What are your thoughts on Chruch's refusing to wed gays?

[JoStories]

There is a difference between needing the church and needing God. Sure it is good to have fellowship with other believers but at the end of the day we need Christ. Each of us do even if we think we don't. There will always be some kind of brokenness in us that can only be fulfilled by Christ

ah, no. There is no brokenness in me that the God of the Bible has ever been able to help. You know me Ben. I follow a Buddhist/ eastern path. I mean no disrespect but telling me or others we're broken seems unfair. If Jesus works for you, I am deeply happy but for many, it is simply not the path that we were meant to walk. I hope you can see there is a difference.

 

[JoStories]

I have a hard time understanding why any homosexual would want to go to a church where they know that their lifestyle is considered a sin and attempt to force the minister to perform a marriage ceremony for them. The homosexual would have to think that that minister or his church are not a true church and therefore not a valid representative of God on the grounds that that church is not accepting of them. I mean, if homosexuals believe that God accepts them, why would they go where others have a contrary belief? The only reason I can think of is for spite and to cause trouble. Perhaps homosexuals think that if they can force some minister to perform a marriage ceremony for them, then that means for them that God accepts them. Is validation and acceptance by force, genuine validation and acceptance? Or is the purpose really about confrontation and contempt for the rights of others?

But what of those who are drawn to the Christian faith and happen to be gay? There are many you realize, non? And there are Christian churches that can and do believe that being gay is perfectly fine with God and with them. In point of fact, there is a Unity church done the road from me which any person of any faith can attend and their minister is gay. I would ask you this. What if you are wrong and God is perfectly fine with me being who I am because believe, me, I don;t for one second think I am 'wrong' or 'sinning; a concept I absolutely loathe, btw, by being who I am. I was born this way. So what if you are wrong? Are you willing to speak for God?

 

[BenTheBeliever]

ah, no. There is no brokenness in me that the God of the Bible has ever been able to help. You know me Ben. I follow a Buddhist/ eastern path. I mean no disrespect but telling me or others we're broken seems unfair. If Jesus works for you, I am deeply happy but for many, it is simply not the path that we were meant to walk. I hope you can see there is a difference.

Jo I am just giving my opinion like everyone else

 

[JoStories]

Jo I am just giving my opinion like everyone else

I know you are Ben and I understand that you need to speak to people about your faith. What I am trying to get you to see is that for many, Christianity is not the right choice. There are many choices to get someone to God, or perhaps that one person chooses to not believe at all and you need to respect that. Saying someone is broken because they do choose a different faith is, I agree, your opinion, but IMO, its also sort of insulting. I hope you see what I am saying love.

 

[BenTheBeliever]

I know you are Ben and I understand that you need to speak to people about your faith. What I am trying to get you to see is that for many, Christianity is not the right choice. There are many choices to get someone to God, or perhaps that one person chooses to not believe at all and you need to respect that. Saying someone is broken because they do choose a different faith is, I agree, your opinion, but IMO, its also sort of insulting. I hope you see what I am saying love.

I see what you are saying. But it is the way. As a Christian I can't and will not deny that. People want to get into Heaven it is only through Christ. You see for us Christians it is not being popular but speaking what God tells us to and that is Christ is the only way.

 

[JoStories]

I see what you are saying. But it is the way. As a Christian I can't and will not deny that. People want to get into Heaven it is only through Christ. You see for us Christians it is not being popular but speaking what God tells us to and that is Christ is the only way.

I know that sugar but you also know that this forum has people of all faiths. I mean that literally, and of course, people of no faith at all. We need to respect the fact that some are simply not meant to be Christian, such as myself. You know I believe in God Ben but you also know that I cannot accept the things that you do. But I do want you to know that I have seen you being very kind and understanding here with those who disagree with you. I am rather proud of that my dear.

 

[BenTheBeliever]

I know that sugar but you also know that this forum has people of all faiths. I mean that literally, and of course, people of no faith at all. We need to respect the fact that some are simply not meant to be Christian, such as myself. You know I believe in God Ben but you also know that I cannot accept the things that you do. But I do want you to know that I have seen you being very kind and understanding here with those who disagree with you. I am rather proud of that my dear.

Thank you. I also know that being a Christian will not make me a popular person. That is why I can speak blodly now about !y Faith cause it is not about me or my feelings or wanting to be like. Ive grown deeper in my Faith lately cause I see it is about God. Even if people say it is not. Things will never change it is about God. Yes I will show respect but I am not ashamed anymore of my Christian fait or my walk.

