"It could well pave the road toward a government-centered society..."
This is the goal of liberals, secular humanists, and socialists.
Only the State will control things. Like George Orwell's 1984.
Posted on 03/03/2009 4:36:09 AM PST by IrishMike
The proposal to reduce the income tax deduction for charitable contributions may be the first major salvo in an attempt to eliminate religion through the back door. Ever since the founding of these United States charitable organizations have played an important role in our social structure. Whether they were primarily religious or simply interested in good works, they earned a special role in making America a better nation and a better society than it would otherwise be. As a result of this, when the federal income tax went into effect in 1913 a special classification was carved out within the law which is now known as Section 501(c)(3). This section allows certain organizations organized for charitable or religious purposes to be exempt from federal taxation, and by virtue of its interaction with other sections makes contributions to such organizations deductible from a tax payer’s income. In effect, the government is subsidizing these organizations by reducing the taxes paid by people who contribute to them.
Of course many of these organizations are religious in orientation. It is religion that serves as the catalyst for many people to engage in good works. This is the reason behind such organizations as the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, and the many assistance organizations of all faiths that exist everywhere in the United States. These organizations survive largely on donations of time, food, merchandise, and, of course, money. Without donations many would be in serious trouble or may even cease to exist.
Throughout history secular government and religion have had a difficult relationship. The tension between secular and sacred was never truly eliminated, although on occasion government and religion did work together as when the Roman emperors either served as high priests, or were deified. Thus, they could invoke the gods when their personal authority was insufficient for their political goals.
After the fall of Rome Western Europe continued to experience a struggle between the Catholic Church (which was the most influential entity in European politics at the time) and secular authority. This led to, among other things, the so called Babylonian Captivity or Avignon Papacy when the Vatican was effectively moved to France for approximately 70 years, culminating in a period during which there were two Popes, one holding office in Rome and the other in France.
The appearance of democratic governments and the recognition of religious liberty changed much of this. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution being an excellent example Thus, competition between secular and religious authorities declined until the 20th century when authoritarian systems became more prominent in the political landscape. Stalin’s Russia, Mao’s China and Nazi Germany are all examples of governments, which suppressed religion in favor of absolutist, government centered societies that also took on the trappings of cults of personality. Because the leader of the state required absolute authority, they could not brook any competition and that included competition from God.
From approximately 1960 onward, the left wing of American political society began a concerted campaign to remake the ethical and moral structure of the nation. The first major shot in this campaign was the anti-war movement, followed by politicization of issue of abortion. Ever since then the political left has steadily been increasing the heat on religious institutions, describing them as reactionary, and seizing on every misstep to brand them as not worthy of recognition as beneficial to society. Now with an extreme left wing president and extremely powerful majority in both houses of the legislature, the left intends to attack religion financially, as well as otherwise. The First Amendment effectively prohibits any direct attacks therefore Mr. Obama’s proposes to do so by the back door; to reduce their financial support by gradually eliminating the income tax deduction for charitable contributions. In short, government is seeking to put God out of business.
We should always remember that government is a creature of power. Unless those in government are willing to accept that they are not the be-all and end-all of creation, then they will seek to obtain increasing amounts of power to the detriment of all else. Religion is a competitor in this arena. When people turn to faith in God, and toward their faith community when they experience adversity it diminishes the role that government might play in their lives. If their religious community can help them through times of need, then why should they turn to government for help? If the people worship God and have a personal relationship with a force beyond the human sphere, then they simply will not worship government or its power holders. Thus God becomes competition and must be eliminated.
I have been for some time, and continue to be one of those people who believe that Barack Obama was a member of the Trinity United Church in Chicago purely for political purposes. It gave him a hook into the local community so that he could further his personal ambitions. If he were truly religious he would not want to cause potential or actual damage to the faith communities in America. His tax proposals and his position on abortion state otherwise. His desire for personal power and prestige militate against his being a person of faith. Anyone who believes otherwise is simply being foolish.
The proposal to reduce the charitable contribution deduction, if enacted, will make people less capable and likely less motivated to donate to religious organizations and other public charities. This will reduce community-based services and force people into relying on government agencies instead. It is likely that within the massive, poorly controlled spending measures that the present administration supports, money may then be leaked, under the table, to pro-government organizations and/or “churches” that are more interested in politics than in God.
