Only if they say it from the pulpit. I'm not allowed to campaign for politicians at my workplace either, but both I and the preacher can say what we like off the job. </font>[/QUOTE]In this country we have the freedom to preach, and we have the freedom of political speech. Just not both at the same time.
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Clergy and Politics
- Thread starter church mouse guy
- Start date
Except when you think about it....many roses have no smell whatsoever, especially the hybrid teas. And a guy waddling around quacking is still a guy not a duck.
Nonsense. The ACLU supports free speech, which includes private prayer. Link to ACLU's stand on religion. For more on this particular slander against a fine organization, which dates from 2003, see Snopes.com for their analysis.
But why spoil a good sense of outrage with truth?
People were punished for not praying? That doesn't seem right...When I entered the Air Force 42 years ago Sunday chapel attendance was strongly suggested during boot camp. Jewish airmen went to chapel on Friday evening. If you didn't go to services you would be given some sort of work detail.
Of course it does. Why not check your stories for truthfulness before posting them?
Looks like Roger beat Mr. Jefferson to the draw by a mere 158 years. The principles of separation were well established; Jefferson gets credit for the phrasing. Being President didn't hurt, either.
Only if they say it from the pulpit. I'm not allowed to campaign for politicians at my workplace either, but both I and the preacher can say what we like off the job. </font>[/QUOTE]Wait a minute, Daisy. I am only a Hoosier hick but your answer is pure sophistry. You completely ignored the point that preachers could say anything that they liked until 1954 (more or less) when Lyndon Baines Johnson (hereafter LBJ) snuck an amendment that established the 501c3 into a bill and thereby snuck the bill through Congress. LBJ wanted to silence the people who said that he stole his first election to the Senate in Duvall (sp?)County Texas by something like 87 votes--the Duke of Duvall County waiting a couple of days to count his votes in order to see how many were needed for LBJ to win.
And, Daisy, much to my surprise, not only did you uphold the liberal Democrat party line written by LBJ, but you also ignored the fact that thousands of Black preachers routinely endorse Democrat candidates from the pulpit on Sunday during service. Why, Jesse Jackson even took up political collections in church sanctuaries during services. Frankly, Daisy, if the GOP tried to enforce the law against Democrat preachers, they would be labelled racists right away.
So the law does not work because it only convicts Republicans. Secondly, the law violates 180 years of freedom of speech in the pulpit.
Finally, Daisy, your idea that only the church would suffer the penalty really is sophistry of the highest degree. The preacher is part of the church and the money available for his work would be diminished by federal taxes. I think that the government has the right to tax salaries of workers in the church but not a right to tax the church. That is totally un-American to tax churches. The power to tax is the power to destroy according to the US Supreme Court.
I would like to see you discuss the issues that I have listed, Daisy, and then tell me if it would not be a good idea to repeal LBJ's private weapon against non-profits. LBJ's reputation is beyond repair. His own party forced him out in 1968, as you know.
Pennsylvania Jim
New Member
God's law, in light of all the counsel of God and the principles therein, extends to more than just preaching. It encompasses the rights of man, and many other things. You probably disagree, and will of course claim that only your viewpoint is scripturally valid. But that isn't so. I'll agree to disagree on this one, it goes to a level of your worldview vs. mine.
Not true, because if you endorse a candidate from the pulpit you can lose your tax exempt status. I agree that you shouldn't do that, but the point of this thread is not what is right, it's what is legal. I don't think that everything that is wrong should be illegal.
Surely not pure...
LBJ is no hero of mine. I acknowledge your point, but it has no bearing on mine.
Uphold it? Well, it is the law.
I wasn't there - I don't really know anything about that. Did white preachers do the same? Were there any consequences for either group?
All I can say is that if it is wrong for a white preacher, then it's wrong for a black, yellow, green, etc one and vice versa.
Is it the place of the GOP to enforce laws? If it is, as long as they did it blindly as regards to color, creed and political party then I don't see who would have a problem with that except maybe you and PastorLynn, but if they tried to enforce it only against black preachers, then yes, they would rightly be labelled racists.
Which Republicans were convicted?
They can be Republican lobbyists if they want to, but they have to give up their tax exemption. If they want freedom, they can pay for it -- freedom ain't free.
Whoa! That's some sophistry on your part now! What I said was that the restriction is on the church and so it is. The preacher can say what he likes as a private person, same as anyone (except military personnel).
If a church wants special treatment in the form of an exemption, then it should abide by the rules. He who pays the piper, calls the tune.
Are you saying that all non-profits should have no restrictions as to their activities? What, then, would distinguish them from for-profits? I don't have an answer yet - what was the law before 1954 concerning non-profits?
And, to top it all off, he's dead.
