News Top Stories

Freedom from Religion Foundation group sues IRS over tax exemption

A billboard sponsored by the Freedom from Religion Foundation in Harrisburg, Pa. Photo courtesy of Creative Commons

(RNS) — An atheist relief organization has sued the Internal Revenue Service, claiming its tax-exempt status was unfairly revoked.

IRS officials say the group failed to file required annual information to the agency for three years.

But the group’s leaders say churches do the same thing all the time and are never penalized.

Nonbelief Relief, the charitable arm of the Freedom from Religion Foundation, filed a complaint Thursday (Oct. 11) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, after its tax-exempt status was automatically revoked.

The Aug. 20 IRS revocation notice said the relief organization failed to file an “information return” — known as a Form 990 — for three consecutive years.

In its complaint, the charity said it “objects to having to file Form 990 while churches and church-related organizations do not.”

Freedom from Religion Foundation co-president Annie Laurie Gaylor speaks at the Religion News Association conference on Sept. 13, 2018, in Columbus, Ohio. RNS photo by Kit Doyle

Annie Laurie Gaylor, president of the charity and FFRF co-president, said the suit is “part and parcel” of an ongoing legal strategy of the Wisconsin-based atheist group that has challenged an “IRS code that uniquely advantages religion over nonreligion.”

Gaylor said Nonbelief Relief, which has supported groups such as Doctors Without Borders and provided scholarships to a camp program for atheists, informed the IRS when it sought tax-exempt status in 2015 that it would not be filing the usual 990s that many charities submit.

“We knew that there would be consequences, most likely,” she told Religion News Service the day before the complaint was filed. “We’re just doing the same thing that churches do, and church-related groups, and they do not lose their tax exemption for not filing, so why should we?”

According to the complaint, Nonbelief Relief has donated more than $590,000 to recipients, including $4,000 toward the legal defense of an ex-Muslim atheist whose father “pressed bogus charges because she left religion.”

Gaylor said other current and pending donation recipients include people seeking to flee South Asian countries after their relatives have been killed or they have been threatened for their atheism.

“Some of their stories are very chilling,” she said. “We don’t want to see people hacked to death because they’re atheists.”

With the revocation of the tax-exempt status, donors can no longer make tax-deductible contributions to the relief organization.

“We have to start paying taxes on those donations as well, so they won’t go as far,” she said.

Gaylor predicted that the charity, which currently has about $75,000 in assets, could become defunct.

The Form 990 primarily details a nonprofit’s income and expenses. Image courtesy of the IRS

Asked if FFRF and Nonbelief Relief want all charities to not have to submit 990s, Gaylor said she believes in transparency. But she thinks there is a disparity in the required reporting of how tax-exempt money is spent.

“It’s not up to us to come up with the remedy,” she said. “It’s up to the courts.”

Faith-based organizations not strictly tied to a particular church, such as World Relief, are required to file annual 990s. But churches and other houses of worship are not.

The 990 tax form details a nonprofit’s income, expenses and, in some cases, the salaries of its leaders.

Gaylor said she thinks other nonprofit groups could also sue over the disparity about who does and does not have to provide such information.

Nonbelief Relief seeks reinstatement of its tax-exempt status and an injunction on what it considers IRS preferential exemption for churches from annual information filings. That preferential treatment of religious groups is unconstitutional, the complaint claims.

The FFRF was involved in an earlier court case about its own filing of 990s but it was dismissed in 2014 due to lack of standing to sue. The organization feared sanctions if it did not continue to provide the information the IRS required.

“We could not jeopardize the Freedom from Religion Foundation’s status and our donors by failing to file the Form 990,” Gaylor said of the earlier case.

Nonbelief Relief’s board consists of Gaylor, her husband and FFRF co-president Dan Barker and three other people, including a sister-in-law.

All board members serve as volunteers and do not collect a salary, she said.

Freedom from Religion Foundation panelists Annie Laurie Gaylor, from left, Elizabeth Cavell and Andrew Seidel answer questions during the Religion News Association conference Sept. 13, 2018, in Columbus, Ohio. RNS photo by Kit Doyle

Asked why the charity opted not to provide the information to the IRS while the FFRF continues to do so, Gaylor said the judicial system put the organization in a bind.

“We felt the courts had put us in an untenable position,” she said. “We had 23,000 members/donors at that time, expecting their donations to be deductible for income-tax purposes.”

The current suit also claims that the IRS “does not enforce all of the tax-exempt requirements against churches and affiliated religious organizations,” including partisan politicking. It cited the September appearance of evangelical pastors Paula White and Terri Copeland Pearsons at a Texas church where they encouraged congregants to “vote red … without any fear that the IRS is going to take away your right to donate to this church and deduct it from your taxes.”

Another challenge by the FFRF, against tax-free housing for clergy, has been appealed to the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

About the author

Adelle M. Banks

Adelle M. Banks, production editor and a national reporter, joined RNS in 1995. An award-winning journalist, she previously was the religion reporter at the Orlando Sentinel and a reporter at The Providence Journal and newspapers in the upstate New York communities of Syracuse and Binghamton.

362 Comments

Click here to post a comment

  • Militant atheists really want to stop humans from the desire for religion (which they can’t, because God put in a us a desire for Him).

    They hide behind “separation” of church and state arguments.

    What’s funny is the more they work against religion, the more the desire fractures and invents new religions, like environmentalism, pasificism..and all of these, most of which have surfaced since the Enlightenment.

    Marxism
    Bolshevism (Communism)
    Nazism.
    Militant atheism
    Materialistic pantheism
    Strict materialism
    Hedonism
    Spiritualistic and occult atheism
    Humanism.
    Positivism
    Liberalism
    Progressivism
    Subjectivism
    Relativism
    Rationalism
    Empiricism
    Idealism
    Agnosticism
    Utilitarianism
    Historicism
    Scientism
    Pragmatism
    Existentialism
    Personalism
    “Phenomenology-ism”
    Structuralism
    Deconstructionism
    Nihilism

    And there are more.

    Stunning isn’t it?

  • So you are railing against use of objectively credible fact finding methods in favor of glorified voodoo. Mostly by throwing together a word salad of fictitious associations.

    Most galling is pretending Nazis were atheists. No they were reactionary Christians. Just like you.

  • “With the revocation of the tax-exempt status, donors can no longer make tax-deductible contributions to the relief organization.”

    Atheists must make an insane amount of money if they are able to give more than the standard deduction. I can’t tell if the group wants to not be required to fill out the form or if they just want everyone to fill out the form. I also wonder how much the lawsuit is going to cost them, when it comes to saving a person from being hacked to death, atheist or otherwise, I wouldn’t think a form would have much of a consequence.

    Hopefully they can make their point quickly and get back to the values of saving and bettering lives.

  • Look them up…they’re all legitimate (and distinct!!) belief systems, most of them have come on the scene since the Enlightenment.

  • Not my word salad…go to a university!

    People who claim they don’t believe in God, invent their own gods.

    Today people worship their self-interpreted sexual identity!!!

  • LOL, the kind of nonsense you guys spew in defense of not believing glorified voodoo is pathetic. Almost as bad as the garbage you try to tramp stamp in the name of your religion. Your script is quite silly outside fundamentalist echo chamber you are used to giving in.

    You clearly never bothered to ask atheists what they believe in an open honest manner. So you make up crap about them in order to support your own belief.

    You would find it rude if I made up stuff about your beliefs, but you find no problem in doing it about others. That is the difference between being a decent moral person and a bigot.

    Btw any claim of that your morality comes from religion speaks badly of you. Positing one is merely a psychopath on a divine leash than a person who understands morality.

