Are limitations on clergy political speech a good thing?
Posted at 5:00 AM on September 28, 2011
by Eric Ringham
(62 Comments)
Filed under: Politics/Government, Religion/Ethics
Faith has always been a powerful force in American politics. But clergy who preach politics from the pulpit could endanger the tax exempt status of their organizations. Today's Question: Are limitations on clergy political speech a good thing?
Comments (62)
The reason for separation of church and state, Loren, is twofold: (1) government medling in religion makes for bad religion, and the founders wanted religion to be a positive influence on the citizenry; and (2) religious institutions having too much sway over government makes for bad government-- in the extreme, it's theocracy. As a person of faith, I have another reason as well. I don't want the church coveting the power of the state and attempting to play the role of kingmaker.
The purpose of separation of church and state is being missed. The framers or our Constitution had a background in European history. Hundreds of years of war was fought between religions nations in that corridor between Jerusalem and England. Our founding fathers knew a separation of church and state was necessary for a stable government. We are a great nation formed on Christian principles. Those principles have allowed us to become who we are. The role of religion is in the Church teaching the ethics that produce great statesman. That great statesman will represent his religion. The pastor that campaigns from the pulpit serves to divide his congregation and has lost sight of his mission. There should be a hook and a sign outside of every church door reading, "hang your political hat here". Now if you find evidence in the Bible that Jesus was a republican or a democrat I will change my mind. This is a constituional issue that should not to be taken lightly. The majority will rule. Do the math. If my pastor crosses that line I will ask for a resignation.
Dan is mistaken. It was the Democrats in office that appealed the reparations act after the civil war.
Today we see Orszag, former Obama appontie saying we'd be better off with LESS democracy. Another liberal Democrat said the same today, Bev Purdue, Gov. She called for suspending elections so we can get congress to stop debate. Liberals are asking for suspending the Constitution..amazing!
Today's Question: Are limitations on clergy political speech a good thing?
That question presupposes that government can remove Freedom of Speech if it judged to be NOT a good thing?
WHY isn't MPR asking real questions that are in the news that are so intense_ such as DO YOU think that the Government spending over 1.2 trillion of tax dollars for Green Initiative guaranteed loans is a GOOD thing?
Then I'll challenge you on your interpretation of the historical record, Dan. Simple greed and simple lust for power (both of which are taught against by all the major religions) have caused far more harm down through the centuries than any major religion has, and the harm that's generally attributed to Christianity is actually due either to greedy, self-serving people misapplying it, or to misguided zealots. Someone else pointed out recently that in the last century more real harm was done by anti-religious ideologies (chiefly, variants of marxism) than by religious zealots. Stalin was actually responsible for more human suffering than Hitler, and his regime was officially atheist.
Steve, we are not talking about stiffling. The issue is why should I be forced to subsidize the lunatic fringe?
If a religion has a good message it will survive in the market place.
Also, you have to remember that protestant churches also supported slavery. Christianity has supported far more evil in this world than it has promoted comfort. Do not challenge me on the historical record.
And don't forget, Lawrence, 100 years ago, most Evangelicals were railing about the evils of capitalism. And 200 years ago, they were rallying for abolition of slavery. Should they have been stifled, too?
Cynical Steve I fear you are seeing distinctions that are not real. Theology, mythology, superstition: I ask you where is the distinction? All require the same leap of faith, and I ask you why should I subsidize it?
Historically, in the United States, some clergy have been much more interested in denying civil rights than preaching the Word of God, namely the rights of African Americans, the rights of women, the rights of Native Americans, the rights of Catholic people, the rights of Jewish people, the rights of those who believe in socialism, and most recently, the rights of gays. In fact, with respect to gays, some churches have turned their freedom of speech into legislative policies that they hope to pass into law statewide and federally. This is a very gray area because churches are supposed to meet without worrying about Big Brother. But several churches can't seem to stay out of politics, and that may force us to reconsider whether we can or should continue to allow churches freedom of speech and freedom from government.
