Pastor Shel Boese takes a look at the politics of marriage in the world's best Babylon (remember that Tony Campolo line?) and comes to the conclusion that gay-marriage bans fritter around the edges of a robust "defense" of marriage:
IF you are going to "defend marriage" through ballots, borders, bombs, then we REALLY should be working on laws that end divorce and strongly prosecute any alienation of affection, repeal all "no-fault" divorces, go after adulterers with prison time, and generally insist on tracking everyone's sexual activity. Focusing on 1.7% to 10% of the population through defining marriage as a one man/one woman &ndash is just a grand distraction from the real enemies of marriage. (Those are in your heart &ndash what laws will change YOUR heart? hmm... ) [emphasis in original; Shel Boese, "Be Like Jesus, Not a Politician," ShelBoese.org, 2012.05.11].
I don't really want our Legislature or Congress to go there, and I don't think Pastor Shel does, either:
Now for a (not so ?) radical suggestion: I believe the church should work at REMOVING all legal forms of Marriage. Marriage is NOT a civil contract &ndash it is spiritual and religious. Therefore should be protected as worship is and who religious groups can hire is, but not sanctioned by the law. Instead we can advocate for legal civil union/domestic partnerships for all people defining contractual obligations when such arrangements go south and to protect children from destructive/abusive situations [Boese, 2012.05.11].
Two people should not have to get the state's permission to love and make a lifelong commitment to each other (wait: love and lifelong commitment are the same thing, aren't they?). The state should get out of reinforcing some folks' religious definition of marriage and focus on its primary purpose of protecting equality and justice (including economic justice) for all citizens.
Amen Pastor Shel
Preach on Brother
Interesting theory, to do-away with marriage being legal and everything being a civil union. My husband and I were considered domestic partners by my company and insurance company for four years before we were legally married. In the eyes of my company and insurance company, nothing changed when we were legally married, other than I changed my last name. Would be an interesting option to explore...
Cory: "The state should get out of reinforcing some folks’ religious definition of marriage and focus on its primary purpose of protecting equality and justice (including economic justice) for all citizens."
CH,
The primary purpose of marriage is not about protecting equality and justice. The secular state's primary interest in marriage is its positive impact on families, children, and social stability.
While all of us have the right to select the person with whom we make a lifelong commitment, nobody (not even a heterosexual couple) has the right to demand sanction of that decision from society.
Marriage is a contract first and a religious exercise second.
OK, I ask the question again. Should civil unions include your pets, your children, or your mother or father?
Contracts=consent.
Fact is: you can marry your pet but not enter a contract with it/him/her.
This is exactly what I was saying the other day. The second part, anyway, is great. The first part is horrible. Jailing adulterers is ridiculous. Outlawing divorce is terrible.
It's a bit odd. Half of this Pastor Boese is very progressive, but the other half is some 19th century preacher type.
So Larry, once the kids turn 18, you can marry them? And mothers are already over 18, so go ahead, right?
Separate civil union from religious marriage. Stop discussing the two as if they are the same. This is a nonsense "issue" that for most of us has zero impact. Even Steve Sibson would never notice the difference unless he wasted time watching Fox propaganda. Civil unions can be defined as to prevent Steve from marrying his dog or goat, cousin, aunt, uncle, mother, father. Mostly I suspect laws already eliminate any real or imaginged benefits of such unlikely mergers.
The Holy Church of Animal and Mechanical Amusement might sanctify their own variety of Marriage with animals or devices, but that doesn't mean the government needs to recognize such "unions". Churches and religions can attach their "sacraments" to anything they want without impact on what civil unions do or do not do.
"Civil unions can be defined as to prevent Steve from marrying his dog or goat, cousin, aunt, uncle, mother, father."
So Douglas, based on what premise to you want to restrict those kinds of civil unions, but allow gay unions? And you did not include your over 18 year kids, are you going to allow those?
And now I have another question: can we have more than one civil union at a time?
