Movies, Churches, and Freedoms
So I live down the street from the Uptown Theater in the Cleveland Park neighborhood of Washington, DC. It’s a great old single-screen theater with facilities and presentation that are probably the best I’ve ever seen (though the Moolah in St. Louis is up there too). I recently saw a screening of the final cut of Blade Runner at the Uptown and was very impressed, and I recently learned that it hosted the world premier of 2001: A Space Odyssey in 1968. The point being that while I’ve only been living in DC for a few months, I’ve already grown rather affectionate toward this theater.
You can then imagine my disappointment when I learned that the Uptown is planning to rent out the theater to a virulently anti-gay evangelical megachurch. The McLean Bible Church wants to make the theater home to one of nine satellite “campuses” designed to create a “spiritual beltway” around Washington. The church’s senior pastor, Lon Solomon, has said homosexuality is a “bridge to despair, confusion, loneliness, depression, promiscuity, guilt, self-hate, loathing and self-destruction, but Jesus Christ can set you free,” and the church has an “Out of Darkness” ministry that offers treatment for various “forms of sexual brokenness,” including “same-sex attraction.”
Many of the residents of Cleveland Park have raised objections to the idea of their neighborhood becoming home to an extension of this church. The church needs a zoning variance in order to conduct its operations at the Uptown, which requires approval from the city’s zoning board.
The neighborhood’s Yahoo! group became host to much of the debate. One poster wrote, “I do not welcome any anti-gay or anti-lesbian group to the neighborhood. I will not tolerate hate groups.” Another wrote that he opposes the church’s “Hezbollah model toward establishing a theocracy.”
One gay resident disagreed, writing that it is “positively un-American to try to use the zoning law to keep a religious institution out of the neighborhood because you personally detest its theology and social and political beliefs.”
While the idea of the Uptown renting its space to this church makes me sad, I’m also uneasy about the idea of restricting it from doing so (it’s hard to argue this isn’t a First Amendment issue, right?). This is especially true since single-screen theaters like the Uptown have been struggling financially recently, and leasing to this church could help it stay in business and keep it from being “turned into a Walgreen’s,” as another gay resident of the neighborhood argued. I really love this theater, and if renting it out to hate-mongers keeps it from closing its doors, I feel like I have to say go for it, don’t I?
It is, however, utterly moronic that churches like this get tax-exempt status. The senior pastor says things like, “Any political candidate that espouses gay rights, we have a responsibility to ensure that they never get into office. If they do, the consequences to this nation will be dire…It’s a fight we dare not lose.” Why religious organizations get tax-exempt status at all is beyond me, but this isn’t even a religious organization, it’s a political one (and likely a fairly powerful one at that).
Anyway. The whole thing makes me a little depressed. Maybe I should go see a movie.
Comment by tet on 16 November 2007 at 3:03 pm:
I have a tendency to think that the lower the level of government that makes a decision, the better. If the residents of the area really don’t want the megachurch there, they should certainly have some say in the matter. I really hestitate to support 1st Amendment on levels this small, since the original intent of the Founders was to limit the new federal government. I know that this was extended to the states by the 14th, but this case is certainly at a considerably lower level than the state.
As much as I like religion, I have to admit that the megachurches make me more than a little nervous. I think of churches as somewhere where one goes to listen to a wiser man than you explain how your religion gives you moral guidance and enables you to live with yourself, your family and your neighbors better. All the feel-good singing of whitebread acoustic songs from a big screen while the simple, sing-along lyrics scroll by on the screen in front of the church seems to me out of place–the money that all of it costs could be spent instead on good works.
In addition, you know my feelings about churches getting involved in politics–It corrupts the church and pisses off the politicians. However, I don’t think anyone should be paying taxes. Churches are no exception to this.
Within their own domain and in their own flock, the church should certainly be able to try to convert gay people even if you and I think that being gay’s not a sin. That’s a matter of opinion, after all.
Tom
Comment by Seneca the Younger on 16 November 2007 at 3:16 pm:
Brian, I’ll bet you that they think it’s utterly moronic that fake churches like the Buddhists and the Unitarians get the religious exemption. That’s the problem with freedoms: you keep finding people using them who you don’t like.