Dan: If you can't tell the difference between religion and superstition, you are probably uninformed about both. They are different phenomena, and you don't have to be a believer to see the difference. But then, you probably aren't interested in the difference, but only in defaming people of religious faith, right?
Sometimes, the message in the pulpit intersects with what's going on in politics. That's because "religion", for most Christians, is not something you can turn on and off. It is a way of being. Faith in God, following Jesus, is a way of life. So if the church stopped talking about current events and using Scripture to help guide Christians in the way to respond to important issues of the day, it would not be doing its true job. Where would our country be today if churches had not been allowed to preach against Jim Crow Laws and racial segregation? We would not have had the Civil Rights Movement, plain and simple. Churches are not only houses of worship, they are houses of social change, community gatherings, and neighborhood improvement.
If a church was putting their money toward a political campaign or cause, however, then I would agree that it is breaking the law and should face the repercussions of such act.
Are all nonprofit organizations banned from political action? What status does an organization that is primarily for advocacy get then, if it is not for profit?
If churches were no longer granted 501c3 status because their sermons are sometimes political, then would this law also apply to other tax-exempt, nonreligious organizations that take a political stand?
Lots of thoughts here. Sorry for the ramble!
How are clergy in private jets irrelevant? How is Gore's jet relevant?
I reject all so called tax exempt non-profits. Someone is making a profit.
Tax their pay, tax their property, tax the donations. That and if if we tax the rich we can can finally have a democratic society. and if superstition can not survive in a capitalist non subsidized environment, so be it.
"Clergy are already free to endorse candidates, as long as they give up their tax exempt status and start paying taxes on their church property and income."
Jesse Jackson
That is, if he even really has a church to show up to on Sunday mornings to preach.
Kim, if support for America is a litmus test for religious orthodoxy in your mind, haven't you put the country ahead of God in your priorities? Not that I think God wants America destroyed, but I rather suspect God wants America (as any other country) criticized when its policies are harmful. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was accused of being unpatriotic. So were many of the prophets, notably Amos and Jeremiah. So was Jesus himself, for that matter. When patriotism becomes a tenet of one's theology, can the theocratic tyrany be far behind?
In response to some of the anti-religiou posts here.....
None of the clergy people of my acquaintence ride in limos or fly in private planes. Sure, there are some, but most Christians are scandalized by such excesses. Most clergy are paid quite modestly compared to others with similar levels of education and similarly long work weeks. The folks who complain about churches being too concerned about money tend to be those who themselves are too concerned about money.
Clergy pay taxes. The contributions to the church are not taxed, but clergy salaries are, and clergy people pay sales taxes like everyone else when they buy stuff.
Not all churches promote hatred and bigotry. In fact, most don't, but the few who do give them all a bad name. What's interesting is the hateful rhetoric hurled at Christians about their supposed hatefulness. As with the money issue, it appears to be people who themselves have a problem with hatefulness who see it in the church.
Dan's post about ministers in jets. Irrelevant.
Isn't Al Gore's climate change group a 504 (c) non profit ? He rides in the worst polluting private jet and then tells us we need electric little cars that rely upon coal generated electrcity to recharge them! Take a look at the board of the Gore supported Chicago Climate Exchange group before it was downsized. Notice that Goldman Sachs was involved to be their broker of pretend paper called Carbon credits..just another scam to regulate winners and losers in the energy market.....but please_ do not read up on Solyndra, talk about welfare state and fraud..wow.
Back to the real Question of the Day: Churches speaking of values as it relates to politics is good as long as it is within their beliefs, value system and does not promote the destruction of America. e.g.,.,churches speak out on abortion. They note that Planned Parenthood with our tax money only_ killed 320,000 helpless babies last year. If one believes in LIFE then those who give women and doctors the choice_ of killing_ a baby before birth should also be afforded seeing an abortion in progress, see the gruesome aftermath and be prepared to hear about alternatives through their church sermons.
