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.

(Some Guy)   IRS sued over lack of enforcement of prohibition on electioneering by religious non-profits   (thedailypage.com) divider line 384
    More: Hero, Freedom From Religion Foundation, IRS, establishment clause, sanctity of life, freedoms, tax code, Constitution of the United States, churches  
•       •       •

17398 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Nov 2012 at 3:38 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-15 06:22:15 PM  

GAT_00: EatHam: GAT_00: Religious organizations can apply to be non-profits. Almost none should be granted one.

I think that the problem you have is likely within the process.  They all do apply to be non profits, but there's a special streamlined application for them, and almost all are granted one immediately.  Also, they don't have the same burden of proof that others do.

I don't think most of them are non-profits, so I doubt they'd pass a real process.


I highlighted your problem in life. You should consider fixing that.
 
2012-11-15 06:31:31 PM  
I agree the laws should be enforced. Preachers stray way too far from their core message and need some intervention for inappropriate political speech in a forum that should be religious.
 
2012-11-15 06:32:38 PM  

Duelist: vudukungfu: Good
Take the IRS's toys away, and lock them up.
And tax the churches until we all get a check from those skywizard worshipping dickwads.
You want to believe in invisible people and vote? PAY ME, assholes.
We dont' let retards vote. We don't let crazies vote.
What part about you must be of sound mind to vote do you not understand?
Tax the fark out of them and go retrofarkingactive.
Pave our highways with the gold of the stupid and nutless.

You do realize that only profits are taxed, right? Anything that is an expense is written off just like any other business. Most churches are small and have no extra money at the end of the year anyway. The clergy that are paid by the church pay their income taxes as everyone else does, either as an employee or self-employed consultant depending on how the church is set up. The only people who will see a dime would be tax preparers and accountants.


Then the churches won't scream bloody murder if the exemption is removed?
 
2012-11-15 06:33:19 PM  
Appropriate use of the Hero tag? In MY Fark? It's more likely than you think.
 
2012-11-15 06:33:33 PM  

Raharu: Tax.

All.

Religions.

Equally.


Small churches need an exemption.
 
2012-11-15 06:35:37 PM  
We need a 2nd Amendment solution to this 1st Amendment problem.
 
2012-11-15 06:46:52 PM  
I am a bit baffled as to why churches and other religious entities must give up their First Amendment right to freedom of speech simply because they are a non-profit. Does non-profit mean they have to be silent? If so, doesn't that mean every non-profit must be politically silenced? Or is it because they are religious? Is it proper, ethical or legal to silence someone simply because they are exempt from taxes? Is this some sort of pay-off to keep them silent? Don't give me that "separation of church and state" myth either because the concept cannot exist in reality in a country that supposedly has freedom of speech.
 
2012-11-15 06:56:34 PM  
Made me go and donate to FFRF. Finally.
 
2012-11-15 07:00:06 PM  

peeledpeas: I am a bit baffled as to why churches and other religious entities must give up their First Amendment right to freedom of speech simply because they are a non-profit. Does non-profit mean they have to be silent? If so, doesn't that mean every non-profit must be politically silenced? Or is it because they are religious? Is it proper, ethical or legal to silence someone simply because they are exempt from taxes? Is this some sort of pay-off to keep them silent? Don't give me that "separation of church and state" myth either because the concept cannot exist in reality in a country that supposedly has freedom of speech.


Freedom of speech is a function of human rights. The individuals who make up the church are free to speak as they wish.

The church, itself, is a non-human entity and should be appropriately dealt with under the law.
 
2012-11-15 07:01:20 PM  
Amen.

Can I get a witness?

Render unto Caesar everything that isn't nailed to the cross.
 