 

[JoStories]

Thank you. I also know that being a Christian will not make me a popular person. That is why I can speak blodly now about !y Faith cause it is not about me or my feelings or wanting to be like. Ive grown deeper in my Faith lately cause I see it is about God. Even if people say it is not. Things will never change it is about God. Yes I will show respect but I am not ashamed anymore of my Christian fait or my walk.

You shouldn't be Ben nor should you not speak of your faith from your own opinion. I just want to you understand that some will challenge those beliefs here. And that might include myself sweetie. It is not meant to disrespect you or your faith. It is simply opinion, a lot like you saw on Nora's board or the old AOL one that was so bloody nasty. I would merely ask you to understand that some here have reasons for not liking your faith. You have to try to understand that and respect it. Do you see what I mean Ben? Its sort of like when Randy would get so damn nasty and tell people his rants and cause hard feelings. Or JT. Here, we have to respect all people of any and no faith. KWIM?

 

[BenTheBeliever]

You shouldn't be Ben nor should you not speak of your faith from your own opinion. I just want to you understand that some will challenge those beliefs here. And that might include myself sweetie. It is not meant to disrespect you or your faith. It is simply opinion, a lot like you saw on Nora's board or the old AOL one that was so bloody nasty. I would merely ask you to understand that some here have reasons for not liking your faith. You have to try to understand that and respect it. Do you see what I mean Ben? Its sort of like when Randy would get so damn nasty and tell people his rants and cause hard feelings. Or JT. Here, we have to respect all people of any and no faith. KWIM?

I get that. I get that people won't agree with me. And that is OK. God says not all will believe. But like you gives will always give your opions I will as well. IMO we are all broken people inside. We all have some kind of emptiness inside and only Christ can fill that emptiness. I know people will not agree with me saying this but as a Christian I have to be honest with how I feel. Just like the only way to Heaven is through the blood of Christ. I had someone ask me if I believe Jesus is the only way to Heaven and yes I believe that. I've matured in my Faith. I will never preach hell but at the same time I can never say sin is OK in God eyes.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Poisoning the well is never a good tactic. Incidentally, if one's argument is adequate, there should be no need to engage in cheap shots such as this.

It's not poisoning the well to point out that you stand to lose or gain financially from what happens to the law on this issue. It doesn't mean that you can't be correct, only that we should try to corroborate what you say before we accept it.

And even with that safeguard in place, I find it significant that, after 200+ years, no one has raised a serious question with regard to this, subject. Apparently, you -- a non-citizen -- are the only one making an issue out of it.

Do you think that these issues only affect the US? Canada's tax treatment of religion is similar. These issues cross borders.

And if you think I'm the only one making an issue of this, then you aren't paying attention.

"Suckle at the public teat?" This is another case of poisoning the well. And, I think, specifically designed to be provocative. It won't work.

Just because something reflects badly on you doesn't mean that it's "poisoning the well."

And there's nothing inherently wrong with suckling at the public teat. Lots of good causes do it. Take the Canadian film industry: Canadian film productions have benefitted from the Film & Video Tax Credit, and the movies that benefit put a little credit to the program at the end of the movie. The arrangement with churches is similar, but instead of gratitude, we just get this attitude of entitlement.

<sigh> You know what I meant. No church was ever taxed before it became official.

Traditionally, the tax flowed the other way: a couple of states kept directly sponsoring their official state churches right into the 1800s.

My financial interests? Heck, I pay taxes at double the rate of American workers.

Not simply because you're a minister, though. Ministers are considered employees of their church if they meet the normal criteria for being an employee. If you really are a self-employed contractor - i.e. you're your own employer - why wouldn't you expect to pay the employer's portion of your taxes?

If your church is breaking the law by forcing you to call yourself "self-employed", then that's between you, your church, and the IRS.

There's nothing about being a minister that forces you to pay more taxes. There might be something about your employment situation that does, but this isn't unique to ministry work.

And I didn't get a housing deduction last year, so I don't know what "interests" you're talking about.

You don't stand to ever get one in the future?

But thanks for the ad hominem attack. it certainly shows you to be aggressive and mean-spirited. Which is uncalled for in this situation.

You have a poor understanding of what an ad hominem attack is... and poisoning the well, too, apparently. Do you think that anyone who doesn't think highly of you is committing a logical fallacy?

I consider these special tax breaks for churches, religious people, and ministers to be legalized theft from the non-religious. It does make me angry, and I wouldn't be surprised if this anger comes across in my posts.

