Politicking during Mass – How is this even legal?
The Catholic Church speaking up forcefully about its teachings on same-sex marriage is clearly protected under the First Amendment, a right I strongly support even though I just as strongly disagree with their view. However, how is their collecting money during Mass for a political campaign even legal? The tax exempt status churches and other organizations enjoy is not a right, but instead is a privilege we as a society extend for valid reasons. This privilege is one I personally see as a bulwark against government intrusion into freedoms guaranteed by the First Amendment. Yet I do not see such direct intereference in the political process by such tax exempt churches and organizations as being part of the bargain. Certainly this isn’t unique as the Catholic Church isn’t the only such organization to take such bold steps, one can undoubtedly find many examples on all sides of the political spectrum over the years. This leads me to question though whether tax exemption in modern times has become nothing more than a subsidy of sorts which religious and secular organizations exploit in order to further their own agendas, whether liberal or conservative, something that groups not having such a luxury are at a disadvantage in countering. Perhaps it’s time to re-examine our laws concerning tax exemption, but I must admit to concerns about even such a move as this because given the partisan use this “re-examination” could be put to the reason for even having this privilege could be put into jeopardy.
I’d be interested in hearing everyone’s thoughts on this…
- John (Average Gay Joe)
58 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
You are 100% correct. One could almost effectively argue marriage out of existence as an archaic institution as well.
I see nothing to disagree with in your assessment, will be passing this around, and asking you to post more often
Comment by Tim — September 14, 2009 @ 5:40 pm - September 14, 2009
Please don’t misunderstand me Tim, the Catholic Church has EVERY right to speak up about its teachings on same-sex marriage or any moral issue, just as say the UCC takes the opposite view on SSM. I strongly support that right as well as tax exemption for religious organizations. It’s the collection of money during Mass in this example, or something akin to this in others, that I find to cross the line.
Comment by John — September 14, 2009 @ 5:46 pm - September 14, 2009
somewhat related. . .
This post comes from staff writer Lornet Turnbull.
Some of the Northwest’s largest employers today announced support for the Approve Referendum 71 campaign, which seeks to uphold state law extending marriage-like benefits to gay, lesbian and some senior couples.
Referendum 71 would ask voters to approve or reject the law. A consortium of religious conservatives collected signatures to get the issue on the November ballot with the hopes of repealing it.
In a joint statement, The Boeing Company, Nike, Microsoft Corp., Puget Sound Energy, RealNetworks and Vulcan Development said the law does not “sanction or encourage same-sex marriage … but recognizes that, regardless of their sexual orientation, people may enter into partnerships and create family units that deserve respect and equal treatment.
“We embrace everyone’s fundamental right to be judged on their merits and contributions rather than factors such as their sexual orientation,” the statement said.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2009864732_large_employers_back_retaining.html
Comment by rusty — September 14, 2009 @ 6:25 pm - September 14, 2009
This is another reason I’m a Lutheran. The ELCA allows me to be openly gay. Which is actually working out pretty well in my church.
Comment by Ashpenaz — September 14, 2009 @ 6:37 pm - September 14, 2009
Simple answer — the law prohibits PARTISAN political activity by such tax exempt organizations. This is not partisan political activity. Therefore, no violation of the law.
Comment by Rhymes With Right — September 14, 2009 @ 6:45 pm - September 14, 2009
Ha, well I would argue that if the church needs tax-exempt status to exist, it needs better PR. I’m an atheist and see so many instances where my money goes to promote or protect causes I see as nothing more than protected classes of imaginary friendism. While I know many have gotten much out of religion and has had many positive influence on their lives, I still think reasonable disbelievers can do the same without the need for fundamental beliefs based entirely on faith.
As long as we can let people get away with believing in crazy sky people and angels, then how do we ever hold them accountable for burning witches, keeping slaves, molesting children and maintaining financial interests in prohibiting equal rights of homosexuals?
Comment by Tim — September 14, 2009 @ 6:57 pm - September 14, 2009
Tim,
It is a necessary evil that we “let people get away with” belief in crazy sky people and angels. What we must fight to prevent is the perversion of the political process by those same people to try to force the rest of us to do what the crazy sky person says.
It is perfectly fine for Person A to believe that a magical being wants them to live their life a certain way. It is an act of vile bigotry for Person A to try to force me to live my life according to their magical being’s wishes.
What we all must fight is not the religious belief that Behavior X is wrong; we must fight the _political_ belief that it’s okay to try to force people to follow your religious beliefs.
At some point in recent years, some religious organizations have gained traction with the ridiculous idea that allowing behavior contrary to their religion is equal to an attack on their religion.
Comment by Phil — September 14, 2009 @ 7:43 pm - September 14, 2009
It is an act of vile bigotry for Person A to try to force me to live my life according to their magical being’s wishes.
Isn’t it vile bigotry for a snot-nosed Person A to pontificate on how they’re so much smarter and smear people’s beliefs?
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 14, 2009 @ 7:51 pm - September 14, 2009
Perhaps it would have been better if the collection was done after the Mass… in that way there might be less criticism?
There are many issues involved here. The Catholic Church is certainly not apolitical. In fact Catholics have a tendency to be Democrat and not Republican, which should really be meaningless. Just like in my country a lot of Catholics vote for the ALP even though ALP politicians have voted to allow abortion on demand….
