Any Church preaching against Gay marriage should lose tax free status.

[Tyler Durden]

Organized Religion has a long history in this country of working for the good of all, and taking a blind eye to race, creed, or color. If this cannot be extended to the minority that through sexual orientation does not conform to one of their SOCIAL mores, then the organization must take a politically neutral stance. Unfortunately, this looks like the end of Religious Activism on an organizational level.

The call has gone out to the Fundamentalist Churches to influence members to support and lobby for a Constitutional Amendment defining heterosexual marriage as the only form recognized. This is a blatant political action.

Too long has the Religious Right, or any religious sector, been allowed to hold a minority of the country hostage to their personal religious beliefs, be they Anti Choice, Anti Gay, Anti Atheist, or White supremacist. It is sad to lose the positive action of Organized Religion for social change where it exists, but when a group can command this level of power over a disliked minority, then that power must be restricted.

Of course, no one can mandate the free speech of a member of Clergy, but if a church's pulpit is used for any purpose that urges or demands a political influence be made, then that religious organization must be considered to be acting as a political organization, and no longer be within the bounds of Tax Exempt status.

[liberalmuse]

1. I think most churches...

should lose their tax free status. The Mormon church is extraordinarily wealthy and owns downtown Salt Lake, among numerous other land holdings. They own stocks in many large corporations and churn out Stepford Mormons who vote Republican. Damn right they should pay taxes. On the positive side, the Mormon church does keep many a member off the welfare rolls by having their own welfare system. However, I believe churches should exist for the sole purpose of emulating Jesus' life by helping the poor in our society, etc. Once they start buying up property and stocks, they should pay taxes. I live in front of a man who owned acres of land and was persuaded by church leaders to give it all to the Mormon church. They do this to many of their landowner members. This is how they get free land.

On edit: and yes, I do believe a church that practices discrimination towards gays should lose their tax exempt status. I don't buy the crap that homosexuality is against god's laws--if you read the OT, and even the NT, homosexuality is given no more admonisment than eating pork or a woman going into a church with her head uncovered.

[Tyler Durden]

4. There was a preacher from Louisiana on NPR this AM

He was absolutely rabid about preaching this Sunday how everyone needed to go out and lobby, donate, etc for the effort to inact a Constitutional Amendment outlawing Gay Marriage.

This sounds like a PAC, not a church to me.

[bearfartinthewoods]

145. be careful what you wish for

think of all the southern Baptist churches and how tightly they work with us in elections.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

11. I get mad at things like this.

I live in front of a man who owned acres of land and was persuaded by church leaders to give it all to the Mormon church. They do this to many of their landowner members. This is how they get free land.

PLEASE somebody tell me how this is any different from selling the Brooklyn Bridge.

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[Muddleoftheroad]

Churches do good work

Those who contribute land, money, services, etc. to those churches do so out of their own beliefs. Would you outlaw charity?

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

18. Don't strawmanize.

Giving money (not your entire savings please!), food, medicine, your time etc. to specific initiatives is good charity. Giving away your real estate to a church is DUMB, period.

And, if I recall correctly, preachers have been pro(PRO! PRO! NOT PER!)secuted for coaxing gullible people into giving away all they had, anyone recalls such a thing?

[Muddleoftheroad]

21. Not straw

Giving land to churches is securing wealth for that institution for the longterm and securing its viability. Many people can't afford to donate much in this life, so they take care of it in their estate. What they choose to do with their property is up to them.

And, no, I've never heard of a legitimate religious organization prosecuted for taking donations. A few groups inevitibly mishandle some of the money (sooner or later it is bound to happen), but none get in trouble for taking gifts.

[Commie Pinko Dirtbag]

25. Again!

"And, no, I've never heard of a legitimate religious organization prosecuted for taking donations." Not what I said. Now excuse me while I go visit more useful threads. Have a nice day.

[Muddleoftheroad]

31. Again, again

What you said, "And, if I recall correctly, preachers have been pro(PRO! PRO! NOT PER!)secuted for coaxing gullible people into giving away all they had, anyone recalls such a thing?"

I said I had not heard of legitimate churches being prosecuted. Not sure why you got upset. Not sure you are either.

[Tyler Durden]

24. NO!

I would outlaw the right to subsidize an organization influencing the Government using indirect tax dollars.

Again, this seems simple to me: you can tell them what to BELIEVE, you just can't come right out and say CALL THIS LEGISLATOR or VOTE THIS WAY.

That's what a PAC does. If they want to be a PAC, no tax exempt status. SIMPLE.

[Muddleoftheroad]

32. It's a religion

If my religion says wearing green is wrong, I have a RIGHT to tell my congregation to vote that way. (I look good in green btw.) That's called freedom. Those who try to inhibit freedom on either the left or the right scare the hell out of me.

[Silverhair]

51. Indeed they are scary. I remember a textbook on gov't from my...

college days. The front inside cover showed the left-right spectrum, but it showed them as a circle, with the extreme left and the extreme right meeting, being different only in the form of their totalitarian regimes. Real freedom was maximized in the moderates who were 180 degrees across the circle.

[Tyler Durden]

58. What you CAN'T say is:

That people who where green are BAD PEOPLE that do not deserve all the rights and priveliges of citizens.

Try this: "WE believe we must wear green. OTHERS do not believe this way. WE believe they are WRONG, but are exercising their GOD-GIVEN-RIGHT-TO-FREE-WILL."

They can't tell their parisioners that they can't SELL to them.
They can't tell their parisioners that they can't RENT to them.
They can't tell their parisioners that they can't WORK with them. AND
They can't tell their parisioners that they HAVE TO CALL THEIR CONGRESSMAN TO HELP KEEP THEM IN THEIR PLACE.

[Silverhair]

60. Yes, you can tell them exactly that. n/t

[theboss]

64. Why not?

Can a minister say, "My friends, I am telling you this, if you associate with fornicators and adulterers and drug users and people who wear green . . I'm telling you . . their evil ways will become yours . . . and you will become them. Amen!"

[Muddleoftheroad]

65. Actually, you can do just that

I won't agree with it, but it's your right to do so.

You can tell you parishoners to shun them and not work with them. Some of the other stuff, you can say, but if the parishoners do it they will be in legal trouble.

And yes, most of all, you can ALWAYS tell your parishoners to lobby.

[DarkPhenyx]

90. Falacious argument.

First off, this isn't some new idea the church has come up with. It is a long standing issue w/in the curuch, adn one of the core beliefs. It even predates Christ.

[Tyler Durden]

102. I misspoke here

Try it this way:

They CAN tell their parisioners that they can't SELL to them,
They CAN tell their parisioners that they can't RENT to them,
They CAN tell their parisioners that they can't WORK with them.

Of course the PARISIONERS are responsible if they break Civil Rights laws in the process, and any "Religious Freedom" argument is Null and void.


BUT They CAN'T tell their parisioners that they HAVE TO CALL THEIR CONGRESSMAN TO HELP KEEP THEM IN THEIR PLACE. That is LOBBYING, and as a political action, subject to tax.

[DarkPhenyx]

121. Why can't they?

Tax exempt groups of all stripes do it all teh time. DO you honestly think the RW hasn't already looked at this? They would have shut down so many groups based simply on this if it was a valid argument.

[Tyler Durden]

135. Tax Exempt groups CLARIFY how they use funds.

They aren't allowed to use them for that sort of political action. Read the next request for donations you get CAREFULLY. It will say "These donations for lobbying are not tax-deductable."

If you've been doing that, I won't tell on you though.

[spunky]

143. Its not really lobbying, IMO

If you accept that it is a priest's (or minister or whatever) job to instruct their parisioners on how to live a good, moral Christian (or whatever) life, then it is not lobbying, it is telling them what they need to do, in the opinion of their religious leader, to live and uphold their moral values.

He does not take money from them to accoplish these goals. Any money given to the church is for the church, not for political use.

[theboss]

144. I'm an attorney

And I love First Amendment issues. But my head is swimming trying to figure out a system of enforcement for these suggestions.

[DarkPhenyx]

2. So you are saying that any church/religion...

...that does not toe the Administration line should lose it's tax exempt status? I believe this is exactly why we have the 1st Amendment as it applies to establishment of religion, and why religious entities fall under that tax exempt codes. Following your logic I think you would rapidly find that you don't like how the Government would use that kind of power. Please do some reading on why the Bill of Rights was written the way that it is.

[vi5]

3. Well personally I think they should not be tax exempt....

If they want to address political issues or subjects in any way that is their right under the first amendment. But just as other, non-religious organizations that wish to lobby or speak on behalf of a political position or viewpoint cannot be tax exempt, so too should the same standard apply.

[DarkPhenyx]

7. I think that is incorrect.

I believe there are tax-exempt organizations which lobby Congress. You also cannot legislate what a "private" organization does or does not say to it's members, outside of certain extreme views, w/o stepping on their Freedom of Speech. Now while the church might be able to shoulder the tax burden smaller organizations working for the environment, workers rights, and other causes near and dear to our liberal hearts would not. Rememebr who holds the majority of money in the US. If it came to a solvency pissing contest they would win.

While I agree with you in principle the ramifications of taxing religious organizations are frightening at the least.

[Tyler Durden]

10. Don't TAX them....

Just make them STOP being PAC's.

You don't even have to affect them directly at all. Just LEGALLY define a PAC to take in the monetary support of the exhortation to lobby for legislation.

[DarkPhenyx]

12. You can't stop them from talking about political issues.

You sure as hell can't stop them from telling their congregation how they should vote as good "religious sheep". Again, we're getting into teh Freedom of Speech issues.

[Tyler Durden]

14. SAY whatever you want.

JUST DON'T DO IT ON MY NICKEL.

Seems simple to me: don't stack the political deck by allowing Non-Profits to be PAC's.

What about this doesn't work? SAY what you want, DO what you want, just don't ask for the public to subsidize it.

[DarkPhenyx]

22. They aren't doing it on your nickle.

Yes they are getting a tax break, but they aren't receiving tax money from the government.

Remember this "stacking of the deck" as you call it works both way. OR prehaps it should be said works all ways. Black Baptist churches were working for civil rights before the Government was willing to approach the issue. Environmental groups, many of which are tax exempt, regularly inform thier members as to which candidates they shhould support, and which way they should vote.

