What's good for the goose...

[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]

Originally Posted by wendybeth

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]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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]

Originally Posted by 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!

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.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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.

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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]

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

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]

Originally Posted by scaeagles

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]

Originally Posted by Ghoulish Delight

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.