PDA

View Full Version : Ministers to Defy I.R.S. by Endorsing Candidates



wilbur
09-27-2008, 02:18 PM
Ministers to Defy I.R.S. by Endorsing Candidates

Article Tools Sponsored By
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN
Published: September 25, 2008

Defying a federal tax law they consider unjust, 33 ministers across the country will take to their pulpits this Sunday and publicly endorse a candidate for president.

They plan to then send copies of their sermons to the Internal Revenue Service, hoping to provoke a challenge to a law that bars religious organizations and other nonprofits that accept tax-deductible contributions from involvement in partisan political campaigns.

The protest, called Pulpit Freedom Sunday, was organized by the Alliance Defense Fund, a consortium of Christian lawyers that fights for conservative religious and social causes. When the fund first announced the protest this year, it said it planned to have 50 ministers taking part. As of Thursday it said it had hundreds of volunteers, but had selected only 33 who were fully aware of the risks and benefits.

...


http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/us/politics/26preach.html?ei=5124&en=8d44576c23a2a77b&ex=1380168000&adxnnl=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&adxnnlx=1222535459-S9julHOXVX8MwTUw2ZuKAw

Making suggestions or providing guidance over the moral issues in an election is one thing... full on endorsement of candidates by official church leaders seems like crossing the line. Honestly do we want a country so heavily influenced by churches in this way? Should politicians be so heavily intertwined with clergy?

Cold Warrior
09-27-2008, 02:22 PM
Good, take every one of their tax-exempt statuses away (regardless of ideology).

LibraryLady
09-27-2008, 02:26 PM
They want a test case


The Pulpit Freedom Campaign has amassed the pastors to cooperate in a mass violation of a 1954 law that bars religious organizations and nonprofit groups that accept tax-deductible contributions from endorsing specific candidates. The ADF thinks the law is unconstitutional and lined up churches earlier this year willing to commit civil disobedience for a test case headed for the Supreme Court.http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2008/sep/27/churches-to-defy-irs-on-sermons/

PoliCon
09-27-2008, 02:28 PM
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/26/us/politics/26preach.html?ei=5124&en=8d44576c23a2a77b&ex=1380168000&adxnnl=1&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink&adxnnlx=1222535459-S9julHOXVX8MwTUw2ZuKAw

Making suggestions or providing guidance over the moral issues in an election is one thing... full on endorsement of candidates by official church leaders seems like crossing the line. Honestly do we want a country so heavily influenced by churches in this way? Should politicians be so heavily intertwined with clergy?lol we wouldn't have a country if not for ministers taking to their pulpits and "heavily intertwin[ing]" politics with clergy.

wilbur
09-27-2008, 02:34 PM
Good, take every one of their tax-exempt statuses away (regardless of ideology).

Seems like a good idea, but one wonders if that wouldnt make it worse? The tax exempt status is like a dangling carrot that in some ways keeps church officials at arms length from the political process and vice versa.

On the flip side, I think it's probably a good thing you don't have politicians who are effectively able to reach down to church officials to get public official endorsements... interjecting all the nastiness of politics and the bad stuff that comes with it into the churches. Without the rules of tax exempt status, it may actually encourage the intermingling of both institutions to even greater extremes.

Of course, churches aren't the only organizations who get tax exempt status for remaining apolitical (even if it is halfhearted). Groups like Green Peace and many other left wing groups... so a big can of worms could be potentially opened up...

PoliCon
09-27-2008, 02:51 PM
Everyone knows that the law in question is only ever applied to conservative churches anyhow. Left leaning congragations invite politicians all the time to address their congrgations and nothing is ever done - or if it is ever done the press is conspiratorially silent on the issue.

Cold Warrior
09-27-2008, 02:55 PM
Everyone knows that the law in question is only ever applied to conservative churches anyhow. Left leaning congragations invite politicians all the time to address their congrgations and nothing is ever done - or if it is ever done the press is conspiratorially silent on the issue.

Somehow I doubt that, but even if true, the answer is simple. Take away the tax exempt status for ALL churches. In that way, there can be no inference of government partisanship one way or the other.

LibraryLady
09-27-2008, 02:58 PM
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c12/dtharman/HillaryChurch.gif
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c12/dtharman/kerrychurch.jpg
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c12/dtharman/gore_church2.jpg

MrsSmith
09-27-2008, 03:58 PM
A QUIET FAITH? TAXES, POLITICS, AND THE PRIVATIZATION OF RELIGION

Richard W. Garnett*

>>>snip

But the churches’ exemption comes at a price:32 Like other tax-exempt charitable organizations, religious communities may not engage in activities and expression that concern or touch upon social realities and that are regarded by government as excessively political (or, perhaps, as insufficiently religious).33 Now, we could just regard these rules as the fair cost to churches of the tax benefits they enjoy, and perhaps also as reasonable safeguards against abuse of their tax-exempt status. Or, we could even say that these restrictions on churches impose no real burdens at all; they merely require charitable organizations “to pay for [political] activities entirely out of their own pockets, as everyone else engaging in similar activities is required to do.”34 On the other hand, it could be that the churches’ silence on political matters, and their retreat from the political arena, are no less valuable to government than the “social services” they provide and the “cultural and moral improvement of the community” to which they contribute.35 That is, we might think the tax exemption is simply the government’s way of paying churches not to talk about certain things.36

But, of course, churches have been talking about these “things” for a long time. From the revivalists of the Great Awakening who helped pave the way for the American Revolution, to the God-drenched abolitionist movements that sparked the Civil War; from the priests, ministers, and rabbis who appealed to the nation’s better angels during the Civil Rights movement, to the priests, ministers, and rabbis who today urge a rejection of the Culture of Death;37 from the presidential bids of Reverends Jackson and Robertson to the “God talk”38 that was a staple of the campaigns of Senator Joseph Lieberman and now-President George W. Bush—our history, traditions, and interminable public debates on the social issues are and have always been awash in religious expression, argument, and activism.



Interesting article...though wilbur won't like it (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/law/lwsch/journals/bclawr/42_4/02_FMS.htm)

PoliCon
09-28-2008, 12:18 AM
Somehow I doubt that, but even if true, the answer is simple. Take away the tax exempt status for ALL churches. In that way, there can be no inference of government partisanship one way or the other.We could do that. We could take away the tax exempt status of hospitals and schools too. AND we could levy a DUMB ASS ATHEISTS tax - but that would be ridiculous.

PoliCon
09-28-2008, 12:25 AM
you forgot http://www.camajorityreport.com/var/uploads/leadimages/ClintonChurch.jpghttp://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/ap/9ea989ab-8cc5-4a14-9a65-230a6f585668.h2.jpghttp://llnw.image.cbslocal.com/0/2008/01/21/320x240/obama_church.jpghttp://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/obama%20church.jpg

PoliCon
09-28-2008, 12:26 AM
a few more

http://a.abcnews.com/images/Politics/nm_obama_church_070604_ms.jpghttp://citizenchris.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/01/25/obamaebeneezer.jpghttp://msnbcmedia3.msn.com/j/ap/60b0c7d0-0008-45e8-bec7-e74502e396fe.hmedium.jpghttp://www.getreligion.org/wp-content/photos/ObamaPulpit.jpg

PoliCon
09-28-2008, 12:29 AM
http://bagnewsnotes.typepad.com/bagnews/images/Obama-Apostolic.jpghttp://i80.photobucket.com/albums/j191/mikesamerica/bawerfilde-1.jpghttp://images.google.com/url?q=http://www.getreligion.org/wp-content/photos/ObamaTrinity.jpg&usg=AFQjCNGm7hUFOeiWXYxSM2lVm79jTluTFAhttp://farm3.static.flickr.com/2360/2205791289_b3b8db4212.jpg

FlaGator
09-28-2008, 09:39 AM
I think that there is more here than meets the eye when it comes to ministers expressing their views on political candidate and the opposition to it. Why don't we take this a step further? Why not silence all those who receive federal money as well? Why should they influence others with their opinions if on party favors giving them money over another.

