| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/13/2008 08:39:40 PM · #1 |
South Carolina
Considering the parallels drawn between Obama and JFK, I wonder how JFK could have even been elected if abortion was an presidential issue during his time? I guess he would have been excommunicated.
If all the priests in the US form this same opinion I guess the possibility of a Catholic president in the future closely approaches zero. In my opinion the Catholic church risks losing its tax free status under IRS regulations. This is much more of a threat to parishioners than a simple suggestion on who to vote for at the pulpit. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 09:01:18 PM · #2 |
| The whole notion of who the president answers to was a pretty contentious issue in the election of JFK. A lot of people were worried the pope would be running your country. |
|
|
|
11/13/2008 11:17:56 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
The whole notion of who the president answers to was a pretty contentious issue in the election of JFK. |
Yeah, I've read that. Hard to get the real feel for the era through the veil of history. You weren't alive and I was just a yard ape. I do remember his assassination and funeral. I guess it's amazing he got elected. Considering how his brother Teddy is able to compartmentalize his religious beliefs from his political views, I don't think anyone had to worry about JFK's autonomy. |
|
|
|
11/14/2008 06:10:35 PM · #4 |
With the Catholic Faith, there are the big 5 "Non-Negotiable" issues the church is against. They've always taken that stance. If you're for these, you can't be in union with the church (thus receiving communion).
Pretty straight forward.
Tax exempt status, I hope the IRS does go after them, so we can get this cleared up. Freedom of Religion should be higher than an IRS tax code. |
|
|
|
11/14/2008 06:21:04 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by Gordon:
The whole notion of who the president answers to was a pretty contentious issue in the election of JFK. |
Yeah, I've read that. Hard to get the real feel for the era through the veil of history. You weren't alive and I was just a yard ape. I do remember his assassination and funeral. I guess it's amazing he got elected. Considering how his brother Teddy is able to compartmentalize his religious beliefs from his political views, I don't think anyone had to worry about JFK's autonomy. |
He mostly set it to rest in what gets called the 'Houston Speech'. |
|
|
|
11/14/2008 06:47:21 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
With the Catholic Faith, there are the big 5 "Non-Negotiable" issues the church is against. They've always taken that stance. If you're for these, you can't be in union with the church (thus receiving communion).
Pretty straight forward.
Tax exempt status, I hope the IRS does go after them, so we can get this cleared up. Freedom of Religion should be higher than an IRS tax code. |
It would appear that both you and fir3bird have mis-conceptions about which tax-exempt-organization activities would be in violation of IRS regulations. |
|
|
|
11/14/2008 07:12:16 PM · #7 |
You know, the catholic church pretty much does whatever it wants, without rhyme or reason. I once attended a holy communion for a relative and when they tried to give me communion I told them I wasn't catholic. They said, it's didn't matter and wanted to give it to me anyway. I refused. About half of my extended family are catholic. My mother was excommunicated 45 years ago for marrying outside her religion. Yet, they don't do that anymore. They just make up whatever rules they want at the time. One day you're going to hell, and the next, you're not.
edit to add: I don't wish to argue religion, that's just my opinion.
Message edited by author 2008-11-14 19:13:35. |
|
|
|
11/14/2008 07:19:08 PM · #8 |
I teach in a very Catholic city and I know many Catholics that voted for Obama and many that voted for McCain. One Obama supporter I work with told me about her priest telling the congregation in an oblique way to vote for McCain, but she didn't care what he said. So, I'll say this for the Catholics I know, they don't seem to give a rat's ass about who their priests say they should vote for.
