# US Christian fundamentalism



## carpe

I wonder where the key about this extremely fundamentalism is.I think maybe in the less history years in America's history. That means they are not yet mature enough . In comparison with religion in Europe ,US fundamentalism is unbelievable,*why?*
Do you see a way of life only look who christians are and who not .They who are,I may meet them, they who are not, I don't give them a chance to know more about those people (new people ) *besides religion's belief.* Is that nice to close so many doors just because a religion's faith? People is wonderful whichever religion they believe in. IS the fundamentalism I'm living at this moment correctly? THis fundamentalism that does not give you a chance to learn more about another point of view,that only gives you this way of life and why not some other ways of life will be criticized. Is that proper ,is that a tolerated view how to accept another cultures ?

give me your opinions , please 
thank you


----------



## mplsray

carpe said:


> I wonder where the key about this extremely fundamentalism is.I think maybe in the less history years in America's history. That means they are not yet mature enough . In comparison with religion in Europe ,US fundamentalism is unbelievable,*why?*


 
The Constitutionally-guaranteed separation of church and state which, ironically, Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals are now in the process of undermining, constitutes one of the reasons, I expect.

(By the way, what can it possibly mean to say that a country is "not yet mature enough"? How can a country's "maturity" be measured?)


----------



## Keikikoka

I would hazard a guess that a majority of Americans are rather politically moderate, not particularly left or right in the political spectrum. It just happens that our few extremist christians are move vocal than the average American christian and have political influence... I think this happens on both ends of the political field. Because the extermists are the most vocal, they are more likely to be candidates and consequently, political officers. I think that can make the US appear more polarized as a whole than it actually is.


----------



## JamesM

I'm not quite sure what the premise is here. Is it "Why is extreme fundamentalism in the US unbelievable?" I can't think of much to contribute to that, much as I'd like to. It's obviously believable to the extreme fundamentalists. 

Comparing it to religion in Europe, though, is definitely comparing apples and oranges. Many of the groups that ended up in the U.S. ended up here precisely because they were not tolerated, to the point of execution, in Europe. What is left in Europe, then, is more of a monolithic institution, at least in Southern Europe (France, Italy, Spain) rather than a thriving religious diversity. Whether you like certain aspects or manifestations of it or not, the U.S. is actually a very diverse community of various faiths and various expression of each of those faiths. 

I don't think Fundamentalism is related to the relative age of the country, but to the religious background of the country and the nature of those who first emigrated here from Europe. I think it also contributed to our doctrine of separation of Church and State, which has served to provide an environment where a wide range of religious communities can spring up - some of which will be unavoidably objectionable to someone somewhere.

I do believe that our politics are often immature, partially because of our century of isolation from interaction with other countries by choice, and partially because of our geographical location. The way we deal with other countries often strikes me as adolescent, at best, but we have a unique history that has not given us any time under another country's domination, or a failed war on our home soil, or many of the other sobering experiences that mature the politics of a country.

The religious side of things, though, is a different matter, in my opinion. Keep in mind that we have never had the experience of the Church being a political force equal to or greater than the political or royal one. There is no "the Church" for us. This difference was brought home to me when I recently traveled to Paris and saw the great destruction wreaked on Notre Dame and other religious buildings during their Revolution. Had I dealt with a church that sapped the life and wealth out of my country in order to be so self-indulgent and politically entwined, I can see where I would hate the symbols of such an institution and want to destroy them, in spite of the great loss of beauty and history that went with it. We have had no such experience here. "The church" refers to that building five blocks down, not to some religious/political powerhouse that dominated the landscape (literally and figuratively) for hundreds of years. We are all, in part, a product of our country's history. That is also important to remember.


----------



## mplsray

JamesM said:


> .
> 
> I do believe that our politics are often immature, partially because of our century of isolation from interaction with other countries by choice, and partially because of our geographical location. The way we deal with other countries often strikes me as adolescent, at best, but we have a unique history that has not given us any time under another country's domination, or a failed war on our home soil, or many of the other sobering experiences that mature the politics of a country.