PoliCon
09-28-2008, 10:10 AM
good point. Churches don't take Government money. Why should they be silenced while those living off the largess of the government are not?

Cold Warrior
09-28-2008, 10:18 AM
good point. Churches don't take Government money. Why should they be silenced while those living off the largess of the government are not?

By being tax exempt, the do take government money. Again, the simplest solution is to revoke the tax exempt status for churches (of all denominations) and let them do what they please.

PoliCon
09-28-2008, 10:24 AM
By being tax exempt, the do take government money. Again, the simplest solution is to revoke the tax exempt status for churches (of all denominations) and let them do what they please.Nooooo. Are you stupid or what? You really are a leftist aren't ya. By being tax exempt they don't give the government THEIR money. Only a dim would say something so stupid.

Goldwater
09-28-2008, 10:43 AM
Nooooo. Are you stupid or what? You really are a leftist aren't ya. By being tax exempt they don't give the government THEIR money. Only a dim would say something so stupid.

They still get special treatment in tax. While they're not giving the government money, the government is favoring them.

Zeus
09-28-2008, 11:48 AM
lol we wouldn't have a country if not for ministers taking to their pulpits and "heavily intertwin[ing]" politics with clergy.

There is that and then perhaps even Hospitals, Universities, Libraries , etc etc. The deniers don't realize the impact "Churches" have had on Civilization.

Cold Warrior
09-28-2008, 12:00 PM
Nooooo. Are you stupid or what? You really are a leftist aren't ya. By being tax exempt they don't give the government THEIR money. Only a dim would say something so stupid.

It's only their money if the money I make off of my business is ALSO my money and if the money GM makes (do they still make money?) is their money. Corporations pay taxes in the US for the benefit of using the services and protections provided by the US. If you're suggesting we eliminate all corporate taxes, then that's an interesting take on the subject and would have a few implications that might need considering prior to execution. However, if you're not, then churches, which in the modern era are businesses, should pay taxes like any other business. Then they could say and do what they please (within normal legal boundaries, of course).

MrsSmith
09-28-2008, 04:56 PM
Churches in the US should be like those in Finland and some other European countries, supported by tax dollars. As a large percentage of titihing church members are unable to take the tax deductions for their tithes, a 2% country-wide church tax, like the one in Finland that is used to support their churches, would make up for that lack. This would allow churches to support even more food pantries, homeless shelters, pregnancy centers, and disaster relief programs.

linda22003
09-28-2008, 04:58 PM
Including mosques, eh?

Financial support of any religion by the state is completely inappropriate.

And why can't they take tax deductions for their tithes?

MrsSmith
09-28-2008, 05:04 PM
Including mosques, eh?

Financial support of any religion by the state is completely inappropriate.

And why can't they take tax deductions for their tithes?


You have to have enough deductions to itemize.

Financial support by the state is no more inappropriate than the silencing of free speech on private property by the threat of taxation.

Financial support by the state was fully legal when our country was founded. Taxing churches wasn't even considered until the 1950's.

linda22003
09-28-2008, 05:07 PM
If they're truly tithing, they should have enough to itemize. If they're just doing the 1040 EZ form, that's not my problem as a taxpayer. I've itemized every year I've filed taxes, and that's a lot of years.

So you're willing to support any and all religions with funding from the state? I'm not, and I'm sure I'm not alone on this board in that.

Cold Warrior
09-28-2008, 05:15 PM
If they're truly tithing, they should have enough to itemize. If they're just doing the 1040 EZ form, that's not my problem as a taxpayer. I've itemized every year I've filed taxes, and that's a lot of years.

So you're willing to support any and all religions with funding from the state? I'm not, and I'm sure I'm not alone on this board in that.

You rang? (Sorry, I know you don't like Maynard jokes). :D

It's amazing that conservatives can favor things like (1) a constitutional amendment against abortion, (2) a constitutional amendment against same sex marriage, and (3) additional taxes to be distributed to churches. And, oh yes, other parts of their agenda include police authorities for random, no-probable-cause searches, warrantless wiretaps, the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, etc. ad infinitum. But, unlike the evil liberals, they're in favor of "less government," "lower taxes," and "personal liberty." Riiight...

(you know what's coming :D)

Two sides. Same coin.

linda22003
09-28-2008, 05:17 PM
And she never answered the "including mosques?" question. :cool:

MrsSmith
09-28-2008, 05:21 PM
If they're truly tithing, they should have enough to itemize. If they're just doing the 1040 EZ form, that's not my problem as a taxpayer. I've itemized every year I've filed taxes, and that's a lot of years.

So you're willing to support any and all religions with funding from the state? I'm not, and I'm sure I'm not alone on this board in that.

If they have no children, are self-employed, and/or have either a huge mortgage or large medical bills, they can probably itemize. Most can't. Even with only one child left at home, we can't itemize.

I'm more willing to support all religions than to see even more government interference with our First Amendment rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion. The founders were very concerned with keeping government out of religion. Unfortunately, the "wall of separation" has been built a mile high from the religious side, and an inch high from the government side...allowing the government to step over it with impunity and regulate anything they choose.

MrsSmith
09-28-2008, 05:24 PM
You rang? (Sorry, I know you don't like Maynard jokes). :D

It's amazing that conservatives can favor things like (1) a constitutional amendment against abortion, (2) a constitutional amendment against same sex marriage, and (3) additional taxes to be distributed to churches. And, oh yes, other parts of their agenda include police authorities for random, no-probable-cause searches, warrantless wiretaps, the War on Drugs, the War on Terror, etc. ad infinitum. But, unlike the evil liberals, they're in favor of "less government," "lower taxes," and "personal liberty." Riiight...

(you know what's coming :D)

Two sides. Same coin.

So weird, that we'd like to see murder made illegal, marriage to stay marriage instead of "whoever I'm jumping into bed with," and government upholding instead of destroying our First Amendment. Yep. Weird. Totally. :D

linda22003
09-28-2008, 05:24 PM
I'm more willing to support all religions than to see even more government interference with our First Amendment rights to free speech and the free exercise of religion.

I don't see that as an "either/or" choice. We don't get credit for all of our itemizing because the government thinks we make too much money in order to benefit that much. I don't stiff my church, my prep school, or my charities because the government doesn't let me have all the credit for it, and you shouldn't either.

You shouldn't expect me to support your church any more than I should support your charities. That's money you give because you believe in the gift.

Cold Warrior
09-28-2008, 05:28 PM
So weird, that we'd like to see murder made illegal, marriage to stay marriage instead of "whoever I'm jumping into bed with," and government upholding instead of destroying our First Amendment. Yep. Weird. Totally. :D

Or, to look at it another way, you'd like to dictate what a woman can do with her body, you'd like to preserve an insitutuion that has only existed in its current form for a hundred years or so in order to restrict the rights of those you find morally offensive, and you'd like to sponsor the foundations of a state theocracy. And you want that insitution that you so hate, the federal government, to enforce your agenda.

Actually, not weird. Totally predictable.

FlaGator
09-28-2008, 05:29 PM
Churches are not as tax free as you would think. Clergy pay income taxes on their pay. Church workers pay
income taxes. Only certain types of fund raising are tax exempt. Just about any source of income for a church where the church provides a non religious service for a fee is taxable. Tithing, donations and property taxes are really the only major things that are tax exempt.

MrsSmith
09-28-2008, 05:31 PM
I don't see that as an "either/or" choice. We don't get credit for all of our itemizing because the government thinks we make too much money in order to benefit that much. I don't stiff my church, my prep school, or my charities because the government doesn't let me have all the credit for it, and you shouldn't either.

