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.

(WTOP)   The IRS has basically quit even trying to enforce that whole "tax-exempt churches can't preach politics" thing. Because, you know, it's hard and stuff   (wtop.com ) divider line
    More: Stupid, IRS, United States federal courts, Americans United, church law, worship service, tax code  
•       •       •

8787 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Nov 2012 at 12:57 PM (4 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



218 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2012-11-05 12:36:39 PM  
Was the 'Obvious' tag busy instructing its congregation that voting for Obama will usher in the apocalypse?
 
2012-11-05 12:59:03 PM  
"A 2009 federal court ruling required the IRS to clarify which high-ranking official could authorize audits over the tax code's political rules. The IRS has yet to do so."


So basically, high ranking IRS officials are claiming the ol' "It's not MY job" line.

Enforce it or change the law.
 
2012-11-05 01:00:01 PM  
Huh huh huh....
You said "hard."
 
2012-11-05 01:00:31 PM  
I used to litigate these back in the day on behalf of the government. They're usually brought to the IRS's attention by whistleblowers with an axe to grind ("I'm mad at my preacher!") or Americans United.

The IRS hates to litigate them because of the negative publicity -- the IRS going after your church? Ugh.
 
2012-11-05 01:01:17 PM  
 
2012-11-05 01:01:23 PM  

PreMortem: Enforce it or change the law.


Why do that when you can leave it on the books and then attack whoever you want for purely political reasons later on, when whoever is in power can deem it necessary? That seems like a good way to run things.
 
2012-11-05 01:01:29 PM  
Gosh, wouldn't want them to have to do anything useful.
 
2012-11-05 01:01:49 PM  
They'll be all over making sure to collect the Obamaxare Tax, though.
 
2012-11-05 01:01:53 PM  
A while ago Bill Maher opined that churches are indeed abusing the tax exemption, and if the church catches on fire the church people should not be allowed to call the fire department.
 
2012-11-05 01:02:24 PM  
During an election year, it's hard to stay away from the topic of politics. If you truly believe in the words of Jesus Christ, then you can't be silent about the evil that is the Republican party.
 
2012-11-05 01:02:37 PM  
I agree. It is hard. At this point, it's much easier just to get rid of that law and let the government have its taste of tithes and collection plates. It should be retroactive for at least a decade, and let's just go ahead and slap some interest and late fees on it too. The Pope can do with a few less gold hats or ugly-ass shoes this year.
 
2012-11-05 01:03:31 PM  
Meh, not so hard as just completely farking unpopular and would take up all their time.
 
2012-11-05 01:03:34 PM  
Just get rid of their tax exempt status.

God understands, otherwise he wouldn't have told you to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.

Problem solved.
 
2012-11-05 01:03:39 PM  

TheOriginalEd: Sometimes.. I really dont like living here..


Okay, I give up. You humans are all doomed.
 
2012-11-05 01:03:48 PM  
They'll enforce it when Obama makes the DEA take your guns. I warned you!
 
2012-11-05 01:04:00 PM  
Let them say whatever they want. Also, let them pay taxes.

If you want tax exemption, you'd better abstain from politics.
 
2012-11-05 01:04:08 PM  
To HELL with OBAMA and the NAACP...President Obama is a "Judas" and he has sold out African Americans.

media1.policymic.com
/just saying is all.....
 
2012-11-05 01:07:09 PM  

MurphyMurphy: Just get rid of their tax exempt status.

God understands, otherwise he wouldn't have told you to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.

Problem solved.


Don't even have to go that far; just eliminate their "closed book" privilege. Non-church non-profits have to justify their status, but churches can just claim it with impunity. They also don't pay property taxes, which is ultra special.

Just make them follow the regular rules about disclosure and let 'em at it.
 
2012-11-05 01:08:25 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Was the 'Obvious' tag busy instructing its congregation that voting for Obama will usher in the apocalypse?


You've obviously never been to an AME church before election day. They had Obama posters up behind the pulpit this year.
 
2012-11-05 01:08:56 PM  

GORDON: They'll be all over making sure to collect the Obamaxare Tax, though.


yeah they already said they aren't shouldering that one

but you know, continue spouting raw sewage out of your computer

which thread you gonna hit next with boldface lies?
 
2012-11-05 01:09:01 PM  
In other news, taxation of expatriates continues unabated.

Taxation without representation is tyranny"
 
2012-11-05 01:09:11 PM  

devildog123: scottydoesntknow: Was the 'Obvious' tag busy instructing its congregation that voting for Obama will usher in the apocalypse?

You've obviously never been to an AME church before election day. They had Obama posters up behind the pulpit this year.


But that's different.
 
2012-11-05 01:09:20 PM  
In a survey last week by the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 40 percent of black Protestants who attend worship services regularly said their clergy have discussed a specific candidate in church -- and the candidate in every instance was President Barack Obama.

Correlation does not equal causation... Correlation does not equal causation... Correlation does not equal causation...
 
2012-11-05 01:10:42 PM  
Wasn't aware the IRS was doing this at all.

On paper, I love this idea. In practice, not so much.

I'd settle for getting that whole "keeping religion out of politics" thing though. That seems a weighty enough task.
 
2012-11-05 01:11:00 PM  

TheOriginalEd: Sometimes.. I really dont like living here..


ugh.
 
2012-11-05 01:11:21 PM  
Yeah, I stood up in church during the announcement part of our service. I happened to be on the Altar at the time, as I was a LEM (Lay Eucharistic Minister) and had my garb on.

I stood up and said "Get out and vote. I don't care who you vote for, but there's more than just the presidential election on the ballot and there's plenty of things that will affect you or someone you know. If you can't make it to your polling place, tell me and I'll drive you there myself."

And then I sat down and that was that.

Why can't other churches do it that way?
 
2012-11-05 01:11:31 PM  

Englebert Slaptyback: A while ago Bill Maher opined that churches are indeed abusing the tax exemption, and if the church catches on fire the church people should not be allowed to call the fire department.


Liberal compassion at work.
 
2012-11-05 01:12:17 PM  
Rev. Wright is happy.
 
2012-11-05 01:14:48 PM  
not so csb:

My wife and I were on our honeymoon in Hawaii a couple weeks ago when we attended an open-aired sunday morning Episcopal church service. Things were going rather swimmingly until the sermon.

The preacher ended his sermon with:

...I recently had a meeting with numerous other religious leaders. many different races, colors, religions, all present for a lunch-time discussion. We wanted to come together to brainstorm more ways we can help those who need it most. We talked about many things, but the overarching message, was to help figure out what more we can do to help influence public policy.

He ended his sermon with a smile and a nod, and my wife and I looked at each other with mirrored expressions, "WTF? DID HE REALLY JUST SAY THAT?"

And that's when we looked around everyone else was nodding their heads.

It gave me a sad for this country.
 
2012-11-05 01:16:27 PM  

Tax Boy: I used to litigate these back in the day on behalf of the government. They're usually brought to the IRS's attention by whistleblowers with an axe to grind ("I'm mad at my preacher!") or Americans United.

The IRS hates to litigate them because of the negative publicity -- the IRS going after your church? Ugh.


Yeah, but it's not like the IRS has ever had positive publicity anyway.
 
2012-11-05 01:17:12 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Was the 'Obvious' tag busy instructing its congregation that voting for Obama will usher in the apocalypse?


I don't think that's what Rev. Wright preaches...
 
2012-11-05 01:17:52 PM  
P - O - L - I - T - I - C - S

Barack Obama doesn't want to take fire from the right for declaring war on Christians, something that would assuredly happen if the IRS were to, you, know, actually enforce the law.
 
2012-11-05 01:19:01 PM  
Saw this bumper sticker on a nice minivan out in the swellburbs:

"Your Vote counts for today and for all Eternity"

And a simply Google search turns up a couple of iterations of the same type message.
http://tarafurman.blogspot.com/2012/11/will-your-vote-stand-test-of-f i re.html

And you can't tell me she didn't take it up Satan's Chute whilst trying to land a stockbroker/husband in college.
 
2012-11-05 01:20:13 PM  

Boeheimian Rhapsody: not so csb:

My wife and I were on our honeymoon in Hawaii a couple weeks ago when we attended an open-aired sunday morning Episcopal church service. Things were going rather swimmingly until the sermon.

The preacher ended his sermon with:

...I recently had a meeting with numerous other religious leaders. many different races, colors, religions, all present for a lunch-time discussion. We wanted to come together to brainstorm more ways we can help those who need it most. We talked about many things, but the overarching message, was to help figure out what more we can do to help influence public policy.

He ended his sermon with a smile and a nod, and my wife and I looked at each other with mirrored expressions, "WTF? DID HE REALLY JUST SAY THAT?"

And that's when we looked around everyone else was nodding their heads.

It gave me a sad for this country.


Well, we wouldn't want religious people infecting public policy with their religious ideas. Right, William Wilberforce? Right, MLK Jr?
 
2012-11-05 01:21:17 PM  
Why is there an exemption in a nation that preaches (snort) separation of Church and State?
 
2012-11-05 01:22:04 PM  

IAmRight: PreMortem: Enforce it or change the law.

Why do that when you can leave it on the books and then attack whoever you want for purely political reasons later on, when whoever is in power can deem it necessary? That seems like a good way to run things.


Ironically, this has been the case since 2009, after Obama took office. Could you imagine the situation if Obama directed the IRS to enforce this?

Another example of Obama v. Religion that doesn't exist.
 
2012-11-05 01:22:36 PM  

Lord Dimwit: Tax Boy: I used to litigate these back in the day on behalf of the government. They're usually brought to the IRS's attention by whistleblowers with an axe to grind ("I'm mad at my preacher!") or Americans United.

The IRS hates to litigate them because of the negative publicity -- the IRS going after your church? Ugh.

Yeah, but it's not like the IRS has ever had positive publicity anyway.


No kidding. When has the IRS ever worried about their image?
 
2012-11-05 01:22:38 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Was the 'Obvious' tag busy instructing its congregation that voting for Obama will usher in the apocalypse?


Nah, it was over with the Asinine tag telling its congregation that voting for Romney will send them back to the fields.
 
2012-11-05 01:23:00 PM  
I truly despise organized religion.
 
2012-11-05 01:23:16 PM  

JackieRabbit: declaring war on Christians


The Christian cry of "persecution" comes as easily in this country as the F-word does to Gordon Ramsey, to be fair. You'd think it would be dismissed just as easily, and you'd of course be wrong.

Not that more than an Nth of them have the faintest idea what the word means. Anything much over three syllables tends to confound. But it is one hell of a lightning rod, I suppose.


All that said, it really doesn't sound very practical in terms of enforcement. Short of being exceedingly invasive of religious organizations, i don't see how enforcement could be accomplished.
 
2012-11-05 01:24:10 PM  

Prank Call of Cthulhu: I agree. It is hard. At this point, it's much easier just to get rid of that law and let the government have its taste of tithes and collection plates. It should be retroactive for at least a decade, and let's just go ahead and slap some interest and late fees on it too. The Pope can do with a few less gold hats or ugly-ass shoes this year.


Very little of American Catholic donations actually go to the Vatican. The vast majority of it ends up recycled in the US -- American Catholics are really willing to donate money to pay for food banks, schools, housing for the homeless, for support for single mothers, and for upkeep on their local churches. Paying for the Vatican? They leave that up to the Europeans.
 
2012-11-05 01:24:39 PM  
The most blatent abuse of this I ever saw was at a wedding for a family member of mine. Right inside the front doors of the church was a pamphlet holder full of pamphlets about the churches stand of certain political standings. I was a little confused about that since I was in school at the time and we had studied that exact thing.
 
2012-11-05 01:26:42 PM  

Nightsweat: Let them say whatever they want. Also, let them pay taxes.

If you want tax exemption, you'd better abstain from politics.


It doesn't even have to be that cut-and-dried.

I think that even a politically-active organization should be able to do charitable works and have really-charitable contributions counted as deductible.

Consider the example set by every Rotary/Lions/Kiwanis/Masonic/IOOF/etc chapter in the country. In every case (I've been the treasurer of a tiny Lions club), there's a "club account" and a "charitable account". Charitable fundraising goes in the charitable account. Charitable donations are tax-deductible. Club dues go in the club account. These are not tax-deductible. Club expenses are paid out of the club dues account.

If every little civic service club in the country can keep two sets of books straight, the 'Jesus clubs' can and should do the same damned thing.
 
2012-11-05 01:26:50 PM  

Hack Patooey: Lord Dimwit: Tax Boy: I used to litigate these back in the day on behalf of the government. They're usually brought to the IRS's attention by whistleblowers with an axe to grind ("I'm mad at my preacher!") or Americans United.

