Today’s Albany Times Union carries an article about a couple who have been forbidden to tithe because they declared bankruptcy.

It appears that the Republican Congress has rewritten the bankruptcy statute in such a way that previous exemptions for religious giving have been removed for most people. The Congress has effectively told their evangelical Christian supporters that their biblical tithing principals mean nothing (ref. Malachi 3:10):

Bring the whole tithe into the storehouse, That there may be food in my house, and try me in this, says the LORD of hosts: Shall I not open for you the floodgates of heaven, to pour down blessing upon you without measure?

All Christians should be cautious of what the world offers (especially when politicians offer it). Our witness is to be to all, and we must witness a faith that supersedes the laws of men.

The excerpts from the story below conclude by noting who was served by your representatives in Congress. They served those who paid them enough to be served —“ the creditor industry. To whom did they pay their tithe? For the full story see: No place for church in state of bankruptcy.

Judge orders debtors to pay bills in rejecting $100 a month for parish

ALBANY — Bankruptcy lawyers around the nation are blasting a revised federal tax statute that pits civil law against the spiritual commitments of the financially strapped faithful.

A federal bankruptcy judge in Albany ruled in late August that the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act forbids debtors from deducting charitable contributions when calculating disposable income.

Judge Robert E. Littlefield Jr. said he had little choice but to reluctantly rule against an Adirondacks couple who sought to fight the new ban in bankruptcy court.

When Frank and Patricia Diagostino filed a Chapter 13 bankruptcy petition, they asked to be allowed to continue making their $100 monthly donation to the Sacred Heart Parish of Massena while they paid off their unsecured debts.

But Littlefield noted in his decision that the reform legislation clearly says such a contribution is not considered a reasonable expense when a family’s income is above the median level.

That means credit card companies and others owed money get first crack at available funds from someone filing for bankruptcy, even if that person has been regularly donating money to a church.

It’s a religious dilemma for those who believe, like the Diagostinos, that tithing a regular percentage of their annual income is a necessary expense.

“Thou shalt have no gods before me … except for MasterCard, Visa and American Express,” said Henry J. Sommer, president of the National Association of Consumer Bankruptcy Attorneys.

“For religious Americans who find themselves deeply in debt … the reform legislation didn’t just reword the federal bankruptcy code, it also effectively rewrote Exodus and Deuteronomy,” Sommer said.

…

In his opinion, Littlefield said the change in bankruptcy law “effectively closes the door” to debtors who are above the median income from deducting charitable contributions as an expense, unless they can establish that the contributions fall under the IRS guidelines.

“The court does not agree with this awkward, bifurcated congressional framework which makes charitable giving easier for some debtors and not others,” he said. “Whether tithing is, or is not, reasonable for a debtor in bankruptcy is for Washington to decide. However, consistency and logic would demand the same treatment of all debtors.”

Until Congress amends tax law, “the court’s hands are tied and the tithing principles that this court once applied … have been effectively mooted.”

The whole bankruptcy concept is unusual, Albany Law School Professor Timothy Lytton said. Because it is a privilege that the government extends, “it has the right to define exclusions as it wants.”

What the reform legislation says is, “while the government can’t interfere with your right to practice your religion, you can’t use your religion to get out of your legal obligations,” he said.

The law seems to have pitted the Republican-led Congress into conflict with itself, Lytton added. While the majority of the GOP leans toward the religious right, he said, the statute it enacted now hurts some of the very people those lawmakers seek to protect.

For Jonathan C. Lipson, an associate professor of commercial, corporate and bankruptcy law at Temple University, the current religious exemption conundrum isn’t the only troubling aspect of the contentious statute.

Besides failing to protect those who tithe, nothing was put in place to assist financially struggling soldiers in Iraq or survivors of Hurricane Katrina. Instead, he said, bankruptcy reforms go easier on big business, something he said is indicative of “what you would expect from the agendas of this Congress.”

“There is no end of scorn for how poorly drafted the statute is,” said Lipson, who also is co-chairman of the American Bar Association’s Committee on Business Law Education. “And the credit card companies had the best help available. They spent an enormous amount of money.”

…

Yep.

Jeff Culbreath at Hallowed Things comments on California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s signing of SB 1441, a Bill that seeks to prevent any government funding of any private institution that follows a code of conduct contrary to the wishes of the State. In California: The Slide Continues he states:

Today, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed SB1441 into law. This tyrannical bill further marginalizes Californians with traditional beliefs by preventing “parochial schools, such as private, Christian, Catholic, Mormon, and many other religious universities, from receiving student financial assistance if they also maintain a student code of conduct preventing behavior deemed immoral by their religious beliefs.— Homeschoolers could be impacted, as many California homeschoolers use public charter school programs or the homeschooling programs of registered private schools. The remainder of California homeschoolers are independently registered as “private” schools with the state: these should not be affected (unless they are somehow receiving state assistance), but the stage is set to go after them next.

I follow Huw Raphael’s line of thinking. In Dance all you want he states:

Religious groups accept money from the state and then discover that the state can change the rules.

Oopsie.

Any school, college, daycare provider, business or entity, social service agency, hospital, or other organization that provides services to the state and receives state funding for those services must set aside their moral/religious views or face an elimination of contracts and funding. There are no exceptions in the new California Law.

Now I do not expect a huge change in the landscape of California’s educational, healthcare, or social service network. Nothing will happen right away because the state will only selectively enforce the law when someone or some group is denied services. Everyone will cover their ears and sing a merry tune in the meantime, at least until they get slapped. Then there will be a lot of hand wringing.

Newer Christian organizations (at least under Bush initiatives) and Catholic organization (for a long time now) have tied themselves too tightly to the cash flow coming from the government. Sure, government is a cash cow – but it is also a golden calf.

We are being offered another opportunity to witness to the strength of our faith. Which will it be, values or money?

I do not pray for success, I ask for faithfulness. — Mother Teresa

Church leaders should heed those words.