You shouldn't expect me to support your church any more than I should support your charities. That's money you give because you believe in the gift.

If my church is double-taxed, as most of the tithes are not tax-deferred, then why wouldn't I want the government to give us some of that money back? They had no right to silence us in the first place. The US survived over 150 years of political speech in the pulpit without turning into a theocracy, there is no constitutional basis for denying that speech now.

FlaGator
09-28-2008, 05:34 PM
And she never answered the "including mosques?" question. :cool:

I would include mosques in this. Also, if a person makes 20,000 a year and tithes 2,000 that is not enough to idemize.

linda22003
09-28-2008, 05:36 PM
"If my church is double-taxed, as most of the tithes are not tax-deferred"

This makes no sense. That's not a tax on your church, it has to do with your parishioners. If they are not of sufficient economic status to deduct the gift, they will just have to give out of belief. The fact is that CW is right - you want the rest of us to support your church, even if we don't share the denomination.

I have no problem with your church's freedom of speech; how could I? I don't even know what they're preaching.

FlaGator
09-28-2008, 05:37 PM
Or, to look at it another way, you'd like to dictate what a woman can do with her body, you'd like to preserve an insitutuion that has only existed in its current form for a hundred years or so in order to restrict the rights of those you find morally offensive, and you'd like to sponsor the foundations of a state theocracy. And you want that insitution that you so hate, the federal government, to enforce your agenda.

Actually, not weird. Totally predictable.

Only when her choice affects another life. Before the life is conceived she is free to do as she chooses. Why is that a problem?

MrsSmith
09-28-2008, 05:38 PM
Or, to look at it another way, you'd like to dictate what a woman can do with her body, you'd like to preserve an insitutuion that has only existed in its current form for a hundred years or so in order to restrict the rights of those you find morally offensive, and you'd like to sponsor the foundations of a state theocracy. And you want that insitution that you so hate, the federal government, to enforce your agenda.

Actually, not weird. Totally predictable.

A woman can do anything she'd like with her own body. The problem only arises when her "preference" is the destruction of another body.

I'd like to preserve the institution of marriage that has survived over 5000 years. Those who choose actions outside those boundaries are perfectly free to continue them...but they aren't married.

As I said before, the US began with state supported churches and free speech in the pulpit. For 150 years, that speech did not cause a theocracy. I want the institution of the US government to abide within the boundaries of the constitution, which does not give them the authority to tax, or threaten to tax, religious entities.

Totally sensible.

Cold Warrior
09-28-2008, 05:39 PM
"If my church is double-taxed, as most of the tithes are not tax-deferred"

This makes no sense. That's not a tax on your church, it has to do with your parishioners. If they are not of sufficient economic status to deduct the gift, they will just have to give out of belief. The fact is that CW is right - you want the rest of us to support your church, even if we don't share the denomination.

I have no problem with your church's freedom of speech; how could I? I don't even know what they're preaching.

Again, the simplest solution is to tax churces as other businesses. Many, not all, operate as businesses and make significant profits. Then, you can say anything you want, and those of us who don't believe in your religion aren't indirectly taxed, i.e., through having a non-taxed business.

FlaGator
09-28-2008, 05:40 PM
"If my church is double-taxed, as most of the tithes are not tax-deferred"

This makes no sense. That's not a tax on your church, it has to do with your parishioners. If they are not of sufficient economic status to deduct the gift, they will just have to give out of belief. The fact is that CW is right - you want the rest of us to support your church, even if we don't share the denomination.

I have no problem with your church's freedom of speech; how could I? I don't even know what they're preaching.

Do you have issues if the churches tells parishioners and congregants which political figures they agree with and support?

linda22003
09-28-2008, 05:41 PM
I frankly don't care. I'm going to make the decision myself in any case.

FlaGator
09-28-2008, 05:41 PM
Again, the simplest solution is to tax churces as other businesses. Many, not all, operate as businesses and make significant profits. Then, you can say anything you want, and those of us who don't believe in your religion aren't indirectly taxed, i.e., through having a non-taxed business.

Again, those churches that operate as a business and sells goods or services are taxed on that income.

MrsSmith
09-28-2008, 05:42 PM
"If my church is double-taxed, as most of the tithes are not tax-deferred"

This makes no sense. That's not a tax on your church, it has to do with your parishioners. If they are not of sufficient economic status to deduct the gift, they will just have to give out of belief. The fact is that CW is right - you want the rest of us to support your church, even if we don't share the denomination.

I have no problem with your church's freedom of speech; how could I? I don't even know what they're preaching.

The IRS has silenced my pastor and our congregation, on private property, on exactly that threat...to double tax. Just as though collecting the tax on our income the first time isn't enough...along with all the other taxes a church must pay. In 1954, they wrote a rule removing free speech from churches on the unconstitution threat of double taxation. If the wall of separation does not keep the government off the private property of my church, if they decide to double-tax us for something they had no right to forbid, then giving that money back is just fair. Our taxes go to support hideous programs like murdering infants, so why not good works like food pantries and pregnancy centers.

jediab
09-28-2008, 05:43 PM
Good, take every one of their tax-exempt statuses away (regardless of ideology).


Yep that would be great. Because then every single ruling, law, and provision created to remove God from public could be reversed because of the "Not with tax payers money" excuse. Schools could have prayer back because that church down the road now pays property taxes, just like everyone else. The priests would have every right to represent themselves and their interests during school board meetings. The Ten Commandments could go back up on the courthouse, etc. Not to mention the religious groups would then now have full legal lobbyists to vie for politicians attentions. Would you God haters really really want the money of the Catholic League and the Pope backing someone in congress? Nothing could stop them.

The excuse of taxes used to separate church and state would be destroyed, and all the religion haters would have to come up with a new reason to rid their public of God. And THAT would be more entertaining that counting how many time Obama says ahh... ahh... ahh...

FlaGator
09-28-2008, 05:44 PM
I frankly don't care. I'm going to make the decision myself in any case.


Me too, but this whole thread was centered around taxing Churches that endorse political candidates? So you are saying that you have no problem with letting churches remain tax exempt and endorse candidates?

linda22003
09-28-2008, 05:44 PM
I have no idea what the specific situation to which you refer is, so I can't comment on it. I will not pay taxes to support your church. I can promise you you would not want to pay taxes to support mine.

Zeus
09-28-2008, 05:45 PM
Most churches in America have organized as "501c3 tax-exempt religious organizations." This is a fairly recent trend that has only been going on for about fifty years. Churches were only added to section 501c3 of the tax code in 1954. We can thank Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson for that. Johnson was no ally of the church




For a 501c3 church to openly speak out, or organize in opposition to, anything that the government declares "legal," even if it is immoral (e.g. abortion, homosexuality, etc.), that church will jeopardize its tax exempt status. The 501c3 has had a "chilling effect" upon the free speech rights of the church.




Did the church ever need to seek permission from the government to be exempt from taxes? Were churches prior to 1954 taxable? No, churches have never been taxable. To be taxable a church would first need to be under the jurisdiction, and therefore under the taxing authority, of the government. The First Amendment clearly places the church outside the jurisdiction of the civil government: "Congress shall make NO LAW respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Religion cannot be free if you have to pay the government, through taxation, to exercise it. Since churches aren't taxable in the first place, why do so many of them go to the IRS and seek permission to be tax-exempt?


Read More @ 501c3 Facts (http://hushmoney.org/501c3-facts.htm)

linda22003
09-28-2008, 05:45 PM
Me too, but this whole thread was centered around taxing Churches that endorse political candidates? So you are saying that you have no problem with letting churches remain tax exempt and endorse candidates?

Personally, no, but I don't write the IRS rules. I have to live by those rules, so they likely will have to as well.

MrsSmith
09-28-2008, 05:48 PM
Again, the simplest solution is to tax churces as other businesses. Many, not all, operate as businesses and make significant profits. Then, you can say anything you want, and those of us who don't believe in your religion aren't indirectly taxed, i.e., through having a non-taxed business.

