Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

More than 1,000 pastors plan to challenge IRS by endorsing presidential candidate

page: 2
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 05:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by dizzie56
I think if the government tells people how to practice their faith then the Churchs have the right to tell its people how to vote. The government over stepped its bounds first by telling Church owned hospitals to do abortions which go directly against the faith of the Church. Why cant they fight back and do the same?


So, if I happen to run across a hospital owned by Jehovah's Witnesses that refuses to give blood transfusions, that's OK with you? Or how about a hospital owned by Muslims that refuses to treat infidels, I'll bet that would go over good.


What you people need to realize is that just because a business is owned by a religious interest, doesn't mean that the business now qualifies as a religion and/or entitled to special treatment. It's still a business that must adhere to the same rules as anyone else in the business.




posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish

Originally posted by dizzie56
I think if the government tells people how to practice their faith then the Churchs have the right to tell its people how to vote. The government over stepped its bounds first by telling Church owned hospitals to do abortions which go directly against the faith of the Church. Why cant they fight back and do the same?


So, if I happen to run across a hospital owned by Jehovah's Witnesses that refuses to give blood transfusions, that's OK with you? Or how about a hospital owned by Muslims that refuses to treat infidels, I'll bet that would go over good.


What you people need to realize is that just because a business is owned by a religious interest, doesn't mean that the business now qualifies as a religion and/or entitled to special treatment. It's still a business that must adhere to the same rules as anyone else in the business.


Actually, id be fine with those other groups opening up their own hospitals, I just wouldnt go there. You do have an option as to where you go.

What you people need to realize is that the governnment can not dictate faith or doctrine. If something goes against the doctrine of the religion it doesnt give you the right to force people to change, just like its not our right to force you to change and accept our religion.



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by dizzie56

Originally posted by Flatfish

Originally posted by dizzie56
I think if the government tells people how to practice their faith then the Churchs have the right to tell its people how to vote. The government over stepped its bounds first by telling Church owned hospitals to do abortions which go directly against the faith of the Church. Why cant they fight back and do the same?


So, if I happen to run across a hospital owned by Jehovah's Witnesses that refuses to give blood transfusions, that's OK with you? Or how about a hospital owned by Muslims that refuses to treat infidels, I'll bet that would go over good.


What you people need to realize is that just because a business is owned by a religious interest, doesn't mean that the business now qualifies as a religion and/or entitled to special treatment. It's still a business that must adhere to the same rules as anyone else in the business.


Actually, id be fine with those other groups opening up their own hospitals, I just wouldnt go there. You do have an option as to where you go.

What you people need to realize is that the governnment can not dictate faith or doctrine. If something goes against the doctrine of the religion it doesnt give you the right to force people to change, just like its not our right to force you to change and accept our religion.


You only have a choice up until that religious organization buys up all the hospitals in your area. Where I live we have 4 hospitals and 3 of them are catholic owned, go figure! On top of that, more often than not, it's your doctor that chooses the hospital you will be treated in and not you.

I really don't care what kind of delusional crap someone decides to believe in, just don't push your beliefs off on me and quit trying to turn our hospitals into churches.

The last thing I need is a religious organization deciding what medical treatment I should be privy to. No thanks!



posted on Sep, 24 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by dizzie56
I think if the government tells people how to practice their faith then the Churchs have the right to tell its people how to vote. The government over stepped its bounds first by telling Church owned hospitals to do abortions which go directly against the faith of the Church. Why cant they fight back and do the same?


Yep, I think this admin stirred up a hornet's nest on that one. But then they are Marxist and Marxists have always had a desire to abolish religion.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 01:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
They plan on filming their instructions and sending the film to the IRS in defiance of constitutional statutes prohibiting such political activity in hopes of instigating and winning an IRS legal challenge and reversing the statutes.


You do realize that until 1954 this was no problem. It only because illegal in 1954, and is not in the Constitution. It's an IRS code signed by a vindictive President, Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson. He didn't like the fact a non-profit organization opposed him, so he decided to stifle free speach.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 01:32 AM
link   
Amazing people still think we should be paying taxes and hope that pastors and anyone else will be cracked down on so the private thug corporation known as the IRS can get more money... No wonder the country is F'd... Sigh!



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 01:56 AM
link   
reply to post by hawkiye
 


He is an extreme Liberal, are you surprised? Free Speach is great .. as long as you're saying what they want to hear.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 10:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
You only have a choice up until that religious organization buys up all the hospitals in your area. Where I live we have 4 hospitals and 3 of them are catholic owned, go figure! On top of that, more often than not, it's your doctor that chooses the hospital you will be treated in and not you.