  • Christians would do well not to gloat over this. When religion needs a government-conferred tax-exempt status in order to stay afloat financially in the marketplace of ideas, that doesn’t really say much for religion’s true viability, does it?

  • This was a separate organization created specifically to force this action by the IRS. Yes they have done a huge amount of good, but the point of creating a separate non-profit was to legally separate the two organizations to insulate the parent 501c3 from IRS retaliation.

    The whole point btw is not to do anything to religious organizations, but to force the IRS to treat religious and non-religious non-profits the same. Just as an example, non-religious non-profits have to release the salary of their top executives, while churches do not.

  • Not really. You’ve just selected a group of words, added “ism” to them, and magically decreed them religions. At any rate, you’re still at least an order of magnitude away from the number of Christian sects in the US alone.

  • With the exception of Phemonology-ism, all of these words are legitimate, studied, still promoted belief systems.

  • The longer the response the weaker the argument. You’re done here.

    Says the clown who initially posted 37 lines of nonsense.

  • Most taxpayers didn’t itemize before the new tax law and yet most people donated to charities anyway. The absence of tax-exempt status doesn’t mean you can’t give money to an organization. It just means you can’t included it as an itemized deduction.

  • People invent their own gods, and have always done so. As models become non-functional with the accumulation of knowledge, new versions are invented. The current editions will go the same route.

  • Sure they are. Find an adherent and see what their reaction is when you tell them they’re wrong. LOL.

  • Most Christians have been infected by one or more of these isms.

    take the loud mouth social justice warrior Catholics and Christians….marxism.

  • Since you believe, I assume, that atheism is a religion, then this organization shouldn’t have to file the tax form just like any other religious group.

  • No, you were actually trying to argue (and failing); now you’re just trying to backpedal (and failing again).

  • No, you kept claiming they were “belief systems”. Most of what you listed were not belief systems.

  • No, they chose religious freedom:

    The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbour to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg. — Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, (1781)

    If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mahometans [Muslims], Jews, or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists. — George Washington to Tench Tilghman, 24 March 1784

  • Sorry, just can’t make your statement correct by insisting it’s correct. A person can fall under more than one of your descriptions, does that mean they have multiple conflicting belief systems?

    Belief system: a set of principles or tenets which together form the basis of a religion, philosophy, or moral code.

  • I believe in equal treatment for all non-profits–churches, youth groups, charitable/social service groups. Churches have objected to the extra burden of having to fill out the forms, but that applies to small non-profit, non-church groups as well.

  • Militant Christians want to exterminate LGBTQ+ people and all non-Christians. Get your head out of your lower chakra.

  • Hobby Lobby claimed that filling out a form to get out of paying for birth control was an “undue burden” on their free speech, LOL.

  • Please don’t confuse celibacy, with continence, or with chastity.

    The superficial, poorly educated, but highly opinionated class tend to do that.

    All people are called to chastity. It’s a virtue.
    Chastity is using one’s sexual “faculties” in accord with one’s state in life.
    A married person thus..doesn’t live continence, but chastity, unless the couple is separated for some time, say if the husband is in the military and deploys to another country for some period of time. Then they live their chastity by being continent.

    And living chastely means more than simply being married and having sex.

    One’s sexual faculties and activities must still be ordered to the spouse’s greatest good.

  • They specifically forbade the government from establishing an official religion. Suck it up.

  • Look these are belief systems.

    Let me give you a free class.

    Beliefs are assertions, declarations.
    One can have beliefs about many things, material phenomenon, and immaterial ideas as well.

    A set of assertions (each a belief), when pulled together in an ordered way, such that there are no internal contradictions, constitutes is a belief system. Such a system can hypothetically explain various phenomena…the working of an economy, salvation history, educational schemes, an approach to art, etc.

    Marxism is thus a belief system.
    Historicism is a belief system.
    Scientism is a belief system.

    Look these up and quick being so lazy, opinionated and wholly without any data.

  • Who cares? Put the screws to ‘em.
    They were looking for trouble when the decided not to file the proper forms; and now they got what they wanted.
    I hope the IRS bankrupts them like Obama’s IRS did to the tea party organizations.

  • And it was. The natural state should be to be able to freely associate, to speak, to write.

    You’re so wrapped up in government, you’ve been hoodwinked.

  • Who”s gloating? These days, atheism has become self-refuting. Practically giving Christians a free ride, honestly. These FFRF tax-kerfluffles are just extra entertainment.

  • A set of assertions (each a belief), when pulled together in an ordered way

    Thanks for shooting yourself in the foot. Yes, these are mostly separate beliefs that any particular person may hold various sets of.

    That in itself shows that these are not “belief systems”, but just various beliefs.

  • You think that a virgin gave birth. You clearly have no understanding of human reproduction, and should seek professional help for your mental health issues.

  • You think that genocide of LGBTQ+ people is funny, for some reason. Seek professional help.

  • But only religious tax-exempt organizations don’t have to file a 990. That’s religious favoritism, and the FFRF is asserting that’s unconstitutional.

  • It’s not necessary. There are very few examples of churches giving huge salaries that are NOT KNOWN to their members.

    Conversely, the salaries of many 501(c)-3’s — Red Cross, Colleges and Universities, etc. — are many times hidden.

  • It’s not necessary.

    That’s not your decision to make (and that’s not the only difference). If the FFRF wants to not file a 990, they lose their status — if a church doesn’t file a 990, they keep their status. This is discrimination on the basis of religion.

  • “Genocide”.

    Now this is why rational people dismiss (unfairly, I might say) the whole community. A few of them, like Charlotte, don’t have the intellectual capacity to construct a strong argument, so they use their untempered and tamed EMOTIONAL capacity to make a loud and ridiculous and embarrassing argument.

    The emotions co-op their intellect AND their will, making them serve foolishly.

    Your fellow sodomites should quietly correct you.

  • No, the only fascists are the ones we see on TV banging on cars, dragging people on sidewalks, accosting people in restaurants and elevators…etc.

    It’s going to end badly for some liberal leftist when they run into an AR-15 fanatic.

  • I’m not asserting that Nazis were Christians. They weren’t. Hitler and his key supporters despised The Church. Pope Piux XII worked against Hitler.

  • Why a badly educated, emotionally untethered sodomite hangs around a religious news forum is a wonder.

  • It’s going to end badly for some liberal leftist when they run into an AR-15 fanatic.

    As opposed to the rightwing nuts driving cars?

  • ZZzzz…..and Jefferson spend federal tax monies to pay pastors and missionaries to convert and educate people.

  • You’re not as clever as you hoped.

    People can hold entirely different sets of beliefs about the economy, the use of science, religion.

    No problem.

    Now, you’ve reduced yourself to playing with yourself and words. Later.

  • Christians don’t approve of the lifestyle. Do you think that Republicans and conservatives “hate” Socialists, Marxists, or Communist peoples ?

    Let me guess…..you are a few yards short of a 100 IQ, right toots?

  • I’m not asserting that Nazis were Christians. They weren’t.

    Yes, that’s what I meant. Do you have a cite for Nazis not being Christians? Joseph Goebbles was excommunicated (for marrying a Protestant).

    Hitler and his key supporters despised The Church.

    Cite?

    Pope Piux XII worked against Hitler.

    That doesn’t show that Nazis weren’t Christians. Try a google image search for priests giving nazi salute.

  • If he was threatened by some left-wing nutcase professor, that would explain why he panicked and floored his accelerator.

    The rest of the march was peaceful, right ?