[ December 30, 2004, 10:38 AM: Message edited by: Daisy ]
eWhat biblical command is there to post the 10 commandments in public places, or to invoke the name of God in national judicial proceedings? What biblical command is there about sitting in the back of the bus? I am not saying those things are right or wrong. I am not saying we should not try to change them. I am saying that there is no biblical command and therefore civil disobedience is not an option for the believer. In those cases, we change it through legitimate legal means. It has nothing to do with worldview, per se. We probably both share the same position on this issue. The issue is about how we should go about changing it.
It is not illegal to endorse a candidate. It is not illegal to be tax exempt. It may be illegal to do both, but so what? Since the Bible does not endorse candidates, pastors and churches should either. We should speak to moral issues that the Bible addresses, and I did that. But the Bible is our authority and we should use the pulpit to say only what it says.
The gospel is ultimately more important than any political candidate, and I can lose a hearing for the gospel by making political statements. I like the quote by Carl Henry that I have given before:
Political statements can undermine the authority of God's word. I will not take that chance.
OK, Daisy, here is where you missed the boat: "If a church wants special treatment in the form of an exemption, then it should abide by the rules. He who pays the piper, calls the tune." Those are your words, Daisy.
Firstly, the government has no right to tax any church as an entity. The power to tax is the power to destroy, and the government cannot go around burning down churches and destroying them.
Secondly, as for abiding by the rules, the rules allowed freedom of speech until 1954 when LBJ changed the rules for his private political purposes. Remember he was Senate Majority Leader and very slick. He hid his change in a pile of bills.
Thirdly, Uncle Sam does not pay the piper and cannot call the tune. The church exists outside of the state and the state cannot regulate the church except in mundane physical matters such as electrical code, sanitary code, etc. The state has no legal right to govern what is said in the pulpit. Nor should the state subsidize the church. A tax exemption is not a subsidy. For example, I do not pay corporate income taxes because I am not a corporation. Therefore, I am exempt from corporate income taxes; it is not correct to say that I received a corporate income tax subsidy.
Fourthly, it would be wrong for the Republican majority in Congress and the Republican President to use a Democrat law against Democrat clergy who are the largest violaters of what is a law unworthy of enforcement. It would be better to allow Republican clergy to say what they like as well as to continue to allow Democrat clergy to say what they like. I think that it would be immoral to tax Black churches over a loser like Kerry.
In conclusion, "Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., will reintroduce a bill that would make it legal for churches to participate in political campaigns without losing tax-exempt status...." God Bless Rep. Walter Jones!
Firstly, the government has no right to tax any church as an entity. The power to tax is the power to destroy, and the government cannot go around burning down churches and destroying them.
Secondly, as for abiding by the rules, the rules allowed freedom of speech until 1954 when LBJ changed the rules for his private political purposes. Remember he was Senate Majority Leader and very slick. He hid his change in a pile of bills.
Thirdly, Uncle Sam does not pay the piper and cannot call the tune. The church exists outside of the state and the state cannot regulate the church except in mundane physical matters such as electrical code, sanitary code, etc. The state has no legal right to govern what is said in the pulpit. Nor should the state subsidize the church. A tax exemption is not a subsidy. For example, I do not pay corporate income taxes because I am not a corporation. Therefore, I am exempt from corporate income taxes; it is not correct to say that I received a corporate income tax subsidy.
Fourthly, it would be wrong for the Republican majority in Congress and the Republican President to use a Democrat law against Democrat clergy who are the largest violaters of what is a law unworthy of enforcement. It would be better to allow Republican clergy to say what they like as well as to continue to allow Democrat clergy to say what they like. I think that it would be immoral to tax Black churches over a loser like Kerry.
In conclusion, "Rep. Walter Jones, R-N.C., will reintroduce a bill that would make it legal for churches to participate in political campaigns without losing tax-exempt status...." God Bless Rep. Walter Jones!
Baptist in Richmond
Active Member
Out of curiousity, where did you ascertain that the government has no right to tax any church as an entity?
I am curious as to what you think was the reason that this has been accelerated to the forefront. It never seemed to be a problem until now, what happened?
How did you ascertain this, notwithstanding your comments about your own personal tax status?
Are you saying that the Democrats have somehow been able to evade the law? Please explain this.
Amigo, Rep Walter Jones of North Carolina has it right! But here is a letter from D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, Florida on the subject:
Dr. Kennedy says at the end of the letter:
"...This is not, as some have alleged, an attempt to turn America's houses of worship into centers of political activity. This is about unshackling America's pulpits to allow them to bring the witness of God's Word to matters under debate in the political arena, and to do so without fear of a crippling Internal Revenue Service investigation.