Actually, when its an emergency they just take you to the nearest hospital that has room. Its not like the ambulance calls your doc and asks him where he wants you.



I really don't care what kind of delusional crap someone decides to believe in, just don't push your beliefs off on me and quit trying to turn our hospitals into churches.

Having a Church owned hospital isnt someone pushing their beliefs on you, nor are they trying to change hospitals into churches. Actually, more times then not, they are better hospitals AFTER they are taken over due to that whole unglodly act of Charity that the left seems to despise.



The last thing I need is a religious organization deciding what medical treatment I should be privy to. No thanks!


The only thing they are dening is allowing abortions at their hospitals...if you dont like it then just go down the road to the abortion clinic. Its not that hard to do nor understand. Its actually quite the opposite of who is pushing on whos beliefs then what you believe.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 11:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by dizzie56
Actually, when its an emergency they just take you to the nearest hospital that has room. Its not like the ambulance calls your doc and asks him where he wants you.


Not where I live, unless of course you're in such a state that you and/or your next of kin are incapable of making a choice between hospitals, then the EMTs decide. I don't know where you live but here in Texas, they ask you where you want to be taken for treatment but in my area, 3 of the 4 available hospitals are catholic owned.


Originally posted by dizzie56
Having a Church owned hospital isnt someone pushing their beliefs on you, nor are they trying to change hospitals into churches. Actually, more times then not, they are better hospitals AFTER they are taken over due to that whole unglodly act of Charity that the left seems to despise.


I kinda half-assed agree with this statement except for the fact that I don't believe that religious beliefs should have any bearing on my medical treatment. Also, we don't despise charity in any way and we're actually quite giving people.

On another note, I don't even know what "unglodly" is.



Originally posted by dizzie56
The only thing they are dening is allowing abortions at their hospitals...if you dont like it then just go down the road to the abortion clinic. Its not that hard to do nor understand. Its actually quite the opposite of who is pushing on whos beliefs then what you believe.


They're not just denying abortions at their hospitals. They're also refusing to provide insurance coverage for birth control to anyone who may be an employee of the hospital they own, whether they are catholic or not and despite the fact that the coverage is cost-neutral. The business of a hospital should be to provide medical treatment for illness and/or injury of the patient and not for the promotion and/or enforcement of the hospital owner's religious beliefs.

Sorry but IMO, they are indeed taking advantage of their ownership position to impose their religious beliefs upon their employees. Hypothetically speaking, if the catholic church was to continue expanding their business investments into other realms, it would only be a matter of time before you couldn't get the coverage you want at any job and all because your employer didn't believe the same as you.

Funny that the catholic church has no problem providing coverage for Viagra. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that the entire hierarchy of the church is composed of men? Hmmmmmm?



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 02:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish
Not where I live, unless of course you're in such a state that you and/or your next of kin are incapable of making a choice between hospitals, then the EMTs decide. I don't know where you live but here in Texas, they ask you where you want to be taken for treatment but in my area, 3 of the 4 available hospitals are catholic owned.


And those evil Catholic run hospitals still treat you in an emergency correct? Is there some sort of emergency where you would call an ambulance to take you to a hospital to be prescribed plan B or birth control or an abortion?


I kinda half-assed agree with this statement except for the fact that I don't believe that religious beliefs should have any bearing on my medical treatment. Also, we don't despise charity in any way and we're actually quite giving people.


How do religious beliefs have a bearing on your medical treatment in an emergency? Getting plan b isnt really an emergency in a medical sense.


They're not just denying abortions at their hospitals. They're also refusing to provide insurance coverage for birth control to anyone who may be an employee of the hospital they own, whether they are catholic or not and despite the fact that the coverage is cost-neutral. The business of a hospital should be to provide medical treatment for illness and/or injury of the patient and not for the promotion and/or enforcement of the hospital owner's religious beliefs.


