Do a little research on the effects of television and you'll find some frightening facts. Television -- the medium without considering the content -- is harmful to children. Studies suggest that children who watch too much TV in the first few years of life have a much higher risk of ADHD by the age of 7. The flickering images, the noise, the 2-dimensional aspect, the singular focus, all this can damage their developing brains. It's bad for kids. Of course, beyond that, it's considered a major contributor to childhood obesity where kids who used to play outside are now becoming couch potatoes. And all of that isn't even considering the content of the shows which are clearly aimed at messages that are counter to Christian values. But it's a funny thing. On multiple occasions I've explained this to young parents urging them to avoid doing that damage to their children. Do you know the universal response? "That would mean we couldn't watch our shows." Yeah, it does. Is that too much to ask? In every case in which I've been involved, the answer is "Yes, that's too much."
Look around the Internet and you can find all kinds of wackos out there who will tell you crazy stuff. It's fun and entertaining if you're not foolish enough to believe it. So when I saw an article by a website called (this should be a clue) hushmoney.org about how Lyndon Johnson (yes, the one that became president) installed the 501(c)(3) concept to silence churches, I had to laugh. You know the 501(c)(3) concept, right? It allows a church to avoid paying income tax. Nice. But come on, Hushmoney.org! Can you say "paranoid"?
And then I came across another "unreliable" website -- irs.gov. According to the IRS, "In 1954, Congress approved an amendment by Sen. Lyndon Johnson to prohibit 501(c)(3) organizations, which includes charities and churches, from engaging in any political campaign activity. To the extent Congress has revisited the ban over the years, it has in fact strengthened the ban."
Wait ... the IRS concurs that one of the conditions under which churches can be considered tax exempt is that they refrain from engaging in politics. The latest amendment specifically forbids them from speaking against any candidates. Now, let's put this in the clearest terms. The U.S. Government is paying churches to keep silent. Hmmm ... sounds like hush money. You know what they say. "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you."
So here's what I'm wondering. Why is it that churches in general are willing to maintain a tax exempt status at the price of their freedom of speech? What pastor would agree to this? (At the back of my mind I'm wondering, "Is this one of the reasons that a pro-abortion (I don't use the term lightly) presidential candidate can get such support from Christians?") The question becomes "At what price are you willing to sell the rest of your freedom of speech? How much will it cost to silence the Gospel?"
I have to wonder sometimes about us humans. We know that cigarettes are bad but we aren't willing to stop them. We know that alcohol is a problem but we're not willing to do anything about it. We know that television harms our children but we aren't willing to act on it. We know that the government is paying our churches to be silent but we're not willing to get out from under that control. Why is it that we seem to consistently pay too much for "freedoms" that do so much damage? When do we say, "No, that's too much to pay"? At what price do we surrender personal pleasures and corporate comfort for what is right? The frightening thing to me is that we haven't yet found an answer to that question.
5 comments:
I read an article recently about an African Country who's population was largely Christian. I can't remember the counrty; Uganda? Of course you would never guess this given the corruption and the resulting poverty. Anyway, the article was quick to point out that most of the people didn't take their faith seriously. So there you have it.
Really Stan, you really think churches are being paid to keep quiet? I really don't know of any pastor willing to keep quiet. All that I have known, and sat under their teaching, still speak out against what is wrong, do talk about what is wrong with this country today, and do stand for up and speak the truth of God's Word. So who are you speaking about? Sometimes you take and generalize things a bit too much, don't you think?
According to the IRS, "Under the Internal Revenue Code, all IRC section 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches and religious organizations, are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office."
The LA Times reported a case where "The Internal Revenue Service has warned one of Southern California's largest and most liberal churches that it is at risk of losing its tax-exempt status because of an antiwar sermon two days before the 2004 presidential election."
The primary reason that the 501(c)(3) status was created was to silence organizations from talking about politics. That was the purpose. It is part of the tax law. Pastors might do it, but they do so at the risk of losing their tax-free status.
That is all the legal stuff...thanks! Who knew?
But your point was that pastors are NOT teaching God's truth for fear of losing their 501.3c status. So the one Southern Calif church was warned, what happened with the warning, did they cave?
I disagree that Pastors are in fear of losing the tax exempt status for the church.
There is also talk that they are risk of being imprisoned for teaching against homosexuality. Praise God for the faithful who preach and teach the truth.
LouAnn
PS Just curious ... why do people have to type in a 'code word' and go through all that each time before commenting on your blog?
Pastors are still free to preach against "evil" and "immoral" and the like. (Who knows how long that will last?) But what you will not likely hear from the pulpit is "Vote for (whoever the favorite Christian candidate is today)" or "President Obama is the most pro-abortion candidate we've ever had." Endorsing candidates or naming names from the pulpit in political races is forbidden. When I hear that from the pulpit, I'll concur that pastors are not concerned about losing their tax-exempt status. (Fact is there just isn't very many times that a pastor would be called to name names in a political race.)
As to your curiosity question, having run a blog for 5 years now I found that computers will make comments on my blog. They will put a message with a name from a foreign language and they will say something like, "Nice blog!" followed by a handy little hidden link that just happens to go to a porn site. When I enabled the code word requirement, I disabled the ability of a computer to spam my blog with porn. Like you, I don't like it, so I apologize for the inconvenience. But it's better than having my son call me and say, "You know, Dad, I hit one of the links in your comments section today and it took me to a porn site. What's that all about?" (And it did happen.)
Post a Comment