Why "wonder" about Americans United? Why not check? This is the internet after all. Oh, wait, if you did, you couldn't just post an unfounded, open smear against a group you couldn't bother to google. I mean, why bother to have your facts when you can just post empty suppositions?

Ahh, yes, I follow your logic:

"Look at this example of Americans United protesting a church which campaigned against a Republican -- this leads me to believe that Americans United does not protest churches which campaign against Republicans."

Allow me to explain in small words for the slow of wit: Romney was attacked from the right by an "out there" fundamentalist. AUSCS weren't defending Romney or his Mormon faith in any way; they entered a complaint against the preacher's tax-deductible status, based on his political meddling.

Perhaps I should have spelled it out more clearly for the duller of our readers: the point is they never challenge the tax-exempt status of churches that help Democrats and other leftist causes.

Morons.

"I do have to wonder how many black churches "Americans United" has filed complaints against when they rail against Bush as if he were the AntiChrist, and invite Democratic politicians to speak from their pulpits? Not darned many, I'll wager . . ."

"the point is they never challenge the tax-exempt status of churches that help Democrats and other leftist causes."

Um... first you made a supposition about American United (which may or may not be true still) and stated it in a fashion that made it seems you had no facts researched to back it up. Then you made a generalization about some random group of black churches that only inviting Democratic speakers (not sure why ethnicity came into the fishing trip). I am not sure how you can come back in the forum calling people idiots for poor reading comprehension when you clearly stated it as a supposition and you were also unclear in how the apples equaled oranges in your analysis...

How this is even a story I can't tell... you don't "wonder" how many non-profits conservative groups have claimed infringement of tax exemption rules on? Or are we just speculating to make a non-story worth posting?

Mr. Addison,
Ni Hao (Good Day)!

Please forgive my question. English is not my native tongue, and this sometimes causes misunderstandings. I usually ask my wife, a native American, (not Ameridin, just many generations) to make sure I understand correctly, but she is TDY currently. I am, (perhaps also) a little shy after the bumping(?) I got at DJ Drummonds earlier. Please take my question kindly, as one of my two main (remaining) problems with English are ideoms and complete comprehension of certain types of exposition. Good, the long background explaintion is complete.

In your above story, you add in an except and reference to a church in your area. Noting its accounting problems. If it was to draw a parallel with the LDS church, they have a national independent auditor audit its financial dealing each year. Many churches do not do this - which I think is unwise, as it allows innocent errors to grow over time.

If it was not to draw a parallel, ten I am completely lost. There then would seem (to my understanding of exposition), to be no purpose for its inclusion. On reading several other of your posts, your writing is as a rule, clear and "tight". What am I missing?

I know you are probably a busy person, and I thank you for what help, if any, you have time to provide.

- Mao Ma Ding

Mao Ma Ding ~ I am sorry if my prose wasn't clear. Perhaps it was wrong to inject the anecdote about Brother Stair. The parallel I intended there was between him and Keller, not his cult and the LDS.

I think in this case AUSCS was correct to note their complaint against Keller. My objection is that they only seem to complain about political efforts by tax-exempt religious groups when they come from the right. Even a stopped (analog) clock is right twice a day, even though wrong the rest of the time.

Grimnir ~ I noted the political dealings of black churches because it is so widespread, and AUSCS seems not to have the same problem with their pro-Democratic politics. Why would you object to mentioning their "ethnicity" if it is true? AUSCS is itself a political organization, as evidenced by their choice of offenses for complaint.