If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(TaxProf)   1,400 pastors tell the IRS today to 'Go to Hell'   (taxprof.typepad.com) divider line 409
    More: Interesting, IRS  
•       •       •

5684 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Oct 2012 at 5:52 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



409 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-10-07 04:14:09 PM
and !4 bazillion people stay away from those churches today.
 
2012-10-07 04:22:30 PM
some days it's hard enough to sit there and listen to sermons that I don't agree with. I certainly don't want to listen to someone spout off their political beliefs as being sent from God
 
2012-10-07 04:22:55 PM
You don't challenge the IRS like that. They caught Al Capone, Ni*on and other criminals of that ilk. Don't think they won't go after Reverend Billy Bob.
 
2012-10-07 04:24:40 PM
I wish Christians/Conservatives would just stop beating around the bush and let everyone know that they just want the US to effectively have a theocracy like Iran.
 
2012-10-07 04:25:07 PM
The sad part is, there are too many servile f*ckwits in the country for anyone to take them on. By law, the IRS shoulde revoke their tax-exempt status for campaigning. But churches seem to get a pass on just about anything they damn well please.

Tax churches like any other business.
 
2012-10-07 04:25:49 PM

mrshowrules: I wish Christians/Conservatives would just stop beating around the bush and let everyone know that they just want the US to effectively have a theocracy like Iran.


Not like Iran! We have a totally different prophet telling us essentially the same thing about the same god, which means we hate each other so much we need to kill each other! Duh.
 
2012-10-07 04:26:32 PM
Tax every single one of those churches without exemptions.
 
2012-10-07 04:35:26 PM
Wanna be a sanctuary from the world, preach words of confort and salvation all contributing to the well being of the community and the world?

Enjoy your tax-free status.

Want to instill dogmatic absolutisms while telling your congregation that in order to stay true to said dogmatics that they need to vote in your preferred partisan manner?

Welcome to the tax base.
 
2012-10-07 04:41:45 PM

DeArmondVI: Wanna be a sanctuary from the world, preach words of confort and salvation all contributing to the well being of the community and the world?

Enjoy your tax-free status.

Want to instill dogmatic absolutisms while telling your congregation that in order to stay true to said dogmatics that they need to vote in your preferred partisan manner?

Welcome to the tax base.


Aren't Church employees/preachers taxed on their salaries already?
 
2012-10-07 04:45:21 PM

teto85: You don't challenge the IRS like that. They caught Al Capone, Ni*on and other criminals of that ilk. Don't think they won't go after Reverend Billy Bob.


Why do you have an aversion to typing "Nixon?"
 
2012-10-07 04:48:28 PM
IRS agents go to church, too, ya know
 
2012-10-07 04:48:36 PM

teto85: You don't challenge the IRS like that. They caught Al Capone, Ni*on and other criminals of that ilk. Don't think they won't go after Reverend Billy Bob.


never happen, at least not in an election year. Giving republicans ammunition like that would hand a lot of state and federal elecctions to them on a silver platter as they scream about gubbmit messing with their freedumbs..
 
2012-10-07 04:51:23 PM

GAT_00: Tax every single one of those churches without exemptions.


The're doing this right before the election for a reason. If the IRS goes after them now, they can scream that "WAAAAaaa Fartbongo's jackbooted thugs are waging a war on religion!!!" That will increase the turnout of the knuckle-draggers who would otherwise stay home rather than vote for a Mormon. It's win-win for them.
 
2012-10-07 04:51:45 PM
this situation has to be quite a difficult quandary for right wing authoritarians. on one hand, they're ideology says that anything anyone does to oppose Obama is good and noble and should be supported....but on the other hand, their authoritarian beliefs say that anyone who breaks the law for any reason MUST be crushed and/or smashed into atoms - NOBODY breaks the law, ever.

secular authoritarians, of course, will just say smash these pastors into the ground and not experience any sort of qualms about it whatsoever.
 
2012-10-07 04:52:38 PM

GAT_00: Tax every single one of those churches without exemptions.


I'm not sure what the end result of this action will be...but stripping tax exemptions from these churches would seem to be the least of their punishments.
 
2012-10-07 04:53:43 PM
IRS wont touch the church. Never have. Never will.

They have too many shared interests.
 
2012-10-07 04:54:05 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: The sad part is, there are too many servile f*ckwits in the country for anyone to take them on. By law, the IRS shoulde revoke their tax-exempt status for campaigning. But churches seem to get a pass on just about anything they damn well please.

Tax churches like any other business.


The second they do, a certain cable news network will start screaming WAR ON CHRISTIANITY!!! 24 hours a day.
 
2012-10-07 04:54:15 PM

Weaver95: but on the other hand, their authoritarian beliefs say that anyone who breaks the law for any reason MUST be crushed and/or smashed into atoms - NOBODY breaks the law, ever.


they can probably justify it in their minds as not breaking the law
 
2012-10-07 04:58:07 PM

Sgt Otter: Benevolent Misanthrope: The sad part is, there are too many servile f*ckwits in the country for anyone to take them on. By law, the IRS shoulde revoke their tax-exempt status for campaigning. But churches seem to get a pass on just about anything they damn well please.

Tax churches like any other business.

The second they do, a certain cable news network will start screaming WAR ON CHRISTIANITY!!! 24 hours a day.


If only. I'd gladly man the guns in that shiat.
 
2012-10-07 04:58:52 PM

FloydA: GAT_00: Tax every single one of those churches without exemptions.

The're doing this right before the election for a reason. If the IRS goes after them now, they can scream that "WAAAAaaa Fartbongo's jackbooted thugs are waging a war on religion!!!" That will increase the turnout of the knuckle-draggers who would otherwise stay home rather than vote for a Mormon. It's win-win for them.


Winner.
 
2012-10-07 04:59:43 PM

Weaver95: GAT_00: Tax every single one of those churches without exemptions.

I'm not sure what the end result of this action will be...but stripping tax exemptions from these churches would seem to be the least of their punishments.


The chain reaction of backlashing mouthfrothing verbal fecality would make taxing those churches a poor punishment in every way.
 
2012-10-07 05:01:02 PM

TwistedIvory: teto85: You don't challenge the IRS like that. They caught Al Capone, Ni*on and other criminals of that ilk. Don't think they won't go after Reverend Billy Bob.

Why do you have an aversion to typing "Nixon?"


Because like Re*gan, Stal*n, Hi*ler and motherf*cker that is a swear word.
 
2012-10-07 05:01:30 PM

SilentStrider: Weaver95: but on the other hand, their authoritarian beliefs say that anyone who breaks the law for any reason MUST be crushed and/or smashed into atoms - NOBODY breaks the law, ever.

they can probably justify it in their minds as not breaking the law


i'm sure the evangelicals will ignore the law...but the IRS can't. if the churches were quietly (?) ignoring and/or flaunting the tax code restrictions on political speech from the pulpit, then the IRS might be able to sort of let things slide. But this was open defiance...and you don't go around openly defying the US government. not unless you WANT to get a beat down.
 
2012-10-07 05:02:40 PM

Weaver95: But this was open defiance...and you don't go around openly defying the US government. not unless you WANT to get a beat down.


like I said up thread though, the IRS can't do a thing right now, or the churches will scream that the government is waging war on christianity.
 
2012-10-07 05:03:14 PM

SilentStrider: teto85: You don't challenge the IRS like that. They caught Al Capone, Ni*on and other criminals of that ilk. Don't think they won't go after Reverend Billy Bob.

never happen, at least not in an election year. Giving republicans ammunition like that would hand a lot of state and federal elecctions to them on a silver platter as they scream about gubbmit messing with their freedumbs..


the problem, of course, is that this strategy only ends up weakening the authority of the Federal government.
 
2012-10-07 05:05:26 PM

Weaver95:
the problem, of course, is that this strategy only ends up weakening the authority of the current incarnation of the Federal government.


Once they get their hands on the big chair, you think they'll let a tax free atheist organization tell people to vote for a Democrat?

Oh helllll no.
 
2012-10-07 05:06:12 PM

SilentStrider: Weaver95: But this was open defiance...and you don't go around openly defying the US government. not unless you WANT to get a beat down.

like I said up thread though, the IRS can't do a thing right now, or the churches will scream that the government is waging war on christianity.


the IRS doesn't care. look, they only worry about what Congress tells them to do. the IRS is *used* to being the bad guys and hated for just doing their jobs. Fox news screaming bloody murder would barely register on their radar. the IRS is going to have to go after these churches. you don't openly flaunt the IRS rules because the IRS will come for you and they're gonna win. they aren't going to even consider letting the churches off the hook, because that would make them look weak...and the IRS can't afford that sort of thing.
 
2012-10-07 05:06:57 PM

TwistedIvory: teto85: You don't challenge the IRS like that. They caught Al Capone, Ni*on and other criminals of that ilk. Don't think they won't go after Reverend Billy Bob.

Why do you have an aversion to typing "Nixon?"



i105.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-07 05:08:13 PM

logistic: Weaver95:
the problem, of course, is that this strategy only ends up weakening the authority of the current incarnation of the Federal government.

Once they get their hands on the big chair, you think they'll let a tax free atheist organization tell people to vote for a Democrat?

Oh helllll no.


won't matter - once you weaken the authority of the Federal government, the GOP won't be able to get it back. not that I believe for one second that the Republicans actually understand the long term implications of their 'anything to get Obama' strategy...
 
2012-10-07 05:08:53 PM

Weaver95: the problem, of course, is that this strategy only ends up weakening the authority of the Federal government.


which is what they want anyway.

Weaver95: the IRS doesn't care. look, they only worry about what Congress tells them to do. the IRS is *used* to being the bad guys and hated for just doing their jobs. Fox news screaming bloody murder would barely register on their radar. the IRS is going to have to go after these churches. you don't openly flaunt the IRS rules because the IRS will come for you and they're gonna win. they aren't going to even consider letting the churches off the hook, because that would make them look weak...and the IRS can't afford that sort of thing.


I'm not saying they won't ever, but not now.
 
2012-10-07 05:23:39 PM
I think all tax-exempt organizations, including churches, should be free to endorse candidates for political office. The right to participate in political life is not contingent upon whether you pay taxes. The purpose of tax-exempt status is not to buy silence.
 
2012-10-07 05:28:59 PM

FloydA: GAT_00: Tax every single one of those churches without exemptions.

The're doing this right before the election for a reason. If the IRS goes after them now, they can scream that "WAAAAaaa Fartbongo's jackbooted thugs are waging a war on religion!!!" That will increase the turnout of the knuckle-draggers who would otherwise stay home rather than vote for a Mormon. It's win-win for them.


Sgt Otter: Benevolent Misanthrope: The sad part is, there are too many servile f*ckwits in the country for anyone to take them on. By law, the IRS shoulde revoke their tax-exempt status for campaigning. But churches seem to get a pass on just about anything they damn well please.

Tax churches like any other business.

The second they do, a certain cable news network will start screaming WAR ON CHRISTIANITY!!! 24 hours a day.


Like Fox doesn't do that anyway.
 
2012-10-07 05:42:22 PM

BarkingUnicorn: I think all tax-exempt organizations, including churches, should be free to endorse candidates for political office. The right to participate in political life is not contingent upon whether you pay taxes. The purpose of tax-exempt status is not to buy silence.


Prepare to be flamed
 
2012-10-07 05:45:31 PM
It's not freedom of religion, it's freedom FROM religion.

Motherfarkers want to play, they should be made to pay.
 
2012-10-07 05:47:47 PM
You want the tax break? Simply refrain from endorsing candidates for office. That's it. If you can't handle it then pay your own damn way. You don't get to endorse candidates on someone else's dime.

Grow up, theocrats.
 
2012-10-07 05:49:49 PM

FirstNationalBastard: It's not freedom of religion, it's freedom FROM religion.

Motherfarkers want to play, they should be made to pay.


You have totally misread the First Amendment. It protects religion from government. It does not protect anything from religion.

As for "pay to play," that sounds like a poll tax.
 
2012-10-07 05:54:44 PM
In related news, 1400 pastors were arrested today for crimes ranging from sexual abuse of a child to embezzling to terroristic threats.
 
2012-10-07 05:56:19 PM
Today? You mean like every other Sunday since back in the olden times?
 
2012-10-07 05:56:47 PM

Godscrack: IRS wont touch the church. Never have. Never will.

They have too many shared interests.


The IRS HAS gone after scofflaw churches before.
 
2012-10-07 05:59:16 PM
The IRS needs to raid 1,400 churches on Monday.
 
2012-10-07 06:00:27 PM

FloydA: GAT_00: Tax every single one of those churches without exemptions.

The're doing this right before the election for a reason. If the IRS goes after them now, they can scream that "WAAAAaaa Fartbongo's jackbooted thugs are waging a war on religion!!!" That will increase the turnout of the knuckle-draggers who would otherwise stay home rather than vote for a Mormon. It's win-win for them.


Good thing he will already be re-elected by the time tax season comes.

/still won't happen....and it should
 
2012-10-07 06:00:53 PM
I'm in the category that says if a church wants to delve into politics, go for it. Open up the books then, the tax man cometh
 
2012-10-07 06:01:36 PM
So the churches are flat out saying "vote Republican" instead of saying "we can't by law tell you who to vote for, but Democrats are probably messengers of the antichrist. Just FYI".

How brave of them
 
2012-10-07 06:01:44 PM

BarkingUnicorn: I think all tax-exempt organizations, including churches, should be free to endorse candidates for political office. The right to participate in political life is not contingent upon whether you pay taxes. The purpose of tax-exempt status is not to buy silence.


Then you'd better be prepared to have every political PAC and party decide that they're a religious organization who also happens to be pumping millions of tax free dollars into the system. Why should I subsidize the Church by giving letting them spend pre-tax dollars to campaign against my own interests? Do you really want the federal government more involved in deciding who is a "legitimate" church? They currently give pretty wide leeway... open up the floodgates and you're begging for more scrutiny.

I'd like to see them taxed like any other corporation. Let them deduct money that's spent on actual charity work, but they can pay taxes on their buildings and non-charity related activities just like IBM, GM and the rest.
 
2012-10-07 06:02:16 PM

BarkingUnicorn: . The right to participate in political life is not contingent upon whether you pay taxes.


No, but the privilege of tax exemption is contingent upon being apolitical. This isn't a farking right, if you want to be a political organization then you can follow the rules about those, and one of those rules is you pay taxes like any other political club.
 
2012-10-07 06:02:22 PM
Wouldn't an Amendment barring government from making any laws respecting religion mean it would be illegal to treat religious establishments any different from any other entity, and thus having special tax exempt status in and of itself would be a violation of the First Amendment?
 
2012-10-07 06:02:51 PM

teto85: You don't challenge the IRS like that. They caught Al Capone, Ni*on and other criminals of that ilk. Don't think they won't go after Reverend Billy Bob.


Sure you do. They do, in fact, all the farking time. And why? Because going after Reverend Billy Bob for his political views is a PR nightmare. Doesn't matter what side you pick, the IRS let you do this sort of shiat, because 'Merica.
 
2012-10-07 06:03:15 PM
Separation of church and state is actually a GOOD thing, Churchtards.
 
2012-10-07 06:04:13 PM
Almost to a state, the Christian Coalition™ lost its non-profit status after a thorough and very overdue IRS investigation for the same abuse.

About the same time, the IRS appeared to go after some very staid main line, non-evangelical churches, to the point that some clergy got lawyered up and and as a result kept away from any semblance of political acknowledgement, much less endorsement. It had a chilling effect.

I wonder what those protesting today would do if their entire congregation were threatened with audit since they couldn't get deductions for any donations.

For a religion that legend says arose from the ashes of persecution by a very brutal government of occupation it's hard to believe that openly defying the government is a theological imperative.
 
2012-10-07 06:04:38 PM

mrshowrules: I wish Christians/Conservatives would just stop beating around the bush and let everyone know that they just want the US to effectively have a theocracy like Iran.


Not like Iran they use the wrong book, they want a theocracy like England, under bloody Mary except not so Catholic.
 
2012-10-07 06:04:48 PM

cman: BarkingUnicorn: I think all tax-exempt organizations, including churches, should be free to endorse candidates for political office. The right to participate in political life is not contingent upon whether you pay taxes. The purpose of tax-exempt status is not to buy silence.

Prepare to be flamed


Good! I really hope someone argues that tax exemptions should be used to buy the silence of one's political opponents, and that nobody who doesn't pay federal taxes should be allowed to voice a political opinion.
 
2012-10-07 06:04:58 PM
How long before Karl Rove founds the Church of the Holy Conservatives

Shaddup! Don't start giving Turd Blossom ideas.
 
2012-10-07 06:06:29 PM

grimlock1972: The IRS needs to raid 1,400 churches on Monday.


I would say the Monday after election day would be a much better time to do the raid.
 
2012-10-07 06:06:40 PM
Maybe if Mitt wins one of the deductions he disallow is for donations to religious institutions, almost worth him being elected.
 
2012-10-07 06:06:47 PM

teto85: Don't think they won't go after Reverend Billy Bob.


They don't have the guts.
 
2012-10-07 06:06:49 PM

BSABSVR: So the churches are flat out saying "vote Republican" instead of saying "we can't by law tell you who to vote for, but Democrats are probably messengers of the antichrist. Just FYI".

How brave of them


You see how ludicrously ineffective this law is, then. So let's get rid of it.
 
2012-10-07 06:06:53 PM
Christians are the biggest God damn welfare queens in the country.
 
2012-10-07 06:07:36 PM

kxs401: mrshowrules: I wish Christians/Conservatives would just stop beating around the bush and let everyone know that they just want the US to effectively have a theocracy like Iran.

Not like Iran! We have a totally different prophet telling us essentially the same thing about the same god, which means we hate each other so much we need to kill each other! Duh.


dangnabit should have read farther before posting.
 
2012-10-07 06:09:08 PM

Sgt Otter: Benevolent Misanthrope: The sad part is, there are too many servile f*ckwits in the country for anyone to take them on. By law, the IRS shoulde revoke their tax-exempt status for campaigning. But churches seem to get a pass on just about anything they damn well please.

Tax churches like any other business.

The second they do, a certain cable news network will start screaming WAR ON CHRISTIANITY!!! 24 hours a day.


As if they don't already.
 
2012-10-07 06:10:00 PM

mrshowrules: I wish Christians/Conservatives would just stop beating around the bush and let everyone know that they just want the US to effectively have a theocracy like Iran.


That is not true. You are drinking left kool-aide without any regard for the truth. There are conservatives who want to introduce the Bible amendment making the Bible the top law of the land, but they are the minority. Wikipedia has an excellent article on this. When things like that are proposed they go absolutely nowhere. Judging the GOP by the actions of the minority is the same as the GOP judging muslims as evil for the minority who attacked us on 9/11
 
2012-10-07 06:10:05 PM

grimlock1972: The IRS needs to raid 1,400 churches on Monday.


Monday's a federal holiday so won't be any sooner than Tuesday. even then it takes time to file all the approriate paperwork and follow up on reports and investigations and yadda yadda.
 
2012-10-07 06:10:12 PM
BarkingUnicorn: You have totally misread the First Amendment. It protects religion from government. It does not protect anything from religion.

It also doesn't enshrine the notion that putting on a silly hat and claiming to hear voices means you get to shelter your income from the government while interfering with the workings of society from a protected position.
 
2012-10-07 06:10:23 PM
So the churches are destroying their tax-exempt status for years just to provide the Republicans with a month's worth of free advertising to vote in a Mormon Moderate from Massachusetts to defend them from the policies that he enacted on his own state years ago.

Go for it. This won't vanish after Election Day, but if the churches want to be audited to death, go farking nuts. More short-term Republican planning at its best.
 
2012-10-07 06:11:14 PM

Atillathepun: Wouldn't an Amendment barring government from making any laws respecting religion mean it would be illegal to treat religious establishments any different from any other entity, and thus having special tax exempt status in and of itself would be a violation of the First Amendment?


Exactly so.
 
2012-10-07 06:12:08 PM
Bless their hearts.

They think people in the pews listen to them.

That's just adorable.
 
2012-10-07 06:12:22 PM

BarkingUnicorn: BSABSVR: So the churches are flat out saying "vote Republican" instead of saying "we can't by law tell you who to vote for, but Democrats are probably messengers of the antichrist. Just FYI".

How brave of them

You see how ludicrously ineffective this law is, then. So let's get rid of it.


Sure. So long as we also eliminate the church tax-exemption.
 
2012-10-07 06:13:32 PM
BarkingUnicorn: Good! I really hope someone argues that tax exemptions should be used to buy the silence of one's political opponents, and that nobody who doesn't pay federal taxes should be allowed to voice a political opinion.

Sweet Jesus, but you're a drama queen. Flail your hands around a little more hysterically.
 
2012-10-07 06:13:51 PM
Not to mention that this will alienate a lot of members of the congregation, since it'll rightfully be seen as extortion.

Again, more short-term Republican planning.
 
2012-10-07 06:13:58 PM
Parasites.
 
2012-10-07 06:14:56 PM
Why do church even need to be tax exempt? Their books should be zero sum.

If you taxed churches at 100%, they still shouldn't be paying taxes because why the fark would they have a profit at the end of the year?
 
2012-10-07 06:15:22 PM

buster_v: Bless their hearts.

They think people in the pews listen to them.

That's just adorable.


As much as Catholics believe in birth control? Link
 
2012-10-07 06:15:49 PM
Really, christians? This is what you're going to whore your churches over?

A centrist compromiser with a funny name. That's what you're going all or nothing on.

Way to show moral leadership.
 
2012-10-07 06:17:47 PM

cman: mrshowrules: I wish Christians/Conservatives would just stop beating around the bush and let everyone know that they just want the US to effectively have a theocracy like Iran.

That is not true. You are drinking left kool-aide without any regard for the truth. There are conservatives who want to introduce the Bible amendment making the Bible the top law of the land, but they are the minority. Wikipedia has an excellent article on this. When things like that are proposed they go absolutely nowhere. Judging the GOP by the actions of the minority is the same as the GOP judging muslims as evil for the minority who attacked us on 9/11


You sure about that? We shouldn't be concerned about a Congress critter who is on the house science committe and thinks evolution comes from hell http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/rep-paul-broun-r-ga-evolutio n-big-bang-lies-straight-from-the-pit-of-hell.php yeah that link is only from yesterday on Fark

How about the GOP hiding behind Christianity to outlaw abortion?

GOP attacks on non-Christians.
 
2012-10-07 06:18:41 PM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: BarkingUnicorn: I think all tax-exempt organizations, including churches, should be free to endorse candidates for political office. The right to participate in political life is not contingent upon whether you pay taxes. The purpose of tax-exempt status is not to buy silence.

Then you'd better be prepared to have every political PAC and party decide that they're a religious organization who also happens to be pumping millions of tax free dollars into the system. Why should I subsidize the Church by giving letting them spend pre-tax dollars to campaign against my own interests? Do you really want the federal government more involved in deciding who is a "legitimate" church? They currently give pretty wide leeway... open up the floodgates and you're begging for more scrutiny.

I'd like to see them taxed like any other corporation. Let them deduct money that's spent on actual charity work, but they can pay taxes on their buildings and non-charity related activities just like IBM, GM and the rest.


You are hung up on churches. I want ALL tax-exempt organizations to be free to endorse or oppose candidates.
 
2012-10-07 06:18:44 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Good! I really hope someone argues that tax exemptions should be used to buy the silence of one's political opponents, and that nobody who doesn't pay federal taxes should be allowed to voice a political opinion.



It's not to buy silence. It's to keep them the fark out of it altogether. Religion has a long history of perverting government and first amendment is an attempt to keep them from doing that.
 
2012-10-07 06:19:19 PM
 
2012-10-07 06:22:40 PM

BarkingUnicorn: I think all tax-exempt organizations, including churches, should be free to endorse candidates for political office. The right to participate in political life is not contingent upon whether you pay taxes. The purpose of tax-exempt status is not to buy silence.


If you have a problem with separation of church and state, simple solution. Surrender citizenship. Defect to Iran. They have a great mingling of church and state. Bon voyage,
 
2012-10-07 06:23:49 PM

Kumana Wanalaia: Really, christians? This is what you're going to whore your churches over?

A centrist compromiser with a funny name. That's what you're going all or nothing on.

Way to show moral leadership.


It's desperation to push their voters to vote for the man the Rich appointed. When they cannot con, they simply extort.
 
2012-10-07 06:24:11 PM

lilplatinum: BarkingUnicorn: . The right to participate in political life is not contingent upon whether you pay taxes.

No, but the privilege of tax exemption is contingent upon being apolitical. This isn't a farking right, if you want to be a political organization then you can follow the rules about those, and one of those rules is you pay taxes like any other political club.


Why should tax exemption be contingent upon being apolitical?

Many "political clubs" are tax-exempt. They're called 527 organizations.
 
2012-10-07 06:27:17 PM
If they can order liberals murdered, they can pay taxes just like any dictatorial, paternalistic cult.
 
2012-10-07 06:29:56 PM

Weaver95: this situation has to be quite a difficult quandary for right wing authoritarians. on one hand, they're ideology says that anything anyone does to oppose Obama is good and noble and should be supported....but on the other hand, their authoritarian beliefs say that anyone who breaks the law for any reason MUST be crushed and/or smashed into atoms - NOBODY breaks the law, ever.

secular authoritarians, of course, will just say smash these pastors into the ground and not experience any sort of qualms about it whatsoever.


And Hulk...Smash.

farking asswhole theocrats. I hope they choke on their words at their pulpits.
 
2012-10-07 06:31:35 PM

Barricaded Gunman: BarkingUnicorn: You have totally misread the First Amendment. It protects religion from government. It does not protect anything from religion.

It also doesn't enshrine the notion that putting on a silly hat and claiming to hear voices means you get to shelter your income from the government while interfering with the workings of society from a protected position.


That's true. Declaring your organization to be "religious" doesn't automatically confer tax-exempt status upon it.

I don't see preaching from a pulpit as "interfering with the workings of society." It's part of the workings of society.
 
2012-10-07 06:34:17 PM

BarkingUnicorn:

I don't see preaching from a pulpit as "interfering with the workings of society." It's part of the workings of society.


Just like our murders and thieves!
 
2012-10-07 06:36:28 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Many "political clubs" are tax-exempt. They're called 527 organizations.


However, donors may not deduct contributions to a 527; most contributions to a church can be deducted.
 
2012-10-07 06:36:55 PM

Rich Cream: BarkingUnicorn: Good! I really hope someone argues that tax exemptions should be used to buy the silence of one's political opponents, and that nobody who doesn't pay federal taxes should be allowed to voice a political opinion.


It's not to buy silence. It's to keep them the fark out of it altogether. Religion has a long history of perverting government and first amendment is an attempt to keep them from doing that.


You have never read the First Amendment.
 
2012-10-07 06:36:56 PM
Fark is a religion.

