| Author | Post |
|---|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 1st, 2008 12:08 pm |
|
| I like the mute point. I think I'll install one myself.
|
Lavitakus
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 353 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 1st, 2008 04:55 am |
|
Playing the Game wrote: What is a mute point?
Lavitakus wrote:
The fact that I believe religion is the biggest scam ever infused into humanity makes this a mute point for me so I cannot answer.
It's that imaginary button in my brain that I push every time I hear anyone address religion. I'm just not hearing it. Not to be confused with "moot point" since that would make it appear as if I gave a rats a$$.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 1st, 2008 01:51 am |
|
Disgusted wrote: The enforcement of tax policy on them is discriminatory. Churches whose membership is mostly minority have political speakers preaching politics from the pulpit with no problem. But a church whose membership is primarily caucasian must be careful what is said from that station, and the tax enforcement folks do check them out.
No.
One can preach politics, as long as it is not partisan. You could say, for instance, as the Catholic Church does, that you should vote for Pro-Life candidates....and they are free to do that, and have never been stopped from doing it, and we know what political party most pro-lifers belong to. Heck, you can even distribute "voter education cards" that have been done for years, but there is a line that one can't cross.
|
Playing the Game
Member
| Joined: | Wed Jan 30th, 2008 |
| Location: | Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 2671 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 1st, 2008 01:09 am |
|
What is a mute point?
Lavitakus wrote:
The fact that I believe religion is the biggest scam ever infused into humanity makes this a mute point for me so I cannot answer.
|
Disgusted
Member
| Joined: | Thu Sep 29th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover |
| Posts: | 546 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Oct 1st, 2008 12:46 am |
|
I'm all for churches taking positions on the subjects of the day from the pulpit. Any restriction thereon is an infringement of the 1st Amendment.
The enforcement of tax policy on them is discriminatory. Churches whose membership is mostly minority have political speakers preaching politics from the pulpit with no problem. But a church whose membership is primarily caucasian must be careful what is said from that station, and the tax enforcement folks do check them out.
BTW, this is what an IRS officer has told me, off the record. They are prevented from enforcing the law against all because there is concern about how it would be reported by the mass media and characterized by the more vocal lefties in Congress.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30th, 2008 09:23 pm |
|
Runnerman wrote: No one publicly dared to protest that certain politicians were endorsed and political positions were preached from the pulpits black churches, some prominent and others not so prominent. Could it be said that Barack Obama was "endorsed" by his former pastor and church ... from the pulpit?
Actually, it was a pretty new concept back then, which is why in the 60s they were probably still working out the details. Realize that churches DO get benefits from being incorporated, and they trade certain additional benefits for not taking partisan sides.
The concept of 501c3 status for churches only goes back to about 1954, so 1960s-era issues probably aren't relevant....but I suspect that there were the same discussions back then, and is where we established our current baseline.
I understand that most of the ministers who are coming out are for McCain...but that isn't the point. I truly feel that the issues are not about the party of who can get the most endorsements, but rather about the underlying issues. Obviously, if a church feels strongly enough it can give up it's tax exempt status to take more active positions, and none of us would (or could) argue about what they say.
|
Lavitakus
Member
| Joined: | Sat Jan 14th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 353 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30th, 2008 09:10 pm |
|
| The fact that I believe religion is the biggest scam ever infused into humanity makes this a mute point for me so I cannot answer.
|
Kirk
Member
| Joined: | Tue Oct 11th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 330 |
| Status: |
Online
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30th, 2008 08:46 pm |
|
In the years before television and easy access to newspapers, people relied on the network of churches to gather and share information. Oftentimes, the preacher was the only person that had travelled outside of the immediate area and would be relied upon to interpret the greater world (farmers did not travel). It was this network of churches that spread such newsworthy events during the Colonial Period as the discovery of aliens that had settled on the Moon, the need for exorcisms to rid communities of bad spirits (maybe that's how Crawford got rid of their local representative of satan), and the requirement of stoning adulterers to preserve our moral integrity (I'll bet McCain is not in favor of that one).
It is scary enough that extremism in religion is pushing foreign policy on all sides of the "War on Terrorism", to the point where the war is the most terrifying thing of all. "God told me to invade Iraq" should be the standard demonstration of why religious groups should be barred from direct (and indirect if that were possible) political action. Such people are incapable of being reasoned with - to compromise would violate their religion. To question the war would be immoral. To question the outcomes would be to question the will of god. This same series of moral imperatives works from the opposite perspective, "god said Islamic Law shall be the only law." No, churches are supposed to address the moral needs of their members - issues like poverty, responsibility, and justice are clearly going to be part of their day-to-day program. Expansion into direct speech on candidates goes beyond that framework and attempts to export their internal framework onto others not of their religion. This is political advocacy and should be taxed like any other political advocacy group.
|
Runnerman
Member
| Joined: | Sun Dec 4th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 560 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30th, 2008 07:41 pm |
|
Interesting is right. In the founding days of America, revolution was preached from the pulpits, so I can see why a cautious government wouldn't want it. The very first Speaker of the House was the Rev. Muhlenberg. When in NYC I remember that the Rev. Adam Clayton Powell, also a US Congressman, preached from the pulpit of the Abyssinian Baptist Church in Harlem. Over the years, so did the Rev. Jesse Jackson, and the Rev. Al Sharpton. Politicians were endorsed and others were condemned. One should not forget that the Rev. Martin Luther King also preached politics from churches in Atlanta, Georgia and other churches throughout the South. No one publicly dared to protest that certain politicians were endorsed and political positions were preached from the pulpits black churches, some prominent and others not so prominent. Could it be said that Barack Obama was "endorsed" by his former pastor and church ... from the pulpit?
|
Ben Franklin
Member
| Joined: | Tue Dec 20th, 2005 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1851 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30th, 2008 07:13 pm |
|
Fred wrote: Interesting case, as it takes two rights...religion and free speech....and puts them against tax policy.
Basically, we've got about 33 churches that are basically willing to take their tax free status to court over the right to endorse whom they want. I've got mixed feelings on this, and it is all about the taxes, but I also can see the need for ministers to preach as they feel.
The tax code is what the issue is, and one where I think they will lose. The tax code is pretty clear in that churches can't claim tax-exempt status and endorse specific politicians. Leave aside for a moment that most congregations can pretty well decide who their minister thinks they should vote for...
Should the churches be able to endorse from the pulpit and maintain their tax free status? Do you think it would, or should, have an effect on other tax-free organizations?
No the issue is a religious person dictating political policy or whom to vote for to his congregation.
If they endorse from the palpit they should loose their excepmtion. Freedom of speach does NOT apply to a tax excemption.
Ive no doubt GWB got some votes from homophobes with pressure coming from the palpit. And look that amendment thing was another lie.
|
Fred
Member
| Joined: | Mon Oct 10th, 2005 |
| Location: | Dover, Delaware USA |
| Posts: | 7173 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 30th, 2008 07:07 pm |
|
Interesting case, as it takes two rights...religion and free speech....and puts them against tax policy.
Basically, we've got about 33 churches that are basically willing to take their tax free status to court over the right to endorse whom they want. I've got mixed feelings on this, and it is all about the taxes, but I also can see the need for ministers to preach as they feel.
The tax code is what the issue is, and one where I think they will lose. The tax code is pretty clear in that churches can't claim tax-exempt status and endorse specific politicians. Leave aside for a moment that most congregations can pretty well decide who their minister thinks they should vote for...
Should the churches be able to endorse from the pulpit and maintain their tax free status? Do you think it would, or should, have an effect on other tax-free organizations?
|
Current time is 02:27 am | |
|