The Separation of Church and State (1 Viewer)

[Maxp]

Driving back to south Alabama from Tennessee last Thanksgiving I was passed by a sheriff's deputy whose patrol vehicle had "IN GOD WE TRUST" printed on the side. The labeling was as large, if not larger, than the word "POLICE." This happened in one of the northern counties, not sure which one. It was a surprisingly jarring moment for me. In my mind, this was screaming passed the line of separation of church and state. Then today, I noticed a local Baldwin County sheriff's department vehicle with the same phrase printed much smaller on the back of the patrol vehicle. My personal belief is that all such verbiage on public property should be removed, especially when it's on law enforcement vehicles.

 

[DaveXA]

Imma stop you right there.

The Christian church is made up of all believers. Christian denominations are part of the Christian church.

Fair amount of scripture to support this.

22 Bible verses about Body Of Christ, The Church

A topical Bible which shows the most relevant Bible verse for each topic

bible.knowing-jesus.com

And there are definitely churches out there that call themselves non-denominational, or just “Christian.”

Sure, but some would argue those Christian churches are not really "Christian".

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Sure, but some would argue those Christian churches are not really "Christian".

And those people would be engaging in a giant logical fallacy. It's the Christian Church no matter how much one denomination doesn't like it.

 

[DaveXA]

And those people would be engaging in a giant logical fallacy. It's the Christian Church no matter how much one denomination doesn't like it.

It's not that they don't like it, they think theirs is the only legitimate "Church" and everyone else isn't. There are not a lot like that, but there are some for sure.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

It's not that they don't like it, they think theirs is the only legitimate "Church" and everyone else isn't. There are not a lot like that, but there are some for sure.

Fair. Still a fallacious line of thought, though.

 

[Heathen]

Intent vs possibility. Clearly I know they mean Christian. By "god/God" by itself doesn't have to mean that, even if it often does. But there also isn't a Christian Church. There are various types of Christian churches. And really, my entire opening point was a reference to the concept that the separation of church and state has not denied a 'religious dimension' in the political realm.

I guess this sort of leads into a discussion of "gray areas" within our law vs. intent/what should be. Ideals like "all men are created equal" portion of the Declaration of Independence have certainly failed to hold much of any authority in real life beyond bold-sounding verbiage.

My point is that in an America that honestly and consistently lives up to the very important ideal of separation of church and state, both for the protection of and from the religious and non-religious, we wouldn't have issues like religious figures adorning our currency or having a place within our courtrooms, the list goes on.

It can easily be seen as an "attack" from the vantage point of those who have grown accustomed to the culture of it or are of that religious persuasion, but I can confidently say it's within everyone's best interest that we fight to keep our government as secular and nonpartisan as possible -- and of course this must never mean anti-religious in ANY regard. It's really the same issue we have with money in politics. I would say it pretty objectively isn't what America is representative of, thus should not be representing us as a whole.

 

[SystemShock]

So I'm ignorant or a liar?

Glad to see your vast intellect at work with such simple, binary choices.

Again, how is it possible that you don't know that "a nation, under God", "God bless America", or "in God we trust" painted on an Alabama patrol car, in the U.S., refers to any other god than the Christian god?

You telling me "god" means any god in the context of the OP, and in the context of the phrases being discussed, it is either ignorant or dishonest. What's the other option?

Clearly I know they mean Christian.

Then what exactly are you arguing?

 

[SystemShock]

Imma stop you right there.

The Christian church is made up of all believers. Christian denominations are part of the Christian church.

Fair amount of scripture to support this.

22 Bible verses about Body Of Christ, The Church

A topical Bible which shows the most relevant Bible verse for each topic

bible.knowing-jesus.com

And there are definitely churches out there that call themselves non-denominational, or just “Christian.”

I got in an argument about that over at SR, what is meant to be a "Christian". The best I got from the person I was arguing with was - condensed- "Christians do Christian-like things; if you don't do Christian-like things, then you are not a Christian". My conclusion was, there are no Christians

My definition is much more simple and to the point: If you believe in Jesus, that he died for your sins and resurrected, then you are a Christian.

 

[DaveXA]

I got in an argument about that over at SR, what is meant to be a "Christian". The best I got from the person I was arguing with was - condensed- "Christians do Christian-like things; if you don't do Christian-like things, then you are not a Christian". My conclusion was, there are no Christians

My definition is much more simple and to the point: If you believe in Jesus, that he died for your sins and resurrected, then you are a Christian.

