A-OK
The only drawback to a shorter commute is that I have less time to listen to Thom Hartmann in the car every morning. In today’s eight minutes he covered all kinds of church and state issues, including the ‘resolution’ of a story I had completely forgotten about:
The Internal Revenue Service has told a prominent Pasadena church that it has ended its lengthy investigation into a 2004 antiwar sermon, church leaders said Sunday.
But the agency wrote in its letter to All Saints Episcopal Church that officials still considered the sermon to have been illegal, prompting the church to seek clarification, a corrected record and an apology from the IRS, the church’s rector told standing-room-only crowds of parishioners at Sunday’s services…
Bacon predicted that the vague, mixed message from the IRS after its nearly two-year investigation of the All Saints case would have a continued “chilling effect” on the freedom of clerics from all faiths to preach about moral values and significant social issues such as war and poverty.
Oh, but I’m sure that chilling effect is an absolutely unintended consequence. Really.
For the record, here’s a portion of what George Regas actually said back in 2004:
Let me quickly make two statements to relieve some of the anxiety you bring to this debate [between Bush, Kerry, and Jesus].
Jesus does win! And I don’t intend to tell you how to vote…Good people of profound faith will be for either George Bush or John Kerry for reasons deeply rooted in their faith…
How Jesus mourns the death of those 3,000 people killed on September 11th. But
Jesus also mourns the death, devastation, and loss in Afghanistan and Iraq and Sudan and
Israel/Palestine and in so many other parts of the world. They too are part of God’s precious
human family.Jesus would say to us: “Yes, mourn the deaths of those closest to you who have died;
yet it is troublesome that you in America could get so caught up in the tragedy of September
11 without ever noticing all my children who have been blown apart by this war, and the
30,000 children under five years of age across the globe who die every day of malnutrition
and hunger. My heart can hardly bear it.”Jesus confronts both Senator Kerry and President Bush: “I will tell you what I think
of your war—The sin at the heart of this war against Iraq is your belief that an American life
is of more value than an Iraqi life. That an American child is more precious than an Iraqi
baby…”When you go into the voting booth on Tuesday, take with you all that you know
about Jesus, the peacemaker. Take all that Jesus means to you. Then vote your deepest
values.Amen.
I don’t know about you, but I’m betting it was that line about “voting your deepest values” that the IRS found illegal. Unprecedented!
The truth is, the sermon was probably over the line. Hugo, who was there, certainly thinks so. But the audacity of the IRS and the inconsistency of application of the law is obvious, and well-remarked upon.
What’s news, at least to me, comes in a lede-burying paragraph in the LA Times article:
In addition to its requests for clarification and an apology, All Saints has asked a top Treasury Department official — its inspector general for tax administration — to investigate what the church described as a series of procedural and substantive errors in the case, including allegedly inappropriate conversations about it between IRS and Justice Department officials. Those conversations, documented in e-mails obtained by the church through Freedom of Information Act requests, appear to show that Justice Department officials were involved in the All Saints case before the IRS made any formal referral of it for possible prosecution, an attorney for the church said. And they raise concerns that the IRS’ investigation may have been politically motivated.
Snicker. “May have been.” Tee hee.
But these allegations strike at the very heart of church vs. state. This is no comparatively murky question of Ten Commandments monuments or mandatory school prayer*. This is a law-enforcement arm of the government interfering in the day-to-day operations of a church - not on behalf of the IRS, but apparently because they didn’t like what the rector had to say.
Taxes are one thing - I’m fully in favor of churches losing their tax-exempt status for politicking, as long as we start with the thousands of fundie churches who have been flagrantly violating the tax codes for 40 years. (With even-handed punishment and at current staffing levels, the IRS should get around to yanking All Saints’ status in about 2124.)
But the freaking justice department? We’re not really in a grey area anymore. No, what we have here is the beginnings of a government-forced orthodoxy. If the wingers want to argue that’s not what the founders were protecting against with the First Amendment, either - they’re welcome to.
* I know that those aren’t murky either, but just for sake of argument.
