Posted on 06/26/2013 5:13:31 PM PDT by drewh
Based on Wednesday’s Supreme Court ruling, in which the Court majority determined that the Defense of Marriage Act’s federal definition of marriage had to incorporate state-based same-sex marriages, Internal Revenue Service regulations could be modified to remove non-profit status for churches across the country.
The DOMA decision makes clear that marriage is a state-to-state issue, meaning that religious institutions that receive non-profit status on the federal level but do not perform or accept same-sex marriages in states where it is legal could have non-profit status revoked.
Furthermore, should the IRS move to revoke federal non-profit status for churches, synagogues and mosques that do not perform same-sex marriage more generally, the Court could easily justify that decision on the basis of “eradicating discrimination” in religious education.
The Court stated in Romer v. Evans (1996) that states could not take measures to prevent future distinction of gays and lesbians as a protected class under state law; in Lawrence v. Texas (2003) the Court ruled that same-sex sexual activity was Constitutionally protected; in the DOMA case on Wednesday, the Court ruled that DOMA was unconstitutional not merely on federalism grounds, but because it violated the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment and the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.
On the state level, a movement is already under way to revoke non-profit status for religious organizations that do not abide by the same-sex marriage. In Massachusetts in 2006, Boston Catholic Charities withdrew from adoption services thanks to the state mandate on same-sex adoptions, rather than fight the issue in court. In California, a bill is already making its way through the legislature to bar non-profit status for any religious youth group that discriminates on the basis of “gender identity, race, sexual orientation, nationality, religion, or religious affiliation.”
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
“..Our God is bigger than the IRS and the Federal Government...”
Post of the day!!
A big problem with the modern church is it’s notorious unwillingness to discipline members living in open sin. This failure has led to a church that has no moral force in it’s local context. Such laxity destroys the credibility of the Gospel. Church becomes nothing more than a loose association of lecture-hall attendees, where the “lectures” are designed more along the lines of self-improvement courses than inducements for “sinners in the hands of an angry God” to repent and live holy lives.
So no, it is imperative for pastors to respond to this, not by welcoming gays in as an unchallenged source of moral corruption, but by fearlessly preaching the whole counsel of God to whoever will listen (including His judgment on all forms of immorality), and to shepherd the flock wisely by forbidding fellowship with those wolves in sheep’s clothing sent to destroy innocent souls and faithful children before God.
But Obama said he would not take the tax exemption away from religious institutions,he would not mislead us by saying,I am not doing it,the IRS is doing it,would he? Nooooooooooooooooo!
I think it’s time to remove ‘non-profit’ status from everything. It started out as a good idea - but it’s turned into another liberal scam...
Churches are not tax exempt because the government grants them that privilege. Churches are tax exempt because the first amendment says that congress can make no law establishing a religion or preventing the free exercise of religion.
Because the government is blocked off from having anything to do with what churches do, that is why they can’t get involved in what is collected in the offering plates.
Because taking anything from a church’s offering plate would mean the government saying “you can’t give anything 100% to God unless you also give something to the government at the same time”. That would be imposing on the free exercise of religion.
Even with tax deductions for charitable organizations, the government, based on the first amendment, should not be able to tax the money that I donate to God and my religion.
Beyond that, I think families and individuals should be able to not count expenses toward income, but that only profit should be income. Just the same as businesses.
To pretend that housing, transportation, food, etc., is not an expense is ridiculous.
Get rid of all this manipulation by insisting on the repeal of the 16th amendment and the government funding itself only with tariffs and sales taxes.
I’m not sure churches are obligated to even apply for non-profit status. I believe the tax code provides churches an automatic immunity to taxation. Filing as a 501c3 is optional as a matter of convenience. Non-profit status under 5013c isn’t even necessary to establish donation deductibility. As I understand it, that derives from simply being a qualified organization, which churches already are, automatically.
