NationStates Jolt Archive

Inspired by Melphi's random though thread...

Would you be in favor of the abolition of churches' tax-exempt status?




Personally, I don't see any reason why they should not be taxed.

Would you be in favor of the abolition of churches' tax-exempt status?

Yes.

Most of them seem to be more like businesses anyways, so I say tax them.

Some of them aren't profit-making organisations. So, if you're going to tax them, at least some should be treated as non-profits. Some churches don't even take in money at all.

its a public building in most cases and really odds are the church would find itself receiving money through its various activities

still I'd quite like to live in a world without all the gold palaces

Some of them aren't profit-making organisations. So, if you're going to tax them, at least some should be treated as non-profits. Some churches don't even take in money at all.

I agree with this. All religious institutions I've been too, not just churches, have been non-profit organizations.

The United States Constitution says that there is seperation of church and state. Also, churches (or other holy places) benefit the community (even if you see priests and pastors in their Mercedes.)

However, an exception should be if, say, maybe a pastor becomes publicly political *cough Obama's pastor* his tax exemption status should be revoked by the IRS.

No. If we tax churches based on their religious activities we no longer have a seperation of church and state.

Those activities of churches that are for profit are taxed.

Also, churches (or other holy places) benefit the community

All churches benefit the community?

The United States Constitution says that there is seperation of church and state. Also, churches (or other holy places) benefit the community (even if you see priests and pastors in their Mercedes.)

However, an exception should be if, say, maybe a pastor becomes publicly political *cough Obama's pastor* his tax exemption status should be revoked by the IRS.

separation of church and state doesn't stop the govt. from imposing safety standards and such on churches.

as far as taxes, I think if the church can operate under non-profit rules, then they shouldn't be taxed, if they cannot then they should.

No. If we tax churches based on their religious activities we no longer have a seperation of church and state.

Those activities of churches that are for profit are taxed.

I was referring to property taxes as well...

Also, how eliminating tax exempt status eliminate the seperation of church and state?


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
I see no conflict.

Some of them aren't profit-making organisations. So, if you're going to tax them, at least some should be treated as non-profits. Some churches don't even take in money at all.
This seems obvious, just tax them as non-profits or profits depending on if they are profitable just like with any other organization, why is there even a need to ask?
No. If we tax churches based on their religious activities we no longer have a seperation of church and state.
So everything that is taxed is a part of the state, for example all businesses that pay taxes are partly government owned?

That would explain why the government receives a large chunk of the profit from those businesses as tax.

I was referring to property taxes as well...

Also, how eliminating tax exempt status eliminate the seperation of church and state?



I see no conflict.



Because when you tax a church/religion you then exercise control over the entity.

Businesses and individuals are taxed and they are very much controlled by the government and massive amounts of law.

The seperation of church and state clause is a guarantee that the Government cannot impose itself on religion, nor can religion impose itself in government.

Not to mention did we learn nothing from "taxation without representation"? Do you want religion having a voice in politics...do you want representation by and directly for those wealthy religions? I don't.

Also if you think about it, churches are operated on tax deductible donations. Are you suggesting that if we make churches taxable that we no longer allow deductions for donations? Do you feel the same regarding charities and 501(c)(3) organizations? (schools, science foundations, atheletic groups, Scouting etc)?



Property taxes, I see no problem with taxing property that is owned by a church but is not used in conjunction with church function. I think that is a local/state issue though. I don't see the point in taxing a church building or it's parking lots though.

For profit functions of churches are taxed.

I see no reason to not tax them. If the money they make is for non-profit/charity, treat it as such, otherwise treat all its income as everyone else's.

Churches are exempt from taxes because they are seen as non-profit organizations by default. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501%28c%29) (I think, I'm not really good in stuff like law etc) Obviously this isn't always true *cough* scientology *cough*. When they intend to make profits I think it would be fair to tax them. When they act like non-profit organizations which deliver a valuable service to the community, make them tax exempt.

My feeling is the feeling that has been echoed here. If they are classified as 501(c)(3) organizations (not for profit corporations) then tax them as non profits. If they generate profits, tax them as for profit institutions.

No one should be taxed.

No one should be taxed.

Agreed; they have no right to take away their tax exemption.

Agreed; they have no right to take away their tax exemption.