 
I would argue, on the contrary, that a good part of the US _did _experience occupation by another country after having lost a war--namely the South after the US Civil War. The results of this affected our politics up to the 1960s, and indeed affect us even today, as a result of the racial progressiveness of the Democratic Party of Lyndon Johnson leading Southerners to abandon that party for the Republicans.


----------



## JamesM

mplsray said:


> I would argue, on the contrary, that a good part of the US _did _experience occupation by another country after having lost a war--namely the South after the US Civil War. The results of this affected our politics up to the 1960s, and indeed affect us even today, as a result of the racial progressiveness of the Democratic Party of Lyndon Johnson leading Southerners to abandon that party for the Republicans.


 
Yes, I thought about that after I read what I wrote, mplsray. I should have been more specific. We have not experienced a failed war on our home soil against another country since our formation. Our Civil War is something we're still dealing with. I agree. It doesn't seem to give us much insight on international diplomacy and politics, though, in my opinion. (Of course, you could argue that, technically, the South was another country at the time of the war, but I think you get my point. We have not experienced a hundred years of rule by a dominating Canadian or Mexican overlord, for example.  )


----------



## carpe

mplsray said:


> The Constitutionally-guaranteed separation of church and state which, ironically, Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals are now in the process of undermining, constitutes one of the reasons, I expect.
> 
> (By the way, what can it possibly mean to say that a country is "not yet mature enough"? How can a country's "maturity" be measured?)


 
How interesting is getting this..Yes , at the end you named that , maturity. US country never had something to base his history on, I mean anything with a strong and long basis, that's what europe has.
I don't wanna hurt anybody with my opinions, maybe I'm just too hard regarding my opinions ,but I'm free to say them.I'm sorry if someone get offended,seriously.
By the way the separation about church and state is an important point in this topic,isn't it? I'm asking because I don't know really the consequenzes about the small history in US.
Thank you


----------



## Nunty

I live in country where each of the three major (primary? best known?) monotheistic religoins has a strong fundamentalist faction. Two are often supported by US and British adherents (I am speaking from personal experience that I will be glad to specify, but by PM only), and the other by adherents from other countries. Money seems to pay a significant role.

That does nothing to detract from the sincere and fervent faith that plays an even greater role. (Again, personal experience speaking.) I think that American fundamentalism is particularly noticeable because of the sort-of loudness of American culture and the particular role played by the US in geopolitics and world culture these days, but it is not a uniquely American phenomenon.

(Linguistic footnote: I greatly prefer "USan" to "American" when I am not referring to an entire continent, but I didn't want to change terms in the middle of a thread.)


----------



## cuchuflete

I'm not sure what the thread topic is, but I'll take it on as broadly as possible.

1. Maturity: Yes, the US is a relatively "young" country, but less young than most of the other countries in the Americas.
Would you tie maturity to religious practice in Paraguay, a younger country?  Rather than maturity, I think the nature of religion in the US, and particularly its effects on the social and political attitudes and actions of any members of a particular religion, is a function of our particular history.  JamesM has described that very usefully.

2- History:  Many of the religions in the US were persecuted in Europe, so there is a continuity of history of the religions and their members.  Other religions were those of a strong, even dominant majority in a European country, and were and sometimes still are minority religions here.  Majorities take things like political influence for granted, while minorities display lots of different behavior patterns.

3- Fragmentation:  I live in a very small town, about 1600 residents.  Together with the adjoining towns, we are some five or six thousand people spread over a very large area.  One of the things that might surprise a European visiting here is the large number of churces of different religions, all serving this very small population.  There are dozens of churches, nearly every one for a different religion.  There is no spillover from this religious fragmentation into the way we act as a cohesive social community.  I have lived here nearly four years, and in that time no person has ever asked me what church I belong to.  

4- Role of religion:  Far more US residents attend some church than in most European countries.  Roughly a fifth of
the people claim no religious affiliation, and the rest associate themselves with some religion.  The difference in church attendence between the US and Europe is notable.  In many European countries, people set foot in a church only for weddings, funerals, and one or two major holidays.  In contrast, very large numbers of US citizens are fairly regular churchgoers.  