And incorporation of the churches is problematic. There are many churches that have refused to do so for generations. Their view, and I share it, is that subjection of the church to the state via incorporation is in violation of the principle that Christ and none but Christ is the head of the church. But incorporation is in effect an admission, for legal purposes, that the state is the creator and sovereign over the entity so created, and thus has power to create it, control it, or destroy it, according to the whims of said state. No one with a serious understanding of who Christ really is can afford to cede that much authority to the state.
So I propose something like this: We need an “ecumenical” council to bring together the conservative churches in America to set forth a uniform and well-researched position on churches and tax policy. If nothing else, this would provide many, many churches who have no tax expertise the opportunity to learn what the real options are. I think it would be liberating for many, and give new freedom to those in the pulpit to speak the whole counsel of God.
The point is O would bar folks from obtaining civil marriage if they undertook marriage within the Catholic church.
“You can have your marraige, but the state refuses to marry you because your church discriminates”.
“You say marriage is only a religious institution. Well, now you’ve got it. No state recognition.”
It sounds great to the already married folks, but it’s a crap deal for us young folks wanting to get married. Especially when we hear it from our older peers who know, “hey, nothing’s going to change for me”. What a pain in the ass.
I'm not sure if it's been challenged in court. Given today's government can do as it wills view of the courts it may be upheld even though the court would be wrong to do so.
Um, who are you quoting there? T’ain’t me. Besides, that’s not even my argument. Marriage necessarily has both a religious and a civil component, no matter how it is initiated. The civil component is deeply embedded in common law, and no one person has the authority or even the raw power to single-handedly undo the common law. Our enemies have a temporary tactical advantage, but God controls the playing field, and has it rigged against them. I am not worried.
At least in the pews of the churches that teach the truth. Then maybe they will open their eyes and see their sin for what God says it is, and ask for forgiveness.Please show me where I said that the church needs to cave in to sin by teaching homosexuality is OK..........
I didn’t misunderstand you. I just have a different perspective, based on many years of observation. I did not mean to infer that you were suggesting a church should skirt around awkward truths. But I also know that spiritual associations are serious business, and many people with good intentions, sometimes even pastors, tend to overestimate their own resistance to spiritual disease.
So yes, I would invite a gay person to an evangelistic event, or witness to them personally, but I would not invite them to church, unless they expressed to me an intent to publically repent of their deviant sexual behavior. Church is for the shepherding of the flock. The pastor feeds the flock in safety, not in the presence of wolves, even if they are only there out of curiosity. Associations matter.
My pastor has been preaching the truth for well over 25 years, and he has given the alter call each and every time he finishes a sermon. Some accept and come to Jesus, some do not.
How can one answer an alter call if they are not there to hear it, and how can one want to be called if they are are not withing hearing to respond.
Years ago when I answered the call, I was living a life of sin and enjoyed every moment of it. I thank God that I, a sinner, was invited. Oh, my friend never thought I would accept his invite, and he surely was not prepared for me to accept Jesus.
Church is NOT only for the saved to be fed, it is also for the lost to be saved. I have seen many, many sinners come to my church and my pastor has never fallen into false doctrine for it.
You need to have more faith in Jesus being the shepherd and stop worrying if those who attend church, that have a said faith, will fall away from grace because a sinner has entered the building.
However, Activists in their ranks will, no doubt, now be showing up in Churches DEMANDING to be "Married", and/or, flaunting their deviance in the church.....THAT is what I'm talking about.
Good luck.
Under our Constitution IF Congress, POTUS, and the Courts abide in it churches should not be taxed. Rather churches were the center of the community.
And incorporation of the churches is problematic. There are many churches that have refused to do so for generations. Their view, and I share it, is that subjection of the church to the state via incorporation is in violation of the principle that Christ and none but Christ is the head of the church. But incorporation is in effect an admission, for legal purposes, that the state is the creator and sovereign over the entity so created, and thus has power to create it, control it, or destroy it, according to the whims of said state. No one with a serious understanding of who Christ really is can afford to cede that much authority to the state.