Also no one is forcing you Tim to live in a different way. The fact is that anyone who wants to be a Catholic needs to renounce certain behaviours – either heterosexual or homosexual – to become a member of the community. If a prostitute wanted to become a Catholic, she would have to renounce being a prostitute first. The same goes for lesbians and homosexuals. So long as those people remain celibate then there is no problem. Also, that goes for people committing incest (usually a father/daughter, son/mother, brother/sister thing)which is unacceptable too. It goes all ways, and is not aimed at one group alone.
Comment by thestraightaussie — September 14, 2009 @ 7:56 pm - September 14, 2009
BTW I do not accept the concept of “Gay Marriage”. I do not believe that homosexuals and lesbians should be married and they have no right to pressure any church to allow marriage, which is at the heart of this discussion.
However, I accept that homosexuals and lesbians should be recognized as having a civil union, which comes under contract law….
The thing is that marriage is a contract. It is the civil side that requires the piece of paper to show one is married. The church side, especially the Catholic church is that there is a Sacrament which is an oath between the two people and God. It is a different thing from the civil law.
If the civil law allows homosexuals and lesbians to have a piece of paper that sanctions their contract to live together, then that is a matter for the civil authorities.
In the true sense of separation of Church and State, the State should not then be allowed to force churches to perform a ceremony that is not between a man and a woman.
Comment by thestraightaussie — September 14, 2009 @ 8:01 pm - September 14, 2009
Shorter Tim: “Why won’t these ignorant sky people agree with me?”
Tongue-in-cheek, Tim, but just barely.
As the a Roman Catholic convert, let me make a few quick points:
First, lesbians and gay men, comprising three percent of the US population, cannot afford to alienate a single soul who might support us. Locally, we are doing everything we can to keep this legislation from being framed as a legal stick with which to beat the churches. Might I suggest dropping the “witch-burner” talk and keeping to a constructive, inclusive message?
Second, the Roman Catholic tradition of a second, targeted collection is almost always to support a specific civic goal. Granted, usually non-controversial: school construction, Third-World outreach, inner-city mission construction, et.al. My point is that they are a weekly occurrence. Not something new and ominous. To anyone with even a passing familiarity with the Church’s social outreach, that report sounded ridiculous.
Best wishes,
-MFS
Comment by MFS — September 14, 2009 @ 8:12 pm - September 14, 2009
The tax exempt status for churches prohibits any “campaign activities” which means participating in any political campaign on behalf of or in opposition toa ny candidate for elective office. That does not appear to be at issue here (though it has been a problem for churches in the past). The tax exemption for churches also prohibits any “substantial” lobbying activities, which is attempting to influence legislation. The problem is there is no real guidance as to what qualifies as “substantial.” Other charities may make an election under 501(h) to determine the appropriate ceiling of expenditures for lobbying, but the section specifically excludes churches. Some practitioners suggest that 15% of all activities (not just expenditures) is the threshold for substantial, but that is merely a practitioner’s guideline and is not supported by any specific legal authority.
Comment by Pink Elephant — September 14, 2009 @ 8:20 pm - September 14, 2009
You cannot commit what I teach as the “Fallacy of Absolutes” and tar every denomination, congregation, or worshipper with the same broad brush. Even one exception creates a fallacy for the absolutist. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religious practice, but as in any other circumstance, there are charlatans and snake oil salesmen who make those who commit no offense look guilty by association. However, even in conservative congregations, you will find a wide variety of opinions and attitudes. For instance, most of the worshippers in my church are conservative in belief and politics, but our Pastor, a particularly erudite and astute thinker, prayed that God would bless our President and work through him to guide our nation. Whether you are a believer or an atheist, you must admit that exhibiting respect for the office of President and wishing God’s blessings on him shows tremendous class. This in no way forces our beliefs on anyone else, but we would be hypocritical if we did not live those beliefs, even in the face of an administration that thinks we are stupid to “cling to our guns and religion.” The self-promoting religious glory hounds may be the ones whom people point to as bad examples, but they do not dissuade the every day rest of us from living our beliefs. Regardless of the poor judgment exhibited by this particular Catholic congregation, there are millions of Catholics who are sincere and passionate in their beliefs. I don’t agree with them, but I vigorously defend their rights under the Constitution.
Comment by College Prof — September 14, 2009 @ 8:28 pm - September 14, 2009
I truly hate, loathe, despise, believe-it-should-wiped from existence the comments system on this site. Just lost a long reply. Will try again later…
Comment by John — September 14, 2009 @ 8:50 pm - September 14, 2009
Let me guess… it said that the server had reset or something like that?
Comment by American Elephant — September 14, 2009 @ 9:08 pm - September 14, 2009
Hi Straighaussie,
It’s nice to see that you feel okay with Civil Unions, but not “Gay Marriage.” THis is American, though. And in America, there is a difference between Civil Marriage and Religious Marriage. It doesn’t make a difference if your Church performs a marriage between a man and woman. It is not valid unless the government says it’s valid. And, there are churches that do marry gay couples. To say that gays are trying to FORCE religious institutions to recognize or perform gay marriages is totally untrue. However, many religious institutions are trying to FORCE their views on how gays can validate their relationships.
