On November 12th, six days after election day, I drove by a Catholic Church on Telegraph. The sign said, "Follow God's Authority, Not Man's Majority."
It appears they want it both ways because in the weeks leading up to the election their political signs clearly advocated for "man's majority."
The signs bear an eerie resemblance to Sinclair Lewis's (or someone else's) prediction of fascism in the United States; full of eagles, flags, and crosses and then planted along streets all around the county.
I think their overtly political actions and signs stink of hypocrisy and dishonesty. As the old cliche goes, they want their cake and they want to eat it too. In the weeks leading up to the election, their politics, while maybe not illegal, is certainly intellectually dishonest.
Of course, I wouldn't expect anything less.
A friend of mine had this to say:
"The deal here in America (something that the RC [Roman Catholic] church has always had problems with) is that their tax exempt status means they must keep their weird hats and noses out of partisan politics. The state asks nothing of them and they have no say is what that policy boils down to and it is not only a good policy but a sound one. It doesn't work, however, when authoritarian religious groups like the RC Church and the fundamentalist wackos insist upon their way and start telling their followers and members that God wants them to vote this way or that way. Here in St. Louis the RC Church has had giant signs for decades saying "God is pro-life" which is utterly offensive even if you agree with them on abortion! The problem with taxing them is once we do that then they'll be free to openly exhort their members to do God's will (aka the will of the church leaders) by voting Republican or Democratic or whatever. No matter whose side they are on they need to butt out."
I agree with much of what my friend said here, but in this statement he forgets a very important element - the tax deductible contributions of the parishioners to the church.
As I already said, the real problem is that it is intellectually dishonest. It is no secret what candidate(s) and party they support in government these days. A person would have to have a very low IQ not to get it. (As a side note, both support for their favored party as well as their religion are diminishing. You would think they would connect the dots.)
If I were Christian I would say that it's very un-Christian of them, but since I'm not, I will just say that it's typical.
The churches on Telegraph are using up very valuable property that could be benefiting our community, especially economically. Instead they are a drain on community resources, and serve as housing for dishonest political action committees.
They aren't fooling anyone, but the fact that they can do what they do and remain sheltered from paying taxes is a crime against the trust of the average American.
Not only should the church pay taxes, the contributions to the church shouldn't be anymore tax deductible than a contribution to the Republican National Committee.
It's clear that you aren't truly in touch with religion. There are churches that have Liberal tendencies; and there are churches that have more Conservative tendencies. Perhaps there are more that lean to the Conservative side; but, by using a wide brush, you diminish the validity of your viewpoint. It's apparent that you just don't support/respect people that attend church services. Perhaps it's the same way that I don't support dog fights and spousal abuse. Do you support those? I will SOMEWHAT agree with you on the second statement. If churches preach on Scripture, and it speaks to ethics or the way you should model your life, I have no problem with that. But, when candidates, political policies, or legislation is SPECIFICALLY mentioned; that's where I draw the line. Telling a congregation HOW to vote is unethical and WRONG. If an individual CHOOSES to model their political affiliation and voting preferences based on their ethics and religious beliefs, that's one thing. The ability for them to choose, on their own, is the key. Handing them a flier or telling them that these are the "preferred" ways to vote is wrong and, I believe, justification for the loss of their tax exempt status.
I agree that church property doesn't generate any revenue. On the other hand, do we really need more retail? Look at Telegraph, or anywhere else, and show me that there's not already a glut of empty retail. Maybe we need more parks for our communities to pay to maintain? How about more housing? There's definitely not enough of that on the market! Let's build more subdivisions! I am curious as to how any church is a drain on community resources? I don't remember the County stopping by to plow and salt our lot, repave it, mow our grass, change the bulbs in our lot lights, or maintain our structures. Perhaps you could clarify this for me? And, as far as "housing for dishonest political action committees", I'd be more than happy to see your research. I'd go as far as to say that I'd help you in alleviating that issue, with some hard facts. In summation, you don't like or respect religion, as a whole. Nothing that I say will sway your opinion. But, please don't apply your perception of one or two churches to churches as a whole. Besides, you don't darken the doors of any church. How do you REALLY know what you BELIEVE to be true?