I wouldn't mind seeing bureaucrats, civil "servants," and other accomplices of the state taxed, though. :p

I wouldn't mind seeing bureaucrats, civil "servants," and other accomplices of the state taxed, though. :p

Ah, but that would be retribution, not taxation. :D

Ah, but that would be retribution, not taxation. :D

And perfectly just, too. ;)

My feeling is the feeling that has been echoed here. If they are classified as 501(c)(3) organizations (not for profit corporations) then tax them as non profits. If they generate profits, tax them as for profit institutions.

Listen to the lawyer. He knows the way.

My feeling is the feeling that has been echoed here. If they are classified as 501(c)(3) organizations (not for profit corporations) then tax them as non profits. If they generate profits, tax them as for profit institutions.

Yeeeeeeesssssssss, tax them anyway you can....

I don't see why they shouldn't be taxed.

In our state, churches do not have to pay property tax, which is ridiculous. But as far as income taxes go, I agree with Neo Art.

Taxes on churches are wrong. Taxes on private citizens are wrong. Taxes on corporations and corporate profits are OK. This is because both governments and corporations are artificial entities created by people. The order of authority is as follows:

God (assuming you believe in Him)

who created Mankind

who created Government

which creates Corporations.

Even if you believe that all religions are artificial constructs of mankind, that only makes it equal to government, not under governmental authority.

Regarding the separation of church and state, it is far from clear that taxing religious property or activities would violate the First Amendment. I'll paraphrase and add to what I said in the other thread on this subject.

First, not only is it not necessarily a violation of the First Amendment to tax churches, it is quite arguable that exempting churches from taxes they would otherwise be required to pay merely because they are religious itself violates the separation of church and state. Thus, although some tax exemptions for religious property have been held to be constitutional -- i.e., they do not violate the First Amendment Establishment Clause -- other exemptions for religious publications do violate the First Amendment. Compare Walz v. Tax Comm'n (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=397&invol=664), 397 U.S. 664 (1970) with Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=489&invol=1), 489 U.S. 1 (1989).

In Walz, in holding that New York state property tax exemptions to religious organizations for religious properties used solely for religious worship did not violate the First Amendment, the Court relied heavily on the idea that the separation of Church and State was flexible and required some balancing of the objectives of the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses -- because taking both to the extreme would lead to conflict between them. Key to the outcome was the judgment that New York was not seeking either the advancement or the inhibition of religion. Instead,

New York, in common with the other States, has determined that certain entities that exist in a harmonious relationship to the community at large, and that foster its 'moral or mental improvement,' should not be inhibited in their activities by property taxation or the hazard of loss of those properties for nonpayment of taxes. It has not singled out one particular church or religious group or even churches as such; rather, it has granted exemption to all houses of religious worship within a broad class of property owned by nonprofit, quasi-public corporations which include hospitals, libraries, playgrounds, scientific, professional, historical, and patriotic groups. The State has an affirmative policy that considers these groups as beneficial and stabilizing influences in community life and finds this classification useful, desirable, and in the public interest.

397 U.S. at 672-73. The Court noted during its analysis that all 50 states provide for tax exemptions of places of worship -- many of which are based on a state constitutional provision -- and Congress from its earliest days had authorized statutory real estate tax exemption to religious bodies. "Few concepts are more deeply embedded in the fabric of our national life, beginning with pre-Revolutionary colonial times, than for the government to exercise at the very least this kind of benevolent neutrality toward churches and religious exercise generally so long as none was favored over others and none suffered interference." Id. at 676-77

In Texas Monthly, the Court ruled that a Texas statute exempted from sales and use taxes "[p]eriodicals . . . published or distributed by a religious faith . . . consist wholly of writings promulgating the teachings of the faith and books . . . consist wholly of writings sacred to a religious faith" was unconstitutional. The Court held "that, when confined exclusively to publications advancing the tenets of a religious faith, the exemption runs afoul of the Establishment Clause." The Court held that the law in question had a religious purpose (and lacked a secular one) and was not justified as necessary either to protect free exercise of religion or prevent the establishment of religion.

More to the point, here, the First Amendment does not seem to require a tax exemption for religious activities. [I]See, e.g., Jimmy Swaggart Ministries v. California Bd. of Equalization (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=493&invol=378), 493 U.S. 378 (1990); Hernandez v. Commissioner (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=490&invol=680), 490 U.S. 680 (1989).

