The Second Circuit Court of Appeals has evidently ruled in favor of the housing allowance that we in ministry have come to depend on. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinal has this article. I also understand that Guidestone is going to put out some info on this pretty soon.
However, all is not good news here. The appeals court did not rule in favor of the housing allowance, but simply ruled that the plaintiffs did not have standing to bring the suit. Since none of them had been denied the housing allowance, they could not show harm.
The 7th Circuit, however, found that the plantiffs lacked the kind of concrete harm needed to show standing to challenge the IRS rule.
The plaintiffs were never denied the parsonage exemption because they never asked for it, ” the court said.
“Without a request, there can be no denial. And absent any personal denial of a benefit, the plaintiff s’ claim amounts to nothing more than a generalized grievance about §107(2)’s unconstitutionality, which does not support standing.”
So, this is good news for us, but it is hardly the end of the story. I’m guessing one of these folks will file for a housing allowance, get denied and then sue. That’s when things will get interesting. But, for now, we get to keep our housing allowance.
I’m not a prophet, but I’m guessing it is going to be iffy whether I get to keep my housing allowance for the rest of my ministry. You young whippersnappers? Don’t count on having it when you are my age.
Fact is, with the kind of folks who occupy the bench today, they will always be able to find a judge who will rule against us on this issue or any other. I think the benefit will eventually go away.
The appeals court didn’t rule on any constitutional issue. The FFRA plaintiffs were found to lack standing to sue. Our Sacred Clergy Tax Break is safe for now.
I feel sure that there will be other challenges to it but I predict that the next housing allowance news will be about yet another millionaire pastor who is found to exclude hundreds of thousands in income from taxes by living in a mansion.
Probably a rich retiree in Georgia.
I’ll have you know that CB Scott isn’t reitred…saw him Tuesday. He was working.
Uh…well…um…yeah.
Based on numerous recent and past cases of abuse surrounding the Clergy Tax break….not so sure it shouldn’t be done away with.
Let the churches and their ministers settle this issue up front with the salary package. Why do they deserve the break if they’re abusing the system?
I think that is horrendously unfair. Have there been abuses? Yes. But the housing allowance is an important financial tool for a lot of pastors who do not abuse it.
Your insult against all pastors – as if abuse is common to all of us – is unfair.
Dave, thank you.
Amen to Mr. Miller here-
Scott,
There is a baby in the bath water, so please be careful when throwing out that water!
The HA is an income tax break, an exclusion that is a modest savings for most of us. If there is a general tax reform where all tax breaks are evaluated, I’ll be glad to have the HA scrutinized along with the rest. As a revenue issue, it’s not a big dollar item for the government. It would be rather silly to isolate the HA as an exclusion worthy of action.
I favor a cap on the amount, BTW.
Favoring a cap Sounds good in theory – but once you really begin to think about it – I’m not sure that that is good. One reason I would say that is because different regions of the country have a different cost-of-living so and arbitrary cap Might be totally reasonable for someone who lives in – But for someone who lives in New York City or LA, California The arbitrary cap might be unreasonably low.
No big deal. Set it high enough to cover high COL areas and index it. The military seems to manage their cap without difficulty.
But the military is under the government domain – as matter fact it’s a governmental responsibility – therefore they have every right to cap it, eliminate it, to reduce, it to increase it, whatever.
The way that churches – religious organizations – compensate their clergy is not government domain. And it certainly would, is Bart pointed out, seem to be favoring one way of doing compensation or allowance in one polity versus another – and that would be clearly unconstitutional.
Your idea about churches having to fill out that IRS form that you spoke of is utterly and completely scary – do you want the government knowing not only what comes into the church but how it is that we spend it and then having bureaucrats determine whether or not we are a “valid church” for tax purposes or any other?
Also have a we learn from the “minimum living wage” debate that arbitrary and universal Government setting of wage just plain don’t work.
Just like every business is different every church is different.
The setting of an arbitrary wage/compensation by bureaucrats in the IRS will all but immediately get caught up in political rancor.
William, I also like to address your comment from a practical standpoint.
“set it high enough to cover high COL areas and index it. The military seems to manage their cap without difficulty.”
Okay so based on the cost of living in say the New York City area – a pastor I might justifiably get a housing allowance of $125,000 considering how expensive housing is – a housing allowance of $125,000 where I live (or in the hollers of south Georgia) would be sweet,sweet sweet –so if the government sets the cap At that point and a rural church chooses to give its pastor that amount would you call that an abuse? How practically does that solve the problem except that it caps those in the higher cost-of-living areas at some arbitrary number – but it still allows for abuse of those who are not in the higher cost-of-living areas does it not?
First, they began counting the parsonage as income-in-kind and began taxing it for social security. Now they are trying to take away the housing allowance. Beyond that there is the taxing of church buildings under the guise of making them pay their part for the maintenance of the community. Never mind the kind of contribution the church makes to preserve the community by healing marriages, helping children, etc. We are, perhaps, in one of the most threatening periods in the History of the USA. Everyone has forgotten the fact that the churches supported the American Revolution. Baptists in particular made an agreement that in exchange for their freedom, they would encourage the young men in their community to enlist in the Patriots Cause. Jefferson attended a Baptist Church that met in the Capital Building, when he was President. The Supreme Court declared in decisions in 1792 and 1892 that America was a Christian nation, and a survey by scholars of the sources for our founding documents indicate that by double digits (like 34%) as opposed to political philosophers such as Locke and Montesquieu (single digits, 8-9%) the Bible is the biggest contributor. Also folks forget that the rise of the unbelief in our Ivy League schools such as Harvard is a factor in the thinking of the people who came out of those institutions and became the Judges, etc., of the 20th century, people who deliberately misinterpreted the Constitution in order to get God out of government and put secularism in power. Basically, some very bad folks with lots of money backing them came in and stole a whole nation, and a few of their means for doing this in the past century are the FRS and IRS. Communism as Marx was wont to say could come by way of a progressive income tax. That really should be spelled repressive. I always think it is ironic that I should have had one of the leading Marxists for World Communism as a professor for Sociology in a small state university in the Midwest, a professor my son was going to study at UNC-Ch but he dropped the course. The truth be told, we are struggling with a great conspiracy, one so powerful, so unseen, to paraphrase President Woodrow Wilson, that men are afraid to speak of it above a whisper. Even now there are sources on the Internet and You Tube, sources that are reliable and verifiable, sources that can be checked and cross checked in other sources and by other sources, if one is willing to spend the time and effort to do so. Nevertheless, the stone cut out of the mountain without human hands will continue to smite the old image in its feet of iron and clay until it has utterly destroyed that great evil and mankind might well, then, have 20,000-900,000 years to colonize the planets of the universe in order to have enough of God’s Redeemed in Heaven to fulfill the prophecy of Rev.7:9.
