1,500 Pastors Defy IRS Ban on Preaching Politics

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Depending on the way the question is asked, between 75 and 85% of Americans regularly identify themselves as Christian.

Yet, I hear daily that (from Christians) that Christians are somehow persecuted, victimized, and hated by seemingly everyone around them.

This doesn't make any sense at all using any math I know.

My cousin calls himself a Christian and a Catholic, yet he doesn't believe in God, doesn't believe in Jesus, does not believe in the Bible, and says anyone who does is stupid and uneducated. He absolutely identifies as being a Catholic and a Christian though.

ETA: I am still waiting for someone to answer why Churches/Pastors can not endorse anything political, but it's alright for Unions to do so and keep their tax exempt status.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Unions should lose their tax-exempt status - I actually had no idea they even were!

But religion first. Cults should be subject to tax. Cults shouldn't exist in the first place, but, they do and it's our right to be in one should we choose to.

None of that means they shouldn't be taxed, though - tax everything, or nothing.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

ETA: I am still waiting for someone to answer why Churches/Pastors can not endorse anything political, but it's alright for Unions to do so and keep their tax exempt status.

Here ya go.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

*sob*

No-one answered my question.

If a church preaches about a moral issue, and later on, a politician makes it a political issue, then is the church not allowed to preach on that moral issue anymore?

a reply to: Gryphon66

The mere fact again, that a religious organization must ask a Government that is by definition and law prohibited from making law against infringing against a practice just shows how convoluted our tax-code has become no?

a reply to: beezzer

In a Constitutional bubble -- the answer is no.

In the current environment, sadly, the answer it seems is a vague yes. This is due to the convolution of the tax-code in which churches (or any other organization) has signed onto the notion that they must seek State approval for their messages (via tax-exemption). Thus they fall under the jurisdiction of that law and have abdicated their natural and Constitutional right to speak freely.

a reply to: ownbestenemy

I agree the tax code is messed up. Things would be simplified if religions simply paid their taxes like every other group.

a reply to: Grimpachi

Overall, they shouldn't have to -- just like other groups shouldn't have to. To get around the First Amendment, we have allowed such notions as 501c(4) to seek permission to engage in our Constitutionally protected right -- it was stricken in Citizen United, I cannot see why that same logic cannot be applied to this notion.

If merely applying for a tax-exemption can deny a group its right to speak in the purest sense of the First Amendment (political speech), then it should be readdressed that such tax-code/regulation is purely unconstitutional.

a reply to: windword

What if the entire system is a lie OP. Take the religion out of it and what you find is a fight for control. They are using ever trick in the book to push agenda 21.




Liberty is so far removed people can not even understand what it means anymore. The progressive mindset has infested this country.

a reply to: SubTruth

Could you elaborate on progressive mindset? I'd quite curious what that means and am not familiar with the term.

originally posted by: windword

originally posted by: ownbestenemy
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Wait, so you have to be a "taxpayer" to speak politics? Here I thought it was just because we are and not dependant upon our "taxpayer" status...

Didn't the original Constitution require that to be a part of American Politics one must first be a white, male, land owner?

Nope. Interpretation maybe, but the words are available all to see and such cannot be found. Considering that the Constitution is a limiting document that denies a government powers while allowing it a few enumerated ones, it clearly shows that those administering it where the ones who acted in such a manner.

You are thinking of State laws, and such, valid in the sense of the Constitution and the 10th Amendment. I say valid, not right or Just.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So, let's see that's *does calculations* one person out of about 232 million people who doesn't meet your personal definition of what a Christian is.

You question has been answered multiple times. Unions are a different tax class than churches. Unions EXIST to lobby on behalf of their membership.

a reply to: ownbestenemy

No.

Tax exempt status is optional.

Tax exempt status has clear definitions, guidelines and rules.

If a church doesn't want to keep up its part of an agreement, it doesn't have to, but it doesn't get to have its cake and eat it too.

God, wingnuts do love that word "infringed" don't they?

Sadly, the Constitution says two things about religion (a) that government won't establish one and (b) won't prevent the free exercise thereof.

Tax exempt churches can still pray, sing, preach, pass judgment, encourage shame and self-loathing ... but if it wants to play politics, it does so without a tax-exempt status.

/shrug

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

ETA: I am still waiting for someone to answer why Churches/Pastors can not endorse anything political, but it's alright for Unions to do so and keep their tax exempt status.

