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  
•       •       •

17393 clicks; posted to Main » on 15 Nov 2012 at 3:38 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-11-15 12:01:01 PM
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?
 
2012-11-15 12:05:53 PM
It's pretty astounding and sick that we have to sue these morons to get them to do their jobs.
 
2012-11-15 12:09:15 PM
I probably have a better chance at winning the lottery than a religious institution losing its tax-exempt status.
 
2012-11-15 12:09:37 PM
I don't know that I want to see a precedent set whereby one can sue the government for its exercise of prosecutorial discretion.
 
2012-11-15 12:12:06 PM
if church pastors violated the law...then there SHOULD be an investigation and face sanctions for their actions.

look, there's a process here. if the law wasn't broken, then the pastors will have a chance to prove that fact. but you can't just ignore the rules. either the IRS rules apply to everyone or they apply to none of us.
 
2012-11-15 12:12:36 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.


It's blatantly and publically breaking the law. If any of us were to do the same we'd be toast.
 
2012-11-15 12:17:09 PM

Weaver95: if the law wasn't broken, then the pastors will have a chance to prove that fact.

 
I'm not sure that you're placing the burden of proof properly.
 
2012-11-15 12:17:15 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.


This was my thought - who would have standing to bring this suit, exactly?
 
2012-11-15 12:17:31 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.


I believe that would be a "Writ of Mandamus".
 
2012-11-15 12:18:49 PM
Unfortunately I think what will happen is that the electioneering statute will be ruled unconstitutional.
 
2012-11-15 12:19:12 PM
What's the function of exempting religion from taxes?
 
2012-11-15 12:21:32 PM

Slaxl: What's the function of exempting religion from taxes?


Prevents your local priest from also being your tax collector?
 
2012-11-15 12:23:13 PM

Cythraul: Slaxl: What's the function of exempting religion from taxes?

Prevents your local priest from also being your tax collector?


The idea of a "tax collector" is hilariously old-fashioned.
 
2012-11-15 12:25:31 PM

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


Yeah, this^

/and I don't play it
 
2012-11-15 12:25:32 PM
Good.

They want to use the government to force their will on women and gays

I want to use the government to force them to pay their fair share.
 
2012-11-15 12:26:52 PM
Tax.

All.

Religions.

Equally.
 
2012-11-15 12:27:04 PM

EatHam: Weaver95: if the law wasn't broken, then the pastors will have a chance to prove that fact.
 
I'm not sure that you're placing the burden of proof properly.


this IS the IRS we're talking about....
 
2012-11-15 12:28:28 PM
That Jesus associated with a tax collector and recruited him to be a disciple was quite shocking in Biblical times, since tax collectors were considered to be only slightly above prostitutes on the social scale.

Least you think the IRS were the original "most hated"....
 
2012-11-15 12:32:25 PM
Religious folks believe and act upon ridiculous beliefs which have no physical evidence or scientific proof - isn't that punishment enough?
 
2012-11-15 12:32:48 PM

usernameguy: Unfortunately I think what will happen is that the electioneering statute will be ruled unconstitutional.


Would depend on how long it takes to work it's way through the courts, if it has standing. Obama is going to flip the Supreme Court sometime in a few years.
 
2012-11-15 12:35:00 PM
Sad that a lawsuit is necessary, but it's clear that religious groups are flagrantly violating the law. Remove the tax exemption.
 
2012-11-15 12:36:33 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: usernameguy: Unfortunately I think what will happen is that the electioneering statute will be ruled unconstitutional.

Would depend on how long it takes to work it's way through the courts, if it has standing. Obama is going to flip the Supreme Court sometime in a few years.


You have no proof that anyone will retire and no evidence that Obama will nominate a liberal to the bench.
 
2012-11-15 12:39:00 PM

GAT_00: Remove the tax exemption.


For all non profits, or are you going to say that no religious organization is allowed to be categorized as non profit?
 
2012-11-15 12:39:10 PM
Yeah, good luck with that.
 
2012-11-15 12:41:44 PM

EatHam: GAT_00: Remove the tax exemption.

For all non profits, or are you going to say that no religious organization is allowed to be categorized as non profit?


if it were up to me? i'd have to go on a case by case basis. anyone who gets up there and starts endorsing candidates loses their exemption. anyone who avoids politics and/or keeps it vague (i.e. not endorsing a candidate) gets to keep their exemption.

messy and annoying but fair.
 
2012-11-15 12:44:39 PM

Weaver95: anyone who gets up there and starts endorsing candidates loses their exemption. anyone who avoids politics and/or keeps it vague (i.e. not endorsing a candidate) gets to keep their exemption.


I could very well be mistaken (and I'm sure that there will be plenty of people very happy to tell me if I am), but isn't it supposed to be that way for all non profits, not just religious ones?
 
2012-11-15 12:47:04 PM
img9.imageshack.us

AMEN!!
 
2012-11-15 12:51:15 PM

EatHam: Weaver95: anyone who gets up there and starts endorsing candidates loses their exemption. anyone who avoids politics and/or keeps it vague (i.e. not endorsing a candidate) gets to keep their exemption.

I could very well be mistaken (and I'm sure that there will be plenty of people very happy to tell me if I am), but isn't it supposed to be that way for all non profits, not just religious ones?


well yeah. problem is that we don't follow our rules that are already on the books. I just don't see the point of writing NEW rules when the ones we've got address the issue quite well. so the problem isn't with the rules...its with the IRS. why has the IRS not done it's job? is it politics? a structural issue? slow response? that's where I'd focus my attentions.
 
2012-11-15 12:51:49 PM

EatHam: GAT_00: Remove the tax exemption.

For all non profits, or are you going to say that no religious organization is allowed to be categorized as non profit?


Religious organizations can apply to be non-profits. Almost none should be granted one.
 
2012-11-15 12:52:11 PM

GAT_00: Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: usernameguy: Unfortunately I think what will happen is that the electioneering statute will be ruled unconstitutional.

Would depend on how long it takes to work it's way through the courts, if it has standing. Obama is going to flip the Supreme Court sometime in a few years.

You have no proof that anyone will retire and no evidence that Obama will nominate a liberal to the bench.


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.
 
2012-11-15 12:53:21 PM

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.
 
2012-11-15 12:53:51 PM

Slaxl: What's the function of exempting religion from taxes?


It is essentially a truce between state and religion: "you leave us alone and we'll leave you alone". Seems fair enough to me, as long as both sides abide by it.

The constitution says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

You'll note that it doesn't say anything about taxation. Exempting religious (and other) non-profits from taxation is an extra-constitutional courtesy, that can and should be enforced if you don't play by the rules.

This isn't just about religious groups, a lot of political organizations are organized as non-profits that get right up against the line between electioneering and not
 
2012-11-15 12:56:30 PM

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.
 
2012-11-15 01:04:32 PM
The more basic issue than this for me is that I don't see how the IRS making churches exempt from taxation--or allowing individual taxpayers to take tax deductions for donations to churchs to support religious activities (such as Mitt Romney's millions of dollars each year in tithing that he's required to contributions to the Mormon Church to remain in good standing)--can be deemed to be allowable under the Establshment Clause of the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court keeps chipping away at Establishment Clause cases and allowing more and more religious intrusion into government activities (and vice-versa), but the basic premise at work here was set out 65 years ago in the Supreme Court's Everson v. Board of Education case as follows:

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

Doesn't allowing Pat Robertson's TV network to be exempt from taxes--when every non-religious TV network pays taxes--amount to the government giving support to religous activities? If the income Billy Graham's organization makes from filling a football stadium on Friday for a prayer meeting is non-taxable, while the income the football team makes playing in that same location on Sunday is taxed, isn't that a form of government financial support for that religion? If a guy Mitt Romney can deduct $5 million a year in tithing to the Mormon Church--which is required of him to remain in good standing, like membership dues to a country club--then why can't the CEO of another company deduct the membership dues he pays each month to his country club, and isn't the government essentially officially endorsing going to church as a more important and necessary activity than, say, playing golf? That's not supposed to be the government's call, is it?

And, of course, for every dollar that a church doesn't pay in taxes, and every dollar that taxpayers save in taxes by deducting their church fees and donations, the government needs to collect a dollar somewhere else to make up for it--and it does so by making everyone else's taxes higher to make up what it loses in religion-related tax revenue. Isn't that essentially levying a tax on every non-religion business, and every person who doesn't contribute to a church, to support religion?

Not that it will ever be ruled as such, but I simply don't see how giving religious entities and religious contributions favorable tax treatment as compared to secular activities can be squared with the Establishment Clause.
 
2012-11-15 01:05:45 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.


For argument's sake, I'll say, "One man's prosecutorial discretion is another man's unequal application of the law."
 
2012-11-15 01:05:55 PM

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
 
2012-11-15 01:11:46 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: I believe that would be a "Writ of Mandamus".


Mandamus is not applicable to discretionary acts, only ministerial.
 
2012-11-15 01:14:29 PM

kronicfeld: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: I believe that would be a "Writ of Mandamus".

Mandamus is not applicable to discretionary acts, only ministerial.


Ah. Well then.
 
2012-11-15 01:15:39 PM

EatHam: GAT_00: Remove the tax exemption.
For all non profits, or are you going to say that no religious organization is allowed to be categorized as non profit?


You didn't direct this question to me, but I'll answer anyway as a follow-up to my own post above: I'd say that if a religious group engages in any truly charitable activities with no religious component to them and no attempt to use those activities as a platform for advancing religion, as some of them do part of the time (food banks for the poor that are open to all regardless of religion, Red Cross type activities, etc.), then those activities and the funds used to support them should be considered nontaxable charitable activities, much in the way that private businesses sometimes set up nontaxable charitable foundations and other subentities to engage in those activities. But funds generated or donated to promote, recruit for, and support their particular brand of Invisible Sky WizardTM should not be given government tax support.
 
2012-11-15 01:17:00 PM

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


Here are SCOTUS's ages:

Link

Ginsburg is ancient, but should feel free to step down comfortably anytime in the next 4 years, and will probably do so in the next 2. I'm guessing Kennedy steps down if the Senate gets a little more conservative in 2 years. That would suit his never ending desire to be in the middle. Scalia will hold out 4 years or die trying. In fact, regardless of who is president, I have a feeling Scalia is going to die on the bench. I'm guessing Breyer will step down if he sees any swing in the electorate toward the right to avoid having to do so in an election year or under a GOP president.

/My $0.02
 
2012-11-15 01:18:17 PM

Cyberluddite: I'd say that if a religious group engages in any truly charitable activities with no religious component to them and no attempt to use those activities as a platform for advancing religion, as some of them do part of the time (food banks for the poor that are open to all regardless of religion, Red Cross type activities, etc.), then those activities and the funds used to support them should be considered nontaxable charitable activities, much in the way that private businesses sometimes set up nontaxable charitable foundations and other subentities to engage in those activities.


And I would not argue for a second against such a group being granted non-profit status. But I think you would maybe grant 1 in 100 that status.
 
2012-11-15 01:18:51 PM

Cyberluddite: But funds generated or donated to promote, recruit for, and support their particular brand of Invisible Sky WizardTM should not be given government tax support.


You wouldn't think that would count like the administrative overhead, just like advertising for the United Way or something?
 
2012-11-15 01:23:21 PM

Three Crooked Squirrels: Ginsburg is ancient, 2


And was diagnosed with pancreatic cancer three years ago (but seems to have responded pretty well to surgery). Whether or not she lives a while longer, I suspect you're right that she won't be sticking around on the Supreme Court for very long. In fact, if it had looked like Obama was not going to be reelected, I'll bet she would've already quit.
 
2012-11-15 01:37:25 PM

EatHam: Cyberluddite: But funds generated or donated to promote, recruit for, and support their particular brand of Invisible Sky WizardTM should not be given government tax support.

You wouldn't think that would count like the administrative overhead, just like advertising for the United Way or something?


I don't really consider the United Way non-profit anymore. After dealing with their efforts at a certain restricted area that I worked at this summer, they're just greedy farks who spend more money promoting themselves than helping.
 
2012-11-15 01:38:17 PM
Yeaaaah.... I'm sorry, but the court is going to grant summary judgement to the IRS for lack of standing. Sorry. That's it. This is just a more complicated press release.
 
2012-11-15 02:01:20 PM

Weaver95: if church pastors violated the law...then there SHOULD be an investigation and face sanctions for their actions.

look, there's a process here. if the law wasn't broken, then the pastors will have a chance to prove that fact. but you can't just ignore the rules. either the IRS rules apply to everyone or they apply to none of us.


this this more THIS and only farking THIS
 
2012-11-15 02:11:27 PM

namatad: Weaver95: if church pastors violated the law...then there SHOULD be an investigation and face sanctions for their actions.

look, there's a process here. if the law wasn't broken, then the pastors will have a chance to prove that fact. but you can't just ignore the rules. either the IRS rules apply to everyone or they apply to none of us.

this this more THIS and only farking THIS


Doesn't matter. Even if a church ran the most transparently political campaign in history, the IRS wouldn't go near it with a ten-foot pole. You want to see the "war on religion" rhetoric amp up to eleven? You remove the tax exempt status of even one church, and you will see old people of all races rioting as fast as their Rascal scooters will let them. It would make the Tea Party seem like a fond memory with how much derp it would create.
 
2012-11-15 02:14:07 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: You want to see the "war on religion" rhetoric amp up to eleven?


Some days we're already there. Or,

I never saw a rich man who didn't wind up with a guilty conscience.

Already got a guilty conscience. Might as well have the money too.
 
2012-11-15 02:15:29 PM

This Is Bold Text: Good.

They want to use the government to force their will on women and gays

I want to use the government to force them to pay their fair share.


Interestingly enough, I'm wondering if a group could similarly sue the government to enforce the federal ban on gay marriage or the federal ban on marijuana.
 
2012-11-15 02:18:03 PM
How does one have standing for such a suit?
 
2012-11-15 02:23:35 PM

Vodka Zombie: It's pretty astounding and sick that we have to sue these morons to get them to do their jobs.


I'm guessing it's not about incompetence but rather a fear of backlash. The IRS is already hated and then to be blamed as attacking religion (which they certainly aren't)... I'm guessing they think it's not worth the headache.
 
2012-11-15 02:32:58 PM

CapeFearCadaver: 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.

It's blatantly and publically breaking the law. If any of us were to do the same we'd be toast.


But you do not sue the local police to report a crime.
 
2012-11-15 03:23:18 PM

Three Crooked Squirrels: Ginsburg is ancient, but should feel free to step down comfortably anytime in the next 4 years, and will probably do so in the next 2. I'm guessing Kennedy steps down if the Senate gets a little more conservative in 2 years. That would suit his never ending desire to be in the middle. Scalia will hold out 4 years or die trying. In fact, regardless of who is president, I have a feeling Scalia is going to die on the bench. I'm guessing Breyer will step down if he sees any swing in the electorate toward the right to avoid having to do so in an election year or under a GOP president.

/My $0.02


That sounds about right to me. Other than the Scalia. I know he really likes being a judge but he is mindful of his PR. He doesn't want to go out looking like he was holding on just to hold on.
 
2012-11-15 03:26:30 PM
They should be given the option of either paying taxes or being burnt alive in the public square.
 
2012-11-15 03:27:46 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: namatad: Weaver95: if church pastors violated the law...then there SHOULD be an investigation and face sanctions for their actions.

look, there's a process here. if the law wasn't broken, then the pastors will have a chance to prove that fact. but you can't just ignore the rules. either the IRS rules apply to everyone or they apply to none of us.

this this more THIS and only farking THIS

Doesn't matter. Even if a church ran the most transparently political campaign in history, the IRS wouldn't go near it with a ten-foot pole. You want to see the "war on religion" rhetoric amp up to eleven? You remove the tax exempt status of even one church, and you will see old people of all races rioting as fast as their Rascal scooters will let them. It would make the Tea Party seem like a fond memory with how much derp it would create.


