Taxing churches is wrong... and Christians should try harder to keep it that way.

Tithing is not a new idea.  Abraham gave of his increase to the High Priest Melchizedek. (Genesis 14:20)  Malachi described the refusal to pay tithing as robbing God.  (Malachi 3:8-12)  The law of Moses directed the priests to eat from the offerings of the congregation. (Leviticus 6:26)

In the New Testament, members of the church laid the proceeds from their possessions at the feet of the Apostles.  (Acts 4:34-37)  The practice was important enough that when it was not adhered to in honesty, divine consequences.  (Acts 5:1-11)  Frequently, missionaries and other traveling authorities were asked to travel without "purse or scrip." (Mark 6:8)  In later reports, Christ's Apostles confirmed that they had lacked for nothing in these conditions.  (Luke 22:35)  This could only have been possible because of the contributions of members who desired to help the Kingdom of God according to their faith.

There are numerous examples of people who have been blessed tremendously when they have given of their substance to support the temporal needs of God's priests, prophets, and servants.  The widow of Zarephath who gave to Elijah was blessed with enough food to endure the drought in Israel.  (1 Kings 17)  The Nephites who lived in the Christian utopia after his arrival in America completely alleviated poverty because they gave of themselves.  (4 Nephi 1:1-3)

Unfortunately, Christians (and many who masquerade as Christians) have in many cases abused this time-honored tradition.  

These abuses have not gone unnoticed by secularists.  In a spectacular stunt, John Oliver of HBO's Last Week Tonight created his own church called "Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption." (http://www.ourladyofperpetualexemption.com)  In doing so, he demonstrated the ease with which he could obtain donations from supporters, and be free from taxation because these donations were made to a "church."

While the idea was ridiculous, it was sadly not far from the schemes of some "televangelists" who promise their supporters blessings for making contributions to their "churches," when they are actually spending the money on luxurious lifestyles.  Because these contributions are made to churches, they are protected from taxation under the first amendment.

These practices have inspired many secularists to call for the taxation of churches.  The reasoning is that any institution that collects money and operates like a business should be subject to taxing power of the government like any other business.

On the surface, this argument may seem reasonable.  It appeals to the natural sense of fairness that most people embrace by suggesting that all organizations be treated the same.

Of course, the flaw in this thinking is that not all organizations are the same.  This is true even if at times they do similar activities.

A security company that provides armed guards for clients may perform similar activities as a military unit providing security for individuals of national concern, but a security company should not be treated the same as a military unit.  There are special characteristics of a national military force that necessitate treating these organizations differently.  Many of these characteristics are defined by the Constitution and federal law.

Similarly, religion is not the same as opinion.

The Constitution explicitly protects the rights of an individual to practice their religion... and prohibits the government from making laws that would prohibit the free exercise thereof.  (Amendment I)

The right of an individual to support a particular faith, to practice a faith, or to abstain from associations or practices based on their deeply held religious beliefs, is not just a preference... it is protected.  The right of an assembly of individuals is similarly protected.

If a person contributes of their own property to exercise religion, any law that would exact a portion of that contribution diminishes the freedom of that individual to full exercise their faith.  Imagine a tax collector taking one of the widows two mites that she wanted to give to God. (Luke 21:1-4)  Would she then have been giving all she had to God?  No... because of taxation.

Additionally, being a part of an organization does not mean that these liberties dissolve.  A person is not free to exercise their religion unless they are at work, or unless they are in a church, or unless they are in a group.  These rights persist unless there is a compelling case of direct harm.

A society that, using taxes or regulations, takes the contributions of individuals to religious organizations or for religious purposes cannot pretend they guarantee freedom of religion.

That is not to say that religious individuals and organizations do not have a responsibility to society.  The importance of religious liberty is strengthened when religious persons "promote the general welfare" and act to "secure the blessings of liberty" for themselves and their families... which are the declared purposes of the Constitution of the United States.