2012-11-15 07:04:18 PM  

LasersHurt: peeledpeas: I am a bit baffled as to why churches and other religious entities must give up their First Amendment right to freedom of speech simply because they are a non-profit. Does non-profit mean they have to be silent? If so, doesn't that mean every non-profit must be politically silenced? Or is it because they are religious? Is it proper, ethical or legal to silence someone simply because they are exempt from taxes? Is this some sort of pay-off to keep them silent? Don't give me that "separation of church and state" myth either because the concept cannot exist in reality in a country that supposedly has freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is a function of human rights. The individuals who make up the church are free to speak as they wish.

The church, itself, is a non-human entity and should be appropriately dealt with under the law.


Right. I'm sure there are no non-religious non-profits engaging in electioneering.

/rollseyes
 
2012-11-15 07:05:49 PM  

peeledpeas: LasersHurt: peeledpeas: I am a bit baffled as to why churches and other religious entities must give up their First Amendment right to freedom of speech simply because they are a non-profit. Does non-profit mean they have to be silent? If so, doesn't that mean every non-profit must be politically silenced? Or is it because they are religious? Is it proper, ethical or legal to silence someone simply because they are exempt from taxes? Is this some sort of pay-off to keep them silent? Don't give me that "separation of church and state" myth either because the concept cannot exist in reality in a country that supposedly has freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is a function of human rights. The individuals who make up the church are free to speak as they wish.

The church, itself, is a non-human entity and should be appropriately dealt with under the law.

Right. I'm sure there are no non-religious non-profits engaging in electioneering.

/rollseyes


... What is your point? Someone else might be being a dick, so churches can be too? They should be above any scrutiny just because they're religiously affiliated? What?
 
2012-11-15 07:15:48 PM  

Dimensio: The Stealth Hippopotamus: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: It's estimated that one to three justices will retire, so you're right on that front. No hard evidence as of yet, but it's assumed that he's going to get a couple more picks. However there is evidence that he would pick liberal justices, considering he's had two picks already and they were more like Ginsburg than Scalia.

Scalia is going to wait to see how 2014 turns out but either way he's out after that.

Just my guess only

If Scalia retires, I expect Thomas to retire immediately afterward due to no longer knowing how to rule.


i449.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-15 07:18:36 PM  

lohphat: WhoopAssWayne: It is long past time to do away with any freedom of speech restrictions on churches. Our ministers need to stand up and call out the liberal freeloaders at every opportunity. If the IRS wants to take away a few tax breaks then so be it - we will make them pay for it every Wednesday night and every Sunday morning. We must call them out by name, we must get organized, we must make our voices heard!

501(c)3 was a lure to keep religion out of politics. Keep quiet and no fed taxes. Simple.

You want to participate? Then pay your taxes.

They can't have it both ways.

Mixing religion and government works out so well for the rest of the world.

/herp


Yeah, it's much better just to let astrologers decide how to run the country,

Worked for Reagan, anyway.
 
2012-11-15 07:19:27 PM  

peeledpeas: I am a bit baffled as to why churches and other religious entities must give up their First Amendment right to freedom of speech simply because they are a non-profit. Does non-profit mean they have to be silent? If so, doesn't that mean every non-profit must be politically silenced? Or is it because they are religious? Is it proper, ethical or legal to silence someone simply because they are exempt from taxes? Is this some sort of pay-off to keep them silent? Don't give me that "separation of church and state" myth either because the concept cannot exist in reality in a country that supposedly has freedom of speech.


Our lawmakers use laws to make a cultural point, hopefully about something that matters such as cheap green energy and inverters. But religion is a special soft spot for this country. A lot of people deeply want to do the right thing, take the right actions and make the world a better place. This is in their hearts, but they don't always have the resources or creativity to make it happen. So as the number of well meaning people with excess funds grows, it attracts the natural born conmen. The people who can sell anything to anybody. The best of those with the talent to sell end up in 3 places: 1) Business, 2) Politics, 3) Religion. I put them in that order to point out the exponential danger as the number increases. Some people want to make a point and others want to make a buck. The latter are the ones who are the best salesmen. They are ruining our world and need to be stopped.
 