5- Isolation by religion:  Post #1 implies that members of some evangelical religions self-seggregate.  I have no personal experience of this, but I don't doubt that it happens in some places.  Does this make sense?  Part of my cultural tradition says that people have a right to behave this way, and that it is their own choice.  It may not make any sense to me personally (It doesn't!), but I respect the rights of members of the Church of the XRTDI#WXX to keep company with like-minded individuals only.  

Consider the behavior of Christians in Europe in the earliest days of Christianity.  They were a tiny minority, with values different from the majority.  Did they isolate themselves socially, mostly keeping company with fellow Christians, other than for carrying their message to potential converts? 

Finally, I'll take a risk, and open a related line of discussion.  Many evangelical, fundamentalist religious people are—to outsiders at least—very "hard core".  They are strenuous and dedicated and often very vocal about their beliefs, both in terms of their religion itself, and their opinions about society and how it ought to behave and be legally structured.  Could it be that this behavior pattern leads non-members who don't share those fundamentalist beliefs to avoid the fundamentalists, thus leaving them isolated?


----------



## Brioche

mplsray said:


> The Constitutionally-guaranteed separation of church and state which, ironically, Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals are now in the process of undermining, constitutes one of the reasons, I expect.


 
The US constitution says: *"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; *

I don't think that there is any move in the US to establish a religion, or prohibit the free exercise of religion.


----------



## tvdxer

carpe said:


> I wonder where the key about this extremely fundamentalism is.I think maybe in the less history years in America's history. That means they are not yet mature enough . In comparison with religion in Europe ,US fundamentalism is unbelievable,*why?*



It depends what you mean by "fundamentalism".  There is the actual, accurate definition of Christian fundamentalism (which I assume you are speaking about), which is a system of interpreting the bible literally, word for word.  A true Christian fundamentalist might say something like the world is 6,000 years old, for example.  I am not a Christian fundamentalist personally, and don't care much for that belief system, though I still have respect for them, as for anybody else.

On the other hand, you have the same word thrown around by the secular left, many of whom inhabit this forum, yet used in a different sense.  This version of "fundamentalism" is a brainless bogeyman, used by SL's to describe anybody whose belief system is rooted in Christian tradition and does not match their own (who are the "intolerant" ones here?).  So, those who believe that unborn children have a right to life from the moment of conception (hardly a belief reserved to Christians, although secular leftists automatically interpret the pro-life stance as "Christian fundamentalist patriarchy!"), who think that marriage is sacred and should be reserved to the traditional one-man one-woman form (even though many or most non-Christian belief systems hold this view as well), or even those who are not troubled by politicians using "God" or "Jesus" (although this can be troubling if used in the wrong sense, I admit).  To secular leftists, these "fundamentalists" are the antithesis of progress towards a more advanced, utopian society that disrespects life before birth, sees nothing sacred in marriage, sex, or anything else for that matter (except perhaps the non-human environment), is godless for the most part, and sees morals as relative and in reality meaningless. 

So one really needs to be careful about what terms they use, and the outsider must be especially careful in interpreting terms used by the American Left.

As for why "fundamentailsm" is a greater force in Europe than the U.S., you will need to tell me which you are referring to.  The true fundamentalism I mentioned earlier probably stems from the fact that the U.S. is much more diverse in terms of Christian denominations than most any European country, many of which are rather monolithic religiously (e.g. traditionally Catholicism in Spain, Lutheranism in Finland, Anglicanism in England, etc.).  This allows minority religious groups with rather extreme interpretations to gain ground.

If, on the other hand, you are wondering why the force of religion is much weaker in Europe than in the United States in public and daily life, I really don't know what to say.  I have wondered this myself for a couple of years now.