In your country alone, these tax subsidies amount to $71 billion dollars a year by the last estimate I've seen. If a group of corporations were given $71 billion worth of special tax breaks with no accountability and no clear picture of what benefit the people would gain from this, wouldn't you be mad?

 

[sojourner]

It's not poisoning the well to point out that you stand to lose or gain financially from what happens to the law on this issue. It doesn't mean that you can't be correct, only that we should try to corroborate what you say before we accept it.

But it is poisoning the well to intimate that my observations are more colored than your observations by dragging my financial status into it.

Do you think that these issues only affect the US?

Constitutional law affects US citizens.

Just because something reflects badly on you doesn't mean that it's "poisoning the well."

Nothing is "reflecting badly on [me]." But your making it seem as though I'm engaging in immoral activity by saying that something is reflecting badly on me is poisoning the well.

And there's nothing inherently wrong with suckling at the public teat.

The very terminology is pejorative.

Traditionally, the tax flowed the other way: a couple of states kept directly sponsoring their official state churches right into the 1800s.

There is no "official state church." That was the whole point of the constitution.

Not simply because you're a minister, though.

Yes. Simply because I'm a minister.

Ministers are considered employees of their church if they meet the normal criteria for being an employee.

Ministers don't meet that criteria.

If your church is breaking the law by forcing you to call yourself "self-employed", then that's between you, your church, and the IRS.

I didn't say they were. I said that I'm not "suckling at the government teat."

There's nothing about being a minister that forces you to pay more taxes.

This is a red herring. I said that ministers pay double the taxes in order to refute your point that we "suckle at the government teat."

You don't stand to ever get one in the future?

It depends. If I'm in a situation to be in parochial ministry again, I may be provided a rectory, in which case I don't get a deduction.

You have a poor understanding of what an ad hominem attack is... and poisoning the well, too, apparently. Do you think that anyone who doesn't think highly of you is committing a logical fallacy?

I think that when an attempt is made to malign my character by intimating that my logic is flawed, due to some nebulous, implied moral flaw brought about by the "convenient" alignment of the law with my financial concerns is an ad hominem. Apparently, you're the one with the problem.

I consider these special tax breaks for churches, religious people, and ministers to be legalized theft from the non-religious.

I really don't care what you believe. You certainly don't care what I believe. Your belief is not cogent to what is actually taking place.

It does make me angry,

Your thinly-veiled implication that I'm acting in an immoral fashion makes me angry.

I wouldn't be surprised if this anger comes across in my posts.

It does come across, and I find it HIGHLY offensive.

In your country alone, these tax subsidies amount to $71 billion dollars a year by the last estimate I've seen. If a group of corporations were given $71 billion worth of special tax breaks with no accountability and no clear picture of what benefit the people would gain from this, wouldn't you be mad?

1) The church isn't "a group of corporations."
2) They're not "special tax breaks." A tax break implies that a tax is otherwise owed. Because of the philosophy inherent in the Constitution, a tax is never owed by the church, so there is no "special tax break."
3) Since there is no "special tax break," no "accountability" is necessary.
4) Just because you don't find a "clear picture of benefit," doesn't mean that a benefit doesn't exist.

I don't think you have good reason to be "mad," except for what you've fabricated in your own mind.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Constitutional law affects US citizens.

American constitutional law mainly affects US residents. Other countries also have similar special religion-based tax privileges.

Nothing is "reflecting badly on [me]." But your making it seem as though I'm engaging in immoral activity by saying that something is reflecting badly on me is poisoning the well.

No - there's nothing about your engagement in (and defense of) immoral activity that would necessarily stop you from taking a correct position if you wanted to.

The very terminology is pejorative.

The terminology is accurate.

There is no "official state church." That was the whole point of the constitution.

Many states had official churches. The last one wasn't abolished until 1833. Even after that, several states barred non-Protestants from office right up until the 14th Amendment.

Yes. Simply because I'm a minister.

Ministers don't meet that criteria.

The information the IRS publishes and online tax guides for ministers say otherwise.

I didn't say they were. I said that I'm not "suckling at the government teat."

Was the money that pays your salary subsidized by a tax credit?

This is a red herring. I said that ministers pay double the taxes in order to refute your point that we "suckle at the government teat."

Are you talking about your Social Security contribution? If so, the only reason you would have to pay the employer portion would be that your church isn't paying it. The government doesn't get any extra money because of you; you're just subsidizing your church.

