Pastors try to pick a tax fight with IRS

Pastors try to pick a tax fight with IRS

www.msnbc.msn.com

This weekend, hundreds of pastors, including some of the nation’s evangelical leaders, will climb into their pulpits to preach about American politics, flouting a decades-old law that prohibits tax-exempt churches and other charities from campaigning on election issues.

The sermons, on what is called Pulpit Freedom Sunday, essentially represent a form of biblical bait, an effort by some churches to goad the Internal Revenue Service into court battles over the divide between religion and politics.

The Alliance Defense Fund, a nonprofit legal defense group whose founders include James Do

(visit the link for the full news article)

This is all we need pastors telling their followers who to vote for in elections. If they want to get involved in politics then they should lose their tax free status. Perry and Bachmann are examples of what kind of leaders we would have if church leaders were able to influence the votes of their followers.

www.msnbc.msn.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I disagree with you. Pastors should participate in the political debate just like anybody else. If lawyers can make laws and nobody complains about that obvious issue; then pastors preaching should not be an issue at all. I mean, Obama does claim to be a Christian, so how can it hurt your "messiah"?

If the pastors want to preach politics then they can pay taxes too. Think of the tax revenues that could be generated from all those confounded mega-churches.

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
I disagree with you. Pastors should participate in the political debate just like anybody else. If lawyers can make laws and nobody complains about that obvious issue; then pastors preaching should not be an issue at all. I mean, Obama does claim to be a Christian, so how can it hurt your "messiah"?

Lawyers do not make laws politicians do. What is a preachers job? To teach their followers their religion and that's it nothing more. And where did you get the stupid idea of me saying Obama is the messiah? Your supposed to deny ignorance here not support it.

reply to post by buster2010


Don't have a libertarian as your avatar and then rail against liberty. It's defines hypocritical. Preachers should have the right to say what they want regardless of tax status. What is the first and second amendment for if you are penalized for speaking your mind and being willing to back it up?

Personally, I think revolution through violence is entirely immoral (not if brought about by self-defense), but liberty AND THE LAW dictate that people are free to speak their mind and revolt if they are willing to risk their lives.

I mean, c'mon!, praise the lord and pass the ammunition!

reply to post by Dasher


I suppose that I should also clarify that the tax exempt status given to churches is used as leverage in matters such as this, but the lunacy of such conduct certainly brings to light the insecurity and fallacy of our system.

"Taxes or jail" is not a right for the government to waive despite their conduct to the contrary. As delineated by older and more appropriate tax laws, taxes are not a right for the government, but is granted to them when certain conditions are met regarding economic conduct.

Not to detract... but this economic perversion is directly related to and adds a complexity to this topic, so it should be clarified.

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
I disagree with you. Pastors should participate in the political debate just like anybody else. If lawyers can make laws and nobody complains about that obvious issue; then pastors preaching should not be an issue at all. I mean, Obama does claim to be a Christian, so how can it hurt your "messiah"?

I agree AND disagree with you. Yes, they should be able to participate in political debates just like anybody else, but they should have to follow the same tax guidelines and political campaign laws that anybody else who participates in the political debates has to follow.

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by DarthMuerte
I disagree with you. Pastors should participate in the political debate just like anybody else. If lawyers can make laws and nobody complains about that obvious issue; then pastors preaching should not be an issue at all. I mean, Obama does claim to be a Christian, so how can it hurt your "messiah"?

Lawyers do not make laws politicians do. What is a preachers job? To teach their followers their religion and that's it nothing more. And where did you get the stupid idea of me saying Obama is the messiah? Your supposed to deny ignorance here not support it.

So are you. No one makes laws. Laws either exist or they do not, and either we discover these laws, or we remain ignorant of them, but no human makes law, merely legislation. That said, and when it comes to legislation, lawyers most assuredly do make the plethora of legislative acts imposed upon the People on a regular basis. Further, preachers are not limited by any lawful act in what their job description is. More importantly, on the federal level, Congress has been expressly prohibited from establishing any form of religion. Creating an Internal Revenue Service and then giving them the authority to determine which churches are "bona fide" churches, and which are not is a clear violation of that Establishment Clause. Beyond that Establishment Clause there is the fact that Congress is also, by way of that very same Amendment, expressly forbidden from abridging speech.

That Amendment, the First Amendment, is law. It is not law because it was legislated as such, it is law because it is a recognition of certain unalienable rights. It is either expressly, and when not expressly so, implicitly clear that these rights are not granted by government, but that government has no authority to legislate in a such a way that would deny or disparage these rights.