TF subscriptions should be tax deductible donations to a non-prophet.
 
2012-10-07 06:38:32 PM

bwilson27: BarkingUnicorn:

I don't see preaching from a pulpit as "interfering with the workings of society." It's part of the workings of society.

Just like our murders and thieves!


I don't see the point of preventing them from voting, either.
 
2012-10-07 06:38:45 PM

spongeboob: cman: mrshowrules: I wish Christians/Conservatives would just stop beating around the bush and let everyone know that they just want the US to effectively have a theocracy like Iran.

That is not true. You are drinking left kool-aide without any regard for the truth. There are conservatives who want to introduce the Bible amendment making the Bible the top law of the land, but they are the minority. Wikipedia has an excellent article on this. When things like that are proposed they go absolutely nowhere. Judging the GOP by the actions of the minority is the same as the GOP judging muslims as evil for the minority who attacked us on 9/11

You sure about that? We shouldn't be concerned about a Congress critter who is on the house science committe and thinks evolution comes from hell http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/rep-paul-broun-r-ga-evolutio n-big-bang-lies-straight-from-the-pit-of-hell.php yeah that link is only from yesterday on Fark

How about the GOP hiding behind Christianity to outlaw abortion?

GOP attacks on non-Christians.


Yes, I am absolutely sure. In politics, people like to find pieces that validates their own point of view. Baring that, they twist it into whatever fits their POV. The Right sees the left as wanting to install a Communist utopia and outlaw elections and other political parties. The left sees the Right as wanting to install a Christian Republic with public excecution of homosexuals and blacks and forcing women back into the kitchen. These people who believe this way will twist whatever they can to live up to their internal expectations.
 
2012-10-07 06:39:31 PM

abb3w: BarkingUnicorn: Many "political clubs" are tax-exempt. They're called 527 organizations.

However, donors may not deduct contributions to a 527; most contributions to a church can be deducted.


So, what?
 
2012-10-07 06:41:16 PM

BarkingUnicorn: FirstNationalBastard: It's not freedom of religion, it's freedom FROM religion.

Motherfarkers want to play, they should be made to pay.

You have totally misread the First Amendment. It protects religion from government. It does not protect anything from religion.

As for "pay to play," that sounds like a poll tax.


When the only person in the thread who doesn't think you're an idiot is cman it's kind of a policy that you have to get us all beers at the next party.
 
2012-10-07 06:41:27 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Barricaded Gunman: BarkingUnicorn: You have totally misread the First Amendment. It protects religion from government. It does not protect anything from religion.

It also doesn't enshrine the notion that putting on a silly hat and claiming to hear voices means you get to shelter your income from the government while interfering with the workings of society from a protected position.

That's true. Declaring your organization to be "religious" doesn't automatically confer tax-exempt status upon it.

I don't see preaching from a pulpit as "interfering with the workings of society." It's part of the workings of society.


Okay then what do you have to do to get tax excempt status?
 
2012-10-07 06:41:31 PM

BarkingUnicorn:
You are hung up on churches. I want ALL tax-exempt organizations to be free to endorse or oppose candidates.


that's fine - but if they do that then they lose their tax exemption status. no exceptions.
 
2012-10-07 06:42:04 PM

mrshowrules: DeArmondVI: Wanna be a sanctuary from the world, preach words of confort and salvation all contributing to the well being of the community and the world?

Enjoy your tax-free status.

Want to instill dogmatic absolutisms while telling your congregation that in order to stay true to said dogmatics that they need to vote in your preferred partisan manner?

Welcome to the tax base.

Aren't Church employees/preachers taxed on their salaries already?


On some of it. Most is written off as tax free compensation. The same with their housing, most things to do with transportation and their percentage of the offering, food, clothing, the bills and so on can all be written off as tax free.

Most lower end staff members end up paying no taxes as they are part time, very low paid assets of the Church. Unfortantly that means when they get laid off they get no unemployment benefits either. US religious tax laws are fairly complex due to the strange way they make most the money.
 
2012-10-07 06:44:42 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: The sad part is, there are too many servile f*ckwits in the country for anyone to take them on. By law, the IRS shoulde revoke their tax-exempt status for campaigning. But churches seem to get a pass on just about anything they damn well please.

Tax churches like any other business.


cdn.akaqa.com
 
2012-10-07 06:46:01 PM

spongeboob: BarkingUnicorn: Barricaded Gunman: BarkingUnicorn: You have totally misread the First Amendment. It protects religion from government. It does not protect anything from religion.

It also doesn't enshrine the notion that putting on a silly hat and claiming to hear voices means you get to shelter your income from the government while interfering with the workings of society from a protected position.

That's true. Declaring your organization to be "religious" doesn't automatically confer tax-exempt status upon it.

I don't see preaching from a pulpit as "interfering with the workings of society." It's part of the workings of society.

Okay then what do you have to do to get tax excempt status?


Ask the IRS. Link
 
2012-10-07 06:46:24 PM

cman: mrshowrules: I wish Christians/Conservatives would just stop beating around the bush and let everyone know that they just want the US to effectively have a theocracy like Iran.

That is not true. You are drinking left kool-aide without any regard for the truth. There are conservatives who want to introduce the Bible amendment making the Bible the top law of the land, but they are the minority. Wikipedia has an excellent article on this. When things like that are proposed they go absolutely nowhere. Judging the GOP by the actions of the minority is the same as the GOP judging muslims as evil for the minority who attacked us on 9/11


So Conservatives just want a wee bit more Christianity in Politics? It is one of those times when a slippery slope argument actually applies. It started with Reagan embracing the evangelical right. Is the GOP platform not anti-gay and regressive on women's reproductive health issues due to religion. Give the US a few terms of GOP leadership (today's GOP) and you will have women getting blamed for their own rape in less than 10 years.
 
2012-10-07 06:47:55 PM

mrshowrules: cman: mrshowrules: I wish Christians/Conservatives would just stop beating around the bush and let everyone know that they just want the US to effectively have a theocracy like Iran.

That is not true. You are drinking left kool-aide without any regard for the truth. There are conservatives who want to introduce the Bible amendment making the Bible the top law of the land, but they are the minority. Wikipedia has an excellent article on this. When things like that are proposed they go absolutely nowhere. Judging the GOP by the actions of the minority is the same as the GOP judging muslims as evil for the minority who attacked us on 9/11

So Conservatives just want a wee bit more Christianity in Politics? It is one of those times when a slippery slope argument actually applies. It started with Reagan embracing the evangelical right. Is the GOP platform not anti-gay and regressive on women's reproductive health issues due to religion. Give the US a few terms of GOP leadership (today's GOP) and you will have women getting blamed for their own rape in less than 10 years.


To be fair, the Republicans already generally blame rape victims for asking for it. Let's not forget Todd Aiken and "legitimate rape".
 
2012-10-07 06:48:08 PM

cman: mrshowrules: I wish Christians/Conservatives would just stop beating around the bush and let everyone know that they just want the US to effectively have a theocracy like Iran.

That is not true. You are drinking left kool-aide without any regard for the truth. There are conservatives who want to introduce the Bible amendment making the Bible the top law of the land, but they are the minority. Wikipedia has an excellent article on this. When things like that are proposed they go absolutely nowhere. Judging the GOP by the actions of the minority is the same as the GOP judging muslims as evil for the minority who attacked us on 9/11


It was Flavor-aide. Jones was a cheapskate.


Atillathepun: Wouldn't an Amendment barring government from making any laws respecting religion mean it would be illegal to treat religious establishments any different from any other entity, and thus having special tax exempt status in and of itself would be a violation of the First Amendment?


No. It deals with endorsing a specific religion to the exclusion of others. Even if the SCOTUS ruled to abolish the restrictions on political campaigning; there would be a new amendment, passed within the year, to establish an exception.

devek: Why do church even need to be tax exempt? Their books should be zero sum.

If you taxed churches at 100%, they still shouldn't be paying taxes because why the fark would they have a profit at the end of the year?


Guess how we know you've never owned property of your own.
 
2012-10-07 06:49:20 PM

SilentStrider: teto85: You don't challenge the IRS like that. They caught Al Capone, Ni*on and other criminals of that ilk. Don't think they won't go after Reverend Billy Bob.

never happen, at least not in an election year. Giving republicans ammunition like that would hand a lot of state and federal elecctions to them on a silver platter as they scream about gubbmit messing with their freedumbs..


The ORS doesn't have to do this immediately. They can have a month or two of "review time" before seeing who wins the election and deciding how to proceed. Doesn't matter until the churches officially don't pay any taxes for 2012.
 
2012-10-07 06:50:12 PM
Pastors have all the freedom in the world to say what they want from the pulpit. If they want to complain about how they'll lose their tax exemptions for it, I don't think they should have been given exemptions in the first place.
 
2012-10-07 06:50:28 PM
Damn it. Scotus abolished tax exempt status.
 
2012-10-07 06:50:49 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Rich Cream: BarkingUnicorn: Good! I really hope someone argues that tax exemptions should be used to buy the silence of one's political opponents, and that nobody who doesn't pay federal taxes should be allowed to voice a political opinion.


It's not to buy silence. It's to keep them the fark out of it altogether. Religion has a long history of perverting government and first amendment is an attempt to keep them from doing that.

You have never read the First Amendment.


And you apparently have never read why there is a First Amendment clause separating the two.
 
2012-10-07 06:51:03 PM

BarkingUnicorn: abb3w: BarkingUnicorn: Many "political clubs" are tax-exempt. They're called 527 organizations.

However, donors may not deduct contributions to a 527; most contributions to a church can be deducted.

So, what?


Because the government isn't in the business of funding political speech.
 
2012-10-07 06:51:14 PM
They want the IRS to revoke their tax exempt status. They're itching for a fight, and they think they can win. Given the make up of the SCOTUS, they're probably right. The IRS would be playing right into their hands if they penalize these pastors.
 
2012-10-07 06:53:20 PM
What the government should do is to give them three choices: 1. Give up politics from the pulpit; 2. Give up their tax exempt status; of 3. Abolish their charter as a church and re-establishtheir congregation as a Political Action Comittee. That way when you deal with them you know exactly what you are dealing with and their "agenda" can't be hiddenas easily behind the cross.
 
2012-10-07 06:54:34 PM

BarkingUnicorn: bwilson27: BarkingUnicorn:

I don't see preaching from a pulpit as "interfering with the workings of society." It's part of the workings of society.

Just like our murders and thieves!

I don't see the point of preventing them from voting, either.


They tend to vote democrat, so that's a big no-no for the repubs.. Like poor people, blacks and dirty foreigners.
 
2012-10-07 06:54:35 PM

Weaver95: BarkingUnicorn:
You are hung up on churches. I want ALL tax-exempt organizations to be free to endorse or oppose candidates.

that's fine - but if they do that then they lose their tax exemption status. no exceptions.


Why? And don't say, "because it's the law." Why have a law that prohibits tax-exempts from endorsing or opposing political candidates?

Hint: Lyndon Johnson, 1954. A petty act by a petty man, that has had far greater consequences than he intended.
 
2012-10-07 06:56:16 PM

BarkingUnicorn: You have totally misread the First Amendment. It protects religion from government. It does not protect anything from religion.

As for "pay to play," that sounds like a poll tax.


This has got to be a troll, right?
 
2012-10-07 06:56:56 PM

Rich Cream: BarkingUnicorn: Rich Cream: BarkingUnicorn: Good! I really hope someone argues that tax exemptions should be used to buy the silence of one's political opponents, and that nobody who doesn't pay federal taxes should be allowed to voice a political opinion.


It's not to buy silence. It's to keep them the fark out of it altogether. Religion has a long history of perverting government and first amendment is an attempt to keep them from doing that.

You have never read the First Amendment.

And you apparently have never read why there is a First Amendment clause separating the two.


LOL wut?
 
2012-10-07 06:57:26 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Declaring your organization to be "religious" doesn't automatically confer tax-exempt status upon it.


Technically correct, in that a new organization may need to be created; it also cannot benefit any private shareholder, nor be engaged in activities that are generally unlawful (EG: "The Church of Murder for Hire" is right out).

Otherwise... pretty much wrong, as far as IAmNotATaxLawyer can tell. See IRS Publication 1828.

BarkingUnicorn: So, what?


So, what you're advocating will result in political groups willing to re-constitute as "churches" getting larger contributions, since contributors may make them from pre-tax incomes rather than post-tax income.  This will tend to provide a social evolutionary pressure, and the rise of a lot of silly "Church of the Tax-Leveraged Contribution".

Not that this is intrinsically a bad thing. I'm merely noting, economic pressures will tend to result in rapid conversion of all (527)s to (501c3)s, once you broaden the allowed types of 501c3 that way.
 
2012-10-07 06:59:30 PM

Archae hippy: BarkingUnicorn: abb3w: BarkingUnicorn: Many "political clubs" are tax-exempt. They're called 527 organizations.

However, donors may not deduct contributions to a 527; most contributions to a church can be deducted.

So, what?

Because the government isn't in the business of funding political speech.


Then who's paying Congress?
 
2012-10-07 06:59:52 PM
Non religious mother farker here but I don't see why a church should give up it's tax exempted status for it's first amendment rights. If it goes to the SCOTUS they would win and win big.
 
2012-10-07 07:00:15 PM
Here's the deal. When one is preaching about the way to live one's life here on earth in order to get to the hereafter...eventually something political will occur. It is bound to happen. It really isn't a big deal. You there...people sitting in the pews, you don't HAVE to do what your pastor/preacher/mullah/whatever says. You have your own minds. If the arguments seem spurious to you then use that brain that your pastor claims god gave you and weigh the argument in your own head.

You then have three choices:
1) Agree
2) Disagree
3) Be apathetic and do nothing

/sheeple
 
2012-10-07 07:00:32 PM

FirstNationalBastard: mrshowrules: cman: mrshowrules: I wish Christians/Conservatives would just stop beating around the bush and let everyone know that they just want the US to effectively have a theocracy like Iran.

That is not true. You are drinking left kool-aide without any regard for the truth. There are conservatives who want to introduce the Bible amendment making the Bible the top law of the land, but they are the minority. Wikipedia has an excellent article on this. When things like that are proposed they go absolutely nowhere. Judging the GOP by the actions of the minority is the same as the GOP judging muslims as evil for the minority who attacked us on 9/11

So Conservatives just want a wee bit more Christianity in Politics? It is one of those times when a slippery slope argument actually applies. It started with Reagan embracing the evangelical right. Is the GOP platform not anti-gay and regressive on women's reproductive health issues due to religion. Give the US a few terms of GOP leadership (today's GOP) and you will have women getting blamed for their own rape in less than 10 years.

To be fair, the Republicans already generally blame rape victims for asking for it. Let's not forget Todd Aiken and "legitimate rape".


In 10 years of GOP rule, the media would no better than to challenge this remark anything other than a reasonable opinion. It is reasonable today to question Global Warming. One day, God willing, people can openly question whether it is really rape if the woman (slutty I presume) gets pregnant.
 
2012-10-07 07:00:34 PM

bullwrinkle: Non religious mother farker here but I don't see why a church should give up it's tax exempted status for it's first amendment rights. If it goes to the SCOTUS they would win and win big.


You're so cute when you're wrong ;)
 
2012-10-07 07:01:55 PM
Prediction:

Not one of them will lose tax exemption due to this.

The R's won't allow it, and the D's are afraid to be called anti-religious

the rest of us can go suck it as far as the politicians go.
 
2012-10-07 07:02:00 PM

Seabon: hey want the IRS to revoke their tax exempt status. They're itching for a fight, and they think they can win. Given the make up of the SCOTUS, they're probably right. The IRS would be playing right into their hands if they penalize these pastors.


Exactly. These preachers are videotaping their own sermons and mailing them to the IRS. I'm not sure that alone will do it, but they may even file pre-emptive complaints against themselves, which requires an IRS investigation or response. They want to be penalized so they can appeal it all the way up to SCOTUS, where they hope to have the law overturned as an unconstitutional restraint on their speech.

But it will take so long to get there that Scalia might not even be around. Read this for a short synopsis of just some recent cases in this field, and notice that often investigations won't even start for a month or two after the incident in question.

Also notice that, in the example of Jesus, the people behind this are lying about what they're doing (endorsing candidates while saying they're not), and lying to churches about the potential consequences (saying no church has ever been penalized for this when plenty have). The penalty is typically losing your tax exemption for the year in which the partisan politicking happened.

devek: Why do church even need to be tax exempt? Their books should be zero sum.


Nonprofit organizations don't have to keep zero bank balances. Churches have to keep money on hand for ordinary and extraordinary expenses-like the heater going out at midnight in mid-January and all the pipes freezing, or hailstorms destroying the roof. (It's an easy joke, but churches are not exempt from what insurers call "Acts of God.")

Most smaller, individual churches I've known have taken excess and put it in either a "rainy day" fund or a "permanent endowment" fund where the balance is untouchable and the church gets to spend the interest. Several of those have bylaws that require them to invest the money locally, too.

They're not all pricks. It's just getting harder and harder to see the non-pricks through the pricks.
 
2012-10-07 07:02:20 PM
ITT: a kid shiatting himself in a wheelchair and a bunch of people trying to explain to him what poop is.
 
2012-10-07 07:02:33 PM

Heliodorus: Atillathepun: Wouldn't an Amendment barring government from making any laws respecting religion mean it would be illegal to treat religious establishments any different from any other entity, and thus having special tax exempt status in and of itself would be a violation of the First Amendment?

No. It deals with endorsing a specific religion to the exclusion of others. Even if the SCOTUS ruled to abolish the restrictions on political campaigning; there would be a new amendment, passed within the year, to establish an exception.


But that's not what the wording says. It says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. It doesn't say "a religion". And the word "respecting" means that the definition is very broad, meaning any laws even indirectly establishing religion should be suspect.
 
2012-10-07 07:03:38 PM

limeyfellow: mrshowrules: DeArmondVI: Wanna be a sanctuary from the world, preach words of confort and salvation all contributing to the well being of the community and the world?

Enjoy your tax-free status.

Want to instill dogmatic absolutisms while telling your congregation that in order to stay true to said dogmatics that they need to vote in your preferred partisan manner?

Welcome to the tax base.

Aren't Church employees/preachers taxed on their salaries already?

On some of it. Most is written off as tax free compensation. The same with their housing, most things to do with transportation and their percentage of the offering, food, clothing, the bills and so on can all be written off as tax free.

Most lower end staff members end up paying no taxes as they are part time, very low paid assets of the Church. Unfortantly that means when they get laid off they get no unemployment benefits either. US religious tax laws are fairly complex due to the strange way they make most the money.


They should have to pay taxes like anyone else IMHO. Having donations written off by donors as a charitable expense is already a huge stretch.
 
2012-10-07 07:03:40 PM

tomWright: Prediction:

Not one of them will lose tax exemption due to this.

The R's won't allow it, and the D's are afraid to be called anti-religious

the rest of us can go suck it as far as the politicians go.


You're right, it's just a bunch of religious people being "Attention Whores for Jesus". The amount of fark the IRS will give about this is probably the size of a dirt speck.
 
2012-10-07 07:04:46 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Rich Cream: BarkingUnicorn: Rich Cream: BarkingUnicorn: Good! I really hope someone argues that tax exemptions should be used to buy the silence of one's political opponents, and that nobody who doesn't pay federal taxes should be allowed to voice a political opinion.


It's not to buy silence. It's to keep them the fark out of it altogether. Religion has a long history of perverting government and first amendment is an attempt to keep them from doing that.

You have never read the First Amendment.

And you apparently have never read why there is a First Amendment clause separating the two.

LOL wut?



Fourth day of the flu, grouchy, and I think that was from something my mom told me years ago. She would have been the farkiest of farkers indeed.

/never mind me, go about your business
 
2012-10-07 07:05:22 PM

abb3w: BarkingUnicorn: Declaring your organization to be "religious" doesn't automatically confer tax-exempt status upon it.

Technically correct, in that a new organization may need to be created; it also cannot benefit any private shareholder, nor be engaged in activities that are generally unlawful (EG: "The Church of Murder for Hire" is right out).

Otherwise... pretty much wrong, as far as IAmNotATaxLawyer can tell. See IRS Publication 1828.

BarkingUnicorn: So, what?

So, what you're advocating will result in political groups willing to re-constitute as "churches" getting larger contributions, since contributors may make them from pre-tax incomes rather than post-tax income.  This will tend to provide a social evolutionary pressure, and the rise of a lot of silly "Church of the Tax-Leveraged Contribution".

Not that this is intrinsically a bad thing. I'm merely noting, economic pressures will tend to result in rapid conversion of all (527)s to (501c3)s, once you broaden the allowed types of 501c3 that way.


So the tax code gets simplified. What's the problem?

You speak only of churches, but most 501c3s are not churches. Here's the IRS' list of purposes that can qualify for tax exemption:

"Exempt Purposes - Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3)

The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals. The term charitable is used in its generally accepted legal sense and includes relief of the poor, the distressed, or the underprivileged; advancement of religion; advancement of education or science; erecting or maintaining public buildings, monuments, or works; lessening the burdens of government; lessening neighborhood tensions; eliminating prejudice and discrimination; defending human and civil rights secured by law; and combating community deterioration and juvenile delinquency."

So the exemption base is already very broad. I don't see why endorsement/opposition of political candidates should cost any 501(c) its tax exemption.
 
2012-10-07 07:05:54 PM
KEEP MOTHERfarkING RELIGION OUT OF POLITICS!
For fark's sake, don't any of you study history?
 
2012-10-07 07:06:47 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Ask the IRS. Link


Note, Churches don't even have to ask the IRS for the exemption; it's automatic.

Archae hippy: Because the government isn't in the business of funding political speech.


That's clearly not true; public funding for presidential campaigns being an obvious counterexample.

BarkingUnicorn: You have never read the First Amendment.


You've apparently never read much of the published discussion of the Amendment written between 1800-1860.

"With the union of Church and State commenced the great corruptions of Christianity. So firmly persuaded am I of the deleterious effects of this union, that if I must choose one or the other, I would take the persecution of the state rather than her favor, her frowns rather than her smiles, her repulses rather than her embraces." -- John Henry Hobart, DD in "The United States of America compared with some European countries", 1825
 
2012-10-07 07:08:25 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Archae hippy: BarkingUnicorn: abb3w: BarkingUnicorn: Many "political clubs" are tax-exempt. They're called 527 organizations.

However, donors may not deduct contributions to a 527; most contributions to a church can be deducted.

So, what?

Because the government isn't in the business of funding political speech.

Then who's paying Congress?


Go ahead and deduct your deductions to the 527's then. Use the same argument during your audit.
 
2012-10-07 07:08:28 PM

FloydA: GAT_00: Tax every single one of those churches without exemptions.

The're doing this right before the election for a reason. If the IRS goes after them now, they can scream that "WAAAAaaa Fartbongo's jackbooted thugs are waging a war on religion!!!" That will increase the turnout of the knuckle-draggers who would otherwise stay home rather than vote for a Mormon. It's win-win for them.


No problem, the tax year extends beyond the election. In fact the IRS can audit just about anything for 7 years.
 
2012-10-07 07:10:06 PM
Start sending out the tax bills.

Preferably, payable *only* by the pastors, not the congregations. Since I sincerely doubt any of these 'shepherds' discussed the possible ramifications with their 'flocks' ahead of time.

It's easy to sound off if someone else has to take the repercussions.
 
2012-10-07 07:10:19 PM

abb3w: BarkingUnicorn: You have never read the First Amendment.

You've apparently never read much of the published discussion of the Amendment written between 1800-1860.



Oh, so it's not my fevered imagination. Only thing I thought was it was Religion messing up Politics. Which I'm sure is also the case.
 
2012-10-07 07:14:51 PM
The same teabaggers who wine about taxation without representation instead seem to be viciously fighting for representation without taxation.

You cannot fight to influence the rules and finances of an institution without yourself being beholden to them. It's like if a shareholder from a rival company comes into your company and starts handing out pamphlets on how your company should be run. He has no personal investment in your company, and in fact stands to gain if your company fails. Your company informs him that he has no business trying to dictate policy unless he has stock in your company. The shareholder then whines and moans about how his free speech allows him to do whatever he wants.
 
2012-10-07 07:15:43 PM

Eddie Adams from Torrance: BarkingUnicorn: I think all tax-exempt organizations, including churches, should be free to endorse candidates for political office. The right to participate in political life is not contingent upon whether you pay taxes. The purpose of tax-exempt status is not to buy silence.

Then you'd better be prepared to have every political PAC and party decide that they're a religious organization who also happens to be pumping millions of tax free dollars into the system. Why should I subsidize the Church by giving letting them spend pre-tax dollars to campaign against my own interests? Do you really want the federal government more involved in deciding who is a "legitimate" church? They currently give pretty wide leeway... open up the floodgates and you're begging for more scrutiny.

I'd like to see them taxed like any other corporation. Let them deduct money that's spent on actual charity work, but they can pay taxes on their buildings and non-charity related activities just like IBM, GM and the rest.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
 
2012-10-07 07:16:46 PM

cman: spongeboob: cman: mrshowrules: I wish Christians/Conservatives would just stop beating around the bush and let everyone know that they just want the US to effectively have a theocracy like Iran.

That is not true. You are drinking left kool-aide without any regard for the truth. There are conservatives who want to introduce the Bible amendment making the Bible the top law of the land, but they are the minority. Wikipedia has an excellent article on this. When things like that are proposed they go absolutely nowhere. Judging the GOP by the actions of the minority is the same as the GOP judging muslims as evil for the minority who attacked us on 9/11

You sure about that? We shouldn't be concerned about a Congress critter who is on the house science committe and thinks evolution comes from hell http://2012.talkingpointsmemo.com/2012/10/rep-paul-broun-r-ga-evolutio n-big-bang-lies-straight-from-the-pit-of-hell.php yeah that link is only from yesterday on Fark

How about the GOP hiding behind Christianity to outlaw abortion?

GOP attacks on non-Christians.

Yes, I am absolutely sure. In politics, people like to find pieces that validates their own point of view. Baring that, they twist it into whatever fits their POV. The Right sees the left as wanting to install a Communist utopia and outlaw elections and other political parties. The left sees the Right as wanting to install a Christian Republic with public excecution of homosexuals and blacks and forcing women back into the kitchen. These people who believe this way will twist whatever they can to live up to their internal expectations.


The problem is that the right has some people in positions of real authority, or at least audience who are well and truly crazy. The fact that there is enough market for them means that there is a significant number of people out there who feel the same way.

Keith Olbermann... probably the most radical of the main stream liberals, cannot keep a job to save his life.

the right has Rush, Hannity, Beck, Boortz (just for a little bit longer) O'Rilley, and I'm probably missing a few.

And then you get the theocrats, guys like Pat Robertson and the guys that wrote the "left behind" series and all that stuff.

There are definitely wackjobs on the left, but we don't give them tv or radio shows, generally.
 
