This is the article that sparked the debate question (to follow):

Catholics Can't Vote Democrat

Question for debate:

When does a church cross the line from spirituality to political force, thus losing its tax-exempt status?

Is claiming that your "salvation" is in jeapardy if you vote a certain way crossing the line?

I rather think so. Time to gouge the Catholic Church with corporate taxation. The declared stance given in the above article is pure politics. I'm not surprised as I grew up Catholic and excommunicated myself from its clutches. The Church is trying to be the Holy Roman Empire all over again. That's fine, but it has to pay the price of playing politics if it wants to do that, i.e., taxes.

Separation of Church and State.

The state has it down and is playing by the rules.

The church seems to have a problem with the concept.

Let's hope this has a weakening effect on the Catholic Church. Less Catholics isn't all that bad.

When you look at Catholics like John Kerry and Nancy Pelosi, you see two incredibly powerful Democrats who are members of the Catholic church. The Pope has refused Communion to pro-choice Catholics, but not all diocese have followed suit.

When does a church cross the line from spirituality to political force, thus losing its tax-exempt status?

In my opinion, any reference to politics in a religious setting runs the risk of crossing that bright line. The article you reference is a blatant example. I'll be honest and admit I don't know all the details behind tax exemptions for religious institutions but this Denver parish deserves to be taxed if they are going to enforce their political beliefs by refusing the rituals of your faith.

Is claiming that your "salvation" is in jeapardy if you vote a certain way crossing the line?

WAY WAY WAY over the line.

Doc

I personally don't see what makes them so important NOT to be taxed to begin with.

When we look at the real politics behind some of our most important legislation, the reason the First Amendment states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," has to due with who settled where. You had a Puritan and Anglican influence in New England, Catholics in Maryland, and other Protestants in Virginia south. So rather than one having its religion claiming the moniker of "state religion," the Founders opted to go with a live and let live mentality and would not support any one religious belief. Though looking from an objective stance, it's clear that this country was founded heavily on Christian beliefs. The religion itself I don't think is a bad rulebook, until Miss Crabapple comes out of her church and proceeds to crap on your good times. That, and the religion I believe goes against much of what nature has taught us to be true. "Others first, you second" is how I perceived Christianity (in one sense), when in fact, we know this is highly unlike human beings.

This is why I think we need an amendment to the constitution- a "freedom from religion" clause- I think that ALL churches, in order to be such, should, first, have all it's leaders commit to a life of poverty, with all thier income being taxed at a 99% rate. Then same with the property and revenues. All as a "sin tax" (pun intended) to stifle the horribly anti-social practise of "practising" religion.

The Catholic church is probably one of the most evil, repugnant organizations on the planet- basically looking the other way while children are being raped, yet, they have some God given hotline to determine the morality of others?

Only thing slimier than a lawyer politician is a priest!

Alright CruisingRam, you're just pulling Catholic people's chains, aren't you? Surely you wouldn't seriously advocate amending the Constitution to enshrine discrimination?

(And no, I'm not Catholic.)

I see it as more of a check on runaway power and corruption personally- our founding fathers were (rightly so) more afraid of the church becoming the paramount authority in our land more than anything else. You can read it in thier letters, see it in our constitution and see it in some of thier decisions. Many of them were not even against a monarchy all that much (there was a movement to make Goerge Washington king)

I do not think the founding fathers went far enough however. There certainly needs to be more check on religious powers, no doubt, and taking away thier money is the first correct step!

I see a paralell in the Taliban, OBL and GW- it is all religious fervor that drives them to do evil things, which they turn around to make it some devine reasoning for doing what they do- and religion, for all it's piety and mouthings of love, no matter which particular one it is- is fundamentally violent and power-centric.

My particulare bile was spewed towards the catholic church in this instance, because, really how dare they critisize anyones moral behavior when thier own is so repugnant?

Tax Exempt status should be eliminated. Everyone belongs to some sort of special interest group or another. Why should some be given tax breaks and not others? Yes, the Catholic Church should be taxed as the business it is. I do not think the information in the article is necessary to reach this conclusion.

Last I heard the Catholic church has a lot of assets, but not much cash flow, so what would we tax them on? Assets? Donations? Property?
I would have churches remain exempt as long as there are no political or business endeavors involved and they are not constantly soliciting donations beyond the actual needs of the church related services.

Assets, donation AND property- religion should be impoverished at all times- feeding themselves and helping the poor should be thier only focus, the only place they are able to focus- the constant fear of losing even the church they meet in should be at the forefront at all times. Religion, as an institution, is a power centric entity- that gobbles up everything in it's path and kills anything that doesn't follow it's doctrine- UNLESS it is left weak and poor!

