1,500 Pastors Defy IRS Ban on Preaching Politics

a reply to: ownbestenemy

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment

The Free Exercise Clause
The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Thus, the Establishment Clause prevents the US from establishing or advocating for a specific religion, while the Free Exercise clause is intended to ensure the rights of Americans to practice their religions without state intervention . The Supreme Court has consistently held, however, that the right to free exercise of religion is not absolute, and that it is acceptable for the government to limit free exercise in some cases.

As in stay out of politics if you want to stay tax exempt.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

My mistake. Can you tell me what year they lost the ability to be involved in politics?

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Glad to see you now understand the requirements of tax exempt status.

There was no sudden revelation and surely not on your part. I am well aware of what the tax-code lays out. Interestingly enough, I find it appalling that any group, religious or secular must jump through hoops and expend resources to engage any form of speech.

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

Perhaps you are not a jackass -- but the difference between you and me is I don't need to make a personal attack upon your views other than engaging them in debate; only the simple minded need to stoop to assume their stature in their small world.

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?

You gave an accurate summation in which I never argued that; I questioned your use of the language. Sadly, I guess I cannot possibly understand you on this.

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

You are connecting two separate issues that do not relate at all. I am not arguing that churches who have signed onto a convoluted tax-rule are not subject to the whim of the IRS, but I am arguing that the Government has no plenary power to decide who to tax and who to not, based on arbitrary notions of religion or secularism.

Also, the First Amendment grants nothing; it limits the Government from....wait for it...its that wingnut notion again, infringing upon a stated and recognized natural Right.

originally posted by: Onslaught2996

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.

\

Hilarious, fear mongering at it's best.

a reply to: Onslaught2996

And as stated, all Churches, for your very stance is threatening to their natural and political right, should withdrawal their exempt status and preach all day about politics.

I would be interested to see how many would respond to such but we know how that will go...as it seems the following should not be able to exhibit nor engage in speech: Corporations, religious institutions, and private organizations. Unless of course, they pay their taxes then heck, go right ahead, you paid your toll. Speak freely...or as freely as you can after you give us money.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

what year they lost the ability to be involved in politics?

In 1954, the U.S. Congress amended (without debate or analysis) Internal Revenue Code §501(c )( 3) to restrict the speech of non - profit tax exempt entities, including churches. Before th e amendment was passed, there were no restrictions on what churches could or couldn’t do with regard to speech about government and voting , excepting only a 1934 law preventing non - profits from using a substantial part of their resources to lobby for legi s lation .

Origins of church and state

The Court now announced: "The First Amendment has erected ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’ That wall must be kept high and impregnable." This was a new philosophy for the Court. Why would the Court take Jefferson’s letter completely out of context and cite only eight of its words? Dr. William James, the Father of modern Psychology—and a strong opponent of religious principles in government and education—perhaps explained the Court’s new strategy when he stated: "There is nothing so absurd but if you repeat it often enough people will believe it." This statement precisely describes the tact utilized by the Court in the years following its 1947 announcement.
The Court began regularly to speak of a "separation of church and state," broadly explaining that, "This is what the Founders wanted—separation of church and state. This is their great intent." The Court failed to quote the Founders; it just generically asserted that this is what the Founders wanted.
The courts continued on this track so steadily that, in 1958, in a case called Baer v. Kolmorgen, one of the judges was tired of hearing the phrase and wrote a dissent warning that if the court did not stop talking about the "separation of church and state," people were going to start thinking it was part of the Constitution. That warning was in 1958! Nevertheless, the Court continued to talk about separation until June 25th, 1962, when, in the case Engle v. Vitale, the Court delivered the first ever ruling which completely separated Christian principles from education.

Also this is not a Christian nation..the fore father did want this.
The Origin of "Separation of Church and State"

Those discussions—recorded in the Congressional Records from June 7 through September 25 of 1789—make clear their intent for the First Amendment. By it, the Founders were saying: "We do not want in America what we had in Great Britain: we don’t want one denomination running the nation. We will not all be Catholics, or Anglicans, or any other single denomination.
We do want God’s principles, but we don’t want one denomination running the nation." This intent was well understood, as evidenced by court rulings after the First Amendment. For example, a 1799 court declared: "By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing." Again, note the emphasis:
"We do want Christian principles—we do want God’s principles—but we don’t want one denomination to run the nation."

a reply to: ownbestenemy

No religious group HAS to apply for or accept tax-exempt status in the US ... it's totally voluntary. If they do apply for it, and accept it, then they have made an agreement they need to live up to.

If churches don't have sufficient ethics to stand by their agreements, then they don't deserve the benefits of their agreements.

Use of the term "wingnut" is not a personal attack ... it's merely descriptive of a certain set of beliefs. Yet, you've responded with two very overt personal attacks, so by your own definition, I guess that makes you simple-minded?

... I mean, I wouldn't define it or you that way but whatever floats your personal boat ...

