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.

 

Trump wants to allow churches to endorse political candidates again

page: 4
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 09:56 AM
link   
Too many people already treat their politics as if it is a religion.

*shrugs*

I don't think churches should be tax exempt and I think everyone has the right to express themselves freely.


(tosses 2 cents into the arena)




posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 10:01 AM
link   
Free speech is the enemy. Unless you are part of the 'right kind of' protected class, in which case anything you say is ok.

Check.



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 10:06 AM
link   
This has zero to do with free speech; it has to do with the requirements of filing under a tax code.

If churches don't want to meet the requirements of the tax code, they don't have to.



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 10:07 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck
a reply to: Aazadan

Pastors are not people?

TheRedneck


They are, but you can't have it both ways. I don't see what benefit there is in making churches political organizations, while at the same time having laws on the books that can't be removed short of constitutional amendments that make it impossible for the government to regulate or even really respond to those churches.

All it would do is make churches the primary lobbying arm in this country, and I don't see how that's a benefit to anyone. It would make religion much more of a focal point than is healthy, and the monetary influence would no doubt corrupt the churches.

It's a change which would result in no benefit, but lots of harm.

National policy would quickly devolve into groups wanting church backed fundamentalism.
edit on 3-11-2017 by Aazadan because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: CB328

Some may ask what could go wrong ? Well plenty if NAR is involved . Christians please arm yourself with the knowledge of this new thing within Christianity .

The New Apostolic Reformation (NAR) seems to quite clearly justify labeling it a movement or denomination. Millions of people around the world are part of its network of churches. However, many NAR leaders and advocates deny that it’s a denomination or movement. Many Christians who are attracted by NAR teachings and practices have no idea that something called the NAR even exists. For those aware of its influence and presence within Christianity, the NAR has branded itself as representing the return of authoritative apostles and prophets to the modern church, complete with miracles such as healing and raising the dead. On this episode, we talk to Holly Pivec, and authority on the NAR, to learn what it is, what its defining characteristics are, and how we should think about its teachings.
Naked Bible Podcast did 2 shows on it .and has a text of the show www.nakedbiblepodcast.com... podcast www.nakedbiblepodcast.com...



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 10:13 AM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

Curious to see who the Church of Satan will endorse.




Just a thought.



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 10:15 AM
link   
a reply to: intrepid


Oh, I forgot about that guy. He's awesome, I want him to be President.



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Fundamentalists of any sect can be dangerous.

The idea that religion and government don't mix is fundamental in the American experiment.



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 10:17 AM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

Do those come in pairs? Also does the box they come in have to say 'hat' for them to be authentic?

I don't want to be accused of wearing any knock-off products....fashionistas and all...



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 10:20 AM
link   
Hey, remember when all those churches were openly promoting Obama?

www.washingtonpost.com... 3a7_story.html?utm_term=.08c0499866f0

Black church leaders try to inspire congregants to vote for Obama





edit on 3-11-2017 by HeadCrunchMcRockGroin because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: HeadCrunchMcRockGroin
Hey, remember when all those churches were openly promoting Obama?

www.washingtonpost.com... 3a7_story.html?utm_term=.08c0499866f0

Black church leaders try to inspire congregants to vote for Obama






You obviously haven't been listening.

It's Okay for leftists to do this.

It's NOT Okay for anyone else.

Sheesh.




posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 10:34 AM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: HeadCrunchMcRockGroin
Hey, remember when all those churches were openly promoting Obama?

www.washingtonpost.com... 3a7_story.html?utm_term=.08c0499866f0

Black church leaders try to inspire congregants to vote for Obama






You obviously haven't been listening.

It's Okay for leftists to do this.

It's NOT Okay for anyone else.

Sheesh.



Please. It's called the Bible Belt for a reason and I'm sure they didn't vote for Obama.


As to this topic, what would this change? Weak minded people listen to their religions already. And the religions tell them what they want to hear. Symbiosis Bring it out MORE into the open imo. Like in the 80's. Have we forgotten the Moral Majority?



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: intrepid

The people complaining about it are the leftists.

"Church and state" they cry.

Yet they are also the biggest hypocrites. Just look at all the churches pushing for Obama. The churches driving people to the polls on election day, the canvassing that churches do.



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 10:41 AM
link   

originally posted by: knoxie
this is awful.

our founding fathers are rolling in their graves. some of you were so bloody scared of sharia law LOLOLOLOL.




Some rules of Sharia Law: There's nothing funny about it.

Theft is punishable by amputation of the hands (Quran 5:38).
• Criticizing or denying any part of the Quran is punishable by death.
• Criticizing Muhammad or denying that he is a prophet is punishable by death.
• Criticizing or denying Allah is punishable by death (see Allah moon god).
• A Muslim who becomes a non-Muslim is punishable by death (See Compulsion).
• A non-Muslim who leads a Muslim away from Islam is punishable by death.
• A non-Muslim man who marries a Muslim woman is punishable by death.
• A woman or girl who has been raped cannot testify in court against her rapist(s).
• Testimonies of 4 male witnesses are required to prove rape of a female (Quran 24:13).
• A woman or girl who alleges rape without producing 4 male witnesses is guilty of adultery.
• A woman or girl found guilty of adultery is punishable by death (see "Islamophobia").
• A male convicted of rape can have his conviction dismissed by marrying his victim.
• Muslim men have sexual rights to any woman/girl not wearing the Hijab (see Taharrush).
• A woman can have 1 husband, who can have up to 4 wives; Muhammad can have more.
• A man can marry an infant girl and consummate the marriage when she is 9 years old.
• Girls' clitoris should be cut (Muhammad's words, Book 41, Kitab Al-Adab, Hadith 5251).
• A man can beat his wife for insubordination (see Quran 4:34 and Religion of Peace).
• A man can unilaterally divorce his wife; a wife needs her husband's consent to divorce.
• A divorced wife loses custody of all children over 6 years of age or when they exceed it.
• A woman's testimony in court, allowed in property cases, carries ½ the weight of a man's.
• A female heir inherits half of what a male heir inherits (see Mathematics in Quran).
• A woman cannot drive a car, as it leads to fitnah (upheaval).
• A woman cannot speak alone to a man who is not her husband or relative.
• Meat to eat must come from animals that have been sacrificed to Allah - i.e., be "Halal."
• Muslims are to subjugate the world under Islam (see Quran 9:29 and Palestine Issue).
• Muslims should engage in Taqiyya and lie to non-Muslims to advance Islam.



