If the IRS Had to Step In, Clearly the Boys at the FEC Were Asleep on the Job

The L.A. Times reports:

The Internal Revenue Service has warned one of Southern California's largest and most liberal churches that it is at risk of losing its tax-exempt status because of an antiwar sermon two days before the 2004 presidential election.

Comments

[Ken Shultz]

This is hideously wrong.

Is it a tuquo que fallacy to suggest that the Baptist minister who kicked out church members for not supporting President Bush should also have his church's tax exemption status reviewed?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/05/07/AR2005050700972.html

...It is, isn't it?

Still, this is hideously wrong.

[William Minich]

This sounds a little hard to believe at first read - Personally, I'll sit back and let the story unfold. Perhaps there are other (tax related..etc..) issues that have not been revealed?

[Hakluyt]

Heh. Wonders never cease.

[joe]

Ken,

A "tu quoque" would require equivalency.

From the article: "Regas (the reverand who gave the sermon) said that "good people of profound faith" could vote for either man, and did not tell parishioners whom to support."

[Hakluyt]

Ken Shultz,

No. You are simply arguing that both should be treated equally, which is a legitimate way of using the concept of ethical symmetry. A tu qouque is more like this: you did X, and that is inconsistent with what you are arguing with in Y, ergo your statement with regard to Y is false. Its in part an argument about hypocrisy. Just because you are a hypocrite doesn't mean that your argument is wrong.

[Hakluyt]

Ken Shultz,

There are a bunch of logical fallacy primers (many of them associated with individuals fighting holocaust deniers strangely enough) floating around the web if your into such things.

[kwais]

If we must be taxed, why are churches exempt? It seems a violation of the first ammendment, because if tax status relies on what a church says, then government is inevitably involved in religion.

[crimethink]

kwais,

Any non-profit organization, religious or secular, that goes through the right hoops can become tax-exempt. Of course, part of being a non-profit organization is refraining from endorsing or opposing particular candidates for office. I haven't RTFA, but it sounds like this church is in hot water for opposing a policy, which nonprofits are permitted to do.

[Ken Shultz]

If we must be taxed, why are churches exempt?

Someone will surely issue with me on this, but I think it goes back to the Pilgrims, why they left England, etc.

There's a latent idea in the back of the American mind that feels that people should be allowed to support their church without supporting the government. This notion, I would think, predates the income tax.

..After all, the government might do something with the money that would violate the religious convictions of the people in that church.

[Shawn Smith]

Even though I'm an atheist, If Jesse's account is correct, this sounds pretty fucked up to me. Since when is political speech before an election verboten? And why the fuck is the IRS getting involved?

Asshats at the IRS.

BTW, please pardon the crude language.

[Ken Shultz]

While I need a refresher every once in a while, I'm quite familiar with most fallacies.

I'd argue that the government shouldn't interfere in what a preacher says to his congregation--regardless of whether it's overtly political and regardless of denomination. So as far as my argument goes, two wrongs don't make a right.

[Shem]

Considering that the Republican Party are the ones who view churches as their own personal fief/war chest, is anyone surprised that this prompts their ire?

[Shem]

I'd argue that the government shouldn't interfere in what a preacher says to his congregation

I couldn't disagree more. Ministers have no business talking about political matters whatsoever. Their singular job is to care for their followers. Overtly political ministers are simply not capable of this. They can't work unless their parishoners trust them, and that trust can't be developed if they have to wonder what the Reverend will think about their political stance.

If they want to be politicians, then they can go run for office. If they want to be ministers, however, then they have responsibilities that preclude them from acting politically.

[tpotdome]

Our only hope for sanity on this issue is that more liberal churches, PACs, blogs, etc. get nailed for these nasty, anti-free-speech laws. Then, naive libby partisans will abandon the incredulous notion that government regulation of political speech is somehow a liberal issue.

[Ken Shultz]

Considering that the Republican Party are the ones who view churches as their own personal fief/war chest, is anyone surprised that this prompts their ire?

As I've argued before, questions of religious freedom are often fought as if the balance between freedom from establishment and freedom of expression was a zero sum game. If you're suggesting that the religious right is spearheading this, I would find that a little surprising since they've been huge champions of the freedom of expression side of that battle.