Prediction: the IRS will issue a list of qualifications, and nonprofits will eventually structure some 501(c)(3) jobs in a way that qualifies for the exemption — whether religious, anti-religious, or non-religious.
And some pastors will, no doubt, continue to complain about churches not giving the government enough offering plate money.
You’ll never hear me complain!
I’d like to see anything that you have read that make you see this. The IRS has a test for the HA that excludes, in a fashion, non-ministerial personnel. I don’t see them liberalizing the test.
What you should look for is a push to have churches required to file a Form 990 like other non-profits.
One of the things about the housing allowance is the fact that some highly questionable positions qualify to receive it. This is an area with genuine constitutional issues.
William, that’s the feeling I get from reading the IRS’s pleadings. The IRS’s whole position was that these people couldn’t challenge the law, because they never asked for housing allowance — and were never rejected. The implication was that if they asked the right way, they might get the housing allowance.
The IRS cares about charitable use of the home, not the religion of the occupant. Very few non-religious jobs assume the business use of the home like a minister, so it may be difficult. But, for example, Tony Campolo’s son, Bart, is a ‘humanist chaplain.’ I see no particular reason to think he’d be denied a ‘ministerial’ housing allowance.
“However, all is not good news here. The appeals court did not rule in favor of the housing allowance…”
Well they wouldn’t because it never came to that. This is not bad news, its no news. Sometimes, every now and then, no news is good news.
We don’t know all these judges were chompin’ at the bit to strike down the housing allowance for ministers. When people write things like, “They are takin’ this away”, or “They are gonna tax churches” then They are the ones who look paranoid… or worse.
I hope they don’t change this. Someday they probably will. I don’t think any preacher who weighs in on this blog will stop preaching the gospel if they do. Or if they decide preachers should be in the 75% bracket. We’ll keep on preaching. Right? Or if they outlaw us. Or if they kill us. (Well if they kill us technically we’ll stop but, you know…)
Jon said above, “Prediction: the IRS will issue a list of qualifications, and nonprofits will eventually structure some 501(c)(3) jobs in a way that qualifies for the exemption — whether religious, anti-religious, or non-religious.”
I just learned that the GOP senatorial candidate there in swampy Louisiana, Rep. Cassidy, has a bill on this. Peter Reilly my CPA blogging buddy, says this:
“Congressman Bill Cassidy, who is now in a hotly contested runoff for a Senate seat for Louisiana, has introduced legislation to extend “minister of the gospel” status to duly recognized official of religious, spiritual, moral or ethical organizations to protect the dubious constitutionality of the parsonage exclusion.”
It’s a little early to make atheists, agnostics, and Red Cross executives “ministers of the Gospel” and to qualify all for the HA.
Reilly’s blog on the HA decision is: http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2014/11/13/minister-of-gospel-housing-tax-break-withstands-challenge-atheist-group-lacks-standing/
No skin off my nose: I live in a parsonage that isn’t worth all that much. But I’ll opine anyway, because the principles involved matter to me.
1. The tax exemption of church property goes back as far as Constantine—for religious temples and other property, as far back as recorded history.
2. Some religious organizations house their clergy on-site, in property belonging to the church. In such cases, the space pertaining to corporate worship and the space pertaining to clergy housing are difficult to differentiate.
3. Other religious organizations house their clergy in detached structures (parsonages) that belong to the church no less than the meeting house does.
4. Still other religious organizations provide for the housing of clergy by means of a stipend with which the clergy may secure housing that suits their respective needs.
5. It amounts to “excessive entanglement” at the least, and a form of quasi-establishment at the worst for the government to prefer the housing arrangement of Buddhist monks on the one hand for tax exemption but then to punish Presbyterian preaching elders by denying the tax exemption to them, all simply because the government likes one polity better than the other.
6. It has been the default position of our jurisprudence to tolerate some abuse on the one side of a question in order to avoid less palatable abuse on the other side. For example, we prefer to let the occasional guilty person go free rather than to have the occasional innocent person go to prison. Toward this end we try to stack rules of evidence, etc., in favor of defendants. Likewise, some abuse of housing tax exemption by a small percentage of recipients is the price we pay not to have excessive entanglement of government picking winning and losing theologies for the purposes of assessing taxes.
It is a huge stretch to claim there would be excessive entanglement were the government to cap the HA. We look a little silly defending what even you are comfortable calling “abuses” on the basis of high minded religious liberty arguments.
The claim that cash allowances would excessively entangle government with clergy in examining how they use their privately owned domicile is valid but not particularly strong or compelling.
No one put up much of an objection when we were cut back from claiming the HA on multiple houses to just a primary domicile. The same principles apply. There is a test of reasonableness In all this.
William,
It is not a huge stretch. There are two issues here. I believe that you are conflating them without cause:
1. Is there a house so expensive that a pastor shouldn’t live in it?
2. Who ought to decide where that line is and enforce it?
I suspect that you and I agree on the first question. I suspect that we disagree on the second. In my opinion, “The Federal Government” is not the correct answer.
