1,500 Pastors Defy IRS Ban on Preaching Politics

a reply to: Gryphon66

Absolutely agree, but like most ideals it's only a good idea on paper. I'm all for charities being tax-free, but I'm also not so keen on them having amazing corporate offices with incredible views and an executive toilet.

The reason I feel so strongly about religions and cults not having tax-free status is because they are so destructive - no matter the good they do in their charitable works. It's such a blurred line.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

You may want to check some actual history.

The tax codes for non-profits changed in 1954 (as noted) under the 83rd Congress.

And guess which party controlled the House, the Senate and the Presidency in 1954? That's right ...

Those pinko liberal Republicans.

Facts do ruin a good deceptive rant.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So, let's see that's *does calculations* one person out of about 232 million people who doesn't meet your personal definition of what a Christian is.

You question has been answered multiple times. Unions are a different tax class than churches. Unions EXIST to lobby on behalf of their membership.

I did not give my personal definition of anything. Maybe you need to go back and re-read. I hope all your replies are not written in such a manner.

Unions do not exist to lobby politically. 100% false and a lie. Unions were created to prevent employers from taking advantage of workers, not to elect officials.

Them being a different tax class is meaningless, WHY should they be?

Did you or did you not post your opinion of whether your relative is Christian enough or not?

Do you understand what the word "personal" means? Or did I miss you being elected to speak for all Christians everywhere, as well as "God" to be able to decree who is and who isn't a Christian.

Perhaps you need to go back and re-read what you wrote, because it's more than obvious.

RE: Your rant on labor unions ...

You are so obviously mistaken its painful.

The American Federation of Labor, founded by Samuel Gompers in 1886 was at the forefront of lobbying to change child labor laws and lobbying for the rights of workers.

Here's a typical (and easy to understand) explanation of actual factual history from history.com

In the political realm, the founding doctrine of pure-and-simple unionism meant an arm’s-length relationship to the state and the least possible entanglement in partisan politics. A total separation had, of course, never been seriously contemplated; some objectives, such as immigration restriction, could be achieved only through state action, and the predecessor to the afl, the Federation of Organized Trades and Labor Unions (1881), had in fact been created to serve as labor’s lobbying arm in Washington. Partly because of the lure of progressive labor legislation, even more in response to increasingly damaging court attacks on the trade unions, political activity quickened after 1900. With the enunciation of Labor’s Bill of Grievances (1906), the afl laid down a challenge to the major parties. Henceforth it would campaign for its friends and seek the defeat of its enemies.

What can I say, when you're wrong, you're wrong.

a reply to: beezzer
the way I read the law you can preach on morality all you want.
you congregation can listen to you preaching and accept those morals and then go and vote according to their moral values.
the problem I think would come in when you start naming candidates and parties which you think best represents those moral values and telling your congregation that they should vote for those candidates.

but who knows it's gotten to be a crazy world so I could be wrong.

I wouldn't see a problem with them bringing the petition into the church and well mentioning during the sermon and having it in the back for the people to sign while leaving the building as long as they weren't being coerced to threatened with hell and damnation if they chose not to.

Yesterday me and my husband were coming home from the store and saw a bunch of police cars with flashing red lights ahead. We were just a little dismayed thinking that we would be held up in traffic because of a bad accident. But it wasn't an accident. The church was having some kind of fundraiser and the school that was across the street from them has allowed them to use their parking lot and the police were there directing traffic so that the people could get across the highway safely.. Did this cross the line between church and state? I don't know maybe?? But it's my understanding that the church was doing some great charity work and well the community much of agreed because they did have a great turnout which is why they needed the extra parking space. As I see it the success of their fundraiser may have benefited the church some but it also benefited the community since those in need would be helped in many ways not to mention they all had a wonderful time at what was a fun community event.
And the police involvement probably prevented someone from getting killed on the highway!

We have plenty of people who need this or that. The homeless, families struggling to buy their kid's school supplies or clothing, ect.
And there is much to be gained from having a close knit community, especially now when the federal and local gov't are kind if failing use more times than not!
I think both sides of this argument are kind of off track and nit-picking really.

a reply to: dawnstar

The church was having some kind of fundraiser and the school that was across the street from them has allowed them to use their parking lot and the police were there directing traffic so that the people could get across the highway safely.. Did this cross the line between church and state?

No, of course not. I'm sure that the church got permission to use the school parking lot through city permits and possible fees. Plus, the police most likely would be hired to direct traffic or serve as security for the church's fundraiser. I say this, because I was a volunteer coordinator for a non-profit group, and that's how things worked for us. We used schools, civic centers, hotels, golf courses and even churches for our secular "Film Festival" fundraisers and events, and often hired the police to help with parking issues and for security and insurance purposes, as well.

originally posted by: Onslaught2996

They need to keep their delusional mouths shut when it comes to politics...there are tax exempt because they are supposed to be not profit.

They need to keep their delusional mouths shut.

Yep. Truth finally from a "liberal" leftist democrat.

Not a big proponent of free speech, are you!

originally posted by: ownbestenemy
a reply to: beezzer

In a Constitutional bubble -- the answer is no.

