The 501c3 designation is what has destroyed the church

[Grumblenuts]

And was expressly written to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions

Bullshit.

A state religion (also called an established religion or official religion) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state. A state with an official religion, while not secular, is not necessarily a theocracy, a country whose rulers have both secular and spiritual authority. State religions are official or government-sanctioned establishments of a religion, but the state does not need be under the control of the religion (as in a theocracy) nor is the state-sanctioned religion necessarily under the control of the state.

The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine.[40] Three central concepts were derived from the 1st Amendment which became America's doctrine for church-state separation: no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religion against one's will, and religious liberty encompasses all religions. In sum, citizens are free to embrace or reject a faith, any support for religion - financial or physical - must be voluntary, and all religions are equal in the eyes of the law with no special preference or favoritism.

Giving churches a tax break is giving them a "special preference or favoritism" at my expense.

 

[ding]

except for the fact hes full of shit and nothing he said is true,,,

It's the very 1st clause of the 1st sentence....the tax exemption actually seems to violate this sentiment:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

And was expressly written to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions of which half the states had at the time the constitution was ratified.

It was written to prevent Congress from passing a law respecting an establishment of religion...I'm sure there were other side effects other than what the words expressly mean, wouldn't deny that.

No. It was literally written to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions.

Seems really daft to have worded it that way, granting your premise. "no, it wasnt written to prevent congress from passing a law respecting the establishment of religion DESPITE that's what it says verbatim."

If I grant you that, it means it was daftly written.

Madison tried to include the states but was defeated in the senate. Here's a letter from Jefferson explaining that establishing religion was the prerogative of the states.

Amendment I (Religion): Thomas Jefferson to Rev. Samuel Miller

"...This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U. S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority..."

 

[ding]

And was expressly written to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions

Bullshit.

A state religion (also called an established religion or official religion) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state. A state with an official religion, while not secular, is not necessarily a theocracy, a country whose rulers have both secular and spiritual authority. State religions are official or government-sanctioned establishments of a religion, but the state does not need be under the control of the religion (as in a theocracy) nor is the state-sanctioned religion necessarily under the control of the state.

The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine.[40] Three central concepts were derived from the 1st Amendment which became America's doctrine for church-state separation: no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religion against one's will, and religious liberty encompasses all religions. In sum, citizens are free to embrace or reject a faith, any support for religion - financial or physical - must be voluntary, and all religions are equal in the eyes of the law with no special preference or favoritism.

Half of the states had established religions at the time the constitution was ratified.

It's the reason why Madison's attempt to include this restriction on states failed in the senate.

Lastly, why do you think Blaine tried to include states in the establishment clause if states were already included in the establishment clause?

The 14th Amendment and the Bill of Rights | | Tenth Amendment Center

The Blaine Amendment

We know from the opening line of the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law”) that the Amendment applied only to the federal government. It is a fact of history that James Madison’s proposal in 1789 to extend to the states the freedom of speech and of the press was rejected by the Congress that gave us the Bill of Rights. When the Constitution refers to the states it clearly says so. For example, it says in Article I, sec. 9 of the Constitution that “no Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” That this only applies to the federal government is evident because in the next section it prohibits states from passing “any Bill of Attainder” or “ex post facto law.”

This view of the Constitution prevailed even after the addition of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. In 1875, which was several years after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, an amendment to the Constitution was proposed in the House of Representatives by James G. Blaine (1830—1893), the speaker of the House from 1869 to 1875. Known as the Blaine Amendment, it reads:

No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefore, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations.

The Blaine Amendment passed in the House but not in the Senate so it was never sent to the states for ratification. The purpose of the amendment — to keep Catholic schools from receiving state funds — is irrelevant. What is relevant is the opening phrase, which should be compared with the opening phrase of the First Amendment:

No state shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The wording of Blaine Amendment shows that the Congress at the time did not consider the First Amendment to be incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment. And if that bulwark of the Bill of Rights — the First Amendment — was not incorporated into Fourteenth Amendment, then neither was the Fifth Amendment or any of the others in the Bill of Rights. And such was the case until late into the nineteenth century.

 

[progressive hunter]

you cant edit it to make your case,,,

That's a clause that ends in a comma -

does the rest of it negate that 1st clause? If I thought it did, you coulda had it: here ya go dude...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

and a 501c3 prohibits the free exercise thereof,,,

It also respects an establishment of...

double banger! No more tax exempt status!

sorry but taxs cause restrictions of a religion and prohibit it from exercising their rights

That's nice - but you said congress creating laws are restricted by the 1st amendment...

that means the tax exemption law violates the 1st clause of the 1st sentence of the 1st amendment, quite plainly and by your own standard. Sorry, you cannot have it both ways.

