Houston orders pastors to hand over sermons and private communications...

[lupinus]

Not exactly.  They exist whether the state recognizes them or not; Jesus founded the church, not Caesar.  Jesus also paid his taxes.

He even invited the irs to dinner.

Though he did whip some money lenders and turn over their tables....

[KD5NRH]

Not exactly.  They exist whether the state recognizes them or not; Jesus founded the church, not Caesar.  Jesus also paid his taxes.

More to the point, "separation of church and state" is the state's obligation to stay out of religious matters, and not allow itself or its mandates to be unduly influenced by religion.  It does not place upon any church a responsibility to stay out of politics.

[Ron]

Corporate cultural American Christianity will be defanged, neutered and co-opted into an image more pleasing to the state by the courts and legislature.

The seeds of doom are already planted.

Just like the marriage issue 'the church' has invited government into a realm via incorporation that it doesn't have any business being involved with.

The proverbial deal with the devil.  

The body of believers (the actual church) will carry on. In the State approved churches as well as meeting in private.

[Scout26]

The Department of Justice apparently used it against the police department in the Rodney King Case.  Perhaps a lawyer can jump in...

I'm sure Holder wouldn't be rushing to prosecute in this case.

Hahahhaha  We'd get to see which demographic is more important the Obama Administration; Black Evangelicals (votes) or Homosexuals (money).

 

[Balog]

There it is right in the above article:

There are appellate and supreme court precedents on the issue.

The government will dictate the role of religious institutions and how they conduct themselves. They exist at the pleasure of the state.

Those decisions specifically state that issues advocacy is protected religious speech, and only when a specific candidate is being touted does it cross the line into political activity.

I'm curious what you think the church in America should do, regarding incorporation.

[Balog]

More to the point, "separation of church and state" is the state's obligation to stay out of religious matters, and not allow itself or its mandates to be unduly influenced by religion.  It does not place upon any church a responsibility to stay out of politics.

Even more to the point, separation of church and state is a much abused concept found nowhere in the Constitution or BoR.

[brimic]

Even more to the point, separation of church and state is a much abused concept found nowhere in the Constitution or BoR.

Thread win!

[KD5NRH]

Even more to the point, separation of church and state is a much abused concept found nowhere in the Constitution or BoR.

Correct, but it was a concept the Founders had in mind, and one the state should be abiding by.

[Perd Hapley]

I'm a bit confused as to how churches became the bad guys in this thread.

I'm also a tad confused about how incorporation in any way contributed to the outlandish "legal" proceedings of a city government so thoroughly off its nut.

And furthermore, I must guffaw at the notion that tax-free incorporation (or lack thereof) will be a serious hurdle for a thing that has not succumbed to the tyrant's brandished steel, the lion's gory mane, etc. Like the United States, the church's greatest enemy is always within. Neither the IRS, nor Houston's City Hall are any real threat to her.

[Jamisjockey]

Sure, a church can exist easily without the governments hands in it.  But when you invite the devil to dinner so you can have tax free status, you agree to the devils menu.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Perd Hapley]

Correct, but it was a concept the Founders had in mind, and one the state should be abiding by.

They conceived of it much differently.

Separation of Church and State (capitalized, as it properly refers to institutions) has become separation of belief and state.

[Perd Hapley]

Sure, a church can exist easily without the governments ____ _______ in it.  But when you invite the devil to dinner so you can have tax free status, you agree to the devils menu.

edited because

So, according to you, if the .gov sets up hurdles to tax-exemption, churches should just take it and like it? I'd better not hear you complaining about Texas' open carry ban, anymore.

[Calumus]

If they decided to press ahead, I'd just hope that every church, synagogue, and mosque in Texas scans copies of every sermon they've ever given as an image file. Jpeg, gif etc. That way OCR and search won't work. You have to read every line. Its the same way they released the affordable care act, so it must be acceptable...

[zxcvbob]

The Texas AG has weighed-in today, siding with the pastors.

[Angel Eyes]

Those decisions specifically state that issues advocacy is protected religious speech, and only when a specific candidate is being touted does it cross the line into political activity.

With that in mind, perhaps this guy should get a subpoena:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=TWigzBClEk8#t=100

[just Warren]

Oh, you said sermon! My mistake. Uhh..don't open the envelope.

[French G.]

I thought this was a family-friendly forum. Then again, I'm not sure what "____ _______" is supposed to mean in this context, so perhaps it's perfectly innocent. It certainly doesn't make a lot of sense. Who uses that phrase, anyway?