There you again, Bart…saying things all well and stuff. 😉
I think that’s right, Bart.
The Housing Allowance we have now is like a self-employed Minister’s home office deduction — or a deduction for business use of the home. But the amount and reasonableness is determined by his church.
The alternative is the Minister tracking toilet paper, utility bills, and cake mix used for religious purposes, which puts a high burden on the minister, and would require the IRS to second-guess the documentation.
It’s much less entangling to put that burden on the church, where it is now. The IRS can fight about the entire amount, but not the individual expenditures.
You already have to track expenses, including toilet paper if desired. You have to document this stuff if audited.
You don’t have to prove religious use, though, William — you just have to show it was used in the home. The IRS doesn’t challenge whether particular uses are religious or charitable.
Correct me if I am wrong. The church cannot just set some arbitrary amount as a housing allowance. The minister must be able to demonstrate that his housing allowance was in fact used for housing expenses.
That is correct, Adam. And the HA is also, despite William is arguing, already capped in that one can only sheild, if you will, up to a certain percentage of your overall cash compensation for HA.
The present limit is FRV of the house, actual expenses, or whatever the church sets, whichever is least. So, The Biltmore House, or just your ordinary mansion, would get that cap up to levels sufficiently odious for most hard working clergy who exclude a couple thou a month.
It’s a tax break, brethren, that has been long divorced from free exercise of religion…but we can have fun on blogs about it.
Clergy may be short on street cred these days but I think we still have sufficient political power to stave off the Visigoths who want to take our precious HA away.
I see William commented before I did. You hear that echo, William?
Tarheel, the percentage cap is 100. You can take all of your income if it works for you.
Your question presumes a solid ground for a constitutional entitlement to an income tax break for cash payments used for a house by the distinguished reverend. The government certainly has the right to limit this and did so without too much trouble on the second home issue.
Defending Kenneth Copeland on the HA is a losing argument in several ways.
Who exactly here has done that, William?
Anyone who disagrees with me on a cap has done that, perhaps unknowingly. It’s forgivable.
William, that’s not good argumetation and you know it.
Pretending that those who disagree with you favor and defend and support the occasional abuse is ridiculous.
That’s like saying anyone who defends the role of the pastor in the local church supports and defends The actions of all pastors….whatever they may be.
Yes, I think the history shows it to be on solid ground — and intended to put ministers on par with employees in commercial businesses, not provide a special benefit to ministers.
The same bona fide commercial/charitable rationale exists today, entirely apart from the religious aspect of a minister’s position.
I’ve written about it here: 4 points in favor of the ministerial housing allowance (whiteheadlawllc.com).
Tarheel, you are manufacturing problems where there are few or none. We do not have a constitutional birthright to an income exclusion for housing. It is a tax break and one that at some levels is manifestly unfair and unjust. If a 4 star general can get by on a $4k or so monthly allowance, I suspect clergy can do so also.
Take that rare minister who is paid $500k per year, lives in a million dollar mansion, has sufficient expenses to exclude half of that from income taxes. There is no legitimate way to defend that. We look silly trying to do so. If it hasn’t been noticed, clergy respect has fallen in recent years. This sort of thing will help the slide.
http://www.newsherald.com/news/markus-bishop-house-auction-delayed-1.400930
Sweet…. Chris, I have always liked architecture where part of the driveway is covered by the structure. Nice layout whether taxed or not!
If you think that “respect for the clergy” will rise because we voluntarily give up a tax advantage then I think it is you who are manufacturing things.
You forget that this 4 star general you speak of has his food provided, transportation provided (with a driver) and other perks that spare him from having to pay for things that pastors have to pay for – so that 4K per month (48K a year HA – I get no where near that and I bet most others here do not either) is a lot plusher than you might be conveying. Again, too, military pay is the domain of the govt. Church is not.
I do not want the govt. bureaucrats (the IRS really!?) in any way whatsoever “determining what is acceptable spending for a church” and think it is dangerous us to flirt with it. Not to mention it would clearly violate the first amendment.
Also for that 4 star general – I would bet that his/her housing is a (“large?) house on the base (depending on the actual billet) where all his utilities are paid for – is it not? So that 48K you speak of is for what exactly?
See what is happening…anyone can pick apart a benefit given to another – but it serves not real purpose and eventually feeds into our proclivities for sinful envy and jealousy.
Cash allowance, bro. You need to get up to speed here.
And are you now classifying the HA as a mere “benefit” like others?
“Not to mention it would clearly violate the first amendment.”
The housing allowance already violates it, so that sort of removes any grounds for complaint.
No it does not violate the constitution. The proposed solutions we have seen on this stream would though.
It does not violate because it does not establish or favor a specific religion (instead it treats them all the same) and it does not entangle the govt. in the operation of the church (by requiring a bureaucratic standard be met before it being considered a valid church)
*bureaucratic spending standard*
It establishes a preference for religion. That it doesn’t single out a particular religion is beside the point.
Housing deductions could be said to “establish a preference” toward home ownership…is that unconstitutionally discriminatory toward renters?
Business write offs could be said to “establish a preference” is that unconstitutionally discriminatory toward those who do not own businesses?
There is nothing in the constitution that prohibits the govt. from favoring the idea of religion in general….that just can’t establish (prefer one over the other) or prohibit the free exercise.
The constitution has nothing to say about renters. It has some definite things to say about religion. It does not say “a particular religion” – it says religion. It is not correct to try and argue that the first amendment is limited to establishing one religion over another rather than constitutionally restricting government action regarding religion period.
Under what basis are you saying the HA is unconstitutional? Tax code or first amendment?
“The constitution has nothing to say about renters.”
No, but it does speak of equal protection, and I am pretty sure that is a basis for the attacks on the the clergy HA.
If the IRS cannot set up “favored status” for one group then it should not be able to set up “favored status” for anyone – right?
Or are you saying that the govt, by the first amendment must always err on the side of bias against religion? I think you would find it very hard to find a founder/signer of the document who would agree with that interpretation.