How is wanting birth control and illness? It really isnt an "illness" so to speak. Also, what the hell are people doing going to hospitals for birth control of any type when there are plenty of clinics and doctors that are willing to supply those? Why should the government mandate free handouts of birth control and require hospitals to cover the expense of those handouts, regardless of religious status? What I see is that the government is pushing mainstream beliefs on the Church when there are allready enough places that take care of these practices. Hell, you can go to planned parenthood and receive all the stuff that you are complaining about for a low cost or even free. Taking a blanket approach and saying "everyone must now provide...." knowing that it goes against somebody's beliefs is ignorant at best and a smack in the face if not due to ignorance.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 03:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Flatfish
 


You really are out of the loop imo. This has been going on for generations and is something that they all do. It does not mean t5hat the people are dense they simply trust the higher guides to help them make the right decisions based on general consensus. All it takes are meetings where they discuss politics and how it applies to Christian life today, you can see it every day on Christian based TV where they go in depth on world views and local US news. This is nothing new and I do not see how endorsing a candidate should be illegal. It is a rough time for all groups whether Christian conservative, Liberal, Democratic, or other. What is the harm in them going to a church to discuss or to go to online forums to discuss? It is all the same imo.



posted on Sep, 25 2012 @ 03:18 PM
link   
I think it is about time pastors put their right to have a voice in politics above their tax exempt status,

Tax exempt status is like making a deal with the devil in exchange for their silence.

How The Church Sold Out America For 30 Pieces of Silver
www.norcalblogs.com...


The first time religious organizations were given an exemption from paying taxes was with The Wilson Tariff Act of 1894. The next year this act was overturned by the Supreme Court, but every tax code since has allowed the exemption to be part of the tax code. However, up until 1954 religious organizations still had the freedom to participate in political and lobbying activities. That is when, then Senator Lyndon B Johnson, introduced amendment 501(c)(3) to the tax code during a Senate floor debate on the 1954 Internal Revenue Code.


Sadly, the big negative they refuse to see is the way the American churches have chosen Caesar over God by quietly accepting their tax free status wile keeping their mouth shut about which candidates or initiatives their flock should support at election time. Below is the 501(c)3 section of the United States tax code and language that LBJ put into the tax code in 1954.


youtu.be...

edit on 033030p://bTuesday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)
edit on 033030p://bTuesday2012 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 10:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by dizzie56
And those evil Catholic run hospitals still treat you in an emergency correct? Is there some sort of emergency where you would call an ambulance to take you to a hospital to be prescribed plan B or birth control or an abortion?


Look, for starters, this thread isn't even about emergency care, abortions or birth control and I never said that Catholic run hospitals were "evil." I only said that healthcare and religion are two different things and I don't believe that one should impose itself upon the other. Just because a religious entity chooses to get into the healthcare business shouldn't allow them to change the definition of healthcare to fit their religious beliefs.

If I'm not mistaken, every available study made on the subject indicates that, regardless of religious beliefs, somewhere in the neighborhood of 98% of ALL women use birth control at one time or another in their lives.


Originally posted by dizzie56
How is wanting birth control and illness? It really isnt an "illness" so to speak. Also, what the hell are people doing going to hospitals for birth control of any type when there are plenty of clinics and doctors that are willing to supply those? Why should the government mandate free handouts of birth control and require hospitals to cover the expense of those handouts, regardless of religious status?


FYI, I'm not even a woman and I know that birth control medication has many other medical uses than just controlling pregnancy as is explained here at webmd; (Go to the site for details on each condition)

www.webmd.com...


The Pill isn't just for birth control: Did you know that it can also protect against certain life-threatening cancers, plus help relieve some painful period symptoms? Here, experts explain the top seven health benefits of taking the Pill and how to make them work for you.

Pill perk #1: Lower cancer risk
Pill perk #2: Clearer skin
Pill perk #3: Lighter, less painful periods
Pill perk #4: PMS relief
Pill perk #5: Endometriosis relief
Pill perk #6: Fewer periods
Pill perk #7: Polycystic Ovarian Syndrome (PCOS) relief


When I first got married, my wife was on birth control and it wasn't for the purpose of controlling pregnancy, we actually wanted children at the time. She had other female problems and apparently her birth control medication was the proper treatment. We had to wait for over 3 yrs. to even attempt to have children, so please don't play stupid with respect to other medical issues which are treatable with birth control medication.


Originally posted by dizzie56
What I see is that the government is pushing mainstream beliefs on the Church when there are allready enough places that take care of these practices. Hell, you can go to planned parenthood and receive all the stuff that you are complaining about for a low cost or even free. Taking a blanket approach and saying "everyone must now provide...." knowing that it goes against somebody's beliefs is ignorant at best and a smack in the face if not due to ignorance.