Hum, I can't fully agree with that for the simple reason GOD uses governments and leaders {none are such without His permission} to condemn or reward nations as a whole. Who crucified Christ? Christ all all authority over heaven and earth yet he submitted to the government of the day. The leaders of the church was a different matter though. It's a hard pill to swallow but the Apostles and Disciples submitted to the government in relation to laws except when it came to preaching The Gospel.
So I propose something like this: We need an “ecumenical” council to bring together the conservative churches in America to set forth a uniform and well-researched position on churches and tax policy. If nothing else, this would provide many, many churches who have no tax expertise the opportunity to learn what the real options are. I think it would be liberating for many, and give new freedom to those in the pulpit to speak the whole counsel of God.
The churches a good number worship government not GOD thus no such union would be formed except as you say possibly the more Conservative churches. You have to remember there are churches even using Christ name who support abortion, want to ban public prayer, and do The Devils work claiming to be Christian.
Some talk of rebellion in the nation. Their intentions are good but first for GOD's People to ever reclaim the nation it would require repenting of this nation as a whole. Right now just as Israel rebelled after being taken out of Egypt our nation as a whole has forgotten GOD who delivered them from tyranny of the Crown. We loose wars to Armies a fraction of our size and might. But our leaders nor We The People as a whole are listening.
A Civil War will not heal our nation. But if our nation as a whole turns back to GOD He will heal our nation. The last time we saw prosperity and respect of the world was when a group of Pastors and Churches united back in 1979 to form The Moral Majority. By 1982 our nation was well on the mend and our military at it's peak. In 1994 came The Contract With America. Our political leaders broke faith almost before the ink was dry and their oaths taken.
I doubt one in a hundred Conservatives even know who founded The Moral Majority and the fact all three of the principle founders are now dead. If there had not been The Moral Majority and a nation listening there may not have been a President Reagan. Actually two of three of the founders of The Moral Majority were often mocked by Conservatives for positions they took. One was Jerry Falwell the other Howard Phillips founder of The Conservative Caucus and Constitution Party. The one who was respected was Paul Weyrich the third principle founder of that group. IOW Conservatism and Christianity sometimes conflict. Some Conservatives are only fiscal conservatives is what I'm saying.
Leaders are a direct reflection of the hearts of the nations. GOD allows them authority over us for His purposes. What will it take to bring back our nation? 9/11 didn't do it. Our leaders rather than taking a stand against Islam called it the religion of peace. We've been in the skids since. Our enemies take over from within. It's all in the open no pretense of even hiding it any more. And again some so called Christian Churches are cheering it on. The United States needs strong GOD Fearing Leaders in the church and in our homes. That is where it has to begin.
We have been “transformed” haven’t we?
I don’t like homosexuals; I do not associate with them; I don’t want them in my life.
And, I don’t care what SCOTUS says: there is no such “thing” as “homosexual marriage!”
There is homosexual behavior, however, and if one chooses to engage in that lifestyle, that is their business. Just don’t force your behavior on me, and don’t seek my acceptance of your behavior.
I debated whether I should respond to your last post, and only just now decided to do so. These arguments can go on indefinitely, and my time is constrained, so very often I just decide to let the other person have the last word, but in this case I thought I’d go at least this one more step. Anyway, sorry for the delay. Now on with it:
I understand the pattern of church practice you are describing. I grew up with it, although my mileage did vary from yours, apparently. A tiny Baptist church, the same small group of people year after year, endless rounds of “Just As I Am” at the end of every service, and we’d all gone forward at least once, and were welcome to come forward again if we wanted, and some of us did, especially as children, because the pressure was enormous.
But none of those public invitation events took root in me. When I was converted down to the heart, I was alone in a hotel room in LA, finally at the end of my excuses, just me and God looking at the train wreck of my life, and then God did marvelous things on my behalf.