This may mean ensuring that funds associated with your faith are audited.  It may mean having the good judgment to know that a tear-out page in a magazine that sells prayers for you to get a new car may not be the best way to exercise your faith.  It may mean volunteering to be a part of service activities, so that more than just money is contributed.

It always means following God according to your conscience.

Society (including the secular portions of society) benefits when people regularly persuade one another to do good, and to become better.  Religious liberty (including financial religious liberty) promotes this outcome more effectively than any other freedom.

Government shutdowns and doing the church's job

Social media has been talking about the government shutdown for several days.  More conservative posts will vilify Senate Majority Leader Reid and President Obama.  More liberal posts will vilify Senator Cruz, Senator Paul, and Senator Lee.  The majority of posts in the middle will blame all of congress, and blame their apparent lack of ability to compromise.

Of course, the truth is that congress actually represents the views of the people in the United States.  The liberals were specifically elected to enact social government programs and expand the role of government in providing goods and services to individuals in lower income brackets.  Conservatives in congress were specifically elected to stop the expansion of government that has happened under both Republicans and Democrats since the 1930s.  If either side of the aisle agrees to a compromise, they will essentially be breaking the promises made to their constituents.

It is easy to say that congress is filled with people that will not compromise, but the harder truth is that the United States of America is filled with people that are polarized beyond the point of compromise.  Ideals of more government and less government are mutually exclusive.  Blaming a government of representatives returns the blame to the people who are being represented.

The real question is how did the United States get to the point where we could not agree on government?  I suggest that the root of the issue is that the government has progressively taken on more tasks that have been in the domain of religion.  Well-meaning liberals want the government to aid the poor using income from the rich.  Certainly there are tremendous gaps in the income between the wealthiest 1% and the 99% of the population below as the "occupy" movements point out.  It is not difficult to see why people feel that this is unfair, and that those who are struggling might benefit from the resources of those who are not struggling.  In the past, it was the role of churches to persuade the population that compassion for their fellow men was as critical to their well-being as it was to the well-being of those in need.  In modern times, the government passes laws to try to take more and more of the money of those in high income brackets to fund programs intended to benefit those in lower income brackets.  In other words, the state has become like a mandatory church.

Liberals have argued that if the government did not compel the wealthy to contribute to the poor, then they would not do it.  Certainly, that is possible.  A person granted freedom does not always use their freedom to make responsible decisions.  In spite of this, there exist a large number of foundations, charities, and churches that rely exclusively on the donations of generous individuals that seem to be doing fairly well.  Certainly many of the liberals who campaign enjoy fundraisers with Hollywood celebrities and benefit from voluntary donations from wealthy individuals in amounts that could help millions of struggling families.  Perhaps liberals are too quick to judge the motives of those in a position to help.

If additional motivation is an issue, government ought to ensure that religions are as free as possible to persuade people to make positive moral choices.  Throwing religion out of every aspect of government has given atheist activists great pleasure, but there are few calls from these activists to throw the government out of religion.

I suggest that not only can a more religious society better unite and provide for its citizens, it already has.

The prophet Mormon wrote of the time after Christ came to the people of ancient America and united them with religion using the following words:

"And it came to pass in the thirty and sixth year, the people were all converted unto the Lord, upon all the face of the land, both Nephites and Lamanites, and there were no contentions and disputations among them, and every man did deal justly one with another. And they had all things common among them; therefore there were not rich and poor, bond and free, but they were all made free, and partakers of the heavenly gift... And there were no envyings, nor strifes, nor tumults, nor whoredoms, nor lyings, nor murders, nor any manner of lasciviousness; and surely there could not be a happier people among all the people who had been created by the hand of God. There were no robbers, nor murderers, neither were there Lamanites, nor any manner of -ites; but they were in one, the children of Christ, and heirs to the kingdom of God."  (4 Nephi 1:2-3,16-17)

In other words, almost every problem that is currently expected to be solved by the government was solved by people leading religious lives.  Poverty was eliminated because people were generous and compassionate toward one another voluntarily.  Crime was eliminated because people were religious enough that no one desired to commit crime.

