Who are you again?

Just kidding...

Funny, this subject was on my mind recently too.

I'm sure we all recall the hubbub raised by Wright back in '08, and that hubbub focused a lot on his position as a pastor of a church that held a tax exempt status in IL. The unjust nature of the law in question is clear to me... but it was my understanding that a portion of the reasoning behind NOT doing away with it entirely was that it afforded the US, and specifically the Department of Homeland Security, its only foothold into investigating these sorts of pastors and religious leaders who advocate hate and/or violence against Americans.

Now, I don't know nor can I say just how much of the failure to follow up on this troublesome piece of legislation is because someone in executive authority feels it is better left alone than dealt with in the Supreme Court... but the prospect is interesting, is it not?

Radical Islamic leaders preaching hate and violence within American mosques... or rabid racists and ethnic supremacy-advocates lecturing on the evils of skin color and national origin, all are open to investigation via this law... which is a tax issue rather than a criminal investigation, and might make the process just a little easier to follow through.

My point? Is knowing that the purely "political" speech that is happening from the pulpit (be it about abortion, health care, welfare, et al) is utterly and completely ignored by the investigating agency (the IRS) time and time again enough to justify leaving it "on the books" to help combat the evils that stem from the more radical elements that also use the pulpit against American interests and policies?

For example:

You used the abolitionist movement as an example of pulpit politics, and it is an excellent one. I agree 100% with your thoughts on the important nature of keeping the abolitionist movement alive and kicking from 1776 all the way through 1865 via this venue. I just want to point out that there was a down-side to this, too... and one example of that down-side was John Brown.

John Brown was a failed and bankrupt preacher who, due to huge debt and massive amounts of mental instability, used the pulpit to advocate and justify rebellion and murder in the cause of ending slavery. Ultimately hanging for his crimes, he was found responsible for the murder of no fewer than seven men (one of whom was a freed slave) and the destruction of several pieces of private and government property in his radical efforts. Brown, too, used the pulpit... just as the more peaceful and non-violent anti-slavery elements did that we now know as the Underground Railroad.

You also made the example of the civil rights movement of the 50s and 60s... another excellent example (probably the best), but the advocates of segregation and racism that fought MLK and the rest used the churches they frequented on Sunday mornings just as often and just as efficiently as the integrationists. KKK recruiters often used churches as their primary means of finding new members and (more importantly) finding new money... and not only in the deep South.

I recognize and agree with your thoughts about the unjust nature of this law... seriously, I do. I think it should be struck from the books immediately. It is a clear violation of free speech, no question. I just want to make sure that you understand that there are those that defend it who hold a political view very similar to yours in regards to defending American from radicals who would cause her harm.