Trump signs order aimed at allowing churches to engage in more political activity

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

5 hours ago, jg121783 said:

The left is all for free speech. Unless it is speech that disagrees with their viewpoints.

We are not talking about free speech but tax exempt status for agencies engaged in political speech. Fine let the church that wants to endorse and campaign give up their tax status. We have just politically weponized our churches and made them less sacred.

[IAMX 3,055]

8 minutes ago, ccneat said:

NPOs need to segregate their lobbying and campaigning funds from their advocacy and education. 

Yet that doesn't preclude them from taking up political issues and positions.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

Just now, IAMX said:

Yet that doesn't preclude them from taking up political issues and positions.

If you provide a specific example of that I am sure we can track down where the funds came from another arm. For example: Almost all industry associations have lobbying segments inside their umbrella and they do a good job of seperating the collection and disbursement of funds. A pulpit on Sunday is tough to divide.

[IAMX 3,055]

4 minutes ago, ccneat said:

If you provide a specific example of that I am sure we can track down where the funds came from another arm. For example: Almost all industry associations have lobbying segments inside their umbrella and they do a good job of seperating the collection and disbursement of funds. A pulpit on Sunday is tough to divide.

You're kidding me right..

 

You have the Christian right in much of the country.. and while geographically they encompass a lot, population-wise, not so much.

 

Then you have the Christian (Catholic) left in extremely populated blue states like California that use up significant amounts of funds toward providing illegals pro bono legal assistance, housing, etc.

 

Despite absolutely abhorring their policies I don't suggest the Catholic churches nor their dioceses lose their status, they're doing what they think is right, and as long as it isn't illegal, speech is still allowed.

 

I don't think it's that one sided tbh. At least, that's what I inferred from the last part of your post.

Edited May 5, 2017 by IAMX

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

3 minutes ago, IAMX said:

You're kidding me right..

 

You have the Christian right in much of the country.. and while geographically they encompass a lot, population-wise, not so much.

 

Then you have the Christian (Catholic) left in extremely populated blue states like California that use up significant amounts of funds toward providing illegals pro bono legal assistance, housing, etc.

 

Despite absolutely abhorring their policies I don't suggest the Catholic churches nor their dioceses lose their status, they're doing what they think is right, and as long as it isn't illegal, speech is still allowed.

 

I don't think it's that one sided tbh. At least, that's what I inferred from the last part of your post.

You cannot make a legit claim about the Catholic church pulling for just the left or right...it's very complicated.

 

How is housing and legal services political speech? How about food banks money to pay the light bill? Many churches do these things?  Even an encouragement to playfully consider your choices this election is ok...but some want to politicize their churches.  

 

[IAMX 3,055]

37 minutes ago, ccneat said:

You cannot make a legit claim about the Catholic church pulling for just the left or right...it's very complicated.

 

How is housing and legal services political speech? How about food banks money to pay the light bill? Many churches do these things?  Even an encouragement to playfully consider your choices this election is ok...but some want to politicize their churches.  

 

In the case of the Catholic church they're literally using funds giving assistance to people in the country illegally. And while I'm unsure of the legality of that itself, there's no doubt that their advocacy extends beyond what a church or organization in general exempt from taxes would normally have. I'm not suggesting in any way to pull their status or seize their funding, or even remove their exempt status (which I'm not 100% against either, just not advocating for it), but this topic for example with the left whining about churches utilizing speech for causes the left may not approve of just shows the lefts double standards.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

 

In the case of the Catholic church they're literally using funds giving assistance to people in the country illegally. And while I'm unsure of the legality of that itself, there's no doubt that their advocacy extends beyond what a church or organization in general exempt from taxes would normally have. I'm not suggesting in any way to pull their status or seize their funding, or even remove their exempt status (which I'm not 100% against either, just not advocating for it), but this topic for example with the left whining about churches utilizing speech for causes the left may not approve of just shows the lefts double standards.

 I see more whining about the left whining and showing double standards. You have drank the koolaid about this being apart of the left right dichotomy.  The first time an Archbishop gets on the stump for a Democrat you will feel differently.

 

 

[bcking 3,157]

 

The pendulum will swing to the opposite side and this will eventually lead to religions being stripped of all their wealth and be banned.

