What I’m trying to get at is that he spoke both against the Bush tax cuts AND against the war ON THE EVE OF THE ELECTION. Either one by itself would have been a little suspicious; the fact that he spoke against both on this date is really suspicious. Why wasn’t it a sermon against, for example, the War in Iraq and incivility to your workmates? Why not a sermon against Bush’s tax cuts and turning a blind eye to the homeless? Either of these would have had a more unified theme–unless the theme is that Bush is bad.
I’ve not read the other thread. If that’s the case, then they are even more at fault, no doubt. But my point is about this particular case, and from what I’ve heard of it, the pastor in this case was out of line, and the church ought to decide whether they value their political activism or their tax-exempt status more.
I’d be delighted if they chose the former, but I think they need to choose.
No, I’m just being dense today… Sorry for twice misinterpreting your posts, so let me start over.
From your post in the other thread:
Why?
The reason you gave:
Seems to be contrary to what is explicitly allowed by the quidelines:
Since you did say that they they wouldn’t fall under the “substantial-part test”, what part would they fall under?
Granted, you only said “start making some noises about the possibility…”, but what does that mean? Sounds like a police officer pulling someone over when that person is driving at the speed limit to tell him not to excede the speed limit. Most people would consdier that unwarrented harrassement.
Oh, I think I see the problem. I think it’s clear from the whole of the linked thread (although perhaps not from the excerpts I quoted here) that I was suggesting that aggrieved parishioners should raise the issue of the possibility of the church getting in trouble for excess politicking about the anti-SSM amendment. In other words, they should warn their church that this kind of behavior is a potentially dangerous trend, since it involves something that is explicitly forbidden by the government if you do more than an “insubstantial” amount of it.
I did not intend “start making some noises about the possibility of revoking their tax-exempt status if they go on like this” to imply “launch an immediate actual IRS investigation of their current political activities with a direct view to revoking their tax-exempt status”. Because, as you rightly point out, there doesn’t seem to be any legal justification for the latter course of action. Sorry if I was confusing.
For those against tax-exempt status for churches. What would you propose? They register as any other old non-profit? Could they still get special protection as a religious entity?
We talk about religious protection in this country, but I don’t see it. I see a lot of laws being passed out of an idea of “normative values”. Those normative values of society just so happen to be pretty in line with christian ethics. I think we’ve created a dangerous semantic rhetoric involving religion, that is able to marginalize certain people who do not fit within these “normative values”.
Also, I think the idea that any church is apolitical is the worst for of naivete. People don’t organize apolitically, if they wanted to be apolitical, they’d be meditating near a brook somewhere.
I’m not against removing special tax exemption for churches necessarily, but I think it would be very dangerous to force such agencies into becoming capitalist entities.
Also, is not a priest, bishop etc… not still a citizen? If they are preaching politics away from the actual pulpit in their church can they still lose tax exempt status?
I am not saying that the preaching was not politically motivated becuase it clearly was. What I am saying that it is impossible to seperate social ills and politics. There are elections every two years and sometimes more often than that for local elections. How can a pastor preach about the Iraq war without it affecting a political issue? Its simply impossible to seperate to preach about anything without it being at best tangentially related to politics. If we say no preaching about political issues then we are saying don’t preach about abortion, homosexuality, the death penalty, poverty, war etc. etc. That is way over the line of seperation of church and state.
Perhaps, but I don’t think you can say don’t preach about political issues or you will lose your tax exempt status. There is no pratical difference to me between a preacher giving a passionate anti-war sermon and a preacher giving a homily about voting against Bush becuase he led us into war. Thats why I say just make it easy and get rid of the tax exempt status.
I would only exempt charitable donations in all cases from taxes. Clubs, Unions etc. etc. would all be taxed. I also would not view say a package of food containing a bible as a charitable donation. I view the food as an advertising ploy to get your bible in the hands of whomever not a donation.
I’ve argued the point that one should not use religion as a justification for political choices before. Disguising religious values as morals and ethics does an end around the first amendment.
Whats the deal here? Did you just decide this morning to take a giant shit in this thread. You have thus far accused the OP of hypocracy, with absolutely no argument beyond “its self evident” and now this snarky reply to me. This forum is Great Debates not Great Shits so I would ask that you debate instead of dropping more dueces.
Umm…lack of a profit model comes to mind. I have a severe distaste in my mouth for a world where everything has to be done with a profit motive.
Jesus dragged people from the temple for moneychanging in the temple. What you are advocating is REQUIRING churches to become marketplaces. In otherwords you’d be outlawing Christianity, and closing down what is for most poor communities the only thing they have resembling a community center.
Taxing a church doesn’t force it to become for profit. It can still remain non-profit but it just has to pay taxes on whatever is decided it needs to pay taxes on.
Churches already are marketplaces; going to church to here a sermon isn’t that different than going to an amusement park and paying to enter the haunted house. It’s entertainment. Tax them like anyone else.
First, you’re kidding yourself if you don’t think churches are already for profit. Second, charitable donations made by a church would still get the same tax break that corporations get (and I would not include missionary or proselytizing activies as being charitable expenses). Fourth, “requiring churches to become market places?” You’ll have to explain that. I don’t know what you mean.
Lastly. Jesus’ assault on the money changers at the Temple had nothing to do with profiteering. All the money changers did was convert foreign money into shekels (which were the only form of currency acceptable in the Temple with which to buy sacrifices). They served a necessary function and were doing absolutely nothing religiously wrong. This makes Jesus’ attack on them somewhat of a puzzle but a likely explanation is that it was a symbolic protest against the Temple itself as being the only vehicle for atonement and forgiveness. In any case, it wasn’t about profits, contrary to popular belief.
No. and I’m sorry my brief reply was unclear in its import.
To state my argument clearly rather than cleverly: you misrepresent the church’s position as being solely an advocate against war. In fact, the sermon also inveighed against tax cuts, opined that Jesus would be saddened by tax cuts and by Bush’s positions on the use and testing of nuclear weapons, said that there is something vicious and violent about coercing a woman to carry to term an unwanted child, and that Bush values the lives of American babies more than Iraqi babies.
What about property taxes? In New York they are about 19%. With rents going up all over the place what would happen to all the little Pentecostal congregations when suddenly the real-estate market decided that the land the church was on was valued at $ 1m?
Except you don’t have to pay to enter a church. Even without the belief in God, can you not see the community center aspect of a church?
Erek
I don’t know that I’d agree with that. From Mark 11:
While the money changers (who did collect a fee for their services) and the sellers of doves weren’t doing anything religiously wrong in terms of normative Judaism, Jesus’s objection seems to be the commodization of Temple sacrifice. In other words, everybody should be allowed to sacrifice freely, but the way things are now, the only people who can sacrifice are the ones who can afford to pay for the sacrificial animals. The problem isn’t the sacrifices in the temple for atonement…the problem is that atonement is being made conditional upon ability to pay.
I suppose the government would sieze the churches assets just as the utilities would if the church couldn’t pay its light or heat bill.
I don’t pay to walk into a bar either. I am sure you would agree that a nice neighborhood pub acts nicely as a community center too but it still pays taxes.