It depends. If I'm in a situation to be in parochial ministry again, I may be provided a rectory, in which case I don't get a deduction.

... but you would receive something that would be a taxable benefit to a normal employee, and not pay tax on it.

It does come across, and I find it HIGHLY offensive.

Well, then the feeling is mutual.

1) The church isn't "a group of corporations."

It's an analogy.

2) They're not "special tax breaks." A tax break implies that a tax is otherwise owed. Because of the philosophy inherent in the Constitution, a tax is never owed by the church, so there is no "special tax break."

I'm not going to engage with your warped view of the Constitution. It's a special exemption in the sense that, in general, net revenue is taxed.
For churches, this isn't the case.

Other special exemptions are the tax credit for donations to churches (income is normally taxable) and the clergy housing allowance (again: employment income and employee benefits are normally taxable).

3) Since there is no "special tax break," no "accountability" is necessary.

There's that entitlement attitude I mentioned earlier.

4) Just because you don't find a "clear picture of benefit," doesn't mean that a benefit doesn't exist.

Okay... what is it? What benefit does society gain by not subjecting churches to the same tax rules as other organizations?

 

[sojourner]

American constitutional law mainly affects US residents. Other countries also have similar special religion-based tax privileges.

As I said, as far as the US is concerned, "special religion-based tax privileges" is inaccurate, since the tax codes have always excluded religious bodies as taxable entities.

The terminology is accurate.

No. It's not. The government has no body part that could qualify as a "teat." The terminology is highly metaphorical and highly subjective, at that, so "accuracy," in this case is also highly subjective.

No - there's nothing about your engagement in (and defense of) immoral activity that would necessarily stop you from taking a correct position if you wanted to.

The information the IRS publishes and online tax guides for ministers say otherwise.

Was the money that pays your salary subsidized by a tax credit?

Are you talking about your Social Security contribution? If so, the only reason you would have to pay the employer portion would be that your church isn't paying it.

... but you would receive something that would be a taxable benefit to a normal employee, and not pay tax on it.

I'm not comfortable talking about my personal financial situation with someone over a non-secure internet site whom I don't know. Let's keep my personal finances out of the discussion. Quite frankly, how my finances are handled is none of your business and not up for debate.

Well, then the feeling is mutual.

I find it kind of creepy that you would concern your emotional well-being so much with my financial concerns. It's almost like being stalked or something.

It's an analogy.

Hey, your'e the one being all punctilious.

I'm not going to engage with your warped view of the Constitution.

I'm not sure why you seem to feel that it's my view that's warped. It's my Constitution, after all. If you don't like it, you're more than welcome to keep the discussion on your side of the border.

It's a special exemption in the sense that, in general, net revenue is taxed.
For churches, this isn't the case.

It's an exemption. It's not a "special" exemption. In general, the church has never been taxed.

There's that entitlement attitude I mentioned earlier.

There's that offensive attitude I mentioned earlier.

Okay... what is it? What benefit does society gain by not subjecting churches to the same tax rules as other organizations?

Separation of church and state.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I'm not comfortable talking about my personal financial situation with someone over a non-secure internet site whom I don't know. Let's keep my personal finances out of the discussion. Quite frankly, how my finances are handled is none of your business and not up for debate.

You thought your tax rate was fair game when you thought it helped your argument, but fine.

In general, employees only have to pay the employer portion of their Social Security contribution when their employer doesn't. The government doesn't get any extra money for these employees... however, it does get less money when the employee is a religious minister with a housing allowance.

... and of course, any Social Security weirdness is specific to the US, but the issue of religious tax exemptions applies to many countries.

It's an exemption. It's not a "special" exemption. In general, the church has never been taxed.

... so it's a long-standing special exemption.

Separation of church and state.

How is "separation of church and state" aided by giving tax breaks to religious ministers that are available to no one else?

How is "separation of church and state" aided by making the state the judge of what is and isn't a valid church?

Why should countries without separation of church and state, e.g. Canada, not tax churches like other organizations?

 

[sojourner]

You thought your tax rate was fair game when you thought it helped your argument, but fine.

It has nothing to do with what's "helping my argument." It has everything to do with propriety. Leave it be.

... so it's a long-standing special exemption.

Semantics. I say "special exemption" applies to something on a limited basis that isn't normally exempt. The church is normally exempt. The term "special exemption implies that the entity so exempt is not normally exempt, and, if it weren't for the unusual exemption, would normally be taxed. That's simply not the case in this country. Nor has it ever been the case in this country.