Churches that have profits are taxed. The threat is upon the non-profit income, that money which is used to maintain the church building - which is used as a shelter in time of need, upon the money used to support food pantries, homeless shelters, pregnancy centers, and all the other good works done by churches. If churches are taxed, your taxes will go to make up the difference, anyway, as the government never operates as efficiently as an organization that survives through volunteer labor.

FlaGator
09-28-2008, 05:52 PM
I have no idea what the specific situation to which you refer is, so I can't comment on it. I will not pay taxes to support your church. I can promise you you would not want to pay taxes to support mine.

Sorry Linda, I answered this thinking that you were talking to me.

linda22003
09-28-2008, 05:53 PM
Sorry for the confusion. When I said "specific situation" I was answering Mrs. Smith talking about her pastor being "silenced". I should have quoted but I didn't realize there would be so many intervening posts.

wilbur
09-28-2008, 06:16 PM
For a 501c3 church to openly speak out, or organize in opposition to, anything that the government declares "legal," even if it is immoral (e.g. abortion, homosexuality, etc.), that church will jeopardize its tax exempt status. The 501c3 has had a "chilling effect" upon the free speech rights of the church.


This seems to be a pretty big misrepresentation... at least if Wikipedia is accurate here:



All 501(c)(3) organizations are also permitted to educate individuals about issues, or fund research that supports their political position without overtly advocating for a position on a specific bill. Think tanks such as the Cato Institute, Center for American Progress, and Heritage Foundation and other 501(c)(3) organizations produce reports and recommendations on policy proposals that do not count as lobbying under the tax code. Another example is the The American Foreign Policy Council is a lobbyist organization operating under this code.


Interesting history of the bill here, am still reading it: http://www.ombwatch.org/article/articleview/2852/1/41?TopicID=2



The current prohibition on partisan activity protects the integrity of charitable nonprofits by preventing individuals from using tax-deductible contributions to avoid campaign finance laws. It also prevents individuals from using charitable nonprofit organizations, which by definition are organized for public purposes, to advance their personal partisan political views.

PoliCon
09-28-2008, 10:34 PM
They still get special treatment in tax. While they're not giving the government money, the government is favoring them.Are they? Are they "favoring" hospitals and the various other NOT FOR PROFIT entities out there that are also not taxed? What kind of tax should churches pay? Income taxes? Business taxes? Corporate taxes? Maybe we should write a special church tax?

PoliCon
09-28-2008, 10:37 PM
It's only their money if the money I make off of my business is ALSO my money and if the money GM makes (do they still make money?) is their money. Corporations pay taxes in the US for the benefit of using the services and protections provided by the US. If you're suggesting we eliminate all corporate taxes, then that's an interesting take on the subject and would have a few implications that might need considering prior to execution. However, if you're not, then churches, which in the modern era are businesses, should pay taxes like any other business. Then they could say and do what they please (within normal legal boundaries, of course).You really are stupid. Churches are not businesses. They are NOT FOR PROFIT entities. They do not MAKE money - they accept donations. gah. Damn stupid lefties.

PoliCon
09-28-2008, 10:39 PM
Churches in the US should be like those in Finland and some other European countries, supported by tax dollars. As a large percentage of titihing church members are unable to take the tax deductions for their tithes, a 2% country-wide church tax, like the one in Finland that is used to support their churches, would make up for that lack. This would allow churches to support even more food pantries, homeless shelters, pregnancy centers, and disaster relief programs.Egads no. The last thing my church would do is take money from the state. Besides - the blessing comes in people giving themselves not in having the government do it for you.

PoliCon
09-28-2008, 10:41 PM
I don't see that as an "either/or" choice. We don't get credit for all of our itemizing because the government thinks we make too much money in order to benefit that much. I don't stiff my church, my prep school, or my charities because the government doesn't let me have all the credit for it, and you shouldn't either.

You shouldn't expect me to support your church any more than I should support your charities. That's money you give because you believe in the gift.amen.

now I have to fill up the post. stupid 10 character rule.

PoliCon
09-28-2008, 10:46 PM
Again, the simplest solution is to tax churces as other businesses. Many, not all, operate as businesses and make significant profits. Then, you can say anything you want, and those of us who don't believe in your religion aren't indirectly taxed, i.e., through having a non-taxed business.Bullshit. Churches do not make profits. Every cent my church takes in is either spent instantly - or is put into investments until the purpose for which the money was taken in as achieved. FOR EXAMPLE - I have been working to raise funds to build a retirement home for missionaries. The money that has been raised for that express purpose is invested until there is enough to accomplish that goal. What we take in - ALWAYS sooner or later goes back out again in one way or another.

Do you believe that the illiterate are being taxed because libraries are tax exempt? Or the healthy are taxes because Hospitals are tax exempt? Face it - you're an anti-religious bigot who wants to punish people of faith.

Cold Warrior
09-28-2008, 10:48 PM
You really are stupid. Churches are not businesses. They are NOT FOR PROFIT entities. They do not MAKE money - they accept donations. gah. Damn stupid lefties.

It really gets tiring being called stupid by ignorant hicks...



Churches as businesses (http://www.economist.com/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=E1_VPNPVJS)
Dec 20th 2005
From The Economist print edition

VISIT Willow Creek Community Church in South Barrington, Illinois, an upscale exurb of Chicago, and you are confronted with a puzzle. Where in God's name is the church? Willow Creek has every amenity you can imagine, from food courts to basketball courts, from cafes to video screens, not to mention enough parking spaces for around 4,000 cars. But look for steeples and stained glass, let alone crosses and altars, and you look in vain. Surely this is a slice of corporate America rather than religious America?

The corporate theme is not just a matter of appearances. Willow Creek has a mission statement (“to turn irreligious people into fully devoted followers of Jesus Christ”) and a management team, a seven-step strategy and a set of ten core values. The church employs two MBAs—one from Harvard and one from Stanford—and boasts a consulting arm. It has even been given the ultimate business accolade: it is the subject of a Harvard Business School case-study.


Christian Capitalism
Megachurches, Megabusinesses (http://www.forbes.com/2003/09/17/cz_lk_0917megachurch.html)
Luisa Kroll, 09.17.03, 12:00 PM ET

NEW YORK - Maybe churches aren't so different from corporations. World Changers Ministries, for instance, operates a music studio, publishing house, computer graphic design suite and owns its own record label. The Potter's House also has a record label as well as a daily talk show, a prison satellite network that broadcasts in 260 prisons and a twice-a-week Webcast. New Birth Missionary Baptist Church has a chief operating officer and a special effects 3-D Web site that offers videos-on-demand. It publishes a magazine and holds Cashflow 101 Game Nights. And Lakewood Church, which recently leased the Compaq Center, former home of the NBA's Houston Rockets, has a four-record deal and spends $12 million annually on television airtime.

Welcome to the megabusiness of megachurches, where pastors often act as chief executives and use business tactics to grow their congregations. This entrepreneurial approach has contributed to the explosive growth of megachurches--defined as non-Catholic churches with at least 2,000 members--in the U.S. Indeed, Lakewood, New Birth, The Potter's House and World Changers, four of the biggest, have all experienced membership gains of late. Of course, growth for them has a higher purpose: to spread their faith to as many people as they can. "In our society growth equals success," says Scott Thumma, faculty associate at the Hartford Institute for Religion Research. "And religious growth not only equals success but also God's blessing on the ministry."

Do you really think that these guys are worried about their spiritual flock or about their tax exempt amenities, you dumb shit hick?

