That might be true, but it doesn't matter.

If churches are de facto getting subsidies from the government, then no one can blame the government when that same government sticks its nose into what the churches are doing.

After all, some atheist can claim that since he pays taxes and churches don't, it means he is in effect supporting the churches, by paying for the government services which the churches also consume. Therefore, he should have a say in what goes on in those churches.

From that, it follows like a similar right-side argument about a******n clinics. People who are against a******ns are upset that their tax money is being used to fund said a******ns.

Strangely, when it comes to churches, this argument is rarely raised.

Yet, when you make "life" for some entity tax free, it's the same as giving that entity 30% of its budget in the form of government subsidies.

I really don't mind my tax money going towards churches. But once they start preaching politics, this crosses the line. Why should I pay for the ability of some pastor to promote some political agenda with which I might not agree?

This is what liberals often do. They want to take my money and then they want to decide what to do with it because they believe they know best. My opinion doesn't matter, and I'm simply forced to pay. I'm against that.

Yet, this is basically the same thing, but coming from the conservative side.

If churches were made for-profit -- completely private entities, then this argument would disappear. And the churches would be free to do wh**ever they want. And the government wouldn't have much say in what goes on inside those churches.

The same with public schools and prayer. If it's public (as in either subsidies or completely funded by the government), it means the government should have the right to say what goes on in there.

I don't like the idea of a big government. But I can't stand the hypocrisy of taking public money and then telling the "public" (the government) to mind it's own business.

Pick one or the other.

At the present time, 47% of Americans are carrying the tax burden in this country. That number is shrinking due to lost jobs, a growing aging population, growing ranks of those relying on unemployment and welfare programs and lack of jobs for those coming out of school into the workforce. Who, exactly, will be paying for a healthcare program that we were lied to about its cost per year? Fewer and fewer people, meaning less and less tax revenue. That means the treatments covered by government-run healthcare will shrink, not grow. It isn’t the responsibility of government to take care of us. It’s our responsibility to take care of ourselves and each other.

Government should also not be able to use its programs to dictate to churches and faith-based initiatives what they can and can’t say, and must do. Telling churches that the must provide health care coverage that conflicts with their moral values or teachings is blatantly unconstitutional. Telling them they must accept those living in lifestyles that conflict with their teachings is also blatantly unconstitutional. Whether it‘s a******n and contraception or gay marriage, our Constitution prohibits government from telling churches what it must do or can’t talk about.

That same Constitution also allows the free expression of worship, which means that if people decide to hold a prayer service before a graduation, or town meeting, then they can. The First Amendment doesn’t say there is a “separation of church and state.” What it does say is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” It stops government from establishing a national church, it doesn’t allow them to stop people from praying in public, in schools or anywhere else. Telling people they can’t have religion in public IS establishing a national “church” of agnosticism or atheism.

Our Constitution is and should be the be all, end all of the limits of government, not a way for government to limit its citizens. Conservatives believe in the sanctity of the family, of faith and of individuals to build their own futures. We DID build it, our lives, our businesses and this country. Believing that government knows better than the individual is asking for the end of our nation and the spirit that built it in the first place.

That might be true, but it doesn't matter.

If churches are de facto getting subsidies from the government, then no one can blame the government when that same government sticks its nose into what the churches are doing.

After all, some atheist can claim that since he pays taxes and churches don't, it means he is in effect supporting the churches, by paying for the government services which the churches also consume. Therefore, he should have a say in what goes on in those churches.

From that, it follows like a similar right-side argument about a******n clinics. People who are against a******ns are upset that their tax money is being used to fund said a******ns.

Strangely, when it comes to churches, this argument is rarely raised.

Yet, when you make "life" for some entity tax free, it's the same as giving that entity 30% of its budget in the form of government subsidies.

I really don't mind my tax money going towards churches. But once they start preaching politics, this crosses the line. Why should I pay for the ability of some pastor to promote some political agenda with which I might not agree?

This is what liberals often do. They want to take my money and then they want to decide what to do with it because they believe they know best. My opinion doesn't matter, and I'm simply forced to pay. I'm against that.

Yet, this is basically the same thing, but coming from the conservative side.

If churches were made for-profit -- completely private entities, then this argument would disappear. And the churches would be free to do wh**ever they want. And the government wouldn't have much say in what goes on inside those churches.

The same with public schools and prayer. If it's public (as in either subsidies or completely funded by the government), it means the government should have the right to say what goes on in there.

I don't like the idea of a big government. But I can't stand the hypocrisy of taking public money and then telling the "public" (the government) to mind it's own business.

Pick one or the other.