2012-11-15 07:23:21 PM  

kronicfeld: I don't know that I want to see a precedent set whereby one can sue the government for its exercise of prosecutorial discretion.


1) they're not talking about prosecuting them criminally, just revoking their tax exempt status, and

2) if they don't revoke their status, but they've revoked tax exempt status for secular groups, then that is unconstitutional discrimination on the basis of religiosity or lack thereof.
 
2012-11-15 07:24:46 PM  

DjangoStonereaver: While I am in support of the tax-exemption for religious organizations (despite the abuse that it could
lead to), I vainly hope that this goes somewhere and that these asshat preachers who abused it lose
that status.

They won't, I'm sure, but I can pray for it, can't I?


It's not likely to go anywhere. They will say you lack standing to sue as a taxpayer. You cannot prove likely injury to you, just because the IRS does not take away their exempt status. You will need to take it up in the political branches.
 
2012-11-15 07:25:25 PM  
I hope that the IRS starts to actually do this, if you don't enforce your rules, why even have the organization in place?
 
2012-11-15 07:26:44 PM  

DamnYankees: kronicfeld: I don't know that I want to see a precedent set whereby one can sue the government for its exercise of prosecutorial discretion.

This was my thought - who would have standing to bring this suit, exactly?


A secular group which has its tax exempt status revoked for electioneering should at least be able to sue to bar or reverse revocation of its tax exempt status on Equal Protection grounds. I'm not sure forcing the IRS to revoke tax exempt status for churches is on their list of available remedies though. 

Religious non-profits should not have special rights not available to secular non-profits.
 
2012-11-15 07:27:51 PM  

Cythraul: I probably have a better chance at winning the lottery than a religious institution losing its tax-exempt status.


You should start looking for a yacht, a big one.
It's happened before, but generally only to the little organizations who can't afford lawyers.
 
2012-11-15 07:29:21 PM  

Delawheredad: To enforce this law fairly you practically have to have someone attending and monitoring every church, mosque, and synagogue and NO ONE want's that.


The IRS could offer a percentage of the amount recovered.

That might even get some folks to church. Everybody wins!
 
2012-11-15 07:32:08 PM  

peeledpeas: I am a bit baffled as to why churches and other religious entities must give up their First Amendment right to freedom of speech simply because they are a non-profit. Does non-profit mean they have to be silent? If so, doesn't that mean every non-profit must be politically silenced? Or is it because they are religious? Is it proper, ethical or legal to silence someone simply because they are exempt from taxes? Is this some sort of pay-off to keep them silent? Don't give me that "separation of church and state" myth either because the concept cannot exist in reality in a country that supposedly has freedom of speech.


Yes, all non-profits, secular or religious, are required to refrain from electioneering to retain their tax exempt status. And the IRS routinely enforces those restrictions against secular non-profits. What the IRS is doing, and what the churches are demanding, are special rights not available to secular non-profits. The real outrage here isn't that churches are being persecuted--it is that secular groups are by virtue of the new religious privilege to retain tax exempt status while electioneering.
 
2012-11-15 07:32:12 PM  

LasersHurt: Freedom of speech is a function of human rights. The individuals who make up the church are free to speak as they wish.

The church, itself, is a non-human entity and should be appropriately dealt with under the law.


Corporations are treated as a single entity made up of their constituent parts -- people.
 
2012-11-15 07:35:05 PM  
hmm.. I'd dupport this if they would also support suing ICE for not enforcing US Immigration Law as well... or any of the many issues like it
 
2012-11-15 07:35:15 PM  

Big Man On Campus: It's happened before, but generally only to the little organizations who can't afford lawyers.


Citation needed.
 
2012-11-15 07:37:23 PM  

kmramki: It's not likely to go anywhere. They will say you lack standing to sue as a taxpayer. You cannot prove likely injury to you, just because the IRS does not take away their exempt status.


