Church Not Involved In Politics?

[why me]

why me:

I agree that GA's as well as any other member of the Church can/do have their own political ideas. What I objected to, and still do, is making personal politics a criterion for faithfulness to the Church. That is where ETB crossed the line for me.

Have you forgotten the ERA debate in the late 70's? I haven't. I agree that ETB crossed the line but as prophet, he didn't cross the line at all. And I think that many church members in the US were pleasantly surprised.

[Mark Beesley]

Again, the church's involvement in moral issues is not the argument. It's the church's involvement in ballot measures that is the concern.

The church is free to teach any type of morality that it chooses, and is expected to be involved in teaching their version of morality. However, when they give instructions on how one should vote with regard to state-sponsored ballot initiatives, the church has overstepped it tax-exempt boundaries.

In the end, I just find it highly humorous, personally. That a church as proud of it's high moral character as the LDS church is, would have to remind it's members, from the pulpit, how to vote on a "moral" issue such as same-sex marriage, is just laughable to me.

Funny, I live in San Diego. I heard one letter from the First Presidency read in Sacrament meeting. I got one phone call from a brother asking me to get involved in the Pro-Prop 8 campaign, which I politely declined. At no time did anyone in the Church tell me how to vote. You may be confused.

[why me]

Funny, I live in San Diego. I heard one letter from the First Presidency read in Sacrament meeting. I got one phone call from a brother asking me to get involved in the Pro-Prop 8 campaign, which I politely declined. At no time did anyone in the Church tell me how to vote. You may be confused.

What did the letter say? Of course to hear the church's position could also be a way of getting out the vote for that position. But that being said, we can see that Mitt Romney if elected president will not be told how to vote when it comes to issues and bills. And no one tells us members how to vote either. However, it was made clear in the 70's that members should not support the era initiative. But no one told us how to vote. It can be confusing.

[altersteve]

Again, the church's involvement in moral issues is not the argument. It's the church's involvement in ballot measures that is the concern.

The church is free to teach any type of morality that it chooses, and is expected to be involved in teaching their version of morality. However, when they give instructions on how one should vote with regard to state-sponsored ballot initiatives, the church has overstepped it tax-exempt boundaries.

In the end, I just find it highly humorous, personally. That a church as proud of it's high moral character as the LDS church is, would have to remind it's members, from the pulpit, how to vote on a "moral" issue such as same-sex marriage, is just laughable to me.

The Church doesn't instruct or remind its members how to vote on any issue, but it does encourage its members to take a stand, one way or the other, on what it considers to be issues of morality. I see a huge difference between the two and it's not a mere quibble over words. And the latter is not overstepping any legal boundaries.

[MormonMason]

The key to the whole thing as to why it is OK for the Church to get involved in moral issues that could affect the Church is the phrase "it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities" in the sentence. A letter to all its members of all its congregations in a particular area does not constitute "a substantial part of its activities." I mean, really, are you even aware of the Church's activities and how small and insignificant a part sending a few letters out every once in a while is among those activities?

This is why crying out for revocation of the Church's tax exempt status for the Church's stance and encouragement of its political action against gay marriages is just chasing the wind. The Church is perfectly within the bounds of the law in doing so.

[BCSpace]

It is disturbing to me because it tries to give the implication that the church is neutral, but mentions for a moment to say it does have "sway in matters of moral aspects that can effect society". The problem is that statement, although small in length is rather broad in scope. "Moral aspects" could mean anything if spun right.

My problem really isn't as much the church gets involved, but I know this video tries to imply that it doesn't. It feels misleading to me.

I know I have heard before of politics in church meetings and such before, anyone care to share?

It's a great parable to many people. Superficially, they believe that it's okay to hold to political ideals that are in conflict with LDS doctrine. It's not at all unlike the ancient Jews looking forward to a political kingdom to save them and missing the spiritual one Jesus brought.

What they have failed to see is that the Church believes it's own doctrine and preaching which is that when one is converted, one believes in and follows Christ and his doctrine which is disseminated through his Church (Ephesians 4:11-14). The Church of course respects one's agency and this is where some people fall, but it also expects, because it believes, the Spirit to lead everyone to the same truths. So the expectation is that the more one is exposed to the true Church (and therefore the Spirit of truth), the more one will change one's beliefs and lifestyles to fit the truths the Lord has revealed.

So the problem is when some in the Church go one way and others another way. One one of them or neither of them can be the Lord's way. It is only in the temporal sense that the Church is politically neutral; so that agency is preserved.

Edited September 5, 2012 by BCSpace

[USU78]

Given the present SCOTUS' ruling in re McCain-Feingold, I'm thinking the IRS restrictions on Churches' involvement in politics might well go down if challenged.

And then we'd not only have historically black churches being practically exempted . . . everybody would be.

[Cobalt-70]

Given the present SCOTUS' ruling in re McCain-Feingold, I'm thinking the IRS restrictions on Churches' involvement in politics might well go down if challenged.