You are pcikign one issue and riding it into the ground. You are not looking at the far larger picture and basing your choice on a logical, as opposed to emotional, basis.

Step back. Take a deep breath. Think.

Are you really willing to sacrafice everything else for one issue? Particularly one that is playing itself in our favor at the moment?

Rememebr too that, of all the issues you mentioned, only Gay Rights is one which butts right up against core tenants of the Church. Are you now saying that they shouldn't speak out in support of their core beliefs?

[Tyler Durden]

27. A tax break is a subsidy.

And YES, I have thought about this for YEARS.

The Fundamentalist churches in Houston set up massive mailings (on their tax-break franking) and massive manpower to stuff envelopes (their paid staff working on it, AND their staff exhorting others to volunteer).

YES, we lose some issues. NO, core beliefs of an organization CANNOT abutt the basic tennants of the Constitution and work toward amendment without being a POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE.

The "Core Beliefs" of GOPAC (Gingrich's PAC) are to elect Republicans because they have the true message of Democracy. WHERE IS THIS DIFFERENT?

[DarkPhenyx]

30. So let me ask you this.

Are you willing to accept this "rule" of yours for absolutely every organization on absolutely every issue for the rest of time?

I'd explain the difference but you aren't going to accept it becasue it dosen't do anything to bolster your position.

[Tyler Durden]

104. Sorry I missed this: OF COURSE I'll accept that.

When "Clean Water Action" sponsors a lobbying effort, they send me a special request for A NON-TAX DEDUCTABLE REQUEST to defray costs. As do ALL of the non-profits I donate to, or I DO NOT DONATE TO THEM.

I INSIST on knowing why and when lobbying is going on in organizations I support, and most important, how they are funded.

[Tyler Durden]

5. Your are reading this WRONG.

I am saying that if you ACT like a PAC, you're a PAC.

If a church says: "Go donate to Republicans, 'cause they'll prevent Gay Marriage/Abortion/etc then they've stopped being a church.

Where did I say ANYTHING about "...toe the Administration line..."? And the Constitution seems to say something about "Separation of Church and State." If the Church wants to get into the political game with Ministers as Lobbyists, feel free, just don't do it with my taxes.

[DarkPhenyx]

9. You picked a very specific topic...

...one you feel strong about, and decided to "punish" those organizations which do not feel the way you do and want to work against you. I would call that failing to toe the line.

[Tyler Durden]

13. Specific?

"Go and tell your congressman that GOD says............."

Sounds pretty general to me.

The tax exempt organization pays the salary of this person. This is indirect tax support. I specificall said in my first post that ALL political action must be taken into account, and I was regretful in this due to the positive aspects of the support of Religious organization (Civil Rights in the 60's, for example.)

This is going to be a biggie, and if you want to go into a gunfight with a knife, that's your funeral. I think it's time we did what government was supposed to do: protect minorities from the tyranny of the majority, not fund bullies.

[Muddleoftheroad]

16. We are NOT funding them

Our society has decided that we don't want government control over religion and that includes taxation, which is a LOT of control.

They get to speak their mind and you and others get to ignore them as you so choose.

[Tyler Durden]

37. They may speak their mind on RELIGIOUS ISSUES.

The Church of the Creator says people of color or Jews are subhuman. They can SAY that all day long. They just aren't allowed to do it as a tax free organization.

I know this is an extreme example, but how does it affect a given church's RELIGIOUS BELIEFS in Louisiana if Massachusetts legalizes Gay Marriage at the STATE LEVEL? Nobody told them they have to ADMIT gay people, MARRY gay people, etc. THEY OBJECT TO SOMEONE DIFFERENT FROM THEMSELVES HAVING ANY RIGHTS AT ALL. That is political extremism, and YES if we allow them not to pay taxes, but allow them to PREACH POLITICS, then YES we are funding them by allowing them to use discretionary funds to do this which would in an ordinary PAC go to TAXES.

[Muddleoftheroad]

40. Yes they should be, that's called freedom

Even as a person of color, I support it. To keep us free, we have to support the offensive stuff, so the rest of the stuff remains free.

I know you don't agree with religions opposing this, but many people do. They have a right to do so. That's not politics, it's religion.

[Silverhair]

41. And the gov't will define what is & isn't a religious issue? NO.

I will not give the gov't that power.

[Tyler Durden]

177. NO they will NOT.

The "RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION" can say and do exactly what they want. But envelope stuffing, banner making, funding of rallies, SPEECHES in a church service like "IF YOU ARE GOOD CHRISTIANS, YOU WILL NOT VOTE FOR XXXXXX, BECAUSE HE IS NOT A GOOD CHRISTIAN BECAUSE HE BELIEVES...."

That isn't a sermon. That's a PAID POLITICAL ANNOUNCEMENT. And my 12 year old can tell the difference: I asked her.

[Muddleoftheroad]

184. Banner making?

They can't even make banners?

Give me a break. You can't parse political and religious speech. There is infinite crossover.

[DarkPhenyx]

26. You said...

"Any Church preaching against Gay marriage should lose tax free status."

that sounds pretty specific to me. It isn't even "Gay Rights". You chose one specific right. Marriage.

This one isn't as big as you want to make it. It's inportant, and I hope we win, but it is far from the end all and be all of existance. If we lose it here we can fight it again if we have to.

"gunfight with a knife"? Now you are just being silly. Reactionary even.

[Athletic Grrl]

15. Tyler,

Your last sentence is mind boggling. You want to tax the churches, but then decry their protestylizing on your dime?

I do agree that wealthier denominations should pay property taxes on their non-religious holdings and profits derived therefrom, but Freedom of Religion (no matter how repugnant or downright wrong) is a fundamental right in this nation and can never be abolished, otherwise we end up like Northern Ireland, or Isreal/Palestine, etc.

[Muddleoftheroad]

17. Slippery Slope

Once you start taxing SOME churches, you control them all. Which ones do you tax? Who decides? How much? Etc.

It's all the kind of thing the 1st Amendment was designed to protect against.

[Athletic Grrl]

89. Muddleoftheroad,

Why not tax church-owned properties that are not used for church business? If the Mormon Church owns a piece of SLC which includes several for-profit high-rises housing multiple businesses, why should that be exempted? It's not slippery at all. It's very easy to separate which entities are for-profit and which remain under the umbrella of a Church.

[Muddleoftheroad]

100. Owned by the Church

Seems simple to me. All the churches I've ever known do lots of work to feed the hungry, outreach to AIDS patients, etc. All of those things are part of their ministry. All should be tax exempt. Church funds should also be tax exempt and property falls into that category.

[KG]

6. Any Church w/ a flying US flag on it grounds should lose tax free status

that's a politcal statement.

the 'separation of church and state' thing was supposed to be a two-way street.

[moroni]

108. Flag flying...

I am a Latter-day Saint and not perfect by any means. Where allowed by the country, I believe Latter-day Saints fly the flag of the country they are in. We have meetinghouses in many countries, as do many other denominations and religions. As a matter of fact, there are more Latter-day Saints residing out of the United States than in the United States. Flags are flown as a function of patriotism. Do not limit yourself to just one country. People are generally proud of the country of their birth. I was born in America and love it the most. I have lived in SE Asia (hunted sparrows with a slingshot for dinner), Central America, & Europe and I can truely appreciate our bounty and prosperity.

On donating property to churchs as gifts, you need to understand the law of consecration. It is a personal choice. If it were your choice, what would you want, a child or relative, the state, or the church? Who might benefit the most? I tithe to the Church. I do so by choice -to follow a commmandment. The money is used by the Church for the work of the Lord. That can be anything from buying bibles to drilling water wells anywhere in the world. Schools are funded, medical facilities are maintained, missionaries are supported, emergency aid is distributed and on and on.... Local monies can be used locally unless needed elsewhere. Overhead? Well, everyone pays for electricity & water, even legal services. We pay for things just like other entities. Our "clergy" is self supporting. There is no paid clergy here. Many are called to teach the gospel of Jesus Christ. Young (19-21 years old) women and young men are called to missionary work. If their families cannot provide enough support, then the Church supports them.... We currently have +65,000 missionaries worldwide. In addition, older missionary couples, who are called by the Lord, are sent on missions worldwide, at their own expense. Some go more than once.

We are instructed to manage this Church in a way that would be pleasing to our Heavenly Father and Jesus Christ. We are also charged with the same responsibility in managing our life, lifestyles, and families. We are here to learn and grow. What we learn here is all we can take with us when we leave.

This from another perspective, from very devout CONSECRATED members who give ALL THEY HAVE (90+% or more) to the Church: All they give goes for books, clothing, medicines, temples, food, and preaching the gospel. This money is handled by volunteers. It is distributed by unpaid members of the Church who are called by God to manage and distribute to those most in need, by inspiration and by the wisdom of age and experience.

What is NOT purchased: The services of civilian government employees.
The services of military personnel. Ordinance and weapons are not bought. No political party or entity or special interest group is supported. Some folks really like this part. Not sure about other countries though. If the Church paid taxes, then there would be less to go around.

I hope I have helped a little. I too am still learning. It will take a life time.


If you have any questions go to <shameless plug> www.mormons.org.

This site gives an overview of our beliefs. Take your time.

Blessings to all

Standard disclaimer: Though I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, I do not speak for the Church. These are my thoughts and beliefs as best as I can describe them. I am sure there are things I missed or did not make very clear. I haven't been a member long so please forgive me.

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. Not in the least

One of the weird things about freedom is you have to tolerate things you don't agree with. Freedom of Religion means that they can embrace their own beliefs, no matter how we feel them misguided or not.

[Silverhair]

19. NO. What about churches that urge activity on liberal...

causes. The black churches very active politically. They were the core of the 60's civil rights movement. The song they used in the sit-ins, "We Shall Not Be Moved" is a Christian hymn. Today the black church is still the core of the continuing struggle.

During the time of Vietnam the liberal churches were very active in anti-war activities, and many still are.

Those are political activities, and under your proposal they too would be punished by loss of tax exempt status.