Comment by Vinney — September 14, 2009 @ 9:09 pm - September 14, 2009
Wow! So much ignorance and hate in one sentence!
Comment by American Elephant — September 14, 2009 @ 9:14 pm - September 14, 2009
Worshipping “crazy sky people?” Call me after you’ve read some of the great Lutheran theologians such as Tillich, Bonhoeffer, Kierkegaard, Shleiermacher, Bultmann, or Barth. Which, of course, you never will, since you, like most homophobics, would rather persist in your prejudice rather than learn what people are actually like. One critic called Dawkins a man who tried to write a book on biology after only having read the Backyard Guide to Birds.
Comment by Ashpenaz — September 14, 2009 @ 9:31 pm - September 14, 2009
BZZT! Wrong answer!
Gays in Massachusetts have already sued and forced the Catholic church to recognize gay marriages as equal to heterosexual marriage in that they forced the church to either adopt children to gay couples or lose their license to adopt to anyone. And gays forced a religious organization to rent a wedding location to them, over their religious objections, thus forcing them to recognize that “marriage” as equal to heterosexual marriage, and gays in California tried to remove the tax exempt status of the Mormon church for daring to disagree with them on the definition and purpose of marriage. And the list goes on and on.
BZZZT! Wrong again! Gays can validate their relationships any way they want. But what gays are trying to do, through the courts, is to force everyone ELSE to validate their relationships. Something everybody ELSE doesnt want to do!
Comment by American Elephant — September 14, 2009 @ 10:07 pm - September 14, 2009
Wrong, American Elephant,
BZZZ! Wrong!! First of all, it wasn’t the Catholic Church that was being sued. IT was Catholic Charities. Get your facts straight. Secondly, there was never a lawsuit, as you claim. Catholic Charities was receiving funding from taxpayers in Massachusetts. Therefore, it could not discriminate against gays since it is illegal to discriminate gays in Massachusetts to organization receiving taxpayers dollars. It was Mitt Romney who refused to grant Catholic Charities an exemption to discriminate because Catholic Charities was a social service agency that had a contract with the state.
BZZZ! Wrong again. Gays CANNOT validate their relationships anyway they want. If that were the case, then we’d have the right to marry…because that is what many of us want. And how do people who seek gay marriage equality force people to accept gay marriage? It’s not a matter of accepting it, it’s a matter of reality. Gay marriage cannot force anyone to accept that it is morally acceptable. That is just outright paranoia. The only thing it can force people to do is recognize that gay people do want to get married, whether they like it or not.
Comment by Vinney — September 14, 2009 @ 11:07 pm - September 14, 2009
Heartening to see commenters here being on the ball in calling out the standard lies from AE and others. Good job Vinney.
What’s so funny about the current right is that they claim government is the enemy, horrible, not to be trusted, etc, and that freedom from government intervention is the only way to go. Yet when a gay couple asks the state for a civil marriage license, all of sudden the Christianists want the state to enforce their religion for them and claim (even more hysterically) that a marriage license forces other people to “acknowledge” or validate gay relationships. For people who think the government can’t accomplish anything, today’s right seems paralyzed without it and terrified that government actions will hypnotize them into believing things they otherwise wouldn’t.
Comment by torrentprime — September 15, 2009 @ 12:16 am - September 15, 2009
Heartening to see commenters here being on the ball in calling out the standard lies from AE and others. Good job Vinney.
What the hell’s your excuse? Even more hatred and bigotry from the TP king.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 15, 2009 @ 12:34 am - September 15, 2009
….which is part of? …yes, the Catholic Church…funny how that works, being “Catholic” and all!
Um, you don’t appear to understand the word validate, or basic civics.
By using the courts. Have you been in a cave somewhere?
No, its delusional. Its denial. Its psychotic. and its deranged to think that a relationship between two men is the same as one between a man and a woman. Every child in human history has come from the coupling of a man and a woman. No child, in the entire history of the world has ever, EVER come from two men or two women.
Yet you say they are the same thing. You are delusional. You are in deep, psychotic denial of who and what you are. You have not dealt with your sexuality, you have instead pretended that you are something you are not, and now you are trying to force your delusion onto everyone else.
Psychotic delusions are not good for society.
Comment by American Elephant — September 15, 2009 @ 1:16 am - September 15, 2009
“Christianist” = Andrew Sullivan hate speak for the majority of Americans, and apparently 53% of Californians.
TP,
There is nothing religious about the civil definition of marriage as I have proven many times before.
From the Supreme Court of that backwards, racist, red-state Washington (which hasnt voted for a Republican for president since 1988):
Nothing religious about it. No mention of God, no mention of Christ, just remedial biology and genetics.
Why do you liberals hate science so much?
Comment by American Elephant — September 15, 2009 @ 1:39 am - September 15, 2009
tp just hates.
Though again, Marriage is not a ‘right’ as the court has affirmed before.
Amazingly, my mom and her partner have been together through both of my marriages. Amazing how they don’t need government affirmation to make their relationship work.
Comment by The_Livewire — September 15, 2009 @ 6:38 am - September 15, 2009
To echo Livewire on this topic, I get big laughs at parties by asking just how many will actually take the plunge and get married.
Big, table-pounding, eye-watering laughs.
