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

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

5681 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Oct 2012 at 5:52 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 409 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report