PoliCon
09-28-2008, 10:50 PM
Do you have issues if the churches tells parishioners and congregants which political figures they agree with and support? Nope. No different than unions telling people who to vote for. It doesn't take away the persons free will or right to chose. A preacher can tell you all he wants that you should vote for X - but that does not mean everyone - or ANYONE for that matter is going to listen any more than it means that people listen when he preaches on any other topic.

wilbur
09-28-2008, 10:55 PM
Nope. No different than unions telling people who to vote for. It doesn't take away the persons free will or right to chose. A preacher can tell you all he wants that you should vote for X - but that does not mean everyone - or ANYONE for that matter is going to listen any more than it means that people listen when he preaches on any other topic.

It makes it a bit different when you have people preying upon one's deep seated beliefs... telling one that they possibly put their souls at risk if they don't vote for the church's pet candidate.

Anyways... it really goes back to the issue of creating havens for subverting campaign finance laws I think. That's why this is an IRS issue. Churches do actually have the freedom to avoid this dilemma by paying taxes. Seems fair to me.

PoliCon
09-28-2008, 10:58 PM
It really gets tiring being called stupid by ignorant hicks...





Do you really think that these guys are worried about their spiritual flock or about their tax exempt amenities, you dumb shit hick? When you stop being stupid - I'll stop pointing your stupidity out to you. As for my being a hick - lol I live in a decent sized city. DEAL with it. :)


ANYHOW - as to your "point" even in these "megachurches" the money that comes in goes out generally in services to the community and in charitable efforts. Does your article mention the charitable works these churches do? Prolly not. Prolly because like you - the author was yet another anti-Christian elitist prick from the left.

PoliCon
09-28-2008, 11:01 PM
It makes it a bit different when you have people preying upon one's deep seated beliefs... telling one that they possibly put their souls at risk if they don't vote for the church's pet candidate.

Anyways... it really goes back to the issue of creating havens for subverting campaign finance laws I think. That's why this is an IRS issue. Churches do actually have the freedom to avoid this dilemma by paying taxes. Seems fair to me.
campaign finance laws are bullshit anyhow - and should not exist. They were created to protect the political class not the people. SO I could care less about violating bullshit laws that should not exist in the first place. Scrap the whole mess and institute term limits. Set the maximum that any person can serve in any political office at 12 years. You end 90% of the political problems we have today. NEXT?

Cold Warrior
09-28-2008, 11:04 PM
When you stop being stupid - I'll stop pointing your stupidity out to you. As for my being a hick - lol I live in a decent sized city. DEAL with it. :)

You've demonstrated your hick qualifications here several times, so it really doesn't matter if you live in NYC.


ANYHOW - as to your "point" even in these "megachurches" the money that comes in goes out generally in services to the community and in charitable efforts. Does your article mention the charitable works these churches do? Prolly not. Prolly because like you - the author was yet another anti-Christian elitist prick from the left.

The articles are from The Economist and Forbes, hardly left-wing bastions. Shall we try for the WSJ? If you really believe that the profits from these churches go into "services to the community and in charitable efforts," you're not only an ignorant hick, your a naive one as well. But most religious whacky-whackies are naive about (their own) religion. God's business is big business.

wilbur
09-28-2008, 11:06 PM
campaign finance laws are bullshit anyhow - and should not exist. They were created to protect the political class not the people. SO I could care less about violating bullshit laws that should not exist in the first place. Scrap the whole mess and institute term limits. Set the maximum that any person can serve in any political office at 12 years. You end 90% of the political problems we have today. NEXT?

Ron Paul has a better chance at the presidency than the chance of getting congress to voluntarily enact term limits. Campaign finance is one pile of shit that has to be polished.

PoliCon
09-28-2008, 11:10 PM
You've demonstrated your hick qualifications here several times, so it really doesn't matter if you live in NYC. lol I see. And what qualifications might those be? Religious faith? Social Conservatism? Not being sophisticated enough to adore the left?




The articles are from The Economist and Forbes, hardly left-wing bastions. Shall we try for the WSJ? If you really believe that the profits from these churches go into "services to the community and in charitable efforts," you're not only an ignorant hick, your a naive one as well. But most religious whacky-whackies are naive about (their own) religion. God''s business is big business.
When did I say they were? How about pulling your head out of your ass long enough to read the question you were asked and come back with an answer. For the record - I'm part of the governing body for an international ministry with a budget in the millions. Every cent that comes in - goes out sooner or later. And ain't none of us getting rich.

PoliCon
09-28-2008, 11:12 PM
Ron Paul has a better chance at the presidency than the chance of getting congress to voluntarily enact term limits. Campaign finance is one pile of shit that has to be polished.Who says that they have to be involved in the process. There is more than one way to get a constitutional amendment.

jeskibuff
09-28-2008, 11:19 PM
I don't even see the necessity for a church to endorse a particular candidate. If a Christian church is doing the best job it possibly can do in keeping with the fundamentals of Christianity and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, parishoners should have absolutely no trouble seeing the difference between McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden. It's really a no-brainer. Just one sermon could easily put away the myth that the Obamessiah was a community activist "just like Jesus", without even having to mention B.O.'s name!

If the church does its job of putting people in touch with the Living God, those people will have no doubt how to "pull the levers" on election day. If the church members need election help from their pastors, then those pastors aren't giving their flock the proper guidance.

Cold Warrior
09-28-2008, 11:25 PM
lol I see. And what qualifications might those be? Religious faith? Social Conservatism? Not being sophisticated enough to adore the left?

An intolerance for others' beliefs. When, lacking argument, a recourse to trivial name-calling. An "Us vs Them" mentality with regards to left and right. These are all qualifications you've demonstrated repeatedly here, including in this post.


When did I say they were? How about pulling your head out of your ass long enough to read the question you were asked and come back with an answer.

You immediately resorted to the argument that the articles were written by "another anti-Christian elitist prick from the left," instead of looking at the arguments and facts presented. Another trait of intolerant, religious zealots.


For the record - I'm part of the governing body for an international ministry with a budget in the millions. Every cent that comes in - goes out sooner or later. And ain't none of us getting rich.

I have no way of verifying if what you say is true or not. However, it is a demonstrable fact that many are getting rich in the God Business.

PoliCon
09-28-2008, 11:57 PM
I don't even see the necessity for a church to endorse a particular candidate. If a Christian church is doing the best job it possibly can do in keeping with the fundamentals of Christianity and the Gospel of Jesus Christ, parishoners should have absolutely no trouble seeing the difference between McCain/Palin and Obama/Biden. It's really a no-brainer. Just one sermon could easily put away the myth that the Obamessiah was a community activist "just like Jesus", without even having to mention B.O.'s name!

If the church does its job of putting people in touch with the Living God, those people will have no doubt how to "pull the levers" on election day. If the church members need election help from their pastors, then those pastors aren't giving their flock the proper guidance.I agree whole heartedly. My main concern is that the law is applied equally to conservatives and leftists. I just get hot under the collar when some damn lying leftist anti-Christian bigot starts attacking Christianity based on misleading "facts."

PoliCon
09-29-2008, 12:07 AM
An intolerance for others' beliefs. When, lacking argument, a recourse to trivial name-calling. An "Us vs Them" mentality with regards to left and right. These are all qualifications you've demonstrated repeatedly here, including in this post. I'm not intolerant of other peoples beliefs. I'm unaccepting of the idiocy that is leftism and even more unaccepting of people who pretend that they are conservatives when they hold more in common with the left than they do with the right. And as for the name calling - please. That doesn't make one a hick. For that matter none of the things you listed makes someone a hick. Your ignorance is astounding.




You immediately resorted to the argument that the articles were written by "another anti-Christian elitist prick from the left," instead of looking at the arguments and facts presented. Another trait of intolerant, religious zealots. Go back and read again. I said: Prolly because like you the author was yet another anti-Christian elitist prick from the left. Do you need me t o break down the sentence and demonstrate how the "attack was not on the authors as much as on YOU. Jackass.