2012-10-07 07:17:47 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Weaver95: BarkingUnicorn:
You are hung up on churches. I want ALL tax-exempt organizations to be free to endorse or oppose candidates.

that's fine - but if they do that then they lose their tax exemption status. no exceptions.

Why? And don't say, "because it's the law." Why have a law that prohibits tax-exempts from endorsing or opposing political candidates?

Hint: Lyndon Johnson, 1954. A petty act by a petty man, that has had far greater consequences than he intended.


hey, if you don't like it then write your congressman and see if you can get it repealed. But...until then, if you break the law you can expect there to be consequences for doing so. Now maybe that's one way to get a law changed - you find a law you hate or that you think is unjust...and you get a bunch of people all to break that law with you and be as public as you can with it. that still runs you the risk of having things go wrong though.

for my part, I think I like the bargain that's been in place now for a while: churches do the work of their chosen god(s) and stay out of government, and government stays out of their way and gives them a tax break. that encourages churches to concentrate on things OTHER than politics. it prevents churches from getting down in the dirt with various political parties.
 
2012-10-07 07:18:28 PM
Tax them.
 
2012-10-07 07:20:10 PM

Atillathepun: Heliodorus: Atillathepun: Wouldn't an Amendment barring government from making any laws respecting religion mean it would be illegal to treat religious establishments any different from any other entity, and thus having special tax exempt status in and of itself would be a violation of the First Amendment?

No. It deals with endorsing a specific religion to the exclusion of others. Even if the SCOTUS ruled to abolish the restrictions on political campaigning; there would be a new amendment, passed within the year, to establish an exception.

But that's not what the wording says. It says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. It doesn't say "a religion". And the word "respecting" means that the definition is very broad, meaning any laws even indirectly establishing religion should be suspect.


Read the rest of that sentence. Combined, they form the establishment clause.
 
2012-10-07 07:20:33 PM
And don't forget when a preacher endorses someone that carries the weight of God behind it. Who can vote freely believing that God will frown upon your choice?
 
2012-10-07 07:21:01 PM

crab66: Tax them.


Once you start taxing them, they start having their say.
Is that what you really want?
 
2012-10-07 07:21:22 PM
I support whole heartily the separation of church and state, in both directions.

I support government not supporting or repressing favored religions through how they tax, but in exchange, churches have to accept that they can't use the pulpit (or whatever) to influence politics.

Goes both ways

/like your mom
 
2012-10-07 07:23:05 PM

Buzzerguy: They're not all pricks. It's just getting harder and harder to see the non-pricks through the pricks.


Doesn't help that the pricks are the ones using the non-pricks as human shields for their shiat, either.

That said, this all seems incredibly reckless: the Republicans are using churches to extort their followers into voting a certain way to gain some sort of otherworldly reward. To this end, they're placing the church itself on the chopping block to push a narrative--seriously, a news story--that won't have a real push on the election. The effects for the churches will be felt after this election, long after this sad ploy by the Republicans is shown to have no real effect on the outcome. Sad candidate, according to a lot of Republican voters, does not share the same belief system of the churches being put up for the IRS's investigations.

The Republican Base has given up so much of their lives to the Rich who don't give a shiat about them, and now their final desperate act of a losing campaign is to tell their voters to give up the churches they supposedly love to con people into voting their way in order to have no chance to win against Obama. If any Republican voter can look at that and open up their church, then I have nothing else left to say. Except that this pretty much proves the constant Republican 'outrage' over religion -- which is used for many of their bullshiat causes like abortion and such -- has just been proven to be bullshiat.

Once again, the Republican Party stands for nothing at all. All of their interference and such? Means absolutely nothing.
 
2012-10-07 07:24:13 PM
The're doing this right before the election for a reason. If the IRS goes after them now, they can scream that "WAAAAaaa Fartbongo's jackbooted thugs are waging a war on religion!!!" That will increase the turnout of the knuckle-draggers who would otherwise stay home rather than vote for a Mormon. It's win-win for them.

You really think the IRS will mobilize in under a month?
I got a letter from them questioning something on my taxes a year and a half ago. I sent in the requested documentation and it took them a month to send me a letter saying they got the documentation. It took another 3 months before someone looked at it.
I'd bet by next presidential election cycle many of these churches will have list their Tax exempt status and many will have filed the paperwork to regain it.
 
2012-10-07 07:25:45 PM

socratesthekidd: The problem is that the right has some people in positions of real authority, or at least audience who are well and truly crazy. The fact that there is enough market for them means that there is a significant number of people out there who feel the same way.

Keith Olbermann... probably the most radical of the main stream liberals, cannot keep a job to save his life.

the right has Rush, Hannity, Beck, Boortz (just for a little bit longer) O'Rilley, and I'm probably missing a few.

And then you get the theocrats, guys like Pat Robertson and the guys that wrote the "left behind" series and all that stuff.

There are definitely wackjobs on the left, but we don't give them tv or radio shows, generally.



We should amend that a little: the left has no need for an Olbermann.

The Right has a lot of guys on AM radio, a dying format that that had to be bought out for cheap by a few organizations to air that shiat.

And the theocrats are now paying television stations to air their shiat early morning Sundays when nobody is watching.

The Right isn't as media savvy as you would think. Fox News might be their only real outlet for this stuff. Without the faked controversy, Rush and his ilk would be ignored since most people don't even listen to radio anymore, much less the sad AM spectrum.
 
2012-10-07 07:27:46 PM

Weaver95: this situation has to be quite a difficult quandary for right wing authoritarians. on one hand, they're ideology says that anything anyone does to oppose Obama is good and noble and should be supported....but on the other hand, their authoritarian beliefs say that anyone who breaks the law for any reason MUST be crushed and/or smashed into atoms - NOBODY breaks the law, ever.


Don't be stupid, Weaver. These people are capable of doublethink: it's OK for those pastors to break the law, if they personally support what the pastors are doing. The rules don't apply to them.
 
2012-10-07 07:28:00 PM
"Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet. Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich." ― Napoleon Bonaparte
 
2012-10-07 07:28:26 PM
nothing will happen until there are more liberals on the SCOTUS. if that happens then they might get their tax exempt status revoked.
 
2012-10-07 07:28:41 PM
Has the constitutionality of this law ever gone before the SCOTUS? I never have been able to find where it has. Seems to me it was President Johnson's way to shut up the black churches who were railing against him.
 
2012-10-07 07:29:02 PM
If a pastor commits treason, just shoot him.

Nobody will say a word about tax exemptions after that.
 
2012-10-07 07:30:54 PM

James F. Campbell: Weaver95: this situation has to be quite a difficult quandary for right wing authoritarians. on one hand, they're ideology says that anything anyone does to oppose Obama is good and noble and should be supported....but on the other hand, their authoritarian beliefs say that anyone who breaks the law for any reason MUST be crushed and/or smashed into atoms - NOBODY breaks the law, ever.

Don't be stupid, Weaver. These people are capable of doublethink: it's OK for those pastors to break the law, if they personally support what the pastors are doing. The rules don't apply to them.


yeah, but it never hurts to point out the contradictions. I think it's kinda neat to watch authoritarians go all 'head explode-y' when you confront them with the paradoxes they've created. ok, it's also a bit cruel..
 
2012-10-07 07:31:10 PM
"I am surrounded by priests who repeat incessantly that their kingdom is not of this world, and yet they lay their hands on everything they can get." ― Napoleon Bonaparte
 
2012-10-07 07:31:33 PM

abb3w: BarkingUnicorn: Ask the IRS. Link

Note, Churches don't even have to ask the IRS for the exemption; it's automatic.


Churches don't have to apply to the IRS for recognition of tax-exempt status. IRS Pub. 1828 (big PDF) However, most do in order to have proof for donors that donations are tax-deductible.

Churches do have to meet all of the requirements for 501(c)3 status.
 
2012-10-07 07:32:54 PM

Guntram Shatterhand: socratesthekidd: The problem is that the right has some people in positions of real authority, or at least audience who are well and truly crazy. The fact that there is enough market for them means that there is a significant number of people out there who feel the same way.

Keith Olbermann... probably the most radical of the main stream liberals, cannot keep a job to save his life.

the right has Rush, Hannity, Beck, Boortz (just for a little bit longer) O'Rilley, and I'm probably missing a few.

And then you get the theocrats, guys like Pat Robertson and the guys that wrote the "left behind" series and all that stuff.

There are definitely wackjobs on the left, but we don't give them tv or radio shows, generally.


We should amend that a little: the left has no need for an Olbermann.

The Right has a lot of guys on AM radio, a dying format that that had to be bought out for cheap by a few organizations to air that shiat.

And the theocrats are now paying television stations to air their shiat early morning Sundays when nobody is watching.

The Right isn't as media savvy as you would think. Fox News might be their only real outlet for this stuff. Without the faked controversy, Rush and his ilk would be ignored since most people don't even listen to radio anymore, much less the sad AM spectrum.


Just saying, there is apparently a market for it.

I have a place even worse than this that I go to really debate politics, and I get brietbart and beck thrown at me all the time.

And I get Cman's point. It is absolutely unfair to judge christians, and the right, based on the actions of the few. I do think, however, they're fringe few are a big bigger, and certainly more widespread.
 
2012-10-07 07:33:10 PM

James F. Campbell: Weaver95: this situation has to be quite a difficult quandary for right wing authoritarians. on one hand, they're ideology says that anything anyone does to oppose Obama is good and noble and should be supported....but on the other hand, their authoritarian beliefs say that anyone who breaks the law for any reason MUST be crushed and/or smashed into atoms - NOBODY breaks the law, ever.

Don't be stupid, Weaver. These people are capable of doublethink: it's OK for those pastors to break the law, if they personally support what the pastors are doing. The rules don't apply to them.


Yep. The only thing they hate more than "political correctness" is somebody that says something which offends them.
 
2012-10-07 07:35:39 PM

StoPPeRmobile: Benevolent Misanthrope: The sad part is, there are too many servile f*ckwits in the country for anyone to take them on. By law, the IRS shoulde revoke their tax-exempt status for campaigning. But churches seem to get a pass on just about anything they damn well please.

Tax churches like any other business.

[cdn.akaqa.com image 850x637]


Call in her:
blogs-images.forbes.com
I hear she's good at kicking hornets' nests.

/hottie image
 
2012-10-07 07:36:03 PM

Weaver95: yeah, but it never hurts to point out the contradictions. I think it's kinda neat to watch authoritarians go all 'head explode-y' when you confront them with the paradoxes they've created. ok, it's also a bit cruel..


It would be more productive, in my opinion, to simply put them down like a rabid dog.
 
2012-10-07 07:36:10 PM

heavymetal:
Yep. The only thing they hate more than "political correctness" is somebody that says something which offends them.


And if there's one thing that the evangelicals in this country are VERY good at, it's being offended.
 
2012-10-07 07:37:17 PM
For the record, the pastors here aren't "breaking the law." They're freely making a choice to forgo their tax exempt status. They will face no punishment for this decision, criminal or otherwise.
 
2012-10-07 07:37:35 PM
Get rid of churches not paying taxes now!
 
2012-10-07 07:37:54 PM
I don't see why they shouldn't tell the IRS to go to hell. Unions don't pay taxes and they endorse candidates all the time. Oh right, this is fark, you guys get all irrational and frothy when religion is involved.
 
2012-10-07 07:38:08 PM

BarkingUnicorn: FirstNationalBastard: It's not freedom of religion, it's freedom FROM religion.

Motherfarkers want to play, they should be made to pay.

You have totally misread the First Amendment. It protects religion from government. It does not protect anything from religion.

As for "pay to play," that sounds like a poll tax.


And what is right about people who don't pay taxes telling people from the pulpit whose salaries their tax dollars should pay for. They've got no skin in the game.

This is the equivalent to someone getting a deep discount for a standing room only seat at a football game, then, as soon as they get inside, they start demanding a seat.
 
2012-10-07 07:38:44 PM

BarkingUnicorn: cman: BarkingUnicorn: I think all tax-exempt organizations, including churches, should be free to endorse candidates for political office. The right to participate in political life is not contingent upon whether you pay taxes. The purpose of tax-exempt status is not to buy silence.

Prepare to be flamed

Good! I really hope someone argues that tax exemptions should be used to buy the silence of one's political opponents, and that nobody who doesn't pay federal taxes should be allowed to voice a political opinion.


No one is going to argue that because we know there is nothing that would get you churchtards to shut up about your invisible sky wizard.
 
2012-10-07 07:39:08 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: I don't see why they shouldn't tell the IRS to go to hell. Unions don't pay taxes and they endorse candidates all the time. Oh right, this is fark, you guys get all irrational and frothy when religion is involved.


Maybe we've learned from the past? Give it a try sometime.
 
2012-10-07 07:39:30 PM

Bigdogdaddy: Has the constitutionality of this law ever gone before the SCOTUS? I never have been able to find where it has. Seems to me it was President Johnson's way to shut up the black churches who were railing against him.


That must be why it was passed by both houses of Congress, and signed into law by Republican general and pious man Dwight Eisenhower. Because they were all part of Johnson's conspiracy to persecute black churches.

/end tone of irony here.
 
2012-10-07 07:40:08 PM

Sgt Otter: Benevolent Misanthrope: The sad part is, there are too many servile f*ckwits in the country for anyone to take them on. By law, the IRS shoulde revoke their tax-exempt status for campaigning. But churches seem to get a pass on just about anything they damn well please.

Tax churches like any other business.

The second they do, a certain cable news network will start screaming WAR ON CHRISTIANITY!!! 24 hours a day.


Bout time they had a real war. They've mostly been shooting up the other religions' churches. Too one-sided.
 
2012-10-07 07:41:43 PM

Weaver95: BarkingUnicorn: Weaver95: BarkingUnicorn:
You are hung up on churches. I want ALL tax-exempt organizations to be free to endorse or oppose candidates.

that's fine - but if they do that then they lose their tax exemption status. no exceptions.

Why? And don't say, "because it's the law." Why have a law that prohibits tax-exempts from endorsing or opposing political candidates?

Hint: Lyndon Johnson, 1954. A petty act by a petty man, that has had far greater consequences than he intended.

hey, if you don't like it then write your congressman and see if you can get it repealed. But...until then, if you break the law you can expect there to be consequences for doing so. Now maybe that's one way to get a law changed - you find a law you hate or that you think is unjust...and you get a bunch of people all to break that law with you and be as public as you can with it. that still runs you the risk of having things go wrong though.

for my part, I think I like the bargain that's been in place now for a while: churches do the work of their chosen god(s) and stay out of government, and government stays out of their way and gives them a tax break. that encourages churches to concentrate on things OTHER than politics. it prevents churches from getting down in the dirt with various political parties.


You're STILL hung up on churches!

What about Planned Parenthood, a 501(c)3 that is prohibited from opposing Romney or endorsing Obama? GLBT nonprofits that want to endorse pro-gay marriage candidates or legislation? Scientific nonprofits that want to endorse candidates who favor teaching evolution and not creationism?

Why shouldn't these entities - AND their religious antagonists - be allowed to endorse candidates while keeping the tax exemptions they get for doing good works?

They're all nonprofit corporations, and corporations are people with the First Amendment rights of Citizens United!
 
2012-10-07 07:41:50 PM

James F. Campbell: Weaver95: yeah, but it never hurts to point out the contradictions. I think it's kinda neat to watch authoritarians go all 'head explode-y' when you confront them with the paradoxes they've created. ok, it's also a bit cruel..

It would be more productive, in my opinion, to simply put them down like a rabid dog.


nah. the one thing you can't do with religious types is give them an opportunity to die for their beliefs. that's a straight ticket to paradise. just keep pointing out the lies and contradictions as they come up and then laugh at them. religious fanatics *hate* to be laughed at.
 
2012-10-07 07:43:00 PM
Ok, so they're are now political organizations and no longer tax exempt.
Of course we all know that if mosque started this practice Republicans would be losing their shiat over it.
Typical republican hypocrisy.

Hypnozombie
 
2012-10-07 07:43:26 PM

bwilson27: BraveNewCheneyWorld: I don't see why they shouldn't tell the IRS to go to hell. Unions don't pay taxes and they endorse candidates all the time. Oh right, this is fark, you guys get all irrational and frothy when religion is involved.

Maybe we've learned from the past? Give it a try sometime.


Exactly what event are you referring to?
 
2012-10-07 07:44:37 PM

Rich Cream: And don't forget when a preacher endorses someone that carries the weight of God behind it. Who can vote freely believing that God will frown upon your choice?


How about the 93% of Catholics who have used birth control?
 
2012-10-07 07:45:11 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: bwilson27: BraveNewCheneyWorld: I don't see why they shouldn't tell the IRS to go to hell. Unions don't pay taxes and they endorse candidates all the time. Oh right, this is fark, you guys get all irrational and frothy when religion is involved.

Maybe we've learned from the past? Give it a try sometime.

Exactly what event are you referring to?


The period from 0 to 1776.
 
2012-10-07 07:45:40 PM

BarkingUnicorn: I think all tax-exempt organizations, including churches, should be free to endorse candidates for political office. The right to participate in political life is not contingent upon whether you pay taxes. The purpose of tax-exempt status is not to buy silence.


You obviously don't know why the law was created.
 
2012-10-07 07:46:03 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: I don't see why they shouldn't tell the IRS to go to hell. Unions don't pay taxes and they endorse candidates all the time. Oh right, this is fark, you guys get all irrational and frothy when religion is involved.


Unions are non-profit corporations, not religious non-profit organizations. thought i'd point out the difference.
 
2012-10-07 07:46:11 PM
I

bwilson27: bullwrinkle: Non religious mother farker here but I don't see why a church should give up it's tax exempted status for it's first amendment rights. If it goes to the SCOTUS they would win and win big.

You're so cute when you're wrong ;)


I may very well be wrong but I don't think I've ever heard of a church loosing it's tax exemption.
Not sure but I believe unions also don't pay taxes.
 
2012-10-07 07:47:50 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Why have a law that prohibits tax-exempts from endorsing or opposing political candidates?


Largely because of the history of the mutually corrupting influence of erosion of the barriers between Church and State.

Even most pastors oppose such candidate endorsements from the pulpit, though that's more a political argument than a legal one.

BarkingUnicorn: I don't see why endorsement/opposition of political candidates should cost any 501(c) its tax exemption.


Well, ultimately it depends on what is-ought bridge is in use. If you don't accept the particular bridge, then of course you won't accept the implication.

I suspect it's tied to how 527s are allowed to seek benefit of sub-segments of society, while 501c3s are nominally supposed to be concerned with things allegedly to the benefit of all society. Poking Google turns up a historical overview at (possibly subscription and Fark unlinkable papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2097652), which seems to support that -- that it's because c3s are "public trusts" with a responsibility to the "general welfare", rather than any one partisan faction.

(Personally, I don't agree that Churches should qualify; but I'm willing to accept that existing case law says they do. However, in so far as this is also a political rather than purely a legal discussion, we'll probably get back to that.)   

Amusingly, it seems to have originally been put in largely due to concerns from conservatives who thought too many such groups leaned to the left. 

A bit more work turns up Regan v. Taxation With Representation, and more cases which it cites. This suggests it would in fact be perfectly allowable for Congress to change the law... but that they are under no obligation to do so.
 
2012-10-07 07:48:21 PM

Rich Cream: "I am surrounded by priests who repeat incessantly that their kingdom is not of this world, and yet they lay their hands on everything they can get." ― Napoleon Bonaparte


Heh, that's a good one.
 
2012-10-07 07:49:25 PM

BarkingUnicorn:
What about Planned Parenthood, a 501(c)3 that is prohibited from opposing Romney or endorsing Obama? GLBT nonprofits that want to endorse pro-gay marriage candidates or legislation? Scientific nonprofits that want to endorse candidates who favor teaching evolution and not creationism?


all of those are treated differently than churches under the US tax code.

Why shouldn't these entities - AND their religious antagonists - be allowed to endorse candidates while keeping the tax exemptions they get for doing good works?

because religious organizations have a unique place in society. or did you really mean to say that religious - ALL religious organizations - are no different than say...planned parenthood? Because that's a very naive perspective...or you were just being intellectually dishonest. I honestly can't tell which is the case with you.

They're all nonprofit corporations, and corporations are people with the First Amendment rights of Citizens United!

ah, but corporations have tax loopholes and don't pay taxes in the first place...so you just sunk your own argument. seriously dude - why did you do that!? yeesh...
 
2012-10-07 07:51:01 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Rich Cream: And don't forget when a preacher endorses someone that carries the weight of God behind it. Who can vote freely believing that God will frown upon your choice?

How about the 93% of Catholics who have used birth control?



My turn.

LOL WUT?
 
2012-10-07 07:51:01 PM

DrPainMD: BarkingUnicorn: I think all tax-exempt organizations, including churches, should be free to endorse candidates for political office. The right to participate in political life is not contingent upon whether you pay taxes. The purpose of tax-exempt status is not to buy silence.

You obviously don't know why the law was created.


This site looks legit. And it totally explains how it got through both houses of Congress to be signed into law by Republican general and pious churchgoer Dwight Eisenhower.
 
2012-10-07 07:52:36 PM

Weaver95: nah. the one thing you can't do with religious types is give them an opportunity to die for their beliefs. that's a straight ticket to paradise


You... you know paradise isn't real, right? That's why it's worth it to try and improve life in the here and now: there isn't anything else.
 
2012-10-07 07:54:36 PM

James F. Campbell: Weaver95: nah. the one thing you can't do with religious types is give them an opportunity to die for their beliefs. that's a straight ticket to paradise

You... you know paradise isn't real, right? That's why it's worth it to try and improve life in the here and now: there isn't anything else.


it's very real to the religious fanatics though. don't EVER make the mistake of assuming that your views are the ONLY valid views in the universe. to you, the afterlife might be a fantasy...but to someone else, it is very real. real enough for them to break laws and smash people in THIS life in order to win a bigger reward after they die.
 
2012-10-07 07:57:42 PM

Benevolent Misanthrope: The sad part is, there are too many servile f*ckwits in the country for anyone to take them on. By law, the IRS shoulde revoke their tax-exempt status for campaigning. But churches seem to get a pass on just about anything they damn well please.

Tax churches like any other business.


...I think one Mosque should campaign from whatever the pulpit in Islam is on Friday. If the IRS goes after them, that's step 1 for taxes for all religious services.
 
2012-10-07 07:58:42 PM

BarkingUnicorn: cman: BarkingUnicorn: I think all tax-exempt organizations, including churches, should be free to endorse candidates for political office. The right to participate in political life is not contingent upon whether you pay taxes. The purpose of tax-exempt status is not to buy silence.

Prepare to be flamed

Good! I really hope someone argues that tax exemptions should be used to buy the silence of one's political opponents, and that nobody who doesn't pay federal taxes should be allowed to voice a political opinion.


Well it's nice that you have that strawman already set up.
 
2012-10-07 08:00:23 PM

cman: mrshowrules: I wish Christians/Conservatives would just stop beating around the bush and let everyone know that they just want the US to effectively have a theocracy like Iran.

That is not true. You are drinking left kool-aide without any regard for the truth. There are conservatives who want to introduce the Bible amendment making the Bible the top law of the land, but they are the minority. Wikipedia has an excellent article on this. When things like that are proposed they go absolutely nowhere. Judging the GOP by the actions of the minority is the same as the GOP judging muslims as evil for the minority who attacked us on 9/11


Or judging all reciepients of TANF and SNAP based on the actions of a few, right?
 
2012-10-07 08:03:03 PM

stoli n coke: BarkingUnicorn: FirstNationalBastard: It's not freedom of religion, it's freedom FROM religion.

Motherfarkers want to play, they should be made to pay.

You have totally misread the First Amendment. It protects religion from government. It does not protect anything from religion.

As for "pay to play," that sounds like a poll tax.

And what is right about people who don't pay taxes telling people from the pulpit whose salaries their tax dollars should pay for. They've got no skin in the game.


So, everyone should pay for the right to express his opinion?

This is the equivalent to someone getting a deep discount for a standing room only seat at a football game, then, as soon as they get inside, they start demanding a seat.

It's more like giving a free seat to a guy who worked many unpaid hours setting up the field.
 
2012-10-07 08:03:32 PM

Bigdogdaddy: Has the constitutionality of this law ever gone before the SCOTUS?


Yes. Regan v. Taxation With Representation.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Unions don't pay taxes and they endorse candidates all the time.


...and are 527 or other non-deductible private benefit trusts, as opposed to 501c3 deductible public trusts.

BarkingUnicorn: What about Planned Parenthood, a 501(c)3 that is prohibited from opposing Romney or endorsing Obama?


Actually, PP has both a 501c3 and a 527.

BarkingUnicorn: GLBT nonprofits that want to endorse pro-gay marriage candidates or legislation? Scientific nonprofits that want to endorse candidates who favor teaching evolution and not creationism?


Also allowed to set up 527s.
And, so can a church. They're just required to keep the books clean and sharply divided between the two functions.

DrPainMD: You obviously don't know why the law was created.


Actually, that page overlooks some of the history. Apparently, it was utterly unopposed because it was thought too many public foundations leaned to the political left.
 
2012-10-07 08:03:34 PM

bwilson27: BraveNewCheneyWorld: bwilson27: BraveNewCheneyWorld: I don't see why they shouldn't tell the IRS to go to hell. Unions don't pay taxes and they endorse candidates all the time. Oh right, this is fark, you guys get all irrational and frothy when religion is involved.

Maybe we've learned from the past? Give it a try sometime.

Exactly what event are you referring to?

The period from 0 to 1776.


Because a bunch of tiny churches with differing agendas are the same thing as a single all powerful church. Yeah, makes perfect sense.. Because religion!

Weaver95: BraveNewCheneyWorld: I don't see why they shouldn't tell the IRS to go to hell. Unions don't pay taxes and they endorse candidates all the time. Oh right, this is fark, you guys get all irrational and frothy when religion is involved.

Unions are non-profit corporations, not religious non-profit organizations. thought i'd point out the difference.


And if a church must refrain from political endorsement because of their tax exempt status, why shouldn't a labor union be under the same restriction? It's fundamentally unfair.
 
2012-10-07 08:04:31 PM
People in the Western world are getting less religious every year, and despite all appearances to the contrary the United States is no exception, we're just a little behind the rest. If these guys played by the rules, churches would remain tax exempt indefinitely; instead, in a few decades time, they will likely lose that status, because the political importance of evangelical Christianity has peaked and is on the wane, and the increasingly secular voting public will not put up with this shiat. Their thinking is shortsighted, but that's okay; Jesus is coming back any day now, right?
 
2012-10-07 08:06:13 PM

Guntram Shatterhand: They're not all pricks. It's just getting harder and harder to see the non-pricks through the pricks.


Bullshiat. Christian churchs are worthless leeches on society. It's far past time to tax their money grubbing asses.
 
2012-10-07 08:07:46 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Rich Cream: And don't forget when a preacher endorses someone that carries the weight of God behind it. Who can vote freely believing that God will frown upon your choice?