Best wishes,
-MFS
Comment by MFS — September 15, 2009 @ 7:46 am - September 15, 2009
I have to applaud this site in its effort to expose the radical homosexual lefties for what they truly are.
But I will be blunt: the name of the site should be homosexual, psuedo patriot, not “GayPatriot,” since there is nothing happy about being a homosexual. And, a true patriot cannot be a practicing homosexual. It’s true that homosexual marriage is detrimental to civilization. But so is homosexuality in general. The Bible clearly states that men who have sex with other men should be executed. It does not say, “well, as long as they keep it private and don’t push it on anyone.” It doesn’t make a difference of the situation. Sin is sin. Don’t try to justify your sin by saying that as long as you don’t advertise it, then you’re not bothering anyone. That’s not true. Homosexual sex is the same as abortion. You are killing potential life by avoiding that which sex was created for.
I know plenty of former homosexuals who have left the homosexual lifestyle. It’s not as difficult as the perverted liberals would have you think. We have the death penalty in the United States for murderers. This is ordained by God. This may sound harsh, but the truth of the matter is that homosexuality is no different than murder. The Bible has a clear example of God destroying two cities because of homosexuality. There is no where in the Bible where God destroys a city of murderers. I’m not saying that murder is better than homosexual sex. They are both equally reprehensible. My point is, if we have the death penalty in the United States for murder, then I see no reason why we shouldn’t have it for non-repenting, repeat homosexuals. I’m not saying that I want to see this happen, because I’ve met many homosexuals who were very nice people. But niceness does not equate with being moral.
Comment by James — September 15, 2009 @ 8:21 am - September 15, 2009
Every child in human history has come from the coupling of a man and a woman.
well, not exactly AE. . .
“You know pumpkins…sometimes it just takes a fairy.” Patrick Swayze’s Vida Boheme. . .
There are many children out there that are actually the result of coupling a sperm and an egg outside of the uterus.
And AE there are many children taken in my many loving sterile folk and those children lovingly refer to those non- bio parental units . . .
and if sex was purely set aside for procreation. . .please explain ED drugs and their growing presence.
Comment by rusty — September 15, 2009 @ 8:22 am - September 15, 2009
What the CC has done is legal. Tasteless & improper, but legal. They just can’t endorse a candidate. What is upsetting people is that the CC is crying poverty & closing churches & laying off staff. Yet they just spent 100K to fight SSM. What’s wrong with this picture?
Comment by Jim Michaud — September 15, 2009 @ 9:32 am - September 15, 2009
Guys, this is straying far off topic. It is irrelevant whether you are pro-SSM or anti-SSM, ditto for the views of any tax exempt church or group. The religious or irreligious beliefs of the groups are also irrelevant (there are tax exempt atheist, humanist & purely secular groups as well). Even the issue of SSM is entirely irrelevant here. Pick an issue, no matter how inane or substantive it may be. The question remains is it legal for any tax exempt churches or groups to directly raise funds for political campaigns to sway voters? I would assume that what the video here shows either falls into a so-called “grey area” or that there is some loophole permitting it. If this is true, then the question becomes should it be legal? Remember, we are talking about ALL tax exempt churches and groups no matter what their beliefs are, no matter what the issue is they’d like to sway voters on and no matter where they fall on the political spectrum. I would argue no because it acts a subsidy for their political activity gives them an advantage that groups not enjoying tax exemption do not have.
Comment by John — September 15, 2009 @ 12:22 pm - September 15, 2009
Wow. I supposed if I’m dealing with religious people, even on such an open minded site as this one, we’re getting back to calling people hate mongers and the such.
As for the arguments that I’m not being subjected to religious institutions, last I checked the only way I can get equal civil rights is to overcome the religious objections of those around me, or subject myself against my own biology to their idea of what is appropriate and marry a woman. In addition, I also live in a state where I can still be fired for being gay, be denied housing, and other statuses simply because religious folk can’t wrap their minds around other people simply being born differently. As long as people cloak themselves in superiority under the guise of religion, my life will be affected.
Again, you can defend your right to believe in sky people all you want, but I know the reality is my life from birth has been shaped negatively because of these unscientific beliefs. Whether it’s the slicing off the end of my dick when I was a baby, peer pressure to believe in some archaic book of fairytales my entire childhood, or the forced belief on the coins in my pockets or the thousand or so rights I can’t have that my neighbor can, it can all be traced to irrational beliefs that face no burden of proof of any kind.
The faux-persecution that Christians claim is laughable, considering I’ve never seen such a persecuted group have so much power in mainstream life. Maybe living in a red state, it’s a different vibe than all you city slickers, but I still face active discrimination and fear for being gay on a daily basis. Talk of Christian and believer persecution rings very hollow.
Comment by Tim — September 15, 2009 @ 12:36 pm - September 15, 2009
Just another attempt for the religious right to try to force THEIR views on those who do not agree with them. Total hypocrites.
For example, the radical right is the first group to denouce hate crime laws protecting gays and lesbians. They will use every lie to justify their agenda. I mean, liberals are trying to persecute the poor, defensless, right wingers from militant homos out to destroy the country.