In Swaggart Ministries, the Court held that California's imposition of sales and use tax liability on a religious organization's sales of religious materials does not contravene the Religion Clauses of the First Amendment. The Court explained:

Thus, the sales and use tax is not a tax on the right to disseminate religious information, ideas, or beliefs [I]per se; rather, it is a tax on the privilege of making retail sales of tangible personal property and on the storage, use, or other consumption of tangible personal property in California. For example, California treats the sale of a Bible by a religious organization just as it would treat the sale of a Bible by a bookstore; as long as both are in-state retail sales of tangible personal property, they are both subject to the tax regardless of the motivation for the sale or the purchase. There is no danger that appellant's religious activity is being singled out for special and burdensome treatment.

493 U.S. 389-90.

In Hernandez, the Court held that the Government's disallowance of a tax deduction for religious "auditing" and "training" services did not violate the Free Exercise Clause or Establishment Clause. The Court reasoned that

[a]ny burden imposed on auditing or training . . . derives solely from the fact that, as a result of the deduction denial, adherents have less money to gain access to such sessions. This burden is no different from that imposed by any public tax or fee; indeed, the burden imposed by the denial of the `contribution or gift' deduction would seem to pale by comparison to the overall federal income tax burden on an adherent.

490 U.S. at 699.

NOTE: In the interests of full disclosure and to cover my ass, I should make clear I originally took my analysis from Findlaw (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/04.html) -- but I have looked at the cases since I cited them last time. Thus, the summaries are my own. Please feel free to point out where I may have made an ass of myself. ;)

I don't believe in taxes (at least, not beyond that which is required for roads and a small, home-defense military). They're nothing but state-sanctioned theft in a bid for wealth redistribution.

It's certainly not FAIR that they aren't taxed, but I couldn't, in good conscience, say they should start. Everyone should be paying almost a negligent sum for the basics, and cut out all this public welfare shit so that people can spend their own money towards their own betterment.

I don't believe in taxes (at least, not beyond that which is required for roads and a small, home-defense military).

Why roads? We could just have a system like turnpikes in the 1800s, wherein roads operate A.) by way of tolls, and B.) by shareholding by those who benefit from them (such as merchants), and thus have an incentive to improve them. These were far superior to the horrifically corrupt government roads of the time (not that that has improved, judging from the fact that my city seems to be constantly working on the roads and yet never seems to fix them for any longer than a few days, not to mention all the congestion and fatalities on the roads.)

Why roads? We could just have a system like turnpikes in the 1800s, wherein roads operate A.) by way of tolls, and B.) by shareholding by those who benefit from them (such as merchants), and thus have an incentive to improve them. These were far superior to the horrifically corrupt government roads of the time (not that that has improved, judging from the fact that my city seems to be constantly working on the roads and yet never seems to fix them for any longer than a few days, not to mention all the congestion and fatalities on the roads.)

Hell, that works, too. But at least the way it works now, the taxes they receive FOR the roads are generally only paid by those who use them (tag and title registration).

We have no such option for people who won't and don't use Medicaid, Social Security, public schools, etc.

All this talk of profit and non profit churches. I would say that is a church make a profit, then tax them, if they do not then do not. Is that too simple?

Hell, that works, too. But at least the way it works now, the taxes they receive FOR the roads are generally only paid by those who use them (tag and title registration).

We have no such option for people who won't and don't use Medicaid, Social Security, public schools, etc.

True about the other services. But the money doesn't come necessarily from those who use it, but often from federal grants from federal money and from state money. Not to mention that, since the roads are run as a non-profit, the government (whatever level it is) could use the money it gets from people in a big city and use it for a road in a podunk town or to be constantly 'repairing' a road and thus not actually make a capital improvement that a for-profit road would.

The United States Constitution says that there is seperation of church and state. Also, churches (or other holy places) benefit the community (even if you see priests and pastors in their Mercedes.)

All Churches? Really?

However, an exception should be if, say, maybe a pastor becomes publicly political *cough Obama's pastor* his tax exemption status should be revoked by the IRS.