65 Responses to “Vote Jesus!”
Leave a comment
Line and paragraph breaks automatic, e-mail address never displayed, HTML allowed: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <code> <em> <i> <strike> <strong>
The wingers want to destroy the wall between church and state because they have this strange notion that their individual churches will be the one that winds up being in charge, and then they can visit great pain and suffering on all the other fucking heathens. The only upside is that the wingers might be so busy killing each other off that they’d leave us atheists alone for a while.
This is a case study in why campaign finance laws and other abridgment of political speech are a horrible, horrible idea. The candidate who promised to eliminate the FEC would win my vote. The government should not have any authority to regulate what’s said on the pulpit, or on how people spend their own money on their favored candidates.
I’m going to respectfully disagree with Hugo. I don’t see this sermon as partisan. Anti-war yes, partisan no. Given that both candidates could be criticized by the sermon writer for supporting the war, and the fact that the writer imagines Jesus indicting all Americans for devaluing non-American life, I just don’t see how this could violate the law (although I confess I have not reviewed the IRS regulations).
wait wait wait. how is this an issue for the government? where was this sermon given? as far-recovered of a catholic as i am, if it were given in a church, then the government can fuck right off. they don’t get to say anything about what is said there. but i don’t know the context of this. a little help?
chibi, they don’t get to control speech in churches, but they do get to revoke tax-exempt status. A church cannot engage in campaigning for one candidate or another while retaining its tax-exempt status.
Personally I don’t think any churches should be tax exempt, regardless of what they say at the pulpit. People make a fortune running religions, and all that money bypasses the public good. Tax them. If they want to set up separate non-profit organizations that do public work, treat those exactly like secular non-profits and demand the same regulations upon them.
As it is currently, “preaching the good word” is “public service” enough to gain non-profit status.
Churches are granted the privlege of not being taxed by the government which then places particular obligations on them.
As long as churches are not taxed they are subject to the same rules as other non-profit institutions which are specifically forbidden from pursuing political causes with donations intended for their main body of work.
Political action is not charity and it certainly is not a spiritual mission. That is why it is not tax deductible for donors and why it is forbidden for churches.
This case did not go anywhere because the speech was non-partisan. The pursuit of this case by the government is certainly politically motivated and that is why it is wrong. There is nothing wrong with the approach “if we keep the church out of the government then we will keep the government out of the church.”
If you set up a political advocacy organization, designed to elect particular candidates, or candidates with particular views, and then take in vast sums of money to do that work, that’s fine.
If you do the above and say, “praise Jesus,” that too is fine.
If you do either of the above and expect to not pay taxes on all that money you took in, that’s a problem.
I really cannot see this sermon as partisan. Jesus was, IIRC, against war and killing. (”THe Prince of Peace” I believe is one of his titles). This sermon might be seen as unpatriotic by people who do indeed think that an American life is worth more than an Iraqi life, but Christianity isn’t intended to be “about” patriotism in respect to any government. It is supposed to transcend government, powers and pricipalities.
As both Kerry and Bush voted for this Iraq War, then they are BOTH acting against the word of Christ. So: Not Partisan.
Are we increasingly accepting living in a Police State? APPARENTLY, YES.
What G RWA said 10 minutes ago.
A church can support positions, values, causes for general public good and should not then be in danger of losing their status. When they begin supporting specific candidates or parties (e.g. right, left, green, then they should.
Funny you mention that. Hartmann also brought up (apropos of something Scalia said, so it wasn’t really Godwinning) the fact that the ultimate example of nonseperation of church and state was the 20th Century, when all the protestant denominations in Germany conglomerated into the Reich Church, headed by the Reich Bi in Germanyshop.
Yes. And I’m sure that when your local police have a corruption problem you advocate disbanding the police force. And when a doctor performs an unnecessary surgery you advocate the elimination of medicine.
The fact that an effective and necessary organ of the state has been handled badly or corruptly does not invalidate the state agency, it necessitates the removal of the corruption. Your position is libertarian, nihilist pinheadism at its most vibrant, Observer.