Our freedoms must protect all, or they will end up protecting nobody. Did you know that the ACLU, that famously liberal organization, defended Oliver North? (He had been promised immunity in exchange for his testimony, and then the gov't tried to prosecute him for some of the self-incriminating things he disclosed.)If you give the gov't power to attempt to suppress political speech or action that you disagree with, then within your lifetime that power WILL be used against you. And you can take that last sentence to the bank.

Let them speak, and battle them in the marketplace of ideas.

[Muddleoftheroad]

33. No fair

You took one of my arguments.

As an African-American, I know full well that our churches are the backbone of our political and social strength and now someone wants to tax them? Not likely.

[Silverhair]

44. LOL.

:toast:

[dusty64]

20. I couldn't agree more.

Let them work to deny equality without a break from taxes. Many "religious" institutions are completely involved in politics, thats fine if they pay like the rest of us, if not STFU!

[Silverhair]

23. Yes, many churches are political, like the black churches...

are still the core of the civil rights movement. It isn't an accident that Jesse Jackson & Al Sharpton both have an Rev. in front of their names. I suppose that you want them taxed too?

[Tyler Durden]

29. Unhappily, YES.

The influence of the Religious Right is like a tsunami on the beach of the body politic. If you allow it free access, you better not build in its path.

The Freedom of Speech is not infringed here, and that is the one and only issue related to the influence factor in the churches. If you PREACH politics, YOU ARE NOT PREACHING RELIGION. Religion MAY NOT teach and practice descrimination on subsidy from our taxes.

[Muddleoftheroad]

34. Define religion

Religion is a collection of beliefs. You seem to define religion as a collection of beliefs that YOU agree with.

[DarkPhenyx]

36. OK, work at getting this concept.

In this case their preaching of their religion happens to coincide with a political issue. It isn't like there isn't a prescident in that book they put so much faith in, right?

As I have pointed out above, you seem to be on an emotional high horse with this subject. Definately not teh best place to be arguing your point from.

[theboss]

49. Morality and politics intersect

Any political decision I make is going to be infused with morality.

A preacher says, "I would never trust a man who cheats on his wife."

If I interpret this mean to vote against Newt Gingrich or Bill Clinton, does this make it a political statement?

[DemBones DemBones]

39. Religion must be free to teach its own tenets, which include

morality.

[DemBones DemBones]

28. No doubt you'd be delighted if churches were urging their

members to go out and work for widespread acceptance of same-sex marriage.

You can't support the churches you agree with and penalize those you disagree with. That's what freedom of religion is all about. You don't have to believe what any particular church teaches and churches don't have to temper their beliefs to suit you.

Separation of church and state means, primarily, that this country is not to have an official religion. I doubt that the framers of the Constitution would ever have considered the idea that government should tell churches what they can and cannot teach. Churches often teach that things that are legal are immoral and they attempt to affect laws dealing with such things, fighting efforts to legalize gambling in a state or locality, or working to retain "blue laws" that restrict alcohol purchase and consumption. You may objecxt to that but you probably appreciate that churches supported the civil rights movement and have opposed wars.

I think, by the way, that this is not solely a Christian issue but that Muslims and Orthodox Jews may also oppose same-sex marriage.

[theboss]

35. Well, religious freedom isn't that important . . .

Good Lord. You've just called for the end of religious freedom in this country. I assume that if a church is pro-gay and pro civil rights, it would lose tax exempt status too. And any church that dare speak to the ills of gambling . . .gone.

Why stop there? Any tax-free organization that takes a political stance, should lose it's tax-free status . . . like, for example, the local Democratic Woman's club.

This may actually be the scariest argument ever brought forth on this site. It's essentially a call for facism. Congratulations.

[DarkPhenyx]

38. Nicely put.

Thank you for wording it that way.

[DemBones DemBones]

42. Yes, it is, as are your posts above. The idea of

freedom only applying to ideas the left likes is just as wrong-headed as the idea of freedom only applying to ideas favored by the right. Freedom has to be across the board.

[theboss]

45. Misunderstanding of tax policy too

Tax policy in this country is as much a social tool as it is a revenue-collecting tool in modern America. This may be unfortunate, but it is a fact. You increase taxes on smoking because smoking is "bad" and end taxes on groceries because buying food is "good." Taxes are used to dictate behavior. So, understanding this premise, if the government begins taxing religion, the government is making a value judgment - this religious concept is good (yay "love and charity") while this religious concept is bad (boo "circumcision and marrying inside the faith").

Also, a tax exemption is not a subsidy. This type of thinking presupposes that the government has a 100 percent right to all money and property and then chooses which to tax. If the government decides to allow you to keep 62 percent of your income, it is being magnaminous in some way. The government, in reality, has 0 right. The people tell it what they are willing to have taxed. This is the entire basis of Western Law since the Magna Carta. This is why we needed a constitutional amendment to allowing the income tax. The government does not subsidize the people. The people subsidize the government. Again, I can only read the reversal of this argument as a call for facism, where the state dictates all economic activity.

[Silverhair]

46. Well Said!! n/t

[Beer Snob-50]

43. The dialogues of tax exempt status and the governmen t

telling a religion that they should lose it for not toeing the line is not the same. I would be scared if the government had the power to tell a religion what it could or could not say.

[spunky]

47. If you don't want the church. . .

. . .telling the government what to do, you can't let the government dictate the church's doctorine.

To say a church that preaches the "right" message my have tax free status, but one that preaches the "wrong" message may not is hypocracy. The state might as well sponsor an official religion that preaches state propaganda.

If you argue that the religious right should not dictate law to the rest of us via their morality, then your morality should not dictate the teachings of the church.

[rasputin1952]

48. Ah, one of those ticklish issues...

Unfotunately, emotions run rampant in these threads, and often blind one to the purpose of intent.

Churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and the earth itself, all have religious meaning to someone. I believe that all religious activities are inherently social in nature, and therefore become political by default. As noted previously, the Black Southern Baptist churches have a long history of social activism, stessing equality and responsibility, as have Black Muslim mosques. Jews have always been socially active through their teachings as have Buddhists. Most religions stress individual responsibility for ones actions, and favor forgiveness and mercy, over fear and ignorance. There will always be some who will manipulate a system for thier own profit and motives, but that in no way should condemn an entire litenany of well motivated groups and individuals that believe that their actions are for the greater good of society.

Far to often, we hear from a few loudmouthed individuals on either the extreme right or left, and fail to see the core of the nation as a whole. In the instance of those that are declaiming gay marriage, why would one deny them the right to speak out for what they believe? If that is the course one chooses to take, then do not be surprised when the voices of those in the center grow louder against you. One cannot call for the silencing of others, without expecting forces to come down in favor of silenceing that individual. This is what Free Speech is all about; Rather than trying to stop some one from speaking, one must ensure that their ideas hold more water than the oppositions.

Let the religious institiuions of this nation remain tax exempt. Let the religious organizations of this nation take up social, (and therby political), causes. One cannot forget the legacy of good this country has inherited from religious organizations; it seems that there is far too much remembrance of the bad things that have come from a few.

O8)

[terrya]

50. I tremble with anger over the catholic church on this matter.

It's plainly obvious to anyone that the catholic church is going to interfere in the domestic policies of other countries. They are now a political organization.

Yank their tax exempt status immediately. The idea that there's a separation of church and state is completely laughable now.

Besides, the catholic church is one of the wealthiest, most powerful institutions in the world. They can pay their share of taxes...just like the rest of us.

[Muddleoftheroad]

52. Wow, I thought we were done

But another person clearly doesn't support the Constitution just because a church dares disagree with them. Is this the classic, "Catholics obey Rome and not Washington" argument?

Come on, every person in the U.S. has a right to speak their mind on issues. Religions are covered by the 1st Amendment to ensure their rights.

[theboss]

55. This is turning into a Robin Hood thing

From what I am hearing, the argument is partly based on the fact that the Catholic Church is rich and that the Southern Baptists are politcally powerful. So, they must be punished.

This is a really dangerous road to go down, because historically speaking, the end result of this argument is a lot of Jews in prison - at the very least.

[spunky]

53. The Catholic Church is no more political

than any other church. If you remove their tax exempt status, you must remove it from all.

By that logic the tax exempt status of Jewish Synagogues should be removed, because I'm sure they they support Isreal politically.

The tax exmpt status of Muslim Mosques should be removed, because I'm pretty sure they are lobbying for the civil rights of Muslims in this country.

Southern Baptists want to take away my right to do what I want with my body, lets yank their status too. . .

etc., etc., etc. You can't just take from one church, they all do the same thing.

[Liberator_Rev]

57. Hitler subsidized the Catholic & Lutheran Churches and schools throughout

Hitler subsidized the Catholic & Lutheran Churches and schools throughout the Third Reich. In fact he tripled the earlier state subsidies, which the Liberal Wiemar Republic had tried in vain to terminate.

And in return these churches churned out millions of loyal subjects, without whom Hitler could never have implimented his diabolical dreams. There was total of only SEVEN Roman Catholics who refused to serve in Hitler's armed services, and even the priest among these was refused the sacraments for being a "bad Catholic" as well as an unpatriotic citizen.
See much MORE about the shocking facts of Church cooperation with the NAZIS at
http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/RCscandal

[youngred]

136. How many people from other religions refused service in Hitler's army?

or do you not care about that number? You make the point then that national society and political beliefs have more influence than religion.

and of course the gratuitous off topic linking

[youngred]

134. Why single out the Catholics?

When so many other religions do it as well?

[terrya]

163. I do single out the catholics because....

1) Admittedly self interest, but I was raised catholic myself. And as a gay man, it makes me angry and sad at the same time to see such virulent homophobia from the Vatican.

2) I seriously believe that one reason the Vatican is so aggressively homophobic is because it deflects investigation into the catholic church's scandals involving sexual abuse of children by priests and the higher-ups who have condoned that abuse. And gay people are handy scapegoats.

[Blue_Chill]

54. So now the goverment should force churches to be in line with democrats?

It seems many hae taken a shine to the idea of using tax exemption as leverage to pressure churches to change their doctrine to fit in with your views on the world. This is insanity.