The IRS hates to litigate them because of the negative publicity -- the IRS going after your church? Ugh.

Yeah, but it's not like the IRS has ever had positive publicity anyway.

No kidding. When has the IRS ever worried about their image?


when the IRS gets characterized as jackbooted thugs you start getting legislation like the 1998 Reform Act that reins in the IRS even more
 
2012-11-05 01:28:03 PM  

Tax Boy: The IRS hates to litigate them because of the negative publicity -- the IRS going after your church? Ugh.


As if churchgoers start out with any love for the IRS.
 
2012-11-05 01:28:07 PM  
Good. It's a waste of time and resources. Plus, as a society we should be training people to exercise their free speech, not giving them more and more areas where they feel like they must watch what they say.

Just end tax exempt status for churches already and be done with it.
 
2012-11-05 01:31:51 PM  

factoryconnection: MurphyMurphy: Just get rid of their tax exempt status.

God understands, otherwise he wouldn't have told you to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.

Problem solved.

Don't even have to go that far; just eliminate their "closed book" privilege. Non-church non-profits have to justify their status, but churches can just claim it with impunity. They also don't pay property taxes, which is ultra special.

Just make them follow the regular rules about disclosure and let 'em at it.


THIS THISITY THIS--I'm not even "Tax the Churches" so much as "Close The Church Loopholes".

Make them do what EVERY OTHER SINGLE ORGANISATION FILING FOR 501(C)3 STATUS MUST DO:

1) File some sort of documentation (religious incorporation papers, etc.) with the IRS in the same way that 501(c)3s must prove they are an actual not-for-profit.

2) (The Biggie) File a yearly form 990 or 990-EZ like every other not-for-profit org in the country has to do including documentation of very large donations and very large amounts of money given to third parties.

Incidentially, it's those bits that dominionist churches have fought tooth-and-nail (putting them in a strange Culty-McCulterson similarity with the Scientologists, who are actually the reason that the laws re church incorporation and registration amount to "Claim you're a church to the IRS and never pay a penny of taxes ever again and never keep any records open to your parishoners much less third parties"). It's been very strongly suspected that some of the worst actors (the SBC and the Assemblies of God, as well as a mess of televangelists and other "Independent" neopentecostal megachurches) have been outright funding political groups in a very illegal manner, but it's next to impossible to prove this because nobody can get to the books. (And yes, people have tried. Congress has even tried, in the case of televangelists linked to an embezzlement scandal at ORU. It's next to impossible to do so in practice even with a Congressional subpoena.)
 
2012-11-05 01:31:55 PM  

Son of Thunder: Boeheimian Rhapsody: It gave me a sad for this country.

Well, we wouldn't want religious people infecting public policy with their religious ideas. Right, William Wilberforce? Right, MLK Jr?


Churches have been advocates for social and political ideas for a long time. The Catholic Church has been preaching and fighting for an end to capital punishment for instance. They've lobbied Congress to promote anti-human-trafficking measures. Is every socio-political idea off the table?
 
2012-11-05 01:31:55 PM  
wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com
 
2012-11-05 01:32:07 PM  

BarleyGnome: I truly despise organized religion.


I'm an atheist and I'm quite happy to have organized religion. Even if you set aside the amazing music and art from the Renaissance that came out of Christianity and just focus on the modern, you have -- the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, Habitat for Humanity, Catholic Relief Services, tons of hospitals and schools, food banks, homeless shelters, and tons of other service related charities.
 
2012-11-05 01:32:12 PM  

SkunkWerks: All that said, it really doesn't sound very practical in terms of enforcement. Short of being exceedingly invasive of religious organizations, i don't see how enforcement could be accomplished.


Actually, it is rather easy to enforce. Ministers may offer prayers (intercessions) to political leaders, candidates, etc, but they cannot preach politics from the pulpit and retain their tax exempt status. If they tell their congregation that they should vote for candidate A because candidate B supports the sin of homosexuality, they have they have just violated the law. The IRS only investigates complaints. They don't go after every church out there. Many Christians are highly offended by their religion being politicized. On the other hand, there are many small storefront "churches" out there that aren't churches at all, but political operatives using the church as a cover. I know of a few that were popped by the IRS and essentially shut down. Fortunately, these usually only have a few very misguided members and once their backdoor funding dries up, the "preachers" close up shop and skip town.
 
2012-11-05 01:32:37 PM  

super_grass: Englebert Slaptyback: A while ago Bill Maher opined that churches are indeed abusing the tax exemption, and if the church catches on fire the church people should not be allowed to call the fire department.

Liberal compassion at work.


Logic at work.
 
2012-11-05 01:35:40 PM  
Solution? Tax the farking churches.
 
2012-11-05 01:35:58 PM  
Here's my opinion:

What should happen is that the government and religion should be 100% separated. Federal, state, and local governments. No special treatment. No tax breaks aside from 'non profit' to those churches and such that can apply.

All laws should be examined for religious motivation. For example, alcohol laws. You can't buy liquor here on Sunday. Cut and dry, religiously motivated, it's out. You can't buy beer in liquor stores here because there's the temptation that some beer drinkers might turn to liquor. Cut and dry, religiously motivated, it's out. You can't buy non-alcoholic products here from liquor stores because then it would be a convenience for people and thus a temptation to turn to liquor. Cut and dry, religiously motivated, it's out. Liquor licenses are not granted within so many thousands of feet from a school/bus stop/church/etc. Religiously motivated, it's out. No gay marriage here. Religiously motivated, it's out. Etc. Etc. Those are all the ones I could think of within 30 seconds, and would change the way of life around these parts drastically.

Oh, the irony..
 
2012-11-05 01:37:06 PM  

phartman: In other news, taxation of expatriates continues unabated.

Taxation without representation is tyranny"


Feminization without castration is transformer!

sorry
 
2012-11-05 01:37:30 PM  
Because, theocracy.
 
2012-11-05 01:38:11 PM  

meanmutton: the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, Habitat for Humanity, Catholic Relief Services,


Despite using the cross (and crescent in Islamic countries), originally as a reference to Swiss neutralitiy, the international Red Cross/Crescent movement did not come out of religious charity in any meaningful sense.

The rest, yes, fair enough.
 
2012-11-05 01:39:21 PM  
I've seen churches provide false documentation calling private school tuition a donation for tax purposes, quite the moral beacon there.
 
2012-11-05 01:39:37 PM  

JackieRabbit: Many Christians are highly offended by their religion being politicized.


Meanwhile, everyone else is highly offended by our politics becoming religicized.
 
2012-11-05 01:39:46 PM  

JackieRabbit: Actually, it is rather easy to enforce. Ministers may offer prayers (intercessions) to political leaders, candidates, etc, but they cannot preach politics from the pulpit and retain their tax exempt status.


So, we pay an IRS auditor to sit in on every sermon ever held at any church ever and we can cover this?

Keen. Sounds like a real job-creator.

JackieRabbit: The IRS only investigates complaints. They don't go after every church out there.


Well, yes, that's rather my point. I can't think of a church sermon that hasn't come to politics (and opinions thereof) at some point in the sermon-cycle. I'd say this happens a lot- in "legitimate" and "illegitimate" institutions alike... if you care to look for it.

JackieRabbit: On the other hand, there are many small storefront "churches" out there that aren't churches at all, but political operatives using the church as a cover. I know of a few that were popped by the IRS and essentially shut down. Fortunately, these usually only have a few very misguided members and once their backdoor funding dries up, the "preachers" close up shop and skip town.


Well, you see now, there you go. If you scrutinize a few- even if the scrutiny seems justifiable- you're inevitably going to get (not entirely unfounded) accusations of persecution.

Like I said, sounds like a wonderful idea... on paper.
 
2012-11-05 01:40:02 PM  
Just for the record, if anyone brings up anything political in an LDS church meeting, they are politely ignored, and then told off later, unless they dont get the hint, in which case they are told off publically. Except for the really really old people. We sometimes let them rant (still ignoring them) but forego the "telling-off" because, well, they are old.

About the most political thing Ive heard is this election cycle is "'Im more of a Hunstman mormon than a Romney mormon"

You do see plenty of Romney and Obama bumper stickers in the parking lots though.
 
2012-11-05 01:43:54 PM  
I don't know about you, but the people who go to retail establishments during busy hours and then jam everything up by claiming they are 'tax exempt' really butters my bread. Like wtf... you own a church so you just get to skip taxes on your retail purchases...the computer doesn't have a readily available option for 'remove tax' ..it's usually burried in the system somewhere deep so employees don't abuse it....then if you can actually find the option in the system it doesn't work...or there is still a few cents tax on there that the person won't pay... Then you have to call management who calls their bosses who say something along the lines of 'send us your birth certificate and church license via the post office and then we can take the $1.28 off your bill...please continue to remain in line while this process occurs.
 
2012-11-05 01:44:23 PM  
In my Catholic church they most political thing they've done is complain about the HHS mandate.

Read a downstate interview with a AME (I think) pastor who was annoyed about disinterested voters in his church so he said he's been preaching about voting for Obama for a month to get people fired up.
 
2012-11-05 01:46:01 PM  
i18.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-05 01:48:18 PM  
Going after churches now. Wow.
 
2012-11-05 01:48:50 PM  
I never saw any justification for allowing church income tax exempt status to begin with. Church charities like food banks and shelters, sure those are CHARITIES and would be exempt, but the CHURCH is a for profit organization. The church should pay the same income tax as any other small business.
 
2012-11-05 01:50:14 PM  

enry: Yeah, I stood up in church during the announcement part of our service. I happened to be on the Altar at the time, as I was a LEM (Lay Eucharistic Minister) and had my garb on.

I stood up and said "Get out and vote. I don't care who you vote for, but there's more than just the presidential election on the ballot and there's plenty of things that will affect you or someone you know. If you can't make it to your polling place, tell me and I'll drive you there myself."

And then I sat down and that was that.

Why can't other churches do it that way?


Because when you get right down to it, George Carlin was right - religion is about mind control and money.

I do not begrudge others their belief in God/Allah/Yahweh/Whatever, but being a function of man any church has the ability fallible, corrupt, and greedy. I'm not saying every church is. There are some fantastic people out there who can rise above money and politics to do the right thing, but they seem increasingly fewer.
 
2012-11-05 01:50:55 PM  

Teresaol31: I never saw any justification for allowing church income tax exempt status to begin with.


I've rarely seen that churches much mind running themselves like businesses, no. Walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...
 
2012-11-05 01:51:02 PM  

Hrist: You can't buy beer in liquor stores here because there's the temptation that some beer drinkers might turn to liquor. Cut and dry, religiously motivated, it's out. You can't buy non-alcoholic products here from liquor stores because then it would be a convenience for people and thus a temptation to turn to liquor. Cut and dry, religiously motivated, it's out. Liquor licenses are not granted within so many thousands of feet from a school/bus stop/church/etc.


I think there's a difference between laws advocated by people who are also members of a religion (or who share some of the same societal values as a religion) and religiously motivated laws. You don't have to be pro-God to be anti-drunk.
 
2012-11-05 01:51:46 PM  

Teresaol31: but the CHURCH is a for profit organization.

 
2012-11-05 01:53:12 PM  

ISO15693: Teresaol31: but the CHURCH is a for profit organization.

farm3.static.flickr.com
 
2012-11-05 01:53:20 PM  

Spade: In my Catholic church they most political thing they've done is complain about the HHS mandate.

Read a downstate interview with a AME (I think) pastor who was annoyed about disinterested voters in his church so he said he's been preaching about voting for Obama for a month to get people fired up.


in the catholic church where i occasionally attend services, the most political they've been is to say, let's pray that our politicians do good and help those in need.

/ though i'm not a catholic, not confirmed, etc, I appreciate the services at this church.
// still not sure if it's better to wait in line and say no to communion (cross your arms, or whatever), or just keep sitting there like the heathen that i am.
 
2012-11-05 01:55:33 PM  

MurphyMurphy: Just get rid of their tax exempt status.

God understands, otherwise he wouldn't have told you to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.

Problem solved.


Ding don't ding...I am thinking 5% of gross take in is appropriate.
 
2012-11-05 01:55:46 PM  
Be careful what you wish for. I'll just leave this here...
bfl-app-content.s3.amazonaws.comglobetribune.infowww.infiniteunknown.netassets.nydailynews.com
 
2012-11-05 01:57:47 PM  

tjfly: Be careful what you wish for. I'll just leave this here...
[bfl-app-content.s3.amazonaws.com image 484x312][globetribune.info image 400x301][www.infiniteunknown.net image 300x415][assets.nydailynews.com image 485x376]


Now you pick that up right now, and put it back where you got it!
 
