What is a secular nation?

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said:

Are there government agencies doing this?

I know the broader culture is very hostile to the faithful, but I was unaware that the government was actively forbidding political activity by religious individuals and groups.  This is horrible.

I don’t know that there are government agencies doing this. I have no doubt there are people who wish they would, part of the “broader culture” you mention here. Some who parrot the “separation of church and state” mantra seem to believe it precludes people of faith from engaging in the political debate or seeking to influence public policy. It is such a notion that I believe should be countered. 

Edited September 10, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

4 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Your idolatry is disgusting.

Hardly worse than your own “walking embodiment of Babylon” remark. 

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Ahab said:

i think I was seeing a problem because I was thinking about how an individual person might think about what they are doing while acting on behalf of their government if they didn't agree with those actions on a personal level.

MN helped to clarify the issue a little better for me and I think I understand a little better now about how a person working for the government would have to be able to separate their personal idea from their government duties, sometimes, but that would still be a problem even though the problem would be ignored temporarily.  When working for the government someone would need to be able to sometimes deny their personal convictions because their government duties would be in contradiction to those convictions.  What I would think of as being a double minded person, as James in James 1:8 says we should not be.  And the reason for the problem would be because a person wanted to keep their day job, even if it went against their personal convictions about how they should act. 

But even if a person quit that job because they didn't want to act in contradiction to their personal conviction, then someone else might take that job who didn't have a problem doing those duties even though in the minds of some those government duties were an affront to their personal convictions and against the free exercise of their religion.  Which would mean people would sometimes have to choose between working for money and working for God.  And regardless of however any one person or group of people acted there would be some in favor and some opposed to those actions, because there is no religion or way to live that would be pleasing to everybody at the same time.  What one would do someone else would not do.

And that's the problem with the way the world is right now.  Everyone does something that some other people are opposed to, with no way at all to please everybody all of the time.

I suppose there is no way to avoid the problem, though, because there is no way for everybody to be in agreement about everything all of the time.  It might happen eventually, someday, but as long as people are at different levels of development, with some who haven't learned some lessons that other people have learned there are always going to be some problems that some people cause that eventually, someday, maybe, they will learn to overcome.

My sense is you are fretting about something that rarely happens. If you were to ask a typical government officer or worker how often he or she is required in the line of duty to do that which violates his or her conscience, my guess is the answer would be seldom to never. 

[Scott Lloyd]

8 hours ago, Ahab said:

Depends on where you are or the political demographic of the people you have around you, I suppose.  He's quite popular in many parts of Texas, so much so that people who are against Trump are the people who might get assaulted.

“Might get assaulted”? Possibly. I’ve never seen a media report of such a thing, though (except for the Jussie Smollet incident that turned out to be a hoax). 

I am aware, though, of reports of a man being viciously struck repeatedly in the face for recruiting on a college campus for Turning Point USA, a conservative pro-Trump group; of a young man having a drink thrown in his face by a stranger for wearing a MAGA cap in a restaurant; a student at a university having his MAGA hat stolen from his head by a fanatical woman who claimed that he was promoting “genocide of a bunch of people.”

And these are all caught on smartphone video and posted on YouTube. Who knows how many more such occurrences never surface because there is no video evidence of them?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/mar/7/zachary-greenberg-28-pleads-not-guilty-punching-co/

Edited September 10, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Michael Sudworth]

53 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t know that there are government agencies doing this. I have no doubt there are people who wish they would, part of the “broader culture” you mention here. Some who parrot the “separation of church and state mantra” seem to believe it precludes people of faith from engaging in the political debate or seeking to influence public policy. It is such a notion that I believe should be countered. 

Ah, gotcha.  So you a more afraid that anti-religious people will gain political power and begin excluding believers from political debate.  At this point, it is just people *saying* that religious believers should not be politically involved.  No one is actually preventing such participation at this point.

Edited September 10, 2019 by Michael Sudworth

[Scott Lloyd]

25 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said:

Ah, gotcha.  So you a more afraid that anti-religious people will gain political power and begin excluding believers from political debate.  At this point, it is just people *saying* that religious believers should not be politically involved.  No one is actually preventing such participation at this point.

Their rhetoric is often couched in the form of grumbling about the tax exempt status given to churches. As though to say religious people ought not enjoy freedom of speech without their churches bearing the consequence of losing their tax exemption. 

Can you see where such talk might have a chilling effect on people of faith, causing them to refrain from speaking in public on issues they care about for fear of repercussions being imposed upon their churches?

[Michael Sudworth]

21 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Can you see where such talk might have a chilling effect on people of faith, causing them to refrain from speaking in public on issues they care about for fear of repercussions being imposed upon their churches?

I completely agree with your assessment.  

Personally, I wouldn't mind if *all* Churches lost tax exemption.  Just as long as it is applied to all religions and organizations equally.

[Jake Starkey]

The isolated incidents above referred are . . . isolated . . . incidents.  Please stop fear mongering.