Actually, the details are hazy, but I'm pretty sure there's a longstanding exception to the "injury in fact" rule for tax related Establishment Clause cases.
 
2012-11-15 07:38:00 PM  

Thats_Not_My_Baby: Why do we give religious institutions tax exemption?


Because the faithful somehow deserve a public subsidy for being charitable, even though their faith REQUIRES them to be charitable.

Evidently, the reward in heaven isn't enough, or they don't actually believe in it.

"Oh, I'd love to give you credit for those good works," says Jesus, "But I see here you took the tax exemption instead. Sorry. Please step over there with the goats."
 
2012-11-15 07:40:12 PM  
As a Libertarian, how about government has nothing to do with marriage?

Then all the interest would die down.

* Gay marriage? Fine.
* Divorce? Nobody pays, go your own separate ways.
* Traditional marriage? Fine.
* Marry your cat. dog, or conure? Fine.
* Transgender hermaphrodite marriage to a hallucinogenic toadstool? Fine.

Doesn't that work out well? Everybody gets what they want and nobody gets sued.
 
2012-11-15 07:40:28 PM  

bugontherug: kmramki: It's not likely to go anywhere. They will say you lack standing to sue as a taxpayer. You cannot prove likely injury to you, just because the IRS does not take away their exempt status.

Actually, the details are hazy, but I'm pretty sure there's a longstanding exception to the "injury in fact" rule for tax related Establishment Clause cases.


Yes, the taxpayer standing exception for Establishment Clause cases arose from Flast v. Cohen. But it looks like the Roberts Court significantly rolled it back in 2007. That doesn't mean it's completely gone, though.
 
2012-11-15 07:41:25 PM  
But when it comes to slapping taxes based on an assumed level of tips on waitresses and hairdressers, the IRS is a vigorous, hard-charging model of efficency. Utterly fearless in the pursuit of their mission.
 
2012-11-15 07:43:54 PM  

tekmo: Because the faithful somehow deserve a public subsidy for being charitable, even though their faith REQUIRES them to be charitable.


Tax exempt status is available to all non-profits, religious and secular, as it should be. The real issue here is the IRS's discriminatory enforcement. By refraining from revoking tax exempt status for churches who engage in electioneering, while revoking tax exempt status for secular groups that do, they're raising significant Establishment and Equal Protection Clause issues.
 
2012-11-15 07:48:06 PM  
Loadmaster: Freedom of Speech. Protected political speech, specifically.

Mort_Q: No-one is saying they don't have the right to speak or endorse candidates. That is their right. It's just that doing so means they have to give up their tax-exempt status.


So you don't get freedom of speech unless you pay taxes?
 
2012-11-15 07:54:56 PM  

Loadmaster: Loadmaster: Freedom of Speech. Protected political speech, specifically.

Mort_Q: No-one is saying they don't have the right to speak or endorse candidates. That is their right. It's just that doing so means they have to give up their tax-exempt status.

So you don't get freedom of speech unless you pay taxes?


No, it is simply that the government isn't required to subsidize your free speech activities by giving you a tax break for them. The Supreme Court spoke unanimously and directly to the constitutionality of 501c3's lobbying restrictions in Regan v. Taxation With Representation in 1983. All nine justices agreed to its constitutionality in an opinion written by Rehnquist:


"TWR contends that Congress' decision not to subsidize its lobbying violates the First Amendment. It claims, relying on Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513 (1958), that the prohibition against substantial lobbying by § 501(c)(3) organizations imposes an "unconstitutional condition" on the receipt of tax-deductible contributions. In Speiser, California established a rule requiring anyone who sought to take advantage of a property tax exemption to sign a declaration stating that he did not advocate the forcible overthrow of the Government of the United States. This Court stated that "[t]o deny an exemption to claimants who engage in certain forms of speech is in effect to penalize them for such speech." Id. at 357 U. S. 518."

