Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The issue is not one of separation of church and state per se. It is a matter of federal tax code.
The only thing houses of worship may not do is endorse or oppose candidates for public office or use their resources in partisan campaigns. This restriction, which is found in federal tax law, is not limited to churches and other religious ministries. In fact, it is applied to every non-profit organization in the country that holds a tax exemption under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code.
Contrary to the claims of many in the Religious Right, the IRS is not singling out houses of worship for special regulation. Thousands of educational, scientific, charitable and literary organizations hold the 501(c)(3) status, and all must abide by the legal requirement barring involvement in elections.
Why does this rule exist? The answer is obvious: Non-profit organizations receive tax exemption because their work is charitable, educational or religious. That tax benefit comes with conditions. One requirement is that tax-exempt organizations refrain from involvement in partisan politics. This is a reasonable rule, since tax-exempt groups are supposed to work for the public good, not spend their time and money trying to elect or defeat candidates.
This regulation is also designed to protect the integrity of the election process. Special types of organizations already exist to help political hopefuls win public office. Those groups, such as Political Action Committees, have a different tax status and are organized under a different set of rules than 501(c)(3) groups, rules designed to ensure that the nation's campaign-finance laws are followed. Blurring the distinction between these two types of organizations would harm both religion and politics.
The interesting thing about all this is that certain religious institutions have blatently ignore these stipulations...especially the Pat Robertson's and James Dobsons of the world. They should have had their 501(c)(3) status revoked YEARS ago.
Well said tried to rep yah but I gotta spread it around.
quote: "Let me ask you this one question, if church and state was TRULY separate, how on EARTH could any Christian be a politician? Could a Buddhist monk become a politician? Could a.... satanist? So if church and state were truly separate, then the only people who could hold office would be atheists. And we would all be living under the thumb of atheism. You don't think that would start to violate our first amendment rights?"
I'm afraid the above silly example destroys your credibility.
The implication of the first amendment- separation of church and state- is that "the government may make no law respecting the establishment of religion or restricting its free exercise". That is so that no one religion will be state sponsored or mandated. That is why many of the first colonists came to America.
Taxing churches gets the government involved in religion- unfortunately many have figured that out and taken full advantage of it. I do believe the subject needs to be revisited-as the previous poster who brought up the tax code issues said.
Seeing as I believe organized religion as being the world's largest Ponzi scheme, I believe they should be paying taxes. Considering how they pretty much tell people how to vote in elections, for one reason. What do you think?
First answer this question, Do you know WHY they are tax exempt?
Bascailly think about it. On any given sunday there are more chritian who attend church than nay other group has ever thought they could gather. he that does not even include the numbers that actaully can't and watch services at home. the pope alonge i mnay countries draws more of a crowd than any other leader visiting.Billy Graham could seel out yankees stadium by just preaching there. Religion cuts across mnay rcial and ethnics groups and is their core beliefs if in came down to cutting the shaft. Any Tea Party or OWS gatherings combined look small in comparison;which is why so many like Hitler and Stalin suppressed religion on the first order. Also the reason that i the constitution protection of religion fro the state was written in and has been affirmed since.
Why not? Is there something in the constitution that you would like to present that says they are "not supposed to?"
Quote:
but some do. They need to stick with serving man rather than politics IMO.
You seem to forget that politics and serving man are intertwined. In this political environment that caters to corporate greed I'm not surprised that you feel this way, but yes, the government's job is to protect the public interest. And the same is true of the church.
The OP is not about taxation. It's about people saying churches should stay out of politics and politicians should keep their religious beliefs from affecting their decisions.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
tried to rep yah but I gotta spread it around.