Good.

As we have seen derp loses elections.
 
2012-11-15 03:40:24 PM
elitemrp.net

Oblig
 
2012-11-15 03:41:29 PM
 
2012-11-15 03:42:18 PM
Reminds me of A Man In Full
 
2012-11-15 03:43:28 PM
religion takes in billions of dollars and they pay no taxes....now you talk about a good bullshiat story! HOLY shiat!

upload.wikimedia.org
 
2012-11-15 03:44:50 PM
My recollection is that the US Supreme Court invalidated the IRS's audit procedures and these audits have been held in abeyance pending the establishment of new rules.

As such, this lawsuit is a smoking failure right out of the box.
 
2012-11-15 03:44:58 PM

Dusk-You-n-Me


Already got a guilty conscience. Might as well have the money too.


Good day to you now.
 
2012-11-15 03:45:31 PM

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


What makes you think this case would be precedent-setting in that regard?
 
2012-11-15 03:46:21 PM
My church consists of Religious Humanists----we don't do God, Jesus, BELIEFS or The Bible. Its called uua.org. Yes, we do social justice but not election-lobbying. We love Teh Gheys
 
2012-11-15 03:46:32 PM
How dare they not enforce something that's all but unenforceable. Those bastards.
 
2012-11-15 03:46:58 PM

halfof33: My recollection is that the US Supreme Court invalidated the IRS's audit procedures and these audits have been held in abeyance pending the establishment of new rules.


[citation needed]

They ruled recently that the limit for auditing is three years. Maybe that's what you're thinking of.
 
2012-11-15 03:48:12 PM
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.
 
2012-11-15 03:48:16 PM
One of the reasons we have so many storefront churches is because snake oil salesmen want to fleece the public and not pay taxes on the money they take. They went from selling bad patent medicines to telling Bible stories and other fairy tales to the gullible while passing a basket around.

If they did enforce the tax laws, a lot of these ramshackle institutions would wink out like candles on a child's birthday cake.
 
2012-11-15 03:48:20 PM
End tax exempt status for all religious organizations.

If your organization wants to endorse a political candidate, you should have to comply with campaign finance laws.

sammyk: CapeFearCadaver: 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.

It's blatantly and publically breaking the law. If any of us were to do the same we'd be toast.

But you do not sue the local police to report a crime.


You DO sue the police when a crime is reported and they tell you to fark off, we don't care that a crime was committed.
 
2012-11-15 03:50:04 PM

usernameguy: Unfortunately I think what will happen is that the electioneering statute will be ruled unconstitutional.


That's still better than only churches being exempt.
 
2012-11-15 03:50:19 PM

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.
 
2012-11-15 03:53:36 PM
A) Does this group even have standing to sue?
B) If they do have standing, can't the IRS just argue discretion?
 
2012-11-15 03:53:46 PM

Vegan Meat Popsicle: citation needed]

They ruled recently that the limit for auditing is three years. Maybe that's what you're thinking of.


My recollection was faulty. It was not the Supremes it was a Federal District Court who ruled that the IRS was not complying with the Church Audit Procedures Act
 
2012-11-15 03:54:09 PM
Should be fun when churches can no longer host presidents to speak during services or bus their members to the polls.
 
2012-11-15 03:54:14 PM
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!
 
2012-11-15 03:54:28 PM
meh. the Constitution does not provide for freedom from religion or freedom from being offended.

how about they sue the IRS for not getting Buffet to have his companies pay the 10 years of back taxes. That would have a bigger impact on the budget.
 
2012-11-15 03:54:32 PM
About Goddamn time
 
2012-11-15 03:55:02 PM

cman: How does one have standing for such a suit?




Whether the court will find that the plaintiff has standing or not, I would not care to predict - but it's not without precedent.
 
2012-11-15 03:55:08 PM

usernameguy: Unfortunately I think what will happen is that the electioneering statute will be ruled unconstitutional.


This seems like a possible outcome. We have separation of the church and state, not separation of the church and politics. The entire purpose of the First Amendment is to safeguard political speech of all types from government interference; I don't see how a ruling could come down that says "This one specific type of organization can't involve itself in politics".
 
2012-11-15 03:55:14 PM

halfof33: My recollection is that the US Supreme Court invalidated the IRS's audit procedures


sovereign citizen!!
i159.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-15 03:55:15 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: usernameguy: Unfortunately I think what will happen is that the electioneering statute will be ruled unconstitutional.

Would depend on how long it takes to work it's way through the courts, if it has standing. Obama is going to flip the Supreme Court sometime in a few years.


I hope this works its way through before he has a chance to shove it right.
 
2012-11-15 03:55:44 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Doesn't matter. Even if a church ran the most transparently political campaign in history, the IRS wouldn't go near it with a ten-foot pole. You want to see the "war on religion" rhetoric amp up to eleven? You remove the tax exempt status of even one church, and you will see old people of all races rioting as fast as their Rascal scooters will let them. It would make the Tea Party seem like a fond memory with how much derp it would create.


That's why the IRS is perfect. Everyone already hates and fears them. They're not the agency America wants, but they just might be the agency America deserves.
 
2012-11-15 03:55:50 PM
On the flip side, the FFRF could have just played into the Religious Right's hands, as there were hoping that someone would either sue or try to collect so a pastor could sue, in an attempt to overturn that portion of the law.
 
2012-11-15 03:55:59 PM
Good news in deed.
 
2012-11-15 03:56:15 PM
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?
 
2012-11-15 03:56:17 PM

Slaxl: What's the function of exempting religion from taxes?


I could be wildly wrong, but I always viewed it as the original tax break. As in "Listen, you agree to be cool and stay out of politics in this new country, and we'll be cool and not pass laws against you or tax you to operate here. Everybody just be cool."

But they're not being cool, anymore.

usernameguy: Unfortunately I think what will happen is that the electioneering statute will be ruled unconstitutional.


And then we repeal their tax break, and they can start paying in to the system they want so desperately to stick their grubby arms into.
 
2012-11-15 03:56:26 PM

k1j2b3: Should be fun when churches can no longer host presidents to speak during services or bus their members to the polls.


Those aren't illegal.
 
2012-11-15 03:56:45 PM
Failing to enforce a law and violating the establishment clause are completely different things, but other than that overblown bit of rhetoric, I am behind this all the way. I'm not against churches endorsing candidates and taking other political stances, but if they do, they should file their taxes honestly.
 
2012-11-15 03:56:47 PM

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
 
2012-11-15 03:57:17 PM

jso2897: cman: How does one have standing for such a suit?



Whether the court will find that the plaintiff has standing or not, I would not care to predict - but it's not without precedent.


Sorry - let me try that again:Link
 
2012-11-15 03:57:58 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.


Plenty of such precedents exist, where the exercised discretion ends up violating equal protection. For example, cops can't exercise their discretion and let all white folks go with a warning while ticketing all black folks.
Here, at least according to the complaint, the IRS is enforcing the prohibition against non-religious non-profits, but not enforcing it against religious non-profits, and that that's discriminatory and unconstitutional.

Frankly, I don't think it's going to be a successful suit, but at least it's a reasonable theory.
 
2012-11-15 03:58:03 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?


See example of rogue priest buggering little boys and lookup who paid
 
2012-11-15 03:58:41 PM

ShawnDoc: A) Does this group even have standing to sue?
B) If they do have standing, can't the IRS just argue discretion?


See above - they do, because they're arguing that the IRS is using its discretion unfairly to enforce the prohibition against them, but not other groups, merely because of their religious beliefs.
 
2012-11-15 03:58:45 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.


Not with a Democrat in the White House. Scalia will hold on to that seat with both hands for as long as he can; when my tinfoil hat is on too tight I imagine he's planning on artificial means to extend his life (respirator, feeding tube), thereby preventing the President from naming a replacement unless the House impeaches and the Senate votes to remove from office.
 
2012-11-15 03:58:54 PM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: namatad: Weaver95: if church pastors violated the law...then there SHOULD be an investigation and face sanctions for their actions.

look, there's a process here. if the law wasn't broken, then the pastors will have a chance to prove that fact. but you can't just ignore the rules. either the IRS rules apply to everyone or they apply to none of us.

this this more THIS and only farking THIS

Doesn't matter. Even if a church ran the most transparently political campaign in history, the IRS wouldn't go near it with a ten-foot pole. You want to see the "war on religion" rhetoric amp up to eleven? You remove the tax exempt status of even one church, and you will see old people of all races rioting as fast as their Rascal scooters will let them. It would make the Tea Party seem like a fond memory with how much derp it would create.


Ya. Obama's going to ask them to squash this one quietly. A church is going to need to publicly endorse a candidate by name for anything to happen.
 
2012-11-15 03:58:59 PM
Good. I have no problem allowing tax-exempt status for churches that actually do charitable work but they must be held to the same standards as any other non-profit. Violate that, lose your status.
 
2012-11-15 03:59:12 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?


If their tax-free status is revoked, there is no fine or punishment - they just have to pay their taxes.
 
2012-11-15 03:59:41 PM

Weaver95: EatHam: Weaver95: anyone who gets up there and starts endorsing candidates loses their exemption. anyone who avoids politics and/or keeps it vague (i.e. not endorsing a candidate) gets to keep their exemption.

I could very well be mistaken (and I'm sure that there will be plenty of people very happy to tell me if I am), but isn't it supposed to be that way for all non profits, not just religious ones?

well yeah. problem is that we don't follow our rules that are already on the books. I just don't see the point of writing NEW rules when the ones we've got address the issue quite well. so the problem isn't with the rules...its with the IRS. why has the IRS not done it's job? is it politics? a structural issue? slow response? that's where I'd focus my attentions.


The IRS has been gutted by years of anti-tax politicians and their appointees. The less functional the IRS is, the more proof they have that it's non-functional and unfair and the more excuse they have to gut it further.
 
2012-11-15 04:00:45 PM
Isn't the Freedom From Religion Foundation also a tax exempt organization?
What are they doing getting involved in political matter like this?
 
2012-11-15 04:01:14 PM

Three Crooked Squirrels: 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

Here are SCOTUS's ages:

Link

Ginsburg is ancient, but should feel free to step down comfortably anytime in the next 4 years, and will probably do so in the next 2. I'm guessing Kennedy steps down if the Senate gets a little more conservative in 2 years. That would suit his never ending desire to be in the middle. Scalia will hold out 4 years or die trying. In fact, regardless of who is president, I have a feeling Scalia is going to die on the bench. I'm guessing Breyer will step down if he sees any swing in the electorate toward the right to avoid having to do so in an election year or under a GOP president.

/My $0.02


It's like watching dinosaurs riding Jesus while they go extinct.
It's too bad it has to be watched in slow motion, but that is the way life, and history are.
Once I've settled in for my dirt nap, I'm sure we'll all have high speed data exchanges for pennies.
God spwerers will be told publicly by politicians to STFU with their bullshait nonsence, cancer and aids will be cured, and unicorns will shait rainbow puppies that fart rose scented flatti upon my grave.

Until then, we have got to get tought with these farking assholes.
they want to take away your rights, and liberties because Jebus.
Next week, you will have people doing the same because Allah or Moohummed ( yeah, THAT asshole)

Pick your battles, this one makes sense.
 
2012-11-15 04:01:22 PM

ShawnDoc: A) Does this group even have standing to sue?


The FFRF is also a tax-exempt nonprofit organization that must abide by rules against electioneering.

I think that gives them standing. Since the federal government is essentially treating them unequally, saying that tax-exempt nonprofits can't be involved in political campaigns, except for churches, since we're not going to enforce our rules when it comes to churches.
 
2012-11-15 04:01:24 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.


Correct me if I'm wrong (which I very well may be), but I've always heard that the IRS is not the government - it's just a company that collects taxes for it. In any case, if they are blatantly ignoring people avoiding taxes illegally for political reasons, or simply not attempting to enforce the law as it is laid out, then it is an issue that must be corrected.

Why should those churches be free to break the law?
 
2012-11-15 04:01:59 PM
well, at least it won't cost the taxpayers much money to pay the federal attorney to write a motion to dismiss this case.

/ unless taxpayer standing was all of sudden exploded
// even the equal protection argument is a little goofy, unless there is an actual victim of some state action.
 
2012-11-15 04:02:35 PM
while I support religious organizations having tax exempt status to keep government from playing favorites, I also think those same religious organizations should lose that status if they decide to become political.

so, sue away.
 
2012-11-15 04:02:41 PM
They tell you to vote for Romney just before they take up Jesus' tax.
 
2012-11-15 04:02:45 PM

Doc Daneeka: ShawnDoc: A) Does this group even have standing to sue?

The FFRF is also a tax-exempt nonprofit organization that must abide by rules against electioneering.

I think that gives them standing. Since the federal government is essentially treating them unequally, saying that tax-exempt nonprofits can't be involved in political campaigns, except for churches, since we're not going to enforce our rules when it comes to churches.


they're not treated unequally until they suffer some state action. so far, they've suffered nothing from the state
 
2012-11-15 04:02:55 PM

jso2897: 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?

If their tax-free status is revoked, there is no fine or punishment - they just have to pay their taxes.


Jesus never paid taxes.
 
2012-11-15 04:03:25 PM

ItsJustJake: 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.

Correct me if I'm wrong (which I very well may be), but I've always heard that the IRS is not the government - it's just a company that collects taxes for it. In any case, if they are blatantly ignoring people avoiding taxes illegally for political reasons, or simply not attempting to enforce the law as it is laid out, then it is an issue that must be corrected.

Why should those churches be free to break the law?


I assume it is since it has the URL www.irs.gov.
 
2012-11-15 04:03:32 PM

genner: Isn't the Freedom From Religion Foundation also a tax exempt organization?
What are they doing getting involved in political matter like this?


This isn't a political matter. It's a legal matter.

Moreover, it's a legal matter that impacts them (as a tax-exempt nonprofit) directly. So they have every right get involved.
 
2012-11-15 04:03:34 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?


Nope. The church loses 501c(3) status. No fines necessarily. Probably turn it into a 501c(7) -- they won't pay taxes, but donations aren't tax deductible anymore.
 
2012-11-15 04:04:50 PM

Spanky_McFarksalot: while I support religious organizations having tax exempt status to keep government from playing favorites, I also think those same religious organizations should lose that status if they decide to become political.

so, sue away.


I can't imagine this tactic will work though, people do this all the time for border enforcement and I haven't heard of a victory there.

Sue the churches though, sue the churches until they're (further) back in the stone ages.
 
2012-11-15 04:05:07 PM
In another space and time, Frank Zappa nods and smiles.
 
2012-11-15 04:05:30 PM
Freedom of Speech.

Protected political speech, specifically.
 
2012-11-15 04:05:37 PM
Why do we give religious institutions tax exemption?
 
2012-11-15 04:06:19 PM

pute kisses like a man: Doc Daneeka: ShawnDoc: A) Does this group even have standing to sue?

The FFRF is also a tax-exempt nonprofit organization that must abide by rules against electioneering.

I think that gives them standing. Since the federal government is essentially treating them unequally, saying that tax-exempt nonprofits can't be involved in political campaigns, except for churches, since we're not going to enforce our rules when it comes to churches.

they're not treated unequally until they suffer some state action. so far, they've suffered nothing from the state


Maybe what the FFRF needs to do is get directly involved in political campaigns, endorsing candidates and so on, in order to provoke IRS action against them. Then they can argue that since churches do the same thing without penalty, the law is enforced unfairly.
 
