Bankruptcy Law Forbids Tithing

[Bluezy]

Bakrate.com - Bankruptcy Law Forbids Tithing

What an issue!

[Broken Arrow]

Ridiculous!

I would think this violates the First Amendment.

[disneysteve]

Why should someone be permitted to give their money away when they can't afford to pay their bills? I think obligations should come first and voluntary donations should come second.

[Jacklad]

Originally Posted by disneysteve

Why should someone be permitted to give their money away when they can't afford to pay their bills? I think obligations should come first and voluntary donations should come second.

I have to agree. First of all, as a Catholic, I can tell you that there is no religous obligation for Catholics to tithe. We do have collections at Mass, but no one is required to give.

Secondly, if they are so concerned, perhaps they should consider non-monetary tithing - no one is stopping them from giving of their time. In my diocese, the church runs everything from soup kitchens to thrift shops. They are always short of volunteers (lots of people find it easier to throw money than to actually get their hands dirty helping other people).

No sympathy here.

Jackie

[sweeps]

I agree with Steve and Jackie. This money isn't the couple's to be donating -- it's someone else's money that they borrowed with the promise to pay back.

Unfortunately I think Congress will get a lot of political pressure on this one and will make it perfectly legal to continue donating even in bankruptcy.

[b4freedom]

Let's pretend that you're a charitable organization. A family gives you $3000. You know that the family can't pay the bills because your charitable organization already helps them out in their times of needs. Would you accept the $3000 from a family you know can't afford to give $3000? What does that say about your moral character if you accept the money? Do you think it's counter productive to have contributors who's contributions will only contribute to the financial ruin of the contributors?

What is the more responsible thing to do? Tithe or pay off your debts and legal obligations?

Do you think churches should help families be more financial responsible so that the families don't end up in this dilemma?

Is it fair for one person to give $3000 a year to something they really believe in, like an environmental group; and a different person gives $3000 a year to something they really believe in, their religion; but at bankruptcy time, they get treated differently? Is their a difference between the two?

My take on this article: I think it should stand. And I think it would be financially wise for churches that accept tithe from families that go bankrupt to decline the tithing and provide forgiveness to the families for not tithing. I think that the same churches should set up in-house financial counseling services for those families to help them get out of their situation. Many churches provide marriage counseling, family counseling, etc. when the family struggles with these problems. Why not provide counseling and educational programs for financial reasons. In the long run, the churches will benefit because you'll have members financially responsible and better educated. A financially educated and secure congregation means you'll have a financially educated and secure church. Churches should step up to bat and hit a home run with this.

To summarize: Churches that invest in the well being of their congregation will have a congregation that invests in the well being of the church.

I agree. I think there will be a lot of uproar about this issue, but as a Christian myself, I really don't think your church or God will be upset with you if in your time of need, you contribute by volunteering rather than monitarily. I don't even think it'd be bad to do nothing, but at least by volunteering, you're still giving back what you can, your time, and that's the whole point. At least, in my opinion it is.

[MonkeyMama]

Originally Posted by b4freedom

Is it fair for one person to give $3000 a year to something they really believe in, like an environmental group; and a different person gives $3000 a year to something they really believe in, their religion; but at bankruptcy time, they get treated differently? Is their a difference between the two?

I think this is the point I Can't get past. Where do you draw the line dictating what people can and can not spend their money on???? IF this is the only rule it is extremely unfair.

Actually I am quite shocked about this whole law.

From a personal standpoint I see many people who tithe way more than they have, and I do not agree in the least. At face value I can get behind the idea it should not be allowed, and that giving of your time is just as wonderful. But looking at the big picture it is not a fair rule in the least.

Thanks for the article though - interesting...

[ChimbleySweep]

Originally Posted by MonkeyMama

I think this is the point I Can't get past. Where do you draw the line dictating what people can and can not spend their money on????

Well, when they file bankruptcy, they owe creditors money. What kind of sense does it make to not pay the debt that you incurred but instead give your money away?

I think it's a fair rule. People who file bankruptcy are doing it for a reason. They don't HAVE the money to just donate.

[Jacklad]

Originally Posted by MonkeyMama

I think this is the point I Can't get past. Where do you draw the line dictating what people can and can not spend their money on???? IF this is the only rule it is extremely unfair.

Why? The law doesn't allow charitable contributions until the debt is repaid. Why should tithing be an exception? And if tithing were to be allowed, then why not donations to any charity? What would be unfair would be to allow tithing but not allow a non-tither to make similar contributions.

