What's good for the goose...

[Ghoulish Delight]

OMG this pisses me off. Two stories on the front page of the LA Times.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-allsaints7nov07,0,6769876.story?coll=la-home-headlines

The Internal Revenue Service has warned one of Southern California's largest and most liberal churches that it is at risk of losing its tax-exempt status because of an antiwar sermon two days before the 2004 presidential election.



http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-nuabortion7nov07,0,120895.story?coll=la-home-headlines

And at some evangelical Christian churches, including the Rock in Roseville, a suburb of Sacramento, pastors made time for a two-minute DVD featuring teenage actresses promoting support for [prop 73, the abortion proposition].

:mad:

Nevermind that countless churches that preached FOR Bush before the 2004 election. What church was it that was threatening to kick members out if they didn't vote for Bush? Did THEY receive a letter from the IRS?

By all means, apply the law to that first church and remove their tax exempt status if they are entering the political arena. But then it must be applied to ALL churches, no matter which side of the spectrum they're on.

[wendybeth]

Hee hee- the guy's name is Bacon...

I received an e-amil from our daughter's Homeschool group before the elections. She was attending Calvary Chapel's group, and the e-mail was from the pastors wifey. She admonished us to vote for the "more Christian" of the candidates, Mr. Bush. We haven't been back.

[Ghoulish Delight]

Hee hee- the guy's name is Bacon...

I received an e-amil from our daughter's Homeschool group before the elections. She was attending Calvary Chapel's group, and the e-mail was from the pastors wifey. She admonished us to vote for the "more Christian" of the candidates, Mr. Bush. We haven't been back.
This page (http://www.irs.gov/compliance/enforcement/article/0,,id=106778,00.html) has some useful contact info. Perhaps they'd like to see that e-mail.

[scaeagles]

I believe there are a lot of organizations that should have their tax exempt status revoked. The NAACP, for example. They are non-political? Bwa-haha!

What would you say, for example, if a church gave a sermon regarding abortion as immoral, and then reminded the lay people that there was an election with an abortion proposition and they should get out and vote?

It is a tricky question, one to which I do not know the answer. Is any moral issue that goes before the voters suddenly off limits to the church because it is now a political issue as well? Now, this does not mean that an antiwar sermon is not a moral issue. I do agree that directly endorsing a candidate is out of line.

A conundrum, no doubt. I am sure many here would not regard it as such, but again, these issues are moral and religious issues, will continue to be so, and have been long before they ever came to the ballot.

[wendybeth]

I lost the e-mail when we switched service providers.

I see nothing wrong with reminding congregations of the church's stance on moral issues as they interpret the bible to command, but they need only mention the particular issue, such as "the Church believes abortion is a sin". They need not go any further, such as "Elect this guy, because he''ll enforce the Church's doctrine", because that is most definitely not keeping church and state separate.

[Gemini Cricket]

I saw this as well. So, can the Catholic Church in Boston lose its tax-exempt status for using church time to tell its congregations to vote against same-sex marriage and sign petitions during mass?
I think they should.

[Gemini Cricket]

Also, can the Catholic Church lose their exempt status for this:
American Catholic bishops are trying to defy secret advice from Rome that Communion should not be given to John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate.

The advice is contained in an explosive memo - clearly directed at Sen Kerry - by Cardinal Ratzinger, the Pope's doctrinal advisor, who is head of the powerful Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith - the institutional heir to the Inquisition.
Source (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/11/wkerry11.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/07/11/ixworld.html)
Remember that?
:mad:

[scaeagles]

I do remember that. But here's what I don't get......

To be Catholic, and a Catholic in good standing, means to abide by the principles and teachings of the church, correct? So is it political to deny Kerry communion because simply because he is in political office and seeking the Presidency? Or is it treating him like they would any other member of the church who supported abortion rights?

What is happening is that the tax exempt status of churches is being held over their heads. No, they may not endorse candidates and I fully support that. But to operate within their own guidelines by preaching on an issue in the public square is fully within their rights. To operate within their own rules - such as denying communion to Kerry because of his pro choice stand - is perfectly legit. To offer biblical or (insert your favorite religious text here) opinions and teachings as to the current state of political affairs and events is something for the church to do. I say keep the hands of the government off the church. Separation works both ways. (That being said, I am not one who thinks that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" means the two must be mutually exclusive.)