Steve-
Civil unions are simply contracts. Society will define exactly what the terms of those contracts can be. These terms may change over time as our society changes. This is just like how the institution of marriage has changed over time. Hundreds of years ago marriage was used to strengthen social bonds through property exchange and had nothing to do with love because strong social bonds lead to survival. Survival was the priority so marriage reflected it. Today, survival is not difficult so marriage has changed. Marriage is now viewed as an expression of love and has nothing to do with property exchange for survival.
Regarding your questions about polygamy and incest, incest is not allowed because there are obvious genetic problems and there are certainly consent issues. There are similar consent problems with polygamy. Because of these issues they are not allowed.
For a fascinating review of how marriage has changed, look at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage#History_of_marriage_by_culture
"Regarding your questions about polygamy and incest, incest is not allowed because there are obvious genetic problems and there are certainly consent issues. There are similar consent problems with polygamy. Because of these issues they are not allowed."
I though civil union were about "live-long committments", not sex. I got called an ignorant slut for assuming civil unions were about sex. Are we to assume sex will occur or not?
Larry, calm down and answer my questions. Cory got upset at me for not answering personal and insulting questions.
And Tony, if society decides, how? By majority rule? If so then are rights are no longer coming from out Creator as stated in the Declaration. And if we are at the point where our founding principles have been destroyed, then society can be transformed through the democratic process after it has been indoctrinated by the government schools and those students/patients have reached voting age...right? Wasn't that the voting block that took Obama over the top in 2008?
Marriage is NOT a civil contract – it is spiritual and religious.
If you marry in a church, do you not have to get a marriage license first? Then you need to have it signed, witnessed and file it with a government agency? Does a church recognize a marriage, which was preformed say... in Vegas or by a judge? To me, that would make marriage a civil contract regardless if you had the ceremony preformed in a church or elsewhere.
Where has my thinking gone awry?
@PrairieLady -- exactly what I have been trying to get answered. If my atheist friends are married by a judge in the courthouse and never step foot inside of a church, do not even believe in God ... how does that make their marriage spiritual or religious?
A question to those that believe that same-sex marriage should not happen because it is against the Bible and want to define marriage as a religious act...should my atheist friends then not be allowed to get married because they don't believe in God? The Bible says they are sinners and unless they repent and accept Jesus (which I don't see happening) they will not go to heaven. So should we dissolve their marriages because it is not a Christian marriage, they are sinners according to the Bible?
I've asked that question of several people that want to use the Bible to justify their view point ... and have yet to receive an answer.
Allowing a member of the clergy to serve as a witness in a civil ceremony as anything other than a civil witness should be, but is not, a violation of the separation clause.
btw: Kurtz's Koven of Kannabis and Koitus is NOT a 503(c)(3) organization.
"If you marry in a church, do you not have to get a marriage license first?"
And then what:
By entering into a State-sanctioned franchise (marriage) as a married couple, a couple forfeits their rights to a private, sovereign marriage and any ultimate control of their children or marriage-related property; as a result of the marriage license. Child Protective Services receives its full power and authority to seize children via the marriage license under the ancient legal doctrine of parens patriae.
According to Black’s Law, 5th edition:
“The origins of the doctrine parens patriae and the law can be traced to medieval and late medieval English chancery courts where it played an important roll in maintaining the structure of feudalism. The King had a royal prerogative to act as guardian to persons with legal disabilities such as infants, idiots, and lunatics. Chancery, as an agent of the monarch, had a duty to maintain the orderly transfer of feudal duties from one generation to another and to insure that there would be someone available to perform these duties and the concept of parens patriae was usually invoked in connection with problems of property or guardianship.â€
In today’s world, the Department of Human Services functions as the Chancery, or agent of the monarch - which is the State - in orderly transferring the feudal duties of labor to generate a tax base on to future generations. That tax base is known as the “full faith and credit†of the American people and is pledged against every bond (a state bond issue is a loan) the people vote to approve.