How about the 93% of Catholics who have used birth control?



Ah, I think I got it. I can only say in my opinion people are more easily influenced in the voting booth than they are with things like birth control.

Try and tell a woman not to go vote and then try to take her birth control away. See which one costs you an arm.
 
2012-10-07 08:07:58 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld:

And if a church must refrain from political endorsement because of their tax exempt status, why shouldn't a labor union be under the same restriction? It's fundamentally unfair.


*sigh*

do you REALLY want to say that churches and unions are identical organizations? really? are you THAT desperate!?

a religious organization has a unique place in society, one that the laws can and should recognize. there is simply no way you can say that a labor union is in any way identical to a church. to even make that suggestion is beyond stupid.
 
2012-10-07 08:10:40 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Rich Cream: And don't forget when a preacher endorses someone that carries the weight of God behind it. Who can vote freely believing that God will frown upon your choice?

How about the 93% of Catholics who have used birth control?


They're certainly A-OK endorsing child rape through their monetary donations though.
 
2012-10-07 08:10:45 PM

BarkingUnicorn: cman: BarkingUnicorn: I think all tax-exempt organizations, including churches, should be free to endorse candidates for political office. The right to participate in political life is not contingent upon whether you pay taxes. The purpose of tax-exempt status is not to buy silence.

Prepare to be flamed

Good! I really hope someone argues that tax exemptions should be used to buy the silence of one's political opponents, and that nobody who doesn't pay federal taxes should be allowed to voice a political opinion.


Not saying you have to pay Fed taxes to voice political opinion, I happen to be exempt due to low income, which is within the tax law, it is a fair lawful exemption, churches have enjoyed their 503(c) exemption on the condition that they remain apolitical, if they think it unfair, change the law, but don't start biatching when you get punished fairly for breaking a well established and understood law, especially when you brag about breaking said law and saying "bring it on."
 
2012-10-07 08:12:43 PM

Johnny Swank: BarkingUnicorn: Rich Cream: And don't forget when a preacher endorses someone that carries the weight of God behind it. Who can vote freely believing that God will frown upon your choice?

How about the 93% of Catholics who have used birth control?

They're certainly A-OK endorsing child rape through their monetary donations though.


well..yeah, but so was Penn State so that's kind of a wash.
 
2012-10-07 08:12:59 PM

BarkingUnicorn: stoli n coke: BarkingUnicorn: FirstNationalBastard: It's not freedom of religion, it's freedom FROM religion.

Motherfarkers want to play, they should be made to pay.

You have totally misread the First Amendment. It protects religion from government. It does not protect anything from religion.

As for "pay to play," that sounds like a poll tax.

And what is right about people who don't pay taxes telling people from the pulpit whose salaries their tax dollars should pay for. They've got no skin in the game.

So, everyone should pay for the right to express his opinion?

This is the equivalent to someone getting a deep discount for a standing room only seat at a football game, then, as soon as they get inside, they start demanding a seat.

It's more like giving a free seat to a guy who worked many unpaid hours setting up the field.


I'm sure all those prosperity gospel preachers worked lots of "unpaid hours."

They get a very sweet deal. Don't preach politics from the pulpit and you don't have to pay taxes.

Now, they're whining that they shouldn't have to hold up their end of the bargain.
 
2012-10-07 08:19:51 PM

bugontherug: This site looks legit.


It overlooks the committee hearings before it, but isn't entirely fact-free.

BarkingUnicorn: So, everyone should pay for the right to express his opinion?


No, but if they're a public trust, they are demanded to be working for the general welfare, not for any particular political faction.

abb3w: ...and are 527 or other non-deductible private benefit trusts, as opposed to 501c3 deductible public trusts.


D'oh! Actually, Unions look to be 501c5, and dues are deductible; however, funds used by unions for lobbying are nondeductible contributions. They have to keep separate books, somehow. Not sure on the exact details.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: And if a church must refrain from political endorsement because of their tax exempt status, why shouldn't a labor union be under the same restriction? It's fundamentally unfair.


501c5's also have to keep the political money separate, and it's non-deductible. Screw up, and they also might lose the exempt status outright; particularly if done willfully in flagrant disregard for the current law.

Re-charter as a 527, and the once-church is good to go in politics. Or they can set a parallel 527, and as long as they keep the separation required, they're again fine. (There's probably other ways, but you'd have to ask a tax lawyer.)
 
2012-10-07 08:20:35 PM

Weaver95: BarkingUnicorn:

Why shouldn't these entities - AND their religious antagonists - be allowed to endorse candidates while keeping the tax exemptions they get for doing good works?

Weaver: because religious organizations have a unique place in society.


Go on... that can't possibly be a complete answer.
 
2012-10-07 08:22:53 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Weaver95: BarkingUnicorn:

Why shouldn't these entities - AND their religious antagonists - be allowed to endorse candidates while keeping the tax exemptions they get for doing good works?

Weaver: because religious organizations have a unique place in society.

Go on... that can't possibly be a complete answer.


i'm not sure you understand what I'm saying...the talking point on this seems to be that churches and unions are exactly identical in all ways and thus should be treated the same under the law....which is, quite frankly, a very stupid thing to go with.
 
2012-10-07 08:26:20 PM

Weaver95: it's very real to the religious fanatics though. don't EVER make the mistake of assuming that your views are the ONLY valid views in the universe. to you, the afterlife might be a fantasy...but to someone else, it is very real. real enough for them to break laws and smash people in THIS life in order to win a bigger reward after they die.


So kill them. They (wrongly) believe they're going to heaven, and the rest of us find our lives vastly improved.
 
2012-10-07 08:27:15 PM

Atillathepun: Wouldn't an Amendment barring government from making any laws respecting religion mean it would be illegal to treat religious establishments any different from any other entity, and thus having special tax exempt status in and of itself would be a violation of the First Amendment?


The Constitution clearly defines government's role as it pertains to religion and so-called "other entities" like business and industry. Read it and then re-join the thread
 
2012-10-07 08:28:41 PM

Weaver95: BraveNewCheneyWorld:

And if a church must refrain from political endorsement because of their tax exempt status, why shouldn't a labor union be under the same restriction? It's fundamentally unfair.

*sigh*

do you REALLY want to say that churches and unions are identical organizations? really? are you THAT desperate!?

a religious organization has a unique place in society, one that the laws can and should recognize. there is simply no way you can say that a labor union is in any way identical to a church. to even make that suggestion is beyond stupid.


What is beyond stupid is believing that it's fair to restrict the rights of one group because they enjoy a privilege, and not restriction the rights of another group who enjoys the same privilege. "Because they're religious" isn't a valid excuse to justify this as fair. The same argument could be made of literally any other group of people with just as much (none) intellectual honesty. You're just rabidly anti-religious, which is fine, everyone's entitled to their opinion, but you're not entitled to restrict the rights of others because you hate the way they think.
 
2012-10-07 08:29:43 PM

stoli n coke:

They get a very sweet deal. Don't preach politics from the pulpit and you don't have to pay taxes.

Now, they're whining that they shouldn't have to hold up their end of the bargain.


^THIS^
 
2012-10-07 08:29:46 PM

Rich Cream: Try and tell a woman not to go vote and then try to take her birth control away. See which one costs you an arm.


Try to use a law for the latter, and you're likely to have blue balls.
Try to use a law for the former, and you're likely to be left with NO balls.
 
2012-10-07 08:32:00 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: What is beyond stupid is believing that it's fair to restrict the rights of one group because they enjoy a privilege, and not restriction the rights of another group who enjoys the same privilege.


Except the privilege is not the same; unions contributions for political action are non-deductible, and must be accounted separately.
 
2012-10-07 08:32:02 PM

James F. Campbell: Weaver95: it's very real to the religious fanatics though. don't EVER make the mistake of assuming that your views are the ONLY valid views in the universe. to you, the afterlife might be a fantasy...but to someone else, it is very real. real enough for them to break laws and smash people in THIS life in order to win a bigger reward after they die.

So kill them. They (wrongly) believe they're going to heaven, and the rest of us find our lives vastly improved.


have you ever bothered reading a history book? ANY history book? gods know, it's been tried. you can sweep through a bit of territory and murder people till the cows come home and you'll STILL not wipe out a religious belief. in fact, the more you suppress the idea the stronger people hold on to it.

do not ever assume that your views are 'true'. and NEVER assume that just because you think something is stupid that anyone else who believes differently than you is dumber...that tends to get you dead. or at least seriously inconvenienced.
 
2012-10-07 08:32:17 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Weaver95: BraveNewCheneyWorld:

And if a church must refrain from political endorsement because of their tax exempt status, why shouldn't a labor union be under the same restriction? It's fundamentally unfair.

*sigh*

do you REALLY want to say that churches and unions are identical organizations? really? are you THAT desperate!?

a religious organization has a unique place in society, one that the laws can and should recognize. there is simply no way you can say that a labor union is in any way identical to a church. to even make that suggestion is beyond stupid.

What is beyond stupid is believing that it's fair to restrict the rights of one group because they enjoy a privilege, and not restriction the rights of another group who enjoys the same privilege. "Because they're religious" isn't a valid excuse to justify this as fair. The same argument could be made of literally any other group of people with just as much (none) intellectual honesty. You're just rabidly anti-religious, which is fine, everyone's entitled to their opinion, but you're not entitled to restrict the rights of others because you hate the way they think.


You know... someone has explained upthread the different forms of non-profit organization and the different rules and benefits to each.

501c3
501c5
527
 
2012-10-07 08:33:47 PM

Weaver95: BraveNewCheneyWorld:

And if a church must refrain from political endorsement because of their tax exempt status, why shouldn't a labor union be under the same restriction? It's fundamentally unfair.

*sigh*

do you REALLY want to say that churches and unions are identical organizations? really? are you THAT desperate!?

a religious organization has a unique place in society, one that the laws can and should recognize. there is simply no way you can say that a labor union is in any way identical to a church. to even make that suggestion is beyond stupid.


Why would they need to be identical in order to have the same free speech rights?

What is this "unique place in society" to which you allude? Why does it justify greater restriction of free speech?
 
2012-10-07 08:35:23 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld:

What is beyond stupid is believing that it's fair to restrict the rights of one group because they enjoy a privilege, and not restriction the rights of another group who enjoys the same privilege. "Because they're religious" isn't a valid excuse to justify this as fair. The same argument could be made of literally any other group of people with just as much (none) intellectual honesty. You're just rabidly anti-religious, which is fine, everyone's entitled to their opinion, but you're not entitled to restrict the rights of others because you hate the way they think.


ok, once more - labor unions ARE NOT religious. they don't pray to a god, they don't have clergy, they're not a religious organization with a defined theology. so why would you want to cram them into the same category as a religious group? that doesn't make any sense. why you chose that example is entirely beyond me.

that said - the deal is that churches get a tax exemption and very little interference in return for clergy staying out of politics. and that's a good deal for everyone involved. only now a couple of clergy are deciding that they should be completely above the law, and that's just not gonna happen. they're going to f*ck it up for all churches in this country.
 
2012-10-07 08:36:50 PM
Aren't these Republican/Conservative types supposed to be all law and order and all that noise?

Wait, i get it, they only want to follow the laws THEY personally agree with, but they want to impose their own shiat on the rest of us.

Now that we're all up to speed on the idiocy that is religion...
 
2012-10-07 08:37:43 PM

BarkingUnicorn:
Why would they need to be identical in order to have the same free speech rights?


don't conflate religion and politics and you can go speak all ya want. you start mixing the two and you lose your tax exempt status. sorry man but thems the rules.

What is this "unique place in society" to which you allude? Why does it justify greater restriction of free speech?

*blink*

I can't tell if you're trolling or if you really don't understand the impact a religion can have on a society....
 
2012-10-07 08:38:42 PM
We need to take the Norwegian approach.
www.oklahomamediagroup.com

The only time a church truly enlightens a community.
 
2012-10-07 08:43:50 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Weaver95: BraveNewCheneyWorld:

And if a church must refrain from political endorsement because of their tax exempt status, why shouldn't a labor union be under the same restriction? It's fundamentally unfair.

*sigh*

do you REALLY want to say that churches and unions are identical organizations? really? are you THAT desperate!?

a religious organization has a unique place in society, one that the laws can and should recognize. there is simply no way you can say that a labor union is in any way identical to a church. to even make that suggestion is beyond stupid.

Why would they need to be identical in order to have the same free speech rights?

What is this "unique place in society" to which you allude? Why does it justify greater restriction of free speech?


how about a legal distinction in their function?

http://www.501c3.org/blog/the-other-nonprofits/
 
2012-10-07 08:44:30 PM
And what do those pastors talk about? The 47%. "Jesus orders you to put some skin in the game."
 
2012-10-07 08:46:11 PM

Weaver95: BraveNewCheneyWorld:

What is beyond stupid is believing that it's fair to restrict the rights of one group because they enjoy a privilege, and not restriction the rights of another group who enjoys the same privilege. "Because they're religious" isn't a valid excuse to justify this as fair. The same argument could be made of literally any other group of people with just as much (none) intellectual honesty. You're just rabidly anti-religious, which is fine, everyone's entitled to their opinion, but you're not entitled to restrict the rights of others because you hate the way they think.

ok, once more - labor unions ARE NOT religious. they don't pray to a god, they don't have clergy, they're not a religious organization with a defined theology. so why would you want to cram them into the same category as a religious group? that doesn't make any sense. why you chose that example is entirely beyond me.

that said - the deal is that churches get a tax exemption and very little interference in return for clergy staying out of politics. and that's a good deal for everyone involved. only now a couple of clergy are deciding that they should be completely above the law, and that's just not gonna happen. they're going to f*ck it up for all churches in this country.


That is NOT why churches and other nonprofits get tax exemptions! Tax exemptions are given to foster the provision of public services by private entities.

Read the IRS' list of purposes that qualify for tax exemption.

"Keeping out of politics" is not among them. That requirement was foisted upon the IRS by Lyndon Johnson because he was pissed off at two nonprofits that opposed his 1954 bid for reelection to the Senate. It has no place in the rationale for tax-exempt status.
 
2012-10-07 08:46:37 PM

Weaver95: heavymetal:
Yep. The only thing they hate more than "political correctness" is somebody that says something which offends them.

And if there's one thing that the evangelicals in this country are VERY good at, it's being offended.


I wonder if they are oblivious to the irony or intentionally hypocritical?
 
2012-10-07 08:49:14 PM

heavymetal: Weaver95: heavymetal:
Yep. The only thing they hate more than "political correctness" is somebody that says something which offends them.

And if there's one thing that the evangelicals in this country are VERY good at, it's being offended.

I wonder if they are oblivious to the irony or intentionally hypocritical?


got me. I think the megachurches are intentionally hypocritical. everyone else tends to live and let live though.
 
2012-10-07 08:51:56 PM

BarkingUnicorn: That is NOT why churches and other nonprofits get tax exemptions! Tax exemptions are given to foster the provision of public services by private entities.


So selling spiritual snake oil is a public service. Got it.
 
2012-10-07 08:52:59 PM

Weaver95: BarkingUnicorn:
Why would they need to be identical in order to have the same free speech rights?

don't conflate religion and politics and you can go speak all ya want. you start mixing the two and you lose your tax exempt status. sorry man but thems the rules.

What is this "unique place in society" to which you allude? Why does it justify greater restriction of free speech?

*blink*

I can't tell if you're trolling or if you really don't understand the impact a religion can have on a society....


I'm trying to get you to articulate your argument with more than a vague, "Well, you know..." So far, you remind me of Romney talking about which tax loopholes he'll eliminate to pay for his tax rate cuts.
 
2012-10-07 08:53:03 PM

BarkingUnicorn:
That is NOT why churches and other nonprofits get tax exemptions! Tax exemptions are given to foster the provision of public services by private entities.


And you want to strip that provision away because...?
 
2012-10-07 08:53:18 PM

Weaver95: BarkingUnicorn:
Why would they need to be identical in order to have the same free speech rights?

don't conflate religion and politics and you can go speak all ya want. you start mixing the two and you lose your tax exempt status. sorry man but thems the rules.

What is this "unique place in society" to which you allude? Why does it justify greater restriction of free speech?

*blink*

I can't tell if you're trolling or if you really don't understand the impact a religion can have on a society....


Look at Afghanistan for a damn good example of what religion, left unchecked, can do to a country. Or Uganda. Or Dark Ages Europe.

Without a separation of church and state, both church and state get corrupted, and a country often goes to shiat pretty fast.
 
2012-10-07 08:56:30 PM

Heliodorus: Atillathepun: Heliodorus: Atillathepun: Wouldn't an Amendment barring government from making any laws respecting religion mean it would be illegal to treat religious establishments any different from any other entity, and thus having special tax exempt status in and of itself would be a violation of the First Amendment?

No. It deals with endorsing a specific religion to the exclusion of others. Even if the SCOTUS ruled to abolish the restrictions on political campaigning; there would be a new amendment, passed within the year, to establish an exception.

But that's not what the wording says. It says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. It doesn't say "a religion". And the word "respecting" means that the definition is very broad, meaning any laws even indirectly establishing religion should be suspect.

Read the rest of that sentence. Combined, they form the establishment clause.


I do not see how taxing religious organizations just like every other entity interferes in any way with the free expression of their religion.
 
2012-10-07 08:56:46 PM

Weaver95: BarkingUnicorn:
Why would they need to be identical in order to have the same free speech rights?

don't conflate religion and politics and you can go speak all ya want. you start mixing the two and you lose your tax exempt status. sorry man but thems the rules.

What is this "unique place in society" to which you allude? Why does it justify greater restriction of free speech?

*blink*

I can't tell if you're trolling or if you really don't understand the impact a religion can have on a society....


They swore they'd nevar forget.
 
2012-10-07 08:56:47 PM

BarkingUnicorn:

I'm trying to get you to articulate your argument with more than a vague, "Well, you know..." So far, you remind me of Romney talking about which tax loopholes he'll eliminate to pay for his tax rate cuts.


i'm sorry but...you don't seem to be able to grasp the effect a religion can have on any given society. it's difficult to have a conversation like this with someone who seems willfully ignorant (or at least completely oblivious) to the implications of allowing a church to operate tax free AND meddle in petty partisan politics.

you DO know that religious organizations have an effect on a soceity, right? I mean one other than what's codified in the tax code and the US constitution. I mean you get that there's a wall between church and state for a very good reason, yes?
 
2012-10-07 08:57:27 PM

Godscrack: IRS wont touch the church. Never have. Never will.

They have too many shared interests.


Times they are changing it.
 
2012-10-07 08:58:44 PM

abb3w: BraveNewCheneyWorld: What is beyond stupid is believing that it's fair to restrict the rights of one group because they enjoy a privilege, and not restriction the rights of another group who enjoys the same privilege.

Except the privilege is not the same; unions contributions for political action are non-deductible, and must be accounted separately.


Speaking in a church is not a contribution for political action. If the church took their money and gave it to a candidate, then you'd have a point.
 
2012-10-07 09:00:18 PM

Hoban Washburne: BarkingUnicorn: That is NOT why churches and other nonprofits get tax exemptions! Tax exemptions are given to foster the provision of public services by private entities.

So selling spiritual snake oil is a public service. Got it.


According to the IRS, yes. "The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals." Link
 
2012-10-07 09:01:03 PM

o5iiawah: Atillathepun: Wouldn't an Amendment barring government from making any laws respecting religion mean it would be illegal to treat religious establishments any different from any other entity, and thus having special tax exempt status in and of itself would be a violation of the First Amendment?

The Constitution clearly defines government's role as it pertains to religion and so-called "other entities" like business and industry. Read it and then re-join the thread


I've read the Constitution through many times, and not just the fun quotable bits. Perhaps, instead of being a condescending prick, you should specify the exact text you are referring to so that we can have a big-boy conversation?
 
2012-10-07 09:01:28 PM

Weaver95: have you ever bothered reading a history book? ANY history book? gods know, it's been tried. you can sweep through a bit of territory and murder people till the cows come home and you'll STILL not wipe out a religious belief.


OT, but conquest has been a very effective means of conversion. Off the top of my head, see the Teutonic Order's conquests of the Old Baltic pagan tribes, the wars between converted/Romanized Germanic tribes and pagan Germanic tribes, the Arab conquests of Roman Christian lands and Zorastrian Persian lands, the Turkish conquest of Anatolia, Timur's slaughter of the Assyrian Christians, the Spanish Reconquista, and the Spanish conversion of the natives of Central and South America.
 
2012-10-07 09:04:07 PM

BarkingUnicorn: According to the IRS, yes. "The exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3) are charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering national or international amateur sports competition, and preventing cruelty to children or animals."


That's according to Congress, not the IRS. Those purposes are codified, as is the ban on political activities. They're not administrative interpretations or rulings of the IRS. Be sure you're petitioning/blaming the right people.
 
2012-10-07 09:04:13 PM
Tax churches now and get billions of dollars in property back on the tax rolls.There's no reason for these leeches to exempt from taxation.
 
2012-10-07 09:06:00 PM

Nicholas Urfe: Weaver95: have you ever bothered reading a history book? ANY history book? gods know, it's been tried. you can sweep through a bit of territory and murder people till the cows come home and you'll STILL not wipe out a religious belief.

OT, but conquest has been a very effective means of conversion. Off the top of my head, see the Teutonic Order's conquests of the Old Baltic pagan tribes, the wars between converted/Romanized Germanic tribes and pagan Germanic tribes, the Arab conquests of Roman Christian lands and Zorastrian Persian lands, the Turkish conquest of Anatolia, Timur's slaughter of the Assyrian Christians, the Spanish Reconquista, and the Spanish conversion of the natives of Central and South America.


yeah, but it's very difficult to wipe out a religion. the Roman Catholic church tried its best to wipe out pagan beliefs but they still survive even to this day (and if reports are accurate, are even making a resurgence). conquest and forced conversions just drive a religion underground, it doesn't get rid of it.
 
2012-10-07 09:07:23 PM

BarkingUnicorn: That is NOT why churches and other nonprofits get tax exemptions! Tax exemptions are given to foster the provision of public services by private entities.


Advocacy of a particular candidate's election is not, in my opinion, a public service deserving of tax exempt status.
 
2012-10-07 09:08:44 PM

Weaver95: BarkingUnicorn:

I'm trying to get you to articulate your argument with more than a vague, "Well, you know..." So far, you remind me of Romney talking about which tax loopholes he'll eliminate to pay for his tax rate cuts.

i'm sorry but...you don't seem to be able to grasp the effect a religion can have on any given society. it's difficult to have a conversation like this with someone who seems willfully ignorant (or at least completely oblivious) to the implications of allowing a church to operate tax free AND meddle in petty partisan politics.

you DO know that religious organizations have an effect on a soceity, right? I mean one other than what's codified in the tax code and the US constitution. I mean you get that there's a wall between church and state for a very good reason, yes?


"There you go again."
 
2012-10-07 09:10:50 PM
How about we start by making all churches file IRS form 990, as nearly every one of their counterparts in the non-profit sector has to, so we can at least see that they're acting appropriately with their exemption status...
 
2012-10-07 09:11:00 PM

Weaver95: Johnny Swank: BarkingUnicorn: Rich Cream: And don't forget when a preacher endorses someone that carries the weight of God behind it. Who can vote freely believing that God will frown upon your choice?

How about the 93% of Catholics who have used birth control?

They're certainly A-OK endorsing child rape through their monetary donations though.

well..yeah, but so was Penn State so that's kind of a wash.


Dude you are from Pa, you know that Penn State is a religion and Joe Paterno was their Saint Peter.
 
2012-10-07 09:11:04 PM
BarkingUnicorn: I don't see preaching from a pulpit as "interfering with the workings of society." It's part of the workings of society.

If it's part of the workings of society, it needs to pay its fair share to maintain that society. You can't have it both ways.
 
2012-10-07 09:13:31 PM

Weaver95: BarkingUnicorn:

I'm trying to get you to articulate your argument with more than a vague, "Well, you know..." So far, you remind me of Romney talking about which tax loopholes he'll eliminate to pay for his tax rate cuts.

i'm sorry but...you don't seem to be able to grasp the effect a religion can have on any given society. it's difficult to have a conversation like this with someone who seems willfully ignorant (or at least completely oblivious) to the implications of allowing a church to operate tax free AND meddle in petty partisan politics.

you DO know that religious organizations have an effect on a soceity, right? I mean one other than what's codified in the tax code and the US constitution. I mean you get that there's a wall between church and state for a very good reason, yes?


And unions don't have an impact? Personally if I did go to church I would not come back if I was told how to vote on an issue but I think this is a first amendment issue and a preacher has the right to speak out.
 
2012-10-07 09:15:38 PM

BarkingUnicorn: I think all tax-exempt organizations, including churches, should be free to endorse candidates for political office. The right to participate in political life is not contingent upon whether you pay taxes. The purpose of tax-exempt status is not to buy silence.


If you want to get into politics, you have to pay taxes so you have some skin in the game.
 
2012-10-07 09:20:37 PM
I can only hope that enough people that go to those churches are sufficiently outraged to stop giving their money to them. If these pastor's see the collection plate coming in light, they'll suddenly be less politically active.

fark 'em all.
 
2012-10-07 09:20:52 PM

Weaver95: yeah, but it's very difficult to wipe out a religion. the Roman Catholic church tried its best to wipe out pagan beliefs but they still survive even to this day (and if reports are accurate, are even making a resurgence). conquest and forced conversions just drive a religion underground, it doesn't get rid of it.


European pagan religions were wiped out. Wicca is a late 19th century invention. The various S. American and Mexican Indian religions are extinct. Various Christian heresies have been wiped out. The Turks (of Turkey) are mostly the Muslim descendents of formerly Christian people--while ethnic Turks did invade Anatolia, they were vastly outnumbered by the people they conquered. The Turks forcibly converted some, and made life difficult to tolerate without conversion for others. After a few centuries most of the indigenous people converted. Those people (again, by force of arms) killed or kicked out the remaining non-Muslims a century ago.

Force has purged religions from populations and areas. Anyway, this is off topic and not really worth arguing over when there are exciting tax code discussions to be had!
 
2012-10-07 09:21:35 PM

gremlin1: some days it's hard enough to sit there and listen to sermons that I don't agree with. I certainly don't want to listen to someone spout off their political beliefs as being sent from God


If I went to church, I'd go intentionally so that I could make a big show of getting up and noisily walking out during the sermon.
 
2012-10-07 09:22:39 PM
Anyone have directions? I usually take the hand-basket.
 
2012-10-07 09:27:02 PM

Nicholas Urfe: BarkingUnicorn: That is NOT why churches and other nonprofits get tax exemptions! Tax exemptions are given to foster the provision of public services by private entities.

Advocacy of a particular candidate's election is not, in my opinion, a public service deserving of tax exempt status.


