It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: buster2010
originally posted by: NavyDoc
originally posted by: buster2010
originally posted by: NavyDoc
originally posted by: buster2010
originally posted by: NavyDoc
originally posted by: buster2010
originally posted by: badgerprints
originally posted by: buster2010
church is forbidden from using the pulpit for political purposes.
By what law?
Tax laws that is why I said give up their tax free status you must have missed that part.
Tax Laws
By that same token, would you also agree that unions should give up their tax exempt status for endorsingpolitical candidates? Planned parenthood?
I see you have no knowledge of tax exempt statuses do you? There are several different kinds some do allow getting political some do not. Churches qualify for 501(c)(3) while unions use 501(c)(5).
501(c)(3) Section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from supporting political candidates, and are subject to limits on lobbying. They risk loss of tax exempt status if these rules are violated. An organization that loses its 501(c)(3) status due to being engaged in political activities cannot then qualify for 501(c)(4) status.
501(c)(5) Organizations include labor, agricultural and horticultural organizations. Labor unions, county fairs and flower societies are examples of these types of groups. Labor union organizations were a primary benefactor of this organization type; dating to the 1800s. IRS, from a federal level, stipulates a federal requirement and duty of providing service to the members first. They have other requirements such as a requirement that benefits may not inure to a specific member but the rules for inurement vary among the three different types of organizations under this segment. They can make unlimited corporate, individual, or union contributions.
501(c) organization
It says it right there in that statute. Unions get special protections. They are also exempt from the RICO act. They have a special status. I know the tax laws, but was asking your OPINION, not to quote something we already know. Why should one type of organization who does political lobbying and speech get one set of rules that another does not?
Methinks this is a case of wanting to restrict political speech you do not like while protecting political speech of the people you do like.
Same rules for all, is the just answer.
As long as they stay within the guidelines of their tax status then they can keep them. But these churches are stepping outside of their guidelines.
Would that also go for REv Wright?
You didn't answer my question. Why should one type of tax exempt group have different guidelines than another? Why should planned parenthood remain tax exempt when they use tax dollars to lobby candidates who will give them more tax dollars? Why should we use the tax code to restrict those we don't like but protect those we do like?
Let me see if I can dumb this down for you. They have different guidelines because the arey given for different reasons. Churches get theirs because it is supposed to be a charitable organization. This means after paying expenses the majority of the money they get is supposed to go to charity. Unions have a different set of guidelines because their net earnings benefits it members. Unions pay their members if they get injured become ill and pay death benefits because paying such benefits serves the members' mutual interest in improving their shared working conditions.
Now onto Rev Wright should he lose his status? No. Wanna know why? Because he wasn't stupid enough to file a lawsuit to change a law. In the video that Beezer posted and you reposted he said nothing but the history of America he never called for laws to be changed. Next time watch a video before posting it.
On Christmas morning, Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. compared presidential candidate Barack Obama's impoverished childhood to Jesus Christ's. "Barack knows what it means to be a black man living in a country and a culture that is controlled by rich white people," he then trumpeted. "Hillary [Clinton] can never know that."
originally posted by: buster2010
originally posted by: badgerprints
originally posted by: buster2010
church is forbidden from using the pulpit for political purposes.
By what law?
Tax laws that is why I said give up their tax free status you must have missed that part.
Tax Laws
originally posted by: dawnstar
The city of Houston has issued subpoenas demanding a group of pastors turn over any sermons dealing with homosexuality, gender identity or Annise Parker, the city’s first openly lesbian mayor. And those ministers who fail to comply could be held in contempt of court.
www.foxnews.com...
I'm not really sure how I feel about this but I kind of think that the gov't might be overstepping their limits here?
On the one hand the churches shouldn't be stepping into the political arena without losing their tax exemption status and these sermons and other communications might just prove that the churches have done this.
On the other hand I don't want the gov't being able to tell the churches what messages can be said and what can't.
Mainly I am kind of getting tired of the word "ebola" and trying to find something more interesting to chat about.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: kimmie7
Exactly how is gathering information for a law suit case - information that is most likely publicly displayed on the church's website - trampling on constitutional rights? That is all that's happened here.
originally posted by: TXTriker
5. The mayor did not want the ordinance to go on the ballot because the majority of the city residents do not want it.
originally posted by: beezzer
I can imagine a conversation 30 years from now. . . .
"Remember when we used to have freedom of speech?"
"Yeah, me neither."
originally posted by: badgerprints
originally posted by: TXTriker
5. The mayor did not want the ordinance to go on the ballot because the majority of the city residents do not want it.
The mayor did not want it on the ballot because she was afraid that the majority of citizens might vote for the ordnance.
If the majority of the citizens didn't want it, it would be voted down with no problem.
originally posted by: beezzer
originally posted by: kaylaluv
originally posted by: beezzer
If we wait until they go to jail for what they preach, then it'll be too late to complain about.
Well, let me know when that happens, and I'll admit you were right. (eye roll emoticon)
But in the meantime, lets push the envelope against the 1st Amendment?
Is that really what you are endorsing?