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 218
    More: Stupid, IRS, United States federal courts, Americans United, church law, worship service, tax code  
•       •       •

8760 clicks; posted to Main » on 05 Nov 2012 at 12:57 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.

*plonk*
 
Displayed 50 of 218 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report