Well done. Let me say it clearly--The RC Church has Historically been "LIBERAL". If you believe Mussolini Hitler were Republican --than you need a history lesson. If you believe "GAY-sexual activity" is a Republican standard, than I would just avoid your other great points proving "HOW LIBERAL" the RC church has historically been. It should not take a Constitutional Amendment to agree on Taxation of Faith based communities. Especially, when those communities already have excellent "Education" facilities.
Karl — you raise a very difficult and complex issue for me. Certainly it should be illegal for groups and organization to fraudulently use "religion" to avoid paying taxes. If I'm not mistaken, that's been an issue with the so called Church of Scientology. One the one hand, if a church or religion is clearly a religion — and it wishes to use its money to influence voters — I don't see anything wrong with that. Yet on the other hand, if Karl Frank wants to make a tax-deductible donation to a church and earmark that money to be used for political purposes, something about that seems wrong to me. That's using a church, in essence, to launder money. My guess is that abusing common sense will eventually lead to steps taken to regulate churches and their political involvement and their tax exempt status, and there will exist a rich and complex history of case law on this subject.
The old Democratic party always included "GOD" & prayer in our public schools. Democrats always shunned same-sex marriages. That is not true today. Your solution? the highest level of retribution--TAXATION!. And what would you do with the TAXATION money of churches? My solution: Why don't you organize a Freeloader Atheist community, build your own communities and schools with your own money and promote your un-godly teachings. I'll not complain. Every member of that RC church also built that public school You attend "FREE". TAXATION is the Food of Survival for any "atheist". Pure and simple. Your value of public school property? (free non-taxed atheist meeting facility) that you use to conduct your beliefs. I think a $100mil annual Mehlville political Waste. Possible Atheist signage "BORN TO LIVE FREE". (Literally!). It is not the sign that bothers you. Christianity bothers you. Perhaps The RC church TAXATION is needed to continue providing "FREE EDUCATION". You are In "awe of the universe-Addicted to Life". I say you are Addicted to "TAXATION of LIFE". The sign is NOT political. It is a teaching. Guidance. Your mind does not live in that message.
My children attend the Salvation Army and that is also where I grew up going to church. They do not get involved in politics. Some of their parishioners do, but never the leadership. They don't give their members political signs for their yards. Their leadership does not come and say voting for a certain person puts their soul in danger, etc. I think, especially in this latest election, the Roman Catholic church stepped over the line....and most certainly many independent, mega-churches, and fundamentalist churches. Have you seen 'Jesus Camp' about the church in Missouri that kept a cardboard cutout of George W. Bush up in their church as their hero?
I don't disagree that there are liberal and conservative churches, but it's the conservative churches that have clearly crossed the line in their zeal.
If you give to Catholic Charities, it is clear where that money is earmarked and is long as it is used for its stated purpose, then no problem here.
Drain on the community because it is valuable property that could be used for many purposes. Retail and new construction would invigorate the community economically, especially if it used local labor. They would be paying property taxes which would benefit our schools and other infrastructure. If nothing else, it would open up property for other charitable organizations or non-profits that are relevant in the 21st Century.
"This came to me from a practicing Catholic who is among "Catholics for Obama" and by the way all bishops don't agree. Oh, and may I add, I am a seamless pro-lifer, NO capital punishment(don't kill any one in my name), no "Just' war and no abortion. Catholics are like everybody else, they only seek to find truth in the Gospel so here it is: Please prayerfully consider our future when you vote next week. I know that good friends can disagree and I sincerely respect that right. When I read this I thought it most completely summarizes my/our concerns so thought I would pass it along. God Bless. I'm voting for President Obama because his efforts saved the country from another Great Depression, rebuilt GM, reformed healthcare, reformed Wall Street, and got us out of Iraq." The next comment will have the content he is speaking of...