2012-11-05 01:59:08 PM  

Lord Dimwit: Tax Boy: I used to litigate these back in the day on behalf of the government. They're usually brought to the IRS's attention by whistleblowers with an axe to grind ("I'm mad at my preacher!") or Americans United.

The IRS hates to litigate them because of the negative publicity -- the IRS going after your church? Ugh.

Yeah, but it's not like the IRS has ever had positive publicity anyway.


Its kinda like a turds Polish wearing off...
 
2012-11-05 01:59:09 PM  

devildog123: scottydoesntknow: Was the 'Obvious' tag busy instructing its congregation that voting for Obama will usher in the apocalypse?

You've obviously never been to an AME church before election day. They had Obama posters up behind the pulpit this year.


Obviously a conscious trollface attempt aimed at any IRS agents in attendance.
/comatmebro.jpg
 
2012-11-05 01:59:47 PM  
 
2012-11-05 02:01:21 PM  

ISO15693: Just for the record, if anyone brings up anything political in an LDS church meeting, they are politely ignored, and then told off later, unless they dont get the hint, in which case they are told off publically. Except for the really really old people. We sometimes let them rant (still ignoring them) but forego the "telling-off" because, well, they are old.

About the most political thing Ive heard is this election cycle is "'Im more of a Hunstman mormon than a Romney mormon"

You do see plenty of Romney and Obama bumper stickers in the parking lots though.


I'm gonna guess you're not inside the Zion Curtain. Different breed of animal resides there.
 
2012-11-05 02:01:39 PM  

Tax Boy: I used to litigate these back in the day on behalf of the government. They're usually brought to the IRS's attention by whistleblowers with an axe to grind ("I'm mad at my preacher!") or Americans United.

The IRS hates to litigate them because of the negative publicity -- the IRS going after your church? Ugh.


The IRS is the best group to do this. Who likes the IRS in the first place?
 
2012-11-05 02:04:46 PM  
FTA:
The Billy Graham Evangelistic Association has recently taken out full-page ads in major newspapers, featuring a photo of renowned evangelist Billy Graham, urging Americans to vote along biblical principles.
This Sunday, Roman Catholic Bishop Daniel Jenky of Peoria, Ill., ordered all the priests in his diocese to read a statement urging Catholics to vote and stating that, "Catholic politicians, bureaucrats, and their electoral supporters who callously enable the destruction of innocent human life in the womb also thereby reject Jesus as their Lord."

These don't threaten charitable status. Both organizations are big enough to have lawyers who know how to walk up to the line without crossing it.
...40 percent of black Protestants who attend worship services regularly said their clergy have discussed a specific candidate in church -- and the candidate in every instance was President Barack Obama.

This does cross the line, but like most easy to prosecute instances of political activity it's concentrated in African American chruches, and it would be quite politically inconvenient for the IRS to start taking away the tax deductability of churches that are almost entirely aligned with only a single party.
 
2012-11-05 02:05:45 PM  
Either pay taxes or pray for rain when your building catches on fire.
 
2012-11-05 02:07:11 PM  

elguerodiablo: Tax Boy: I used to litigate these back in the day on behalf of the government. They're usually brought to the IRS's attention by whistleblowers with an axe to grind ("I'm mad at my preacher!") or Americans United.

The IRS hates to litigate them because of the negative publicity -- the IRS going after your church? Ugh.

The IRS is the best group to do this. Who likes the IRS in the first place?


I liked the IRS before it was cool.
 
2012-11-05 02:08:50 PM  

meanmutton: BarleyGnome: I truly despise organized religion.

I'm an atheist and I'm quite happy to have organized religion. Even if you set aside the amazing music and art from the Renaissance that came out of Christianity and just focus on the modern, you have -- the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, Habitat for Humanity, Catholic Relief Services, tons of hospitals and schools, food banks, homeless shelters, and tons of other service related charities.


Christianity did not create those things, people did, it's just one of many ways to get groups of people together to sponsor and do things like that. We still have people making fantastic music, art, and doing charity without religion. Also, the Renaissance was not a Christian movement, it was more of an intellectual humanist movement, and there was a lot of great art and music that came out of that time that was not Christian or even religious at all. I like to imagine how much more awesome the music and art of the past could have been if more of it had been commissioned by secular organizations instead of religious ones, and artists felt free to express ideas that may have conflicted with whatever church was in power at that time.
 
2012-11-05 02:13:06 PM  
"In Texas, a pastor of a small independent church posted a sign on the front of the building that read, 'Vote for the Mormon, not the Muslim.' Romney is the first Mormon nominee for president by a major party. "

Not that anyone is counting; but Joseph Smith, founder of the Church of Latter-Day Saints ran as independent in the 1844 election. Part of his platform was to annex part of Texas.

So take that Texas!
 
2012-11-05 02:13:12 PM  

Ehcks: [wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com image 600x776]


Yesssssss......do this. If you are religious enough to skip voting and pray, I'm ok with it. Please, I encourage you to stay home and pray and watch the 700 Club or whatever you religious people do nowadays.
 
2012-11-05 02:16:25 PM  

phartman: In other news, taxation of expatriates continues unabated.

Taxation without representation is tyranny"


As an American living in Canada, I am not getting a kick out of expatriate taxation.
 
2012-11-05 02:16:38 PM  

elguerodiablo: The IRS is the best group to do this. Who likes the IRS in the first place?


Even the IRS is concerned about running into a group large enough to vote them out of existence.
 
2012-11-05 02:16:58 PM  

HortusMatris: Christianity did not create those things, people did, it's just one of many ways to get groups of people together to sponsor and do things like that.


Catholic Relief Services wasn't a product of religion? Wow.
 
2012-11-05 02:17:15 PM  

Miss Stein: ISO15693: Just for the record, if anyone brings up anything political in an LDS church meeting, they are politely ignored, and then told off later, unless they dont get the hint, in which case they are told off publically. Except for the really really old people. We sometimes let them rant (still ignoring them) but forego the "telling-off" because, well, they are old.

About the most political thing Ive heard is this election cycle is "'Im more of a Hunstman mormon than a Romney mormon"

You do see plenty of Romney and Obama bumper stickers in the parking lots though.

I'm gonna guess you're not inside the Zion Curtain. Different breed of animal resides there.


I am.

Unless things have changed drastically in the last ten years, no one bothers with politics from the pulpit.
Why should they? They are going to see all those people 2-3 more times that week in much less formal settings, when they aren't snoozing or picking cheerios off the floor.
Even then, except for a few spots in salt lake county and near park city the republican is going to win.
It's only a question of by how much.
 
2012-11-05 02:18:09 PM  

HortusMatris: I like to imagine how much more awesome the music and art of the past could have been if more of it had been commissioned by secular organizations instead of religious ones, and artists felt free to express ideas that may have conflicted with whatever church was in power at that time.


Take a look at civic art from those periods. It's not much different.

It's never been safe for artists to anger their patrons, regardless of who they may be.
 
2012-11-05 02:19:33 PM  

HortusMatris: Also, the Renaissance was not a Christian movement, it was more of an intellectual humanist movement, and there was a lot of great art and music that came out of that time that was not Christian or even religious at all.


Now, the Dark Ages that preceded it...
 
2012-11-05 02:20:46 PM  

Sticky Hands: Miss Stein: ISO15693: Just for the record, if anyone brings up anything political in an LDS church meeting, they are politely ignored, and then told off later, unless they dont get the hint, in which case they are told off publically. Except for the really really old people. We sometimes let them rant (still ignoring them) but forego the "telling-off" because, well, they are old.

About the most political thing Ive heard is this election cycle is "'Im more of a Hunstman mormon than a Romney mormon"

You do see plenty of Romney and Obama bumper stickers in the parking lots though.

I'm gonna guess you're not inside the Zion Curtain. Different breed of animal resides there.

I am.

Unless things have changed drastically in the last ten years, no one bothers with politics from the pulpit.
Why should they? They are going to see all those people 2-3 more times that week in much less formal settings, when they aren't snoozing or picking cheerios off the floor.
Even then, except for a few spots in salt lake county and near park city the republican is going to win.
It's only a question of by how much.


Things -have- changed drastically in the last decade. Nice to see you've come out from under that rock. Now try to keep up.
 
2012-11-05 02:21:25 PM  

STRYPERSWINE: Going after churches now. Wow.


So much fail in only four words. Wow.
 
2012-11-05 02:21:44 PM  

meanmutton: I'm an atheist and I'm quite happy to have organized religion. Even if you set aside the amazing music and art from the Renaissance that came out of Christianity and just focus on the modern, you have -- the Red Cross, the Salvation Army, Habitat for Humanity, Catholic Relief Services, tons of hospitals and schools, food banks, homeless shelters, and tons of other service related charities.


I don't think anyone is arguing against organization. I'm pretty sure the complaint lies in the "religion" side of things. None of the things you named require religion to function, and making it part of the mission is a distraction from the goals and works you admire. Some of those charities require participation in the religion side of things in order to receive benefits; it's less common today than it was in the 15th century, but it's still a problem that undermines the otherwise good work these sorts of organizations are doing.
 
2012-11-05 02:21:55 PM  

Boeheimian Rhapsody: not so csb:

My wife and I were on our honeymoon in Hawaii a couple weeks ago when we attended an open-aired sunday morning Episcopal church service. Things were going rather swimmingly until the sermon.

The preacher ended his sermon with:

...I recently had a meeting with numerous other religious leaders. many different races, colors, religions, all present for a lunch-time discussion. We wanted to come together to brainstorm more ways we can help those who need it most. We talked about many things, but the overarching message, was to help figure out what more we can do to help influence public policy.

He ended his sermon with a smile and a nod, and my wife and I looked at each other with mirrored expressions, "WTF? DID HE REALLY JUST SAY THAT?"

And that's when we looked around everyone else was nodding their heads.

It gave me a sad for this country.


You must have really hated it when those baptist churches in the african american community organized a boycott against the poor bus companies.
 
2012-11-05 02:26:52 PM  
mrmorgans13english.pbworks.com

/hot like the cries of unwanted rape babies
 
2012-11-05 02:29:39 PM  

Hrist: Here's my opinion:

What should happen is that the government and religion should be 100% separated. Federal, state, and local governments. No special treatment. No tax breaks aside from 'non profit' to those churches and such that can apply.


From what I understand (I am not a lawyer), the reason religious activities are tax exempt is at least in part because of the separation of government and religion. The Supreme Court decided in 1970 that taxing churches would be a bigger violation of the establishment clause than not taxing them.

All laws should be examined for religious motivation. For example, alcohol laws. You can't buy liquor here on Sunday. Cut and dry, religiously motivated, it's out. You can't buy beer in liquor stores here because there's the temptation that some beer drinkers might turn to liquor. Cut and dry, religiously motivated, it's out. You can't buy non-alcoholic products here from liquor stores because then it would be a convenience for people and thus a temptation to turn to liquor. Cut and dry, religiously motivated, it's out. Liquor licenses are not granted within so many thousands of feet from a school/bus stop/church/etc. Religiously motivated, it's out. No gay marriage here. Religiously motivated, it's out. Etc. Etc. Those are all the ones I could think of within 30 seconds, and would change the way of life around these parts drastically.

Oh, the irony..


Yeah, I'll let the good Stanley Fish explain the problem with that scheme.
 
2012-11-05 02:32:08 PM  

MurphyMurphy: Just get rid of their tax exempt status.

God understands, otherwise he wouldn't have told you to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.

Problem solved.


I'd like to see a christian church official defend their tax exempt status when faced with this quote.
 
2012-11-05 02:32:43 PM  

phartman: In other news, taxation of expatriates continues unabated.

Taxation without representation is tyranny"


Well, we can still vote as expats. But I don't understand how the US has tax jurisdiction over me in my home in Europe. And what US services do I receive here, aside from an available embassy- which all other countries that do not tax expats operate.
 
2012-11-05 02:33:51 PM  
it's not like there's programs that could use the additional funding if we enforced the laws...
 
2012-11-05 02:37:40 PM  

Agent Smiths Laugh: TheOriginalEd: Sometimes.. I really dont like living here..

Okay, I give up. You humans are all doomed.


A church on the way to work has a big sign that says "Vote your God's Values"

Your guess is as good as mine.
 
2012-11-05 02:38:11 PM  
Tax them already.
 