2012-11-15 04:06:44 PM

coeyagi: Sue the churches though, sue the churches until they're (further) back in the stone ages.


well, I'm not anti-religious even though I don't have a particular faith, I just want government and religion to leave each other alone.
 
2012-11-15 04:06:52 PM

Doc Daneeka: genner: Isn't the Freedom From Religion Foundation also a tax exempt organization?
What are they doing getting involved in political matter like this?

This isn't a political matter. It's a legal matter.

Moreover, it's a legal matter that impacts them (as a tax-exempt nonprofit) directly. So they have every right get involved.


This. They are claiming that they are being discriminated against because they have to follow a law that other tax-exempt organizations blatantly ignore.
 
2012-11-15 04:07:50 PM

DamnYankees: Cythraul: Slaxl: What's the function of exempting religion from taxes?

Prevents your local priest from also being your tax collector?

The idea of a "tax collector" is hilariously old-fashioned.


Tell that to the IRS.
 
2012-11-15 04:07:55 PM
For those late to the party (like me), the basic thrust of it is that the IRS can't enforce this particular rule without it being seen as punishing political opponents, and nobody circles the wagons like churches do. A Nixon would be vicious enough to do this, but Obama's too intent on the politics of it to really mind the effect one way or another.

Besides, he won.
 
2012-11-15 04:08:07 PM

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


I think his knees can jerk pretty well on their own.

I couldn't find it online last time I looked - I wish I could, it was great - but once upon a time the NY Times had an interesting graphic showing how each appointment changed the court's balance. The replacement of Thurgood Marshall with Thomas was the biggest ideological swing of the SCOTUS from one appointment, ever.

I've predicted that he'll resign for health reasons after it's discovered he'd slipped into a diabetic coma while hearing cases, something which absolutely no one will notice while it's happening.
 
2012-11-15 04:08:27 PM

Loadmaster: Freedom of Speech.

Protected political speech, specifically.


Hey, if pastors and preacher and priests want to exercise the freedom of political speech, they should be absolutely free to do so, no one should stop them, and I would be the first in line to defend their freedom of speech.

They should not be tax-exempt in that situation, however.
 
2012-11-15 04:08:30 PM

Spanky_McFarksalot: coeyagi: Sue the churches though, sue the churches until they're (further) back in the stone ages.

well, I'm not anti-religious even though I don't have a particular faith, I just want government and religion to leave each other alone.


I'm not anti-religious (though one might call me anti-organized religion), I just think they should be made to suffer for violating that which they know to be part of American jurisprudence and yet ran the risk of getting caught for the past 3-4 decades.

Time to pay the piper, asshats.
 
2012-11-15 04:08:36 PM

Slaxl: What's the function of exempting religion from taxes?


So that the the State cannot be deemed to be establishing a (any) religion. Religious exercise does not fund (via taxes) the State. (At least that's the story I was told in school many years ago.)
 
2012-11-15 04:09:26 PM

Thats_Not_My_Baby: Why do we give religious institutions tax exemption?


so the government doesn't use it power of taxation to favor any particular religious organization.

Imagine what would happen in say Alabama if the state could tax religion...I'm sure some enterprising politician would find a way to tax muslins and judes and leave southern baptists alone.
 
2012-11-15 04:09:54 PM

Thats_Not_My_Baby: Why do we give religious institutions tax exemption?


THIS x 9001! Revoke all tax exempt status on ALL religious organizations. Treat them like everyone else

images.wikia.com
 
2012-11-15 04:10:51 PM

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: 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.

I believe that would be a "Writ of Mandamus".


Funny that someone with a name that includes the word Bureaucrat and is on Fark in the late afternoon would know about a bit of legaleze that translates to "DO YOUR DAMNED JOB"

At a glance it looks like there's also a civil rights issue. One 501(c)3 plays by the rules and gets stepped on by ones not playing by the rules.
 
2012-11-15 04:10:52 PM

WhoopAssWayne: stand up and call out the liberal freeloaders at every opportunity


sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-11-15 04:11:12 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?


Companies get sued for what their employees do all the time. That's why they have liability insurance.
 
2012-11-15 04:11:14 PM

coeyagi: I just think they should be made to suffer for violating that which they know to be part of American jurisprudence and yet ran the risk of getting caught for the past 3-4 decades


ahhh, I misunderstood you. Yeah, I agree, the ones who violated the law should be sued and taxed in the future.
 
2012-11-15 04:11:25 PM
To be fair, this is more a matter of discretion than one of favoritism. The IRS tends to focus on cases where a large quantity of government revenue lies in the difference between what an organization should be paying and what it is paying. If we're talking megachurch pastors, sure, that's worth an auditor's time and revoking the exemption, but most of the offending churches are two-bit operations that don't make a profit anyhow, really.

I mean, by making them deal with real business paperwork and shiat you're punishing them for being douchebags and petty criminals, but it won't actually get the government any more money, really, and in a budget shortfall I kind of expect them to prioritize money.
 
2012-11-15 04:11:28 PM

Lunchlady: A church is going to need to publicly endorse a candidate by name for anything to happen.


Isn't the point of this suit that the churches DID EXACTLY THAT that during this cycle? And proudly flaunted their nose-thumbing by publishing ads, op-eds and making public statements to the effect of "The IRS can't touch GAWD's will!"?

It's one thing for the IRS to claim prosecutorial discretion when not prosecuting suspected illegal electioneering by nonprofits. It's quite another when you have a bishop ON RECORD saying that his priests must read his electioneering screed on Sunday and him (and others) daring the IRS to come after them.

The cynic in all of us knows that the USG/IRS isn't going to neuter churches like that. Laws be damned, no one is going to take on religious establishments - they'll always win the ground game.

// reclassify the churches as SuperPACs if they want to do electioneering
 
2012-11-15 04:11:37 PM

ItsJustJake: Correct me if I'm wrong (which I very well may be), but I've always heard that the IRS is not the government - it's just a company that collects taxes for it.


They're part of the US Department of the Treasury, headed by an executive appointee with Senate confirmation.
 
2012-11-15 04:11:39 PM
The lawsuit cites "open and notorious violations" of these electioneering restrictions by churches since 2008, including "blatantly partisan full-page ads" from the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association that ran in papers throughout the country leading up to the Nov. 6 election.

In the ad, Graham urges people to vote "for those who protect the sanctity of life and support the biblical definition of marriage between a man and a woman."

Annie Laurie Gaylor, co-president of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, says, "Everybody knows what he was talking about: Obama endorsing same-sex marriage."


QUESTION:

I don't want to defend Billy Graham... But federal employees (who have several restrictions during elections that are defined in the Hatch Act) can legally wear or display shirts or buttons that support any specific policy position even if that position is intinsicanly linked to a political candidate or party. They just can't wear or display anything that specifically endorses a candidate for an office for which there is a partisan election. So before I get bent all out of shape about these churches seemingly breaking the law... is that same exception granted to them? If the ads didn't specifically cite Mitt or any other candidate, then it is possible that they are still acting withing the confines of the law. So... are they?
 
2012-11-15 04:12:01 PM
A local pastor told his (predominantly black) congregation that "white people are going to hell" and that Romney supporters are the White Devil come to play. These statements were made at a pro-Obama rally at his church.

My mother works at a (predominantly white) southern baptist church. Their church got a letter (not sure from whom) earlier in the summer reminding them that they were tax exempt and in order to keep this status they couldn't preach politics in the pulpit.

Which leads me to wonder, which churches got said letters, and which did not? Also, when we have media reports of churches doing things like this, why are they not immediately punished and removed from tax exempt status?
 
2012-11-15 04:12:12 PM
Something else that needs to be looked into is the practice of churches (at least some of the "Hate-the-Earth" ones around here) forcing their charity cases to work as menial labor for contractors for as little as $3.00/hour.
 
2012-11-15 04:13:07 PM

Loadmaster: Slaxl: What's the function of exempting religion from taxes?

So that the the State cannot be deemed to be establishing a (any) religion. Religious exercise does not fund (via taxes) the State. (At least that's the story I was told in school many years ago.)


The real reason is because Christians aren't so hot on the 1st amendment when it comes to stopping them from forcing THEIR religion on others. And any time a bill that might benefit Christians in this country comes along, it's basically political suicide to go against it because they will call you a communist muslim loving devil-worshiper if you do.
 
2012-11-15 04:13:09 PM
Over 450 thousand churches in the U.S. While you may get a big fish like Graham, the backlash will be immense.
 
2012-11-15 04:13:24 PM
i.telegraph.co.uk

I will stop
I will stop at nothing
Say the right things
When electioneering
I trust I can rely on your vote

When I go forwards you go backwards and somewhere we will meet

Riot shields
Voodoo economics
It's just business
Cattle prods and the IMF
I trust I can rely on your vote

When I go forwards you go backwards and somewhere we will meet
 
2012-11-15 04:14:08 PM
How about we get some common sense and stop allowing anything religious tax-exempt status? It's not constitutional, and it was an implicit deal that LBJ came up with to get churches out of politics. They didn't honor their end of the deal, and it's high time they actually did something contributory.
 
2012-11-15 04:14:10 PM
The other problem wit this law is the question of favoritism. Are you going to go after politically active inner city churches like Obama's church or are you only going after redneck southern churches? What about Louis Farrakhan calling on the U.S. to stop supporting Israel and to stop voting for candidates that support Israel? He does and has done that.

Do you take the tax exemption away from the Society of Fiends for telling its congregants to vote for anti-war candidates or pacifist issues? What if the help soldiers defect to Canada?

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.
 
2012-11-15 04:14:38 PM

Dr Dreidel: Lunchlady: A church is going to need to publicly endorse a candidate by name for anything to happen.

Isn't the point of this suit that the churches DID EXACTLY THAT that during this cycle? And proudly flaunted their nose-thumbing by publishing ads, op-eds and making public statements to the effect of "The IRS can't touch GAWD's will!"?

It's one thing for the IRS to claim prosecutorial discretion when not prosecuting suspected illegal electioneering by nonprofits. It's quite another when you have a bishop ON RECORD saying that his priests must read his electioneering screed on Sunday and him (and others) daring the IRS to come after them.

The cynic in all of us knows that the USG/IRS isn't going to neuter churches like that. Laws be damned, no one is going to take on religious establishments - they'll always win the ground game.

// reclassify the churches as SuperPACs if they want to do electioneering


It was "reported" that pastors told Romney they would help anyway they can, and then the same churches/preachers released ads. Way too much plausible deniability.
 
2012-11-15 04:16:38 PM

AustinFakir: WhoopAssWayne: stand up and call out the liberal freeloaders at every opportunity

[sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 534x400]


Hmmm.... Preview failed me. Well, the gist is that it's odd to call people freeloaders when they are standing up asking to be taxed so they can help narrow the budget deficit, and it's doubly odd when the name-callers are desperately trying to take as little responsibility for the country's debt as possible.
 
2012-11-15 04:17:36 PM
As long as they include the black churches that marched there congregations to the booths. I don't have a problem with it.
 
2012-11-15 04:17:54 PM

Pockafrusta: Over 450 thousand churches in the U.S. While you may get a big fish like Graham, the backlash will be immense.


How many are electioneering from the pulpit though? Surely not that many or even close.

/but i've been wrong before
 
2012-11-15 04:18:17 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.


I'm pretty sure the federal oath of office, which the Director of the IRS would have taken, includes some form of promise to "enforce the laws of the United States."
 
2012-11-15 04:18:25 PM
Wouldn't someone have to go into these churches and and make sure they were not advocating a political position or endorsement? Some sort of political enforcer, if you will, to police the church... THE CHURCH POLICE!

www.oocities.org

When I am elected Nebuchadnezzar, I'm pulling the TSA out of the airports, and getting right on top of this.
 
2012-11-15 04:18:35 PM
the IRS is a hero?
wait till they come for you.
 
2012-11-15 04:18:46 PM
All i know is for the weeks leading up to the election my church (which is very conservative) didn't mention politics once. But this past week had a sermon on how the country is going to hell because we here in Wisconsin elected a dirty smelly lesbian to serve in the Senate and how this is the downfall of America. We were then told that gay people are just really straight people that are confused and our pastor has helped dozens of people in our congregation lead healthy straight lives when they told them they had gay thoughts. It was the same song and dance about how God doesn't hate gay people but they are going to hell unless they suppress the gay. It makes me want to send a link to the sermon to the IRS since our church puts all the sermons online for shut-ins to watch.
 
2012-11-15 04:19:15 PM
encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com

Approves.
 
2012-11-15 04:19:32 PM

TrollingForColumbine: As long as they include the black churches that marched there congregations to the booths. I don't have a problem with it.


Encouraging voting =/= persuading or threatening someone to vote for a political candidate.

A simpler explanation could only be made with crayons.
 
2012-11-15 04:20:00 PM

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.
 
2012-11-15 04:20:51 PM
No standing.
 
2012-11-15 04:21:19 PM
I filed a complaint with the IRS because the Commission on Presidential Debates falls under the same 501(c)(3) status as these churches. The CPD interfered with the campaigns of Johnson and Dr. Stein by not allowing them part of the debate even though they were on the ballot of enough states to win the electoral votes.

This lawsuit could open up a whole new non-profit status that allows these groups to have influence on elections before restricting them.
 
2012-11-15 04:21:37 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.


If you were charged with something that some oft else didn't get charged with you would be livid.
 
2012-11-15 04:22:05 PM

Delawheredad: The other problem wit this law is the question of favoritism. Are you going to go after politically active inner city churches like Obama's church or are you only going after redneck southern churches? What about Louis Farrakhan calling on the U.S. to stop supporting Israel and to stop voting for candidates that support Israel? He does and has done that.

Do you take the tax exemption away from the Society of Fiends for telling its congregants to vote for anti-war candidates or pacifist issues? What if the help soldiers defect to Canada?

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.


I think this is a lot of the reason the IRS hasn't done that - at least, not on a large scale - no matter who's in charge; it would be a logistical nightmare fraught with political complications, and would yield little benefit.

I think another reason is that if they ever actually do something concrete like that, it will be challenged in court, and the IRS would prefer its status to remain murky so they can use it as a weapon.
 
2012-11-15 04:23:09 PM
img811.imageshack.us

IMO the only solution is for Picard and Data to fire apples at the IRS building.
 
2012-11-15 04:23:35 PM

Delawheredad: The other problem wit this law is the question of favoritism. Are you going to go after politically active inner city churches like Obama's church or are you only going after redneck southern churches? What about Louis Farrakhan calling on the U.S. to stop supporting Israel and to stop voting for candidates that support Israel? He does and has done that.

Do you take the tax exemption away from the Society of Fiends for telling its congregants to vote for anti-war candidates or pacifist issues? What if the help soldiers defect to Canada?

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.


"Society of Fiends"? Cute. Of course, the Society doesn't tell its members to do anything, since there are no priests or preachers, much less bishops among the Quakers.

How about we just blanket-enforce the prohibition on partisan political activism against ALL religious organizations in this country, period? Or they can pay their taxes -- the way all churches in countries like France pay taxes. Works for me.
 
2012-11-15 04:24:07 PM
This is pretty brilliant. The government cannot make the first move against a bunch of churches because of the political atmosphere, but an outside group can force the government to do it. Churches should have to file. If they do charity, they can file for that portion of their business that is a non-profit charity. Otherwise, a church is a business. It's ridiculous that large land-holding churches don't have to pay a cent of property tax. It's absurd that pastors who build mansions for their rectory and have stretch hummers that get everything tax free. This would be a great way to raise revenue.
 