Any religion speaking of their values as it relates to political figures actions seems fine. As long as it is NOT Islam since Islam included a political economic doctrine that advocates the opposite principles of what America stands for. Islam's Sharia Law is against everything that Progressive democrats believe in. Sharia Law promotes no rights for women. Sharia Law advocates killing gays and even punishment for dancing. Sharia Law under the auspices of Islam has tainted more governments into remaining dictatorships where freedoms do not exist. Islamic Syria did a job on killing children and mutilating these kids just last week. If one likes removing freedoms from others, then go live in Saudi Arabia or Iran or Syria..That Syria as the U.N's appointed Human Rights chair speaks volumes about how one religion controlling politics is evil.. Syria kidnapps and mutilates to death children in the name of protecting their reign__only Islamic religion has a built in economic ruling doctrine and the only one that advocates for destruction of us non Islam believers. Thank god we have many modern Muslims in America that believe in freedoms and that do not subscribe to Sharia law.
However, 28% of the 1.2 million American Muslims polled in the past few years agree with the traditional restrictions imposed by Sharia Law but to those in the 28% group, I say_ they should be deported as anti-American radicals. They will not assimilate to America and they want the flag of Islam to fly over the White House someday.
Yet curiously, many imams that have been indicted in terrorism while here in America have been visiting strip clubs and prostitutes
( data in city police records) ..how odd that they don't practice what they preach about piety...oh, wait_ I almost forgot, that to all the Islamic traditionalist males, women are second class or less, only one step above cattle.
Muslims are wonderful peace loving people but traditional old school Islamists are not since they call for the over throw of America. Look what they did in London with their un assimilated enclaves where posters of Sharia Law say to deny is to be punished..
Clergy are already free to endorse candidates, as long as they give up their tax exempt status and start paying taxes on their church property and income. Same goes for any tax exempt organization.
I reject the "non profit" status of churches and other organizations. Non-profit just means large bonuses to pretend there were no profits. Health care "non-profits" distribute billions in profits. The Catholic church remains the richest corporation and largest land holder in the world. The pope sits on more profits than Exxon. Protestant ministers ride in limos and fly private planes. Non of this says non-profit to me. Tax them. Tax them all and all their property.
Should a clergy person mention who is running and who to vote for? no.
But they could mention that while Republicans and whoever else endorse prolife they hypocriticaly oppose taxes and social programs that assist low income families and single mothers.
On the other hand they could mention that Democrats endorse pro-choice and support social programs.
Then the pew sitter can make up their minds, discern which choice is best for them.
The Catholic Church is not rich especially after all the pedophilia cases.
"A universal theology is impossible, but a universal experience is not only possible but necessary." - ACIM
"In the province of connected minds, what the network believes to be true, either is true or becomes true within certain limits to be found experientially and experimentally. These limits are further beliefs to be transcended. In the network's mind there are no limits. However, that while there are no absolute limits in the province of the mind there are real and definite limits in the province of the body." - Dr. John C. Lilly, M.D.
"Be very careful about locating good or God, right or wrong, legal or illegal, at your favorite level of consciousness." - Timothy Leary
"Those who, while they disapprove of the character and measures of a government, yield to it their allegiance and support are undoubtedly its most conscientious supporters, and so frequently the most serious obstacles to reform."
- Henry David Thoreau
"The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. I could never give assent to the long complicated statements of Christian dogma." - Abe Lincoln
"Stupidity is also a gift of God, but one mustn't misuse it." - Pope John Paul II
Do not believe what you have heard.
Do not believe in anything that has been spoken of many times.
Do not believe because the written statements come from some old sage.
Do not believe in conjecture.
Do not believe in authority or teachers or elders.
But after careful observation and analysis, when it agrees with reason
and it will benefit one and all, then accept it and live by it.
~ Buddha (563-483 B.C.E.)
Clergy may support whomever they wish, as long as they support them outside of their church and on their own time. Therefore, their free speech is not limited.
It is unfair to donors of any nonprofit if the organization is used as a soapbox for one persons ideals. The business of a nonprofit is to support only their stated mission.
Besides, isn't the tax exempt status of churches based on the the separation of church and state? Because of this I don't think they even need to file 990's. So wouldn't that make it very hypocritical if they wish to become active in politics, yet remain tax exempt?