In the current environment, sadly, the answer it seems is a vague yes. This is due to the convolution of the tax-code in which churches (or any other organization) has signed onto the notion that they must seek State approval for their messages (via tax-exemption). Thus they fall under the jurisdiction of that law and have abdicated their natural and Constitutional right to speak freely.

Thank you. I was afraid that my question scared too many people.

I always appreciate your replies.

a reply to: dawnstar

Taxes should neither be a carrot nor a stick.

Tax-exempt status shouldn't either.

And if it is such a punishment to pay taxes, perhaps we need to reexamine our tax code.

*laughing*

Didn't Biden say it was patriotic to pay taxes?

Church -------------------------------------------------- State


Any questions?

originally posted by: Hefficide
Church -------------------------------------------------- State


Any questions?

What happens though, when state starts politicizing issues that used to be left to the church?

Is the state wrong?

Or should the church just shut up?

a reply to: beezzer

By Church doctrine - "Render unto Caesar what is his". Christ lived under Roman law and, by all accounts, willfully obeyed it. If the state seeks to force people to do things that is against their religion - then one can refuse on the basis of consciencious objection and make a moral stand.

But that is the caveat - the Church cannot mandate what the State can do in general. It is up to individuals to make their own, personal decisions about things like abortion, obyeing Mosaic law, etc.

originally posted by: SomePeople

Why the hell shouldn't it be about the money?

...I almost have no words. I want to rant, and rave, and punch you in the face for saying that. If I, or anyone else in this World has to explain it to you, then you, Sir/Madam, have FAILED as a human being.

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: beezzer

By Church doctrine - "Render unto Caesar what is his". Christ lived under Roman law and, by all accounts, willfully obeyed it. If the state seeks to force people to do things that is against their religion - then one can refuse on the basis of consciencious objection and make a moral stand.

But that is the caveat - the Church cannot mandate what the State can do in general. It is up to individuals to make their own, personal decisions about things like abortion, obyeing Mosaic law, etc.

So the church can still sermonize about morality.

And the state can politicize morality.

And neither the twain shall meet?

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

So is it ok to take away their tax exempt status then? I don't serve any master. Master implies slavery.

You want my opinion? NO ONE SHOULD BE TAX EXEMPT. Especially the corporations of the World, paying little to NOTHING in taxes every year. Please don't mistake my faith for naivete, I am a realist at heart. No church should ask for a tithe, the pastor/priest should work a regular job, and give sermons too. If I, or anyone else, can work and still get to church, then they can as well.

As for the slave thing, yeah... just try to leave. Try to leave it all behind, leave your money, your debt, and all your responsibilities behind. Can't? Right. Yeah, I think we are all slaves to something.

a reply to: Chronogoblin

I agree, actually.

I think the whole "tax exempt" status has been over-used and abused.

Everyone should pay taxes.

And there should never be a restriction on speech

a reply to: beezzer

Morality is subjective, culturally specific and not exclusive to religion. Religion is not a synonym for morality.

The state legislates, effectively, our views of morality. We call things that violate our collective morals "crimes" and, to some degree, seek to punish those who violate those moral codifications. Thus law is the States expression of morality.

The "Church" consists of a plethora of religions and religious moralities that are not necessarily laws, but can be observed on a personal basis. I am not Catholic, for example, so eating meat on Friday does not offend me - where it might offend others. These are person issues, not civil ones.

Problems arise when the Church tries to project these personal issues ONTO the civil setting.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
So, let's see, we can define the words "witch," "fire," "burning," "sacrifice" and so forth to mean whatever we wish.

Yes, the poor, victimized churches ... being burned at the "state" (that would actually be a little witty if it were intentional) because they're expected to obey the law.

Yea I though about changing that but then remembered Sigmund and said what the heck.

a reply to: Hefficide

Specifically, gay marriage.

The church has a historical precedent for preaching about the immorality of gay marriage, the gay lifestyle.

Politicians and society have legislated for it.

Should the church just shut up about a topic that they have historically preached about simply because it is a political issue now?

a reply to: beezzer

The Church has every right to maintain a stance on any issue. What they do not have a right to do is to demand that society obey their chosen or given doctrine. Preaching about their perception of immorality is thier choice - but they run the risk of alienating people who disagree with the message.

History shows, again and again, that the Church will bend it's position on issues when the populace outgrows the dogma. A hundred years ago,for example, divorce was so stigmatic that few people chose the option and many were demonized for doing so.

Now? Now I cannot think of a Church that would excommunicate or isolate for a person divorcing.

If that is a good thing or not, I am not stating. Simply that the Church fell behind the social curve.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

I would agree to that as long as every other tax exempt put politically active groups, such as unions, planned parenthood, environmental groups, also lose their tax exempt status. The same rules for all is the only fair and just answer to the question.

originally posted by: Bone75

Funny how all the "Equality" preachers in this thread are totally ignoring your perfectly valid point.

I started to join a union once. Til this day I still get emails from them asking me to support Democratic candidates. In fact, the ONLY emails I get from them are about political issues and they're damn near demanding that I go vote for their cause of the month.

Where's the religion in unions? Or in Planned Parenthood? Or environmental groups?

This is not a right-left argument. It's a state-religion argument.

By this logic, there would be no tax exempt anything.