• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Catholic Church makes political announcement during service?

BillBrasky said:
I'd argue that its a waste of money, and according to scripture its should make it harder for its parishiners to get into heaven. Something about the eye of a needle I believe.

But it seems that members of big money Chrisitian churchs love to conveniently forget that.

If they're correct, and there is a heaven, I imagine that most of them are closer to hell than they think.
Click to expand...

They tend to conveniently forget a lot of things from scripture.
 
I agree with 07. The proper role of a church should be debated within the church. Picking some kinds of religious activity to tax takes that debate inside the government, which is inappropriate.
 
ncsportsnut1 said:
What jeopardizes tax exempt status is direct open support for a party or candidate. That's what Jarrett did blatantly.
Click to expand...

Jarrett isn't a church representative.
 
ProfessorDeac said:
I agree with 07. The proper role of a church should be debated within the church. Picking some kinds of religious activity to tax takes that debate inside the government, which is inappropriate.
Click to expand...

This makes no sense. The church would never choose to be taxed if it was the decisionmaker. The Church can debate its proper role, but if all or part of the role it chooses does not qualify for exempt status, then it should be taxed accordingly.
 
DeacDiggler said:
While I agree with you, the counter argument is that a prettier church encourages more people to seek God, thereby allowing Him to be further glorified and give even more people the chance to serve.

Plus a large and beautiful church worships and glorifies God even more.
Click to expand...

a prettier church attracts more people to attend, and therefore give more money to the church. a large and beautiful church does the same. none of this is about the "glory of god" or any such nonsense.

nicer church
more people attend
??????
profit
 
That's your opinion. I can assure you that there are Christians out there who believe genuinely that we are glorifying God in this way.
 
DeacDiggler said:
That's your opinion. I can assure you that there are Christians out there who believe genuinely that we are glorifying God in this way.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. If you're willing to ignore the very book that you base your life upon, them I'm sure you can draw that conclusion.
 
Brasky - I will completely go with you on the idea that the modern 'Christian' cares a lot more about how they look in their Sunday best than caring for the needs of the poor across the railroad tracks, there is no real denying that on a large scale. However it is pretty hypocritical to make a judgement on the 'niceness' of a church and use that to condemn an entire congregation. The same line of reasoning could be used against anyone that has a new car, owns a house larger than 800 square feet, etc....

To quote from the Bible - 'The Lord does not look at the things people look at. People look at the outward appearance, but the Lord looks at the heart'. I am not in anyway justifying mega churches and to be honest I am VERY wary of them. I am not down with prosperity gospel in the least, and feel it will be the silent killer of American Christianity. However it would be foolish in my opinion to make a blanket judgement call about the intentions of a church simply based on the architecture of the building. That is the kind of condescension that non-Christians decry the church about...don't fall victim to the same crime.

The sad reality is that the majority of American Churches are no more than country clubs for religion. It is a sad fact, but it is reality. Knowing that, I still wouldn't dare to judge an individual church just because I feel I have a good handle on the statistics.
 
BillBrasky said:
Fair enough. If you're willing to ignore the very book that you base your life upon, them I'm sure you can draw that conclusion.
Click to expand...

How would you suggest that successful churches should handle the crowds of people that come? Tell them to find other churches since this one is packed?

I agree that there are plenty of over the top churches out there. I don't attend one of them. But church families need homes, just like individual families do.
 
Wrangor I hate to come off so bitter sounding, but this conversation is what has driven me away from the church. I grew up going to a somewhat "country club" Baptist shirt here in Winston. I was baptised when I was 12, but slowly after I started to have my doubts about the true ambitions of churches like my own. The older I've gotten I've realized how much of a show it is to go to church. You're there to socialize and be noticed.

The hypocrisy of modern evangelical christianity is on such a wide scale that I don't think it has anyway to come back. The fact that there are these TV preachers, making millions of dollars annually, should sicken every true believer. If the religion was solely in the image of God, and based off the teachings of Jesus, then all ministers should take a vow of poverty, or something damn near close to it.

The excesses that exist in a large majority of evangelical churches is what led to the reformation in the first place.
 
Shooshmoo said:
This makes no sense. The church would never choose to be taxed if it was the decisionmaker. The Church can debate its proper role, but if all or part of the role it chooses does not qualify for exempt status, then it should be taxed accordingly.
Click to expand...

You're assuming your conclusion: that there are church activities that shouldn't qualify for tax exempt status. I disagree with that conclusion, because allowing the government to pick and choose which church activities are tax exempt gets government into church and church into government.

And I'm not talking about ridiculous hypotheticals. Of course there are things a church could do that should make it lose its tax exempt status, but they're not in the realm of what we've been discussing here.
 
Brasky:

Jesus never commanded people take vows of poverty (several of his disciples made very good livings) however I am right with you brother about the trend of the American church at large. Like I said, the country club church phenomenon is real and is growing. The prosperity gospel is a lie from the pit of hell, and the idea that the culmination of your faith in Jesus is that you will live a happy, healthy, and wealthy life is ridiculous when you read the Bible. Pretty much every hero in the Bible ends destitute and executed (especially in the New Testament). The prosperity gospel and the country club churches will eventually bring the destruction of the church as we know it as people like you see them for what they really are.

I would urge you to consider that there are true churches that seek to serve the world because of our love for Jesus Christ, but would have to agree with you that I find those churches to be the exception and not the rule. Just don't give up hope on everyone. I am certainly a flawed individual, and my church is completely flawed, but our intent is to be united around Jesus, which as a natural by-product would lead to a life that emulates and conforms to the teachings of the Bible.
 