I wouldn't put it past the religious right to take any side of an argument that would put intelligent design or prayer in public schools, but to see them completely abandon their freedom of expression stance would be surprising to me. Call me naive, but I doubt a Bush appointee has weighed in on this at all. I suspect it's just another example of bureaucracy run amok.

...even if the Bush Administration has weighed in on this and they're going forward with this per some internal policy, I'm apt to chalk it up as another example of Administration incompetence rather than evidence of some nefarious political motive.

[Ken Shultz]

Ministers have no business talking about political matters whatsoever.

How do you feel about Martin Luther King?

Their singular job is to care for their followers.

Their job is to preach the gospel as they understand it, and their job is protected by the Constitution.

They can't work unless their parishoners trust them, and that trust can't be developed if they have to wonder what the Reverend will think about their political stance.

If we were on The $100,000 Pyramid, I'd guess, "Things that Gaius Marius might say!"

...You sound as if you think that preachers, churches and their members exist for the benefit of society, but that's got it all backwards. Government exists for the benefit of the people. Church members are people. ...Preachers are people too.

If they want to be politicians, then they can go run for office.

Are there any other professions from which you would withhold the right to criticize our government? Should we allow politicians to criticize religious figures?

If they want to be ministers, however, then they have responsibilities that preclude them from acting politically.

I believe that. I believe in a heavenly rather than earthly kingdom. ...Unfortunately, not everyone reads that the same way I do. Some of the people who disagree with me happen to be ministers, and they should be able to express themselves as freely as anyone.

[Shem]

Ken, this has nothing to do with freedom of expression vs. freedom from establishment. This is about groups that have always had certain rights and responsibilities trying to abdicate their responsibilites while keeping their rights. The idea behind giving churches tax exemption back in the day was the idea that religious groups serve a higher purpose than secular ones, and so religious groups should be able to divorce themselves from government as much as possible. This guy in California screwed up. He should never have discussed politics in the first place. No minister should, no matter his views. And if this is outdated and suddenly ministers want back into the government, then churches can start paying their way through taxes.

I also have a hard time dismissing this as just a bureaucrat run amok. For a decade now, right-leaning groups have increased their actions within churches. It's gotten now to the point where some ministers are even being pressured to turn over membership rolls to Republican political operatives. Even worse, many would cheerfully do so if they thought that they could get away with it. But the government has looked the other way, viewing this as an internal matter for churches, until now, at this instance, where for the first time a political opponent of the present administration could be nailed. Maybe this wasn't part of some directive from on high, but I would be very, very surprised if it didn't involve a Republican somewhere turning this minister in for his comments.

[shecky]

Churches that assume a role as political organization should not be exempt from taxes.

Then again, I see no good coming from the IRS actively policing churches for such political violators.

[Shem]

How do you feel about Martin Luther King?

Since he wasn't acting as the head of a church when he made his statements, I'm fine with it. I'm not against minsters writing letters to the editor, protesting or doing anything else to exercise their rights of free speech, provided it stops as soon as they begin to act as head of a church. My mother, who was a minister, explained it to me thusly; "A minister's job goes much further than making a speech every week; she has to council families, newlyweds and many other groups. She has to provide care to people in bad situations, people of any political affiliation who require aid. How easy will it be for Candidate X's supporters to relate to the Rev enough to ask for help when in need if the Rev spent last week's sermon talking about how people who vote for Candidate X are un-Christian?" By making political statements, a minister runs the risk of rendering themself incapable of carrying out the office for which they are paid.

If we were on The $100,000 Pyramid, I'd guess, "Things that Gaius Marius might say!"

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this, or the statement that immediately follows it. For now I'll say that I disagree; that in my mind Churches aren't people, they are organizations that exist for the betterment of their members. Maybe you could expand further? I don't think the previous statement addresses your point very well.

[foobar]

Begin nitpicking:

With respect to the IRS, I don't think Churches tax exempt status or lack there of will change the amount of income tax they pay that much. Most Churches are going to have expenses aproximating revenue and wouldn't have much profit on which to pay taxes. At least the small protestant Churches I'm used to. The tax exempt status is more important in terms of write offs available to those who tithe.

Weren't the 527(c)'s of last election tax-exempt? But of the sort where donations were not tax deductible?

:End nitpicking.

Shem: By making political statements, a minister runs the risk of rendering themself incapable of carrying out the office for which they are paid.

And a minister's congegation is probably capable of deciding how to deal with incapable ministers without the help of the IRS.