Before government started taking care of us with various social services. the churches provided some of those services. But times and conditions found the churches unable to fill the needs of the poor. I agree with the government doing this from my viewpoint that some churches will demand the recipients attend their services and go by their religious rules. Freedom from religion is as important as freedom of religion.
If there is no PROFIT, there will be no income taxes. If the amount of property held is for religious and social services only, then I think they should only pay a partial tax based on the services provided by the community, such as Fire and Police services. Now, assets is something else. There are many evangelists whose only purpose in life is seperating the foolish from their money, and they pay themselves a handsome salary while doing so. Those individuals who enrich themselves while supposedly serving God should not have exemptions based on religion or religious services provided.
Actually, all personal income a preacher receives should be taxed, as is the income of any other wage earner, but for all I know they already are. It has been a lot of years since I did any tax preparation work.

As far as I'm concerned, the church is asking for it. If you want to have a voice in politics, then you need to pay as you like everyone else does-it's just that simple. I don't care if they censure members or withhold communion, but hte minute they start taking public positions and try to influence policy, then they should lose theirt tax exempt status. Quite frankly, I'm not so certain why they deserve such a hallowed space in the tax code anyways(pun intended)

I'd have no problem with a "virtuous" religious organization- one that did direct it's funds to helping others, and wasn't too picky about whom except in regards to legitimate need- being tax exempt. It gets sticky, quick, however, when you have wealthy churches with questionable spending habits and priests more interested in politics than theology.

It's a very blurry line, as religion and government should be insulated from one another, and the tax exemption erected to do so seems to do the exact opposite when religious groups behave more like for-profit lobbying firms than spiritual organizations. I'm not sure how easy it is to create a real, practical "line" where tax exemption is revoked, and making it revokable without removing it for all religious groups would invite more politics into the process, allowing churches to be rewarded and punished. Still I'm not sure if an HONEST church can avoid issues and be a relevant moral organization. Expecting a church to ignore slavery, civil rights, the plight of the poor, abortion, war, death penalty, and other touchy issues would force them to be out of touch, something that happens too often anyway. Maybe it would be best to tax any non-profit organization designating itself as "religious" at a flat, low rate.

I have a love/hate thing with the Catholic Church- I'm not Catholic, but my girlfriend had warned me any children we'd ever have would be. She's angry at her Church recently because of the idiocy of the current political maneuvering, despite her own pro-life views (so maybe I can compromise for Episcopalian, and we can get married by a gay clergywoman in Mass. to further upset Scalia, etc.). Make no mistake- a fraction of church doctrine is being enforced for reasons dealing with individual, high-ranking church official's political bent. This is more about the political right within the church using their power to change church practice and embarrass laity they dislike. No such litmus test is applied on the Host (bad pun) of issues the RCC is "liberal" on, because hey, liberals remember "catholic" means "universal", not snotty.

From what I've read, modern American Catholics mirror Protestants on most issues, and many are having a hard time taking the cover-up happy culture of the Church's right-wing/authoritarian seriously as a moral authority dictating what constitutes an acceptable vote. The RCC is dominated by fears of their decline in Europe being mirrored here, and they're bone-heading their way to their own suicide. The conservatives can pray for my liberal, pro-choice soul, or they can refuse to reach out to anyone who's not already a Catholic agreeing with the half of Church doctrine they prefer. Personally, I think I should pray for them to spend more time reading the Sermon on the Mount and pondering the phrase "Universal Church" and less time covering up child abuse and lobbying on one or two issues.

Here in Utah, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints holds quite a bit of power in politics. It's constantly an issue among non-LDS individuals (I being one of them). They spent around a million dollars to help California's Proposition 22 get passed. None of this was taxed money, of course. I admit having no knowledge of the LDS church's taxed monies--I know they own corporations which pay taxes (though, and I say this without proof, they probably have good accountants to skirt most of those tax laws). However, where did this money come from? The LDS church has a 10% tithe each month which it asks from members. They are not required to pay, but it does seem to hold sway with their status in the church. I know I myself felt intense regret and shame if I did not give 10% each month for the year. Of course, I was eight years old at the time. One might call it a form of child abuse. But I digress.

The Catholic church is exceedingly wrong in this case. How is the church to know how the members have voted? I find it laughable that the Catholic church has decried Senator John Kerry because he is a pro-choice candidate. This exhibits a lack of intelligence on the Pope and the many other Catholic priests who follow suit in their criticisms. Kerry is a representative--his personal views are inconsequential to his role in government. One could view abortion or gay marriage as entirely detrimental to society, but the proper role of a politician is to abide by our Constitution. They propose laws, the judicial system keeps the executive and legislative branches in check--if any law breaks the desires of our Founding Fathers, it is deemed unconstitutional and repealed.