Reducing the financial support for religious charities will not only make needy people more dependent on government support. It will work to sever the ties between charity and religion that might bring people in need closer to the faith community and possibly into a better life. At the same time, if formal religious congregations receive less money and become less viable, it is possible that many may fall apart. Some may cease to exist as formal organizations. A wedge may be driven into the community, causing people who no longer have a formal congregation to become less faithful in their observances. This may lead the next generation to lose touch with that faith, either gradually or altogether. Eventually it may spell the demise of faith communities entirely. It could well pave the road toward a government-centered society instead of a God centered society and eliminate the proper concepts of right and wrong, and good and evil from our philosophical foundation.
It appears very likely that Obama, Biden, Pelosi and Reid do not like competition, and will only grant religion lip service out of political necessity, hence, Pelosi’s recent visit to the Vatican, at taxpayer expense. At least Pope Benedict was wise enough to prevent her from using it for her personal advantage. It is even more likely that one of the most important things on their agenda is the elimination of religion as a social force. This tax proposal may be their first step in that direction. May God save us from our elected leaders. His help may be all that stands between our faith and government folly.
Indeed, much better to force people unto the public dole that way Dhimmicrats psychotic hatred of Religion can be satisfied.
There are limits to what people can contribute. Previously, you could deduct these contributions from your income, thereby reducing your tax outlay; once this passes, if you continue to contribute at the same level, you will be paying taxes on that amount, just as if you hadn’t contributed it but still owned it, and it’s simply a fact of economic life that there’s only so much money to go around: you can’t afford to give it away and pay taxes on it at the same time. And this will affect not only religious charities, but charitable institutions and funds of all kinds.
It is definitely an attack planned to get everything out of the hands of individuals and non-government players, and cede every single aspect of our lives to the government.
Barry is doing a frontal assault on one hand (removal of conscience clause so that religiously connected hospitals or health care professionals will be forced to carry out government population and end of life policies) and trying to starve the churches out, on the other.
It’s interesting that he sees the church as the only real enemy.
The Government is a Jealous God.
from the article
....’It is religion that serves as the catalyst for many people to engage in good works. This is the reason behind such organizations as the Salvation Army, Catholic Charities, and the many assistance organizations of all faiths that exist everywhere in the United States. These organizations survive largely on donations of time, food, merchandise, and, of course, money. Without donations many would be in serious trouble or may even cease to exist’....
The Government is a Jealous God.
.
.
.
.
To liberals - government is itself religion.
Religion is competition for liberal policy.
Just from the title came the thought “And Nancy thinks she is such a GOOD CATHOLIC!” (GAG’m MOI)
Ping!
After being in fundraising for a number of years, I will argue that love for any one cause or faith is what drives giving moreso than tax deductions. At the major gift level and year-end it's an issue, but smaller amounts, no. The vast majority of people out there don't make enough for their gifts to make any difference at tax time.
Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,And no Swords and Lances this time ;-)
with the cross of Jesus going on before.
Christ, the royal Master, leads against the foe;
forward into battle see his banners go!Refrain:
Onward, Christian soldiers, marching as to war,
with the cross of Jesus going on before.
None of this reflects the nature of my post. If Christians give so that they can get a tax deduction, then they are being generous for the wrong reasons. Real generosity will exist regardless of the taxation landscape.
Real generosity will exist regardless of the taxation landscape.
.
.
.
.
Very true.
Our government is not historically secular. Non-sectarian, but not secular. Our founding documents and philosophy pre-suppose, at least in general terms, a Christian world-view.
Just a couple of comments. First, it might sound like I am quibbling but this sentence bothered me: “In effect, the government is subsidizing these organizations by reducing the taxes paid by people who contribute to them.” The reason it bothered me is that underlying it is an assumption that the government owns the rights to the money unless it magnanimously exempts one party or another. It makes the “subsidized” party a beggar of the government. That mentality is what makes us sheeple too often in the face of government usurpation. We need to think of the government as the beggar, forcing it to justify taking the money in the first place, not the other way around. I am not indicting this writer, just noting how easily we fall into accepting the government’s point of view.
