| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" |
| Date: |
11 Oct 2007 08:22:48 AM |
| Object: |
You Can Vote in a Church but Not Teach There |
I was thinking that it was odd that my local voting location was a
church (and has been so in other places). Considering that voting is
the highest form of our government, does it not seem odd that voting
for leaders in a church is not a "separation of church and state" but
teaching there can be? Further, isn't it odd that liberals say the
pastor cannot used the building for political purposes, but the
government can hold elections there?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
| User: "OldDuffer" |
|
| Title: Re: You Can Vote in a Church but Not Teach There |
11 Oct 2007 09:17:59 AM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1192108968.855904.231550@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
I was thinking that it was odd that my local voting location was a
church (and has been so in other places). Considering that voting is
the highest form of our government, does it not seem odd that voting
for leaders in a church is not a "separation of church and state" but
teaching there can be? Further, isn't it odd that liberals say the
pastor cannot used the building for political purposes, but the
government can hold elections there?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Elections are non-partisan and secret -- no one knows for whom you are
voting and you can vote for anyone you please.
Pastors can use the building for political purposes -- for example, a pastor
could preach a sermon about the believers' civic responsibility and could
urge the congregation to vote and participate in political life -- the
pastor CANNOT endorse a candidate, a party, or a position. Elections are
neutral actions.
You have demonstrated time an again your inability to understand such simple
concepts as this so I don't expect you to understand this time, either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JAH" |
|
| Title: Re: You Can Vote in a Church but Not Teach There |
12 Oct 2007 05:02:44 PM |
|
|
"OldDuffer" <noone@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:felbdf047a@news5.newsguy.com...
Pastors can use the building for political purposes -- for example, a
pastor could preach a sermon about the believers' civic responsibility and
could urge the congregation to vote and participate in political life --
the pastor CANNOT endorse a candidate, a party, or a position. Elections
are neutral actions.
But, you are the one who is wrong. Dead wrong. And so is everyone else in
this thread, except me, about the issue of what you can and can't talk about
in a church that affect 501c3. And, I'm not gloating about that. I'm sad.
Because it illustrates handily the point I'm making about how the government
is so out of control. And how citizens are kept in the dark and ignorant
about the rights by the very government that should be HELPING them
understand. Not preventing them. And the facts of the 1992 case... the
FACTS NOT THE RUMORS OR WHAT YOU THINK YOU KNOW... should blow you away. And
that's a good thing. I'm not looking to win an argument. I'm looking to
help pass along information.
Here's the main points YOU GUYS DON"T UNDERSTAND. And, after I've listed
one, I'm going to give you a good snippet to read from a lawyer. Read it.
It's long. But it's of interest. And not a bit of it lines up with
anything you guys are saying.
1. The IRS is not the court.
2. The IRS may not understand the law any better than you do.
3. The IRS can intimidate you and get away with it with impunity. All you
can do is do what the church in Oakland did last week. Stand your ground
and back down.
4. The LAW in this country doesn't have anything to do with the TRUTH of
the LAW. The LAW in this country is more decided by who has the most time,
the most money, the most backbone, and the most capable lawyer.
5. The IRS can also be used as A WEAPON by an adminstration that has a
hostile agenda to intimidate and scare. You guys love to talk about
coverups and conspiracies. Well, that's a REAL LIVE ONE FOR YOU.
Now, here's the snippet.
Pastors, Churches and Politics What May Pastors and Churches Do?
by Mathew D. Staver, Esq.
Copyright © 2004
From the founding of the country until 1954, churches and other nonprofit
organizations were permitted to expressly endorse or oppose candidates for
political office. That changed when Lyndon Baines Johnson ran for United
States Senate. He was opposed by a nonprofit organization (not a church),
and after he won the election, he proposed legislation to amend the Internal
Revenue Code to prohibit nonprofit organizations, including churches, from
endorsing or opposing political candidates. The Code was amended in 1954
without any debate regarding the impact of the bill.
The Internal Revenue Code now expressly prohibits churches and other
nonprofit organizations from directly endorsing or opposing political
candidates. From 1954 to the present, only one church has ever lost its IRS
tax-exempt letter ruling, but even that church did not lose its tax-exempt
status for opposing then-Governor Bill Clinton for President in 1992.
The Church at Pierce Creek, located in Binghamton, New York (a church where
Operation Rescue founder Randall Terry attended at the time), took out
full-page ads in the USA Today and The Washington Times newspapers. The ads
opposed Governor Clinton for President because of his position on abortion
and homosexuality, and then the ads solicited "tax-deductible donations" to
defray the cost of the advertisements. The Church received hundreds of
contributions.
After Clinton was elected President, the IRS notified the Church on November
20, 1992, that it intended to conduct an inquiry into the Church's
activities. After negotiations with the Church broke down, the IRS revoked
the Church's tax-exempt letter ruling and the Church filed suit to get it
back.
It is important to understand the critical difference between an IRS
tax-exempt letter ruling and tax-exempt status of churches. Every
organization, whether a 501(c)(4) (a nonprofit group that primarily lobbies)
or a 501(c)(3) (a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization), must file an
application with the IRS to be recognized as a nonprofit organization for
purposes of the Internal Revenue Code. The IRS then issues a letter ruling
specific for the organization, in which the IRS acknowledges that the
organization will be recognized as a nonprofit organization, and in the case
of a 501(c)(3), that contributions to the organization will be
tax-deductible.
Unlike virtually every other nonprofit or tax-exempt organization, churches
are not required to obtain an IRS letter ruling. Some churches have an IRS
letter and some do not. What is the advantage of a church having a letter
ruling as opposed to a church that does not have one? There is no
substantive difference. The only difference is one of convenience. If a
donor is ever audited and the IRS questioned the contributions to the
church, the donor can point the agent to the letter ruling on file with the
IRS. However, if a church doesn't have a letter ruling, the church can
merely produce an affidavit by the pastor, or present the church bylaws or
other evidence to validate that the assembly is a church. Other than mere
convenience, there is no substantive difference, as a church with or without
a tax-exempt letter ruling is still tax-exempt.
So long as a church is operating and functioning as an organized church
body, it is automatically tax-exempt and does not have to apply to the IRS
for this determination. This distinction between churches and other
tax-exempt organizations is critically important in understanding the impact
of the IRS's action against the Church at Pierce Creek.
The Church at Pierce Creek had applied for and received an IRS tax-exempt
letter ruling, and the lawsuit was not designed to regain its tax-exempt
status (which the Church continued to enjoy), but to receive back its
tax-exempt letter ruling. The court noted that "because of the unique
treatment churches receive under the Internal Revenue Code, the impact of
the revocation is likely to be more symbolic than substantial."
During the oral argument, counsel for the IRS confirmed that if the Church
chose not to intervene in future political campaigns, it may continue to
hold itself out as a tax-exempt organization and receive all the benefits of
that status. The court also pointed out that revocation of the IRS letter
ruling did not make the Church liable for the payment of taxes. The IRS also
conceded during the oral argument that "the revocation of the exemption
[letter] does not convert bona fide donations into income taxable to the
church." Contributions given to the Church, even contributions regarding the
ad, were never taxed. In the future, if the Church wanted to reapply for its
letter, it was free to do so. However, even without the letter, it retained,
and continues to retain to this day, its tax-exempt status.
Other than the Church at Pierce Creek, no other church has even lost its
tax-exempt letter ruling, let alone its tax-exempt status. In other words,
from 1954 to the present, no church has ever lost its tax-exempt status for
endorsing or opposing political candidates. This history alone should
alleviate unfounded fear.
