Comments on: David Barton Calls Paying Pastors "Church Welfare"

By: William Birch

William Birch — Wed, 30 May 2018 20:36:22 +0000

In reply to ken. I've been anxiously (not really) awaiting that info as well.

By: Richard Willmer

Richard Willmer — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:32:31 +0000

I agree with Warren that the use of the term ‘welfare’ is a bit of nonsense.
As for ‘tax exempt status’: well, if the Church differs with the State on a ‘matter of conscience’ then she should IMO be prepared to sacrifice its ‘tax exempt (or ‘charitable’) status’ in the pursuit of what she believes to be right.
(Interestingly, under the UK Marriage [Same-sex couples] Bill 2013 now before Parliament, and likely to receive Royal Assent – and thus become law -next year, the ‘state church’, the Church of England, will be prohibited by law from conducting marriage ceremonies for same-sex couples, while other churches will be allowed to form their own position on the issue.)

By: smrnda

smrnda — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:32:31 +0000

I’m aware that many churches will refuse to marry anyone who isn’t a member in good standing, or require attendance at church-run marriage counseling sessions as a condition of performing a marriage. I do not believe churches have ever been obligated to perform marriages for anyone they did not want to marry.
On the tax exempt status, either Barton is intentionally misleading people (that refusal to grant same sex marriage will endanger this, therefore, it must be opposed) or else this is strange to have a Christian advocating against tax exempt status. I’m assuming that some churches pull in enough money to make do without it, but then we’d see an even greater push towards megachurches.

By: William Birch

William Birch — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:17:52 +0000

In reply to Lynn David. . . . whatever job he does . . . That is still cracking me up days later :^)

By: ken

ken — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:17:52 +0000

In reply to Patrocles. Rychlak (like Barton) is distorting the facts to promote his particular view. Gus already mentioned be beach Pavilion issue. Rychlak left out several significant details about Catholic Charities fiasco, including the fact that several CC board members resigned in protest of the bishops' actions, not the state's actions and that CC could still assist in adoptions if it wanted, they just wouldn't be paid for the placements like they were. Finally as to the topic at hand (civil marriage), clergy are allowed to officate CIVIL marriages as a matter of convenience, it is not a requirement. Allowing clergy to officate civil marriages just means that a couple can have the minister,priest,rabbi, imam etc sign the paperwork for the civil marriage AFTER the religious marriage, rather than have to go to a state office to marry a 2nd time. As a law professor, Rychlak must know this, which means he is deliberately distorting the facts.

By: smrnda

smrnda — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:17:52 +0000

In reply to Patrocles.

Either you’ve been misled, or you’re confusing the use of a church-owned property (operated as a business open to the public) with the actual church. Businesses open to the public, as was said above, are required to accommodate all members of the public.
This sort of distortion occurred near where I live, where a for profit bed and breakfast sought to refuse to serve a same sex couple who wanted their reception there, claiming they were a “Christian bed and breakfast.” The law is pretty clear, and its in accordance with the Bible – an institution must choose to serve God or Mammon$$$, and once you’ve decided that you’re serving Mammon, you’ve gotta follow the rules all money-grubbing businesses are forced to follow.

By: Gus

Gus — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:17:52 +0000

In reply to Patrocles. Your examples have to do with public accomidation laws in effect before any 'gay marriage' laws. When a religious organization opens its doors to be rented by the public (not just members) it is subject to the public accomidation laws. The Methodist pavilion is more complicated because it has to do with the pavilion being on an evironmentally protected beach...that's where the tax exemption is, not the usual religious exemption for a house of worship. And because they promised it would be open to the public in order to keep the pavilion in a sensitive area.

By: William Birch

William Birch — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:08:52 +0000

“Ministers were able to refuse to marry same-sex couples yesterday without jeopardizing their tax exempt status. Nothing has changed today (or is ever likely to change) due to the Supreme Court cases.”
I think the Western theologian Chicken Little said it best when he stated, “The sky is falling.” I could be mistaken, but I believe Beck and Barton may subscribe to Little’s theology.

By: Patrocles

Patrocles — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:08:52 +0000

First, as an admirer of traditional anabaptism and quakerism, it seems quite normal to me that Christian churches have no paid professional ministers.
Secondly, Barton’s fears are shared by many others, like Mississippi Professor of Law Ronald Rychlak:
http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/resources/life-and-family/homosexuality/the-unintended-consequences-of-gay-marriage/
“Consider what happened in Massachusetts in 2004: Justices of the peace who refused to preside over same-sex unions due to moral or religious objections were summarily fired. Since same-sex unions were entitled to be treated the same as traditional marriages, this refusal was discrimination and a firing offense.
What about a priest or minister who similarly refuses to preside at such ceremonies? Obviously the state can’t fire such people, but it is easy to foresee other sanctions — such as loss of tax benefits — being imposed on churches. After all, if gay marriage truly is no different from traditional marriage, by what justification can the government give preferential treatment to an entity that discriminates?
Just last year, two women filed a complaint in New Jersey because they were denied use of a pavilion for their civil union ceremony. The pavilion was owned by a Methodist ministry. It had been rented out for marriages, but the ministry refused to rent it for civil unions because it is a religious structure, and civil unions are not recognized in the United Methodist Church Book of Discipline. Due to the ministry’s refusal to rent it for the lesbian ceremony, New Jersey revoked its tax-free status.
The Des Moines Human Rights Commission found the local Young Men’s Christian Association in violation of public accommodation laws because it refused to extend “family membership” privileges to a lesbian couple that had entered a civil union in Vermont. Accordingly, the city forced the YMCA to recognize gay and lesbian unions as “families” for membership purposes, or lose over $100,000 in government support.
Perhaps the most notorious example of a state forcing its view on a church agency comes from Massachusetts, where Boston Catholic Charities ran an adoption agency that had been placing children with families for over 100 years. In 2006, Archbishop Sean P. O’Malley announced that the agency would abandon its founding mission rather than submit to a state law requiring it to place children with homosexual couples. (A Vatican document from 2003 described gay adoptions as ”gravely immoral.”)”
I admit that the final decision in the New Jersey/Ocean Grove case relied on some rather special preconditions (but such special preconditions may exist in other ministries, too). But most of the commentators thought indeed that the Ocean Grove Methodists lost their religious tax exemption because of not supporting the marriage of two women, and that that was A GOOD THING. And just that is disinquieting. Enforcing gay marriage via taxation seems quite popular, and I’m not convinced that judges are immune to such popular points of view.

By: Gus

Gus — Wed, 30 May 2018 18:08:52 +0000

“The state” will not force the Roman Catholic Church to marry every legally single person (married in their church, but civily divorced), why would “the state” force the issue with gay persons?