The law agrees. If your organization's primary, or even "substantial" purpose or activity is getting someone elected, you don't qualify for tax-exempt status.

But if the vast majority of your organization's work does qualify, then simply endorsing a candidate who will make your work more effective should not cost you the exemption.

Planned Parenthood should be free to tell the world, "Vote for Obama because he supports women's health care." A priest in a pulpit should be free to sermonize, "A vote for Obama is a sin."

That's freedom of speech.
 
2012-10-07 09:30:13 PM

BarkingUnicorn: That requirement was foisted upon the IRS by Lyndon Johnson because he was pissed off at two nonprofits that opposed his 1954 bid for reelection to the Senate.


And absolutely no-one objected, in part because all the conservatives of the time were afraid of the perceived left-lean of foundations; EG, liberal academic institutions.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Speaking in a church is not a contribution for political action.


Except when the person speaking is being paid to do so by the Church; eg, an employee.

A more interesting question would be whether a church could allow one campaign to speak at a service, but not another.

BarkingUnicorn: According to the IRS, yes.

Nicholas Urfe: That's according to Congress, not the IRS.


...as a matter of law according to Congress, per 26 USC 501. The IRS is obligated to go along with the gag. However, if the political question of the legal restriction on political speech for exempt organizations is being raised, that in turn allows raising the political question of whether religion is a public service.

bullwrinkle: Personally if I did go to church I would not come back if I was told how to vote on an issue but I think this is a first amendment issue and a preacher has the right to speak out.


As alluded earlier, addressed in Regan v. Taxation With Representation. Under the subsidy theory, while he has the right to speak, he and his congregation have no inherent right to a tax subsidy for the speech. Which means, he can speak on any sidewalk he wants, but the pulpit is a little more narrow. 

An alternative might be to argue due to impinging of religious exercise -- where it is not his right to speech per se at issue. However, that might again fail under subsidy theory (and even bring the issue of allowing any church any exemption into question); the contrast between Minersville v Gobitis and WV v Barnette also leaves it unpromising.
 
2012-10-07 09:32:30 PM

Barricaded Gunman: BarkingUnicorn: I don't see preaching from a pulpit as "interfering with the workings of society." It's part of the workings of society.

If it's part of the workings of society, it needs to pay its fair share to maintain that society. You can't have it both ways.


Tax-exempt organizations pay their fair share to society in kind, not in cash. That is the whole rationale behind granting tax exemptions.
 
2012-10-07 09:32:56 PM

theknuckler_33: I can only hope that enough people that go to those churches are sufficiently outraged to stop giving their money to them. If these pastor's see the collection plate coming in light, they'll suddenly be less politically active.


No there are true believers who would actually love to be ostracised so that they know they are pissiong off Satan, and the more they suffer on this Earth the bigger their reward will be in Heaven.

But yeah the Prosperity Gospel guys and the PTL types would change their tunes.
 
2012-10-07 09:34:13 PM
That's right, fark with the primal forces of nature. See how far that gets you.
 
2012-10-07 09:35:43 PM

Nicholas Urfe: Weaver95: yeah, but it's very difficult to wipe out a religion. the Roman Catholic church tried its best to wipe out pagan beliefs but they still survive even to this day (and if reports are accurate, are even making a resurgence). conquest and forced conversions just drive a religion underground, it doesn't get rid of it.

European pagan religions were wiped out. Wicca is a late 19th century invention. The various S. American and Mexican Indian religions are extinct. Various Christian heresies have been wiped out. The Turks (of Turkey) are mostly the Muslim descendents of formerly Christian people--while ethnic Turks did invade Anatolia, they were vastly outnumbered by the people they conquered. The Turks forcibly converted some, and made life difficult to tolerate without conversion for others. After a few centuries most of the indigenous people converted. Those people (again, by force of arms) killed or kicked out the remaining non-Muslims a century ago.

Force has purged religions from populations and areas. Anyway, this is off topic and not really worth arguing over when there are exciting tax code discussions to be had!


you could argue that pagan religious beliefs were merely transformed into local variations of catholic lore - various saints and regional practices become conflated with church doctrine. in some cases (such as with santeria) the 'christian' beliefs were merely papered over much older religious traditions...scratch that thin wrapping and you're right back to where you were 400 years ago. even ancient mayan and aztec gods are still kicking around - ever heard of 'la santa muerte'? tell me that little cult doesn't bear more than a passing resemblance to older blood cults common to that area of mexico.

Even wicca isn't invalidated - again, it draws on traditions that survived by hiding within the catholic church. six of one/half dozen of the other - in a lot of ways, catholic/christian beliefs are as much due to syncretism as to the influence of Rome. And that's not even considering the various/sundry heresies the Church has failed to purge, some of which almost count as a separate religion in and of themselves. Purges just drive other religions underground, that's all.
 
2012-10-07 09:37:52 PM

BarkingUnicorn:

Planned Parenthood should be free to tell the world, "Vote for Obama because he supports women's health care." A priest in a pulpit should be free to sermonize, "A vote for Obama is a sin."

That's freedom of speech.


sure - but the priest loses their tax exempt status. sorry man but...thems the rules.
 
2012-10-07 09:38:44 PM
The endgame of this is specifically to create a case that goes to the Supreme Court. And they need to do it quick, before Obama has a chance to appoint anothe Justice. They need it done now, while there's still a conservative majority on the Court.
 
2012-10-07 09:39:20 PM

Weaver95: you could argue that pagan religious beliefs were merely transformed into local variations of catholic lore


Local? Easter Holiest Christian Holiday named after a pagan Goddess

Christmas winter solstice Holiday taken from the Pagans.

The Trinity arguably a pagan concept.
 
2012-10-07 09:40:34 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Tax-exempt organizations pay their fair share to society in kind,


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Some do, churches are a drag on society. Think of all the money not going to pay for services the church uses so the pastor can have a huge parsonage in an exclusive suburb and a Maybach to drive to work ( I base that on a notorious local pastor with an inner-city congregation and a million dollars worth of "church owned" cars in his River Hills "parsonage"). Every homeowner in a community has to pay extra property taxes to make up for these deadbeats.

The church's fleet of cars - including a Maybach, a Hummer and a couple of Rolls-Royces - is second to none. And the bishop's elaborate parsonage is located in hoity-toity River Hills, some 10 miles north of his inner-city church.

It's nothing but the biggest and best for Holy Redeemer and its founder.
 
2012-10-07 09:41:22 PM

Nicholas Urfe: The various S. American and Mexican Indian religions are extinct.


Quibble: my understanding is that a few of the Mexican Indian religions are still around, but massively mutated in the last five-hundred-odd years.

BarkingUnicorn: But if the vast majority of your organization's work does qualify, then simply endorsing a candidate who will make your work more effective should not cost you the exemption.


However, unions are apparently required to keep separate books for lobbying and other political activity. Shouldn't Churches at least be so required?

BarkingUnicorn: Planned Parenthood should be free to tell the world, "Vote for Obama because he supports women's health care."


And Planned Parenthood Action is.

BarkingUnicorn: A priest in a pulpit should be free to sermonize, "A vote for Obama is a sin."


And, as soon as the church sets up a 527 to pay for the part of his time spend on kingdoms in this world rather than the next, they're fine.

BarkingUnicorn: That's freedom of speech.


Freedom of speech does not mean the speech gets a tax subsidy. Again, cf. Regan v TWR.
 
2012-10-07 09:41:25 PM

abb3w: ...as a matter of law according to Congress, per 26 USC 501. The IRS is obligated to go along with the gag. However, if the political question of the legal restriction on political speech for exempt organizations is being raised, that in turn allows raising the political question of whether religion is a public service.


I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me or not. In another post I said essentially the same thing as your last sentence.

The only reason I pointed out the distinction I did above is that people frequently demonize the IRS for laws that Congress enacted. It's important to know who can change a particular law/policy.
 
2012-10-07 09:42:49 PM

Weaver95: sorry man


...no, you're not.

spongeboob: The Trinity arguably a pagan concept.


I'd not heard that one. Got a good reference?
 
2012-10-07 09:44:22 PM

Nicholas Urfe: I'm not sure if you're disagreeing with me or not.


Agreeing, highlighting particular points in a slightly different phrasing.
I'm weird like that.
 
2012-10-07 09:50:02 PM
Huh. So the churches have decided to go the route of civil disobedience in order to try to change the law. I hope these same churches supported OWS for their civil disobedience.
 
2012-10-07 09:50:19 PM
Cool, just like Iran. They tell you how to vote or revoke your salvation.
 
2012-10-07 09:54:57 PM

BarkingUnicorn: Nicholas Urfe: BarkingUnicorn: That is NOT why churches and other nonprofits get tax exemptions! Tax exemptions are given to foster the provision of public services by private entities.

Advocacy of a particular candidate's election is not, in my opinion, a public service deserving of tax exempt status.

The law agrees. If your organization's primary, or even "substantial" purpose or activity is getting someone elected, you don't qualify for tax-exempt status.

But if the vast majority of your organization's work does qualify, then simply endorsing a candidate who will make your work more effective should not cost you the exemption.

Planned Parenthood should be free to tell the world, "Vote for Obama because he supports women's health care." A priest in a pulpit should be free to sermonize, "A vote for Obama is a sin."

That's freedom of speech.


Churches are protected under freedom of speech. There are limits on how that speech is presented in order to keep the tax exempt status.

A link for you to difine the difference. 

mlkshk.com

No one is limiting speech. They are limiting tax exempt status.
 
2012-10-07 09:55:25 PM

Weaver95: BarkingUnicorn:

Planned Parenthood should be free to tell the world, "Vote for Obama because he supports women's health care." A priest in a pulpit should be free to sermonize, "A vote for Obama is a sin."

That's freedom of speech.

sure - but the priest loses their tax exempt status. sorry man but...thems the rules.


same rules apply whether it's a church or Planned Parenthood
 
2012-10-07 10:01:42 PM
The bottom line is that unless you want every political non-profit claiming they are a church to get tax exemptions, churches need to keep their noses out of politics.
 
2012-10-07 10:06:03 PM

abb3w: Weaver95: sorry man

...no, you're not.

spongeboob: The Trinity arguably a pagan concept.

I'd not heard that one. Got a good reference?


Here is one link, my understanding is that the very early Church didn't teach the Trinity until around the time of The Council of Nicea

Link
 
2012-10-07 10:13:29 PM
Only one church has been audited in the history of the IRS 501c3 for churches where it was actually presented to the tax court. Internal Revenue Code (Section 7611) which requires "an appropriate high-level Treasury official" to approve a church tax inquiry. In 1992 it went after the Church at Pierce Creek in Binghamton, New York, bought full-page newspaper ads opposing then-Democratic presidential nominee Bill Clinton. They lost their status but it didn't mean shiat as they started up under a new name.


Non-church groups receiving tax exemptions must annually file a detailed 990 statement itemizing where the money has gone. The IRS automatically waives the 990 requirement for churches.

There is a higher risk that the Department of Labor will audit your church for Fair Labor Standards Act violations.

Non-church groups receiving tax exemptions must annually file a detailed 990 statement itemizing where the money has gone. The IRS automatically waives the 990 requirement for churches.

It's bullshiat. All smoke and mirrors. If they ever get fined it's usually for payroll violations.

They are playing with fire. Someone who is an appropriate high-level Treasury official" to approve a church tax inquiry will start to fark them over. They'll pull the oppression and free speech card and then the IRS will say fark you pay me.

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." -James Madison
 
2012-10-07 10:13:46 PM

bullwrinkle: Non religious mother farker here but I don't see why a church should give up it's tax exempted status for it's first amendment rights. If it goes to the SCOTUS they would win and win big.



So now a CHURCH has 1st Amendment rights?

Churches are people too I guess, just like corporations!

And look up IT IS vs. IT'S vs. ITS.
 
2012-10-07 10:15:37 PM

skullkrusher: Weaver95: BarkingUnicorn:

Planned Parenthood should be free to tell the world, "Vote for Obama because he supports women's health care." A priest in a pulpit should be free to sermonize, "A vote for Obama is a sin."

That's freedom of speech.

sure - but the priest loses their tax exempt status. sorry man but...thems the rules.

same rules apply whether it's a church or Planned Parenthood


The debate here is about whether the rules should be changed. A smug appeal to authority does not win it.
 
2012-10-07 10:24:00 PM

BarkingUnicorn: skullkrusher: Weaver95: BarkingUnicorn:

Planned Parenthood should be free to tell the world, "Vote for Obama because he supports women's health care." A priest in a pulpit should be free to sermonize, "A vote for Obama is a sin."

That's freedom of speech.

sure - but the priest loses their tax exempt status. sorry man but...thems the rules.

same rules apply whether it's a church or Planned Parenthood

The debate here is about whether the rules should be changed. A smug appeal to authority does not win it.


The rules need to be enforced not changed.
 
2012-10-07 10:28:56 PM

Weaver95: Nicholas Urfe: Weaver95: have you ever bothered reading a history book? ANY history book? gods know, it's been tried. you can sweep through a bit of territory and murder people till the cows come home and you'll STILL not wipe out a religious belief.

OT, but conquest has been a very effective means of conversion. Off the top of my head, see the Teutonic Order's conquests of the Old Baltic pagan tribes, the wars between converted/Romanized Germanic tribes and pagan Germanic tribes, the Arab conquests of Roman Christian lands and Zorastrian Persian lands, the Turkish conquest of Anatolia, Timur's slaughter of the Assyrian Christians, the Spanish Reconquista, and the Spanish conversion of the natives of Central and South America.

yeah, but it's very difficult to wipe out a religion. the Roman Catholic church tried its best to wipe out pagan beliefs but they still survive even to this day (and if reports are accurate, are even making a resurgence). conquest and forced conversions just drive a religion underground, it doesn't get rid of it.


You'd think Christianity, of all religions, would remember this. But that just goes to gour point about people not reading history books I guess.
 
2012-10-07 10:30:21 PM
Whatever. IRS isn't going to do jack.
 
2012-10-07 10:30:39 PM

You Cant Explain That: FloydA: GAT_00: Tax every single one of those churches without exemptions.

The're doing this right before the election for a reason. If the IRS goes after them now, they can scream that "WAAAAaaa Fartbongo's jackbooted thugs are waging a war on religion!!!" That will increase the turnout of the knuckle-draggers who would otherwise stay home rather than vote for a Mormon. It's win-win for them.

Good thing he will already be re-elected by the time tax season comes.

/still won't happen....and it should


Agreed.

(You're still winning our bet, BTW, and I intend to honor it. Mitt might have dropped a "boy" in the first debate. Doesn't count for the terms of the bet of course, but it's pretty clear he's thinking it, even if he's not saying it. I still think he's going to throw an N-bomb. He's just that arrogant.)
 
2012-10-07 10:32:09 PM

BarkingUnicorn: skullkrusher: Weaver95: BarkingUnicorn:

Planned Parenthood should be free to tell the world, "Vote for Obama because he supports women's health care." A priest in a pulpit should be free to sermonize, "A vote for Obama is a sin."

That's freedom of speech.

sure - but the priest loses their tax exempt status. sorry man but...thems the rules.

same rules apply whether it's a church or Planned Parenthood

The debate here is about whether the rules should be changed. A smug appeal to authority does not win it.


who's appealing to authority? Planned Parenthood is in violation of their tax exemption by advocating for Obama just as a church is for advocating against him.

If the same rules apply to all non-profits, who gives a shiat? Keep the rules. PP and churches are still free to advocate for causes they support. They just cannot make that the focus of their mission or advocate for specific candidates. The rules aren't that farking onerous
 
2012-10-07 10:32:17 PM
The Church folks believe if they open this door they can have more power over non believers and the Federal Government

Those folks don't understand opening that door also invites the government to have power over them

i.imgur.com
 
2012-10-07 10:33:08 PM

abb3w: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Speaking in a church is not a contribution for political action.

Except when the person speaking is being paid to do so by the Church; eg, an employee.

A more interesting question would be whether a church could allow one campaign to speak at a service, but not another.


That's pretty damn flimsy. You're going with "the church is paying itself to say something, and that's exactly like a church donating to a pac"? I expected something a bit better than that from you.
 
2012-10-07 10:33:42 PM

GAT_00: Tax every single one of those churches without exemptions.


They're the IRS. They can just put a lean on the bank accounts.

/They don't argue with people
 
2012-10-07 10:35:39 PM
"Christians" always bash Muslims for setting up theocracies, but have no qualms about establishing one of their own in America.
 
2012-10-07 10:35:53 PM

Bocasio: The Church folks believe if they open this door they can have more power over non believers and the Federal Government

Those folks don't understand opening that door also invites the government to have power over them

[i.imgur.com image 612x608]


condoms are for sailors. We don't need 'em. we be makin' a family quiver like da bible tells us.
 
2012-10-07 10:37:22 PM

BarkingUnicorn: FirstNationalBastard: It's not freedom of religion, it's freedom FROM religion.

Motherfarkers want to play, they should be made to pay.

You have totally misread the First Amendment. It protects religion from government. It does not protect anything from religion.

As for "pay to play," that sounds like a poll tax.


Freedom of religion is freedom from religion. Unless you believe that you have no right to be free from sharia law or kosher meal restrictions? Don't you love bacon?
 
2012-10-07 10:37:42 PM

nmemkha: "Christians" always bash Muslims for setting up theocracies, but have no qualms about establishing one of their own in America.


"Atheists" always bash "Christians" for trying to set up a theocracy in America but then complain when they don't want to set up a theocracy in America based on Jesus' social teachings
 
2012-10-07 10:40:05 PM

jmr61: bullwrinkle: Non religious mother farker here but I don't see why a church should give up it's tax exempted status for it's first amendment rights. If it goes to the SCOTUS they would win and win big.


So now a CHURCH has 1st Amendment rights?

Churches are people too I guess, just like corporations!

And look up IT IS vs. IT'S vs. ITS.


And unions have first amendment rights? Thanks for squaring me away on it's vs its that was very gracious of you.
 
2012-10-07 10:44:10 PM

Atillathepun: Heliodorus: Atillathepun: Heliodorus: Atillathepun: Wouldn't an Amendment barring government from making any laws respecting religion mean it would be illegal to treat religious establishments any different from any other entity, and thus having special tax exempt status in and of itself would be a violation of the First Amendment?

No. It deals with endorsing a specific religion to the exclusion of others. Even if the SCOTUS ruled to abolish the restrictions on political campaigning; there would be a new amendment, passed within the year, to establish an exception.

But that's not what the wording says. It says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. It doesn't say "a religion". And the word "respecting" means that the definition is very broad, meaning any laws even indirectly establishing religion should be suspect.

Read the rest of that sentence. Combined, they form the establishment clause.

I do not see how taxing religious organizations just like every other entity interferes in any way with the free expression of their religion.


If you have to pay for something, it isn't free.

Yes I realize this is a conflation of two meanings of "free." I'm not making the argument, just repeating it.
 
2012-10-07 10:44:20 PM

skullkrusher: nmemkha: "Christians" always bash Muslims for setting up theocracies, but have no qualms about establishing one of their own in America.

"Atheists" always bash "Christians" for trying to set up a theocracy in America but then complain when they don't want to set up a theocracy in America based on Jesus' social teachings


So, they don't like Christians setting up a theocracy that, at its core, is not Christian at all?

Gotcha.
 
2012-10-07 10:47:00 PM

Weaver95: this situation has to be quite a difficult quandary for right wing authoritarians. on one hand, they're ideology says that anything anyone does to oppose Obama is good and noble and should be supported....but on the other hand, their authoritarian beliefs say that anyone who breaks the law for any reason MUST be crushed and/or smashed into atoms - NOBODY breaks the law, ever.


Authoritarians are generally surprisingly OK with the authorities they follow breaking the law.
 
2012-10-07 10:47:53 PM

skullkrusher: nmemkha: "Christians" always bash Muslims for setting up theocracies, but have no qualms about establishing one of their own in America.

"Atheists" always bash "Christians" for trying to set up a theocracy in America but then complain when they don't want to set up a theocracy in America based on Jesus' social teachings


What the hell are you trying to say? I have tried reading this slowly, and even out loud to myself.

I understand the ""Atheists" always bash "Christians" for trying to set up a theocracy in America " part, but the second part just doesn't parse.
What is it that Atheists are complaining about?
 
2012-10-07 10:48:19 PM

stoli n coke: skullkrusher: nmemkha: "Christians" always bash Muslims for setting up theocracies, but have no qualms about establishing one of their own in America.

"Atheists" always bash "Christians" for trying to set up a theocracy in America but then complain when they don't want to set up a theocracy in America based on Jesus' social teachings

So, they don't like Christians setting up a theocracy that, at its core, is not Christian at all?

Gotcha.


So it's a big concern troll?

Gotcha.
 
2012-10-07 10:49:27 PM

RogermcAllen: skullkrusher: nmemkha: "Christians" always bash Muslims for setting up theocracies, but have no qualms about establishing one of their own in America.

"Atheists" always bash "Christians" for trying to set up a theocracy in America but then complain when they don't want to set up a theocracy in America based on Jesus' social teachings

What the hell are you trying to say? I have tried reading this slowly, and even out loud to myself.

I understand the ""Atheists" always bash "Christians" for trying to set up a theocracy in America " part, but the second part just doesn't parse.
What is it that Atheists are complaining about?


Apparently only the parts of theocracy with which they disagree
 
2012-10-07 10:56:38 PM
Fark 'em all. Tax them back to the stone age they are trying to drag the rest of us back to.

/no religion in my Government, thank you.
 
2012-10-07 10:57:17 PM

Sgt Otter: Benevolent Misanthrope: The sad part is, there are too many servile f*ckwits in the country for anyone to take them on. By law, the IRS shoulde revoke their tax-exempt status for campaigning. But churches seem to get a pass on just about anything they damn well please.

Tax churches like any other business.

The second they do, a certain cable news network will start screaming WAR ON CHRISTIANITY!!! 24 hours a day.


Yep. No way the IRS will do a damn thing. The Christians have taken over the GOP lock, stock and barrel, much to our country's detriment. Nothing we can do about it at this point, except vote against them.
 
2012-10-07 11:02:29 PM

bwilson27: crab66: Tax them.

Once you start taxing them, they start having their say.
Is that what you really want?


Why not? It is a free country and they are protected by the First Amendment.

Heck, even if they obey the rules for being tax exempt, it would not be too hard to figure out the preacher would vote for anyways. Preachers can preach issues. If they preach against gays and "socialized medicine" then they probably are not going for the Democrats. They are also allowed to issue voter guides that will point out where candidates stand on issues which their church cares about. Preachers can also endorse political candidates so long as they doing it as private citizens and not as spokesmen for and/or leaders of a tax-exempt organization. So when the preacher goes home he can "like" Mitt Romney on Facebook and write a letter to the editor saying why he thinks Mitt should be elected.
 
2012-10-07 11:10:55 PM

propasaurus: The endgame of this is specifically to create a case that goes to the Supreme Court. And they need to do it quick, before Obama has a chance to appoint anothe Justice. They need it done now, while there's still a conservative majority on the Court.


this
 
2012-10-07 11:12:07 PM

DeArmondVI: Wanna be a sanctuary from the world, preach words of confort and salvation all contributing to the well being of the community and the world?

Enjoy your tax-free status.

Want to instill dogmatic absolutisms while telling your congregation that in order to stay true to said dogmatics that they need to vote in your preferred partisan manner?

Welcome to the tax base.


Even in the former case, I think it's fine to tax them. Churches are artificially created. There was no specific non-profit need for their existence. So tax them. And, it's not clear that the country benefits with the tax-free status. For every $1 that is not received as tax, does society get at least a $1 return in social benefits? That's how to properly measure whether a non-profit organization is worth being a non-profit.
 
2012-10-07 11:14:28 PM

SilentStrider: Weaver95: but on the other hand, their authoritarian beliefs say that anyone who breaks the law for any reason MUST be crushed and/or smashed into atoms - NOBODY breaks the law, ever.

they can probably justify it in their minds as not breaking the law


Once you start accepting an invisible sky lord who speaks through burning bushes and kills his own son to save the world, you can rationalize anything else away, including breaking laws.
 
2012-10-07 11:16:37 PM

grimlock1972: The IRS needs to raid 1,400 churches on Monday.


Make it Tuesday. Monday is Columbus Day, a national holiday.
 
2012-10-07 11:17:55 PM
It's time to end the idea of churches as tax exempt by default. If they want tax exemptions, they can do all the paperwork and abide by all the regulations other nonprofits do.
 
2012-10-07 11:19:40 PM

TheMysteriousStranger: bwilson27: crab66: Tax them.

Once you start taxing them, they start having their say.
Is that what you really want?

Why not? It is a free country and they are protected by the First Amendment.

Heck, even if they obey the rules for being tax exempt, it would not be too hard to figure out the preacher would vote for anyways. Preachers can preach issues. If they preach against gays and "socialized medicine" then they probably are not going for the Democrats. They are also allowed to issue voter guides that will point out where candidates stand on issues which their church cares about. Preachers can also endorse political candidates so long as they doing it as private citizens and not as spokesmen for and/or leaders of a tax-exempt organization. So when the preacher goes home he can "like" Mitt Romney on Facebook and write a letter to the editor saying why he thinks Mitt should be elected.


Oh barf.
 
2012-10-07 11:23:24 PM

dericwater: grimlock1972: The IRS needs to raid 1,400 churches on Monday.

Make it Tuesday. Monday is Columbus Day, a national holiday.


nah just padlock the doors and seize all the assets and bank accounts until the debts are settled.
 
2012-10-07 11:24:43 PM
Politicians love to talk about closing tax loopholes. Well, why don't we close the religious exception loophole?
 
2012-10-07 11:30:39 PM
An interesting argument against unions is that they've outlived their purpose, that all they do now is exist simply to justify their own existence while bogging down their fields with competitive disadvantages like pensions, health care and wage floors.

An interesting argument against affirmative action is that it's outlived its purpose by leveling out the playing field, and that it now discriminates against otherwise qualified white workers, thereby becoming the very thing for which it was created to remedy.

So I wonder: if a reason for not taxing religious entities could have been that such an exemption prevented the government from inhibiting religious expression through economic repression (levies, excises, etc.) or from favoring one religion over another through unequal economic treatment, couldn't an argument be made that such an exemption has outlived its purpose, since the prohibition against political speech from the pulpit is disenfranchisement of bodies that are an important part of society?
 
2012-10-07 11:32:50 PM

jodaveki: couldn't an argument be made that such an exemption has outlived its purpose, since the prohibition against political speech from the pulpit is disenfranchisement of bodies that are an important part of society?


Just cut out the middleman. Religion has outlived its purpose. No need for it to get any preferential treatment.
 
2012-10-07 11:38:24 PM
I don't get why pastors even want to preach politics. Where is the benefit in this?

If your congregation is split between Dems and Reps, then you risk alienating half your people and they'll stop coming. Your church will shrink and that's the worst thing that can happen to any religious leader. If your congregation is 99.9% Republican, then so what? ....so you're telling them to vote for a party they were all going to vote for anyway. Who cares?