Outside of express endorsement of or opposition to candidates for political
offices, pastors and churches may engage in many other permissible
activities. Churches may host voter registration drives, be a host site for
balloting, or host a forum where candidates address the congregation or
answer questions from a moderator. Candidates visiting the church may be
introduced, and political candidates may even preach in the pulpit so long
as the pulpit is not used as a political forum to urge the members to vote
in favor of the candidate. Churches may also distribute objective voter
guides that address the candidates' views on a broad range of issues.
Pastors can preach on biblical, moral and social issues such as
homosexuality and abortion. Pastors can urge the congregation to become
involved in the political process, urge them to register and vote. Pastors
can acknowledge visiting candidates. Pastors can personally endorse or
oppose political candidates, personally work for political candidates, and
personally contribute to them. Also, a pastor's name may appear in a
published ad or letter signifying the pastor's endorsement of the candidate,
and the pastor's title and affiliation with the church can also be listed
with the notation, "Title and affiliation for identification purposes."
Although the IRS states that a pastor may not personally endorse a candidate
while in the pulpit, I believe such a restriction is unconstitutional. No
pastor has ever been targeted by the IRS for giving a personal endorsement
from the pulpit. My recommendation is that if the pastor wants to personally
endorse a candidate, he should feel free to do so, as long as the
endorsement is stated as a personal rather than a corporate church
endorsement.
It should also be remembered that the restriction on endorsing candidates
does not apply to appointed offices. Cabinet or judicial appointments are
not political candidates for public office. Therefore, pastors and churches
may expressly oppose or support individuals for appointed office.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: You Can Vote in a Church but Not Teach There |
13 Oct 2007 09:42:41 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:17:59 -0400, "OldDuffer" <noone@nowhere.net>
wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1192108968.855904.231550@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
I was thinking that it was odd that my local voting location was a
church (and has been so in other places). Considering that voting is
the highest form of our government, does it not seem odd that voting
for leaders in a church is not a "separation of church and state" but
teaching there can be? Further, isn't it odd that liberals say the
pastor cannot used the building for political purposes, but the
government can hold elections there?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Elections are non-partisan and secret -- no one knows for whom you are
voting and you can vote for anyone you please.
Pastors can use the building for political purposes -- for example, a pastor
could preach a sermon about the believers' civic responsibility and could
urge the congregation to vote and participate in political life -- the
pastor CANNOT endorse a candidate, a party, or a position. Elections are
neutral actions.
You have demonstrated time an again your inability to understand such simple
concepts as this so I don't expect you to understand this time, either.
Excuse me but a Pastor can certainly endorse a position. Pastors,
priests, etc; across the country urged Congress to pass the Civil
Rights Act in the 60's. There are thousands of clergy who took
positions against Viet Nam and the draft, and now are against ther war
in Iraq and preach this from their collective pulpits. There are now
hundreds of clergy who have made their churches sanctuaries for
illegal immigrants.
WB Yeats
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: You Can Vote in a Church but Not Teach There |
13 Oct 2007 07:20:52 PM |
|
|
<wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message
news:k4m1h3lu6trojpc5o7e2o7j1e6r851o7td@4ax.com...
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:17:59 -0400, "OldDuffer" <noone@nowhere.net>
wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1192108968.855904.231550@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
I was thinking that it was odd that my local voting location was a
church (and has been so in other places). Considering that voting is
the highest form of our government, does it not seem odd that voting
for leaders in a church is not a "separation of church and state" but
teaching there can be? Further, isn't it odd that liberals say the
pastor cannot used the building for political purposes, but the
government can hold elections there?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Elections are non-partisan and secret -- no one knows for whom you are
voting and you can vote for anyone you please.
Pastors can use the building for political purposes -- for example, a
pastor
could preach a sermon about the believers' civic responsibility and could
urge the congregation to vote and participate in political life -- the
pastor CANNOT endorse a candidate, a party, or a position. Elections are
neutral actions.
You have demonstrated time an again your inability to understand such
simple
concepts as this so I don't expect you to understand this time, either.
Excuse me but a Pastor can certainly endorse a position. Pastors,
priests, etc; across the country urged Congress to pass the Civil
Rights Act in the 60's. There are thousands of clergy who took
positions against Viet Nam and the draft, and now are against ther war
in Iraq and preach this from their collective pulpits. There are now
hundreds of clergy who have made their churches sanctuaries for
illegal immigrants.
But not from the puplit, if they want to keep their tax exemption.
Larry
WB Yeats
.
|
|
|
| User: "JAH" |
|
| Title: Re: You Can Vote in a Church but Not Teach There |
14 Oct 2007 10:55:30 AM |
|
|
"Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote in message
news:fernd7$gv7$1@news04.infoave.net...
But not from the puplit, if they want to keep their tax exemption.
That's not true. A pastor can say anything he wants to in the pulpit
regarding issues, candidates, etc. I think the only exception would be the
explicit law against assassinating the President or other officials covered
in that statute. I note with interest that it is also unconstitutional to
advocate the overthrow of the US, but that law is ignored completely.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: You Can Vote in a Church but Not Teach There |
14 Oct 2007 09:35:54 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 20:20:52 -0400, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
<wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message
news:k4m1h3lu6trojpc5o7e2o7j1e6r851o7td@4ax.com...
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:17:59 -0400, "OldDuffer" <noone@nowhere.net>
wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1192108968.855904.231550@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
I was thinking that it was odd that my local voting location was a
church (and has been so in other places). Considering that voting is
the highest form of our government, does it not seem odd that voting
for leaders in a church is not a "separation of church and state" but
teaching there can be? Further, isn't it odd that liberals say the
pastor cannot used the building for political purposes, but the
government can hold elections there?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Elections are non-partisan and secret -- no one knows for whom you are
voting and you can vote for anyone you please.
Pastors can use the building for political purposes -- for example, a
pastor
could preach a sermon about the believers' civic responsibility and could
urge the congregation to vote and participate in political life -- the
pastor CANNOT endorse a candidate, a party, or a position. Elections are
neutral actions.
You have demonstrated time an again your inability to understand such
simple
concepts as this so I don't expect you to understand this time, either.
Excuse me but a Pastor can certainly endorse a position. Pastors,
priests, etc; across the country urged Congress to pass the Civil
Rights Act in the 60's. There are thousands of clergy who took
positions against Viet Nam and the draft, and now are against ther war
in Iraq and preach this from their collective pulpits. There are now
hundreds of clergy who have made their churches sanctuaries for
illegal immigrants.
But not from the puplit, if they want to keep their tax exemption.
Larry
You're wrong. Everything I mentioned above was 'from the pulpit'. And
then of course there are all the born-agains who reference Roe v Wade
as the devil's work 'from the pulpit'. What they cannot do is mention
party affiliation or specific candidates.
WB Yeats
.
|
|
|
| User: "Larry Hewitt" |
|
| Title: Re: You Can Vote in a Church but Not Teach There |
14 Oct 2007 02:53:42 PM |
|
|
<wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message
news:n3a4h39g9dai9p95794odqcellmc9ta5uh@4ax.com...
On Sat, 13 Oct 2007 20:20:52 -0400, "Larry Hewitt"
<larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote:
<wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message
news:k4m1h3lu6trojpc5o7e2o7j1e6r851o7td@4ax.com...
On Thu, 11 Oct 2007 10:17:59 -0400, "OldDuffer" <noone@nowhere.net>
wrote:
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1192108968.855904.231550@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
I was thinking that it was odd that my local voting location was a
church (and has been so in other places). Considering that voting is
the highest form of our government, does it not seem odd that voting
for leaders in a church is not a "separation of church and state" but
teaching there can be? Further, isn't it odd that liberals say the
pastor cannot used the building for political purposes, but the
government can hold elections there?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
Elections are non-partisan and secret -- no one knows for whom you are
voting and you can vote for anyone you please.