If you belong to a church then go and bitch at them about their stance, like I do. If you don't belong to a church and happen to have a problem with religion in the first place as I suspect many "TAKE AWAY THE EXEMPTION!" shouters do.....Your opinion on what a certain church should be allowed to say means nothing to anyone and if you push hard enough you'll inspire a reaction that you haven't the numbers to resist. So give it a rest ok.

As with all civil rights movements gay rights will meet stiff resistance from those for whatever reason or genetic flaws are unable to change. This is par for the course people! Gay rights will happen wether the guys in the big hats or the guys in glass churches support it or not. You just have to keep pushing, but if you side track the issue and go after churches you blurr the subject and risk delaying the inevitable for longer then it has to.

[jhfenton]

56. Some scary viewpoints in this thread....

I am appalled at the several people in this thread who apparently want the federal government taxing churches that dare to draw any political conclusions from their religions. It's an old cliche, but the power to tax is the power to destory. You want to control the behavior of these churches through government coercion. The fact that the IRS is doing the coercing instead of the police is irrelevant.

Shame on you.

[Blue_Chill]

61. Many of them have a problem with religion to begin with

So it's not surprising that they would support any idea that may harm a church in any way. They don't realise that the wall of seperation was created to do more then keep their kids from hearing about (gasp!) God in public school. It was also meant to keep the goverment from passing laws as to what chruches can and can't say.

[1songbird]

59. The premise may be off slightly.

Your comment, "Organized Religion has a long history in this country of working for the good of all, and taking a blind eye to race, creed, or color", is not really accurate. Remember that many churches preached that slavery was okay because blacks were pre-adamites. This was a doctrine used specifically to justify the practice. This discrimination continued through the civil rights struggle in the South. There was a large number of churches that preached acceptance, but there were also those that preached hatred. The same can be said today of churches. Things haven't really changed that much.

[Liberator_Rev]

63. Churches which opposed freedom for blacks, now oppose it for gays, etc.,

Many of the very same churches which opposed freedom for blacks, and used the bible to justify it, are doing the very same thing where gays are concerned. For several generation "good Christians" went to church to learn from the Alabama Conference of the Methodist Church that "African slavery is a wise, humane and righteous institution approved by God." < proclaimed in January, 1861>, or from the General Assembly of the Southern Presbyterian Church : "We have no hesitation in affirming that it is the peculiar mission of the southern church to conserve the institution of slavery and to make it a blessing to both master and slave." < in 1864> or from Episcopalian Bishop Elliott of Savannah, GA that opposition to slavery was "presumptuous interference with the will and ways of God." < in an 1862 sermon>. The Roman Catholic Church, on the other hand avoided taking any position on slavery either before or during the war. 'By their silence,' one Catholic writer gratefully observed ' our bishops divorced this burning political question from church affairs.'
It took government intervention in the form of a civil war to END the slavery which the churches in the so-called "Bible Belt" defended as God's will. See much MORE at
http://www.LiberalsLikeChrist.Org/ChurchvsGays


See why Christians who are serious about following Christ
ought to be Liberal Democrats.

[1songbird]

67. Great Points!

[theboss]

69. So what?!?!?

It is perfectly fine to hold unpopular views. Some churches think music is a sin. Some churches think any alcohol is a sin. Some churches think dating outside your faith/race/zip code is a sin. So do some members of Congress.

You are ALLOWED to think unpopular/reprehensible things in this country. Why? Because the Republicans sometimes win elections and I don't want to go to jail based on someone else's opinion of what is reprehensible.

[1songbird]

71. Churches have always been

in the forefront of controversy. The main issue is that there has to be representation from all sides. You are not going to change what fundamentalist christians preach in their churches by imposing taxes. Many of them still don't believe interracial marriage should take place. We need more churches that are practicing love and true Christian principles to take a stand and push forth their agenda just as the fundamentalist have. We don't have this happening right now and that is why the conversation is dominated by right-wing nuts.

[theboss]

72. It's not the government's job

The government's job is not to create a diversity of opinion. And taxing churches you disagree with is not going to create that diveristy either.

In fact, the Southern Baptists and Catholics will survive just find because they are rich and have attorneys. The store-front churches in the inner-city will disappear.

[1songbird]

74. I don't think the

inner city churches would disappear altogether but they would suffer and people dependent on their services would as well. Taxing churches is not the answer.

Liberal or moderate Christians have to make their voices heard in order to change the climate. Congress will listen when you have credible voter mass that actually votes. Fundamentalist are successfull because their are 19 million of them, they vote, they complain loudly, and they donate money to political campaigns. There are actually many mainstream christians but they don't take a stand and are not as politically motivated.

[theboss]

75. That's different

I agree with that entirely. But that's not what was proposed at the beginning of this argument.

[1songbird]

78. Yes I disagree with the original post

and I never said that churches should be taxed. We were talking about the historical role that churches have played in social issues from slavery to gay marriage.

[youngred]

137. So you're saying that

the preaching of some religions was the only thing propping up the institution of slavery?

[Tyler Durden]

62. Contrary to opinion: I DO NOT APPROVE OF TAXING CHURCHES.

I also do not approve of churches saying RIGHT IN THEIR LITURGY (this is the reason that I pulled my kid out of Catechism) THAT IT IS PERFECTLY OK WITH GOD TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST "SINNERS."

You don't want GOVERNMENT telling you what is religion? Fine.
I don't want some RELIGIOUS CONSERVATIVES telling me which "sinners" it is OK to stone, and getting a tax break to do so.

DEAL?

[theboss]

66. No deal

It is okay for individuals to discriminate. I'm not inviting a Nazi to my house for dinner and I certainly not going to vote for one. And I would hope my minister would say the same.

Your complaint is not with discrimination, per se. It's with the content of what is discriminated against. And that is unbelievably dangerous.

Content-based discrimination is antithetical to everything that is American.

[Silverhair]

68. NO.

You are still giving the gov't a huge power that I am not willing to see it have.

[MadHound]

70. While I agree that ALL churches should lose their tax free status, . . .

I don't think that a church should lose it simply because they preach an unpopular message. For instance, abortion. The majority of people in this country are pro-choice to some extent or another. Yet the vast majority of churches are against abortion completely, and preach sermons to that effect on regular basis. Should we revoke their tax free status due to that. Most church doctrines consider homosexuality a sin, yet should we punish them for their believes? If we do this, aren't we violated a few Constitutional amendments, like seperation of church and state, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion? And cannot these same arguements be turned back on us when the church is preaching diversity, tolerance, acceptance and pro-choice in it's sermons? This is all to slippery a slope to even approach.

I think it would be better served if all churches were to have their tax free status revoked. Cherry picking one church over another on this issue would only come back to haunt us in the end.

[Padraig18]

73. No, no, no--- a thousand times no!

Churches are free to both preach and practice their creed, and the 1st Amendment specifically protects that right. If you have the power to tax something, you have the power to destroy it.

[Tyler Durden]

76. Fine. Enjoy GOTT MIT UNS

And feel free to know you PAID for it.

SO NICE to know that "RENDER UNTO CAESAR..." has completely gone out of fashion.

Personally, I have never believed in handicapping for equality. I don't hand my enemies weapons to use against me, and I don't expect them to do it either.

[theboss]

77. Wha?

You've lost me now.

"Render unto Caesar" is not about churches paying taxes. It is about following two masters; it is essentially about the separation of church and state.

[Tyler Durden]

80. Exactly my point: SEPARATION.

The churches have placed themselves into a situation whereby they are directly funding political causes with indirect tax money.

The Government and the warping thereof to fit someone's idea of "the garden of eden" is ridiculous.

The next thing someone will tell me is that it's perfectly fine for the Moonies to hire lobbyists to push Republican causes....

Sorry. They've already done that, haven't they? It's called the Washington Times.

You can empower a large, reactionary, quasi-fascist minority to dictate terms to your congressperson as you like (note: this does not apply to ALL denominations). Enjoy the "Auto-de-fe." I won't be attending.

[theboss]

84. Be consistent

Call for the end of the 501(c) designation for all non-profits that have any political ideology.

[Tyler Durden]

92. If they employ LOBBYISTS...

WITHOUT designating SPECIFIC FUNDS requested from supporters for exactly that purpose (the way all organizations EXCEPT religious ones do) then fine. 501(c) is cancelled.

[DarkPhenyx]

94. So which are you railing against then?

the ones hiring lobbiests or the ones lobbying from their pulpit?

[Tyler Durden]

99. BOTH.

A minister making a political speech to a congregation instead of making a sermon, is a PAID LOBBYIST for a political cause, even if he's the only one with the opinion.

[DarkPhenyx]

124. Well, this isn't what you said previously.

Thank you for clarifying.

I disagree with your definition though. Simply because someone speaks to a group about a political issue, and is being paid to speak, does not make them a lobbiest. It does maek tehm a political speaker. They may also be a religious speaker. The two are not mutually exclusive, adn on some issues tehy are inseperable.

[Tyler Durden]

82. Now you've got it: SEPARATION.

The churches have placed themselves into a situation whereby they are directly funding political causes with indirect tax money.

The Government and the warping thereof to fit someone's idea of "the garden of eden" is ridiculous.

The next thing someone will tell me is that it's perfectly fine for the Moonies to hire lobbyists to push Republican causes....

Sorry. They've already done that, haven't they? It's called the Washington Times.

You can empower a large, mysical, REACTIONARY, quasi-fascist minority to dictate terms to your congressperson as you like (note: this does not apply to ALL denominations). Enjoy the "Auto-de-fe." I won't be attending.

[demigoddess]

79. all churches

should lose tax free status on everything they own except the church building itself. Our little city is making special provision for a local church that owns a big chunk of land right in the middle of commerical-urban area but yet they are trying to put 7-11 type businesses in the middle of neighborhoods.

[fshrink]

81. Any church should loose tax free status. Period.

[Tyler Durden]

83. If you threaten the "Fundy Tax Break," maybe they will....

SHUT the HELL UP.

Amazing things happen when you threaten sources of income.

[DarkPhenyx]

93. Now you are trying one of their favorite tactics.

If you don't like the person/institution lable it in a way that makes it look bad to the people you are trying to influance. Amazing.