How does “not favoring religion” translate into “bias against religion”? Whatever is set up for renters is available to religious and non-religious alike. The issue with the housing allowance is that the constitution specifically forbids government from favoring religion but the clergy housing allowance does exactly that.
This points to one of the silly areas of Christian rhetoric today. America was founded as a nation with separation of church and state. The state is supposed to be completely hands-off religion (except in cases where religious practices infringe on the rights of others – ie, polygamous underage marriage, etc) but as we know we do not have a good history in that regard. Historically, our government has shown tremendous favor toward religion – specifically, toward Christianity. Despite our constitution, Christianity has had favored status for most of American history. What we see happening today is an attempt to correct that problem. Christians are crying persecution not because they are being persecuted but because they are slowly losing favored status. You demonstrate this attitude when you seem to indicate that taking away the clergy housing allowance amounts to a bias against religion. It is nothing of the sort – it removes favored treatment that never should have been established to begin with.
It is not really even favoring…that is your language – I used it only to make the point that favoring is not prohibited in the constitution and that the govt., within the bounds of the constitution, does all sorts of things that could be considered “favoring”.
The only reason you are arguing that the clergy HA should be taken away is from an standpoint of bias against religion as you are not arguing for it to be taken away from others who receive it – only those who are religious. That is textbook bias against religion…that is NOT what the founders had in mind with the first amendment and you know it.
Tarheel,
You’re still ignoring the fundamental point: it is the _constitution_ which forbids government from singling out religion for favor. No such constitutional restrictions exist regarding renters. Legislation can provide benefits to select groups as legislators see fit provided there are no constitutional restrictions preventing the action. As it happens, the constitution prohibits singling out religion.
As for motivation on this issue – you sure you want to go there? What about the motivation of ministers who benefit financially from the housing allowance? Talk about a clearly self-serving position. I don’t want government taking any actions regarding religion, favorable or otherwise. Meanwhile, you are quite happy for government to favor you, particularly when it helps your checkbook.
You’re still ignoring the fundamental point: it is the _constitution_ which forbids government from singling out religion for favor.
NO. You are wrong. Reread the first amendment. There is nothing that precludes the government from “singling out religion (in general) for favor”.
The only things the government is precluded from doing is “establishment” or “prohibition” is it!
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”
How exactly does the clergy HA establish an official religion? I will await you profound exposition.
Further – I will resist the urge to return the favor and “attack the man” rather than engage in discussion…I ask you to strive to do the same, please.
Tarheel, you made the first slur regarding motivation. I was responding in kind. Don’t deal what you can’t take.
As for the establishment of religion, first, your focus keeps shifting. I point out the problem with one argument so you jump to another one without commenting on the problem. Second, the constitution does not restrict government from just creating new religions; the language relates to any government action which contributes to the establish of religion, period. Showing favor to religion or religious groups aids in their establishment. Further, the term establishment doesn’t just refer to the creation of something but to its being strengthened, deepened. When the military establishes a foothold in enemy territory, it means more than the first time soldiers are on the field; it includes the ongoing work to secure that foothold from enemy advance.
In the case of religion, laws that favor religion aid in establishing religious groups in society. Less money spent in taxes means more money spent on church matters – more money to strengthen their position in a community, and more money (or incentive, in some cases) for those involved in church work. Such action on the part of government violates the establishment clause. It is government action helping with the establishment of religion.
Finally, as already noted, the constitution speaks of religion generally – any religious activity – not just favoring one religious group over another.
“Tarheel, you made the first slur regarding motivation. I was responding in kind. Don’t deal what you can’t take.”
No. I commented that you are making an argument that the govt. should show bias against religion – that is demonstrated by your posts here. That was not a character slur.
You called me self serving and impugned my integrity – those are character assessments …I asked you to not do that again.
To go another way with this conversation: Here’s what ought to happen.
1. The Freedom From Religion Foundation should apply for the housing exemption.
2. The IRS and the Tax Court of the United States should rule that atheism and agnosticism are religions and should grant the FFRF the housing exemption.
In that case, everyone winds up happy except for the FFRF, which makes everyone else even happier.
Bawahahahahahaha!
yep.
They are a religion after all. 😉
I’m okay with atheism/humanism being classified a religion for the purpose of identification of this sort, similar to what the military has done in recognizing atheist and humanist chaplains (at least what they have technically done). Even though these are no religions, it does make the paperwork a bit easier to add them to the list of “religious preference” checkboxes.