Comment by Brian on 16 November 2007 at 3:41 pm:
Seneca,
And if they were persuasive in their assertion that Buddhist and Unitarian churches are “fake,” they’d be right to say it’s moronic. I mean, if I invite my friends over to my apartment to watch episodes of the West Wing, call it a place of worship, and claim a tax exemption, there’d be a problem with that, right? Certainly there is such a thing as a “fake” church, and certainly they should not be entitled to tax exemptions. The question is where you draw the line. Apparently you don’t find my case that this church is “fake” to be a persuasive one. Okay. Tell me why. Don’t just say something clever-sounding about freedom and pretend you’ve made a valuable point.
Tom,
Well. Of all the people I thought would disagree with me on this, you were at the bottom of the list. And yet, it makes perfect sense when I read your reasons why. I sort of see your point about the locality of the government, and I think it works to an extent. But for one thing, this is the DC government making this decision, which is not in any important way different from a state making the decision. Second of all, first amendment violations concern me however local the level of government. The fact that it is a government enforcing the decision is what bothers me about infringements on free speech (note that this is why I don’t generally care that much if private parties infringe on free speech). But that’s just me, and I can see your point of view too.
I did, however, accurately predict your line about how nobody should pay taxes. So you’re not THAT unpredictable.
Comment by tet on 16 November 2007 at 4:01 pm:
You’re right about DC, though, Brian. It’s really a special case in that the city is really the state, so to speak.
Big city governments are, in my opinion, less trustworthy than ones from smaller cities. The important thing, really, is that the objection is from the local level.
Give you an example: My neighbor across the street is trying to sell his house. The retaining wall along Springfield Avenue in front of my property and my eastern neighbors is in sad repair. A few stones have actually fallen onto the state highway.
I was ordered by the city to make repairs on the wall. I did not object even thought it’s going to be quite expensive because it was clearly and demonstrably having a detrimental influence on both the safety and the economics of the neighborhood. As a libertarian, my right to property also entails my responsibilty for it to do no harm to the neighbors.
Always remember Tom’s hierarchy for power:
Family >(is better than) neighborhood association > city council > county board > state government > federal government > united world government.
Tom
Comment by Phil on 16 November 2007 at 4:28 pm:
However, I don’t think anyone should be paying taxes. Churches are no exception to this.
Tom, you yourself have said on this forum that protecting the borders is a legitimate function of government. Since that cannot be done for free, someone has to pay for it. Since somebody does have to pay taxes, why should churches be exempt?
Comment by tet on 16 November 2007 at 5:33 pm:
Phil. It was hyperbole.
Don’t have time for a full answer right now. Let me think on this and answer later.
Tom
Comment by JayBandit on 16 November 2007 at 8:36 pm:
Philly Cheesesteak, tom realizes that in reality there are always going to be SOME taxes…but we have WAY too many, so his exaggeration is completely allowable for the point he’s trying to make.
Comment by kofi the but none of these are political in the least so it makes sense they should be tax exempt on 17 November 2007 at 2:45 am:
Some other tax-exempt organizations:
Planned Parenthood
National Organization for Women
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People
NARAL affiliates (if not the national organization?)
Comment by kofi the which is it though? corporate conglomerate? or tax exempt? can't it be both? on 17 November 2007 at 2:52 am:
Planned Parenthood obviously shouldn’t be tax exempt given its apparent connection to the evil corporate conglomerate CNN…. or i meant to link to this
Comment by kofi the which is it though? corporate conglomerate? or tax exempt? can't it be both? on 17 November 2007 at 2:52 am:
Planned Parenthood obviously shouldn’t be tax exempt given its apparent connection to the evil corporate conglomerate CNN…. or i meant to link to this
Comment by kofi the which is it though? corporate conglomerate? or tax exempt? can't it be both? on 17 November 2007 at 2:52 am:
Planned Parenthood obviously shouldn’t be tax exempt given its apparent connection to the evil corporate conglomerate CNN…. or i meant to link to this
Comment by Billy Joe Mills on 17 November 2007 at 10:14 am:
i second kofi’s post that listed liberal tax exempt organizations. brian, i would like to hear an explanation as to how you reconcile wishing this church did not have tax-exempt status and likely wishing to maintain the exempt status of those institutions (perhaps you don’t think this)?
also, if you strip them of that status, it will likely be a way to limit their ability to speak, which is ironically the very thing you claim to be defending in your post. however, it is difficult to disentangle the portion of influence that your affection for the theater plays and your recognition that zoning laws should not be used to restrict 1st amendment rights. so which is it? if you recognize the constitutional right then your affection for the theater should play no role; a right does not need to be balanced against your affections.