[Muddleoftheroad]

86. I knew the anti-religion folks would be here sooner or later

Sure, let's destroy the Constitution. What the hell?

I support ALL the Amendments and that includes the 1st. A government that can tax religion can destroy it.

[Blue_Chill]

87. Well christmas is coming so expect another rise in anti-christian threads

There is already another thread asking if all Christians are like Bush. :eyes:

[Tyler Durden]

91. And to remind you:

I think I've said here at least twice, I HAVE NOTHING AGAINST TAX EXEMPT STATUS FOR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS. I have something against Tax Exempt status for organizations that use PROFITS to pay lobbyists and fund political actions designed to influence legislation.

This makes and organization a PAC, and if I want to fund a PAC then I'll send them a check, NOT authorize the IRS to give them a tax break.

[DarkPhenyx]

96. And just to clarify...

...since you ignored my question above, you feel this way about all NP Orgs, including the ones that support causes that you hold dear. Freedom of speech, equal rights, anti-war...all of them.

[Tyler Durden]

97. When a Non-Profit asks for money for a lobbying action:

it stipulates "These funds are not tax-deductable."

Let the churches do THAT, and I'll agree.

And you ought to be nicer to us modem morons. Do you have any idea how long this page takes to reload at 48-54K? If I had a T1 or cable link at work, I would be glad to repsond to EVERYONE.

[DarkPhenyx]

127. OK, now...show me where a church...

...has used it money for a lobbying action. Where they actually hired someone to go and lobby congress for a certain action. I do not believe that telling their congregation that they should write their congressional rep counts.

[youngred]

138. You guys are being a little hard on Tyler

He isn't against organized religion or anything like that. Its one thing to disagree, wuite another to blow his argument out of proportion

[Tyler Durden]

146. THANK you.

I was beginning to think I'd just graduated to head turd on everyone's shit list or something.

[Tyler Durden]

88. Oh knock it off.

NOWHERE in the Constitution does it say that Churches are Tax Exempt.

And they aren't taxing RELIGION, they are taxing PROFITS. If you make enough spare cash to pay a lobbyist, then you are making a PROFIT. If your staff is paid to stuff POLITICAL ENVELOPES, this is coming out of PROFIT.

TAX PROFIT. Tax RELIGION? You are just being an agitator. NOBODY is pissing on Religion, Christians, etc.

I am objecting to people foisting their PERSONAL RELIGIOUS BELIEF off on the government under an excuse of free speech and under the protection of a Non-Profit Corporation.

[DarkPhenyx]

95. Actually the very tone of your original post...

...indicates that you are indeed "pissing on religion". That was teh basis of your entire first argument.

[Tyler Durden]

98. Now you are picking nits.

I disagree with a non-profit organization being allowed a special privelege no other non-profit is allowed. That is, the use of on on-site PAID LOBBYIST (minister) for POLITICAL CAUSES, and the right to perform POLITICAL FUNCTIONS out of general operating funds instead of being required to make special TAXABLE accounts for such action, AS IS REQUIRED of all other non-profits.

RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS deserve the same treatment as other non-profits: nothing more, nothing less.

And that was the basis of my argument: if this is abused, the ORGANIZATION should lose its tax free status. This is NOT "pissing on religion" and I defy you to show me how it is.

[theboss]

106. Rev. Martin Luther King = Lobbyist

I don't think that is the way most people want to remember him

[Tyler Durden]

126. Show me a religion that does not use the words...

EQUALITY, FREEDOM, or JUSTICE and I'll grant you your point.

Why do I bother? Aren't you people LIBERALS? I defend to the DEATH the rights of these narrow-minded people to pull a couple of verses out of Leviticus and base their whole lives on them, but NOT to do it on the PUBLIC DIME.

WHY doesn't this seem reasonable to anyone else around here but me?

[theboss]

128. Wahhabiism

Not big on the equality are they.

[Tyler Durden]

132. Read Q'ran, have we?

VERY big on justice, equality. You might as well take a sect that believes in snake handling and drinking strycchnine and call it the Roman Catholic Church. Just about as valid.

You have named an odd sect of Islam, that misinterprets Q'ran to suit itself. A lot like the Leviticus folks.

Shellfish anyone? Shrimp's on the barbeque.

[theboss]

142. Who are you to say they are misinterpreting?

THIS is fundamental to liberalism: that I have the ability and the right to make my own decisions.

[Tyler Durden]

150. In other words:

The "snake handlers" and "poison swallowers" in the weird protestant offshoots are the "mainstream," and the rest of us have it wrong.

THIS is fundamental to Liberalism: that I have the ability and the right to make my own decisions, AS LONG AS THEY DO NOT DENY YOU YOUR GUARANTEED CIVIL RIGHTS.

[theboss]

154. They are not denying you anything

A church can't deny you anything; it's not the government.

[Silverhair]

162. He didn't attack all of Islam, just one sect. In your responce...

you are acting as if he had attacked all of Islam. That's like defending all of Christianity because somebody critized the Snake Handlers.

[DarkPhenyx]

129. Because it either isn't reasonable....

...or you are missing something that we see.

The third possibility is that you are wiser and smarter than we are and we are completely missing it.

Yes we are Liberals, most of us anyway. Why should this fact mean that we have to agree with you on this point? I knwo a few liberals, some of them on this board, that I think are raving lunatics. I rarely agree with them. Dosedn't mean they are any more or less liberal than I am, simply that they have a different POV on the issues at hand.

[Tyler Durden]

133. I don't know, it just seems so obvious to me.

The bigotted and mean spirit of these "Religious" Organizations makes me see just how close to Fred Phelps so many mainstream Religious Organizations can be.

Do note my continued use of the words "Religious Organization" and NOT "Organized Religion" or just "Religion": the first can have as little in common with the other two as Wahhabism has with Islam.

When will people of good will STOP allowing the prejudiced and the non-inclusive to invade the body politic with their petty fears and their antiquated notions of what is "normal?" I'm not gay: the thought of gay sex is the fastest way to non-arousal that I know of, for me PERSONALLY. BUT I DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO DISCRIMINATE AGAINST ANYONE for the sake of their "neurological wiring."

GEEZ. Where is SLINKERWINK when I'm on a subject we can AGREE on?

[Muddleoftheroad]

101. Actually they worded it even more strongly than that

According to the Constitution: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

What about "NO LAW" don't you grasp?

I don't care what they foist on people because they have a right to do so and Congress has zero right to stop them.

[Tyler Durden]

103. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of RELIGION..."

What part of religion is lobbying against a non-descrimination ruling by a court?

If they want to shun people, go join the AMISH.

Why is this some big hash for all of you? HEY, I think I'll found the FIRST CONSERVATIVE CHURCH OF BALONEY," and we believe that Slavery should be legal because the Bible OK's it in the Old Testament. So I'm going to use TAX FREE church funds to hire David Duke to lobby congress to have the 13 Amendment against Slavery repealed. HEY, if my parisioners want to send their kids to college by selling themselves into Slavery, our religion teaches this is their GOD GIVEN RIGHT.

Of course this is BS. The problem is, that you grant the same sort of creedance to someone who feels it is their GOD GIVEN RIGHT to discriminate against my gay son/daughter/uncle/aunt/neice/nephew/friend or self. In a secular democracy this is not legal for non-profits to do.

[Muddleoftheroad]

105. You left out part

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

Religions can believe as they wish, including a belief that the court was wrong allowing gays to marry. If their religion is opposed to homosexuality, that is their right.

And, no they can shun people no matter who they are. That is also their right.

This is not, "some big hash," this is the Constitution. Mess with it at all of our peril, which is why so many diverse voices are raised against you here.

As for the last, it isn't just their "GOD GIVEN RIGHT to discriminate," it is their constitutional right. Not in housing, not in employment, but in their religion where their beliefs hold sway.

[Tyler Durden]

107. and NOT in the PUBLIC SECTOR where the Tax Dollars are.

When they cross the line into POLITICAL ACTION, they have entered the SECULAR ARENA and have left the protection of RELIGIOUS BELIEF.

You know something? All of these defensive posts sound curiously like a person who defends the right of a Corporation to donate money to a political campaign under the aegis of "Free Speech."

If the INDIVIDUALS in the given "Religious Organization" wish to form a PAC to forward their revolting and UnChristian, UnJewish, and UnMuslim (etc) opinions, have at it. But don't ask for the benefit of TAX FREE NON PROFIT STATUS to help you out. Call upon your IRRELIGIOUS "bretherin."

[Muddleoftheroad]

111. Religion

The problem here is no one can be trusted to determine where to draw the line. You are upset because some churches dare to disagree with you on something. Another person will be upset because they dare to disagree on something else. Hence the problem.

They don't have to form a PAC to get their point across. They have free speech and don't need your permission to use it.

[theboss]

112. Exactly

You are now opening the door to have the courts decide what is "religious speech" and what is "political speech."

Is quoting the Beatitudes political or relgious? Does it depend on the context? Do we really want to open this door?

Anyway you slice this, you are begging the government to get involved into a free speech issue. It's dangerous and antithetical to everything America is supposed to stand for.

I wish Tyler would just come out and say he wants restrictions placed on what religions can preach.

[Tyler Durden]

114. NOT Religion.

No, the problem is that you want to be able to SMUDGE the line between Religion and the Private Sector.

I could respect that if you would just come out and SAY it, but instead you are couching it in "...trusting where to draw the line..." when there is no line to be drawn, and in accusing me: "You are upset because some churches dare to disagree with you on something."

They can disagree with me all damned day: I don't have to go to their church, I have my own thank you. But for them to ask me as a private citizen to fund their PRIVATE SECTOR political actions through tax breaks is nonsense, and you would say so too, but you have an ax to grind and are keeping it behind your back. When they can use Tax Exempt status to exercise political action....

OK, fine. Tell you what: if they want to do this, they can. Here's how:

They have to file a financial statement stating the equivalent value in material and time for all actions they support in the Political Arena. This will determine which campaign, issue, cause, etc. will be charged the taxible value of the support they recieve.

