Should churches that refuse to perform gay marriages lose tax exempt status?

[lance_strongarm]

@cosmosdan

I’m convinced that for some people there is a real emotional need and attachment to religion and the congregation. She was a single Mom and the congregation was like a surragate family. Their approval meant a lot. Sadly we eventually lost touch in part because she was being told I was a bad influence.

Well, yeah, you were a bad influence. You suggested she think.

If only people could have surrogate families without some dick prophet to tell them everything.

[adaher]

@cosmosdan

The more important question is how literally do we take the Bible and how much authority do we grant it in our lives. That varies greatly from person to person, church to church. The Bible must be interpreted by men. Who’s to say which group is interpeting it correctly?

It seems to me, just going off the basis of simple logic, that it’s an either/or proposition. Either the Bible is the word of God, or it is not. If it is not, we don’t have to take it anymore seriously than To Kill a Mockingbird. There may be important messages in there, but it’s not a code to live by. If it is, then it is, and we can’t cherry pick it.

As for interpreting what needs interpreting, I tend to take churches that take the clear parts literally more than churches that try to reinterpret plain Hebrew into something more palatable to modern culture.

[cosmosdan]

@adaher

It seems to me, just going off the basis of simple logic, that it’s an either/or proposition. Either the Bible is the word of God, or it is not. If it is not, we don’t have to take it anymore seriously than To Kill a Mockingbird. There may be important messages in there, but it’s not a code to live by. If it is, then it is, and we can’t cherry pick it.

As for interpreting what needs interpreting, I tend to take churches that take the clear parts literally more than churches that try to reinterpret plain Hebrew into something more palatable to modern culture.

I’m afraid that logic fails because it ignores other realities and ways to view scripture.

[adaher]

The only other realities I know of are political and social realities, which force religion to insist that their scriptures are the word of God, but can’t actually treat scripture as if it is.

That’s why religion and politics have always been so intertwined. They are basically the same thing.

[cosmosdan]

@adaher

It seems to me, just going off the basis of simple logic, that it’s an either/or proposition. Either the Bible is the word of God, or it is not. If it is not, we don’t have to take it anymore seriously than To Kill a Mockingbird. There may be important messages in there, but it’s not a code to live by. If it is, then it is, and we can’t cherry pick it.

As for interpreting what needs interpreting, I tend to take churches that take the clear parts literally more than churches that try to reinterpret plain Hebrew into something more palatable to modern culture.

What I mean is that even if someone refers to the Bible as the word of God theres still the question of what that means to them. Is it literally the word of God as in he moved men to write it, or is it just inspired to some unknown degree. IOW, how much of the human authors made it’s way in. If they were influenced by God were they also influenced by their own views and the times they lived in? If so, how much? Then there’s the men who interpretted the scriptures from other languages or made copies before any mass printing was done. How much influence did they have?

Then there the interpreting by the individual as he reads it. The Bible isn’t an instruction book that tells you what to do in every situation. It tells you to love your neighbor then the individual has to decide exactly what that means on any given day in specific circumstances. What about tough love, does God approve of that? How exactly is love expressed?

What if my neighbor is threatening my family? How do I love him them? There are plenty of general guidelines in the NT but it isn’t nearly as simply and clear as you seem to think.

[monavis]

@Falchion

There’s quite obviously a qualitative difference “serving Gay weddings” and “serv[ing] those who are divorced.” The better complaint would be a believer who is willing to serve a wedding between two divorcees but not a gay wedding. Or, for that matter, who won’t serve gays (period), but will serve those who are divorced.

But your complaint they draw the line somewhere between participating in the sin (that is, playing a role in what they believe to be an impermissible ceremony) and shunning the sinner (serving those who are divorced) strikes me as somewhat inapt. Indeed, as I understand the religious teachings, that’s about where the line is supposed to be drawn.

As I see it, it is the fact that Jesus didn’t speak of Gay people, just people who were divorced that he is said to call adultery if they remarried. Quoting the Bible," let he who is without sin, cast the first stone".

[monavis]

@Hector_St_Clare

Is there seriously an argument here that religious organizations should face censure for not performing gay marriages?

What sorts of sexual behavior a religion chooses to bless or forbid really shouldn’t be the business of the state. If your religion teaches that you’re doing something sexually immoral, or at least that they don’t wish to recognize your relationship as equal to a marriage, then you have three choices: either abide by their rules, or leave, or stay in your church as a sort of second-class member. All that is between you and your religious authorities, it’s not the business of the state.

Does Steophan want to compel Eastern Orthodox churches to perform Christian-Jewish mixed marriages and Roman Catholic churches to marry divorcees?

As I understand it; The R C C just decides some first marriages are not marriages at all. I know of one case where if the Man converted to the C C, they would allow the Catholic to have communion and accepted the Marriage that was invalid because they married outside of the Church but the man didn’t convert, so they could either live together but not have sex!