The problems that eventually made their way into this society occurred when people began to leave religion.  In the absence of motivation to make moral choices from recognizing religious authority, the people stopped making moral choices, and every vice enumerated in the passage above returned.

In the end, the solution to stalemates and arguments in government or in other aspects of life is the same as it has always been: Christianity.  If each individual could themselves be more generous, more kind, more honest, more humble, more chaste, more virtuous, and more religious... the disagreements that divide us would be less important than the moral strength that binds us.

I believe that this Utopian society is not only achievable, but inevitable.  Jesus Christ will personally reign on the earth and usher in a glorious age of peace and happiness throughout the entire world.  Of course, it is not necessary to wait for his coming before adopting the principles that make bad men good and good men better...  I invite all who come here not to postpone heeding the call of Jesus Christ:

"Yea, verily I say unto you, if ye will come unto me ye shall have eternal life. Behold, mine arm of mercy is extended towards you, and whosoever will come, him will I receive; and blessed are those who come unto me." (3 Nephi 9:14)

Wait, I thought you believed in separation of church and state...

Zack Kopplin has received attention in the past year for his efforts against creationism or intelligent design being taught in schools.  This is not all that uncommon an effort among atheist activists.  The thing that sets him apart is his attack of private schools that teach such concepts.

He has been among those that investigate the curriculum of private schools that accept government vouchers, particularly in Louisiana.  For those unfamiliar with the basic premise behind vouchers, the basic system is that any given state will spend a certain amount of money on each student.  The voucher system allows parents to take those funds and apply them toward education that meets their needs.  The goal is that even those in low-income situations will have access to choice in education instead of being forced to use public education, which is arguably less efficient in providing education.

Part of Zack's efforts are based in the claim that because these schools receive government funding in the form of vouchers, they should not be permitted to use curriculum that includes creationism or intelligent design.  Like many atheists, he argues that such teachings constitute a violation of the wall of separation between church and state, or an infringement on the beliefs of those that reject such theories.

Of course, being the ward preacher, you might guess that I have different views... and of course, you would be right.

Saying that a school which accepts vouchers is taking public funding is like saying a person who has had a tax refund has accepted public funding.  To a degree, they have.  The current progressive tax system sees to it that some people pay taxes and others receive checks in place of such taxes.  People in lower income brackets that cash refund checks or approve refund deposits have accepted public funding.  If the public interest in removing religion from sources with public funding is so important, perhaps the government should examine what they are teaching their kids in such homes to see if it is compatible with the current politically correct understanding.

To extend the analogy, a person that receives food stamps also has accepted public funding.  Perhaps a condition of accepting this funding should include that the recipient should be disallowed to affiliate themselves with a religious organization just to ensure that no public funding can possibly aid a church.  What a crime it would be if we found that food stamp recipients ever entertained (gasp) missionaries in their home... and what a greater crime it would be if said missionaries (gasp) ate a meal that such individuals had prepared.

Please do not misunderstand me, or assume that I am advocating for a state religion.  While I believe firmly that I have found a church that is led by Jesus Christ himself, I do not believe that the United States should dictate to its citizens that they should become members of it, or that the government should institute fines or other penal measures against those who are not members of it. 

Atheist activist efforts typically revolve around a liberal interpretation of "establishment of religion" in the first amendment.  Conveniently, most activists pretend that the free exercise clause does not exist, but regardless, the pair of these clauses form a metaphorical wall of separation between church and state.  (See Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists - http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html)

Having a wall of separation implies a distinct separation between the two entities.  Of course, atheist activists are anxious to ensure that Christmas, Easter, or monuments to the Ten Commandments are physically separated from government property.  Such steps are completely one-sided, and do not ensure the existence of a wall of separation, but instead a valve of separation where the state trumps the church in all cases.

Establishing a wall of separation means pulling the government out of roles that ought to be reserved for churches.  The more obvious roles include welfare and charity.  A less obvious role is education.