"TWR is certainly correct when it states that we have held that the government may not deny a benefit to a person because he exercises a constitutional right. See Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593, 408 U. S. 597 (1972). But TWR is just as certainly incorrect when it claims that this case fits the Speiser-Perry model. The Code does not deny TWR the right to receive deductible contributions to support its nonlobbying activity, nor does it deny TWR any independent benefit on account of its intention to lobby. Congress has merely refused to pay for the lobbying out of public moneys.** This Court has never held that Congress must grant a benefit such as TWR claims here to a person who wishes to exercise a constitutional right."

"This aspect of these cases is controlled by Cammarano v. United States, 358 U. S. 498 (1959), in which we upheld a Treasury Regulation that denied business expense deductions for lobbying activities. We held that Congress is not required by the First Amendment to subsidize lobbying. Id. at 358 U. S. 513. In these cases, as in Cammarano, Congress has not infringed any First Amendment rights or regulated any First Amendment activity. Congress has simply chosen not to pay for TWR's lobbying. We again reject the "notion that First Amendment rights are somehow not fully realized unless they are subsidized by the State."
 
2012-11-15 07:55:21 PM  

Delawheredad: While there are violations of this law all the time enforcing it opens a can of worms. If one rogue pastor in a local Episcopal church breaks this rule who is responsible for the fine? The pastor violated the edicts of his parent organization so it would be unfair to hold them responsible. You also can't fine the local church because the statement was the opinion of the pastor and not necessarily the church. What do you end up with a fifty dollar fine on the rogue pastor?


No, you wouldn't hold the parent organization responsible if some local pastor violated their rules. For minor infractions, a warning might be sufficient. Repeated offenses, though, and lose that tax exempt status (the local church, not the parent). However, when the parent organization is the one running the political show, the Mormon Church and Proposition 8 for example, then you come down HARD on them. And the best way to do that is to tax the living fark out of them.
 
2012-11-15 08:08:56 PM  

bugontherug: Loadmaster: Loadmaster: Freedom of Speech. Protected political speech, specifically.

Mort_Q: No-one is saying they don't have the right to speak or endorse candidates. That is their right. It's just that doing so means they have to give up their tax-exempt status.

So you don't get freedom of speech unless you pay taxes?

No, it is simply that the government isn't required to subsidize your free speech activities by giving you a tax break for them. The Supreme Court spoke unanimously and directly to the constitutionality of 501c3's lobbying restrictions in Regan v. Taxation With Representation in 1983. All nine justices agreed to its constitutionality in an opinion written by Rehnquist:


Given that decision, doesn't that mean that, the religious exemption (lobbying aside) is Congress subsidizing religious institutions on the basis of them being religious institutions? How does that not run afoul of separation of church and state?
 
2012-11-15 08:09:49 PM  

bmihura: As a Libertarian, how about government has nothing to do with marriage?

Then all the interest would die down.

* Gay marriage? Fine.
* Divorce? Nobody pays, go your own separate ways.
* Traditional marriage? Fine.
* Marry your cat. dog, or conure? Fine.
* Transgender hermaphrodite marriage to a hallucinogenic toadstool? Fine.

Doesn't that work out well? Everybody gets what they want and nobody gets sued.


One could argue, and I will, that some issues should belong to politicians and others to religious leaders. Marriage seems religious, taxes seem political.
 
2012-11-15 08:11:45 PM  
You see, the reason Jesus didn't like the money changers in the temple is that they weren't cutting him in on the profits.
 
2012-11-15 08:17:35 PM  
I would almost rather do away with the entire concept of non-profit status in exchange for keeping free speech rights. I feel the government has come up with this nonsense for the single purpose of keeping organizations silent.
 
2012-11-15 08:17:55 PM  

bmihura: As a Libertarian, how about government has nothing to do with marriage?

Then all the interest would die down.