In terms of a "tax free status", it is arguable that churches have no need to apply for any such status, and are more than likely outside of the purview of the Internal Revenue Service. The only possible way the IRS could gain jurisdiction over churches is by the churches applying for "tax exemption". This application for tax exempt status grants jurisdiction where none likely existed before that application. Without that grant of jurisdiction, it is up to the government to show they actually have any jurisdictional authority to regulate churches. Taxes are a form of regulation.

You are entitled to your feelings on the matter, but one shouldn't mistake their feelings for rational and critical thought. If the rule of law is ever to regain the respect it so deserves, then We the People are going to have to be much more willing to stop validating our feelings in a way that allows government to expand their scope of jurisdiction to invent laws that have the effect of denying and disparaging unalienable rights. Under this circumstance no such law has been invented. All that has happened is an usurpation of political authority in the name of tyranny.

The People are the only line of defense for freedom and unalienable rights. Either they accept this responsibility or they don't. Acquiescing to an administrative agency not Constitutionally mandated, such as the IRS, is not accepting that responsibility.

reply to post by DerbyCityLights


Please see my post just above yours. I understand why you say this and it is a logical conclusion except that it assumes taxes to be a sovereign right of government to be waived by their fickle regulations. Instead, regarding true human rights, taxes are something which are afforded to the government by the people for the facilitation of services.
Remember, politicians are supposed to be The Servants Of All, not TPTB.

Originally posted by Dasher
reply to post by DerbyCityLights

 

Please see my post just above yours. I understand why you say this and it is a logical conclusion except that it assumes taxes to be a sovereign right of government to be waived by their fickle regulations. Instead, regarding true human rights, taxes are something which are afforded to the government by the people for the facilitation of services.
Remember, politicians are supposed to be The Servants Of All, not TPTB.

Yet the constitution addresses this with a little thing called Separation of Church and State.

reply to post by DerbyCityLights

Where in the U.S. Constitution is the "Separation of Church and State" addressed? Help me deny ignorance here. Link please!

reply to post by DerbyCityLights

Yet the constitution addresses this with a little thing called Separation of Church and State.

The words "Separation of Church and State" are not to be found in the Constitution for the United States of America, and your use of it is a gross misinterpretation of the Establishment Clause, which prohibits government from imposing any religion upon the people legislatively, but it does not in any way prohibit People from exercising their right to their religious beliefs and using those beliefs to dictate their conscious in the political arena, and in fact the Free Exercise Clause expressly forbids Congress from attempting to stop People from doing so. Not to mention the prohibition placed upon Congress regarding the abridgement of speech.

reply to post by DerbyCityLights


Your statement seems to be fairly random relative to the context of my previous posts.
Could you please be more specific?

... And I am pretty sure that the separation of church and state concept is more of a concept and not actually delineated in any documents which were involved in the founding of the united States. I'm very open to being shown my ignorance on that as it would be a very potent bit of information to know.

reply to post by LuxFestinus


Are you kidding me? Its in the First Amendment!


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

This equates to Separation of Church and State per a letter from Thomas Jefferson which addressed the Danbury Baptist association.

en.wikipedia.org...

reply to post by Dasher


To return this thread back to the actual topic:

Churches are challenging the IRS in the matter of their tax exempt status in light of politically charged preaching.
A complexity in this issue is whether or not the feds, or any other government has the inherent right to taxation.

To kick us back into conversation:
The First and Second Amendment are fairly clear, and while there are obvious reasons which we should grant governments the temporary right to issue taxes for the facilitation of governing, it is entirely wrong and unnatural for any government to dangle anyone's rights out like a carrot or for them to conduct themselves with such arrogant judgment towards religious organizations.

And maybe not. Maybe government has the right to silence who they wish.

Originally posted by Dasher
reply to post by Dasher

 

To return this thread back to the actual matters:

So since I have shown that the Constitution addresses the Separation of Church and State, you now want to change what you originally replied with?

reply to post by DerbyCityLights

This equates to Separation of Church and State per a letter from Thomas Jefferson which addressed the Danbury Baptist association.

If you knew anything at all about Jefferson's reply to the Danbury Baptists, you would know that Jefferson was explaining to the Danbury Baptist that he could not, as President of the United States, offer endorsement for their church. The Danbury Baptist were concerned that as a minority in Connecticut, they would be marginalized and even denied their right to exist. Jefferson showed sympathy for their concerns, but asked for sympathy in return for the Constitutional restraints he was under given this circumstance. Hence his phrase: "separation of church and state".

You are attempting to use this phrase to mean that the government has the lawful authority to regulate
churches. This is a gross misinterpretation of the law.

reply to post by DerbyCityLights


I think Jean Paul Zodeaux hit the nail on the head in response. The first Amendment does not give the government the authority that you say it does. Thanks for this.

reply to post by DerbyCityLights


Once again, I believe you do not understand the context of my posts.
I admit that I do not understand what point you are trying to make.