When a State-licensed married couple has a child, the Birth Certificate is the document the State uses to claim ownership of the child under its marriage contract. State ownership remains as long as that child lives, even after the age of 21. If you have a birth certificate, the State owns you, too. Birth certificates, marriage certificates, and automobile Certificates of Title are just some of the commercial paper the State government uses to collateralize their debt to the banks for all of the bond issues the people vote for. These certificates are serial numbered so the banks can more easily track them and all conform to the rules of negotiable instruments as outlined in the Uniform Commercial Code.9 You and your family have, in effect, been pledged as chattel to the banks for the State’s and Federal Government’s debts.
http://www.mainemediaresources.com/mpl_marriage.htm
Steve-
There will always be some level of disagreement between us because of our different beliefs. I believe that our rights come from us as opposed to a higher power. Accordingly, I see no problem with things changing with time to meet our current societal needs. I think that you probably see rights as being static and unchanging. We just see the world differently.
Regarding civil unions being about sex, I don't see that as a requirement. I basically view civil unions as a way of giving someone special legal rights. I could foresee a situation where two people are just best friends and might want to consider a civil union. The rights given by a civil union are used to handle difficult legal situations.
My comments about polygamy and incest were simply to point out why we currently don't recognize such relationships as being worthy of a civil union. There are clearly identifiable problems with them that are independent of religious belief.
@ Larry Allowing a member of the clergy to serve as a witness in a civil ceremony as anything other than a civil witness should be, but is not, a violation of the separation clause.
That is exactly what I was thinking. Does the clergy sign as a witness or as the official of the church? Having to registar the document makes it a civil union too? So.... would this be where the state gets into religion? Seems that way to me.
I would say then, all the marriages, regardless are civil unions. Some of us feel we need the "blessing" of a religious institution and some of us do not feel the need for the religious ritual.
@ Becca A question to those that believe that same-sex marriage should not happen because it is against the Bible and want to define marriage as a religious act…should my atheist friends then not be allowed to get married because they don’t believe in God?
You are mixing 2 issues. Same sex marriage and non-religious believers.
There are alot of weird churches, so I would guess there are a few who would be ok marrying a same sex couple, if it were legal for them to marry in a civil union.
Non-religious people get married in civil ceremonies all the time. They do not need a religious institution to oversee their marriage, and I am sure would not want too. They would not worry about what the Bible says.
Troy, refresh us: do you thus agree that the government should not be conferring any special status on any religiously defined union?
Doug nailed this: (In colorful language.)
"The Holy Church of Animal and Mechanical Amusement might sanctify their own variety of Marriage with animals or devices, but that doesn’t mean the government needs to recognize such “unionsâ€. Churches and religions can attach their “sacraments†to anything they want without impact on what civil unions do or do not do."
Pastors such as myself must register with the state government in some states, not in others. A marriage license, named as such and issued by the state, does not have to be witnessed by a clergy person. Hence, marriages before the JP.
A marriage is a civil contract because the state so names it on the license. The clergy signs the license as a witness, along with two other people. Every church I can think of has a rite for marriage.
When the license is signed, thus signifying to the state that a legally sanctioned marriage has occurred, the state confers certain status upon both people involved that includes tax changes and legal rights.
All of that stuff is done through the state. Civil marriage is not necessarily religious marriage. While religious marriages can be done without involving the state, there would be no legal status, since that is conferred only by the state.
I strongly support getting churches out of the legal marriage business entirely. As others have suggested, there would be no loss of standing for the church if the couple got their marriage license signed by the clerk, then had a wedding in the church if they so desired.
It would be no different than a baby being born, and birth certificate completed in the hospital, then being baptized in church. The church can easily adapt. The couple gets their marriage license signed, but the wedding doesn't happen, and for the church's purposes, they can consider the marriage not formal or church-recognized, until they are in church and the clergy pronounces them married.
Most churches have some type of certificate of marriage anyway. So the couple gets their contract signed Friday when the courthouse is open, then has their wedding on Saturday, as most do now. The difference would be that the contract is signed before the wedding in the church.
The only thing required is a change in thinking. Tons of pastors would be thrilled to be out of the legal marriage business and into the Christian wedding gig entirely.
@PrairieLady-
You are mixing 2 issues. Same sex marriage and non-religious believers.
There are alot of weird churches, so I would guess there are a few who would be ok marrying a same sex couple, if it were legal for them to marry in a civil union. Non-religious people get married in civil ceremonies all the time. They do not need a religious institution to oversee their marriage, and I am sure would not want too. They would not worry about what the Bible says.