[Shem]

Most Churches are going to have expenses aproximating revenue and wouldn't have much profit on which to pay taxes.

Income taxes yes. But Churches are also exempt from property taxes, as well as most of the other taxation schemes the government runs. The money that is saved by groups like the Roman Catholic Church, who hold large amounts of land in some areas, is incredible.

And a minister's congegation is probably capable of deciding how to deal with incapable ministers without the help of the IRS.

Perhaps. But there's two distinct issues here. First there's the question of whether ministers should be able to use the pulpit to further political ends. I find this to be anathema, but I agree, it's a matter best left for the individual church. But, this being resolved there's the matter of whether it's my job to subsidize this minister's political speech by giving his church a bye on their taxes. This is a matter for the IRS to deal with.

[Ken Shultz]

Since he wasn't acting as the head of a church when he made his statements, I'm fine with it.

My understanding is that when Martin Luther King led the bus boycott in 1955, he did so as the pastor of the Dexter Avenue Baptist Church. That was before he founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

The purpose of the SCLC was to organize churches to reform both Jim Crow laws and the laws of the United States of America. They preached a lot of political sermons in those days, but that didn't mean they weren't churches.

...If I'm wrong on the facts, someone please correct me.

They can't work unless their parishoners trust them, and that trust can't be developed if they have to wonder what the Reverend will think about their political stance.

When you talk about what preachers should do, I pretty much agree with you. ...but I'm not as interested in the way the world should be; I'm much more interested in the way it is and what we should do.

...and that's not such a thin distinction.

Some ministers' religious views will lead them to speak on political topics. I don't like that fact much, but there it is. Even so, a church doesn't stop being a church just because the minister criticizes the government. ...and that doesn't mean that I don't think that religious leaders should , in general, resist the temptation to engage in politics.

In some religions--take Islam for instance--some of the faithful don't recognize a separation of church and state at all. They believe God gave them the Qu'ran to establish just laws. ...Would you adjust such a mosque's tax free status just because the imam encouraged his congregation to engage in some political cause? ...Isn't that a legitimate expression of their religious convictions?

Maybe this wasn't part of some directive from on high, but I would be very, very surprised if it didn't involve a Republican somewhere turning this minister in for his comments.

I think you're probably right about that.

[Ken Shultz]

...and that doesn't mean that I don't think that religious leaders should , in general, resist the temptation to engage in politics.

Please note that this should read, "...and that doesn't mean I think that religious leaders shouldn't resist the temptation to engage in politics.

[Ken Shultz]

It must be gettin' late.

I don't think preachers should engage in politics. ...That's what I was trying to say.

[Shem]

Ken- I'm not necessasarily against sects maing statements on political topics. For example, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America, where my mother worked and where I attended, has come out strongly against the war on drugs. I don't have a problem with this, as it's sort of what Bishops and other heads of the religion do. It's a long process that involves all adult members and ideally nobody walks away without being heard. And ideally, it's not personal. Whatever the decision was, it had to be made, and this fact doesn't detract from the spirit that is supposed to exist within the Church. This is a vastly different situation from an individual minister making decisions from the pulpit as to how he will run his church, which cannot be anything other than personal.

It's overly concerned with principle rather than pragmatics I agree, but I tend to think that principle should be firmly established before we determine what can be sacrificed.

[rick]

Jesus believed in non-violent actions. The Golden Rule, turn the other cheek, or remaining silent in front of his accusers.

Remember the saying, "What would Jesus do?"

It should not be outside the scope of a Christian church to remind people of those ideals; even if construed to be pure opium served on election eve.

While I was hateful, I wanted to post: "What would Hitler say?"... "I broke no laws torturing people."

I prayed, now I just feel sorry for Bush.

[Phil]

Shem, I'm an atheist, but I understand that one of the many reasons people go to church is for spiritual guidance, part of which involves reconciling how their beliefs guide them in their decision making vis a vis the culture in which they live. It's inevitable that issues from real life are going to come up from the pulpit. It's ludicrous, as important an issue as the Iraq war is, to say that it should remain unaddressed by preachers acting as preachers.

[JimL]

I think saying that religion can have nothing to do with politics is a bit disingenuous. If a candidate is on one side of an issue that the church morally disagrees with (abortion, death penalty, condoms vs abstinence), I don?t see how a preacher, priest, or any person even endorsing another candidate in a sermon, homily, etc. could make it loose its status as tax-exempt. Now if they start buying political ads, that?s another thing. I can see the arguments against this, but shouldn?t we err on the side of free speech?

