Question: And the Difference Is?

Published on October 22, 2004 By MythicalMino In Politics

What is the difference between a preacher, standing in the church that he has spent years and years building, blood sweat and tears, and giving the ppl, his ppl that attend his church, his personal political opinion on who should be in the President's office.....

compared to....

Artists like, say, Bruce Springsteen or John Mellencamp (now I really like Mellencamp's music, btw), standing up at a concert, and giving their fans their personal political opinion on to who should be in the President's office?

Is it some law of "Separation of Church and State"? If so, why is that law in effect against preachers, but not against artists?

Just wondering as to why a preacher gets threatened by the liberals for doing what the liberal artists are doing?

Comments

Myrrander

on Oct 22, 2004

Because churches are tax exempt, and Bruce Springsteen is not. It would be just as against the law for a preacher to endorse Kerry, Cobb, Badnarik, or Mickey Mouse from his pulpit. It all has to do with tax exemption rules.

Silver_and_Jade_Tears

on Oct 22, 2004

Morally though, it is still the same.

Myrrander

on Oct 22, 2004

Well, if a minister wants to endorse a candidate, he can -- just not from his church.

MythicalMino

on Oct 22, 2004

so....tax exempt law.....

If that was taken away, and churches paid taxes....would it then be ok? or would it still be considered wrong?

And what about the whole abortion angle? If a minister is against abortion, but abortion is such a hot political topic, is he not free to speak against it? Afterall, it may very well be within his religion that it is wrong.....

(NOTE: Myrrander, wanted to tell you before...i enjoy your postings....I have come to respect you for your political beliefs and whatnot....even if we do disagree)

Again, this is just asking.....

I mean, I keep reading all this stuff about the Republicans doing voter fraud or whatever....but the Democrats are doing the same things.....but it is "defended" with the Democrats doing it, but totally wrong for the Republicans to....so, I wonder, would the same thing happen with the topic of this thread?

MythicalMino

on Oct 22, 2004

oh, and where can a minister "support" his candidate of choice? Afterall, he is minister in his local community 24-7......no matter what he says and where he says it, the ppl will hear from him as "their preacher"

Myrrander

on Oct 22, 2004

f that was taken away, and churches paid taxes....would it then be ok? or would it still be considered wrong?

oh, and where can a minister "support" his candidate of choice?

Yes, if churches weren't tax exempt, then the minister could endorse candidates. Now, I'm an atheist, but I come from a family of preachers, so here's why I'm AGAINST taxing churches -- most churches are funded by tithes and offerings, which come out of the members' own pocket. That money has already been subject to income taxes once, and by taxing it again in church, you're basically double taxing that income. Churches that receive money from investments are taxed on that income.

A minister can speak at political rallies, there's no law against it. It's just when they speak at church sponsored events or in the church house that the tax exemption thing comes into play. As long as the church isn't sponsoring the event, a preacher is OK.

Hope that clears things up!

MythicalMino

on Oct 22, 2004

thanks

MNFisherman

on Oct 22, 2004

I've just got one question.
What organization was the money raised by springsteen and mellencamp raised for? I may be wrong, but aren't political organizations tex-exempt also? I 'm not sure does anyone know, are PAC's tax exempt. Their money, like a church, is collected from donations from people who have already had that money taxed?

MNFisherman

on Oct 22, 2004

OK, forget I asked, I need to learn to find out info before I just spout it out, they are not tax-exempt, sorry

Don Bemont

on Oct 22, 2004

Mythical Mino,I think I have a very liberal rep around here, but I agree, in general, with you. A member of the clergy should be able to speak his piece on any political issue he/she wishes to, at any time.

In my mind, separation of church and state is a matter or protecting religion. No one should ever have his or her religion attacked by the government, to which he pays taxes. No government should ever establish one religion as "the" religion, to detriment of other religions. At its core, that is what most of "prayer in school" proponents want -- they believe that if my son could only be forced to pray according to their religion, it would be good for him -- or, at least, it would be a comfort to them

However, there is no such problem in my mind with a clergyman whose church has been built without tax money speaking his piece on the issues of the day, and that includes particular candidates. As to the tax problem, unions face the same issue and have found perfectly acceptable ways to separate any money spent on political issues from the rest of their moneys. But, in any case, freedom of religion and freedom of speech trump any tax laws.