I don't think Citizen's United makes a difference here. The issue is not whether or not churches, like corporations, are "people" can say what they want in the political realm--the issue is whether they can do so and still remain tax exempt, or whether the government can make them pay taxes like every other "people." As it now stands, the federal government is granting a special privilege to churches by not requiring them to pay taxes. If a church's tax exempt status is revoked, that just puts the church, as a corporate "person," under the same rules as every other person.

And then we'd not only have historically black churches being practically exempted . . . everybody would be.

These rules are routinely and flagrantly violated by both liberal and conservative churches. The IRS has long been looking the other way, because even if most churches had to pay taxes, they probably wouldn't have to pay very much taxes, so the cost-benefit analysis doesn't add up for the IRS to generally go after churches.¹ In fact, as I understand it, the IRS has only ever revoked the tax exempt status of one church for its political activities. So if the LDS Church wanted to flagrantly violate the law like other churches, it could easily do so. Too bad we are stuck with Article of Faith 12.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[thesometimesaint]

USU78:

Maybe. But I would hate to see it. Money plays far too large a role in US politics as it is. Put religion into the mix and nothing good will come of it.

[KevinG]

So if the LDS Church wanted to flagrantly violate the law like other churches, it could easily do so. Too bad we are stuck with Article of Faith 12.

Thank you for the tacit admission of integrity on the part of the LDS Church.

[KevinG]

USU78:

Maybe. But I would hate to see it. Money plays far too large a role in US politics as it is. Put religion into the mix and nothing good will come of it.

Heaven forbid we start printing "In God We Trust" on dollar bills or base our jurisprudence on the 10 commandments. Everything would go higgeldy piggeldy.

[Mark Beesley]

What did the letter say? Of course to hear the church's position could also be a way of getting out the vote for that position. But that being said, we can see that Mitt Romney if elected president will not be told how to vote when it comes to issues and bills. And no one tells us members how to vote either. However, it was made clear in the 70's that members should not support the era initiative. But no one told us how to vote. It can be confusing.

As I recall, the letter encouraged members to support the Prop 8 campaign with time and money. There was no directive as to how members should vote, nor was there a "commandment" that members participate in the campaign.

Presidents don't vote on bills and issues; they sign them or veto them.

In the 70's the Church took a public stance against the ERA. But to my knowledge, no legislator was told how to vote on any ratification measure. The public does not vote on such measures.

I don't find it confusing at all. The Church takes a public stand on issues that it sees as having moral implications. Members are encouraged to study the issues and be one with the Church; however, in the end, every member is free to exercise their agency as they see fit. What is so confusing about that?

To my knowledge, no member has ever been subject to Church discipline for voting a certain way.

[USU78]

I don't think Citizen's United makes a difference here. The issue is not whether or not churches, like corporations, are "people" can say what they want in the political realm--the issue is whether they can do so and still remain tax exempt, or whether the government can make them pay taxes like every other "people." As it now stands, the federal government is granting a special privilege to churches by not requiring them to pay taxes. If a church's tax exempt status is revoked, that just puts the church, as a corporate "person," under the same rules as every other person.

Fact is, Churches as/qua Churches need to be involved more in public life. The horrible conversations occurring during the Prop 8 debate post election have actually involved Courts questioning whether a religious argument in favor of a statutory or constitutional enactment is proper. California Courts have, thus, attempted to thrust religions and religious people out of the public square.

Citizens United teaches us that the First Amendment still means something in re political speech: if that's to have any meaning at all, then ANY regulations impinging upon individuals' or corporate persons' political speech, including IRS ones, are at risk.

I don't think you understand the issue.

[thesometimesaint]

KevinG:

I like the 10 Commandments right where they are, in the Scriptures. I have no desire to make more than the two that already are the law of the US. I think they should have made the motto of the US. "In God We Trust. Everyone Else Pays Cash".

[USU78]

Money plays far too large a role in US politics as it is. Put religion into the mix and nothing good will come of it.

You are simply to strongly aligned for principled analysis:

If religious thought cannot help inform our public debate, expressly or implicitly, then we are doomed. The Bill of Rights starts out with a statement on religion and speech: they are inseparable. To silence religion in the public square is to destroy man's freedom of expression and belief . . . as well as practice.

You don't understand. You cannot see past the platform.

[KevinG]

KevinG:

I like the 10 Commandments right where they are, in the Scriptures. I have no desire to make more than the two that already are the law of the US. I think they should have made the motto of the US. "In God We Trust. Everyone Else Pays Cash".

So other than don't steal and don't murder you would be OK if we stripped protection of property and bearing false witness right out of our civil codes? I guess with Kelo the Supreme Court agrees with you on that whole coveting neighbors property thing. So old fashioned and unnecessary!

[Cobalt-70]

Thank you for the tacit admission of integrity on the part of the LDS Church.

The church is very good at following the law, and I think that's something to be proud of. I can't think of a single instance since the end of polygamy that the LDS Church has intentionally violated the law of the United States, and I think the same applies to other countries. Even Instances of accidental violations are extremely rare, because the church has good lawyers.

[Mark Beesley]

. . . ANY regulations impinging upon individuals' or corporate persons' political speech, including IRS ones, are at risk.