I don't believe I am mixing 2 issues...too often the only argument I hear against same-sex marriage is that the Bible says homosexuality is wrong, therefore we shouldn't sanction it. They are trying to dictate marriage based upon the Bible. The Bible also says it is wrong not to believe in God and Jesus, it is wrong not to repent for these sins. I therefore would extrapolate they should believe that all people who do things the Bible says is wrong amd don't repent should not be able to marry - hence non-believers shouldn't be able to get married. So, either only let believers get married or do away with religion being involved in marriage as a legal standing. I am only taking what has been said too many times and applying it as these people have a tendency to see it - to show why religion should not be used as an argument in any of this.
Even without the colorful first paragraph, D.E. Bishop's comment is worth reading again.
Churches and religions in the US have benefited greatly from separation of church and state. The retrograde conservatives trying to inappropriately mix religion and government are a danger to both religions and government.
Keep that church-state wall high: it's good for both church and state. Right on, Doug!
Cory,
Not sure if I know what you are asking. Ask again.
Asking again: are you agreeing with Shel that government should step back from defining or licensing "marriage"?
What happens when the govt decides what marriage is and isn't and demands churches that "discriminate" acknowledge and perform all weddings or shut down or go to jail?? That's where this is going. The reason the Bible forecasts a day when there is no marriage is anyones guess but my thought there is that it comes to the point where we are told if they can't marry neither can you. Despite any sort of so-called separation of church and state tHe govt already has it's hands in my sermon prep, this is about them determining what ceremonies we can and can't do.
We could be so lucky, Hickey. Pharmics are allowed to discriminate on the basis of religion, why should the purveyors of "spiritual drugs" be exempt?
If the FDA regulates bad actors maybe it's time for a Priest and Pastor Administration that determines which practitioners of piety are selling actual soul-healing juju.
"I believe that our rights come from us as opposed to a higher power."
That is exactly the opposite to the principle upon which this country was founded. The purpose of this immoral sex movement is to undermine America, destroy it, and then force us to go along with the UN's "reformed" charter that will establish the one-world government based on the New Age Theology...a one-world New Age Theocracy, the Beast spoken of in the Book of Revelation.
Works for me, Sibby.
The US Constitution has been fouled: let's eliminate it.
http://www.jeffersonhour.com/
Thomas Jefferson believed that God was far older than 6000 years and was merely a "plate spinner" who started it all then walked away.
No, no, no, Pastor Hickey, that's not where I'm going. I have no interest in telling you whom you can marry and whom you can't. If you wouldn't say the magic words for a theologically mixed couple like my wife and me, that's your business. I'm saying (and I think your fellow clergyman above is saying) that we better secure your right to practice what you preach by taking government out of the marriage business entirely.
At the same time, outside the church doors, I want to see every committed couple enjoy the same secular rights in practical matters like insurance, taxes, domestic abuse protections, etc. We can protect both your rights as a man of religious conscience and the rights of couples of all persuasions, can't we?
Mr. Sibson is throwing out more imaginary words again. Please ignore them.
Cory you may not be going there, but that's where this is going, and already is going. A Christian wedding photographer had $7000 in legal costs because she declined to do a gay wedding and the couple sued her. Once the govt redefines what is and isn't marriage those who differ will pay dearly and forced to comply. I've been advised by legal experts in religious liberty law to make sure our bylaws are very precise as it relates to this issue because already we were vulnerable to lawsuits because we rent our building all the time for outside groups (scouts, basketball, aerobics, receptions, etc) and no, there won't be a gay wedding at the church. So, sue us. It's only a matter of time.
I'm pretty sure Pastor Shel wouldn't do a gay marriage ceremony though he didn't mention in the article if Mercy Church views homosexuality as a sin. Most certainly it does, though I could be wrong. I agree with you, the sins in the boardroom today as every bit as stinky as sins in the bedroom, of which heterosexual sins in the bedroom are epidemic.
