<p>Don’t know what motivates them these days, but the “Americans United for Separation of Church and State” began as “Protestants and other Americans United for Separation of Church and State.” </p>
<p>Their sole bigotry in their halcyon days was directed at American Catholics and the manner in which they were “anti-American” dupes of the Pope bent on undermining the American way of life.</p>
<p>They led the original anti-Catholic charge against JFK, as well, for obvious reasons.</p>
<p>The bill alluded to by Interestedad was simply part of their anti-Catholic agenda with legal dressing; almost all religious schools at that time were, as we all know, Catholic schools and these folks were more terrified of a plague of Catholics than Joe McCarthy was of Hollywood Communists taking over the military.</p>
<p>If Protestants and other Americans united for Separation of Church and State original boogeyman would have been Jewish rather than Catholic, they would not have survived long enough to legitimize themselves as a self-perpetuating organization dedicated to holding off the Christian horde.</p>
<p>Perhaps they have seen the evil of their former ways, offered a mea culpa and reformed.</p>
<p>Glad to see them all gussied-up and doing so well these days.</p>
<p>Personally I don’t have a problem with such a license plate as long as other religions are not discriminated against & I don’t consider myself a Christian.</p>
<p>Is THIS why we have license plates - and not to express our personal interests or beliefs? I can’t imagine that it’s gotten any easier for the police with all these specialty plates; I’m amazed at the huge variation in the background colors which I assume would become discernible from a farther distance much sooner than the name of the state. Wouldn’t it be much easier for the police to identify cars if all the plates from one state were at least the SAME color? (or am I just being too logical and expecting too much order in my world? )</p>
<p>Yes. Ironically, Americans United was orginally the work largely of some Baptist movers and shakers to stop federal funding of Catholic schools. Now, of course, it is many Baptist initiative (teaching of creationism, etc.) being challenged.</p>
<p>The organization’s leader had to defend Eleanor Roosevelt, who was attacked by a Catholic Cardinal for speaking out against government funding of parochial schools. The next issue was a campaign to against President Truman’s plan to exchange ambassadors with the Vatican.</p>
<p>Next came questioning Kennedy. It was in his letter to AU where JFK affirmed that he would not support government funding of religious schools and would follow the constitution over his Church’s mandates. This seems particularly relevant fifty years later when representatives of the Catholic church routinely state that politicians are not fit for office because of their positions on issues. Keep in mind that a church taking political stances such as that should legally lose their tax-exempt status.</p>
<p>Here’s an article about the organization’s founder and early days:</p>
<p>Churches/religious organizations are automatically tax exempt under the law, and need not adhere to the free speech limitations of official 501c3 status to remain so? If so, it’s a well guarded secret:eek:!</p>
<p>I don’t know if this inquiry is specific to Obama, but it does seem fishy.
I would be intimidated. </p>
<p>In any case, I was quite interested in your previous post suggesting that the establishment clause would prevent the taxing of any religion/house of worship, in whatever case.</p>
<p>If this is the case, as I believe it is, there should be no grounds for going after any church/religion for taxes, even including those that take a political position in a particular election. Even Obama and the United Church of Christ.</p>
<p>“the establishment clause would prevent the taxing of any religion/house of worship”</p>
<p>I’m no tax expert, but are they reading the establishment clause to mean that the government can’t pass laws that impose on churches, period? That reading is definitely wrong under current law.</p>
)</p>