I have no way of verifying if what you say is true or not. However, it is a demonstrable fact that many are getting rich in the God Business. Um - unless you can show me the books where is shows that there is only INCOME and not OUTLAY - you're grasping at straws. As I asked before - do the articles cover the outlay of these ministries? Do they mention the services and charities these churches support? Prolly NOT. Polly because like you - the author was yet another anti-Christian elitist prick from the left.

AmPat
09-29-2008, 05:08 AM
This isn't even news to me.

The problem isn't that Churches endorse politicians. The problem is if politicians endorse Churches. As long as the politicians don't start preaching their religious beliefs I see no problem with this.

I expect this from preachers. Preachers may have legitimate moral obligations to support or reject candidates based on the common beliefs of their congregation.

linda22003
09-29-2008, 09:16 AM
Seven pages in, and I'm still waiting to hear how "the state" "silenced" Mrs. Smith's pastor. I'm suspecting a bouncy, or at least an imperfect understanding of exemption and non-exemption.

Cold Warrior
09-29-2008, 09:20 AM
Seven pages in, and I'm still waiting to hear how "the state" "silenced" Mrs. Smith's pastor. I'm suspecting a bouncy, or at least an imperfect understanding of exemption and non-exemption.

While I will defer to the inestimable MrsSmith who thinks that the instiution of marriage has been around in its present form for 5000 years, I suspect they told the guy to stop endorsing candidates from the pulpit or risk losing his tax-exempt status.

Cold Warrior
09-29-2008, 09:48 AM
I'm not intolerant of other peoples beliefs. I'm unaccepting of the idiocy that is leftism and even more unaccepting of people who pretend that they are conservatives when they hold more in common with the left than they do with the right. And as for the name calling - please. That doesn't make one a hick. For that matter none of the things you listed makes someone a hick. Your ignorance is astounding...

Thank you for illustrating my point so succinctly and so well. George Bernard Shaw summed you up very well...


He is a barbarian, and thinks that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.
-Caesar and Cleopatra

Shaw uses the word "barbarian," while I use the modern equivalent "hick." However, with you I think Shaw may be more accurate as I bet you practice your modern religious version of "barbar."

PoliCon
09-29-2008, 05:55 PM
Ah elitistim. Leftist are so predictable. I'm sorry that I am not as sophisticated as you are.

Cold Warrior
09-29-2008, 05:58 PM
Ah elitistim. Leftist are so predictable. I'm sorry that I am not as sophisticated as you are.

So am I. But we all have our own crosses to bear.

jeskibuff
09-29-2008, 06:24 PM
Seven pages in, and I'm still waiting to hear how "the state" "silenced" Mrs. Smith's pastor. I'm suspecting a bouncy, or at least an imperfect understanding of exemption and non-exemption.

Is this what you're referring to?

They had no right to silence us in the first place.

If so, the context of her statements makes perfect sense (to me, at least). All I believe she's saying is that government is using leverage to control the words of the church. Yes, it's not true silencing, as would be the result of a hail of bullets, but it's a form of control over free speech. Free speech isn't really free speech if it's going to cost you.

Now the whole issue of whether or not it's right to dangle that carrot and whether or not churches should succumb to the temptation of tax exemption is a different matter.

I really don't see what you're making such a big deal over. And if you set your profile up smartly, you wouldn't be seeing 7 pages...I see just 2!

linda22003
09-30-2008, 09:07 AM
Is this what you're referring to?

No. I was referring to post #41.

biccat
09-30-2008, 09:40 AM
The IRS has silenced my pastor and our congregation, on private property, on exactly that threat...to double tax.

Linda, I suggest you read Wilbur's post (#50) up the thread. He posted a snippet from Wikipedia (I'll assume for the sake of argument that it is accurate, but it could be replaced by "LOL FAGS" at any time) about 501(c)(3) groups. They are "permitted to educate individuals about issues," but not advocate for causes. That means a Church which says "abortion is wrong" may be at risk of losing their tax-exempt status.

The government is using the tax code to prohibit moral guidance from the Church. That is stifiling speech. But since the right is given up in connection with the benefit of tax-exempt status, most people don't view it as a violation.

Gingersnap
09-30-2008, 10:55 AM
Currently, the law prohibits political campaign activity by charities and churches by defining a 501(c)(3) organization as one "which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office."

The IRS has published Revenue Ruling 2007-41, which outlines how churches, and all 501(c)(3) organizations, can stay within the law regarding the ban on political activity. Also, the ban by Congress is on political campaign activity regarding a candidate; churches and other 501(c)(3) organizations can engage in a limited amount of lobbying (including ballot measures) and advocate for or against issues that are in the political arena. The IRS also has provided guidance regarding the difference between advocating for a candidate and advocating for legislation. See political and lobbying activities.

Naturally this isn't from an authoritative source like wiki or anything but it appears that the restrictions have to do with promoting or rejecting individual candidates running for office, not promoting or rejecting "issues". ;)

IRS (http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=161131,00.html)

Cold Warrior
09-30-2008, 11:02 AM
Naturally this isn't from an authoritative source like wiki or anything but it appears that the restrictions have to do with promoting or rejecting individual candidates running for office, not promoting or rejecting "issues". ;)

IRS (http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=161131,00.html)

And, I think what you're saying is consistent with the Wiki excerpt as well. I would be interested to know of documented cases of any ministers who are, for example, discussing the immorality of abortion, or some such similar issue, who are being "silenced" via the threat of taxation. Now, if they are preaching to vote for McCain because he opposes abortion while Obama supports it, they should be, as this is a clear violation of their tax-exempt status.

SaintLouieWoman
09-30-2008, 11:30 AM
It really gets tiring being called stupid by ignorant hicks...





Do you really think that these guys are worried about their spiritual flock or about their tax exempt amenities, you dumb shit hick?

Enough of your nastiness, not too classy to keep calling the members "ignorant hicks" if they don't agree with you.

It would be a good idea for you to mind your manners----after all, you are supposedly so superior to the lowly conservatives on this board. :rolleyes: Have had alerts on this and think it's time for you to cease and desist on the namecalling and the swamp remarks.

Cold Warrior
09-30-2008, 11:47 AM
Enough of your nastiness, not too classy to keep calling the members "ignorant hicks" if they don't agree with you.

It would be a good idea for you to mind your manners----after all, you are supposedly so superior to the lowly conservatives on this board. :rolleyes: Have had alerts on this and think it's time for you to cease and desist on the namecalling and the swamp remarks.

If you trace back through this thread, you will find Policon called me "stupid" twice prior to my responding in any way uncivility to him. I assume he is playing under the same rules as everyone else?

SaintLouieWoman
09-30-2008, 12:48 PM
If you trace back through this thread, you will find Policon called me "stupid" twice prior to my responding in any way uncivility to him. I assume he is playing under the same rules as everyone else?

"Stupid" isn't as offensive as your normal "ignorant hick" remarks. Remember, there are good people who do not live on the coasts. Your condescension is offensive.

This is like dealing with a bunch of grade school kids and their "he said, she said" whines. It's why I stopped teaching and got into the greyt and glorious world of business.

Cold Warrior
09-30-2008, 01:02 PM
"Stupid" isn't as offensive as your normal "ignorant hick" remarks. Remember, there are good people who do not live on the coasts. Your condescension is offensive.

This is like dealing with a bunch of grade school kids and their "he said, she said" whines. It's why I stopped teaching and got into the greyt and glorious world of business.

Well, that's an interesting interpretation. For the benefit of those interested, here's the exchange sequence, up to the point at which I responded with an insulting comment. I think any objective party would see that I was attempting to have a rational discussion, amidst being called names.


good point. Churches don't take Government money. Why should they be silenced while those living off the largess of the government are not?


By being tax exempt, the do take government money. Again, the simplest solution is to revoke the tax exempt status for churches (of all denominations) and let them do what they please.