This question is misplaced. Is it good that clergyman have tax exempt status? Well, probably, in particular, because churches, temples, and mosques are important community members, fostering closer community ties and charity work. Political speech does not meet any of these positive public policy effects of religious centers. Indeed, donations to charities are tax deductible, and donations to political initiatives, actions groups, candidates, etc. are not. It's about the public policy of the tax treatment, and here, it makes absolute and proper sense.
As ministers, or using their churches as means of promulgating their political views? Of course they should not be free to do this, unless they want to forego their tax-exempt status -- same as every other organization!
As prviate citizens, not as part of their church and not using the church as their communication tool? Then, no, they should not be restricted and they should be able to do the same as any other citizen.
YES, too many sheep. Hopefully they could actually think for themselves on at least one issue.
The question misses the larger point, why are churches tax exempt to begin with. Let the clergy preach what ever nonsense and mythology they want, but don't foster superstition with a tax exemption. Make them pay their far share and see what survives.
I don't disagree with that, B. I just wanted to be clear that comments about political issues insofar as they are also ethical issues, are certainly appropriate to address from the pulpit. A huge mistake was made by the Protestant churches in Germany in the 1930s, when most of them decided to stick to personal morality and not address the evil that their government was perpetrating. They rationalized their silence by claiming to be keeping "politics" out of church. For a notable exception, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer.
Sue, if your response was to me, go back and read my post carefully. You missed the part where I said "religion can and should influence your political views."
There is a very fine line between letting religion influence political beliefs and letting politics influence what you do at your church. It's an area that any Christian must tread carefully on, because Jesus clearly preached against the latter.
Absolutely Yes!! One only has to look at Western European history or the mid-east to see what we must guard against.
If a church organization wants to get politically active in support of various policitical candidates then they have stepped out beyond their role and have become political committees and action groups.
Now if they support a action by a person to say tie in with something in their believe, that gets into the gray area. And as long as it is on the action/activity, and not on a political event/march/rally they should be in the clear.
When someone you trust tells you "GOD" is in favor of a person, or any of his/her congregation, then they are really telling you that you must do it or burn in hell.
And that I totally object to.
No one knows the mind of god on earth, except god. And personally the point of religion is to try to come to terms with the paradox of knowledge: To seek only to know you can not know it all.
Even in seeking, one benefits. But it is not in the knowing, but the understanding, that is important.
And they are not always the same thing.
But for any mortal to sit there and say they know the mind of god in my opinion is straight out 'sinning' or worse the type of person to run away from.
(And most likely clinically insane. Just so we know where Backmann sits.. lol)
It's a mistake to say, "Keep politics out of church." While one's religion should not be influenced by one's politics, the reverse is not true. A religion that has nothing to say about politics is no religion at all. I wouldn't want my church endorsing particular candidates, but if the message of truth, justice, love, mercy, compassion, etc., that my religion teaches me is irrelevant in politics, where the heck is it relevant? In the Bible I read, the prophets were often telling the king what God's opinion was of what they were doing or should do. That sounds like political advocacy to me.
Now, now, David! Let's not get personal. Kim's postings are ridiculous, but that doesn't mean she's a psychopath. Let's stick to what's actually being said.
Kim, your latest rant proves my point in my last post. 'Nuf said.
Yes, they should stay out of church. I'm a regular church goer and I lean left politically. When I was younger I wanted my pastor, who was also left leaning, to take a firmer stand at the pulpit. I felt that the conservatives had too much hold on what is considered "Christian" in our country.
But as the years have gone on, I've come to appreciate that politics is not allowed to influence what is said at the pulpit. As I see it - your religious beliefs can and should influence your political viewpoint, but your politics should not influence your religious viewpoint. When they do the latter, as a Christian you risk losing sight of what Jesus taught. He taught us to keep politics at bay, because they are part of the earth-bound world. To bring politics into the church would mean a loss of perspective on what is really important in religion. At a certain point, anyone too caught up in politics gets too caught up in gamesmanship, which causes you to lose sight of what is really important - heaven, salvation, loving your neighbor, etc.