NOW any Religious Organization can talk all they want, stuff envelopes, print banners and man phone banks all they care to. It will be taxed on the Organization recieving the benefit, not them.

Fair?

[Muddleoftheroad]

115. You are not funding them

You have no right to their money. Remember that little bit about Congress making NO LAW respecting religion?

We're not smuding anything. Religions are on their on.

Again, you ask them to file a financial statement. Again, you try to violate the Constitution.

You just don't seem to get it.

[Tyler Durden]

120. NO, YOU don't "get it"

There is no "constitutional right" to tax-free status. NONE. It is by Law and Legal Caveat and my point is they VIOLATE that by venturing into SECULAR POLITICS.

They have NO RIGHTS under the constitution as "organizations" to defray the costs of POLITICAL ACTION through Tax-exempt status. No OTHER non-profit has that right: why should they?

Let me get this right:

THEIR RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION interprets their religious belief (founded in Leviticus, an Old Testament book) to say they have to condemn gay people.

ANOTHER Religious Organization about 2 Degrees off of the first one, not only says it's ok to be gay, but they let women be ministers, and gays, too and MARRY them (this is not fantasy: remember the Episcopals?)

SOO, I guess then the first group should not have the right to PREVENT the SECULAR, SEPARATED GOVERNMENT from allowing the second group from exercising THEIR civil rights because they "BELIEVE" differently?

Go buy a head scarf for your wife; the Orthodox Sunni Muslims in America believe this. Don't forget your VEIL.

This is PATENT NONSENSE. If you believe something in your religious milleu, PRACTICE IT. But to ask me to defray the cost of you trying to foist it off on the rest of us through TAX EXEMPT STATUS? Go soak your head.

[Muddleoftheroad]

139. Well, you must be reading some other Constitution

Mine says Congress shall make NO LAW. That's as clear as any document can ever get.

They don't violate ANYTHING by speaking their minds. There is no clear distinction between what is religious thought and what is political. As a result, you can't regulate one without the other.

Now onto your scenario. Yes, the first group has the right to TRY and prevent the second group from exercising their rights. That's called democracy. And yes, the second group has a right to try and exercise those rights.

And, again, you are not paying anything. You have no right to their money. None at all.

[Tyler Durden]

152. Speak their minds, YES.

ORGANIZE into a POLITICAL ACTION group, NO.

Either that, or go ahead and make ALL political action tax exempt.

You can't have this both ways. And YES, if they are not paying taxes on income they use for POLITICAL ACTION, then they are abusing their status, and dodging tax.

[Muddleoftheroad]

157. We can have it any way we wish

Generic political action is not the same as religion. Remember that "no law" thing you keep avoiding?

[Tyler Durden]

166. so it's NEENER NEENER NEENER?

You said (or maybe it was theboss) that Religion WAS political. Now which way do you want it?

And in your mind, a RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION, (note the distinction between RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION and RELIGION) can make any political action it pleases TAX FREE under the aegis of Religion?

WELCOME TO MUDDLEOFTHEROAD'S THEOCRACY.

[Muddleoftheroad]

173. Not a theocracy

Just use of that lovely Constitution you seem to dislike.

The problem is that you can't draw a line between what is religious and what is political. Is it religion or politics to oppose/support gay marriage? Is it religion or politics to oppose/support abortion. The answer to both questions is yes. It is both. No one can draw that line and I don't trust anyone to do so. As a result, anything a religious group says is covered by their exemption.

[Tyler Durden]

179. Then they can ALL loose the tax free exemption.

Knock off the "Just use of that lovely Constitution you seem to dislike." It's incorrect and inappropriate.

SHOW ME the Constitutional Amendment that allows an organization to practice political action under a 501(c) status.

IT'S NOT THERE.

The right you claim is a TAX STATUTE, and NOT part of the Constitution.

As I have said about 50 times now: THEY MAY SAY WHATEVER THEY WANT. THEY JUST CANNOT MAKE "PAID POLITICAL ANNOUNCEMENTS" FROM THE PULPIT, STUFF ENVELOPES FOR CANDIDATES, FUND RALLIES FOR ELECTIONS, PRINT UP POSTERS ETC FROM THEIR TAX EXEMPT FUNDS.

And THAT, believe it or not, IS the law.

[Muddleoftheroad]

186. 1st Amendment

Congress shall make NO LAW. Tax laws are, drumroll please, LAWS!

It's pretty clear.

And no, they won't lose their tax deduction. Despite your endless diatribe here, most Americans are religious and support such freedom.

[Tyler Durden]

196. You simply do not understand, do you?

Article (See Note 13)

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.

Looking carefully, I see no item regarding the TAX EXEMPT STATUS OF A 501(C) ORGANIZATION.

The Tax Law you decry does not PROHIBIT 501(c) Tax exempt status, it GRANTS it. And it also RESTRICTS IT to Non-political organizations.

And I AM religious, you insulting person. How many times must I say this? I RESPECT Religion enough to insist that "RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS" do not sully it by practicing a sneaky and illegal double standard simply because no one wants to touch the "third rail" and hold them to the law.

[theboss]

158. Basically . .

You are calling for really strict enforcement of existing laws. Why didn't you just say that in the first place?

Everything you are calling for, already exists.

[Tyler Durden]

170. EXACTLY.

Then why aren't we doing just that?

Where did I not say exactly what we should do as a country regarding this issue? Why does it make a difference whether I say "round, red tree fruit, closely associated with Mom images in pie form, and part of the Garden of Eden story," or "apple?"

The point is, that in this Neoconservative climate, with the approval of this renegade regime, the "FUNDMENTALIST RIGHT WING FRINGE RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS" can get away with any political action that pleases them, and they should not be allowed to do so under the status of a TAX EXEMPT ORGANIZATION.

If they wish to operate outside of this SECULAR GOVERNMENTAL STRICTURE, then LOSE the TAX EXEMPT STATUS, or request funds specifically for the political action desired, prepare a financial statement AND PAY TAXES ON JUST THOSE FUNDS.

WHERE does this restrict their free speech, other than to stop subsidizing political action with tax relief?

[theboss]

172. Examples?

I'm not being a smart ass. I just would like to know who you think is doing this and how they are skirting the law.

[LoneStarLiberal]

85. All Churches Should Lose Tax Exemption

As corporate and profit-oriented as the modern church is, there is no excuse to keep giving them a free pass to shakedown their members.

[Scott Lee]

109. You're right. The Mormons went through this and learned....

the hard way.

My whole family is LDS, and we were living in Utah in the late 70s when the LDS Church made a stunning reversal of it's long held ban on priesthood given to Blacks. The then-president ("Prophet") of the LDS Church, Spencer W. Kimball, told the faithful that he had received a revelation to rescind this ban on Blacks obtaining the priesthood. As is usual with church/state politics, that was only part of the story.

Some years later I dug into the drama more deeply and found out that several civil rights violation suits had been filed against the Mormon Church leading up to the "revelation" - so many that the US Government was considering yanking their tax exempt status. It was no surprise that President Kimball made such a timely "revelation".

Screw with their beliefs, back them up against the wall...but start messing with their money and you see action!

[Tyler Durden]

110. Follow the MONEY.

You're damned right.

These people belong to huge, well-funded organizations (NOT Religions. NOTE: there is a difference.) Hit them in the pocketbook and they will back away. Worked on the KLAN.

That was NOT directed at any specific organization, and certainly AWAY from certain others, like the Episcopals who support the Gay Bishop, God Bless them.

and I'm armed, too. You aren't in MIchigan are you?

[theboss]

113. Should Episcopalian lose their tax-exempt status too?

They took a political stand by appointing a gay bishop.

[Muddleoftheroad]

116. He will say no

Because he AGREES with that decision.

[Tyler Durden]

117. Oh give me a BREAK.

So if I hire a gay man, and someone finds out about it, and I refuse to fire him, I'm making a political statement?

You really need to get out more. Sorry. That was snarky. But come ON. The fact of their appointing a man to be a bishop who is qualified and well supported and happens to be GAY shouldn't even be on the RADAR of a truly enlightened nation, and I highly doubt the looked for a well-qualified and well-supported Gay man just to make a political point.

The nation isn't very enlightened, but WE should be around HERE.

[Muddleoftheroad]

118. Bishops

Are not HIRED, they are appointed and reflect the authority of a particular religious denomination. That means the choice needs to be in keeping with church teaching. If a church mandates that all members be married and the bishop is not, no dice. It's not a job interview, it's RELIGION.

Similarly, if the religion is against homosexuality and the man or woman is homosexual, then they can't get the job. Sort of like how we will not see a woman pope appointed any time soon. Women are simply ineligible for the job.

[Tyler Durden]

122. Try picking another word out of context.

You just made my point for me.

If you want to play by certain rules in your own arena, DO IT. But if you want to make everyone else play by your rules, YOU HAVE STEPPED OUT OF YOUR ARENA.

By your logic, the Catholic Community would be within their rights to use church funds to lobby the Federal Government to remove Tax Exempt status from another religion who has female or uncelibate clergy.

This is outside of their own sandbox. OUR sandbox, OUR rules, AND WE DON'T DISCRIMINATE ANYMORE. Well, maybe soon, Clark willing.

[Muddleoftheroad]

141. They have that right

But they would be foolish to do so. Once the wall is broken, there is no stopping other similarly stupid legislation.

And no, I have NOT made your point. Your point will never be accepted here because you advocate for a fascist state that controls religion and thought.

Sorry, as a sometime victim of discrimination, some types are still OK. I have no right to join a private club. No right to join your church. Maybe you won't let me in because of my race, but that is your right. And it is mine to do the same to you.

[Tyler Durden]

147. Who said they didn't?

Not me. I just said that OUTSIDE of their milleu, in the PUBLIC SECTOR, they no longer had the right to make POLITICAL ACTION on a TAX EXEMPT BASIS; they can shoot off their mouths all they want, but the Tax Free Status GOES.

[Muddleoftheroad]

159. You said

"By your logic, the Catholic Community would be within their rights to use church funds to lobby the Federal Government to remove Tax Exempt status from another religion who has female or uncelibate clergy."

I agreed.

The difference is, I know they are still tax exempt no matter what they say. You haven't realized this yet.