It seems sad that a church must use its force to sway political opinion. Doesn't this seem bordering a bit too close to what our originating colonies disapproved of? They left England in large part to escape the Church of England's grip on politics. I wonder--can someone file suit against the Catholic church for this kind of action? I am growing incensed by this issue. A part of me wishes the clergy could be put in jail for this type of behavior. This is blackmail--holding out Communion for a vote. I am sickened by this.

Well, this Catholic is a Democrat. Last night I e-mailed that bishop in Colorado Springs and wrote two letters to the editor about the nonsense of refusing communion to someone who votes for a pro-Choice candidate.

I wrote to the bishop that pro-Life also means anti-capital punishment and anti-war according to the Pope. Therefore, Catholics who vote for the incumbent President are also voting anti-Life and should also be refused communion as G.W. is for capital punishment and has no qualms about the lives lost in war. Either all life is sacred or it isn't.

As far as tax-exempt status goes, I am not sure whether it should continue for churches if they insist on interfering in political campaigns. I am pro-Life, but I am voting for the candidate I perceive will do the better job for my country. The bishop has no right to say my salvation is in jeopardy if I vote for Kerry and, if this spiritual demagoguery continues, I will start attending the closest Society of Friends (Quaker) meetings.

There's no need to bash the Catholic Church for abusing its role in religious life. A few weeks ago I took my agnostic BF to my Baptist church. That was his first time in church. The pastor all but said vote Republican. I haven't been back since.

When does a church cross the line from spirituality to political force, thus losing its tax-exempt status?

A church doesn't lose tax-exempt status because it turns into a political force. There are plenty of non-profit organizations that make it a point to be political forces. DNC, RNC, Planned Parenthood, National Right to Life, and the list goes on.

My problem with Bishop Michael Sheridan is he holds voters hostage in exchange for their salvation. If Planned Parenthood refused basic services to men and women who vote for pro-life candidates pro-life organizations would be screeching for Gloria Feldt's head. This isn't the first time the Catholic Church literally gets away with crimes for hiding behind the banner of religion.



Why should a non-profit organization enjoy special legal exclusion because it is religious in nature?

Let me start off by stating that I find churches, with some exception, to be brainwashing centers that prey upon the emotional needs of others. Church encompasses the most hypocritcal groups of people I have ever seen in my life. At least with a full-on bigot you know where you stand, and that is more than I can say with 95% of the churches I have seen in my life. They deserve no tax relief, and I truly believe the world would be a better place without them.

</soapbox>


I wish we could tax them out of existence, but we can't. One thing I have learned about churches is that they are cunning and know exactly how far the law can be stretched without breaking it.

From Bishop Sheridan's letter :

- Link - PDF! -


Doom on you. Clearly if you support a nominee that is pro-life, anti-stem cell research, and anti-gay marriage then the world will be a better and safer place. Nevermind his/her stance on the thousands of other issues we should be considering. Who cares if the person we elect is a bloodthirsty tyrant or a corrupt money worshipper? As long as he stops everyone else from having control over their own body, bars research that could save lives the world over, and keeps those nasty homosexuals from being happy everything else is moot...

I agree, except I don't believe that he, or any other church official has the actual power to withhold salvation from anybody, just sacraments.

I thought it politic not to mention to Sheridan the pedophile priest scandal and the scandal of the church concealing the information for so many years. I was trying to make a point on just one of the issues.

Churches should not be complicit in the election of any candidate. Perhaps their leaders should trust that the lessons in Christianity have been instilled in their congregations sufficiently that the parishioners have the power to vote according to their own consciences as well as using some common sense as well.

If what I am hearing from any pulpit goes contrary to what I believe to be true or right, then I shouldn't follow it.

Anyway, there are far too many steepled buildings with political bully pulpits these days. But again, I am not sure that taxing churches is a great idea, because I don't believe that all churchgoers are hypocrites, and I don't want them closed just on the chance that those who need church the most might not be able to pay their "dues" in the collection plate on a consistent basis, and that there are still soup kitchens and the like financed by churches.

Besides, where else are hypocrites (usually) encouraged to become better people--on the Sunday morning cartoons? The FOX channel? Wal-Mart? Perhaps on the golf course???

I doubt anyone argues with the notion that the church has crossed a line into the political realm, and that the act in itself, constitutes a violation of the separation of church and state. As I said earlier, the minute a church tries to influence social policy, their right to be tax exempt flies right out the window. Anyone know of religious groups that have lost their non-taxation status due to egregious actions like those listed by other members?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/03/politics.../03CHUR.html?hp

-an article of interest. A similar one is in the Boston Globe-

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washingt...urches_faulted/

-it looks like Bush is attempting to us churchs as pre-packaged volunteer groups. It makes sense: believing Bush to be any thing but incompetent requires the sort of leap of faith and avoidance of evidence as you find among Fundamentalists in regards to evolution. I'm hoping this backfires with more moderate churchgoers in the same fashion most Catholics have reacted to the Colorado Springs controversy.

