nekom: It's certainly not for me, but if someone wants to practice a strange faith which prohibits certain things, and doesn't bother ME with it, I say have at it.

The problem is that they spent millions of dollars recently bothering everyone in my state by writing laws based on their religion that apply to everyone.

nekom: Well, there is that. Religious groups aren't the only ones out there politicin' though.

Oh good, that makes it okay then.

nekom: DistendedPendulusFrenulum: They should pay tax if they're going to try to influence law

Don't non-religious groups (PACs, etc) also enjoy tax free status? Or am I wrong on that?

You're comparing things that aren't remotely the same, unless the Supreme Court decides sometime that donations to PACs are tax-deductible.

Here's a quick and dirty chart detailing prohibitied activities. The Mormon church got around being hammered by the IRS by funneling a lot of its money to other organizations in passing Prop 8.

Mormons like to project a harmless, nice image. Their organization is not harmless.

nekom: How can you blame them for pushing for what they truly believe is right?

Do you seriously want to go there?

nekom: How are Mormons knocking on doors to gain support for a proposition in order to advance their agenda any different from homosexual groups donating to politicians in order to advance the opposite agenda? This is America, and so long as you are operating under applicable law, you have the right to lobby in favor of or against whatever you damn well please, no matter how unpopular it may be.

One group supports altering the law to match their baseless, ridiculous religious beliefs. The other group supports recognizing existing Constitutional rights, based on equal protection under the law. You're farking retarded if you think that's the same thing.

Or hey, let's phrase it another way: "How is the KKK knocking on doors for support of their proposed ban on interracial marriages any different than pro-black groups advocating for the opposite agenda?"

Also, tax-exempt status is NOT a "right". Tax-exempt status comes from following very specific guidelines set in federal law. The Mormon Church indeed does have the right to be disgusting bigots. But they do not have the right to do it in violation of their tax-exempt status, which they still continue to exploit.

nekom: Remember that the first amendment was designed to protect all speech, no matter how backwards, no matter how reprehensible, no matter how idiotic. I wouldn't want it any other way.

The First Amendment does not allow you to do whatever you want and still be given a free pass on taxes. You keep ignoring that.

nekom: Cagey B: The First Amendment does not allow you to do whatever you want and still be given a free pass on taxes. You keep ignoring that.

They don't pay taxes because they are religious institution. They decided that a good way to spend their time is to try and drum up support for a cause they believe in. Just because you don't pay taxes doesn't mean the government gets to decide what your followers can and can not do in their free time. This isn't a case of money being funneled from the church to the Republican party, this is people campaigning for a cause in which they believe. I really don't see a problem with it.

Contrary to your ignorance on the matter, there are rules about what you can and cannot do and still maintain tax-exempt status.

nekom: First of all, it was a referendum, not legislation.

From the link that you for some reason can only read parts of:

Legislation includes action by Congress, any state legislature,
any local council, or similar governing body, with
respect to acts, bills, resolutions, or similar items (such as
legislative confirmation of appointive offices), or by the
public in a referendum, ballot initiative, constitutional
amendment, or similar procedure.

nekom: Second of all, who decides what constitutes a `substantial' part of their activities?

Again, from the link you cannot read, perhaps because you lack magical ruby translation goggles:

Measuring Lobbying Activity
Substantial part test. Whether a church's or religious
organization's attempts to influence legislation constitute
a substantial part of its overall activities is determined
on the basis of all the pertinent facts and circumstances
in each case. The IRS considers a variety of factors,
including the time devoted (by both compensated and
volunteer workers) and the expenditures devoted by the
organization to the activity, when determining whether
the lobbying activity is substantial. Churches must use
the substantial part test since they are not eligible to use
the expenditure test described in the next section.

nekom: If they indeed broke any of these rules, then why has the IRS not intervened?

That one I cannot answer. My theory is that the Obama Administration is too chickenshiat to go after a major church, especially since the President is with the bigots on this issue. But the IRS could also very well have decided that this was acceptable activity under the substantial part test. It is subjective in the end, just as what constitutes a "church" is subjective when you're trying to get out of paying your taxes.

None of that, however, changes the fact that you think it's perfectly fine for churches to engage in overt political activity, free of restrictions, while being favored with tax-exempt status.

Whether that's a position that's born of ignorance of the law (since you were apparently unaware of the fact that you don't have tax-exempt status forever automatically no matter what until I pointed it out to you), or one that's due to a desire to let churches dictate public policy, I can't say.

nekom: Honestly, I don't see what the two have to do with each other. They are a group of people, like any other. Any other group of people can band together in a bid to influence policy. Why do they have to stay away from politics altogether because they are a religious organization? It just fails to outrage me.

At this point, you're failing to see the difference because of willful ignorance. Have a nice day.