Oh David, and Steve___ your post was interesting and proves my point. When hyper liberals are up against a wall, they cry racism or Islamaphobia, etc. No where in my post did I bad mouth Muslims. Lousi Farakhan is a racist and he speaks of anti- american stances as his basis for spreading Islam in the most traditional way with Sharia Law at the forefront. It is not my fault that Obama said in a taped interview that the sweetest sound he has ever heard was the Morning Call to prayer for Islam. Not my fault he didn't say what most Americans would say, e.g., my child's first words, or their church's favorite hymn or OMG forbid, The Star Spangled Banner.
Once again you boys avoid discussion by ignoring facts that don't fit your agenda. Rather than acknowledge Obama's media pass and his radical friends in the pulpit, you state that doesn't matter because it was three years a go. You deny that traditional Islam seeks to control political leadership. American Muslims do not adhere to the traditional Islamic doctrines of Sharia Law.
BTW, my father was Lebanese Christian and am proud of that and Croatian mother used to be Muslim, father felt the brutality of the Sharia law PLO Muslims in 1981. YOU are the one that knows nothing of the real world and the influence of religion on leaders. .
Reverend Wright spoke to Obama for 20 years as did Losuis Farakhan..both should be deported for attempting treason and violence against America. You think these radical two at the pulpit disappeared when Obama was elected??? Grow up.
Yes there needs to be limits! I am not sure if it needs to come from the government, but seperation of church and state preserves the country and the church. They are two different things....
I left a church that I was highly involved in because they were making more and more politically liberal statements. These did nothing for my search for god.
Kim you psychopath you are so silly.
First it would seem to be that in the 24 hour news cycle (I hate that saying, but it fits here) Wright and Farrahkan are both in the "where are they now" file. This forum is called "Today's question", not "What was bugging you 3 years ago question". The fact that you steer every single subject back to what is actually history just highlights your pettiness.
Second, and this is a biggy, is your overt racism toward muslims. Muslims are no more evil then catholics, evangelicals, buddhist, etc. You need to understand that blaming one group a people for a small fraction in that group's actions is no more productive then say blaming all republicans for the gridlock in Washington when it's really being cause buy a few wingnuts. Thank you for reminding me of that.
You need to develop a little respect, or at least an understanding for cultures other then your own. I used to love to travel around the world, but no longer feel comfortable doing so because of a lot of actions by the moron bush administration, and ridiculousness rhetoric like you continually spew forth being broadcast from this country. YOU are just as bad as any muslim extremist, JUST as big of a terrorist in their eyes (and mine), and a BIGGER contributor to the perpetuation of hate as those you are pointing your finger at.
Get a life kim.
I think that free speech is too important to be limited. Preachers should be able to say anything they choose to say...as long as they’re not crying “fire” in a crowded church.
To me, the issue, is the tax exempt status of churches. Why is a church tax exempt? What is government trying to provide by making the operating costs of churches less expensive through lower taxes? Can local governments still afford to provide this perk to churches? Is the church lobby too strong to make this a valid issue?
Yes, limitations on clergy political speech are absolutely reasonable. In fact, they're not being enforced strictly enough just as beckie posted. Obama's church of 20 years was the Reverend Wright pulpit. Michelle Obama spent time in photo ops with Louis Farakhan ( do a search_ its blatantly there ) And Reverend Wright "endorsed" Obama. This truly is a blatant violation, yet they will face no consequences and the media ignored Obama's connections with these so called religious leaders.
Read Steve's posts and readers will clearly see how he avoids addressing the facts that makes liberal politicians look like hypocrits. Instead he will name call and cry conspiracy..those tactics worked in 2008 but the public is smarter today. Just as they are with so called man made global warming that was re-branded as "climate change" That way if temps go up or down, climate change keeps it's apparent validity. But don't mention that the study from British Atlas proved to be wrong_ the glaciers in Greenland are not rapidly melting....but that's another issue only to prove how liberals will avoid discussing facts to stay in their fanatic stance.
