IRS Strikes Deal With Atheists To Monitor Sermons And Homilies

Link

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY


First Amendment: Government's assault on religious liberty has hit a new low as the IRS settles with atheists by promising to monitor sermons for mentions of the right to life and traditional marriage.

A lawsuit filed by the Wisconsin-based Freedom From Religion Foundation (FFRF) asserted that the Internal Revenue Service ignored complaints about churches' violating their tax-exempt status by routinely promoting political issues, legislation and candidates from the pulpit.

The FFRF has temporarily withdrawn its suit in return for the IRS's agreement to monitor sermons and homilies for proscribed speech that the foundation believes includes things like condemnation of gay marriage and criticism of ObamaCare for its contraceptive mandate.

So now the IRS won't attack conservative groups (Lois Lerner) but they will attack conservative thought in churches now.

Speech police, thought police, what ever you want to call it, Big Brother will be watching you pray.

Now before the local group of atheist progressives get their undies in a bunch, I happen to think that NO church deserves a tax-exempt status.

But this heavy-handed approach to PC, thought-police is disgusting!

I know this isn't an Israel-Hamas or an E Bola thread. But I thought a dictatorship thread might mix things up a bit.

As always, read, reply, ignore or get a facial tattoo of my cat Mr. Fluffy-pants. I leave it up to you.

beez

a reply to: beezzer

Wow!

I'm not a church goer of any kind, but will this just target Christian churches, or will the IRS thought police also be sitting in on other religions as well? I kind of think NOT, so this may get quite ugly and rightfully so. Considering the IRS is nothing more than the debt collectors for the Federal Reserve Bank........

As if we already didn't have enough reason to distrust the IRS and their ability to superseded the Constitution in their pursuit of your hard-earned dollars. The IRS needs to be reigned in or disbanded. They have far too much power.

So who is more afraid of the church ?

Atheists, and the current administrations supporters ?

Probably both one in the same.

Free speech is free speech.

Freedom OF religion is FREEDOM of religion ?

So what happens when people try to kill one 'church' to replace it with the 'church' of government legislating' its 'moraiity' ?

We get the current topic.

Atheists, and the IRS has exactly ZERO business cutting deals.

If you think churches should not have tax-exempt status (as I do), then I don't understand why you disagree with this. This isn't PC thought police. It's keeping churches honest and not having them turn into a political tax-exempt PAC. If churches are going to be political entities, they should be taxed. If they're not, they should not "preach" politics.

I believe there's going to be more of this kind of thing, as religion encroaches more and more into government.

Do you ever make a post WITHOUT using the word "progressive" in a derogatory manner?

I don't see this as being such a bad thing. It is not an attempt to take away anybodies liberties. The religious and churches will still be able to do what they have always done, they will just have to abide by the rules that come along with their tax-exempt status.

If they want to keep their tax-exempt status, they have to stay within the bounds set forth by the law. If they choose to ignore the law, and continue promoting political issues, legislation and candidates from the pulpit, they can still do so. They will lose their tax-exempt status in the process, but they will still have the freedom to do so.

Just because they are religious, does not give them a free pass around tax laws. This is no different than a non-profit organization earning a profit, a university that only teaches Calvin and Hobbs, or a hospital that only uses homeopathic remedies. If they do not meet the requirements for tax-exempt status, they should not get it.

The reason behind this is the law, not the religion.

originally posted by: beezzer
Now before the local group of atheist progressives get their undies in a bunch, I happen to think that NO church deserves a tax-exempt status.

I came in to say this. I feel that would be a better solution than monitoring sermons in case they say something they shouldn't.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

If you are basically teaching a sermon that uses the Sermon on the Mount could be dinged with this because it references traditional marriage. Jesus himself talks in terms of man and wife, and we all know what kind of hater he was.

This also sort of reminds me of the old Soviet Union where everything had to have it's Politburo official observer. Remember that guy who was on Red October? The one they had to kill so they could defect?

a reply to: beezzer

For a minute I thought that the Godless Atheists would be doing the monitoring.