I have to ask,,,
whats it mean by the free exercise thereof???


wouldnt that mean there are no restrictions by the government,,like taxs for one???

 

[ding]

If you give someone a gift of $10,000 why would it need to be taxed?

It’s already been taxed.

there is no law/code that says gifts under 10K are tax exempt,,,
all the 10K mark is for is to document anytime more than 10K cash changes hands,,,

what it does says is cash is not considered income,,,

factually wrong...from the IRS:

GIFT GIVING
​

If you give any one person gifts valued at more than $10,000 in a year, it is necessary to report the total gift to the Internal Revenue Service. You may even have to pay tax on the gift. The person who receives your gift does not have to report the gift to the IRS or pay gift or income tax on its value.

Exactly.

Which is why there is no need for churches to be listed as tax exempt because they can take the exact same tax exemption as everyone else.

The only one's who would need to pay taxes would be the donor if their gift exceeded the threshold.

 

[ding]

And was expressly written to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions

Bullshit.

A state religion (also called an established religion or official religion) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state. A state with an official religion, while not secular, is not necessarily a theocracy, a country whose rulers have both secular and spiritual authority. State religions are official or government-sanctioned establishments of a religion, but the state does not need be under the control of the religion (as in a theocracy) nor is the state-sanctioned religion necessarily under the control of the state.

The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine.[40] Three central concepts were derived from the 1st Amendment which became America's doctrine for church-state separation: no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religion against one's will, and religious liberty encompasses all religions. In sum, citizens are free to embrace or reject a faith, any support for religion - financial or physical - must be voluntary, and all religions are equal in the eyes of the law with no special preference or favoritism.

Giving churches a tax break is giving them a "special preference or favoritism" at my expense.

Actually it's not. Any gift you receive is literally tax exempt for you. Even gifts which exceed the gift tax threshold.

 

[ding]

If you give someone a gift of $10,000 why would it need to be taxed?

It’s already been taxed.

there is no law/code that says gifts under 10K are tax exempt,,,
all the 10K mark is for is to document anytime more than 10K cash changes hands,,,

what it does says is cash is not considered income,,,

factually wrong...from the IRS:

GIFT GIVING
​

If you give any one person gifts valued at more than $10,000 in a year, it is necessary to report the total gift to the Internal Revenue Service. You may even have to pay tax on the gift. The person who receives your gift does not have to report the gift to the IRS or pay gift or income tax on its value.

your comment lacks a link or tax code number to back it up,,,

You can look it up for yourself, right?

If you find that he is wrong (which he isn't because I have looked this up for myself) you can then show him, right?

 

[ding]

But getting back to churches and free speech.

Debating social issues is a great thing in church. We have a rich heritage of doing so.

Endorsing candidates? Bad fucking idea.

Promoting candidates? Bad fucking idea

Recommending candidates? Bad fucking idea

But discussing social issues and how it pertains to right and wrong? That's a good idea.

 

[progressive hunter]

If you give someone a gift of $10,000 why would it need to be taxed?

It’s already been taxed.

there is no law/code that says gifts under 10K are tax exempt,,,
all the 10K mark is for is to document anytime more than 10K cash changes hands,,,

what it does says is cash is not considered income,,,

factually wrong...from the IRS:

GIFT GIVING
​

If you give any one person gifts valued at more than $10,000 in a year, it is necessary to report the total gift to the Internal Revenue Service. You may even have to pay tax on the gift. The person who receives your gift does not have to report the gift to the IRS or pay gift or income tax on its value.

your comment lacks a link or tax code number to back it up,,,

You can look it up for yourself, right?

If you find that he is wrong (which he isn't because I have looked this up for myself) you can then show him, right?

I've looked it up several times and not once have I found a law to support his claim,,
since you have maybe you can provide the statute number to support it

 

[Grumblenuts]

And was expressly written to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions

Bullshit.

A state religion (also called an established religion or official religion) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state. A state with an official religion, while not secular, is not necessarily a theocracy, a country whose rulers have both secular and spiritual authority. State religions are official or government-sanctioned establishments of a religion, but the state does not need be under the control of the religion (as in a theocracy) nor is the state-sanctioned religion necessarily under the control of the state.

The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine.[40] Three central concepts were derived from the 1st Amendment which became America's doctrine for church-state separation: no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religion against one's will, and religious liberty encompasses all religions. In sum, citizens are free to embrace or reject a faith, any support for religion - financial or physical - must be voluntary, and all religions are equal in the eyes of the law with no special preference or favoritism.

