Thread: LDS Controversy

Originally Posted by lakeman

It seems to me that this is more of a critique of the stupid state of political rules than anything else.

Hypothetically, if we had a Hitler should the church speak up? Should they lose their tax exempt status? For expressing their views? For using money to express their views and get the word out?

Should they express their views on whether or not abortion should be illegal?

Should they oppose the abuse of military power abroad?

Should they criticize the penal system?

To pretend that there is a line that separates the political ideas from the moral ideas is ludicrous. How can a church, or anyone, stay one one side of a line that both imaginary and is continually being moved as the state absorbs more domain. Eventually the state could control everything and then any idea expressed on any subject would be a political statement.

Madly embracing the pretense, the idea that there is a line separating political ideas from the practice of religion is enshrined in our Constitution, whether ludicrous or not. I don't see why it is difficult for anyone to pray privately or with like minded, or to keep their religious practices from being imposed on others, or in a religious realm from imposing their political agenda on the congregation. What happens to faith if it is invested in the occupant of the White House and his policies, rather than in conscience and spiritual values? "Control of everything" will occur with greater likelihood if we don't emphatically define and delineate these spheres, not blur them. Faith is stronger if it's not looked for on the inside of the voting booth, but on the inside of the person.

Originally Posted by Goldwater

Lake...first...here is what the Government says.

www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p1828.pdf

Churches and religious organizations, like many other charitable organizations, qualify for exemption from federal income tax under IRC section 501(c)(3) and are generally eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions.
To qualify for tax-exempt status, such an organization must meet the following requirements (covered in greater detail throughout this publication):
â–*
the organization must be organized and operated exclusively for religious, educational, scientific, or other charitable purposes,
â–*
net earnings may not inure to the benefit of any private individual or shareholder,
â–*
no substantial part of its activity may be attempting to influence legislation,
â–*
the organization may not intervene in political campaigns, and
â–*

the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.

Lake...the Mormon Church will need to defend itself against allegations that it's organized efforts towards Yes on 8 violated these two requirements for the tax exempt status. The LDS Church admits it coordinated phone campaigns, and shut them down after questions arose.

None of the people I know don't care to harrass Mormons for no reason. I know it's the "institution of marriage" falsehood they defend. But the institution of marriage has changed several times in the last hundred years. So it's not an unchanging thousand year old tradition that needs to be preserved. It changed in the 1960's to let interacial couples marry.

Does it not strike you as an obvious violation of the part of the constitution that says congress shall make no law concerning an establishment of religion when congress makes a law that says that the various religions cannot substantially influence legislation or campaign for a candidate?

Our country was founded when our founders said that the king of England should not be sole controller of the church also. But under these laws listed if the government today usurps the duties of the church then the church cannot even say: "Hey, the king should not run the church." or "Hey, don't vote for the candidate who wants to run the church." Today the Pilgrims would be law breakers.


The constitution was created to limit the power of government and to let all rights be retained by the people. But here we see that the government is limiting the free speech rights of the church (which is made up of private citizens) and making a law to do it.

The separation of church and state is important but it was always meant to be a separation that allowed the church to influence government and to stop the gov from influencing the church.

Originally Posted by lakeman

Does it not strike you as an obvious violation of the part of the constitution that says congress shall make no law concerning an establishment of religion when congress makes a law that says that the various religions cannot substantially influence legislation or campaign for a candidate?

The issue isn't that churches can't engage in politics if they so choose. The issue is that if a church wants to be tax exempt then it cannot use its income to further a political goal.

Originally Posted by lakeman

Does it not strike you as an obvious violation of the part of the constitution that says congress shall make no law concerning an establishment of religion when congress makes a law that says that the various religions cannot substantially influence legislation or campaign for a candidate?

No.

Congress hasn't made any laws about the establishment of religion and the free excercise thereof in this case.

Mormons can create and fund Ballot measures on the California ticket and base those electioneering efforts in Salt Lake City all they want.

It just violates a few of the IRS criteria any Church must adhere to in order to retain a tax exempt status. Which is huge beyond belief for Mormons because of the mind boggling amount of money that goes through the Mormon Church every year. The Church raised (Spent?) 20 Million to deprive gays of human rights...after all they've been through. And the whole tax issue is why Salt Lake City pulled the plug on thier phone campaign to raise enough money to pass a proposition that tells people how they must live.

Originally Posted by Guyker

Madly embracing the pretense, the idea that there is a line separating political ideas from the practice of religion is enshrined in our Constitution, whether ludicrous or not.

I think our founders knew it would be difficult to define such a line so they simply just said that the state could make no law concerning an establishment of religion and left it at that. I suppose they had to be able to define what an establishment of religion was to do that but I see that as more a practical concern and not an entaglement of a clearly differentiated state and church. I would add that it is easier no doubt to know the difference between a church and a state than to know the difference between a religious idea and a political idea.

I don't see why it is difficult for anyone to pray privately or with like minded, or to keep their religious practices from being imposed on others,

If a private citizen wants to pray privately or with like minded people then that is his right. And certainly when his religious ideas restrict the rights of others then that is a problem that the state needs to address. But if any random citizen off the street is allowed to speak publicly then the religious person must have the same right. If any random citizen can vote or lobby or endorse a candidate then the religious person must be allowed to also. And if any random group of citizens can form a group to vote or endorse or campaign or lobby then a religious group of people must be allowed to do the same.

or in a religious realm from imposing their political agenda on the congregation.

Seems to me that should be between the leaders and the followers and no business of you or I or the state.

What happens to faith if it is invested in the occupant of the White House and his policies, rather than in conscience and spiritual values? "Control of everything" will occur with greater likelihood if we don't emphatically define and delineate these spheres, not blur them. Faith is stronger if it's not looked for on the inside of the voting booth, but on the inside of the person.

Surely the state must not be allowed to make laws about religion. When the occupant of the white house starts to say that everyone should worship Jesus that is grave problem. It damages both the state and the church. When the occupant of the pulpit says that everyone should worship Jesus that is his opinion and it is what we expect. The occupant of the white house holds a monopoly on the use of force (especially military) and it is very important that he not be allowed to make laws concerning an establishment of religion. The occupant of the pulpit holds no special secular powers and should have the rights of every other citizen to speak and say whatever he wants to. He does have just one more right than everyone else has and it is written in the constitution - since no law can be made about the church he can't be taxed because it would require the making of law to do that.