1. Obama's Pastor did not become political. He was thrust into the spotlight as a tool to attack Obama. Fail.
2. What about the dominionist Ron Parsely, McCain's spiritual advisor, who IS activaly political? Or is a pastor being political only ok when its your candidates pastor who is? Double Fail.


Do you want religion having a voice in politics...do you want representation by and directly for those wealthy religions? I don't.



They already do. Where have you been?


I say we tax em.

1. Obama's Pastor did not become political. He was thrust into the spotlight as a tool to attack Obama. Fail.
2. What about the dominionist Ron Parsely, McCain's spiritual advisor, who IS activaly political? Or is a pastor being political only ok when its your candidates pastor who is? Double Fail.


Actually, he was political by giving political lectured from the pulpit instead of preaching the Gospel, which was what he was supposed to be doing. This is exactly why my church absolutely will NOT publicly endorse candidates for President nor will local bishops discuss their political leanings from the pulpit.

Churches do provide significant amounts of social welfare, education and miscellaneous assistance like job placement or practical work. These are all things Governments also do, but less efficiently. Why on earth would you want to hinder the organization that WORKS?

Dammit I've just become a Cabbage Patch Girl. Now I gotta pee sitting down until I get my post count higher...

Wasn't there a cursed magic item in AD&D that did that?

...then you must say NO! Taxing the religions would invite them to have more right in participation in government. "No taxation without representation". Think about this! Only Theocrats, plutocratic theocrats would favor this!

I'm new, sorry if I offended.

Switch the 'a' and the 'e' and you get Texas.

Don't mess with Texas.

Actually, he was political by giving political lectured from the pulpit instead of preaching the Gospel, which was what he was supposed to be doing. This is exactly why my church absolutely will NOT publicly endorse candidates for President nor will local bishops discuss their political leanings from the pulpit.

So, I'm curious, should Martin Luther King, Jr., have avoided discussing the civil rights movement at Ebenezer Baptist Church?

Regardless, having grown up in Eastern Idaho, I find your assertion that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is completely apolitical rather hilarious. 80% to 90% of Mormons vote Republican and the Church has taken active stances on political issues like the Equal Rights Amendment and same-sex marriage.

...then you must say NO! Taxing the religions would invite them to have more right in participation in government. "No taxation without representation". Think about this! Only Theocrats, plutocratic theocrats would favor this!

I'm new, sorry if I offended.

That's a damn good point.

So, I'm curious, should Martin Luther King, Jr., have avoided discussing the civil rights movement at Ebenezer Baptist Church?

Yes.


Regardless, having grown up in Eastern Idaho, I find your assertion that the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints is completely apolitical rather hilarious. 80% to 90% of Mormons vote Republican and the Church has taken active stances on political issues like the Equal Rights Amendment and same-sex marriage.

There's a big difference between the actions of members of a church and what the church itself does. So what if most Mormons are Republicans? The Church doesn't tell them to be. I'm a Mormon and I'm not a republican. You think that has any impact whatsoever on my standing in the Church?

Nobody at the pulpit tells the membership to vote one way or the other in either referenda or elections. I'm talking from direct personal experience.

...unless you're going to assert that you've attended more Sacrament Meetings than I have?

Actually, he was political by giving political lectured from the pulpit instead of preaching the Gospel, which was what he was supposed to be doing. This is exactly why my church absolutely will NOT publicly endorse candidates for President nor will local bishops discuss their political leanings from the pulpit.

Churches do provide significant amounts of social welfare, education and miscellaneous assistance like job placement or practical work. These are all things Governments also do, but less efficiently. Why on earth would you want to hinder the organization that WORKS?

Dammit I've just become a Cabbage Patch Girl. Now I gotta pee sitting down until I get my post count higher...

Wasn't there a cursed magic item in AD&D that did that?

Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity

Girdle of Masculinity/Femininity

Oh yeah that's right.... I once played a Ranger who found one and put it on, not knowing what it would do to him...

10 minutes later the Barbarian in the party was using a hammer to pound my chestplate into a more comfortable shape...

No. Seperation of church and state. I think that sums up my argument pretty darn well.

The United States Constitution says that there is seperation of church and state. Also, churches (or other holy places) benefit the community (even if you see priests and pastors in their Mercedes.)