I'm no religion expert but the idea that a religion has "wealth" on its own seems a little counter intuitive to me. I know it's the reality, but that is partly why I'm not a huge fan.

[IAMX 3,055]

 

I'm no religion expert but the idea that a religion has "wealth" on its own seems a little counter intuitive to me. I know it's the reality, but that is partly why I'm not a huge fan.

When it comes to churches and such, it still costs money to function. While they have tax exempt status, they don't get everything free. Still costs money to pay the bills, costs money to have full time staff, costs money for other expenses like trips/functions and so on. 

 

So it's far from counter intuitive. It's quite logical and essential.

 

As someone who is both agnostic and a believer in separation of church and state, I certainly wouldn't want my tax dollars to be paying for all church bills, staff, functions, etc., but that's what would be required to not have money. I prefer things the way they are in that respect.

[bcking 3,157]

 

When it comes to churches and such, it still costs money to function. While they have tax exempt status, they don't get everything free. Still costs money to pay the bills, costs money to have full time staff, costs money for other expenses like trips/functions and so on. 

 

So it's far from counter intuitive. It's quite logical and essential.

 

As someone who is both agnostic and a believer in separation of church and state, I certainly wouldn't want my tax dollars to be paying for all church bills, staff, functions, etc., but that's what would be required to not have money. I prefer things the way they are in that respect.

Sorry I should have clarified.

 

When I say wealth I meant excess money. Lots of churchs have very large coffers. Of course they need funds to maintain themselves, but the idea that they hold onto a lot more than that is counter intuitive to Christianity's founding.

[IAMX 3,055]

 

Sorry I should have clarified.

 

When I say wealth I meant excess money. Lots of churchs have very large coffers. Of course they need funds to maintain themselves, but the idea that they hold onto a lot more than that is counter intuitive to Christianity's founding.

If what you mean is like the Vatican for example, I agree, I'm quite suspicious of it, but then again, they are run like a country, and they are not exactly transparent.. 

[smilesammich 10,727]

 

 I see more whining about the left whining and showing double standards. You have drank the koolaid about this being apart of the left right dichotomy.  The first time an Archbishop gets on the stump for a Democrat you will feel differently.

 

 

indeed. the position of the catholic church and i suppose many other denominations with a proper position of charity and assisting humanity (namely quakers) can be very confusing and look like filthy leftist political ideology to outsiders and the GOP (those who align themselves with evangelical christians who're actively attempting to politicize their religious "goals" for other 'christian citizens' and ultimately line their own pockets) instead of recognizing that charity and the vow of poverty are both fundamental to christian theology and have nothing to do with party affiliation or even government. the reason the catholic church, for example, houses 'illegals' is because it is the church's JOB to see them as HUMANS, not 'illegals' and it is their mission - from christ - to defend the WEAKEST among us with zero regard for politics. christianity throughout american history has had nuns and priests and pastors and regular church goers who have put their freedom on the line to stand up for their morality which is based purely on the teachings of jesus (think underground railroad, civil rights protests in the 60s, aids work in the 80s etc) and there is absolutely NOTHING in the teachings of jesus that says you should for one second dismiss another for their lack of immigration status, lack of white skin, lack of financial means or even lack of faith. quite the opposite, a christian is called to do everything in their power to lift that person up, period.

 

 

Edited May 5, 2017 by smilesammich

[Transborderwife 4,666]

I can only speak for the Salvation Army.  Our Tampa area is 2.5 million in debt.  I never thought that debt could be seen as a good thing, but with the amount of people that I've seen helped it definitely is for a church.  That and I know just how much officers get paid

Edited May 5, 2017 by Transborderwife

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

 

I can only speak for the Salvation Army.  Our Tampa area is 2.5 million in debt.  I never thought that debt could be seen as a good thing, but with the amount of people that I've seen helped it definitely is for a church.  That and I know just how much officers get paid

Is that just the Tampa area or are most Salvation Army chapters carrying this much debt?  

[Transborderwife 4,666]

 

Is that just the Tampa area or are most Salvation Army chapters carrying this much debt?  

Just Tampa area command. I believe that it is an area of at least 4-5 counties.  Keep in mind this includes not only the cost of social services, salaries, building maintenance, new buildings etc.  

Edited May 5, 2017 by Transborderwife