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.

 

Time to allow Politics from the Pulpit openly as the Left does it anyway

page: 4
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Because 99.9% of the churches in the world are not Rick Warren's Saddleback or Joel Osteen's place or those other mega churches or the mega mosques being built in some places. They operate on a shoestring off of the monies donated by their congregants. Those monies are already taxed.

And it's not like they have a free ride. They still have to pay for all the city services they use. And if the congregants of a religious place do not like it, they stop going and they stop giving. The place of worship dies.

So, people do not like when street preachers preach there. They want them to stay in their houses of worship, and now you want those taxed which would kill many. So where do they go? Can we hold our worship in the park? How about in your house?

Of course, there was a couple who held a weekly service in their house in California and they were told by the local government they could not do that.

So by seeking to inhibit religious practice by unduly burdening congregants in their efforts to maintain a place to fellowship and worship, you are, in fact, prohibiting the free exercise.




posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Are you in favor of churches paying property taxes, sales taxes, etc.?

Yes, no, maybe, etc.


NO federal taxes should be owed.

In the US property taxes and sales taxes are locally assigned anyway, no US government involved.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 12:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: kellyjay
its weird how the same people wanna pull up the constitution when it comes to religion, but yet ignore it when it comes to things such as gay marraige or abortion.....all very cherry picky


I think gays have the option to have their legal unions. Where I draw the line is when they seek to compel others to participate.

As for abortion, the founding documents do say we have a fundamental right to our lives, do they not?


i agree 100%



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 12:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

What difference does the "level" of government involved make?

The Fourteenth Amendment (as well as the rest of the Constitution) applies to States, cities, counties, etc.

Then you're okay with churches paying property taxes and sales tax then? Can't you answer?



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

What does the size of the church have to do with our topic?

What does the fact that people give money to churches and get tax exemptions for "charity" have to do with it?

Why should churches have a "free ride"? Why shouldn't they pay for services?

Why do you want churches to receive special rights?

Why can't the playing field be equal?

No government exemptions from paying taxes and not even a hint of government controlling what is said from the pulpit.

What's wrong with that?



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   



Yup, the left is always pulling these stunts...



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 01:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Semicollegiate

What difference does the "level" of government involved make?

The Fourteenth Amendment (as well as the rest of the Constitution) applies to States, cities, counties, etc.

Then you're okay with churches paying property taxes and sales tax then? Can't you answer?


The Federal Government level Constitution, which now includes the idiotic 16th Amendment, is the reason for this thread.

The FG can take action depending on what is said in Church because of the 16th amendment. that is why the level matters

Sales and property taxes are local issues, and should be determined by local people.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 01:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

So, you think our Constitution is "idiotic." Okay. Every Amendment has been installed legally, even the ones some of us don't like.

The reason for the thread is complaining about politics the OP doesn't favor, and ostensibly, the relationships between Federal Tax codes, tax exemptions and churches.

Several of us have argued for a removal of special exemptions for churches and special controls over their messages.

You have an issue with that? You have an issue with removing government interference in religion?

Can't help you with that one. The Constitution is clear.

So, you approve of States and local governments taxing churches then? Honestly, why so coy?



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 01:29 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Slavery was Constitutional, now the income tax and inflation confiscation are Constitutional.

Taxes can be a convenient way to fund things, I am not sure that taxes are ever the best way to fund anything. That is why no answer on taxes. And, like I wrote, in the USA, all property taxes and sales taxes are local or state taxes and so do not have national political speech restrictions.

A church is a conversation. The taxes all depend on where that conversation happens, except for the FG taxes. How is a conversation in any way subject to any special consideration?

Do you support surveilling all conversations for the sake of good government?


edit on 16-8-2015 by Semicollegiate because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 01:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Here's an example of why taxing churches is wrong:

When the government starts allowing itself to tax, it can use that power punitively. We all talk constantly about how the government chooses winners and losers in the business world through so-called corporate welfare which is really about how the government manipulates the federal tax code to give tax breaks or levy tax penalties on those businesses it either chooses to favor or penalize.

This is why we have tax exempt institutions. Otherwise the same range of options open up to enforce conformity and you know it. Pretty soon, we'll be having the same discussions about how this or that religious group received religious welfare because the Democrats favor them and their message while this or that religious group was penalized for preaching wrongly and not conforming.

There will be tax breaks for preaching about certain doctrines like ... global warming and penalties if you don't tow the mark or use certain doctrines over others. Pretty soon, you'll have a cabinet position dedicated to making sure that religious practice is maintained and safeguarded the same way we have one dedicated to education and labor and other things the government has no business being involved in.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

We have grown as a nation. Perhaps one day income taxes will be a thing of the past. But not now.

Now, we need to face the facts as they are, not how we would like them to be.

The argument here, that some have made, is to remove any exemptions for churches from the laws of the land, and thereby, eliminate any, even indirect, control or prohibition on whatever stupidity they propagate.

