Originally posted by seer
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Civics 101 Guidelines
Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less
O�Rourke: Churches Should Lose Tax-exempt Status
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostChurches shouldn't be taxed unless of course they indulge in electioneering, then they should be fined or lose their tax exempt status. Some preachers do it, but there is a law against it.
For extra points, Jim, can you cite the law to which you refer?The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostThere's no meaningful difference between having your taxes waived versus paying your taxes and then being sent a subsidy check from the government equal to the amount of taxes paid. They amount to the same thing.
See Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock for SCOTUS confirming that a religious tax exemption amounts to a subsidy that other tax-payers have to pay and striking down a Texas law giving tax exemptions to religious publications.
SCOTUS ruling...
"a subsidy [that] incidentally benefits religious groups... [would be fine] so long as it is conferred on a wide array of nonsectarian groups as well as religious organizations in pursuit of some legitimate secular end.
However, when, as here, government directs a subsidy exclusively to religious organizations... it cannot be viewed as anything but impermissible state sponsorship of religion
Because it confines itself exclusively to such religious publications, the Texas exemption lacks a secular objective that would justify its preference along with similar benefits for nonreligious publications or groups."
Indeed, in above case, that is exactly why SCOTUS struck down the religious tax exemption that was being considered in the case that was before them: It infringed on the free exercise of religion of others by taking their tax dollars and funneling them into a religious subsidy.
As far as I can tell, in general the tax-exempt status specifically for churches or religious organisations would not be considered constitutional by SCOTUS due to the above. But a tax exemption for charities in general is considered to be fine (and churches happen to be one form of charity). Because a subsidy/tax-exemption for charities in general "is conferred on a wide array of nonsectarian groups as well as religious organizations in pursuit of some legitimate secular end [that only] incidentally benefits religious groups", and therefore legal according to the SCOTUS decision above.
No wonder you forgot the link - and the ellipsis!
I'm not bothering with the rest of your cherry picking.
As to your 'interpretation', read the WHOLE bleeping case YOU cited! It spells out the exemption rationale at the beginning!
Gah! Basic case law!"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostAs to your 'interpretation', read the WHOLE bleeping case YOU cited! It spells out the exemption rationale at the beginning!
Gah! Basic case law!The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by mossrose View PostI will define God by His word where He has defined Himself. His word is my final authority, and the world can call it a "predicament" or "apron strings" or anything else it likes, but that is pure unbelief and it will send you to hell.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostThey are talking about a tax DEDUCTION, not an exemption!"I hate him passionately", he's "a demonic force" - Tucker Carlson, in private, on Donald Trump
"Every line of serious work that I have written since 1936 has been written, directly or indirectly, against totalitarianism and for democratic socialism" - George Orwell
"[Capitalism] as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of evils. I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy" - Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostIt must be comforting to be so unwaveringly certain that you are right.
If we're not right - if God's Word isn't true - is there a Hell?
Should it surprise anybody at all that your strawman argument comes from one single verse in James (2:24) ripped out of context?
Here's a good answer to your question for you to ignore....
The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostYou really have not the slightest clue about any of this, do you?
Any person who wants to donate money or things to a 501(c)3 is free to do so, and may receive a tax DEDUCTION credit for doing so.
Any person who does NOT want to donate money or things to a 501(c)3 is free NOT to do so.
Perhaps you should take a deep breath, and try again to make your case.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostActually, we're unwaveringly certain that God is right, and that His Word represents His will for us.
If we're not right - if God's Word isn't true - is there a Hell?
Should it surprise anybody at all that your strawman argument comes from one single verse in James (2:24) ripped out of context?
Here's a good answer to your question for you to ignore....Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostThis argument sounds like it has plausible logic...
...right up until you actually start to look at the empirical evidence. The least religious countries in the world, who are majority atheist, tend to be the ones who are doing the best (in terms of almost any international comparison you care to pick - e.g. happiness, low murder rate, lack of corruption, life expectancy, general multi-variate comparisons etc.)
A list of the top-10 least religious countries in the world, is pretty much a list of wonderful countries to live in (Australia, Sweden, Germany, Netherlands, New Zealand, Luxembourg, Denmark, Canada, France, Austria). That is certainly NOT a list of countries that are "going to hell in a hand-basket" or who are falling apart as a result of abandoning their Christian roots.
A list of the top-10 most religious countries in the world is pretty much a list of atrociously awful countries to live in. (Algeria, Chad, Ghana, Mali, Qatar, Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Zambia, Cambodia, Cameroon) With the possible exception of Qatar, religion doesn't seem to be making these countries great.