Seriously, what is the upside to this? Pastors and preachers are in for a whole different level of disagreement when they get political, and I don't think many of them have thought about what the potential ramifications are.
 
2012-10-07 11:39:52 PM

skullkrusher: RogermcAllen: skullkrusher: nmemkha: "Christians" always bash Muslims for setting up theocracies, but have no qualms about establishing one of their own in America.

"Atheists" always bash "Christians" for trying to set up a theocracy in America but then complain when they don't want to set up a theocracy in America based on Jesus' social teachings

What the hell are you trying to say? I have tried reading this slowly, and even out loud to myself.

I understand the ""Atheists" always bash "Christians" for trying to set up a theocracy in America " part, but the second part just doesn't parse.
What is it that Atheists are complaining about?

Apparently only the parts of theocracy with which they disagree


???
Do you have a dull feeling in your left arm or blurry vision by any chance?

I, also, can't understand what you're saying here. What aspects of theocracy would an atheist enjoy?
 
2012-10-07 11:47:10 PM

Ishkur: I don't get why pastors even want to preach politics. Where is the benefit in this?

If your congregation is split between Dems and Reps, then you risk alienating half your people and they'll stop coming. Your church will shrink and that's the worst thing that can happen to any religious leader. If your congregation is 99.9% Republican, then so what? ....so you're telling them to vote for a party they were all going to vote for anyway. Who cares?

Seriously, what is the upside to this? Pastors and preachers are in for a whole different level of disagreement when they get political, and I don't think many of them have thought about what the potential ramifications are.


I'd imagine it's more for the "get out the vote" aspect then confirming who they will actually vote for. The Republicans have a candidate that doesn't quite excite the base, so encouraging turn out would help them.

Of course, this will be mainly in areas already majority Republican, but it might be enough to sway down-ticket races since they can attempt to ensure straight GOP ballots.
 
2012-10-07 11:51:11 PM

skullkrusher: RogermcAllen: skullkrusher: nmemkha: "Christians" always bash Muslims for setting up theocracies, but have no qualms about establishing one of their own in America.

"Atheists" always bash "Christians" for trying to set up a theocracy in America but then complain when they don't want to set up a theocracy in America based on Jesus' social teachings

What the hell are you trying to say? I have tried reading this slowly, and even out loud to myself.

I understand the ""Atheists" always bash "Christians" for trying to set up a theocracy in America " part, but the second part just doesn't parse.
What is it that Atheists are complaining about?

Apparently only the parts of theocracy with which they disagree


Wut?
 
2012-10-07 11:52:02 PM

Summoner101: Ishkur: I don't get why pastors even want to preach politics. Where is the benefit in this?

If your congregation is split between Dems and Reps, then you risk alienating half your people and they'll stop coming. Your church will shrink and that's the worst thing that can happen to any religious leader. If your congregation is 99.9% Republican, then so what? ....so you're telling them to vote for a party they were all going to vote for anyway. Who cares?

Seriously, what is the upside to this? Pastors and preachers are in for a whole different level of disagreement when they get political, and I don't think many of them have thought about what the potential ramifications are.

I'd imagine it's more for the "get out the vote" aspect then confirming who they will actually vote for. The Republicans have a candidate that doesn't quite excite the base, so encouraging turn out would help them.

Of course, this will be mainly in areas already majority Republican, but it might be enough to sway down-ticket races since they can attempt to ensure straight GOP ballots.


Bullshiat. They are flat out saying it. It isn't GOTV.
 
2012-10-07 11:56:54 PM

gameshowhost: How about we start by making all churches file IRS form 990, as nearly every one of their counterparts in the non-profit sector has to, so we can at least see that they're acting appropriately with their exemption status...


THIS. THIS THIS THIS GODDAMN MOTHERFARKING THIS WITH THIS SPRINKLES AND A SIDE OF THIS AND THIS-FLAVOURED FILLING.

The ONE thing that would be the MOST useful in knocking hell out of those churches that are blatantly lobbying whilst allowing churches that follow the law to keep their tax-exempt would be to drop the "Church Loophole" to filing a form 990:

a) It would make auditing easier in cases where it's needed (right now, audits actually require a federal subpoena that can only really be issued under two circumstances--extremely blatant evidence that the church is not operating as a church but as a PAC or business, or where a church is operating a for-profit business as its primary operations).

b) If done like other orgs that file a form 990 (like, oh, ALL OTHER 501(c)3s) it's not an ornerous burden--groups that make under $25,000 a year on donations don't have to file just like people who don't earn enough taxes, and smaller churches can file a form 990-EZ (which is exactly like it sounds, it's the nonprofit org equivalent to a 1040-EZ and doesn't require accountants and attorneys and CFOs to fill out for you).

c) It would make it much, much easier to find out which groups are violating the law and would also make it much easier to determine just how MUCH they will need to render to Caesar, so to speak (some of the worst offenders are actually denominational-level offenders that have grosses in the multiple billions of dollars a year--a few years of back taxes from the SBC and the Assemblies of God, for one, would put a nice healthy dent in the federal deficit) and in general make it easier to trace where money is going--not just for things like investigating Misbehaving Churches, but even Joe American who might want to know where the money he's giving to the Presbyterian church he attends is going in the community. (Again, right now this requires a subpoena--and even in cases of Congressional investigations of potential criminal activity like embezzlement, actually obtaining financial records of involved televangelists has proven difficult if not impossible even with Congressional subpoenas--even Congressional subpoenas issued by a Republican Senator who is normally friendly to "religious right" causes.)

(And yes, pretty much it was the combination of ten years of evidence PLUS form 990 records that enabled the IRS to yank the Christian Coalition's tax-exempt, and how they've yanked the tax-exempts of smaller orgs linked to the AFA (in one case actually forcing its re-organisation into a PAC)--and why they have a hell of a time going after SBC and Assemblies churches blatantly not only violating the law but doing the equivalent of shouting "COME AT ME BRO" whilst doing so...getting the financial records and evidence to actually bring a federal case is such a PITA that it's easier to go after the 501(c)3 dominionist groups that are egging them on.)

/that said--I would SERIOUSLY suggest starting to go after the Family Research Council's 501(c)3 status; this will be at least the third time they've been in trouble with the IRS for blatant electioneering and it's my understanding they're basically in "double-secret probation" in regards to this
//and then we go after some back taxes for the past seven years for each and every church involved in this stunt, because I guaran-damn-tee that this is NOT the first time they've been caught misbehaving; I would actually expect Americans United has some nice files on the worst offenders
 
2012-10-07 11:58:17 PM

Blue_Blazer: Atillathepun: Heliodorus: Atillathepun: Heliodorus: Atillathepun: Wouldn't an Amendment barring government from making any laws respecting religion mean it would be illegal to treat religious establishments any different from any other entity, and thus having special tax exempt status in and of itself would be a violation of the First Amendment?

No. It deals with endorsing a specific religion to the exclusion of others. Even if the SCOTUS ruled to abolish the restrictions on political campaigning; there would be a new amendment, passed within the year, to establish an exception.

But that's not what the wording says. It says Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. It doesn't say "a religion". And the word "respecting" means that the definition is very broad, meaning any laws even indirectly establishing religion should be suspect.

Read the rest of that sentence. Combined, they form the establishment clause.

I do not see how taxing religious organizations just like every other entity interferes in any way with the free expression of their religion.

If you have to pay for something, it isn't free.

Yes I realize this is a conflation of two meanings of "free." I'm not making the argument, just repeating it.


Free speech is not the issue here, the issue is churches using the power they hold over their congregations (which is often absolute) to push the political views of the pastor, not necessarily the views of the organization.

The churches want representation without taxation. fark that.
 
2012-10-07 11:58:57 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: And if a church must refrain from political endorsement because of their tax exempt status, why shouldn't a labor union be under the same restriction? It's fundamentally unfair.


No it's not. Churches are a different kind of tax exempt organization than unions. That means churches have different requirements to fulfill, but they also get benefits that unions don't. For example, if you make a donation to your church, it's tax deductible. Union dues are not.
 
2012-10-08 12:01:09 AM

Sabyen91: skullkrusher: RogermcAllen: skullkrusher: nmemkha: "Christians" always bash Muslims for setting up theocracies, but have no qualms about establishing one of their own in America.

"Atheists" always bash "Christians" for trying to set up a theocracy in America but then complain when they don't want to set up a theocracy in America based on Jesus' social teachings

What the hell are you trying to say? I have tried reading this slowly, and even out loud to myself.

I understand the ""Atheists" always bash "Christians" for trying to set up a theocracy in America " part, but the second part just doesn't parse.
What is it that Atheists are complaining about?

Apparently only the parts of theocracy with which they disagree

Wut?


I'll take a stab at translating the derp:
Liberals/atheists complain about Republicans/Christians wanting a theocracy. Yet they're quick to point out when a nominal Christian does something decidedly un-Christian.
So...
"WAAAHHH! You want a theocracy!"
"WAAAAAAAAAHHHHH! Why aren't you acting like a theocracy!!?"
 
2012-10-08 12:01:36 AM

Weaver95: ignoring and/or flaunting the tax code restrictions on political speech


i943.photobucket.com
 
2012-10-08 12:02:46 AM

propasaurus: Sabyen91: skullkrusher: RogermcAllen: skullkrusher: nmemkha: "Christians" always bash Muslims for setting up theocracies, but have no qualms about establishing one of their own in America.

"Atheists" always bash "Christians" for trying to set up a theocracy in America but then complain when they don't want to set up a theocracy in America based on Jesus' social teachings

What the hell are you trying to say? I have tried reading this slowly, and even out loud to myself.

I understand the ""Atheists" always bash "Christians" for trying to set up a theocracy in America " part, but the second part just doesn't parse.
What is it that Atheists are complaining about?

Apparently only the parts of theocracy with which they disagree

Wut?

I'll take a stab at translating the derp:
Liberals/atheists complain about Republicans/Christians wanting a theocracy. Yet they're quick to point out when a nominal Christian does something decidedly un-Christian.
So...
"WAAAHHH! You want a theocracy!"
"WAAAAAAAAAHHHHH! Why aren't you acting like a theocracy!!?"


I don't see it. What would atheists like about theocratic rule? Skull implied there were things they would like.
 
2012-10-08 12:06:19 AM

Sabyen91: Summoner101: Ishkur: I don't get why pastors even want to preach politics. Where is the benefit in this?

If your congregation is split between Dems and Reps, then you risk alienating half your people and they'll stop coming. Your church will shrink and that's the worst thing that can happen to any religious leader. If your congregation is 99.9% Republican, then so what? ....so you're telling them to vote for a party they were all going to vote for anyway. Who cares?

Seriously, what is the upside to this? Pastors and preachers are in for a whole different level of disagreement when they get political, and I don't think many of them have thought about what the potential ramifications are.

I'd imagine it's more for the "get out the vote" aspect then confirming who they will actually vote for. The Republicans have a candidate that doesn't quite excite the base, so encouraging turn out would help them.

Of course, this will be mainly in areas already majority Republican, but it might be enough to sway down-ticket races since they can attempt to ensure straight GOP ballots.

Bullshiat. They are flat out saying it. It isn't GOTV.


Yes, but my point is that they're doing it to get their parishes out to vote, not to convince them who to vote for. Who they'd vote for is a forgone conclusion.
 
2012-10-08 12:08:26 AM
Apparently libs have no problem putting a price on free speech if it says something they don't like.

/especially when it makes Obama look bad by him lying about what got the Libyan ambassador killed
 
2012-10-08 12:09:24 AM

Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Ishkur: I don't get why pastors even want to preach politics. Where is the benefit in this?

If your congregation is split between Dems and Reps, then you risk alienating half your people and they'll stop coming. Your church will shrink and that's the worst thing that can happen to any religious leader. If your congregation is 99.9% Republican, then so what? ....so you're telling them to vote for a party they were all going to vote for anyway. Who cares?

Seriously, what is the upside to this? Pastors and preachers are in for a whole different level of disagreement when they get political, and I don't think many of them have thought about what the potential ramifications are.

I'd imagine it's more for the "get out the vote" aspect then confirming who they will actually vote for. The Republicans have a candidate that doesn't quite excite the base, so encouraging turn out would help them.

Of course, this will be mainly in areas already majority Republican, but it might be enough to sway down-ticket races since they can attempt to ensure straight GOP ballots.

Bullshiat. They are flat out saying it. It isn't GOTV.

Yes, but my point is that they're doing it to get their parishes out to vote, not to convince them who to vote for. Who they'd vote for is a forgone conclusion.


I don't buy it. When they are talking about abortion they sure as hell are trying to convince them who to vote for.
 
2012-10-08 12:10:41 AM

Sabyen91: What would atheists like about theocratic rule? Skull implied there were things they would like.


I am an atheist (agnostic, really, but whatever) and i would LOVE for the USA to become a Christian nation. Unfortunately I mean actually following the teachings of Christ, not simply hating homosexuals.
 
2012-10-08 12:12:51 AM

The Why Not Guy: Sabyen91: What would atheists like about theocratic rule? Skull implied there were things they would like.

I am an atheist (agnostic, really, but whatever) and i would LOVE for the USA to become a Christian nation. Unfortunately I mean actually following the teachings of Christ, not simply hating homosexuals.


Heh, yeah. Caring and kindness toward other people DOES sound cool.
 
2012-10-08 12:15:16 AM

Sabyen91: Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Ishkur: I don't get why pastors even want to preach politics. Where is the benefit in this?

If your congregation is split between Dems and Reps, then you risk alienating half your people and they'll stop coming. Your church will shrink and that's the worst thing that can happen to any religious leader. If your congregation is 99.9% Republican, then so what? ....so you're telling them to vote for a party they were all going to vote for anyway. Who cares?

Seriously, what is the upside to this? Pastors and preachers are in for a whole different level of disagreement when they get political, and I don't think many of them have thought about what the potential ramifications are.

I'd imagine it's more for the "get out the vote" aspect then confirming who they will actually vote for. The Republicans have a candidate that doesn't quite excite the base, so encouraging turn out would help them.

Of course, this will be mainly in areas already majority Republican, but it might be enough to sway down-ticket races since they can attempt to ensure straight GOP ballots.

Bullshiat. They are flat out saying it. It isn't GOTV.

Yes, but my point is that they're doing it to get their parishes out to vote, not to convince them who to vote for. Who they'd vote for is a forgone conclusion.

I don't buy it. When they are talking about abortion they sure as hell are trying to convince them who to vote for.


How many pro-choice people would go to a church where a pastor talked about abortion all the time?

How many liberals would go to a church where a pastor doom-sayed about the Democratic party?

People go to church for the confirmation bias and community, but mostly for the confirmation bias.
 
2012-10-08 12:15:21 AM

God-is-a-Taco: skullkrusher: RogermcAllen: skullkrusher: nmemkha: "Christians" always bash Muslims for setting up theocracies, but have no qualms about establishing one of their own in America.

"Atheists" always bash "Christians" for trying to set up a theocracy in America but then complain when they don't want to set up a theocracy in America based on Jesus' social teachings

What the hell are you trying to say? I have tried reading this slowly, and even out loud to myself.

I understand the ""Atheists" always bash "Christians" for trying to set up a theocracy in America " part, but the second part just doesn't parse.
What is it that Atheists are complaining about?

Apparently only the parts of theocracy with which they disagree

???
Do you have a dull feeling in your left arm or blurry vision by any chance?

I, also, can't understand what you're saying here. What aspects of theocracy would an atheist enjoy?


oh, not atheists in general. "Atheists" in quotation marks. See, by putting quotes around the term, I can pretend I am referring only to the particular type of atheist which makes my statement true.
 
2012-10-08 12:16:32 AM

propasaurus: "WAAAHHH! You want a theocracy!"
"WAAAAAAAAAHHHHH! Why aren't you acting like a theocracy!!?"


you're a pretty good "derp" translator
 
2012-10-08 12:17:15 AM

Sgt Otter: Benevolent Misanthrope: The sad part is, there are too many servile f*ckwits in the country for anyone to take them on. By law, the IRS shoulde revoke their tax-exempt status for campaigning. But churches seem to get a pass on just about anything they damn well please.

Tax churches like any other business.

The second they do, a certain cable news network will start screaming WAR ON CHRISTIANITY!!! 24 hours a day.


They do anyway.
 
2012-10-08 12:21:39 AM

Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Ishkur: I don't get why pastors even want to preach politics. Where is the benefit in this?

If your congregation is split between Dems and Reps, then you risk alienating half your people and they'll stop coming. Your church will shrink and that's the worst thing that can happen to any religious leader. If your congregation is 99.9% Republican, then so what? ....so you're telling them to vote for a party they were all going to vote for anyway. Who cares?

Seriously, what is the upside to this? Pastors and preachers are in for a whole different level of disagreement when they get political, and I don't think many of them have thought about what the potential ramifications are.

I'd imagine it's more for the "get out the vote" aspect then confirming who they will actually vote for. The Republicans have a candidate that doesn't quite excite the base, so encouraging turn out would help them.

Of course, this will be mainly in areas already majority Republican, but it might be enough to sway down-ticket races since they can attempt to ensure straight GOP ballots.

Bullshiat. They are flat out saying it. It isn't GOTV.

Yes, but my point is that they're doing it to get their parishes out to vote, not to convince them who to vote for. Who they'd vote for is a forgone conclusion.

I don't buy it. When they are talking about abortion they sure as hell are trying to convince them who to vote for.

How many pro-choice people would go to a church where a pastor talked about abortion all the time?

How many liberals would go to a church where a pastor doom-sayed about the Democratic party?

People go to church for the confirmation bias and community, but mostly for the confirmation bias.


That means nothing. Confirmation bias is not a proper defense of churches not being taxed.
 
2012-10-08 12:22:24 AM

skullkrusher: God-is-a-Taco: skullkrusher: RogermcAllen: skullkrusher: nmemkha: "Christians" always bash Muslims for setting up theocracies, but have no qualms about establishing one of their own in America.

"Atheists" always bash "Christians" for trying to set up a theocracy in America but then complain when they don't want to set up a theocracy in America based on Jesus' social teachings

What the hell are you trying to say? I have tried reading this slowly, and even out loud to myself.

I understand the ""Atheists" always bash "Christians" for trying to set up a theocracy in America " part, but the second part just doesn't parse.
What is it that Atheists are complaining about?

Apparently only the parts of theocracy with which they disagree

???
Do you have a dull feeling in your left arm or blurry vision by any chance?

I, also, can't understand what you're saying here. What aspects of theocracy would an atheist enjoy?

oh, not atheists in general. "Atheists" in quotation marks. See, by putting quotes around the term, I can pretend I am referring only to the particular type of atheist which makes my statement true.


Hehe, you are such a bastard. :) How is the Junior?
 
2012-10-08 12:22:32 AM

spongeboob: Link


I'm unpersuaded, but it at least gives some sketch.

BarkingUnicorn: The debate here is about whether the rules should be changed.


If you're not agreeing what the rules currently say, there's less point in discussing how they should be changed.

skullkrusher: who's appealing to authority? Planned Parenthood is in violation of their tax exemption by advocating for Obama just as a church is for advocating against him.


Actually, no. As I've noted, they maintain a separate PAC, which is funded by a separate stream of donations. Any church can do the same.

BraveNewCheneyWorld: You're going with "the church is paying itself to say something, and that's exactly like a church donating to a pac"?


Nope. The church is paying the minister to speak from the pulpit. If it's political speech, it becomes paying for political activity. If you don't keep your books straight, it's all taxable.
 
2012-10-08 12:25:04 AM

skullkrusher: Planned Parenthood is in violation of their tax exemption by advocating for Obama just as a church is for advocating against him.


No they aren't.
 
2012-10-08 12:25:46 AM

Sabyen91: Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Ishkur: I don't get why pastors even want to preach politics. Where is the benefit in this?

If your congregation is split between Dems and Reps, then you risk alienating half your people and they'll stop coming. Your church will shrink and that's the worst thing that can happen to any religious leader. If your congregation is 99.9% Republican, then so what? ....so you're telling them to vote for a party they were all going to vote for anyway. Who cares?

Seriously, what is the upside to this? Pastors and preachers are in for a whole different level of disagreement when they get political, and I don't think many of them have thought about what the potential ramifications are.

I'd imagine it's more for the "get out the vote" aspect then confirming who they will actually vote for. The Republicans have a candidate that doesn't quite excite the base, so encouraging turn out would help them.

Of course, this will be mainly in areas already majority Republican, but it might be enough to sway down-ticket races since they can attempt to ensure straight GOP ballots.

Bullshiat. They are flat out saying it. It isn't GOTV.

Yes, but my point is that they're doing it to get their parishes out to vote, not to convince them who to vote for. Who they'd vote for is a forgone conclusion.

I don't buy it. When they are talking about abortion they sure as hell are trying to convince them who to vote for.

How many pro-choice people would go to a church where a pastor talked about abortion all the time?

How many liberals would go to a church where a pastor doom-sayed about the Democratic party?

People go to church for the confirmation bias and community, but mostly for the confirmation bias.

That means nothing. Confirmation bias is not a proper defense of churches not being taxed.


I'm neither defending nor attacking their tax exemption status. I'm proposing an answer towards Ishkur's confusion towards the motivations of the pastors using their pulpit for political activism.
 
2012-10-08 12:26:43 AM

Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Ishkur: I don't get why pastors even want to preach politics. Where is the benefit in this?

If your congregation is split between Dems and Reps, then you risk alienating half your people and they'll stop coming. Your church will shrink and that's the worst thing that can happen to any religious leader. If your congregation is 99.9% Republican, then so what? ....so you're telling them to vote for a party they were all going to vote for anyway. Who cares?

Seriously, what is the upside to this? Pastors and preachers are in for a whole different level of disagreement when they get political, and I don't think many of them have thought about what the potential ramifications are.

I'd imagine it's more for the "get out the vote" aspect then confirming who they will actually vote for. The Republicans have a candidate that doesn't quite excite the base, so encouraging turn out would help them.

Of course, this will be mainly in areas already majority Republican, but it might be enough to sway down-ticket races since they can attempt to ensure straight GOP ballots.

Bullshiat. They are flat out saying it. It isn't GOTV.

Yes, but my point is that they're doing it to get their parishes out to vote, not to convince them who to vote for. Who they'd vote for is a forgone conclusion.

I don't buy it. When they are talking about abortion they sure as hell are trying to convince them who to vote for.

How many pro-choice people would go to a church where a pastor talked about abortion all the time?

How many liberals would go to a church where a pastor doom-sayed about the Democratic party?

People go to church for the confirmation bias and community, but mostly for the confirmation bias.

That means nothing. Confirmation bias is not a proper defense of churches not being taxed.

I'm neither defending nor attacking their tax exemption status. I'm proposing an answer towards Ishkur's confusion towards the motiva ...


I would agree with you if they weren't being so damned blatant. They are flat out telling people who to vote for.
 
2012-10-08 12:29:06 AM

Sabyen91: skullkrusher: God-is-a-Taco: skullkrusher: RogermcAllen: skullkrusher: nmemkha: "Christians" always bash Muslims for setting up theocracies, but have no qualms about establishing one of their own in America.

"Atheists" always bash "Christians" for trying to set up a theocracy in America but then complain when they don't want to set up a theocracy in America based on Jesus' social teachings

What the hell are you trying to say? I have tried reading this slowly, and even out loud to myself.

I understand the ""Atheists" always bash "Christians" for trying to set up a theocracy in America " part, but the second part just doesn't parse.
What is it that Atheists are complaining about?

Apparently only the parts of theocracy with which they disagree

???
Do you have a dull feeling in your left arm or blurry vision by any chance?

I, also, can't understand what you're saying here. What aspects of theocracy would an atheist enjoy?

oh, not atheists in general. "Atheists" in quotation marks. See, by putting quotes around the term, I can pretend I am referring only to the particular type of atheist which makes my statement true.

Hehe, you are such a bastard. :) How is the Junior?


;)

bastardly :) He's doing well. Gives hugs on command now which is an awesome motivator in the morning.
 
2012-10-08 12:29:24 AM

Sabyen91: Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Ishkur: I don't get why pastors even want to preach politics. Where is the benefit in this?

If your congregation is split between Dems and Reps, then you risk alienating half your people and they'll stop coming. Your church will shrink and that's the worst thing that can happen to any religious leader. If your congregation is 99.9% Republican, then so what? ....so you're telling them to vote for a party they were all going to vote for anyway. Who cares?

Seriously, what is the upside to this? Pastors and preachers are in for a whole different level of disagreement when they get political, and I don't think many of them have thought about what the potential ramifications are.

I'd imagine it's more for the "get out the vote" aspect then confirming who they will actually vote for. The Republicans have a candidate that doesn't quite excite the base, so encouraging turn out would help them.

Of course, this will be mainly in areas already majority Republican, but it might be enough to sway down-ticket races since they can attempt to ensure straight GOP ballots.

Bullshiat. They are flat out saying it. It isn't GOTV.

Yes, but my point is that they're doing it to get their parishes out to vote, not to convince them who to vote for. Who they'd vote for is a forgone conclusion.

I don't buy it. When they are talking about abortion they sure as hell are trying to convince them who to vote for.

How many pro-choice people would go to a church where a pastor talked about abortion all the time?

How many liberals would go to a church where a pastor doom-sayed about the Democratic party?

People go to church for the confirmation bias and community, but mostly for the confirmation bias.

That means nothing. Confirmation bias is not a proper defense of churches not being taxed.

I'm neither defending nor attacking their tax exemption status. I'm proposing an answer towards Ishkur's confusion toward ...


The bolded is what I responded to.
 
2012-10-08 12:30:26 AM

skullkrusher: Sabyen91: skullkrusher: God-is-a-Taco: skullkrusher: RogermcAllen: skullkrusher: nmemkha: "Christians" always bash Muslims for setting up theocracies, but have no qualms about establishing one of their own in America.

"Atheists" always bash "Christians" for trying to set up a theocracy in America but then complain when they don't want to set up a theocracy in America based on Jesus' social teachings

What the hell are you trying to say? I have tried reading this slowly, and even out loud to myself.

I understand the ""Atheists" always bash "Christians" for trying to set up a theocracy in America " part, but the second part just doesn't parse.
What is it that Atheists are complaining about?

Apparently only the parts of theocracy with which they disagree

???
Do you have a dull feeling in your left arm or blurry vision by any chance?

I, also, can't understand what you're saying here. What aspects of theocracy would an atheist enjoy?

oh, not atheists in general. "Atheists" in quotation marks. See, by putting quotes around the term, I can pretend I am referring only to the particular type of atheist which makes my statement true.

Hehe, you are such a bastard. :) How is the Junior?

;)

bastardly :) He's doing well. Gives hugs on command now which is an awesome motivator in the morning.


Enjoy the hugs. My son did it until 15. That is well beyond the average so I was lucky.
 