However, an exception should be if, say, maybe a pastor becomes publicly political *cough Obama's pastor* his tax exemption status should be revoked by the IRS.

And therin lies the problem.

Huge numbers of evangelical ministers were blatantly pro-Bush, in some cases telling their congregations that anyone who planned to vote for Kerry was not welcome in their Church, and nothing happened to them.

The system you describe basically turns the tax exempt status into a political weapon. Either they all should be, or none of them should be. Otherwise you leave the door open for corruption.

No. Seperation of church and state. I think that sums up my argument pretty darn well.

Really?

Yes I guess it does. There should be no special treatment for churches by the state. They should pay the same taxes all other organizations pay.

That's what you meant, right?

Actually, he was political by giving political lectured from the pulpit instead of preaching the Gospel, which was what he was supposed to be doing. This is exactly why my church absolutely will NOT publicly endorse candidates for President nor will local bishops discuss their political leanings from the pulpit.

Churches do provide significant amounts of social welfare, education and miscellaneous assistance like job placement or practical work. These are all things Governments also do, but less efficiently. Why on earth would you want to hinder the organization that WORKS?

Dammit I've just become a Cabbage Patch Girl. Now I gotta pee sitting down until I get my post count higher...

Wasn't there a cursed magic item in AD&D that did that?

A pastor is not just supposed to preach the gospel. Presumably the people who show up already know about the gospel.

A big part of a pastor's job is connecting the gospel to daily life. And this time of year, daily life is political and cultural life.

Religious organizations are banned from endorsing political candidates, but not political stances or moral beliefs that are being debated in the political arena.

Republican churches do this all the time passing out "message statements," which advocate political candidates in all but name by providing endorsements of political positions that mirror republican candidates' ads.

A pastor is not just supposed to preach the gospel. Presumably the people who show up already know about the gospel.

A big part of a pastor's job is connecting the gospel to daily life. And this time of year, daily life is political and cultural life.

Religious organizations are banned from endorsing political candidates, but not political stances or moral beliefs that are being debated in the political arena.

Republican churches do this all the time passing out "message statements," which advocate political candidates in all but name by providing endorsements of political positions that mirror republican candidates' ads.

The Mormon church promotes the idea of letting the members decide how to apply Gospel doctrine to daily life. We're encouraged to think for ourselves.

I don't know what to say about 'Republican Churches.' Never been to one.

Although here's an interesting tidbit: Fred Phelps is a registered Democrat.

That's a damn good point.

No, it isn't. So there. :p

Yes.

That is remarkably stupid. Why, pray tell, should the civil rights movement have been verboten for churches?

This may shock some of my fellow athiests, but I see nothing wrong with one's religion informing one's political conscience. To the contrary, just such values are protected by the First Amendment and churches have played an important role in the political history of our nation.

There's a big difference between the actions of members of a church and what the church itself does. So what if most Mormons are Republicans? The Church doesn't tell them to be. I'm a Mormon and I'm not a republican. You think that has any impact whatsoever on my standing in the Church?

Nobody at the pulpit tells the membership to vote one way or the other in either referenda or elections. I'm talking from direct personal experience.

...unless you're going to assert that you've attended more Sacrament Meetings than I have?

Nice bunch of strawmen there, but answer this: do you deny that the LDS Church has taken public stands -- including urging its members to vote a certain way -- regarding some political issues such as the Equal Rights Amendment and same-sex marriage? (Note: unlike you, I am not saying there is anything wrong with that).

Also, you may find this paper (co-authored by a BYU professor) interesting: Dry Kindling: A Political Profile of American Mormons (http://www.nd.edu/~dcampbe4/DRY%20KINDLING.pdf)

EDIT: I would note that the paper I linked finds support for both of our characterizations of the LDS Church, but honestly provides more support for your characterization. They explain how the Church is scrupulous is remaining officially non-partisan and in not endorsing candidates, but the Church has from time to time taken an active role regarding political issues, particularly ballot initiatives. On relfection, I must admit my view was colored by the unofficial views of Church members.

Really?

Yes I guess it does. There should be no special treatment for churches by the state. They should pay the same taxes all other organizations pay.

That's what you meant, right?
...

No. I'm saying that the government shouldn't dabble in the matters of churchs, and churchs should not dabble in the matters of the government. That simple.

...

