And yet, he's disappointed by Obama's actions.
In his article, "No Foul Here," Lynn states:
The IRS has stated repeatedly that not all candidate appearances before houses of worship or religious groups are a violation of the Internal Revenue Code. The Code allows these kinds of appearances as long as the candidate and the religious group do not promote the candidacy.Then a few moments later, Lynn admits:
During his speech, Obama mentioned his presidential run. He shouldn’t have done so, and I am disappointed that he made the reference. But those remarks did not transform the event into a political endorsement.Here's a "disappointing" remark from Obama's speech, which is posted at the UCC's official website (picture above shows UCC President John Thomas [far left] and Associate General Minister Edith Guffey [center] listening to Obama's speech):
Our conscience cannot rest so long as nearly 45 million Americans don't have health insurance and the millions more who do are going bankrupt trying to pay for it. I have made a solemn pledge that I will sign a universal health care bill into law by the end of my first term as president that will cover every American and cut the cost of a typical family's premiums by up to $2500 a year. That's not simply a matter of policy or ideology – it's a moral commitment.So according to Lynn's own understanding of IRS codes, Obama broke the law.
Plus, UCCtruths has photographs of campaign tables set up outside the facility, with staffers recruiting support.
Doesn’t that obligate the AU to take action?
Or, does Lynn's expression of personal disappointment provide sufficient atonement?
James Lord at the American Spectator muses:
Had this been a church of the "Christian Right" and the candidate a conservative, Lynn and various liberals would have been all over cable TV demanding an IRS investigation. Instead, silence.Earlier I reported that Lynn and the AU has kept silent since the State of Connecticut underwrote the United Church of Christ's rental of the Hartford Civic Center to the tune of $100,000.
Now, Lynn sees no foul that warrants AU action against Barack Obama's campaign.
If this is the AU’s attitude toward religious liberals and politicians, fine.
Actually, I personally like it. If states want to generate business by offering financial incentives to religious groups, fine. If religious groups want to host politicians campaigning for office, fine.
Just apply the same generous standard to conservatives.