2012-11-15 04:24:37 PM
Churches with tax exempt status telling there congregation to vote one way or another is a crime. If they have tax exempt status they know this and signed the contract to that effect when applying for the tax break. They should immediately loose that tax break and owe full taxes as a political organizer for the year the offense took place in. Loose as well the tax exempt status for 4 years. But this is not the biggest problem with entities with tax exempt status. The law is a Charity with this tax exempt status only has to pay out 10% of what they collect. 90% could go to the CEO's golden parachute if they wanted to. These charities paid it out to their buddies in the add business. It doesn't say what the kick back was.
http://www.charitynavigator.org/
Rank Charity Program Expenses Professional Fundraising Fees
1 Disabled Police Officers Counseling Center 4.4% 94.6%
2 Cancer Survivors' Fund 7.4% 89.2%
3 The Committee for Missing Children 11.1% 86.7%
4 Firefighters Charitable Foundation 7.7% 85.4%
5 Operation Lookout 9.8% 84.2%
6 Wishing Well Foundation USA 8.5% 80.9%
7 National Vietnam Veterans Foundation 9.7% 79.8%
8 Law Enforcement Education Program 3.0% 79.3%
9 Children's Charity Fund, Inc. 8.1% 77.9%
10 National Police Defense Foundation 17.3% 77.2%
 
2012-11-15 04:25:07 PM

eagles95: All i know is for the weeks leading up to the election my church (which is very conservative) didn't mention politics once. But this past week had a sermon on how the country is going to hell because we here in Wisconsin elected a dirty smelly lesbian to serve in the Senate and how this is the downfall of America. We were then told that gay people are just really straight people that are confused and our pastor has helped dozens of people in our congregation lead healthy straight lives when they told them they had gay thoughts. It was the same song and dance about how God doesn't hate gay people but they are going to hell unless they suppress the gay. It makes me want to send a link to the sermon to the IRS since our church puts all the sermons online for shut-ins to watch.


...and you keep going there? WTF?
 
2012-11-15 04:25:15 PM
Republicans what close tax loopholes, well tax-exemptions for churches is a big hole that could use some closing.
 
2012-11-15 04:25:25 PM
Churches are people too!
 
2012-11-15 04:25:49 PM

JFarker131: why are they not immediately punished and removed from tax exempt status?


Exactly

You run a financial scam, they dont' care if you're Martha farkin Stewart.
You spend brown time with Bubba.
 
2012-11-15 04:26:08 PM

colon_pow: the IRS is a hero?
wait till they come for you.


You don't like the people who collect the money that funds our military?

Why do you hate our troops?
 
2012-11-15 04:27:20 PM
With only 10% having to be paid out by these charities and non profits no wonder stuff like this happens...
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=topten.detail&listid=28
 
2012-11-15 04:27:21 PM

eagles95: All i know is for the weeks leading up to the election my church (which is very conservative) didn't mention politics once. But this past week had a sermon on how the country is going to hell because we here in Wisconsin elected a dirty smelly lesbian to serve in the Senate and how this is the downfall of America. We were then told that gay people are just really straight people that are confused and our pastor has helped dozens of people in our congregation lead healthy straight lives when they told them they had gay thoughts. It was the same song and dance about how God doesn't hate gay people but they are going to hell unless they suppress the gay. It makes me want to send a link to the sermon to the IRS since our church puts all the sermons online for shut-ins to watch.


See, that stuffs ok by the law.

Saying "Vote for X because if you don't you'll burn in hell" is not ok. It's coercion at best, and if you believe it there is a hell and your pastor speaks for God, well, do you risk your immortal soul to vote for who you want to or vote for who your pastor says God wants you to vote for?

And that in a nutshell is why we don't allow electioneering from the pulpit.
 
2012-11-15 04:27:52 PM

Duelist: The only people who will see a dime would be tax preparers and accountants.


And us folks who provide technical support for accounting software.
Shhh.
 
2012-11-15 04:27:58 PM

hartzdog: No standing.


I'm not a law-talkin guy, but the IRS not doing their job affects literally every American.
 
2012-11-15 04:28:16 PM

mksmith: How about we just blanket-enforce the prohibition on partisan political activism against ALL religious organizations in this country, period?


The government absolutely cannot do such a thing. It would violate both the letter and spirit of the First Amendment for the government to attempt to enforce a blanket prohibition on political speech or activity by private citizens.
 
2012-11-15 04:29:24 PM

lohphat: I'll just leave this here.

Review the 501(c)(3) status of The Church of Latter-day Saints (The Mormons)


Yeah, they need a serious kick in the nuts for CA Prop. 8 alone! Fark those homophobic assholes right in the pocketbook!
 
2012-11-15 04:30:03 PM
Still don't understand why religious organizations are tax-exempt anyway. They abuse the system so regularly it isn't even funny. Good on this lawsuit!!
 
2012-11-15 04:30:04 PM

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


The French Prophets of the 18th century thought that the Church and all organized religion corrupts Christ's message and is an abomination. They believed that they Church was the work of the Antichrist and condemned it. They also considered the patriarchal nature of Judaism and Christianity to be blasphemous, since they held that god created man and woman in his image. Thus, god is a entity that is both masculine and feminine and that when Christ returns, it will be in the form of a woman. To them, such balance is necessary. Were they crazy or just more spiritual? At the time they were considered ridiculous and persecuted.
 
2012-11-15 04:30:24 PM

qorkfiend: mksmith: How about we just blanket-enforce the prohibition on partisan political activism against ALL religious organizations in this country, period?

The government absolutely cannot do such a thing. It would violate both the letter and spirit of the First Amendment for the government to attempt to enforce a blanket prohibition on political speech or activity by private citizens.


What are you saying? That we still have a bill of rights?
TSA TSA TSA!
 
2012-11-15 04:31:11 PM

Lunchlady: Dr Dreidel: Lunchlady: A church is going to need to publicly endorse a candidate by name for anything to happen.

Isn't the point of this suit that the churches DID EXACTLY THAT that during this cycle? And proudly flaunted their nose-thumbing by publishing ads, op-eds and making public statements to the effect of "The IRS can't touch GAWD's will!"?

It's one thing for the IRS to claim prosecutorial discretion when not prosecuting suspected illegal electioneering by nonprofits. It's quite another when you have a bishop ON RECORD saying that his priests must read his electioneering screed on Sunday and him (and others) daring the IRS to come after them.

The cynic in all of us knows that the USG/IRS isn't going to neuter churches like that. Laws be damned, no one is going to take on religious establishments - they'll always win the ground game.

// reclassify the churches as SuperPACs if they want to do electioneering

It was "reported" that pastors told Romney they would help anyway they can, and then the same churches/preachers released ads. Way too much plausible deniability.


Plausibly deny this.

"[A] letter from Illinois Bishop Daniel Jenky accusing the administration of an unprecedented 'assault upon our religious freedom' and implying that Catholics who pull the lever for Democrats who support abortion rights are like those who condemned Jesus to death. 'Since the foundation of the American Republic and the adoption of the Bill of Rights, I do not think there has ever been a time more threatening to our religious liberty than the present,' Jenky writes in the letter, which he ordered priests in his Peoria diocese to read at all Masses on Sunday."

"Responding to Jenky's letter, James Salt, executive director for Catholics United, a progressive group, said Jenky was 'using the pulpits of his diocese for partisan proclamations' and he said that was not only wrong but was driving young people away from the church. 'By brazenly violating IRS and church guidelines against partisan activity, Bishop Jenky has shown that he is more interested in following the paths of Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson than the Gospel of Jesus Christ'..."
 
2012-11-15 04:31:41 PM
Mediamatters. A 501c3 and donations can be tax deductible. Wonder why FFR isn't including them.

/sure it's just an over site.
 
2012-11-15 04:34:08 PM
There is a group of pastors that have recorded themselves specifically endorsing a candidate and sent the recordings to the IRS. They, like the FRRS, are trying to trigger an enforcement, but for very different reasons. They're pretty confident that they can get the prohibition against political speech nullified on constitutional grounds and if I understand their argument right, they may actually pull it off.
 
2012-11-15 04:35:53 PM

Dr Dreidel: Lunchlady: Dr Dreidel: Lunchlady: A church is going to need to publicly endorse a candidate by name for anything to happen.

Isn't the point of this suit that the churches DID EXACTLY THAT that during this cycle? And proudly flaunted their nose-thumbing by publishing ads, op-eds and making public statements to the effect of "The IRS can't touch GAWD's will!"?

It's one thing for the IRS to claim prosecutorial discretion when not prosecuting suspected illegal electioneering by nonprofits. It's quite another when you have a bishop ON RECORD saying that his priests must read his electioneering screed on Sunday and him (and others) daring the IRS to come after them.

The cynic in all of us knows that the USG/IRS isn't going to neuter churches like that. Laws be damned, no one is going to take on religious establishments - they'll always win the ground game.

// reclassify the churches as SuperPACs if they want to do electioneering

It was "reported" that pastors told Romney they would help anyway they can, and then the same churches/preachers released ads. Way too much plausible deniability.

Plausibly deny this.

"[A] letter from Illinois Bishop Daniel Jenky accusing the administration of an unprecedented 'assault upon our religious freedom' and implying that Catholics who pull the lever for Democrats who support abortion rights are like those who condemned Jesus to death. 'Since the foundation of the American Republic and the adoption of the Bill of Rights, I do not think there has ever been a time more threatening to our religious liberty than the present,' Jenky writes in the letter, which he ordered priests in his Peoria diocese to read at all Masses on Sunday."

"Responding to Jenky's letter, James Salt, executive director for Catholics United, a progressive group, said Jenky was 'using the pulpits of his diocese for partisan proclamations' and he said that was not only wrong but was driving young people away from the church. 'By brazenly violating IRS and church ...


Interesting. I hope I'm wrong for fairness sake, but I see this as having the potential to backfire incredibly badly.
 
2012-11-15 04:36:12 PM

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


People who do have to pay taxes?
 
2012-11-15 04:36:17 PM

The Stealth Hippopotamus: That sounds about right to me. Other than the Scalia. I know he really likes being a judge but he is mindful of his PR. He doesn't want to go out looking like he was holding on just to hold on.


"the Scalia" will stay because of his unshakeable conviction that he, and he alone, is the only man up to the job. (This includes his fellow Justices.)

I've met the man. Disdain just oozes from him. He's not going *anywhere*.

And some men just don't retire well. My father was one of them. If he didn't get to put on the robe and sit on the bench every day he would not have known what to do with himself. He had no hobbies, wasn't a putterer (he couldn't change the wiper blades on his car, for goodness sake) but he sure ran a tight courtroom. (For the record, he was a ALJ for FERC til the day he died.)
 
2012-11-15 04:38:48 PM

Weaver95: if church pastors violated the law...then there SHOULD be an investigation and face sanctions for their actions.

look, there's a process here. if the law wasn't broken, then the pastors will have a chance to prove that fact. but you can't just ignore the rules. either the IRS rules apply to everyone or they apply to none of us.


ahem.
 
2012-11-15 04:40:09 PM

Loadmaster: Freedom of Speech.

Protected political speech, specifically.



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.
 
2012-11-15 04:40:38 PM
No matter how you slice it it ends up with selective enforcement and general unfairness.

The folks filing the suit just seem to want to go after the evangelicals.

You have to go after everybody or you can't go after anyone.

There are who knows how many store front houses of worship in this country? How do you know what is being said in any one at any time. If you nail the mega church led by the closeted bigot who preaches against gay you also have to go after the tiny Mosque that preaches for the destruction of Israel and tells its members to vote against Israel. You ALSO have to go after the Synagogue where the Rabbi says vote for Israel.

How in the world could you enforce this law WITHOUT spying on everyone?
 
2012-11-15 04:41:05 PM

lohphat: I'll just leave this here.

Review the 501(c)(3) status of The Church of Latter-day Saints (The Mormons)


Funny how they have the cash to build a $3B mall... it's what Jesus would want.
 
2012-11-15 04:41:36 PM
About farking time.
 
2012-11-15 04:41:42 PM
You know, I am fine with these churches acting like for profit businesses and expressing their political opinions.

They just need to pay taxes, like any other for profit business.

laird knows we could use the revenue.


Tax the Churches ~FZ
 
2012-11-15 04:44:16 PM
Render unto Ceasar that which is Ceasar's, biatches
 
2012-11-15 04:44:36 PM
the power to tax is the power to destroy.

here's your chance you godless heathens.
are your little gay weiners hard yet?
don't answer that.
 
2012-11-15 04:44:56 PM

Mort_Q: Loadmaster: Freedom of Speech.

Protected political speech, specifically.


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.


If the government repealed the tax-exempt status of churches along with the prohibition on political speech, that would probably be fine (Constitution-wise, at least; the political backlash would probably be pretty heavy). Removing legal status from specific organizations as punishment for political speech probably would not be.
 
2012-11-15 04:45:34 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.


So the FFRF has to abide by the same laws as the churches and if they were to break this law they would be sued. But the IRS says that all of the churches breaking the law won't be sued.

Just think about that for a minute.

If the local police said that white people would no longer be pulled over for breaking speed laws, would you consider that "prosecutorial discretion?" Or would you call that illegal? Especially when the cops continue to pull over people of color for breaking those same laws...
 
2012-11-15 04:47:51 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?


Two words: Respondeat Superior
 
2012-11-15 04:48:20 PM

DamnYankees: Cythraul: Slaxl: What's the function of exempting religion from taxes?

Prevents your local priest from also being your tax collector?

The idea of a "tax collector" is hilariously old-fashioned.


yeah a farkin' laugh riot. Come with me sometime when he and I are going the best 2/3. Farking asshat.
I've had to ask him not to stand so close when he shouts because he spits when he shouts.
 
2012-11-15 04:48:28 PM

ItsJustJake: 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.

Correct me if I'm wrong (which I very well may be), but I've always heard that the IRS is not the government - it's just a company that collects taxes for it. In any case, if they are blatantly ignoring people avoiding taxes illegally for political reasons, or simply not attempting to enforce the law as it is laid out, then it is an issue that must be corrected.

Why should those churches be free to break the law?


Why do people keep saying nonsense like this?

Saying the IRS is not the government? Seriously?

Yeah, some conspiracy theorists have wacky ideas like that, it's like that "sovereign citizen" bullshiat. Try telling a Federal Judge that the IRS is just a company that collects for the government and not really part of the government.

Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 certainly seems to say its part of the Federal Government.

Link IRS employees are paid on the same GS paygrades and civil service system as other Federal Employees, and get access to Federal employee benefits like Federal employee retirement and healthcare.

Link Private companies don't get to have people working for them with Federal law enforcement powers and big shiny brass badges that read "Department of the Treasury Special Agent".

The IRS even has a rebuttal for all these wacky claims: Link

From the IRS document "The Truth about Frivolous Tax Arguments":

Contention: The Internal Revenue Service is not an agency of the United States.

Some argue that the IRS is not an agency of the United States but rather a private corporation, because it was not created by positive law (i.e., an act of Congress) and that, therefore, the IRS does not have the authority to enforce the Internal Revenue Code.

The Law: There is a host of constitutional and statutory authority establishing that the IRS is an agency of the United States. Indeed, the United States Supreme Court has stated "that the Internal Revenue Service is organized to carry out the broad responsibilities of the Secretary of the Treasury under § 7801(a) of the 1954 Code for the administration and enforcement of the internal revenue laws." Donaldson v. United States, 400 U.S. 517, 534 (1971).

Pursuant to section 7801, the Secretary of the Treasury has full authority to administer and enforce the internal revenue laws and has the power to create an agency to enforce such laws. Based upon this legislative grant, the IRS was created. Thus, the IRS is a body established by "positive law" because it was created through a congressionally mandated power. Moreover, section 7803(a) explicitly provides that there shall be a Commissioner of Internal Revenue who shall administer and supervise the execution and application of the internal revenue laws.