"For too long churches have been censored from doing what they did at the very outset of our nation’s existence—speaking truth to power without fear or favor. We are a poorer nation for it.
"I urge you to give your support to this much-needed measure.
"Sincerely,
"D. James Kennedy, Ph.D.
Senior Minister"
Amigo, here is the rest of the letter.
Dr. Kennedy says at the end of the letter:
"...This is not, as some have alleged, an attempt to turn America's houses of worship into centers of political activity. This is about unshackling America's pulpits to allow them to bring the witness of God's Word to matters under debate in the political arena, and to do so without fear of a crippling Internal Revenue Service investigation.
"For too long churches have been censored from doing what they did at the very outset of our nation’s existence—speaking truth to power without fear or favor. We are a poorer nation for it.
"I urge you to give your support to this much-needed measure.
"Sincerely,
"D. James Kennedy, Ph.D.
Senior Minister"
Amigo, here is the rest of the letter.
I'm not denying that, Mouse.
By that logic, the government has no right to tax anyone but its enemies. The government cannot go around burning down private businesses and destroying them either. If your point here is that the government has no right to tax anything, ever, that is a different subject for a different thread. If, however, you say the government may tax organizations, then I stand by what I said.
That was what? Fifty years ago? It has not been hidden all this time. There have been many other Senate Majority Leaders since then - some of them Republicans - who could try to implement the change you desire. Until then, the law stands.
That is up to the church. If it incorporates, it is subject to corporate law; if it does not, it can do as it chooses.
In effect, it is.
Now that's sophistry! That's like saying you are exempt from rabies vaccinations and dog tag licenses. You are not said to be exempt from a tax which is simply not applicable. If you were incorporated, then you may or may not be exempt from corporate taxes. If you were not, those taxes simply would not apply.
If your church is not incorporated, then it, too, is not subject to corporate taxes and thus cannot lose any "exemption" it doesn't have. However, if it is incorporated (which, I believe, would allow it to own land and a bank account, have an income and pay salaries, insurance, etc. as an entity), then it may or may not be exempt, according to the state laws of incorporation. So if your church wants to be a corporation, but not pay corporate taxes, then corporations which do pay taxes are subsidizing it. Likewise, if the State is forgoing this revenue that it could collect if not for allowing the exemption, then it, too, is subsidizing your church.
So we agree, almost, on that point: everyone (me) or no one (you).
Ok, just remember this will apply to liberal churches, temples, mosques, synagogs and whatever it is that Wiccans and Pagans have.
The cults are also tax-exempt, as you note, Daisy.
Your premise that the state has a right to tax churches is outside the mainstream of American thinking.
I totally disagree that the government has the power to control what is said in churches by giving tax exemptions to churches who toe the government line. People who want the church "separate" from the government conversely also call for government control of the church by taxes.
There is no effort by anyone to control what is said by Democrats in churches. LBJ passed the law for corrupt reasons. It is a one-man law, conceived in the pit of hell by a corrupt politician for personal political reasons dealing with Texas issues. It is supported and continued today by persons who no longer remember what freedom was or what freedom means. It is being used against those few churches who support non-Democrat candidates as a weapon to silence them. The law is so corrupt that it could never be impartially enforced because the corruption is that the government is siding with the Democrats on this issue because of political correctness and because Democrats have controlled government since 1932.
For the person outside of Christ, there is usually one of two characteristics: megalomania or priapism.
Your premise that the state has a right to tax churches is outside the mainstream of American thinking.
I totally disagree that the government has the power to control what is said in churches by giving tax exemptions to churches who toe the government line. People who want the church "separate" from the government conversely also call for government control of the church by taxes.
There is no effort by anyone to control what is said by Democrats in churches. LBJ passed the law for corrupt reasons. It is a one-man law, conceived in the pit of hell by a corrupt politician for personal political reasons dealing with Texas issues. It is supported and continued today by persons who no longer remember what freedom was or what freedom means. It is being used against those few churches who support non-Democrat candidates as a weapon to silence them. The law is so corrupt that it could never be impartially enforced because the corruption is that the government is siding with the Democrats on this issue because of political correctness and because Democrats have controlled government since 1932.
For the person outside of Christ, there is usually one of two characteristics: megalomania or priapism.
Only if they engage in non-church activity. And if it is so outside mainstream American thinking, why has it been the law for fifty years?
The government does not control the church by taxes, it finances its own activities by taxes. If the church does not want to pay taxes, it can not own property and not have an income and not incorporate ~~ or follow the rules for 501c3s.
How do you figure that "Democrats have controlled government since 1932"? There was Eisenhower and the 83rd Congress...
I don't know what you mean by that, especially as regards "priapism" - could you explain?