Nooooo. Are you stupid or what? You really are a leftist aren't ya. By being tax exempt they don't give the government THEIR money. Only a dim would say something so stupid.


It's only their money if the money I make off of my business is ALSO my money and if the money GM makes (do they still make money?) is their money. Corporations pay taxes in the US for the benefit of using the services and protections provided by the US. If you're suggesting we eliminate all corporate taxes, then that's an interesting take on the subject and would have a few implications that might need considering prior to execution. However, if you're not, then churches, which in the modern era are businesses, should pay taxes like any other business. Then they could say and do what they please (within normal legal boundaries, of course).


You really are stupid. Churches are not businesses. They are NOT FOR PROFIT entities. They do not MAKE money - they accept donations. gah. Damn stupid lefties.


It really gets tiring being called stupid by ignorant hicks...
...quotes from Economist and Forbes...
Do you really think that these guys are worried about their spiritual flock or about their tax exempt amenities, you dumb shit hick?

wilbur
09-30-2008, 01:54 PM
Linda, I suggest you read Wilbur's post (#50) up the thread. He posted a snippet from Wikipedia (I'll assume for the sake of argument that it is accurate, but it could be replaced by "LOL FAGS" at any time) about 501(c)(3) groups. They are "permitted to educate individuals about issues," but not advocate for causes. That means a Church which says "abortion is wrong" may be at risk of losing their tax-exempt status.

The government is using the tax code to prohibit moral guidance from the Church. That is stifiling speech. But since the right is given up in connection with the benefit of tax-exempt status, most people don't view it as a violation.

Err, isn it saying they can (and do) promote their causes and beliefs such as the pro-life agenda? What they cannot do is advocate a specific candidate or a specific piece of legislation.

Edit: Upon Ginger's post it looks like advocacy regarding specific bills is allowed (in some cases?), just not candidates.

PoliCon
09-30-2008, 01:54 PM
bullshit. You start here in one thread and act like this is the very first time you and I have discussed any issue. You have called me names more than once without a moments provocation. How many times CW have you called me and many others here - whacky -whacks and other derogatory terms? You're a hypocrite of the very worst kind - an elitist hypocrite.

PoliCon
09-30-2008, 01:55 PM
Err, isn it saying they can (and do) promote their causes and beliefs such as the pro-life agenda? What they cannot do is advocate a specific candidate or a specific piece of legislation.Why not? Unions and other leftist groups do it all the time.

wilbur
09-30-2008, 01:59 PM
Why not? Unions and other leftist groups do it all the time.

Well we've been over that part. To keep non-profits from becoming havens for campaign finance scams.

Cold Warrior
09-30-2008, 02:03 PM
bullshit. You start here in one thread and act like this is the very first time you and I have discussed any issue. You have called me names more than once without a moments provocation. How many times CW have you called me and many others here - whacky -whacks and other derogatory terms? You're a hypocrite of the very worst kind - an elitist hypocrite.

I generally use the term "whacky-whack" generically to refer to a group of people who believe absurd things regarding creation, evolution, social mores, etc. I rarely (I'm not going to say never) say "You're a whacky-whack." My usage is no different than anyone else's here when they refer to druggy libertarians or DUmmy liberals or "elitists." There is quite a difference in calling a group of people a derogative name, something done here all of the time, and addressing that or some other name directly to an individual.

If you look at the sequence I posted, please tell me how I'm incorrect that I was attempting to be civil with you until you twice called me, and me directly, several names. Moreover, I would invite you to cite specifically where I have called you names "without a moments provocation."

PoliCon
09-30-2008, 02:03 PM
Well we've been over that part. To keep non-profits from becoming havens for campaign finance scams.Like I said - other leftist non-profits do it all the time without complaint. Besides - campaign finance laws abridge our freedom of speech and should not exist full stop period end of story. they were written to protect the political class and anyone who can't see that needs their eyes checked.

PoliCon
09-30-2008, 02:12 PM
I generally use the term "whacky-whack" generically to refer to a group of people who believe absurd things regarding creation, evolution, social mores, etc. I rarely (I'm not going to say never) say "You're a whacky-whack." My usage is no different than anyone else's here when they refer to druggy libertarians or DUmmy liberals or "elitists." There is quite a difference in calling a group of people a derogative name, something done here all of the time, and addressing that or some other name directly to an individual.

If you look at the sequence I posted, please tell me how I'm incorrect that I was attempting to be civil with you until you twice called me, and me directly, several names. Moreover, I would invite you to cite specifically where I have called you names "without a moments provocation."what a crock of shit. You might as well say it's okay to call black people collectively N*****S as long as you don't call any individual one that word. Spin it and try to justify it any way you want to - but since many of us here have beliefs that would apparently qualify us as whacky-whacks in your opinion - every time you use that term you are calling us names.

Gingersnap
09-30-2008, 02:26 PM
Let's get back to the issue at hand: politicking from the pulpit.

There are several sub-issues in this discussion. Does it matter if a religious leader (or church) endorses a specific candidate? To me, no but the IRS thinks otherwise. Can religious leaders instruct their flocks on points of doctrine that are essential features of membership in a specific faith group? It looks like they can. Why do black and progressive churches seem to get a pass when it comes to political efforts literally delivered from the pulpit? I dunno.

Cold Warrior
09-30-2008, 02:28 PM
what a crock of shit. You might as well say it's okay to call black people collectively N*****S as long as you don't call any individual one that word. Spin it and try to justify it any way you want to - but since many of us here have beliefs that would apparently qualify us as whacky-whacks in your opinion - every time you use that term you are calling us names.

Ah, I see now -- one question however. You would have the same objection regarding a poster who called groups of people who didn't agree with him/her "DUMB ASS ATHEISTS," "Dims," "Stupid Lefties," or "anti-Christian elitist pricks from the left?"

Gingersnap
09-30-2008, 02:46 PM
"anti-Christian elitist pricks from the left?"

Now, that has a real ring to it and I'm sure Cafe Press will be intensely interested in the marketing opportunities but back to our discussion. ;)

Cold Warrior
09-30-2008, 02:46 PM
Let's get back to the issue at hand: politicking from the pulpit.

There are several sub-issues in this discussion. Does it matter if a religious leader (or church) endorses a specific candidate? To me, no but the IRS thinks otherwise. Can religious leaders instruct their flocks on points of doctrine that are essential features of membership in a specific faith group? It looks like they can. Why do black and progressive churches seem to get a pass when it comes to political efforts literally delivered from the pulpit? I dunno.

First, the IRS distinction, as you point out, is quite clear. Churches may (and do) advocate certain moral positions that can translate into political ones, e.g., opposition to abortion. It would seem that a minister is on safe ground if he/she preaches about the sanctity of life, at what point does life begin, even the social and mental effects of allowing abortion. The line is crossed when he/she either indicates to the flock that they should vote for one candidate or another based upon the candidate's views on abortion or should vote for or against a measure restricting abortion.

As many members delight in informing civil libertarians here regarding issues of privacy and other such topics, that's the way the law is. Live with it or change it. Or violate it and suffer the consequences.

linda22003
09-30-2008, 02:51 PM
Now, that has a real ring to it and I'm sure Cafe Press will be intensely interested in the marketing opportunities but back to our discussion. ;)

I like the acronym, "ACEPFL", which of course would be pronounced "Ace-piffle".

Gingersnap
09-30-2008, 02:54 PM
The line is crossed when he/she either indicates to the flock that they should vote for one candidate or another based upon the candidate's views on abortion or should vote for or against a measure restricting abortion.

Hold up, Hoss. I believe they can advocate for or against a measure or initiative restricting or expanding abortion "rights" (or gay marriage or gay adoption or gun control or setting a date for National Cashew Day).

They simply can't tell their flocks to vote for or against a particular candidate who may or may not hold this same views.

