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.
See more
See less

Churches Are Standing Up!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
    We actively do that.



    And, again, I think you can make an impact without explicitly endorsing a candidate.
    And I am curious how many of those out there who want to endorse church candidates actually have programs like your church does. Maybe most of them do, I'm just curious.
    "I am not angered that the Moral Majority boys campaign against abortion. I am angry when the same men who say, "Save OUR children" bellow "Build more and bigger bombers." That's right! Blast the children in other nations into eternity, or limbless misery as they lay crippled from "OUR" bombers! This does not jell." - Leonard Ravenhill

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by seer View Post
      That is fine, but the point is, why should we lose the right to endorse a candidate if we feel so inclined?
      Any church leader retains that right, even when standing on the pulpit. He or she just loses the special privilege of tax exemption that is contingent upon that endorsement not being preached from the pulpit.

      If you agree to work for Apple and your boss sends you out on the floor, your job is contingent upon you not hawking Android phones. You might want to (they are better, after all) and you still have a right to do so but it's a violation of the contract you made and your employer has every right to terminate that broken contract.

      Unless you can find a specific and detailed argument that taxing religious institutions violates the Constitution, move on — there's nothing to see here.
      "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
        And I am curious how many of those out there who want to endorse church candidates actually have programs like your church does. Maybe most of them do, I'm just curious.
        Seriously, I think it's "HEY, bring that camera over HERE, I wanna be on TV!!!!"
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Paprika View Post
          Which?
          Off the top of my head, there were the Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller Foundations, and the Facts Forum.

          And does it not follow that the point of the amendment was to attempt to restrict the speech of at least those organisations?
          No. It was an attempt to close campaign oversight and taxation loopholes which those organizations were attempting to exploit.
          "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
          --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
            Off the top of my head, there were the Carnegie, Ford, and Rockefeller Foundations, and the Facts Forum.

            No. It was an attempt to close campaign oversight and taxation loopholes which those organizations were attempting to exploit.
            What loopholes? Why do a blanket prohibition if the targets were not many?

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by Paprika View Post
              What loopholes? Why do a blanket prohibition if the targets were not many?
              501(c)(3) tax exemptions were designed to be applied to organizations which had specific purposes: charitable, religious, educational, scientific, literary, testing for public safety, fostering amateur sports competition, or preventing cruelty to children or animals. They were never intended for political campaigning, which was the main purpose of a group like the Facts Forum. Thus, the Johnson amendment was developed to prevent this abuse of tax exemption laws. If a corporation wanted to register as a 501(c)(3), it would need to excise itself from explicit political campaigning.
              "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
              --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Sam View Post
                Any church leader retains that right, even when standing on the pulpit. He or she just loses the special privilege of tax exemption that is contingent upon that endorsement not being preached from the pulpit.
                That is the problem - it shouldn't be special privilege. It wasn't for most of our history - correct?


                Unless you can find a specific and detailed argument that taxing religious institutions violates the Constitution, move on — there's nothing to see here.
                Of course it does. Either you refrain the church from speaking A in the pulpit or we will tax you. And when you tax the church you restrict their available capital to speak and function as they see fit. So either way you are impinging on their ability to speak or act. How is this a separation of church and state?
                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


                • #53
                  Originally posted by KingsGambit View Post
                  . . . it's not the end of the world if the government reverses course.
                  But it is a sign of things to come.
                  Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    I believe that the government does not have any right to have any control over churches. On the other hand I do not see any problem with getting across the message desired without actively specifying on candidate.
                    Micah 6:8 He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Yeah!
                      The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Sam View Post
                        It takes some chutzpah to voluntarily petition to become a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt entity, knowingly and brazenly violate the conditions of being a 501(c)(3) tax-exempt entity, and then claim that the rules for this voluntary membership are unconstitutional.

                        This is a "terms of service" situation — if you want to apply for and maintain tax-exempt status, you agree to the rules for tax-exempt status
                        I looked up the law:
                        §508. Special rules with respect to section 501(c)(3) organizations
                        (a) New organizations must notify Secretary that they are applying for recognition of section 501(c)(3) status

                        Except as provided in subsection (c), an organization organized after October 9, 1969, shall not be treated as an organization described in section 501(c)(3)-

                        (1) unless it has given notice to the Secretary in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe, that it is applying for recognition of such status, or

                        (2) for any period before the giving of such notice, if such notice is given after the time prescribed by the Secretary by regulations for giving notice under this subsection.
                        (b) Presumption that organizations are private foundations

                        Except as provided in subsection (c), any organization (including an organization in existence on October 9, 1969) which is described in section 501(c)(3) and which does not notify the Secretary, at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may by regulations prescribe, that it is not a private foundation shall be presumed to be a private foundation.
                        (c) Exceptions
                        (1) Mandatory exceptions

                        Subsections (a) and (b) shall not apply to-

                        (A) churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches, or
                        It appears churches are automatically considered 501(c)(3) tax-exempt entities.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by seer View Post
                          Of course it does. Either you refrain the church from speaking A in the pulpit or we will tax you. And when you tax the church you restrict their available capital to speak and function as they see fit. So either way you are impinging on their ability to speak or act. How is this a separation of church and state?
                          This presumes that the default state is tax exemption, which is a false presumption. The default state is that an organization is subject to taxes. If an organization voluntarily applies for a classification with certain requirements, the government is not impinging upon their ability to speak or act. That organization is voluntarily restricting its own speech or action.
                          "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth, for it knows every hidden secret, and bears the key to every subtlety of letters; whoever, then, has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom."
                          --Thomas Bradwardine, De Continuo (c. 1325)

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Boxing Pythagoras View Post
                            This presumes that the default state is tax exemption, which is a false presumption.
                            Yes, I just read a little - it looks like tax exemption for Churches has been the default position for all of US history until the 1950s. And even goes back to English Common Law.

                            That organization is voluntarily restricting its own speech or action.
                            Yes, it is a choice between the lesser of two evils. Shut up or we tax the crap out of you and restrict your speech by taking funds.
                            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


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by Paprika View Post
                              I looked up the law:

                              It appears churches are automatically considered 501(c)(3) tax-exempt entities.
                              Many churches petition regardless of automatic inclusion, as they can then ensure that donations are tax-deductible. And every church opts-in to tax exemption when filing with the IRS (form 990, I think). It very much remains a voluntary action and I've never met a pastor who was unaware of this particular limitation in return for tax-exempt status.
                              "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                That is the problem - it shouldn't be special privilege. It wasn't for most of our history - correct?
                                Yes, it was. A church is just like any other organization — the government has a right to tax it. That churches were singled out for tax exemption is, by definition, a special privilege.


                                Originally posted by seer View Post
                                Of course it does. Either you refrain the church from speaking A in the pulpit or we will tax you. And when you tax the church you restrict their available capital to speak and function as they see fit. So either way you are impinging on their ability to speak or act. How is this a separation of church and state?
                                Their ability to speak is not infringed: the special privilege of tax-exemption afforded to churches is contingent upon certain criteria, one of those being that church leaders cannot endorse candidates from the pulpit. You understand the difference between a right being trampled and just not getting to do anything you please while ignoring the terms of a contract. So, again, unless you can point to a specific constitutional protection from churches paying generally-applicable taxes, you've got nothing. This isn't a matter of a special tax on churches being applied; it's a matter of a special privilege afforded by the government being contingent on certain terms.
                                "I wonder about the trees. / Why do we wish to bear / Forever the noise of these / More than another noise / So close to our dwelling place?" — Robert Frost, "The Sound of Trees"

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                149 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post One Bad Pig  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                397 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                114 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                198 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                369 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X