Let us assume for the moment that this speech was indeed a violation of the American tax laws. Even with that taken as a given, however, what leaps out at you is how mild and banal the violation is, compared to the countless more egregious examples flowing out of conservative churches in support of Republicans.
“Your position is libertarian, nihilist pinheadism at its most vibrant, Observer.”
Come on, 6079, there’s no reason to get all redundant here…
MikeEss: I live and exist for tautology
You know, I honestly don’t see how the speech was over the line. It seemed completely non-partisan to me. Anti-war, yes. But also anti-Kerry AND anti-Bush. Maybe I just don’t understand the law?
In any case, i agree with those who say that churches’ tax exempt status is highly questionable. But I do think that we have to face up to the reality that it will not change for a LONG, LONG, LONG time. Any politician who would seriously try to change the law would get thrown from office. And for obvious political reasons, both parties are never going to suggest it at the same time.
Churches are classified as 501c3s, same as WILPF, Doctors without Borders, Oxfam, Planned Parenthood. and so on. Churches can campaign on issue referenda (anti-gay-marriage amendment, for example), and do non-partisan voter registration drives, but cannot mention party names, candidate names. Up to 3% or so of church income can be devoted to non-partisan political activity. Non-church 501c3s can spawn sibling organizations (501c4s) that are not tax-exempt and can participate in electoral lobbying involving named parties and candidates. The 501c4s must pay fair market rent, appropriate amount of salary of any shared employees, pay for its own office equipment, etc.
“Churches can campaign on issue referenda (anti-gay-marriage amendment, for example), and do non-partisan voter registration drives, but cannot mention party names, candidate names.”
Hell, on that basis alone half the churches that support the wingnuts should have their tax exemption revoked, if the laws were enforced even handedly.
Not holding my breath…
The difference is that the FEC and these IRS regulations exist solely to infringe upon free political speech. Why are we paying government employees to infringe upon free speech? If I want to give all my fortune to Sen. Obama, why can’t he? If I’m a priest and think my parishioners should vote for Dennis Kucinich, why can’t I let them know? Why must we live under the threat of the government crushing us if we get *too* involved in politics?
“If I’m a priest and think my parishioners should vote for Dennis Kucinich, why can’t I let them know?”
How about if Jesus told me last night that a vote for anyone except Fred Thompson will condemn my church members to everlasting torment in the fires of hell? Would that be okay to tell them and still keep my tax exempt status?
How about when certain Catholic diocese were telling parishioners in 2004 that a vote for Kerry would mean being unable to participate in mass? Is that cool?
Is there a line that can’t be crossed for you “Observer”, or do you just want to go ahead and live in Gilead?…
Observer: the FEC has less to for with the exercise of free speech, and more to to with the exercise of money.
I.e. One person with $10 does not have the same amount of access as a man with $1,000,000. You cannot buy the same amount of advertising time or space for that difference. The danger is that a wealthy few in favor of aristocracy is able to advertise their preferred candidate much more easily than a poor majority.
This is the problem when economic power is ignored. The “One man, one vote” philosophy becomes “One dollar, one vote”. And at that point, we’ve pretty much kissed off democracy for a plutocratic oligarchy.
Mike– You’re asking if I want to abridge political speech. The answer is no. The government should not be able to tell the citizens what’s off-limits when it comes to discussing candidates.
Left_wing_Fox: Free speech includes speech you don’t like. If I want to spend money advocating for Obama, how dare the government tell me I can’t?
“You’re asking if I want to abridge political speech. The answer is no. The government should not be able to tell the citizens what’s off-limits when it comes to discussing candidates.”
So if your minister, from his position of religious/moral authority, were to tell you exactly how you should vote or else lose your soul, that would be just cool with you?
If the Pope hands down ruling that compels ALL Catholics to exactly vote his stated ticket - listing every politician in every race in every country across the whole world, you would not see anything wrong with that?
A tape is found dictated by L. Ron Hubbard telling all Scientologists that they can never vote for any other party but the Communist Party of America - you’re cool, right?
Donald Trump states that he will fire any employee of his who does not provide proof they voted for Mitt Romney - and you’re okay with that, right?