    And of course, the GOP has nothing to do with right-wing extremists, while the Democratic Party actively embraces political and racial extremists and bigots.

  • People can hold entirely different sets of beliefs about the economy, the use of science, religion.

    Exactly. That’s why e.g. atheism ISN’T A BELIEF SYSTEM.

    Because you can’t conclude anything other than an atheist lacks belief in gods.

    It isn’t a belief system.

  • Christians will bankrupt themselves first, because they do not understand math or science. #VirginsDontGiveBirth

  • It’s common knowledge. I don’t have a cite that Socialists and Communists were despised by The Church, either……but it’s true.

    P.S. The Earth is round, not flat, but I don’t have a cite for that either !

  • If he was threatened by some left-wing nutcase professor, that would explain why he panicked and floored his accelerator.

    James Alex Fields is a neo-nazi and he’s charged with first-degree murder. Looks like actual police and district attorneys don’t agree with your “panic defense”.

    The rest of the march was peaceful, right ?

    “Only one murder” doesn’t make it “peaceful”.

    And of course, the GOP has nothing to do with right-wing extremists

    The GOP has actual nazis running.

  • Yeah, a few priests and even Bishops were Hitler lackeys. Much like today’s bishops are lackeys for leftist tripe.

  • “Genocide”
    “Lynching”.

    It’s almost like Charlotte NEEDS to exaggerate because she has some unresolved issues from her childhood years, no doubt.

  • The nation was founded on freedom to choose one’s own religion, or none at all, without government oppression. Stop oppressing atheists and LGBTQ+ people for attention.

  • I have no problem with atheists, I just disagree with the belief system. There are degrees of atheism, from the agnostic to hard-core atheists to hard-core anti-religious fanatics.

    Most political atheists are really anti-religious fanatics who don’t like IN GOD WE TRUST on coinage.

  • Got a cite? Oh right, you don’t give those.
    Jefferson created his own version of the bible with all the nonsense miracles removed.

  • Like you? Why do moderators on this forum never deal with threats coming from religious psychopaths?

  • It’s common knowledge.

    No, it’s denial by Christians. If Goebbels was not Christian, how was he excommunicated for marrying a Protestant? He was Catholic, his wife Protestant. Germany was almost entirely Christian in the 1930s — did all the Christians in Germany leave?

    The Earth is round, not flat, but I don’t have a cite for that either !

    I do. Eratosthenes calculated the circumference of the earth about 2200 years ago.

  • Yeah, a few priests and even Bishops were Hitler lackeys.

    OK, that disproves your assertion that Christians weren’t Nazis.

  • It is not about tax itemization. It’s about equal treatment. The IRS is not treating religious and non-religious organizations equally. That is the issue.

  • What’s going to be ironic is this.

    Liberals push both LGBTQ and open borders.
    With open borders come muslims.
    Liberals don’t have the courage to touch anything muslims do…female genital mutilation, multiple wives, beating of women inside muslim homes, the opening of shariah courts inside the UK (there are hundreds in the UK today).
    LGBTQs are really into being out and proud, leaving a paper trail of their sodomistic ways…”marriage licenses”, social networking, parades, etc.

    When the muslims roll over the liberals in towns and eventually into whole nation states (birth rates are 10x liberal birth rates!, 20 years away, maybe sooner), the muslims are going to “roll up” the LGBTQ (by then RSTUVWs), by the busloads….going after all marriage certificates, etc.

    But the liberals and the LGBTQs don’t think far enough ahead.

  • Strange that for not being Christians, what’s with the Gott Mit Uns on all the SS uniforms? They thought it looked cool? And Hitler, in multiple speeches throughout his reign, constantly referred to “My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter.” But I guess YOU don’t think they were Christian. Got it.

  • Sexual behavior is in the realm of psychology.

    Psychology isn’t in the realm of a real science.

    More than half of their studies aren’t even repeatable.

    https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/scientists-replicated-100-psychology-studies-and-fewer-half-got-same-results-180956426/

    One doesn’t need a p value of .05 to know what happened to the poor kid next door who is now prancing around trying to be happy, but who is also on 3 meds, counseling, and whose mood is up and down all the time, with dysfunction all around him.

  • Keep trying to backpedal from your made-up “facts”, it just makes you look even more ridiculous.

  • You raise so many questions. A log is cut from a virgin forest. Did the virgin not give birth to the log?

  • You don’t recognize a chained set of assertions, with a conclusion.

    Go back and take it apart, or
    S
    T
    F
    U

  • You don’t recognize a chained set of assertions, with a conclusion.

    What is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

  • It seems more complicated than that since it was founded on principles that stem from tradition and values that not all come from religious principles, but also of the viewpoints of the irreligious and religious. The US constitution and law comes to mind in regards to how it is modeled after Roman law right down to US citizenship laws. Also the the three branches of government with the executive corresponding to consuls, and legislative with the senate being similar to the Roman, and the House of Representatives paralleling the Centuriate and Tribal Assemblies and a Judicial branch equivalentto the Praetors.

    The viewpoints of religious folk have contributed to good things and bad; for example its hard to recognize what was so Christian about the US especially from the perspective of those oppressed, suppressed, disenfranchised, and marginalized by “Judeo-Christian” peoples especially those using their theologically based racism to justify their doings. Mind you, it is easy to recognize how religion in general especially organized religion at times wreaked havoc on non-White races.

    American society in general was more so founded upon the Principles of the Enlightenment, which questioned Christian doctrine, and beliefs such as some we see on these forums. It was this emphasizing reason and individualism that caused many open-minded folk to burst out of their boxed in positions on scholarly biblical interpretation.

    One only has to look how the founders of the US were educated and highly likely to a great extent were inspired by their education and familiarity with Roman and Greek philosophers and that secularism drew its intellectual roots from them.

    One thing we all can agree upon is that is what not founded solely on biblical principles, as it was not constructed by advocating the strict, literal interpretation of religious scripture.

    The country, which is secular in nature, was pretty much created by viewpoints inspired by the enlightenment and some past influences from other cultures appropriated by Christians; Heck it screamed secular back then especially in the eyes of many from other nations especially those with religion or a Church as the head of state, theocracies, and theocratic-like nations.

  • Correct, most consisted of Christians; they varied – bad ones, sheeple, etc.

    Many would argue that Germany being predominately Christian and anti-Semitic helped paved the way for Nazi ideology along with other factors. I wonder what the Christian Field Services the chaplains held for German soldiers during WWII were for? Were they praying to stay alive or for forgiveness for suppressing their empathy in order to commit the atrocities under orders they committed at home and abroad?

    Christians were the majority of that country yet not enough were at
    front and centre to stop the large numbers of Christians H1tler counted on that fell for him and his vision of a future for Germany. He couldn’t count on minorities such as atheists let alone freethinkers, which he outlawed their organizations before the war. He had no shortage of those folk like many of the Roman Catholics, which comprised a large portion of Germany’s population after the annexation of Austria, which was about 40 percent of the population. The numbers of 1.5 million to 3 million Catholics sent to camps would make it about 2 to 4 percent of Germany’s overall population or about 11 percent of the Catholic population at that time. It is certain that the Naz1s or for that matter the hierarchy realized you couldn’t send all the Catholics to the camps, as they needed soldiers within Germany and for their occupations abroad.

    Who knows if it would have made a difference if the Vatican had H1tler assassinated considering many folk in that locale and times fell for ideas that would back their theologically based and non theologically based views in justifying and believing other races can be superior to others. H1tler could not achieved what he did without the Catholic Church and and many of its followers.

