It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

1,500 Pastors Defy IRS Ban on Preaching Politics

page: 7
27
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 08:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: namehere
a reply to: windword

*snip*

meaning laws or policies of the state can not be dictated by any religious body, it's not saying the state cannot use religious symbolism or that prayer cannot be used in ceremony or that members of state bodies cannot speak of their beliefs or pray or whatever nor does it imply that religious figures or bodies cannot speak or act in a likewise manner regarding politics.

*snip*


Yes, actually, that's exactly what "will make no law regarding an Establishment of a religion" means. It means the Government in any of its guises, Federal, State or local can not set up, engage in the ritual of, enforce the practice of, imply by word or deed that any religious view is superior to any other, or in any other way support and promulgate religion of any kind in this country.

And it is indeed a right of every American to be free FROM religion if that is their choice.


To the point and well said.




posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

When I take other people's property without permission I am stealing and belong in jail. When uncle sam takes other people's property without their permission he is taxing and belongs on a pedestal. We live in a strange world I may never understand.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 11:06 PM
link   
Taxes are the fees for participating in a community, pure and simple.

Every human form of government has involved the people paying taxes in some way for the services provided by the government.

The only theft is when some "citzens" think that they should receive the benefits of our communities without helping to pay for them.

/shrug
edit on 23Wed, 15 Oct 2014 23:07:11 -050014p1120141066 by Gryphon66 because: Death and taxes.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 11:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine
Don't be naive. The real agenda has always been to fill the collection plate.


I'm not Catholic so I wouldn't know about that.


I know Jesus and the Apostles all died filthy rich somewhere in the Grand Caimans or Switzerland, I can't remember which.

That was the original church. Where it has gone in the 2,000 years since would fill an Encyclopedia. Still, some of the original message gets through and makes a real difference in the world imo. I see a direct correlation between the decline in the numbers of church-going Americans and decline in both morals AND the break up of families and feelings of alienation suffered by many today. Church fills 2 important functions - it informs on what the bottom line in socially-acceptable behavior is (10 Commandments work pretty well actually) and it forms tighter social and family bonds.

Speaking of money there's a big difference between televangelists and your average church preacher. For most churches it isn't about the collection plate at all, it's about more important things.

FTR - I don't even belong to a church and haven't in years but I do see the importance of their role in Western society. It built pretty much everything you see today. The massive rejection of the church only became popular within the last 50 or so years.
edit on 15-10-2014 by Asktheanimals because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 11:29 PM
link   

originally posted by: Asktheanimals

originally posted by: Tangerine
Don't be naive. The real agenda has always been to fill the collection plate.


I'm not Catholic so I wouldn't know about that.


I know Jesus and the Apostles all died filthy rich somewhere in the Grand Caimans or Switzerland, I can't remember which.

That was the original church. Where it has gone in the 2,000 years since would fill an Encyclopedia. Still, some of the original message gets through and makes a real difference in the world imo. I see a direct correlation between the decline in the numbers of church-going Americans and decline in both morals AND the break up of families and feelings of alienation suffered by many today. Church fills 2 important functions - it informs on what the bottom line in socially-acceptable behavior is (10 Commandments work pretty well actually) and it forms tighter social and family bonds.

Speaking of money there's a big difference between televangelists and your average church preacher. For most churches it isn't about the collection plate at all, it's about more important things.

FTR - I don't even belong to a church and haven't in years but I do see the importance of their role in Western society. It built pretty much everything you see today. The massive rejection of the church only became popular within the last 50 or so years.


There's no evidence that Jesus ever lived so there likely was no message that originated with Jesus and no church that originated with said person. The rise of corporations is far more likely the cause of alienation and the break-up of families. Morals, are, of course, determined by society and when society is run by corporate owned politicians, money becomes the greatest moral good. We can see where that has led.

I'd be interested in seeing studies that prove your contention that church forms tighter social and family bonds. First, you need to define what you mean by tighter social and family bonds.

It might be interesting to do some research about social and family bonds in Western countries where religion is popular (like the US) and countries where it's not (Scandinavian countries). Without having done the research, I'm going to bet that social and family bonds are tighter in Scandinavian countries. What do you think?

You haven't belonged to a church in years and yet you're sure that the collection plate isn't what churches are all about? Wake up, they're businesses.



posted on Oct, 15 2014 @ 11:55 PM
link   
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...



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 01:30 AM
link   
a reply to: windword

Labor Unions should be in the same boat, no politics or lose tax exempt status, right?



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 01:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

There's no evidence that Jesus ever lived

That's funny, the history class I took at college in extremely liberal/progressive Massachusetts taught Jesus is historically proven to have existed (as a person).



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 01:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: Chronogoblin
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Again about the money. Is that all you people care about? It really is impossible to serve two masters...


Why the hell shouldn't it be about the money?



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 02:02 AM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
Taxes are the fees for participating in a community, pure and simple.

Every human form of government has involved the people paying taxes in some way for the services provided by the government.