> Do you see a way of life only look who christians are and who not .They who are,I may meet them, they who are not, I don't give them a chance to know more about those people (new people ) *besides religion's belief.* Is that nice to close so many doors just because a religion's faith? People is wonderful whichever religion they believe in. IS the fundamentalism I'm living at this moment correctly? THis fundamentalism that does not give you a chance to learn more about another point of view,that only gives you this way of life and why not some other ways of life will be criticized. Is that proper ,is that a tolerated view how to accept another cultures ?
> 
> give me your opinions , please
> thank you



I'm not sure exactly what you mean.  I fit the secular left's definition of a "fundamentalist", yet I am perfectly accepting and tolerant of those from other religions: I have had Hindu, Muslim, and atheist friends, and I got along perfectly fine with them.   Their faith or lack thereof did not deter me from them.  And I am perfectly willing to learn about other cultures and ways of life....this is actually one of my greatest interests.


----------



## ps139

Brioche said:


> The US constitution says: *"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; *
> 
> I don't think that there is any move in the US to establish a religion, or prohibit the free exercise of religion.


There's definitely not. It's a nonsense argument.


----------



## JamesM

Brioche said:


> The US constitution says: *"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; *
> 
> I don't think that there is any move in the US to establish a religion, or prohibit the free exercise of religion.


 
No, and I think to state it in such a way is a mistake.  However, there is a shift in American society (at the risk of repeating another thread) that is going beyond separation of Church and State and treating it more like a separation of religion and the public arena.  This is not establishing a new religion, nor is it prohibiting the free exercise of religion within the confines of religious institutions, but it is moving beyond neutrality, in my opinion, to a condition where freedom of expression is defined differently for religious thought than it is for non-religious thought.

That doesn't make much of a rallying cry when you want to muster the troops, though.   So I think it gets couched in very inaccurate characterizations that are nevertheless effective in stirring up public sentiment.

There is a phrase that is often used these days in the U.S. that is a misquote of a basic principle of the U.S. founding documents.  People often say "freedom _from_ religion" rather than "freedom _of_ religion."  Just as there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that establishes a religion, there is nothing that guarantees the U.S. public from a public environment free of religion.  This slogan is often used as if it _is_ the guarantee of the Constitution.  

Certainly anyone should have the right in the U.S. to live a life personally free of religion, but this does not mean that they are guaranteed the right of avoiding any encounter with religious ideas in a public (not State, but public) arena.  This is as absurd an idea as the idea that a new religion is being formed.  It is an unexamined belief, though, of many people I have met.


----------



## mplsray

Brioche said:


> The US constitution says: *"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; *
> 
> I don't think that there is any move in the US to establish a religion, or prohibit the free exercise of religion.


 
The attempt to put up the Ten Commandments in public (government) places was declared by the Supreme Court to be a violation of the Establishment Clause, the clause you cite above. That's just one example. Public prayer said at public school graduation exercises was another, also struck down by the Court. Putting _In God We Trust_ on US currency is another (the Court has not decided upon that last point).


----------



## JamesM

mplsray said:


> The attempt to put up the Ten Commandments in public (government) places was declared by the Supreme Court to be a violation of the Establishment Clause, the clause you cite above. That's just one example. Public prayer said at public school graduation exercises was another, also struck down by the Court. Putting _In God We Trust_ on US currency is another (the Court has not decided upon that last point).


 
Prayer at a public school graduation, though, is a legitimate example of a mingling of Church and State, in my opinion.  It can be argued that prayer at a public school graduation is representative of the majority of those attending.  It can also be argued that the public school is an extension of the State and that religion is not a part of its function.  I think part of what clarifies it is if you picture a different U.S.  If, hypothetically speaking, the population of the U.S. became predominantly Muslim, would a Christian fully support the right of Muslim prayers to be said at a public school graduation as representative of the community?  

The 10 Commandments issue is a bit trickier.  I can see both a historical and religious character to their inclusion in a public setting.  The one that definitely got me to thinking was the removal of a monument from a public building that include portions of the Code of Hammurabi, the Quran, and the 10 Commandments as a momument to historical precepts and codes of justice that have influenced our present-day system.  To me, this is a monument that had artistic, historic, and cultural value along with the inclusion of a religious text.  No one objected to the Code of Hammurabi or the Quran.  The monument was removed because it included the 10 commandments. This is "overcorrection", in my opinion.  It is erring on the side of exclusion to avoid the appearance of promotion.