Relevant Case Law:
United States v. Fern, 696 F.2d 1269, 1273
(11th Cir. 1983) - the court declared "[c]learly, the Internal Revenue Service is a 'department or agency' of the United States."

Salman v. Dept. of Treasury, 899 F.Supp. 471, 472
(D. Nev. 1995) - the court described Salman's contention that the IRS is not a government agency of the United States as wholly frivolous and dismissed his claim with prejudice.

Young v. IRS, 596 F.Supp. 141, 147 (N.D. Ind. 1984) - the court granted summary judgment in favor of the government, rejecting Young's claim that the IRS is a private corporation, rather than a government agency.
 
2012-11-15 04:49:38 PM
The IRS should go after the obvious offenders. If they did nothing wrong, then they have nothing to worry about.
 
2012-11-15 04:50:56 PM

coeyagi: TrollingForColumbine: As long as they include the black churches that marched there congregations to the booths. I don't have a problem with it.

Encouraging voting =/= persuading or threatening someone to vote for a political candidate.

A simpler explanation could only be made with crayons.


are you saying the black churches were not trying to persuade their congregation. I call BS.
Link

I am a liberal (mostly), voted for Obama twice. But sauce goose/gander and all that equal protection under the law stuff.

I would also like to see polling places not in churches and "in god we trust" off my money.
 
2012-11-15 04:51:07 PM
i377.photobucket.com

/how was this not posted yet?
 
2012-11-15 04:52:13 PM

Slaxl: What's the function of exempting religion from taxes?


A misconstruction (misconstu-ing? ...whatever the correct word form is there) of Scripture.

Unless I misunderstand the Old Testament (and I am grossly simplifying and paraphrasing here), the tithe went to provide for the priests, whose labor was not a paid position.

In the New Testament, we see tax collectors - who often collected more than the State was due and pocketed the excess. We also see the Temple Tax - which Jesus paid on behalf of himself and Peter, saying to give Caesar what is Caesar and give God what is God's (the tax being Caesar's). Jesus further neither advocated the presence of nor removal (violently or otherwise) of Caesar or civil government (which is supported by taxes, just as it was in His time), telling Pilate that the authority of civil government comes from God (not necessarily the men and women who hold those offices, but the offices themselves - I think we can all agree that certain tyrants through world history were not acting in accordance with the will of any higher power, regardless of what name you give that power).

In short, if Jesus would not advocate a particular individual for political office or the removal of any individual from office, and if Jesus paid His taxes, and if we, as Christians are supposed to strive to be like Him in our thoughts and actions, then what business do we have electioneering or advocating the idea of not paying taxes?

Those who brought the lawsuit were right to do so - just as the government has no business interfering in the business of the church, so the church (as a corporate body) has no business interfering in politics.
 
2012-11-15 04:53:01 PM

Slaxl: What's the function of exempting religion from taxes?


Like other non-profits, religious institutions also provide a public service. Many run soup kitchens and thrift shops and support the community in small but well-meaning ways.

My church runs a thrift shop that is practically giving clothes away (and literally do in some cases). But at the same time, our priest doesn't stand up at the pulpit and tell us who to vote for or why one candidate will cause the country to go to hell in a handbasket. But we apparently seem to be in the minority.

/if they get involved in politics, tax 'em
 
2012-11-15 04:55:27 PM
While I can understand having a paywall between Churches and the State and why the IRS never bothered to come up with policies addressing something so nebulous as "Is preacher XYZ electioneering?" I'm seeing this as the next "SuperPAC Revolution That Gets WAY THE FARK Out Of Hand Before It Gets Reformed."

So wake me after SuperPACs get reformed, and I'll have something to watch.
 
2012-11-15 04:55:40 PM
I think I'll go with just leave it alone. You don't religions cool don't like em. You think it's a good idea to rile up a bunch of religious folk well then we have an issue. Just check your history books it is always a bad idea to piss of the religious folk. always. Even when they have no logical reason the religious people can be extremely dangerous (inquisition I'm looking at you here). I think it's best to not give them an actual target.

/let sleeping dogs lie and all that.
 
2012-11-15 04:56:20 PM
hugram

The IRS should go after the obvious offenders. If they did nothing wrong, then they have nothing to worry about

So you are in favor of selective enforcement.

Sorry everyone is equal under the law. You can't enforce laws for one set of folks and ignore them for others. If you sue one church you have to sue everyone who violates the law, a practically impossible task.
 
2012-11-15 04:58:43 PM

colon_pow: the power to tax is the power to destroy.

here's your chance you godless heathens.
are your little gay weiners hard yet?
don't answer that.


Serious question for you.

Are you truly OK with a religious leader telling his or her congregation or parish, in their capacity as a religious leader, that if they do not vote the way he tells them too, they will be punished, either in this life or the next?
 
2012-11-15 05:01:36 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: meh. the Constitution does not provide for freedom from religion or freedom from being offended.


It also doesn't provide for churches to be exempt from laws that other groups have to follow.
 
2012-11-15 05:06:18 PM
Should the NJEA lose its Tax Exempt status?
 
2012-11-15 05:06:21 PM

fluffy2097: End tax exempt status for all religious organizations.

If your organization wants to endorse a political candidate, you should have to comply with campaign finance laws. sammyk: CapeFearCadaver: 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.

It's blatantly and publically breaking the law. If any of us were to do the same we'd be toast.

But you do not sue the local police to report a crime.

You DO sue the police when a crime is reported and they tell you to fark off, we don't care that a crime was committed.


And you lose.
 
2012-11-15 05:06:23 PM

Delawheredad: Sorry everyone is equal under the law. You can't enforce laws for one set of folks and ignore them for others. If you sue one church you have to sue everyone who violates the law, a practically impossible task.


Which is why every jaywalker gets fined.

Reductio ad Absurum is really a lame argument, dude.

Fallacious, in fact, one might say.
 
2012-11-15 05:06:40 PM

colon_pow: the IRS is a hero?
wait till they come for you.


My dealings with the IRS have always been amicable. But, I don't claim exemptions I can't prove. They even sent me a refund when I fubared my taxes and sent them too much money.
 
2012-11-15 05:07:35 PM

Delawheredad: hugram

The IRS should go after the obvious offenders. If they did nothing wrong, then they have nothing to worry about

So you are in favor of selective enforcement.

Sorry everyone is equal under the law. You can't enforce laws for one set of folks and ignore them for others. If you sue one church you have to sue everyone who violates the law, a practically impossible task.


For the record, I'm an atheist so I would have no problem if every church lost their exempt status, but I understand a lot of churches do good things. I'm not pushing for all of them to lose their exempt status... just the ones that violate the IRS rule.

Having said that, I wish the IRS would go after a church... any church that broke the rule. They have not gone after anybody, and that's an issue many people have, including me.

Ideally, I would like the IRS to go after all churches that broke the law, but one would be a great start.
 
2012-11-15 05:07:58 PM
If an issue is at odds with the principles or teachings of a church, they can and should be able to preach about them, *regardless* that it is a political issue as well. And yes, even if preaching means an ad in a newspaper. They're not talking about big oil, global warming or taxes from the pulpit, the abortion and marriage debates are important religious issues.

Threatening a church with loosing tax-exempt status is a road we do *not* want to go down, people. Seperation of church an state goes both ways. Why is it that people only get their feathers in a ruffle when they perceive the church is extending its reach. You should fear the government far, far more.
 
2012-11-15 05:08:19 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: meh. the Constitution does not provide for freedom from religion or freedom from being offended.

how about they sue the IRS for not getting Buffet to have his companies pay the 10 years of back taxes. That would have a bigger impact on the budget.


I'm not sure you understand how much money goes through churches...
 
2012-11-15 05:09:06 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?


And that's 50 bucks less the local male prostitute will be earning that month.
 
2012-11-15 05:10:59 PM

Ragetech: You should fear the government far, far more.


You should fear them both equally. see: dark ages for references.
 
2012-11-15 05:11:28 PM

EatHam: Weaver95: if the law wasn't broken, then the pastors will have a chance to prove that fact.
 
I'm not sure that you're placing the burden of proof properly.


As far as I know this isn't a criminal trial, this is a civil action. Criminal trial standards would not apply.
 
2012-11-15 05:12:06 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?

If one rogue member of any group breaks this rule who is responsible for the fine?

Things can work from the bottom up as well as from the top down. Fine that church.
 
2012-11-15 05:12:20 PM

TrollingForColumbine: I would also like to see polling places not in churches


Why? It's not an endorsement of a religion. They are simply granting the government to use a public space that is not being used that day anyway.
 
2012-11-15 05:19:06 PM

Ed Grubermann: TrollingForColumbine: I would also like to see polling places not in churches

Why? It's not an endorsement of a religion. They are simply granting the government to use a public space that is not being used that day anyway.


I'd like to see that, and churches stripped of their power to legal marry people. There is no reason to have "by the power vested in my by the state of". If you want a religious ceremony surrounding your marriage, do it; but as you are already heading to a magistrate or similar government official to get the document in the first place, why not just sign everything there in front of him and be done with it?

There is no reason to entangle a government with a religious institution at such a basic level as contract witnessing or voting.

//And it is a farce anyways. I can go to a couple of places online right now, become a minister, and have the legal right to marry people.
 
2012-11-15 05:20:10 PM

hugram: Delawheredad: hugram

The IRS should go after the obvious offenders. If they did nothing wrong, then they have nothing to worry about

So you are in favor of selective enforcement.

Sorry everyone is equal under the law. You can't enforce laws for one set of folks and ignore them for others. If you sue one church you have to sue everyone who violates the law, a practically impossible task.

For the record, I'm an atheist so I would have no problem if every church lost their exempt status, but I understand a lot of churches do good things. I'm not pushing for all of them to lose their exempt status... just the ones that violate the IRS rule.

Having said that, I wish the IRS would go after a church... any church that broke the rule. They have not gone after anybody, and that's an issue many people have, including me.

Ideally, I would like the IRS to go after all churches that broke the law, but one would be a great start.


That's the crux of the entire question. Can the government, bound by the First Amendment, revoke a legal status due to political speech or action? I think such an action would be unconstitutional.
 
2012-11-15 05:20:42 PM

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.


So your saying that they are given this status based on faith?
 
2012-11-15 05:24:12 PM

meat0918: colon_pow: the power to tax is the power to destroy.

here's your chance you godless heathens.
are your little gay weiners hard yet?
don't answer that.

Serious question for you.

Are you truly OK with a religious leader telling his or her congregation or parish, in their capacity as a religious leader, that if they do not vote the way he tells them too, they will be punished, either in this life or the next?


nope
 
2012-11-15 05:25:11 PM

gbv23: My church consists of Religious Humanists----we don't do God, Jesus, BELIEFS or The Bible. Its called uua.org. Yes, we do social justice but not election-lobbying. We love Teh Gheys


Why do you hate JHVH?
 
2012-11-15 05:25:11 PM
At least the effort to cut the budget of the IRS every year makes more sense now. A fully funded IRS would not only collect more of the money owed from more of the people who aren't paying, it would have resources for things like enforcing the corners of IRC 501.

The guy who talked about prioritizing money is right. The IRS is primarily, and really should be exclusively, a revenue-collecting machine. Problems start to arise when you start using the tax code as an instrument of social poilcy. It creates all kinds of perverse incentives.
 
2012-11-15 05:27:11 PM

coco ebert: This Is Bold Text: Good.

They want to use the government to force their will on women and gays

I want to use the government to force them to pay their fair share.

Interestingly enough, I'm wondering if a group could similarly sue the government to enforce the federal ban on gay marriage or the federal ban on marijuana.


Actually, depending on the makeup of the supreme court, the gay ban suit might backfire, since ther's been an argument that it would be covered by the equal protections clause of the 14th amendment.
 
2012-11-15 05:27:16 PM
Metraxis

Problems start to arise when you start using the tax code as an instrument of social poilcy. It creates all kinds of perverse incentives.

-- here here!
 
2012-11-15 05:28:26 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: how about they sue the IRS for not getting Buffet to have his companies pay the 10 years of back taxes. That would have a bigger impact on the budget.


In 2011, 32% of all charitable donations, or $95.88 billion, went to religious organizations. At a *very* modest 15% tax rate that amounts to over $14 billion in annual tax revenue. Warren Buffet's "back taxes owed" total is about $1 billion...and that's a one-time payment. How exactly would that have a bigger impact on the budget?

Source for charitable giving: http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=42
Source Warren Buffet's taxes: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/how-much-is-buffetts-berkshire-hathawa y-back-tax-bill-exactly-about-1-billion/
 
2012-11-15 05:28:40 PM

qorkfiend: hugram: Delawheredad: hugram

The IRS should go after the obvious offenders. If they did nothing wrong, then they have nothing to worry about

So you are in favor of selective enforcement.

Sorry everyone is equal under the law. You can't enforce laws for one set of folks and ignore them for others. If you sue one church you have to sue everyone who violates the law, a practically impossible task.

For the record, I'm an atheist so I would have no problem if every church lost their exempt status, but I understand a lot of churches do good things. I'm not pushing for all of them to lose their exempt status... just the ones that violate the IRS rule.

Having said that, I wish the IRS would go after a church... any church that broke the rule. They have not gone after anybody, and that's an issue many people have, including me.

Ideally, I would like the IRS to go after all churches that broke the law, but one would be a great start.

That's the crux of the entire question. Can the government, bound by the First Amendment, revoke a legal status due to political speech or action? I think such an action would be unconstitutional.


Simply put, yes. The code offers a conditional benefit. No church is required to apply for or receive a tax exemption to be a church. you can just be a church that pays taxes. The essential crux is that these entities are either seperate from the public sphere or they are not. Sometimes yes and sometimes no is certainly attractive from the church's POV, but it isn't good policy, and does run counter to the First Amendment.
 
2012-11-15 05:29:50 PM

Ed Grubermann: TrollingForColumbine: I would also like to see polling places not in churches

Why? It's not an endorsement of a religion. They are simply granting the government to use a public space that is not being used that day anyway.


Well then we should let the KKK rent out its meeting house. Perhaps the Hell's Angels have a nice alcove we could use. I hear NAMBLA has a hell of a suite at the business park.

Some things should be done in a neutral location. Public school, town hall, public arenas, library. My wife is Israeli (and Jewish) she is not comfortable voting in a christian church. I only care on principle she cares in her soul. Such feelings, though maybe illogical, may prevent some people from voting.
 
2012-11-15 05:30:51 PM

Pitabred: tenpoundsofcheese: meh. the Constitution does not provide for freedom from religion or freedom from being offended.

how about they sue the IRS for not getting Buffet to have his companies pay the 10 years of back taxes. That would have a bigger impact on the budget.

I'm not sure you understand how much money goes through churches...


See above. It is A LOT. We're not talking Afghanistan/Iraq kind of money, but still....it's A LOT.
 
2012-11-15 05:32:16 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.


What do you base that on? Any evidence?

Most churches bring in well under $200k a year, with three full time staff, a mortgage and community programs there isn't much left over. Minister salaries are taxed, and data on them puts them at under $50k a year.
 
2012-11-15 05:32:18 PM

Slaxl: What's the function of exempting religion from taxes?


They're non-profits (well... MOST churches are) that have at least some charitable intent. In theory, giving them a tax break

A) means you're not sucking from an empty well... the majority of American churches are far from loaded

and

B) allows them to use the money that they do have in order to carry out charitable causes.

Problem is, you have megachurch pastors and priests with exponentially more money and greed than intent to guide others to live the life as exemplified by Jesus.
 
2012-11-15 05:34:30 PM

TrollingForColumbine: My wife is Israeli (and Jewish) she is not comfortable voting in a christian church.