* Gay marriage? Fine.
* Divorce? Nobody pays, go your own separate ways.
* Traditional marriage? Fine.
* Marry your cat. dog, or conure? Fine.
* Transgender hermaphrodite marriage to a hallucinogenic toadstool? Fine.

Doesn't that work out well? Everybody gets what they want and nobody gets sued.


You do realize that marriage is a contract, right? The idea of government having "nothing to do" with contracts is fundamentally incoherent.
 
2012-11-15 08:24:15 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Given that decision, doesn't that mean that, the religious exemption (lobbying aside) is Congress subsidizing religious institutions on the basis of them being religious institutions?


No, it's subsidizing them on the basis of engaging in certain preferred activities that Congress wants to promote like engaging in charity. There's a whole list of activities, and I don't remember what all is on it off hand. But the tax exemptions are available to religious and secular non-profits engaging in those activities alike, as they should be.

What's offensive to me about the current IRS action is that they routinely enforce those electioneering restrictions against secular groups. So by not enforcing them against these churches, they seem to be engaging in discrimination in favor of religious non-profits. I.e., the reality of going on is almost exactly the opposite of how it is being portrayed in the media. It is not religious groups being persecuted, rather, it is religious groups demanding and obtaining special rights not available to secular groups.
 
2012-11-15 08:25:56 PM  

Loadmaster: Loadmaster: Freedom of Speech. Protected political speech, specifically.

Mort_Q: No-one is saying they don't have the right to speak or endorse candidates. That is their right. It's just that doing so means they have to give up their tax-exempt status.

So you don't get freedom of speech unless you pay taxes?


You're confusing "freedom of speech" with "freedom from taxes".
 
2012-11-15 08:28:22 PM  

Biological Ali: bmihura: As a Libertarian, how about government has nothing to do with marriage?

Then all the interest would die down.

* Gay marriage? Fine.
* Divorce? Nobody pays, go your own separate ways.
* Traditional marriage? Fine.
* Marry your cat. dog, or conure? Fine.
* Transgender hermaphrodite marriage to a hallucinogenic toadstool? Fine.

Doesn't that work out well? Everybody gets what they want and nobody gets sued.

You do realize that marriage is a contract, right? The idea of government having "nothing to do" with contracts is fundamentally incoherent.


The simple (yet tedious) solution to the whole mess is to remove all "marriage" related language in favor of something with the same legal ramifications but none of the cultural baggage. I don't care if you call it a civil union, a pairwise binding document, or whatever you'd like. Convert all existing marriages into these. Actually, there's no reason that it's not extensible out to more than pairs anyway. If you want to grant 5 people power of attorney, you're an idiot, but hey, go for it.

Then everyone gets the same rights and we never have to hear another peep about the "sanctity of marriage." I mean, c'mon, those folks think that the sanctity comes from the guy upstairs, not from Washington anyway, right?

Taxes? Get rid of bonuses for joint filing. I'm sure it made perfect sense when 99% of homes had one breadwinner, but times, they are a changin'
 
2012-11-15 08:32:08 PM  
And for what it's worth, I'm not making up this "special rights" stuff. I believe some of these churches are anticipating enforcement so they can challenge 501c3 as applied to them. Their argument is going to look something like the one in this law review article, which takes the position that 501c3 is unconstitutional as applied to religious non-profits, but not secular non-profits. I.e., they're looking to actually elevate pro-religious discrimination to constitutional mandate. I'm afraid this argument is going to find a friendly Court under Roberts.

Link

Read the article if you want: but I do not believe some of its assertions are accurate. Especially relating to its claims on how 501c3 supposedly restricts speech in churches. The electioneering restrictions are very narrow, and basically only prevent non-profits from endorsing candidates. They remain free to preach about issues all they want in any way they want, provided they don't endorse candidates. They can even say "abortion is a sin, and should be a crime" without risking their tax exempt status.
 
