A Question of Respect?

[tabibito]

In the U.S. churches do enjoy a tax exempt status which means that the church or its affiliates shouldn't be engaging in political campaigning, endorsing a particular candidate from the pulpit and the like. But that in no way whatsoever prohibits their members from expressing their views. It would not be a violation for someone to attend service wearing a MAGA hat or an Obama "Hope" shirt. Likewise there is no transgression if someone sported such gear at a church sponsored rally, especially after the event. To claim otherwise is an obvious infringement on their First Amendment right to free speech.

I thought that would be the case, but could not be certain. Thankee.

[Cow Poke]

What self-righteous, pretentious crap. The argument is very simple.

Why is it that when Tassman says something is "very simple", he's about to weave a web of deceit or ignorance?

Churches and church institutions such as Church Schools receive tax exemptions with the proviso that they do not actively participate publicly in political discourse.

Citation, please.

That was what the students were doing by wearing Trump MAGA Hats on an officially organized school field trip.

The Church school is not required to police their members and trample on their first amendment rights.

The school chaperones should have had more sense than allow them.

The school chaperones are not authorized to trample on the first amendment rights of the students.

They were putting the school's tax-exempt status at risk.

Absolutely false.

What the students do and believe on their own time is their business.

They do not lose that right when they go on a field trip.

Under the U.S. tax code, nonprofit organizations such as churches may express views on any issue, but they jeopardize their tax-exempt status if they speak for or against any political party.

Is that right under the section that says "Tassman is an idiot"?

[Cow Poke]

A wholly expected argument ... maybe because it has already been advanced in prior posts. Simple fact is - no student is an authorised representative of the school in question. He is a private citizen ... or maybe not, if he is a minor - in which case he would be a private individual. And again - the school has no right (as Pendragon pointed out in post #505) to prevent a student from buying and using legal merchandise. As for the argument about Christian schools being exempt from taxation, land taxes et al: I don't know the American system but in Australia, that is simply not the case. Tax exemptions apply only to particular activities of the church such as donations but not to rents from properties owned by the church, for example.

The tax-exempt status of the Church is under attack in the US, but so far Churches and non-profit charities enjoy substantial tax advantages.

Interestingly, in many jurisdictions, there is a "camel's nose under the tent" attempt to tax church parking lots. The rationale is that the entire parking lot must be available for "equal access" to all persons attending that facility.

For example, if the church designates a parking spot for "pastor" or "staff", or if the church reserves some parking spaces for "guests" or "visitors" (as is common in larger churches) then the parking lot may be subject to taxation.

The tax exempt status is NOT, however, at risk if individual members support or even campaign for particular political candidates.

[Cow Poke]

It might also be noted that Democrats have routinely enjoyed the freedom to openly campaign in churches - particularly African-American churches - without fear of the church losing tax exempt status. In Houston, it was common knowledge that "walking around money" was available to churches who supported Democrat candidates. Just ask Hillary "I don't feel no way tarred" Clinton.

Regardless, the tax exempt church is not prohibited in any way (yet) from issue advocacy, but campaigning for specific candidates is a risk to the tax exempt status. HOWEVER, it has become easier than ever for a church to 'suggest' a particular candidate by issue advocacy because certain political parties line up pretty clearly with certain issues the church can support or denounce. Abortion is an easy one.

[rogue06]

It might also be noted that Democrats have routinely enjoyed the freedom to openly campaign in churches - particularly African-American churches - without fear of the church losing tax exempt status. In Houston, it was common knowledge that "walking around money" was available to churches who supported Democrat candidates. Just ask Hillary "I don't feel no way tarred" Clinton.

Regardless, the tax exempt church is not prohibited in any way (yet) from issue advocacy, but campaigning for specific candidates is a risk to the tax exempt status. HOWEVER, it has become easier than ever for a church to 'suggest' a particular candidate by issue advocacy because certain political parties line up pretty clearly with certain issues the church can support or denounce. Abortion is an easy one.

Al Gore was another one who suddenly effected a stereotypical black preacher's accent and cadence the moment he stepped foot in a predominantly black church.

[Cow Poke]

Al Gore was another one who suddenly effected a stereotypical black preacher's accent and cadence the moment he stepped foot in a predominantly black church.

Perhaps Tassman should start a thread on "politics in churches" where it's abundantly clear that liberals get a free pass at campaigning from the pulpit. But, no, he'd rather freak about about some teenagers wearing hats on a field trip.

[Cow Poke]

Here is the factual information from the IRS. Please note it has no reference whatsoever to kids wearing hats on field trips.

Tax Information for Churches and Religious Organizations

And the section on political involvement.

The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.

Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.

On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.

To clarify, The IRS published Revenue Ruling 2007-41, which says, in part...

Individual Activity by Organization Leaders

The political campaign intervention prohibition is not intended to restrict free expression on political matters by leaders of organizations speaking for themselves, as individuals. Nor are leaders prohibited from speaking about important issues of public policy. However, for their organizations to remain tax exempt under section 501(c)(3), leaders cannot make partisan comments in official organization publications or at official functions of the organization.

[RumTumTugger]

Am I? Where on earth do you get that idea?



What self-righteous, pretentious crap. The argument is very simple. Churches and church institutions such as Church Schools receive tax exemptions with the proviso that they do not actively participate publicly in political discourse. That was what the students were doing by wearing Trump MAGA Hats on an officially organized school field trip. The school chaperones should have had more sense than allow them. They were putting the school's tax-exempt status at risk. What the students do and believe on their own time is their business. Under the U.S. tax code, nonprofit organizations such as churches may express views on any issue, but they jeopardize their tax-exempt status if they speak for or against any political party.

what Tabibito your fellow Australian seems to understand and you don't is that the students are not( and were not at the time) authorized representatives of the school, they were individuals with the right to buy something that was not illegal and to use it.