Here ya go.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Which did not answer the question of why it's ok for Unions to be political and not Pastors.

From the link ...

No one should use their position of authority to try to coerce others into voting in the way the authority figure thinks is best.

Which is exactly what Union leaders do when they say vote for person X ....

So how about you answer the question, why is it ok for Unions to be political and not a church?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Tax exempt churches can still pray, sing, preach, pass judgment, encourage shame and self-loathing ... but if it wants to play politics, it does so without a tax-exempt status.

Only since Lyndon B. Johnson took the right away. You do realize for almost 200 years Pastors COULD be political right? You know it was taken away out of spite and an act of retribution to hurt people who endorsed his opponent, right?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

So, let's see that's *does calculations* one person out of about 232 million people who doesn't meet your personal definition of what a Christian is.

You question has been answered multiple times. Unions are a different tax class than churches. Unions EXIST to lobby on behalf of their membership.

I did not give my personal definition of anything. Maybe you need to go back and re-read. I hope all your replies are not written in such a manner.

Unions do not exist to lobby politically. 100% false and a lie. Unions were created to prevent employers from taking advantage of workers, not to elect officials.

Them being a different tax class is meaningless, WHY should they be?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ownbestenemy

No.

Tax exempt status is optional.

Given.

Tax exempt status has clear definitions, guidelines and rules.

I am not arguing that the letter of law doesn't have its boundaries.

God, wingnuts do love that word "infringed" don't they?

I sure hope you are not implying that I am a "wingnut"...as I have not inferred any such slight upon you. Maybe you can clear that up.

Sadly, the Constitution says two things about religion (a) that government won't establish one and (b) won't prevent the free exercise thereof.

Clarify why it is "sadly" that it states such. As we engage in this debate, it is best to understand where we are all coming from. As written. you imply that it is "sad" that the Constitution has limited the Government in such a manner. Is that your stance?

Tax exempt churches can still pray, sing, preach, pass judgment, encourage shame and self-loathing ... but if it wants to play politics, it does so without a tax-exempt status.

/shrug

A simple question, without "shurgs" I present to you:

Do you believe, regardless of what a person believes, religiously or otherwise, they are allowed to associate with others, congregate and discuss those ideas freely without fear of reprisal from a given State?

a reply to: beezzer

Simple..if people believe in magic and pixie dust..should we allow them to have a say in how a country should be run?

Do we want the Salem witch trials all over again...that type of BS would starting all over if the church was given more power.

They need to keep their delusional mouths shut when it comes to politics...there are tax exempt because they are supposed to be not profit.

They profit when they organize and rally for a candidate...I highly doubt they give all the money they raise to them.

Political Campaigns

For an organization to be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) it cannot “participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements) any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.”

What activities can jeopardize tax-exempt status?
For 501(c)(3)s,
the four main activities that can jeopardize the organization’s tax-exempt status are:
activity that results in private benefit or inurement;
lobbying activity, if it constitutes a substantial part of the organization’s overall activities or if it exceeds a predetermined dollar amount;
any political campaign activity; and
unrelated business activity that is substantial when compared with the organization’s exempt-function activities.

originally posted by: Onslaught2996
a reply to: beezzer
Simple..if people believe in magic and pixie dust..should we allow them to have a say in how a country should be run?

Simple indeed. If people believe in astronomically and near impossible chance, should we allow them to have a say in how a country should be ran?

They need to keep their delusional mouths shut when it comes to politics...there are tax exempt because they are supposed to be not profit.

Ah! The truth. The First Amendment shouldn't be all encompassing and should only apply when decided to apply. Have your silly beliefs, but otherwise...shut up. Now that is Liberty and Freedom at its finest.

a reply to: ownbestenemy

Ownbestenemy:

A few points:

Glad to see you now understand the requirements of tax exempt status.

Perhaps you're not a wingnut. I can only go on what I read.

Setting your irrelevant semantic nit-picking on my use of a common figure-of-speech to the side ... do you agree that my statement is accurate about what the First Amendment actually says vis-a-vis religion?

I don't know what "shurgs" are ... I "/shrugged" to indicate that the answer seems obvious.

I'm not sure how what I "believe" has anything to do with anything, but the facts are that the First Amendment does provide a right to assemble which in general could be described as you have done ...

... however, the First Amendment does not grant tax-free status to churches.