I’m going to come right out and say something that could land me in a world of criticism, depending on how it’s perceived. It’s something that I’ve wanted to say for a very long while and I think the time has come…
At some point, the United States is going to have to take action against its right-wing evangelical problem.
And I’m sorry to say, it is a problem.
I have nothing against Christians, because we are a country that cherishes freedom of religion, and I respect their right to worship in any way they choose. What I take issue with is their continued insistence on legislating their view of morality upon the masses. Much like their wealthy counterparts, which many times are now one and the same, they feel they are entitled to a certain form of dictatorship because they happen to be a member of the majority religion, and their religion seemingly turns them into anti-American cheerleaders.
Take this comment from Franklin Graham, offered in an interview with Newsmax:
“What has happened is we have allowed ourselves to take God out everything that we do – and I believe that God will judge our nation one day. Maybe God will have to bring our nation to our knees – to where that we just have a complete economic collapse. Maybe at that point, people will again call upon the name of almighty God.”
WATCH the entire interview, if you can stomach it (story continues below):
In what sane world, in the 21st Century, do you wish for your country, which you profess to love, to suffer through a complete economic collapse that would decimate the citizenry just to prove a religious point, and how big of a self-absorbed prick are you to propose such a thing?
Not to put too fine a point on it, but Graham’s comments are in direct opposition to this country’s founding principles, and I would go so far as to say, treasonous. Graham is willfully advocating for the destruction of the U.S. economy, and by extension, the lives of its citizens. In modern terminology, we might even call him a terrorist wanna-be, an enemy of the state.
I’m sorry, but in my book, he should be brought up on charges for sedition. He clearly wishes for the destruction of the Union through economic means, and his aim seems to be the overthrow of a democratically elected government in favor of a theocracy, which flies in the face of the First Amendment, which reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Those words seem fairly clear to me, not a lot of ambiguity there.
Which might explain a new lawsuit filed against the Internal Revenue Service:
A federal lawsuit filed by a Wisconsin-based group representing atheists and agnostics argues that the Internal Revenue Service is violating the U.S. Constitution by allowing tax-exempt churches and religious organizations to get involved in political campaigns.
The Freedom from Religion Foundation argues that churches and other religious organizations have become increasingly more involved in political campaigns, “blatantly and deliberately flaunting the electioneering restrictions.”
Its lawsuit filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Madison argues that the IRS is not enforcing the federal tax code, which prohibits tax-exempt religious organizations from electioneering. Not enforcing it is a violation of the establishment clause of the First Amendment and a violation of equal protection rights because the same preferential treatment is not provided to other tax-exempt organizations such as the Freedom from Religion Foundation, the lawsuit contends.
Let’s break it down, shall we? And let’s get all freakin’ wonky about it, too. According to the IRS, non-profits, namely religious organizations, are prohibited thusly:
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.
On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.
So, let’s use Franklin Graham as an example. Graham is the CEO of, among others, Samaritan’s Purse, a 501(c)3, tax exempt organization. Under IRS regulation, as stated above, “all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.”
Now, one could argue that Graham’s above comments came after the election, but what about his comments before the election?
From February 2012:
“All I know is under Obama, President Obama, the Muslims of the world, he seems to be more concerned about them than the Christians that are being murdered in the Muslim countries. Islam sees him as a son of Islam… I can’t say categorically that [Obama is not Muslim] because Islam has gotten a free pass under Obama.
“Now he has told me that he is a Christian. But the debate comes, what is a Christian? For him, going to church means he’s a Christian. For me, the definition of a Christian is whether we have given our life to Christ and are following him in faith and we have trusted him as our lord and savior.”
From May 2012:
“While the move to pass amendments defining marriage is relatively new, the definition of marriage is 8,000 years old and was defined not by man, but by God Himself. In changing his position from that of senator/candidate Obama, President Obama has, in my view, shaken his fist at the same God who created and defined marriage. It grieves me that our president would now affirm same-sex marriage, though I believe it grieves God even more.”
From August 2010:
“I think the president’s problem is that he was born a Muslim, his father was a Muslim. The seed of Islam is passed through the father like the seed of Judaism is passed through the mother. He was born a Muslim, his father gave him an Islamic name. Now it’s obvious that the president has renounced the prophet Mohammed, and he has renounced Islam, and he has accepted Jesus Christ. That’s what he says he has done. I cannot say that he hasn’t. So I just have to believe that the president is what he has said.”
Each and every one of those comments is a call to a litmus test, of sorts…a religious litmus test, which is strictly forbidden by the Constitution, via Article VI, paragraph 3, which reads:
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.
So, if you want to get down and dirty about it, if President Obama were a Muslim, it shouldn’t matter one iota. Nor should it matter if he was a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Pagan or an Atheist.
Franklin Graham, and the churches that follow his line of thought, and who have injected their religion into public policy, are operating in direct opposition to the Constitution of the United States of America.
They place their religion before their country and they are traitors, plain and simple, and it’s time to classify them as such and revoke their tax-free ride on the backs of the Americans they claim to love, but simultaneously want to see destroyed for the sake of their phantasmagorical ideology.