I wish you would learn how to think like Tabibito has instead of letting your leftist programmers tell you what to think.

[The Pendragon]

Am I? Where on earth do you get that idea?.

Yes, you are.
tabibito, Rouge, and Rumtumtugger have already shown where I explained myself in my original post. Please re-read it so I don't have to repeat it.

What self-righteous, pretentious crap. The argument is very simple. Churches and church institutions such as Church Schools receive tax exemptions with the proviso that they do not actively participate publicly in political discourse. That was what the students were doing by wearing Trump MAGA Hats on an officially organized school field trip. The school chaperones should have had more sense than allow them. They were putting the school's tax-exempt status at risk. What the students do and believe on their own time is their business. Under the U.S. tax code, nonprofit organizations such as churches may express views on any issue, but they jeopardize their tax-exempt status if they speak for or against any political party.

Also Churches and Church institutions have a tax-exempt status because the are non-profit organizations, ie. their money is for charity.

Under your view most or the Black Southern Baptist Churches in the south should have their tax-exempt status taken away (They regularly indorse political candidates). As should the American Society of Muslims, Who's leader (Louis Farrakhan) regularly speaks out against Trump from the pulpit.

In the world you are painting Churches would have no say laws directly effecting them, and their core beliefs. I do not give up my right to Vote because I join a Church, that is the greatest form of indorsing a political party.

Tass, You have made my point about you being under the impression that school is for brain washing its students into thinking one way. because you are confusing the students (Who have individual rights) with the Church as a whole.

This is not self-righteous, pretentious crap. As you say, the argument is very simple. the student have the individual freedom to express their political views and support any political party they wish when ever they want as an individual. The more difficult question is does the Church as an institution have the right to express political views, this question is still to be determined in our courts. So please don't just say "The argument is very simple". There are to many thing that go into the Tax exemptions that Churches in America have today to distill it down to one simple statement.

By the way it is alright for a Church to endorse a political party. The Gray Area comes at laws on whether Churches can indorse a candidate, So far these laws have not been proven through the Courts.

The laws that you are thinking about are for Political groups like the Tea Party groups that actually spend their money on donations and ads for a specific party.

[Tassman]

Citation, please.

https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/chariti...s-and-politics

Students wearing Trump MAGA Hats on an official Church School outing could not be mistaken for doing anything other than acting in support of Trump.

The Church school is not required to police their members and trample on their first amendment rights.

except when they are on an officially sponsored school field trip, where they are in effect acting as representatives of their Church School. That was certainly drummed into me at my (Anglican) Church School in Sydney.

[NorrinRadd]

https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/chariti...s-and-politics except when they are on an officially sponsored school field trip, where they are in effect acting as representatives of their Church School. That was certainly drummed into me at my (Anglican) Church School in Sydney.

Fortunately these kids are not Arse-tralians.

[Sparko]

Are you saying that a Church School has no control over its own students, when they are on an officially designated school field-trip under the supervision of school chaperones? If this is so, they have no business running a school.

It's called the First Amendment, Tassy. Look it up.

[Sparko]

Am I? Where on earth do you get that idea?



What self-righteous, pretentious crap. The argument is very simple. Churches and church institutions such as Church Schools receive tax exemptions with the proviso that they do not actively participate publicly in political discourse. That was what the students were doing by wearing Trump MAGA Hats on an officially organized school field trip. The school chaperones should have had more sense than allow them. They were putting the school's tax-exempt status at risk. What the students do and believe on their own time is their business. Under the U.S. tax code, nonprofit organizations such as churches may express views on any issue, but they jeopardize their tax-exempt status if they speak for or against any political party.

again, you are wrong. The school itself can't officially endorse a specific candidate. The staff and students can support whatever candidate they want.

Look at Cow Poke. He is definitely speaking his political mind, and he is a preacher. He just can't get up on the pulpit and preach "This church officially supports Trump! You have to vote for Trump! Clinton is Satan's pet!" or any such nonsense in an official capacity. Once he steps down from that pulpit, he can be Mr. Cow Poke and say anything he wants to politically. And members of his church are free to express their opinions too. They can even wear MAGA hats to church if they want. Same with religious schools. The school can't endorse a candidate, but the students can, and the staff can too as long as they are not at work.

[Cow Poke]

https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/chariti...s-and-politics

Correct - I had already posted that information from the IRS site.

Students wearing Trump MAGA Hats on an official Church School outing could not be mistaken for doing anything other than acting in support of Trump.

Only a jackass control freak would conclude that.

except when they are on an officially sponsored school field trip

That's a lie of the devil. They are not official representatives of the school, and they are free to express their first amendment rights.

where they are in effect acting as representatives of their Church School.

They were kids on a field trip.

That was certainly drummed into me at my (Anglican) Church School in Sydney.

Last I checked, Sydney is not in the United States of America, and is not subject to our Bill of Rights.

[Cow Poke]

Are you saying that a Church School has no control over its own students, when they are on an officially designated school field-trip under the supervision of school chaperones? If this is so, they have no business running a school.

It is not the job of the Church School to trample on the constitutionally guaranteed rights of their students to free speech. In fact, they could be in serious trouble if they did.

How did you become such a control freak? Usually, this is a characteristic I find in men who have no legitimate authority in their personal or work lives.