Now this is an issue?

I remember in the 80's my friends and I were in a studio and the engineer played a hilarious song another client had just recorded. We were right at the height of unemployment and there was new emphasis on the white unemployment vs. black. The song was sung by a black man who sarcasticly noted that white unemployment almost rose to the normal black level. Now maybe the gov't would do something about it. Now it was making news. Anyway the backup singers sang over and over again, "Extra, Extra, read all about it. White man out of work!" The song came to mind when a the cry went forth, "A Democrat has been denounced in church!"

Democrats have always used the church to get their message out and often denounced Republicans. Since Reagan that has been undergoing a slow grinding turn.

All that to say this is all a tempest in a teapot. Preachers have always had their say, be they bright, dull, benevolent, evil, honest, conniving. Anyone hear of Patrick Henry? I think they should have their say without adding tax consequences. They add a little spice to an election year. You want to tell the inner city store front church they need to raise their income 40% to pay for the privedge of having an opinion that occasionally bleeds into the political? You want to bar primarily black Southern Baptist and AME churches from holding forth on the issues? They have real issues, too, that they feel must be addressed. One of the prerequisites for voting is 18 years of age. That assumes something approximating adulthood. Give the public, (even the churchgoing public) a little credit that they are generally as smart as you and can be counted on to vote their best interests.
Remember it is the separation of church and state, not the monitoring of state over church.

For those who think churches should be taxed, be careful what you ask for.

Remember the powder keg that started our revolt against England was ‘no taxation without representation’. If you want to levy taxes against the church then they will have every right to freely participate in our government which I’m sure no one on this board would like to see, including myself. You just can’t make this a one way street.

I’m Catholic and a Democrat, if I end up voting for John Kerry then I’ll just go to confession, admit my ‘sin’, 5 Hail Marys and a few Our Fathers and I’m clean.

Most Catholics I know are ‘menu Catholics’: they pick and choose what parts of the faith they feel applies to their lives, not necessarily practicing all that is taught. This church official was only doing what Priest do every week at mass, reminding us all (Catholics anyway) what the church stands for and how that affects our lives. I do agree that they went to far in denying communion to Kerry whose only ‘sin’ was having to publicly admit his stance on abortion, the rest of us have the luxury of keeping our opinions to ourselves.

But I’m still struggling with the premise of this debate: because a church official reinforces their beliefs, which at times does stretch into politics, we now want to tax them? That’s akin to putting out a fire with tuna fish. For years Pat Robertson has held sway over the religious right and not a peep about taxing his church.

I’ll give you an example of where I think a church over stepped their boundaries. Twelve years ago in a hotly contested state Senator race, a huge Southern Baptist church allowed one of the candidates to not only speak to the congregation at least twice a month, but also passed around a ‘special collection’ for his campaign. The election was decided by 18 votes.

As I have said in many areas I have real issues with organized religion in general and do not personally support any of them.

As to the tax-exempt status, the jury is out. I would hate to see good local churches that do good works loose their status and thus have to stop many of their good works do to the sudden shrinkage of available revenue. But where do you draw the line?

I would like to add one question on the issue. This became a major issue when a Catholic bishop did it now, as well as when a Catholic Cardinal (New York) did it about 20 years ago.

However, MANY black churches have been doing the same consistently for at least 20 years. Why did no one raise the red flag or suggest they loose their status in all of that time?

In my town, several black ministers openly appear at Democratic fund raisers and other gatherings. They openly support Democrat politicians when they are running for office and openly involve themselves with those same politicians when they are elected. And they strongly call for their congregations to vote for these candidate from their pulpit. Where is the righteous indignation about this?

When does a church cross the line from spirituality to political force, thus losing its tax-exempt status?
I guess since the dearth of replies after it was pointed out how Democrats have always used churches for political purposes the line must be when conservative views are espoused. This must be what made this an issue.

Then what this amounts to is a double standard (A double minded man is unstable in all his ways). This leads to my believe: ether tax all the churches the same rate, or don't tax them at all.

When does a church cross the line from spirituality to political force, thus losing its tax-exempt status?

I don't know when that line is crossed. I should point out though that I take the satanist view on church's and taxation. they should ALL be taxed heavily. the church of satan is the only church I know of that does not and has not ever seeked tax-exampt status. (note: I am not a satanist, but rather a dualist pantheist.)


