The Atheist Theist Tension

[Mountain Man]

At least you're consistent...

And I ain't no fool.

[carpedm9587]

And I ain't no fool.

[firstfloor]

Churches are exempt from taxation (i.e. they receive public subsidy) and yet churchgoers are provided with political information at church services and churches want to be directly involved in electioneering. Consequently, churches are valid political targets and ought to be exposed as the fraudulent enterprises that they are.

[Cow Poke]

Churches are exempt from taxation (i.e. they receive public subsidy)

Churches are made up of individuals who are, indeed, taxed.

and yet churchgoers are provided with political information at church services

It is completely allowable for Churches to discuss issues - the problem is when they endorse specific candidates.

and churches want to be directly involved in electioneering.

Speaking to the issues - these days it's not hard to figure out which candidates support what.

Consequently, churches are valid political targets and ought to be exposed as the fraudulent enterprises that they are.

I love you, too, FF.

[carpedm9587]

Churches are made up of individuals who are, indeed, taxed.

OK - THAT is a stretch. The point is that churches, as an entity, are tax exempt under current law. And even the contributions to these churches made by their membership are tax exempt. One of the arguments in citizens united was that you cannot deny the rights of an individual to a corporation if you place on them the obligations of an individual (e.g., corporations have top pay taxes, a responsibility, ergo they should have the benefits of free speech as well, a benefit/right). By the same logic, if you claim tax exempt status, as an organization, you likewise should not be able to lay claim to all of the rights of an individual (as an organization). The individual members of a church have the right to engage politically in any way they see fit - but if the church itself (as an organization) does so, then I suggest they should lose their tax exempt status.

It is completely allowable for Churches to discuss issues - the problem is when they endorse specific candidates.

Very true - but it is a VERY grey line.

Speaking to the issues - these days it's not hard to figure out which candidates support what.

Hence the significant grey area...

[Cow Poke]

OK - THAT is a stretch.

It's one of them thar fact thingies.

The point is that churches, as an entity, are tax exempt under current law.

Correct, and as long as that law is in effect, I will take proper advantage of it.

And even the contributions to these churches made by their membership are tax exempt. One of the arguments in citizens united was that you cannot deny the rights of an individual to a corporation if you place on them the obligations of an individual (e.g., corporations have top pay taxes, a responsibility, ergo they should have the benefits of free speech as well, a benefit/right). By the same logic, if you claim tax exempt status, as an organization, you likewise should not be able to lay claim to all of the rights of an individual (as an organization). The individual members of a church have the right to engage politically in any way they see fit - but if the church itself (as an organization) does so, then I suggest they should lose their tax exempt status.

I bet the ministerial housing allowance REALLY drives you bonkers. (assuming you know all the implications, including the "double dipping" component)

Very true - but it is a VERY grey line.

Only to those opposed to religious liberty. I should be able to preach against abortion or homosexuality based in the Bible, and encourage people to vote their conscience accordingly. I really don't have to name names - it's pretty obvious what each party stands for. WAY more than in the past.

Hence the significant grey area...

Sheeeeesh... black churches have gotten away for ages with political candidates preaching from their pulpits, and nobody complained. You're familiar with "walking around" money in that context?

Again, if I preach on abortion or homosexuality, I don't even have to name a candidate. The liberals outright endorse candidates from their liberal pulpits all the time.

[carpedm9587]

It's one of them thar fact thingies.

Not all facts are relevant to the discussion. This one is about as relevant as noting that church members are homo sapiens.

Correct, and as long as that law is in effect, I will take proper advantage of it.

That was never at question.

I bet the ministerial housing allowance REALLY drives you bonkers. (assuming you know all the implications, including the "double dipping" component)

Actually, I seldom think about this issue, until it is brought up for discussion in fora such as these.

Only to those opposed to religious liberty. I should be able to preach against abortion or homosexuality based in the Bible, and encourage people to vote their conscience accordingly. I really don't have to name names - it's pretty obvious what each party stands for. WAY more than in the past.

I agree with all of these (though the stance against homosexuality is one I continue to find prejudicial). The point was when the preaching gets specific. Like, "we should never vote for a candidate that would put the people in our embassies at risk and then deny they did so." Without naming names, that pretty much identifies an individual (at least from a right-leaning perspective). These are the "grey lines" that get crossed all the time. Advocating for particular moral or legal positions is not part of the "grey line," IMO.

Sheeeeesh... black churches have gotten away for ages with political candidates preaching from their pulpits, and nobody complained.

"Nobody complained" is one of those superlatives that isn't true. I have complained - as long as I have been old enough to understand the issues, when this is done in favor of, or in opposition to, any particular candidate or party.

You're familiar with "walking around" money in that context?

Again, if I preach on abortion or homosexuality, I don't even have to name a candidate. The liberals outright endorse candidates from their liberal pulpits all the time.

I have not been in a church during an election cycle for a long time. I have to wonder how many "liberal churches" you've been to that would substantiate this claim, and how you would substantiate "all the time." I'd be content to see evidence that this even happens semi-frequently. If it does, you will find me standing against it. The rule is not (or shouldn't be) different for different parties or churches.

[Cow Poke]

Not all facts are relevant to the discussion.

Something going on with you? You seem like you're in "I'm just out to pick a fight" mode. I'll let you battle with somebody else.

[carpedm9587]

Something going on with you? You seem like you're in "I'm just out to pick a fight" mode. I'll let you battle with somebody else.

You've made this comment several times, tonight. I'm actually in a good mood - going back and forth between cleaning house and posting. I'm not feeling particularly combative. I'm just responding to what is posted. Your comment about church members being taxed struck me as irrelevant to the discussion, hence my comment. I'm sorry if you took offense. It was not intended to be offensive. The same with your response concerning the IRS - it did not strike me as a particularly good or strong response.

But if you'd rather chat another day, that's cool. I'm going to be signing off shortly anyway.

[Cow Poke]

You've made this comment several times, tonight.

I think it was a total of twice. Have fun.

[carpedm9587]

I think it was a total of twice. Have fun.

I counted three

[Cow Poke]

I counted three

Cool. Three. You win.

[Cow Poke]

I'm sorry if you took offense.

Nope.

[carpedm9587]

Cool. Three. You win.

CP. I always win....

[carpedm9587]

Nope.