Pastors can use the building for political purposes -- for example, a
pastor
could preach a sermon about the believers' civic responsibility and
could
urge the congregation to vote and participate in political life -- the
pastor CANNOT endorse a candidate, a party, or a position. Elections
are
neutral actions.
You have demonstrated time an again your inability to understand such
simple
concepts as this so I don't expect you to understand this time, either.
Excuse me but a Pastor can certainly endorse a position. Pastors,
priests, etc; across the country urged Congress to pass the Civil
Rights Act in the 60's. There are thousands of clergy who took
positions against Viet Nam and the draft, and now are against ther war
in Iraq and preach this from their collective pulpits. There are now
hundreds of clergy who have made their churches sanctuaries for
illegal immigrants.
But not from the puplit, if they want to keep their tax exemption.
Larry
You're wrong. Everything I mentioned above was 'from the pulpit'.
Just becaue it happened and no one was punished does not mean it is "legal"
The IRS statute is simple and specific --- no 501(c3) organization is allwed
to use its official function in prtisan politics, not just churches.
Just becausee the regulation was widely violatd by supporters of the current
administration does not eliminate it.
FWIW, the statue is specific the other way, too. In other than official
venues, ie, other than from the pulipt, particiaption in partisan politics
is allowed.
Thus Jesse Jackson and Jerry Falwell can advocate for positions and
candidates, and Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson could run for president.
Larry
And
then of course there are all the born-agains who reference Roe v Wade
as the devil's work 'from the pulpit'. What they cannot do is mention
party affiliation or specific candidates.
WB Yeats
.
|
|
|
| User: "JAH" |
|
| Title: Re: You Can Vote in a Church but Not Teach There |
14 Oct 2007 05:21:59 PM |
|
|
"Larry Hewitt" <larryhewi@comporium.net> wrote in message
news:fets45$31o$1@news04.infoave.net...
You're wrong. Everything I mentioned above was 'from the pulpit'.
You have no legal precedents to cite.
Just becaue it happened and no one was punished does not mean it is
"legal"
It is legal.
The IRS statute is simple and specific --- no 501(c3) organization is
allwed to use its official function in prtisan politics, not just
churches.
The IRS statute is not enforceable legally, nor has it ever been. The IRS
does not have the final say. The courts do.
Just becausee the regulation was widely violatd by supporters of the
current administration does not eliminate it.
The regulation isn't violated by anyone, Democrat or Republican. And, in
the only case (1992) ever, the church DIDN'T lose it's tax exempt status.
The church never has paid any taxes since that IRS action.
FWIW, the statue is specific the other way, too. In other than official
venues, ie, other than from the pulipt, particiaption in partisan politics
is allowed.
Sure, but only if it is done as a personal activity, not representative of
the church as a whole. But, a pastor can say whatever he wants to in the
pulpit of his own church to the congregation.
Thus Jesse Jackson and Jerry Falwell can advocate for positions and
candidates, and Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson could run for president.
Sure, and they do it all the time and the IRS doesn't mess with them.
then of course there are all the born-agains who reference Roe v Wade
as the devil's work 'from the pulpit'. What they cannot do is mention
party affiliation or specific candidates.
You're wrong about that. They can and they do, every Sunday, in churches
all over the country. And the IRS can't do anything about it.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JAH" |
|
| Title: Re: You Can Vote in a Church but Not Teach There |
14 Oct 2007 11:01:01 AM |
|
|
<wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message
news:n3a4h39g9dai9p95794odqcellmc9ta5uh@4ax.com...
You're wrong. Everything I mentioned above was 'from the pulpit'. And
then of course there are all the born-agains who reference Roe v Wade
as the devil's work 'from the pulpit'. What they cannot do is mention
party affiliation or specific candidates.
WB Yeats
You're also wrong. A pastor can say anything he want's to from the pulpit.
But, since no case president exists, it would be a test. Most likely, the
IRS would lose because of the free speech issue. But, there is no case
since 1954 where a church has lost tax exemption because of something the
pastor preached to the congregation. Can't happen. Won't happen.
Otherwise, the democrats would be in trouble, because black churches are
very politically active. Conservative churches don't have the guts. That's
why I can't figure out why you liberals are so, supposedly, terrified of the
mythical "right-wing religio-fascists." These non-existant "zealots" who
supposedly are trying to build a "right wing theocracy."
Well, if they are, they sure are doing a lousy job of it. Go back and read
"Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" or some other contemporary history of the
Nazi Party if you want to know how a real live bonified PAC seizes power in
a country.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: You Can Vote in a Church but Not Teach There |
14 Oct 2007 01:42:56 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 14 Oct 2007 12:01:01 -0400, "JAH" <jhartley@knology.net>
wrote:
<wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message
news:n3a4h39g9dai9p95794odqcellmc9ta5uh@4ax.com...
You're wrong. Everything I mentioned above was 'from the pulpit'. And
then of course there are all the born-agains who reference Roe v Wade
as the devil's work 'from the pulpit'. What they cannot do is mention
party affiliation or specific candidates.
WB Yeats
You're also wrong. A pastor can say anything he want's to from the pulpit.
But, since no case president exists, it would be a test. Most likely, the
IRS would lose because of the free speech issue. But, there is no case
since 1954 where a church has lost tax exemption because of something the
pastor preached to the congregation. Can't happen. Won't happen.
Otherwise, the democrats would be in trouble, because black churches are
very politically active. Conservative churches don't have the guts. That's
why I can't figure out why you liberals are so, supposedly, terrified of the
mythical "right-wing religio-fascists." These non-existant "zealots" who
supposedly are trying to build a "right wing theocracy."
By the way - that's precedent. You're right. If, however, the church
decides to publish political advice or statements, they may lose their
tax-exempt status.
http://www.baptiststandard.com/1999/4_14/pages/taxexempt.html
There are also test cases on the way up the ladder to the Supremes
which disagree with any church's right to tax-exempt status if they
get behind candidates (or against) from the pulpit. The issue is NOT
free speech but tax exemption. If you don't consider Dobson,
Robertson, and their ilk religious nuts, then we have nothing to
discuss.
Well, if they are, they sure are doing a lousy job of it. Go back and read
"Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" or some other contemporary history of the
Nazi Party if you want to know how a real live bonified PAC seizes power in
a country.
I already know about the Nazis and yet the Catholic church in Germany
continued thru the war. And btw - it's bona fide.
WB Yeats
.
|
|
|
| User: "JAH" |
|
| Title: Re: You Can Vote in a Church but Not Teach There |
14 Oct 2007 05:16:57 PM |
|
|
<wbyeats@ireland.com> wrote in message
news:4un4h3prcuh3es09k94n3sv7merrnjrjkm@4ax.com...
By the way - that's precedent. You're right. If, however, the church
decides to publish political advice or statements, they may lose their
tax-exempt status.
I'm talking about pastors in the pulpit. But, there is no precedent.
http://www.baptiststandard.com/1999/4_14/pages/taxexempt.html
There are also test cases on the way up the ladder to the Supremes
which disagree with any church's right to tax-exempt status if they
get behind candidates (or against) from the pulpit. The issue is NOT
free speech but tax exemption. If you don't consider Dobson,
Robertson, and their ilk religious nuts, then we have nothing to
discuss.
Normally I don't consider Dobson or Robertson at all. But, there is no
precedent. And no church has lost it's tax exempt status.
Well, if they are, they sure are doing a lousy job of it. Go back and
read
"Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" or some other contemporary history of
the
Nazi Party if you want to know how a real live bonified PAC seizes power
in
a country.
I already know about the Nazis and yet the Catholic church in Germany
continued thru the war. And btw - it's bona fide.