Wrangor:

Fair enough. Although I have issues with the culture of modern Christianity, I would never disparage anybody for their own personal religious beliefs. My mother is legally blind and therefore doesn't get out that much. She is super religious and she benefits greatly from the community and sense of identity she gains from her faith. Her faith is an enormous positive in her life and I would never want that taken away from her.

At the same time, right now, its not for me. Maybe someday when I have a family, and therefore become a role model, I might change my mind.
 
Wrangor said:
I am conservative and oppose politicking in the pulpit no matter the person, including Obama. If I am a liberal then I am the most conflicted that ever existed.
Click to expand...

Wrangor, I apologize. I wasn't clear at all in that I was responding to RJ's post about the tax exempt status and missed the general point you are making. I am in complete agreement with your post and agree that leave the politics out of the church whether it's conservative, liberal or whatever.
 
PhDeac said:
Jarrett isn't a church representative.[/QUOTe

PHDeac, you seem to be saying that a church could allow anyone, a candidate or anyone, so long as they are not affiliated with the church, to make a public address to the church congregation, and endorse or otherwise promote a candidate or party as compared to another party or candidate, without jeopardizing it's tax exempt status. I have to disagree. If a church allows it's pulpit to be used in that way there is little doubt that is tantamount to "promoting" a candidate or party and it's tax exempt status should be in jeopardy.
Click to expand...
 
Wakelaw2006 said:
If Jarrett is not affiliated with the church and if the church gives a representative of the Republican party (or the candidate running against Obama) the opportunity (not that they had to accept it) to speak at the same or a similar function, neither representative's (or candidate's) actions constitute participation or intervention in a political campaign by the church. Not saying that happened here, as it likely didn't, but who knows.

For what it's worth, I don't think the letter from the Catholic Church would constitute participation or intervention in a political campaign (I know Senator Grassley likely would, but I don't think the courts or the IRS would).

Whether any of these things should be allowed or not allowed as a policy matter is a wholly separate issue.[/QUOTE

I would agree that IF a representative of the opposing party or opposing view was given equal time, whether they accepted or not, it may be an "out" for the church. I'd be extremely surprised if that was the case.

In general, if a church is getting a tax windfall by virtue of its tax exempt status, it is reasonable to expect that it is giving up some of its freedoms somewhere. In this case, the IRS is saying we aren't going to leave money in your coffers that you can turn around and use to promote one candidate or party over another because it would be, in effect, and indirect political contribution to that candidate or party. In essence, this is called an "inkind" contribution, and if you check FEC laws candidates are required to report the dollar value of "inkind" contributions and the name of the contributor.
Click to expand...
 
ncsportsnut1 said:
Wakelaw2006 said:
If Jarrett is not affiliated with the church and if the church gives a representative of the Republican party (or the candidate running against Obama) the opportunity (not that they had to accept it) to speak at the same or a similar function, neither representative's (or candidate's) actions constitute participation or intervention in a political campaign by the church. Not saying that happened here, as it likely didn't, but who knows.

For what it's worth, I don't think the letter from the Catholic Church would constitute participation or intervention in a political campaign (I know Senator Grassley likely would, but I don't think the courts or the IRS would).

Whether any of these things should be allowed or not allowed as a policy matter is a wholly separate issue.[/QUOTE

I would agree that IF a representative of the opposing party or opposing view was given equal time, whether they accepted or not, it may be an "out" for the church. I'd be extremely surprised if that was the case.

In general, if a church is getting a tax windfall by virtue of its tax exempt status, it is reasonable to expect that it is giving up some of its freedoms somewhere. In this case, the IRS is saying we aren't going to leave money in your coffers that you can turn around and use to promote one candidate or party over another because it would be, in effect, and indirect political contribution to that candidate or party. In essence, this is called an "inkind" contribution, and if you check FEC laws candidates are required to report the dollar value of "inkind" contributions and the name of the contributor.
Click to expand...

Great post, and I totally agree. Churches/Mosques/Synagogues should not be in the business of picking politicians for their congregation if they are getting tax exempt status. Couldn't agree more.
Click to expand...
 
Not really sure to be honest...but pretty influential in the lives of their congregation obviously. I have to imagine if they are promoting a certain candidate that it would matter greatly. I will speak for my own faith, but I believe churches to be about changing hearts, and not as much worrying about shaping everything people do. Once the heart is changed for Christ in a church the actions should flow naturally. The more people treat church like a bad-habit rehab center, the further away they get from the Bible. This applies to politics as well. Jesus was clearly a white Republican to many of my church mates, and to man black churches he was a person of color who would have never sided with the Greedy Republicans. It swings both ways and it is deplorable in my mind. Politics is very much a 'it depends' (I love that quote from the article) situation, much like all of our life - yet we want to make every political decision either 100% yes or 100% no. Getting churches involved only amplifies this rhetoric because now if you don't vote for the Republican or the Democrat you are sinning. It is ridiculous.

Should you spank your children? It depends? Should you console them if they are upset? It depends. Yet when the question comes up: Should you vote for the Democrat? It NEVER depends in white evangelical America. Should you vote for the Republican? Again it NEVER depends in black evangelical America.

I am obviously painting with a VERY broad brush, and I realize this does not apply to all churches, but it does apply to a LOT of churches, and it damages the church's credibility at large, and does nothing to help the political process in my opinion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top