I can assure you (and I suspect you know this), from personal experience, more than a few self-identified "Christians" don't believe your second paragraph at all. I think that's a pretty good definition myself, but it's certainly not a universal belief among Christians.

 

[SaulGoodmanEsq]

I want to tread carefully because I am not at all religious and think organized religion has done far more harm than good in this world. One thing that I'm always particularly galled by are these semi-journalists/talking heads on twitter and elsewhere who will mercilessly troll and criticize people and say some of (what I imagine to be) the most un-Christ-like things one could say.... but it's all right for them to do so because they have a tag like 'Imperfect Follower of Christ.' Never been a fan of that get-out-of-jail free card people play. Of course, this is usually limited to those who weaponize religion to further their political agendas.

Dungeons & Dragons rules should apply: your alignment is dictated by your actions. Are you Chaotic Good? Lawful Evil? True Neutral?!?!? The United States should be Lawful Neutral. Problem solved, no longer have to worry about the Establishment Clause.

 

[DaveXA]

I want to tread carefully because I am not at all religious and think organized religion has done far more harm than gone in this world. One thing that I'm always particularly galled by are these semi-journalists/talking heads on twitter and elsewhere who will mercilessly troll and criticize people and say some of (what I imagine to be) most un-Christ-like things one could say.... but it's all right for them to do so because they have a tag like 'Imperfect Follower of Christ.' Never been a fan of that get-out-of-jail free card people play. Of course, this is usually limited to those who weaponize religion to further their political agendas.

Dungeons & Dragons rules should apply: your alignment is dictated by your actions. Are you Chaotic Good? Lawful Evil? True Neutral?!?!? The United States should be Lawful Neutral. Problem solved, no longer have to worry about the Establishment Clause.

Perfectly reasonable take. I'm a fairly religious guy, but I'd rather not muck up religion with politics and vice versa.

 

[Taurus]

Again, how is it possible that you don't know that "a nation, under God", "God bless America", or "in God we trust" painted on an Alabama patrol car, in the U.S., refers to any other god than the Christian god?

You telling me "god" means any god in the context of the OP, and in the context of the phrases being discussed, it is either ignorant or dishonest. What's the other option?


Then what exactly are you arguing?

You'll note that "God" on these things is always capitalized. It's a proper name, referring to The God Of Abraham. That specific deity and no other.

 

[zztop]

How is this not a violation?

Inside the Christian TV show rallying Trump superfans with apocalyptic warnings

“FlashPoint” has gained influence on the Christian right by portraying Donald Trump as a singular leader anointed by God to save America.

www.nbcnews.com

I also found this from 2 years ago

These 20 Churches Supported Political Candidates. Experts Say They Violated Federal Law.

Churches aren’t supposed to endorse political candidates, according to IRS rules. Across the country, churches appear to be doing so anyway.

www.propublica.org

 

[fooferdoggie]

How is this not a violation?

Inside the Christian TV show rallying Trump superfans with apocalyptic warnings

“FlashPoint” has gained influence on the Christian right by portraying Donald Trump as a singular leader anointed by God to save America.

www.nbcnews.com

I also found this from 2 years ago

These 20 Churches Supported Political Candidates. Experts Say They Violated Federal Law.

Churches aren’t supposed to endorse political candidates, according to IRS rules. Across the country, churches appear to be doing so anyway.

www.propublica.org

ys but the IRS dos not have the backbone to go after them and they know it. but hey trump is doing the devils work and brining these lambs to slaughter.

 

[DaveXA]

ys but the IRS dos not have the backbone to go after them and they know it. but hey trump is doing the devils work and brining these lambs to slaughter.

The IRS can, and has gone after churches before. I'm not sure if for this specific reason, but ministers and churches have gotten on the wrong side of the IRS before. Actually happens all the time.

That said, more churches need to lose their tax exempt status if they're openly supporting political candidates.

 

[fooferdoggie]

The IRS can, and has gone after churches before. I'm not sure if for this specific reason, but ministers and churches have gotten on the wrong side of the IRS before. Actually happens all the time.

That said, more churches need to lose their tax exempt status if they're openly supporting political candidates.

yes but not much. I remember something about that with trump in there that the IRS was not going to touch churches. and really it would be a bad look for the president to have their IRS go after churches.

