IRS Strikes Deal With Atheists To Monitor Sermons And Homilies

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Let's pick on the most chairatable organizations in the world.

Why have a charitable organization when you have government?

a reply to: beezzer

If Paul Harvey were still alive today you can bet Atheist's and the IRS would be on him like we never seen.



www.youtube.com...

a reply to: neo96

Miss what the word atheist means ?

They don't like churchs or religion PERIOD.

Actually, atheist means a lack of belief in a god/goddess. Your statement would come closer to being anti-theist. Not all atheists are anti-theist, though most all anti-theists are atheists.

a reply to: Klassified

And ?

Still doesn't stop them from deifying the state.

Which they do.

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.

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?

For the most part I have to agree with the sad bunny here. The only thing I care about where it involves churches is if they are telling their congregation to vote for a specific party or person. Beyond that they should be free to spread whatever bile they believe.

a reply to: neo96

"Do you actually believe that "the State" plays a significant role in the philosophy of unbelievers?"

Oh neo, dear neo, I think that the nature of unbelief, or non-belief, or disbelief has nothing whatsoever to do with the ACA. You can argue atheism. or you can argue Obamacare. Either way, never the twain shall meet. Savvy?
Come on, neo, let's talk common sense.
p.s. you're what keeps me comin' back to ATS!

a reply to: Diderot

Yo

All politics can be summed up as BELIEF or FAITH.

As in one GIANT LEAP of both every election cycle.

Progressives enjoy your now,the pendulum will always swing back the other way.

originally posted by: Diderot
a reply to: ketsuko

"I think he is alluding to the fact that the devotion most believers assign to God is directed instead to the State by some unbelievers (or whatever their cause du jour happens to be).

Dear ketsuko, This is a most interesting reply. Do you suggest that your conviction of truth is more deeply grounded that that of the typical unbeliever? Do you actually believe that "the State" plays a significant role in the philosophy of unbelievers?

of course it does!

because they think the state will be damaged by believers and they want to protect it at all costs.

why else would they try to include freedom FROM religion everywhere.

and they want to monitor churches, when the word God sends them into fits?
the sight of a cross puts them in line for disability payments?

lol, what are these monitors gonna do? sit for every sermon and bible study class? tap phone lines? moles?
i hope they have solid rubber tires on their cars.

what is a church? a building? a pastor? the robes? more than 5 people?
they gonna sit in on our men's breakfasts every saturday morn?

i'm just wondering how they are gonna pull this all off.

a reply to: tsingtao

because they think the state will be damaged by believers and they want to protect it at all costs.

And 'the state' WILL be damaged - they are CORRECT.
Kansas is the perfect example of a failed "Christian Evangelical Theocratic State":
What Happened When an Extremist, Christian Fundamentalist Got to Run a Whole State

He became leader of a House group called the New Federalists which devoted itself to the dismantling of the government one brick at a time. Fortunately, they were unable to pass their ambitious agenda so they instead became the far-right's hitmen, pioneering the use of hard-core obstructionist tactics to paralyze the government. They were the faction agitating the hardest for a government shutdown in 1995, pushing Gingrich to his most obstreperous limits (and setting the stage for his precipitous fall from grace). Joe Scarborough famously quoted Brownback telling him not to be disillusioned by the PR disaster that ensued, saying "Rome wasn't burnt in a day."

His far-right fiscal bona fides solidly demonstrated, Brownback turned his attention to social issues when he ran for the Senate in 1996 at the height of the religious right's growing clout in the GOP. He spent the next 12 years as a hardcore fiscal conservative but more importantly, as a far-right Christian crusader, sometimes fashioning himself as a "Wilberforce" conservative (after the British anti-slavery activist) comparing abolition of slavery to his determination to ban abortion. He's been closely associated for years with the secretive Christian fellowship group known as the Family.

C STREET:

The Fundamentalist Threat to American Democracy

C Street - where piety, politics, and corruption meet

Jeff Sharlet is the only journalist to have reported from inside the C Street House, the Fellowship residence known simply by its Washington, DC address. The house has lately been the scene of notorious political scandal, but more crucially it is home to efforts to transform the very fabric of American democracy. And now, after laying bare its tenants' past in The Family, Sharlet reports from deep within fundamentalism in today's world, revealing that the previous efforts of religious fundamentalists in America pale in comparison with their long-term ambitions.

Any questions? Tried, proven to fail. (They got their way - see Sam Brownback, above)

Colorado on the other hand: doing very well. And *gasp* RIGHT NEXT DOOR! (To the left - see a map).

a reply to: beezzer

Tis whole thing should be a non-issue because churches shouldn't be tax-exempt in the first place.

Only legitimate charities should be tax exempt and only up to a certain threshold per employee.

Down here in Florida I think we has as many crooked 501C groups as we do mosquitos

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.