[€uroMeinke]

Of course another option would be to give Political Action Committees tax exempt status too. As it is there are plenty of non-profit advocacy groups that set up sister PACs as a way to keep their finanaces seperate, but at the end of the day it's the same people. Lets give freedom of speech the same privilages of freedom of religion.

[Prudence]

I suppose there's a difference between preaching the church's position on issues and preaching the church's position on specific ballot measures. Likewise, there's a difference between a priest/minister/pastor discussing with a congregant why that congregant will not be receiving communion and making that denial the lead story on the evening news. And there's a difference between holding a voter drive and having a voter drive for only one party.

What I object to is what seems to be a current trend that goes beyond saying "this is religion x's view on issue y" and is now full-on endorsement of specific candidates. (Of course, the kinds of churches that do this have probably always done this, they just get bigger press now.) I also don't like churches that tell their flock not to read certain books, watch certain movies, engage in certain hobbies, etc.

(I'm so tired I'm not expressing well.) I think there's a line of advocacy that gets crossed in some cases. There's an issue locally about some conservative talk show hosts that were banned from some on-air activities prior to the up-coming election. I don't listen to talk radio any more, so I can't confirm this, but allegedly they went beyond airing their views on their show, which I would support, and started using their on-air time to do things such as on-air fundraisers for particular campaigns. The courts here said that crossed the line and amounted to the station donating airway time that had a value, and the value exceeded campaign donation limits. I'm not articulating this well. Talking about the issues is the purpose of the talk show and as such is (and should be) protected. Running an on-air telethon is providing a specific service to a specific political campaign and falls under campaign finance guidelines. Does this make any sense?

[wendybeth]

If the churches feel strongly enough about an issue, to the point where they would deny someone communion or publically endorse a candidate, then they have to accept that some economic sacrifices will be in order. No one is forcing them to not pay taxes. They abide by the law, or they suffer the consequences. This, of course, is not going to happen- principles often go by the wayside where money is involved.

[sleepyjeff]

Easily solved. Eliminate Taxes and have the government(who prints the money to begin with) just print a little more for themselves. That way no one can avoid taxes and everyone avoids taxes:)

[scaeagles]

If the churches feel strongly enough about an issue, to the point where they would deny someone communion ...... They abide by the law, or they suffer the consequences.

So to you , then, separation of church and state is basically equivalent to a form of extortion of the church by the state.

Sorry - I can't buy this. You are honestly saying that there should be laws over a church telling them they have to give what is considered to be a holy sacrament to those who do not meet the religious standard or face loss of tax exempt status?

Then the original fears of the founders truly begins to be realized - a state run church (rather than religious influence on the state), a la the Church of England.

[wendybeth]

So to you , then, separation of church and state is basically equivalent to a form of extortion of the church by the state.

Sorry - I can't buy this. You are honestly saying that there should be laws over a church telling them they have to give what is considered to be a holy sacrament to those who do not meet the religious standard or face loss of tax exempt status?

Then the original fears of the founders truly begins to be realized - a state run church (rather than religious influence on the state), a la the Church of England.

NO, that is not what I am saying at all. If the church chooses to deny the sacrament to a member of their congregation based upon how that person is likely to vote, then they need to decide what is more important to them- dogma or the law of the state. They need to figure out how to reconcile the situation- it is what it is. They cannot have it both ways- choosing to remain tax-exempt while not following the rules for maintaining that exemption. Why not do what they should be doing- educating people about the mores of the church, and trusting that people will vote their conscience. Why threaten or throw out people if they don't vote the way the church decides they should?

I see more sense in applying your example to what the situation would be should churches be allowed to dictate politics from the pulpit. That is the reason for separation of church and state. Need I remind you of what the Colonies were like prior to the Revolution?

[Alex]

Just eliminate tax exempt status for everybody and let them say whatever the hell they want.

[Gemini Cricket]