2012-11-05 02:38:17 PM  

TaxChurchesFundNASA: it's not like there's programs that could use the additional funding if we enforced the laws...


I like the way you think....
/and you handle
 
2012-11-05 02:39:15 PM  
What I really hate about this issue is that the IRS code says very clearly that "if you want to be treated as a tax exempt organization for the purposes of charity, you must do so in a particular manner" and some of these church pastors, who spend every Sunday preaching about how we need to live lives with integrity and purpose to please God, then say, "I don't want to follow that rule, so it doesn't apply to me" and actually willfully break the rules so they can endorse candidates and say nonsense about the candidates they don't like.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised, since these same pastors tend to pick and choose which parts of the Bible they want to follow and which they want to ignore, but it really grates on me that they behave this way. Is it too much to ask that those who are preaching morality actually follow through on their own personal morals?
 
2012-11-05 02:39:49 PM  

Aidan: Agent Smiths Laugh: TheOriginalEd: Sometimes.. I really dont like living here..

Okay, I give up. You humans are all doomed.

A church on the way to work has a big sign that says "Vote your God's Values"

Your guess is as good as mine.


Are they flat out saying that God's values aren't yours? In that case, I'm not voting for that guy!

/What's he running for again?
 
2012-11-05 02:40:13 PM  

tjfly: Be careful what you wish for. I'll just leave this here...
[bfl-app-content.s3.amazonaws.com image 484x312][globetribune.info image 400x301][www.infiniteunknown.net image 300x415][assets.nydailynews.com image 485x376]


ERMAGERD ITS DER COLORED FOLK!!! QUICK HIDE ARE YOUR FREEDOMS BEFORES THEY TAKES DEM AWAYS!!!
 
2012-11-05 02:41:25 PM  

orlandomagik: MurphyMurphy: Just get rid of their tax exempt status.

God understands, otherwise he wouldn't have told you to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.

Problem solved.

I'd like to see a christian church official defend their tax exempt status when faced with this quote.


God lives in Rome.
 
2012-11-05 02:43:12 PM  

scopecreep: Either pay taxes or pray for rain when your building catches on fire.


That's cute, but publicly funded fire departments aren't just trying to save the structure or whatever that's on fire. They're trying to keep the fire from spreading.
 
2012-11-05 02:45:12 PM  

factoryconnection: HortusMatris: Christianity did not create those things, people did, it's just one of many ways to get groups of people together to sponsor and do things like that.

Catholic Relief Services wasn't a product of religion? Wow.


Catholic Relief Services is it's own sentient entity, capable of magically making good deeds happen without any action from individual human beings? Are all religious organizations able to do this kind of thing? Interesting... I may have to create a religious organization to do my housework for me, then.
 
2012-11-05 02:51:30 PM  
Maybe because the law was made by the Johnson administration, whom have stated repeatedly that they never even imagined the law was to even supposed to apply to churches when they wrote it. That and it is completely unconstitutional. Probably for those reasons dumbmitter.
 
2012-11-05 02:54:16 PM  

orlandomagik: MurphyMurphy: Just get rid of their tax exempt status.

God understands, otherwise he wouldn't have told you to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.

Problem solved.

I'd like to see a christian church official defend their tax exempt status when faced with this quote.


I'm not an "official" by any means, but I am a Christian, and I dutifully pay all the taxes I owe. As far as I know, the church I attend complies with all relevant laws, and none of its compensated employees have been arrested for tax fraud.

Did I do okay?
 
2012-11-05 02:56:41 PM  

Miss Stein: ISO15693: Just for the record, if anyone brings up anything political in an LDS church meeting, they are politely ignored, and then told off later, unless they dont get the hint, in which case they are told off publically. Except for the really really old people. We sometimes let them rant (still ignoring them) but forego the "telling-off" because, well, they are old.

About the most political thing Ive heard is this election cycle is "'Im more of a Hunstman mormon than a Romney mormon"

You do see plenty of Romney and Obama bumper stickers in the parking lots though.

I'm gonna guess you're not inside the Zion Curtain. Different breed of animal resides there.


I live in California, you are right.

I lived in Salt Lake during the 2000 election though (as well as the 1999 tornado... ), and yeah, there were some "Jesus is a republican" types there. But thats location derpyness more than church derpyness. You'll also find the "Evolution is satan's trick" depytype there - but that's completely against the church's position too, and those people get told off as well. I've never seen a bishop or anyone in authority act that way.

The only LDS ward Ive ever been in that tolerated political preaching was in Columbia Falls, Montana which was ALL old people. There really is a concerted effort to keep that stuff out of church, imho.
 
2012-11-05 02:57:04 PM  

tjfly: Be careful what you wish for. I'll just leave this here...
[bfl-app-content.s3.amazonaws.com image 484x312][globetribune.info image 400x301][www.infiniteunknown.net image 300x415][assets.nydailynews.com image 485x376]


I'm guessing most folks have your racist ass on ignore.
 
2012-11-05 02:57:42 PM  

Son of Thunder: Boeheimian Rhapsody: not so csb:

My wife and I were on our honeymoon in Hawaii a couple weeks ago when we attended an open-aired sunday morning Episcopal church service. Things were going rather swimmingly until the sermon.

The preacher ended his sermon with:

...I recently had a meeting with numerous other religious leaders. many different races, colors, religions, all present for a lunch-time discussion. We wanted to come together to brainstorm more ways we can help those who need it most. We talked about many things, but the overarching message, was to help figure out what more we can do to help influence public policy.

He ended his sermon with a smile and a nod, and my wife and I looked at each other with mirrored expressions, "WTF? DID HE REALLY JUST SAY THAT?"

And that's when we looked around everyone else was nodding their heads.

It gave me a sad for this country.

Well, we wouldn't want religious people infecting public policy with their religious ideas. Right, William Wilberforce? Right, MLK Jr?


Worked for the French Catholics against the Huguenots....

I mean, Canada would definitely enjoy the influx of skilled workers that flee the country in droves....
 
2012-11-05 02:59:08 PM  
perhaps not enforcing it because this court would rule it an unconstitutional restraint on speech. the government can't condition the grant of a benefit on relinquishing a constitutionally guaranteed civil right and this is a good thing, people. it's why the government couldn't condition the grant of food stamps on the implantation of a norplant device. this is supposedly a progressive ideal, and it shows just how many liberal farkers are among the furthest thing progressive idealists. it is a unconstitutional condition if ever one existed.


even though a person has no "right" to a valuable governmental
benefit and even though the government may deny him the
benefit for any number of reasons, there are some reasons upon
which the government may not rely. It may not deny a benefit to
a person on a basis that infringes his constitutionally protected
interests....
 
2012-11-05 02:59:09 PM  

ISO15693: Just for the record, if anyone brings up anything political in an LDS church meeting, they are politely ignored, and then told off later, unless they dont get the hint, in which case they are told off publically. Except for the really really old people. We sometimes let them rant (still ignoring them) but forego the "telling-off" because, well, they are old.

About the most political thing Ive heard is this election cycle is "'Im more of a Hunstman mormon than a Romney mormon"

You do see plenty of Romney and Obama bumper stickers in the parking lots though.


There was a little of that in sacrament meeting the last couple of Sundays, but very mild. I think the bishop politely invited them to cut that the hell out. It was all overshadowed by the organist (probably around 85 years old) deciding she just didn't like one of the songs, and so she just stopped playing and went back to her seat in the middle of the third verse. Worked for me... I don't like it, either. Old ladies rock!
 
2012-11-05 03:00:47 PM  
Maybe it's time to go old school and start blasting preachers from the pulpit with a Peacemaker?
 
2012-11-05 03:03:06 PM  

treesloth: ISO15693: Just for the record, if anyone brings up anything political in an LDS church meeting, they are politely ignored, and then told off later, unless they dont get the hint, in which case they are told off publically. Except for the really really old people. We sometimes let them rant (still ignoring them) but forego the "telling-off" because, well, they are old.

About the most political thing Ive heard is this election cycle is "'Im more of a Hunstman mormon than a Romney mormon"

You do see plenty of Romney and Obama bumper stickers in the parking lots though.

There was a little of that in sacrament meeting the last couple of Sundays, but very mild. I think the bishop politely invited them to cut that the hell out. It was all overshadowed by the organist (probably around 85 years old) deciding she just didn't like one of the songs, and so she just stopped playing and went back to her seat in the middle of the third verse. Worked for me... I don't like it, either. Old ladies rock!


I can imagine this sort of thing making fast and testimony meeting much more amusing than the toothless man rambling something about how awesome scouts was back in 1934, and the fat old woman listing her health problems.
 
2012-11-05 03:03:17 PM  
Let them keep the tax-exempt crap as long as they can show that at least 80% went directly to charitable causes. After that, I don't really care what some blowhard preacher says.
 
2012-11-05 03:08:53 PM  

Marine1: Let them keep the tax-exempt crap as long as they can show that at least 80% went directly to charitable causes. After that, I don't really care what some blowhard preacher says.


you'd end up taxing probably 90% of charitable organizations in the u.s., certainly every charitable hospital in the country, or 60% of all hospitals that are currently run as charities.
 
2012-11-05 03:12:47 PM  
wait 80% directly to charity? strike that, every ongoing charitable organization in the united states is now taxed corporate tax rates. I love when people know nothing about anything venture into conversations about how this country should be governed.
 
2012-11-05 03:12:53 PM  

super_grass: Englebert Slaptyback: A while ago Bill Maher opined that churches are indeed abusing the tax exemption, and if the church catches on fire the church people should not be allowed to call the fire department.

Liberal compassion at work.


It would be true if Bill Maher were a "liberal", whatever that means. Unless you're using the word "liberal" in the "I don't agree with them so I'll call them a liberal" sense.
 
2012-11-05 03:13:35 PM  
Instead of trying to watch what the churches say, they should just remove the tax-exempt status of all churches.

Problem solved.

/Both income, and property taxes.
 
2012-11-05 03:14:13 PM  

HortusMatris: Catholic Relief Services wasn't a product of religion? Wow.

Catholic Relief Services is it's own sentient entity, capable of magically making good deeds happen without any action from individual human beings? Are all religious organizations able to do this kind of thing? Interesting... I may have to create a religious organization to do my housework for me, then.


Yes, that's what I said: Catholic Relief Services is god. Except no, I didn't. Religion is a construct of man, and there are fruits from that construct. Those that founded and run CRS did not do so randomly; they were inspired, supported, and funded by their religion. Religion is 100% real, regardless of the theology/mythology behind it.

relcec: it is a unconstitutional condition if ever one existed.


The Constitution calls for us to be taxed. Churches exempt themselves from not only taxation but also any oversight into their non-profit claims. They call for an exemption to their constitutional duties, and yet whine when it comes at a price? They could open their books, act like a normal non-profit, and do as they please with regards to politics.

But they don't.
 
2012-11-05 03:15:05 PM  
What do you expect? The guy leading the IRS couldn't be bothered with paying taxes either
 
2012-11-05 03:15:06 PM  

TheOriginalEd: Sometimes.. I really dont like living here..


best part, they probably advocate for voting for the non-christian
 
2012-11-05 03:16:40 PM  

Rostin: orlandomagik: MurphyMurphy: Just get rid of their tax exempt status.

God understands, otherwise he wouldn't have told you to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.

Problem solved.

I'd like to see a christian church official defend their tax exempt status when faced with this quote.

I'm not an "official" by any means, but I am a Christian, and I dutifully pay all the taxes I owe. As far as I know, the church I attend complies with all relevant laws, and none of its compensated employees have been arrested for tax fraud.

Did I do okay?


I second this comment. All church members and employees have to pay their taxes, just like Jesus told them. The Jesus comment is also meant as a way to tell the disciples that compliance to Roman law is required, just like they are supposed to comply to what God is requiring of them. Since God is basically asking of the disciples to concentrate on the heavenly things and the great comission on Matthew 24, there should be little room for Christians to get involved in politics, or running for office, or trying to convince others to vote for a certain candidate.

That by definition rules out the need of a "Christian nation" or a "Leader according to God". We as Christians should be more concerned about showing the love of God on everything we do and sharing our faith to as many people as possible before the end of time. Anything else is a waste of time.

And don't even get me started on how the message of Christ spread like wildfire while the government had rulers that were doing gay, incest and pedophile activities in the open. Hint: we were nowhere near part of the government.
 
2012-11-05 03:17:37 PM  

Sticky Hands: I can imagine this sort of thing making fast and testimony meeting much more amusing than the toothless man rambling something about how awesome scouts was back in 1934, and the fat old woman listing her health problems.


