1,500 Pastors Defy IRS Ban on Preaching Politics

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: beezzer

The Church has every right to maintain a stance on any issue. What they do not have a right to do is to demand that society obey their chosen or given doctrine. Preaching about their perception of immorality is thier choice - but they run the risk of alienating people who disagree with the message.

But we allow politicians to create a doctrine that we have to live by. Isn't politics doing what churches historically did?

History shows, again and again, that the Church will bend it's position on issues when the populace outgrows the dogma. A hundred years ago,for example, divorce was so stigmatic that few people chose the option and many were demonized for doing so.

Churches are a mirror that reflect the moral image of society.

We elect politicians not church officials. We get the politicians we deserve.

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: SomePeople
a reply to: Gryphon66

Oh what a load of rubbish. The only reason any cults perform charitable activities is because they are scared of the deity they believe in and want to please it so they don't burn and also so they can push their cult on more people.

Religions are businesses.

Are you announcing that your post is a load of rubbish? LOL.

I don't disagree with you (that much) on the reality of what religious organizations actually are, however, the idea of giving these bodies tax-exempt status was indeed originally based in the idea that they were going to provide charitable services to the community ... thus, the tax exemption was a way to acknowledge that and help the process along.

.

This is unconstitutional. The church is not required constitutionally to demonstrate a posture of charity or anything really to justify its status in any manner, to anyone government or otherwise.

It is clear the wealth of the church is being eyeballed by a blood sucking government and the money loving parasitical and pathological hypocrites that feast at the table of plunder. The Viking raiders of the day.

You're seriously confused. No law says the churches are required to function as charities. However, when they claim that they do, they qualify for tax-exempt status and can, of their own free will, decide to apply for it or not. The wealth of the church? How, exactly, did the church get all that wealth? I'll answer my own question: by operating as businesses and not paying taxes on it.

a reply to: NavyDoc

How is request for discovery (subpoena) a threat or intimidation unless there is something illegal or at best untoward in the sermons? A church is a legal entity like any other and is subject to the same laws as all persons and legal entities. The Constitutional restriction that no laws will be made prohibiting the free exercise of religion simply does not mean that churches, religious organizations, individuals. et. al. can do anything they want and then skulk and hide under that aegis.

You don't like the Tax Code? Work to change it. Absolutely nothing wrong with the way Planned Parenthood has their business model structured, in fact, it's a lot more honest than many I could name. I personally find it appalling that churches get any kind of tax break at all, because in a way, that means my tax dollars are funding and supporting their superstitions. But, I recognize that as my opinion rather than, pardon the phrase, gospel truth.

Hundreds of right-wing organizations hide under the same tax codes ... and yet, I hear nothing on that score from the wingnut gallery.

(I honestly skipped over your obligatory leftist, progressive, socialist, Marxist, Alinskian, communist references; I don't think there's any purpose in indulging that rather peculiar compulsion.)

The course of legal discovery can be intimidating to some though at first, but it is a normal legal process that happens a thousand times a day everywhere in this country. It is exaggeration of a high order to suggest that it is political intimidation and even more ludicrous to state that it contravenes the 1st Amendment.

I guess we'll have to see what the courts say, eh?

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: Gryphon66


They are required, buy unconstitional law, to claim a status. Where did you get the idea that they had an option?

They should have tossed this off back in the day but were asleep and government lovers. Now the wolves are prowling around the perimeter.

That is absolutely untrue. You can get a handful of people together, meet in your home, and declare yourself a church without claiming any status to the government.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Hefficide

Has politics become the new "church"?

Modern day political theory is the political church. Made and funded by a people that are no longer "jealous for their rights". Their priests are the new robber barons, their prophets prophesy for gold and their seminaries dot the land like a fast food chain that produced debt and ignorance tossed up from the bowels of its visionaries.

Wow. That had almost a C. S. Lewis ring to it.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

And that is a valid point. Some of my atheist brethren and sisteren have really just replaced their former religion with a new religion of statist politically correctism with a strict ideology, a cannon of beliefs and positions you MUST hold, and an intolerance of views that go outside that strict cannon.

Note that a single direct question of whether or not leftist politically active groups should also lose their taxpayer exempt status for doing the same thing was dodged every single time. Not a single personal opinion was given. Certainly the tax code was quoted multiple times, but not a single opinion was given. I wonder what said people will be saying the next time we discuss a corporation using the tax code to hide money offshore given this. Will they be consistent or will they opine that this "loophole" should be stripped from corporations?