How is "separation of church and state" aided by giving tax breaks to religious ministers that are available to no one else?

Asked and answered.

How is "separation of church and state" aided by making the state the judge of what is and isn't a valid church?

Because (again) in this country, the state makes the rules.

Why should countries without separation of church and state, e.g. Canada, not tax churches like other organizations?

I'm not arguing that they shouldn't. Maybe they should. Maybe that's the law in other countries. if that's their law, then that's their business -- not mine. In many countries, there is a state church. I don't give a flying you-know-what if that's the case. It's not my business. AFAIC, there's nothing morally wrong with there being a state church.

 

[Muffled]

Churches are not enjoined by law to solemnize any marriages. I have refused to solemnize the marriage of a hetero couple whom I judged to be ill prepared.
The law doesn't say, "the church must marry all homosexual comers." Therefore, there is no reprisal for failure to do so.

When I got married I got a license too soon and it ran out before the marriage date. I told my in-laws that we would get married in the Church and that would be good enough until after the homeymoon when we could get a legal marriage but my in-laws wouldn't recognize a church marriage as valid and wanted the legal marriage so I had to get a license at the last minute. Also the minister (Presbyterian) would not perform the marriage unless it were also a legal marriage.

My grandaparents (my grandmother pregnant) ran off to NH from MA and got married by a JP there but my great grandmother wouldn't accept the legal marriage and required them to get married in the church for her to consider it a valid marriage.

 

[Muffled]

I would agree with this if churches stayed out of the political arena. But they don't.
Many, maybe most, have become de facto tax exempt Political Action Committees.
Tom

I believe separation of church and state is a myth promulgated by those who would like it to be so. I beleive there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits non-profit organizations from taking a political stand. If all organizations had to refrain from politics so also would the unions have to refrain.

 

[Muffled]

Right. The Southern Baptist Convention clearly supports Republican candidates, black churches usually support Democratic candidates, etcetera. It is a useless fiction.

I believe, perhaps but there is also another reality of government not liking churches and completely ignoring the constitution to attack churches via taxes and ordinances. My church wanted ato put up a sign but the town refused but allowed the high school to put one up. I believe this kind of discrimination goes on constantly but it isn't really worth making a supreme court case over it.

 

[leibowde84]

Norman: And this is coming from an atheist?

Why not? I kind of agree. I don't think that any organization should get tax-free status unless their only purpose is charity. This certainly cannot be said of any Church.

 

[leibowde84]

I believe separation of church and state is a myth promulgated by those who would like it to be so. I beleive there is nothing in the constitution that prohibits non-profit organizations from taking a political stand. If all organizations had to refrain from politics so also would the unions have to refrain.

What about the establishment clause and the commentary from the drafters of the Constitution, our Founding Fathers?! "Congress shall pass no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion." Keep in mind, aslo, that MOST of the founding fathers were Deists, not Christians. And, some were even atheists. There was an interest in keeping the Church away from the legislature, which is made clear by the quotes from our Founding Fathers included below.

Thomas Jefferson (Deist): “… I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.” ~~ Letter to the Danbury Baptists, January 1, 1802

John Adams (Deist): “The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian Religion.” 1797, The Treaty of Tripoli, initiated by President Washington, signed by President John Adams, and approved by the Senate of the United States

George Washington (Christian): “We have abundant reason to rejoice, that, in this land, the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition, and that every person may here worship God according to the dictates of his own heart. In this enlightened age, & in this land of equal liberty, it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining & holding the highest offices that are known in the United States.” ~~ Letter to the members of The New Church in Baltimore, January 1793

Benjamin Franklin (Atheist): “When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself so that its professors are obliged to call for the help of the civil power, ’tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.”

James Madison (Deist): “The members of a Govt as such can in no sense, be regarded as possessing an advisory trust from their Constituents in their religious capacities. They cannot form an ecclesiastical Assembly, Convocation, Council, or Synod, and as such issue decrees or injunctions addressed to the faith or the Consciences of the people. In their individual capacities, as distinct from their official station, they might unite in recommendations of any sort whatever, in the same manner as any other individuals might do. But then their recommendations ought to express the true character from which they emanate.” ~~ Notes on Government Issued Religious Proclamations

Thomas Paine (Deist): “As to religion, I hold it to be the indispensable duty of government to protect all conscientious protesters thereof, and I know of no other business government has to do therewith. ” ~~ Common Sense, 1776.

“Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law.” ~~ The Rights of Man, 1791-1792

“All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”