No harm, no foul. It’s all just political speech to you.
Are you nuts?…
Are you spotting the key to it all, there?
I rather agree with Hugo and Auguste that the sermon was objectionably partisan. My opinion is colored, however, by the fact that a minister at a Houston megachurch gave a sermon about the importance of voting one’s conscience, listing all the favored wingnut issues, and never once mentioning the name of either candidate, but during which an enormous picture of George W’s head was projected on screen behind the pulpit. I strongly think THAT performance was out of line, and it’s not all that different from All Saints. The difference, of course, is that All Saints’ message is in fact the same as Jesus’, while Mr. Houston Nutcase’s is more of a Roman thing.
We may as well just tax churches since all they’re doing with the money is buying meth and hookers anyway.
I think the difference is clear, and is major, Kitty. The picture of King George the Lesser in such a prominent position is clearly an advocacy stand, and so should cost that church its tax-exemption. The line is pretty clear, and there are plenty of wingnut churches which tread nanometers away from it without crossing it. The FEC ought to slap down those who cross it.
That church definitely deserved to lose its tax exempt status. The problem is that the Bush regime was so one-sided. All churches that engage in political activities should lose their tax exempt statuses, not just the ones that disagree with the current administration.
This rule is so much of a dead letter on the right that it’s hard even to talk about. It’s like the whole “civility” thing.
I can’t find a link, sorry, but I heard on the Rational Response Squad podcast about a guy who was successful in getting a fundie church’s tax exemption revoked. He went to several sermons around election time, carrying an audio recorder. When he had damning evidence, he handed it over to the IRS and demanded they investigate. They sent in observers and caught the minister in the act.
Recording them is extremely helpful, because it means if the IRS acts chickenshit (as I’ve heard they do sometimes), one can hand copies of the tapes to the media instead, and hopefully raise a stink about the IRS failing to investigate.
It’s not free political speech if you are paying to be heard to the exclusion of all other speakers. That is what lobbying is, it’s paying to cut in line, it’s legalized bribery.
Election regulations are meant to minimize the corruption inherent in our system not to take away the right of free speech.
Point of information…?
If my organization takes in tax-free money, and the money is used (among other things) to run a school, keep the lights on in the gym, pay the guy who mows the lawn, operate a soup kitchen all that stuff…how exactly do you track money and say “Well, this money was actually used to support the Barack Obama Campaign?”
Well, you do that by not allowing tax-exempt churches to support the Barack Obama campaign. (Unless that was a rhetorical question.)
So do we just assume then that if a preacher says to the congregation “Here are our teachings. Vote your conscience,” that it’s supporting one candidate or another?
Nope, and such vague language is not normally held against any church by the IRS. Some people are saying this particular instance was too vague to be a problem.
Mike Ess wrote:
Well, Mr Ess, over the past 42 years (excluding the years before I was 18, simply for the sake of memory), I’ve been a member of five separate Catholic parishes, and I can’t remember a single instance of a priest telling me that I should vote for a particular candidate or party from the pulpit. I’ve had some conversations with priests away from services which indicated their political preferences.
I have heard homilies on a couple of particular issues, primarily pro-life homilies, but even those have been few and far between.
Me Ess wrote:
I recall that several bishops said that Mr Kerry should not present himself to receive the Eucharist, but I don’t remember any diocese saying that is people voted for Senator Kerry, they couldn’t receive communion. Perhaps you have a link to such diocesian websites or news stories which would support your contention.
Here you go, Dana.
One thing that really baffles me is that my friends on the left, supposedly great supporters of our freedoms, both on this thread and the current one, seem to have no difficulty judging that some speech shouldn’t count as speech, that, damn it, it needs to be regulated!
What part of “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,” is so difficult to understand?
There is an advertisement in today’s Philadelphia Inquirer for (free) tickets to the 24th Annual Rev Thomas J Furphy Lecture at DeSales University, with John Ashcroft, listed as Attorney General of the United States, 2001-2005.