[theboss]

119. Hire?!?!?!?!

Wrong word. More like consecrated.

The Church is saying this man is a delegate of God, the Father. In other words, God approves of him and his lifestyle. In even more other words, God is saying the Bible has been misinterpreted.

It's an unbelievably important political statement.

[Tyler Durden]

123. If it's political, then Pull the Tax Exempt Status.

Separation of Church and State again. If it's separate, it's not SECULAR POLITICAL ARENA, which affects EVERYONE.

If it's not, then they should give up their status, and become the NEW (INSERT RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION NAME HERE) PARTY, and run for office.

And you are pulling a word out of context also.


This is just silly. Religious Organizations need to clean up their own back yards and take care of their own sinners before they start picking on others. Nutsy shit like this is why I went from Generic Protestant to Unitarian Univeralist. May God in his/her/its infinite wisdom bless the memory of Adams and Jefferson, who are likely twirling in their graves.

[Scott Lee]

195. Spot on.

And no, I'm not in Michigan (too cold!)...I'm a Desert Rat living in New Mexico.

cheers.

[theboss]

125. One final point

I think that has been made elsewhere but it is terribly terribly important.

You are stretching the concept of "lobbying" to the breaking point. If a minister says to his congregation, "We shouldn't elect adulterers," you could define that as lobbying against a certain politician. But hundreds of tax-exempt organizations do this very thing. They do not go directly to the legislature but they lobby through direct mail and ads and policy papers. You would open up the ability for opponents of any tax-exempt group to destroy whenever that group simply states its principles.

[Tyler Durden]

130. They can say:

"Our religion teaches us that Adultery is a SIN, this is how we define that, and we should keep this in mind when dealing with our fellow man." ELECTIONS are POLITICS, POLITICS is STATE and SEPARATE from RELIGION.

WHY isn't this sufficient? Most ministers I knew until recently could make this distinction.

Again, another reason to be a Unitarian.

[theboss]

140. Who is going to parse every sermon?

Do you plan to have a government employee sit in the first pew and determine what is political and what is not? Because obviously there is a very very fine line.

[Tyler Durden]

149. Oh come on.

"X" Church prints a tract: John Jones is a murdering Abortion supporter. If you vote for him, you are supporting SATAN.

Obvious Political action.

Rev. Smith says on Sunday, "God wants you to vote against John Jones."

Obvious Political action.

Anything less obvious than that has to get the benefit of doubt.

Are you satisfied?

[theboss]

156. Um, that's already the system we have!!

Hooray for the status quo.

[ArkDem]

131. So you believe religeous thought should be regulated

by the goverment? Do you believe in seperation of church and state?

[Tyler Durden]

151. why isn't anyone listening?

I said: RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS cannot take patently POLITICAL POSITIONS (such as the action to reverse the Massachusetts Court decision) without taking on the responsibility and non-tax exempt status of a POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (PAC).

WHERE does this regulate purely religious thought or deed?

[Muddleoftheroad]

160. How do you define "patently political positions?"

You can't. One man's politics is another man's religion.

No matter how you slice it, you are intruding into religion and trying to discipline religions for daring to disagree with you. That's tyranny.

[Silverhair]

164. We have listened, and rejected. You are giving to the gov't

the power to decide what is a religious belief and what is political. Religion claims to rule ALL fo the believers life, not just part of it. Christians and Muslims are supposed to be willing to die before renouncing their belief. And you are wanting to gov't to say, "Now that isn't just a religious belief, it is political." I will take up arms to fight against such a gov't. (Exception: The preacher can't incite to violence.)

You don't seem to understand the power that you want to give to gov't. I guarantee you that if that awful power is given to gov't, either Liberal or Conservative or something else, IT WILL BE USED AGAINST YOU. That kind of power corrupts.

[Tyler Durden]

168. They can SAY or DO whatever they want.

They just can't act like a PAC and claim Tax Exempt Status.

Why is this so hard to get? This doesn't give the GOVERNMENT anything.

It REMOVES the ability to hide political action (like candidate envelope stuffing, banner printing, exhortation for one candidate or another) under the aegis of RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION.

They be as political as they want, as long as they accept what goes along with that,

AND THAT IS FREE SPEECH. NOT THE TAX SUBSIDIZED "OPINION" OF A RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION, WHICH MOST OF THE TIME HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH RELIGIOUS EXPRESSION.

[theboss]

169. Again, that is already the law

Where you are blurring things is that you are basically arguing that doctrine that disagrees with the law is political. And that's terrifying.

[Muddleoftheroad]

171. It gives the government control

The government has no constitutional right to tax religion. To tax them is to control them.

Again, I say, "no law." Not hardly any laws.

[Tyler Durden]

176. And I remind you:

There is no constitutional guarantee for TAX EXEMPT STATUS for a RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATION.

This is under a STATUTE that governs the 501(c)organization. This is a LEGISLATIVE FIAT, not A CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT.

They can SAY whatever they want. They just have NO CONSTITUTIONAL GUARANTEE THAT THEY CAN DO IT TAX FREE.

[Muddleoftheroad]

189. That pesky 1st Amendment

Except for that of course.

[foreigncorrespondent]

148. I haven't read...

...any of the replies yet, so I don't know what has been said or not.

I don't agree with this at all. I am queer and want the right to marry Sapphocrat, but I certainly don't want to push my way of life onto a church that isn't ready for it, just like I don't want a church to push their religion onto me.

The whole issue of gay marriage has been misconstrued because of the Christian Fundie's bullshit rhetoric about how we want to force our way of life onto everyone, even though it isn't true.

Taking away a churches taxation rights because they preach anti gay marriage rhetoric is simply wrong. Just like the church trying to stop us from living and loving how we were born to is wrong.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[Tyler Durden]

153. They can PREACH it's wrong.

what I am saying they CAN'T do is commit an act of organized POLITICAL ACTION (such as funding participation in a rally, stuffing envelopes for a candidate, etc) without acting as a POLITICAL ACTION COMMITTEE (PAC) and abusing their tax exempt status.

This seems very simple to me.

[theboss]

155. Isn't that already the law?

I had a minister once who came very close to this line and our eldership stopped him for the very fear of losing our tax-exempt status.

[theboss]

161. Actually, that's not what you said

Any Church "preaching" against Gay marriage should lose tax free status.

Your original premise was against preaching, not political action.

[Tyler Durden]

165. My original premise was:

That preaching against a CIVIL SECULAR GOVERNMENTAL DECISION and ADVOCATING DIRECT POLITICAL ACTION or ENABLING DIRECT POLITICAL ACTION was the business of a PAC.

You are again taking a title (which is limited by space requirements) and making it a thesis.

[theboss]

167. Ahh

Well, advocating is different than taking direct action. A preacher saying that inter-racial marriage is wrong is much different than using a church basement and stationary to send letters to Congressmen tell them to ban inter-racial marriage.

You seem to see them as one in the same. (And yes, I am taking a nasty position to prove my point).

I agree that the latter is political action and should put a tax-exempt status at risk. The former is the free practice of religion and should have the highest level of protection.

[Tyler Durden]

174. Actually, we just got onto the same page.

The truth of the matter is, I don't see them as one in the same, until the "preacher" moves on to saying in the next sentence: "So vote for XXXX because he believes the same way we do!" That is where it stops being preaching and becomes a "Paid Political Announcement."

In the current political climate, with FUNDAMENTALIST RIGHT WING FRINGE RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS (whew) taking POLITICAL STANCES and backing them up with action, we have to do exactly as we have both just said.

They can talk like Fred Phelps about gays, they just can't fund their demonstrations with tax exempt funds. This goes for ANY "Religious" activity, no matter how benign or nasty, and we do not have the right to judge this except on a basis of our own personal beliefs as relates to us as private individuals, AND on the basis of whether the POLITICAL portion of their actions is or is not funded by monies raised and managed under a tax exempt status.

GEEZ did it take a long time to get here, or what?

[theboss]

175. That's fine

I doubt anyone here would disagree with you on that. And frankly, few right-wingers would disagree with you.

A preacher can say gay marriage is wrong. A preacher shouldn't say "Vote for George Bush because he is against gay marriage."

I still say this is far removed from what you argued originally. And to be honest, I don't like the idea of government auditors reviewing sermons for advocacy.

(Though - to tell you the truth - Democrats have been violating your rule in black churches for decades. So be careful what you wish for).

[Tyler Durden]

178. I know what you're saying.

It's one hell of a thing to have to give that up, but the power of the RIGHT FRINGE is concentrated in the FUNDAMENTALIST FRINGE RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS, and they have raised the bar.

I'll have to be sauce for the goose/sauce for the gander. Perhaps it's best for all.

[theboss]

180. I would still like an example

Of a specific church acting as a PAC. Every church I've been involved in pretty much knows how to walk through this minefield.

(Oddly enough, that's why most ministers and religious people I know don't like faith-based iniatives. They've finally mastered how to avoid government entanglements with their charity work; they don't want to do it again).

[Silverhair]

181. A question for you, if you please.

You said, in your original post: "Of course, no one can mandate the free speech of a member of Clergy, but if a church's pulpit is used for any purpose that urges or demands a political influence be made, then that religious organization must be considered to be acting as a political organization, and no longer be within the bounds of Tax Exempt status. "

I would highlight the part: "...if a church's pulpit is used for ANY purpose that URGES OR DEMANDS a POLITICAL INFLUENCE be made..."

My question is: "Can the pastor read from the Bible?" Can he simply read a passage, or some passages, without any comment, and still be tax exempt?

If you answer, "No." then you are wanting to abolish a lot of our freedoms.

If you answer, "Yes.", then I can post some really strongly political passages. Let's start with Acts 5:29, "Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men!"" That single verse is very political. There are many passages concerning the righteousness, or lack thereof, of rulers, and passages on the relationship of the citizen and the gov't.

I will agree with you that the Church should not be used as an envelope stuffing center. No problem there. But the preacher has to be able to be free to say whatever he (Or she. I have had female pastors too.)believes that God has told them to say. Even if that is to encourage the congregation to write to their congressperson, or even to vote for XYZ.