The reason I say that the right wingers are hypocrites is due to my religious upringing and the Golden Rule: Do to others as you would have them do to you. (Luke 6:31). So, if the radical right wingers want to be honest and fair, why havent they tried to overturn Section 245 of Title 18 of the Civil Rights act? Why haven’t they tried? Because it benefits them? http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/245.php
Since gays are not listed as a protected class, but religious folks are, do you not see the hypocricy here? So, it’s ok if gays are attacked, harassed, or discriminated against. But if a Christian is attacked solely for being a Christian, then that IS a crime.
Comment by Frank — September 15, 2009 @ 12:50 pm - September 15, 2009
Frank,
Your meds are calling. Take them, please.
Others have pointed out that it might be tactless, but not illegal. As opposed to the FSF for example which is tactless and illegal.
And if they lobby, vote and win, then it’s not forcing anthing on anyone.
Or are you condemning the efforts of those in Maine and other states who’ve ‘forced’ same sex marriage on the people who disagree?
Comment by The_Livewire — September 15, 2009 @ 1:58 pm - September 15, 2009
Tim: Yes, yes. Religious people are addle-minded hypocriitical fools while atheists are evil scum. I’m a victim, you’re a victim, everbody’s a victim. Humanity sucks. Now, back to the topic at hand…
Frank: I’m sure that Dick Cheney would be happy to invite you on his next hunting trip to discuss your concerns about the rightwing. Now, back to the topic at hand…
Comment by John — September 15, 2009 @ 2:05 pm - September 15, 2009
AGJ, I don’t know what the Catholic Conference in Maine is doing, but there’s a lot of disinformation in the comments section here (ie #20).
First, there is no difference between the Catholic Charities in Massachusetts and the Catholic Church or the Catholic Conference in Massachusetts. Catholic Charities are a legal subset of the individual Catholic diocese and under the direct jurisdiction of the bishop, who is under the direct jurisdiction of the Cardinal for that area. Someone here wanted to split hairs on it being the Catholic Charities that sued in Massachusetts over the statist attempt to force CC to provide for gay adoptions.
Second, the Catholic bishops band together in most states to create a political and social activist organization known as “the Catholic Conference” of a particular state. The Board is made up of the bishops and cardinal and a few well-chosen priestly leaders. Sometimes a non-cleric with a boatload of cash or cachet is on Board, sometimes not.
In Michigan, our Conference helped recently to defeat an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment and helped strongly advance a pro-affirmative action position on another ballot proposal.
They collected after the main collection to offset the $$$ the Conference intended to kick-in to the kitty… those collections came after Communion toward the end of Mass when we collect for all sorts of things from missionary work in India all the way to helping to send care packages to the troops. Usually, it’s a parish-based enterprise. But there are times, like with the 2 ballot proposals I mentioned, that collections have been for a broader, statewide purpose.
The diocese in Portland is perfectly in keeping with the rich tradition of the Catholic Church to engage in social activism in order to protect or preserve their vision of Christ’s presence among us. When it coincides with the Left’s vision of political progress, we usually don’t hear jack about it. If this were an effort to defeat abortion rights or create vouchers or stop gay marriage, it seems to be fair game for criticism from mostly a Left perspective. When it’s an effort to support affirmative action in public policy, open a soup kitchen in a tony neighborhood, build a homeless shelter near downtown merchants, the Church is equally fair game for criticism.
Of course, I was very critical of the Church in Michigan when she sought to create new protections for pedophile priests by decreasing the statute of limitations.
Sometimes the social activism of the Catholic Church is just a little too apparent in its self-interest to avoid criticism. In the case of raising funds to defeat gay marriage ballot issues during Mass, it’s perfectly in keeping with the Church’s rich tradition of social activism. One that the American Bishops’ Conference has been keen to call upon when advancing a host of social, political and economic policies.
I guess we don’t have any problem with other Churches who use their moral clout or tax exempt status to collect money to advance gay marriage? And even if we did, it’s not our position to wage criticism against. It’s a private decision on the part of the Church leadership & the followers in the pewa and one that they are perfectly correct in advancing.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 15, 2009 @ 2:37 pm - September 15, 2009
BTW AGJ, I echo your strong dislike of the comment spamming function.
I’ve stopped typing here after losing some brilliant thoughts –and also losing some hideously reactionary comments, too. I just use my Word function and paste it in when set. Send immediately. FYI
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 15, 2009 @ 2:41 pm - September 15, 2009
Tim: Yes, yes. Religious people are addle-minded hypocriitical fools while atheists are evil scum. I’m a victim, you’re a victim, everbody’s a victim. Humanity sucks. Now, back to the topic at hand…
<<Joe, I take back my comment about you posting more here, if this is the most intellectual response you can muster. Maybe you should let organic discussions happen about what people are interested in instead of playing lunch monitor.
Comment by Tim — September 15, 2009 @ 2:55 pm - September 15, 2009
I surely enjoy intelligent comments from all over the map!!! Ash…I havent heard the names listed since I was attending a Assembly of God Liberal Arts College in Southern California. I trust since you mention them, that you have actually read the authors you list. I believe I will have to select the blog related posts by their number – the more the posts, the more intensity of thought – with the exception of several comedic entries by the Usual Suspects.
Comment by Duffy - Native Intelligence — September 15, 2009 @ 3:12 pm - September 15, 2009
Hey Michigan Matt!