Now, show me an evangelical who voted for Obama and I'll show you someone who's just selfishly trying to usher in the rapture. :P |
|
|
|
11/14/2008 07:31:45 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by RonB:
It would appear that both you and fir3bird have mis-conceptions about which tax-exempt-organization activities would be in violation of IRS regulations. |
Why don't you shine your light, and enlighten us? |
|
|
|
11/14/2008 07:36:53 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Nullix:
Tax exempt status, I hope the IRS does go after them, so we can get this cleared up. Freedom of Religion should be higher than an IRS tax code. |
I agree. I think all churches should have to pay taxes. That would eliminate a lot of crap that goes on under the auspices of religion. This would eliminate any reason at all for the IRS to monitor religious speech. |
|
|
|
11/14/2008 11:13:39 PM · #11 |
| I'm glad God has more sense than the leaders of the catholic church. |
|
|
|
11/15/2008 08:20:19 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I'm glad God has more sense than the leaders of the catholic church. |
But don't they get their advice from their god? If not then where do they get their wisdom/teachings and all the other crap from?
I think you just shot down what religion means to many people dp. Don't all religious leaders listen to what their god tells them? If not then where the heck are they basing their beliefs on? The bible? Isn't that ancient comic book supposed to be a god's word?
So I guess what you're saying is that your religion is better, or has different rules therefore making it more real than Catholicism.
Message edited by author 2008-11-15 08:23:14. |
|
|
|
11/15/2008 08:39:30 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
I'm glad God has more sense than the leaders of the catholic church. |
Hey dp, are you suggesting God is ok with killing blastocysts (a.k.a. babies to the credulous)? I'm just glad most believers have enough sense in their own brain to not follow the many insane dictates of their religion's teachings (variable depending on religion of course). |
|
|
|
11/15/2008 09:46:14 AM · #14 |
What I'm saying is that men often think and act in ways that he would not have them do in his name. No I do not think that all religious leaders (especially the catholic church leaders) operate out of a concern for God's will or with his advice. It is often more a matter of politics. Proclaiming to do God's will is not the same as doing it.
To the other matter... no I'm sure God does not want women to abort their babies. I'm just not so sure that he wishes the state to intervene in the decision making process or for the 'church' to demonize people for voting for someone who is against that intervention. In any event I'm absolutely positive that God still wants relationship with those who voted for Obama.
It is not God who causes the problems that you rightly place on 'religion'. I do not ascribe belief in God to the end result that you wish the world rid of: hate, intolerance, violence and the like are perpetrated by men in the name of God but God himself is innocent of these things. Jesus was not enamored with the religious leaders of his day and I don't believe he is any happier with the current ones.
edit to change tense.
Message edited by author 2008-11-15 09:49:43. |
|
|
|
11/15/2008 10:10:48 AM · #15 |
| On a related note In California |
|
|
|
11/15/2008 11:37:00 AM · #16 |
This story represents my point exactly... this priest was not taking advice or orders from God and is personally responsible for his own reprehensible behavior. One thing though.. the guy in the story is right. No good "catholic" would vote for Obama because as a member of this organization you must think and act only as they say and not as God would want them to think and act. If you don't then you are not a good catholic... and that ain't such a bad thing. Anytime anyone expects you to check your brain at the door and simply do as they say its not a good thing. |
|
|
|
11/15/2008 11:48:46 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Anytime anyone expects you to check your brain at the door and simply do as they say its not a good thing. |
This statement is the height of irony. |
|
|
|
11/15/2008 11:49:42 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Tax exempt status, I hope the IRS does go after them, so we can get this cleared up. Freedom of Religion should be higher than an IRS tax code. |
I agree. I think all churches should have to pay taxes. That would eliminate a lot of crap that goes on under the auspices of religion. This would eliminate any reason at all for the IRS to monitor religious speech. |
The first Amendment tot he Constitution (one of the 10 amendments we now call the Bill of Rights) begins with these words:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion....
Taxation, by definition, involves making a law. So, according to the Bill of Rights, we cannot tax the churches. If we want to tax the churches, we have to amend the Constitution, specifically the First Amendment, to make it possible, and that ain't gonna happen. Think of the unintended consequences...
