Really?! A Mormon and a United Church of Christ preacher arguing about who is twisting what the Bible says more. How ironic.

I Wear Pants wrote:

ManO'War wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:

ManO'War wrote: Do you really think these churches don't make a "profit"?

They do not operate to provide income for their shareholders/owners.

Non profit organizations are allowed to make money.

That loophole should be closed..that alone could pay for healthcare.

That isn't a loophole.

Just because it's a non profit doesn't mean they can continue operating in the long run while they're in the red.

It isn't that hard of a concept, even churches and charities have bills to pay.

They collect tax free money. Even waiters and waitresses have to pay taxes on their tips.


If churches can build buildings, hospitals, schools, colleges, etc...then they can pay taxes just like the rest of us.

ManO'War wrote: They collect tax free money. Even waiters and waitresses have to pay taxes on their tips.


If churches can build buildings, hospitals, schools, colleges, etc...then they can pay taxes just like the rest of us.

Terrible comparison, employees of churches pay taxes on their salaries, too. All schools, colleges and most hospitals also are not for profit and don't pay income tax.
Find another argument to defend your position.

regarding the argument of churches paying taxes, non profits are allowed to make money so long as no employees benefit from that excess in income. i'm not suggesting that the government start dictating the appropriate salary of a pastor, but i think some of the leaders of the "megachurches" might be getting a little too much compensation for someone who is devoting themselves to helping others.

also, nonprofits under 501c3 status aren't supposed to engage in any sort of political campagining... so perhaps they should be held responsible when the leaders of the church speak out, presumably influencing their followers, supporting one candidate, political party, issue, etc.

that is one helluva username

teh awsum juan wrote: regarding the argument of churches paying taxes, non profits are allowed to make money so long as no employees benefit from that excess in income. i'm not suggesting that the government start dictating the appropriate salary of a pastor, but i think some of the leaders of the "megachurches" might be getting a little too much compensation for someone who is devoting themselves to helping others.

also, nonprofits under 501c3 status aren't supposed to engage in any sort of political campagining... so perhaps they should be held responsible when the leaders of the church speak out, presumably influencing their followers, supporting one candidate, political party, issue, etc.

While it may seem that pastors of megachurches are paid excessively, it is important to note that they are still market driven. Many pastors at the large churches also are privately contracted to speak at rates that rival other noteworthy speakers. They actually compete quite well with comparable speakers of non-church backgrounds. However, it is even more important to note that many churches employ pastors part-time and at very low salaries. The majority don't make much and do so out of service to their congregation.

As far as political activity goes, there are many issues that cross over both into the political and religious. Who has the right to tell onte that they can't comment because it touches the other? The key is that churches cannot endorse a candidate. They can bring them in to speak, they can speak to the morality of the candidate and they can talk that they are up for election. Just so long as they do not actually endorse the candidate, they are within the law. They also cannot organize as a voting block.
They can, however, address any issue and even encourage the congregants to vote a certain way based on their beliefs. This happens on both sides of the aisle and is protected speech.

BCBulldog wrote:

teh awsum juan wrote: regarding the argument of churches paying taxes, non profits are allowed to make money so long as no employees benefit from that excess in income. i'm not suggesting that the government start dictating the appropriate salary of a pastor, but i think some of the leaders of the "megachurches" might be getting a little too much compensation for someone who is devoting themselves to helping others.

also, nonprofits under 501c3 status aren't supposed to engage in any sort of political campagining... so perhaps they should be held responsible when the leaders of the church speak out, presumably influencing their followers, supporting one candidate, political party, issue, etc.

While it may seem that pastors of megachurches are paid excessively, it is important to note that they are still market driven. Many pastors at the large churches also are privately contracted to speak at rates that rival other noteworthy speakers. They actually compete quite well with comparable speakers of non-church backgrounds. However, it is even more important to note that many churches employ pastors part-time and at very low salaries. The majority don't make much and do so out of service to their congregation.

