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: 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: 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: 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: 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.