[Bungalow Bill]

I recently had a similar experience. Prior to the Texas election on an amendment banning gay marriage (which I oppose and have voted against), our minister gave a stirring sermon about the value of all committed relationships. So far, all good. But I felt deeply uncomfortable when she concluded by saying "Vote No on Proposition 2".

I think that the pulpit is a sacred position of trust and making overt political directives is just not appropriate.

[poco]

B. Bill, you shoulda turned her (her?!) in to the IRS. 😀

[Stretch]

This isn't about political speech, this is about intervening in an election.

The federal tax code prohibits tax-exempt organizations, including churches, from intervening in political campaigns and elections.

In other words, had the minister made the same exact sermon one year earlier, the IRS could not bring the same case against it. I have no problem with non-profit organizations, secular or religious, speaking about politics. But when it comes to tax-exemptions there is a huge difference between speaking about policies that your non-profit works for and actively campaigning for a specific candidate at the time of an election.

It's absurd to expect that a preacher never speak on matters that have political ramifications. If you're going to talk to people about how they should live their daily lives, inevitably politics are involved(if only that weren't true).

As for conspiracies, well I certainly wouldn't put it past any politician to pursue this type of action, but there is some precedent for this IRS action involving a church campaigning against Clinton. That suggests that this is not a one-way, Bush-administration-only policy. However, from the article it seems clear that the church campaigning against Clinton was demonstrably guilty of violating its tax-exempt status while this most recent case is muddier.

[R C Dean]

Since when is political speech before an election verboten?

Since McCain-Feingold passed, that's when. Although this isn't an M-F case, we are heading down that road. After all, if you aren't allowed to post a political opinion on a website, why should you be able to do so from a pulpit, regardless of your tax exempt status?

And why the fuck is the IRS getting involved?

Because the church has been claiming a tax exemption, and the IRS is looking into whether it engaged in campaign activities inconsistent with that tax exemption.

[Stretch]

I recently had a similar experience. Prior to the Texas election on an amendment banning gay marriage (which I oppose and have voted against), our minister gave a stirring sermon about the value of all committed relationships. So far, all good. But I felt deeply uncomfortable when she concluded by saying "Vote No on Proposition 2".

Exactly. I would say that speaking about the value of committed relationships is well within the purview of a minister, even though it has obvious (unavoidable) political ramifications. But, imo, she crossed the line from preacher to pundit when she told everyone how to vote.

[alkali]

Ken Schultz writes:

Someone will surely issue with me on this, but I think it goes back to the Pilgrims, why they left England, etc. There's a latent idea in the back of the American mind that feels that people should be allowed to support their church without supporting the government.

Just a bit of historical clarification: in colonial Massachusetts, the church could assess taxes on everyone in the church's area (the "parish") whether or not you attended. The first Massachusetts constitution recognized this practice.

This became unworkable in the early 1800s when competing churches were established in the same area (the Unitarian/Congregationalist split). In 1833, Massachusetts became the last US state to formally "disestablish" its state religion.

I suspect the reason that campaign contributions aren't tax deductible is that campaigning was (is?) thought to be a morally suspect practice, involving lots of drinking and what not. Tax-exempts aren't allowed to endorse candidates because otherwise charity money (good) could be used for campaigning (bad).

[Bananas]

Can someone please explain why preachers preaching that going to war and killing innocent people, when not attacked is a bad thing? I mean, there really is no justification for what we did within the bible, you can read into passages all you want.

if hte pastor positions his/her self to oppose this war, then there is nothing wrong with that, they are simply preaching proper christian values.

[ChrisO]

We should all be exempt from the federal income tax.

[isildur]

Hah! That's where my mom works. I guess since the LA Times has broken the story, I'm allowed to talk about it now; she's been griping about this situation for months.

... Not that I have anything else to say besides what's in the article.

[zach]

These arguments about whether or not a church should lose its tax-exempt status for certain kinds of political speech are really meaningless in the present case, for the simple fact that churches everywhere preach blatantly political messages regularly. Any prohibition against such a practice is hardly ever enforced, so the fact that it is being enforced in this case is highly suspect.