    I can see how one can find it easily to believe some Christians being so anti-Judaism to the point of being anti-Semitic even long after the war, as I recall as late as the nineteen sixties some influential clergy going on shamelessly about how Hitler had the right idea about ridding Germany of Judaism and Jews, but emphasized he went too far. Over the years I noticed the things that come out of the mouths of clergy among themselves greatly differs than that of what they speak of around their flock; such is the nature of organized religion.

  • As I said, it was founded on “freedom.” That’s F-R-E-E-dom. As in, “free.” 

    Do you know what “freedom” means? It means I, and others, are “free” to be non-believers, if we want to. And you know what else? Our “freedom” to be non-believers is something you’ll never be able to do anything about. 

    Unless, of course, you decide to track me down and make me believe whatever it is you want me to believe. In fact, I invite you to give it your best shot. Go ahead. Lock and load! 

    If you decide you’re not going to do that, then you’re going to have to do something you probably don’t want to do, which is to allow me — and other non-believers — to remain non-believers, and just freaking deal with already. 

    The only alternative is to keep pitching fits about it, and using juvenile appeals like, “The Founding Fathers were believers, so YOU have to believe too!” If it’s that important to you, and it makes you feel better to do that, then by all means, be my guest. Just don’t expect me to find that kind of infantile behavior impressive. Because it isn’t. 

  • FFRF always does a decent job….they find the details where religious institutions have privileges. This absurdity where people donate to churches that don’t file forms…while other nonprofits do, is typical.

    The FRFF taking a parsonage allowance tax free is another excellent case. Wish them the best of luck for both. The country will be better of if they win.

  • You have problems with Reading Comprehension 101. I don’t care what you believe.

    The nations’ underling principles, however, are rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition. IN GOD WE TRUST…..Declaration of Independence….Pledge of Allegiance….America The Beautiful…swearing on a Bible, not a biography of Madelyn Murray O’Hair….etc.

    Lock and load THAT !!

  • I guess based on your logic the American Left and their abortionist allies are the same as the Nazis and their gas chambers.

    The rest of your post is so factually inane it doesn’t deserve a response. THE DEPUTY is factual compared to your nonsense.

  • Nazis were Socialists and liberals in America backed Hitler when the USSR an Nazi Germany signed their pact on the eve of WW II.

  • What threats ? It’s only the radical Left that is threatening GOP congressmen with rifles and violence.

  • So you’re in favor of imposing your religious viewpoints on other countries ?

    Oh, the irony !!!!!!!

  • Not oppressing anyone. Simply don’t like their policies. Like communists, marxists, or socialists.

  • You need to spend less time posting on these forums, and more time upgrading your skills on becoming a proper wife, homemaking schools, cooking, and child rearing.

  • Poor guess.

    It certainly would be nonsense to someone that lacks the knowledge of complexities during that time of era, especially the factors in Hitler’s success such as the intellectual, political, social, cultural, economic, diplomatic, military, and technological components of Nazism let alone the Christian connections, and that most Christian Germans that embraced the Nazi ideology, though at its core “pagan”, didn’t stop them (German soldiers) identifying themselves as Christians that still wanted to be members of the churches in Germany during WWII.

    The Hoover Library Collection on Germany and Russia is a great collection at Stanford university that may be of interest to you i.e., Hoover institution archives.

  • So you can see how the FFRF is one of the best groups out there protecting religion from government encroachment. The only cases they involve themselves in are cases of government encroachment on religious freedom.

  • Re: “You have problems with Reading Comprehension 101. I don’t care what you believe.” 

    Yes, you do. You have to. It’s implied within your insistence on the US being a religious country. You literally cannot have pointed this out, unless you object to the existence of non-believers in your precious religious country. It doesn’t make sense otherwise. 

    Re: “The nations’ underling principles, however, are rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition.” 

    There you go with the same line of reasoning again — after having just insisted that you “don’t care what [I] believe.” Of course you care! It’s obvious. 

    Re: “IN GOD WE TRUST” 

    OK, then … you just go ahead and make me trust your God. 

    Re: “Declaration of Independence” 

    So what? 

    Re: “Pledge of Allegiance” 

    You’re aware, I hope, that: 1) the Pledge didn’t originally mention God; 2) it had been devised by a socialist who’d intended it to promote socialism; and 3) as citizens of a representative republic, Americans don’t owe “allegiance” to anyone or anything and have no business mouthing such pledges. Or did you? 

    Re: “America The Beautiful” 

    So what? 

    Re: “swearing on a Bible, not a biography of Madelyn Murray O’Hair” 

    I’ve never sworn an oath on any book. And the thing about Ms O’Hair is pretty childish. 

    Re: “Lock and load THAT !!” 

    No, YOU lock and load … on me. Go ahead! I dare you. Track me down and make me believe. 

    Why wouldn’t you? According to you, my belief is mandatory, so why would you not force the issue? What reason do you have — other than cowardice — not to do so? 

    If you won’t, then you’re a chicken. 

  • Nazis were Socialists

    Well no, they deliberately put “socialist” (sozialistische) in their name as propaganda for the gullible.

    and liberals in America backed Hitler when the USSR an Nazi Germany signed their pact on the eve of WW II

    Cite? Name some.

    And anyway, all your blather does absolutely nothing to disprove that many Nazis were Christians. Were you just practicing typing or something?

  • “Gaylor said Nonbelief Relief, which has supported groups such as Doctors Without Borders and provided scholarships to a camp program for atheists, informed the IRS when it sought tax-exempt status in 2015 that it would not be filing the usual 990s that many charities submit.”

    So basically, Gaylor and the others intended to weaponize charity from the beginning, the same way the Left chose to weaponize the #MeToo movement. For Gaylor, charity is just another tool in their anti-religion crusade instead of an end in itself.

  • I’ve read all the Framers comments on religion, factions, politics, etc.

    You should do the same.

  • Christians were Nazis in the same sense that today they are Democrats. Nominal Christians, yes, but real ones, no.

  • Here is the issue: When the American founders and those who framed the U.S. Constitution were after was a separation of religion from government in order to avoid the catastrophes of 17th century Europe where the fusion of various forms of Christianity with monarchies led to horrific continental war and destruction. Jefferson, Madison, Adams, and others were deathly afraid that religious establishments could possibly create the same kinds of conflict. Hence, they followed the lead of Baptists like Isaac Backus and others who argued that religious movements were only free when they were free of any government sanction, and that the citizenry was free only when government did not take sides in religious disputes. So Patrick Henry the evangelical and Thomas Jefferson the deist could agree that both the integrity of government and the freedom of religious organizations to conduct their own affairs without interference from the government should be guaranteed in the first amendment to the Constitution. (This is a very quick summary of a rather complex political and religious argument, and readers wishing to explore this at a much deeper level should read Nathan O. Hatch, “The Democratization of American Christianity” (Yale UP, 1990). So religious organizations are significantly different than other for-profit and non-profit organizations and because of the first amendment, their tax-exempt status is not “conferred” by the government but exists over and above any government sanction. Hence, government has always been very reluctant when it comes to regulating religious organizations through tax policy. The Freedom from Religion foundation, despite their claims otherwise, is not a religious organization and hence is not covered by the First Amendment separation of church and state. They are not a church, but a non-religious non-profit that is governed by the IRS code. I’m not necessarily claiming that this is the best situation, but I think if an individual, a political party, or a group of elected officials want to change this, they should seek to amend the constitution in the same way that the 21st Amendment repealed the 18th Amendment (which should have never been passed in the first place).

  • No, it had nothing to do with their interpretation of the bible; it was about their actions regarding racial discrimination. It didn’t matter if their motive was religious or not.

