IRS to Church: Shut Up Church to IRS: No way

[hugeness]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=55979


The Bible does say that Christians will be depised in the end.


http://www.alphanewsdaily.com/Warnin...e%20Hated.html

[DaCougarMech]

how appropriate for god to put a little loophole in there for christians to be douchebags

[TwiloMike]

That church crossed the line, IMO, in talking about politicians. The IRS is right to question what's going on.

[Thinman]

Originally Posted by TwiloMike

That church crossed the line, IMO, in talking about politicians. The IRS is right to question what's going on.

Agreed. It is about time the IRS starts cracking down on some these churches that want tax exempt status, but are nothing more than political operatives.

[kensterz]

How will they distinguish between the legit and the fakers?

[ElderJefferson]

Originally Posted by kensterz

How will they distinguish between the legit and the fakers?

Churches are not supposed to endorse any candidates. With the recent (past couple decades) insurgency of religious right-wing candidates, the lines are becoming very blurred as far as what is considered "endorsing" (as opposed to preaching).

Nonetheless, best rule of thumb for churches is to keep politics in the political realm and focus on spiritual issues within the walls. What you do outside the boundaries of the sanctuary is totally your choice (many churches hold political rallies apart from their normal duties).

[1dayIWillBeBig]

Originally Posted by hugeness

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=55979

The Bible does say that Christians will be depised in the end.

The Bible also says that bats are birds.

OMG The End Times are upon us!!!

[Boxman]

The whole tax-exemption-for-religion thing is outrageous anyway. It's a completely inappropriate policy that should never have been started in the first place.

And not just because it's impossible to differeniate religion from politics. The other reason why I oppose this policy is because it's nothing more than a gov't subsidy. In effect my tax dollars are being used to subsidize religion. And this is big money! Organized religion is a multi-billion dollar industry - hell you've got churches running theme parks and Wal-Mart style department stores, all tax free.

This is not only unfair to local businesses who must compete and still pay their taxes at the same time, it also goes against the secular character of our nation.

[xer0xed]

If a church wants to talk about issues that also relate to politics -- that's their business. There's nothing wrong with combining freedom of speech with freedom of religion.

[Gadsden]

Originally Posted by xer0xed

If a church wants to talk about issues that also relate to politics -- that's their business. There's nothing wrong with combining freedom of speech with freedom of religion.

exactly. life is political; ievery issue in life affects politics, and if the (a) church isn't allowed to talk about that, what then are they allowed to talk about?

[IraHays]

Originally Posted by Boxman

The whole tax-exemption-for-religion thing is outrageous anyway. It's a completely inappropriate policy that should never have been started in the first place.

Are you for seperation of church and state or not? The door swings both ways. The church could not be seperate if it was subject to federal government taxation.

[devire1]

Originally Posted by IraHays

Are you for seperation of church and state or not? The door swings both ways. The church could not be seperate if it was subject to federal government taxation.

u r misinterpreting what that really means.

[IraHays]

Originally Posted by devire1

u r misinterpreting what that really means.

There has been a lot of that going around for years and years.

[ElderJefferson]

Originally Posted by xer0xed

If a church wants to talk about issues that also relate to politics -- that's their business. There's nothing wrong with combining freedom of speech with freedom of religion.

It's not so much an issue of freedom of speech, but tax-exempt status. In order to keep that status, the church must remove itself from political campaigning.

[Gadsden]

Originally Posted by ElderJefferson

It's not so much an issue of freedom of speech, but tax-exempt status. In order to keep that status, the church must remove itself from political campaigning.

why?

it's still a religious organisation.

[lordofchaos]

Originally Posted by Schadenfreude

why?

it's still a religious organisation.

because that is a requirement of non-profit status... which is good as it keeps me from opening the, "The First Libertarian Church" or any other church like that opened explicitely to support a political group and funnel them money in a non-profit manner...

[Gadsden]

Originally Posted by lordofchaos

because that is a requirement of non-profit status... which is good as it keeps me from opening the, "The First Libertarian Church" or any other church like that opened explicitely to support a political group and funnel them money in a non-profit manner...

I don't think they are explicitly saying which candidate to support, just the morality of certain stances.

[TwiloMike]

Originally Posted by Schadenfreude

I don't think they are explicitly saying which candidate to support, just the morality of certain stances.

If you read the article, the church leader did address specific candidates and their actions. That's not his place. If he wants to talk about abortion, talk about it as it relates to individuals in the congregation, talk about it scriptural condemnations, yadda yadda yadda. There are many ways to discuss an issue without making it political, bringing up where certain candidates stand on certain issues, etc. People can decide for themselves. The tax-exempt status of churches requires them to butt out of the political process.

[Gadsden]

Originally Posted by TwiloMike

If you read the article, the church leader did address specific candidates and their actions. That's not his place. If he wants to talk about abortion, talk about it as it relates to individuals in the congregation, talk about it scriptural condemnations, yadda yadda yadda. There are many ways to discuss an issue without making it political, bringing up where certain candidates stand on certain issues, etc. People can decide for themselves. The tax-exempt status of churches requires them to butt out of the political process.

hm ok I missed that thanks. edit: "The church does not intend to engage in political intervention activity as prohibited by federal law and the United States Constitution,"
~so I dunno

they aren't coercing people necessarily though, so it is still up to the individual to make the choice, they just provide a good spectrum to take a look at the issues with. I've never heard a homily which talked about a controversial issue that didn't use scripture/teaching to back up a stance.