I don't understand what you mean?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Guy" |
|
| Title: Re: You Can Vote in a Church but Not Teach There |
11 Oct 2007 03:01:01 PM |
|
|
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1192108968.855904.231550@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
I was thinking that it was odd that my local voting location was a
church (and has been so in other places). Considering that voting is
the highest form of our government, does it not seem odd that voting
for leaders in a church is not a "separation of church and state" but
teaching there can be? Further, isn't it odd that liberals say the
pastor cannot used the building for political purposes, but the
government can hold elections there?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
The pastor can offer the church as a polling location. The government
accepts by paying a fee to the church. Once this is done, on election day,
the pastor no longer has control over the property. I know that some pastors
in my county have attempted to exclude poll greeters from their property,
claiming trespassing. In EVERY case, the board of elections and the police
have ruled that, on election day, the pastor has ZERO say over who may be on
the property.
In short, on election day, if the pastor has accepted a fee, the church is
no longer a church. It is a polling location, and ONLY a polling location.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: You Can Vote in a Church but Not Teach There |
11 Oct 2007 10:24:34 AM |
|
|
I generally support your views Ken, but this time you've lost it.
I think that voting should be done in public buildings, not private ones,
but if we are going to have polling places set up on private property, a
church is fine from the perspective of separation issues.
As for the pastor preaching politics, that seems to be a tax problem for the
church. Church income is not taxed -- and it ought not be -- but because of
this, the church should not be on the campaign trail. Having said that, as a
member of the flock I rather enjoy knowing what the other flock members are
voting for, and our voice being presented in a unified manner is a
reasonable goal of the flock -- and by extension, the pastor.
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1192108968.855904.231550@50g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
I was thinking that it was odd that my local voting location was a
church (and has been so in other places). Considering that voting is
the highest form of our government, does it not seem odd that voting
for leaders in a church is not a "separation of church and state" but
teaching there can be? Further, isn't it odd that liberals say the
pastor cannot used the building for political purposes, but the
government can hold elections there?
Kenneth Clifton
christiansuperhero.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "JAH" |
|
| Title: Re: You Can Vote in a Church but Not Teach There |
11 Oct 2007 11:00:27 AM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:SerPi.4767$d2.1082@trnddc08...
I generally support your views Ken, but this time you've lost it.
I think that voting should be done in public buildings, not private ones,
but if we are going to have polling places set up on private property, a
church is fine from the perspective of separation issues.
As for the pastor preaching politics, that seems to be a tax problem for
the church. Church income is not taxed -- and it ought not be -- but
because of this, the church should not be on the campaign trail. Having
said that, as a member of the flock I rather enjoy knowing what the other
flock members are voting for, and our voice being presented in a unified
manner is a reasonable goal of the flock -- and by extension, the pastor.
Churches don't have income Jeff. The income is money from members that has
already been taxed. Effectively, you are charging them EXTRA for the rights
that everyone else gets for nothing; freedom of speech, freedom of
association. In other words, there isn't a single dollar in the church
that hasn't already been subjected to taxes, but yet, the church member
needs to be retaxed in order to exercise his supposed rights?
Well, what would you do if all the churches said, okay. We'll disband and
meet in residences, or out in the woods, or in abandoned warehouses. In
Secret. To avoid having the appearance of a church that needs to pay taxes.
Well, it's obvious we hunt them down with the FBI, right? No, what will
happen is what has already happened; the churches will just shut up and quit
talking - except for the ones who are politically correct enough to avoid
IRS scrutiny. The ones favored by the Demopublican power bloc.
Let's see. So in America today we are actively considering laws that
churches must pay to speak, and that people who go to church should be
punitively taxed twice as punishment for being religious.
And look at from which side of the field this is coming. The liberal side.
Surprise surprise. The liberal side, comprised about half way of black
"Christians", Jews and Metropolitan Community Churches. Isn't that amazing?
And even more amazing that you hear NOT A PEEP of protest from any churches
except those aligned to the right. Isn't that a-fucking-mazing. Wow, I'd
have never guessed it. Who'd have thought this huge boulder would have been
so painful when I dropped it on my foot.
You deserve to have exactly what your beliefs as expounded here will
ultimately result in.
For the rest of you who believe in freedom, what the church should do if
this ever occurs is refuse en masse to pay the church taxes and DARE THE
GOVERNMENT to arrest every single member of every single church and haul
them off to jail while it's being videotaped and broadcast to the rest of
the world. Be men, stand up for yourselves. Then maybe I will see the
value in what I otherwise characterize as you weak, anemic religion. The
weak anemic religion that all the liberals are so scared of supposedly.
You've cow towed for so long and they still hate you. Remember, you can
never grovel to your master at any level lower than the sole of his boot.
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Further, isn't it odd that liberals say the pastor cannot used the
building for political purposes, but the government can hold elections
there?
Liberals don't apply this rule to everyone, just their political enemies.
It's the Marxist Leninist way.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Joe S." |
|
| Title: Re: You Can Vote in a Church but Not Teach There |
11 Oct 2007 12:27:53 PM |
|
|
"JAH" <jhartley@knology.net> wrote in message
news:db8ea$470e4889$1860a048$17277@KNOLOGY.NET...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:SerPi.4767$d2.1082@trnddc08...
I generally support your views Ken, but this time you've lost it.
I think that voting should be done in public buildings, not private ones,
but if we are going to have polling places set up on private property, a
church is fine from the perspective of separation issues.
As for the pastor preaching politics, that seems to be a tax problem for
the church. Church income is not taxed -- and it ought not be -- but
because of this, the church should not be on the campaign trail. Having
said that, as a member of the flock I rather enjoy knowing what the other
flock members are voting for, and our voice being presented in a unified
manner is a reasonable goal of the flock -- and by extension, the pastor.
Churches don't have income Jeff. The income is money from members that
has already been taxed.
That's the nuttiest argument I have heard all day. If we follow your
argument, EVERYTHING WE DO IS ALREADY TAXED.
I receive a paycheck from which income tax has been withheld -- I've been
taxed. Then, when I buy a bottle of Wild Turkey, I pay a sales tax plus an
excise tax on the booze -- triple taxation -- once with the withholding,
once with the sales tax, once with the excise tax.
So -- by your reasoning, liquor stores, grocery stores, gas stations,
clothing stores, laundries, etc., etc., etc., DON'T HAVE INCOME -- they just
have money from their customers that's already been taxed.
Effectively, you are charging them EXTRA for the rights that everyone else
gets for nothing; freedom of speech, freedom of association. In other
words, there isn't a single dollar in the church that hasn't already been
subjected to taxes, but yet, the church member needs to be retaxed in
order to exercise his supposed rights?
Well, what would you do if all the churches said, okay. We'll disband and
meet in residences, or out in the woods, or in abandoned warehouses. In
Secret. To avoid having the appearance of a church that needs to pay
taxes. Well, it's obvious we hunt them down with the FBI, right? No, what
will happen is what has already happened; the churches will just shut up
and quit talking - except for the ones who are politically correct enough
to avoid IRS scrutiny. The ones favored by the Demopublican power bloc.
Let's see. So in America today we are actively considering laws that
churches must pay to speak, and that people who go to church should be
punitively taxed twice as punishment for being religious.
And look at from which side of the field this is coming. The liberal
side. Surprise surprise. The liberal side, comprised about half way of
black "Christians", Jews and Metropolitan Community Churches. Isn't that
amazing? And even more amazing that you hear NOT A PEEP of protest from
any churches except those aligned to the right. Isn't that
a-fucking-mazing. Wow, I'd have never guessed it. Who'd have thought
this huge boulder would have been so painful when I dropped it on my foot.
You deserve to have exactly what your beliefs as expounded here will
ultimately result in.
For the rest of you who believe in freedom, what the church should do if
this ever occurs is refuse en masse to pay the church taxes and DARE THE
GOVERNMENT to arrest every single member of every single church and haul
them off to jail while it's being videotaped and broadcast to the rest of
the world. Be men, stand up for yourselves. Then maybe I will see the
value in what I otherwise characterize as you weak, anemic religion. The
weak anemic religion that all the liberals are so scared of supposedly.