That's pretty hard to beat, but I think I might have. When I was 8, I was in the annual Primary presentation in sacrament meeting. I happened to be sitting in the bishop's seat. In the middle of one of the songs, I power-puked all over myself and the seat. After that, Mom and Dad listened when I said I was feeling sick...
 
2012-11-05 03:20:02 PM  
I went to mass yesterday, not a word was said about the election.... maybe they forgot to bring it up?
 
2012-11-05 03:20:43 PM  

elgrancerdo: Rostin: orlandomagik: MurphyMurphy: Just get rid of their tax exempt status.

God understands, otherwise he wouldn't have told you to give to Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's.

Problem solved.

I'd like to see a christian church official defend their tax exempt status when faced with this quote.

I'm not an "official" by any means, but I am a Christian, and I dutifully pay all the taxes I owe. As far as I know, the church I attend complies with all relevant laws, and none of its compensated employees have been arrested for tax fraud.

Did I do okay?

I second this comment. All church members and employees have to pay their taxes, just like Jesus told them. The Jesus comment is also meant as a way to tell the disciples that compliance to Roman law is required, just like they are supposed to comply to what God is requiring of them. Since God is basically asking of the disciples to concentrate on the heavenly things and the great comission on Matthew 24, there should be little room for Christians to get involved in politics, or running for office, or trying to convince others to vote for a certain candidate.

That by definition rules out the need of a "Christian nation" or a "Leader according to God". We as Christians should be more concerned about showing the love of God on everything we do and sharing our faith to as many people as possible before the end of time. Anything else is a waste of time.

And don't even get me started on how the message of Christ spread like wildfire while the government had rulers that were doing gay, incest and pedophile activities in the open. Hint: we were nowhere near part of the government.


"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
 
2012-11-05 03:21:02 PM  

factoryconnection: relcec: it is a unconstitutional condition if ever one existed.

The Constitution calls for us to be taxed. Churches exempt themselves from not only taxation but also any oversight into their non-profit claims. They call for an exemption to their constitutional duties, and yet whine when it comes at a price? They could open their books, act like a normal non-profit, and do as they please with regards to politics.

But they don't.


first paying taxes is not a constitutional duty.
second you claim that nonprofits don't have to file taxes and submit accounting each year to the irs is laughable.
third you don't even appear to know what unconstitutional condition means.
are you a 16-19 years old and a highschool or community college student? if not you should be embarrassed by your lack of even a basic civic foundation or any idea how necessary to enter into this discussion
 
2012-11-05 03:31:44 PM  

Sticky Hands: treesloth: ISO15693: Just for the record, if anyone brings up anything political in an LDS church meeting, they are politely ignored, and then told off later, unless they dont get the hint, in which case they are told off publically. Except for the really really old people. We sometimes let them rant (still ignoring them) but forego the "telling-off" because, well, they are old.

About the most political thing Ive heard is this election cycle is "'Im more of a Hunstman mormon than a Romney mormon"

You do see plenty of Romney and Obama bumper stickers in the parking lots though.

There was a little of that in sacrament meeting the last couple of Sundays, but very mild. I think the bishop politely invited them to cut that the hell out. It was all overshadowed by the organist (probably around 85 years old) deciding she just didn't like one of the songs, and so she just stopped playing and went back to her seat in the middle of the third verse. Worked for me... I don't like it, either. Old ladies rock!

I can imagine this sort of thing making fast and testimony meeting much more amusing than the toothless man rambling something about how awesome scouts was back in 1934, and the fat old woman listing her health problems.


Lol.

There was a crazy old woman in Dunedin, NZ, that bore her testimony about being engaged to Elvis, and we were all invited.
 
2012-11-05 03:37:19 PM  

ISO15693: There was a crazy old woman in Dunedin, NZ, that bore her testimony about being engaged to Elvis, and we were all invited.


There was an old lady in CA that had sort of lost the ability to tell when she was talking out loud or in her own head. After about 15 minutes of any one person talking, a sweet little old lady voice would float up from the congregation, "My heavens, he's still talking. Isn't he done?" and so on. Awesome...
 
2012-11-05 03:39:22 PM  

JackieRabbit: SkunkWerks: All that said, it really doesn't sound very practical in terms of enforcement. Short of being exceedingly invasive of religious organizations, i don't see how enforcement could be accomplished.

Actually, it is rather easy to enforce. Ministers may offer prayers (intercessions) to political leaders, candidates, etc, but they cannot preach politics from the pulpit and retain their tax exempt status. If they tell their congregation that they should vote for candidate A because candidate B supports the sin of homosexuality, they have they have just violated the law. The IRS only investigates complaints. They don't go after every church out there. Many Christians are highly offended by their religion being politicized. On the other hand, there are many small storefront "churches" out there that aren't churches at all, but political operatives using the church as a cover. I know of a few that were popped by the IRS and essentially shut down. Fortunately, these usually only have a few very misguided members and once their backdoor funding dries up, the "preachers" close up shop and skip town.


Wow! Did not know that. I actually thought this could happen theoretically, and wondered why it wasn't more of a concern amongst the faithful rather than the reverse. It really shouldn't be the atheist/left/liberal worried about this stuff. Do they really want their church turning into campain headquarters?
 
2012-11-05 03:40:24 PM  
factoryconnection:
HortusMatris: "Catholic Relief Services is it's own sentient entity, capable of magically making good deeds happen without any action from individual human beings? Are all religious organizations able to do this kind of thing? Interesting... I may have to create a religious organization to do my housework for me, then."

Religion is a construct of man,


At first I thought you completely missed my point, but then I see you made it for me. I wasn't saying religion isn't real, it's just as real as any other belief system or organization. I was stressing the fact that it is the human beings who comprise it who are the doers of good deeds (as well as bad ones sometimes), not religion itself.
 
2012-11-05 03:44:02 PM  
Tell you what, Mr. "The First Amendment Don't Mean Jack To Me"

You prosecute this guy to the fullest extent of the law, then we'll talk ...

vladtepesblog.com

... and him ...

media.commercialappeal.com

... and this guy ...

aug-cdn.com

... and all the leadership of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference (SCLS) who preached Civil Rights Movement and all attendent politics from the pulpit.

heavenlysprings.files.wordpress.com

... and the Founding of the Nation by whose Constitution guarantees the right to free speech and peaceful assembly via the First Amendment, because without liberty-minded preachers, preaching Revolution from the pulpit mirroring Patrick Henry, Madison, Jefferson, et al inter-alia, you wouldn't have any free speech.

upload.wikimedia.org

So, surely you're not arguing for selective free speech are you?
 
2012-11-05 03:45:25 PM  

Hrist: Here's my opinion:

What should happen is that the government and religion should be 100% separated. Federal, state, and local governments. No special treatment. No tax breaks aside from 'non profit' to those churches and such that can apply.

All laws should be examined for religious motivation. For example, alcohol laws. You can't buy liquor here on Sunday. Cut and dry, religiously motivated, it's out. You can't buy beer in liquor stores here because there's the temptation that some beer drinkers might turn to liquor. Cut and dry, religiously motivated, it's out. You can't buy non-alcoholic products here from liquor stores because then it would be a convenience for people and thus a temptation to turn to liquor. Cut and dry, religiously motivated, it's out. Liquor licenses are not granted within so many thousands of feet from a school/bus stop/church/etc. Religiously motivated, it's out. No gay marriage here. Religiously motivated, it's out. Etc. Etc. Those are all the ones I could think of within 30 seconds, and would change the way of life around these parts drastically.

Oh, the irony..


I occasionally point out that you can't ban gay marriage because God because we do not give a fark about God in the legal system. Seriously, my constitution professor was very clear on her distaste for that, and since she's an ex-lawyer\law professor...

/I love that class in hindsight
 
2012-11-05 03:48:49 PM  

relcec: second you claim that nonprofits don't have to file taxes and submit accounting each year to the irs is laughable.


I didn't claim that. Churches do not have to justify their non-profit status, unlike secular non-profits. That is a huge difference.

relcec: third you don't even appear to know what unconstitutional condition means.


Yes I do. Show me the supreme court decision that supports your original claim. They are in fact the arbiters of constitutionality.

relcec: first paying taxes is not a constitutional duty


I'm beginning to think that I'm barking up the wrong tree here. Taxation is enshrined in the constitution: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."

Churches have an exemption from taxation regardless of holdings, income, or profit which makes them entirely unique. They are shielded by this exception from normal participation in society. Religion is thus given special, governmental privilege while also suffering a unique loss of unlimited freedom of speech, specifically the part about coercing people's votes. However, if they played by the rules of regular non-profits, they'd be fully able to endorse and reject candidates like the rest of society.

Instead they take their tax-exempt cake and eat it too.
 
2012-11-05 04:02:07 PM  
scottydoesntknow

Was the 'Obvious' tag busy instructing its congregation that voting for Obama will usher in the apocalypse?
Riiight all churches are members of the far right wing conspiracy.

www.muldrake.com

www4.pictures.gi.zimbio.com

media.al.com

4.bp.blogspot.com

i80.photobucket.com

scm-l3.technorati.com

2.bp.blogspot.com

msnbcmedia2.msn.com

www.saintsunit.org

i80.photobucket.com

www.digitaljournal.com

www.memphisdailynews.com

blog.thephoenix.com

www.freedomsphoenix.com

educationviews.org

msnbcmedia1.msn.com

... yeah yeah I know...... it's ONLY bad when the other guy does it.
 
2012-11-05 04:02:29 PM  
If only there were some way the IRS could be financially incentivized to do this duty.

/I said duty.
 
2012-11-05 04:23:47 PM  
So, all you Republicans who are posting pictures of Obama, et al, in church....you are I'm sure just as OUTRAGED to find out that Romney paid no taxes from 1996 to 2009, because he "rented" the tax exempt status of the Mormon Church?
 
2012-11-05 04:25:05 PM  
So as for American Christian's isn't lying a sin?
 
2012-11-05 04:29:45 PM  
I've always thought that the problem with taxing churches is that they'll immediately incorporate and you'll have the same pseudo-personhood issues you have with any large corporations today, which would basically open the doors for churches to explicitly fund campaigns, buy advertising time, etc. etc. etc.
 
2012-11-05 04:30:52 PM  

factoryconnection: relcec: second you claim that nonprofits don't have to file taxes and submit accounting each year to the irs is laughable.

I didn't claim that. Churches do not have to justify their non-profit status, unlike secular non-profits. That is a huge difference.

yes you did claim that. where do you think any and all justification for non profit status happens? at tax time.
and let me say if you truly believe this you are hopelessly ignorant on the matters you are trying to discuss. what do you think happens, the church says *fark off I'm a church* on april 15th? that secular non profits must show something other than that they aren't throwing off income to people who hold proprietary interests. do you really think the girl scouts or ACLU have to justify their non profit status in some other way on a yearly basis? tell me how this looks in your fantasy world. tell me how you think this justification works in the real world, and how old are you? you know about as much about how this world works as my goddamn cat. do you see my f*cking cat inhere pontificating about legal theory and tax law? wouldn't you be happier chasing a bottle cap back forth across a floor somewhere?



relcec: third you don't even appear to know what unconstitutional condition means.

Yes I do. Show me the supreme court decision that supports your original claim. They are in fact the arbiters of constitutionality.

no you clearly don't; you keep insisting that all the church needs to do is jump through government hoops and then their constitutionally guaranteed rights will be restored, when the goddam legal doctrine I'm quoting (unconstitutional condition doctrine) and you highlighted in your reply proscribes the exact process you are advocating, it prohibits the governments very ability to induce citizens to give up constitutionally guaranteed rights through incentives which is what you keep saying is kosher.

relcec: first paying taxes is not a constitutional duty

I'm beginning to think that I'm barking up the wrong tree here. Taxation is enshrined in the constitution: "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States."


this is your quote smart guy: "They call for an exemption to their constitutional duties, (paying taxes)"
 
2012-11-05 04:31:51 PM  

Clemkadidlefark: Tell you what, Mr. "The First Amendment Don't Mean Jack To Me"

You prosecute this guy to the fullest extent of the law, then we'll talk ...
...
So, surely you're not arguing for selective free speech are you?


Of course not, they can say whatever they want. They just can't claim to be tax exempt afterwards.

I'm still mystified why NOT taxing churches is constitutional. In order to apply that law, the government must determine that the church is actually a religious organization. In doing that, the first amendment is violated, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." I mean, if they have to acknowledged its standing as a religious organization in order to impart special treatments, isn't that tantamount to being the authority responsible for determining if a given religion is considered 'established' or not.