Is claiming that your "salvation" is in jeapardy if you vote a certain way crossing the line?

I think claiming that I'm saved to begin with is just a bunch of ballyhoo nonsense. and claiming that someones mythical salvation is in jeodpardy because they vote a certain way is even MORE ballyhoo nonsense!

All I see by way of "pointing out" is a claim with zero proof. The "dearth of replies" is probably a consequence of there not even being enough there to make a serious refutation necessary.

Let us just say that I am a supporter of Adolph Hitler in 1933-1945 Germany and I support his "Jewish Solution". Now should I be able to take communion? (Let us ignore for the moment the church's real life apathy toward Naziism in that era) According to Catholic teachings life begins at conception and abortion is murder. Now let us recognize the church also opposes the death penalty and the war in Iraq. The questions 1) Does the church have the right to dispense communion as it sees fit? To me the answer is an obvious yes. Attempts to interfere with this right of the church by threatening taxation is a 1st Amendment violation. The church also has long standing positions against homosexuality. Doubt if Barney Frank could take communion either. If you belong to a faith where your positions contradict that faith you should expect repurcussions if you are a politician. Question 2) Does the fact that the church opposes the war on Iraq and the death penalty and supports social welfare programs, anti-Republican positions, make there refusal to give communion to pro-choicers hypocritical? I am uncertain on this one. One could argue that abortion takes many more lives than the death penalty and the war on Iraq combined and that it is a much more important issue for the church. Secondly, Bush is not a Catholic and his positions do not oppose Protestant teachings. We do not know if prominent pro-death penalty supporters would be denied communion if they were running for President. Of course, once again, federal support of the death penalty would cause many fewer deaths than federal mandating of legal abortion.

Federal government telling the church who they can , or cannot, give communion to is a tyrannical imposition on the 1st.

When does a church cross the line from spirituality to political force, thus losing its tax-exempt status?

When it officially endorses or opposes candidates for public office. This is not a matter of opinion, it is the law. All churches exempt from taxation under Internal Revenue Code 501(c)(3) are...
This should apply to any church endorsing or opposing any candidate, regardless his party or his positions.

Is claiming that your "salvation" is in jeopardy if you vote a certain way crossing the line?

So it would appear. Religious leaders may take positions on political or moral issues and may support or oppose ballot referenda, but claiming from the pulpit or in an official letter that parishioners will be denied communion if they vote for a particular candidate crosses the line.

So far, only two American bishops have made such statements. I would say that their dioceses should lose their tax-exempt status. That the bishops in question have condemned politicians who support the right to choose, but have not condemned politicians who support the death penalty is hypocritical in the extreme and a clear sign that they are electioneering - and this is against federal law.

The IRS apparently has little tolerance for this sort of thing - as they should. In 1995, the Church at Pierce Creek in Binghamton, NY, lost its tax-exempt status because it ran a full-page ad in USA Today and the Washington Times urging voters to oppose Bill Clinton. The decision was upheld by the federal district court and the federal appellate court. Exactly the same thing should happen to the diocese of Bishop Sheridan in Colorado and the diocese of Archbishop Burke in Missouri.

For the record, this is not - contrary to what some have claimed here - official Church doctrine. Pope John Paul II considers Communion a private question between a believer and God and has himself administered the sacrament to pro-choice politicians in Italy.

It is also interesting to note that the "liberal media" is giving a huge amount of coverage to this - as it did to the idiotic pronouncements of the single cardinal who spoke about pro-choice candidates and communion in Rome (Cardinal Francis Arinze), but has virtually ignored the fact that the Supreme Pontiff himself - not some backwater bishop - has condemned the invasion of Iraq in the strongest possible terms.

When does a church cross the line from spirituality to political force, thus losing its tax-exempt status?

Since Wertz so graciously provided us the link to the IRC 501©(3), it is clear that churches have no standing to exercise their considerable influence to garner votes for or against a candidate-- even if done indirectly.











Although Bishop Sheridan doesn't directly say "DO NOT VOTE FOR KERRY", his message can hardly be misinterpreted. In denying Holy Communion, Sheridan is using the influence of the Church to indirectly intervene in a political campaign; this is strictly forbidden. The penalty?



The law is clear, as is the penalty. A church crosses the line when it is willing to deny a sacrament to influence an election. A church can bring the issues to the awareness of its congregation, but when it goes so far as to threaten its members' Communion for a vote, that it electioneering.

Is claiming that your "salvation" is in jeopardy if you vote a certain way crossing the line?

As I've mentioned, it is one thing for a church to bring an issue to the awareness of its members. It is another to threaten to deny them a sacrament, and that, to me, is crossing the line.