Even so, a church doesn't even have to say anything about gay marriage. We just underscore traditional marriage and we get vicious hate toward us from the tolerance crowd. It'd be nice if we could just ignore the be-salt/light/leaven mandates and if we could just retreat into the cloistered walls of the church as proposed in this article and let the govt and rest of society do whatever they want. But those who are for gay marriage want more from us. That's my point... the church will be made to comply.
Watch the adoption issues in the days ahead. I know that ten years ago Lutheran Social Services started to face what this issue means for them. Other church sponsored adoption agencies are also looking at an oncoming freight train when govt redefines marriage. This issue for the church is far bigger than performing ceremonies and that's why what is proposed here sounds wonderful but it leads right down the road to the silencing of the Church.
The photo incident took place four years ago in New Mexico: a blue state.
Pick a lane, Hickey.
"Mr. Sibson is throwing out more imaginary words again. Please ignore them."
Straight from the declaration:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Those words may be forgotten, but they are not imaginary.
Hickey is right on the mark here.
The Declaration was a propaganda piece:
â€He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavored to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction, of all ages, sexes and conditions.â€
And then they died.
Hickey has a job because it is inscribed in civil law.
btw: recall that a hair stylist refused to do Gov. Susana Martinez' do because of the gov's stance on eliminating civil liberties for those seeking marriage equality.
ps: Martinez officially stricken from veep short list because of Willard's self-deport statement: Santa Fe New Mexican.
No. I think it wholly appropriate for the government to deem marriage as a good and thus endorse it. The fact it is endorsed by Judeo-Christian religion and most others is irrelevant.
The prohibition of murder and theft two have religious roots. Should we throw out everything with religious roots?
Thomas Jefferson is the father of American Archaeology. A product of The Enlightenment, he had no time for some christian definition of god or law.
http://beth-anderle.suite101.com/thomas-jeffersons-bones-a128183
Troy, the answer is, we DID throw it out. The only authority of US law is the Constitution. Period.
(...that said, I suppose one could argue that the Constitution is a religion, which of course some here do... But I reject that argument simply because I still believe words have meaning.)
"The only authority of US law is the Constitution."
That has been thrown out too. We are now under International law. That movement started shortly after the civil war. How many SCOTUS rulings now refer to international law?
SCOTUS has indeed become a political body. President Jefferson would say that it's way past time to hold a constitutional convention.
Bill,
I think we are on the same page. Regarding your point, while the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the land meaning a law passed by another legal entity can't conflict with the Constitution (as determined by the SCOTUS), a law passed by a local township board is as enforceable and legitimate as one in the constitution unless deemed unconstitutional.
My point was simple: The fact a law is also consistent with a religious principle does not make that law an explicit or implicit endorsement of a religion, ala murder is contrary to most religions and laws prohibiting murder is not an endorsement of any religion.
The thing I don't understand about the whole Marriage: Church or State thing is why it has to be an issue. There's no reason why one or the other can't just change the name to something else, and sever all ties.
The state would still endorse marriage. It would offer the same financial, societal, and familial benefits as it does now, only it wouldn't be associated with the church.
The church would still endorse marriage. It would offer societal and familial benefits, but not the financial, legal ones (like tax breaks) because it's not a state institution.
This way, states can let anyone who consents marry one another, and religious people can continue to interpret their religion however they please and bar people from being married.
If the Catholic Church doesn't want to allow gays to marry, they don't have to support gay marriages in their church. If sea captains don't want to support gay marriage, they can tell gay people to look somewhere else. If a church doesn't want to allow blacks to marry, or Asians, or deformed people, that's their prerogative. But at the state level, everyone who consents should be able to marry, regardless of race/gender/deformity status.
People seem to be clinging to the idea of state-sanctioned marriage for religious reasons (including the sanctity of marriage), or because they think the word itself holds some value. The word "marriage" held no value until it was invented. There's no reason a decade or so of "civil unions" or something wouldn't make "civil union" just as respected.
"But at the state level, everyone who consents should be able to marry, regardless of race/gender/deformity status."
Including your own children, your mother or father, your sibling, your cousin etc...and multiple times, right? And for what reason, so that we can have tax breaks?