I personally would end all tax-exempt status for all private and religious institutions, period.

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Michael Sudworth said:

I completely agree with your assessment.  

Personally, I wouldn't mind if *all* Churches lost tax exemption.  Just as long as it is applied to all religions and organizations equally.

I believe that would be a terrible thing.

Charitable organizations and churches provide a great deal of good in society by taking care of the needy. Making these groups subject to taxation would seriously impact their ability to provide such service, and I'm not sure government would benefit thereby, as the burden for the charitable care the needy are receiving would be shifted to government programs. 

Edited September 10, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

34 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

The isolated incidents above referred are . . . isolated . . . incidents.  Please stop fear mongering.

 

These are well-documented incidents that I believe reflect the hateful rhetoric that is constant on mass media and social media.

Quote

I personally would end all tax-exempt status for all private and religious institutions, period.

See my response above to Michael Sudworth.

[The Nehor]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Hardly worse than your own “walking embodiment of Babylon” remark. 

Yes, comparing a political figure whose life is ruled by greed and ambition, lies routinely, and is a an unashamed serial adulterer to Babylon is verboten now because some saints like him? Calling evil good..........

[Jake Starkey]

I am not so sure those riding the Cyrus Train pulling Donald's car understand the theology they think they are fulfilling.

[Jake Starkey]

4 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

These are well-documented incidents that I believe reflect the hateful rhetoric that is constant on mass media and social media.

See my response above to Michael Sudworth.

Several incidents do not reflect a movement "that is constant on mass media and social media."

That is a fallacy of hasty generalization.

[Scott Lloyd]

12 minutes ago, Jake Starkey said:

Several incidents do not reflect a movement "that is constant on mass media and social media."

That is a fallacy of hasty generalization.

Whatever.

Here are some more "isolated incidents" documented and displayed on YouTube. (Warning: foul language and gestures)

 

Edited September 10, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Michael Sudworth]

1 hour ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I believe that would be a terrible thing.

Charitable organizations and churches provide a great deal of good in society by taking care of the needy. Making these groups subject to taxation would seriously impact their ability to provide such service, and I'm not sure government would benefit thereby, as the burden for the charitable care the needy are receiving would be shifted to government programs. 

I understand your point of view.  But I think that tax exemption creates the very problem you want to avoid.

By granting tax exemption the government -- of necessity -- must get into the business of determining what constitutes a "real" religion.  By removing tax exemption, the government is completely removed from religious interference.

I know there is a growing trend among some evangelical churches to avoid non-profit incorporation because they do not want to be subject to government interference.  I've heard some leaders explain that they, as pastors, do not want to be tempted to compromise their values just to maintain tax exemption.

[Scott Lloyd]

33 minutes ago, Michael Sudworth said:

I understand your point of view.  But I think that tax exemption creates the very problem you want to avoid.

By granting tax exemption the government -- of necessity -- must get into the business of determining what constitutes a "real" religion.  By removing tax exemption, the government is completely removed from religious interference.

I know there is a growing trend among some evangelical churches to avoid non-profit incorporation because they do not want to be subject to government interference.  I've heard some leaders explain that they, as pastors, do not want to be tempted to compromise their values just to maintain tax exemption.

I’m not so sure it would remove government from religious interference. It could have the opposite effect. Taxation is a powerful means of control at the government’s disposal. By levying onerous taxes on a church or charity, a government — be it federal, state or local — could bankrupt the organization. 

[Michael Sudworth]

39 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I’m not so sure it would remove government from religious interference. It could have the opposite effect. Taxation is a powerful means of control at the government’s disposal. By levying onerous taxes on a church or charity, a government — be it federal, state or local — could bankrupt the organization. 

Perhaps.

But tax exemption could also be used by organizational fronts for money-making schemes established by middling science-fiction writers to establish themselves in the public eye as legitimate religious traditions. But of course, they are merely a front for a high-margin business.

It seems that you are arguing tax exemption *weakens* government influence; as if the decision not to tax is somehow less powerful that the decision to impose tax. In the case of tax exemption, the government must establish the legal framework to determine what constitutes religion. So, by not taxing you they are officially pronouncing you a legitimate religion.  But if no tax exemption exists, the government would have no such obligation and thus, less power.

Please note that I am suggesting equal and fair taxation. Certainly no reasonable person would deem it appropriate to tax religious or charitable institutions at a higher rate that for-profit corporations. Of course, doing so would be a violation of the 1st Amendment in the United States.

Besides, broad tax exemption didn't become common until 1913.  Are there examples of the US federal or state governments using taxation to influence religious organizations from 1776 - 1913? Perhaps there are, but I don't think they were common. And when the federal government sought to oppress our ancestors, they sent troops, not the tax collector.

[The Nehor]

 

10 hours ago, Michael Sudworth said:

I understand your point of view.  But I think that tax exemption creates the very problem you want to avoid.

By granting tax exemption the government -- of necessity -- must get into the business of determining what constitutes a "real" religion.  By removing tax exemption, the government is completely removed from religious interference.