So, the way to truly deal with this within the scope of the constitution is to treat religious non-profits exactly the same as non-religious ones. That means their special exceptions go *poof*
 
2012-11-05 04:32:58 PM  
All private areas must be taxed no matter what. Someone might say something their that might make liberals lose an election.
 
2012-11-05 04:34:06 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Clemkadidlefark: Tell you what, Mr. "The First Amendment Don't Mean Jack To Me"

You prosecute this guy to the fullest extent of the law, then we'll talk ...
...
So, surely you're not arguing for selective free speech are you?

Of course not, they can say whatever they want. They just can't claim to be tax exempt afterwards.

I'm still mystified why NOT taxing churches is constitutional. In order to apply that law, the government must determine that the church is actually a religious organization. In doing that, the first amendment is violated, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." I mean, if they have to acknowledged its standing as a religious organization in order to impart special treatments, isn't that tantamount to being the authority responsible for determining if a given religion is considered 'established' or not.

So, the way to truly deal with this within the scope of the constitution is to treat religious non-profits exactly the same as non-religious ones. That means their special exceptions go *poof*


wow.
 
2012-11-05 04:36:26 PM  

superfudge73: So as for American Christian's isn't lying a sin?


That depends.

Does "American Christian's isn't lying" mean "American Christian is isn't lying" or does it mean "isn't lying belongs to American Christian"?
 
2012-11-05 04:36:38 PM  

Samsquantch: phartman: In other news, taxation of expatriates continues unabated.

Taxation without representation is tyranny"

As an American living in Canada, I am not getting a kick out of expatriate taxation.


Same here, thankfully I make under 90,000 but I don't own any assets yet. With my Husband being Canadian I don't know how joint assets might work out.
 
2012-11-05 04:39:17 PM  

Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling: So, all you Republicans who are posting pictures of Obama, et al, in church....you are I'm sure just as OUTRAGED to find out that Romney paid no taxes from 1996 to 2009, because he "rented" the tax exempt status of the Mormon Church?


I don't think most Republicans are upset by the tax exempt status of churches or by people taking advantage of tax loopholes to hand less money to the government. What you're seeing here is people pointing out the hypocrisy of Democrats who, for example, whinge about social conservatives injecting their religion into politics, while giving their own side a pass.
 
2012-11-05 04:41:37 PM  
This "closed book, tax free" info makes me understand Mars Hill Church in Seattle recently. Mark Driscoll's wife drops down wads of cash for huge jems and etc at local luxury shops, but then the family pretends to need your money so bad, before putting up a financial report that is clearly forged by about ?$100 million? dollars less than what they actually collect (given their size and how pushy they are about donations.

We left (I only go because my gf is into that sort of thing).
 
2012-11-05 04:43:45 PM  

correct horse battery staple: Hrist: You can't buy beer in liquor stores here because there's the temptation that some beer drinkers might turn to liquor. Cut and dry, religiously motivated, it's out. You can't buy non-alcoholic products here from liquor stores because then it would be a convenience for people and thus a temptation to turn to liquor. Cut and dry, religiously motivated, it's out. Liquor licenses are not granted within so many thousands of feet from a school/bus stop/church/etc.

I think there's a difference between laws advocated by people who are also members of a religion (or who share some of the same societal values as a religion) and religiously motivated laws. You don't have to be pro-God to be anti-drunk.


There's a secular component to blue laws, as well as a religious one. Long ago, liquor stores were all small family businesses. Their owners wanted one day off a week, but feared losing sales. Solution: make everyone close one day a week. Sunday gets us the temperance vote? Fine.
 
2012-11-05 04:47:48 PM  
Because everyone in Congress is an elected official, and elected officials are scared shiatless of a bunch of pissed-off pastors, and the IRS exists at the pleasure of Congress - that's why.
 
2012-11-05 04:48:27 PM  
Meanwhile the also tax exempt united way is doing this

.....but no one cares, it's more fun to pick on Christians.
 
2012-11-05 04:48:30 PM  

ISO15693: ISO15693: Teresaol31: but the CHURCH is a for profit organization.
[farm3.static.flickr.com image 500x403]


All those preachers with fancy cars, and jets, and big houses, and Rolex watch collections did not receive those as gifts from God. God did not bequeath that material wealth to them. They got it from donations and books and revivals and what not.

So yeah... Teresaol31 is right... the church is a for profit organization. Because the only people who profit are the leaders. The flock are just sheep. And do they ever get fleeced.
 
2012-11-05 04:49:07 PM  

PreMortem: "A 2009 federal court ruling required the IRS to clarify which high-ranking official could authorize audits over the tax code's political rules. The IRS has yet to do so."


So basically, high ranking IRS officials are claiming the ol' "It's not MY job" line.

Enforce it or change the law.


Why? This has become a standard operating procedure in this country.
 
2012-11-05 04:55:24 PM  

RevMark: ISO15693: ISO15693: Teresaol31: but the CHURCH is a for profit organization.
[farm3.static.flickr.com image 500x403]

All those preachers with fancy cars, and jets, and big houses, and Rolex watch collections did not receive those as gifts from God. God did not bequeath that material wealth to them. They got it from donations and books and revivals and what not.

So yeah... Teresaol31 is right... the church is a for profit organization. Because the only people who profit are the leaders. The flock are just sheep. And do they ever get fleeced.


Okay. Not the LDS church, but maybe churches in general. As a former LDS stake financial clerk who had to audit the church a few times, I can say with authority that church leaders do not profit from donations.
 
2012-11-05 04:57:20 PM  
i296.photobucket.com

The Church of the SubGenius is the world's first industrial church. We pay taxes because we're not hypocrites about being in it for the money, unlike some others. *cough* everyone *cough*
 
2012-11-05 04:58:29 PM  

OnlyM3: scottydoesntknow

Was the 'Obvious' tag busy instructing its congregation that voting for Obama will usher in the apocalypse? Riiight all churches are members of the far right wing conspiracy.
... yeah yeah I know...... it's ONLY bad when the other guy does it.


I only scanned the comments quickly, but I don't see anyone saying it's ok for Compassionate Religious groups but not Conservative Religious groups. It's wrong for both, and if you are stupid enough to video yourself supporting any candidate as part of a sermon and posting it online or mailing it to the IRS, then you should loose your tax exempt status.

Now, I don't or care about your example photos, but if there is an endorsement by the church for a candidate, then they are WRONG. I suspect many of those photos are of appearances in churches but not sermons, or Reverends outside of services. The second may be a gray area subject to interpretation, but the other is WRONG and needs to come with a natural consequence.
 
2012-11-05 04:59:55 PM  

ChrisDe: [i18.photobucket.com image 550x412]


jesus was white

like an egg
 
2012-11-05 05:03:38 PM  

Jon iz teh kewl: ChrisDe: [i18.photobucket.com image 550x412]

jesus was white

like an egg


theheritagecook.com
 
2012-11-05 05:05:25 PM  

Nightsweat: Jon iz teh kewl: ChrisDe: [i18.photobucket.com image 550x412]

jesus was white

like an egg

[theheritagecook.com image 850x566]


www.themeparkinsider.com

/hot
 
2012-11-05 05:12:36 PM  
You could appoint a high school intern to go and record church sermons giving political lectures. Then you send an auditor with an invoice. The cost of the auditor and the intern would have to be, what, at worst half of the collection from the invoice(s) to justify the position? Sounds easy to me. The problem with government agencies is that people who run them don't know how to balance budgets.
 
2012-11-05 05:15:59 PM  
There was a point when they were trying?
 
2012-11-05 05:19:00 PM  
Reexamining the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions


Tomorrow, I will be speaking at the annual LSI Regulatory Takings conference about the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions. This doctrine holds that the government cannot condition the provision of a discretionary benefit (e.g., a permit, license, grant, contract, etc.) upon a requirement that a person give up a constitutionally protected right. And it was this doctrine that provided the basis for the "essential nexus" and "rough proportionality" regulatory takings tests of Nollan v. California Coastal Commission (1987) and Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994), which strictly limit the government's authority to condition permit approvals upon the dedication of private property to the public. I posit in my presentation that a better understanding of the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions holds the key to resolving many of the current controversies concerning Nollan and Dolan.

The modern unconstitutional conditions doctrine, which protects against compelled waiver of individual rights and liberties, looks very different from the doctrine adopted in the mid-19th century. The first wave of unconstitutional conditions cases responded to the rise of protectionist laws that imposed a variety of conditions on foreign companies seeking permission to do business in the state, such as waiving the right to have disputes heard by the federal courts and granting the state the right to tax out-of-state income and property.

The U.S. Supreme Court, however, did not intend for the doctrine to be so constrained. Throughout the Progressive Era, during which time the scale and scope of government regulations grew dramatically, the Court repeatedly signaled that a condition that sought a waiver of any of the privileges or individual rights secured by the U.S. Constitution will likely violate the doctrine. And by the 1920s, the Court applied the doctrine to invalidate a state regulation that required a company to waive rights protected by the Equal Protection and Takings Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, holding:

[T]he power of the state [...] is not unlimited; and one of the limitations is that it may not impose conditions which require relinquishment of constitutional rights. If the state may compel the surrender of one constitutional right as a condition of its favor, it may, compel a surrender of all. It is inconceivable that guarantees embedded in the Constitution of the United States may thus be manipulated out of existence.

Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm'n (1926) .

Since then, the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions has passed in and out of vogue, often reappearing in a flurry of decisions to curtail disturbing government forays into private affairs. For example, in the '40s to '50s, the doctrine was applied to invalidate state laws conditioning benefits (such as tax exemptions and government jobs) on the applicant taking a loyalty oath. In the '60s and '70s, the doctrine struck down laws conditioning access to unemployment benefits and other social benefit programs upon the waiver of religious freedoms, free speech, the right to travel, and other individual rights. And in the '80s and '90s, the doctrine invalidated government attempts to use the land use permit process to take private property without paying in the cases Nollan and Dolan...
 
2012-11-05 05:19:03 PM  

theredsea1: This "closed book, tax free" info makes me understand Mars Hill Church in Seattle recently. Mark Driscoll's wife drops down wads of cash for huge jems and etc at local luxury shops, but then the family pretends to need your money so bad, before putting up a financial report that is clearly forged by about ?$100 million? dollars less than what they actually collect (given their size and how pushy they are about donations.

We left (I only go because my gf is into that sort of thing).


I did a little googling to see if there were any stories in the local paper or whatever about this, but couldn't find any. Would you happen to have a link? I'm a Christian, and although I find Driscoll to be off-putting for a number of reasons, it's still disappointing to hear that he and/or his wife may have succumbed that much to mega-church pastor disease. I will say that I find an error of $100 million highly implausible. Wikipedia says that all of the Mars Hill campuses have a combined regular attendance of about 15,000 people. The church I attend has about 500 on a good Sunday, and our annual budget is in the neighborhood of $1.8 million. I'd be extremely surprised if the combined giving at Mars Hill came to $100 million, let alone that it's being misreported by that amount. (A video I found seems to imply that yearly giving comes to something like $22.4 million, which is a reasonable number, imo.)
 
2012-11-05 05:19:41 PM  

[T]he power of the state [...] is not unlimited; and one of the limitations is that it may not impose conditions which require relinquishment of constitutional rights. If the state may compel the surrender of one constitutional right as a condition of its favor, it may, compel a surrender of all. It is inconceivable that guarantees embedded in the Constitution of the United States may thus be manipulated out of existence.


Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm'n (1926) .
 
2012-11-05 05:23:39 PM  

OnlyM3: scottydoesntknow

Was the 'Obvious' tag busy instructing its congregation that voting for Obama will usher in the apocalypse?Riiight all churches are members of the far right wing conspiracy.

[www.muldrake.com image 335x254]

[www4.pictures.gi.zimbio.com image 396x594]

[media.al.com image 432x743]

[4.bp.blogspot.com image 398x275]

[i80.photobucket.com image 200x319]

[scm-l3.technorati.com image 196x300]

[2.bp.blogspot.com image 400x286]

[msnbcmedia2.msn.com image 330x230]

[www.saintsunit.org image 371x450]

[i80.photobucket.com image 320x314]

[www.digitaljournal.com image 620x465]

[www.memphisdailynews.com image 350x247]

[blog.thephoenix.com image 475x258]

[www.freedomsphoenix.com image 255x225]

[educationviews.org image 475x356]

[msnbcmedia1.msn.com image 474x320]

... yeah yeah I know...... it's ONLY bad when the other guy does it.


