Do you have adblock enabled?
 
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
    More: Interesting, IRS  
•       •       •

5719 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Oct 2012 at 5:52 PM (5 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



409 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size
 
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.comView Full Size

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.
oklahomamediagroup.comView Full Size


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.comView Full Size


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.comView Full Size
 
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.