I know there is a growing trend among some evangelical churches to avoid non-profit incorporation because they do not want to be subject to government interference.  I've heard some leaders explain that they, as pastors, do not want to be tempted to compromise their values just to maintain tax exemption.

I suspect those evangelical churches rejecting non profit status are more interested in being able to unabashedly politically support and fundraise for Jesus’s chosen vessel, Donald Trump, rather than preserving their integrity but I am a cynic. Even here I can admire their honesty a bit. If you are going to be a religious and political organization the honest thing to do is give up tax exempt status.

Tax exemption also requires the government to determine what qualifies as a charitable organization too. There is no way to have tax exemption without the government making some kind of determination as to whether you qualify. Even if the government starts getting mean and denying status the churches will still be no worse off than if they just gave up the status directly. Why cut off your nose to spite your face if you do not have to.

[Ahab]

15 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

My sense is you are fretting about something that rarely happens. If you were to ask a typical government officer or worker how often he or she is required in the line of duty to do that which violates his or her conscience, my guess is the answer would be seldom to never. 

My sense of the reason for that is because people who sanction or uphold immoral but still legal activity seldom have a cnnscientious problem with upholding those immoral activities.

[Michael Sudworth]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

 

I suspect those evangelical churches rejecting non profit status are more interested in being able to unabashedly politically support and fundraise for Jesus’s chosen vessel, Donald Trump, rather than preserving their integrity but I am a cynic.

The ones I have on mind actually hate President Trump.  But they are very vocal in their opposition to gay marriage etc...

[Teancum]

On 9/8/2019 at 2:08 AM, Scott Lloyd said:

I appreciate all of the contributions to this thread so far. There have been some well-developed thoughts expressed.

As a springboard for giving my view, I will cite this definition of "secular state" from Wikipedia.

Going by this definition, then, a secular state or, if you will, a secular nation, must be neutral on matters of religion. Ponder carefully what this means. It cannot support or promote any particular religion, but neither can it be hostile to religions in general or in particular. To do so is to support and favor irreligion.

The government in a secular state must maintain a hands-off attitude when it comes to religion. It must allow citizens to engage in the free exercise of religion, whether it be in privately owned houses of worship or on the public square.

It cannot force students in a public school, for example to engage in prayer or Bible reading, but neither can it forbid groups of like-minded people at that school from gathering under their own volition and auspices to engage in such religious activity. It cannot force students under threat of a poor grade to read religious texts, but neither should it, for example, prohibit a student from reporting on the Book of Mormon for a class assignment that permits the student to choose his own book to fulfill the assignment.

The example was brought up in this thread of a creche display on public property. Under the definition highlighted here of a secular state or a secular nation, private groups should be allowed access to public property for such displays. To forbid them is hostile to religion and tends to favor irreligion, which the secular state, being purportedly neutral, must not do.

Furthermore, forbidding people of faith to unitedly engage in public dialogue regarding affairs of government, be they members of a political action group or of a church, while irreligious people and groups are permitted to do so, is hostile to religion and favors irreligion, contrary to the theoretical definition of a secular state or a secular nation.

I mostly agree with what you have very well written above. The only question I have is how to reconcile the issue of religious displays on public property?  If a nativity scene is allowed on the grounds of the town hall should an atheist display or a display by a satanic cult also be allowed to be displayed in the same public square? It seems be allowing such displays on public property opens us up to a situation of the majority religion having an advantage over the minority. I vaguely recall a situation somewhere in the south where prayer was routinely given and a local high school graduation ceremony and an LDS student was denied the opportunity to pray because they were a member of a "non-Christian cult."  

[Teancum]

On 9/8/2019 at 2:22 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

Should a church have its tax-exempt status threatened because certain of its members, under their own volition and not officially representing their church, choose to combine as a group of political activists or as an advocacy organization?

Why should a church have tax exempt status in the first place?

[Kenngo1969]

3 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Why should a church have tax exempt status in the first place?

To promote charitable giving and to facilitate churches' accomplishment of their missions.

[Ahab]

26 minutes ago, Teancum said:

Why should a church have tax exempt status in the first place?

The role of government is to provide for its citizens so if citizens do that it means the government doesn't have to spend as much money as it would have otherwise done or tried to do to help those people.  tax relief is just the government's way of saying "Thank you".

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Teancum said:

I mostly agree with what you have very well written above. The only question I have is how to reconcile the issue of religious displays on public property?  If a nativity scene is allowed on the grounds of the town hall should an atheist display or a display by a satanic cult also be allowed to be displayed in the same public square? It seems be allowing such displays on public property opens us up to a situation of the majority religion having an advantage over the minority. I vaguely recall a situation somewhere in the south where prayer was routinely given and a local high school graduation ceremony and an LDS student was denied the opportunity to pray because they were a member of a "non-Christian cult."  

Yes, under a strict interpretation of “secular state,” all religions — and even the irreligious — must be granted equal access.