Get LISNews via email! Enter Your Email Address:
From the New York Times (mid morning Friday).
An earlier report (in the Friday print edition) brought attention to the initial IRS investigation, and this article apparently is in response to that initial report.
Orwellian because? There are a lot of tax exempt organizaitons that need to lose that status due to their political ambitions. If not at the top the list NAACP is mighty close.
What the heck! I'll go along! Catholic Church comes to mind immediately. Good old Jerry Falwell too.
Okeydoke. Add ALA and NOW too.
Not a problem! Plus that Christian Coalition. I never did like them!
This isn't about like or dislike its about honesty in purpose.
That's right & the Christian Coalition is right there in the top 10. I just mentioned my dislike. Or isn't that allowed? My bad then! Are they friends of your's?
You're free to say whatever you want within whatever confines Blake has established.
I'm free to point out that it was irrelevant.
Isn't the First Amendment wonderful?! So...are they friends of your's? I'm really curious. Really.
Not really no. Not enemies either.
Well "the Catholic Church" is not a single organization. It is made up of parishes. Each parish is most commonly its own 501(c)3 organization. In some smaller diocese the diocese will serve as an umbrella 501(c)3 for the parishes.
That said I think most Catholic parishes do an excellent job of staying out of political races. However their stance on issues that politicians wish to make part of their platform - abortion, embryonic stem cell research, unjust war, human rights for undocumented aliens, and the like is made well know. So they make the Church's stance clear but they don't tell me how to vote. That it up to my conscience and me.
The Pope is not telling me to remove someone from office, my Bishop is not telling me to remove someone from office, my parish priests are not telling me to remove someone from office. From the transcript presented the head of NAACP is.
I have no problem with the NAACP selecting candidates and campaigning for them, however the rules for non-profits don't permit that so they need to decide if they want the benefits afforded non-profits registered under 501(c)3 or they want the freedom associated with other forms of incorporation.
What possible difference could it make? Are they enemies of yours? Do you wish to abrogate the freedoms of religion and assembly we hold so dear in these United States.
The IRS it seems to me is being fair by conducting investigations into 60 reported voilations of the law regarding 501(c)3's.
It is important to note that an investigation is just that, an investigation- not a condemnation, not a conviction, not a censure. Investigations occur all the time and not all proceed past the point of inquiry. If wrongdoing is found then the appropriate legal process will take over, if no wrongdoing is uncovered then the NAACP and the other 60 organizations will be exonerated.
Seems simple to me.
Glad at least we're back to discussing the NAACP (the original point of my post).
But mdoneil, it's not so simple.
Just as someone who's brought to trial, we tend to think negatively of an organization under investigation. It casts a negative light as it were. And it's our tax dollars investigating a long-lived, democratc (small d) and purposeful organization that has done so much good for our country.
Lots of things cast a negative light. Even using the word Negro in their name, although traditional, I am sure casts a negative light on the organization.
If I can believe that O.J. Simpson is not guilty of the murders for which he was tried because a jury found him so than I am certain most others will be as forgiving of the subject of an investigation, not a trial but an investigation, that is exonerated.
At least that is what I hope the others with whom we share this country would feel. Guilt must be proven; we must believe that if not proven the accused (or investigated) must not be guilty.
NAACP stands for National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. No Negro in the name.
I am so awfully confused today. I went to look for tires and ending up shopping for sailboats.
I meant that NAACP upsets some people by the use of 'Colored'
(UNCF is the organization that some people don't like the term Negro. Both Colored and Negro were perfectly fine at one time but now not currently acceptable terms)
While NAACP and UNCF are unrelated they both are wonderful groups focused on the betterment of the lives of their members. (What is really scary as I proofread the first post and it made sense to me at the time.)
At least I did not confuse it with UNICEF, there is an N in there too.
I'm going to bed perhaps I'll be normal (as can be) again in the morning.
Yes, people do sometimes mistake an investigation for an accusation or even for evidence of guilt. This investigation may be entirely frivolous, or entirely motivated by partisan concerns (though frankly I'm skeptical).
People will make that mistake, whether it is the NAACP or the Christian Coalition under investigation. In either case, an investigation casts a negative light upon the organization being investigated. And yet we shouldn't say that these organizations should never be investigated, or that the mere fact that they are being investigated is Orwellian. If the Christian Coalition is tax-exempt and then engages in behavior that may be inappropriate for a tax-exempt organization, it should be investigated, regardless of the administration in power. Likewise for the NAACP. To give either organization a "pass" from being investigated because they (in someone's eyes) are beneficial is itself Orwellian: all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others and not to be investigated.
OK Chuck, you got me. It's not Orwellian. It's unfortunate.
Come on birdie, don't give up so easily!!! ;-)
Seriously, if it does turn out to be partisan, I'll be pissed, whether we describe it as Orwellian or not.
Hosted By ibiblio XML Twitter!