Why is your Israeli wife voting in an American election?
 
2012-11-15 05:35:59 PM
This is why the US government never got into this fight:

Start with the one side where you have people who have spent 6000 years or so researching things like...

"If the Sabbath Goy accidentally tripped and fell over and accidentally knocked the stove on, and if he was carrying goy food to his mother at the time that included shellfish...

Then you'll run up against the Jesuits. Good luck with that. An order trained in logic that would fark Spock sideways, up, down, ana, kata and then have him killed at the next zebra crossing.

Then there's the Fiquiah... which I don't pretend to know as well, but from what little I do know can tell you anything you want to hear and make you want to hear it.

Does anyone think an IRS lawyer can do anything at all with that? I haven't even gotten out of the Abrahamic religions here... 

Maybe there is something to the whole concept of separating the secular from the divine.
 
2012-11-15 05:37:14 PM

TrollingForColumbine: Why? It's not an endorsement of a religion. They are simply granting the government to use a public space that is not being used that day anyway.

Well then we should let the KKK rent out its meeting house. Perhaps the Hell's Angels have a nice alcove we could use. I hear NAMBLA has a hell of a suite at the business park.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/photographer-michael-mergen- v ote_n_2082446.html
 
2012-11-15 05:40:46 PM

This text is now purple: TrollingForColumbine: My wife is Israeli (and Jewish) she is not comfortable voting in a christian church.

Why is your Israeli wife voting in an American election?


Dual citizen. This was he first election.
 
2012-11-15 05:41:21 PM

TrollingForColumbine: This text is now purple: TrollingForColumbine: My wife is Israeli (and Jewish) she is not comfortable voting in a christian church.

Why is your Israeli wife voting in an American election?

Dual citizen. This was her first election.

 
2012-11-15 05:43:57 PM

This text is now purple: TrollingForColumbine: Why? It's not an endorsement of a religion. They are simply granting the government to use a public space that is not being used that day anyway.

Well then we should let the KKK rent out its meeting house. Perhaps the Hell's Angels have a nice alcove we could use. I hear NAMBLA has a hell of a suite at the business park.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/photographer-michael-mergen- v ote_n_2082446.html


Yeah I saw that too. As long it is not a church I don't have as big of a problem with it. Though I think place that serve alcohol should be off limits. Two things to avoid talking about at the bar religion and politics.
 
2012-11-15 05:46:55 PM

TrollingForColumbine: This text is now purple: TrollingForColumbine: Why? It's not an endorsement of a religion. They are simply granting the government to use a public space that is not being used that day anyway.

Well then we should let the KKK rent out its meeting house. Perhaps the Hell's Angels have a nice alcove we could use. I hear NAMBLA has a hell of a suite at the business park.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/photographer-michael-mergen- v ote_n_2082446.html

Yeah I saw that too. As long it is not a church I don't have as big of a problem with it. Though I think place that serve alcohol should be off limits. Two things to avoid talking about at the bar religion and politics.


Any other laws you'd like us to implement because you personally find them convenient?
 
2012-11-15 05:48:02 PM
Really hoping that Obama gets to appoint 3 more justices. Go with 3 very young, very healthy and very liberal, and you start to balance the court towards sanity.
 
2012-11-15 05:50:15 PM
I believe taxing religious institutions is a great idea and would be great for education/healthcare/NASA/economy/infrastructure/et cetera, but I think setting this sort of precedent could backfire, specifically in states that just legalized recreational marijuana use.
 
2012-11-15 05:52:03 PM
"I don't know how you feel, but I'm pretty sick of church people. You know what they ought to do with churches? Tax them. If holy people are so interested in politics, government, and public policy, let them pay the price of admission like everybody else. The Catholic Church alone could wipe out the national debt if all you did was tax their real estate."

-- George Carlin
 
2012-11-15 05:52:31 PM

lake march: I believe taxing religious institutions is a great idea and would be great for education/healthcare/NASA/economy/infrastructure/et cetera, but I think setting this sort of precedent could backfire, specifically in states that just legalized recreational marijuana use.


The DEA's never had a problem conducting operations in states with legal marijuana before. It's unlikely their approach will change.
 
2012-11-15 05:53:27 PM

This text is now purple: TrollingForColumbine: This text is now purple: TrollingForColumbine: Why? It's not an endorsement of a religion. They are simply granting the government to use a public space that is not being used that day anyway.

Well then we should let the KKK rent out its meeting house. Perhaps the Hell's Angels have a nice alcove we could use. I hear NAMBLA has a hell of a suite at the business park.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/photographer-michael-mergen- v ote_n_2082446.html

Yeah I saw that too. As long it is not a church I don't have as big of a problem with it. Though I think place that serve alcohol should be off limits. Two things to avoid talking about at the bar religion and politics.

Any other laws you'd like us to implement because you personally find them convenient?

i4.photobucket.com
 
2012-11-15 06:07:42 PM

Slaxl: What's the function of exempting religion from taxes?


To show that religion is exempt from politics and thus stop them from talking about it. That way religions can't be the deciding factor in our political atmosphere.
 
2012-11-15 06:07:50 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?


Pray, then write your representatives.
Please, add action to prayer.

Or consider your actions to be the answer to your prayer. Be someone else's answer.
 
2012-11-15 06:08:44 PM
Wut's goin' on up in here?

blogs.courant.com
 
2012-11-15 06:10:37 PM
This will open a can of derp that has never before seen in the US.
 
2012-11-15 06:10:41 PM

Raharu: Tax.

All.

Religions.

Equally.


New.

Revenue.

Stream.


!.
 
2012-11-15 06:11:59 PM

Cyberluddite: The more basic issue than this for me is that I don't see how the IRS making churches exempt from taxation--or allowing individual taxpayers to take tax deductions for donations to churchs to support religious activities (such as Mitt Romney's millions of dollars each year in tithing that he's required to contributions to the Mormon Church to remain in good standing)--can be deemed to be allowable under the Establshment Clause of the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court keeps chipping away at Establishment Clause cases and allowing more and more religious intrusion into government activities (and vice-versa), but the basic premise at work here was set out 65 years ago in the Supreme Court's Everson v. Board of Education case as follows:

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

Doesn't allowing Pat Robertson's TV network to be exempt from taxes--when every non-religious TV network pays taxes--amount to the government giving support to religous activities? If the income Billy Graham's o ...


Well said.
 
2012-11-15 06:12:25 PM

foxyshadis: Weaver95: EatHam: Weaver95: anyone who gets up there and starts endorsing candidates loses their exemption. anyone who avoids politics and/or keeps it vague (i.e. not endorsing a candidate) gets to keep their exemption.

I could very well be mistaken (and I'm sure that there will be plenty of people very happy to tell me if I am), but isn't it supposed to be that way for all non profits, not just religious ones?

well yeah. problem is that we don't follow our rules that are already on the books. I just don't see the point of writing NEW rules when the ones we've got address the issue quite well. so the problem isn't with the rules...its with the IRS. why has the IRS not done it's job? is it politics? a structural issue? slow response? that's where I'd focus my attentions.

The IRS has been gutted by years of anti-tax politicians and their appointees. The less functional the IRS is, the more proof they have that it's non-functional and unfair and the more excuse they have to gut it further.


Also historically it's really hard to "prove" a crime of quality like this. Basically they have to find a long-term systemic problem, assemble a planet-sized katamari-ball of evidence and then bury the religious organization with it. Even then, it tends to lead to a plea deal where the church pays some pittance percentage of what they owe, promise to never do it again, and all is forgiven.
 
2012-11-15 06:13:19 PM

EatHam: GAT_00: Remove the tax exemption.

For all non profits, or are you going to say that no religious organization is allowed to be categorized as non profit?


Make them file separately. Church business plate. Church charity plate.

/ouch that'd hurt like bamboo under fingernails
 
2012-11-15 06:15:02 PM

TheMysticS: EatHam: GAT_00: Remove the tax exemption.

For all non profits, or are you going to say that no religious organization is allowed to be categorized as non profit?

Make them file separately. Church business plate. Church charity plate.

/ouch that'd hurt like bamboo under fingernails


//Aw, poop, missed a slashie.
///a church should not be considered a charity just by existing
 
2012-11-15 06:20:37 PM

usernameguy: Unfortunately I think what will happen is that the electioneering statute will be ruled unconstitutional.


No one is denying free speech to churches. They simply choose to lose the privilege of not paying taxes if they endorse political candidates. If they are going to continue to allow this, then they have to allow me to write off my donation to a political campaign as tax deductible charity.
 
2012-11-15 06:21:59 PM
Wow. You Libs are really angry, aren't you?
 
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.
 
2012-11-15 08:42:51 PM

ProfessorOhki: 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.


There weren't any riots after Loving, and there won't be any after the Supreme Court invalidates laws against gay marriage either.
 
2012-11-15 08:43:11 PM

ProfessorOhki: 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


Interesting. I guess part of the question might revolve around how they define "religious." Can an atheist group possibly be eligible for it? What about a satanic group? What hoops do they have to jump through to qualify?

But no, I'm not really okay with that if it only applies to "religious" groups with a narrow definition. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.
 
2012-11-15 08:45:11 PM

ProfessorOhki: 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.


Yeah. Not only that, but churches get automatic exemptions merely on the basis of being churches - secular organizations have to actively apply for them.
 
2012-11-15 08:52:45 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?


What about politicians that abuse it? You can start with Hillary's southern drawl speech when she was running for president.

I'm more for auditing the shiat out of Mega churches and revoking tax exempt status if they don't use most of their profits to helping the people instead of being like creflo dollar and building a 40 room mansion with a fleet of luxury cars and a helipad.....
 
2012-11-15 08:53:56 PM
Tax the Churches.

Tax the Businesses owned by the Churches.

wiki.killuglyradio.com

Remember folks. There's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over.
 
2012-11-15 08:54:27 PM

bittermang: usernameguy: Unfortunately I think what will happen is that the electioneering statute will be ruled unconstitutional.

And then we repeal their tax break, and they can start paying in to the system they want so desperately to stick their grubby arms into.


The entire history of the "exemption" is that Lyndon Johnson got in an argument with a preacher while he was running for Senate, so he introduced a bill adding the "electioneering" clause for non-profit status - applicable only to advocating for a particular candidate. You're making an assumption that if the statute is ruled unconstitutional that non-profits will automatically be taxed. That's not necessarily true. Electioneering was allowed for years before Johnson's butthurt made it illegal. And if it is challenged directly and makes it up to the SC, there's a very good chance it won't stand up.
 
2012-11-15 08:57:45 PM
 
2012-11-15 09:01:19 PM
The IRS have always been pussies. Picking on the weak. They dont want to fight against the well backed and supported churches. They will run away from this fight any way they can.
 
2012-11-15 09:03:13 PM

bugontherug: Tax exempt status is available to all non-profits, religious and secular, as it should be.


That's a conclusory statement, not an argument.

An organization that actually contributes a tangible, unconditional social benefit should have the opportunity to make the case their public benefit offsets their tax liability. Fine.

Religion, however, is a private social club. If they wish to engage in charitable giving pursuant to their religious tenants, nobody's stopping them. But if they want tax benefits, they should be required to make the same case that non-religious organizations do. No discriminating, no special rights, level playing field.

The real issue here is the IRS's discriminatory enforcement.

I comprehend the legal issue. I've lodged complaints with the IRS over this issue. Really. There are, however, more and deeper issues here than the ones that get heard in courtrooms.
 
2012-11-15 09:10:25 PM

rev. dave: One could argue, and I will, that some issues should belong to politicians and others to religious leaders. Marriage seems religious, taxes seem political.


If marriage was religious, it wouldn't require a license from the state to enter, and wouldn't require a court order to exit.

Churches don't get to decide who's qualified to enter a civil marriage, governments don't get to decide who's qualified for religious sacraments.

Step off, "reverend."
 
2012-11-15 09:13:18 PM

This text is now purple: 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.


This is also wrong and stupid, at least insofar as "free speech" is concerned.

People get free speech. End of story. The idea that you absolutely HAVE to include this for them to have enough "personhood" to do business is retarded. We know what has to be done for businesses to work - let them have those rights. But moneyspeech is not one of them.
 
2012-11-15 09:28:52 PM

CapeFearCadaver: 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.

It's blatantly and publically breaking the law. If any of us were to do the same we'd be toast.


Not if you're just in the country illegally. Then you're just fine.
 
2012-11-15 09:39:13 PM

Cyberluddite: The more basic issue than this for me is that I don't see how the IRS making churches exempt from taxation--or allowing individual taxpayers to take tax deductions for donations to churchs to support religious activities (such as Mitt Romney's millions of dollars each year in tithing that he's required to contributions to the Mormon Church to remain in good standing)--can be deemed to be allowable under the Establshment Clause of the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court keeps chipping away at Establishment Clause cases and allowing more and more religious intrusion into government activities (and vice-versa), but the basic premise at work here was set out 65 years ago in the Supreme Court's Everson v. Board of Education case as follows:

The "establishment of religion" clause of the First Amendment means at least this: neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State."

Doesn't allowing Pat Robertson's TV network to be exempt from taxes--when every non-religious TV network pays taxes--amount to the government giving support to religous activities? If the income Billy Graham's o ...


Your careful reading and thought (and accurate understanding of Federalist Paper No. 10 on the founding fathers' intended ban on religious and social factions) have no place in this country.
 
2012-11-15 09:45:18 PM
There appears to be a profound misunderstanding about what the First Amendment says.

It says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The power to tax is the power to destroy, which interferes with the free exercise and the power to regulate what is said from the Pulpit also interferes with the freedom of speech.
 
2012-11-15 09:54:07 PM
Any actual charitable causes, and the fees associated withstanding, if you make a profit you should pay taxes. Exercise your 1st amendment right to spew bullshiat all you want like the rest of the country.

Simple as that.
 
2012-11-15 10:12:33 PM

tekmo: rev. dave: One could argue, and I will, that some issues should belong to politicians and others to religious leaders. Marriage seems religious, taxes seem political.

If marriage was religious, it wouldn't require a license from the state to enter, and wouldn't require a court order to exit.

Churches don't get to decide who's qualified to enter a civil marriage, governments don't get to decide who's qualified for religious sacraments.

Step off, "reverend."


Also, marriage existed before Christianity, and exists among non-Christian faiths.

Christians didn't invent marriage, they don't get to dictate the rules regarding it to non-Christians. 

A real-life example. My wife is a Wiccan priestess, she has an ordination through the ULC, so she can legally perform weddings. A gay couple we know were looking to get married. This state does not have marriage equality, so they weren't allowed to have it be a legally binding ceremony.

Why should a Christian minister (or lobbyist) be able to interfere in the a rite performed by a Wiccan between an Atheist and a Buddhist?
 
2012-11-15 10:24:41 PM
Black churches have been used as political platforms and tools for years and years and now suddenly people have a problem with electioneering by religious groups.

Careful FFR, your liberal is showing. Do not become yet another one sided partisan tool like NOW and NAACP.
 
2012-11-15 10:42:32 PM
So does this mean that the "reverends" like Jackson and Sharpton will finally have to shut the fark up? Or does this apply only to religious figures who generally oppose liberalism as incompatible with church doctrine?
 
2012-11-15 10:52:46 PM

randomjsa: Black churches have been used as political platforms and tools for years and years and now suddenly people have a problem with electioneering by religious groups.

Careful FFR, your liberal is showing. Do not become yet another one sided partisan tool like NOW and NAACP.


It's not going to work.

FFRF is for promoting free thought and the First Amendment. It's historically all they've ever done. They don't pick and choose targets based on political leanings. It's just that your party really sucks at keeping church and state separate.
 
