IGX

Frank is calling for Houston's city government.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y7u6d54jI4k[/youtube]

Turdacious wrote:As I said before, I've attended churches that preach liberal agendas from the pulpit, and churches that preach conservative ones. I've never attended a church that doesn't break this rule on a regular basis.

Yes and it would be nice if they strip all churches of their tax-free status.

Of course, preaching agendas is different from preaching on specific initiatives. If they are saying that homosexuality is wrong, so be it. If they were telling people to vote a specific way, it is wrong. I've heard of instances where churches went through ballots and told parishioners how they should vote.

Either way, the city handled the PR on this terribly.

Phaedrus wrote:

Turdacious wrote:As I said before, I've attended churches that preach liberal agendas from the pulpit, and churches that preach conservative ones. I've never attended a church that doesn't break this rule on a regular basis.

Yes and it would be nice if they strip all churches of their tax-free status.

Of course, preaching agendas is different from preaching on specific initiatives. If they are saying that homosexuality is wrong, so be it. If they were telling people to vote a specific way, it is wrong. I've heard of instances where churches went through ballots and told parishioners how they should vote.

Either way, the city handled the PR on this terribly.

This particular case, as I understand it, is a little different. It's about letting transgendered people use the bathroom they are comfortable using. It's being sold by both sides as something different.

Generally, the issues are more clearcut. Saying that homosexuals should be able to marry from the pulpit, or saying that homosexual marriage is incompatible with and a threat to Christian marriage, is more straightforward issue. Abortion is an even better example. Morality, as it is taught in most churches I'm familiar with, is both a personal and a public issue-- from this perspective, churches have an absolute responsibility to instruct their members how to live their faith.

I have some familiarity with how various Protestant churches do things, but I am very familiar with how my church does things. Marriage is a sacrament, and abortion is a mortal sin-- these are no shit no joke issues. Priests are regularly ordered to talk about the Church's position and the congregation's responsibility right before important ballot measures are up for vote. An organization which had it's first Pope crucified, members fed to lions, and still told Emperors to go fuck themselves tend to be pretty hard headed on these issues. IMHO, they would be failing in their responsibility if they didn't remind the congregation of the Church's position, and put pressure on them to vote the correct way.

Regarding tax exempt status, that one is more complex too. I challenge you to name an example where government has handled a problem more effectively, or more cost effectively, than churches do. Whether the issue is health care, feeding the hungry, or giving the unwashed masses an education-- churches use their tax exempt status to do a lot of good.

I also challenge you to name an example where government stripped churches of their property and status in society without things turning out very badly. Churches aren't perfect, not even close. The alternative, historically, is hell on earth.

I agree that ministers should be able to spew all the hate their can muster from their pulpit. I disagree with telling people how they should vote on specific initiatives or ballot measures. Pointing out imaginary passages in the Bible where they believe Jesus condemned homosexuality - cool. "Vote no on Ballot Measure 7" - not cool, even if everybody would have likely voted that way anyway. If they want to do so, tell the gov't to piss off and pay their taxes.

Both sides are spinning this to no end. City officials aren't demanding that all sermons be run through them on the one hand. On the other, finding hatred being spread from a church is probably slightly more difficult than finding alcohol being served in a bar and they had to know what the result would be.

Elections are in another few weeks and everybody will forget about this.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech...

Catholic Charities are the #1 organization for teaching illegal immigrants how to suck off the public teat in the US.

Fat cat had it best.

Churches are tax exempt because it's a long tradition and traditionally, they were the real arm of charity and welfare before Gubment saw the power that can be gained by getting into those things.

The idea that it should be jerked because a pastor talks politics is a violation of that pastor's 1st Amendment rights.

Most churches touch on or engage in politics, so what? When governemnets try to jerk their tax status over it, it has nothing to do with principle and everything to do with going after those who have a conflicting agenda with those in power.

We may be losing focus. I don't think the problem is "talking politics" in church. Isn't the problem actively campaigning for/against a specific candidate?

