Posted on 09/22/2006 12:35:54 AM PDT by demonrum
There's a lot of words there--&, to judge from a lot of what I've read on this site, longer posts are kinda skipped over; so let me give you the jist:
A guest pastor gave a sermon that could've been viewed (although not by anyone present except maybe by one, who ran wee wee wee all the way to the IRS) as politically partisan.
I'm interested to see what sort of discussion this might provoke.
(If any. There are, after all, a LOT of words in that article.)
Bear in mind, though--no matter your denomination, your faith, your church--this has serious implications. I don't know how how else to say it.
But which law--the first amendment, or the tax code?
The tax code should be challenged on this issue, because I think it violates the first amendment.
Excerpts from:
On the Right To Rebel Against Governors
An Election Sermon preached to the Council and House Of Representatives of the Massachusetts Bay Colony
(The complete text is contained in
The Pulpit of the American Revolution)
May 29, 1776
by: Rev. Samuel West, A.M. (1730-1807)
Pastor, Congregational Church of Dartmouth
From hence it follows that tyranny and arbitrary power are utterly inconsistent with and subversive of the very end and design of civil government, and directly contrary to natural law, which is the true foundation of civil government and all politic law. Consequently, the authority of a tyrant is of itself null and void...
from Rev. Samuel West's Election Sermon
Preface by Peter Kershaw: This election sermon preached by Rev. Samuel West has come to be known by the title of, "On The Right To Rebel Against Governors."
This is a most unfortunate title, and it is not a title that Samuel West himself used to describe his sermon. The terms "rebel" and "rebellion" were commonly used by the British king and parliament to characterize the actions of the American Colonists. However, many of the most noteworthy patriots were often quick to challenge "rebellion" as a complete mischaracterization:
"We are not exciting rebellion. Opposition, nay, open, avowed resistance by arms against usurpation and lawless violence, is not rebellion by the law of God or the land."
John Adams
Resistance to tyranny does not constitute rebellion. As John Adams noted, "Resistance to lawful authority makes rebellion."
None of the Colonies had violated their charters with the king of England. However, the king had repeatedly violated his charters with the American Colonies. Furthermore, the king permitted to British Parliament to impose laws and collect taxes on the Colonies when they had no lawful jurisdiction to do so. As such, it was the king who became a law unto himself (rex lex) and, thusly, who became the real rebel.
Patriot pastors, such as Samuel West, served the Colonies in courageous fashion by articulating from the Word of God their duty to obey all lawful authority and to resist any and all tyrannical rulers, even to the point of taking up arms to defend their God-given rights and duties.
As was typical of election sermons, Rev. West's election sermon was published by the Massachusetts Assembly and widely distributed throughout the Colonies. Copies of it were even sent to King George III and the British Parliament to serve as a remonstrance against their tyrannies. Samual West was, thusly, marked out as a member of the "Black Regiment" by King George and a bounty put on his head.
There is no doubt in my mind that the IRS has no business telling any church what a pastor can or cannot preach. Also, in my opinion there is no "tax exemption" that the IRS "gives" to churches. They must not be taxed because it curtails their independence and it impedes free worship.
I am a very conservative pastor, yet I fully support this liberal church on the issue of freedom of expression in churches.
In fact, I support freedom of expression in every election. I STRONGLY oppose McCain/Feingold that strips average Americans of their right to speak during election cycles, while permitting media groups and political parties to speak all they want.
It is time to redefine what is meant by politicking by tax exempt organizations. I think some religious organizations have abused the privilege for a long time, especially in the so-called "black churches" where political candidates appear and give "sermons" which are little more than campaign speeches dressed up with biblical quotes. In addition, a lot of "liberal" churches are defining true religion as the quest for "social justice" which is highly reminiscent of a certain failed political ideology.
So should the IRS look into this? To the extent the law is vague, I support an attempt to clarify it. Now this reverend thinks it is intimidation in the shadow of mid-term elections but this is a cyclical issue so it will almost always be near election times when the definition of a sermon becomes relevant. And it seems to me that the IRS has selected a "white" congregation probably to pursue this rather than going after the black congregations where one hears a lot of questionable sermons and "guest preachers" like Clinton, Kerry, Chavez, Castro, etc.