I'll give an opinion: Any organization with 501(3)(C) tax exempt status that engages in political activities should lose its tax exempt status, period.

You are misusing the word religion and making it meaningless. Religion is the performance of ritual on behalf of or in obeyance to a supernatural deity or deities. Ascribing other definitions to it makes the word meaningless. Besides, we're talking about churches not religion, per se.

a reply to: beezzer

Government and religion were the same thing for most of human history.

There certainly are many who want to recombine the two; but that is anathematic to the American way.

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
i don't think the secularists humanists and liberals realize that clergy preaching politics was what sparked and organized the revolution and played a huge part in the abolishment of slavery and the modern civil rights movement. it was never the founders intend to banish political speech from the pulpit.

then again the facts don't matter just anything they can use to accomplish thier own ideological end is thier principle of the moment.

I am a unrepentant humanist, sometimes secularist, and light-hearted liberal. You are correct, I do not "realize" that clergy preaching politics was what sparked and organized the American Revolution, in fact, that's pretty much a bald-faced lie.

Have you ever heard of the Sons of Liberty then? Don't recall them meeting in churches or preaching sermons.

Have you ever read anything that Thomas Jefferson wrote? How about James Madison? Are you saying these men were religious? Ben Franklin? Sam Adams?

But, I'm willing to learn. What's your evidence? Enlighten us.

a reply to: Logarock

I'm curious too, come to think of it.

Can you cite the law that requires churches to incorporate and apply for tax status?

EDIT: Because you know, here's what the IRS says in its very helpful Tax Guide for Religious and Charitable Organizations:

Churches that meet the requirements of IRC section 501(c)(3)
are automatically considered tax exempt and are not required
to apply for and obtain recognition of tax-exempt status from
the IRS.

Although there is no requirement to do so, many churches
seek recognition of tax-exempt status from the IRS because
such recognition assures church leaders, members, and
contributors that the church is recognized as exempt and
qualifies for related tax benefits. For example, contributors
to a church that has been recognized as tax exempt would
know that their contributions generally are tax-deductible.

So, having a tax-exempt status is good for the "god business" because it increases contributions ... but it's not required.

Were you guessing Logarock or simply misguided on this issue?

remember the shot heard round the world? care to guess where that got started?

a reply to: stormbringer1701

Are you referring to the Emerson poem?

I don't have to guess, traditionally, it was the (Old) North Bridge in Concord MA. The Battles of Lexington and Concord.

Now, have you had time to look up the Sons of Liberty, those good church-going boys?

How about Jefferson? How about Madison? Franklin?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: stormbringer1701
i don't think the secularists humanists and liberals realize that clergy preaching politics was what sparked and organized the revolution and played a huge part in the abolishment of slavery and the modern civil rights movement. it was never the founders intend to banish political speech from the pulpit.

then again the facts don't matter just anything they can use to accomplish thier own ideological end is thier principle of the moment.

I am a unrepentant humanist, sometimes secularist, and light-hearted liberal. You are correct, I do not "realize" that clergy preaching politics was what sparked and organized the American Revolution, in fact, that's pretty much a bald-faced lie.

Have you ever heard of the Sons of Liberty then? Don't recall them meeting in churches or preaching sermons.

Have you ever read anything that Thomas Jefferson wrote? How about James Madison? Are you saying these men were religious? Ben Franklin? Sam Adams?

But, I'm willing to learn. What's your evidence? Enlighten us.

it was certain preachers and clergy and thier congregations that formed the minutemen. . also you'll recall revere's signal was from a church belfry. clergy pretty much solidified the resolve of those that were determined to resist the british.

likewise much of the abolishionist underground railroad was organized by church leaders and congregants.

also you may remember that Dr King was a reverend.

a reply to: stormbringer1701

So, if a member of a church congregation fought for America, you're claiming that means that the Revolution started in church?

Were there also bats in that belfrey and were they Patriots too? I mean that makes about as much sense.

What was more than likely the highest point in a town to send a signal from? Hmmm.

So, nothing about the Sons of Liberty, Jefferson, Madison?

You must have graduated from Beck University.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Hefficide

Has politics become the new "church"?