You all might be interested in knowing that sometime in the 50s or 60s (not sure which decade), the Supreme Court ruled that humanism is a religion. Exemptions for Atheistic leaders housing is fine with me. But Chris, don’t forget that the religious freedom issue began in precept and practice with the Baptists of Rhode Island, to wit, Roger Williams and Dr. John Clarke, the latter being much more involved than most folks imagine. And the first synagogue in the New World was founded in Rhode Island and still stands. The idea of religious liberty comes from the Christian and biblical faith, especially from the Baptist branch of it. Even Jefferson knew they were following the example of Williams in Rhode Island. And the Supreme Court in 1792 and in 1892 made two decisions in which it declared the USA was a Christian nation. Some professors in Houston made a survey of founding documents and found that the source for them by 34% came from the Bible and only two other sources, political philosophers, Locke and Montesquieu, by single digits, 8-9%, were the primary sources for our founding documents. O yes, the 1892 decision was based on a 10 years study, and in the 1980s or 90s the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, forget his name, made a study of the issue and wrote it up. D. James Kennedy had a copy of it. I was going to write to the CJ, but other things kept me from doing so. In any case, his conclusion was that it was a Christian nation, too. The point to be made is this: it is the Christian theology and viewpoint that provides the freedoms we enjoy. Witness this: We want to persuade you with what we perceive to be the truth – and not force anyone to accept the faith. So get rid of the Christian philosophy behind this government and very much a part of it, and you will get rid of the religious freedom you enjoy. There are groups that want to do this. Kick the Christians out and then get rid of them entirely. Other groups want to impose their version. The latest is a world religion with all kinds of terrible errors in it, enforcing conformity to one understanding of it. Right now, folks of that view, are using the Atheistic approach to clobber the Baptist view of church, government, etc. You might want to read Carroll Quigley’s Tragedy and Hope. You can even download it, and you can see their religious views on p1139, at least on the copy I downloaded. Another had 1039. You might also want to read Bella Dodd’s Heart of Darkness. And then there is David Barton’s books. I have one which I perused pretty closely. He is not much of a historian, but he has this to be said in his favor: He cites his sources faithfully, sources which do not equivocate. Just consider Congress printing the Bible and supporting missions to the Indians or consider the Northwest Ordinance, which governed the admission of Ohio, etc., into the Union, and it specifies schools being established and the Christian faith being encouraged. Even Jewish folks in the past 20-30 years have written or commented on the fact that they found America’s Christian practitioners and principles to be those very favorable to their freedom too. They were not happy with those of their faith who had attack the idea of the Christian nation. I even wrote a reply to one about prayer, calling attention to the fact that in the Constitutional Convention no less than Benjamin Franklin called for prayer, and the only thing that hindered them from doing it in the convention was that they had no money to pay a preacher to come in and lead them in prayer. You might want to see James Madison’s Notes on the Convention. There is more, but as an Atheist who grew up in a Christian home, I can tell you that the best place for such to occur is a Christian nation and home. No one compels anyone to be a Christian (if they do they are breaking the law as well as the plan of salvation). Well, I must close. My knowledge of American History use to be much more extensive as I taught the subject for two years at South Carolina State College and Political Science for two quarters at Richmond Community College in North Carolina. The idea that this is not a Christian nation is a Johnny-come-lately baloney developed by, among others, the Ivy League schools as the humanists of John Dewey’s views rose to dominate those institutions as well as others. A significant factor in this was Darwinian evolution, and Ben Stein’s Expelled did a very passable job of exposing the weaknesses of the whole approach. I can remember one of my students in my first pastorate who was enrolled in a school of veterinary medicine at a major university in the middle west. He had a course in evolutionary genetics, and the professor teaching it had told the university that he did not believe the subject and would demonstrate how such a view was wrong. The university told him to proceed. But I digress.
That would be interesting. If agnosticism and atheism are judged to be “religions,” then the lack of Christian artifacts (for one example) in a public place would be unconstitutional support for religion–namely, atheism.
So, the only answer would be to have Christian (religious) artifacts alongside of nothing in order to not accommodate one religion over another.
The ACLJ could go to any public place that does not have a Christian symbol and sue because “nothing” is there in its place.
Wow! So, something really can come from “nothing.”
Jack,
Nice twisting and turning, but “nothing” does not constitute atheism advocacy the same way a cross might. Hang up some quotes from Dawkins or Hitchens commenting on religion and you might have a case.
So there are “sacred writings”? 😉
Of course: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000SEGJ80?btkr=1
Are you guys that are arguing to do away with the housing allowance or to cap it – would you also argue to require churches to pay one half of FICA tax?
Churches may already do this if they wish. The two are not exactly related on a legal basis.
I haven’t seen anyone but Chris (I think) argue that the HA should be eliminated. I’m not among that group.
I do get the concept that clergy wish to protect that tax break at all costs and with virtually any means. I see it every time this comes up.
I do think it should be phased out over time. Not all at once due to the financial hardship that could cause pastors, but there does need to be a plan implemented to scrap it over time.
My, my, Chris: Just forget about the history of freedom of religion in this country, forget about the source of it, forget about the Supreme Court decisions in 1792 & 1882, forget about the Christian ministers encouraging their young men to enlist in the patriots cause, forget about the fact that neither my ancestors or my predecessors would stand for a moment of your intolerance of their descendants having the freedom for which they fought, forget about Benjamin Franklin calling for prayer in the Constitutional Convention, forget about the Northwest Ordinance speaking of establishing schools to teach the Christian faith, forget about the fact that the Atheists and the Agnostics now have things going their way, while believers are being shoved aside. I don’t think so. Your simply promoting the latest guff from the Ivy Leaguers who have sold out to the international financiers in the 20th century, and if you could see the effects on your children and grandchildren and great grands of what you advocate….Try standing in a corner while a man and a woman threaten to murder one another, try having the Christian Faith change that man to the point where the woman acknowledges it as genuine. Well, you can’t I guess until God opens your blind eyes, unstops your deaf ears, takes away your stony heart and gives you a heart of flesh. And you want to get rid of this in order to bring us the outlandish evils of the secular governments of the old Soviet Union. Have you ever read Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s works? Have you looked at the despair of the masses under atheism in that country? Or the meaningless hedonism of Europe’s secular systems?
“forget about the fact that neither my ancestors or my predecessors would stand for a moment of your intolerance of their descendants having the freedom for which they fought”
Forget about most of your incoherent rantings, I’m curious about this one – just what would your ancestors or predecessors have done to me?
Answer to Chris: They probably would have invited you as they did the British to leave. Which would only be fair as you have, evidently, no desire to allow any free practice of faith (except, perhaps, that within the four walls of a church building….and God forbid that any of the believers should speak of their faith outside the four walls). Having been an Atheist as I pointed out, it is to be noted that one can practice his or her unbelief here, openly, as you are doing, but it is only fair that if your going to shove believers out of the public forum as certainly as some of the other unbelievers like Dawkins we should push back. And if I rant, you rave.
James,
Yes, because we all know “The American Way” is “inviting” people to leave when they do things or argue for things Christians don’t like.
As for the free exercise of faith, you’ve clearly not been paying attention. I don’t want to hinder you practicing your faith in any way. But nor do I want government subsidizing your faith. Nor do I want you imposing your faith on others through legislation.