Comment by tet on 17 November 2007 at 8:27 pm:
I do need to answer Phil’s question as to why I believe that churches should be tax-exempt:
1) If my final aim is to eliminate absolutely every dollar of taxation that is not needed to give us the minimum government involvement possible without complete anarchy, then it makes no sense to add even one more group to be taxed. It’s moving 180 degrees in the wrong direction.
2) Since I believe that a truly free society cannot exist without an agreed-upon moral code, it is not in out best interest to harass or otherwise discourage a group whose aim is to provide us with such a moral code.
Those should suffice.
Tom
Comment by Brenda Kay on 18 November 2007 at 12:12 am:
A few quick thoughts.
1) The “anti-gay” factor in this church is grossly exaggerated both by Brian and those he quotes. Virulently anti-gay? Hate-mongers? Hezbollah model? Give me a break. I went to their website and checked them out, and there’s a big gap between churches who think the homosexual life is sinful and those who advocate hatred or violence toward the gay community. Let’s be nuanced enough in our discussions to recognize that gap, please.
2) I’m not convinced, Brian, that this is a “fake” church or a political organization just because one pastor [and megachurches have dozens] encouraged his congregants not to vote for a certain type of candidate. The nature of Christianity is such that it is supposed to affect all areas of life, and Christian citizenship is not exempt from this premise. Using the pulpit to preach on politics is extremely tricky and though I think his statement was foolish, I don’t think his making it turns him from a pastor shepherding his flock into the leader of a political organization.
3) I firmly believe that the megachurch movement is fading, and fast. They are simply too shallow and will not be able to self-sustain. It’s interesting, Tom, that you equate these enormous churches with singing “praise songs” from a projection screen. In my experience, just as many small churches have resorted to this practice as large. Incidentally, that method is actually far cheaper, if you want to talk about wasting money. Hymnals are surprisingly expensive.
Comment by kofi the i have nothing to say about point 3 on 18 November 2007 at 2:10 am:
Quick responses to Brenda’s quick thoughts:
1) Let’s be fair to Brian. “Hezbollah model” was a stretch, but to put myself in his shoes.. if someone was teaching that my lifestyle is inherently sinful I’d say it qualifies as virulent and even hateful. Of course I’m not taking sides here, but Brian has reason to ruffle his feathers.
2) The idea that a church is a fake one because it advocates a particular political point of view or endorses a candidate is ridiculous. You don’t even need to qualify your statement by pointing out this is “just one pastor” of many. In Catholic churches I have attended, the pulpit was often a political soap box. Of course, in my experiences, it’s usually been a liberal one. The priests at my church had an unhealthy hard on for Clinton and a possibly healthy dislike for Gingrich. I’m not here to pass judgment on the views preached from the pulpit, but to point out that the practice is entirely common — and in some cases contrary to the assumptions some anti-”religious right” folks would make.
Comment by Elderwife on 18 November 2007 at 9:14 am:
Brenda,
Thank you for putting into words the semi-formed thoughts in my head as I was reading this. Your clarity on the issues is refreshing.
Comment by Hanno on 18 November 2007 at 9:37 am:
I take my cues from one of the nation’s leading scholars on the tax status of tax-exempt organizations, John Colombo. Ok, aside from the fact that Colombo was one of my favorite professors at the College of Law, when he took his endowed chair he explained the general rule for why we exempt certain organizations from taxation. Forgive me for my rough paraphrase and approximations of his ideas, I am not a tax guru.
Tax exemption is a form of public subsidy in as far as we benefit certain organizations by not making them pay taxes. We give this kind of status to groups that provide services that the market won’t necessarily provide on its own and that people still want. A good example is a historic theater or a church. Often these groups perform services that, were they not in existence, some people would want the government to perform, but others would be opposed to government involvement. These services range from social services (soup kitchens, legal assistance, education) to arts and leisure (theater, music, etc) to plain old social and spiritual organizations (Masons, churches, etc.). Basically it is a tacit recognition by society that I want my cake and you want your pie, but I sure as hell don’t want to pay for you to eat that pie and you don’t want to directly pay for my cake, so we cut down on the costs of each to mutual benefit (though perhaps not exactly comfortable benefit).