DeSales is a private, four-year Catholic university. Ought it’s tax-exempt status be revoked because it is bringing in a speaker who is clearly political?
Thank you, Stephanie; I hadn’t heard that any bishops had been that courageous; it’s good to know that Bishop Sheridan was.
I have a question for Observer, and anyone else who thinks that campaign contributions should be treated as free speech: When Bill Clinton was caught “listening” to what some foreigners had to “say,” why didn’t anyone complain that that law abridged free speech. The word, “citizen” doesn’t appear once in the entire Bill of Rights. On a more theoretical level, if there’s a truth that only a foreigner has the courage to tell, does that mean that the voters don’t need to hear it?Campaign contributions are actions. Falsely shouting fire in a theater (OW Holmes did not specify crowded.) and thereby starting a panic is not protected free speech. The whole Buckley v. Valeo doctrine is bogus and elitist.
Dana, the question is not whether they are allowed to speak or not. It’s a question of whether a religious group can be allowed to be tax exempt while playing politics. They are free to speak all they want…they just have to agree to pay taxes like the rest of us. It’s the price of admission.
We are not seeking to jail anyone just for saying some things. The issue here is that when someone endorses a candidate while speaking on behalf of a tax-exempt institution, that makes the tax exemption a subsidy for the speech. It is that which we want to prohibit.
The rules I would set forth are these:
1) Churches have long had an expertise on ethics. When they speak of ethical issues, they deserve a respectful hearing (although we should beware when the ethics slides into dogmatic morality).
2) Churches are the sole arbiter of their own doctrines. When a cleric says, “You cannot be a good practitioner…” that isn’t a problem as long as they’re willing to say to those who can’t follow the practice, “I’m sure you’ll be happier in a different church. Go in peace, my child.”
3) Clergypeople should be free to say anything they please when it’s clear they’re speaking for themselves and not their churches.
4) What crosses the line is when they argue for a “morality” where they can’t state a clear ethical principle, when they conflate the word of the person in the pulpit for the voice of God, or when they brand legitimate views outside the church’s orthodoxy as being totally wrong.
I disagree. Churches have long claimed expertise on ethics.
hey auguste,
sorry to sidetrack–but you have an 8-min commute to work and you drive? just wondering if you’ve considered taking the bus or riding your bike…
“I hadn’t heard that any bishops had been that courageous; it’s good to know that Bishop Sheridan was.”
What’s brave of towing the line of a political group that’s in power? If the “we love killing Catholics” political party was in power then I can understand were speaking out is brave … … if they told him that he’d loose the tax exempt statues for his church and he did it anyway that could be seen a brave … but in this case I see no bravery at all.
DeadMan
What Hypatia said.
Dana, the problem is that your statement fits so nicely into a standard right wing expectation in America: if you get a special benefit which allows you an unfair advantage over other citizens, then that is Normal or Just or Freedom, and taking it away is a wrong of the most ignoble sort.
I question whether moneymaking institutions like churches should be tax exempt at all. I have no problem with the public service / non profit elements of a church should be tax exempt like any other non profit. I’m just puzzled as to why, for example, your Catholic Church, which is arguable the most successful money-making institution in human history, should be any more exempt from taxes than a movie theatre. When I want to feel good and hope for the better, I buy and read a copy of Orwell’s essays, and I pay taxes on that. When you want to feel better you go to Church and listen to stories about a magical afterlife, and that’s tax free. Why?
I’m looking at the spines of my Orwell collection now, and one thing occurs to me, Dana: Penguin Books hasn’t had to pay out hundreds of millions of dollars to children who were raped because they trusted Penguin books, which is more than I can say for the Catholic Church. Yet the Church is tax exempt and Penguin is not. You should be thankful that your sole concern is the theoretical (and wholly unlikely in reality) loss of one tax benefit. Given the organized, coordinating role of the Church in covering up the rapes and helping the offenders escape punishment I would have gone after them under the RICO statutes. Why not? Organized crime is supposed to be the target of RICO.
What Deadman said, with an addition.