----------



## mplsray

carpe said:


> How interesting is getting this..Yes , at the end you named that , maturity. US country never had something to base his history on, I mean anything with a strong and long basis, that's what europe has.
> I don't wanna hurt anybody with my opinions, maybe I'm just too hard regarding my opinions ,but I'm free to say them.I'm sorry if someone get offended,seriously.
> By the way the separation about church and state is an important point in this topic,isn't it? I'm asking because I don't know really the consequenzes about the small history in US.
> Thank you


 

What possible difference does it make whether a country is young or old? France has a long history--Does that really have the slightest effect on decisions its leaders make on contemporary matters? I very much doubt it.

I'm not denying that history is useful, _but studying the history of another country is just as useful as studying the history of one's own,_ so whether one's country is young or old is irrelevant.


----------



## Victoria32

JamesM said:


> There is a phrase that is often used these days in the U.S. that is a misquote of a basic principle of the U.S. founding documents.  People often say "freedom _from_ religion" rather than "freedom _of_ religion."  Just as there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution that establishes a religion, there is nothing that guarantees the U.S. public from a public environment free of religion.  This slogan is often used as if it _is_ the guarantee of the Constitution.
> 
> Certainly anyone should have the right in the U.S. to live a life personally free of religion, but this does not mean that they are guaranteed the right of avoiding any encounter with religious ideas in a public (not State, but public) arena.  This is as absurd an idea as the idea that a new religion is being formed.  It is an unexamined belief, though, of many people I have met.


Good points!


----------



## french4beth

A major issue that has developed in the US in the past few years is that despite the prohibition on mixing church & state (politics), many religious leaders have used their pulpits to endorse political candidates. I suspect that some people feel obligated to vote for those candidates in order to be good Christians. The practice of naming preferred electoral candidates during religious services, per cuchu, _can lead to a loss in tax-exempt status proferred to religious organizations_. 

I find it curious that a country that is supposedly based on separation of church & state has such a heavy involvement between religion & politics - in some European countries, religious headgear (head scarfs, etc.) is banned, yet in the US, people were outraged to hear of this fact.

If anyone's interested, here are some stats from the 2000 US presidential elections.


----------



## cuchuflete

french4beth said:


> A major issue that has developed in the US in the past few years is that despite the prohibition on mixing church & state (politics), many religious leaders have used their pulpits to endorse political candidates. I suspect that some people feel obligated to vote for those candidates in order to be good Christians. *The practice of naming preferred electoral candidates during religious services is illegal in the US. *



I've bolded the part I want to address.   It is not illegal.  A pastor/minister/imam/rabbi/priest or any other religious leader can stand in front of a congregation in the US and advocate the repeal of the speed limit, or exhort her followers to vote for Beckham!   If they do so, the tax-exempt status of the religious organization may be revoked by the federal government.  In short, the government, for tax purposes, defines a religion as something that doesn't play in the arena of state politics.


----------



## Brioche

cuchuflete said:


> I've bolded the part I want to address. It is not illegal. A pastor/minister/imam/rabbi/priest or any other religious leader can stand in front of a congregation in the US and advocate the repeal of the speed limit, or exhort her followers to vote for Beckham! If they do so, the tax-exempt status of the religious organization may be revoked by the federal government. In short, the government, for tax purposes, defines a religion as something that doesn't play in the arena of state politics.


 
I am constantly astonished by what passes for liberty in the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Members of clergy in Australia are quite happy to tell governments that what they are doing is wrong, and it happens all the time.

I cannot imagine any Australian government trying to muzzle clergy!


----------



## french4beth

I just found a very interesting article here:


> Protestant churches with socially conservative agendas, that also require a high level of participatory commitment, are the fastest growing sector of religion in the United States... the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (Mormons) increased its membership between 1990 and 2000 by 19.3 percent to a total of over 4.2 million... Churches of Christ and the Christian Churches, both with 18.6 percent growth rates; the Pentecostal Assemblies of God with 18.5 percent... One study has suggested that as the more socially conservative and doctrinaire Christian Right Evangelicals have expanded their control of the Republican Party.