Half of the states had established religions at the time the constitution was ratified.

It's the reason why Madison's attempt to include this restriction on states failed in the senate.

Lastly, why do you think Blaine tried to include states in the establishment clause if states were already included in the establishment clause?

The 14th Amendment and the Bill of Rights | | Tenth Amendment Center

The Blaine Amendment

We know from the opening line of the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law”) that the Amendment applied only to the federal government. It is a fact of history that James Madison’s proposal in 1789 to extend to the states the freedom of speech and of the press was rejected by the Congress that gave us the Bill of Rights. When the Constitution refers to the states it clearly says so. For example, it says in Article I, sec. 9 of the Constitution that “no Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” That this only applies to the federal government is evident because in the next section it prohibits states from passing “any Bill of Attainder” or “ex post facto law.”

This view of the Constitution prevailed even after the addition of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. In 1875, which was several years after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, an amendment to the Constitution was proposed in the House of Representatives by James G. Blaine (1830—1893), the speaker of the House from 1869 to 1875. Known as the Blaine Amendment, it reads:

No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefore, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations.

The Blaine Amendment passed in the House but not in the Senate so it was never sent to the states for ratification. The purpose of the amendment — to keep Catholic schools from receiving state funds — is irrelevant. What is relevant is the opening phrase, which should be compared with the opening phrase of the First Amendment:

No state shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The wording of Blaine Amendment shows that the Congress at the time did not consider the First Amendment to be incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment. And if that bulwark of the Bill of Rights — the First Amendment — was not incorporated into Fourteenth Amendment, then neither was the Fifth Amendment or any of the others in the Bill of Rights. And such was the case until late into the nineteenth century.

Not disputing that. The current interpretations are what matter. Pining for the good old days is like farting in the wind. May seem a relief but gets you nowhere.

 

[progressive hunter]

But getting back to churches and free speech.

Debating social issues is a great thing in church. We have a rich heritage of doing so.

Endorsing candidates? Bad fucking idea.

Promoting candidates? Bad fucking idea

Recommending candidates? Bad fucking idea

But discussing social issues and how it pertains to right and wrong? That's a good idea.

so you dont think people in church should give suggestions as to who they think would be a good choice in the next election???

 

[ding]

But getting back to churches and free speech.

Debating social issues is a great thing in church. We have a rich heritage of doing so.

Endorsing candidates? Bad fucking idea.

Promoting candidates? Bad fucking idea

Recommending candidates? Bad fucking idea

But discussing social issues and how it pertains to right and wrong? That's a good idea.

so you dont think people in church should give suggestions as to who they think would be a good choice in the next election???

That’s right.

I don’t want collusion between politics and religion.

To me endorsing candidates leads to collusion. Whereas endorsing ideas doesn’t.

 

[Grumblenuts]

And was expressly written to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions

Bullshit.

A state religion (also called an established religion or official religion) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state. A state with an official religion, while not secular, is not necessarily a theocracy, a country whose rulers have both secular and spiritual authority. State religions are official or government-sanctioned establishments of a religion, but the state does not need be under the control of the religion (as in a theocracy) nor is the state-sanctioned religion necessarily under the control of the state.

The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine.[40] Three central concepts were derived from the 1st Amendment which became America's doctrine for church-state separation: no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religion against one's will, and religious liberty encompasses all religions. In sum, citizens are free to embrace or reject a faith, any support for religion - financial or physical - must be voluntary, and all religions are equal in the eyes of the law with no special preference or favoritism.

Giving churches a tax break is giving them a "special preference or favoritism" at my expense.

Actually it's not. Any gift you receive is literally tax exempt for you. Even gifts which exceed the gift tax threshold.

I'm not talking about gift taxes and never did.

Are churches exempt from having to pay taxes? The short answer is "yes."
For purposes of U.S. tax law, churches are considered to be public charities, also known as Section 501(c)(3) organizations. As such, they are generally exempt from federal, state, and local income and property taxes. "Exempt" means they don't have to pay these taxes. This is so even though they may earn substantial amounts of money.

Why are churches classified as charities? Because, under American tax law, charitable activity includes the advancement of religion.

I see nothing charitable about advancing religion. I see it as annoying interference at best. I would gladly support secular institutions doing genuinely charitable works including serving as free public meeting places. I detest being forced to vote in a church every year. That interferes with my free exercise clause.

 

[ding]

And was expressly written to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions

Bullshit.