You've cow towed for so long and they still hate you. Remember, you can
never grovel to your master at any level lower than the sole of his boot.
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Further, isn't it odd that liberals say the pastor cannot used the
building for political purposes, but the government can hold elections
there?
Liberals don't apply this rule to everyone, just their political enemies.
It's the Marxist Leninist way.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JAH" |
|
| Title: Re: You Can Vote in a Church but Not Teach There |
11 Oct 2007 02:34:25 PM |
|
|
"Joe S." <noone@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:felmhg0186l@news4.newsguy.com...
So -- by your reasoning, liquor stores, grocery stores, gas stations,
clothing stores, laundries, etc., etc., etc., DON'T HAVE INCOME -- they
just have money from their customers that's already been taxed.
Wrong. A liquor store is not a coaltion of members who donate money to the
church to provide a building and all the necessary tools to run a church for
them to attend. A liquor store is for the benefit of the owner. He is
selling a product to someone who is a customer. I can guarantee you that
the store and the gas station owner is getting income, because he is
producing revenue for himself. A church doesn't produce revenue. It spends
the money of its members on behalf of its members for the benefit of its
members and whatever charitable causes they elect.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: You Can Vote in a Church but Not Teach There |
11 Oct 2007 06:12:13 PM |
|
|
"JAH" <jhartley@knology.net> wrote in message
news:db8ea$470e4889$1860a048$17277@KNOLOGY.NET...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:SerPi.4767$d2.1082@trnddc08...
I generally support your views Ken, but this time you've lost it.
I think that voting should be done in public buildings, not private ones,
but if we are going to have polling places set up on private property, a
church is fine from the perspective of separation issues.
As for the pastor preaching politics, that seems to be a tax problem for
the church. Church income is not taxed -- and it ought not be -- but
because of this, the church should not be on the campaign trail. Having
said that, as a member of the flock I rather enjoy knowing what the other
flock members are voting for, and our voice being presented in a unified
manner is a reasonable goal of the flock -- and by extension, the pastor.
Churches don't have income Jeff. The income is money from members that
has already been taxed. Effectively, you are charging them EXTRA for the
rights that everyone else gets for nothing; freedom of speech, freedom of
association. In other words, there isn't a single dollar in the church
that hasn't already been subjected to taxes, but yet, the church member
needs to be retaxed in order to exercise his supposed rights?
By that measure, I have no income either. I repair homes for the homeowner.
The money you pay me has already been taxed, and since you are a wage
earner, it was likely taxed as corporate income as well, but that's not
really the point here.
As income, all of my money comes from your pocket and the pockets of your
neighbors, therefore it has already been taxed. Now that it is my money,
they are taxing it again. All I'm illustrating is that your argument is not
entirely accurate. Church income is the tithes that it collects, and those
tithes are deducted from the parishoner's income and therefore avoids
taxation at all.
In any case, I am not making an argument in favor of taxing a church. My
only point is that churches enjoy a tax status that you and I do not enjoy,
nor do our employers enjoy, and as a result the church is not allowed to
engage in political activity without risk of losing the tax status it
enjoys.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JAH" |
|
| Title: Re: You Can Vote in a Church but Not Teach There |
11 Oct 2007 08:44:12 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:h5yPi.9465$8F.616@trnddc05...
"JAH" <jhartley@knology.net> wrote in message
Churches don't have income Jeff. The income is money from members that
has already been taxed. Effectively, you are charging them EXTRA for the
rights that everyone else gets for nothing; freedom of speech, freedom of
association. In other words, there isn't a single dollar in the church
that hasn't already been subjected to taxes, but yet, the church member
needs to be retaxed in order to exercise his supposed rights?
By that measure, I have no income either. I repair homes for the
homeowner. The money you pay me has already been taxed, and since you are
a wage earner, it was likely taxed as corporate income as well, but that's
not really the point here.
Well, I've answered this question further up the post in another fashion.
But, the income to you from the homeowner is your income paid for services
rendered. It is your income, and you do with it as you please. It is your
INCREASE and so you must pay taxes on it. The church makes no income of its
own because it doesn't GENERATE income. You GENERATE income and receive it.
THAT is what should be taxed. A church, on the other hand, is an
organization of people who support it through their contributions, money
which has already been taxed. Taxing the church is tamtamount to retaxing
the members in exchange for allowing the activities of a conglomerate
entity, which they may or may not be in control of. I mean, think about
this. Not all the members in the church vote the same way. Why SHOULD THEY
BE PENALIZED UNIVERSALLY FOR SPEECH THEY MAY NOT EVEN AGREE WITH? I mean,
are we trying to drive people to associate in churches according to their
political beliefs?
But ultimately, who exactly do we think will pay those taxes? The church
entity? With what? Money from a money tree? No. The members will pay it,
over and above the costs they pay to support the church. The point I was
trying to make is this. The government doesn't need to have any more money.
I'm tired of the government making up whatever laws it wants to. I mean,
this is the same junk they always pull. They "allowed" the indians to have
a little bit of land "back" that they stole from them in the first place and
then tax them to live on it. The slave is only x/tenth of a person. They
steal inheritances from the heirs of the dead and leave them a broken
dissolute estate. And meanwhile, they give the money away and vote
themselves huge payraises, and build a massive entrenched bureaucracy where
ONE THIRD of the country is earning a living on the economy generated by the
other two thirds. One divine fiat after another. I'm tired of not having a
vote on anything in my "democratic" society. I'm tired of these rich
elitists who've set up a monarchy for the rich, USING MY MONEY. So, I am
not enamored of any attempt by them to NOW charge "extra money" for civil
rights, whenever they feel like it. They don't have the right to do this,
and I don't care what anybody says otherwise. Nor do I like the idea of the
government STEALING MONEY FROM WHAT SHOULD BE GOING TO HELP CHARITABLE
PURPOSES. The government gets enough money. Let them cut back on $500
toilet seats and office furniture and fancy junkets.
As income, all of my money comes from your pocket and the pockets of your
neighbors, therefore it has already been taxed. Now that it is my money,
they are taxing it again.
They are taxing incomes. A church has no income. I don't care what the
government says. The money has been taxed already, and they are RETAXING
the same money and retaxing the SAME PEOPLE, because the CHURCH belongs to
the people who paid the taxes on the donations. It hasn't been given to the
church in exchange for services. It hasn't been "Earned" by the church.
And the church doesn't get to do with the money whatever it wants to. And
without the members, there would be NO CHURCH at all. And who cares what a
bunch of no-nothing over-educated fruitcake lawyers think? If they're so
smart, than why is the country so messed up anyway? These people don't
operate on right and wrong. They operate on WHAT THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH IN
COURT. Na. I say enough is enough.
And I understand that we all get a standard deduction. But we pay ENOUGH in
taxes even with it. And Jeff, WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE FACT THAT WE WILL GET
NOTHING BACK FROM SOCIAL SECURITY - A BREACH OF TRUST THAT PUT THE ENRON
EXECUTIVES IN JAIL - it evens out in my mind. We MUST NOT allow these
people to continue doing these things.
It is even more galling when you consider that this whole ruckus is most
likely no more that a cheap stunt in election year politics, where one side
tries to blunt the efforts of another.
In any case, I am not making an argument in favor of taxing a church. My
only point is that churches enjoy a tax status that you and I do not
enjoy, nor do our employers enjoy, and as a result the church is not
allowed to engage in political activity without risk of losing the tax
status it
enjoys.
Now, here's the issue. The church IS you. The church IS the members.
Otherwise, why shouldn't the government come out and say that private
citizens have to forgo their standard deduction in order to have the
priviledge of political speech?
