Some of Droopy's thoughts on the Constitution

[_Jason Bourne]

Yes I think he runs a risk.

[_Mike Reed]

If he remains vocal, yes I think he will be disciplined. And when he does, I hope authorities will reconsider the Church's tax-exempt status.

[_Jason Bourne]

If he remains vocal, yes I think he will be disciplined. And when he does, I hope authorities will reconsider the Church's tax-exempt status.

I would not hold your breath. I do not know the rules but it does not seem to me that the activities of the Church in this regards is anything like campaign finance issues and avoiding those rules. The Church sent a letter telling members to get involved and support the proposition. What else have they done?
Have they given money to canditates? Are they using Church funds directly to influence legislators? Or are they simply telling their members to go out and support this proposal?

[_Droopy]

If he remains vocal, yes I think he will be disciplined. And when he does, I hope authorities will reconsider the Church's tax-exempt status.

Have you ever read the Constitution?

[Guest]

I would not hold your breath. I do not know the rules but it does not seem to me that the activities of the Church in this regards is anything like campaign finance issues and avoiding those rules. The Church sent a letter telling members to get involved and support the proposition. What else have they done?
Have they given money to canditates? Are they using Church funds directly to influence legislators? Or are they simply telling their members to go out and support this proposal?

This is correct, in essence. The only possible way in which the Church's tax exempt status could be challenged is if they endorse candidates for office or use Church facilities for the purpose of campaigning for specific candidates.

Issue advocacy is protected speech for the Church as well as for its members, and the Church can take a public stand on any issue it desires without risking its tax status (at least, so long as this country still resembles something to the Right of Cuba).

Further, it is none of the governments business if the Church disciplines a member for public hostility or teachings in opposition to it. The Church is a private organization funded by the private funds of its members, and who it allows fellowship within its ranks are its sole discretion.

Incredible how so many today wish to use the mailed fist of the nanny state to silence speech they don't like and make theological questions and ecclesiastical discipline within a private religious institution amenable to government sanction, effectively erasing any separation of church and state by punishing the ecclesiastical discipline of a member through secular force.

Funny how things work out sometimes...

[_Mike Reed]

If he remains vocal, yes I think he will be disciplined. And when he does, I hope authorities will reconsider the Church's tax-exempt status.

Have you ever read the Constitution?

Yep.

[Guest]

If he remains vocal, yes I think he will be disciplined. And when he does, I hope authorities will reconsider the Church's tax-exempt status.

Have you ever read the Constitution?

Yep.

Which version, the original, or the redacted New Revised Standard International Super Deluxe Extra Strength ACLU version?

[_Angus McAwesome]

If he remains vocal, yes I think he will be disciplined. And when he does, I hope authorities will reconsider the Church's tax-exempt status.

Have you ever read the Constitution?

One of the rights that Churches give up for their tax exempt status is their ability to participate in politics, Drippy. I suppose the LDS Church could claim itself as a 501(c) and get around that, but the current tax laws say that they are not allowed to influence their parishioner's politics or endorse any specific laws or candidates. If they do they could very well find themselves in the same position that Jerry Falwell was in when he lost his tax exempt status back in 1993. It's part of the trade off between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause (i.e. the basis for the seperation of Church and State). As long as a church does not break the law, the Government may not interfere with them and as long as the Government doesn't interfere with the church that church isn't allowed to involve itself in politics.

[_Mike Reed]

If he remains vocal, yes I think he will be disciplined. And when he does, I hope authorities will reconsider the Church's tax-exempt status.

Have you ever read the Constitution?

Yep.

Which version, the original, or the redacted New Revised Standard International Super Deluxe Extra Strength ACLU version?

I've read the original. And yes... I do very much sympathize with the general ACLU interrpetatoin of it. In case you didn't know... the constitution gets reinterpreted all the time in the Judicial system. It can also be amended. I remain convinced that the Church's actions are in direct conflict with the spirit of seperation of church and state. I understand that you may think differently, but frankly, I don't really care about that.

[Guest]

One of the rights that Churches give up for their tax exempt status is their ability to participate in politics, Drippy.

Yes, it cannot support candidates for office or use its facilities for political campaigns.

If they do they could very well find themselves in the same position that Jerry Falwell was in when he lost his tax exempt status back in 1993.

Falwell supported specific candidates and openly supported the Republican Party. The Church only speaks out officially on certain social and cultural issues. Read the Constitution, and, secondly, understand it. Your statement that the Church gives up its right to involve itself in politics is correct, but only in a very narrow context. No one or no organization ever waves their right to speak out on political issues or advocate for a certain position. If so, please show me where this occurs in the Constitution.

It's part of the trade off between the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause (i.e. the basis for the seperation of Church and State). As long as a church does not break the law, the Government may not interfere with them and as long as the Government doesn't interfere with the church that church isn't allowed to involve itself in politics.

Having to reeducate liberals over and over and over and over and over and over and over again on this kind of thing gets old very quickly one finds. But, yet again, no such "separation of church and state" exists in the constitution at all. There is the establishment clause, which prohibits the state from making any law regarding freedom of religion. This has nothing to do whatever with the subject of this thread, but only the preventing of government from the institution of a state religion or the imposition of special privileges or preferences for one sect over others.

You would like to silence the speech of the Mormon Church because you don't like it and fear it may affect public policy. That's the price you pay for freedom; political speech (the primary kind of speech protected by the First Amendment) you don't want to hear and don't want to deal with.

This is just more of the same old same old: leftists and liberals who seek to deny participation in the political life of their nation to the traditionally religious.

I recently asked whether one could be a faithful member of the Church and at the same time be a Nazi. Now it appears that, far from this, I should have perhaps asked whether faithful liberals or leftists could not be Nazis...