Blow it out your ass, Steve.
So Larry, do you see that these people are giving gays rights they won't grant to others?
Or Larry, are you just upset to see that you guys are not as liberal as you all thought?
You're the one who insists that atheism is a religion, Steve; South Dakota must honor marriages regardless and irrespective of state or country.
If someone from Saudi Arabia comes to have surgery in a South Dakota hospital, all the wives are treated as equal guests in South Dakota hotels.
Kurtz. I'm in PV, MX. Can't reply to your Blackberry down here. But the answer is no.
Hope yer havin' a large time, bro: be safe.
So Islam permits polygamy?
So does christianity as per FLDS: what's your point?
Islam apparently also improves honor killings of females raped by other Islamicist males. That is the problem with considering religions to be government.
I listened to Obama this morning on the idiotic VIEW show. He consistently mixed marriage and union confusing some of the women on the VIEW and probably much of the audience. He needs to get the distinction between government and religion clear in these discussions or we will be tortured with intentional abuse of language in the interest not of gays nor of the religious, but in the interests of furthering the tax breaks for the very, very rich.
One other thing. I seriously doubt that prohibitions of murder, rape, and theft resulted from any religion or god. Rather somebody smarter than the average caveman noticed that these now crimes caused a lot of social problems and needless misery. After presenting the idea of their prohibition rationally, someone decided that this whole enterprise would be a lot simpler if they tied it to some supernatural being, etc. That worked too well, and a whole new bureaucracy of religious managers resulted all claiming to be tre right hand of the god that banned murder, rape, pillage or whatever.
Then we got back to politicians who utilized what had become religion to back up their ideas as if they had invented them rather than their being developed over tens of thousands of years of evolution.
Will do. Listen to TJ re constitution. It's not dead, just sick.
TJ>troy>&tom Jefferson
FLDS?
What the heck is that Larry?
"Islam apparently also improves honor killings of females raped by other Islamicist males. That is the problem with considering religions to be government."
Well Doug, your New Age religion believes in child sacrifice in Planned Parenthood abortion mills. Islam is evil, not a religion.
Just heard a new phrase on Bill Janklow's idea of public radio: "Fifty-mile syndrome," pertaining to those for whom the world exists only in a 50-mile radius of where they live.
You, Sibby? The Joy of Sects.
Larry, Warren Jeffs is not even considered a Mormon by the Mormons. And I do not consider the Mormons Christian. It is sad when fake Christians use the name of Christ and then used by the anti-Christian bigots to stereotype the real Chirstians. Larry, you are so not tolerant.
The family of Saud is not considered Muslim by a good share of Islam yet they wield massive control over American elections.
Jesus® and Marriage® are registered trademarks of no one.
It's true that i'm intolerant of bullies, Steve. Leave the earth hater party after you lose your election to Vehle and join us Democrats as we rebuild our party in the chemical toilet.
Larry, thanks for the invite...seriously. I really don't care what party anyone is in. I know I used too, but take it from one who has been in both.
As Fleming might say: Namaste, Steve.
We can see here the propaganda used by the righties: Take one simple, narrowly limited issue - marriage for two people of the same sex. Conflate completely with all manner of non-related issues, shake well, no, wait - grind up until entirely unrecognizable, then present!
What you then get is . . .
. . . marriage of multiple partners,
. . . . rampant sex crimes
. . . . complete destruction of churches
. . . . various and nefarious "secret plans"
. . . . erosion of a wide variety of civil liberties
. . . . atheistic nation
. . . . no more births
. . . . an end to our pseudo-democracy
. . . . an end to our pseudo-free capitalism
. . . . oh, I know there is more, but this is all that pops into my mind right now.
So remember folks, this is one, narrowly defined law being considered. The apparently rampant paranoia among the righties is completely without foundation. But they do have fun with it!
"What happens when the govt decides what marriage is and isn’t and demands churches that “discriminate†acknowledge and perform all weddings or shut down or go to jail?? That’s where this is going."
You just never know from which pious hypocrite we will get a blizzard of bullshit.