  • While some of the employees and donors may be atheist, FFRF is not an atheist organization. It takes no position on religion per se.
    It opposes government entanglement with religion because it encroaches on religious freedom.

  • You are the one who brought up guns in this thread. Clearly, that’s how you solve all of your problems.

  • Guestie: If you don’t think it’s religious, try advocating that it be taken off our money and see how fast the religious nuts in this country come after you.

  • “…God put in a us a desire for Him…”

    Balderdash. Please provide a shred of evidence for the existence of a god or the validity of any of your assertions.

    “People who claim they don’t believe in God, invent their own gods.”
    “Today people worship their self-interpreted sexual identity!!!”

    Not me, or anybody that I know of. More baseless claims.

  • with reference to the existence of God, I’ll remind you that you cannot have been the result of an infinite regression.

    with reference to the existence of a personal God, I’ll point out that our moral norms – nearly uniform across cultures – “go against” the grain of our tendencies.

    Why would we construct a constraining moral law against adultery, robbery, abuse of children?

    We’d much rather pursue disordered freedoms and wantonly have sex at any time of the day with whoever we could muscle into a bush or bedroom.

  • Agreed. But, officially, it isn’t religious. If it was religious, it wouldn’t be allowed. That’s why SCOTUS ruled that it isn’t religious.

    Not so far from me is a large cross-shaped memorial to WW I soldiers on public land. The Christians who want to keep it as is insist that 1) it isn’t religious and 2) any attempt to change it is an attack on Christianity.

  • Just the same as Islamic theocracies. All lies. That’s what religion is…………lies. Religion has no principles except to pretend and lie.

  • Those things exist as a pretend reality in your head, just like everything else about religion-A perceived reality based on pretending…………and lying.

  • And how do you plan to stop them? Pretend to talk to your imaginary sky fairy and pray they fail? Pray in one hand, shyt in the other and see which fills up the fastest. I plan to see that all religions fail. I’m afraid neither one of us will be successful, even though religion has failed humanity and they just won’t admit it because religion and it’s buybull humping hoards is based on lies and lying, and pretending of course, which is dishonest.

  • That link only proves the American christian Talibangelicals are just as shytty and despicable as all other religions azzhulls all over the earth.

  • Maybe my Buddhist meditation and Satanic ritual practices will make them get raptured sooner. One can only hope. #ThoughtsAndPrayers

  • I don’t. I just expect the Christians who hate me to refrain from lynching me, like Matthew Shepard.

  • What a dispiriting dispute in the comments!

    I think the question could be easily settled: apply the same rules to all organisations, whether secular or religious. Apply Form 990 to all.

    Dispute ended.

  • Annie Laurie Gaylor’s mother founded this organization as a personal slush fund.

    Now it provides her daughter and her husband a comfortable living in Madison, Wisconsin, filing groundless suits and milking the “faithful” for contributions.

    The 990s stopped being filed about the same time critics of Freedom From Religion Foundation started quoting from them (they are public records) to show how this family business was a scam.

  • No, it actually is not. It rarely wins lawsuits, and it files frivolous ones.

    The real legal work is done by the ACLU and the Americans United.

    It’s basically a gift from Annie Laurie Gaylor’s mom to her and her husband so that they’ll never have to work another day in their lives.

  • No, FFRF does not do a decent job.

    In fact it does very little besides publicity stunts like this.

  • Technically agnostics are not atheists, although many of the “atheists” who post here do not know that.

  • Of course the Soviet soldiers raping the German women and girls didn’t get chaplains, as rapers and pillagers for an officially atheistic government.

  • You’re engaging in pick and choose.

    Hitler, a master propagandist, hid his true evaluation of Christianity from the German people.

    But to the party faithful, he presented his true impressions:

    “In the long run, National Socialism and religion will no longer be able to exist together. [On a question from C. S., whether this antagonism might mean a war, the Fuehrer continued:] No, it does not mean a war. The ideal solution would be to leave the religions to devour themselves, without persecutions. But in that case we must not replace the Church by something equivalent. That would be terrifying! It goes without saying that the whole thing needs a lot of thought. Everything will occur in due time. . . . The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practises a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its key-note is intolerance. Without Christianity, we should not have had Islam. The Roman Empire, under Germanic influence, would have developed in the direction of world-domination, and humanity would not have extinguished fifteen centuries of civilisation at a single stroke. Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. The result of the collapse of the Roman Empire was a night that lasted for centuries.” – Night of 11-12 July 1941; pp. 6-7.

  • Lets call a rose a rose. Anti-religious folks trying to use the law to restrict the Constitutional freedom of religion. You are already free from religion. Don’t want to be religious. Don’t be.

  • Dan Barker and Annie Laurie Gaylor are tje co-presidents of the Freedom From Religion Foundation.

    Barker’s books include “Preacher To Atheist”, “Godless”, “The Good Atheist: Living a Purpose-Filled Life Without God”, “Life Driven Purpose: How an Atheist Finds Meaning, Pitchstone Press”, and “GOD: The Most Unpleasant Character in All Fiction”.

    Gaylor has an equivalent resume.

    No, FFRF is NOT equivalent to the ACLU.

  • I’m not sure how your comment relates to the comment you responded to. You didn’t address whether or not FFRF is an atheist organization (it isn’t) nor make an argument that it is hostile to religion per se rather than to government entanglement with religion.

    “FFRF is NOT equivalent to the ACLU.” Agreed. And….?

  • If your position is that FFRF does not state in its corporate documents “Freedom From Religion Foundation advocates for atheism and atheist positions”, you are correct.

    If your position is that “Freedom From Religion Foundation does not advocate for atheism and atheist positions”, you are clearly incorrect.

  • No, I mean Hitler was no friend of Christianity, or any other religion for that matter, and stating that he was is historically inaccurate.

    Trump and the “evangelicals” advocate for power at approximately the same level as Obama and the LGBT lobby.

  • And what it really advocates for is religious freedom. Everyone — both theists and atheists — benefit from that.

  • No, I think it’s an atheist organization.

    I just think it does not come right out and say that in its corporate foundational documents.

  • No, you’re wrong. For example, it supports limited public forums which includes religion in the public square.

  • It seems that you are conflating atheist and secular. American Atheists is an example of an atheistic organization. It advocates for atheistic issues. FFRF couldn’t care less how religious anyone is or isn’t provided they aren’t seeking to use government to promote their religion or lack there of.

  • Let me give you an example. My father was a minister in a theologically conservative Christian denomination. He adamantly opposed government sponsored prayer in public schools. He regarded that as an attack on his religious freedom. I used to share the FFRF newsletter with him before he died. He would flip thru it and nod approvingly.

  • Apparently because:

    – you can’t read straightforward English, and

    – you want to coin your own definitions.

    But I have no intention of making it a research project.

  • That’s interesting but off the point.

    The point is not what you or your father think or thought of it, the question is “what is it?”

  • Today’s a good day to catch up on your question (although my apologies for the delay.)

    Atheism is self-refuting. It is the most rationally unsustainable, totally DOA religion ever devised by humans. 40 percent of the “Nones” (no organized religion) don’t even want it.

    Go look outside. Trees, grass, birds, cats, humans. Why is there “something” instead of “nothing” in the universe? No answer from atheism. Atheism cannot address your **own** existence and attributes.

    Atheism = crickets chirping (and atheism cannot explain the crickets either).