2012-11-15 10:56:56 PM

halfof33: There appears to be a profound misunderstanding about what the First Amendment says.

It says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The power to tax is the power to destroy, which interferes with the free exercise and the power to regulate what is said from the Pulpit also interferes with the freedom of speech.


So, if any tax is levied on anybody, their right to free speech is being abridged? I mean, the last time I checked, I'm free to say or print or paint or sing whatever I want. But I still have to pay my taxes. Are you saying I have no freedom of speech because I have to pay taxes?
Now, if the government offered me a special deal, like churches get, where I didn't have to pay taxes if I agreed to restrict my speech in certain ways, I would either reject the deal, or, if I accepted it, I'd honor it.
 
2012-11-15 10:57:50 PM

Lenny_da_Hog: It's just that your party really sucks at keeping church and state separate.


Actually, it's your party. There wasn't a restriction on electioneering until Lyndon Johnson got in a fight with a minister during a campaign.
 
2012-11-15 11:00:51 PM

SpacemanSpoof: So does this mean that the "reverends" like Jackson and Sharpton will finally have to shut the fark up? Or does this apply only to religious figures who generally oppose liberalism as incompatible with church doctrine?


It doesn't apply to anybody when they are speaking in their capacity as a private citizen.
 
2012-11-15 11:04:49 PM
images.sodahead.com
 
2012-11-15 11:05:21 PM

Lsherm: Lenny_da_Hog: It's just that your party really sucks at keeping church and state separate.

Actually, it's your party. There wasn't a restriction on electioneering until Lyndon Johnson got in a fight with a minister during a campaign.


You mentioned that upthread, and it caught my interest - I never heard that story about Johnson. Do you have any good links on it?
 
2012-11-15 11:15:36 PM
Black Churches will mysteriously not be included in a successful lawsuit.

/Welcome to Sarajevo
 
2012-11-15 11:26:33 PM

jso2897: Lsherm: Lenny_da_Hog: It's just that your party really sucks at keeping church and state separate.

Actually, it's your party. There wasn't a restriction on electioneering until Lyndon Johnson got in a fight with a minister during a campaign.

You mentioned that upthread, and it caught my interest - I never heard that story about Johnson. Do you have any good links on it?


Well, it's a hot button issue so Google turns up a lot of sources that lean one way or the other, but here are two that outline the history of the exemption, one from a religious advocacy website and one from a "keep church and state separate" website:

http://www.lc.org/resources/pastors_churches_politics.htm
http://www.au.org/church-state/julyaugust-2012-church-state/featured /t ax-exempt-electionering

Both note that Johnson was acting against a non-profit founded by two Texas billionaires, which is correct, but they leave out his fight with whatever Texas minister was campaigning against him (at the prodding of the two Texas billionaires).

The fight he had with the minister was in a biography I read, so I'm searching for a link to outline that fight. But if you Google "Johnson Amendment" and "tax exempt" you'll get the history of the exemption. Prior to Johnson's amendment, electioneering was perfectly legal for non-profits. He specifically wrote the provision to disallow mentioning candidates.
 
2012-11-15 11:39:16 PM

jso2897: Lsherm: Lenny_da_Hog: It's just that your party really sucks at keeping church and state separate.

Actually, it's your party. There wasn't a restriction on electioneering until Lyndon Johnson got in a fight with a minister during a campaign.

You mentioned that upthread, and it caught my interest - I never heard that story about Johnson. Do you have any good links on it?


This may well be a definitive history of the amendment, if you feel like reading through it:

http://www.alliancedefendingfreedom.org/content/docs/issues/church/J oh nson-Amendment-History.pdf

The author's argument is that the amendment wasn't intended to affect religious organizations, so understand that before reading it.
 
2012-11-15 11:44:41 PM

bugontherug: ProfessorOhki: 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

Interesting. I guess part of the question might revolve around how they define "religious." Can an atheist group possibly be eligible for it? What about a satanic group? What hoops do they have to jump through to qualify?

But no, I'm not really okay with that if it only applies to "religious" groups with a narrow definition. Thank you for bringing that to my attention.


Looked this up for another thread once. Link That ruling mentioned at the end is sort of interesting too.
 
2012-11-15 11:46:10 PM

jso2897: halfof33: There appears to be a profound misunderstanding about what the First Amendment says.

It says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The power to tax is the power to destroy, which interferes with the free exercise and the power to regulate what is said from the Pulpit also interferes with the freedom of speech.

So, if any tax is levied on anybody, their right to free speech is being abridged? I mean, the last time I checked, I'm free to say or print or paint or sing whatever I want. But I still have to pay my taxes. Are you saying I have no freedom of speech because I have to pay taxes?
Now, if the government offered me a special deal, like churches get, where I didn't have to pay taxes if I agreed to restrict my speech in certain ways, I would either reject the deal, or, if I accepted it, I'd honor it.


Face palm. You are conflating two points. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech. I have explained that if you exercise the freedom of speech from the pulpit, you may be subject to a punitive action, I.e taxation. That is a concern.
 
2012-11-16 12:13:18 AM
If they find that religious groups can endorse political causes, will donations to political actions committees become tax deductible?
 
2012-11-16 12:15:45 AM

beta_plus: Black Churches will mysteriously not be included in a successful lawsuit.

/Welcome to Sarajevo


As far as I know, there are no black churches in the IRS. It's a tax agency, and contains no churches. You do understand who is getting sued here, don't you? I thought you were supposed to be smarter than all us inferiors.
 
2012-11-16 12:21:01 AM

halfof33: jso2897: halfof33: There appears to be a profound misunderstanding about what the First Amendment says.

It says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The power to tax is the power to destroy, which interferes with the free exercise and the power to regulate what is said from the Pulpit also interferes with the freedom of speech.

So, if any tax is levied on anybody, their right to free speech is being abridged? I mean, the last time I checked, I'm free to say or print or paint or sing whatever I want. But I still have to pay my taxes. Are you saying I have no freedom of speech because I have to pay taxes?
Now, if the government offered me a special deal, like churches get, where I didn't have to pay taxes if I agreed to restrict my speech in certain ways, I would either reject the deal, or, if I accepted it, I'd honor it.

Face palm. You are conflating two points. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech. I have explained that if you exercise the freedom of speech from the pulpit, you may be subject to a punitive action, I.e taxation. That is a concern.


If it's such a concern, maybe they shouldn't take the deal. They are being granted a special privilege - one that comes with a reasonable restriction. If they don't like it, they are free to pay their taxes like the rest of us, and endorse whatever politicians they choose. I don't see anything to be concerned about.
And you don't need to use snark phrases like "facepalm" - I am already aware that you dismiss those who disagree with you as stupid, I take that as a given, and expect it.
 
2012-11-16 12:26:55 AM

michihunt: 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.


I know this is Fark, but you can't possibly be that stupid.
 
2012-11-16 12:29:21 AM
Subby has just displayed the pitiful absurdity of Public Education by using the HERO tag.

Does Subby not know that without Revolution preached from the pulpit for a decade+, Subby would not have an America, nor the 1st Amendment which allows Subby to post eye popping Bogosible bullshiate?

Take the tag back, Subs.

Go read some history above the coloring book 5th Grade level.

(Jesus Christ, and people like this are allowed to vote and breed) (head smack)
 
2012-11-16 12:38:55 AM

Loris: If they find that religious groups can endorse political causes, will donations to political actions committees become tax deductible?


Are they non-profit? Then yes. Pre-1954 it was perfectly legal.
 
2012-11-16 12:43:23 AM
Hope you're ready to shut down every black church ever.
Not trolling, so spare the 1/10 nonsense from commentators with nothing to say.
 
2012-11-16 12:49:54 AM

halfof33: Face palm. You are conflating two points. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech. I have explained that if you exercise the freedom of speech from the pulpit, you may be subject to a punitive action, I.e taxation. That is a concern.


Not being tax exempt isn't a punishment.
 
2012-11-16 12:52:39 AM

Nerdhurter: Hope you're ready to shut down every black church ever.
Not trolling, so spare the 1/10 nonsense from commentators with nothing to say.


Fun fact: 99% of posters who use the phrase "Not trolling" in their posts are, in fact, trolling.
 
2012-11-16 01:11:38 AM

Biological Ali: Nerdhurter: Hope you're ready to shut down every black church ever.
Not trolling, so spare the 1/10 nonsense from commentators with nothing to say.

Fun fact: 99% of posters who use the phrase "Not trolling" in their posts are, in fact, trolling.


Fun Fact: 99% of posters that claim troll have nothing to say and just want to seem officious.
/ 99% little peen also*
 
2012-11-16 01:26:13 AM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: You remove the tax exempt status of even one church,


Scientology.
 
2012-11-16 01:39:31 AM

Nerdhurter: Biological Ali: Nerdhurter: Hope you're ready to shut down every black church ever.
Not trolling, so spare the 1/10 nonsense from commentators with nothing to say.

Fun fact: 99% of posters who use the phrase "Not trolling" in their posts are, in fact, trolling.

Fun Fact: 99% of posters that claim troll have nothing to say and just want to seem officious.
/ 99% little peen also*


You're not even trying. How do you expect to get any bites with that dismal effort?
 
2012-11-16 01:45:16 AM
Oh the games we play.
So you're the actual troll, casting aspersions on posters you disagree with, a little psychological warfare I suppose? Shiats getting meta now.
 
2012-11-16 01:54:04 AM

TheMysticS: Raharu: Tax.

All.

Religions.

Equally.

New.

Revenue.

Stream.


!.


Damn straight. Tax them all.
 
2012-11-16 01:57:57 AM
Come on buddy here's where you tell me how much I hate brown people.
 
2012-11-16 02:00:12 AM

yousaywut: I think I'll go with just leave it alone. You don't religions cool don't like em. You think it's a good idea to rile up a bunch of religious folk well then we have an issue. Just check your history books it is always a bad idea to piss of the religious folk. always. Even when they have no logical reason the religious people can be extremely dangerous (inquisition I'm looking at you here). I think it's best to not give them an actual target.

/let sleeping dogs lie and all that.


That's how you end up in a theocracy.
 
2012-11-16 02:08:00 AM

Snapper Carr: yousaywut: I think I'll go with just leave it alone. You don't religions cool don't like em. You think it's a good idea to rile up a bunch of religious folk well then we have an issue. Just check your history books it is always a bad idea to piss of the religious folk. always. Even when they have no logical reason the religious people can be extremely dangerous (inquisition I'm looking at you here). I think it's best to not give them an actual target.

/let sleeping dogs lie and all that.

That's how you end up in a theocracy.


Confused you end up with a theology by pissing off the churches or by leaving them alone?
 
2012-11-16 02:08:57 AM

GAT_00: Sad that a lawsuit is necessary, but it's clear that religious groups are flagrantly violating the law. Remove the tax exemption.


If that's the case, I want the NFL to lose it too, and make politicians pay for stamps like the rest of us.
 
2012-11-16 02:15:23 AM
 
2012-11-16 02:18:52 AM
Oh, all you revolutionaries out there, the United States has a lesser number of believers than we've ever had. Probably just a coincidence that we're in dire straits economically, our children are dumber than they've ever been. Just noticing though, that we landed on the farking moon with a vast majority of our population identifying as Christians, not saying thats why we accomplished what we did but it obviously wasn't holding us back. But hey, fark it piss all over everything that came before us, Looking at our culture now compared to 50 years ago its pretty obvious we're headed towards idiocracy. At least no one will be offended when we name Lil Wayne a cultural ambassador
 
2012-11-16 03:18:19 AM

usernameguy: Unfortunately I think what will happen is that the electioneering statute will be ruled unconstitutional.


no, the lawsuit will be tossed. you can't just sue the farking government everytime it fails to do its job.
holy shiat, can you fathom the can of worms that would be opened if that was actionable?
 
2012-11-16 03:25:15 AM

BarkingUnicorn: Why the Constitution Neither Protects Nor Forbids Tax Subsidies for Politicking from the Pulpit, And Why Both Liberals and Conservatives May be on the Wrong Side of this Issue 

October, 2008




Maybe those arguments are valid, but does the Johnson Amendment Violate the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine?
Sure does.


http://blog.pacificlegal.org/2012/re-examining-the-doctrine-of-uncon st itutional-conditions/

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.
 
2012-11-16 04:07:06 AM

JFarker131: A local pastor told his (predominantly black) congregation that "white people are going to hell" and that Romney supporters are the White Devil come to play. These statements were made at a pro-Obama rally at his church.

My mother works at a (predominantly white) southern baptist church. Their church got a letter (not sure from whom) earlier in the summer reminding them that they were tax exempt and in order to keep this status they couldn't preach politics in the pulpit.

Which leads me to wonder, which churches got said letters, and which did not? Also, when we have media reports of churches doing things like this, why are they not immediately punished and removed from tax exempt status?


Is your mother Alex Jones?
 
2012-11-16 06:16:52 AM

Nerdhurter: Oh, all you revolutionaries out there, the United States has a lesser number of believers than we've ever had. Probably just a coincidence that we're in dire straits economically, our children are dumber than they've ever been. Just noticing though, that we landed on the farking moon with a vast majority of our population identifying as Christians, not saying thats why we accomplished what we did but it obviously wasn't holding us back. But hey, fark it piss all over everything that came before us, Looking at our culture now compared to 50 years ago its pretty obvious we're headed towards idiocracy. At least no one will be offended when we name Lil Wayne a cultural ambassador


toughquestionsblog.com
Please note the areas that are most religious.

We landed on the moon because of science not prayer.
Lots of Christians during the dark ages though.
Moron.
 
2012-11-16 07:18:40 AM
About time we told these dark ages cretins to pay up or shut up.
 
2012-11-16 07:29:58 AM

Weaver95: if church pastors violated the law...then there SHOULD be an investigation and face sanctions for their actions.

look, there's a process here. if the law wasn't broken, then the pastors will have a chance to prove that fact. but you can't just ignore the rules. either the IRS rules apply to everyone or they apply to none of us.


the pastors aren't going to deny doing it. they want this to go to court. they think they can win it.
 
2012-11-16 07:31:28 AM

sammyk: CapeFearCadaver: 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.

It's blatantly and publically breaking the law. If any of us were to do the same we'd be toast.

But you do not sue the local police to report a crime.


Reporting the crime ain't the issue here. They're suing to get the 'cops' to at least arrest someone...not even convict them. 

This is how a lot of state and federal agency law works, btw.
 
2012-11-16 07:32:32 AM

qorkfiend: mksmith: How about we just blanket-enforce the prohibition on partisan political activism against ALL religious organizations in this country, period?

The government absolutely cannot do such a thing. It would violate both the letter and spirit of the First Amendment for the government to attempt to enforce a blanket prohibition on political speech or activity by private citizens.


Private citizens are entitled to complete freedom of speech. Private citizens also pay taxes. The Catholic Church (e.g.) is NOT a "private citizen." When a bishop sends out a letter to his parish priests with instructions to read it to their congregations instructing them how the Church expects them to vote, he's acting as a representative of an organization -- and one which does NOT pay taxes. Even in this age of "corporations are people," that has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

Even in an individual fundamentalist church without a governing structure hanging above it, when a preacher attacks one candidate and promotes another FROM THE PULPIT, he's speaking on behalf of the church, which has agreed to meet certain standards in order to qualify as a non-taxpaying organization.

Churches are exempt from paying taxes on the theory that they use the money they take in for the greater good. Charitable giving, missionary work, and all that. Spending their revenues to promote political candidates is specifically excluded from what they're allowed to do as churches. Churches are NOT allowed to simply do whatever they damn well please and expect protection for it, but that seems to be how most of them construe their "rights."