As far as political activity goes, there are many issues that cross over both into the political and religious. Who has the right to tell onte that they can't comment because it touches the other? The key is that churches cannot endorse a candidate. They can bring them in to speak, they can speak to the morality of the candidate and they can talk that they are up for election. Just so long as they do not actually endorse the candidate, they are within the law. They also cannot organize as a voting block.
They can, however, address any issue and even encourage the congregants to vote a certain way based on their beliefs. This happens on both sides of the aisle and is protected speech.

when someone is a spokesperson or head of a religious institution and says i support XYZ candidate or you should vote no against issue X, to me it is stepping across a line into political campagining. certainly you can suggest that your congregation vote based on their beliefs, but going on national tv and saying who you endorse is a political activity, and as the head of a religious/nonprofit organization, something i feel you should stay out of.

as for compensation for their activities, i understand it is market driven, that is why i said i didn't think we should get into the business of dictating salaries. just saying, for people who presumably are speaking and teaching because they want to show their congregations the right way to live, they are certainly amassing large amounts of personal property and wealth that might be better used serving the poor.

(perhaps if they were more involved in direct service and less involved in lucrative speaking deals, the government wouldn't have to get involved in providing critical services to those who can't afford them)

teh awsum juan wrote: when someone is a spokesperson or head of a religious institution and says i support XYZ candidate or you should vote no against issue X, to me it is stepping across a line into political campagining. certainly you can suggest that your congregation vote based on their beliefs, but going on national tv and saying who you endorse is a political activity, and as the head of a religious/nonprofit organization, something i feel you should stay out of.

While I disagree with you that a church does not have the right to voice its position on an issue, there is a bigger issue at hand than tax abatement. When a pastor, acting as a citizen, endorses a candidate, so long as he is not saying the church endorses candidate X, he does not forfeit his own 1st Amendment right to endorse said candidate. Also, just because a person is a pastor, it doesn't mean that he actually runs the church. In many cases, they are employees just like the rest of us.

teh awsum juan wrote: for compensation for their activities, i understand it is market driven, that is why i said i didn't think we should get into the business of dictating salaries. just saying, for people who presumably are speaking and teaching because they want to show their congregations the right way to live, they are certainly amassing large amounts of personal property and wealth that might be better used serving the poor.

The crux of this debate (if there is one) would be, "Who determines how much is too much?" I believe that if you can trust your spiritual guidance to someone, you should be able to trust his own decisions with his own money.

teh awsum juan wrote: (perhaps if they were more involved in direct service and less involved in lucrative speaking deals, the government wouldn't have to get involved in providing critical services to those who can't afford them)

A good point, but would it be better for one man to spend his time working in a soup kitchen one day a week or speaking to a crowd (potentially spreading the faith) one day a month and make enough to fund it for a year?

I really do so a lot of both sides, but this country was founded on religious freedom. Anytime you get the government telling churces what to do, we need to take a step back and see the bigger picture.

BCBulldog wrote:
I really do so a lot of both sides, but this country was founded on religious freedom. Anytime you get the government telling churces what to do, we need to take a step back and see the bigger picture.

If you want to be separate from the state, you shouldn't be allowed to endorse candidates or political positions specifically...it's one thing to speak in generalities about what's right and wrong and let the congregation to make up their own mind about a candidate or an issue, but it's another thing for a pastor/priest/rabbi, whatever, to endorse an issue or a candidate specifically. If they want to do that, the government has the right to tax them, because they are basically waiving their right of separation.

derek bomar wrote:

BCBulldog wrote:
I really do so a lot of both sides, but this country was founded on religious freedom. Anytime you get the government telling churces what to do, we need to take a step back and see the bigger picture.

If you want to be separate from the state, you shouldn't be allowed to endorse candidates or political positions specifically...it's one thing to speak in generalities about what's right and wrong and let the congregation to make up their own mind about a candidate or an issue, but it's another thing for a pastor/priest/rabbi, whatever, to endorse an issue or a candidate specifically. If they want to do that, the government has the right to tax them, because they are basically waiving their right of separation.

The church cannot endorse candidates, but the tax-paying citizen who is employed as clergy has evey right to do so.

BCBulldog wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

BCBulldog wrote:
I really do so a lot of both sides, but this country was founded on religious freedom. Anytime you get the government telling churces what to do, we need to take a step back and see the bigger picture.