There is no law against what a preacher says in his pulpit. Nor can a
church lose its 501c3 for what is preached in the pulpit, nor for activities
that do not violate the unjust and unagreed upon laws set by LBJ in 1954 for
his own personal convenience. But that's the problem. We've got this
monster now that legal activists are CONSTANTLY working to expand and
stretch to muzzle free speech. Politics is a dirty business.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: You Can Vote in a Church but Not Teach There |
12 Oct 2007 11:46:40 AM |
|
|
"JAH" <jhartley@knology.net> wrote in message
news:b82cc$470ed157$1860a048$1385@KNOLOGY.NET...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:h5yPi.9465$8F.616@trnddc05...
"JAH" <jhartley@knology.net> wrote in message
Churches don't have income Jeff. The income is money from members that
has already been taxed. Effectively, you are charging them EXTRA for
the rights that everyone else gets for nothing; freedom of speech,
freedom of association. In other words, there isn't a single dollar
in the church that hasn't already been subjected to taxes, but yet, the
church member needs to be retaxed in order to exercise his supposed
rights?
By that measure, I have no income either. I repair homes for the
homeowner. The money you pay me has already been taxed, and since you are
a wage earner, it was likely taxed as corporate income as well, but
that's not really the point here.
Well, I've answered this question further up the post in another fashion.
But, the income to you from the homeowner is your income paid for services
rendered.
You are missing the point. The church and I get the very same dollar. Well,
either I get it or the church gets it -- we can't both get it. You received
it as income, then you pass it along to either me or the church.
The difference I'm trying to point out to you is that the tax status of the
church and my tax status is different, the dollar is the same.
It is your income, and you do with it as you please. It is your
INCREASE and so you must pay taxes on it. The church makes no income of
its own because it doesn't GENERATE income. You GENERATE income and
receive it. THAT is what should be taxed.
So, all I have to do is work for free and encourage donations? I'm gonna run
out and buy a basket to pass ...
<snippage>
Now, here's the issue. The church IS you. The church IS the members.
Otherwise, why shouldn't the government come out and say that private
citizens have to forgo their standard deduction in order to have the
priviledge of political speech?
That makes no sense at all.
As a church, the members can easily meet for coffee and doughnuts and
discuss political stuff, then head out to the polls and all vote in unison.
What can not happen is that the pastor (priest, rabbi, <whatever>) is not
allowed to tell the congregation whom to vote for. The church has a very
fine line to walk when it sends out a list of issues and candidates it
supports. That's a fact.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JAH" |
|
| Title: Re: You Can Vote in a Church but Not Teach There |
12 Oct 2007 04:46:27 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:QxNPi.17$0k2.15@trnddc05...
As a church, the members can easily meet for coffee and doughnuts and
discuss political stuff, then head out to the polls and all vote in
unison. What can not happen is that the pastor (priest, rabbi, <whatever>)
is not allowed to tell the congregation whom to vote for. The church has a
very fine line to walk when it sends out a list of issues and candidates
it supports. That's a fact.
Here's a snippet from freepreach.org that should settle the issue as it
stands now. Hopefully, this will set your mind at ease. It's lengthy, but
it's valuable. I hope you read it carefully. You will see that not one
single church has ever lost it's tax exemption for free speech, and that
includes the 1992 case in New York.
Pastors, Churches and Politics What May Pastors and Churches Do?
by Mathew D. Staver, Esq.
Copyright © 2004
It is important to understand the critical difference between an IRS
tax-exempt letter ruling and tax-exempt status of churches. Every
organization, whether a 501(c)(4) (a nonprofit group that primarily lobbies)
or a 501(c)(3) (a nonprofit, tax-exempt organization), must file an
application with the IRS to be recognized as a nonprofit organization for
purposes of the Internal Revenue Code. The IRS then issues a letter ruling
specific for the organization, in which the IRS acknowledges that the
organization will be recognized as a nonprofit organization, and in the case
of a 501(c)(3), that contributions to the organization will be
tax-deductible.
Unlike virtually every other nonprofit or tax-exempt organization, churches
are not required to obtain an IRS letter ruling. Some churches have an IRS
letter and some do not. What is the advantage of a church having a letter
ruling as opposed to a church that does not have one? There is no
substantive difference. The only difference is one of convenience. If a
donor is ever audited and the IRS questioned the contributions to the
church, the donor can point the agent to the letter ruling on file with the
IRS. However, if a church doesn't have a letter ruling, the church can
merely produce an affidavit by the pastor, or present the church bylaws or
other evidence to validate that the assembly is a church. Other than mere
convenience, there is no substantive difference, as a church with or without
a tax-exempt letter ruling is still tax-exempt.
So long as a church is operating and functioning as an organized church
body, it is automatically tax-exempt and does not have to apply to the IRS
for this determination. This distinction between churches and other
tax-exempt organizations is critically important in understanding the impact
of the IRS's action against the Church at Pierce Creek.
The Church at Pierce Creek had applied for and received an IRS tax-exempt
letter ruling, and the lawsuit was not designed to regain its tax-exempt
status (which the Church continued to enjoy), but to receive back its
tax-exempt letter ruling. The court noted that "because of the unique
treatment churches receive under the Internal Revenue Code, the impact of
the revocation is likely to be more symbolic than substantial."
During the oral argument, counsel for the IRS confirmed that if the Church
chose not to intervene in future political campaigns, it may continue to
hold itself out as a tax-exempt organization and receive all the benefits of
that status. The court also pointed out that revocation of the IRS letter
ruling did not make the Church liable for the payment of taxes. The IRS also
conceded during the oral argument that "the revocation of the exemption
[letter] does not convert bona fide donations into income taxable to the
church." Contributions given to the Church, even contributions regarding the
ad, were never taxed. In the future, if the Church wanted to reapply for its
letter, it was free to do so. However, even without the letter, it retained,
and continues to retain to this day, its tax-exempt status.
Other than the Church at Pierce Creek, no other church has even lost its
tax-exempt letter ruling, let alone its tax-exempt status. In other words,
from 1954 to the present, no church has ever lost its tax-exempt status for
endorsing or opposing political candidates. This history alone should
alleviate unfounded fear.
Outside of express endorsement of or opposition to candidates for political
offices, pastors and churches may engage in many other permissible
activities. Churches may host voter registration drives, be a host site for
balloting, or host a forum where candidates address the congregation or
answer questions from a moderator. Candidates visiting the church may be
introduced, and political candidates may even preach in the pulpit so long
as the pulpit is not used as a political forum to urge the members to vote
in favor of the candidate. Churches may also distribute objective voter
guides that address the candidates' views on a broad range of issues.
Pastors can preach on biblical, moral and social issues such as
homosexuality and abortion. Pastors can urge the congregation to become
involved in the political process, urge them to register and vote. Pastors
can acknowledge visiting candidates. Pastors can personally endorse or
oppose political candidates, personally work for political candidates, and
personally contribute to them. Also, a pastor's name may appear in a
published ad or letter signifying the pastor's endorsement of the candidate,
and the pastor's title and affiliation with the church can also be listed
with the notation, "Title and affiliation for identification purposes."
Although the IRS states that a pastor may not personally endorse a candidate
while in the pulpit, I believe such a restriction is unconstitutional. No
pastor has ever been targeted by the IRS for giving a personal endorsement
from the pulpit. My recommendation is that if the pastor wants to personally
endorse a candidate, he should feel free to do so, as long as the
endorsement is stated as a personal rather than a corporate church
endorsement.
It should also be remembered that the restriction on endorsing candidates
does not apply to appointed offices. Cabinet or judicial appointments are
not political candidates for public office. Therefore, pastors and churches
may expressly oppose or support individuals for appointed office.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jeff Strickland" |
|
| Title: Re: You Can Vote in a Church but Not Teach There |
12 Oct 2007 05:45:11 PM |
|
|
Youi are still protecting the church form an attack that I am not leading.