Don’t worry Dr. J.,
If history is any indication just wait a year or two and Chris Roberts may be doggedly arguing a totally different line of thought than he is right now and doing with just as much gusto.
Tarheel,
Well, following the time frame, it would be more like 35 years if it will compare to the amount of time I was a Christian. Though to be fair you can trim a few years off of that since I was a wee lad for the first few years. Granted, it was still a rather long time that I was a Christian; I’m a slow learner.
From Guidestone:
“Churches must not pay FICA for anyone who is a Minister for Tax Purposes . Some churches want to help their ministers with the burden of self- employment (SECA) taxes . They may pay ministers a Social Security ‘allow- ance’ or ‘offset,’ but this amount is income for both federal income taxes and self-employment (SECA) taxes .”
No matter what they wish to do, churches may not legally pay the employer’s portion of FICA. They may choose to pay their ministers a higher salary in consideration of the tax situation that their ministers face, but they may not choose to treat them as regular employees.
Did…still do. I’d be quite safe if the HA were capped. Megapastors like Dave Miller might be concerned, though.
I don’t think you have anything to worry about.
I think there is a wrinkle to this that permits a one time election by the church…but since it doesnt come up much, I’m rusty on the details.
The SECA tax is related to the HA exclusion only in that both affect the good reverend’s pocketbook.
I can’t think of a rationale in constitutional law to find the allowance constitutional but cap it at some amount. Either the practice violates the Establishment Clause or it does not. Why would it violate the Establishment Clause at one dollar amount but not at another?
Jon [Whitehead], attorney, is well versed in this, moreso than I in many ways, although there are serious arguments against some of his assertions. But I appreciate his contributions here on the subject.
The idea of a cash HA being a “convenience of the employer” for a minister’s owned home is an argument that is both touchy in a church-state way and also one that strains credibility.
“I do get the concept that clergy wish to protect that tax break at all costs and with virtually any means. I see it every time this comes up.”
I do not mean this in any way to be a slight I’m just asking for clarification purposes.
You’re a retired pastor right? Did you accept a housing allowance as a pastor? If so, may we know what amount and percentage it was of your salary so we may ascertain whether or not it was appropriate?
After all since you’re making pontifications, assessments and comments about the appropriateness of otheres HA’s may we examine whether your amounts and percentages were appropriate in our minds?
Chris: You also seem to forget that the ministers and Baptists in particular made an agreement with the colonial legislators as in Virginia that, in exchange for their freedom to practice their faith, they would encourage the young men in their communities to enlist in the Patriots Cause. Now you want to undo the agreement. I am willing to do many things that Atheists might feel free to practice their unbelief, even to the point of giving some intellectual (?) leader who speaks to them once a week in some assembly the freedom to have a tax deductible housing or housing allowance. But I am not willing to back out of the public arena and not express my faith or find a place in that forum to express it. Your aim is more, even if you don’t say so. After all, to you, we are ignorant, etc., but the truth be told and it is another matter. Besides we have what you apparently don’t have, a history of support for the American Revolution. Wonder what the Atheists in Washington’s day would have done, when he called for prayer in the Army and in the colonies for God’s help in the rebellion? And what would you have done, when he kissed the Bible at his inauguration? And what would you have done, when he encouraged the Native Americans to receive Christ Jesus as Lord and Savior? And what would you have done, when he encouraged the missionary effort to evangelize the Native Americans (some of whom are my ancestors)? I think, if you will look a bit more close, Chris, that my rant involves historical facts and reality. And I noticed that you had no comment about my quoting of Madison’s notes and his recording of Franklin’s call for prayer during the Constitutional Convention. O by the way in the matter of Franklin, he admitted that prayers had been made in that very chamber for God’s help in the Revolution, for safety, etc. And he said he believed those prayers were answered. Not bad for an old Deist would you say?
James,
Even if such an agreement ever took place (which I very much doubt) there is no such agreement today. There is no agreement to be undone. I will note that you continue to surprise me with the silly notions you seem to believe.
As for the Native Americans, I’m sure they appreciated the evangelistic smallpox blankets they received and the way they were “invited” to leave White Man’s Territory only to die in massive numbers during forced relocation – that is, those who survived the slaughter that led up to such relocations.
As for the prayers and such of the early Americans, thank you for noting more instances in which the Constitution was violated, even by its crafters. They were already violating it with slavery, why not with religion, too. We corrected (mostly) the slavery problem, now we’re working on the religion problem, to great effect.
Chris: Do you suppose you might be a little presumptuous in calling me silly? I always try to be careful, when I go up against a fellow with a lot of education and experience. Tell me about your education and experience. I take it from the way you discuss matters that you are not coming from an in-depth and in-detail position. If you knew about the Revolution and the launching of the American Republic, you would know that the war was fought by folks who were for the most part professing Christians of one sort or another. Those who acted to the contrary came up against the order of General Washington to cease and desist from cursing. Imagine that! Anyway, I notice that you made no comment about my reference to Ben Franklin’s call for prayer in the Constitutional Convention and Madison’s record of the same in his notes on that august event. Could it be that you recognized that it would undo your pathetic little arguments. And yes, of course, not all the agreements were signed, sealed, and delivered as such could lead to a long drop at the end of a short rope or to be hung, drawn, and quartered or whatever the law of the British Empire called for. But people would later recite and/or refer to those agreements, and we do find such items in our history books (except for the more recent ones such as those that assert that the Pilgrims gave thanks to the Indians whereas one Black High School Student told me he said, “That’s a lie. The Pilgrims gave thanks to God.” Quite a bit of rewriting of history wouldn’t you say?).
