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: 5
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Not sure what you're on about.

I'm for removing unnecessary tax laws and restoring the full right of churches to preach whatever nonsense from their pulpits they wish.

What are you for?
edit on 14Sun, 16 Aug 2015 14:25:06 -050015p022015866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)




posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   
Last time I checked the individuals who make up a congregation, regardless of religion or denomination, are tax payers.

So are religious people not allowed to have political opinions? If not, I don't think religious individuals should have to pay taxes any more.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 02:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Not sure what you're on about.

I'm for removing unnecessary tax laws and restoring the full right of churches to preach whatever nonsense from their pulpits they wish.

What are you for?


Ooo, moving the goalposts?

Looks like you posted the tax code and someone called you on it and you aren't sure where to go now.

You can't spend most of the thread calling for churches to be taxed and then backpedal and call for removing the taxes.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 02:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: EternalSolace
Last time I checked the individuals who make up a congregation, regardless of religion or denomination, are tax payers.

So are religious people not allowed to have political opinions? If not, I don't think religious individuals should have to pay taxes any more.


No, we aren't allowed to have them. Remember? Separation of church and state. /sarc



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 02:43 PM
link   
No matter which side your on, why would you want politics delivered from the pulpit? Do you need someone to tell you what to think?



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 02:45 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

You're not telling the truth again.

I've posted the relevant tax code a couple of times at the request of other members.

I'm not moving any goalposts, creating strawmen, making ad hominem attacks, or any of the other phrases you've picked up from reading what debaters actually say ...

You need to read. I didn't call for taxes to be removed. I called for the tax laws to be removed. Here, I'll quote it for you since have a severe disconnect dealing with what people actually say:

a reply to: Teikiatsu


originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Not sure what you're on about.

I'm for removing unnecessary tax laws and restoring the full right of churches to preach whatever nonsense from their pulpits they wish.

What are you for?


Here, I'll draw it out for you. I'm FOR removing the tax laws that create a special class for churches and I'm FOR churches being able to spew whatever nonsense they wish.

Is that enough for you? Perhaps you should stick to putting words in my mouth and critiquing my style.

Or perhaps, deal with the facts for a change of pace.

Or ignore me as you've oft suggested.

I'm good with all those, even though I admit, I prefer the latter.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Thanks for asking


I'm for getting rid of the income tax code altogether and replacing with with the Fair Tax or some other federal flat sales tax that is not burdensome on people at or below the poverty line.

I'm for separation of state from the church, not the other way around. No, this does not mean I support a theocracy.

I'm for smaller federal government with a much smaller IRS that doesn't have the power to harass PACs for the content of their prayer meetings.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 02:58 PM
link   
some interesting views ....

Is The 1954 Johnson Amendment Constitutional?





The Johnson Amendment and the Agenda to Silence Christians


Texas Democrat, Lyndon B. Johnson, was a powerful politician running for reelection as Senator, but two anti-communist, tax-exempt groups were opposing him and passing out literature during the campaigns. He contacted the IRS and found the group’s activity was legal, so he sought other options to fight them.

Johnson shrewdly appeared on the Senate floor on July 2, 1954, and offered his amendment to a pending, massive, tax code overhaul bill.






posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 02:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
No matter which side your on, why would you want politics delivered from the pulpit? Do you need someone to tell you what to think?


If the members of the congregation do not agree with the politics they will let the clergy know either vocally, or with their silence by not appearing in church anymore, or monetarily by not tithing that day.

But 'politics from the pulpit' creates a narrative where the clergy are regularly commenting and propagandizing. I have never seen this happen on a regular basis.

It did however happen quite a bit leading up to the American Revolution, so it's not as if there isn't some precedent for it.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Politicians pushing their agendas on churches?!? I'm shocked.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 03:01 PM
link   
a reply to: Teikiatsu

Good for you! We all have our ideas about how to make things better, don't we?

I'm for the Constitution. The Constitution is clear on how church and State relate to each other in the United States.

