Pastor Accused of Politics From Pulpit

Its not tithes Gina its taxes. They are not "private services" if they are being financed by favourable tax law which allows people to cut their tazes my contributing to an organisation. Where do we get the idea that tax exemption is a right? It is a privilage, and like any privilage can be withdrawn for misuse. Nobody said that a church has to pay a fee for having a candidate come in speak, only that they should be liable for the same taxes as anyone else.

IMO, this is such a touchy subject because it affects one thing - our wallets. If tax ememption is lost than I can't write off my tithe on my tax return. That should not be a motivation for giving anyway. How much would people give in church IF they knew it was not tax deductable?

 

If they endorse specific candidates or tell people how to vote, you bet. ... And churches that tolerate it should lose their tax-exempt status.

If one believes in free religion and free speech, a body of worship's tax status-- regardless of whether any such body is granted exemption-- would be determined absolutely witout regard to what is or is not said in that body.

 

Yes, and if the church's tax status were determined that way, there would be no exemption.
The church voluntarily relinquishes the right to be political when it registers for the tax exemption. This is a free decision of the church. As the saying goes, there is no such thing as a free lunch. If you want the tax exemption, you can't speak on politics. If you want to speak on politics, don't get the exemption. It's simple.

 

So the govt. pays the supporters of a church if it does not say particular things, when one church may push public action, including political action, as a significant part of its doctrine, while another church is doctrinally apolitical. The govt. then chooses which church's supporters to which it is going to give financial rewards. That government action "cannot favor one religion over another" is a myth with such a system.

 

So the best way to solve the problem is to stop all government support of churches through tax exemption.

 

Well that would also mean the loss of certain Pastoral benefits as well when it comes to the IRS.

Pastors do not have to report their housing allowance as income to the extent that they use it for actual housing costs. That would be a big financial blow to most pastors I know, myself included.

 

Suppose the government raised taxes to 100%? Would that be sin, or can "the government" do no wrong, placing it co-equal with God?

Is taking one person's property forcibly and giving it to another not sin? At what point does it become theft...or is the government co-equal with God?

Is breaking the law (gun confiscation or other constitutional issues) a sin for an individual, but not a sin if done by a group through a "democratic" process?

Who is God...the Triune Godhead, or the government?

 

For my view...

I would agree that it would make sense to stop the Tax Exemption for Donations to *any* Non-Profit group...

There are many Non-Profit Groups who are far more politically active than Christian Churches....

So, it would seem only fair that they, too, lose their ability to attract contirbutions from persons who are merely looking for a tax deduction...

Loss of Federal Tax Exemptions would not neccesarily mean the loss of Tax Exemption for church owned properties used in it's ministries provided no profit is made...

To what extent should the church standon it's own?

Personally I think a church should make a voluntary contribution to the local Government for the Police & Fire Services it recieves...

But, I am concerned that such a precedent would open a tidal wave of taxation an re-appraisals on churches that simply couldn't afford the higher rates...

After all many churches are on tracts of prime real estate and many unscrupulous persons would love to tax them off the property...

Also, I have to agree with the poster that the IRS' ability to hold a 503 letter over a Religious Institution constitutes unreasonable interference between church and state.

Man I hate not having a spell checker at work!

But, ieSpell specifically requires a rather expensive license even for personal use while at work!

 

To the original topic, I think that there are several issue that must be separated:

1) Should he have said what he said?

2) Should he be allowed to say what he said under the current law?

3) Is the current law just and right, or should it be changed or eliminated?

4) Under the current law, should a church participate, or pay taxes and preach the word as seen fit and biblical?

 

Me as well - but is this a right, or a privilage?

 

Where I disagree with you on this issue, C4K, is that I do not believe that the government has a right to judge what is political and what is not in the case of churches. LBJ intended his law to be used as a weapon of censorship and he had nothing else in mind. Before 1954, the church was both free to speak and tax-exempt.

I notice that you have not addressed the issue of the Democrat Party activity in the churches that is never addressed. Since the law is unenforcealbe, it should be repealed. The liberal groups that are complaining about the churches only complain about white churches. The near universal abuse in the black churches is never mentioned. Also, the complaints against the churches are against those churches who oppose abortion and sodomy. If your church urges abortion, for example, Rev. Lynn and the other church burners are never going to complain about you.

 

My thoughts apply to ALL churches and political action.

 

Well, why support what LBJ did? We know full well what kind of man he was and we know full well the methods he employed to silence people and steal elections on his way to the top. I think that LBJ is a church burner.

The country worked just fine before 1954. Congress has no right to classify speech in the area of religion. Canada is jailing preachers for speaking against same-sex marriage, and I hear Sweden is also. We are headed down the same liberal road.

To go around to every Black church every Sunday from now to election day and report all abuse of the 501-c-3 would take more police than we have now. Blacks have no intention of obeying the law in this matter. I don't blame them--the law stinks.

I quoted Al Smith, the Happy Warrior and 1928 Democrat candidate for President, before, and at the risk of boring you, I quote him again: "The only cure for the ills of democracy is more democracy."

If the Supreme Court were not so leftist, they would strike down the 501-c-3 as it applies to churches. Rev. Lynn and his fellow church burners should get real jobs instead of being snitches for the IRS with the idea of protecting the liberals against the Christians.

 

Me as well - but is this a right, or a privilage? </font>[/QUOTE]I think of it as a courtesy extended to us by a grateful government. They realize without our preaching of the Gospel the cost of governing would be higher.

 

Fact is, if you take a handout from the government, the government gets to set the conditions.

Tax exempt status is conditional on not engaging in political campaigns.

Government money will always come with strings attached. That's how it works.

 

That is incorrect. It did not work that way from 1776 to 1954. It is not the government's money to handout. Besides, how likely is it that Democrat priests are in compliance with the 501-c-3? The law stinks and deserves to be repealed as it is unenforceable.

 

Too bad! If this is too much of a financial burden, get a job.

Are you in the ministry for the money or to serve God?

 

Well, it's the law now! All you have to do is get the President and Congress to change the law. Considering how it is the Republicans who control the White House and the Legislature, this should be easy.

 

Terry(hate the Clergy) said:

You obviously either have never had a *real* pastor or have no conception whatsoever of what a *real* pastor is...

Being a pastor *is* a job...

And, contrary to popular opinion it is a 24/7 job at that as opposed to the basic 8 hour day most of us work...