play out if, as Streak says, we desire a "prophetic" voice but don't want partisan politics from our non-prophets, ooops, I'm mean non-profits? If a pastor is speaking against, for example, war and aggression, and then chastises Clinton for voting for granting Bush's request to go to war is she/he over the line? Is the line at a Dobson-like voting guide? Or is the answer to speak against war and then say, "Vote for the candidate of your choice?" Lots of other "what ifs" but I'll leave it at that.
Later-BB
BB,
I don't know a lot of the history of the tax codes and their effect on ministries, just the rules of what can and cannot be said.
I try to be as careful as I can and speak more along the lines of ideas rather than specific people. It is easy to speak of man's inhumanity to other men, i.e., torture and then link that to the crisis at Abu Ghraib. Then conversation usually follows after the service where I can speak candidly without fear of repercussion either to myself or the church I serve.
For a man like Wile E. Drake to purposefully endorse a candidate is just pure bravado and thumbing his nose at the system; in my opinion, blatantly unChristian. Then he cries foul when the authorities want to hold him accountable.
Typically, I leave politics alone until I am asked. I look at it this way, as long as I am preaching the message of the cross, reconciliation of a lost world to God, then prayerfully, people will see that much of the values we say we cling to this particular administration abhors.
For the first time in a long time, a church person asked my opinion on torture and what a Christian response should be, and Bush's ready approval of it.
Though I would much rather see an outcry, rage in the people of God, light bulbs typically only come on one at a time.
You mentioned a Dobson like voting guide...as long as they don't endorse, then they are OK. I can invite candidates to come and speak from the pulpit (I wouldn't) as long as I invite the opposing candidate to rebut.
The hard and fast rule is supposed to be "do not endorse", however, that rule gets broken all the time. I don't know if that helps, and all of what I said, you probably already knew. But nevertheless, thanks for asking my thoughts.
Post a Comment