  • Ah….I get it. You make the false leap that a lack of explanation is the proof of god (known as the “god of the gaps” fallacy) Also, you have the false belief Atheism is a religion. By definition, atheism means that you do not believe in god or gods. Period. You’re argument is a mish mash of idea, not a singular argument. You claim the universe cannot exist (using the false argument that it came from “nothing”, when that claim is NOT made), and then fail to explain how your god came into existence. And of course, we’ll add a bit of confirmation bias, considering that humanity has worshiped thousands of gods. But of course, only your god is the real one. I figured that would be your argument, but thought maybe you had something new, or something that could withstand at least some discussion. Atheism has nothing to do with Abiogenesis, how life began, which is where you move the goalposts of your argument. So, stick with one topic, and there might be a discussion. But atheism is a singular idea: That people do not believe in a god or gods. Now, first, define what a god is, then provided testable, repeatable evidence of that gods existence, and you would end the concept of atheism immediately.

  • First, thanks for responding, especially after my delay. Second, I might as well pile on for fun. Once upon a time, Atheism functioned as a serious opponent of Christianity. Now Atheism functions only as Target Practice — especially for Christians seeking an easy plink.

    I haven’t mentioned anything about Abiogenesis (the already-debunked evolutionist claim that the first living cell on Earth somehow magically evolved from non-living chemicals, see the debunking science-journal article at the end of this post). I’m only working with the argument I posted.

    Trees, grass, birds, cats, humans. Atheism cannot explain the existence or attributes of any of them. But modern biology has totally worsened your situation. Take humans for example. “God of the gaps” is when a person says they have NO data but try to posit God’s existence strictly off od that lack of data. But YOUR problem, as an atheist, is that we DO have specific, modern biological data about humans — let’s say your eyes — and the data we have, contains something empirical that rationally infers the existence of God.

    (This process is called an “inference to the best explanation”, by the way. We check things out with observation and the scientific method, we let the rational inference chips fall wherever they may, and God turns out to be the best inference, the best explanation, that’s rationally supportable. Reminds an honest person of Romans 1:20, does it not?0

    Anyway, what is that “something empirical” that appears in your eyes? It’s a biological marker of the presence of extremely intelligent, goal-directed causation or engineering design. It’s called “Irreducible Complexity.” Multiple IC examples appear in your eyes and your brain (in fact your brain forms an IC system with your eyes, on top of whatever IC systems appears separately in your eyes and brain). That’s on top of every cell in your face (which is why I often refer to one’s bathroom mirror as a means of confirming God and disconfirming Atheism.)

    So now the tables have been turned — YOU atheists are limited to positing “Gaps”, but WE deal strictly in documented scientific data and discoveries. WE appeal to today’s biological evidences, but atheists have NOTHING to appeal to. That’s why you’re losing, by the way.

  • But YOUR problem, as an atheist, is that we DO have specific, modern biological data — let’s say your human eyes — and the data we have, contains something empirical that rationally, compellingly infers God’s existence

    Citation please.

  • What? Explain how “Please apply the same rules to us as you apply to them.” restricts the Constitution freedom of religion.

    Equality is not persecution.

  • Tax exempt status is conferred by government (who else?) and puts the government in the position of ruling on what is/is not religion.

    All charities should be treated equally.

  • No, they tried to bring this important issue to court and were told they didn’t have standing.

    The IRS left FFRF with no other options.

  • Take a freaking history course. You have been fed lies, and swallowed them whole.

    The Pledge of Allegiance was written around 1890 by a socialist named Bellamy and promoted by a flag salesmen. The “Bellamy salute” was so cool (google it) that Hitler adopted it as the Nazi salute. Under God wasn’t added until the 1950s.

    The Declaration of Independence is a poetic press release, designed to get the French to send money and troops.

    The Constitution is the sole basis of our country. And it does not mention God, and the two mentions of religion are exclusionary.

    You might want to sue whoever taught you history for malpractice.

  • Wrong.

    They are hostile to people using our government to get special perks and favors for their own religion. They defend the right of individuals to practice their religion or none at all free of government interference.

  • Exactly. Every kid has the right to attend public school without a teacher telling them who to pray to or how to pray.

    Baptists get to attend school without being led in prayer to the Virgin Mary. Catholics get to attend school without being led in Baptist prayers that mock prayers to saints. Atheists don’t want to participate in any prayers. That is why no person may use government property to authority to decide who everyone present will pray to.

  • Stop listening to Trump rallies.

    He is playing the bully’s game of accusung others of his own crap. Who leads chants of “lock her/him/them up” at political rallies?

    Pay attention. Stop believing lies.

  • LoL

    Atheism is just a conclusion that deities and all forms of magical invisible friends are make believe. That’s it. This conclusion rests on the fact that there is no evidence for any supernatural being of any kind.

    For the rest, you might want to check out this thing called science. Science does answer questions about why crickets chirp, and pretty much anything else you want to know.

  • Atheism does not explain anything. It doesn’t claim to. Duh, on steroids.

    And “god” is not the best explanation for lightning, seasons, rain, disease, conception and reproduction, eclipses, night, sunrise, tides or anything else mankind has ever attributed to deity(ies).

    The number of natural phenomena once attributed to deities that are now explainable as natural processes: too many to count.

    The number of natural phenomena once explainable as natural processes but now attributed to deities: zero.

  • According to the courts, that was the only option they had.

    “Standing” is a weapon used by courts to dodge or block lawsuits alleging violations of constitutional rights. This can leave very limited options for those demanding the government respect civil rights.

  • Yes, I know about standing. The usual practice is to find someone that is in the situation that would give them standing and willing to be the face of the lawsuit. Deliberately creating the conditions necessary for the lawsuit makes it look like they’re fanatics trying to impose their values on everyone else, that can’t find anyone reasonable willing to help them.

  • They formed a charity. They do good things with the charity. They expect to be treated like other charities without religious based discrimination. Deal with it.

  • You mean the Constitution that gives special protection to private free exercise of religion? That Constitution?

  • Nobody knows. Least of all those who have bought into the supernatural explanation. You know, the ones who say they have all the answers from some book written during the bronze and early iron age. The ones who are scared half to death by Satan and god and Jeesus and other biblical boogeymen. I laugh at them. And you.

  • “I haven’t said anything yet about Abiogenesis (the already-debunked evolutionist claim that the first living cell on Earth somehow magically evolved from non-living chemicals.)”

    And yet you claim that a fully formed human magically came into being from a lump of dirt! “By the hand of God”. With no evidence other than a book written thousands of years ago to terrify and subjugate bronze-age goatherders! No wonder your type is so easily taken in by grifters like Trump! What a joke. The cruelest joke played on the human race in history. (With Trump a close second).

  • What? Where is free exercise at risk here? Seriously, did you just learn a new word or something?

    Free exercise is just one side of the coin. Equal treatment is the other.

    The government cannot treat two parties differently because the religious beliefs of one are different than the religious beliefs of the other.

  • It depends on what the religious belief is. But for this situation, the Constitution recognizes the special role that religion plays in society, and as the old saying goes, the power to tax is the power to destroy. And there is nothing in the Constitution that requires that religious organizations be treated the same as all others.

  • There’s nothing in the Constitution that says that any religion should be afforded special treatment or consideration either.

  • Whether or not that is true, it doesn’t change the fact that the Constitution has permitted special treatment for religions from the beginning.

  • Ummm, no, not so fast. No religion — or non-religious expression — is to have any precedence over another in a legal or civil sense.

  • Actually, the Constitution does prohibit special treatment of religion.

    And the myth that religion benefits society is a lie.

  • Please point out where the Constitution prohibits special treatment of religion.

    As for the benefits of religion, George Washington disagrees with you and I haven’t seen anything to contradict him.