That statement is probably too broad. Reasonable regulations are always permissible.

[Cobalt-70]

Fact is, Churches as/qua Churches need to be involved more in public life. The horrible conversations occurring during the Prop 8 debate post election have actually involved Courts questioning whether a religious argument in favor of a statutory or constitutional enactment is proper. California Courts have, thus, attempted to thrust religions and religious people out of the public square.

The Prop. 8 case did not cast religions and religious people out of the public square. It simply applied the Equal Protection and Due Process clauses of the 14th Amendment, which say that the religious beliefs of one religious demographic do not receive preference over the religious beliefs of another religious, or areligious, demographic when determining whether a law has a "rational basis." In other words, "because my religious beliefs are holier than your religious beliefs" is not a "rational basis" for legislation.

Citizens United teaches us that the First Amendment still means something in re political speech: if that's to have any meaning at all, then ANY regulations impinging upon individuals' or corporate persons' political speech, including IRS ones, are at risk.

The First Amendment has always meant something re political speech. Nobody has ever disputed the constitutional right of an individual, including members of an organization or church, to say what it wants on any political issue whatsoever, be they Nazi or Communist. That's not what Citizens United was about. That case was about whether (1) corporations are "people," so that the corporation as a body has the same right to "speak," despite its lack of a mouth, as do the natural people who comprise its stockholders, and (2) whether money is "speech," so that you are exercising "free speech" when you slip somebody a Benjamin.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Cobalt-70

[USU78]

That statement is probably too broad. Reasonable regulations are always permissible.

??? I said "at risk," by which I meant "in play" in future cases.

[thesometimesaint]

You are simply to strongly aligned for principled analysis:

If religious thought cannot help inform our public debate, expressly or implicitly, then we are doomed. The Bill of Rights starts out with a statement on religion and speech: they are inseparable. To silence religion in the public square is to destroy man's freedom of expression and belief . . . as well as practice.

You don't understand. You cannot see past the platform.

My platform is Common Sense written by a revolutionary named Thomas Paine, and the Constitution of the United States as amended.

There is no possible way that individual voters can separate religious thought from their politics. It can't be done. But what we must do is not let religious differences dictate public policy. Which religion would we make the law of the land? I happen to like the religion of the LDS. Someone else might like the Catholic version, another Zoroastrianism. Which one do we require by law for them to obey?

The Bill of Rights allows me to believe any foolish thing I want as long as I allow you to believe any foolish thing you want. I can not use the force of law to make you believe.

I'm not for banning religion from the public square. I against using religion to dictate to the public under the force of law. We can all agree that stealing from others is morally and legally wrong. But which or any God(s) should we be forced to worship. Should you or I be forced, through law, to worship on Saturday?

Again my platform is freedom. The freedom to believe and to act on those beliefs as long as I don't impinge on your right to do the same.

[USU78]

My platform is Common Sense written by a revolutionary named Thomas Paine, and the Constitution of the United States as amended.

There is no possible way that individual voters can separate religious thought from their politics. It can't be done. But what we must do is not let religious differences dictate public policy. Which religion would we make the law of the land? I happen to like the religion of the LDS. Someone else might like the Catholic version, another Zoroastrianism. Which one do we require by law for them to obey?

The Bill of Rights allows me to believe any foolish thing I want as long as I allow you to believe any foolish thing you want. I can not use the force of law to make you believe.

I'm not for banning religion from the public square. I against using religion to dictate to the public under the force of law. We can all agree that stealing from others is morally and legally wrong. But which or any God(s) should we be forced to worship. Should you or I be forced, through law, to worship on Saturday?

Again my platform is freedom. The freedom to believe and to act on those beliefs as long as I don't impinge on your right to do the same.

If my freedom to speak politically through my Church or through my own vocal chords, via money or via printed word, is impinged upon by Government, then I am not free.

Your platform is the DNC . . . not freedom.

Your platform is, therefore, shut up my opponents but let mine speak. It is tendentious and leaves the public square devoid of religious-inspired and -informed viewpoints.

When the religious speak it is not a matter of grave concern: it should be welcomed.

I for one refuse to shut up.

[Cobalt-70]

If my freedom to speak politically through my Church or through my own vocal chords, via money or via printed word, is impinged upon by Government, then I am not free.

That's the point, you have a perfect constitutional right to speak politically "through your church." But the government also has a perfect right to require your church to pay income taxes like any other lobbying organization or political action committee if you exercise that right on behalf of your church.

[Nofear]

That's the point, you have a perfect constitutional right to speak politically "through your church." But the government also has a perfect right to require your church to pay income taxes like any other lobbying organization or political action committee if you exercise that right on behalf of your church.

While I haven't followed the thread at all, technically the government could tax a church whether or not it engaged in any form of political activity. It has merely become a choice of the United States not to tax churches because we, as a society, have decided them to be generally beneficial and not to discourage their proliferation because of taxation.

[DavidB]

Citizens United was not about 501©3 tax exempt organizations.

And religious belief should never be the basis of law in a society which does not have a National religion, but even if a society had a National Religion it is very likely such would run afoul of the principles from the D&C.