And so it begins.....

That's right.

As if communism is a thing of the past.

 

And so it begins....

Alcot, there were many, many pastors in early american history that preached what was called "Election Sermons" and they had nothing to do with that guy from Geneva (I dont even want to say his name, somebody will go there and we will never get back on topic). Pastors wanted to identify the candidates who were speaking the truth to the people and wanted the people to vote for him. It is a definitive part of our history as Americans. It would be better if the muzzle was taken off the pulpits and pastors defined the choices. The 501 c3 has been around so long now and we are in a political morass, how could it be any worse?

Bartimaeus

 

So? It is in the tax laws.

And I do advocate giving up the 501c3 exemption. I sought for it in my own church, and was defeated. Handily.

The RCC would pony up some real money, if abolished.

 

And so it begins....

First of all, why should my church file for an exemption (meaning I owe the tax I just don't want to pay the tax and please by your grace and mercy don't make me pay it) when my church is TAX IMMUNE?

When the document says "....or prohibit the free exercise thereof", I see that the taxation of a church makes a prohibition (our brethren here on the board have already stated that they fear their small churches would expire under the tax burden).

So help me to understand you better. You mean you requested to sign up to be a c3 organization and your church voted you down?

Bartimaeus

 

My whole point here is that because one church has had its tax exempt status revoked on a boardwalk pavilion (not even their church building) is not the beginning of some kind of slippery slope where the state is trying to control the church. Beyond that, even if the church did start revoking tax exempt status to control the church, so what? There is no Bible or constitutional basis for it anyway. It is not persecution to pay taxes.

Persecution is what the communist government does to the church in Vietnam. Not revoking some privilege they have offered.

Could it possibly be that for some Christians the greatest threat here is that their local church tithe would no longer be deductible and their income tax bill would go up?

Who needs government tax relief? Isn't God still in control? You might say, "Well, Bro. Roger, if people's giving is no longer tax exempt your support levels will drop." That is very possibly true, but if people are giving only because their giving is tax deductible there is a whole different issue here.

 

And so it begins......

Bro Roger,
You are right.
Your statements on these issues certainly are correct in the broad overall sence. We both know the historical significance of taxing the church though. Baptists have borne the brunt of persecution in America in the 1600-1700's and it was then an issue over taxes. Taxing churches and individuals to support the laity of denominational churches (and these were governmental imposed taxes) were unconsciencable to Baptists and they paid a dear price. Taxes are not generally considered persecution but it is an avenue that can be.
Again, I have been encouraged by your previous posts in this thread. You have been hitting the nail on the head.
Bartimaeus

 

And so it begins......

[/quote] I have no clue what this means. Can you clarify it a bit?

I do not think it is as complicated as you are making it out to be. I realize you are in disagreement with me and that is fine. It certainly sin't the slippery slope you are making it out to be. If taxes werent so excessive and used for such ungodly endeavors as teaching evolution and payng for abortions paying them wouldn't bother me at all. The socialists / Communists are always looking for another money pot to enslave people with. God Bless[/quote]

Just google the name Obadiah Holmes, and look at the Christian History Institute's website on this Baptist Preacher. This was a government imposed tax issue. It surely was not imposed by communists and socialists.
Bartimaeus

 

Sorry, I seem unable to espouse my view on this properly. I was initially upset that our pastor was hemming and hawing over political matters, even in private conversations, unwilling to express his true viewpoint. Several others on the board and in the congregation were similarly afraid of the 501c3 restrictions. So myself and a couple others began an ongoing dialog with the board, over this, but we eventually saw the debate would cause more trouble than it was worth, so we dropped it, but not before entering an agreement that we could place various Christian voter pamphlets in the foyer. The one that is prominent now is put out by a Christian organization that rates each candidate, according to his voting record, or his responses to questioning. I know someone on here knows of it.