While the state may have an interest in having its citizens educated, it is no greater than its interest in having citizens that are charitable and benevolent.  This does not make the government the appropriate source of education any more than it makes it an effective charity or rehabilitative system.

In the same sense, the church has an interest in being protected against people that want to kill them, rob them, or otherwise prevent them from accomplishing their purposes, but that does not make churches an appropriate body for defense or law enforcement.

Particularly in a society where the government consists of the public and the public cannot come to a consensus on what curriculum should be, it makes sense to allow people to pursue curriculum that is consistent with what they believe to be important on an individual basis. 

A person that has no desire to study medicine should not be compelled to.  A person that wishes to study a completely unmarketable skill in the humanities should be free to.  Similarly, a person that wants to investigate evolutionary biology should be able to, and a person that wishes to have a biblical perspective on philosophy and life should also be able to.  The government has no business telling people what they need to learn.  Of course, the government can encourage people to develop specific skills that are appropriate for government applications such as law and agriculture, the same way that businesses encourage the development of specific skills such as accounting and computer science.

Even when examining only the most effective teachers and administrators in public education systems (under some of whom I have studied), there remain concerns from religious individuals on how sex is taught, and concerns from anti-religious individuals on literature that includes biblical or religious references.  These concerns would not exist if education were emancipated from the restraints of the state.

Additionally, ethical questions are a natural part of education, and since ethical questions require understanding religious perspectives (http://wardpreacher.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-ethical-dilemmas-of-godlessness.html), it is a disservice to students to remove the option of exploring religious perspectives.  While there may be students and parents that do not wish to use such an option, should people not be able to freely decide how to study without having to invest in a public system?

If anti-religious zealots like Zack Kopplin were truly interested in maintaining a wall of separation between church and state, they would not be fighting about what to include in a public curriculum in efforts to try and remove the church from the state; they would be fighting just as hard to remove the state from the church.

When God approves of stealing, kidnapping, and killing...

Recently and tragically, a man named James Holmes opened fire in a crowded theater during the premiere of the movie "Dark Night Rises."  12 individuals were killed, and 58 others were injured. (Foxnews)

Reaction to this news has been relatively similar among people I know: shock, horror, and the lingering question of what could drive a person to do this.  Everyone to whom I have spoken believes that this was a grossly immoral act.  Many people believe that officials would be right to seek the death penalty in this instance, but others are opposed to this, believing that more killing cannot bring good.

For some, events such as these are faith-shaking.  If God is loving, if he is real, and if he is as powerful as believers claim, then how could such a tragedy be allowed to happen?

There are people that use these events as evidence to support a conclusion that any one of these things is untrue of God.

Those among the Westboro Baptist Church crowd have already posted a video (that I have admittedly not watched) entitled "God Sent The Shooter...Again!"  For people in this group, God is real and powerful, but not loving.

There are those in atheist groups who believe this is evidence that God is not real.

There are those in groups of believers that will conclude that God is not powerful enough to stop this under the guise of "God has to let people make their own choices."  For these people, God is real and loving, but he is apparently unable to stop people that make these tragic choices.

The truth is that all three of these attributes is true of God.  He is real - and he is aware of the events that transpire in every theater and city.  He is loving - he sacrificed his only begotten son to spare us pain.  He has power to prevent and to stop acts of violence or other tragedies - he knows the past, present and future, and he could have made James Holmes have a fatal heart attack prior to him carrying out his awful plan.

For many people of faith, some of the most important truths that require reconciliation are the reality of tragedy and the omniscience and omnipotence of God.

If we operate under the assumption that God is real, all-knowing, and all-powerful, then tragedies force the conclusion that God's goal is not the prevention of tragedy, and that tragedy is not able to prevent his goals from being realized.  The real question then becomes 'what does God want?'

This question must be handled delicately.  Simply because something has occurred does not necessarily mean that God wanted it to occur in that way.  Failure to remember that leads down the path of the Westboro Baptist crowd where the question of 'what does God want?' seems to be answered by 'tragedy.'