[monavis]

@Shodan

Possibly because churches are not there to turn a profit to be distributed. So there are no shareholders.

There seem to be three arguments being bandied about in this thread.
[ol][li]Non-profits should be taxed. I suppose that is a notion for debate.[/li][li]Churches should be taxed. That immediately falls foul of the First Amendment, which protects religions from being singled out in this manner, by taxing them in ways that other, non-religious non-profits are not. [/li][li]Churches who do not abide by the dictates of the Democratic party should be taxed. Same objection - it is against the First Amendment to try to force religious organizations to alter their beliefs and practices because non-participants don’t like them.[/ol][/li]:shrugs:

At least we know, as if there had been any doubt, that proponents of SSM who told us “if you don’t like gay marriage, just don’t enter into one” were lying.

Regards,
Shodan

But then of course the religious are forcing the non-believers to follow their beliefs,
the salary of the person’s working for the religious institution are being forced to follow a religion they do not believe in. In the same sense they are trying to tell the people how to spend their own money. Insurance is part of a person’s salary and should be able to use it as they wish.

One can also stop donating to a church or business and use that money for contraception.

[monavis]

@Smapti

And now you’ve placed the government in the business of deciding what is morally or religiously true. If a church believes that God has defined marriage to mean a certain thing, it’s not the government’s place to say “Nuh-uh”, or to command a church to commit what it considers to be blasphemy. We kind of had a couple hundred years of sectarian warfare in our history that settled that point.

There is a big difference between what is going on inside of a religion and forcing one not of their religion to spend the money they earn( insurance included as part of their salary). I believe there was a time a RC couldn’t attend a non-catholic church or contribute to it.

[adaher]

So churches must provide contraception coverage to their janitors?

[monavis]

@Steophan

As I asked earlier, and no-one answered, what church provides weddings for free? It’s not a private gathering, it’s a service offered for money. It should be illegal to offer only to certain people and not others.

I know of several relatives and Friends who were Catholic and married in a RCC but didn’t have to pay, they just gave the priest a donation to him for his time, It was not required!

[monavis]

@Trinopus

And if you choose to hold a birthday party for your kid, you have to offer one to everyone. Me and my drinking buddies are gonna show up, and you can’t make us leave.

That is not a religious thing as I understand it. To me the argument is if any employer has the right to tell a person how to spend their money. That is as I understand it is the argument against having a clause in an Insurance policy that differs from one’s faith. I fail to see why any religion should control what a person does with their salary. some people must allow a child to have a blood transfusion because it is against their religion, but can be forced to allow the child the transfusion.

[monavis]

@Munch

You mean like forcing someone to perform a ceremony that goes against the beliefs of their religion? Because that certainly infringes on a person’s rights. Look, you’ve conveniently ignored a number of questions regarding various organizations being forced to include someone outside of their group. Things like a man on the women’s softball team, a girl in the Boy Scouts, a Democrat in the Republican Convention, a Catholic in a bar mitzvah, Trinopus at your kid’s birthday party, etc.

Organizations set expectations and guidelines for inclusion all the time. Letting them do so on their own terms is a benefit to society, not a detriment. We allow and encourage free association because providing incentives for groups to easily congregate strengthens our communities, even if those organizations practice a certain degree of discrimination in who they allow to join their group. This builds diversity, rather than homogenization.

To me, the point is that the church isn’t the insurance policy holder, if this was the fact, then People who have an insurance policy as part of their pay should not be the business of telling someone how they can spend their money. any more than telling a restaurant their people can’t eat there because they don’t serve fish on Fridays, the church is not being forced to preform a ceremony etc. The insurance is not the church’s business.

[monavis]

@adaher

So churches must provide contraception coverage to their janitors?

The church isn’t providing contraception the insurance company is, Insurance is part of a person’s salary.If the janitor doesn’t have insurance he is still entitled to spend his money as he chooses.

[monavis]

@monavis

The church isn’t providing contraception the insurance company is, Insurance is part of a person’s salary.If the janitor doesn’t have insurance he is still entitled to spend his money as he chooses.

If a religion has rules that do not allow them to preform marriages between any one that is their right, if they choose not to marry any person regardless of their situation that is the churches right, That is different than telling them how they can spend the money they worked for,

I can’t understand why a Person would want to have a church that they don’t like the rules or are not members would want to have their marriage performed there.

Christianity has split into more different denominations just for that very fact. I don’t want to be a Christian and I wouldn’t ask the church for anything. It is a personal thing to believe what ever one chooses to believe.

[Munch]

@monavis

To me, the point is that the church isn’t the insurance policy holder, if this was the fact, then People who have an insurance policy as part of their pay should not be the business of telling someone how they can spend their money. any more than telling a restaurant their people can’t eat there because they don’t serve fish on Fridays, the church is not being forced to preform a ceremony etc. The insurance is not the church’s business.

I was not involved in this digression about insurance, so the post you’re responding to is irrelevant to your point.