But it seems that the Godless IRS will do it. Never mind! Carry on.

a reply to: ketsuko

There's not a damn thing political about the sermon on the mount. Mentioning a husband and wife is VERY different than talking about how we have to "preserve traditional marriage". Lame argument.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: ketsuko

There's not a damn thing political about the sermon on the mount. Mentioning a husband and wife is VERY different than talking about how we have to "preserve traditional marriage". Lame argument.

This is true. The term "traditional marriage" wasn't a political term until the Christian right made it so.

a reply to: Diderot

Athiest's are not godless as they proclaim.

They believe in God and using it's hand the IRS to smite their 'enemies'.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: ketsuko

There's not a damn thing political about the sermon on the mount. Mentioning a husband and wife is VERY different than talking about how we have to "preserve traditional marriage". Lame argument.

This is true. The term "traditional marriage" wasn't a political term until the Christian right made it so.

You mean until gays decided they had to have marriage and started bucking to redefine it and force us to accept it.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: ketsuko

There's not a damn thing political about the sermon on the mount. Mentioning a husband and wife is VERY different than talking about how we have to "preserve traditional marriage". Lame argument.

Traditional marriage IS a man and a wife, but marriage these days is any two people who love each other. It's hateful to imply it's one man and one woman. Get with the program you hater.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
If you think churches should not have tax-exempt status (as I do), then I don't understand why you disagree with this. This isn't PC thought police. It's keeping churches honest and not having them turn into a political tax-exempt PAC. If churches are going to be political entities, they should be taxed. If they're not, they should not "preach" politics.

If it is applied evenly with all churches, mosques, temples in all parts of the country (ie inner-cities, rural Baptist) then I don't have an issue. But when has the IRS ever been fair and balanced?

I believe there's going to be more of this kind of thing, as religion encroaches more and more into government.

I see it as government encroaching into religion.

Do you ever make a post WITHOUT using the word "progressive" in a derogatory manner?

No. Not really.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Diderot

Athiest's are not godless as they proclaim.

The believe in God and using it's hand the IRS to smite their 'enemies'.

That's a very sweeping generalization of atheists. Out of curiosity, outside of this website (or other forums and social media you may frequent) how many atheists do you know? If you know any, would you say that they'd feel the same way here? Because I can just as easily say that all Christians want to use their tax-exempt status to push political agendas in church even though when I was a practicing Catholic, I don't remember a single sermon that tried to push a political agenda that I went to.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

That's a very sweeping generalization of atheists

So what ?

Those SWEEPING generalizations about churchs was 'acceptable'.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

So, if you went to a church giving a sermon that said marriage when a man cleaves to his wife implying that marriage is between a man and woman, this is not political? I wouldn't have said so, but these days, it is because it's not politically correct. Such a thing is not "inclusive" or PC. It is hateful to gays.

They have made it a political issue and will say as much, and the atheist observer will fall in line with that.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
a reply to: ketsuko

There's not a damn thing political about the sermon on the mount. Mentioning a husband and wife is VERY different than talking about how we have to "preserve traditional marriage". Lame argument.

This is true. The term "traditional marriage" wasn't a political term until the Christian right made it so.

You mean until gays decided they had to have marriage and started bucking to redefine it and force us to accept it.

You sound bitter about that. The problem is that Christians let the government control marriage, issue marriage certificates, give tax benefits to married people, and other sorts of things. When they did that, the institution of marriage left the domain of whatever religion it came from (read: none, marriage has existed FAR longer than Christianity or Judaism has) and entered the domain of the state. That means that the state can determine what it means to be married and the state aspires to equal treatment, so if two men or two women want to get married, the state has to offer that ability to them in the name of equal treatment. You can be upset about it all you want, but that is just the plain as day truth.

a reply to: neo96

Did you read anywhere that I said those sweeping generalizations of churches was acceptable? Also just because someone else does it, it doesn't make it ok for you to do it. Since when does two wrongs make a right?