My view is that this 501c3 is a tool that keeps the Christian community from being far better informed, in political matters. And I believe the Body of Christ should be on the front line, especially in these last days.

 

Is the real issue here that you all are trying to advocate that you want to be able to talk politics in the pulpit without regard for what the government says about it? That must be where our real disagreement is coming from.

I don't believe the church is a place for political pandering. Politics should stay out of the church and not enter the door. The house of God is no place for such things. We are there for one reason, and that is to give praise to out Father.

Now, if the minister is preaching the truth, with love and mercy, and teaching the doctrines of the bible, then his congregation ought to know already what is right and wrong, and that will reflect their voting habits. But, never should a minister get in the pulpit and tell the people who they need to vote for in an election. I would walk out of the church if that happened with me present...and I have with others when that has heppened in the past.

The best way to keep government and religion away from one another is to have complete separation. Forcing a church to pay taxes is not keeping separate from that institution. What you all are really advocating here is, separation of church and state, except when it comes to taxes. That is just looney.

I want separation in all things. I want the government to have nothing to do with my church, and vice versa.

 

Each to his own conscience as we are to live out the scriptures in our daily lives. I say that I have no problem when a pastor wants to call a polititian by name and call him a "Fox". That pastor is in good company. I say it is a righteous thing for an evangelist to put a finger in the face of a scoundrel lying public leader and say "thou art the man". I say it is the calling of God for an itenerant preacher to stand in public and point out the adulterous unions of public leaders. We have good examples in the Bible. It has always cost something to do it though, even the lives of those who followed Gods leading and did so. I say those men are in good company. Jeremiah preached against the sin of the Prince, the preachers and the paupers. Some still hold back.

Bartimaeus

 

Then should churches forfeit police and fire protection? If they are not going to pay taxes then they do not deserve services. If a local church is going to benefit from states service they have to pay for them like everyone else.

 

And should the Red Cross forfeit police and fire protection, too? And should the elderly, with the over-65 exemption, get only 3/5 police and fire protection, or should they "have to pay for them [in full] like everyone else"?

 

The "government' has no business telling anyone what does or does not come out of the pulpit. Politics or otherwise.

Incorrect. We are there to worship Him. Praise is just one small aspect of that and one small aspect of what goes on in the sanctuary.

I haven't seen anyone advocate such a thing.

I do not believe in the fake separation of the two. This leads to Christians with dual lives and a hypocriticle walk. I do believe as the founders did that Governement is not to establish a religion nor impose upon it. However I do see the hypocritcle nature that you point out in those who want taxes from churches.

This sets up an impossible division in the life of a Christian. And why should Christians not gather to discuss the issues and candidates among themselves?

 

If the Red Cross did so they would start charging for their services.

Over 65s have paid their dues.

 

So churches should pay taxes and start charging for their services? Like a $5 ticket to the morning service, $2.50 for the evening service, Vacation Bible School a $25/week tuition....?

Partially. If they get an exemption that I don't get, then they should get an exemption of services that I don't get-- by your explanations, anyway.

 

I'm not sure what you're saying here. The tax exempt entity should not charge for its services, which is a reason it is entitled to an exemption; but churches are not entitled to an exemption, so they should charge for their services?...or they are not entitled to an exemption, but they should still not charge for their services? Which is it?

 

While I agree, hillclimber1, that a preacher should be able to say such without fear of govt reprisals I would find such a "sermon" so absurd that my eyes couldn't possibly roll far enough. This appears to be just passing along gossip that could just as easily be countered with Bush's former days as a coke head slacker. If a pastor is going to wax political I'd rather it be for absolute morality such as abortion or homosexuality and not something he heard from those "in the know."

 

I was not aware that fire and police protection is only for those "entitled" to them. I was not aware that firemen and police ask if you are a tax payer before they offer to save you of your property.

Is a rich man entitled to more police or fire protection since he pays more taxes? Is the poor person entitled to less?

Those things are there for the public good.