The entire Constitution (and body of Federal law established thereby) is applied to the States, counties, cities, and other municipalities via the Fourteenth Amendment as well as Article Six, Clause 2 of the Constitution.

"A church is a conversation"? Okay, that's fine if you see it that way. We're arguing that the "conversation" (even hiding under the aegis of religion) should NOT be treated differently than any other conversation.

"Do I support ..."

No.

See, that's how you answer a question.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

You are confused.

I (and others) are arguing here that churches as legal entities be treated equally with every other legal entity in the United States.

I am advocating for a removal of special treatment for churches, which not only includes treating them differently than any other legally fictitious entity, but also, allows the exact undue influence you're complaining about in your post.

Say whatever you wish, but, you're merely trying to shift the focus of the discussion to some other point.

Here's the point: treat churches equally and stop limiting their messages.

I can't believe you really disagree with that.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 01:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Doesn't the church tax exempt law specifically say they can't promote politics from the pulpit?

Or, support specific politicians?



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 01:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Gryphon66

Doesn't the church tax exempt law specifically say they can't promote politics from the pulpit?

Or, support specific politicians?



Pretty much. Going back to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

I'm arguing that we scrap the tax exemptions for churches, and scrap the limitations on their "religious message."

I know that will be used to promote political agendas, but it is already.

Let them pay their fair share of taxes, and fully participate in our system.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Gryphon66

Doesn't the church tax exempt law specifically say they can't promote politics from the pulpit?

Or, support specific politicians?



Pretty much. Going back to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

I'm arguing that we scrap the tax exemptions for churches, and scrap the limitations on their "religious message."

I know that will be used to promote political agendas, but it is already.

Let them pay their fair share of taxes, and fully participate in our system.



Giving them the choice --- shut up or lose tax exempt status.

Money will rule. As always.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


"A church is a conversation"? Okay, that's fine if you see it that way. We're arguing that the "conversation" (even hiding under the aegis of religion) should NOT be treated differently than any other conversation.


Your income tax (gotta pay, just because) is the only reason the church conversations are getting any attention.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

Why do you want churches to be interfered with by any government?

I want them to be treated equitably and have the same rights (and responsibilities) that we all have.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 02:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


Say whatever you wish, but, you're merely trying to shift the focus of the discussion to some other point.


The point was whether a rightish church should be able to preach a rightish message because the lefties do it already in favor of leftie causes.

Why do you stop at churches, why not eliminate special status?

There are NGO's you like perhaps?



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 02:08 PM
link   
a reply to: Semicollegiate

The point is that no church in America should be limited by the government, nor have any special treatment.

That is in line with the Constitution of the United States.

I haven't found any references to "lefties" and "righties" in the Constitution, have you?

Now you're talking about tax reform in general, which I actually do have ideas about, but that would be off-topic in this thread.

Some NGO's have merit, some don't. /shrug (Doctors Without Borders, etc.)

Start your own thread on tax reform, special status, and NGO's ... I'll be glad to participate.

edit on 14Sun, 16 Aug 2015 14:09:00 -050015p022015866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Annee
a reply to: Gryphon66

Doesn't the church tax exempt law specifically say they can't promote politics from the pulpit?

Or, support specific politicians?



Pretty much. Going back to the Internal Revenue Code of 1954.

I'm arguing that we scrap the tax exemptions for churches, and scrap the limitations on their "religious message."

I know that will be used to promote political agendas, but it is already.

Let them pay their fair share of taxes, and fully participate in our system.



Hey thanks!



SEC. 501. EXEMPTION FROM TAX ON CORPORATIONS, CERTAIN TRUSTS, ETC.
(a) EXEMPTION FROM TAXATION.—An organization described in subsection (c) or (d) or section 401 (a) shall be exempt from taxation under this subtitle unless such exemption is denied under section 502, 503, or 504.
(b) TAX ON UNRELATED BUSINESS INCOME.—An organization exempt from taxation under subsection (a) shall be subject to tax to the extent provided in part II of this subchapter (relating to tax on unrelated income), but, notwithstanding part II, shall be considered an organization exempt from income taxes for the purpose of any law which refers to organizations exempt from income taxes.
(c) LIST OF EXEMPT ORGANIZATIONS.—The following organizations are referred to in subsection (a):
(1) Corporations organized under Act of Congress, if such cor- porations are instrumentalities of the United States and if, under such Act, as amended and supplemented, such corporations are exempt from Federal income taxes.
(2) Corporations organized for the exclusive purpose of holding title to property, collecting income therefrom, and turning over the entire amount thereof, less expenses, to an organization which itself is exempt under this section.
(3) Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation, and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of any candidate for public office.


So I get two things out of this:

1) If a preacher says 'I support this candidate, so should you' and then goes on with his or her sermon, that is not a 'substantial part of their activities' and the nay-sayers should go sit on their thumbs and spin.


2) People who say this is a "special treatment" for just churches are missing all the other "corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for ... scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals."

All yours.
edit on 16-8-2015 by Teikiatsu because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join