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: Chamberf=6
a reply to: Stormdancer777
Is silencing churches BAD? I mean to where they claim Being the True And Right say?
Temperance.
originally posted by: kaylaluv
originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: kaylaluv
and getting a subpoena to turn over all communications sermons ect is in no way threatening?
it won't in any way coerce those pastors or others to change their messages to please the gov't in an attempt to avoid future hassles?
and fox did mention the lawsuit by the way although it being fox I am pretty sure that there is a possibility of it being slanted in some way.
Why should it be threatening... unless you are ashamed of your sermons being seen by everyone in court.
So you're saying the party being sued has no right to gather information to help themselves during a case that's been filed against them?
originally posted by: buster2010
Should a pastor or preacher be allowed to use the church for protection while they are preaching hate?
originally posted by: jimmyx
originally posted by: grandmakdw
originally posted by: buster2010
Should a pastor or preacher be allowed to use the church for protection while they are preaching hate? How is this any different from the people that are placed under arrest at rallies when they give speeches promoting hate. Remember several preachers from Texas have been calling for gays to be killed just because they are a pastor in no way means they should be given a free pass.
#1 A pastor should not be preaching hate
#2 American fought hard for the right to free speech, liberals and progressives fought the hardest for free speech (porn especially) in the past 20 years.
#3 There is also a constitutional amendment that is often misquoted by liberals/progressives/Democrats as separation of church and state. Regardless of the correct wording the government is forbidden by law to direct the content of sermons. Intimidation by requiring the submission of sermons is directing content.
#4 This would be the first step in doing away with non-interference in the practice of religion. Do you want to take the first step in doing away with the "separation of church and state" as is often misquoted from the constitution?
I think the pastors have a very clear cut and strong case for suing the city big time and winning hands down a massive lawsuit on this one.
Unless, the government wants to do away with non-interference between church and state altogether. Then what happens when the government changes as governments do and the majority want the church to interfere in the state?
ok, so, you would also apply this to Islamic churches practicing sharia law in Texas?
originally posted by: beezzer
originally posted by: Chamberf=6
a reply to: Stormdancer777
Is silencing churches BAD? I mean to where they claim Being the True And Right say?
Temperance.
Silencing churches is GOOD! By golly!
We can't have anyone disagreeing with government!
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?
originally posted by: DISRAELI
originally posted by: buster2010
Should a pastor or preacher be allowed to use the church for protection while they are preaching hate?
Even if they are preaching hate (and poltical correctness is very broad nowadays in its definition of hate), how does this demand square with the Fifth Amendment?
At the very least, they should surely be getting their evidence from witnesses, not from the alleged culprits themselves.
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
I've yet to see demands that Rev. Wright's tax exempt status be pulled and, boy-howdy, he is political as they come.
originally posted by: Stormdancer777
For one it is not hate, some people genuinely think they are trying to save your soul, if you go to church then you are obviously prepared to hear some things you don't necessarily want to be told are wrong, if you don't go to church then please disregard this message.
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.
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.
originally posted by: DISRAELI
originally posted by: buster2010
Should a pastor or preacher be allowed to use the church for protection while they are preaching hate?
Even if they are preaching hate (and poltical correctness is very broad nowadays in its definition of hate), how does this demand square with the Fifth Amendment?
At the very least, they should surely be getting their evidence from witnesses, not from the alleged culprits themselves.
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?