I note that the Bishop in question appears to have been silent on Kerry Vietnamese in combat which, last time I checked, was also a violation of Christian doctrine.
typo: “… Kerry killing Vietnamese in combat …”
Left_wing_Fox: Free speech includes speech you don’t like. If I want to spend money advocating for Obama, how dare the government tell me I can’t?
It’s not about “Don’t like” it’s about “Can’t afford”.
One of the many quirks about liberterians that bug the shit out of me. At least conservatives admit that “More money = More freedom” is a feature of their philosophy, rather than a bug. Liberterians spend all their time arguing that free market choice = freedom, and then deny or ignore the fact that this means the richest people have more freedom than the poorest.
This is contrary to the very point of monotheism. God favors only us, and you’re going to hell for not belonging to this particular group.
This is rightful domain of religion. If you want clear ethical principles, you do philosophy. Religion is for non sequiturs, arbitrary taboos, and divine blessing of hierarchy and the status quo.
Every minister, imam, priest and rabbi, every prophet, every author of every holy book, has done exactly this and nothing more. If it weren’t for people talking shit and pretending that a superhuman Sky Daddy had their backs, there would be no such thing as religion.
Back to the first problem I mentioned. The point is to separate people into in-groups and out-groups. You can hardly ask people to be religious without doing what religion does best.
“I hadn’t heard that any bishops had been that courageous; it’s good to know that Bishop Sheridan was.”
Dana, that’s sad.
It’s especially sad considering that the alternative to Kerry was a man whose Baptist (and other Protestant fundamentalist) supporters would just as soon eliminate the Catholic Church from the US if they ever got sufficient political power. As you well know.
To use a position of such power over the lives of believers to frighten them into acting in a certain political direction is sick, cruel, and evil - but certainly legal as long as they also lose their tax-exemption.
If a church willingly gives up their tax-exemption, they can say whatever hateful political things they want and we’ll call it even…
Wow, I wished I had paid more attention to Amanda when she was going on about “framing.”
The thing is, fellas, you don’t get to define for religious people how their religion works. Grammar and Mike, your claims as to how the Church operates are false; neither does the Church “make money” on any kind of scale like you suggest, nor does the Padre tell people they’ll go to Hell if they vote for a pro-choice candidate.
With arguments as disingenuous as these, it’s clear to me that you don’t care about fairness in political speech, you only have a chip on your shoulder about the Church. So call a spade a spade.
The only way your arguments work if we equate “playing politics” to “making a stand on any moral issue of any kind.”
Yessssssss. That’s why only one diocese (LA) was able to pay out over $600 million in pedo settlements simply by liquidating church properties within its zone. One diocese. Over half a billion dollars.Pull the other one, Petey, it’s got bells on it.
And I am supposed to apologize for having a chip on my shoulder against a misogynist, homophobic, nazi-enabling, pedophile-indulging afterlife snakeoil fraud machine? I dislike gang rapists and mafia dons, too, Petey. Are you going to get sulky about that, as well?This is contrary to the very point of monotheism. God favors only us, and you’re going to hell for not belonging to this particular group. - grammar RWA
Umm … no that isn’t the point of monotheism. One could say we Jews unleashed monotheism on the world and we Jews don’t at all believe that non-Jews are going to hell and while we do believe that God favors us, we don’t believe that God favoring us is, um, a good thing (or as Shalom Alechem had Tevye put it “I know we’re Your Chosen People, but couldn’t you choose somebody else for a change?”).
*
My $0.02 on the issue at hand. I don’t think church’s should be allowed to engage in advocacy for specific candidates and maintain tax exempt status — the wall between Church and State has to work both ways (and this is for the good of religion as well … if people see religion as being too political, they’ll shy away from it). OTOH, I fail to see how it is wrong for a preacher to merely mention the name of a candidate or party: especially in the context of “neither Kerry nor Bush does what Jesus would support”.
As to “free speech” — to put it shallowly: “you have a right to free speech, not to expensive speech”
Regarding the amount of money possessed by Houses of Worship: I cannot speak in general, but in cases where I have some personal knowledge of finances, I know these operations really are non-profit. A lot of the praying that’s going on is praying that they’ll be enough money to pay the electric bill
*
Meanwhile: can I publish a pamphlet entitled “Voters’ Guide for Funny Jews”?