[TwiloMike]

Originally Posted by Schadenfreude

hm ok I missed that thanks. edit: "The church does not intend to engage in political intervention activity as prohibited by federal law and the United States Constitution,"
~so I dunno

they aren't coercing people necessarily though, so it is still up to the individual to make the choice, they just provide a good spectrum to take a look at the issues with. I've never heard a homily which talked about a controversial issue that didn't use scripture/teaching to back up a stance.

Political campaigning doesn't coerse anyone either. That isn't the point, though. As part of their tax-exempt status (contract) churches are obligated to stay out of the political process entirely. They are free to discuss issues but not politics or their political nature. There is no denying that churches are able to influence voters in a big way.

[Gadsden]

Originally Posted by TwiloMike

Political campaigning doesn't coerse anyone either. That isn't the point, though. As part of their tax-exempt status (contract) churches are obligated to stay out of the political process entirely. They are free to discuss issues but not politics or their political nature. There is no denying that churches are able to influence voters in a big way.

I'd like to see this contract

[lordofchaos]

Originally Posted by devire1

u r misinterpreting what that really means.

no, actually that is quite correct interpretation, the founding fathers did not just worry about the church influencing the government unduely, they also worried about the government influencing the church unduely (ala the church of england) and the religions not being truely free to practice and express themselves... They saw this as a 2way street of protecting both sides... which is what it needs to remain...

[lordofchaos]

Originally Posted by Schadenfreude

I'd like to see this contract

go read up on tax exempt status for religious organizations, it is all out there in public documentation on what they need to do in order to aquire and maintain this status... it is not so much individual contract as it is a government regulation...

[IraHays]

Getting more into the tax rules:

Not-for-profit organizations are allowed to "educate" people on the issues. The article said it was a sign (that for what we know) stated factual information.

Now the interesting part is the "cost of 1000 babies". I think they would of been fine if they left that part out.

Even with that, I don't feel the IRS has much of a case unless there is more information we are not aware of.

[IraHays]

Originally Posted by lordofchaos

no, actually that is quite correct interpretation, the founding fathers did not just worry about the church influencing the government unduely, they also worried about the government influencing the church unduely (ala the church of england) and the religions not being truely free to practice and express themselves... They saw this as a 2way street of protecting both sides... which is what it needs to remain...

X2.

Thanks.

[paolo59]

The church among the African American community has always been incredibly active in politics. Every serious democratic presidential candidate will make numerous appearances in black congregations all over the nation in the next 17 months. There is nothing wrong with that in the least! But it does raise the question; Which church, and what "speech" is considered overtly political? As far as tax exempt status for religious organizations, most people would be rather surprised at the hundreds of millions of dollars in charity that are dispensed in communities, across the nation, and all over the world for that matter. I don't have current figures at hand, but it is an incredible amount of money. While some may dissagree, or even scoff at "religious belief" and "believers" in general, it cannot be denied that these people's giving makes a huge difference in the lives of many.

[hugeness]

Originally Posted by paolo59

The church among the African American community has always been incredibly active in politics. Every serious democratic presidential candidate will make numerous appearances in black congregations all over the nation in the next 17 months. There is nothing wrong with that in the least! But it does raise the question; Which church, and what "speech" is considered overtly political? As far as tax exempt status for religious organizations, most people would be rather surprised at the hundreds of millions of dollars in charity that are dispensed in communities, across the nation, and all over the world for that matter. I don't have current figures at hand, but it is an incredible amount of money. While some may dissagree, or even scoff at "religious belief" and "believers" in general, it cannot be denied that these people's giving makes a huge difference in the lives of many.

Thank you for mentioning that. If people only knew what goes on in churches behind the scenes and how they manage their money and where it goes. A small local church near me sends people every year to places where houses need to be built and they build them. All that money came staright from the peoples pockets who go to that church. The Church I go to is big and the amount of people who simply work for free to make the church run is amazing.

[xer0xed]

Originally Posted by IraHays

Are you for seperation of church and state or not? The door swings both ways. The church could not be seperate if it was subject to federal government taxation.

More info on that:

1. "Separation of Church and State" doesn't exist in the Constitution
2. Tax exempt status is a policy more aimed at free exercise and the high proportion of church funds that usually go to charity
3. The Church is not a lawmaking body

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...

If it can be determined to be a primarily religious, and legitimately so, organization then they should be allowed to discuss any political issues or candidates they would like inside the walls as well.

Other than that, it's freedom to associate and free exercise.
Edit: Free speech, also.

[timbo81]

Originally Posted by hugeness

The Bible does say that Christians will be depised in the end.

we're already seeing that.

ah well it's inevitable, at least we have God, things will only get worse

[IraHays]

Originally Posted by xer0xed

1. "Separation of Church and State" doesn't exist in the Constitution.

You're preaching to the choir my friend. I'm well aware. The reality of how it gets interpreted is what I'm talking about. Taxing churches, imo, would violate the constitution. In addition to raising revenues, tax laws are made to influence behavior. We can't have the government influencing churches behavior.

Originally Posted by xer0xed

2. Tax exempt status is a policy more aimed at free exercise and the high proportion of church funds that usually go to charity
3. The Church is not a lawmaking body

Whether you agree with the IRS or not, it has rules concerning all non-for-profit companies, including churches. A church can lose it tax-exempt status if it violates the rules.

But like I said, I don't think they are in this example.