[Tyler Durden]

182. Got to draw the line at "VOTE FOR FRED!"

If they believe GOD has told them to say that, then I'm just as sure that GOD knows they won't mind giving up tax free status.

It's a legal, not constitutional issue.

[theboss]

183. 182 post for about 1 percent change

So, the conclusion we've reached is that the current law is good.

God, this is just like law school.

[Tyler Durden]

185. Bet you are one HELL of a lawyer.

I would prefer that setting. One on One debate with RULES was always more my style.

Now why isn't the law ENFORCED?

GAWD. Get ready for another 182 posts.

[theboss]

192. Why isn't the law enforced?

A. Because what you think is happening in churches is not really happening. The Ralph Reed advocacy type stuff usually happens outside church services under a separate organizational title. This is why I keep asking you for examples of preachers in the pulpit calling for the defeat of Al Gore. The really rich groups that know what they are doing are never going to get themselves in trouble because they toe the legal line. In fact, I keep bring up black churches because they do not have the organizational structure of the Southern Baptists and would be the ones most affected. It would take the Southern Baptists approximately 15 minutes to figure out how to skirt your new, improved, and super-tough regulations.

B. Because who wants to split these types of legalistic hairs. Do you really want to be the prosecutor who brings a church on trial for quoting scripture in an inappropriate manner? First of all, you would lose under the First Amendment 9 out of every 10 times. Secondly, you would be demonized as a modern-day Toquemada.

[Tyler Durden]

193. NOOOOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition!

Our weapons are surprise, surpise and fear....
Our TWO weapons are fear and surprise and ruthless efficiency...
Our THREE weapons are fear, suprise, ruthless efficiency, and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope...

TOQUEMADA: let's face it-you can't TALK HIM OUTA Anything!

Actually, there was one of those big-ass expensive 5000 member Baptist (well, they WERE) tabernacles in Houston that not only did the banner making/envelope stuffing bit, they ran ads on CABLE for when they were doing it so you could show up and HELP: Bushie was running against Ann Richards for Governor.

After all, it was TEXAS.

[Silverhair]

187. You ducked the question. Can the Pastor read the Bible aloud?

Remember, you said "political influence".

[Tyler Durden]

190. We've spent two days hashing out the meaning of the original post.

I suggest you read through them.

Show me the passage where it says: "And thou must vote for ____" and we can talk.

Really. I ducked no question. Read the bible word for word if you want. I have. 4 times.

The issue is TODAY'S ELECTIONS. If ANY organization wants to Electioneer, the LAW says they must pay taxes. A 501(c) orgainization, as most "RELIGIOUS ORGANIZATIONS" are, may not do so and retain tax-exempt status. THAT IS THE LAW.

You really are clutching at straws.

[adamblast]

188. The Mormons almost lost their tax exempt status due to racism...

I more or less agree with the original poster, in theory.

Churches have a right to whatever doctrines they choose. They have a right to seek to change society and national politics as well--to bring about what they consider a just and moral world.

But: there occasionally comes a point when an old doctrine is shown to be intolerable from a standpoint of human justice.

The government was *right* to threaten the Mormon Church back in the sixties: allow blacks full membership or you lose your tax exempt status. Amazingly, their president had a "divine revelation," and changed their doctrine just in time.

Similarly, Churches can demonize gays all they want. But how far can they go in oppressing us politically before they must be stopped?

Answer: they have already gone too far. They have opposed the American ideals of fairness, equality, and seperation of church and state.

Churches do *not* have a right to preach from the pulpit that millions of Americans should never be allowed to marry, raise children or be treated with simple human dignity. Those that take a radical anti-gay political stance should be reigned in, starting with www.godhatesfags.com ...

[theboss]

191. I utterley disagree

"Churches do *not* have a right to preach from the pulpit that millions of Americans should never be allowed to marry, raise children or be treated with simple human dignity."

Yes, they do. Anyone has the right to believe that. I have the right to believe that I should be allowed to beat up people with freckles at random. I don't have the right to actually beat up people with freckles. But I can call for a law.

[adamblast]

194. Re: "I utterley disagree"

>>>> I have the right to believe that I should be allowed to beat up
>>>> people with freckles at random. I don't have the right to
>>>> actually beat up people with freckles. But I can call for a law.

And if so, you should be held accountable for doing it. If you repeatedly preach from the pulpit that is it a great thing to beat up people with freckles, you should lose your tax-exempt status. Just as you would for saying blacks should be beaten. It's hate speech. Clearly so is Westboro Baptist Church. Its tax-exemption should be repealed.

[theboss]

197. Hate speech is protected speech

The only time it should be punished is when it arises to immediate incitement. This is why the Klan is allowed to hold rallies in cities.

You don't even realize that you are calling for a rolling back of First Amendment protections to what they were prior to WWI.

A free nation has to allow unpopular speech. More than that, it has to protect it. Because otherwise, there will come a day when saying "Bush is a war criminal" will be classified as hate speech.

[adamblast]

198. Grrrr... I can't stand it when...

...I'm all righteously indignant and somone succeeds in talking me down. :D

(Fine, then. I'll just preach from my pulpit that Phelps should get beaten up, too. :))

[Silverhair]

200. We are at an empasse.

I and others have tried to show you how badly you are trying to damage our 1st amendment rights. One of those who have been arguing with you is a lawyer. You still want the gov't to exercise more control over the message that comes from churches. I can not convince you, and you difinately won't convince me to abridge the 1st amendment. Only one option remains open, and that is to defeat you at the polls. FREEDOM.

[adamblast]

202. Actually....

...as I tried to imply with my last post; theboss has more-or-less convinced me already that I was going too far.

I'm not entirely convinced that churches must be allowed to unfairly discriminate to absolutely any extent with no governmental repurcussions, however.

[Silverhair]

204. Sorry, I posted the reply to the wrong post. I thought I was

responding to Tyler. My apologies.

[Tyler Durden]

207. Never have I seen such refusal to READ

I have not advocated censoring any religious speech. I have only stated THIS:

Article (See Note 13)

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.

AND THIS SAYS NOTHING ABOUT GUARANTEEING TAX FREE STATUS TO AN ORGANIZATION INVOLVED IN POLITICS.

Just what about this keeps translating into "...how badly you are trying to damage our 1st amendment rights. "

They may talk all they want. They may EVEN become "THE FIRST UNITED CHURCH OF POLITICAL ADVOCACY."

And just as they have this absolute RIGHT, The Government has the right to DENY them 501(c) TAX EXEMPT STATUS for political activity.

THERE IS NO CONTROL OVER THE MESSAGE, UNLESS THE MESSENGER IS SUCH A COWARD THAT THE LOSS OF TAX EXEMPT STATUS IS AN IMPEDIMENT.

PLEASE explain to me EXACTLY what is not CLEAR about this? I speak as a Religious person, who advocates far left Liberal causes, a SOCIALIST, and a stauch supporter of the ACLU and free speech.

[Silverhair]

208. The power to tax is the power to destroy. And you place...

The gov't in the position of deciding when the speech becomes overt political advocacy. And since the things the preacher talks about will touch on all aspects of the believers life, then many of those may be interpreted as political advocacy. The preacher can urge the congregation to any action, short of inciting immediate violence, that he believes that God has told him to do.

[Muddleoftheroad]

199. Almost

I almost slept with Tyra Banks last night.

Well, I did SEE her on TV.

Almost means NOTHING in politics.

[adamblast]

201. The US Government successfully pressured the...

LDS church into giving Blacks reasonable equality... by threatening to remove their tax-exempt status.

The issue of just how much discrimination churches can engage in may well be about to rear its head again.

Do you think there should be no limit whatsoever?

The Mormons should have been (and should still be) allowed to exclude blacks from their inner temples?

[Muddleoftheroad]

203. Yes there should be no limit and yes it would be morally wrong

But people are allowed to be wrong in their private religious dealings. If I create a BLACK church, guess what, I can limit it to black people. Further, I can limit it to black people who are 6' tall and shave their heads.

Remember, what the federal government THREATENED to do and what it might have succeeded at are often far from one another.

[adamblast]

205. Wrong yes, but I'm not sure about discriminatory...

>>>> Further, I can limit it to black people who are 6' tall and shave their heads.

And I'm not allowed to attend, even to find a date? :D

More seriously, it would be interesting to see some church *try* to be as blatantly hateful on a racial basis, or toward any other oppressed class... You don't think they'd be stopped?

To me, all this feels like a clear case of: it's not us they're keeping down, so we don't care that much. Yet.

[theboss]

206. Commerce clause issue/Public access

I am not sure that if you have an open church/synagogue/etc, you could exclude people. I honestly don't recall any cases like this. But there is a difference between a church and a private club. A private club has members - usually dues-paying. I've never attended a church service where I had to pay to sit down.

Now, as to the question of "membership" or "baptism" or whatever, no, the federal government could not tell you who you could or could not associate with, I think.

I really don't think the LDS case could have held up; it would have been expensive and ugly for everyone involved though.

[Scott Lee]

209. Shouldn't encouraging anti-social behavior carry a price?

Think about it. When you promote hatred, either actively (www.godhatesfags.com) or passively (no gay marriage, or rights to priesthood), are you not feeding a social problem or possibly being an accomplice to the resulting hate crime?

If so, why should you enjoy a tax break? Doesn't it cost tax money to deal with the results of such social ills, when you figure in law enforcement, court costs, prison expense, psychological therapy etc.?

Tax exempt status to churches or any other group that encourages division and hate just makes zero sense to me. If anything, they need to pay an additional "hate tax" as a debt to their society for promoting such behavior.

[Muddleoftheroad]

210. What is anti-social?

Is it anti-social to make posts online against religion? Or is it anti-social to make posts online against a union?

How you define these terms makes all the difference and different people would define them differently.

Religion is protected by the 1st Amendment. You don't have to like it. If you wish, try and lobby for a repeal and watch how far you go.

[Silverhair]

211. Who decides what is anti-social?

You will be giving the gov't the power to decide what is anti-social. They will decide what speech is protected and what isn't. How long do you think it would be until that power was used against you?

[jody]

212. If implemented, subject proposal would probaby violate First Amendment