Hypocrisy Among American Fundamentalists

I think one problem is that fundamentalism is an evolving term that is at the current time pretty much the same as 'the belief system conservative, religious right'. The state of the union/constitution is such that many of the political goals of that part of the country are unobtainable. So often, it is not that fundamentalists do not embrace those issues, it is that they do not decide their vote on those issues.I could make a similar case about religious minorities who turned out in droves for Obama despite his stand on gay marriage and reproductive rights. Many of those people did so despite their own positions on immigration policy being more in line with the republican position.If such a thing is hypocritical, I submit that the hypocrisy is more widespread than just a bunch of people holding their noses and endorsing Trump. Quite frankly, I don't label such voting as hypocrisy. Religious affiliation is simply one factor in deciding who to vote for. Currently Trump leads all republican other candidates regardless of what factor (economy, foreign policy, security) in all subdivisions of likely republican voters (establishment, tea part, right leaning independents). Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

By the way. I see that Jerry Falwell Jr. has endorsed Trump.Trump was quoted last week as saying that he wasn't sure why evangelicals were so enamored with him. Pretty funny IMO.

And I am suggesting that most people don't do that. With the exception of a teeny-tiny fragment, nobody votes for candidates because they agree with their positions on religion. The closest they come to doing so is voting for a set of social values that are only loosely tied to religion.Do you vote for candidates that espouse the same religious views as yourself? Who among the current candidates meets that criteria?

Either everybody is incredibly stupid or you've made some miscalculation.

I am sometimes surprised by the way some Christians believe their fellow human beings should be treated. Surely we've seen enough examples of seemingly contradictory view points among the Christians who post here.

The part above is something I can agree with. But the conclusion that this bias shows hypocrisy or compromise of religious values is where we disagree. I accept that the fundys are sincere in their beliefs and in how they vote even though I think they are misguided.Beyond that, why is compromise such a bad word anyway? It is not as though one candidate is the anti-Christ.I understand that you cannot vote, but which republican candidate attracts you. I don't see a single one that I could vote for. I understand that Trump is not your man. Huckabee? Cruz? To be clear, I am curious about which candidate you think presents the right choice for an American Christian.

Currently the law does require candidates to refrain from endorsing candidates if they want to maintain their tax exempt status.But with regards to lobbying on social issues that may be against your interests, churches are no more limited than any overtly political groups in supporting causes and maintaining tax exempt status. I suspect that you can find people politicking in favor of your interests that receive similar subsidies.So I am not sure why churches in particular are singled out for muzzling.

One can question anything. But not wanting religion imposed on people is different from saying that religions cannot or should not promote or even do not contribute to the social good. In fact to claim that the first amendment prohibits any organization of citizens, including a religious organization from petitioning the government just does not seem correct to me. Do you think you can justify that view by looking at say, Jefferson's view of church and state? And environmentalists attempt to impose their views on conservation. Civil rights workers want to impose their version of freedom, etc. In this country we don't have churches with undue access to the government. We have church goers some of whom want to prohibit access to abortion for others. Laws that prevent those people from having the same access to legally pass constitutional laws as you do would seem to violate the first amendment among other things.I think you've got enough law along these lines. The first amendment limits the ability to pass laws with a religious purpose. Currently access to abortion is constitutionally protected.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Of course. All freedoms have the potential for abuse. Perhaps you could propose a law/guideline that accomplishes what you want without intruding too much on the first amendment. Let's recall that the first amendment has two religious Clauses.

I believe that our current separation of church and state jurisprudence is sufficient to handle most of that problem here. I do have some disagreement with the views of some current Justices. We have some history with environmentalists issues too. The Sierra Club (wrongly in my opinion) lost their tax exempt status for becoming involved too politically for some people.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Yes. Is that evidence that the law works or that it does not? It is not because such things are not political, but rather that almost every social policy is political. The first amendment does not prevent churches from participating in the political process. So the question is where to draw the line between allowed and disallowed participation for tax exempt purposes. We live in a world where tax exempt super pacs are free to engage in almost any level of politics short of involvement directly in campaigns for office.Taking the Sierra club as an example, they objected to dam building because of its affect on the environment. That opposition was deemed politics primarily because the power brokers who wanted to build dams were politically backed. In my view, that interpretation of the law is totally nonsensical. By some definition. But I don't really see a fair way to draw a line. Lots of people are way too involved. There is too much money involved, too many anonymous participants and too little responsiveness to individuals. There is too much politics in politics. Sure. But in truth their campaigning is both free exercise and participation in the political process.

I am aware of churches that forgo tax exempt status for this reason, and I have also been in churches where the pastor spoke of the need to follow the rules. I don't think fixing that is going to happen. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Perhaps Americans have the same problem.

I think his message addressed only the issue with the purchaser's taxes. If you make a donation, you are required to deduct the value of the book. What was left undiscussed is the impact on the taxes for the person offering the book. Can that person now escape paying taxes on the revenue from accepting a donation of the book, when they would have had to pay taxes on a sale of the book? I don't think kbertsche addressed the issue. It turns out that the answer is extremely complicated requiring a many factored legal analysis, but a church selling a religious book may not have to pay taxes either way.Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

A quick search turns up about lots of articles about churches fearing losing their tax exempt status due to opposition to gay marriage, something which has not happened. However I did find an article discussing a federal appellate court upholding a decision by the IRS to pull the status of a church that spent lots of money on ads in an attempt to make sure Bill Clinton was not elected.Appeals Court Says IRS Was Right to Strip Church’s Tax Exemption

quote:

---

The I.R.S. revoked the tax exemption of Branch Ministries -- operating as the Church at Pierce Creek -- in early 1995. The service said the ads, which ran in USA Today and The Washington Times four days before the 1992 presidential election, were examples of the church's illegal partisan politicking.

​

Under the headline: "Christians Beware. Do not put the economy ahead of the Ten Commandments," the advertisements listed Mr. Clinton's stand on abortion, homosexuality, and other issues. The ads concluded: "Bill Clinton is promoting policies that are in rebellion to God's laws."

​

The fine print at the bottom of the ads informed readers: "Tax-deductible donations for this advertisement gladly accepted."

---