"Churchgoers have rights!" -

[random_pickle]

I was reading the opinion section of my local newspaper, awhile back someone made a post suggesting that churches who donate money to politicians during elections should be taxed. I agree with this because if they give money to politicians, that makes them an industry, and industries get taxed. Churches are non-profit, and thus they cannot give that money to someone else.

Today someone wrote a response called "Churchgoers have rights". And it said:

"*******'s March 27 letter implying churches shouldn't have input in politics is way off base. Churches consist of citizens of the United States having just as much right to vote their convictions as any other citizen. The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the Free Exercise thereof." That means that Congress isn't to establish a national religion, and they aren't to prevent people of faith from expressing their beliefs and convictions. What we are experiencing now is a flagrant violation of the of the second half of this amendment. The Constitution is still valid, and it's time our government an court stopped distorting it intent, an ruled in accordance with it. The phrase 'separation of church and state' was in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to a church in Rhode Island assuring them the government would no have control over the church. It's not found in the Constitution. Churches are tax-free because they contribute substantially to the poor and needy. Our money would be better spent if there was more individual involvement in helping the needy, and less government. Our government isn't noted for being good stewards of our tax money."

Basically this guy doesn't answer the original response whatsoever and goes on a triad about the voting rights of churchgoers. He also mentions how separation of church and state aren't in the constitution, fun fact: it is. It is located in the first amendment primer, the one that this guy was talking about. It also bugs me how he contradicted his beliefs in separation several times in this. First he stated that churches have a say in politics, so he is against separation. However he then said that Congress had no right to meddle in church affairs, so he is for separation? Then he talked about how the whole separation thing wasn't in the constitution (it is in there actually), so he is against separation?

What do you guys think? Did I miss something here?

 

[Grand Number of Pounds]

No, you're right.

There are two parts to separation: 1) churches have no direct influence on the government (hence they can't give funds to politicians or endorse candidates, but they can give out voter information) 2) governments have no direct influence on churches (which is why they pay no income or property tax and pretty much can believe whatever they want).

Also, at one time in American history, people had to pay a church tax to pay the salaries of pastors in their communities. This was eventually ruled unconstitutional. Churches are also taxed sometimes. My church got an assessment for a watershed once.

If they want to endorse candidates or give money to them, then yes, I think it's fair that they lose their tax exempt status as a charity.

Personally, I think politics and religion are a very bad mix and I'd hate for a pastor to force his flock to vote a certain way or get kicked out of the church. I actually like the separation of church and state if it is the way I understand it.

 

[The Hunter]

Churchgoers have rights as individuals, and they can support who they want in their own free time and donate money to their candidate's campaign if they feel so inclined to do so. However, an entire church cannot give funds to a single candidate because first of all, separation of church and state, and second of all, there is the chance that not everybody in a church is going to vote for the same candidate (we'd be seeing more of these arguments that this is all unconstitutional if churches started supporting Democrats or third parties). Everyone in a church has a right to vote come election day, and that isn't really relevant to the entire argument as a church (or any other group) cannot vote for its members. So yes, Churchgoers do have rights. Those rights include being able to vote, being able to donate their own personal funds to a campaign, and most importantly, they have the right to exist without any interference from the government, which, if I might add, Obama has been doing a really good job of.

 

[DevilDog]

Yeah yeah and gingers have souls, keep wishing

 

[NegaCWC]

He also mentions how separation of church and state aren't in the constitution, fun fact: it is. It is located in the first amendment primer, the one that this guy was talking about.

I'm a secularist and a liberal and so I support separation of church and state. With that being said, there are some legitimate constitutional scholars who think that the current interpretation (as in the one the courts uphold) of the Establishment Clause ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion") as mandating separation of church and state on all levels of government is way of base. See Some Notes on the Establishment Clause (warning: PDF) by Akhil Reed Amar. And just in case you're wondering he's not some hardcore Scalia loving conservative, in fact he advocates the position that Obamacare is 100% constitutional under the commerce clause.

Personally the idea of the Equal Protection Clause as a source of separation of church and state (warning: PDF again) sounds better to me.

 

[Corrugated Daffodils]

Yep.

 

[Krokodil Overdose]

Basically this guy doesn't answer the original response whatsoever and goes on a triad about the voting rights of churchgoers. He also mentions how separation of church and state aren't in the constitution, fun fact: it is. It is located in the first amendment primer, the one that this guy was talking about. It also bugs me how he contradicted his beliefs in separation several times in this. First he stated that churches have a say in politics, so he is against separation. However he then said that Congress had no right to meddle in church affairs, so he is for separation? Then he talked about how the whole separation thing wasn't in the constitution (it is in there actually), so he is against separation?

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution. The phrase itself is derived from Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists, which is not a legal document despite being frequently treated as such by the courts.

Churches do have a say in politics, just not a formal one. After all, churchgoers have a say in politics (by voting) which amounts to the same thing in a democracy. "Establishment," by most readings, means "the government can't set up a Church of America" (when you remember what country we broke away from, this seems pretty obvious) not "you cannot at any point reference your religious beliefs w/r/t what the government should do in a given scenario."

I'd go further and support the position that separation of church and state is actually impossible, since "religion" is an artificially narrow and unhelpful category when it comes to ruling philosophies, but I realize that's a bit beyond the scope of the question.

 

[Russian Civil War]

Not an economy person, but why not compromise. Say, if a non-profit entity donated politically, tax that donation significantly higher than you would a for-profit.

 

[Rand /pol/]

No one should be taxed duh

 

[Commander Keen]

Church groups get together and send money to politicians all the time. “The First Methodist Lady’s Club endorses Joe SixPack for county commissioner” or somesuch.

Now, of course, that isn’t the church itself sending that money. Groups of people within the organization itself can do pretty much whatever they want, but there are regulations. Almost all of the time, however, these groups of people within the church are not employees of the church. They’re just people who show up. Volunteers. They could go anywhere and be the “First Methodist Lady’s Club”, so it doesn’t really matter what they do.

That’s why you’ll see candidates give really awkward speeches at church gatherings. They’re restricted on what they can say because there are laws in place that prohibit certain behavior at religious gatherings.

 

[Replicant Sasquatch]

The phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution. The phrase itself is derived from Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists, which is not a legal document despite being frequently treated as such by the courts.

Churches do have a say in politics, just not a formal one. After all, churchgoers have a say in politics (by voting) which amounts to the same thing in a democracy. "Establishment," by most readings, means "the government can't set up a Church of America" (when you remember what country we broke away from, this seems pretty obvious) not "you cannot at any point reference your religious beliefs w/r/t what the government should do in a given scenario."

I'd go further and support the position that separation of church and state is actually impossible, since "religion" is an artificially narrow and unhelpful category when it comes to ruling philosophies, but I realize that's a bit beyond the scope of the question.

I think the phrase "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" makes it pretty clear the US government is meant to be non-religious.

 

[Joan Nyan]

What if the free exercise of my religion requires me to donate to politicians? Any laws regarding what churches do should be implemented with extreme caution. Obviously you can't get away with human sacrifice just because you're a church, but spending money on politics is an act already protected by the 1st Amendment, so a church doing it should be doubly protected.