The rest of your stuff ... okay ... but it seems off-topic.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 03:03 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Yep. Most of us here are advocating for the removal of Churches from that law.

Churches pay their fair share, like the rest of us.

Churches can preach whatever nonsense they wish from their pulpits without undue government control?

How is that not what you want?

Also, still nothing on my saying you hate Sharpton eh? I guess you realized I didn't say that.

Glad you found the link useful.


edit on 15Sun, 16 Aug 2015 15:04:37 -050015p032015866 by Gryphon66 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: xuenchen

Yep. Most of us here are advocating for the removal of Churches from that law.

Churches pay their fair share, like the rest of us.

Churches can preach whatever nonsense they wish from their pulpits without undue government control?

How is that not what you want?

Also, still nothing on my saying you hate Sharpton eh? I guess you realized I didn't say that.

Glad you found the link useful.



Yes, but what about all the other orgs included under that law? Should we leave them there? Why?



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 03:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: woodwardjnr
No matter which side your on, why would you want politics delivered from the pulpit? Do you need someone to tell you what to think?


Let's see.

The Right is trying to have a dictator theocracy.

The Left wants to take care of the poor and have equality.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 03:07 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Off topic.

This is about churches, taxes, and the ability of churches to preach as they wish.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 03:11 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I'm confused about this separation of church and state thing. Wouldn't taxing a church, who's made up of people who already pay taxes, violate that separation thing?

It seems to me the goal of removing tax exempt status for churches isn't about the constitution at all. It seems to me that it's about the removal of churches knowing a lot of them would go under if required to pay taxes.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 03:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: ketsuko

Off topic.

This is about churches, taxes, and the ability of churches to preach as they wish.



Mmm-mmm, you brought up the law and that is the topic. Those other orgs are included in this discussion. I would submit to you that individual churches are less in danger of breach of this law than other orgs like, say, the ASPCA.


The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (ASPCA) was the first humane society to be established in North America and is, today, one of the largest in the world. Our organization was founded by Henry Bergh in 1866 on the belief that animals are entitled to kind and respectful treatment at the hands of humans, and must be protected under the law. Headquartered in New York City, the ASPCA maintains a strong local presence, and with programs that extend our anti-cruelty mission across the country, we are recognized as a national animal welfare organization. We are a privately funded 501(c)(3) not-for-profit corporation, and proud to boast more than 1 million supporters across the country.


They freely lobby Congress on a regular basis for legislation they feel extends their mission.

How many of your local country churches can afford to or spend time doing that?

But, hey, let's pick on some pastor who makes a fiery mote on a random Sunday and ignore that burning forest in thine own eye ...

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



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 03:16 PM
link   
a reply to: EternalSolace

Oh, that's precisely what it's about, but you won't get them to admit it. As far as they are concerned, the world needs a lot less religion, any religion, and they'll remove it by any means necessary.



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko
Shouldn't religion stay out of politics all together. It should be a private thing, because every individual believes something different, you must realise not everyone believes the same thing, there are lots of religions and lots of people who don't follow religion at all. To expect everyone to believe the same in this day and age is beyond naive?



posted on Aug, 16 2015 @ 03:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
some interesting views ....

Is The 1954 Johnson Amendment Constitutional?





The Johnson Amendment and the Agenda to Silence Christians


Texas Democrat, Lyndon B. Johnson, was a powerful politician running for reelection as Senator, but two anti-communist, tax-exempt groups were opposing him and passing out literature during the campaigns. He contacted the IRS and found the group’s activity was legal, so he sought other options to fight them.

Johnson shrewdly appeared on the Senate floor on July 2, 1954, and offered his amendment to a pending, massive, tax code overhaul bill.





Wowee. Its called "the Johnson Amendment" officially. en.wikipedia.org...


IRS explanation of the statute[edit]

The Internal Revenue Service website elaborates upon this prohibition as follows:


Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office.


Taxes affect a lot more than the money they collect. If the TPTB didn't know that then, they certainly know it now.



new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 2  3  4    6  7  8 >>

log in

join