"moral" Issues, The Church, And Political Activism

[sethpayne]

1. In light of current events, because the United States is a large free society where the Church has thrived to date; religious freedom is of the highest priority (it entails all other freedoms); and there is a point where freedom cannot be tolerated by an immoral society.

 

2. Because it is better to zero in on those specifics affecting the highest priority, which if preserved, all other ills can be addressed.

 

So you think SSM - or abortion, or whatever -- is more of a threat to religious liberty than the NSA tapping President Monson's phone without a warrant?

Edited June 30, 2015 by sethpayne

[Danzo]

You might want to inform yourself on the standard. And whether I say "degree of involvement" or "substantial part", the message is the same. Quite honestly I can't understand why you harp on something so trivial.

To inform yourself of the IRS standards regarding Churches via "Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations" - it is yet another IRS publication.

 

I make my living by understanding, consulting and litigating on tax law. It is not trivial.   I am well aware of the standards that the IRS and the courts use when it comes to the amount of lobbying that a tax exempt organization (in its various forms) are allowed.    And no, calling something a "moral issue" instead of a "legislative issue" does not change anything when it comes to these tests (the economic substance test will always be invoked).  

 

You asserted that the church uses the phrase "moral issue" to avoid tax consequences in influencing legislation.

 

That is patently false.  Using one phrase or the other would not make a bit of difference in any court. 

[tonie]

Eitherway, the point still stands, I think it not unreasonable to think that using the label "moral issue" is a calculated label intended to send a message to the IRS.

 

 

 

Using the label "moral issue" is, in my opinion, a calculated label to send a message about the Church involvement in a legislative process.

 

 

I make my living by understanding, consulting and litigating on tax law. It is not trivial.   I am well aware of the standards that the IRS and the courts use when it comes to the amount of lobbying that a tax exempt organization (in its various forms) are allowed.    And no, calling something a "moral issue" instead of a "legislative issue" does not change anything when it comes to these tests (the economic substance test will always be invoked).  

 

You asserted that the church uses the phrase "moral issue" to avoid tax consequences in influencing legislation.

 

That is patently false.  Using one phrase or the other would not make a bit of difference in any court. 

 

Nice distortion and loaded presentation.

 

I have been quited clear that it is my opinion that using the label "moral issue" is a calculated label intended to send a message to the IRS.  I have not maintained an assertion what that intended message might be. Nor have I maintained that the label is to avoid tax consequences.

Edited June 30, 2015 by tonie

[Danzo]

Nice distortion and loaded presentation.

 

I have been quited clear that it is my opinion that using the label "moral issue" is a calculated label intended to send a message to the IRS.  I have not maintained an assertion what that intended message might be. Nor have I maintained that the label is to avoid tax consequences.

 

What other message would the church  want to send to the IRS?

 

Is the church just trying to do missionary work at the Service?

[Stroopwafel]

k

I am not sure that I am reading your nuances correctly, if sex related issues were the only ones of eternal significance , why did Christ during His Earthly ministry spend so little time on them and so much time on economic and other issues?

 

I know!! That's why my answer to the first question was that the Church (along with most of Christianity) adheres to Paul's version of Christianity. All the fuss about sexuality comes from Paul. Apart from some marital issues, and a stronger version of the 7th commandment, Jesus of Nazareth, as an apocalyptic prophet, had other concerns, as you rightly pointed out.

[Danzo]

I know!! That's why my answer to the first question was that the Church (along with most of Christianity) adheres to Paul's version of Christianity. All the fuss about sexuality comes from Paul. Apart from some marital issues, and a stronger version of the 7th commandment, Jesus of Nazareth, as an apocalyptic prophet, had other concerns, as you rightly pointed out.

 

Perhaps the physician treats the illness that he finds in front of him, not the illness that  comes later.

[CV75]

So you think SSM - or abortion, or whatever -- is more of a threat to religious liberty than the NSA tapping President Monson's phone without a warrant?

How do you connect the dots between the Patriot Act and religious freedom on the same observed level as the Church has connected the dots between same-sex marriage rulings and religious freedom? You offer a conclusion in the OP but didn't expalin how you got there.

 

But as a matter of principle, just as exaltation is a family affair and not an individual matter, I think undermining the family structure is far more destructive to religious freedom than undermining an individual’s privacy. Once privacy is violated, both the individual and the family continue to exercise their religion openly.

[Stone holm]

I know!! That's why my answer to the first question was that the Church (along with most of Christianity) adheres to Paul's version of Christianity. All the fuss about sexuality comes from Paul. Apart from some marital issues, and a stronger version of the 7th commandment, Jesus of Nazareth, as an apocalyptic prophet, had other concerns, as you rightly pointed out.

There are a lot of things in writings of Paul that have sent many churches off into the weeds.