3 ms·

> of the way religion worked in the middle ages. Still does. The local Catholic Church diocese here in eastern MA campaigned, from their PULPITS!!, against de

> of the way religion worked in the middle ages. Still does. The local Catholic Church diocese here in eastern MA campaigned, from their PULPITS!!, against decriminalizing cannabis here in MA. The only explanation I can think of: the less ways people have to be "bad," the less leverage the bishops have over the people.

sanderjd 10y ago
That's different. Your parent was referring to indulgences, a pay for sin scheme. There's nothing wrong with religions choosing morals to preach - that's their raison d'etre - if you don't like what they choose, you can leave the church or attempt to change their choice (this is why we have freedom of religion).
paulddraper 10y ago
> campaigned, from their PULPITS!! Gosh, they're only supposed talk about abstract notions and lots of feel-goodies for everyone there. Taking a stand in church on decriminalizing drugs...that's too far!
- sandworm101 10y ago
  If i remember correctly, there is a never-enforced federal statute forbading preachers from advocating for/against paticular politicians. It made sence back when written, but it's hard to imagine it ever enforced today. Not the best citation but i am on a mobile. http://www.christian-attorney.net/church_political_campaign_activity.html http://www.christian-attorney.net/church_political_campaign_...
  - stellar678 10y ago
    It doesn't target churches specifically. But churches like to operate under 501c3 nonprofit charity status so they can avoid paying taxes, and part of the 501c3 tax regulation forbids supporting candidates. I was curious though and apparently they are allowed to spend some undefined small portion of their time and resources lobbying or talking about legislation.
  - jrs235 10y ago
    >there is a never-enforced federal statute The IRS is the agency that would enforce this by striping the organization of its 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. The organization would then be subject to various taxes.
- iubiduadias 10y ago
  I may be wrong, but my understanding was that religious institutions benefiting from tax-free status in the US could not engage in "politics" that way. Now if they were to preach against the use of drugs - that would be fine. But specifically preaching about decriminalization would not be OK.
  - jrs235 10y ago
    As I understand it 501(c)(3)'s may preach about issues and topics, endorsing a side related to the issues. They may not however endorse a particular candidate in an election.
  - bmelton 10y ago
    > I may be wrong, but my understanding was that religious institutions benefiting from tax-free status in the US could not engage in "politics" that way. I believe you to be wrong. The protections they receive on the free exercise of religion aren't a compromise attained in exchange for tax exemption -- both are the product of the first amendment. If Congress "shall make no law" respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion (or speech), then it has no power to prevent the churches from proclaiming whatever they wish. The tax exemption is there because making a law that imposes a tax on religion is a means of prohibiting "the free exercise thereof", for most definitions of "free" and "exercise". Your equation makes it something more like "You have the right to exercise free speech, so long as you agree not to yell fire in a theater," which is wrong. I have the right to free speech because the government is not allowed to restrict that right, and it includes the right to yell fire in a theater. If there are harms associated with my yelling fire in a theater, then I might be liable for those harms, but if no such harms occur, then I am liable for nothing.
    - matt4077 10y ago
      (Reasonable, non-discriminatory) taxation does not infringe on those freedoms, which is why newspapers can be taxed, as well as gun sales or sales of bibles.
      - 10y ago

sanderjd 10y ago

That's different. Your parent was referring to indulgences, a pay for sin scheme. There's nothing wrong with religions choosing morals to preach - that's their raison d'etre - if you don't like what they choose, you can leave the church or attempt to change their choice (this is why we have freedom of religion).

paulddraper 10y ago

> campaigned, from their PULPITS!! Gosh, they're only supposed talk about abstract notions and lots of feel-goodies for everyone there. Taking a stand in church on decriminalizing drugs...that's too far!

sandworm101 10y ago
If i remember correctly, there is a never-enforced federal statute forbading preachers from advocating for/against paticular politicians. It made sence back when written, but it's hard to imagine it ever enforced today. Not the best citation but i am on a mobile. http://www.christian-attorney.net/church_political_campaign_activity.html http://www.christian-attorney.net/church_political_campaign_...
- stellar678 10y ago
  It doesn't target churches specifically. But churches like to operate under 501c3 nonprofit charity status so they can avoid paying taxes, and part of the 501c3 tax regulation forbids supporting candidates. I was curious though and apparently they are allowed to spend some undefined small portion of their time and resources lobbying or talking about legislation.
- jrs235 10y ago
  >there is a never-enforced federal statute The IRS is the agency that would enforce this by striping the organization of its 501(c)(3) tax exempt status. The organization would then be subject to various taxes.
iubiduadias 10y ago
I may be wrong, but my understanding was that religious institutions benefiting from tax-free status in the US could not engage in "politics" that way. Now if they were to preach against the use of drugs - that would be fine. But specifically preaching about decriminalization would not be OK.
- jrs235 10y ago
  As I understand it 501(c)(3)'s may preach about issues and topics, endorsing a side related to the issues. They may not however endorse a particular candidate in an election.
- bmelton 10y ago
  > I may be wrong, but my understanding was that religious institutions benefiting from tax-free status in the US could not engage in "politics" that way. I believe you to be wrong. The protections they receive on the free exercise of religion aren't a compromise attained in exchange for tax exemption -- both are the product of the first amendment. If Congress "shall make no law" respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion (or speech), then it has no power to prevent the churches from proclaiming whatever they wish. The tax exemption is there because making a law that imposes a tax on religion is a means of prohibiting "the free exercise thereof", for most definitions of "free" and "exercise". Your equation makes it something more like "You have the right to exercise free speech, so long as you agree not to yell fire in a theater," which is wrong. I have the right to free speech because the government is not allowed to restrict that right, and it includes the right to yell fire in a theater. If there are harms associated with my yelling fire in a theater, then I might be liable for those harms, but if no such harms occur, then I am liable for nothing.
  - matt4077 10y ago
    (Reasonable, non-discriminatory) taxation does not infringe on those freedoms, which is why newspapers can be taxed, as well as gun sales or sales of bibles.
    - 10y ago