So why doesn't abandoning religion cause countries to fall apart? The simple answer, as far as I can see from living in a majority-atheistic country is that the moral values you mention "community and love... forms the basis of what they believe is good and right" is just as true, even more true, of secular non-religious people, as it is of Christians. For Christians, morality is quite complicated and the ~1000 different commands in the Old and New Testaments interact in various ways to produce an overall and complex moral code, that you are are only very loosely boiling down here. I'm not objecting to your summary, but we should acknowledge that you're oversimplifying it greatly and what Christians believe, and focus on, and spend their time on is a lot more complex than that. Whereas for most secular non-religious people, to them the word "morality" is just a synonym for "altruism" aka "loving and helping others". It's direct, and straightforward, and they don't spend time tying themselves into pretzels over issues of how some parts of the bible affect the interpretation of other parts of the bible with regard to how they should act, they just try to be loving toward others.
And my point is not to say that the only possible civil society is a christian one. My point is that we owe a very great deal of our civilization to christian ideals and values, and that many that reject the faith superficially have no real idea how much they directly benefit from both the historical and current presence of the influence of those that have and do practice that faith.
JimMy brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1
If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26
This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostAs long as a particular candidate is not endorsed, a preacher can talk as much as he wants to about issues. Particularly, moral issues like abortion.
Unless, of course, you're an African-American church, where you can actually have the candidate come and "preach" from your pulpit for endorsements.
For extra points, Jim, can you cite the law to which you refer?
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostAgreed, and they should be fined or lose their tax exempt status should they endorse or work towards the benefit of particular candidates or political party's..
I can only imagine why you would single out African American Churches, whatever they are.
I "single them out" because they, in Houston, are the biggest offenders. It is legendary that there is "walking around money" ("street money") where Democrat candidates visit black churches to give campaign speeches, and just happen to contribute a large sum of "walking around money" to the Church for a new roof, or a new fellowship hall, or whatever it is they deem a "donation", albeit with obvious strings attached.
That's another condition of "giving" to a Church - if it is truly a "tax deductible gift", the giver cannot put any conditions or restrictions on it whatsoever.
At any rate, no, the ban would go for any church.
The Johnson amendment of 1954.
But let's look at the actual text, and note that it's Paragraph (3) of subsection (c) within section 501 of Title 26 (Internal Revenue Code), hence, it's designation "501(c)(3)"
The text: (bolding mine)
(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not 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.
Many of our historically black churches in Houston do, IN FACT, frequently have candidates in their pulpits for the express purpose of advancing a candidate or political party. The video I included shows Hillary doing exactly that.
If the law is going to be enforced, it needs to be enforced fairly, equitably and evenly.Last edited by Cow Poke; 10-13-2019, 08:25 AM.The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Starlight View PostYou really have not the slightest clue about any of this, do you?"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View Postff would have never screwed it up this badly.
Anyone can screw up - takes guts to own up*. To FF2's credit, I've seen him do that.
*Once you realize, of course."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cow Poke View PostThat's much harder to sort out these days, Jim. If, for example, I preach a sermon on the sanctity of Human life, it could be easily construed as preaching against the Democrats due to the issue of abortion. I think it would have to be a much more clear "vote Republican" or "Vote Democrat" declaration - or, as you say (and we agree) "elect James Whitzinzinger!"
I'm going to assume this is yet another attempt to label me a racist, and that you're really not so ignorant as to be unaware that there are many historically "black" churches.
I "single them out" because they, in Houston, are the biggest offenders. It is legendary that there is "walking around money" ("street money") where Democrat candidates visit black churches to give campaign speeches, and just happen to contribute a large sum of "walking around money" to the Church for a new roof, or a new fellowship hall, or whatever it is they deem a "donation", albeit with obvious strings attached.
That's another condition of "giving" to a Church - if it is truly a "tax deductible gift", the giver cannot put any conditions or restrictions on it whatsoever.
Unfortunately, it is not enforced with any equality at all.
Yes, that's what I alluded to earlier.
But let's look at the actual text, and note that it's Paragraph (3) of subsection (c) within section 501 of Title 26 (Internal Revenue Code), hence, it's designation "501(c)(3)"
The text: (bolding mine)
(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not 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.
Many of our historically black churches in Houston do, IN FACT, frequently have candidates in their pulpits for the express purpose of advancing a candidate or political party. The video I included shows Hillary doing exactly that.
If the law is going to be enforced, it needs to be enforced fairly, equitably and evenly.
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by seer, Yesterday, 11:40 AM
|
2 responses
32 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Diogenes
Yesterday, 03:28 PM
|
||
Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 06:30 AM
|
15 responses
80 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by seanD
Yesterday, 04:20 PM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 06-03-2024, 11:24 AM
|
25 responses
145 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cow Poke
Yesterday, 04:13 PM
|
||
Started by carpedm9587, 06-03-2024, 09:13 AM
|
49 responses
258 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by eider
Today, 01:19 AM
|
||
Started by Cow Poke, 06-02-2024, 09:15 AM
|
31 responses
150 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by rogue06
Yesterday, 08:12 PM
|
Comment