Modern day political theory is the political church. Made and funded by a people that are no longer "jealous for their rights". Their priests are the new robber barons, their prophets prophesy for gold and their seminaries dot the land like a fast food chain that produced debt and ignorance tossed up from the bowels of its visionaries.

Wow. That had almost a C. S. Lewis ring to it.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

And that is a valid point. Some of my atheist brethren and sisteren have really just replaced their former religion with a new religion of statist politically correctism with a strict ideology, a cannon of beliefs and positions you MUST hold, and an intolerance of views that go outside that strict cannon.

Note that a single direct question of whether or not leftist politically active groups should also lose their taxpayer exempt status for doing the same thing was dodged every single time. Not a single personal opinion was given. Certainly the tax code was quoted multiple times, but not a single opinion was given. I wonder what said people will be saying the next time we discuss a corporation using the tax code to hide money offshore given this. Will they be consistent or will they opine that this "loophole" should be stripped from corporations?

I'll give an opinion: Any organization with 501(3)(C) tax exempt status that engages in political activities should lose its tax exempt status, period.

You are misusing the word religion and making it meaningless. Religion is the performance of ritual on behalf of or in obeyance to a supernatural deity or deities. Ascribing other definitions to it makes the word meaningless. Besides, we're talking about churches not religion, per se.

That would include Planned Parenthood, although they have a (4)(c) arm as a loophole. You willing to apply the same standard? The unions?

a reply to: NavyDoc

Unions are 301 c (5) ... and it's not a loophole.

Since they do receive Federal funds in support of the medical and educational services they offer the public, setting up a separte wing for lobbying efforts seems a lot more honest than say Tea Parties that claim educational or community service and then spew nothing but political claptrap.

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Logarock

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: Hefficide

Has politics become the new "church"?

Modern day political theory is the political church. Made and funded by a people that are no longer "jealous for their rights". Their priests are the new robber barons, their prophets prophesy for gold and their seminaries dot the land like a fast food chain that produced debt and ignorance tossed up from the bowels of its visionaries.

Wow. That had almost a C. S. Lewis ring to it.

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

And that is a valid point. Some of my atheist brethren and sisteren have really just replaced their former religion with a new religion of statist politically correctism with a strict ideology, a cannon of beliefs and positions you MUST hold, and an intolerance of views that go outside that strict cannon.

Note that a single direct question of whether or not leftist politically active groups should also lose their taxpayer exempt status for doing the same thing was dodged every single time. Not a single personal opinion was given. Certainly the tax code was quoted multiple times, but not a single opinion was given. I wonder what said people will be saying the next time we discuss a corporation using the tax code to hide money offshore given this. Will they be consistent or will they opine that this "loophole" should be stripped from corporations?

I'll give an opinion: Any organization with 501(3)(C) tax exempt status that engages in political activities should lose its tax exempt status, period.

You are misusing the word religion and making it meaningless. Religion is the performance of ritual on behalf of or in obeyance to a supernatural deity or deities. Ascribing other definitions to it makes the word meaningless. Besides, we're talking about churches not religion, per se.

I am not misusing the term religion. I am demanding that all charitable organizations stand by the same criteria and that there should not be loopholes used by progressive organizations for thier convenience.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: NavyDoc

Unions are 301 c (5) ... and it's not a loophole.

Of course it is, just like corporations. You cannot bitch about corporations using the tax law to save money and yet say it's cool for unions to do.

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: NavyDoc

Unions are 301 c (5) ... and it's not a loophole.

Of course it is, just like corporations. You cannot bitch about corporations using the tax law to save money and yet say it's cool for unions to do.

What? Where did I say anything about corporations?

You mentioned unions, I pointed you to the facts.

Again, huh?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: NavyDoc

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: NavyDoc

Unions are 301 c (5) ... and it's not a loophole.

Of course it is, just like corporations. You cannot bitch about corporations using the tax law to save money and yet say it's cool for unions to do.

What? Where did I say anything about corporations?

You mentioned unions, I pointed you to the facts.

Again, huh?

Just pointing out the broader picture.

a reply to: beezzer

there are more carrots and sticks in our system than just taxes and one of them is the perks that are extended to married couples. maybe if those carrots and sticks didn't exist neither would the problem of homosexuals wanting equality?

a reply to: NavyDoc

Well thanks, but ... you and I were talking specifically to each other about this particular subject ... so how does the 'broader picture' fit in with something I haven't stated?