" Fanatics do not have an opinion_ the Opinion HAS them!
So again to those who demean facts, show us all where Wright and Farakhan are not involved with liberals as Obama. Come on_ speak up_ show us where those tapes are false, or Obama's speeches are somehow NOT out of his mouth. :)
"...then again your extreme propaganda blogs shows your true colors."
See, Kim, that's one of the reasons I've learned to disbeleive conspiracy theories. There have been several times in my life when such theories were spun around me and my activities. Every time, I knew for a fact that people were being ridiculous, but I couldn't persuade them. My denials were seen as confirmation that I had something to hide. Now you're doing the same thing. On what basis do you call my comments "extreme"? On what basis do you think I'm hiding my "true colors"? There's only the fact that I'm disagreeing with you. That doesn't mean I'm an extremist on the other side. You are the extremist here.
Limitations on clergy political speech are absolutely reasonable. In fact, they're not being enforced strictly enough. Bachman's church just "endorsed" her. This is a blatant violation, yet they will face no consequences. If they want to get involved in politics, they should relinquish their tax-exempt status.
It's funny, today's question asks us to "share our insights on the news". If this is your continual "insight" Kim, I will continually laugh at your posts. Such poor insight is laughable.
Absolutely, eliminate their tax free status and if necessary place liens against their property, if their political speech continues.
Don't care if its right wing or left wing, eliminating their tax exemption should be mandatory.
The big problem would be who makes this decision as there would be bias on both sides on what constitutes political speech.
Perhaps eliminating tax free status is the correct approach for all religions.
to Steve andDavid;
Are you so naive to not think that these daily questions are nothing more than 1. to see the number of email addresses to count viewers and, 2. to direct the MN thinking along some line?
Once again, rather than discussing religion into politics and acknowledging the rantings of a radical Reverend Wright and the anti-american [pro Islam rhetoric from Luis Farahkan, as it affected Obama's growth ..then again your extreme propaganda blogs shows your true colors.
Why not discuss all the " great" ramblings of Wright as a starter or Farahkan's speeches?
Obama has said two scary things that originate from his past adult church attendance and from his childhood being raised as a Muslim : 1. He stated, the sweetest sound he has ever heard was, "The Muslim Call to Morning Prayer." 2. Shortly after he was sworn into office, he gave speeches in Egypt and Saudi Arabia where he is on record stating his apologies for America. No other President in our history would have been so near treasonous to give such apologetic speeches.
Does religion affect our leaders or rather the religious radical leaders as Wright and Farakhan? Isn't it odd that Obama has ignored these men since he was elected ? why?
Religion is necessary for our political stability. The clergy know this. The only thing inhibiting their political speech is a fear of losing followers.
Good point Steve. And her rants make me laugh when I don't think about someone out there actually being influenced by them.
Does scare me a little that there are people around that do buy into this stuff. I think a lot of them are those reclusive gun toting types I see around where I live. I just hope I'm no where near by when they finally snap.
If the reasoning for this question was initiated by the current news item of Mac Hammond AND MPR wants to have a fair and balanced discussion, then putting Rev. Wright and Louis Farakhan into the discussion makes sense.
P.Nielson: people being influenced by religion is worse than being influenced by amoral megabusinesses' ad campaigns.... how? We have freedom of speech here. If there's speech going on that you don't like, don't listen. Better yet, speak up yourself. Squelching speech doesn't help.
Hey, David, Kim's rants serve a good purpose. Since most of us here don't go looking for ridiculous conspiracy theories, and since MPR is too responsible to give them any coverage, Kim helps us know what kind of preposterous stuff is going around out there.
Yes. They should not be able to influence church members and visitors from the pulpit or via any church publications, meetings, etc. People need to learn to think for themselves and not be influenced by religious figures or denominations.
8:27AM and already a unsubstantiated conspirious theory posted by kim. Think she really thinks anyone on here buys her tripe?
This question is inane and it was set forth by the NPR editors under direction of who? George Soros or CAP or Media Matters?