Should the IRS be able to dictate content of sermons? It seems like a pretty difficult issue. What constitutes campaigning for a political candidate? Mentioning him or her by name or preaching sermons and campaigning for the issues that define his or her campaign? Like the pastor online, I support the ability to speak out plainly and let the chips fall where they may but at the same time I believe many religious sects has become so empty of true religion that they have become little more than political action committees: anything to keep from mentioning unpopular things like sin, redemption, morality.
In fact I support getting rid of all these "crimes by mouth" that plague the country (except fire in the theater). We're only fooling ourselves to believe that changing the words people can speak is somehow changing their character also. Truth will out and if a church or other gagged party wants to support a particular cause,it will find a way anyway.
I say this as one who has been at the forefront of a fight with the IRS with my faith. The IRS can clearly abuse its privileges also. In our case, a scam resulted in the donation to my church of parcels in land in Nevada which had been fraudulently valued by the scammer and sold to various parties with the idea that they could donate the worthless land to charitable organizations and claim the inflated valuations on their tax returns. It was not just our church that was involved. It included the Boy Scouts, the Red Cross, Salvation Army, etc etc. At any rate, the IRS caught onto the scam and subpoenaed the records of those who donated to our church and school. We cooperated fully with that subpoena. But then the IRS decided that the scam gave it the right to subpoena information about any and all in-kind (i.e., non-cash) donations and this we resisted. As a legal representative of the school, I can well recall an IRS agent's advice to me to pack a toothbrush because I was going to be jailed if I continued to refuse their demands. (No, I didn't end up in jail.) So abuse is definitely a hallmark of the IRS but maybe we need a better definition of this law or a repeal of the law for everyone's sake. If the church wants to put together a coalitian to fight this, more power to it.
I actually went to this "church" until I was "silenced" for criticizing Clinton/Lewinsky. Secularism is god there. On the other hand though, the IRS can go to Hell.
Good read, good resource.
I never forgot Samuel West.
I think we need to keep fire in the theater & incitement to riot. Beyond that, I agree.
We're only fooling ourselves to believe that changing the words people can speak is somehow changing their character also.
If you haven't read, "Political Correctness The Revenge of Marxism", IMHO, it is well worth reading.
Theodore Dalrymple: Political correctness is communist propaganda writ small. In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. Ones standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control. I think if you examine political correctness, it has the same effect and is intended to.
http://gatesofvienna.blogspot.com/2006/06/political-correctness-revenge-of.html
Thank you for that post and link. I obviously had not thoroughly thought out the deleterious effects on character of silence or acquiescence in the face of a blatant lie. It makes it even more imperative that good people challenge political correctness whenever possible. As I am approaching genuine curmudgeonhood age, I guess I should strap on my sword and flail away, though I look more like Pancho Sanchez than Don Quixote. ;o)
That link is from an article at FR. Our nation was forged in open dialog, much of it unsettling & radical for its time.
When IRS code is used to control or regulate one kind of opinion spoken in our churches, it's not difficult to see our government reaching in even further. Yes, many churches have devolved into little more than secular clubs, empowering government to define what is secular or religious is dangerous, especially when it is done from the Federal level.
In my younger days my job was located in the inner city. I've watched the destructive nature of political correctness in action. I have to remind myself that good people are stuck living in neighborhoods I won't go into anymore. In some of my windmill tilting moments I'm tempted to go to a church in one of those neighborhoods. There's challenge & then there's incitement to riot. lol
Would want you burned (in effigy) at one of those churches. Keep your wits and let your heart and spirit guide your actions. Sometimes we have to be satisfied with being little steps on the way to a grand result. Forgot to say I really enjoy reading Dalrymple. The sane continental mindset is fascinating and instructive.
Meanta to say would NOT want you burned in effigy or otherwise. Sugar low, I guess.
I must admit, I have always accepted, agreed, that churches should not be venues for political opinions. I based this on the fact that they enjoy a tax-exempt position.
On the other hand, I believe that governments do not have the right to withhold any portion of an employer's income.
In essence, the IRS should be abolished. This country needs to adopt another, more equitable way, of supporting it's governing bodies, both federal and state. If churches are included in this support, so be it. They are free then, without question, to comment on the political scene.
Related posts about this liberal church that received the treatment that liberals hoped the IRS would give instead to conservative churches:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1706342/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1706227/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1706218/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1705843/posts
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1702801/posts
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.