 

[DaveXA]

yes but not much. I remember something about that with trump in there that the IRS was not going to touch churches. and really it would be a bad look for the president to have their IRS go after churches.

The President shouldn't be using the IRS to do anything with churches. The churches break the rules, and the IRS can and should enforce the rules.

As for what Trump said/did, that doesn't necessarily mean the IRS actually stopped enforcing their rules. I don't know if the IRS actually changed their posture, but I tend to think not.

 

[fooferdoggie]

The President shouldn't be using the IRS to do anything with churches. The churches break the rules, and the IRS can and should enforce the rules.

As for what Trump said/did, that doesn't necessarily mean the IRS actually stopped enforcing their rules. I don't know if the IRS actually changed their posture, but I tend to think not.

Houses of worship actually get an even sweeter deal. They are automatically granted a tax-exempt status (while secular charities have to fill out paperwork to earn the designation) and they don’t have to fill out the Form 990 at all. (Church/state separation groups have argued that the government’s preferential treatment for houses of worship in that regard is unconstitutional.)

But plenty of conservative pastors still argue that these rules are too onerous and they’ve deliberately tried to goad the IRS into revoking their tax-exempt status just so they can file a lawsuit over it.

For several years during Barack Obama’s presidency, hundreds of evangelical churches participated in “Pulpit Freedom Sunday” where they proudly endorsed Republican candidates and then, just to make sure their actions weren’t ignored, sent videos of those sermons directly to the IRS.

The IRS had every reason to take action and revoke the churches’ tax exemptions. They never did.

In fact, over the past few decades, the IRS has only followed its own rules once. Just before the 1992 elections, a group called Branch Ministries ran full-page newspaper ads urging people not to vote for Bill Clinton. The IRS revoked the group’s tax exempt status. There was a lawsuit. The IRS won. (The reporters also cite the Congressional Research Service in saying that another church lost its tax exemption in 2012… but no further details are available.)
That’s it. 70 years of the Johnson Amendment… and maybe two ministries that were punished by the IRS for violating it.

By the time Donald Trump was in office, the violations were even more egregious. There was no need for a concerted effort to endorse candidates because it was apparent to everyone that the IRS wasn’t going to punish pastors for telling church members how to vote. It didn’t help that Trump claimed he got rid of the Johnson Amendment… even though that was a lie. Churches have just been endorsing candidates ever since. (While some churches have also endorsed Democrats, this is overwhelmingly a conservative/Republican issue. They’re the ones with the most to lose if the Johnson Amendment was enforced.)

This is where yesterday’s article comes into play. Reporters Jeremy Schwartz and Jessica Priest attempted to get to the bottom of what the IRS is actually doing about these churches that violate the Johnson Amendment. What they discovered is that no one is minding the store.

At least not publicly.

They found 18 churches over the past two years explicitly violating the Johnson Amendment. (It’s almost certainly many, many more.) These are churches where the actions of the pastor weren’t at all ambiguous. If the IRS enforced its own rules, these churches would instantly lose their tax exemptions. None of them have, and that’s because the IRS doesn’t seem to care:

… The IRS has largely abdicated its enforcement responsibilities as churches have become more brazen. In fact, the number of apparent violations found by ProPublica and the Tribune, and confirmed by three nonprofit tax law experts, are greater than the total number of churches the federal agency has investigated for intervening in political campaigns over the past decade, according to records obtained by the news organizations.
In response to questions, an IRS spokesperson said that the agency “cannot comment on, neither confirm nor deny, investigations in progress, completed in the past nor contemplated.” Asked about enforcement efforts over the past decade, the IRS pointed the news organizations to annual reports that do not contain such information.

Why is the IRS acting like the CIA? Who knows. They’re saying they can’t confirm or deny investigations into churches that are openly and brazenly violating the law as if enforcing rules that were purposely broken amounts to some sort of national security issue.

It didn’t help that the IRS needed a high-level official signing off on such investigations for a while, and that no one was employed in that position, “leaving lower IRS employees to initiate church investigations.” Nor did it help that the IRS just stopped looking at churches’ political activity for several years during the Obama administration.

 

[bird]

Time to rip the scab off. The primary function, imo, of churches is not charity. There might be some exceptions but very few, imo.

I also would eliminate the charitable deduction for income tax purposes while simultaneously simplifying the tax code. There is profit in chaos and complexity thus the tax code has become insane.