If you want to be separate from the state, you shouldn't be allowed to endorse candidates or political positions specifically...it's one thing to speak in generalities about what's right and wrong and let the congregation to make up their own mind about a candidate or an issue, but it's another thing for a pastor/priest/rabbi, whatever, to endorse an issue or a candidate specifically. If they want to do that, the government has the right to tax them, because they are basically waiving their right of separation.

The church cannot endorse candidates, but the tax-paying citizen who is employed as clergy has evey right to do so.

Sure he can, as soon as he steps outside of the Church

ManO'War wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:

ManO'War wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote:

ManO'War wrote: Do you really think these churches don't make a "profit"?

They do not operate to provide income for their shareholders/owners.

Non profit organizations are allowed to make money.

That loophole should be closed..that alone could pay for healthcare.

That isn't a loophole.

Just because it's a non profit doesn't mean they can continue operating in the long run while they're in the red.

It isn't that hard of a concept, even churches and charities have bills to pay.

They collect tax free money. Even waiters and waitresses have to pay taxes on their tips.


If churches can build buildings, hospitals, schools, colleges, etc...then they can pay taxes just like the rest of us.

Its amusing, the same people who hang onto "separation of church and state" anytime anything religious shows up in a court house, school, public property, etc are the same ones that want churches to be taxed.

Its impossible to have it both ways.

EDIT: Oh, and as someone who sits on a board of a church, I can promise you that we are not making a profit. Every tithe/offering taken in is spent on the ministry or on other ministries domestic and abroad (missionaries). If there is a year we are in the "black" sure we have a savings/checking account, but there's not that much money in it and its more for the years that we are in the "red" so the church can still pay the bills. At anytime the savings account would become substantial it would go to paying off some major church bill like a mortgage, a needed renovation (our parking lot needs re-paved at the moment for example) or something similar. There is no profit, period. FYI, the last 2 years we have been in the "red" pretty deep due to the economy, definitely not making a profit.

derek bomar wrote:

BCBulldog wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

BCBulldog wrote:
I really do so a lot of both sides, but this country was founded on religious freedom. Anytime you get the government telling churces what to do, we need to take a step back and see the bigger picture.

If you want to be separate from the state, you shouldn't be allowed to endorse candidates or political positions specifically...it's one thing to speak in generalities about what's right and wrong and let the congregation to make up their own mind about a candidate or an issue, but it's another thing for a pastor/priest/rabbi, whatever, to endorse an issue or a candidate specifically. If they want to do that, the government has the right to tax them, because they are basically waiving their right of separation.

The church cannot endorse candidates, but the tax-paying citizen who is employed as clergy has evey right to do so.

Sure he can, as soon as he steps outside of the Church

I agree in principle. He cannot in any way state or even imply that the church endorses the candidate. The location is largely irrelevant as our protected rights cannot be abridged by the federal government regardless of where we are.

derek bomar wrote: If you want to be separate from the state, you shouldn't be allowed to endorse candidates or political positions specifically...it's one thing to speak in generalities about what's right and wrong and let the congregation to make up their own mind about a candidate or an issue, but it's another thing for a pastor/priest/rabbi, whatever, to endorse an issue or a candidate specifically. If they want to do that, the government has the right to tax them, because they are basically waiving their right of separation.

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

Bold sums it up. Congress can't establish nor can the prohibit the free exercise of religion/speech. Period. The federal power has no power either way.

BCBulldog wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

BCBulldog wrote:

derek bomar wrote:

BCBulldog wrote:
I really do so a lot of both sides, but this country was founded on religious freedom. Anytime you get the government telling churces what to do, we need to take a step back and see the bigger picture.

If you want to be separate from the state, you shouldn't be allowed to endorse candidates or political positions specifically...it's one thing to speak in generalities about what's right and wrong and let the congregation to make up their own mind about a candidate or an issue, but it's another thing for a pastor/priest/rabbi, whatever, to endorse an issue or a candidate specifically. If they want to do that, the government has the right to tax them, because they are basically waiving their right of separation.

The church cannot endorse candidates, but the tax-paying citizen who is employed as clergy has evey right to do so.

Sure he can, as soon as he steps outside of the Church

I agree in principle. He cannot in any way state or even imply that the church endorses the candidate. The location is largely irrelevant as our protected rights cannot be abridged by the federal government regardless of where we are.