A state religion (also called an established religion or official religion) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state. A state with an official religion, while not secular, is not necessarily a theocracy, a country whose rulers have both secular and spiritual authority. State religions are official or government-sanctioned establishments of a religion, but the state does not need be under the control of the religion (as in a theocracy) nor is the state-sanctioned religion necessarily under the control of the state.

The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine.[40] Three central concepts were derived from the 1st Amendment which became America's doctrine for church-state separation: no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religion against one's will, and religious liberty encompasses all religions. In sum, citizens are free to embrace or reject a faith, any support for religion - financial or physical - must be voluntary, and all religions are equal in the eyes of the law with no special preference or favoritism.

Half of the states had established religions at the time the constitution was ratified.

It's the reason why Madison's attempt to include this restriction on states failed in the senate.

Lastly, why do you think Blaine tried to include states in the establishment clause if states were already included in the establishment clause?

The 14th Amendment and the Bill of Rights | | Tenth Amendment Center

The Blaine Amendment

We know from the opening line of the First Amendment (“Congress shall make no law”) that the Amendment applied only to the federal government. It is a fact of history that James Madison’s proposal in 1789 to extend to the states the freedom of speech and of the press was rejected by the Congress that gave us the Bill of Rights. When the Constitution refers to the states it clearly says so. For example, it says in Article I, sec. 9 of the Constitution that “no Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.” That this only applies to the federal government is evident because in the next section it prohibits states from passing “any Bill of Attainder” or “ex post facto law.”

This view of the Constitution prevailed even after the addition of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. In 1875, which was several years after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment, an amendment to the Constitution was proposed in the House of Representatives by James G. Blaine (1830—1893), the speaker of the House from 1869 to 1875. Known as the Blaine Amendment, it reads:

No State shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; and no money raised by taxation in any State for the support of public schools, or derived from any public fund therefore, nor any public lands devoted thereto, shall ever be under the control of any religious sect; nor shall any money so raised or lands so devoted be divided between religious sects or denominations.

The Blaine Amendment passed in the House but not in the Senate so it was never sent to the states for ratification. The purpose of the amendment — to keep Catholic schools from receiving state funds — is irrelevant. What is relevant is the opening phrase, which should be compared with the opening phrase of the First Amendment:

No state shall make any law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

The wording of Blaine Amendment shows that the Congress at the time did not consider the First Amendment to be incorporated into the Fourteenth Amendment. And if that bulwark of the Bill of Rights — the First Amendment — was not incorporated into Fourteenth Amendment, then neither was the Fifth Amendment or any of the others in the Bill of Rights. And such was the case until late into the nineteenth century.

Not disputing that. The current interpretations are what matter. Pining for the good old days is like farting in the wind. May seem a relief but gets you nowhere.

By the time that “ruling” was made all state established religions had already ended of their own accord. So the only thing it actually accomplished was a bad precedent of an end run around the constitution.

In fact, unless you love the right to bear arms, you should probably hate that precedent.

Because the 14th amendment did the exact same thing to the 2nd that it did to the 1st. It placed the restriction on the federal government on the states too.

 

[progressive hunter]

But getting back to churches and free speech.

Debating social issues is a great thing in church. We have a rich heritage of doing so.

Endorsing candidates? Bad fucking idea.

Promoting candidates? Bad fucking idea

Recommending candidates? Bad fucking idea

But discussing social issues and how it pertains to right and wrong? That's a good idea.

so you dont think people in church should give suggestions as to who they think would be a good choice in the next election???

That’s right.

I don’t want collusion between politics and religion.

To me endorsing candidates leads to collusion. Whereas endorsing ideas doesn’t.

so you dont want people endorsing candidates,
and how does religion and politics collude with each other???

you seem to be missing the point that its people doing these things not religion,,,and youre calling for people control

 

[ding]

And was expressly written to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions

Bullshit.

A state religion (also called an established religion or official religion) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state. A state with an official religion, while not secular, is not necessarily a theocracy, a country whose rulers have both secular and spiritual authority. State religions are official or government-sanctioned establishments of a religion, but the state does not need be under the control of the religion (as in a theocracy) nor is the state-sanctioned religion necessarily under the control of the state.

The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine.[40] Three central concepts were derived from the 1st Amendment which became America's doctrine for church-state separation: no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religion against one's will, and religious liberty encompasses all religions. In sum, citizens are free to embrace or reject a faith, any support for religion - financial or physical - must be voluntary, and all religions are equal in the eyes of the law with no special preference or favoritism.

Giving churches a tax break is giving them a "special preference or favoritism" at my expense.