Unless you are a newly minted user of English, I'd think that you understand figures of speech, but since you either don't or you're insistent on being waspish ... use of the word "sadly" in that context is quite clearly ironic, indicating that I am sad (but not really) that you either didn't understand or were intentionally misstating the facts about tax-exemption and religion.

I'm not connecting the two issues. The discussion here is about the tax-exempt status of churches. You are the one who's attempting to postulate that somehow the "free exercise of religion" is somehow associated with "free tax status." I really don't think you are simple-minded as you painted yourself above in your comment, but wow, now you're trying to claim that I'm the one that brought the First Amendment into the discussion?

I think not.

I can see that you enjoy semantics. The first ten Amendments are commonly called "the Bill of Rights" and state, acknowledge, recognize, encode, enshrine those rights created by the government created by the Constitution they're attached to.

And as far as the "natural rights of Man" go ... how 18th century of you!

That could be a fun discussion, but a bit off-topic while we're discussing the very clear parameters and issues of tax-exempt status in the US.

originally posted by: ownbestenemy
a reply to: Onslaught2996

And as stated, all Churches, for your very stance is threatening to their natural and political right, should withdrawal their exempt status and preach all day about politics.

I would be interested to see how many would respond to such but we know how that will go...as it seems the following should not be able to exhibit nor engage in speech: Corporations, religious institutions, and private organizations. Unless of course, they pay their taxes then heck, go right ahead, you paid your toll. Speak freely...or as freely as you can after you give us money.

Let them as long as no power is given to them, let them believe the magic man in the sky told them who to cheer on..

But give them no power..give them no say in how people should be punished...look at what happened earlier in America's life.

Look at what giving religion power is doing to the middle east.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Onslaught2996

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.

\

Hilarious, fear mongering at it's best.

Are you saying that christians wouldn't burn a few witches if given all the power they'd like?

a reply to: Onslaught2996

So the founding fathers had no issue with it, until 1954. Why are you quoting the Constitution when the Constitution did not prohibit this? Or did the Founding Fathers wake up in 1954 to make a last minute edit?

No. Liberals did not like Church groups campaigning against them and so they silenced them. Why is it ok for Labor Unions to be political?

and don't quote the statute, because until 1954 it was fine for Pastors too. I want the moral/ethical/logical reasoning that makes one ok and one not.

a reply to: SomePeople


Looks like the witches are in charge these days and they love their fires.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04


Oh they have one they just wont say it out loud. We are just supposed to "get it"......why labor unions get a tax pass and a political speech pass and churches are under fire.

We are also supposed to just "get it" when the IRS is used to intimidate "conservative" groups.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: SomePeople


Looks like the witches are in charge these days and they love their fires.

Well, it's nice to see some diversity - even if it does really piss off the christians. I guess they are sore that they aren't the big boss, but they did # it up quite badly, so I'm not sorry.

I like fires too - they keep me warm and I guess they keep witches warm, too - is that what you meant?

a reply to: SomePeople


No I mean that the witches have been very busy burning the opposition at the state. Granted its a new type of fire but not even the witches can get away with actually burning folks at the stake any more. Its the dream of the Baal worshipers to be able to publically sacrifice humans like they did for years in the good old days.

So, let's see, we can define the words "witch," "fire," "burning," "sacrifice" and so forth to mean whatever we wish.

Oh witches aren't witches, and fire doesn't burn, and compelling a church to keep up with its agreement, obey the law, and "render unto Caesar" ... is the same as murder and human sacrifice.

LOL. That faith-based reality is really paying off, isn't it?

Yes, the poor, victimized churches ... being burned at the "state" (that would actually be a little witty if it were intentional) because they're expected to obey the law.

It's good to see that ludicrous exaggeration and outright deception are alive and well.

originally posted by: Logarock
a reply to: SomePeople


No I mean that the witches have been very busy burning the opposition at the state. Granted its a new type of fire but not even the witches can get away with actually burning folks at the stake any more. Its the dream of the Baal worshipers to be able to publically sacrifice humans like they did for years in the good old days.

Nope, sorry - fire is fire and no other thing is fire. Chritistians burned 'witches' at the stake and as far as I'm concerned they still need to be held accountable. Bunch of filthy, lowlife cultists.

A church is supposedly a congregation of believers who gather to worship their deity as they see fit, pray, fellowship, sing hymns, and in the case of Christian churches, according to the Bible, they are to help heal the sick, care for the orphans, widows and the elderly, feed the hungry, house the homeless, etc.

Such an organization performing such services for the community at large deserves to be free of taxes.

A labor union exists to act on behalf of its membership in the advancement and sustenance of their professions specifically in the area of collective bargaining. As such, and as a direct extension of that, unions have always been politically active supporting candidates that support the goals of these workers.

And besides that, under their tax exemption code 501 c (5), monies used for political contributions are NOT tax exempt.

How can the matter be stated any more clearly?

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.

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.

... and of course, I was trying to focus on the topic of tax exempt status for churches rather than commenting on my opinions of what these parasitic pathological institutions actually are.