I doubt that you have either the education or the experience to really discuss the matter. However, I would call attention to the efforts of the ACLU and its threats of lawsuit which put an end to the opening prayer by ministers, priests, rabbis, mullahs, witchcraft practitioners, and statements by atheists and agnostics in, at least some, city councils here in North Carolina. Just think: An organization founded and funded by an Atheist who was also a Communist to attack religion and everything else American becoming the cause of ending the rights of those whose ancestors and predecessors had earned such for them. Ever do much research, Chris? Elijah Craig, the chairman of the committee that met with the colonial legislators in Va. and made the agreement, went back to his community, and along with other Craigs who were preachers, the encouraged the young men in their community to enlist in the Patriots Cause. And, get this, every member of one of those regiments had the same last name, Craig (which happens to be the maiden name of my grandmother who raised me and who named my son). How do I know that? I came across a copy of the roster in the DAR and copied every one of some 2000 names, sometimes using ditto marks. Do you really want to take me on, dear brother. Are you aware of the fact that your views are coming from the past century where there had been a major change in understanding and interpreting American History? That change totally ignores the views of the Founders who surely knew what they were writing along with the judges, legislators, and executive branch people who succeeded them in the century that followed (and I would add, century and a half, allowing for what I read in a soldiers New Testament and Psalms which had a statement from President Franklin D. Roosevelt).
Dr. J, it is not “education” he lacks, at least not the main issue.
He has an ax to grind with God and he takes it out on anyone who does not share his unbelief.
Why do you bother?
I’ve read your posts for years and I appreciate all the time you have put into trying to learn more.
You are an inspiration to me and I am sure to many others.
Thanks for sharing.
Jack,
Including his ideas about gravity holes between the earth and the moon and international conglomerates in control of governments, etc, etc?
Gravity holes between the earth and moon? Come again, Chris? Do you mean a gravity warp? That is what I was referencing and not a hole? And you seem to be revealing your lack of knowledge, since the knowledge about gravity warps comes from Einstein. Anyway, I think Jack has your number. You, indeed, seem to have an axe to grind with God. Jack, I take the time, because I once had the same axe to grind although it was much longer ago. There is also the hope that something will be said that might catch his attention in his ideological and intellectual confusion and misery that will prove advantageous and helpful. After all, God is able to strike a straight blow with a crooked stick. The fact that Chris avoids the facts I do cite from American History, e.g., the report of James Madison in his Notes on the Constitutional Convention concerning Benjamin Franklin’s request for prayer and his testimony to the answers to prayers made in that place, is quite illuminating as to his limited resources. From what he has said about the length of his profession, it is obvious that I have been a believer for longer than he has been alive. I grieve for him and his family, because I have a friend whose son turned to atheism some years ago and recently died. What a blow to his father and mother. It is enough to make one weep at the mere thought. We do not know how many family members are touched by what Chris has done, nor how many friends. We also do not know what evils some who profess to being Christian have done to him just as we do not know what disappointments he might have had which served to justify his unbelief. In my case, it was the loss of both parents at the age of three due to divorce and then being relinquished to grandparents who were poor and having to work as sharecroppers to keep body and soul together. My thought as I grew up was, “How could there be a God and let things happen to little children such as had happened to me.” The really sad part is that far worse things were indeed happening to children in those years, things I would later see in pictures taken by a member of my second pastorate, pictures of a concentration camp in Germany near the end of World War II, pictures that gave me nightmares as did the writings of an Inquisitor about the persecution of the Waldensians in the 13th century and as did the records of treatment of slaves in the old South before the Civil War (I read those records while I was teaching at a Black school).
Chris is a sad example of how certain ways of thinking can work, ways which outlets for the inward inclinations and problems of a sinful nature. I can remember all too well how my thinking was skeptical, doubtful, and cynical. Nothing was persuasive, and I was doing a fair job of persuading others to give up their Christian commitments in my high school years. Then the Lord showed up and all of that was undone. Along the lines what C.S. Lewis, the former Atheist, said, I could say: I was hauled unwilling, determined to escape the reality of that Presence which was coming to grips with my soul, bringing it to life and light.
Thank you, Jack, for your encouragement. The Christian life is one where the followers of the way must help one another in order to make it. My prayer is that the Lord would pour oil and ointment on the wounds of Chris and bind them up in his tender love like the good Samaritan did for the poor man who had been robbed and left for dead on the Jericho road (Lk.10:25-37).
“…just as we do not know what disappointments he might have had which served to justify his unbelief…”
Actually, you do know. I’ve told you. Repeatedly. I can’t help that the truth does not fit conveniently within your presupposed narrative. But there were no disappointments, no hurts, no pains or sorrows. It was the cold, hard light of reason that changed my mind.
Dr. J. I think there comes a point that the Bible demands we let a reprobate go to his or her own ends. If an atheist was (is) a friend or close associate, I would dialogue with them as long as what I said was taken seriously.
So many atheists like to say that they came to their position “by reason,” which is actually a soft ad hominem argument implying that no reasonable person would come to a theistic position.
That is, in fact, nonsense. There is an abundance of reasonable foundation for rejecting atheism. Atheism, as I’ve said before is a moral position, not an intellectual one. It is only thinly veneered as intellectual.
So, I greatly appreciate your willingness to dialogue with those who reject the faith as a matter of course. I would do differently, but we are each individuals and I would never suppose I can tell you what God would have you do in a specific instance.
Keep sharing. It helps keep me humble. I cannot believe how much I do not know and I have been a student all my life.
Dear Jack: For me, the time to quit is when they die. Not saying, I might not give up on some, but I remember having no sense of God in spite of the efforts of many, including those of my dear sister, D.L.’s wife. I remember telling her to take her old namby pamby religion and go jump out the window. She, of course, being tender hearted, started crying, and then Mom came in and rained all over my parade, meaning, she told me that that was not going to be allowed and she was not crying. Everyone must make up his or her mind as to how far he or she can go in dealing with a recalcitrant unbeliever. Far be it from me to judge another in this matter. However, I think we need to remember that God will deal with souls – even when we quit dealing with them. He is not limited in striving with sinners. We suffer all kinds of limitations.