Ideally we would exempt all organizations that receive a large share of their operating revenues through donations (which we already largely do). This would, unfortunately cut out the nonprofit hospitals like Carle and include groups like the KKK, so we tweak it a little. Anyhow, the general idea is that if people find it worthy enough to donate to it for its continued operation, its probably performing an important function for them that we might not want to fund directly, but that we can at least fund indirectly by relieving them of their tax obligation.
So yeah, it’s a church. Tax exempt. Now if it were like the church of sitting in my living room and watching the Bears while drinking beer that might be a little different. There are all kinds of groups that are tax exempt that Brian may find unpalatable, there are many others he may love. But for every one you love or find unpalatable, there’s another person, perhaps even two, who find your favored groups unpalatable and who love your disfavored ones. Tax-exemption is the societal compromise we’ve reached to balance this out and make everyone somewhat happier if not a little disgruntled that those other S.O.B.s get tax exemption because they’re pushing an extremist agenda promoting whatever it is I don’t like.
Comment by Brian on 18 November 2007 at 3:07 pm:
Okay, I need a break from this memo I’m writing, so I’ll finally respond to people here. There’s a lot to respond to, so I apologize in advance if this ends up being a little jumbled.
Billy–My comment about the financial struggles of the theater was an additional, separate argument to the First Amendment concerns. That’s why I said “This is especially true because…” rather than “This is only true because…”
Brenda: I was just quoting the “Hezbollah model” guy, not endorsing what he was saying. They ARE, however, unequivocally, hate-mongers. The fact that they don’t advocate violence toward the gay community is the standard by which we judge if a church is hate-mongering? Give me a break. I re-quote how the senior pastor (the SENIOR pastor, not just some lackey who works there) characterized homosexuality: “a bridge to despair, confusion, loneliness, depression, promiscuity, guilt, self-hate, loathing and self-destruction, but Jesus Christ can set you free.” This church can call that the language of compassion if it wants to, and it will because nobody wants to openly label themselves as advocates of hate, but it doesn’t matter what they call it. It is hate. Period. The sooner people understand that it is that kind of language that causes gay teenagers to kill themselves, the sooner they will understand that any attempt to find “nuance” is futile.
Okay, now onto the main subject of the tax-exempt status. I admit I overstated my case by calling it “completely moronic.” We do, however, legally require organizations which claim tax-exempt status to not engage in political endorsements of candidates or other explicitly political activity. Organizations like NOW get to do so only through their PACs, which have their own set of laws regulating their conduct. The non-PAC part of NOW gets tax-exempt status insofar as it is a non-political advocate of women’s rights. That means it can advocate women’s rights, and particular policies regarding women’s rights, but it can’t get into the territory of advocating particular candidates. If it wants to do that, it has to do it through its PAC. Now, if this church wants to set up a PAC to work toward electing anti-gay rights candidates, by all means, go for it. No longer will it be able to pretend that it is a purely spiritural, faith-based institution. But in the meantime, its senior pastor ought not be able to talk about the dangers of electing gay rights candidates and still expect to claim tax-exempt status.
Okay. I think that covered everything I wanted to say. Back to this memo.
Comment by tet on 19 November 2007 at 2:24 am:
Brian, without some kind of proven causal relationship between church preaching and gay teen suicides, one can say that it is just as likely that being miserable and despondent about being gay causes gay teen suicides (or not being able to get a date with the cute guy in English class.) Male teens are the highest suicide group, whether they’re gay or straight.
Your statement is simply impossible to prove. To do so, you would need a control group of gay teenagers who have never been exposed to any kind of negative reinforcement about their biology. I hold that there is no such control group, so your connection is hypothetical at best and propaganda at worst.
Tom
Comment by Augur on 19 November 2007 at 9:15 am:
I only sort of half ass read what was above, so I’m sorry if I missed something.
Tom the way the 14th amendment works when it extends certain other amendments to the states, also applies to local governmental units. That’s why students have some first amendment protections in public high schools, and why city employees could sue if they were fired for participating in a protest in their free time.
The way to fight this, isn’t through local government, but rather by “voting with your checkbooks.” If the community refuses to patronize the Uptown if it rents space to the megachurch, then you present the theater owners with a tough choice.
Brian - west wing is like a religion to me too, but that isn’t the most fair analogy. I am all for taking a permissive approach to granting churches tax exempt status, provided the churches dont engage in certain political activities, the type of activities that would make an entity lose, for instance, the ability to claim they are organized as a 501(c)(3). That gets at both Tom’s objection and yours. I’m not sure what the current standard is, but it intuitively seems like similar standards should apply.