. However, it is still a thinly veiled disquise directed to attacking another conservative candidate.
isn't it funny that when Obama ran for office, MPR, NPR, ABC, CBS and MNBC ALL refused to investigate the rantings of Luis Farakhan and Reverend Wright's influence upon Obama's beliefs? Huh? Answer that.. so what about Wright's anti american and racist influence?
The only ones who want God removed from America are the Communists...read their manifesto if you doubt.
God (churches) should be taxed at the same rates cigarettes and alcohol are taxed at. God is just as much of a vice as the other two are, but at least the other two actually exist.
I agree with Alison. This is not a first amendment issue since any member of the clergy may make any statements that they want regarding political endorsements. The issue is strictly about the tax-exempt status of the church and if the church is willing to give that up, they may do and say as they please.
Everyone is entitled to an opinion and one they can voice. I do not want it voiced during a sermon, though. Also, the fact that Mac Hammond is supporting Michele Bachmann is yet another reason I will NEVER vote for her.
"Clergy who preach politics" aren't doing their job. Their job is to preach the message of their religion. Christian clergy should preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ, for instance. As citizens, clergy do a good thing when they participate with other citizens in political discourse, same as scientists, economists, plumbers, etc., but that's not preaching. The "limitations on clergy political speech" only pertain to their official duties and are a matter of tax law. They don't seem inappropriate to me.
Is this about Rev. Wright ?
(I goofed and hit the "post" button too soon.) Clergy these days are disrespected almost as much as politicians. It seems to me that endorsing political candidates would amount to shooting themselves in the foot.
Is this about Mac Hammond joining Bachmann's campaign?
The tax exempt status of this is a good point. I would guess the catholic church alone has more money then every small business in the state combined. The days of tax exempt status should be over. Especially since religion seems to want to get its grubby little hands into the fray with the rest of the influence peddlers.
There aren't limits on the speech of clergy. They retain the freedom say what they choose. The government reserves the right to tax them based on their type of organization. If they choose to make their churches political organizations they should be taxed as political organizations.
I can vividly recall our curmudgeonly pastor of the late 1960s and early '70s passionately supporting Richard Nixon from the pulpit in our small, rural community in Wisconsin.
The difference between then and now was after the service was over, he walked to the parsonage next door, ate lunch with his family and tended to his garden. He didn't go to the airport to get on his private jet to fly to a vacation home in the south.
My father was a member of the church council at that time. I recall him saying that the majority of the council, while supportive of the good reverend's right to express his political views, suggested that the pastor "tone it down."
Yes, I don't want them shoving their garbage down my throat on the street and I don't want them shoving down my throat politically as well.
There's nothing wrong adding another ideologue to the mix. I'm sure they'll feel right at home
I welcome everyone's opinion.
| September 2011 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | ||||
| 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
| 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 |
| 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 |
| 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | |
Master Archive
Recent Entries
- Have changes to the airline passenger experience affected your willingness to fly?
- Should marijuana be available for medical use in Minnesota?
- Do the struggles of Minnesota's business icons signal trouble for the state's economy?
- Do you know whether insurance would cover your losses in a major storm?
- What kind of recycling program would you be likely to use the most?
- Would you support paying people for organ or tissue donations?
- Have personal relationships in the workplace ever presented a problem for you?
- Do you think Facebook is a passing fad?
- Will you be less likely to visit the Minnesota Zoo without its dolphins?
- Should authorities in the Twin Cities change the way they warn people about tornadoes?
Public Insight Network
The Public Insight Network draws upon your experiences to help shape our coverage.More
Categories
Services
In The Spotlight
-
Sound Learning
Looking for ways to ensure your students are doing quality research from credible sources? Sound Learning is a launching point to Minnesota Public Radio's content on the Web. -
The Current Music Blog
Your daily note for good music, news and pop culture. With attempted jokes.
- Become a Member
- Member Connect Accounts
- Leadership Circle
- Sustaining Members
- Member Discounts
- Become a Sponsor
- Tax Information
- Planned Giving
- Vehicle Donation
- Donate Stock