I think you are right that atheism is a moral position, not an intellectual one. However, you will play hob trying to persuade an atheist of that reality. I knew about the great change in my grandfather, but it had no appeal to me until after the Lord had saved me. Then the first person I wanted to tell about my conversion was him. Years later (about 11) I would preach his funeral and four years after that I would preach my grandmother’s, then read a statement at the funeral of my mother, half-sisters, and step-father’s funeral, and preach the funeral of an afflicted uncle about two months after that. In other words, in about seven months I attended the funerals of six people with whom I had lived in two homes at various times in my life.
This life is full of griefs and sorrows seemingly beyond belief and the capacities of humans to endure. I did experience during that funeral for my mother and sisters and step-father a Presence so real, so helpful, so comforting, so providing of joy at such a strange time, that I look back on it as one of the most remarkable in my Christian pilgrimage. About a month before that tragedy I had an experience of that Presence (of Jesus), invisible, and yet more real than if He had been physically present before me, preparation, I think, for what was to follow. A lot of people, literally thousands, I think, were praying for us in that grievous time. My dad learned of the tragedy out in California, having seen it on the national news.
I feel for Chris as I am fully aware of the way the world is set up by Satan to provoke doubt. And as to real reason and evidence, etc., they have little to do with the whole affair. What is funny, as most intellectual historians are aware, is that the scientific method takes its rise out of Christian theology. I have known this more many, many years, and just recently I saw advertised a set of books by a Christian minister who had also been chairman of the Math dept. at Cambridge University and a professor who taught Isaac Newton. In fact, the fellow could be called in today’s computer vernacular the precursor of calculus. In fact, Wikipedia has an interesting presentation about him. Anyway, I must quit as it is late, and I could teach courses about the stuff we are discussing.
“I feel for Chris as I am fully aware of the way the world is set up by Satan to provoke doubt.”
Please explain this a bit more. Did Satan hide the fossils under the earth? Did Satan provide transitional fossils? Did Satan place the stars and galaxies so far apart as to reveal vast amounts of time required for light to spread from one to another? Did Satan put stellar formation throughout the cosmos in various stages so that we can study the process and determine how long it takes to make the stars and how long those stars and systems in formation had been working to get to that point? Etc, etc. The seeds of doubt are found in nature herself, something which Christians claim proclaims the glory of God. On the contrary, it is nature that helps us to realize the biblical claims regarding creation and numerous other phenomena cannot possibly be true.
If you wish to argue that Satan is the creator then your statement above might have merit. But if God is in fact creator, one wonders why he tried to hard to fool so many people with his creation.
Chris: When the field of geology was founded, it was founded by scientists of that day (in the 1600s) who came to explain the fossils as evidence of the flood. Catastrophism is not a dead issue as many seem to think. And I am well aware as you do not seem to be that there are serious problems with the theory of evolution and with the evidence that so many think is in favor of it. You might want to see Ben Stein’s Expelled. But I find it is better to let people find out for themselves, if they are willing to spend the time and the effort. I did do research on the issue and have had membership in various professional organizations, but the issue is not the evidence. It is the interpretation of the evidence. Have you ever followed the money trail behind the theory and its dominance in the Western world? Just like the wars, it is a charade which has for its goal the financial and other purposes of those who are behind the scenes. Really, Chris, let us talk about the disappointments and let downs you had as a professing Christian and as a minister. I suspect Jack is right in implying that something along that line is your real problem. Now I must get off tonight as I have a heart condition and take care of a spouse with one, too. Ever study agape love, Chris? I spent 2 years doing research on the Greek of I Cors.12:31b-14:1a. Amazing reality and power.
“Really, Chris, let us talk about the disappointments and let downs you had as a professing Christian and as a minister.”
Evidently you missed my above comment.
No, I did not miss it Chris. I think God has control over Satan as is indicated in the Book of Job. Your argument is not with me; it is with God, and I noticed you ignored my remark about my physical limitations. Can it be that Atheism could care less in its vindictive desire to crush its opponent?
I meant my earlier reply about disappointments, etc.
Chris,
Why does God hide?
If there is a God, why doesn’t He reveal Himself to everyone?
Why did Jesus only reveal His risen self to a comparably few?
Because He wants to be grasped by faith alone.
Why can’t we trust fossil records to prove origins or beginnings?
Why can’t we use mathematical formulas to determine the age of stars?
Why isn’t carbon dating [& etc.] acceptable to many people of faith?
Because God wants to be grasped by faith alone.
True and proper scientific methods can not determine origins/beginnings. It can not replicate the actual environment because it doesn’t know all the variables present in the past.
Those scientist who postulate theories of that nature are just guessing. Its not science, its religion. And a poor one at that.
Very good Mike, and one wonders whether Chris has ever heard of Quantum Algebra and the fellow who set forth the theory that the Universe is only 6-10,000 years old, that God stretched out the Heavens which would explain a whole lot of the anomalies. There are depths and details to this whole issue of the past, and our present methods are inadequate to the task in many instances. The idea that we can such a document as our Bible concerning its record of events of yore often gets confirmed in strange ways. Just consider the names of the high priests Annas and Caiaphas; they found their graves. There has also been the finding of the inscription that records Pilate’s name. There is more, but as a historian I am always amazed at how reliable the Holy Writ is, how it proves to speak accurately, when one discovers the facts involved. I spent 6 years doing research in church history, setting out to prove the Landmark theory (only a local visible church in linked chain connections) only to prove it false (and yet right about the nature of the local church, congregational), that the doctrine of the church is twofold, spiritual, invisible, and universal as well as local, visible and congregational, of truths two-sided, designed to set up a tension in the mind that enable one to be balanced, flexible, creative, constant, and magnetic, able to respond appropriately to a given situation, even one of atheistic skepticism, though it is not always apprarent and ready to hand but must be careful thought and reasoned out. God calls on us to think. The first thing Jesus called for was repentance, a change of mind based upon thinking and reflection, and then comes the faith. At least that is the way I understand it these days. And even faith requires evidence, none of this leap in the dark, though there are some things to be said for a leap in the light.