You’ve made some really good points about protecting religious Freedom from the special rights that the socialist left is so fervently trying to outlaw. I have some thoughts, but they are probably not going to be too popular with the crowd here.
The Catholic Church should lose any and all tax exempt status on anything they do. This is a church of pedophiles who, if it weren’t for the brave victims speaking out, would have never publicly admitted there was even a problem. In my view, they lost their tax exempt status when they became the church of pedophiles.
Personally, I have more respect for liberal gays than conservative gays because they at least don’t lie about wanting special rights. No matter how you try to package your “conservative” gay agenda, we are not fools. We do not need or even want your support. I could care less if there are monogamous, life-committed partners who claim they are not the same as the majority of the depraved liberal homos, which, if you have done any research, would point to the fact that probably 99.9999% of homos are dangerous to society and depraved.
Fight amongst your own kind in your pathetic, immoral, hell-bound, worthless culture. Don’t try to make it seem like you are just like us except you just happen to be a homosexual. For arguments sake, let’s say that there are many “gay” conservatives who are no different than other conservatives except for their chosen lifestyle. Your poisonus life-style alone disqualifies you from being a true conservative.
Comment by Albert — September 15, 2009 @ 3:19 pm - September 15, 2009
Do the USCC and the State CCs enjoy tax exemption? If so, I do not believe they should be raising funds for political purposes whilst they are not paying taxes like non-tax exempt groups must do. If they are not, rock on. I do not have to agree with all their views to respect their free speech rights.
This is where I believe it crosses the line. That parish church where the funds are collected for political campaigns to sway voters is tax exempt and I believe it crosses the line to allow such activities to be conducted there because of this. Missionary work falls under their religious activities protected under the First Amendment.
That’s just it: I don’t care if it’s to sway voters to support what’s perceived as a liberal OR conservative view regardless of the issue being decided at the polls. As long as they enjoy tax exemption they should not be raising funds for political campaigns. What individual Catholics do, or say a “Catholic Coalition PAC” the bishops like does, is something entirely different.
Wrong. That’s why I mentioned the UCC or United Church of Christ which supports SSM. I have no idea if the UCC is in fact collecting funds like this Catholic diocese in Maine, but if it is I’m arguing that this too would be in violation of tax laws – or rather, should be.
Not while enjoying tax exemption for their institution. That’s the point.
Comment by John — September 15, 2009 @ 3:45 pm - September 15, 2009
37: I’m a schmuck and easily annoyed. Mea maxima culpa. Now, back to the topic at hand…
Comment by John — September 15, 2009 @ 3:46 pm - September 15, 2009
Well, Tim’s comments explaining away his hatred and bigotry is fairly entertaining. Let him keep going.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — September 15, 2009 @ 5:01 pm - September 15, 2009
The problem with taking away the Catholic Church’s tax exemption for supporting the anti-gay marriage amendment is that, in order to do so, one would have to deny tax exemptions to any non-profit organization which lobbied for or participated in issue-based political campaigns. Otherwise, the Government would be discriminating against religious organizations on the basis of religion, which is itself unconstitutional. Effectively, that would mean that the Humane Society could not lobby in favor of animal cruelty legislation. In fact, it might even be a First Amendment violation for the government to catagorically prohibit tax-exempt non-profits from engaging in any political activitiy.
I would be surprised if they collected that much money, as Catholics are notoriously stingy when it comes to second collections.
In any event, I oppose gay marriage and would support the amendment if I lived in Maine.
Comment by Disgusted in DC — September 15, 2009 @ 5:06 pm - September 15, 2009
Also, let’s not forget that the IRS ban on partisan political activity by non-profits was introduced by then Sen. LBJ, who wanted to prevent certain opponents of his from campagining in favor of his opponent in the election. Misguided as the ban is, the ban itself was not motivated by targeting churches or a false understanding of Establishment Clause.
Comment by Disgusted in DC — September 15, 2009 @ 5:09 pm - September 15, 2009
John, the brilliant part of the American experience is that you can hold your beliefs, I can hold mine, my Church leadership can hold their own and enjoy the tax-exempt status on church property and church activities despite what you think or promote.
The simple, inescapable truth is that the Catholic Church has the power to withstand your criticism. When it overreaches and public support is not there, they lose –like with vouchers, for instance. It is an inherently public animal when the Catholic Church seeks to extend Christ’s presence in the modern world. You can rail against it; you can impeach the motivations of those leaders. You can even stab at the tax exempt status of their property and holdings… in the end, you still lose.
You may think that the gnat flying about the head of the ox will slow it’s course, but I can tell you, the ox is strong and the Earth is patient. The ground will get plowed, the row will be made.
And the tax exempt status of the Catholic Church will remain in place for this generation and many, many others to come. It might be good for your to reflect on the simple fact that God is still a Roman Catholic; She didn’t buy into the Protestant Revolution.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 15, 2009 @ 6:52 pm - September 15, 2009
Michigan Matt — Looking at some of your previous points, I cannot tell if you are gay or straight. I guess it doesn’t make a difference since you apparently realize that homosexuality is not only a sin, but something that should not be tolerated in society.
