[quote]Sloth wrote:
Tax-exempt status (despite what a church may do for its local community) is done. [/quote]
This is what I originally quoted and disagreed with Sloth.
This is not true today and is not true anytime soon by any measure. If you would like to predict WAY down the line go ahead and be my guest. You have absolutely no historical precedence to come to the conclusion that a church’s tax exempt status is under attack in any manner based on their views of their religion. You just have some nice passionate “once they do X then they will surely do Y.”
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The first step will be though religious private schools, hospitals, and other such organizations. The IRS has done this with private schools, for instance, over racism. [/quote]
You will certainly agree this will at least happen.
[/quote]
The first step to what? You’re making the traditional slippery slope fallacy mistake of assuming that one action MUST lead to another.
This is NOT the first step towards churches losing tax exempt status except for in your mind where you want it to be.
Once gay marriage exists traditional marriage will be destroyed said people a few years ago. Ooops, traditional marriage is still allowed and is being destroyed (divorced) at higher rates in places that OPPOSE gay marriage. Surely that is also queers fault though AMIRITE?
What a coinkydink. Makes about as much sense as Mississippi’s anti-federal government stances while soaking up all sorts of tax dollars.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Tax-exempt status (despite what a church may do for its local community) is done. [/quote]
This is what I originally quoted and disagreed with Sloth.
This is not true today…
[/quote]
I didn’t say today. I would obviously know this, as I’m a frequent and active member of my Church. I was making the case as to how it is inevitable.
It will start with our organizations (schools, hospitals, etc.), tied to the Church, guided by the church, in order to chip away at our influence and outreach. Eventually, it will be extended to the churches themselves.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The first step will be though religious private schools, hospitals, and other such organizations. The IRS has done this with private schools, for instance, over racism. [/quote]
You will certainly agree this will at least happen.
[/quote]
The first step to what? [/quote]
Ok. You certainly agree these Church organizations must lose their status, correct?
Where have we heard these arguments before? Oh…1954.
[quote]Churches were added to section 501(c)(3) of the tax code in 1954. Critics, such as Peter Kershaw, author of The Church and Caesar: A Look at Incorporation and 501(c)(3), charge then-Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson with using 501(c)(3) status as a way to “eliminate the significant influence the church has always had on public policy” (Church Incorporation 501c3 marriage license articles l radio interviews with Kershaw are available on this site).
“Since they’ve done this, the church has lost much of its ability to influence the culture,” Kershaw said.
This is a controversial claim. The Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s whose best-known leader, Martin Luther King, Jr., was an ordained minister with a church-- enjoyed strong support from many churches. Today, evangelical Christians overwhelmingly vote Republican, thus influencing American culture and policy. Nor should we ignore the example of many Roman Catholic bishops in 2004 withholding Communion from politicians who have voted to support abortion and homosexual “marriage” If the bishops were at all deterred by any potential threat from the IRS, they didn’t show it.[/quote]
[quote]H factor wrote:
Where have we heard these arguments before? Oh…1954.
[quote]Churches were added to section 501(c)(3) of the tax code in 1954. Critics, such as Peter Kershaw, author of The Church and Caesar: A Look at Incorporation and 501(c)(3), charge then-Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson with using 501(c)(3) status as a way to ?eliminate the significant influence the church has always had on public policy? (Church Incorporation 501c3 marriage license articles ? radio interviews with Kershaw are available on this site).
?Since they?ve done this, the church has lost much of its ability to influence the culture,? Kershaw said.
This is a controversial claim. The Civil Rights movement of the 1960s ? whose best-known leader, Martin Luther King, Jr., was an ordained minister with a church ? enjoyed strong support from many churches. Today, evangelical Christians overwhelmingly vote Republican, thus influencing American culture and policy. Nor should we ignore the example of many Roman Catholic bishops in 2004 withholding Communion from politicians who have voted to support abortion and homosexual ?marriage.? If the bishops were at all deterred by any potential threat from the IRS, they didn?t show it.[/quote]
[quote]Sloth wrote:
The first step will be though religious private schools, hospitals, and other such organizations. The IRS has done this with private schools, for instance, over racism. [/quote]
You will certainly agree this will at least happen.