But that pattern of using every Sunday morning service as a tent meeting evangelistic service, complete with emotionally powerful musical background, is a fairly recent innovation in the life of the church. And I do accept that God can work through all that noise and still save lost souls. Salvation is His sovereign work and our imperfections will not stop Him from finding and rescuing His sheep.
But the leadership of a church cannot fulfill their duties as shepherds if they fail to oversee the spiritual associations of their flock. I am going to list below a series of passages that show the true church is obligated to be intolerant of those who claim to be believers but openly practice sin in full view of the congregation, with a few observations following:
********************************************************************
2Th 3:6 Now we command you, brethren, in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye withdraw yourselves from every brother that walketh disorderly, and not after the tradition which he received of us.
2Th 3:14 And if any man obey not our word by this epistle, note that man, and have no company with him, that he may be ashamed. [15] Yet count him not as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.
1Co 5:9 I wrote unto you in an epistle not to company with fornicators: [10] Yet not altogether with the fornicators of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or with idolaters; for then must ye needs go out of the world. [11] But now I have written unto you not to keep company, if any man that is called a brother be a fornicator, or covetous, or an idolater, or a railer, or a drunkard, or an extortioner; with such an one no not to eat. [12] For what have I to do to judge them also that are without? do not ye judge them that are within? [13] But them that are without God judgeth. Therefore put away from among yourselves that wicked person.
Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them. [18] For they that are such serve not our Lord Jesus Christ, but their own belly; and by good words and fair speeches deceive the hearts of the simple.
1Co 5:6 Your glorying is not good. Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?
Pro 13:20 He that walketh with wise men shall be wise: but a companion of fools shall be destroyed.
1Co 15:33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.
********************************************************************
Now first the objection may be that most of these passages apply to professing Christians engaged in open sin, and you are addressing, presumably, homosexuals who may not claim to be Christian at all, and that’s a fair point.
But I think they still apply in principle, for the following reasons. First, during the hard days of the early church, it was positively dangerous to be found in association with Christians. You could end up paying for your curiosity with your life. So the notion of church as a lecture hall with casual attendees from any and all moral perspectives is really a modern phenomena, a byproduct of the remarkable peace enjoyed by American Christianity. I suspect the house churches in China or the underground churches in Saudi Arabia etc do not have frequent visitors who are not also committed Christians.
Second, the practice of excluding open sinners who are also admitted unbelievers from the private life of the church is based on a principle which is well established and universal in scope. Note the last passage listed above, from 1 Cor 15:33, the modern rendering of which is, quite accurately, bad company corrupts good morals.
It works like this. Let’s say a church welcomes communists to attend any and all services, without restriction, without any effort to manage contact with the flock. I am not speaking from a hypothetical here, but a direct personal experience. This communist proceeds to argue vigorously in every setting, bible studies, prayer meetings, the parking lot, whatever, for a social justice view of Christianity that empowers the government to right all economic wrongs per the communist model.
Now the pastor knows and preaches the truth, including that dusty old commandment about how envy of your neighbor’s stuff is sin, etc., but he’s a go along get along all around nice guy, and the communist is never confronted, though he is actively promoting envy in the church. He has his toe in the door and he is using it to the max to corrupt the flock. I cannot see how God could view this situation in a favorable light. Spiritual leaders will give account one day for how they tended the flock God gave them, not for how many times they got people to come forward at the end of a church service.
Also, please note I am not saying unbelievers who are notorious sinner should be prohibited from occasionally dropping in on public services that are designed as evangelistic outreach. And I do recognize that using Sunday morning as the evangelistic emphasis is a very common model in modern American churches, though I think Biblically evangelism is best conducted by those whom the Holy Spirit has especially gifted for the task.
I am more concerned about those who would intentionally take advantage of the situation and use their easy access as a means of deliberate corruption. Sexual immorality is a particularly powerful device of Satan to lure otherwise good people into great and painful darkness, and a pastor who fails to adequately assess the threat and deal with it head on is not giving the full measure of love to those whom God has placed in his charge.
There’s a lot more I could say, but this is already too long.
Peace,
SR
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.