God does not want tragedy to befall men, and the life of Jesus Christ himself provides abundant evidence of this:

• Worried about the hunger of those that had come to hear him teach, he fed 5000 people using his power. (Matthew 14:15-21)
• Sympathetic to a lame man who had no one to help him into the pool of Bethesda, the words of Christ gave him the power to walk (John 5:5-9)
• Compassionate to a pair of blind men, Jesus touched their eyes, restoring their sight (Matthew 9:27-31)
• With emotion, Christ raised Lazarus even though he had been dead for days (John 11)

The only conclusion available is that God does not want us to suffer... but more than this, he wants something else.  What that something else is really is an important question which all people should ask themselves, and strive diligently to find an answer.  It is not however the subject of this post.  This post is more about what God does to help us when crimes and tragedies occur.

If God does not want us to suffer tragedy, surely he has provided some mechanism to protect against crime and nurture those in need.  A careful examination will reveal several methods:

• Families: The fundamental unit of society is designed to nurture and provide for people.  Every human being at one point was a child.  When born, humans are incapable of communication except to cry when something seems amiss.  Babies are not able to move on their own, or even hold up their heads properly.  In spite of the weaknesses of young children, there are no fiercer defenders, providers, or instructors than loving parents.  When tragedy strikes, a child has a right to a mother and father that will loyally assist them to the limits of their abilities. (http://www.lds.org/family/proclamation/)  While the assistance of family should not be limited to young children, the importance of family influence is most obvious in these cases.
• The State:  God approves of governmental concepts (not necessarily specific governments). (D&C 134:1)  Governments have the power to help defend citizens, and to prosecute the commission of crimes.  Guilty individuals can and should suffer the consequences of justice according to the law.  The state is treated differently than an individual in God's eyes.  In other words, there are cases when God approves of stealing, kidnapping, and killing.
• While it is wrong for an individual to seize property from another, a government in honestly striving to uphold justice may take property.  It is common sense to attempt to take from a thief what was stolen and to restore it to its proper owner.  For an individual it is stealing; for a government, it might be tax or lawful seizure.
• While it is wrong for an individual to take a person against their will and imprison them,  A society appropriately puts those guilty of several types of crimes in prisons and removes their liberties.  For an individual, it is kidnapping; for a government, it is imprisonment.
• While it is wrong for an individual to kill another except in self defense, a society is able to take convicts and execute them.  This is not the same as a mob, such as the French Revolutionary government that sent people to the guillotine in droves for being aristocrats.  This is a government that is preventing a person that is not capable of being rehabilitated from inflicting any further harm.  Life-long imprisonment for such individuals cannot guarantee against escape, and does little to prohibit the influence of such toxic persons from affecting inmates that are eligible for rehabilitation and will be returned to society.  A person guilty of murder or child abuse is an example of someone that can never be trusted or rehabilitated, even if God may forgive them in the next life.  For an individual, it is murder; for a government, it is capital punishment.
• The Church:  The State cannot make people good, it can only defend against crimes of commission.  Suffering from tragedies may require generosity and kindness, for which there can be no legislation made.  No one should expect to stand before God and expect entrance to his kingdom in exchange for the many government programs that were funded using paycheck deductions.  This is not charity.  Churches and charitable organizations provide real mechanisms of organization for doing good.  The generous giving of alms, the provision of service for those in need, the hand of fellowship and brotherhood: these are ideals that are almost universally promoted by all churches.  The persuasion to do good can and should come from the conscience-stirring influences found in places of worship.

God intends for families, states, and churches to help all men cope with the tragedies that inevitably come.  We are right to feel shock, horror, and doubt when tragedy strikes, but hopefully the resources that God has given will help us ask the right questions, and come to the right conclusions.  God is real.  He is powerful.  He is loving.  In the end, all wrongs will be made right, and no injustice will exist.  In the end, Jesus Christ will reign, and he will truly save us all.  In the meantime, let's hang in there, and help each other out.