I think you got it assed backwards. If anything, the church is attempting to push their minority held religious beliefs off on mainstream society by virtue of their ownership in business. Like I said, some 98% percent of all women use it at one time or another, "For One Reason Or Another" and their reason for using it is their own damn business.

That's all I really have to say on this subject as my thread was really about whether or not preachers should be able to tell their congregations that God would have them vote a certain way and still retain their tax exempt status. Actually, I think that having to resort to utilizing God's influence to sway a political vote is a pretty clear indication of an otherwise weak argument. Pathetic, to say the least.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 10:01 PM
link   

Originally posted by Flatfish

Originally posted by dizzie56

The only thing they are dening is allowing abortions at their hospitals...if you dont like it then just go down the road to the abortion clinic. Its not that hard to do nor understand. Its actually quite the opposite of who is pushing on whos beliefs then what you believe.


They're not just denying abortions at their hospitals. They're also refusing to provide insurance coverage for birth control to anyone who may be an employee of the hospital they own, whether they are catholic or not and despite the fact that the coverage is cost-neutral. The business of a hospital should be to provide medical treatment for illness and/or injury of the patient and not for the promotion and/or enforcement of the hospital owner's religious beliefs.

What does that have to do with you as a consumer. That's an employer/employee issue, not a patient issue. Since it has nothing to do with patients, it has nothing to do with their business, since their business is treating patients.


Sorry but IMO, they are indeed taking advantage of their ownership position to impose their religious beliefs upon their employees. Hypothetically speaking, if the catholic church was to continue expanding their business investments into other realms, it would only be a matter of time before you couldn't get the coverage you want at any job and all because your employer didn't believe the same as you.

If it was such an issue someone would open a hospital that did allow it and people would flock to work there. The Free Market, not government, can police this just fine.


Funny that the catholic church has no problem providing coverage for Viagra. I wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that the entire hierarchy of the church is composed of men? Hmmmmmm?

While I do find the Catholic church's stance somewhat hypocritical, that is up to them and their members to hash out, not government. However, Viagra is a bad example as that has nothing to do with preventing child birth. If you want to find their hypocrisy look at their acceptance of the rythm method. Regardless, they have the right to follow their beliefs, the government should not interfere.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 10:06 PM
link   
I hope they win.

The IRS has way way waaaaaaaaaaay too much power and people need to screw it over any way they can.

I'd love to see it go the way of the dodo.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 10:08 PM
link   
Starred & Flagged because I believe it is the right time for tax revolution in America and the IRS should be dissolved.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 10:20 PM
link   
Why are churches tax exempt?



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 10:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Grumble
 


Because the US Constitution seperates Church and State. Mostly so the US doesn't have a "national religion" that every citizen has to belong to. Thus we have religios tolerance - as long as one is not violating any laws - like animal abuse, incest, aborti== oh, wait, nevermind.

The churches are using Cloward and Piven against the communist regime. Overwhelm the system (IRS) and hasten it's downfall.

The communist are using Cloward and Piven in the enlargement of entitlements (welfare, food stamps, unemployment insurance) to bring their downfall. What do you think they want to replace it with? Slave labor and communism? The gov't will give you only what they think you should have.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 10:52 PM
link   
I've read that churches were always tax exempt,but maybe they didn't know it. And by filing for exemtion,they agreed to certain terms.




Most churches in America have organized as "501c3 tax-exempt religious organizations." This is a fairly recent trend that has only been going on for about fifty years. Churches were only added to section 501c3 of the tax code in 1954. We can thank Sen. Lyndon B. Johnson for that. Johnson was no ally of the church. As part of his political agenda, Johnson had it in mind to silence the church and eliminate the significant influence the church had always had on shaping "public policy." Although Johnson proffered this as a "favor" to churches, the favor also came with strings attached ...


hushmoney.org...

The older I get,the more I feel bad that people have been programmed to avoid subjects like "Religion and Politics",as though it was the plague. The two things apt to have more influence and control over our lives,and it is thought we'd be better off to just talk sports or the weather,anything but "Religion and Politics!" Oh No!!!

Nowadays,they are my favorite subjects.



posted on Sep, 26 2012 @ 11:02 PM
link   
reply to post by On the Edge
 


If this does come to the point that the gov't has to take a stand on tax-exempt status, I wonder how many lawyers and money the Church of Scientology is going to pour into this fight?

I'm not even sure if they are taking tax-exempt status in the US.





new topics

top topics



 
9
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join