2012-10-08 12:30:53 AM

abb3w: Actually, no. As I've noted, they maintain a separate PAC, which is funded by a separate stream of donations. Any church can do the same.


a separate PAC could do it but that is governed by rules separate from those the Planned Parenthood the 501(c)(3) organization must adhere to. The 501(c)(3) is not allowed to advocate for a specific candidate - just like churches
 
2012-10-08 12:31:18 AM

Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Ishkur: I don't get why pastors even want to preach politics. Where is the benefit in this?

If your congregation is split between Dems and Reps, then you risk alienating half your people and they'll stop coming. Your church will shrink and that's the worst thing that can happen to any religious leader. If your congregation is 99.9% Republican, then so what? ....so you're telling them to vote for a party they were all going to vote for anyway. Who cares?

Seriously, what is the upside to this? Pastors and preachers are in for a whole different level of disagreement when they get political, and I don't think many of them have thought about what the potential ramifications are.

I'd imagine it's more for the "get out the vote" aspect then confirming who they will actually vote for. The Republicans have a candidate that doesn't quite excite the base, so encouraging turn out would help them.

Of course, this will be mainly in areas already majority Republican, but it might be enough to sway down-ticket races since they can attempt to ensure straight GOP ballots.

Bullshiat. They are flat out saying it. It isn't GOTV.

Yes, but my point is that they're doing it to get their parishes out to vote, not to convince them who to vote for. Who they'd vote for is a forgone conclusion.

I don't buy it. When they are talking about abortion they sure as hell are trying to convince them who to vote for.

How many pro-choice people would go to a church where a pastor talked about abortion all the time?

How many liberals would go to a church where a pastor doom-sayed about the Democratic party?

People go to church for the confirmation bias and community, but mostly for the confirmation bias.

That means nothing. Confirmation bias is not a proper defense of churches not being taxed.

I'm neither defending nor attacking their tax exemption status. I'm proposing an answer towards Ishkur's confus ...


Nope, even if you are preaching to the choir you can't do that.
 
2012-10-08 12:31:23 AM

The Why Not Guy: Sabyen91: What would atheists like about theocratic rule? Skull implied there were things they would like.

I am an atheist (agnostic, really, but whatever) and i would LOVE for the USA to become a Christian nation. Unfortunately I mean actually following the teachings of Christ, not simply hating homosexuals.


As a good atheist you should know that non-atheists don't get to claim all the good stuff for themselves. You don't want a Christian nation, you just want a nation where people aren't dicks. Saying you want a Christian nation just feeds into the religious mindset that you must be religious to be a good person.

It's not like the world was full of dicks, and then Jesus came and everyone was nice. Good people have been around far longer than religion has.

/probably just pedantry, but there is a big difference between Christian and following the teachings of Jesus
 
2012-10-08 12:31:56 AM

Sabyen91: skullkrusher: Sabyen91: skullkrusher: God-is-a-Taco: skullkrusher: RogermcAllen: skullkrusher: nmemkha: "Christians" always bash Muslims for setting up theocracies, but have no qualms about establishing one of their own in America.

"Atheists" always bash "Christians" for trying to set up a theocracy in America but then complain when they don't want to set up a theocracy in America based on Jesus' social teachings

What the hell are you trying to say? I have tried reading this slowly, and even out loud to myself.

I understand the ""Atheists" always bash "Christians" for trying to set up a theocracy in America " part, but the second part just doesn't parse.
What is it that Atheists are complaining about?

Apparently only the parts of theocracy with which they disagree

???
Do you have a dull feeling in your left arm or blurry vision by any chance?

I, also, can't understand what you're saying here. What aspects of theocracy would an atheist enjoy?

oh, not atheists in general. "Atheists" in quotation marks. See, by putting quotes around the term, I can pretend I am referring only to the particular type of atheist which makes my statement true.

Hehe, you are such a bastard. :) How is the Junior?

;)

bastardly :) He's doing well. Gives hugs on command now which is an awesome motivator in the morning.

Enjoy the hugs. My son did it until 15. That is well beyond the average so I was lucky.


wow, P-Dog is already looking at me like I'm a needy farker. I hope he's hugging me past 3 :)
 
2012-10-08 12:33:38 AM

skullkrusher: Sabyen91: skullkrusher: Sabyen91: skullkrusher: God-is-a-Taco: skullkrusher: RogermcAllen: skullkrusher: nmemkha: "Christians" always bash Muslims for setting up theocracies, but have no qualms about establishing one of their own in America.

"Atheists" always bash "Christians" for trying to set up a theocracy in America but then complain when they don't want to set up a theocracy in America based on Jesus' social teachings

What the hell are you trying to say? I have tried reading this slowly, and even out loud to myself.

I understand the ""Atheists" always bash "Christians" for trying to set up a theocracy in America " part, but the second part just doesn't parse.
What is it that Atheists are complaining about?

Apparently only the parts of theocracy with which they disagree

???
Do you have a dull feeling in your left arm or blurry vision by any chance?

I, also, can't understand what you're saying here. What aspects of theocracy would an atheist enjoy?

oh, not atheists in general. "Atheists" in quotation marks. See, by putting quotes around the term, I can pretend I am referring only to the particular type of atheist which makes my statement true.

Hehe, you are such a bastard. :) How is the Junior?

;)

bastardly :) He's doing well. Gives hugs on command now which is an awesome motivator in the morning.

Enjoy the hugs. My son did it until 15. That is well beyond the average so I was lucky.

wow, P-Dog is already looking at me like I'm a needy farker. I hope he's hugging me past 3 :)


LOL, my boy was needy. And I liked it.
 
2012-10-08 12:36:37 AM

Sabyen91: LOL, my boy was needy. And I liked it.


It's nice to be needed. Just hope that it extends past the period where he literally needs me to survive :)
 
2012-10-08 12:38:55 AM

skullkrusher: Sabyen91: LOL, my boy was needy. And I liked it.

It's nice to be needed. Just hope that it extends past the period where he literally needs me to survive :)


Hehe, tell that kid to get a farking job. :)
 
2012-10-08 12:46:01 AM
This thread oozes with hypocrasy. its OK if a Black church brings in all kinds of Democrat politicans to speak and politicize...but a evangelical church bringing in a GOP conservative...its "sic the IRS on them"

Heck...Dems even give TV shows to liberal Jew-killer preachers....like Al Sharpton. Can you imagine the outcry if a white conservative preacher was responsible for killing Jews at Crown Heights (like Sharpton did)?
 
2012-10-08 12:46:20 AM

Sabyen91: Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Ishkur:

Nope, even if you are preaching to the choir you can't do that.


Okay, I'll spell this out for you.

Ishkur asked what the upside to jeopordizing their tax exempt status was by telling a congregation who to vote for when their vote was already decided.

I said it's probably because they're trying to encourage their congregation to get out to vote since Romney doesn't exactly excite the base. This would result in people that would vote for Romney actually voting for Romney.
 
2012-10-08 12:46:22 AM

RogermcAllen: /probably just pedantry, but there is a big difference between Christian and following the teachings of Jesus


Um, that's what I'm saying. I want a nation that follows the teachings of Christ instead of just talking about it while hating homosexuals.
 
2012-10-08 12:47:27 AM

DancingElkCondor: This thread oozes with hypocrasy. its OK if a Black church brings in all kinds of Democrat politicans to speak and politicize


Who said that was ok?

Any church that violates the requirements should lose their tax exempt status, regardless of which side of the aisle they're on.
 
2012-10-08 12:47:52 AM

Sabyen91: skullkrusher: Sabyen91: LOL, my boy was needy. And I liked it.

It's nice to be needed. Just hope that it extends past the period where he literally needs me to survive :)

Hehe, tell that kid to get a farking job. :)


he's too young for bootstraps still. I don't think they make them in his size
 
2012-10-08 12:49:24 AM

skullkrusher: Sabyen91: skullkrusher: Sabyen91: LOL, my boy was needy. And I liked it.

It's nice to be needed. Just hope that it extends past the period where he literally needs me to survive :)

Hehe, tell that kid to get a farking job. :)

he's too young for bootstraps still. I don't think they make them in his size


Well, I will give him a pass THIS time. I am in such a good mood. I start my new job Tuesday. Nothing will knock me down tonight. :)
 
2012-10-08 12:50:01 AM

The Why Not Guy: DancingElkCondor: This thread oozes with hypocrasy. its OK if a Black church brings in all kinds of Democrat politicans to speak and politicize

Who said that was ok?

Any church that violates the requirements should lose their tax exempt status, regardless of which side of the aisle they're on.


Dancing made shiat up.
 
2012-10-08 12:51:16 AM

Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Ishkur:

Nope, even if you are preaching to the choir you can't do that.

Okay, I'll spell this out for you.

Ishkur asked what the upside to jeopordizing their tax exempt status was by telling a congregation who to vote for when their vote was already decided.

I said it's probably because they're trying to encourage their congregation to get out to vote since Romney doesn't exactly excite the base. This would result in people that would vote for Romney actually voting for Romney.


Ok, that I can understand. Therefore you would agree that it is illegal?
 
2012-10-08 12:53:40 AM

Sabyen91: Dancing made shiat up.


Another example of how Christian =/= follower of Christ.
 
2012-10-08 12:54:35 AM

The Why Not Guy: Sabyen91: Dancing made shiat up.

Another example of how Christian =/= follower of Christ.


Pfft, it isn't like bearing false witness is bad or anything.
 
2012-10-08 12:54:56 AM

DancingElkCondor: This thread oozes with hypocrasy. its OK if a Black church brings in all kinds of Democrat politicans to speak and politicize...but a evangelical church bringing in a GOP conservative...its "sic the IRS on them"

Heck...Dems even give TV shows to liberal Jew-killer preachers....like Al Sharpton. Can you imagine the outcry if a white conservative preacher was responsible for killing Jews at Crown Heights (like Sharpton did)?


ooof! You should really give a curtesy flush when you come in and drop a steamer like that!
 
2012-10-08 12:55:32 AM

Sabyen91: skullkrusher: Sabyen91: skullkrusher: Sabyen91: LOL, my boy was needy. And I liked it.

It's nice to be needed. Just hope that it extends past the period where he literally needs me to survive :)

Hehe, tell that kid to get a farking job. :)

he's too young for bootstraps still. I don't think they make them in his size

Well, I will give him a pass THIS time. I am in such a good mood. I start my new job Tuesday. Nothing will knock me down tonight. :)


ah, congrats dude! Taking a new gig is always an exciting time. Speaking of jobs, I gotta get some sleep. No more baseball to watch. Have a good one
 
2012-10-08 12:56:45 AM

skullkrusher: Sabyen91: skullkrusher: Sabyen91: skullkrusher: Sabyen91: LOL, my boy was needy. And I liked it.

It's nice to be needed. Just hope that it extends past the period where he literally needs me to survive :)

Hehe, tell that kid to get a farking job. :)

he's too young for bootstraps still. I don't think they make them in his size

Well, I will give him a pass THIS time. I am in such a good mood. I start my new job Tuesday. Nothing will knock me down tonight. :)

ah, congrats dude! Taking a new gig is always an exciting time. Speaking of jobs, I gotta get some sleep. No more baseball to watch. Have a good one


Thanks, skull. Sleep well.
 
2012-10-08 12:59:09 AM

Sabyen91: Pfft, it isn't like bearing false witness is bad or anything.


If only Christians put as much effort into following the commandments as they do trying to hang them on courtroom walls...
 
2012-10-08 12:59:58 AM

Sabyen91: Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Ishkur:

Nope, even if you are preaching to the choir you can't do that.

Okay, I'll spell this out for you.

Ishkur asked what the upside to jeopordizing their tax exempt status was by telling a congregation who to vote for when their vote was already decided.

I said it's probably because they're trying to encourage their congregation to get out to vote since Romney doesn't exactly excite the base. This would result in people that would vote for Romney actually voting for Romney.

Ok, that I can understand. Therefore you would agree that it is illegal?


Yes, according to statute. At the very least it should go up against a judge. It harms the rule of law for a section of the populace to break the law, incite the appropriate regulator, and then get away with it.
 
2012-10-08 01:03:17 AM

Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Sabyen91: Summoner101: Ishkur:

Nope, even if you are preaching to the choir you can't do that.

Okay, I'll spell this out for you.

Ishkur asked what the upside to jeopordizing their tax exempt status was by telling a congregation who to vote for when their vote was already decided.

I said it's probably because they're trying to encourage their congregation to get out to vote since Romney doesn't exactly excite the base. This would result in people that would vote for Romney actually voting for Romney.

Ok, that I can understand. Therefore you would agree that it is illegal?

Yes, according to statute. At the very least it should go up against a judge. It harms the rule of law for a section of the populace to break the law, incite the appropriate regulator, and then get away with it.


I don't get why the IRS ignores it no matter what president is in power. Actually, I do. And I kind of agree. I hear a lot of "tax them all". If they taxed them all that would give them all a free reign to go political.
 
2012-10-08 01:04:46 AM

skullkrusher: The 501(c)(3) is not allowed to advocate for a specific candidate - just like churches


Exactly. And Planned Parenthood the non-PAC haven't -- or do you have a specific reference?
In fact, so far as I can tell the PP-PAC hasn't endorsed Obama, either. Not real surprising, since he didn't do much for them but hold existing ground.

DancingElkCondor: its OK if a Black church brings in all kinds of Democrat politicans to speak and politicize


Actually, no; although it might be allowed if they invite candidates from all parties to speak.
They're allowed non-partisan participation; voter registration drives, for example, as long as they help register everyone who asks.

Find one only inviting the Democrats, and I'm fine with siccing the IRS on them, too.
 
2012-10-08 01:12:37 AM
There are liberal pastors doing this as well. According to my wife's church's lawyer the Bush administration made all ceremonies overseen by clergy as legally binding so that individual clergy could not bless gay couples as a backdoor marriage. For this reason they prohibited her pastor from doing a "spiritual only" ceremony; if there was no marriage certificate issued by the state, it could be prosecutable as fraud by federal prosecutors.

Now, my mom is a pastor and she pretty much does only spiritual-only ceremonies. Most of her congregation members have already outlived one spouse and have all their wills etc in place. Why complicate inheritance matters even more when you are just looking for some 80-something ass in the retirement home? They want God's blessing and God wants 'em to be happy so she gives it. But for eight years that was considered tax and benefits fraud.

You better believe she was giving a political sermon today-- probably the one where Jesus is a gay Mexican and how the System would treat him today, and how utterly contemptable so-called Christian politicians in the Republican Party have turned the US into a land that Jesus would clean his sandals after visiting. A vote for atheist Dems fits better in with Jesus' teachings than the apostates trying to bring about a theocracy.

/she's been giving that sermon since years before she was ordained, around the dinner table
 
2012-10-08 01:14:38 AM

BolloxReader: There are liberal pastors doing this as well.


Prove it.
 
2012-10-08 01:21:35 AM

BolloxReader: There are liberal pastors doing this as well. According to my wife's church's lawyer the Bush administration made all ceremonies overseen by clergy as legally binding so that individual clergy could not bless gay couples as a backdoor marriage. For this reason they prohibited her pastor from doing a "spiritual only" ceremony; if there was no marriage certificate issued by the state, it could be prosecutable as fraud by federal prosecutors.

Now, my mom is a pastor and she pretty much does only spiritual-only ceremonies. Most of her congregation members have already outlived one spouse and have all their wills etc in place. Why complicate inheritance matters even more when you are just looking for some 80-something ass in the retirement home? They want God's blessing and God wants 'em to be happy so she gives it. But for eight years that was considered tax and benefits fraud.

You better believe she was giving a political sermon today-- probably the one where Jesus is a gay Mexican and how the System would treat him today, and how utterly contemptable so-called Christian politicians in the Republican Party have turned the US into a land that Jesus would clean his sandals after visiting. A vote for atheist Dems fits better in with Jesus' teachings than the apostates trying to bring about a theocracy.

/she's been giving that sermon since years before she was ordained, around the dinner table


According to MY girlfriend's church's lawyer's daughter's best friend's former room-mate: Ferris Bueller collapsed at Baskin Robins 31 flavors last night!
 
2012-10-08 01:22:13 AM

SilentStrider: teto85: You don't challenge the IRS like that. They caught Al Capone, Ni*on and other criminals of that ilk. Don't think they won't go after Reverend Billy Bob.

never happen, at least not in an election year. Giving republicans ammunition like that would hand a lot of state and federal elecctions to them on a silver platter as they scream about gubbmit messing with their freedumbs..


The IRS can wait for years before jumping on them. If they are smart, they wait six months, then start serving notices.
 
2012-10-08 01:47:44 AM
Most churches I have visited tend to not mix politics into the sermon, because it is pointless and detracts from the word of God. The ones that are seeking the ability to "speak politics from the pulpit" have always quietly had that power. I suspect that what these pastors are looking for, is the ability to help finance a candidate with the church money, but do so with tax-free donations. This is just the first step.
 
2012-10-08 01:56:15 AM
Freedom of speech and freedom of religion trump the rights of govt officials attempting to squelch political speech.

If one candidate adopts positions hostile to the views of a religion, ministers should be able to speak about it in a church.

That could be a minister who doesnt like Romneys stance on food stamps or Obamas on forcing people to pay for birth control.

I think IRS should have to show that most activities of a group are political, the burden should be on them.
 
2012-10-08 02:02:27 AM

eldritch2k4: SilentStrider: teto85: You don't challenge the IRS like that. They caught Al Capone, Ni*on and other criminals of that ilk. Don't think they won't go after Reverend Billy Bob.

never happen, at least not in an election year. Giving republicans ammunition like that would hand a lot of state and federal elecctions to them on a silver platter as they scream about gubbmit messing with their freedumbs..

The IRS can wait for years before jumping on them. If they are smart, they wait six months, then start serving notices.


That's more likely. The IRS isn't going to do any raids or send out an army of auditors. However, any church that does this and has questionable practices or associations will be put under the microscope.

Then, when the church or the pastor gets into trouble, they can say, "It wasn't the political sermon, it was X, Y, Z." The political sermons will just be the catalyst.
 
2012-10-08 02:04:28 AM

Animatronik: Freedom of speech and freedom of religion trump the rights of govt officials attempting to squelch political speech.


You have it backwards, as usual. Churches agree to refrain from political speeches as a condition for not paying taxes. If they choose to break that contract, they forfeit their tax exempt status.
 
2012-10-08 02:14:51 AM

The Why Not Guy: Animatronik: Freedom of speech and freedom of religion trump the rights of govt officials attempting to squelch political speech.

You have it backwards, as usual. Churches agree to refrain from political speeches as a condition for not paying taxes. If they choose to break that contract, they forfeit their tax exempt status.


Shhhhhh. Churches don't teach anything about integrity or living up to your end of the deal. Wait, what, they do? Well, ain't that something?
 
2012-10-08 02:23:46 AM
Why can't these Preachers just have separate meetings where they discuss politics? Fund those meetings with a 501(c)(3) or a PAC or whatever appropriate tax-free vehicle works that allows for political speech. Spend Church sermons actually, you know, teaching the Bible, and if people really want to know your politics, they can come back another time.

Are the Preachers scared that no one will come if they have to separate the two messages?

/Grew up in a Mega-Church that bought up all the land around it to "ensure the right kinds of business moved in." Today, they make millions in rent off a gas station and an upscale strip mall... TAX FREE
 
2012-10-08 03:00:57 AM
Why are terrorists always bombing the wrong places?

I'm not saying I -want- them to bomb these churches. But, you know, if they're going to be bombing something, it maw as well be these smug, sneering, theocratic pricks rather than a daycare or a college football game or something.

Then again, the persecution complex from these crybaby douchebags is already pretty farking intolerabe... I don't know if I could take the increased whining if they had an actual genuine bit if victimization to cry about.
 
2012-10-08 03:13:08 AM

The Why Not Guy: Animatronik: Freedom of speech and freedom of religion trump the rights of govt officials attempting to squelch political speech.

You have it backwards, as usual. Churches agree to refrain from political speeches as a condition for not paying taxes. If they choose to break that contract, they forfeit their tax exempt status.


Hugo Chavez would certainly agree with that. I mean, if a preacher speaks out against a political party in power, even once, then the govt. should be able to send that church a bill for hundreds of thousands of dollars that other churches don't pay.

Can't see why anyone would see that as wrong.

/of course you think I always have it backwards, you have a severe case of megacephalic craniorectal insertion.

//The IRS should be required to prove in a court of law that the church in question is engaging in political activities as a primary function.
 
2012-10-08 03:24:15 AM
I see y'all couldn't get any traction on the Chavez story, so you decided to bring it in here.
 
2012-10-08 03:24:39 AM

Animatronik: The Why Not Guy: Animatronik: Freedom of speech and freedom of religion trump the rights of govt officials attempting to squelch political speech.

You have it backwards, as usual. Churches agree to refrain from political speeches as a condition for not paying taxes. If they choose to break that contract, they forfeit their tax exempt status.

Hugo Chavez would certainly agree with that. I mean, if a preacher speaks out against a political party in power, even once, then the govt. should be able to send that church a bill for hundreds of thousands of dollars that other churches don't pay.

Can't see why anyone would see that as wrong.

/of course you think I always have it backwards, you have a severe case of megacephalic craniorectal insertion.

//The IRS should be required to prove in a court of law that the church in question is engaging in political activities as a primary function.


I know you're working on this as your thesis at Beck University, so I'll make this very simple.

The IRS set up a tax code. Since churches do a lot of charitable work, they decided to give them a break and offer a deal.

That deal was the churches don't have to pay taxes as long as they don't politicize from the pulpit.

Still with me, punkin?

Now, say your city government tells you you can get a 25 percent discount on your property taxes, but the one rule is you can't take a shiat on your front lawn at 7:15 Halloween night in front of pre-K trick or treaters.

Can you do that much in exchange for a sweet deal, or will you drop trou in 3 and a half weeks, then whine about how oppressed you are? 

The no-tax deal for churches is not unconditional. You agree to a deal, you hold up your end of it.
 
2012-10-08 03:55:36 AM
If we absolutely need an American theocracy, can we make it Buddhism? Those guys seem pretty laid back.
 
2012-10-08 04:43:32 AM
when it comes to 'people who deserve each other' huckster preachers and the IRS are a pretty good pair.
 
2012-10-08 05:09:54 AM
upload.wikimedia.org
Hi guys, what's happening in this thread?
 
2012-10-08 06:35:59 AM
"'My house will be called a house of prayer,' but you are making it a 'den of robbers.'"

I went straight to our churches sound man and threatened that I'll rip the cables straight from the computer and raise hell if he starts any political videos...like he did with McCain/Obama. He was the one that initiated it last time. I said I'd go straight up and grab my instruments, walk to the door, dust my shoes off, and they'd never see me in this church again. (He's also my father-in-law) so I said he wouldn't ever see me or my daughter in the same church ever again! They didn't show any presentation. They said that my actions weren't very Christian, I said that they were right, I'm not Christian, I follow the way of Jesus Christ, and Jesus would push you straight on your ass!

If a church does this, they are no longer a church, tax the hell out of 'em.
 
2012-10-08 07:30:43 AM

Sgt Otter: Benevolent Misanthrope: The sad part is, there are too many servile f*ckwits in the country for anyone to take them on. By law, the IRS shoulde revoke their tax-exempt status for campaigning. But churches seem to get a pass on just about anything they damn well please.

Tax churches like any other business.

The second they do, a certain cable news network will start screaming WAR ON CHRISTIANITY!!! 24 hours a day.


That, and CNN will present the "war on Christians" argument as a valid one in hopes of not appearing biased. Remember, this is the same network that aired birthers every day for months as though they were somehow credible.

/I miss the days when idiots were simply ignored and not given microphones and airtime
 
2012-10-08 07:43:13 AM

Animatronik: blah


When a church applies for tax exempt status, they agree to abide by a certain set of rules. If the church later decides not to follow those rules, they lose their tax exempt status, because they've broken a contract. It's that simple.
 
2012-10-08 08:07:31 AM

Atillathepun: o5iiawah: Atillathepun: Wouldn't an Amendment barring government from making any laws respecting religion mean it would be illegal to treat religious establishments any different from any other entity, and thus having special tax exempt status in and of itself would be a violation of the First Amendment?

The Constitution clearly defines government's role as it pertains to religion and so-called "other entities" like business and industry. Read it and then re-join the thread

I've read the Constitution through many times, and not just the fun quotable bits. Perhaps, instead of being a condescending prick, you should specify the exact text you are referring to so that we can have a big-boy conversation?


Amendment 1: Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise. In otherwords, congress cant show favor towards religion, nor punish them. Religion should not get public handouts for missionary work, nor should there be a tax to pay in order to go to church.

The explanation of the dynamic between business and congress is clearly defined in Article 1, Section 8, not only in the commerce clause but in the taxing clause "From whatever source derived"


You tried to make the argument that religion should be treated the same as business despite the fact that there's a clear distinction at the Federal level
 
2012-10-08 08:19:05 AM

The Why Not Guy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: And if a church must refrain from political endorsement because of their tax exempt status, why shouldn't a labor union be under the same restriction? It's fundamentally unfair.

No it's not. Churches are a different kind of tax exempt organization than unions. That means churches have different requirements to fulfill, but they also get benefits that unions don't. For example, if you make a donation to your church, it's tax deductible. Union dues are not.


Union dues ARE tax deductible though if you volunteer to pay a political deduction that can't be deducted. So says the IRS. But the larger point is valid. Unions are a completely different type of organization than churches and the rules are different.

Churches basically are classified with charities, scientific organizations, literary organizations, and religious organizations as 501(c)(3) . If churches wish to be tax exempt they must obey the laws for 501(c)(3) organizations
 
2012-10-08 08:23:01 AM

BolloxReader: There are liberal pastors doing this as well. According to my wife's church's lawyer the Bush administration made all ceremonies overseen by clergy as legally binding so that individual clergy could not bless gay couples as a backdoor marriage. For this reason they prohibited her pastor from doing a "spiritual only" ceremony; if there was no marriage certificate issued by the state, it could be prosecutable as fraud by federal prosecutors.



What this is I don't even know?
Are you being sarcastic?
Trolling?
Do you actually believe this?

How cold the Bush adminstration make ceromonies legally binding, aren't marriage licenses give at the state level?
 
2012-10-08 08:29:09 AM

stoli n coke: The Why Not Guy: Animatronik: Freedom of speech and freedom of religion trump the rights of govt officials attempting to squelch political speech.

You have it backwards, as usual. Churches agree to refrain from political speeches as a condition for not paying taxes. If they choose to break that contract, they forfeit their tax exempt status.

Shhhhhh. Churches don't teach anything about integrity or living up to your end of the deal. Wait, what, they do? Well, ain't that something?


The sad part is some Christian churches actually teach that the only thing that is important is to accept Christ and then loudly and repetively claim it and that is all that you have to do. Say Jesus would help the hungry, why that is doing good works and trying to earn your way into Heaven and we can't teach that because Paul said are righteousness is like rags before God.
 