That money has already been subject to income taxes once, and by taxing it again in church, you're basically double taxing that income.

Myrrander, we usually agree, but not here. This is the same kind of argument put forth by those who oppose the taxation of investment income.

The trouble is that it distorts the concept of taxation. A particular dollar bill does not have some kind of right to be taxed only once. In fact, quite the opposite. As it flows through the economy, it is taxed repeatedly. There is no special reason why, if an individual holds onto that dollar bill as it makes more than one move through the economy, it cannot be taxed a second time.

Truthfully, taxation is just a total amount of money spent by government (determined politically) which must be collected from the population in ways that are determined politically. You can analyze the fairness of the level of taxation of a particular person or group of persons. You can analyze the way that taxation rewards/penalizes choices that people make. (The Bushies basically want to reward investment at the expense of labor.) But you cannot really be unfair to a particular dollar bill... Not to say that I want to see church collections taxed, just that I disagree with your reasoning.

drmiler

on Oct 22, 2004

Reply #10 By: Don Bemont - 10/22/2004 11:47:11 AM
Myrrander, we usually agree, but not here. This is the same kind of argument put forth by those who oppose the taxation of investment income.

The trouble is that it distorts the concept of taxation. A particular dollar bill does not have some kind of right to be taxed only once. In fact, quite the opposite. As it flows through the economy, it is taxed repeatedly. There is no special reason why, if an individual holds onto that dollar bill as it makes more than one move through the economy, it cannot be taxed a second time.

Look at it this way on any particular dollar that you make as income you pay tax on it. Spend it on say gas or tobacco products and you pay tax yet again on the same dollar.

Deference

on Oct 22, 2004

Look at it this way on any particular dollar that you make as income you pay tax on it. Spend it on say gas or tobacco products and you pay tax yet again on the same dollar.

Those taxes are specific taxes that are voted on by the people in most cases. Excise taxes on alcohol and cigarettes are often imposed by the state due to legislative whim and / or on the local level via city statute. Gas taxes come from state laws, often to pay for roads and bridges. This year in Missouri, we're voting on half a cent more of the gas tax being taken away from the general pool of state funds to be added specifically to the Missouri Department of Transportation funds. It's important to realize why we pay taxes and to understand that our lack of involvement and information leads to our detriment when dealing with tax.

Don Bemont

on Oct 22, 2004

Look at it this way on any particular dollar that you make as income you pay tax on it. Spend it on say gas or tobacco products and you pay tax yet again on the same dollar.

True, but not a problem in my book.

I make my income. I pay income tax on it to state and federal government. I spend a chunk of my income, and I pay gas taxes, sales taxes, etc. I use the rest to buy property and I pay school tax on that. I use some to drive on toll roads, and I pay a usage tax. I invest some of my money and put the rest in the bank, and I pay tax on my earnings and my interest.

The only really relevant number is how much total tax I pay, not how many separate parts the tax is broken down into, such that the same dollar is getting taxed as it comes in and goes out.

Myrrander

on Oct 22, 2004

Hell, I don't care, tax the churches!

drmiler

on Oct 22, 2004

Reply #12 By: Deference - 10/22/2004 12:37:37 PM
Look at it this way on any particular dollar that you make as income you pay tax on it. Spend it on say gas or tobacco products and you pay tax yet again on the same dollar.

Those taxes are specific taxes that are voted on by the people in most cases. Excise taxes on alcohol and cigarettes are often imposed by the state due to legislative whim and / or on the local level via city statute. Gas taxes come from state laws, often to pay for roads and bridges

To start with gas tax is NOT just state, it's federal too! Try federal excise tax. Besides which both you and Don are goofy! Please reread my post. Especially you Don Bemont! I was backing up your statement not refuting it.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!