Second, my husband and I give generously to our church and a few other organizations, mainly the Boy Scouts and local charities. We are not wealthy like the Obamas and such giving entails sacrifice on our part. Whether or not we get a tax exemption will not make a difference in our giving but if our cost of living goes up significantly that might make some difference. We do not aggressively itemize our in-kind contributions, preferring just to claim monetary support, but if Obama pursues charities and limits the tax deduction, while it exists, I am likely to join Hillary and Bill in valuing and itemizing every single item and minute of time contributed, thereby lessening our tax bite.
Third, I think it is time for charitable organizations to get together to do some public relations work and see if it can’t quantify the value of that charity work so people can see how shutting down charities will inevitably decrease benefits for most of Obama’s constituencies who are on the public dole. I believe if those who benefit from private charity were to line up at the public trough, there would be a lot less to go around. I know churches and soup kitchens (often church-run), thrift stores, interfaith ministries, self-help organizations and such make a huge difference in public dependence.
Finally, whether this stance towards private charity happens under Obama or not, that is the trend and most churches and other charities ought to be preparing for the time when government declares its outright animosity towards them. If they can’t survive right now without tax exemption, they ought to be making plans to get independent of government control (due in large part to that attitude that tax exemption is subsidization).
Ha! Good luck to the Democrats on this one. If I recall correctly, the elimination of Christianity as a social force was also the Roman agenda when Christ was crucified.
As it stands, Christianity has survived and outlived every wacko political movement that’s tried to stifle its influence. Taking on an unstoppable force is a lousy political agenda.
SnakeDoc
"It could well pave the road toward a government-centered society..."
This is the goal of liberals, secular humanists, and socialists.
Only the State will control things. Like George Orwell's 1984.
Imagine what elections might look like if the pulpit were able to freely speak about largess, corruption, elections, political groups and their agendas! We may not have the current administration in office.
It has been my view that taking the tax exemption has been too heavy of a trade off for the church. We essentially sell the truth away for the lucre. Silence on political issues in return for a 501(c3). A compromise. Luke warm.
Yes, more revenue is collected because of the tax write off, but that does not make it right. Many will say that it is a necessary compromise, but I disagree. It is an entitlement perspective that allows it easy for believers to give. Yet where is it written that giving is easy...or was meant to be easy? God says it is a test...a test of Him and of His faithfulness (the ONLY thing the Bible tells us to test Him in!) and a test of ourselves and our faith in Him. Tests are never easy. They are meant to challenge us and to make us better. But where is the test when the government essentially says; “Hey, I'll make your testing easier. You compromise what you can say about me and I'll make it look like you're giving more money than you actually are.”? For, if I can “write off” (dismiss, excuse) my tithe, then I have watered it down. The government has essentially enabled me to cheat on God's test. All for the sake of the filthy lucre.
Do not let your right hand know what your left hand is doing. (it is supposed to be between He and me!)
“No one who puts his hand to the plow and looks back is fit for service in the kingdom of God.” (there is a cost for following God)
The leftists do NOT want to totally remove the 501(c)3 status, for fear that then then ere will be NO LIMIT on what can be preached from the pulpit.
The drop in donations to churches will only shift the benevolence ministry away form the church and put it upon the back of the local/county/state and fed government.
First, the churches will need to pay the basic bills like buildings, salaries, supplies and such. Then, only the money remaining will be available for benevolence ministries. This is where the cuts will be necessitated.
The amount of benevolence provided by the church is much larger than what can be easily seen, but when the county/state has to start feeding, housing, clothing and paying the bills of those that the church has to turn away, THEN it will be readily apparent.
Another thought...
I think this will be a purification for the church.
The white wash seplucres will be apparent for what they really are. The buildings of spiritually dead men.
Reference...
The financial aspect...
Robert Schuller's Crystal Cathedral Ministry Crumbling
The spiritually dead aspect...
Man kills himself at Crystal Cathedral
..and those are mere examples.
My point is that it is not simply the deduction, but the result of not getting it that will effectively leave them without enough money to contribute.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.