Good job!
All Saints’ Pasadena is a large congregation of about 2,500-3,000, with a large pastoral staff and a long long track record of liberal causes (pro-gay, pro-choice, anti-war, anti-poverty). It is one of the most prominent parishes on the West Coast. George Regas, who gave the sermon in question, was NOT ON STAFF. He was a GUEST PREACHER, and former rector (senior pastor) of the parish, and had been retired for 5 to 10 years.
The sermon format could have been changed a bit to omit candidate names and the meme about “Jesus wins”, but the rest of the sermon was bog-standard for a mainstream liberal social-justice church.
I hate it when people refer to me as “friend” when they mean “enemy” (a la Dana). Fuck you. You can disagree with me and be my friend, but that implies respect. You can be polite and disagree with me, and not respect me, but that’s not friendship either. In his case, it’s neither a respectful relationship nor is it a polite one.
Screw your “friend”.
Openly worshipping and praising a particular politician is not the free exercise of religion, it’s politics.
I’m aware that the doctrines of Judaism are more subtle and more open-ended on the afterlife than the other Abrahamic religions.
But the statement that a Christian or a Muslim does not automatically go hell, while accurate, does not capture the breadth of the issue. A non-Jew must fulfill the Noahide commandments to enter Gan Eden (hereafter called “heaven” for those unfamiliar with Jewish eschatology).
Most of the Noahide commandments are easy. Adultery’s not at all easy to avoid, but we know these Abrahamic religions have sexual hang-ups, so it comes with the territory.
But two are absurd. Do not commit blasphemy, and do not commit idolatry. Atheists are screwed. Non-Abrahamic religious folk are screwed. You still have to worship the god of Abraham. Though less exclusive than, say, fundamentalist Christianity, this is not an inclusive religion. Do some modern liberal Jews throw those Noahide requirements out, too? Yes, but that’s a political aspect of modern tolerance and multiculturalism, and not something that Judaism per se can be credited for.
Hell was not a concept the ancient Israelites utilized. But that didn’t stop them from writing triumphalist accounts of genocide, committed at the behest of war god Yahweh Sabaoth. Supposedly Saul killed every single man, woman, and child among the people of Amalek, except for their king. God was then angry with him for sparing the life of the king and some of the livestock. The story of Midian is similar. Moses is to kill every man, male child, and non-virgin woman among the people of Midian. His armies don’t kill the women or the boys, though, and Moses is pissed. Some cajoling later, all the boys, infants included, and all the women and girls who didn’t have intact hymens are finally good and dead.
These are not stories of eternal damnation, but they do amount to hell on earth. Did these stories actually happen? Maybe not; it’s likely they’re manufactured or inflated to incite nationalist pride. But the point is clear: there are in-groups and out-groups, and it’s very important that you’re on God’s side (our side).
But what service do they provide to the public good in return for this tax exempt status? Preaching is not a public good. Those religious groups that want to do social work can open normal non-profit charities and be subject to the same regulations that secular non-profits are subject to. As it is, we are treating all religious organizations as “in service of the public good” by default, just because they’re being religious.
Right-wing “prosperity gospel” churches benefit the most from this, since they have no moral inclination to do social work. The money just lines pockets. They are operating businesses without paying taxes.
Well spotted. I should have clarified: It’s an eight-minute commute to my office, from which I am then dispatched all over the city. (That just often happens after Thom Hartmann’s show is over.)
I haven’t gotten my bike back from storage yet, at which point I may leave my car at the office and bike to the office on the off chance that I don’t have anywhere to go that day.
Dana:
You misspelled “wrongheaded”.
Catholic doctrine states that it’s acceptable to vote for a pro-choice candidate in the hopes that the candidate will perform other good works. What is disallowed is voting for a pro-choice candidate specifically to favor abortions.
This is typical for you, isn’t it? You support those who say what you like, even when they’re clearly factually wrong.