No. I'm saying that the government shouldn't dabble in the matters of churchs, and churchs should not dabble in the matters of the government. That simple.

And how, for example, does a general tax on property or a sales tax that applies to everyone dabble into the matters of churches?

...

No. I'm saying that the government shouldn't dabble in the matters of churchs, and churchs should not dabble in the matters of the government. That simple.
But by granting churches a special tax status, that's exactly what the government has done.

Either churches need to be taxed like other organisations (and they can be non-profit churches as long as they jump through all the regulatory hoops) or they can't be legal persons with the power to own property.

You can't have it both ways.

The Mormon church promotes the idea of letting the members decide how to apply Gospel doctrine to daily life. We're encouraged to think for ourselves.

I don't know what to say about 'Republican Churches.' Never been to one.

Although here's an interesting tidbit: Fred Phelps is a registered Democrat.

So was Zell Miller and Strom Thurmond.

Registration means very little.

But by granting churches a special tax status, that's exactly what the government has done.

Either churches need to be taxed like other organisations (and they can be non-profit churches as long as they jump through all the regulatory hoops) or they can't be legal persons with the power to own property.

You can't have it both ways.
Well we CAN repeal property and sales taxes... Which is what I would prefer.

Well we CAN repeal property and sales taxes... Which is what I would prefer.

That, however, is never going to happen...
Taxing churches probably isn't either, but if they did have to pay property taxes that would reduce the tax burden on everybody else.

Although here's an interesting tidbit: Fred Phelps is a registered Democrat.

.................................................................................................... ....................................?

Ill generalize and break down right now how people will vote...


Athiests will vote to tax them

The religious will vote not to.

No, it isn't. So there. :p


Damn pwned. ;)


That is remarkably stupid. Why, pray tell, should the civil rights movement have been verboten for churches?

This may shock some of my fellow athiests, but I see nothing wrong with one's religion informing one's political conscience. To the contrary, just such values are protected by the First Amendment and churches have played an important role in the political history of our nation.


It's not that I'm against religion being a part of political opinion. What I'm against is using churches as a political forum. If we truly live in a society where the interests of church and the interests of state are kept separate, then that's critical. Now, if we're talking about just using the chuch building as a venue because it's big enough to hold th ecrows and has the facilities then fine, and if that's what MLK was doing, then no problem. What I do have a problem with is political indoctrination disguised as preaching the Gospel.


Nice bunch of strawmen there, but answer this: do you deny that the LDS Church has taken public stands -- including urging its members to vote a certain way -- regarding some political issues such as the Equal Rights Amendment and same-sex marriage? (Note: unlike you, I am not saying there is anything wrong with that).

Also, you may find this paper (co-authored by a BYU professor) interesting: Dry Kindling: A Political Profile of American Mormons (http://www.nd.edu/~dcampbe4/DRY%20KINDLING.pdf)

EDIT: I would note that the paper I linked finds support for both of our characterizations of the LDS Church, but honestly provides more support for your characterization. They explain how the Church is scrupulous is remaining officially non-partisan and in not endorsing candidates, but the Church has from time to time taken an active role regarding political issues, particularly ballot initiatives. On relfection, I must admit my view was colored by the unofficial views of Church members.

I don't deny that it has, in the past done so. I know that. I think it was in error. Most Mormons today, I'm pretty sure, would agree that it was in error. Maybe that's how the Church learned its lesson. Maybe it needed to happen. I concede that with the ERA the Church came out against it publicly.

What I can say is that now, in this time, it doesn't. Recently when there were referenda in several states about gay marriage, the Church did not instruct its membership to vote on it one way or the other. Personal conscience is what should decide that. Now, maybe there were bishops here and there who did, but they would have done so without consent from the Church for doing it. I know mine didn't, and in fact specifically pointed out that it was inapropriate for church membership to go to the leadership for guidance on how to vote.

Although here's an interesting tidbit: Fred Phelps is a registered Democrat.

He's bipartisan de facto; he has referred to both the parties as 'Holocaustic fag-enabling machines' or something equally lovely.

He's bipartisan de facto; he has referred to both the parties as 'Holocaustic fag-enabling machines' or something equally lovely.

No surpise there.

Absolutely not.

Absolutely not.

Why not, what makes churches so special?