I can’t really argue with a lot about what you said about the homosexual lifestyle, but man, if you are Catholic, you have nothing to be proud of. The Catholic Church is the most evil religious organizations that claims to be Christian. Not only are their leaders, and many of their followers, sexual deviants, but they are also idol-worshippers who believe that Mary intervenes on the lives of sinners.
Were you kidding when you called God a “She” and a “Catholic?” I sure hope so. If you’re serious, you will be in for an unpleasant surprise on the Day of Judgement. I pray for your soul.
Comment by Russell — September 15, 2009 @ 7:09 pm - September 15, 2009
James,
I will be even more blunt. I would suggest that you
1) Don’t understand the Bible.
2) Don’t understand Jesus Christ
3) Don’t understand the Constitution, and
4) Don’t understand patriotism
Thank God, that He gave the job of judging the world to Jesus and not to you. (something else you don’t seem to understand). But I will say a prayer that He will help you see the error of your arrogant, sinful ways.
Comment by American Elephant — September 15, 2009 @ 9:20 pm - September 15, 2009
….which come from?
1) two males? no
2) two females? no
3) a man and a woman? DING! DING! DING!
Yes, thats called “Adoption” not “procreation”.
And if I could claim you said something you never did, the way you just did to me, I would claim you said that you owe me one million dollars!
But alas, you never said such a thing, and no one I am aware of ever said sex was reserved for procreation. Ive said society benefits when babies are born inside the confines of marriage, which is when we encourage people to do it. You can have sex all you want. In some states, you can have sex with your goat. Doesn’t mean it should be put on the same pedestal as marriage. All sex is not equal.
Comment by American Elephant — September 15, 2009 @ 9:30 pm - September 15, 2009
American Elephant –
You said:
James,
“I will be even more blunt. I would suggest that you
1) Don’t understand the Bible.
What don’t I understand? The bible makes it clear that, just like murder, homosexual activity is punishable by death. Can you name one place in the Bible where God destroyed 2 whole cities because of heterosexual practices?
2) Don’t understand Jesus Christ
No, you don’t understand Jesus Christ. He never outlawed the death penalty for murder, so there is no reason to suggest that something as bad as murder he would have just put into a “forgivable” category.
3) Don’t understand the Constitution, and
I might not be an expert on the Constitution, but from what I do know, sexually deviant behavior is a threat to society and I can’t imagine our Founding Fathers would have ever considered that criminally sexual behavior is protected by the constitution.
4) Don’t understand patriotism
You are so right, please, educate me on what it means to be a patriot. If putting your country in jeaopardy by destroying the family unit, spreading AIDS, forcing religious institutions to accept a perverse lifestyle, molesting children, favoring evil over righteousness, and trying to seduce people of the opposite sex into homosexual behavior is your view of a patriot, then, YES, I am not a patriot.
Thank God, that He gave the job of judging the world to Jesus and not to you. (something else you don’t seem to understand).
I’m glad he gave it to Jesus instead of me, too. there’s no argument there. I know I am fallible, but I also know what is wrong according to scripture.
But I will say a prayer that He will help you see the error of your arrogant, sinful ways.
Arrogant, sinful ways??? I’m not the one who finds sexual perversion pleasurable. You just don’t like to hear someone tell you like it is. You even said yourself just in the above comment that “All sex is not equal.” Do you deny that? Although God made sex primarily for procreation, it is also God’s reward for all heterosexual couples, even those who do not procreate or cannot procreate, to bond and grow in their love an commitment to the Lord.
Comment by James — September 15, 2009 @ 10:28 pm - September 15, 2009
Tod(keanu reeves in Parenthood): Well, it depends on the man. I had a man around. He used to wake me up every morning by flicking lit cigarettes at my head. He’d say, “Hey, asshole, get up and make me breakfast.” You know, Mrs. Buckman, you need a license to buy a dog, or drive a car. Hell, you need a license to catch a fish! But they’ll let any butt-reaming asshole be a father.
You see AE ‘society doesn’t always benefit when babies are born inside the confines of marriage. Marriage does not guarantee that those involved are either ready to be parents, capable of being parents or even should be allowed the opportunity to be parents.
having many years under my belt working with young children, parents in many venues and institutions, I know that there are many children out there who thrive in homes where they are wanted and loved. and most of those homes do not have the typical mom-dad setup.
I believe that there are many wonderful people out there in same-sex situations who are providing stable homes filled with love and support for children. many of those people are now looking to further provide increased stability by entering into a committment of marriage that would be recognized by the state governemtn and hopefully the federal government.
so let’s encourage all those loving same sex couples, some who are raising children in their homes, to be in the confines in marriage.
Comment by rusty — September 15, 2009 @ 10:48 pm - September 15, 2009
Contary to the nonsense smears about the Catholic Church and paeodphilia, let me inform you:
1. According to the non religously affiliated John Jay Study conducted by a criminal college, 80% of child abuse in the Catholic Church involved HOMOSEXUAL PEDASTRY.
2. Homosexual priests were molesting predominantly adolescent males between the ages of 10-17 years old.
Paedophilia is defined as an attraction to PRE PUBESCENT children, so the abuse in the Church did not involve paedophilia- although it is rightfully classed as child molestation.
3. Due to the results of the study, measures have gone underway to bar men who have sexual attractions to men from entering seminaries for formation.