If truth in marketing applied to religions, they would have to prove their mythology. All of them would be out of business as ripoffs and threats to the public
@Doug Amen Brother!
Churches should not be tax exempt. From my understanding, it does not take much to become a minister of some mail order/internet certificate program. We could all become ministers and develop our own little sect (each household or neighborhood) and get tax exempt status.
Whoever checks on churches?
I have known a ranting evangelistic preacher, who admitted he was in it for the money, the ladies and it is an easy scam.
(What the heck, since corporations are people, each of us could incorporate and get tax breaks and loopholes.)
I may have to stop reading the news, as it is making me just as crazy as the "resident" crazy.
Good points, Doug and PL.
There are indeed mail-order preachers. I am Lutheran, and was required to earn a master's degree in theology. That took 4 years at an accredited seminary. (Like Law School or Med School, but it is Religion School.)
Just like there are tons of education for profit schools, there are religion-for-profit schools which are no better. "Bible colleges" abound. Anyone can start one, just like anyone can start a church. The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is a legally recognized church in Sweden.
I wonder what Hickey is talking about when he refers to government invading his sermons? I'm guessing it's the directive against preaching politics. The catch is always that any church leader can do anything in politics they want. They just relinquish their tax exempt status. Well, they are supposed to. The IRS doesn't seem to be doing anything about it lately.
Boy, talk about discrimination against? Christianists!
@ DE The catch is always that any church leader can do anything in politics they want. They just relinquish their tax exempt status.
I was raised in the Lutheran church thru HS, taught Bible School and Sunday school., but that was in the '50s and '60s. At no time, do I remember my ministers talking politics or social issues.
When I see some of the ministers on the news giving sermons and recognizing one party or the other, I wonder how they can do that and still stay tax exempt. Is there some regulatory body who checks on churches?
I'm referring to how unconstitional IRS tax code says I can't call good, good or bad, like the Bible says I'm supposed to. Jesus called Herod a fox, John the baptist was beheaded for calling out adultery in the house of Herod. And I'm supposed to be silent about things Obama is doing. Today the IRS tries to muzzle that prophetic voice. That's what I mean by they have their hand in my sermon prep. I say what I want and have sent DvDs of my messages to the IRs asking them to charge me with a violation. They don't. Why? It is unconstitutional for the govt/IRS to give a benefit in exchange for a certain kind of speech. The first amendment trumps unconstitutional tax code. The reason they aren't coming after me is because they know I'm prepared to respond with a federal suit that challenges the Johnson Amendment. They know they will lose that case. The IRS is a paper tiger. And besides, democrats like Hillary and obama are in churches all the time and that's ok?
Our church sows tens of thousands of dollars into the needy in our community/state. If we were on the tax roles we'd pay $7000 a year. Whoopee. My point is churches contributes far more than and little tax break. I shake my head and chuckle when people who don't know any better suggest churches should be taxed. Imagine the burden on the state if churches stopped helping people.Â
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2012/05/16/152774226/our-place-in-the-universe?ft=1&f=114424647
Church congregations should face random audits and drug testing for those institutions who receive funds from the Bush-era White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships.
@ Steve Hickey Our church sows tens of thousands of dollars into the needy in our community/state. If we were on the tax roles we’d pay $7000 a year. Whoopee. My point is churches contributes far more than and little tax break. I shake my head and chuckle when people who don’t know any better suggest churches should be taxed. Imagine the burden on the state if churches stopped helping people.
Steve I would agree with you that churches help people. I do too and over what I would get a tax break. You might have a little church and the women do good works and you contribute. I sure hope it is to people in the US! (I have a bias in my giving because I want to help the people in the US.)
It makes me wonder how you are doing tens of thousands for the community if you are small church..... interesting.
Actually if you were not so Republican, there would be more money going to help those who need it, and not cutting it. We would be doing more good works. I get the impression all you good Republicans would love it if all the social services would be supplied by the churches and donors.
The government gives tax breaks to religions and churches if they preach religion. It does not say that they can't preach politics and lie about issues as much as they want, it just says that is not primarily religion and thus churches might lose their tax breaks. Put your money where your mouth is if you want to preach politics.