Pastor Accused of Politics From Pulpit

There is no "gag" order. Pay your taxes like everyone else and say whatever you want.

 

A political message can be a doctrine, if a church so decides; else, the government is in the business of what is or is not proper doctrine. This doctrine meddling is, of course, what many seem to want. </font>[/QUOTE]So if a mosque decides that jihad against the US is a doctrine of their church would you defend their tax exempt status and right to proclaim that doctrine.

 

Yep. It is, in fact, part of their doctrine to either convert non-muslims by message, by force, or to persecute and kill them. If they have tax exempt status, they do not lose it because of this.

 

In that case Alcott, I admire the courage of your convictions. I may disagree, but I fully respect your stand in that case.

 

Thanks for the reply, C4K, and I agree. But the whole counsel of God applies to gevernment also, which involves poltics. My contention is that if you strictly follow what some claim is the law, you have to leave some of it out. They may be right, in which case we should just pay the taxes, IMO.

 

My hat is off to you. Take heart, if you get a congregation like that there are thousands of pastors who would love to take them off your hands.

 

C4K, you, unfortunately, are like the members of the proletariat in the novel 1984 in that you just don't remember what freedom is like.

Contrary to your opinion, the power to tax is the power to destroy. LBJ did put a gag on churches in 1954. From 1776 to 1954, preachers were free. Contrary to your opinion, the government has no right to tax or to destroy churches.

A controlled and disciplined society such as you suggest is a nightmare. Privilege goes to those who favor causes that certain sectors of the government favor. Punishment goes to those who favor causes that certain sectors of the government disfavor. Everything is based upon whim. Evidently, you want to jail preachers as some countries in Europe do. You are in agreement with the religious left.

 

Where are preachers of unregistered churches in Europe not free to preach the gospel?

Good analogy to 1984 from your perspecitve.

 

Can't link it for you but have read that the Swedes imprison preachers for preaching against sodomy. That is the problem with your idea of controlling the churches by tax exemptions. Only selective ideas will be targeted. It will be okay to be political in African Methodist Episcopal Church (A.M.E.) as the Democrats do and have done for years, but it will be wrong for Falwell to speak against abortion and homosexuality in a Baptist church.

What you have done, C4K, is to align yourself willy-nilly with the religious left. Believe me, no one cares what the religious left does because they are irrelevant. Black preachers can urged voters to vote Democrat from the pulpit from now to the end of the world, and no one will care. The law is wrong and it is impossible anyway to police the religious left.

However, the left wants to use the police to suppress Evangelical Protestants.

America should repeal the 501-c-3 as we have never been a disciplined society historically.

 

Then with the repeal of 501-c-3 should also go tax exemption for churches.

"Aligned willy-nilly with the religious left", huh?
Interesting charge CMG. That's one I never thought I'd hear - "Roger, a religious liberal."

 

Naw, you aren't a religious leftist, Roger. Do you get to see Bill Moyers on PBS? He thinks that man can ethically reach his own conclusions of what is good and what is bad. He would be the sort of person who would want to control the churches with the stick and carrot of the 501-c-3. Rev. Lynn is another one who wants to use the 501-c-3. He is the one who filed a complaint against Falwell.

Most preachers are not worried about partisan politics. Some preach for marriage to be one man and one woman; some preach for the end of legal abortion; and some preach for clean government, etc. The religious left has taken a minor issue and tried to use the police to enforce a point of view in my opinion.

We probably agree that we don't want to join the Black baptists in the National Baptist denomination or the A.M.E. because of excessive political talk as well as religious liberal theology from higher criticism. And we probably agree that it is politically impossible for Rev. Lynn and Bill Moyers to file a complaint against Black churches.

 

I have thoroughly enjoyed this little debate CMG. I think we generally agree more than we disagree on the issue. We are looking at this from two different angles.

You comment about being "out of the US" has some merit to it, but I see it as a positive. Being out of the US one sees that there is more than just an "American way" of doing things and that other ways do work well.

Churches in the UK have more freedom and government support than in the US - there you can actually designate part of your tax money to go to your church.

Here in Ireland, outside of the main denominations, our churches are basically ignored by the state - no benefits and no limitations.

With regards and thanks for your good spirit,
Roger

 

I want to make one thing clear: tax reductions are not government expenditures. They are simply letting people or organizations or corporations keep more of their own money. All money does not belong to the government. To say that a tax exemption equates to the government financing the receiver of the tax exemption is to say that 100% of our money belongs to the government. In which case any money that the government allows us to keep could be considered a tax exemption or a government subsidy. I reject such socialistic/communistic thinking.

 

I do understand your contention.

All I am claiming here is that if a church is invloved in politics they should pay the same taxes as any other organisation.

 

CMG, still waiting.

 

Ken, you said that as well as it could be said.

Terry, here was my earlier answer to you:

If you had read Dr. Kennedy's posted article, you would not ask that question. Also, you have to look at history and see that the American people have voted for gridlock on purpose so that Ike had a GOP Congress for a couple of years and Bush has had a paper-thin margin in Congress, and other than those two examples, the government has been divided.

This is not really a political issue but the two of you are doing a fine job of pointing out that the Democrat Party is against giving freedom to churches. Also, if you would read Falwell's link, you would read of Democrat Party abuse of the LBJ system.

Ike became a Presbyterian while he was President. Reagan proclaimed one year as the year of The Holy Bible. Other than that, Evangelicals have had little influence. The SBC, for example, has spent the last 25 years kicking liberals out of authority within SBC institutions.

Life will be better when liberal influence wanes. Like the communist party, liberals are ideologues who never change.