Hypocrisy Among American Fundamentalists

--Percy

You said "require candidates," but I assume you meant "require churches" or "require religions" or something like that.I looked this up and found out a little about the law you're referring to. Passed in 1954, it prohibits tax-exempt organizations from supporting or opposing political candidates (I don't think it mentions political causes like gun control, abortion, etc.). Prior to 1954 religious organizations could become involved in elections.After reading about this a bit and finding that the primary justification for tax-exempt status derives from social or public good, traditionally things like religion, charity and education, I had a couple thoughts. Couldn't one question whether it's justified to consider religion together with other organizations that contribute to the social good, since it ignores why freedom of religion is included in the First Amendment, namely the danger of one religion influencing government to favor their own views and circumstances at the expense of other religions or the general good. It seems that one could argue that religion should be considered in its own category, given the potential for abuse.The best known modern example in the US is abortion. One religious group of Americans is attempting to impose their religious views about abortion upon all other Americans of all religions. Examples of abuse like this seem to call for laws that in some way blunt religion's potential for imposing its will upon government.--Percy

I'd sure agree with that. No, but I have a different view. I was questioning whether we should consider religion (undoubtedly consisting of organizations that contribute to social good) together with other organizations that also contribute to social good. But I was posing my question in the context of religion's history of abuse when combined with government. Couldn't allowing it too free a hand in the realm of politics risk increased exposure to such abuse?--Percy

But religion has more than just the potential for abuse. It has a demonstrated history of abuse. We can speculate about the potential for abuse by environmentalists (an example from one of your previous posts), but no speculation is necessary for the abuse religion is capable of. We need only look at history. I'm pretty sure I couldn't come up with a proposal that walks all the fine lines - it seems a very tough task.Leaving aside the absence of religion, at one end of the religious spectrum religion is just something one does on Sunday. At the other end religion permeates a great deal of daily life. For some people religion overlaps secular life little or not at all. For others there is almost no separation between the religious and the secular. How do these polar opposites, and all the shades in between, co-exist in a single country? I don't know.It does feel reasonable to me that the more politically active a religion the less entitled to tax-exempt status it should be. Preaching politics from the pulpit? Fine, I guess, though it strikes me as inappropriate. Putting up political billboards? The money the church had to earn to pay for it should be taxed.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Grammar.

That's getting a bit personal, don't you think? Gospel has more than one definition, and Hyroglyphx gave the definition of gospel he had in mind in his passage that ICANT inquired about. Here are the definitions from Dictionary.com:

1. the teachings of Jesus and the apostles; the Christian revelation.
   ​
2. the story of Christ's life and teachings, especially as contained in the first four books of the New Testament, namely Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John.
   ​
3. (usually initial capital letter) any of these four books.
   ​
4. something regarded as true and implicitly believed:
   to take his report for gospel.
   ​
5. a doctrine regarded as of prime importance:
   political gospel.
   ​
6. glad tidings, especially concerning salvation and the kingdom of God as announced to the world by Christ.
   ​
7. (often initial capital letter) Ecclesiastical. an extract from one of the four Gospels, forming part of the Eucharistic service in certain churches.

Your definition is number 6.Young's Compact Bible Dictionary defines it like this:

quote:

---

GOSPEL. [good news] A word used in the NT, derived from an Anglo-Saxon word which means "good news." In current usage reference is either to the essence of Christianity or to the books in which are found the story of Christ's life and teaching. The good news was that Christ died according to the Scripture to accomplish redemption.

---

There is not just one meaning of gospel, and someone can choose whichever one they like, hopefully making the one they intended clear from context.--Percy

I hope you're right that it's sufficient. Haven't some churches lost their tax-exempt status? While searching for examples I came across this link: How Can a Church Lose Its 501(c) Status? It says a church can lose its tax exempt status by campaigning for or against political candidates or even just participating excessively in the political process.My concern is that some religions are already too involved in the political process, particularly those that don't see a separation between the religious and the secular, that even see religion as including all aspects of life to the point where there is no secular side. They don't see campaigning against abortion or homosexuality as participating in the political process but just as the free exercise of their religious beliefs.--Percy

Hi Faith,Hyroglyphx and whether or not he was once a true Christian are not the topic, and he never made it an issue or mentioned his status as a Christian in this thread anyway. The topic is whether the surprising level of acceptance of Donald Trump by fundamentalist Christians is in some way hypocritical. Diversions onto related sub-topics are fine, but your co-discussionists are not valid sub-topics.Hyroglyphx has made plenty of arguments that you can take issue with, and you should be focusing on those. More generally, people should be free to use whatever valid definition of words they choose without facing personal accusations of any type, and participants should never be made the focus of discussion (unless they insist, which happens from time to time).You shouldn't have to be reminded of simple things concerning the Forum Guidelines over and over again. Normally I recuse myself for two days before switching to moderator status, but we're short on moderators these days. I'll switch to my moderator role immediately after your next Forum Guidelines violation.--Percy

I thought I remembered that some churches had lost their tax-exempt status, but a quick search didn't find any, so I asked. You provided an example of an environmentalist group losing their tax-exempt status, so I was wondering if the same was true of some churches. I wasn't thinking of it as evidence of whether the law works or not. Obviously the line for Super PACs has been drawn in the wrong place. Hopefully that will be remedied at some point. I think they won their current freedom from spending limits based upon free speech arguments, but can't it be argued that issuing someone a megaphone that drowns out other voices is itself an infringement on free speech? That political machinations happen shouldn't discourage us from trying to find a fair place to draw the line, speaking of which: There's already a line. It's just in the wrong place. Sure, but the problem is that they don't see their views on abortion or homosexuality as religious. The Bible isn't religion for them, it's reality. When their interpretation of the Bible says that abortion is wrong or that homosexuality is an abomination, that's not a religious belief, it's law - or should be in their view.--Percy

I think you might be addressing some other point than the one I was making. Sure, one of the meanings of gospel is "good news," specifically the good news that Jesus died for our sins and was resurrected, but there are other meanings, and Hyroglyphx was using one of those.--Percy