McCulloch wrote:I think we may be making progress. Yes, we do seem to be working on two entirely different paradigms. Yes, I am looking at churches as human organizations. This is the way that I believe governments should also look at churches.
No. Absolutely not...because as soon as they do, they get authority over them, and can judge between them on merits according to some popular notion of what is culturally acceptable. As soon as they do, and exercise that authority in any way whatsoever, they are establishing a religion.
.......which is specifically prohibited by the Constitution.
There is NO constitutional prohibition against establishing a preferred charitable organization...and in fact, the government does that all the time. When "Toys for Tots" has a Marine in dress blues standing guard over the donation box; when a tax exemption is given....that organization is given the stamp of government approval.
Right now it is a big scandal when the Ten Commandments is posted on school grounds...and that means absolutely NOTHING, financially, to the organization that put it there, nor will it affect the future ability of that organization to raise funds and do the work they are organized to do.
However, Toys for Tots, Habitat for Humanity and all other secular charities can, and DO, advertise and display in schools and government buildings.
So....you would suggest that not only should the government forbid religious organizations any access to schools and government buildings, they have jump through the same hoops as secular organizations that do?
How is THAT fair?
Come to think of it, though, I can see requiring churches to go through the same hoops to prove the charitable nature of their organizations IF they get the same access to government services....but, er, wait...that's unconstitutional.
That's a problem.
McCulloch wrote:Governments operate as if they do not know about the gods. Religion and the state must be kept separate. It matters not whether religion has a basis in fact or my own personal attitude towards it. Churches may well be a completely different class of organization. But our governments have no basis to make that distinction without crossing the line into theology.
Indeed, and the solution to staying out of it is the one that has been chosen: disallow access to public buildings and schools during operating hours to all churches...and make no distinctions between them as to whether they are qualified to BE churches/charities.
Hands off, in other words. Works for me.
McCulloch wrote:Yes, the Founding Fathers of the American Republic decided to institute the first ever national constitution without reference to any religion or religious belief. Theirs was a country without established religion, with complete constitutional religious freedom. Not just that the state was prohibited from establishing or impeding any particular religion, but the courts have ruled consistently, the state is prohibited from establishing or impeding religion. 1
..........and you don't think that having the government step in and regulate churches and religions is impeding them? Got news; it sure as (*&& is. (Sorry, the Southern Idaho Mormon in me is coming out).
McCulloch wrote:So, it is clear to me, that the only thing that can be done is that all organizations, should be treated equally under the law, making no distinction as to whether they are churches or something else.
OK, then churches should have exactly the same amount of access to schools and government buildings that secular charities do. That means...if there is a Toys for Tots display in the courthouse, then there can be a nativity scene there as well. If a city can promote a Habitat for Humanity volunteer day, then they can ALSO promote the Baptist Helping Hands meeting. If a city has had a "Christmas Lights" parade for years, then the ACLU has to back off the lawsuit requiring them to call it the 'Winterlights' parade, instead.
........and if the Daughters of the American Revolution can use the city council meeting to announce this years scholarships, then the local Wiccan coven can use it to bless the city. See where this MUST go? The thing is, churches are NOT treated the same way as secular charitable institutions. They can't be.
McCulloch wrote: The state has no business judging the ideology of any organization, just whether what they are doing fits the legal definition of charity. If it does, then it is, under law, a charity.
.........and if it is, by law, a charity, and it must prove itself to BE so, then it should be allowed equal access to government buildings and influence.
oops.
McCulloch wrote:The solution suggested by dianaiad leaves the government in one of two untenable situations. Since churches get favorable treatment under tax laws, either the government legislates what is or is not a church, or the government must accept every claim to be a church as valid2. As soon as you give power to the government to make that decision, you have opened a can of worms.
I'm not actually suggesting a solution. I am defending the way things are handled right now. It works. Leave it alone. By the way, I said 'can of crickets,' not 'worms,' because worms tend to stay in the can. Crickets, on the other hand, as soon as they are free begin to jump all over the place and become impossible to contain.
McCulloch wrote:A THAT is why governments must be blind to whether an organization is a church. It is VITAL, in order to preserve freedom of religion that all governments must avoid making distinctions between churches and other organizations.
Then the government can no longer keep churches out of government stuff; anything they allow secular charities to do, they would have to allow churches to do.
If the local high school allows the Glee Club to advertise a car wash, or a local volunteer day on campus, they would also have to allow the local Lutherans to advertise the Christmas pageant, the tickets for which raises funds for the local homeless shelter.
If the high school agricultural department allows the FFA to use their facilities to raise lambs (as our local high school does), then it's going to have to allow the local Knights of Columbus to post recruitment posters in the halls.
Same/same, right?
McCulloch wrote:
_________________________________________
1 Ironically, when the American colonists decided to kick the English monarchy and its established church out, they did so in violation of the teachings of the Bible itself.
In your opinion, I suppose...mileages vary on this one.
McCulloch wrote:2 Reminds me of a joke. It has to do with a corporate restructuring to take advantage of certain tax benefits. It ends with, "And your new title is Bishop of Information Technology"
Niiiiice....of course, that sort of thing DOES, eventually, get caught, the PTL's of the world get their tax exempt status revoked, and the Bakkers get sentenced to 45 years and spend the rest of their lives paying on a $6,000,000 tax lien.
Big brother DOES pay attention, after all.