The entire US military uses that phrase. Perfect in this context since idle hands are the devil's workshop.

[Perd Hapley]

The entire US military uses that phrase. Perfect in this context since idle hands are the devil's workshop.

Oh, sorry. I've been in the civilian world for a while. I remember what it means, now.

[MechAg94]

The Texas AG has weighed-in today, siding with the pastors.

He is running for Gov.  He is generally the type that would side with the pastors anyway.

[MechAg94]

More to the point, "separation of church and state" is the state's obligation to stay out of religious matters, and not allow itself or its mandates to be unduly influenced by religion.  It does not place upon any church a responsibility to stay out of politics.

I didn't think there was any obligation to keep religion from influencing govt mandates.  That would be silly.  There is no way to prevent that.  Our laws have traditionally been full of things "influenced by religion".  The goal is to keep Govt out of the Churchs, not necessarily to keep Church people out of Govt. 

[MechAg94]

Sure, a church can exist easily without the governments dick beaters in it.  But when you invite the devil to dinner so you can have tax free status, you agree to the devils menu.





Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Who invited the devil?  If the Govts dumped tax free status, you wouldn't see Churches disappear.  You would see a lot of voters ticked off though. 

I honestly might consider some scale back of that issue, not in direct terms, but more into some Churches who try to turn the whole thing into some big business. Lots of issues with charitable groups to deal with first though. 

[Jamisjockey]

I thought this was a family-friendly forum. Then again, I'm not sure what "____ _______" is supposed to mean in this context, so perhaps it's perfectly innocent. It certainly doesn't make a lot of sense. Who uses that phrase, anyway?

So, according to you, if the .gov sets up hurdles to tax-exemption, churches should just take it and like it? I'd better not hear you complaining about Texas' open carry ban, anymore.

I wasn't thinking when I posted it, my apologies, and it's been edited.


I'm not saying that churches have to like it.  Maybe they should fight for full and total freedom that might allow them the ability to operate fully free of government interference and coercement.  And I'm glad they have dug in their heels on the issue.
And I'm saying that churches can exist without government involvement.  Taking the money out of the equation is a big step. 

[MechAg94]

If it wasn't for income taxes, the propery taxes would be mostly all that was left and those are state/local.  It would cost more money to keep the doors open, but it would get done most places. 

The biggest issue for property taxes is values.  The Church we went to when I was kid is right near the Galleria shopping mall in Houston.  It was there long before that mall and the other buildings were built.  However, now the property is worth quite a bit more.  I hate to think what the taxes would be.  Even 1% would probably be quite a bit of money. 



Also, something tells me that the people who might try to do this would likely put in some qualifier keeping the exemption for Mosques, just like the Houston Mayor didn't supeona any Mosques for their sermons. 

[roo_ster]

If it wasn't for income taxes, the propery taxes would be mostly all that was left and those are state/local.  It would cost more money to keep the doors open, but it would get done most places. 

The biggest issue for property taxes is values.  The Church we went to when I was kid is right near the Galleria shopping mall in Houston.  It was there long before that mall and the other buildings were built.  However, now the property is worth quite a bit more.  I hate to think what the taxes would be.  Even 1% would probably be quite a bit of money. 



Also, something tells me that the people who might try to do this would likely put in some qualifier keeping the exemption for Mosques, just like the Houston Mayor didn't supeona any Mosques for their sermons. 

Similar thing here.  Forty years ago it displaced from its original location due to development and an offer and now even the new location is built up around with high-$$$ residential and commercial real estate.  We get offers frequently to buy the property.  Pushing those starting offers against the millage results in a number we could never afford to pay.  "Ruinous" doesn;t even com close to it.  If gov't is going to tolerate gov't owned tax free entities (schools, gov't offices, fire stations, etc.) to exist on land that could be put to greater property tax generating use, it can tolerate private/chartered tax free entities doing the same.

[brimic]

I didn't think there was any obligation to keep religion from influencing govt mandates.  That would be silly.  There is no way to prevent that.  Our laws have traditionally been full of things "influenced by religion".  The goal is to keep Govt out of the Churchs, not necessarily to keep Church people out of Govt. 

We live in opposite land, where liberals do the exact opposite of what should be done and interpret laws to be the exact opposite of what they are.

-church and state- Jefferson wrote that the state will not interfere, not the current leftist interpretation.
-2nd Amendment- leftists believe this means that guns are to be regulated and be only in the hands of militias (national guard) or government.

..and those are just two examples, I could give a hundred.