Comment by Augur on 19 November 2007 at 9:16 am:
I guess there would of course be legal fictions like a big ass tax exempt church that is “loosely affiliated” with a political organization that it basically controls, so they can claim tax exempt status on most of their income, but not that which goes to purely political activities.
Comment by achmed on 19 November 2007 at 9:18 am:
more weak and callow logic from brian, surprise, surprise. what’s funny is that i agree with brian, but i can’t endorse him because he makes pathetic arguments.
Comment by tet on 19 November 2007 at 9:59 am:
Augur, then the 14th Amendment needs to be rolled back some. It’s intrusive for the Federal govednment to be working at this level even if it sometimes does what we agree with.
Tom
Comment by Phil on 19 November 2007 at 10:37 am:
Tom says:
1) If my final aim is to eliminate absolutely every dollar of taxation that is not needed to give us the minimum government involvement possible without complete anarchy, then it makes no sense to add even one more group to be taxed.
So, if we magically put in place a system where the perfect minimal government is exactly paid for by having people whose last names begin with T paying today’s level of taxes, and nobody else paying any at all, there is no reason to add even one more group to be taxed? You’re conflating the question of how much money the government should have with the question of how the tax burden should be divided.
2) Since I believe that a truly free society cannot exist without an agreed-upon moral code, it is not in out best interest to harass or otherwise discourage a group whose aim is to provide us with such a moral code.
We could easily spend a whole week just discussing this sentence. I’ll just say that I see religion as having both positive and negative implications on society, and the more established a religion becomes the more the negatives come out. I see granting a tax exemption to groups organized and mainstream enough to be recognized by government as churches as a small step toward establishment. Megachurches and televangelism are mainly about money, and they tend to suck up the oxygen from small, thoughtful religious instruction that promotes the good aspects of religion, and they wouldn’t exist as we know them without tax exemption.
Comment by Augur on 19 November 2007 at 1:08 pm:
Tom - that’s nonsense! The freedoms in the bill of rights should be assured to all americans, whether they are protecting folks from tyranny from the federal, state, or local government. I cant believe a freedom loving ron paul devotee would argue what you’re arguing. You are supposed to want all government to leave you the eff alone, whenever possible.
Ground control to major tom…is something wrong? can you hear me major tom?
Comment by J. Prescott on 19 November 2007 at 2:29 pm:
Is it possible that we are going to be able a post comment section without mentioning Ron Paul? At least in the immediate future?
Comment by Brenda Kay on 20 November 2007 at 9:42 am:
Brian: I second what Tom said about your suicide comment. As for hate-mongers–these people don’t hate you. Okay, maybe some of them do, but I am well-acquainted with this particular brand of Christianity and they truly believe the most loving thing they can do is convince you of your sin and point you toward God. Bridge to despair, self-hate, etc are the same terms they would apply to plenty of other sins and I bet just anyone who’s not a Christian. This is dogmatic, maybe fundamental, and certainly harsh, but it is not hate.
You can call them hateful if you want, and I understand why you would feel that way, but when you use unnecessarily strong language to describe a group like this, you’re just cheapening the terms for the next time a real group of crazies, like the Westboro Baptist Church, comes along.
Comment by Brian on 20 November 2007 at 12:39 pm:
Brenda,
On the contrary, it cheapens the word hate to relegate its use only to its ugliest, most blatant manifestations, or only to those instances in which those doing the hating would honestly own up to their true feelings. I’m not suggesting that people who say they simply conceive of homosexuality as a sin that ought to be cured are secretly thinking, “I hate these lousy faggots,” though certainly some of them are. I am suggesting that EVEN IF a person does nothing more than conceive of homosexuality as a sin that ought to be cured, they are being hateful. EVEN IF a person does nothing more than believe that the best thing for gay people is for them to be denied equal rights under the law and denied the opportunity to raise a family, they are being hateful. EVEN IF a person does nothing more than oppose the full acceptance of gay people because they want to uphold the traditions of their parents and grandparents, they are being hateful. They might not like to think of themselves that way, and you might not like to think of themselves that way, and, hell, I might not like to think of themselves that way, but that’s the way they are. And if you replace any references to gay people with references to black people, I think you should be able to understand why. Does that mean you shouldn’t be friends with them? No. But it does mean you should be honest about what they’re doing, and not diminish it in a purposeless and dangerous appeal to moderation.