The only theft is when some "citzens" think that they should receive the benefits of our communities without helping to pay for them.

/shrug


So one must pay taxes to participate in a naturally human capacity -- such as speaking or addressing their concerns about society, their community, their culture or assembly? Just trying to narrow your stance down.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 02:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: guitarplayer
I take it that you believe that the churches of the pre revolutionary war did not say a thing about England? I take it you do not believe that the pre civil war churches did not talk about slavery? You need to read about history and the churches roles in social change.


Do you think they got tax exempt status? Do you understand that the issue is tax exempt status and the legal requirements for obtaining such?


We can blame the current structure of the tax scheme we have in place for this mess really. Congregations of yore didn't have to seek exempt status from a Government that supposedly wasn't supposed to interfere in their free practice thereof, as they do today.

The mere notion that a religious institution must seek Federal approval to conduct business flies in the face of the First Amendment. Actually, so does any individual for that matter.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 03:11 AM
link   
a reply to: ownbestenemy

The fundamental act of human community is that each individual contributes to the good of the whole.

Taxes, in a currency-based society, are one basic representation of that contribution.

Taxes are not theft; they're the entry ticket.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 03:18 AM
link   
The idea that "free exercise thereof" covers any and every action on the part of a church, which, by the by, in America usually chooses to incorporate and thus comes under the laws set for corporations, was quite obviously never meant to cover actions that are inimical to society ... for example, the claim cannot be made that ritual human sacrifice is part of a cult's "free exercise thereof."

So, obviously there are limits, dictated not merely by the State, but by the whole structure of human law for the governance of an orderly society. Free Exercise Thereof does not imply that you don't have to pay taxes like the rest of us. The Government has offered churches a boon, and if they choose to accept it, then they need to abide by the agreement.

Most religions in my experience, however, actually act as more of a parasite on society than a productive member, and as such, it's hardly surprising that so many want to have their cake and eat it too.

"Pay up or shut up" would seem to be a reasonable rule of thumb.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 03:22 AM
link   
If you can tax anyone who has a political issue they wish to speak about, you might as well discard freedom of religion. A government or its people could make anything political, if they wanted too. Trying to tax religious organizations under the guise of the separation of church and state is the dumbest idea I have ever heard of, and only an idiot would not see it is meant to eradicate religious speech entirely.

If one wanted too, they could make the historicity of Jesus or reincarnation a political issue. Attempts to tax churches for their speech are merely attempts to create ground for making such things political to silence the religious. The religious see this, and the non-religious support it not having thought through the implications, for once the government clandestinely creates a religious group who speaks about what you want too, it will be taxed and have to government sanctioned as well.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 03:24 AM
link   
a reply to: HillbillyHippie1

Sorry, but if religion wants special tax-exempt status it can shut the hell up and stick to religion.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 03:29 AM
link   
So tempted to rant...but won't. A church should be able to voice their views on who does, and who doesn't support their agenda. No different than unions, teachers, etc. If the church is free to present the "teachings" of "god", then they should be free to point out what political candidates support them.

And if you don't agree...when are you going into the mosques and taking away their right to speak? Hell...at least take away their "right" to preach terrorism.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 03:30 AM
link   
a reply to: SomePeople

Define religion. Define what a religious issue is. Define where the line is between religion and political (which also means social) issues is. Why do you think think the Founding Fathers wanted a separation? Do you think it was just because religion needs to stay out of sight and out of the social mind?



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 03:40 AM
link   
Any 501 3 (c) entity that engages in politicking (i.e. supporting specific candidates, et. al.) should lose that status.

If a church is a 501 3 (c) ... and they start functioning as a political action committee as defined by the law, then it should lose it's 501 3 (c) status.

No one here has recommended that if a church chooses to campaign for certain candidates that it should be hit with a Hellfire missle ... or locked and shut down (typical absolutist religious thought ... "if we can't do whatever we want regardless of our agreements we're being repressed") or the members harmed or intimidated in any way.

If you want a tax-free status, then stay out of politics. If you want to play politics then pay your taxes.

It's not hard.



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 03:52 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Do you agree Unions should also stay out of politics or lose Tax Exempt status?



posted on Oct, 16 2014 @ 05:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: HillbillyHippie1
a reply to: SomePeople

Define religion. Define what a religious issue is. Define where the line is between religion and political (which also means social) issues is. Why do you think think the Founding Fathers wanted a separation? Do you think it was just because religion needs to stay out of sight and out of the social mind?


Religion = religion and a religious issue is religion and religion only. The line between religion and politics is deep and wide and obvious to anyone who isn't religious - although I'm sure the religious can see it if they look closer.

I think the founding fathers wanted separation of church and state simply because they knew the two mixing would create mess.

Religion is a part of most of our culture, so there's no hiding it out of sight - it's all around us. The thing is, the institutionalized religions have tax-exempt status because they are religions. They aren't to play politics.

If they do, they can pay like everyone and everything else.



new topics

top topics



 
27
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join