2012-11-15 08:34:35 PM  

peeledpeas: I would almost rather do away with the entire concept of non-profit status in exchange for keeping free speech rights. I feel the government has come up with this nonsense for the single purpose of keeping organizations silent.


I feel that your tinfoil hat is a couple of sized too tight.
 
2012-11-15 08:35:16 PM  

ProfessorOhki: Then everyone gets the same rights and we never have to hear another peep about the "sanctity of marriage." I mean, c'mon, those folks think that the sanctity comes from the guy upstairs, not from Washington anyway, right?


The problem being that "those folks" are opposed to any instance of gay people enjoying equal rights and have been opposed to instances of gay couples gaining rights that straight couples take for granted even when the word "marriage" doesn't enter the picture (visitation rights is a big one). So no, even if you make this pointless concession, you'll continue to hear plenty of "peeps" out of them.

The real solution, of course, is to give "those folks" absolutely nothing, and to eventually use the force of government, either legislative or judicial (as with Loving v. Virginia) to bury their idiocy once and for all.
 
2012-11-15 08:36:25 PM  

Elzar: Religious folks believe and act upon ridiculous beliefs which have no physical evidence or scientific proof - isn't that punishment enough?


If that's all they do, then that's fine by me. It when they want to shape the law to compel me to act upon those ridiculous beliefs as well that we start to have a problem.
 
2012-11-15 08:36:27 PM  

bugontherug: ProfessorOhki: Given that decision, doesn't that mean that, the religious exemption (lobbying aside) is Congress subsidizing religious institutions on the basis of them being religious institutions?

No, it's subsidizing them on the basis of engaging in certain preferred activities that Congress wants to promote like engaging in charity. There's a whole list of activities, and I don't remember what all is on it off hand. But the tax exemptions are available to religious and secular non-profits engaging in those activities alike, as they should be.


That'd be reasonable if it were true... but if that was really the case, why would 7.25.3.4 (02-23-1999) read:
To satisfy the operational test, an organization must be operated exclusively for one or more of the following purposes:
*religious
*charitable
*scientific
*testing for public safety
*literary
*educational
*fostering national or international sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment)
*prevention of cruelty to children or animals

7.25.3.6 (02-23-1999)
Religion or Advancement of Religion
IRC 501(c)(3) provides for the exemption of organizations organized and operated exclusively for "religious" purposes. Because activities often serve more than one purpose, an organization that is "advancing religion" within the meaning of Reg. 1.501(c)(3)-1(d)(2) may also qualify under IRC 501(c)(3) as charitable or educational organization.


They are exempt because they're religious; not because they're charitable. If it was on their charity alone, there would be no need all the extra religion-specific language.
 
2012-11-15 08:39:31 PM  

jso2897: peeledpeas: I would almost rather do away with the entire concept of non-profit status in exchange for keeping free speech rights. I feel the government has come up with this nonsense for the single purpose of keeping organizations silent.

I feel that your tinfoil hat is a couple of sized too tight.


Please. Everybody knows that the government forces these churches at gunpoint to stay tax exempt. They want very badly to say refuse all that dirty free money, but they can't because there's a man from the government making them take it while literally pointing a gun at all of their heads.
 
2012-11-15 08:39:33 PM  

Biological Ali: The real solution, of course, is to give "those folks" absolutely nothing, and to eventually use the force of government, either legislative or judicial (as with Loving v. Virginia) to bury their idiocy once and for all.


I'd agree, but when you use force on stupid people, they tend to just become violent stupid people. I prefer to just remind them that culture is already shifting. In a few generations at most they'll be a fringe minority and there's not a thing they can do about it.
 
2012-11-15 08:42:27 PM  
So...religious organizations aren't allowed to voice their opinion? Freedom of speech is being attacked. Sorry if you don't like it. It's ok for everyone to have an opinion except churches. But the LGBT can endorse Obama. Doesn't seem very democratic to me.
 
Displayed 50 of 384 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report