It turns out that your citation says precisely what I've been saying -- a
pastor is not permitted to endorse or oppose a candidate from the pulpit. A
pastor is also not supposed to directly endorse or oppose a particular
issue.
A pastor is free to talk about issues, but must stop shor of giving an
endorsement. I do not see very much difference in the cite you gave and the
generalization I made.
Whether or not the IRS has actively pursued a pastor or not is not really
the point, because if the pastors know what they are not permitted to do or
say from the pulpit vis a vis political campaigning, and they don't do or
say it, then there will be nothing to pursue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JAH" |
|
| Title: Re: You Can Vote in a Church but Not Teach There |
12 Oct 2007 07:11:24 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:XNSPi.56$cI5.21@trnddc06...
Youi are still protecting the church form an attack that I am not leading.
It turns out that your citation says precisely what I've been saying -- a
pastor is not permitted to endorse or oppose a candidate from the pulpit.
A pastor is also not supposed to directly endorse or oppose a particular
issue.
No, it doesn't. That's why I posted it for you.
Reread the last paragraph.
Although the IRS states that a pastor may not personally endorse a candidate
while in the pulpit, I believe such a restriction is unconstitutional. No
pastor has ever been targeted by the IRS for giving a personal endorsement
from the pulpit. My recommendation is that if the pastor wants to personally
endorse a candidate, he should feel free to do so, as long as the
endorsement is stated as a personal rather than a corporate church
endorsement.
See, just because the IRS SAYS it, doesn't make it law. And again, in the
1992 case, the church did NOT lose it's tax exempt status. I mean, did you
read the thing I posted. See, the IRS can run around saying the moon is
made of green cheese if they want to. But the IRS isn't the law. The
courts have the final say. I mean, you have NO case law to cite. No pastor
has ever been tried on this. And Democrat-friendly churhces especially have
candidates and politicians speaking in them all the time about politics. I
mean, all the time. They understand the law. Conservatives don't. And the
IRS makes no effort to disabuse them of the false notion.
Now, you just read for yourself in that citation that, even in the 1992
case, the one single case... even THAT church is STILL not paying taxes. I
mean. How much more clear can it be? I'm not making this up.
A pastor is free to talk about issues, but must stop shor of giving an
endorsement. I do not see very much difference in the cite you gave and
the generalization I made.
Whether or not the IRS has actively pursued a pastor or not is not really
the point, because if the pastors know what they are not permitted to do
or say from the pulpit vis a vis political campaigning, and they don't do
or say it, then there will be nothing to pursue.
It is the IRS that has nothing to pursue.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: You Can Vote in a Church but Not Teach There |
15 Oct 2007 12:09:19 AM |
|
|
"JAH" <jhartley@knology.net> wrote:
Although the IRS states that a pastor may not personally endorse a candidate
while in the pulpit,
Federal Law says so, not just the IRS.
I believe such a restriction is unconstitutional.
The courts have upheld some controls on political spending. If a
preacher is paid with tax exempt dollars, and while on the job
promotes a candidate, then he is EXACTLY the same thing as any other
political campaign worker. The fact that he is connected to a church
is utterly irrelevant. If the government has the authority to
regulate campaign spending, then it can decide that a church acting as
a campaign organization is subject to the same laws as any other
campaign organization.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "JAH" |
|
| Title: Re: You Can Vote in a Church but Not Teach There |
12 Oct 2007 04:23:58 PM |
|
|
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:QxNPi.17$0k2.15@trnddc05...
As a church, the members can easily meet for coffee and doughnuts and
discuss political stuff, then head out to the polls and all vote in
unison. What can not happen is that the pastor (priest, rabbi, <whatever>)
is not allowed to tell the congregation whom to vote for. The church has a
very fine line to walk when it sends out a list of issues and candidates
it supports. That's a fact.
The pastor can say whatever he wants to his church from the pulpit. I would
encourage you to visit freepreach.org for starters. There is no case law
that supports your position. And plenty of president in the other
direction.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: You Can Vote in a Church but Not Teach There |
12 Oct 2007 11:01:04 AM |
|
|
"JAH" <jhartley@knology.net> wrote:
Well, I've answered this question further up the post in another fashion.
But, the income to you from the homeowner is your income paid for services
rendered. It is your income, and you do with it as you please. It is your
INCREASE and so you must pay taxes on it. The church makes no income of its
own because it doesn't GENERATE income.
Every penny that is donated is income, and it is generated because the
church provides religious services to the congregation and to the
community.
A church, on the other hand, is an
organization of people who support it through their contributions,
Organizations are businesses. They take in money, whether through
donations, dues, or sales, and they spend money for employee salaries
(if they have paid employees), supplies, rent and utilities, all the
ordinary things that service businesses spend money on.
money which has already been taxed.
No more so than the money paid to any other service provider. And in
the case of 501(c)3 organizations, it has NOT been taxed because it is
deductible.
Taxing the church is tamtamount to retaxing
the members in exchange for allowing the activities of a conglomerate
entity, which they may or may not be in control of. I mean, think about
this. Not all the members in the church vote the same way. Why SHOULD THEY
BE PENALIZED UNIVERSALLY FOR SPEECH THEY MAY NOT EVEN AGREE WITH?
They aren't. The church as a business organization is being
penalized.
But ultimately, who exactly do we think will pay those taxes? The church
entity? With what? Money from a money tree?
Income from member "donations".
No. The members will pay it, over and above the costs they pay to support the church.
Not "over and above", since it is just another cost of doing business.
The point I was trying to make is this. The government doesn't need to have any more money.
There is a deficit, and a large national debt. Therefore, the
government needs even more money than it has.
I'm tired of the government making up whatever laws it wants to.
It doesn't. It makes up laws that the elected representatives of "we
the people" think that "we the people" want, knowing that if they are
too often wrong, "we the people" won't return them to office.
They steal inheritances from the heirs of the dead
It is only LAWS of property ownership, laws made by that government,
that define there to be any such thing as an "inheritance".
Otherwise, the logical thing is that when you die, all of your
possessions cease to be owned by anyone.
I'm tired of not having a vote on anything in my "democratic" society.
If you are a citizen, then you should have a vote.
I'm tired of these rich elitists who've set up a monarchy for the rich, USING MY MONEY.
Once you pay taxes, it is not your money.
Let them cut back on $500 toilet seats and office furniture and fancy junkets.
All of which money is being paid out to private enterprise.
As income, all of my money comes from your pocket and the pockets of your
neighbors, therefore it has already been taxed. Now that it is my money,
they are taxing it again.
They are taxing incomes. A church has no income.
Yes it does.
I don't care what the government says.
Tough. The law is the law.
The money has been taxed already,
Not in the case of tax-exempt donations.
and they are RETAXING the same money and retaxing the SAME PEOPLE, because the CHURCH belongs to
the people who paid the taxes on the donations.
People did not pay the tax on the donations, and the church doesn't
belong to anyone - it is an independent corporate entity.
It hasn't been given to the church in exchange for services.
Of course it has - not necessarily services to the donor, but services
that the donor wishes to see provided.
It hasn't been "Earned" by the church.
Earned income and unearned income are both income.
And the church doesn't get to do with the money whatever it wants to.
That depends. It certainly has no more constraints than any business
has, other than the 501(c)3 restrictions.
And without the members, there would be NO CHURCH at all.
There might be. Some entity owns the church building. If all the
members withdrew, that entity would still own the church building.
The members do not own the church building, because if they leave the
membership they cannot take their share with them.
And who cares what a bunch of no-nothing over-educated fruitcake lawyers think?
You'd better, if a court order tells you to do something.
If they're so smart, than why is the country so messed up anyway?