For the record, I think that if you're going to tax a business, you ought to tax a church. But if for some reason you decide not to tax the church, then that's that, and shouldn't be conditional on their politics. Every church is political in some way, after all. If they say they aren't, well, probably they're lefties.

[joe]

zach, and others,

The rules for tax exempt organizations don't forbid political activity. They forbid partisan activity, and campaigning for candidates.

[Shawn Smith]

R C Dean,

Thanks for responding to my only somewhat rhetorical questions. I just wanted to be another person to point out what a bad law M-F (such a great acronym) is.

[zach]

Duly noted joe, but my point is that I have been to plenty of churches that explicitly endorsed particular candidates (read: Bush) leading up to elections, and I never heard about those churches getting into trouble with the IRS or anyone else for doing so.

[Shem]

Phil and Zach-There's a pretty big difference between talking about an issue, like Iraq or abortion, and talking about specific candidates. The latter should never be acceptable, as it can only alienate parishoners, but I can see situations where the former would be all right. If the sect as a whole has a stated position, as with the above, then I see little wrong with talking about it, being that the issue had already been determined by a majority of the church's members. Where problems arise, however, is in situations where ministers are just stating their own views about how theological matters pertain to current events, something that should not be allowed. The pulpit is not a place for individual ministers to expound upon their opinions.

[Ken Shultz]

The latter should never be acceptable, as it can only alienate parishoners, but I can see situations where the former would be all right.

Where problems arise, however, is in situations where ministers are just stating their own views about how theological matters pertain to current events, something that should not be allowed.

Once again Shem, I'm havin' a tough time figurin' you out.

I think I agree with you, more or less, about what's "acceptable" and what should be "allowed"--I just don't think the government has any business determining what's "acceptable" and "allowed" from the pulpit. ...My problem is with the government interference here, not with what does or doesn't make for a good sermon. The quesiton is whether you support government interference in this.

[Shem]

Ken-That would depend upon when the words were spoken. Ideally a minister would never give a political opinion unless asked for it, and even then, it would never be in the service itself. This is actually the standard that most ministers adhere to. But as to actions against the others, well, that would depend on how bad it was. If it was just "Vote No on Prop 2!" in a sermon, then although I wouldn't particularly like it, I wouldn't really see it as grounds for a federal case. But, if it were in support of a particular candidate, then I would say that they should be nailed for it. Because that's just a line that shouldn't be crossed.

So, to sum that up; politics of any sort in the service itself ought to be frowned upon, but only support of specific candidates or parties should be grounds for IRS action.

[Shem]

I should add that politics becomes slightly more acceptable "in service" in the case of a sect which has taken a position on a specific political issue, but not that much more. But being that I don't think that it should be particulalry actionable either way, it's more of a personal opinion about how differences of opinion between members should be addressed.

[zach]

The pulpit is not a place for individual ministers to expound upon their opinions.

That's exactly what a pulpit is!

[Shem]

Not with regard to political matters it isn't. The pulpit is about God, and as such is supposed to be above petty, earthly concerns.

[Isaac Bartram]

The pulpit is about God, and as such is supposed to be above petty, earthly concerns.

I dunno, I'm not at all religious (in fact I'm just another atheist), but I think the the moral and spiritual implications of going to war are hardly petty, earthly concerns.

But then, I was raised a Quaker and ideas like that tend to stick, no matter how far you lapse. 🙂

As joe has already pointed out the article made it clear that the reverend went to some lengths to not endorse or condemn a candidate.

[Isaac Bartram]

...but I think that the moral...

[Seamus]

"This guy in California screwed up. He should never have discussed politics in the first place. No minister should, no matter his views."

Pastor Niemoller and Bishop von Galen, please call your offices.

[Seamus]

"The pulpit is about God, and as such is supposed to be above petty, earthly concerns."

Interestingly, that's exactly the attitude Hitler took toward the churches in Mein Kampf. As long as they stuck to religious matters, he'd be happy to leave them alone.

[Seamus]

I suppose I just invited someone to respond with "Mike Godwin, call your office."

[Shem]

I dunno, I'm not at all religious (in fact I'm just another atheist), but I think the the moral and spiritual implications of going to war are hardly petty, earthly concerns.