I need you to point out where I said anything about a "far right wing conspiracy". You can't? That's right because it was a simple example. But way to waste all that time looking for pictures to prove whatever point you were trying to make.

/Maybe it's a far left conspiracy to make the far right conspiracy look crazy!
 
2012-11-05 05:41:14 PM  

relcec: [T]he power of the state [...] is not unlimited; and one of the limitations is that it may not impose conditions which require relinquishment of constitutional rights. If the state may compel the surrender of one constitutional right as a condition of its favor, it may, compel a surrender of all. It is inconceivable that guarantees embedded in the Constitution of the United States may thus be manipulated out of existence.

Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm'n (1926) .


So, as it applies here - are you in favor of the "slippery slope" of giving up rights (and potentially all of them), or removing the tax-exempt status of religious groups?
It would seem in many cases churches are willing to and do adhere to the rules of sacrificing the 1st Amendment for their money (and whatever they do with it), as many churches still believe they can exist separately and peacefully from a secular government's intervention in their primary interests. no? A willing "victim"?

Without reading, I'm guessing there are much more harsh examples of regulatory takings and unconstitutional conditions.
 
2012-11-05 05:41:28 PM  

BarleyGnome: I truly despise organized religion.


disorganized religion is so much better

i truly despise organized science
 
2012-11-05 05:47:34 PM  

tjfly: Be careful what you wish for. I'll just leave this here...
[bfl-app-content.s3.amazonaws.com image 484x312][globetribune.info image 400x301][www.infiniteunknown.net image 300x415][assets.nydailynews.com image 485x376]


Heh, you assume that dem's want this. Cute.
 
2012-11-05 06:09:24 PM  

Nana's Vibrator: So, as it applies here - are you in favor of the "slippery slope" of giving up rights (and potentially all of them), or removing the tax-exempt status of religious groups?

neither. if you want to tax all not for profits that would be ok with me though.

It would seem in many cases churches are willing to and do adhere to the rules of sacrificing the 1st Amendment for their money (and whatever they do with it), as many churches still believe they can exist separately and peacefully from a secular government's intervention in their primary interests. no? A willing "victim"?


and most food stamp recipients would still accept foodstamps if it came with the stipulation that the recipient must have a norplant device implanted. they'd be your willing victims. it would not make the practice any less ethical by the government. and I don;t think that would be surprising.
this doctrine is in place because of the a corrosive power regulative inducement can have on liberty. who wouldn't give up there right to vote for a few thousand a year? 20% of the population perhaps, on a good day?
 
2012-11-05 06:18:20 PM  
Dumb question (because I'm, y'know, dumb), but why couldn't taxpaying citizens bring a class action suit against churches who violate tax exemption rules? It seems to me that if I have to pay taxes, so do churches who break the rules.
 
2012-11-05 06:26:12 PM  

CaptainScrewy: Dumb question (because I'm, y'know, dumb), but why couldn't taxpaying citizens bring a class action suit against churches who violate tax exemption rules? It seems to me that if I have to pay taxes, so do churches who break the rules.


It's the government's burden to enforce its tax laws. Tax payers do not have standing to sue another entity for tax violations. It would be interesting if you could sue on the government's behalf, like a share holder derivative suit. But it would also be crazy and likely wrought with abuses.

But, basically, the courts will say you're not a proper party to bring the suit.
 
2012-11-05 06:26:33 PM  

ProfessorOhki: I'm still mystified why NOT taxing churches is constitutional.


Because Congress has the explicit power to tax whomever the fark they want, for whatever reason they can think of. They also have the power to *not* tax whomever they feel like, so long as they can categorize it. The Constitution doesn't require them to give a reason.
 
2012-11-05 06:29:43 PM  

CaptainScrewy: Dumb question (because I'm, y'know, dumb), but why couldn't taxpaying citizens bring a class action suit against churches who violate tax exemption rules? It seems to me that if I have to pay taxes, so do churches who break the rules.


what is the loss you suffered, besides *I have to so should they* of course. you need a theory of recovery, and standing, part of which requires damages, or individualized harm suffered. why can't you sue a guy who doesn't pay parking tickets, or his taxes, or pay child support? why can't you sue on behalf of a girl you know who was wrongfully terminated from her job? why can't you sue GM on behalf of the UAW for contract breech?
 
2012-11-05 06:30:33 PM  

Nana's Vibrator: relcec: [T]he power of the state [...] is not unlimited; and one of the limitations is that it may not impose conditions which require relinquishment of constitutional rights. If the state may compel the surrender of one constitutional right as a condition of its favor, it may, compel a surrender of all. It is inconceivable that guarantees embedded in the Constitution of the United States may thus be manipulated out of existence.

Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm'n (1926) .

So, as it applies here - are you in favor of the "slippery slope" of giving up rights (and potentially all of them), or removing the tax-exempt status of religious groups?


He's saying the law has no teeth. The Government cannot legally make they stop making political speeches. The government may not blackmail your rights.
 
2012-11-05 06:38:28 PM  

This text is now purple: Nana's Vibrator: relcec: [T]he power of the state [...] is not unlimited; and one of the limitations is that it may not impose conditions which require relinquishment of constitutional rights. If the state may compel the surrender of one constitutional right as a condition of its favor, it may, compel a surrender of all. It is inconceivable that guarantees embedded in the Constitution of the United States may thus be manipulated out of existence.

Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm'n (1926) .

So, as it applies here - are you in favor of the "slippery slope" of giving up rights (and potentially all of them), or removing the tax-exempt status of religious groups?

He's saying the law has no teeth. The Government cannot legally make they stop making political speeches. The government may not blackmail your rights.


Nope. The government can't say they can't stop making political speeches. But they CAN stop allowing them to dodge taxes they're exempted from on the condition that they remain apolitical. They have all the same rights, but if they want extra rights that the rest of us don't have (such as tax avoidance), they have extra conditions (not use their unencumbered cash flow to twiddle with politics that can directly affect their cash flow and influence).
 
2012-11-05 06:42:33 PM  

scottydoesntknow: Was the 'Obvious' tag busy instructing its congregation that voting for Obama will usher in the apocalypse?


www.theblaze.com

Actually, you were close. Not voting for Obama will put all blacks back into chains.
 
2012-11-05 06:42:52 PM  

CaptainScrewy: Dumb question (because I'm, y'know, dumb), but why couldn't taxpaying citizens bring a class action suit against churches who violate tax exemption rules? It seems to me that if I have to pay taxes, so do should churches. who break the rules.

 
2012-11-05 06:48:43 PM  

This text is now purple: ProfessorOhki: I'm still mystified why NOT taxing churches is constitutional.

Because Congress has the explicit power to tax whomever the fark they want, for whatever reason they can think of. They also have the power to *not* tax whomever they feel like, so long as they can categorize it. The Constitution doesn't require them to give a reason.


I'm pretty sure that if they started taxing, let's say, non-Christians at 1000x the tax rate, there might be a slight constitutional issue there. The ability to tax isn't completely boundless.
 
2012-11-05 06:57:51 PM  

tjfly: Be careful what you wish for. I'll just leave this here...
[bfl-app-content.s3.amazonaws.com image 484x312][globetribune.info image 400x301][www.infiniteunknown.net image 300x415][assets.nydailynews.com image 485x376]


special20: I'm guessing most folks have your racist ass on ignore.

 

Racist? I had him pegged for misogyny and a bit of tu quoque but not racism.

Well, he's not my ignore yet. He's got some more strikes left. But thanks for the heads up all the same.
 
2012-11-05 07:01:28 PM  
JackieRabbit: Many Christians are highly offended by their religion being politicized. On the other hand, there are many small storefront "churches" out there that aren't churches at all, but political operatives using the church as a cover. I know of a few that were popped by the IRS and essentially shut down. Fortunately, these usually only have a few very misguided members and once their backdoor funding dries up, the "preachers" close up shop and skip town.

vactech: Wow! Did not know that. I actually thought this could happen theoretically, and wondered why it wasn't more of a concern amongst the faithful rather than the reverse. It really shouldn't be the atheist/left/liberal worried about this stuff. Do they really want their church turning into campain headquarters?


While they may be a minority, the Dominionist fundamentalists are a very vocal, very active group. Their influence and notoriety are therefore disproportionately large.
 
2012-11-05 07:13:34 PM  

Pitabred: This text is now purple: Nana's Vibrator: relcec: [T]he power of the state [...] is not unlimited; and one of the limitations is that it may not impose conditions which require relinquishment of constitutional rights. If the state may compel the surrender of one constitutional right as a condition of its favor, it may, compel a surrender of all. It is inconceivable that guarantees embedded in the Constitution of the United States may thus be manipulated out of existence.

Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm'n (1926) .

So, as it applies here - are you in favor of the "slippery slope" of giving up rights (and potentially all of them), or removing the tax-exempt status of religious groups?

He's saying the law has no teeth. The Government cannot legally make they stop making political speeches. The government may not blackmail your rights.

Nope. The government can't say they can't stop making political speeches. But they CAN stop allowing them to dodge taxes they're exempted from on the condition that they remain apolitical. They have all the same rights, but if they want extra rights that the rest of us don't have (such as tax avoidance), they have extra conditions (not use their unencumbered cash flow to twiddle with politics that can directly affect their cash flow and influence).


so you are under the impression the government could offer you $12000 to promise to remain apolitical and become legally prohibited from voting, or get sterilized, or agree to not marry anyone not of your own race, or have sex with a person of your own gender, or be legally prohibited from having an abortion.

interesting.
asinine and squarely at odds with all legal precedent, but still interesting and very illuminating regarding your lack of support of civil rights and liberty in general.

...The U.S. Supreme Court, however, did not intend for the doctrine to be so constrained. Throughout the Progressive Era, during which time the scale and scope of government regulations grew dramatically, the Court repeatedly signaled that a condition that sought a waiver of any of the privileges or individual rights secured by the U.S. Constitution will likely violate the doctrine. And by the 1920s, the Court applied the doctrine to invalidate a state regulation that required a company to waive rights protected by the Equal Protection and Takings Clauses of the U.S. Constitution, holding:

[T]he power of the state [...] is not unlimited; and one of the limitations is that it may not impose conditions which require relinquishment of constitutional rights. If the state may compel the surrender of one constitutional right as a condition of its favor, it may, compel a surrender of all. It is inconceivable that guarantees embedded in the Constitution of the United States may thus be manipulated out of existence.

Frost & Frost Trucking Co. v. Railroad Comm'n (1926) .

Since then, the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions has passed in and out of vogue, often reappearing in a flurry of decisions to curtail disturbing government forays into private affairs. For example, in the '40s to '50s, the doctrine was applied to invalidate state laws conditioning benefits (such as tax exemptions and government jobs) on the applicant taking a loyalty oath. In the '60s and '70s, the doctrine struck down laws conditioning access to unemployment benefits and other social benefit programs upon the waiver of religious freedoms, free speech, the right to travel, and other individual rights. And in the '80s and '90s, the doctrine invalidated government attempts to use the land use permit process to take private property without paying in the cases Nollan and Dolan...
 
2012-11-05 07:19:29 PM  

Son of Thunder: superfudge73: So as for American Christian's isn't lying a sin?

That depends.

Does "American Christian's isn't lying" mean "American Christian is isn't lying" or does it mean "isn't lying belongs to American Christian"?


At some point around the time the American far right realized that their platform screwed over so many people (women, people of color, anyone not rich, gays, etc.) that the only way to keep a voter base large enough for them to win elections was to hoodwink a lot of these groups of people into voting against their own interests. So it became essential to simultaneously be, for example, opposed to women's interests and yet convince a sizable percentage of women that there was no war on women. And they've gotten very, very good at duping people like this.

One aspect of this has been convincing the American public that science is on their side (when it isn't), or at least that some issue is still up in the air (when it isn't). Abortion, evolution, climate change, gay rights --- on almost every controversial issue you've got people actively working to misrepresent or distort the scientific consensus, because the ACTUAL scientific consensus indicates that the Republican's policies are idiotically counterproductive or destructive. It's a fundamental part of what they do, what they MUST do, to stay elected.

The Republican War on Science has a lot of specific examples if you're interested.
 
2012-11-05 07:27:17 PM  
look at all the good liberal democrats are incredibly supportive of efforts to silence their fellow citizens free speech rights depending on the content of that completely legal and constitutionally protected speech. lovers of liberty, these people are your enemies.
 
2012-11-05 07:30:29 PM  

relcec: efforts to silence their fellow citizens free speech rights depending on the content of that completely legal and constitutionally protected speech.


Enforcement of current laws, actually.