I do not favor taxing churches outright, but if they endanger their tax-exempt status, they should expect consequences. I think that if we tax all the churches, it gives them leverage as tax-paying entities to demand things from the government. I think that, as a principle of separation of church and state, churches should not be taxed.

I agree with that point wholeheartedly.
May I return to my previous point. This is a two way street. From earlier this year:
Detroit news


Tell me if I am wrong, (I know I can count on y'all for that) but almost all of the noise happens when conservative views are voiced by clergy. Not a word in the article about crossing any line.

This one seems like a tougher call. If these pastors did indeed meet as representatives of their church to endorse Gephardt, that's just as bad. As I mentioned earlier, IRC 501 ( c )(3) is quite clear that religious organizations cannot endorse political candidates. Now, when Bishop Sheridan spoke, he spoke with the authority of the Church backing him. I'm not exactly sure that these pastors were making the endorsement on behalf of their churches or as private citizens, but it does sound like they made the endorsement as private citizens. If they were representing their churches, they should lose tax-exempt status immediately. Granted, these pastors weren't threatening to withhold Communion for people who didn't vote for Gephardt in the primaries. There are a lot of endorsements made before primaries, and I think this one didn't garner any real coverage because it was just another endorsement. However, something on the level of people being denied Communion is more newsworthy. Somehow I'm not exactly sure "all of the noise" always happens when pastors voice conservative views, but when they take steps to commit an act like Bishop Sheridan it becomes a little more noteworthy.

Edited for clarity

You might help your position if you did not "misrepresent" (a polite euphemism) what the article you linked to said.

According to you it says, "Catholics Can't Vote Democrat". I agree that if this was in fact the position of the Catholic church, it would be troubling. But that is not remotely what the article says. Here is the postilion the bishop in question lays out;

The bishop of Colorado's second-largest Roman Catholic diocese has issued a pastoral letter saying Catholics cannot receive Communion if they vote for politicians who support abortion rights, stem-cell research, euthanasia or gay marriage.

If freedom of religion means anything, it must mean that religions are allowed to define what the tenets of their belief are. Are you seriously saying all religions must make sure their messages are never in conflict with those of a political party?

What you seem to be claiming is that churches may not take stances on public issues where these stances are in opposition to your own views. I never seem to see this argument (specious in my view) for "separation of church and state" when the Catholic church weighs in against the death penalty.


Is claiming that your "salvation" is in jeapardy if you vote a certain way crossing the line?

I don't know which line you're referring to. A church or religion is a voluntary association of people, joined by a common belief system. If that belief system is not to your satisfaction, you are free to dissassociate yourself from the group.

As for religious groups having tax exemptions - these exemptions were put in place because it was felt that these groups (e.g. Salvation Army) performed a valuable public function. I suppose that if the people, through their elected leglislators, want to change that, they are free to do. But I don't think that is a likely outcome, nor the one that you are hoping to see.

I don't seem to recall anyone claiming that; what we are claiming, however, is that a church has no right to withhold Communion to people who vote for a candidate who supports abortion rights, stem-cell research, euthanasia, or gay marriage (coincidentally, this automatically brings the Democratic candidate to mind). Churches have every right to tell their congregations where the candidates stand on the issues and to discuss their stands on the issues, but when they go so far as to deny a sacrament to disparage voters, they involve themselves in the electoral process. The Catholic church hasn't denied Communion when they were dealing with the death penalty. Religions have every right to define their most basic beliefs and to tell their faithful where candidates stand; however, if they wish to remain a 501( c )(3) nonprofit, they can't go so far as to enter the realm of electioneering. No one has ever suggested that they must hone their messages to coincide with those of the parties; they have every right to speak out on the issues. They cannot, however, discourage voters from voting for a liberal by denying them Communion! It is one thing for the Church to say that abortion rights, stem-cell research, gay marriage, and euthanasia are in direct conflict with their teachings and that certain candidates support those issues; it is wholly different to say that people voting for those candidates will not receive Communion.



Actually, if I'm not mistaken, the original intent behind giving churches tax-exempt status was to prevent church money from flowing into the government in order to keep church and state separate.

An interesting review of the problem can be found here:
End Welfare as We Know It- Tax the Church

I personally am split on the issue. I can see how arguments from both sides are valid, but I ultimately think that taxing the churches will result in giving churches sway as taxpayers.

No one has ever suggested that they must hone their messages to coincide with those of the parties; they have every right to speak out on the issues. They cannot, however, discourage voters from voting for a liberal by denying them Communion!

Tennessee, I like the cut of your jib! Simple, declarative statements, that let people know exactly where you stand. You are a man after my own heart. So let me respond in a similar vein.

