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.
Wow! There is a lot of ignorance here. So many people think that churches shouldn't be allowed to voice their views on a political issue, or to fund a political entity or position, and if they don't keep their big mouth shut, they should lose their tax exempt status.
I've got news for you. The separation of church and state is not in the constitution. The first amendment protects our right to practice our religion. It protects our right to use our religion to guide how we vote. And surprise surprise, it protects politicians' rights to legislate based on their personal moral views, which were probably largely learned as a child from religion. Ron Paul voting against abortion is not violating any constitutional rule. In fact, telling any politician that he can't vote a certain way just because it happens to coincide with a certain religious point of view is tantamount to fascism. If it's "illegal" to vote against... say... gay marriage, then the vote itself is a fraud.
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?
Let me educate you on the procedure our founding fathers laid down for us. Politicians vote how they promised they would. They follow the views they expressed in their campaign. They are not allowed to vote on the constitutionality of anything. In fact, constitutionality shouldn't even enter their thinking. Their thinking should be "is this right." That's it! THEN the COURTS are charged with deciding if a decision or law is constitutional.
Let the politicians do their JOB! And leave the constitutionality to the courts. Let the people vote their conscious. Let the churches protect their interests.
The corporations are allowed to manipulate congress, and I think we can all agree that their interest is entirely selfish. At least the churches aren't killing anyone for profit. The churches' end goals are goodness. The corporations' goals are greed.
Fine go ahead and express your political views, just go ahead and pay federal taxes as well.
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.
Your 8th grade history book aside, you are going to have to do a whole lot better than this in trying to prove that my above example is "silly" and that it "destroys my credibility." If you want to neuter the first amendment by saying that it was all about the freedom to do whatever you want on Sunday mornings, then you lose the claim that politicians are not allowed to use religion to guide their political decisions and you can't tell churches to stay out of politics.
What part of "respecting an establishment of religion" do you people on the far right not understand? You're the second person I know on this forum who blatantly failed to comprehend "respecting an establishment of religion."
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.
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.
Did you not say:
Quote:
Originally Posted by smartalx
Wow! There is a lot of ignorance here. So many people think that churches shouldn't be allowed to voice their views on a political issue, or to fund a political entity or position, and if they don't keep their big mouth shut, they should lose their tax exempt status.
How do you expect people not to discuss it when you bring it up?
Despite that, the taxation issue is intractably linked to church involvement in politics and sets limits on their free speech if they wish to maintain that tax-exempt status. They can say or do anything they want, but they must understand that their tax exemption is on the line, not that the IRS has been very good at enforcing it. Roberston, Dobson et al still have theirs don't they?
You cannot separate the two and attempt to make it a separation of church and state issue as the only thing limiting their free speech is the taxation issue.
How do you expect people not to discuss it when you bring it up?
Regardless. The main point was not intended to be about taxation. Take my word for it. I'm the OP.
Quote:
Despite that, the taxation issue is intractably linked to church involvement in politics and sets limits on their free speech if they wish to maintain that tax-exempt status. They can say or do anything they want, but they must understand that their tax exemption is on the line, not that the IRS has been very good at enforcing it. Roberston, Dobson et al still have theirs don't they?
You cannot separate the two and attempt to make it a separation of church and state issue as the only thing limiting their free speech is the taxation issue.
Well, I won't argue against that point. You might be right. I didn't intend to limit discussion to the tax exempt status. I'm largely referring to people who want to tell others that they can't follow their religious convictions because they represent the government.
And this isn't only about freedom of speech. You don't need religious freedom to protect that right. It's about the right to vote and act on your religious convictions, and also the right for our political leaders to vote based on their religious convictions.
If churches lose their tax exempt status, wouldn't it be fair that all the phoney 501 C [3] that rake in millions of dollars a year also pay taxes?
Absolutely as all 501(c)(3) organizes are under the same rules as each other. I repost something I posted in another thread as it is relevant to this discussion.
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.
All right, folks. I think it's high time we dragged out this little goody:
Quote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
So, basically, the government can't make a law regarding the establishment of a certain religion. Nor can it prohibit the free exercise of any religion.
So...Christian politicians can express their religious views. Individual Christians can express their political views. Charitable organizations, however, cannot without paying taxes. This is not an abridgment of free speech because the government still allows it...but you have to pay taxes in order to do so. And as a Christian I think that's good thing. It's actually a better arrangement for the church than for the government, since it keeps us Christians from selling out our commitment to the gospel for worldly power, which is fleeting.
Christians in this country really need to stop wrapping Jesus up in party politics. He didn't care about using Roman politics to spread his message, and neither did his earliest followers. I wish most modern Christians felt the same way. I sometimes think Christians in other countries have an easier time following Jesus than we do since they don't see Christianity as a means to a political end.
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.