R. |
|
|
|
11/15/2008 12:01:48 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by fir3bird:
Originally posted by Nullix:
Tax exempt status, I hope the IRS does go after them, so we can get this cleared up. Freedom of Religion should be higher than an IRS tax code. |
I agree. I think all churches should have to pay taxes. That would eliminate a lot of crap that goes on under the auspices of religion. This would eliminate any reason at all for the IRS to monitor religious speech. |
The first Amendment tot he Constitution (one of the 10 amendments we now call the Bill of Rights) begins with these words:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion....
Taxation, by definition, involves making a law. So, according to the Bill of Rights, we cannot tax the churches. |
I don't think so. Churches are corporations, and are treated like other corporations for tax purposes. Any corporation, church/religious or not, which agrees to certain rules and guidelines can be tax-exempt under section 501(c)3 of the IRS code -- one of those provisions is a limitation on particiation in partisan political activity.
BTW: Non-profit corporations still have to file tax returns, even if they don't have to pay any income tax.
Message edited by author 2008-11-15 12:02:21. |
|
|
|
11/15/2008 12:56:10 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
I don't think so. Churches are corporations, and are treated like other corporations for tax purposes. Any corporation, church/religious or not, which agrees to certain rules and guidelines can be tax-exempt under section 501(c)3 of the IRS code -- one of those provisions is a limitation on particiation in partisan political activity.
BTW: Non-profit corporations still have to file tax returns, even if they don't have to pay any income tax. |
I hear you, and I know what you're talking about, but I think that's wrong, unconstitutional. The first amendment specifically refers to "an establishment of religion", not a corporation or an individual or anything else. I have never understood how the IRS was able to get away with what you have described, even granted that the Church doesn't have to pay taxes if it follows the "rules", because the "rules" are laws and they can't apply to "an establishment of religion".
BTW, I am NOT making the argument that churches should be free of government oversight, tax-free, anything-free at all. If it were up to me, that part of the First Amendment wouldn't be in there. It has been abused, heavily. I think, personally, that churches SHOULD pay taxes; I can't imagine why not. My only point is that, as I read it, the First Amendment doesn't ALLOW us to tax them, regardless of what the iRS bureaucracy has to say on the matter :-)
R. |
|
|
|
11/15/2008 01:03:04 PM · #21 |
| The IRS can "get away with" exempting religious corporations from taxation just because they allow non-religious corporations the same privileges under the same conditions. I'm pretty sure that the First Amendment is usually contrued to prohibit laws favoring religious organizations over secular associations, or those favoring or incorprating the views or doctrines of one religious sect over those of another or those of the non-religious. |
|
|
|
11/15/2008 02:22:16 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by dponlyme:
Anytime anyone expects you to check your brain at the door and simply do as they say its not a good thing. |
/picks up jaw from desk
I'm stunned by this comment dp. Do you understand why? |
|
|
|
11/15/2008 02:30:00 PM · #23 |
The first part of the first amendment was put in place to KEEP congress from creating a state or federal religion. It has nothing to do with taxation.
edit to add:
"The establishment clause prohibits the government from passing legislation to establish an official religion or preferring one religion over another. It enforces the "separation of church and state." Some governmental activity related to religion has been declared constitutional by the Supreme Court. For example, providing bus transportation for parochial school students and the enforcement of "blue laws" is not prohibited. The free exercise clause prohibits the government, in most instances, from interfering with a person's practice of their religion. "
from here
Message edited by author 2008-11-15 14:32:17. |
|
|
|
11/15/2008 02:31:38 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by dahkota:
The first part of the first amendment was put in place to KEEP congress from creating a state or federal religion. It has nothing to do with taxation. |
I had written it down too and deleted it instead. lol
I second what dakota said. I don't think they had taxation in mind when this was written.
Message edited by author 2008-11-15 14:31:56. |
|
|
|
11/15/2008 02:51:00 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Jac:
The first part of the first amendment was put in place to KEEP congress from creating a state or federal religion... I don't think they had taxation in mind when this was written. |
The first amendment was passed in 1791. There was no corporate or income tax at the time, and the government relied upon customs duties, excise taxes and tariffs until decades later. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2025 01:23:09 AM EDT.
