Churches and politics.
Jun. 6th, 2008 03:31 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
kengr(sparked by ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
codecattx's LJ post...)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/02/AR2008060202591.html?nav=hcmodule
Douglas Kmiec, a staunch Republican, firm foe of abortion and veteran of the Reagan Justice Department, had been denied Communion.
His sin? Kmiec, a Catholic who can cite papal pronouncements with the facility of a theological scholar, shocked old friends and adversaries alike earlier this year by endorsing Barack Obama for president.
My take is that it's legal and quite within a church' (or other religious institution's) rights to announce "if you support X, you may not receive [some particular religious service] or participate in [some religious rite]"
That leaves it between the worshipper and their God(s).
They can also preach about such things being wrong.
If they take someone aside that they *know* has made public statements of that sort and tell them not to try getting the "service" or participating in the "rite", that's ok.
If the *politician* announces that he's been told not to, that's *his* choice and the church hasn't crossed the line.
But as soon as the church or priest/priestess start making *public statements* about some political figure who is a member being denied, they've crossed the line about preaching for or against a particular candidate.
And there goes the tax exemption... or that's how it should work.
codecattx's LJ post...)http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/06/02/AR2008060202591.html?nav=hcmodule
Douglas Kmiec, a staunch Republican, firm foe of abortion and veteran of the Reagan Justice Department, had been denied Communion.
His sin? Kmiec, a Catholic who can cite papal pronouncements with the facility of a theological scholar, shocked old friends and adversaries alike earlier this year by endorsing Barack Obama for president.
My take is that it's legal and quite within a church' (or other religious institution's) rights to announce "if you support X, you may not receive [some particular religious service] or participate in [some religious rite]"
That leaves it between the worshipper and their God(s).
They can also preach about such things being wrong.
If they take someone aside that they *know* has made public statements of that sort and tell them not to try getting the "service" or participating in the "rite", that's ok.
If the *politician* announces that he's been told not to, that's *his* choice and the church hasn't crossed the line.
But as soon as the church or priest/priestess start making *public statements* about some political figure who is a member being denied, they've crossed the line about preaching for or against a particular candidate.
And there goes the tax exemption... or that's how it should work.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-06-06 11:15 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-06-06 01:11 pm (UTC)Taxation of churches has been used as a tool of control for a *long* time. We have avoided those problems, even if we've got others.
Just consider what would have happened to the Mormons if there wasn't such an exemption. Besides being forced to recant their beliefs on polygamy, they'd likely have been taxed out of existence.
And it's not a free pass. There are strict rules for all the varieties of "tax exempt" organizations. And one that applies to most of them is "stay out of politics".