  • I didn’t say that they were.
    Yet you seem to think they’re guaranteed in the Constitution for self-promotion religious groups.

  • You might want to look at your last post, and consider the article this comments thread is for. But no, special treatment in the tax code for religious organizations isn’t a constitutional right, but it IS a tradition as old as this nation and so clearly not a violation of the Constitution.

  • “Right or wrong” is a matter for legislatures, courts are supposed to deal with “constitutional or unconstitutional,” “legal or illegal.”

  • Does this mean that you agree with me that Freedom From Religion’s attempts to abolish religious exemptions in the tax code through lawsuits is wrong and should be rejected by the courts?

  • Are you disagreeing with me about the constitutionality of special considerations in the tax code for religious organizations in spite of the fact that they have existed from before the Constitution’s ratification? Or are you claiming after all that courts should rule based on “right or wrong” regardless of constitution or law?

  • Their exemptions are not based on Constitutional law or precedent. Why are you opposed to taxing churches?

  • You have it backwards. As a court case, it is FFR that needs to demonstrate that the exemptions it seeks to have overturned are not based on constitutional law or precedent. If they cannot, then opposition to those exemptions properly needs to be taken to Congress. As does your question.

  • So your while defense is “that’s the way we’ve always done things”… without showing any legal basis for why it’s permitted.

    That’s calling “dodging” the issue.

  • “That’s the way we’ve always done things” is a valid constitutional argument, since it points to how those that wrote, ratified, and first lived under the Constitution understood it to work. Which means that to change how it works requires a constitutional amendment rather than judicial fiat—just ask any justice and they’ll tell you that it isn’t their job to legislate from the bench, however much they do just that in practice.

  • Chanting LOCK HER UP doesn’t harm anybody.

    Having a bullet shot into your spleen and spine does.

    Got it, lib ? Or do I need to explain it further for you ?

  • Boo hoo….libs don’t object to liberal groups sponging off government $$$. Just religious groups.

  • MISOGNY…the Left’s latest buzzword, I guess calling people “racist” while you play footsie with black supremacists lost its panache.

  • For someone who doesn’t even know that the Founding Fathers paid missionaries, bought Bibles, etc……

  • Christmas is a federal holiday.

    Our calendar is based on A.D.

    Dozens of other examples of Christian and Judeo-Christian influence. Too bad you never learned them.

  • There is no establishment of religion by promoting policies favorable to certain groups, religious or not.

  • Americans United used to be called Protestands and Others United or whatnot.

    A left-wing anti-Catholic group masquerading as defenders of religious freedom.

  • No they don’t.

    Explain the relationship between the Democratic Party and the racist black nationalist black supremacist Left.

    Al Sharpton, anybody ? Louis Farrakhan ?

  • They don’t do all that much “masquerading”.

    Yes, it was formed specifically to attack the Catholic Church, and much of its leadership is still anti-Catholic.

  • No they don’t.

    Yes, they do:
    Russell Walker in NC
    Arthur Jones in IL
    John Fitzgerald in CA

    Explain the relationship between the Democratic Party and the racist black nationalist black supremacist Left.

    Red herring distraction fail. The Republicans are the party of white supremacists and nazis. Congratulations.

  • Oh you mean the Date Rape Parties that one chick attended 10 times before she got morally disgusted ?

  • All disavowed by the GOP.

    Now..check out the Jew-hating, anti-Semitic FILTH in the Congressional Black Caucus and the Progressive Caucus. Embraced by Pelosi and Schumer. 100%.

    Did you know that Al Sharpton once led KILL THE JEWS rallies in a Jewish neighborhood of NYC ? What…..CNN and MSNBC didn’t tell you that ?

    Why am I not surprised ?

  • All disavowed by the GOP.

    After they were exposed, yes. But it’s the Republican party that attracts Nazis and white supremacists in the first place.

    Oh, and your red herring distractions still fail.

    Al Sharpton once led KILL THE JEWS rallies in a Jewish neighborhood of NYC

    Nope, that’s another of your lies, this time about the August 19, 1991 Crown Heights riot. Lemrick Nelson stabbed and killed Yankel Rosenbaum while he and a mob was yelling “Kill the Jew”, but Al Sharpton was nowhere near there, because this happened just a short while after the fatal car accident that touched off the riot. Sharpton showed up a week later on August 25, and lead a crowd chanting “Whose streets? Our streets!” and “No justice, no peace”.

    So the Republicans still have Nazis and white supremacists, and all you have are lies. Again.

    What…..CNN and MSNBC didn’t tell you that ?

    No, because it’s another right-wing lie. And MSNBC certainly didn’t tell me that, since this happened five years before MSNBC existed.

  • You think using the calendar in place at the time can be used as evidence we’re a christian nation!?

    Come on. Nobody’s that dumb.

  • You are. LOL

    And nobody said we’re a Christian nation. We’re a nation whose roots and democratic republic institutions were founded on Judeo-Christian concepts of morality.

  • (1) Sort of like the Democratic Party attracts anarchists, black supremacists, communists, and anti-American Leftists, huh ? Except that the GOP’s problem is a few dozen screwballs, while yours number in the thousands or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands. And large number of Antifa-supporting, Black Panther-supporting (and I don’t mean the Black Panther of Wakanda) extremists are active in the Democratic Party AND elected as Democrats. Show me a single Neo Nazi elected as a Republican at the federal or state level ?

    You can’t, pal.

    (2) What was that left-wing ghetto hood rat doing leading chants of NO JUSTICE NO PEACE and marching in that area anyway ? Once again, you show you can’t even understand what you yourself write. 1 more Jew and 1 Italian-American (mistaken as a Jew) were killed AFTER Sharpton whipped up his Rent-A-Mob.

    I was there at Crown Heights, pal. Get your facts straight. Sharpton fomented race riots for WEEKS all on behalf of a lie. Just like Tawana Brawley.

    (3) NBC existed….how come they don’t show the file footage from WNBC-4 in NY ? Simple…..because they have a huge investment in protecting black racists and black supremacists and showing that ass-sniffing Neanderthal in all his glory would reflect badly on the network that gave him exposure and his own TV show.

  • (1) Sort of like the Democratic Party attracts anarchists, black supremacists, communists, and anti-American Leftists, huh ?

    Name some running for office. The Republicans still have white supremacists that they haven’t disavowed, like Steve King.

    (2) What was that left-wing ghetto hood rat doing leading chants of NO JUSTICE NO PEACE and marching in that area anyway ?

    Look, you can’t backpedal on your lie. You lied about Sharpton chanting “kill the Jew”.

    (3) NBC existed

    But you stupidly wrote MSNBC.

  • (1) Steve King isn’t a white supremacist, he simply doesn’t kow-tow to Maxine Waters and the folks who looted LA in the 1991 LA Riots.

    Black supremacists running for office ? How about ALREADY in office or legitimized by the left-wing Fake News Media: Maxine Waters, Sheila Jackson Lee, Keith Ellison, and another 2 dozen racial screwballs from the Congressional Black Toilet. Not to mention the hundreds of screwballs at the local and state level like Charles Barron, the ex-Black Panther. Or retired black nationalists like Charlie Rangel (Harlem) or John Conyers (Detroit).

    (2) The rallies were KILL THE JEWS rallies, pal. Oh yeah, there were signs by his supporters about that happening. And Sharpton chanted KILL THE JEWS according to several eyewitnesses. Regardless, the race turd was fomenting anti-Semitic Jew-hatred and 3 people died as a result.