I believe there are a lot of organizations that should have their tax exempt status revoked. The NAACP, for example. They are non-political? Bwa-haha!
This statement is irrelevant to the topic at hand. GD's talking about churches and their exempt status. We aren't talking about other organizations. This is as irrelevant as talking about Clinton every time a complaint thread about Bush is posted. More so, this is about the hypocrisy of the issue. Will there be pro-Bush churches penalized for electioneering at the pulpit? Probably not.
So is it political to deny Kerry communion because simply because he is in political office and seeking the Presidency? Or is it treating him like they would any other member of the church who supported abortion rights?
Kerry's been Catholic and pro-choice for a long time. Why bring it up during the election process? Why wasn't this an issue before the election? Why weren't there announcements about this beforehand? Because it was political. The church made it a political issue from the pulpit.
I say keep the hands of the government off the church. Separation works both ways.
Yep. If the church is taking time during their sermons to tell its parishoners how to vote specifically during election time, this should be stopped too. This is bringing politics into the church. This allows for one prominent religion to dominate political life of a community that may not share in the religion's beliefs. That's dangerous. We don't live in a theocracy.
You are honestly saying that there should be laws over a church telling them they have to give what is considered to be a holy sacrament to those who do not meet the religious standard or face loss of tax exempt status?
This statement is too Rove-ian to answer to, but I'll go there. This is not what is being said at all. The IRS has strict rules about electioneering. The church is trying to get around that rule by making a statement about people who are pro-choice. The people they are referring to is Kerry. The timing of the whole thing was partisan. This could have been said about him when he was running for Senate. I'm sure it wasn't.
Then the original fears of the founders truly begins to be realized - a state run church (rather than religious influence on the state), a la the Church of England.
Not only this, but I'm for certain that Thomas Jefferson knew the dangers of America becoming a theocracy. He didn't want the country to be run by churches and dogma. And the fact that we are at odds/at war with countries run by their religion, we should feel the same way.

[Alex]

I'm serious about the remove tax-exempt line. If you're truly not making a profit then there are no taxes to pay and if you are making a profit and just not benefiting from it then pay taxes anyway.

But if you look at the history of churches losing their tax-exempt status for political activity (and interestingly, while the statute bars any political activity, limited lobbying is still allowed) you'll find that more "conservative" churches have been hit than "liberal." But it is all silly and capricious since non-profits engage in political activities all the time, they just play semantic games to avoid explicit conflict with the statute while still effectively doing what the statute tries to prevent ("here's our voting guide; we're not telling you who to vote for, just highlighting the candidate positions on the issues most important to our members") and this is true of both religious and secular non-profits.

[scaeagles]

This statement is irrelevant to the topic at hand. GD's talking about churches and their exempt status. We aren't talking about other organizations.

Well, actually, I see it as completely relevant. The tax exempt status of both churches and the NAACP is linked, in part, to them being "non-political". And I didn't make a big issue of it. It was one sentence of a few posts I've put here in this thread.

I guess it's OK for you to bring up ancient history of Kerry and denial of communion in relation to this debate, but apparently, based on your post, it's irrelevant to bring up Clinton and his policies and failures and how they have directly impacted the Bush Presidency. So which is it? Is it OK to bring up the past when you view it as relevant to a debate, or is it not?

I clearly stated that the church should not directly endorse candidates. That is clear and I do not dispute that. But religious issues do become political, and this does not mean that the church then has to bow out.

[Ghoulish Delight]

I guess it's OK for you to bring up ancient history of Kerry and denial of communion in relation to this debate...Anctient history? That happened at the exact same time as the events in the original article.

And as GC mentioned, it's not a problem that he's a polititcian and they tried to deny him communion. It's a problem that they tried to deny him communion because he's politician.

[scaeagles]

Anctient history? That happened at the exact same time as the events in the original article.

I'm being sarcastic here, GD. Of course it isn't ancient history. Of course it is relevant. I just grow tired of posters telling me that things I think are relevant to current events that involve the previous administration - handling of terrorism, handling of Iraq, whatever - are irrelevant. It is annoying when posters tell me that making a comparison between one non-profit and another non-profit that are both supposed to be non-political is irrelevant because one is religious and another is not.

If "you" find it to be "irrelevant", then don't comment on it and elevate the status of said comment into a position of prominence - especially when the comment was a short off-hand remark. Perhaps explaining why you don't think it applies would be better.

Yes, what GD posted was about non-profit churches and if the laws are being applied equitably. I didn't think it out of line to suggest that this problem exists outside the religious community as well, especially when it was not being used as any form of an excuse as to why churches should be permitted to violate the law. In fact, I clearly stated that direct endorsement of candidates is absolutely wrong.

[Gemini Cricket]

This whole thing smells like Rove to me. He's so controlling about almost everything that is said about the president that he would instigate something like this. Then make the rules apply only of they benefit the president. I just watched 'Bush's Brain' on the Sundance Channel and this totally fits his MO, imho.

Thinking in terms of other people's shoes... If I was religious and a church-goer, I'd have a real problem with this ruling about the IRS warning to this LA church and I'd speak out. I'd think that Bush was trying to control what my church says. But we won't be hearing that, too, I'm afraid.