Actually it's not. Any gift you receive is literally tax exempt for you. Even gifts which exceed the gift tax threshold.

I'm not talking about gift taxes and never did.

Are churches exempt from having to pay taxes? The short answer is "yes."
For purposes of U.S. tax law, churches are considered to be public charities, also known as Section 501(c)(3) organizations. As such, they are generally exempt from federal, state, and local income and property taxes. "Exempt" means they don't have to pay these taxes. This is so even though they may earn substantial amounts of money.

Why are churches classified as charities? Because, under American tax law, charitable activity includes the advancement of religion.

I see nothing charitable about advancing religion. I see it as annoying interference at best. I would gladly support secular institutions doing genuinely charitable works including serving as free public meeting places. I detest being forced to vote in a church every year. That interferes with my free exercise clause.

Donations to churches are gifts.

 

[ding]

But getting back to churches and free speech.

Debating social issues is a great thing in church. We have a rich heritage of doing so.

Endorsing candidates? Bad fucking idea.

Promoting candidates? Bad fucking idea

Recommending candidates? Bad fucking idea

But discussing social issues and how it pertains to right and wrong? That's a good idea.

so you dont think people in church should give suggestions as to who they think would be a good choice in the next election???

That’s right.

I don’t want collusion between politics and religion.

To me endorsing candidates leads to collusion. Whereas endorsing ideas doesn’t.

so you dont want people endorsing candidates,
and how does religion and politics collude with each other???

you seem to be missing the point that its people doing these things not religion,,,and youre calling for people control

No. I don’t want representatives of the church endorsing candidates from the pulpit.

I’m ok with them endorsing ideals and values because they are in the business of teaching ideals and values.

The founding fathers of freedom and liberty didn’t promote themselves in their churches. They promoted ideals like abolition.

 

[Paulie]

When a church takes the 501c3 non profit designation it becomes beholden to the state. It is for all intents and purposes a bribe that was accepted in exchange for the church operating to specifics such as what they can and can’t say as part of their service.

“God’s Law, given to Moses for the people of Israel, forbade the taking of a bribe, “for a bribe blinds the discerning and perverts the words of the righteous” (Exodus 23:8). The same rule is repeated in Deuteronomy 16:19: “You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show partiality, nor take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous.”

You can look your church up through the IRS’s search portal for 501c3 designated churches. If your church happens to be one, I suggest you switch. I know that’s going to be difficult to do because of the way human patterns and behavior work but it’s something to consider.

I agree, but the first Amendment protects a church DOUBLY. They dont need the IRS' permission to speak on ANYTHING

I agree. But they’re only beholden to the government if they choose to take the tax free designation. So a church only gets to operate tax free if they accept government control. It’s a dangerous game to play.

 

[ding]

But getting back to churches and free speech.

Debating social issues is a great thing in church. We have a rich heritage of doing so.

Endorsing candidates? Bad fucking idea.

Promoting candidates? Bad fucking idea

Recommending candidates? Bad fucking idea

But discussing social issues and how it pertains to right and wrong? That's a good idea.

so you dont think people in church should give suggestions as to who they think would be a good choice in the next election???

That’s right.

I don’t want collusion between politics and religion.

To me endorsing candidates leads to collusion. Whereas endorsing ideas doesn’t.

so you dont want people endorsing candidates,
and how does religion and politics collude with each other???

you seem to be missing the point that its people doing these things not religion,,,and youre calling for people control

How does religion and politics collude?

Through individuals.

 

[progressive hunter]

But getting back to churches and free speech.

Debating social issues is a great thing in church. We have a rich heritage of doing so.

Endorsing candidates? Bad fucking idea.

Promoting candidates? Bad fucking idea

Recommending candidates? Bad fucking idea

But discussing social issues and how it pertains to right and wrong? That's a good idea.

so you dont think people in church should give suggestions as to who they think would be a good choice in the next election???

That’s right.

I don’t want collusion between politics and religion.

To me endorsing candidates leads to collusion. Whereas endorsing ideas doesn’t.

so you dont want people endorsing candidates,
and how does religion and politics collude with each other???

you seem to be missing the point that its people doing these things not religion,,,and youre calling for people control

No. I don’t want representatives of the church endorsing candidates from the pulpit.

I’m ok with them endorsing ideals and values because they are in the business of teaching ideals and values.

The founding fathers of freedom and liberty didn’t promote themselves in their churches. They promoted ideals like abolition.

so you want to control people and what they say to others,,,

GOT IT,,,

SORRY BUT THAT VIOLATES THE 1ST AMENDMENT,,,