    But since you are either a clueless leftist dolt or someone born after 1980 and too young to know the FACTS as opposed to the leftist drivel you get from CNN and MSNBC, why don’t you Fast Forward to the 8:00 minute mark of this video and see the actual TV footage from 1 TV station in NYC covered Al Charlatan and his Gestapo Gangbangers:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=usYhnnd3aaY

  • (1) Steve King isn’t a white supremacist

    Yes, he is. He’s just endorsed Faith Goldy in the Toronto mayor race.

    Black supremacists running for office ?

    Your definition of a “black supremacist” certainly doesn’t match mine. Your opinion is worthless.

    (2) The rallies were KILL THE JEWS rallies, pal.

    Keep trying to backpedal, liar.

    And Sharpton chanted KILL THE JEWS according to several eyewitnesses.

    Cite? Oh, I’m sure you won’t give any cites to media of the time.

    But since you are either a clueless leftist dolt or someone born after 1980

    I predate the space age. But you can continue to just make up your own lies and call them “facts”.

  • Correct.

    I didn’t make the claim that most Christians Germans embraced the ideology. I’m stating that the most of the Christians Germans that did embraced the ideology still identified themselves as Christians.

    Note the word “that”.

    “most Christian Germans that embraced”

    Note I didn’t state “most Christian Germans embraced”.

  • I doubt they weren’t raping and pillaging for their government.

    Nor did those in the USSR that were theists and atheists who willingly subscribed to the policies of ethnic cleansing and the deportation of folk such as Russian Gypsies, Russian Chinese, Russian Korean, Russian Kurds, and Russian Turks not to mention the many theists and atheists alike in regards to being opportunists seeking revenge or mere survival had no problem participating directly or indirectly with the demise of those they had disdain for such as other ethnic folk, nationalities. This disdain flared up again after the collapse of the
    USSR especially in its former satellite states.

    What folk did back then to those they thought less of in order to avoid being “resettled” forcibly to places such as Siberia or a desert in Uzbekistan, is terrible. The atrocities under Stalin’s regime and Soviet
    persecution were more complex than we thought they were.

    Valery Tishkov’s “Ethnicity, Nationalism and Conflict in and after the Soviet Union: The Mind Aflame” or James W. Warhola’s “The Religious Dimension of Ethnic Conflict in the Soviet Union” may be of interest to you.

  • One of many that would disagree with you.

    https://www.encyclopedia.com/law/legal-and-political-magazines/constitution-created-secular-government

    Also the US is quite similar to what the person envisioned that came up with the term secularism, as he recognized there was light and guidance not only in Christianity, but other religions as well, and that a social order separate from religion i.e., separation of church and state would maintain a tolerance that would benefit the welfare of future pluralistic societies like some of the progressive Western countries we see today where Cultural Christians, practicing Christians, and other religious folk exist that embrace the idea of a secular society where beliefs and cultures other than those of Christians (that of course do not violate one’s human rights) are encouraged and promoted even at
    times by government without having to actively dismiss or criticize religious belief.

    Brings to mind an example of religious secularists making change in a secular society can have some good outcomes, as we have seen in Canada like the secularist Muslims of the now defunct Muslim Canadian Congress that opposed a proposal years ago by The Canadian Islamic Congress to permit sharia tribunals “to which Muslims could voluntarily submit civil disputes and whose findings would then have legal weight under the Arbitration Act” in Ontario. The government rejected the proposal. The good outcome of this past process was the scrapping of existing religious arbitration tribunals having legal weight for Jews and Christians thanks to religious secularists working together.

    .

  • Read THE GIRGENTI REPORT for Sharpton’s disgusting bigotry. The Jewish Forward exposed his “KILL THE JEWS” chants as well as his relationship with Sonny Carson, who got his start in the 1968 Ocean-Brownsville Anti-Semitic Riots.

  • (1) Why does the Democratic Party attrack Mansour, Mallory, Farrakhan, Sharpton, Jackson, and the Congressional Black Toilet ? Why have left-wing bigots always been given a pass that right-wing ones never are ?

    Maybe we should ask the Congressional White Caucus ? Oh right….there isn’t one. Because the GOP doesn’t play identity politics and stoke racial hatred like that racial cesspool.

    (2) Yeah, Sharpton chanted that. So his filthy ass was stirring up anti-Semitic riots and as The Forward documented, he led chants and promoted signs saying KILL THE JEWS….HITLER DIDN’T FINISH THE JOB….EXTERMINATE THE RATS….ETC.

    Brian, you’re good — I’ll grant you that. But you’re not in my league when it comes to racial issues, pal. And definitely not when it comes to that ass-sniffing Neanderthal Sharpton. I was there. I saw the hate. I saw the mobs. I saw the bloodlust. I saw people run for their lives to avoid being killed.

    He’s going down faster than a $10 hooker.

  • And check out the videos, since you’re not that good at actually researching. 8-minute mark, pal.

    Checkmate !!

  • Who threatened you ? I sure didn’t.

    I am not religious and am not a psychopath. You have issues, toots.

  • Read THE GIRGENTI REPORT for Sharpton’s disgusting bigotry.

    And that justifies Steve King’s bigotry how? Oh, “not at all”.

    Deflection fail.

  • (1) Why does the Democratic Party attrack Mansour, Mallory, Farrakhan, Sharpton, Jackson, and the Congressional Black Toilet ?

    I see you’re so frothing at the mouth you typed “does” instead of “doesn’t”, “attrack” instead of “attack”, and your usual racism.

    What a worthless whiner you are.

  • Again, how does that make Steve King NOT a racist? It doesn’t. But you’re obviously a racist. Whiner harder.

  • Focus on REAL racism, not imaginary racism involving endorsements and tweets. You know, like supporting racist policies (affirmative action) and leading racist marches.

  • As usual, you focus on grammar and not the substance. You must be an East or West Coast liberal.

  • Steve King is a real racist. I know you’d love to deny both his and your racism, but it’s palpable.

    Why are you ashamed of your racism, anyway? Aren’t you an out and proud white supremacist? How pitiful.

  • As usual, you focus on grammar and not the substance

    No, I mentioned your racism. It’s just that your spelling problems reveal how unbalanced you are.

  • The American people are waking up to the racists in the left-wing media, the BlacK Left, and black supremacists like Al Sharpton and the Congressional Black Caucus (pals of Screwy Louie). Like prison furloughs and Willie Horton, D-Day is set for October of the next election.

  • King isn’t a racist, he’s an anti-racist fighting against illegal immigration and racist groups like the Congressional Black Caucus.

    Like most libs, you swallow your party’s Kool-Aid on race.

    Ultimately, the American People will decide this issue. That suits me fine. If Steve King is by my side and Maxine Waters and Al Sharpton are by yours, you’re in deep doo-doo pal.

  • King isn’t a racist, he’s an anti-racist

    Why’d he endorse Faith Goldy for Toronto mayor if he’s anti-racist?
    Faith Goldy: “We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children” (Dec 2017 podcast Millennial Woes)

    Sorry, he’s racist and supports racists.

  • What’s racist about that ? Particularly if whites are under assault and there’s a war on whites ?

    If you replaced “white” with BLACK….would you be bitching ?

    Answer: No.

  • What’s racist about that ?

    It’s a racist endorsing a racist.

    By the way, why are you ashamed of being a white supremacist?

  • I’m a Reagan conservative. I simply do not tolerate the racial stench of left-wing liberal elites or the Black Left.

    If there’s a race war in this country, the Black Left and white libs will lose.

    Think it over, Brian.

  • Oh, I see — I took your misspelling of “attrack” as meaning “attack” (which I mentioned, and you ignored), when I supposed you meant “attract”. All of that is due to your errors.

ADVERTISEMENTs