You are correct, churches may not endorse or oppose candidates for elective office, pastors can preach on biblical and moral issues, such as a******n and traditional marriage, can urge the congregation to register and v**e, and can overview the positions of the candidates. Churches may distribute nonpartisan v**er guides, register v**ers, provide t***sportation to the polls, hold candidate forums, and introduce visiting candidates. Here is the problem that happened during the last e******n. Many churches that supported Obama gave out information on the Democrat position and did not supply like material on the Republicans. In fact a group of them met in DC to discuss how to motivate their church member to turn out in force to v**e for Obama.

http://www.christianpost.com/news/black-pastors-meet-in-va-to-discuss-support-for-obama-81083/

Unless you are living in a world that all people at all times do the right thing, you have to acknowledge that if there is a way around the law, lawbreakers will find it and use it!

I think the major problem with churches and politics is taxes.

Having a non-profit status effectively means getting a subsidy from the government -- the subsidy in the amount of taxes that should have been paid but weren't.

So if an entity gets a subsidy from the government, then the government gets a say in how that entity is run. That's simply fair. In principle, it the same as the government dictating terms to welfare recipients.

Now, if you start a church and run it as a corporation (or sole proprietorship) without applying for any kind of non-profit status and pay all the taxes, then you should be able to do or say inside that church wh**ever you want.

Donations are nothing but receipts from customers. And those customers essentially pay for place to congregate. Wh**ever they do inside is their business. As long as all taxes are paid.

Another thing is churches that post political signs and pastors that preach politics to their flock. They are actually committing a felony when they do that. (The tax code prohibits political advertising by non-profits that aren't declared to be political.)

But of course, charging a pastor with "tax evasion and faking a non-profit status" is bad publicity so the government simply pretends that everything is OK.

Still, if you guys really want to talk about the government stepping on the church's toes, then you need to acknowledge these two problems first.

You can't have it both ways.

No there isn't.

As I posted above, when you make the existence and operation of some entity tax free, it's the same as giving that entity roughly 30% of its budget in the form of government subsidies.

We (individuals and corporations) all pay taxes to pay for government services. And we consume those services. Churches don't pay taxes, but still consume the same government services. So in effect churches are subsidized by the taxpayers.

Here is a simple example. Churches located in the US use the implicit protection of the US armed forces from foreign aggression. Like all of us. But who pays for the defense spending? Not churches. I pay for it. You pay for it. Corporations pay for it. But not churches. So we all subsidize churches by paying their share of expenses for them.

This is just one basic (but major) government service that we all use. There are many more government services that a vital to the existence of every single one of us (including the churches). Yet, churches don't pay for them.

That in itself is not a problem. But when you mix tax-free status with political activity and demands for the government to stay out of church's business, it becomes a giant hypocrisy.

At the present time, 47% of Americans are carrying the tax burden in this country. That number is shrinking due to lost jobs, a growing aging population, growing ranks of those relying on unemployment and welfare programs and lack of jobs for those coming out of school into the workforce. Who, exactly, will be paying for a healthcare program that we were lied to about its cost per year? Fewer and fewer people, meaning less and less tax revenue. That means the treatments covered by government-run healthcare will shrink, not grow. It isn’t the responsibility of government to take care of us. It’s our responsibility to take care of ourselves and each other.

Government should also not be able to use its programs to dictate to churches and faith-based initiatives what they can and can’t say, and must do. Telling churches that the must provide health care coverage that conflicts with their moral values or teachings is blatantly unconstitutional. Telling them they must accept those living in lifestyles that conflict with their teachings is also blatantly unconstitutional. Whether it‘s a******n and contraception or gay marriage, our Constitution prohibits government from telling churches what it must do or can’t talk about.

That same Constitution also allows the free expression of worship, which means that if people decide to hold a prayer service before a graduation, or town meeting, then they can. The First Amendment doesn’t say there is a “separation of church and state.” What it does say is “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…” It stops government from establishing a national church, it doesn’t allow them to stop people from praying in public, in schools or anywhere else. Telling people they can’t have religion in public IS establishing a national “church” of agnosticism or atheism.

Our Constitution is and should be the be all, end all of the limits of government, not a way for government to limit its citizens. Conservatives believe in the sanctity of the family, of faith and of individuals to build their own futures. We DID build it, our lives, our businesses and this country. Believing that government knows better than the individual is asking for the end of our nation and the spirit that built it in the first place.

Faith, simple because they h**e success, ideas, charity, old marriage, capitalism, Christians etc. The earlier comparison between a tax exempt church and a taxpayer subsidized a******n clinic is like comparing a seedy bar to a bingo parlor. One glorifies uninhibited/whore-ish behavior, often with consequences for a good time, sometimes hidden, The other, a form of purity, salvation, refuge, reservation, revelation. One terminates life prematurely, the other discovers lives, late in the game. One returns the participant to the original ways to repeat mistakes, the other assists folks away from contemptuous lifestyles into a place of reckoning. I am not a spiritual man, but am furious with bath house barry's persecution of Christians and shows his true colors.