The First Amendment protects the freedom of religious activity and organizations -- fine. It does NOT protect exclusion from paying taxes. Taxes are entirely a civil matter and they can be demanded of any individual or organization in the country. Congress may levy taxes on whomever they want. Why is that so hard to understand?

(Personally, I believe churches ought to have to pay taxes anyway, as they do in most other Western nations, which are far more secular than the U.S. And I loathe missionaries.)
 
2012-11-16 08:35:54 AM

TrollingForColumbine: Some things should be done in a neutral location. Public school, town hall, public arenas, library. My wife is Israeli (and Jewish) she is not comfortable voting in a christian church. I only care on principle she cares in her soul. Such feelings, though maybe illogical, may prevent some people from voting.


I'm a passionate atheist and I couldn't have given less of a f*ck that I was voting in a church's meeting/banquet hall. There are only so many venues sizable and accessible enough to process tens of thousands of people in a twelve-hour block of time. Fire stations, churches, VFW/American Legion halls, etc are abundant and can handle the load.
 
2012-11-16 08:38:53 AM

relcec: Maybe those arguments are valid, but does the Johnson Amendment Violate the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine?
Sure does.


Okay, fine: remove the unconstitutional condition and the benefit. Problem solved. Or hold churches to precisely the same standards that non-religious 501(c)(3) corporations are subject to, and stop giving them preferential treatment.
 
2012-11-16 09:21:25 AM

TrollingForColumbine: Some things should be done in a neutral location. Public school, town hall, public arenas, library. My wife is Israeli (and Jewish) she is not comfortable voting in a christian church. I only care on principle she cares in her soul. Such feelings, though maybe illogical, may prevent some people from voting.


Your Israeli wife believes that standing in a building where Christians hang out is somehow damaging to her "soul?"

I hate to be the first to tell you this- but that has nothing to do with her religion and everything to do with her being a superstitious twatwaffle.

// Atheist who feels comfortable voting/hanging out anywhere
 
2012-11-16 10:08:03 AM
I'm really tired of people speaking poorly of the dark ages. it's only called the dark ages because of some historian trying to bad mouth the non-christian horde. plus, the poetry was better.
 
2012-11-16 10:11:19 AM

Theaetetus: Plenty of such precedents exist, where the exercised discretion ends up violating equal protection. For example, cops can't exercise their discretion and let all white folks go with a warning while ticketing all black folks.
Here, at least according to the complaint, the IRS is enforcing the prohibition against non-religious non-profits, but not enforcing it against religious non-profits, and that that's discriminatory and unconstitutional.


Ah. That was my best guess as to what basis might be used, when someone elsewhere raised the question of (individual) standing not allowing such a suit. The FFRF isn't an individual; it's another 501(c)3.
 
2012-11-16 10:11:54 AM

jso2897: beta_plus: Black Churches will mysteriously not be included in a successful lawsuit.

/Welcome to Sarajevo

As far as I know, there are no black churches in the IRS. It's a tax agency, and contains no churches. You do understand who is getting sued here, don't you? I thought you were supposed to be smarter than all us inferiors.


Wow, you are a retard. No way this case won't be selectively enforced. Nope, not possible. It won't be all churches - just the churches that said vote Romney.
 
2012-11-16 10:26:08 AM

Delawheredad: Metraxis

Problems start to arise when you start using the tax code as an instrument of social poilcy. It creates all kinds of perverse incentives.

-- here here!


Jesus Christ.

Are you both retarded? The Tax Code is and has ever been a tool of policy, and one that is preferred over all other means by the political Party of your preference, the GOP. (Please, spare us your protestations otherwise. You're not fooling anyone, except maybe yourselves.)

How can you be so self-unaware?

Does it hurt?

(Apparently not.)

Hunter_Worthington: Wow. You Libs are really angry, aren't you?


Feel free to explain why we should not be.

rev. dave: Small churches need an exemption.


Why?

peeledpeas: 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.


And yet, there it is, enshrined in the Constitution and settled case law. You may continue to be certain of your opinion, but you will also continue to be incorrect. Have a nice day.
 
2012-11-16 10:30:46 AM

beta_plus: jso2897: beta_plus: Black Churches will mysteriously not be included in a successful lawsuit.

/Welcome to Sarajevo

As far as I know, there are no black churches in the IRS. It's a tax agency, and contains no churches. You do understand who is getting sued here, don't you? I thought you were supposed to be smarter than all us inferiors.

Wow, you are a retard. No way this case won't be selectively enforced. Nope, not possible. It won't be all churches - just the churches that said vote Romney.


" Vote! Voting's the best revenge!"
 
2012-11-16 10:34:34 AM

relcec: usernameguy: Unfortunately I think what will happen is that the electioneering statute will be ruled unconstitutional.

no, the lawsuit will be tossed. you can't just sue the farking government everytime it fails to do its job.
holy shiat, can you fathom the can of worms that would be opened if that was actionable?


You can't sue the government simply for failing to do its job, but you can sue it when it fails to do its job in a discriminatory way. Look at Daniels v. City of New York, where the plaintiff had standing to sue over NYPD's racial profiling because he belonged to a member of the class being discriminated against.

This situation is a little bit different in that the relief sought isn't to stop the agency from doing something, but rather to force the agency to perform its duties. In the end, though, discrimination through either action or inaction should be sufficient grounds.

relcec: Maybe those arguments are valid, but does the Johnson Amendment Violate the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine?
Sure does.


Quoting a 1926 Supreme Court case that is only tangentially on point is intellectually dishonest when somebody has already cited Regan v. Taxation With Representation, which is from 1983 and is directly on point - specifically when it held that the unconstitutional conditions doctrine does not apply to 501(c)(3) charities.
 
2012-11-16 10:51:25 AM

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


Read a book, Mr. Libertarian.

Marriage is about the all same things Government is about (and what you claim Government should limit itself to):

Property and Contracts.

Marriage existed for centuries before anyone came up with the idea of Monotheism.

It's entirely a function of Government, Religion just glommed itself onto it, much as it did to all the interesting Pagan holidays, before proceeding to suck all the fun out of them.

Much as I hate to agree with Heinlein about anything, he's on the money on this one: Marriage is a contract, no more, no less, and should be subject to the same regulations as other contracts. Churches may sanctify those contracts as they and the parties see fit. If the parties don't feel the need for churches (as in the case of my own marriage, now 26 years in the running) churches can rightly fark off. We don't need them, and we sure as hell don't want them involved. Are you going to tell me that my marriage is not valid?

Get your head on straight. You don't even understand what you claim to believe.

Rather like most religious people, if you think about it.
 
2012-11-16 11:48:41 AM

rev. dave: Marriage seems religious


And you are incorrect in that perception.

It's a common misconception, and one that is actively encouraged by the churches, but it is wrong, nevertheless. (As is much of what the churches profess, but that's another can of worms.) Marriage is a contract, and as such, it is entirely a creature of the State.

phyrkrakr: Quoting a 1926 Supreme Court case that is only tangentially on point is intellectually dishonest when somebody has already cited Regan v. Taxation With Representation, which is from 1983 and is directly on point - specifically when it held that the unconstitutional conditions doctrine does not apply to 501(c)(3) charities.


Dude, it's relcec. What would you expect other than intellectual dishonesty?
 
2012-11-16 12:11:26 PM

Leeds: Your Israeli wife believes that standing in a building where Christians hang out is somehow damaging to her "soul?"

I hate to be the first to tell you this- but that has nothing to do with her religion and everything to do with her being a superstitious twatwaffle.

// Atheist who feels comfortable voting/hanging out anywhere


Jeebus, Leeds and I agree about something.
 
2012-11-16 12:18:34 PM

Leeds: Your Israeli wife believes that standing in a building where Christians hang out is somehow damaging to her "soul?"


Okay, my understanding of Jewish theology isn't exactly perfect, BUT. . .

A building dedicated to the worship of YHWH by a group of gentiles who follow the Ten Commandments and the Noahide Laws (I thought under traditional Jewish legal thought, a properly observant Christian would count as a "Righteous Gentile") and consider the Torah to be the first few books of their own scripture, and it's enough of a problem that she won't even set foot in there?

Christianity is essentially worship of the Hebrew deity by gentiles, with the belief that the Messiah already came and went 2000 years ago. I know that last one is out of mainstream Jewish thought, but is it such blasphemy that even setting foot in a place dedicated to such an idea to endanger ones soul? I thought the only place that held that caveat (to set foot in there endangers the soul) in modern Jewish thought was the Temple Mount, since nobody is 100% sure where the Holiest of Holies was on that hilltop (and the fact that a key Mosque is there makes it largely a moot point).

Then again, religion does make people act irrationally, and even disobey the logic of their own faith.
 
2012-11-16 01:09:32 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.

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

Biological Ali: You're confusing "freedom of speech" with "freedom from taxes".


No, it seems quite clear: Pastors do not get to voice their political opinions in church unless the church pays property taxes, otherwise they are violating the law.
 
2012-11-16 01:38:04 PM

Loadmaster: No, it seems quite clear: Pastors do not get to voice their political opinions in church unless the church pays property taxes, otherwise they are violating the law.


Now I'm no tax lawyer but I don't think it's property taxes that are the issue here.
 
2012-11-16 03:25:00 PM
I'm OK with this as long as they go after churches who endorsed BOTH candidates. Whats good for the goose and all that.
 
2012-11-16 04:50:20 PM

Slaxl: What's the function of exempting religion from taxes?


Well it has really nothing to do with being religious and everything to do with being not for profit. A not for profit is supposed to be out to help people in some way (e.g. a church running a soup kitchen) so any revenues they bring in are not taxed because they are providing a service the government isn't. This only applies to the corporate tax (at least at the federal level. I believe most of these organizations are exempt from state taxes as well but that might vary from state to state), a person working for the organization still pays income tax.
 
2012-11-16 05:59:54 PM

Netrngr: I'm OK with this as long as they go after churches who endorsed BOTHEITHER candidates. Whats good for the goose and all that.

 

FTFY
 
2012-11-17 12:36:25 AM

kronicfeld: relcec: Maybe those arguments are valid, but does the Johnson Amendment Violate the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine?
Sure does.

Okay, fine: remove the unconstitutional condition and the benefit. Problem solved. Or hold churches to precisely the same standards that non-religious 501(c)(3) corporations are subject to, and stop giving them preferential treatment.


it's unconstitutional to require any of them to give up constitutionally guaranteed rights in order to receive a benefit. the standard is bullshiat and unconstitutional, and it used to be a liberal tenet that this kind of thing was ridiculous and dangerous. you people have turned into fascists.
 
2012-11-17 01:39:54 PM

relcec: it's unconstitutional to require any of them to give up constitutionally guaranteed rights in order to receive a benefit


As a matter of Law, current case law seems to indicate that any exemption from taxation is "a matter of legislative grace" -- even that of churches.

Thus, it's rather that the benefit is reserved to certain entities that exist in a harmonious relationship to the community at large, and that foster its "moral or mental improvement," should not be inhibited in their activities. It is within the power of Congress to determine that some groups, such as Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes (et cetera), generally have such harmonious relationship, but that such harmonious relationship is not legislatively considered to exist when a substantial part of the activities [...] is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation, or in cases where the corporate entity begins to participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

Though that leaves out some additional weasel wording on the threshold for "substantial".
 
2012-11-17 03:26:54 PM

abb3w: relcec: it's unconstitutional to require any of them to give up constitutionally guaranteed rights in order to receive a benefit

As a matter of Law, current case law seems to indicate that any exemption from taxation is "a matter of legislative grace" -- even that of churches.

Thus, it's rather that the benefit is reserved to certain entities that exist in a harmonious relationship to the community at large, and that foster its "moral or mental improvement," should not be inhibited in their activities. It is within the power of Congress to determine that some groups, such as Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes (et cetera), generally have such harmonious relationship, but that such harmonious relationship is not legislatively considered to exist when a substantial part of the activities [...] is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation, or in cases where the corporate entity begins to participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

Though that leaves out some additional weasel wording on the threshold for "substantial".


What relcec fails to comprehend is that 501(c)3 status is VOLUNTARY, you have to apply for it. If you don't like the terms, then don't fill out the paperwork and pay your gott damnned taxes.
 
2012-11-17 04:03:44 PM

lohphat: What relcec fails to comprehend is that 501(c)3 status is VOLUNTARY, you have to apply for it


Actually, that's a bit tricky. Under current case and statute law, churches don't have to apply to be tax exempt; rather, it appears they have to apply for contributions to them to be recognized as tax deductible for the contributor.

I'm not sure what would happen if a Church sued the IRS for not taxing them... aside from the story promptly hitting the Fark politics tab.
 
2012-11-17 05:05:23 PM

phyrkrakr: relcec: Maybe those arguments are valid, but does the Johnson Amendment Violate the Unconstitutional Conditions Doctrine?
Sure does.

Quoting a 1926 Supreme Court case that is only tangentially on point is intellectually dishonest when somebody has already cited Regan v. Taxation With Representation, which is from 1983 and is directly on point - specifically when it held that the unconstitutional conditions doctrine does not apply to 501(c)(3) charities.



it's not tangential. it's square. benefit offered on condition of relinquishing a constitutionally guaranteed right. there is such thing as badly decided SCOTUS case ya know.
SCOTUS said, in so many words, that congress wasn't offering a benefit in return for the relinquishment of a constitutionally protected right, but rather that they were choosing not to subsidize speech.

but that could be an example out of a dictionary for a distinction without a difference.

offering to subsidize an activity through tax breaks on condition that someone refrain from in this case engaging in political speech (or in another case getting married, or voting, or having a child with a black person) simply cannot be chemically separated from *just choosing not to offer a benefit if you engage in a constitutionally protected activity*, BECAUSE they are substantively the same action; only the way we choose to describe that action has changed.

you can offer a benefit, but you cannot condition that offer on surrendering a constitutionally guaranteed right that has nothing to do with the purpose underlying the original legislative goals (in this case getting people to form organizations not with the intention of profiting but of supporting their communities). the case you sight is bad law, and its farily obvious.
 
2012-11-17 05:21:33 PM
here's an example.
congress offers a $200 refundable tax credit to taxpayers that enroll in community college and voluntarily opt not to join a union.

the republicans say they are simply choosing not to subsidize union activity.
this does not violate the right to freedom of association. you can still join a union, you just will not receive a government subsidy while doing so.
but you say this is clearly an inducement to voluntarily relinquish a constitutional right, and this is for very good reason precluded by the unconditional conditions doctrine.
but the republicans repeat, this is simply the valid choice by congress encourage the education of the populace and at the same time a decision simply not to subsidize an activity that congress has no duty to subsidize.
 
2012-11-18 03:13:10 AM

Ragetech: If an issue is at odds with the principles or teachings of a church, they can and should be able to preach about them, *regardless* that it is a political issue as well. And yes, even if preaching means an ad in a newspaper. They're not talking about big oil, global warming or taxes from the pulpit, the abortion and marriage debates are important religious issues.

Threatening a church with loosing tax-exempt status is a road we do *not* want to go down, people. Seperation of church an state goes both ways. Why is it that people only get their feathers in a ruffle when they perceive the church is extending its reach. You should fear the government far, far more.


"Homosexuality is evil." Is free speech.

"Vote yes on prop 8 or God will hate you." Is electioneering.

Yes, adults can distinguish between the two.
 
2012-11-18 11:39:19 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.


Well if a white defendant kills a black family and the DA does nothing or says "self defense". But a back guy kills a white family and gets the needle, I have a robes of laws not being enforced consistently.
 
2012-11-19 12:55:39 AM

lohphat: I have a robes problem of laws


/stabs autocorrect
 
Displayed 384 of 384 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report