This might sound good but the truth is giving someone, anyone a tax exemption and then using it as a coercive tool to curtail political speech is the sort of thing we had a revolution over to begin with.

I am not fooled that their real aim is to make some denominations come under heal while they will turn their head from more socialist and progressive pulpits which indeed make up a large number of churches today. Jesus can only political if He is presented as a free food for the homeless guy. IRS isn't going to do anything to a church that scolds the powers that be for not doing enough for the homeless for example.

So the IRS becomes "Ministry of Truth" and government theological interpreter. Welcome to 1776 retro! The IRS in King Georges clothing.

originally posted by: 8675309jenny
a reply to: beezzer

Tis whole thing should be a non-issue because churches shouldn't be tax-exempt in the first place.

The power to tax is the power to destroy, to control which possibility, even the shade of it in the case of the church is unconstitutional under the "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" clause. And this is worse than a law. Its allowing an entity that's not even really part of the god d*mmed government to call shots on a constitutionally protected function. And we see what the god da*mmed IRS thinks about the constitution already and how they are lap dog to and tool over the administration. Oh that's not political? As if the IRS is going to come in free and unbiased from political considerations regarding what constitutes political speech in a church.

I say thrash these money changers out of the temple!

I know this issue came up in the past when various black churches were promoting the Democratic
Party and telling people who to vote for. Even though it was wrong and a violation of their tax-exempt
status, nothing ever came of it and no church lost it's exempt status. Government "monitors" were just
too odious for most people to consider. What's worse, mixing politics and religion, or having Big Brother
looking over your shoulder? The issue faded away then, and here it is again.

originally posted by: KeliOnyx

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.

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?

For the most part I have to agree with the sad bunny here. The only thing I care about where it involves churches is if they are telling their congregation to vote for a specific party or person. Beyond that they should be free to spread whatever bile they believe.

Are you going to tell me then that the only churches or other organizations that can support a political position must be paying taxes? Tax records are not even checked for voters at the poles. Lets go back to the day when only land holders could vote then!

Fox and MSNBC can talk politics all day under the 1st amendment. The reason they pay tax has nothing to do with their political position but because they sell advertising time. You just cant attach "tax" as a prerequisite to political speech. The press doesn't have a tax permitted position, under the constitution, that grants it a political voice. The press could take donations all day, no advertising, and constitutionally the god*ammed government of the IRS couldnt do a d*m thing about it.

www.globalresearch.ca...

The molestation and rape of Christian women and girls as sex objects has not been limited to Christians alone. Syrian women and girls, regardless of their faiths,
that have been captured by the anti-government forces are being raped and molested. Muslims, Christians, and Druze are all equally at risk.
These perverted acts are being encouraged by corrupt clerics issuing legal opinions and decrees (fatwas) that support rape ...


...reported that the so-called religious leaders of the anti-government fighters declared it lawful for the anti-government fighters to rape «any non-Sunni Syrian woman»
that they desired; the declarations of these [c]corrupt pastors have been used to justify the rape, humiliation, torture, and murder of women and girls in towns and territory captured by groups
like the so-called Free Syrian Army, Jabhat Al-Nusra, and the so-called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant...

I tell ya, the Pulpits, the Sermons, homilies, the Friday noon prayers in Mosques need to be monitored for inciting the believers to terror and criminal acts, the Athiests monitoring western churches must be broadened in scope to include all Mosques too

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: deadeyedick
Let's pick on the most chairatable organizations in the world.

Why have a charitable organization when you have government?

The supposition of the IRS position is that tax breaks are only given to charitable organization. In the case of the Church, under our constitution, is that the Church is not a charitable organization nor does it have to be. It is a constitutionally protected entity and the clause "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" not only protects church from state/state from church as official governing political tool and/or, visa versa, as demonstrated in the Church of England as official government church. If there be no law that shall effect the establishment thereof then what place has the IRS to govern, monitor, approve or disapprove of anything that is said from the pulpit? The IRS is subordinate to the constitution whatever else it may be called. Do any news agent we know of check with the IRS about what they spew? No and it has nothing to do with their tax status.

a reply to: St Udio

While completely reasonable, most atheists are solely focused on Christianity. It is myopic, but it's also just the way it is. Most vocal atheists seem to be just as likely to defend Islam as they are to attack Christianity. Its just one part of the stage with puppets dancing on strings.

We need an entirely new system rather than one that just goes back and forth attacking "the enemy" depending on what is the flavor of the month. The issue is that most individuals would rather see revenge for their perceived injustices rather than true equality and justice for all.

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.

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?

What it really is, is government using what they already know is condemned as wrong by religion, and using it to encroach against church's tax exempt status.

The atheist groups and the IRS are creating the politics, not the churches. The churches are just doing what they have ALWAYS done, by condemning these things that these groups are making political.