Bartimaeus
New Member
Churchmouse and Daisy,
You both should read the US Sup CT decision on US vs Bob Jones U. It ruled that Tax exemption and not for profit is a benefit. Churches that use this mode of operation are on the Corporate Welfare System.
Pastor Larry needs to realize that he may not need to endorse a candidate but the US Sup Ct has ruled also that corporations must espouse public policy. If he signs up for corporate welfare and then preaches against Sodomites he is in violation. It may not be enforced at this hour but he has signed an agreement and has gone against his word. It is a league with Gibeah.
Thanks ----Bart
You both should read the US Sup CT decision on US vs Bob Jones U. It ruled that Tax exemption and not for profit is a benefit. Churches that use this mode of operation are on the Corporate Welfare System.
Pastor Larry needs to realize that he may not need to endorse a candidate but the US Sup Ct has ruled also that corporations must espouse public policy. If he signs up for corporate welfare and then preaches against Sodomites he is in violation. It may not be enforced at this hour but he has signed an agreement and has gone against his word. It is a league with Gibeah.
Thanks ----Bart
Thanks, Bartimaeus, you have a good point. I did not know that the Bob Jones case called a tax exemption a benefit.
You can see where the left is headed on this issue if the GOP cannot undo what LBJ did for evil purposes. First the left will say that the issue is pulpit speech regarding candidates and parties in elections. Next the left will say that, as they do in Canada, for example, that it is illegal and political to say that sodomy is a sin, etc., etc., etc. With hundreds of thousands of churches in the USA, the emphasis of the left will be to silence their political opponents as well as their religious opponents.
It is curious that the left shows no remorse on this issue but lines up behind a crooked law from a crooked LBJ and aims that law strictly at conservatives. They are unwilling to admit that liberal preachers violate the current LBJ law on a widespread scale. And they are unwilling to tax liberal churches, which are probably the majority in the USA. Who is upset about what liberals say in their churches in support of Kerry? Mostly, it is funny and very laughable.
Bob Jones was a bad decision by the court but then so was the legalization of abortion by the court.
You can see where the left is headed on this issue if the GOP cannot undo what LBJ did for evil purposes. First the left will say that the issue is pulpit speech regarding candidates and parties in elections. Next the left will say that, as they do in Canada, for example, that it is illegal and political to say that sodomy is a sin, etc., etc., etc. With hundreds of thousands of churches in the USA, the emphasis of the left will be to silence their political opponents as well as their religious opponents.
It is curious that the left shows no remorse on this issue but lines up behind a crooked law from a crooked LBJ and aims that law strictly at conservatives. They are unwilling to admit that liberal preachers violate the current LBJ law on a widespread scale. And they are unwilling to tax liberal churches, which are probably the majority in the USA. Who is upset about what liberals say in their churches in support of Kerry? Mostly, it is funny and very laughable.
Bob Jones was a bad decision by the court but then so was the legalization of abortion by the court.
C M Guy--
You aren't suggesting that there is a double standard for Democrats/leftists are you?
Glad you got that straigtened out for us!!
And how could LBJ be so crooked if people even rose from the dead to vote for him?
Happy New Year to all---even you, GOP Senator Arlen Specter!
You aren't suggesting that there is a double standard for Democrats/leftists are you?
Glad you got that straigtened out for us!!
And how could LBJ be so crooked if people even rose from the dead to vote for him?
Happy New Year to all---even you, GOP Senator Arlen Specter!
That is simply not true. You are uninformed or misinformed. I don't preach against Sodomites. I do preach against any moral issue that the text of Scripture addresses. That sometimes includes homosexuality. But I have not violated anything.
When I was young I lived in El Paso, the Western Star of Texas, and worked for a boss who had moved out west from east Texas. One day he told me the story of LBJ. Here it is from the internet (I did not bother to document it since it matches what my boss said 40 years ago):
History buffs will recall the Jim Wells County seat of Alice as the home of the infamous Ballot Box 13.
In 1948, when Lyndon Johnson trailed Gov. Coke Stevenson in the race for the U.S. Senate by a tiny margin, LBJ phoned George Parr, the "Duke of Duval."
Parr saw to it that Ballot Box 13 came in late and that it added 203 votes for Johnson, enough to give him an 87-vote margin of victory and the nickname "Landslide Lyndon."
History buffs will recall the Jim Wells County seat of Alice as the home of the infamous Ballot Box 13.
In 1948, when Lyndon Johnson trailed Gov. Coke Stevenson in the race for the U.S. Senate by a tiny margin, LBJ phoned George Parr, the "Duke of Duval."
Parr saw to it that Ballot Box 13 came in late and that it added 203 votes for Johnson, enough to give him an 87-vote margin of victory and the nickname "Landslide Lyndon."