Yes, religions can indeed tell their followers whatever they wish. That is why it's called "freedom of religion". The Catholic church can put any conditions it wishes on any of its own activities. If it wants to say that only left-handed albino dwarfs who can play "Home on the Range" on harmonica can have communion, they are perfectly entitled to do so. The same applies to marriage, baptism, and any other rites administered by the church.

Should the church also allow communion for followers of satanism? I'll assume you will say "No". Then suppose a major political party begins to court the satanist vote. Does not the position of the church "discriminate" against the members of this party? Should they not be required, by your logic, to provide communion to any satanist who wishes it?
If religion, any religion, cannot put the conditions it thinks best on it's own rites, then what kind of freedom of religion do we have?

It's worth keeping in mind that it is not the church whose position has changed over time, but the position of the Democratic party. Once it was not pro-abortion. When abortion ceases to be an issue it sees as useful to it, it will cease to be a pro-abortion party. Again, by your logic, when it ceases to be a pro-abortion party, then it will be perfectly acceptable for the church to condemn abortion any way it pleases, as that will no longer be 'partisan."

It is not churches who are intruding into political affairs. It is the state which is expanding it's influence to encompass all aspects of human existence. Inevitably that means it will come up against opposition. I've touched elsewhere on the oddity of people describing themselves as liberal who champion the limitless expansion of state power. One of these days I'll take a leaf from CrusingRams book and start a topic on the issue.

By the way, not that it should matter, but I'm an atheist. I was once a subscriber to Free Inquiry! I just happen to see freedom of religion and association as being far more in my best interests than unlimited government.

Ahh, why thank you very much!



Perhaps I was not clear in this respect. I've no problem with Bishop Sheridan choosing to deny these voters Communion; the Internal Revenue Service does, however. Any church out there has every right to tell their congregations that they must vote for Dubya. They also have the right to endorse candidates for public office. That endorsement comes at the price of their tax-exempt status, however. Everyone has a different opinion of what constitutes crossing the line into endorsement; to me, this constitutes crossing the line.



I think that the issue of Communion rests solely in the hands of the faithful; if they feel that they are worthy of receiving the Lord's Supper, they shouldn't be disparaged from doing so (this is, of course, not the feeling of the Church or of the Code of Canon Law). That however is beside the point here. I see this attempt to tell people they cannot receive Communion and vote for a pro-abortion rights, -stem-cell research, -euthanasia, -gay marriage candidate as electioneering. Period. If they likewise withheld Communion for the faithful who voted for a Satanic candidate, that would likewise be electioneering! Like I said before, they can refuse anyone they want Communion, but they must accept one thing: entering the political game may come at the cost of their tax-exemptions. They can play politics if they want, but they may no longer considered a non-profit (and isn't that a joke) organization.



It is perfectly acceptable for the Church to condemn abortion however it sees fit; I have nothing wrong with it taking that stance. However, they should not expect that tax-exemption when they are directly or indirectly supporting a candidate or trying to attract or detract votes through direct threats. I don't care what the Church tells its congregations to be quite honest with you, but I do take issue if they maintain they deserve tax-exemptions when they have crossed the line into electioneering (and, in my opinion, in this case they have). If Democrats ceased being the "pro-abortion party", I would argue against their tax exemptions just as strongly if they denied Communion to those who vote for that party. The issue isn't whether the Church has a right to tell its faithful what it wants: the issue is if it can do so without risking its exemption.

I think TLW said it best- say whatever you want from the pulpit- just don't expect to keep your tax exempt status when you are really just another PAC. That is where the line is truly crossed- when a religion is just used as another PAC- and I think in the above listed examples, it is pretty clear.

It is no different if I tried to start a "church" that was ABB- and I told folks how to vote, accepted donations, and attempted to influence the election- all under the guise of "freedom of religioun".

The Catholic church was hardly started with this issue. Nor have they made it their new mission statement to defeat Kerry. They have as much right to question the standing of members who support abortion rights as they would have to question the standing of those who supported Jefferson Davis. This is a cloud of dust kicked up by one side in a political year that has always existed in liberal congregations that generally supported them.

That is made clear in that no action is being contemplated by any regulating body to penalize these priests or their churches.

The logic of such thinking escapes me. People who belong to a church should not be treated special by the government. You are saying the government giving them tax breaks is not favoritism by the government but the means to prevent it?

This method of taxing churches (stated by TennesseeLeftWinger)is just a back-handed method of controling them indirectly with . My view is tax them all the SAME, or don't tax them at ALL. Personely, I do not mind that churches are taxed, this would give them more reason to protect religious liberty.

Gray Seal has a point, why treat them favorly?? I bet one of the reasons that churches are allowed tax-exempt states is that they are supposed to help people.

