Redstate

The church is for preaching the word of God...not the word of politicians. It's possible for people to agree on the Gospel but disagree on the politics that stems from it. The two have no business being interspersed overtly by the pastor.

---

The Unofficial RedState FAQ
“You are not only responsible for what you say, but also for what you do not say. ” - Martin Luther

time anyway don't we? I mean Wright the racist's is just the most blatant example at this juncture but we hear Global Warming definitely a political statement being spewed from the ministers quite consistantly...those would be the ministers in blue state America...

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

2 wrongs don't make a right

You show me a Wright and I am sure I can find some racist statement from some Republican preacher. The reason politics and religion appear to be intersecting is because most people's political views stem from their Religion, in the end it is just what you emphasize more. Individuals and Religious Figures are 2 different sets of people.

-----------------------------------------------
Notice to All - I am an independent who has voted for Senator Bayh (Democrat) and Senator Lugar (Republican) along with over 60% of my state. You may take what I say with a grain of salt at your own party'

and there is outcry for the IRS to tax them...there in I say let them have at it....it was fine before 1954 it would be fine now....religious figures are individuals...though some would like to place them on a pedestal....they are just like you and me but with the title minister.

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Before 1954 it was *UNTHINKABLE* that churches be taxed. Un*THINK*able.

In 1954, they said "we can tax churches if they get too political... keep it to Jesus."

And now... well, that makes sense to all of us.

Are sermons really too incindiary? Do we really need government intervention to water them down?

What happens when groups of individuals start meeting in private to worship God in, like, the basements of the various parishoners and saying things about the government or even printing things up?

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire

Hoosier, I think that was easier pre-New Deal era. At this point, government is involved in everything. Hospitals, welfare, international aid, marriage, abortion, elderly care, etc, etc.

If government left religion alone, it may be easier to do the opposite. But if government is debating what the definition of marriage should (historically a religious issue) then why should religious institutions stay silent? If government permitted slavery, why shouldn't churches fight it to protect human liberty? If government condones abortion, why shouldn't churches lead the charge to protect innocent life?

"Religion and politics never mix well."

Amen, let me know when politics stop intruding on religion and I guarantee you that religion will stop caring about politics.

______________________________________
Donate to the Rs in Close Senate Races through Slatecard

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

A = Government getting involved in ever so many aspects of our lives

B = Government imposing a religious free zone (as opposed to religious neutrality) in any activity it gets involved in

Disaster = life where religion is removed from the public square and is relegated to private meetings (sounds like churchgoers in Saudi Arabia, China, and other places where I would not want to live).

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

Freedom of Religion not Freedom from Religion

I find this concept of playing politics with a church's tax exempt status to be deplorable. They exist to guide their flock in a moral manner. Part of that includes helping people make informed moral decisions about politics.

---

Now also found at The Minority Report

Mike DeVine’s Charlotte Observer columns
http://thehinzsightreport.com
www.theminorityreportblog.com
www.race42008.com
"One man with courage makes a majority." - Andrew Jackson

Lets say the local Y started making partisan endorsements and holding rallies in its facilities. Would you want them to retain their tax exempt status ?

---

"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
-Thomas Paine: The American Crisis, No. 4, 1777

I don't want to see speech restricted via a surrogate tax authority.

I'm having a hard time seeing a clear parallel because of the differing structural relationships.

When you say "the local Y makes partisan endorsements" - just who is the "local Y"? I assume you're talking about their Board of Directors.

In the church, the issue here is about pastors, who are regularly preaching on Sundays. That's not the same as the Session (or Deacons Board, or whatever the corporate governing body is called) making a pronouncement in the name of the church. The latter could be troublesome, depending on what actions ensue and their conformity with the tax-exempt purposes of the organization - depending on how this pronouncement was reflected in their expenditures.

And once you start holding political rallies in tax-exempt organization buildings without charging market rent, that is abuse of tax-exempt funds.

So I don't see the conflict between the principal of the IRS regulating expenditure of tax-exempt funds, and keeping the IRS away from regulating speech.

If Congress wants to pass a law conditioning tax status on the acceptance of such limits on pastor speech, then that law can be challenged in court. But using IRS regulations to attempt to accomplish the same purpose sub rosa is Constitutionally dubious in my view.

And Rightly So!

Would they be discussing petitioning the government for redress of grievances? Might they have printed flyers?

Because if they were holding something like "show up because breast cancer is bad" rallies, that would really offend me because I don't want any tax-exempt corporations engaging in sex discrimination.

Liver cancer? That would be okay.

Man is free at the moment he wishes to be. --Voltaire