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


IRS Section 501(c)(3) is quite clear on the qualifications for tax-exempt status for churches and religious organizations.

Actually, no... it is not.

From your link, page 4, "Jeopardizing Tax-Exempt Status":

All IRC Section 501(c)(3) organizations, including churches and religious organizations, must abide by certain rules:
  • their net earnings may not inure to any private shareholder or individual;
  • they must not provide a substantial benefit to private interests;
  • they must not devote a substantial part of their activities to attempting to influence legislation;
  • they must not participate in, or intervene in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office; and
  • the organization’s purposes and activities may not be illegal or violate fundamental public policy.


Now, define "substantial part."

Then realize that this is a regulation, which is subject to legislation, which in turn is subject to Constitutional scrutiny. No regulation may violate either Constitutional restrictions nor US law. Need I remind you of the First Amendment?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. Since a regulation is by definition an addendum to law, it must abide by the exact same restrictions that apply to Congress. The IRS is constitutionally prohibited from enforcing any law (or regulation) against a bona-fide religious organization.

The clause you refer to, in the excerpt I posted above, forbids an organization from claiming to be religious when their true purpose is political... in other words, it closes a loophole. The problem is not that the loophole was closed, but that the closing was exploited to cover situations far beyond its original purpose. Most legal entities are subject to a limitation on charitable giving for tax purposes, meaning that truly charitable organizations, which by definition would regularly far exceed this limitation, would be disadvantaged and charity would be negatively impacted by IRS regulations and tax law. Section 501(c) allows for such charitable organizations to exist.

By targeting churches where political situations are included as examples of right and wrong according to the tenets of the religion, churches are being muzzled from openly speaking toward religious tenets which may be exemplified by political situations, in church meetings. The nature of the church, where meetings are not held in private, but in open ceremonial meetings, means they are helpless to protect themselves form zealots who do have political motives and wish to silence them by espionage.

This is a direct, overt, self-defining violation of the First Amendment. As such, the regulation is unconstitutional and illegal... and a direct, overt, self-defining abuse of power.

All people have the right to speak out against the government and governmental policies, without fear of governmental reprisal... even in their church. Anyone who says different is the definition of a Fascist.

TheRedneck



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: CB328
Trump wants to allow churches to endorse political candidates again

Tlhis is an alarming story I just saw that hasn't been noticed by anyone analyzing the tax "reform" bill. Trump wants to get rid of the law that doesn't allow churches to endorse politicians. This is very alarming, considering how many churchgoers there are that believe whatever their church tells them. America may end up like Iran and Iraq with religious leaders and militias running the country. Everyone should be concerned about this.


Let me guess, you see religion as evil or at the very least mind control... How about Unions...it seems unions have a lot more power over people to vote their direction since they control people's jobs...



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 10:49 AM
link   

originally posted by: TheRedneck

This is a direct, overt, self-defining violation of the First Amendment. As such, the regulation is unconstitutional and illegal... and a direct, overt, self-defining abuse of power.

All people have the right to speak out against the government and governmental policies, without fear of governmental reprisal... even in their church. Anyone who says different is the definition of a Fascist.

TheRedneck


It seems the left is more then willing to stifle the First Amendment with anything doesn't fit their narrow narratives...



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 10:50 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66




The idea that religion and government don't mix is fundamental in the American experiment.
Separation of church and state works for me . Canada is too slack on that aspect imo . I wonder what your opinion of fundamentalist of secret societies and occult's would be ? ... At least the ones hidden in plain sight ?



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 10:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: CB328
Trump wants to allow churches to endorse political candidates again

Tlhis is an alarming story I just saw that hasn't been noticed by anyone analyzing the tax "reform" bill. Trump wants to get rid of the law that doesn't allow churches to endorse politicians. This is very alarming, considering how many churchgoers there are that believe whatever their church tells them. America may end up like Iran and Iraq with religious leaders and militias running the country. Everyone should be concerned about this.


Let me guess, you see religion as evil or at the very least mind control... How about Unions...it seems unions have a lot more power over people to vote their direction since they control people's jobs...



Fnny you should mention that. Carlin lamented on that. "The Reagan administration was elected with the help of the Moral Majority and the Teamsters union. Just what we need. Organized religion and organized crime building a better America."



posted on Nov, 3 2017 @ 11:01 AM
link   
a reply to: CB328




Tlhis is an alarming story.
This is very alarming, considering how many churchgoers there are that believe whatever their church tells them.


LOL, the irony. Just substitute political cheerleader for churchgoers and party for church .

What do we get:
"Considering how many political cheerleaders there are that believe whatever their party tells them."



Trump wants to get rid of the law that doesn't allow churches to endorse politicians


I'm not a republican nor religious but what about hollyweird? Where is the outcry for hollweird and how they endorse their chosen candidate and publicly shame those they don't like?

I say ban both from even talking politics.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join