True but...though the appeal was lost, churches now have an alternate means to engage in campaign speech. For the first time, churches could form separate 501©(4) organizations "for the promotion of social welfare" and those organizations in turn could form a Political Action Committee (PAC) that would be free to participate in political campaigns.
http://www.thehollandsentinel.net/stories/052000/rel_33.html

This is how it is done today I believe.

The Catholic church has not taken out a full page ad saying not to vote for a politician that favors right to choose. They would leave that to one of their minion pac's.

The press coverage has made it sound like this is what they are doing...

Rather, this Bishop is restating, albeit through a very narrow lense, the doctrine of the church. If one is a catholic, these are the rules that one should live by.

American Catholics may not be seeing things through such a narrow lense. Check out this poll:

http://www.business-journal.com/CatholicsPoliticians.asp

I suppose no system is perfect, but I view the threat of putting church money into government hands as a greater threat than giving them tax breaks. People always become inflamed when the government violates separation of church and state, but rarely when churches do it. Yes, I think that taxes like this should be applied equally; however, there needs to be some sort of apparatus in place to discourage churches from violating church-state separation by influencing elections. Money has always been a good way to keep people in line . Like I've said, churches shouldn't feel discouraged from speaking their minds, telling their congregations about the issues, and where the candidates stand on the issues. However, they do need to realize that, just as the First Amendment protects them from government interference, it also protects the government (i.e. our elections) from churches unduly influencing our elections. It must work both ways. If they want to endorse a candidate, they do so at a price: call it a simple protection on the First Amendment. Although I see that the tax-exemptions can be viewed as favoritism, I view them as a way to keep churches from having influence as taxpayers (I must remind you that they still have influence in the electoral and legislative processes-- the same as you and I: letters, non-partisan get-out-the-vote efforts, etc.; I just see that making them taxpayers makes the government answerable to the churches) and as a way to keep churches from violating the First Amendment.

OK
1) Refusing Communion to such voters would require knowledge of there voting habbits.

2) One Bishop in Colorado shot off his mouth about his opinions. He doesn't speak for the whole church. Yes they oppose the said issues. But I am Catholic and have never been strongarmed by any one in the church.

3) The Catholic church is NOT an evil organization and I take offense to that!

4) The Church should stick to interpreting the bible and not the Constitution thats the Supreme Courts job! And no, not every one will agree with the decisions but thats why the courts exist really now isn't it?

5)I have been encouraged to vote one way or the other on certain issues but for the most part I usually agree with they're stance anyway, though I dont like being told how I should vote.

Ultimately a preist has Freeedom of Speech too. And he can say what ever he wants to and you can choose to ignore or follow his word.Just like I can choose to ignore or follow your opinions.

Where did anyone claim that the Catholic church is an "evil organization"?




They most certainly do. The point is that a religious leader has an obligation as a religious leader: if he/she exercises that right to influence his/her congregation to vote-- to electioneer--, they shouldn't expect continued tax breaks. That's the way it works. If I'm a priest and I'm not acting in my official capacity, I can work for a campaign or the like. I cannot however use my pulpit to influence the electorate if I want my tax break each year. Religious leaders have every right to tell their congregation how to vote; they should just expect to pay for it.



Granted, but I do feel that to even threaten to deny it in the first place is electioneering.

Here is the Quote Tennesee!

I guess I'm not sure if you want the Government to revoke the Tax exempt from one church of the preist in question or in all catholic churchs.

Definately take it away from this individual but it wouldn't be prudent to Punish all Preists because of this Wind Bag.

Oh, well there it is. My apologies, I missed that one .





I think that the tax-exempt status for this bishop's jurisdiction should be revoked, for it is his policy to deny Communion, not the entire Catholic church. Your last sentence sums up my point. If he's going to electioneer, his jurisdiction, and not other bishops', should lose its status.

I believe the Constitution provides a separation of church and state to be followed by the state. It does not, nor has it the authority to regulate a church from acting in a political nature.

Churches, religious groups, educational groups, etc. should all pay taxes.

Requiring a church to pay property taxes does not prohibit the free exercise of religion any more than requiring the Washington Post to pay taxes abridges freedom of the press.

Freedom from taxation is a privelege granted to churches by the state, with the requirement that they stay out of politics and commerce, etc.

Something I find interesting is that so few (there HAVE been a couple) churches have stepped up and said, "These issues are too important for us to be partly muzzled by difficult IRS regulations. We will no longer spend pastors' time and parishioners' money on legal opinions on what we can and cannot say; forget tax-exemption, we will be heard!" And then pay their bloody taxes.

It would seem that the churches find these issues to be vital to the salvation of man... so, ummm.... why won't they ante up? Isn't salvation their bailiwick?