 
Cuchu, Brioche & all: Here is the official wrod from the US Infernal Internal Revenue Service on political activities & non-profits (found here at _American Center for Law & Justice _website):





> ... permissible activities and events all public charities, churches and synagogues may participate in which are not regarded as “campaign activity” in violation of _Internal __Revenue Code _section 501(c)(3):
> Voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives will not be considered as "participating or intervening in a political campaign" so long as activities are conducted in a _neutral, unbiased and nonpartisan_ manner.
>  no candidate or all candidates for a particular elective office are named or depicted without favoring any candidate over any other in the voter registration or get-out-the-vote communication(s);
>  the communication names no political party, except for identifying the political party affiliation of _all _candidates named or depicted;
>  the communication is limited to urging acts such as voting and registering to vote and to describing the hours and place of registration and voting; and
>  the voter registration and get-out-the-vote drive services are made available without regard to the voters' political preference. ​


----------



## carpe

> Could it be that this behavior pattern leads non-members who don't share those fundamentalist beliefs to avoid the fundamentalists, thus leaving them isolated?


 
I indeed agree with all your points! I have a belief,so if I understand other believes I could tolerate them. The issue is the extremely belief in something doesn't allow you realise another point of the reality. This reality tells you ((at least me)) that you have to be torerant in this world ,there is no place now in this world for people who do not tolerate just because they do no want to . I think that your quoted question would it be more like the christian fundamentalism isolates itself from others just because its belief does not permit you to think in an alternative way ,or see even learn about other cultures and religions.
I'm christian and I'm concerned about how the christianity is in the US going. 
Your are not even given the opportunity to learn how could be another view.For instance, at a christian school do not teach biology because they fear that there are two strong point of views regarding how the world was created :evolution ,creation. They LAUGH at evolution , they don't give little new kids the opportunity in the future to know both of them. You have to have at home every single thing with a christian label such as clothes ,music , shops where you go to buy, TV channels... Everything has sth to do with Christianity. I come from Europe and I'm SHOCKED! 
of course I accept their way of life but I don't accept that being christians as well as me they neither give their kids nor they want to tolerate the other points of view.
I can't generalize neither because there must be open-minded people in this way , and that's why maybe I'm being very severe with my comments.
However there is and we all know through the Tv ,people much more fundamentalist than who I'm talking about. I'm,how I've said really concerned, despite I'm finding this thread very interesting.*I would like to see every comment about everything please*


----------



## mplsray

Brioche said:


> I am constantly astonished by what passes for liberty in the land of the free and the home of the brave.
> 
> Members of clergy in Australia are quite happy to tell governments that what they are doing is wrong, and it happens all the time.
> 
> I cannot imagine any Australian government trying to muzzle clergy!


 

It's incorrect to imply that the US government is muzzling American clergy. Rather, the clergy of some churches--of both the right and the left--have decided to accept to _muzzle themselves_ in order for their church to be protected from taxation. There is nothing whatsoever stopping the leaders of any given church from declaring that it will refuse tax-exempt status, and if it did so its clergy could declare in favor of whatever candidate or party that they wish to support with no fear of running afoul of the law.

Personally, I think giving tax-exempt status to churches was an error. There's no reason why some system of taxing churches could not be developed consistent with the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution that would treat all religions as equals under the law. There's no reason why such taxation should be seen as preventing any church from getting its message out, and would remove from the current situation a flirting with hypocracy which certain churches--again, on both the right and the left--find themselves in when they favor certain candidates or parties with a wink and a nod but without coming out explicitly in favor of those candidates or parties.


----------



## ps139

mplsray said:


> Personally, I think giving tax-exempt status to churches was an error. There's no reason why some system of taxing churches could not be developed consistent with the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution that would treat all religions as equals under the law.


How is it not consistent now? Are you saying some groups have special priveleges that others do not share?



> There's no reason why such taxation should be seen as preventing any church from getting its message out,


Religious organizations, especially independent ones, for the most part rely on donations of attendees. Churches are big buildings, their taxes will always be higher than a normal home, they have to put in parking lots, have all sorts of safety considerations accounted for... I think that without a tax exemption it would be very difficult for some churches to get up and going. Again, as long as one group is not favored over others, then it is perfectly legal and good in my opinion.