If we’re going to knock the Catholic Church about paedophilia, lets be HONEST about who the perpetrators in the Church were: HOMOSEXUAL MALES.
Comment by Sarah — September 15, 2009 @ 11:17 pm - September 15, 2009
Yes. Now humble yourself, print out what you have written, and take it to your pastor and ask him if your behavior has been righteous or sinful. Or are you too arrogant for that?
Comment by American Elephant — September 16, 2009 @ 6:42 am - September 16, 2009
Tell that to the black community Rusty, where 70% of children are born outside of wedlock, and they suffer for it every day. Drugs, crime, poverty, illiteracy, violence, drop-outs… you name the social ill, and those communities where the out of wedlock birth rate is highest have it more than any other.
But you see Rusty, we are a FREE society, not a tyranny. We dont “allow” or “disallow” people to have children. We don’t determine who is ready and who is not ready to have children of their own (adopting children not your own is another matter) . We determine what we believe is in the best interest of children and society and we encourage people to make that choice of their own free will.
and most of society agrees with you, which is why society allows them to adopt children in the first place. But they dont provide a mother and a father. They dont provide two biological parents, it is not the ideal, it is a substitute.
Marriage exists to encourage the ideal, not the alternative to the ideal.
but we have been through all this before. And no offense, but i really am sick to death of going beating my head against a brick walls.
Comment by American Elephant — September 16, 2009 @ 7:08 am - September 16, 2009
Russell at #46, as many of the regulars on this site know, I am the proud gay parent of three sons and married to MM partner… by a Catholic priest… and now in the 2d decade of our marriage.
I can appreciate a little unfettered Catholic bashing from you and others… that’s not a problem for me, doesn’t change my perspective on the Church and in no way harms my assessment of the vital influence of the Church and religion generally have on American society.
I think you might want to learn a bit about the Catholic Church from a source other than “Pentecostals R Us”. Marian devotion is a rich and fluid tradition that now spans 2 millennia -inside and outside the Roman Cahtolic Church.
The Holy Roman Catholic Church (who singularly preserved Western civilization in the Dark Ages) is not, contrary to your wild speculation, filled with sexual deviants and idol-worshipers. My gosh, the last time I heard “idol worshiper” used in a sentence was in the last (very bad) Raiders/HarrisonFord movie. Idol worshipers? What a hoot!
Lordy, how you do like to go on.
Comment by Michigan-Matt — September 16, 2009 @ 2:02 pm - September 16, 2009
If the motivation for removing the tax exemption were solely because of the Catholic Church’s stance on this particular issue, I would agree with you 100%. Yet it’s not this issue in particular or even just the Catholic Church I have in mind here. So yes, any tax exempt group that raises cash for political campaigns regardless of what group it is, what the issue is or what their position is on the issue should lose their tax exemption. That is not unconstitutional as tax exemption is not a right but is a privilege.
Comment by John — September 16, 2009 @ 6:05 pm - September 16, 2009
While exploiting that tax exempt status to raise funds for political campaigns? I don’t think so. What makes this any different than say the Unitarian/Universalists raising funds for Pro-Choice/NARAL PAC? Try as you might to turn this into an anti-Catholic attack, that it was the Catholic Church in this video is irrelevant to the issue at hand. What is relevant is whether tax exempt groups should retain this status while exploiting it for political campaigns.
Comment by John — September 16, 2009 @ 6:10 pm - September 16, 2009
It might be good for your to reflect on the simple fact that God is still a Roman Catholic; She didn’t buy into the Protestant Revolution.
Matt, how do you know that God isn’t still Jewish, and didn’t buy the Christian Revolution? Or if God is really Roman Catholic, is it the one in which still most churches and leadership finds homosexuality a sin, let alone against same sex marriage, or the one with a priest who married you and your partner?
Were you kidding when you called God a “She” and a “Catholic?”
Russell, what’s wrong with the “She”? Personally, when I use a pronoun for God, I use “He,” mainly because I try to use grammatically correct and accepted English. Or are you kidding that someone is going to lose points on Judgment Day for referring to God as a She? Is being a female that much of an insult?
John, this does seem to be a gray area, and I’m not sure what to think. Towards the end of the broadcast, it was stated that the Church’s position here is not a political issue, but a moral one. Maybe so, but it’s not the case that they are simply advocating same sex marriage for just Catholics. They want to impose this on all citizens of Maine. If the issue was that they would be forced to marry two persons of the same gender, I could understand it. Then again, the Church hasn’t been forced to marry persons where one has been divorced with an ex-spouse still living and did not get a Catholic approved annulment.
On the other hand, many churches do support other (usually less controversial) initiatives. I’m not sure what the criteria is that makes one initiative political and another not, especially in terms of whether the church should continue its tax-exempt status.
In any case, I see church’s continuing to try to push their agenda, liberal or conservative, on their parishioners and others. And I don’t see any re-examination of their tax-exempt status any time soon.
Comment by Pat — September 17, 2009 @ 7:27 am - September 17, 2009
Campaigning and political fundraising goes on in urban contemporary churches all the time. Many politicians deliver the Sunday sermon , followed by a passing of the collection plates for campaign contributions.
Somebody should stop this.
Comment by Wes — September 17, 2009 @ 11:41 am - September 17, 2009