Cold Warrior
09-30-2008, 02:58 PM
Hold up, Hoss. I believe they can advocate for or against a measure or initiative restricting or expanding abortion "rights" (or gay marriage or gay adoption or gun control or setting a date for National Cashew Day).

They simply can't tell their flocks to vote for or against a particular candidate who may or may not hold this same views.

Are you sure? Can they, for example, instruct their parishoners to vote "NO" on a referendum on Same Sex Marriage, for example. I thought they could not, based upon my parsing of the references plus viewing ads by similar groups on issues. However, perhaps you're right, given the association of the restrictions with campaign finance. :confused:

BTW, I'm more Adam than Hoss! :D

PoliCon
09-30-2008, 03:09 PM
Let's get back to the issue at hand: politicking from the pulpit.

There are several sub-issues in this discussion. Does it matter if a religious leader (or church) endorses a specific candidate? To me, no but the IRS thinks otherwise. Can religious leaders instruct their flocks on points of doctrine that are essential features of membership in a specific faith group? It looks like they can. Why do black and progressive churches seem to get a pass when it comes to political efforts literally delivered from the pulpit? I dunno.Because there is a HUGE double standard. Remember that the vast majority of teh people who are opposed to religion are on the left and why on earth should they say anything when it's their own who are guilty? Better to keep their mouths shut and pretend it didn't happen. Why? Because as our resident leftists have confessed - the ends justify the means in their eyes. THEREFORE - with the ends being POWER - any means that is uses including giving leftists a pass where they would castigate a conservative - are quite acceptable because the ends they are after makes it acceptable.

PoliCon
09-30-2008, 03:10 PM
Now, that has a real ring to it and I'm sure Cafe Press will be intensely interested in the marketing opportunities but back to our discussion. ;)It does doesn't it :D You have to love a catchy phrase especially when it captures a sentiment so effectively.

PoliCon
09-30-2008, 03:11 PM
I like the acronym, "ACEPFL", which of course would be pronounced "Ace-piffle".
:D rotfl! ALTHOUGH - I would prefer the alternate soft C sound myself :)

biccat
09-30-2008, 03:56 PM
Err, isn it saying they can (and do) promote their causes and beliefs such as the pro-life agenda? What they cannot do is advocate a specific candidate or a specific piece of legislation.

Edit: Upon Ginger's post it looks like advocacy regarding specific bills is allowed (in some cases?), just not candidates.
Well, why can't they advocate for a candidate? Look at moveon.org, they are a nonprofit group, but they freely endorse political figures. If a group like that can endorse Obama, why can't a religious group?

Is there something special, from a tax perspective, about using the Bible, as opposed to Concept of Man, as a basis for political thought? What distinction is there to make?

Cold Warrior
09-30-2008, 06:29 PM
Originally Posted by PoliCon
bullshit. You start here in one thread and act like this is the very first time you and I have discussed any issue. You have called me names more than once without a moments provocation. How many times CW have you called me and many others here - whacky -whacks and other derogatory terms? You're a hypocrite of the very worst kind - an elitist hypocrite. ...
Moreover, I would invite you to cite specifically where I have called you names "without a moments provocation."

BTW, still waiting for all those threads wherein I called you names (directly -- we've already discredited your fantasy of "group" name calling) "without a moments provocation."

JB
09-30-2008, 07:11 PM
Enough of your nastiness, not too classy to keep calling the members "ignorant hicks" if they don't agree with you.

It would be a good idea for you to mind your manners----after all, you are supposedly so superior to the lowly conservatives on this board. :rolleyes: Have had alerts on this and think it's time for you to cease and desist on the namecalling and the swamp remarks.Bullshit.

I've seen worse directed back at CW many times on this board.

Either direct that post at everyone or no one.

FlaGator
09-30-2008, 07:42 PM
Bullshit.

I've seen worse directed back at CW many times on this board.

Either direct that post at everyone or no one.

I'm going to weigh in here with JB. Think what you will of CW I don't recall seeing him fling the first handful of poo. Besides we're all big boys and girls and hopefully our skin is thick enough to take some name calling.

PoliCon
09-30-2008, 07:48 PM
I'm going to weigh in here with JB. Think what you will of CW I don't recall seeing him fling the first handful of poo. Besides we're all big boys and girls and hopefully our skin is thick enough to take some name calling.Perhaps he wasn't the first in this thread - but that does not mean he's innocent. ANYHOW - I though we were going back on topic here?

FlaGator
09-30-2008, 07:54 PM
Perhaps he wasn't the first in this thread - but that does not mean he's innocent. ANYHOW - I though we were going back on topic here?

You're a wise man my friend...:)

AmPat
09-30-2008, 11:25 PM
Err, isn it saying they can (and do) promote their causes and beliefs such as the pro-life agenda? What they cannot do is advocate a specific candidate or a specific piece of legislation.

Edit: Upon Ginger's post it looks like advocacy regarding specific bills is allowed (in some cases?), just not candidates.

With respect to the bold segment, why not? This is exactly where I believe Reilgious ideology and opinion should merge. The congregation is made up of citizen voters just like the Liberal Media audience. Nobody seems to bitch about the obvious liberal bias and propaganda of the Liberal media.

Please don't quote laws that I believe to be wrong anyway. I understand the argument about Church and State, tax exempt, etc. I'm talking about ideas here.

The law is misused anyway because the intent was to keep the State out of religion not religion out of politics.

Gingersnap
09-30-2008, 11:40 PM
The law is misused anyway because the intent was to keep the State out of religion not religion out of politics.

Just so. The intent of original discussion among the founders and framers throughout their various careers and correspondences was to avoid the creation of a national or state church. They saw all too well how the prerogatives of churches were wielded to the benefit of rulers. The rulers then crushing dissent through the puppetry of religious doctrine. The founders didn't want that and neither do we.

That said, it makes no sense to instruct people to ignore their religious value system when making decisions - including political decisions. We are not going to have a theocracy here. Certainly, not a Christian theocracy. Christians can't even agree on the sabbath, let alone something more intrusive.

It's worth noting that Christians were vocal, specific, and unrelenting in preaching against slavery and for women's suffrage and civil right rights. Of course, we were way wrong on that whole Prohibition thing.

That was mostly the Presbyterians and the Baptists, though. :D

AmPat
09-30-2008, 11:53 PM
Well said Ginger. This automatic and false revulsion to Churches/Preachers speaking their mind on relevant political topics and people is NOT the original intent of the framers of the Constitution.

Any attempt to make it anything but the ONE WAY prohibition that it is Constitutionally is false and wrong. In sum, the intent was to prohibit the formation of a State sponsored Church, NOT to prohibit Churches from Freedom of Speech, Worship, and GAthering together.

Here's an interesting thought; doesn't making a law muzzling Churches from speaking their opinions actually inject the State into the Church?

PoliCon
10-01-2008, 01:20 PM
It's always fun when people throw up Jefferson's "edict" about a wall of separation between church - INSISTING that it means that the church and the state should never ever mix on any level and any statement about religion by a public person needs to be forbidden as if it is gospel truth. They do so ignoring that Jefferson attended church services on most Sundays in the House Chambers of the US Capital building - and paid from the treasury for the Marine Corps band to play at these services. What's more Jefferson advocated that ALL federal buildings do double duty as churches for Sunday Services both in DC and around the country.

MrsSmith
10-02-2008, 09:26 PM
Wow, this thread is still going? :eek:

Sorry to duck out...my mother-in-law is coming to visit, so we've been busy. :D I see that most of my position has been quite well explained...Thanks guys!!


They do so ignoring that Jefferson attended church services on most Sundays in the House Chambers of the US Capital building - and paid from the treasury for the Marine Corps band to play at these services. What's more Jefferson advocated that ALL federal buildings do double duty as churches for Sunday Services both in DC and around the country.

They also ignore that fact that Jefferson bought Bibles for the public schools. :eek:

:D