Just as the ground zero mosque can't order their secret Kenyan army to elect their socialislamofascit candidate, so too should a tax-free money-raking organization be barred from directly endorsing a specific candidate.
 
2012-11-05 07:31:16 PM  
I can hear Walter Sobchak's voice screaming in my ear, "Has the whole world gone crazy? Am I the only one around here who gives a shiat about the rules?!?"

/mark it zero!!!
 
2012-11-05 07:33:51 PM  

Mitch Taylor's Bro: STRYPERSWINE: Going after churches now. Wow.

So much fail in only four words. Wow.


I know. Way to completely miss the point of TFA AND the farking headline.
 
2012-11-05 07:39:15 PM  

Englebert Slaptyback: A while ago Bill Maher opined that churches are indeed abusing the tax exemption, and if the church catches on fire the church people should not be allowed to call the fire department.


Bill won't be saying that about his local synagogue.
 
2012-11-05 07:46:09 PM  
Black church endorses Obama (or other Democrat) IRS turns its back.

White Church endorses Huckabee? major problem.

This is the hypocrisy of the Democrat party.
 
2012-11-05 07:49:55 PM  

tomcatadam: relcec: efforts to silence their fellow citizens free speech rights depending on the content of that completely legal and constitutionally protected speech.

Enforcement of current laws, actually.

Just as the ground zero mosque can't order their secret Kenyan army to elect their socialislamofascit candidate, so too should a tax-free money-raking organization be barred from directly endorsing a specific candidate.



sure, just as long as you are opposed to the content of the message, right Adolf? only then should these unconstitutional rules become applicable.

I mean, you aren't for applying the corporate tax structure to the UAW and SEIU and their brethren because they have given the democrat party hundreds of millions of dollars in contributions in kind, cash, and paid for political advertisements over the last 20 years? right?

No, that wouldn't do.

that's the one thing I like about you hyperpartisan neofascists (on both sides of the aisle btw), you are so consistently without principle and so completely arbitrary in the way you would rule that you become incredibly easy to spot and then unveil as the corrupted, unscrupulous and stinking retrograde tribalist you truly are instead of the champion of the people you attempt to portray.
 
2012-11-05 07:52:31 PM  
I don't believe any group of people should ever be silenced.

/If corporations aren't people, than neither are labor unions
 
2012-11-05 07:53:00 PM  

ciberido: Son of Thunder: superfudge73: So as for American Christian's isn't lying a sin?

That depends.

Does "American Christian's isn't lying" mean "American Christian is isn't lying" or does it mean "isn't lying belongs to American Christian"?

At some point around the time the American far right realized that their platform screwed over so many people (women, people of color, anyone not rich, gays, etc.) that the only way to keep a voter base large enough for them to win elections was to hoodwink a lot of these groups of people into voting against their own interests. So it became essential to simultaneously be, for example, opposed to women's interests and yet convince a sizable percentage of women that there was no war on women. And they've gotten very, very good at duping people like this.

One aspect of this has been convincing the American public that science is on their side (when it isn't), or at least that some issue is still up in the air (when it isn't). Abortion, evolution, climate change, gay rights --- on almost every controversial issue you've got people actively working to misrepresent or distort the scientific consensus, because the ACTUAL scientific consensus indicates that the Republican's policies are idiotically counterproductive or destructive. It's a fundamental part of what they do, what they MUST do, to stay elected.

The Republican War on Science has a lot of specific examples if you're interested.



I hope you're getting the message here.
 
2012-11-05 07:59:06 PM  
Can't they just shut down the churches FFS?
 
2012-11-05 08:04:02 PM  

thrgd456: Black church endorses Obama (or other Democrat) IRS turns its back.

White Church endorses Huckabee? major problem.

This is the hypocrisy of the Democrat party.


Good: "Churches and other non-profits receive tax exempt status"

Bad: "Government decides what qualifies as a Church and gives them SPECIAL tax exempt status"

Bad: "Government limits a Church's political speech"

this is the fairly ubiquitous 'liberal' heresy in this thread that every 'conservative' troll on here has been dodging.

Personally, I don't think that view point is liberal or conservative, just common sense.
 
2012-11-05 08:13:42 PM  

shkkmo: Good: "Churches and other non-profits receive tax exempt status"

Bad: "Government decides what qualifies as a Church and gives them SPECIAL tax exempt status"

Bad: "Government limits a Church's political speech"

this is the fairly ubiquitous 'liberal' heresy in this thread that every 'conservative' troll on here has been dodging.


what this is is a ubiquitous liberal claim not backed up by the facts.

the tax treatment is actually not that special.

if you are a nonprofit and NOT a church your free speech rights are almost certainly intact. see UAW, ACLU, even the f*cking boy scouts. religious institutions are singled out for special scrutiny, not a special tax exempt status.

and that is of course why phoprogressives love the law. it silences those they tend to disagree with politically while arbitrarily leaving their heroes who run other not for profits, that are treated exactly the same way according to tax law, with their free speech rights intact.
 
2012-11-05 08:15:10 PM  

Englebert Slaptyback: A while ago Bill Maher opined that churches are indeed abusing the tax exemption, and if the church catches on fire the church people should not be allowed to call the fire department.


Eh. I like Maher and agree with his politics on most issues, but I would never let a building get torched just as punishment. I'm not a sociopath.
 
2012-11-05 08:24:15 PM  

relcec: right Adolf?


That's enough.

*favorited!*
 
2012-11-05 08:27:41 PM  
Fuk that.

Prosecute the MTFs now.

Tax religion.

Do it.

I mean it.

Think of the revenue.

Seriously.

Think of the potential dedumb inherent...

Do it.
 
2012-11-05 08:29:08 PM  

Indubitably: Fuk that.

Prosecute the MTFs now.

Tax religion.

Do it.

I mean it.

Think of the revenue.

Seriously.

Think of the potential dedumb inherent...

Do it.


Caveat: Humanize the change, word. *)
 
2012-11-05 08:30:03 PM  

genner: Meanwhile the also tax exempt united way is doing this

.....but no one cares, it's more fun to pick on Christians.


Nobody can read that babbleshiat.
 
2012-11-05 08:35:18 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: genner: Meanwhile the also tax exempt united way is doing this

.....but no one cares, it's more fun to pick on Christians.

Nobody can read that babbleshiat.


Interesting.

I've seen the "comments on thread thinly veiled with names and aphorisms aside" banter before.

Read and look up, please.

Thank you.

What do you see in the night sky unobscured by human light?

Look up.

Gracias.
 
2012-11-05 08:40:17 PM  

relcec: if you are a nonprofit and NOT a church your free speech rights are almost certainly intact. see UAW, ACLU, even the f*cking boy scouts. religious institutions are singled out for special scrutiny, not a special tax exempt status.


Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.

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.


nope.jpg
 
2012-11-05 08:41:16 PM  

relcec: what this is is a ubiquitous liberal claim not backed up by the facts.

"Generally, tax-exempt organizations must file an annual information return ( Form 990 or Form 990-EZ). Tax-exempt organizations that have annual gross receipts not normally in excess of $25,000 ($50,000 for tax years ending on or after December 31, 2010) are not required to file the annual information return; they may be required to file an annual electronic notice, however. In addition, churches and certain church-affiliated organizations are excepted from filing."


from:
http://www.irs.gov/Charities-&-Non-Profits/Churches-&-Religious-Orga ni zations/Filing-Requirements

That is the 'Special Status' being spoken of.

relcec:

if you are a nonprofit and NOT a church your free speech rights are almost certainly intact. see UAW, ACLU, even the f*cking boy scouts. religious institutions are singled out for special scrutiny, not a special tax exempt status.


All 501(c)(3) organization's free speech rights are curtailed under current law, these limitations are specifically expanded for churches and other religious organizations.

So religious institutions ARE singled out for special scrutiny AND special tax exempt status (in that they don't have to file the annual information return).

In case you were confused, I'm opposed to both of these (special scrutiny and special tax exempt status). Treat churches the same as other 501(c)(3) organizations so that the government has no right or obligation to decide what is a church.
 
2012-11-05 08:47:01 PM  

Indubitably: BarkingUnicorn: genner: Meanwhile the also tax exempt united way is doing this

.....but no one cares, it's more fun to pick on Christians.

Nobody can read that babbleshiat.

Interesting.

I've seen the "comments on thread thinly veiled with names and aphorisms aside" banter before.

Read and look up, please.

Thank you.

What do you see in the night sky unobscured by human light?

Look up.

Gracias.


Danke.

Gratzi.

Das vadanya.

Ashoge.

Gui lah hui te ha

El-hamdullah

Dank je wel

Dua Netjer en etj

Ic sæcge eow þancas

Gmadlob

Efcharisto

Ewa ra

Go raibh maith agat

Qujanaq

Domo arigato

Words?

*)
 
2012-11-05 09:02:20 PM  

SkunkWerks: I'd settle for getting that whole "keeping religion out of politics" thing though.


Problem is, to do that you need to keep politics out of religion too. Hence the difficulty.
 
2012-11-05 09:08:13 PM  

on the road: SkunkWerks: I'd settle for getting that whole "keeping religion out of politics" thing though.

Problem is, to do that you need to keep politics out of religion too. Hence the difficulty.


Difficulty?

Thousands of years of dead people protest your bullshiat, man.

Seriously?

Grow into your being, please, i.e. grow up.
 
2012-11-05 09:09:19 PM  

Indubitably: on the road: SkunkWerks: I'd settle for getting that whole "keeping religion out of politics" thing though.

Problem is, to do that you need to keep politics out of religion too. Hence the difficulty.

Difficulty?

Thousands of years of dead people protest your bullshiat, man.

Seriously?

Grow into your being, please, i.e. grow up.


P.S. Don't fuk with E, i.e. at yer peril.
 
2012-11-05 09:40:50 PM  

image0-rubylane.s3.amazonaws.com 
Easier if we just do this directly.

 
2012-11-05 09:58:30 PM  

Fark Rye For Many Whores: [image0-rubylane.s3.amazonaws.com image 425x467] 
Easier if we just do this directly.


No doubt.

You know always where I am.

You could drone me.

You could propagate me.

You could end me.

You could recommunicate me.

Seriously?

I am five you already....

WTF do you want from me?

Nothing you haven't already had, MTF.

*Grrr*
 
2012-11-05 10:13:22 PM  
But you see, Jayzuss only likes those cement-headed social conservative candidates.
He hates liberals
If you don't vote that way, you'll make him quite irate and you won't get brownie points for getting into heaven. So vote for the most rightwing asshole and you'll get your heavenly reward.
 
2012-11-05 10:16:17 PM  

Day_Old_Dutchie: But you see, Jayzuss only likes those cement-headed social conservative candidates.
He hates liberals
If you don't vote that way, you'll make him quite irate and you won't get brownie points for getting into heaven. So vote for the most rightwing asshole and you'll get your heavenly reward.


Wrong answer.

Please vote for President Obama.

Thank you.
 
2012-11-06 11:41:57 AM  

Sir Arthur Streeb-Greebling

So, all you Republicans who are posting pictures of Obama, et al, in church....you are I'm sure just as OUTRAGED to find out that Romney paid no taxes from 1996 to 2009, because he "rented" the tax exempt status of the Mormon Church?

I'm not a republican (or religious) so you're clearly not asking me, but I'll answer anyway.

Nice dodge. So you're "OUTRAGED" romney "rented" the tax exempt status of the Mormon Church. So why aren't you "OUTRAGED" about obama, clinton, clinton, algore, kerry?

You anti-religion bigots spent the past 13 years whining about booosh and his religious beliefs, yet not a peep when your candidates attend church and violate tax laws by campaigning there.

Why? Because as I already stated. "It's only wrong when the other guy does it". You're a hypocrite, nothing more.


/// and no, before you try to poison the well, I didn't vote for bush, or mccain.
 
2012-11-06 02:58:29 PM  
Look at what's happening in my town. Since this article, the city has determined that the church will NEVER host a polling place again. But the corsses reamin today.

http://www.dailycamera.com/news/boulder/ci_21930153/boulder-sacred-he a rt-mary-church-anti-abortion-display?source=most_viewed
 
2012-11-06 08:03:17 PM  

Englebert Slaptyback: A while ago Bill Maher opined that churches are indeed abusing the tax exemption, and if the church catches on fire the church people should not be allowed to call the fire department.


Sounds about right.

All churches should be taxed.

All.
 
2012-11-07 06:21:59 PM  
Do it.

Please AND Thank you.

*)
 
Displayed 218 of 218 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter








In Other Media
  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report