Churches are not supposed to be engines of social change. Christ even commands against doing anything within the Church that will lead to divisiveness. If your Quaker former co-religionists want to fight for social justice fine, but it shouldn't have anything to do with what they do on Sundays. Given the usual ideological spread, it's not as vital an issue among Quakers, but anomg Baptists a minister pushing the Iraq war in either direction could easily lead to a schism that would rip an otherwise harmonious church apart. In a situation where reasonable people can disagree, continuing the existance of the church is more important than seeing to some divisive political goal.

Seamus-When you want to make an actual argument, rather than citing people who might disagree with me and then inducing Godwin's Law to be invoked, I'm right here.

[Seamus]

Shem:

So do you agree with Hitler that Pastor Niemoller and Bishop von Galen were out of line to use their clerical positions to criticize the regime? If so, then I don't think we have enough common ground even to begin an argument.

[Shem]

Probably going to regret getting suckered into this, but...

If it's a situation on the level of millions, or even thousands of people being gassed to death, then everyone, everywhere, regardless of their organization has a responsibility to do what they can to stop it. Can you point me to something of similar import that churches are risking their status over today? If you can't, then raising Hitler as a parallell is just an attempt to cloud the issue with pointless sentiment, and is little better than saying that anyone, anywhere who agrees with anything Hitler ever said is a Nazi. Suitable tactics for a troll, but not the quality of commentary I'm used to seeing here.

[Ken Shultz]

If your Quaker former co-religionists want to fight for social justice fine, but it shouldn't have anything to do with what they do on Sundays.

You might consider qualifying your statements. Unless you tell us, we won't know, for instance, whether you mean that Quakers shouldn't fight for social justice on Sundays or whether you mean that the government should discriminate against Quakers that do.

And I don't understand by what authority you're telling people of other religions how they should interpret the bible. ...and if you're condoning government discrimination against people of other religions for interpreting biblical mandates differently, then, I have to ask, where in the Constitution does it say that the political speech of religious people is unprotected?

[Shem]

My apologies. Anyone religion who uses their services as cover to support political parties or candidates should lose their tax exemption. This is not discrimination, but rather applying the rules of taxation evenly to every organization which acts as a political group.

And I'm not necessasarily telling them how they should interpret it, just pointing out that many of the ideas we have about how religions should act in the public sphere are, if not exactly modern then at least not necessarily founding Christian ideals. The fact that such disagreement over the proper place of the Church can exist with reasonable people on both sides is just more evidence that churches that get too political can't do the jobs that they were created to accomplish, that is, serving their parishoners. Since one can use the Bible to justify any idea that anyone can have, whether political, social or religious, it becomes important to keep any one segment from forcing itself on the other side, something that would happen were individual ministers given a free hand to dabble in politics.

[Shem]

That second sentence should read "Any religion which uses..." Again, apologies.

[Ken Shultz]

You're ignoring the fact that for some--nay--many churches, social and, indeed, political activism is the very stuff from which their religion is made.

...It appears that you would, indeed, have the government discriminate against those churches, and your opinion regarding the validity of their doctrine would seem quite beside the point.

[Shem]

If social activism is what they seek, then by all means they can pursue it. As I noted above, I have no problem with the members of sects determining to support certain causes. My problem with the matter arises when individual ministers use their place of authority to support specific candidates and parties. Once they do that, they stop being a religion and start being just another PAC. Consequently, they should be treated as such.

Again, the only straightforward rule that I would make about this situation would concern the actions of ministers while serving as the head of their individual churches. Anything else is just my personal opinions, which I would never try to make into any sort of law. What the Southern Baptist Convocation or any other sect want to do with their time and energy is none of my concern. Reverend Smith's preaching a sermon in favor of Candidate Jones from his pulpit every Sunday, however, is crossing a line.

Regardless, thank you for providing the best discussion of the matter I've had in quite a long time. Been fascinating, I must say.

[Ken Shultz]

Regardless, thank you for providing the best discussion of the matter I've had in quite a long time. Been fascinating, I must say.

Right back at you. : )

[Seamus]

"If it's a situation on the level of millions, or even thousands of people being gassed to death, then everyone, everywhere, regardless of their organization has a responsibility to do what they can to stop it. "

Well, since Pastor Niemoller and Bishop von Galen *weren't* particularly talking about "millions, or even thousands of people being gassed to death," but rather about things like the Nazi religious program, and the euthanasia program, then I guess you *do* think that they should have shut up.

[Shem]

Seamus-I don't traditionally respond to trolls. I see no reason to break that tradition any further today.