Great Depression? there was very little Home Mortgage debt., No 401k Funds for safety, No Unemployment from Govt nor "freebies" like Cell Phones and child welfare money. Another Great Depression is a talking point--Not reality. Major pension plans did not exist, and certainly No Social security Government entitlements. A stock market that was worth Trillions only down 40% from a peak. Karl: America was nowhere near "Great Depression" levels. It was Candidate Rhetoric and still is. Obama "REBUILT GM"? What a laugh! He screwed every person who gave GM loans to buy their equipment. Obama "Borrowed" all of the $50Bil he gave to GM. They only have $15Bil left. They pay Zero income taxes, unlike FORD. Chrysler was given $15Bil and NOW GONE to ITALY. GM is NOT rebuilt and will file another legitimate bankruptcy in 5 years. It's on life support in this USA. Healthcare IS not Reformed---It is mandatory Purchase of INSURANCE. That , Mr Karl, is not Healthcare. Insurance is NOT Healthcare. Catholics now see that there is a NEW Democratic Party on a mission to make ALL religions lose members. That is a WAR we are now prepared tackle.
Not speaking for my Catholic Deacon father-in-law here, but I'm sure he would say something along the lines that the job of a politician is to uphold the Constitution, not their religion. The link provided above is from 'Catholics for Obama' so I'm not exactly sure who you think you are speaking for when you say 'Catholics now see...'
The constitution, being by the people, can only be upheld by "Representatives of the people". It is Politicians who try to circumvent the constitution. You do seem to place "POLITICIANS" on a God-Like pedestal. They rule!. No sir, no one rules above that Politician. There are those who might claim to be practicing Catholic, but decide to pick/choose what to practice. So, your "Catholics for Obama" person could not agree to same-sex or any abortion timing and still be labelled a practicing Catholic. Obama's social agenda is 100% contrary to Catholic religion. There is no such thing as Half-Catholic. Trying to justify your points using "practicing Catholics" voting preferences is useless. President's have Zero power to pass any laws. So, any Practicing Catholic agreeing to Obama MUST share his "moral" agenda. Obamacare, a compassion for the poor does not trump "morals" to any Catholic. Taxing Any Tax-Exempt is a legitimate attempt that I would welcome. Especially, since that argument would finally bring every non-profit Union tax-exempt organization under the same scrutiny. Tax-exemptions come under the TAX CODES , not the constitution. I speak for myself and hundreds of Catholics throughout Missouri I never put links, but here is our site--visit it only if you want. http://www.mocatholic.org/
As a life-long Catholic, I can tell you that Church politics are very complex. Two of my relatives are Catholic Priests (in Wisconsin) and another is a Catholic Nun (in urban New Orleans). All of them vote democratic. When I look at it - most Catholics should be liberal and vote that way. Some aren't though due to the abortion issue and there are a lot of single issue voters like that in my Church. You will find that the people who remain silent in the Church on such issues disagree with the Church hierarchy, but don't want to raise the issue. It would be a losing battle for them. It also wouldn't surprise me if the folks at St. Francis had to put some kind of political message up to satisfy the STL Archdiocese. I know of many Catholics don't believe that. To your original point - I think if the Government threatened to end their tax exempt status, people in the Catholic Church would accuse them of discrimination. It's a good point to make, but would cause even the most moderate of Catholics to run to politicians who are very conservative. Many members of the republican party run under the banner of "Protecting Religious Freedom," but do they really mean that ... and the last time I looked, we have pretty good religious freedom in our country.
I'm sure the Mormon's felt the same way when it was made against the law to have more than one wife.
I hear you, I have many people in my life who were taken to DC or Jeff City on tour buses to protest political issues as teenagers. Most of them (women) tell me now that they didn't even realize what they were doing and that it just felt good to be a part of something and to feel like they were making a difference. Of course, the church (all churches) should realize by now that Roe vs. Wade isn't going anywhere. There is so much more to life than abortion. They cry religious freedom by they do it at the expense of personal freedom. A clear violation of Stuart Mill's libertarian 'Harm Principle.' :)
Like I said, intellectually dishonest. Lying
Life is just a glimpse of tine between two eternities. http://mehlville-oakville.patch.com/blog_posts/todd-akins-rape-comment-was-pseudoscience-but-what-about-the-morality-of-abortion-part-1