What's good for the goose...

Ghoulish Delight · 11-07-2005, 12:04 PM

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

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...home-headlines

Quote:

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...home-headlines

Quote:

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].

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 · 11-07-2005, 12:47 PM

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 · 11-07-2005, 12:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

This page has some useful contact info. Perhaps they'd like to see that e-mail.

scaeagles · 11-07-2005, 01:11 PM

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 · 11-07-2005, 02:01 PM

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 · 11-07-2005, 03:02 PM

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 · 11-07-2005, 03:20 PM

Also, can the Catholic Church lose their exempt status for this:

Quote:

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
Remember that?

scaeagles · 11-07-2005, 03:35 PM

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 · 11-07-2005, 07:14 PM

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 · 11-07-2005, 07:25 PM

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?

11-07-2005, 12:47 PM	#2
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	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. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

11-07-2005, 01:11 PM	#4
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	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.
	Submit to Quotes

11-07-2005, 02:01 PM	#5
wendybeth Nevermind Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,847	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. __________________
	Submit to Quotes

11-07-2005, 03:02 PM	#6
Gemini Cricket ... Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,244	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.
	Submit to Quotes

11-07-2005, 03:35 PM	#8
scaeagles I LIKE! Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 7,819	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.)
	Submit to Quotes

11-07-2005, 07:14 PM	#9
€uroMeinke L'Hédoniste Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: A.S.C.O.T. Posts: 8,671	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. __________________ I would believe only in a God that knows how to Dance. Friedrich Nietzsche
	Submit to Quotes

11-07-2005, 07:25 PM	#10
Prudence Beelzeboobs, Esq. Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Gavel - I haz it Posts: 6,287	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? __________________ traguna macoities tracorum satis de
	Submit to Quotes