[/quote]
The first step to what? [/quote]
Ok. You certainly agree these Church organizations must lose their status, correct?[/quote]
No I think the phrase “must” is pretty unintelligent. I think saying because X happened Y must happen is a fallacy and I’m not going to make it. It’s your certainty over things like the tax exempt status going away for churches that made me call your comment out in the first place.
I think you’ve got a real hard sell when a church like Westboro who literally preaches hate maintains that status to say “all churches” are going to lose it. You’ve got some pretty negative wishful thinking going on for “God’s” plan.
No I think the phrase “must” is pretty unintelligent. [/quote]
Of course it must happen. If homosexuality is the new interracial marriage, it has to happen. It’s already happened to private schools based on racism.
It’ll start with their organizations (schools, hospitals, etc.). Since many of these are survive on the margins, a good many will have to pull into their shell, forgo as much charitable outreach, and thus have less influence. If they they don’t have to shutter their doors permanently, that is. This will further weaken (as its intent will be) the standing of churches. Therefore, will weaken the ability of the church to defend its auto-tax exempt status.
No I think the phrase “must” is pretty unintelligent. [/quote]
Of course it must happen. If homosexuality is the new interracial marriage, it has to happen.
[/quote]
Interracial marriage didn’t lead to churches losing tax exempt status therefore homosexuality must because it is the new interracial marriage.
Ok, making sure that makes 0 sense and I was correct. Hence the quote from 1954 I showed you. [/quote]
At the moment I’m asking you about Church ASSOCIATIONS (private schools, hospitals, etc.).
[/quote]
So trying to change the debate from your initial premise? [/quote]
No, I maintain my initial premise. I’m now asking you if you agree that it must happen (at least with church associated orgs.), if gay marriage is the interracial marriage. This will be the first step.
It’ll start with their organizations (schools, hospitals, etc.). Since many of these are survive on the margins, a good many will have to pull into their shell, forgo as much charitable outreach, and thus have less influence. If they they don’t have to shutter their doors permanently, that is. This will further weaken (as its intent will be) the standing of churches. Therefore, will weaken the ability of the church to defend its auto-tax exempt status.
See “Redskins/NFL” and congress, presently
[/quote]
So you’re literally making the exact same argument as the 1954 quote I found? I mean almost word for word?
It’ll start with their organizations (schools, hospitals, etc.). Since many of these are survive on the margins, a good many will have to pull into their shell, forgo as much charitable outreach, and thus have less influence. If they they don’t have to shutter their doors permanently, that is. This will further weaken (as its intent will be) the standing of churches. Therefore, will weaken the ability of the church to defend its auto-tax exempt status.
See “Redskins/NFL” and congress, presently
[/quote]
So you’re literally making the exact same argument as the 1954 quote I found? I mean almost word for word?
Ok, if you believe so I guess you can believe so. [/quote]
What? No, I’m not. It’s not even the same argument. I don’t believe the Church will buckle, either way…
[quote]Churches were added to section 501(c)(3) of the tax code in 1954. Critics, such as Peter Kershaw, author of The Church and Caesar: A Look at Incorporation and 501(c)(3), charge then-Senate Majority Leader Lyndon Johnson with using 501(c)(3) status as a way to ?eliminate the significant influence the church has always had on public policy? (Church Incorporation 501c3 marriage license articles ? radio interviews with Kershaw are available on this site).
?Since they?ve done this, the church has lost much of its ability to influence the culture,? Kershaw said.
This is a controversial claim. The Civil Rights movement of the 1960s ? whose best-known leader, Martin Luther King, Jr., was an ordained minister with a church ? enjoyed strong support from many churches. Today, evangelical Christians overwhelmingly vote Republican, thus influencing American culture and policy. Nor should we ignore the example of many Roman Catholic bishops in 2004 withholding Communion from politicians who have voted to support abortion and homosexual ?marriage.? If the bishops were at all deterred by any potential threat from the IRS, they didn?t show it.[/quote]
No, I maintain my initial premise. I’m now asking you if you agree that it must happen (at least with church associated orgs.), if gay marriage is the interracial marriage.