----------



## mplsray

*French4beth* had a post which cited an article on the Internet which identified Mormons with Protestants. Mormons are neither Protestant nor Catholic.


----------



## ps139

mplsray said:


> *French4beth* had a post which cited an article on the Internet which identified Mormons with Protestants. Mormons are neither Protestant nor Catholic.


Depends on your perspective. A Catholic or Orthodox might call a Mormon a Protestant, but a Calvinist/Evangelical/mainstream Protestant definitely would not. It really depends on how one defines "Protestant."


----------



## mplsray

ps139 said:


> How is it not consistent now? Are you saying some groups have special priveleges that others do not share?


 
You misunderstand my point. I mentioned the potential taxation of churches as being consistent with the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution because _the reason for the current exemption from taxation is that it is believed that such taxation would violate the Establishment Clause._ I believe that conclusion is simply wrong.



> Religious organizations, especially independent ones, for the most part rely on donations of attendees. Churches are big buildings, their taxes will always be higher than a normal home, they have to put in parking lots, have all sorts of safety considerations accounted for... I think that without a tax exemption it would be very difficult for some churches to get up and going. Again, as long as one group is not favored over others, then it is perfectly legal and good in my opinion.


 
Churches get built by people who have enough money to buy the land and build the building. (Churches don't even need that to get started, of course--you are familiar with storefront churches, I take it.) Taxation would be an additional expense added to the equation, but it would not, in principle, be alien to it.

As a practical matter, of course, the US is not going to tax churches, and my complaint is about a mistake which is a fait accompli, not a serious proposal that churches be taxed.


----------



## ps139

mplsray said:


> You misunderstand my point. I mentioned the potential taxation of churches as being consistent with the Establishment Clause of the US Constitution because _the reason for the current exemption from taxation is that it is believed that such taxation would violate the Establishment Clause._ I believe that conclusion is simply wrong.


You are right, I did misunderstand you. And I do not see how taxation of all would either favor a single church or prohibit free exercise of religion. 



> Churches get built by people who have enough money to buy the land and build the building. (Churches don't even need that to get started, of course--you are familiar with storefront churches, I take it.) Taxation would be an additional expense added to the equation, but it would not, in principle, be alien to it.


What you say is true in many cases, but a lot of times they are also built by community donations, not always people who already have the money.



> As a practical matter, of course, the US is not going to tax churches, and my complaint is about a mistake which is a fait accompli, not a serious proposal that churches be taxed.


I see now. I am glad that churches are not taxed, simply because many churches use a lot of their money for charity work - feeding and sheltering the homeless, providing medical care, etc. I would rather this money be spent for charitable purposes than getting lost somewhere in government bureacracy, or paying for the president's air force 1 gas bill.


----------



## mplsray

ps139 said:


> Depends on your perspective. A Catholic or Orthodox might call a Mormon a Protestant, but a Calvinist/Evangelical/mainstream Protestant definitely would not. It really depends on how one defines "Protestant."


 
The Internet article to which I referred in my post was not written with the idea that the readers would mostly be Catholic, nor that they would mostly be Orthodox. It was written for a general audience. Not only that, one of the author's purposes was to get the reader to to properly understand certain differences between Christian denominations--for example, to understand that while some Evangelicals are politically conservative, others are politically liberal. That being the case, his identification of Mormons as Protestants was an ironic error.


----------



## ps139

mplsray said:


> The Internet article to which I referred in my post was not written with the idea that the readers would mostly be Catholic, nor that they would mostly be Orthodox. It was written for a general audience. Not only that, one of the author's purposes was to get the reader to to properly understand certain differences between Christian denominations--for example, to understand that while some Evangelicals are politically conservative, others are politically liberal. That being the case, his identification of Mormons as Protestants was an ironic error.


Understood. Although my point was that who and how you define "Protestant" really varies from person to person, including among Protestants. It is not so clear cut and really depends on a person's definition of the word, on their ecclesiology, etc etc.


----------