If one wants/needs the benefits of bankruptcy, then one also has to accept the restrictions (and vice versa). The whole point is to clear the debt, and if that means that discretionary spending must be curtailed for that period of time, I don't think it's unreasonable or unfair at all.

Jackie

[MonkeyMama]

I guess I Am confused on what they are allowed and not allwoed to spend their money on.

IT seems they are allowed to give to non-charitable organizations but not religious and charitable organizations??? Not fair - plain and simple. Like someone mentioned, they can give to environmental causes though??

All shoud be disallowed as ANY unnecessary expense. It is not clear from the article what you are allowed to spend your money on. The IRS link just mentions a few things - does not even list utilities and such, which obviosuly would be allowed. So it is unclear to me how limited you are where you can spend your money in bankruptcy. ??

[boefixepa]

It will be interesting to see where this goes...I'm struggling to decided where I stand.

Someone telling me where I can or can not spend my money is not to my liking, but in bankrupcy....well you're asking for help. So you have to play by their rules.

On the other hand I believe tithing to be a commandment from God, a tenth of all your increase. Course I also believe it a commandment to repay all or your debts and obligations. So if you are in bankrupcy because of things YOU did, meaning you caused the banrupcy by living beyond your means and not keeping your house in order, then I'd side with not paying tithing being the best of two evils. IF it was cause by something beyond you control (ie medical bills) I would say they should allow the tithing.

But how is a court going to decide something like this? There are certainly first ammendment right at issue here too. Also the one comment about differing charitable agencies...where do you draw the line?

No easy answer that's for sure.

[Jacklad]

Originally Posted by MonkeyMama

I guess I Am confused on what they are allowed and not allwoed to spend their money on.

IT seems they are allowed to give to non-charitable organizations but not religious and charitable organizations??? Not fair - plain and simple. Like someone mentioned, they can give to environmental causes though??

All shoud be disallowed as ANY unnecessary expense. It is not clear from the article what you are allowed to spend your money on. The IRS link just mentions a few things - does not even list utilities and such, which obviosuly would be allowed. So it is unclear to me how limited you are where you can spend your money in bankruptcy. ??

I think what confused you was the reference to the environmental cause - that would not be allowed, just as tithing is not allowed. b4freedom was just pointing out that it would be unfair if tithing was allowed over other charitable causes.

The IRS link just shows allowable "living" expenses - if you look at the links at the bottom of the page, you'll find separate scales for Housing and Utilities (by state), and for Transportation (by region).

Jackie

[pearlieq]

I think it's a fair and sensible rule.

I don't think it's a First Amendment issue. There are limits on what can be considered religious expression. There are many other ways to contribute to a church. Plus, I don't think you can consider it tithing when you're giving away money that doesn't rightfully belong to you.

[Mathew Green]

Matthew 22:15 says:

Then the Pharisees went out and laid plans to trap him in his words. They sent their disciples to him along with the Herodians. "Teacher," they said, "we know you are a man of integrity and that you teach the way of God in accordance with the truth. You aren't swayed by men, because you pay no attention to who they are. Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?"

But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, "You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax." They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, "Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?"

"Caesar's," they replied.

Then he said to them, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's." When they heard this, they were amazed. So they left him and went away.

Money that is owed to creditors is the same as tax owed to Caesar; a debt enforced by the legal system of the country you live in.

How you acquired the debts and whether you have a moral obligation to repay them is a separate question. Sometimes people have debts that are not legally enforceable but are morally due, other times a legally enforceable debt isn't morally owed because you were charged for something you don't owe and simply can't prove you don't owe it. But in either case, the legal system deals only with The Law and not with the moral rightness or wrongness of the debt.

Jesus didn't say, "Caesar is a distant tyrant who abuses God's people and you should resist him by giving your money to the church and refusing to pay the tax." Instead he said that Caesar created the money and we should give it back to him if he wants it. He also says to "give to God what is God's", which many commentaries take to mean love, respect, and gratitude not only toward God, but toward all people as well. Part of what we owe to God is monetary support of our church and charitable donations, but not if that means stealing money from Caesar (the secular world) by refusing to pay our legally or morally owed debts.

So, the judge may or may not be correct in interpreting the law, but I see no problem with this ruling from a religious viewpoint. The bible doesn't sanction giving away money that doesn't belong to you, and there is no way a tithe or any other charitable contribution can be classified as a "legitimate living expense", which is all the bankruptcy law allows a debtor to keep.

That's my take on it, and I would leave any church that encouraged, pressured, or knowingly accepted anything other than token donations under these circumstances. YMMV, but I believe "Render unto Caesar" fully applies here.