I wasn't speaking about physical location...more in the sense that when he endorses something, it should be clear from a 3rd party POV that this is in no way the Church's position and his only. Obviously, doing it in a Church would be a big no-no, but even outside of one you can still link a Pastor or Priest to their Church, unless the distinction is made.

majorspark wrote:

derek bomar wrote: If you want to be separate from the state, you shouldn't be allowed to endorse candidates or political positions specifically...it's one thing to speak in generalities about what's right and wrong and let the congregation to make up their own mind about a candidate or an issue, but it's another thing for a pastor/priest/rabbi, whatever, to endorse an issue or a candidate specifically. If they want to do that, the government has the right to tax them, because they are basically waiving their right of separation.

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

Bold sums it up. Congress can't establish nor can the prohibit the free exercise of religion/speech. Period. The federal power has no power either way.

To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Bold sums it up.

http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html

derek bomar wrote: To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Bold sums it up.

http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html

The above is a law made by congress. The first amendment is clear.

Go review some Rev. Jeremiah Wright videos. There was more political speech coming out of that church than the word of God.

As for our tax system it is a clusterfuck. Congress used the tax code as an end around to coherse people to do things they don't have the power to do under the constitiution. Go to a fair tax system like a federal sale tax. All pay when they make a purchase. Period no BS from congress.

derek bomar wrote: To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.

Bold sums it up.

http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html

This is what I hate about tax code. Who determines how much is substantial? What exactly is campaign activity? Does this include allowing the candidate to speak at your church? It is poorly defined and left to the IRS to interpret. Which they have proven to do very inconsistently.

I agree it's poorly written ...which is why I think it makes sense for heads of the Church to make their "endorsements" outside of the Church, because when they do that, they won't need to worry about Tax Code or any other laws...

derek bomar wrote: I agree it's poorly written ...which is why I think it makes sense for heads of the Church to make their "endorsements" outside of the Church, because when they do that, they won't need to worry about Tax Code or any other laws...

I agree completely. I remember an incident about four years ago here in Ohio where Rod Parsley of World Harvest in Columbus and Russell Johnson of Fairfield Christian Church in Lancaster attempted to create a voting block of pastors and tried to get them to sign up voters. They were quickly investigated by the IRS and basically given a cease-and-desist order.

It really bothered me that these two pastors felt it was more important to be involved politically than to address the spiritual issues of their communities. While I still maintain they have rights to be politically active, I can't imagine a scenario where that should come up more than once or twice a year...at most.

majorspark wrote: Jesus was speaking to individuals who when they see someone in need, to address it personally with the resources they have been blessed with, both physical and material. He never said when you see someone in need make a call to your congressman and demand he take your neighbor's resources and set up a program to address the need in both your names. That being said I do not have a problem with certain levels of government being involved in helping those in need.

Large central governments that set up massive bureaucracies to manage these resources become nothing more than inefficient abused behemoths out of touch with the needs of those it was created to meet. They become political power tools in the hands of savvy politicians seeking to maintain their political power structures as opposed to doing what is best for those in need.

Well said

derek bomar wrote:If you want to be separate from the state, you shouldn't be allowed to endorse candidates or political positions specifically...it's one thing to speak in generalities about what's right and wrong and let the congregation to make up their own mind about a candidate or an issue, but it's another thing for a pastor/priest/rabbi, whatever, to endorse an issue or a candidate specifically. If they want to do that, the government has the right to tax them, because they are basically waiving their right of separation.

Agreed derek.

Being Catholic, I have no problem with our priests talking about things we should be concerned about when it comes to our faith. They may imply but don't be specific when it comes to an issue or candidate. If we're open to God's word, He'll help us to decide who or what to choose.

majorspark wrote:
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

I'm always surprised at how many people think that the phrase "Separation of Church and State" is in the Constitution.

Is the abortion issue considered "political"?

ManO'War wrote: Is the abortion issue considered "political"?

Depends on how it is presented.

If it is presented as the moral issue from a Biblical perspective, then no.

If it is presented as "don't vote for candidate xyz because he supports abortion" then yes, it is.

Its not really that hard to differentiate.

It seems that those two statements pretty much go hand in hand.