2012-10-08 08:34:58 AM
If they would like to instigate political shiatstorms, the IRS should wait until after the election, then audit and revoke tax-exempt status for these 1400 churches who violated the law. Don't revoke the law and don't allow them to use the IRS to hurt a political candidate or help one by provocation. Simply follow the law precisely as it is intended to function.
If a church endorses or condemns a political candidate, it loses its tax-exempt status for that year. Period. If 1400 do it, same thing happens.
 
2012-10-08 08:35:14 AM

Now That's What I Call a Taco!: /Grew up in a Mega-Church that bought up all the land around it to "ensure the right kinds of business moved in." Today, they make millions in rent off a gas station and an upscale strip mall... TAX FREE


Does the rent go the mission of the church?

501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations can have investments.
 
2012-10-08 08:53:31 AM

technicolor-misfit: I'm not saying I -want- them to bomb these churches. But, you know, if they're going to be bombing something, it maw as well be these smug, sneering, theocratic pricks rather than a daycare or a college football game or something.


How about the welfare office? Or a prison?
 
2012-10-08 09:27:01 AM
F*k all Bible thumpers.

they're dumb enough to follow a really really old book as if God himself came down to earth and wrote it with his/her/it's own hand. after all, the Bible could never be flawed, it was written by humans.


THEN


they don't know anything about separation of church and state that our Founders wisely set up in this Nation so we wouldn't end up like a middle east theocratic sh*thole (but we managed to end up like a sh*thole anyways thanks to republicans and wall street/corporate boardroom Turds.


hey Church F*cks!! if you want to participate in our Governemnt, then man up and pay your fookin' taxes and stop trying to shortchange the Nation you claim to love.

--God
 
2012-10-08 09:29:24 AM

gremlin1: some days it's hard enough to sit there and listen to sermons that I don't agree with. I certainly don't want to listen to someone spout off their political beliefs as being sent from God



Organized Religion is all about Mind Control. once they have you under their control, then they want your money. they use Fear of eternel hell to control you.

and it works. it works well.

Religion is the opiate of the masses.
 
2012-10-08 09:30:17 AM

mrshowrules: I wish Christians/Conservatives would just stop beating around the bush and let everyone know that they just want the US to effectively have a theocracy like Iran.



no they don't.

cause if those Turds ever had to live in a place like Iran, they'd change their ways real quick.
 
2012-10-08 09:31:12 AM

StoPPeRmobile: Benevolent Misanthrope: The sad part is, there are too many servile f*ckwits in the country for anyone to take them on. By law, the IRS shoulde revoke their tax-exempt status for campaigning. But churches seem to get a pass on just about anything they damn well please.

Tax churches like any other business.

[cdn.akaqa.com image 850x637]




lol u got that right. a business. a business that uses Fear of hell to take your money.
 
2012-10-08 09:32:03 AM

FirstNationalBastard: It's not freedom of religion, it's freedom FROM religion.

Motherfarkers want to play, they should be made to pay.




A-men.
 
2012-10-08 09:32:42 AM

Godscrack: IRS wont touch the church. Never have. Never will.

They have too many shared interests.




lol

there's some meat in that.
 
2012-10-08 09:35:02 AM
God is Great
God is good
let us thank him
for our Fark.

A-men.
 
2012-10-08 10:01:47 AM
Dear President Obama,

As you likely know, I am not a supporter of yours, and I have never before offered you money or advice. But as you are the president of the United States, you hold Attorney General Eric Holder's leash and therefore for the good of the nation I am sending you this free advice.

You may have read one of many articles over the past several days regarding churches breaking the law. If we are to believe their self-reported numbers, some 1,400 churches have all agreed to break the law and renege on their obligations requiring them to refrain from making political speeches.

As you know, the 1,400 self-described criminals have failed to even pretend to have lived up to the requirements they agreed to when they accepted tax-free status. If this criminal act of flagrantly breaking the law is not already a concern for you for its own reasons, allow me to provide you with several more reasons you should choose to uphold the law and bring these criminals to justice.

Firstly, there is tax money involved. It would seem likely that each of the law-breaking churches has revenues somewhere between one and 15 million dollars.
Assuming that as a good number, we're in the ballpark of 10 billion dollars that are by law required to be taxed but are not being taxed at present. This is an opportunity to shore up our nation's revenues at a time when we are all concerned with future liquidity.

Secondly, there is an election under foot. If you were to crack down on illegal activity by choosing to enforce the current laws, you would have a groundswell of support from your base. Couple your new "tough on tax cheats" stance with the increased revenue the IRS will collect and you have a one-two punch that will propel you back into the White House for a second term.

So in conclusion, Mr President, this crackdown is something you need to pursue A.S.A.P. The benefits are three fold, you will reduce the deficit, you will be re-elected and you will be able to hold your head high knowing that you defended the constitution against these 1,400 criminals. On behalf of all of the American people, I implore you to do the right thing.

Thank you for your consideration,

-Leeds
 
2012-10-08 10:06:59 AM

The Why Not Guy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: And if a church must refrain from political endorsement because of their tax exempt status, why shouldn't a labor union be under the same restriction? It's fundamentally unfair.

No it's not. Churches are a different kind of tax exempt organization than unions. That means churches have different requirements to fulfill, but they also get benefits that unions don't. For example, if you make a donation to your church, it's tax deductible. Union dues are not.


Obvious lie is obvious.

abb3w: BraveNewCheneyWorld: You're going with "the church is paying itself to say something, and that's exactly like a church donating to a pac"?

Nope. The church is paying the minister to speak from the pulpit. If it's political speech, it becomes paying for political activity. If you don't keep your books straight, it's all taxable.


You don't know what the hell you're talking about. IRS.gov

Deduction not allowed for dues used for political or legislative activities. A taxpayer cannot deduct the part of dues or other payments to a business league, trade association, labor union, or similar organization that is for any of the following activities.
Influencing legislation.

Participating or intervening in a political campaign for, or against, any candidate for public office.

Trying to influence the general public, or part of the general public, with respect to elections, legislative matters, or referendums (also known as grass roots lobbying).

Communicating directly with certain executive branch officials to try to influence their official actions or positions.


And this..

Grass roots lobbying. A tax-exempt trade association, labor union, or similar organization is considered to be engaging in grass roots lobbying if it contacts prospective members or calls upon its own members to contact their employees and customers for the purpose of urging such persons to communicate with their elected state or Congressional representatives to support the promotion, defeat, or repeal of legislation that is of direct interest to the organization. Any dues or assessments directly related to such activities are not deductible by the taxpayer, since the individuals being contacted, who are not members of the organization, are a segment of the general public. 

Or do you just disagree with the concept of equal protection?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
 
2012-10-08 10:51:13 AM

abb3w: Exactly. And Planned Parenthood the non-PAC haven't -- or do you have a specific reference?
In fact, so far as I can tell the PP-PAC hasn't endorsed Obama, either. Not real surprising, since he didn't do much for them but hold existing ground.


no I was referring to the hypothetical presented by another poster. I think he just pulled PP out of the air as an example
 
2012-10-08 12:44:21 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Or do you just disagree with the concept of equal protection?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.


Can I remind you of your love for equal protection in the next gay marriage thread?
 
2012-10-08 01:41:01 PM

cman: BarkingUnicorn: I think all tax-exempt organizations, including churches, should be free to endorse candidates for political office. The right to participate in political life is not contingent upon whether you pay taxes. The purpose of tax-exempt status is not to buy silence.

Prepare to be flamed schooled on your ignorance


FTFY
 
2012-10-08 01:54:58 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: The Why Not Guy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: And if a church must refrain from political endorsement because of their tax exempt status, why shouldn't a labor union be under the same restriction? It's fundamentally unfair.

No it's not. Churches are a different kind of tax exempt organization than unions. That means churches have different requirements to fulfill, but they also get benefits that unions don't. For example, if you make a donation to your church, it's tax deductible. Union dues are not.

Obvious lie is obvious.


Union dues are deductible only as work-related expenses (and even that only applies to dues that aren't being used for political activities). If anybody (regardless of whether or not they're members of the union) makes some voluntary contribution to the union, it is not deductible. This would be the case for any 501(c)(5) organization.

Meanwhile, any contribution to a 501(c)(3) organization will typically be deductible. And churches, unlike other organizations who may be eligible, get that exemption automatically - they don't even have to apply for it. 

Ordinarily I'd just let your terrible trolling slide with a few snarky comments at most, but this particular topic is obscure enough that a casual observer might actually buy into this bullshiat suggestion that unions are being given unfair advantages that churches aren't.
 
2012-10-08 01:57:37 PM
I want so badly to see their tax-free status revoked, but I'm not so dumb as to realize it would lead to a crushing defeat of the Obama Administration.

Thankfully, if I've learned nothing else ... the government may be slow, but it never forgets.

These churches are going to be nailed to the proverbial cross come post-election.
 
2012-10-08 03:00:36 PM

Biological Ali: Ordinarily I'd just let your terrible trolling slide with a few snarky comments at most, but this particular topic is obscure enough that a casual observer might actually buy into this bullshiat suggestion that unions are being given unfair advantages that churches aren't.


I'm partly to blame. I wasn't entirely accurate either, and he's jumping on that instead of the bigger point: unions and churches are two different kinds of tax exempt organizations. The rules they must follow are different, as are the benefits they receive for following those rules.
 
2012-10-08 03:18:48 PM

The Why Not Guy: BraveNewCheneyWorld: Or do you just disagree with the concept of equal protection?

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Can I remind you of your love for equal protection in the next gay marriage thread?


Trying to derail the subject because the IRS website I linked destroys your position, I see.

Biological Ali: Ordinarily I'd just let your terrible trolling slide


I see you really like farking chickens with that "you're trolling" derp you constantly resort to when you know your position is indefensible. You can't refute what I posted from the IRS website. You fail as usual, but I'm sure you're used to that by now though.
 
2012-10-08 03:28:45 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: You can't refute what I posted from the IRS website.


Why would I even want to refute it? It says exactly what I just said (and what abb3w had been saying before me).
 
2012-10-08 03:47:43 PM

The Why Not Guy: Biological Ali: Ordinarily I'd just let your terrible trolling slide with a few snarky comments at most, but this particular topic is obscure enough that a casual observer might actually buy into this bullshiat suggestion that unions are being given unfair advantages that churches aren't.

I'm partly to blame. I wasn't entirely accurate either, and he's jumping on that instead of the bigger point: unions and churches are two different kinds of tax exempt organizations. The rules they must follow are different, as are the benefits they receive for following those rules.


What I don't get is why he would so brazenly link (and quote) things that clearly support the positions of the people he's arguing against. Maybe he really is just satirizing the arguments of a not-too-bright church apologist. Kind of like a less funny Mike_LowELL.
 
2012-10-08 03:54:05 PM

Biological Ali: The Why Not Guy: Biological Ali: Ordinarily I'd just let your terrible trolling slide with a few snarky comments at most, but this particular topic is obscure enough that a casual observer might actually buy into this bullshiat suggestion that unions are being given unfair advantages that churches aren't.

I'm partly to blame. I wasn't entirely accurate either, and he's jumping on that instead of the bigger point: unions and churches are two different kinds of tax exempt organizations. The rules they must follow are different, as are the benefits they receive for following those rules.

What I don't get is why he would so brazenly link (and quote) things that clearly support the positions of the people he's arguing against. Maybe he really is just satirizing the arguments of a not-too-bright church apologist. Kind of like a less funny Mike_LowELL.


Every post of yours relies on the hope that a reader doesn't view the post to which you're responding, and an inability to realize that the bulk of your statements are irrelevant ad hominem attacks. So.. congratulations on that group of people you're winning over!
 
2012-10-08 04:09:21 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Every post of yours relies on the hope that a reader doesn't view the post to which you're responding, and an inability to realize that the bulk of your statements are irrelevant ad hominem attacks. So.. congratulations on that group of people you're winning over!


Just tell me one thing, just what exactly is it that you're trying to tell people that the IRS is saying about 501(c)(5) organizations? Note, however, that I'm only asking because I expect the answer to be hilarious, and I hope you won't let me down.

I mean, don't get me wrong, making vague statements about how the people you're arguing don't know what they're talking about in the same post where you've linked and quoted things that support their position is kind of funny, but I think you can definitely do better.
 
2012-10-08 05:05:07 PM

FloydA: You Cant Explain That: FloydA: GAT_00: Tax every single one of those churches without exemptions.

The're doing this right before the election for a reason. If the IRS goes after them now, they can scream that "WAAAAaaa Fartbongo's jackbooted thugs are waging a war on religion!!!" That will increase the turnout of the knuckle-draggers who would otherwise stay home rather than vote for a Mormon. It's win-win for them.

Good thing he will already be re-elected by the time tax season comes.

/still won't happen....and it should

Agreed.

(You're still winning our bet, BTW, and I intend to honor it. Mitt might have dropped a "boy" in the first debate. Doesn't count for the terms of the bet of course, but it's pretty clear he's thinking it, even if he's not saying it. I still think he's going to throw an N-bomb. He's just that arrogant.)


I really hope he does. I think he is more likely to bust it out in the week following the election, or in his losers speech.
 
2012-10-08 05:19:18 PM

Sgt Otter: Benevolent Misanthrope: The sad part is, there are too many servile f*ckwits in the country for anyone to take them on. By law, the IRS shoulde revoke their tax-exempt status for campaigning. But churches seem to get a pass on just about anything they damn well please.

Tax churches like any other business.

The second they do, a certain cable news network will start screaming WAR ON CHRISTIANITY!!! 24 hours a day.


I'm ok with this.
 
2012-10-08 06:51:16 PM

GAT_00: Tax every single one of those churches without exemptions.


That would take care of the deficit for sure.
 
2012-10-08 08:04:29 PM

Biological Ali: I mean, don't get me wrong, making vague statements about how the people you're arguing don't know what they're talking about in the same post where you've linked and quoted things that support their position is kind of funny, but I think you can definitely do better.


I could do better, but you could do a lot better understanding my points. As it stands, everything pretty much went over your head, but you don't realize it, I've come to expect that. Kudos on catching those low flying facts you actually could grasp though.
 
2012-10-08 09:18:43 PM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: I could do better, but you could do a lot better understanding my points. As it stands, everything pretty much went over your head, but you don't realize it, I've come to expect that. Kudos on catching those low flying facts you actually could grasp though.


Now see, here's your problem. You reply endlessly to people (including people who know you're just having a bit of fun), but you rarely bother to include any variety. It's almost always some variation of "You're so stupid LOL"; that might be amusing a couple times at most, but at some point you've got to change it up.

For what it's worth, I think you were really on to something with that whole rant about unions - it was pretty creative, especially when you followed up by quoting something that said the opposite of what you had been on about. That was well played. But if you really want to finish on a high, you've got to ramp the absurdity up, and be specific - like, maybe, try to come up with your own explanation for what the IRS really meant in the bits you quoted. That's the trouble with you, though. You occasionally say things that show glimpses of proper troll potential, but you never follow it up properly - you always revert to overly vague "LOL you're dumb" posts, which admittedly have their place but get bland and boring really quick if that's all you're working with.

Now I don't want you to take this the wrong way. Criticism can be hard to hear sometimes, but you've got to realize that it's a necessary part to the development of your routine. You're clearly putting a lot of time into this - as evidenced by the number of posts you make and the way you keep coming back to the thread and replying to everybody who quotes you - now just imagine what you could achieve if you put a similar amount of effort in as well.
 
2012-10-08 10:28:04 PM

Biological Ali: (including people who know you're just having a bit of fun),


Calling me a troll...

Biological Ali: BarkingUnicorn: You have totally misread the First Amendment. It protects religion from government. It does not protect anything from religion.

As for "pay to play," that sounds like a poll tax.

This has got to be a troll, right?


Calling him a troll...

Biological Ali: Ordinarily I'd just let your terrible trolling slide


Calling me a troll...

Biological Ali: BraveNewCheneyWorld: You can't refute what I posted from the IRS website.

Why would I even want to refute it? It says exactly what I just said (and what abb3w had been saying before me).


Implying I'm a troll...

Biological Ali: Maybe he really is just satirizing the arguments of a not-too-bright church apologist. Kind of like a less funny Mike_LowELL.


Again, Implying I'm a troll...

Biological Ali: making vague statements about how the people you're arguing don't know what they're talking about in the same post where you've linked and quoted things that support their position is kind of funny, but I think you can definitely do better.


Yet again, Implying I'm a troll...

The funny thing is that although you implied you brought something of value to the discussion, you're really only all to eager to call everyone who debates you a troll. That's all you have in your arsenal. Frankly, you come across as nothing more than an egocentric dickhead who can't handle confrontation in any form. I shot down abb3w's arguments and the fact is, you're relying on someone else's arguments, which are completely inadequate to save your position. You're the dumbest person in the thread and it's only you who doesn't realize the fact. Want an argument? scroll up, I've laid them out for you.

[You, Dr Venkman, are a poor scientist.jpg]
 
2012-10-08 10:57:08 PM
BraveNewCheneyWorld

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You sink all this time into these long-winded responses, assembling all these quote snippets from across the thread, and yet you don't even bother to say anything interesting. This approach clearly isn't working out for you. And really, you should know that insults alone aren't going to get a rise out of people who know you're just pulling their leg - it's not as though they'll forget you're trolling if you just insult them long enough. So, rather than than than these mountains of vague bullshiat you've been posting (which you'll be lucky for anybody to even read halfway through let alone get suckered into actually responding), you should try keeping it short, right to the point, and specific enough that there's actually something in there to respond to.

You had a great chance with the "unions" angle you were working on - if you'd done it right, it would have been hilarious (to those in the know) while still retaining the frustratingly obvious wrongness necessary to get bites. It's probably too late for you to get back on it now, but you should keep it in mind for the next thread.
 
2012-10-08 11:22:23 PM

Biological Ali: yet you don't even bother to say anything interesting.


i104.photobucket.com

Biological Ali: it's not as though they'll forget you're trolling


back to that again I see.. WTF is wrong with you? Seriously, I think you're mentally ill. No wait, I settled that in a previous thread.

Biological Ali: So, rather than than than these mountains of vague bullshiat you've been posting (which you'll be lucky for anybody to even read halfway through let alone get suckered into actually responding)


It's hard to respond to a post of substance, I take it? You haven't done so all day. You just yammer on about how hard it is to follow a thought, acting like everyone else is somehow less intelligent than you the whole while.

Biological Ali: you should try keeping it short, right to the point, and specific enough that there's actually something in there to respond to.


Translation, "please keep your responses to simple bullet points so I don't have to present a well thought argument, I like simple, small concepts."

Biological Ali: You had a great chance with the "unions" angle you were working on - if you'd done it right, it would have been hilarious (to those in the know) while still retaining the frustratingly obvious wrongness necessary to get bites.


"I'm back to calling you a troll again, because I ran out of shiat to say, and I'm pretty farking dumb"

If anyone actually cares to see where this argument actually ended, please scroll up. Ali, you're the dumbest person in the thread and only you aren't aware of the fact.
 
2012-10-08 11:37:14 PM
BraveNewCheneyWorld

I'm trying to be straight with you here, but you've got to be a little more receptive than that. Now I appreciate the lengths you're going to in order to stay in character but I have to say, it's a wasted effort. Apart from the issues with your material itself (which I mentioned earlier; no point repeating myself), there's the fact that nobody else is going to read these exchanges, what with them being so far removed from the parts of the conversation that they might actually be interested in. So why even bother making these long posts when the only person reading them knows your shtick?

Alternatively, if these posts are solely for my benefit (unlikely, but who knows, maybe you really are that committed), why not at least try to make them funny? Right now you're in that awkward middle ground where your ambivalence (whether it's trying too hard to do everything, or not trying hard enough to do something) is preventing you from accomplishing anything meaningful.
 
2012-10-08 11:59:44 PM

Biological Ali: Apart from the issues with your material itself


Because you've been destroyed.

Biological Ali: there's the fact that nobody else is going to read these exchanges, what with them being so far removed from the parts of the conversation that they might actually be interested in.


That's your goal, forum slider.

Biological Ali: So why even bother making these long posts when the only person reading them knows your shtick?


Because someone might, which is exactly why you keep posting the nonsensical bullshiat you do, but people can always scroll up and see how little substance you have, while you portray your superiority. I presented a well reasoned argument, you have name calling, as usual.

Biological Ali: Alternatively, if these posts are solely for my benefit (unlikely, but who knows, maybe you really are that committed), why not at least try to make them funny?


I don't care about you in the slightest, I only care to refute the lies you tell. Make yet another alt and I'll respond to it in kind.

Biological Ali: Right now you're in that awkward middle ground where your ambivalence (whether it's trying too hard to do everything, or not trying hard enough to do something) is preventing you from accomplishing anything meaningful.


I destroyed your position several hours ago, you haven't said anything of substance to respond since then. What meaningful dialogue do I need to bring when your only response to my every word is "You're a troll, derp, derp"?
 
2012-10-09 12:10:51 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: I presented a well reasoned argument, you have name calling, as usual.

...

I don't care about you in the slightest, I only care to refute the lies you tell. Make yet another alt and I'll respond to it in kind.


Okay, I've got to say, these bits were actually pretty funny. But the reply as a whole is still too long - it basically reads like a rough draft. You're getting slightly better at giving your posts an absurd edge (rather than merely being wrong and obnoxious), so that's good. The next step now is to learn how to work out your good lines and stick with just those, rather than including a bunch of filler material that just distracts and lessens the overall effect.
 
2012-10-09 09:42:00 AM

BraveNewCheneyWorld: Trying to influence the general public, or part of the general public, with respect to elections, legislative matters, or referendums (also known as grass roots lobbying).


Miss something?

BraveNewCheneyWorld: A tax-exempt trade association, labor union, or similar organization is considered to be engaging in grass roots lobbying if it contacts prospective members or calls upon its own members to contact their employees and customers for the purpose of urging such persons to communicate with their elected state or Congressional representatives to support the promotion, defeat, or repeal of legislation that is of direct interest to the organization.


Note, candidates are not legislation. I'll agree, the case of a Church pastor speaking out against (say) a referendum and calling it's members to vote a particular way on it is trickier, but there's apparently a legally non-trivial difference from candidate or blanket party endorsement.

skullkrusher: no I was referring to the hypothetical presented by another poster.


Hokay.

Biological Ali: Union dues are deductible only as work-related expenses (and even that only applies to dues that aren't being used for political activities). If anybody (regardless of whether or not they're members of the union) makes some voluntary contribution to the union, it is not deductible. This would be the case for any 501(c)(5) organization.


An interesting supporting point.

Biological Ali: This approach clearly isn't working out for you.


You might consider the alternate hypothesis he's sincere; high-SDO, mid-to-high RWA lean personality.
 
2012-10-09 09:59:45 AM
DeArmondVI

Wanna be a sanctuary from the world, preach words of confort and salvation all contributing to the well being of the community and the world?

Enjoy your tax-free status.

Want to instill dogmatic absolutisms while telling your congregation that in order to stay true to said dogmatics that they need to vote in your preferred partisan manner?

Welcome to the tax base



THIS!!!

"pulpit freedom sunday" is not supported by my pastor.

//she probably did not even know about it.
 
2012-10-09 04:46:42 PM

abb3w: You might consider the alternate hypothesis he's sincere; high-SDO, mid-to-high RWA lean personality.


True; it's possible. I should point out though that my assessment is based not on the mere fact that he says things that aren't correct, but rather, the almost comical way he follows up on comments that point out the error. It seems to be a recurring pattern: say something that's wrong but nonetheless seems like the kind of honest mistake anybody can make and then refuse to budge from it, drawing increasing amounts of frustration from the people trying to set the record straight. And, of course, the insults.

I could be wrong of course, but that's just my educated guess.

abb3w: Note, candidates are not legislation. I'll agree, the case of a Church pastor speaking out against (say) a referendum and calling it's members to vote a particular way on it is trickier, but there's apparently a legally non-trivial difference from candidate or blanket party endorsement.


It helps to read the entire section at length; it provides a list of everything that can't be done with tax-deductible dues, which includes just about every major kind of political activism, and notes at the end that ordinary contributions (as opposed to dues) are not deductible regardless of what they're being used for.

Deduction not allowed for dues used for political or legislative activities. A taxpayer cannot deduct the part of dues or other payments to a business league, trade association, labor union, or similar organization that is for any of the following activities.

1. Influencing legislation.

2. Participating or intervening in a political campaign for, or against, any candidate for public office.

3. Trying to influence the general public, or part of the general public, with respect to elections, legislative matters, or referendums (also known as grass roots lobbying).

4. Communicating directly with certain executive branch officials to try to influence their official actions or positions.

See Dues Used for Lobbying or Political Activities under Required Disclosures in chapter 2 for more information.

Exception for local legislation. Members can deduct dues (or assessments) to an organization that are for expenses of:

Appearing before, submitting statements to, or sending communications to members of a local council or similar governing body with respect to legislation or proposed legislation of direct interest to the member, or

Communicating information between the member and the organization with respect to local legislation or proposed legislation of direct interest to the organization or the member.

Legislation or proposed legislation is of direct interest to a taxpayer if it will, or can reasonably be expected to, affect the taxpayer's trade or business.

De minimis exception. In-house expenditures of $2,000 or less for the year for activities (1) - (4) listed earlier will not prevent a deduction for dues if the dues meet all other tests to be deductible as a business expense.

Grass roots lobbying.
A tax-exempt trade association, labor union, or similar organization is considered to be engaging in grass roots lobbying if it contacts prospective members or calls upon its own members to contact their employees and customers for the purpose of urging such persons to communicate with their elected state or Congressional representatives to support the promotion, defeat, or repeal of legislation that is of direct interest to the organization. Any dues or assessments directly related to such activities are not deductible by the taxpayer, since the individuals being contacted, who are not members of the organization, are a segment of the general public.

Tax treatment of donations. Contributions to organizations described in this section are not deductible as charitable contributions on the donor's federal income tax return. They may be deductible as trade or business expenses if ordinary and necessary in the conduct of the taxpayer's business.



The restrictions for 501(c)(3) organizations appear to be somewhat more lenient and vague, barring them from making lobbying a "substantial" part of their activities. Here's some fairly comprehensive discussions on the restrictions on both lobbying and political activity. The bit about supporting particular candidates appears to be quite clear though, and at least in theory a 501(c)(3) organization would not be able to intervene on behalf of any candidate (even one who is running unopposed) without it being a violation against their tax-exempt status.
 
2012-10-10 01:47:57 PM

mrshowrules: I wish Hatetheists/Liberals would just stop beating around the bush and let everyone know that they just want the US to effectively have an atheocracy like communist Russia/China/North Korea.


that would make everything sooo much better

FOR SCIENCE!!!1!
 
Displayed 409 of 409 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report