It isn't.
These people don't operate on right and wrong.
Correct. They operate on what is lawful.
And I understand that we all get a standard deduction. But we pay ENOUGH in
taxes even with it.
If that were the case, there would be no deficit.
Now, here's the issue. The church IS you.
No it isn't, because if you leave, the church is still there.
The church IS the members.
Nope.
Otherwise, why shouldn't the government come out and say that private
citizens have to forgo their standard deduction in order to have the
priviledge of political speech?
Your standard deduction is not an entitlement. It is merely an effort
to simply things so that most people don't have to keep receipts for
all their deductions.
There is no law against what a preacher says in his pulpit.
The preacher is an employee of a business - a non-profit business, but
a business nonetheless.
We've got this
monster now that legal activists are CONSTANTLY working to expand and
stretch to muzzle free speech.
Free speech is arguably a lot more robust now than it was in 1954.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Guy" |
|
| Title: Re: You Can Vote in a Church but Not Teach There |
11 Oct 2007 03:11:39 PM |
|
|
"JAH" <jhartley@knology.net> wrote in message
news:db8ea$470e4889$1860a048$17277@KNOLOGY.NET...
"Jeff Strickland" <crwlr@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:SerPi.4767$d2.1082@trnddc08...
I generally support your views Ken, but this time you've lost it.
I think that voting should be done in public buildings, not private ones,
but if we are going to have polling places set up on private property, a
church is fine from the perspective of separation issues.
As for the pastor preaching politics, that seems to be a tax problem for
the church. Church income is not taxed -- and it ought not be -- but
because of this, the church should not be on the campaign trail. Having
said that, as a member of the flock I rather enjoy knowing what the other
flock members are voting for, and our voice being presented in a unified
manner is a reasonable goal of the flock -- and by extension, the pastor.
Churches don't have income Jeff. The income is money from members that
has already been taxed. Effectively, you are charging them EXTRA for the
rights that everyone else gets for nothing; freedom of speech, freedom of
association. In other words, there isn't a single dollar in the church
that hasn't already been subjected to taxes, but yet, the church member
needs to be retaxed in order to exercise his supposed rights?
Under this argument, stores don't have income because the income is from
customers who have already paid taxes on the money they're spending. Good
luck with this line of reasoning.
The problem with churches who want to be able to be politically active,
especially to support candidates for a political party, is that they don't
want to give up their tax exempt status. If you or I contribute to a
political campaign or a PAC or a 501(c)(4) (a political advocacy
organization), that contribution IS NOT TAX EXEMPT under the tax laws.
Contributions to churches which are set up under 501(c)(3) of the tax code
ARE TAX EXEMPT. Allowing a 501(c)(3) church to participate in a campaign for
a political party would be a way around the tax code which PROHIBITS tax
exemption for political contributions. PERIOD. It has NOTHING to do with
suppression of the church's free speech. If the church is willing to
surrender its tax exempt status, it can politicize itself until the cows
come home.
Well, what would you do if all the churches said, okay. We'll disband and
meet in residences, or out in the woods, or in abandoned warehouses. In
Secret. To avoid having the appearance of a church that needs to pay
taxes. Well, it's obvious we hunt them down with the FBI, right? No, what
will happen is what has already happened; the churches will just shut up
and quit talking - except for the ones who are politically correct enough
to avoid IRS scrutiny. The ones favored by the Demopublican power bloc.
Let's see. So in America today we are actively considering laws that
churches must pay to speak, and that people who go to church should be
punitively taxed twice as punishment for being religious.
And look at from which side of the field this is coming. The liberal
side. Surprise surprise. The liberal side, comprised about half way of
black "Christians", Jews and Metropolitan Community Churches. Isn't that
amazing? And even more amazing that you hear NOT A PEEP of protest from
any churches except those aligned to the right. Isn't that
a-fucking-mazing. Wow, I'd have never guessed it. Who'd have thought
this huge boulder would have been so painful when I dropped it on my foot.
You deserve to have exactly what your beliefs as expounded here will
ultimately result in.
For the rest of you who believe in freedom, what the church should do if
this ever occurs is refuse en masse to pay the church taxes and DARE THE
GOVERNMENT to arrest every single member of every single church and haul
them off to jail while it's being videotaped and broadcast to the rest of
the world. Be men, stand up for yourselves. Then maybe I will see the
value in what I otherwise characterize as you weak, anemic religion. The
weak anemic religion that all the liberals are so scared of supposedly.
You've cow towed for so long and they still hate you. Remember, you can
never grovel to your master at any level lower than the sole of his boot.
"Wide Eyed in Wonder" <writingken@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Further, isn't it odd that liberals say the pastor cannot used the
building for political purposes, but the government can hold elections
there?
Liberals don't apply this rule to everyone, just their political enemies.
It's the Marxist Leninist way.
.
|
|
|
| User: "JAH" |
|
| Title: Re: You Can Vote in a Church but Not Teach There |
11 Oct 2007 04:33:06 PM |
|
|
"Guy" <nospam@nospam.us> wrote in message
news:470e837b$0$26334$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
Under this argument, stores don't have income because the income is from
customers who have already paid taxes on the money they're spending. Good
luck with this line of reasoning.
The relationship of parishoners to a church is not the same as a customer to
a store. A store owner generates income from his store. A church
generates no income. It receives donations. My point is that churches
can't lose their 501c3 for what the preacher says in the pulpit. That was
the original argument I picked up on. But, if churches do end up losing
that protection, I think people would need to stand up against being taxed
to death, and punished with taxation as a price for purchasing liberty. Amd
this idea that preachers and church members have to give up free speech
unless they pay double taxes is ludicrous. I don't give a damn what LBJ
said in 1954 when he got his little bill passed with no assent or dissent
from anyone. Man, you give these guys way, way too much power. Then you
sit back all upset when they start wars all over the world by divine fiat.
Or give away the Panama Canal to the communists just cause they feel like
it.
The problem with churches who want to be able to be politically active,
especially to support candidates for a political party, is that they don't
want to give up their tax exempt status.
There is no problem. Churches can support anybody they want to and not lose
anything, as long as they abide by the guidelines that liberals are
constantly challenging and trying to override selectively in order to muzzle
free speech.
Contributions to churches which are set up under 501(c)(3) of the tax code
ARE TAX EXEMPT.
So, if the church winds up paying taxes for losing 501c3, who do you think
pays the taxes ultimately? But the issue is that churches don't lose their
501c3 for what the preacher says in the pulpit, as was suggested.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: You Can Vote in a Church but Not Teach There |
12 Oct 2007 10:25:57 AM |
|
|
"JAH" <jhartley@knology.net> wrote:
The relationship of parishoners to a church is not the same as a customer to
a store. A store owner generates income from his store. A church
generates no income. It receives donations. My point is that churches
can't lose their 501c3 for what the preacher says in the pulpit.
In the pulpit, he is an employee, and his employer (the church) can be
held responsible for his actions, just as McDonalds was held liable
for an employee giving a too-hot cup of coffee to a customer, and just
as several companies have been held liable for discriminatory actions
by individual employees.
I think people would need to stand up against being taxed
to death,
We are taxed in order to pay for services that "we the people" want.
Amd
this idea that preachers and church members have to give up free speech
unless they pay double taxes is ludicrous.
There are no "double taxes" involved. Without 501(c)(3) status, the
church is just an ordinary business. "Donations" are just voluntary
rather than obligatory payments for services, but they are still
payments. The church members are no more being taxed for those
donations than they are being taxes for their payments to any other
service provider.
And the preacher isn't the one that has to pay the taxes (other than
income taxes on his salary, which he has to pay now). It is the
church as a business organization that pays taxes on non-tax-exempt
income.
I don't give a damn what LBJ
said in 1954 when he got his li | | | | | |