Again, this is about freedom of speech and government abuse of those rights.

The non-profit status of charities is another matter. I would welcome that move as the hippie dippie shit heads that run most churches would be subjected to the same level of taxation and harassment as the rest of us. It might just teach them some valuable lessons on how the world works.

Plus, it would please me to no end to have political degenerates in our society challenged in the political sphere. Religious organization unshackled from any restraint (real or imagined) would be a good thing.

Yes, the problem is ACTIVELY CAMPAIGNING FOR POLITICAL ISSUE OR SPECIFIC CANDIDATES is illegal for a tax exempt church

I agree with that...make 'em pay taxes and lobby in the open

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:Yes, the problem is ACTIVELY CAMPAIGNING FOR POLITICAL ISSUE OR SPECIFIC CANDIDATES is illegal for a tax exempt church

That subpoena had nothing to do with tax law. Nor is it the responsibility of the city of Houston to enforce election law. The subpoena was nothing more than an abuse of power by the mayors office.

It is our responsibility to remind those in office that it is ghe people that hold power in the USA and that we gave rights we will defend.

I don't care if the intended victims were commits or butt fucking Muslims, my reaction would be the same.

buckethead wrote:We may be losing focus. I don't think the problem is "talking politics" in church. Isn't the problem actively campaigning for/against a specific candidate?

Why? Why can't a preacher or a pastor or a priest express their political and spiritual views as freely in church as they would anywhere else? It has always been this way and always will, hellbound trash dykes notwithstanding.

Fat Cat wrote:

buckethead wrote:We may be losing focus. I don't think the problem is "talking politics" in church. Isn't the problem actively campaigning for/against a specific candidate?

Why? Why can't a preacher or a pastor or a priest express their political and spiritual views as freely in church as they would anywhere else? It has always been this way and always will, hellbound trash dykes notwithstanding.

They can, as long as they are upfront about their political agenda and pay taxes.

Oh, as usual, the Fox news version of events may not be totally accurate. This was about phony signatures forged by volunteers working on behalf of the churches (though not necessarily directed to do so, which is why the subpoena). And they asked for all instructions given. Not just "give us your sermons." And the mayor came out and said the request for information was too broad.

Willful misinterpretation as an excuse to throw a hissy-fit by white Christian victimization crowd who apparently can't get a fair shake in Texas.

Grandpa's Spells wrote: They can, as long as they are upfront about their political agenda and pay taxes.

Administrative law trumps the Constitution?

Turdacious wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote: They can, as long as they are upfront about their political agenda and pay taxes.

Administrative law trumps the Constitution?

Apparently, yes. Have you not been reading this thread?

Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Fat Cat wrote:

buckethead wrote:We may be losing focus. I don't think the problem is "talking politics" in church. Isn't the problem actively campaigning for/against a specific candidate?

Why? Why can't a preacher or a pastor or a priest express their political and spiritual views as freely in church as they would anywhere else? It has always been this way and always will, hellbound trash dykes notwithstanding.

They can, as long as they are upfront about their political agenda and pay taxes.

As I read the first amendment, it's not an either/or type of deal. You can express yourself freely AND practice your religion freely at the same time. That includes churches not being subject to ANY LAW which abridges the free (including TAX FREE) exercise of their religion. I don't think you are right, I think the disgusting dyke who caused this controversy knows better, and it is typical of the morass which has been created by howling for diversity at the expense of community.

More of the Democrat war on free speech. Don't think for a second that this isn't about shutting people up.

(see this, this, and multiple other offenses.

Turdacious wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote: They can, as long as they are upfront about their political agenda and pay taxes.

Administrative law trumps the Constitution?

There's nothing in the Constitution about not paying your taxes. An individual will find himself having all sorts of rights infringed if he tries to dodge the IRS.

As I read the first amendment, it's not an either/or type of deal. You can express yourself freely AND practice your religion freely at the same time. That includes churches not being subject to ANY LAW which abridges the free (including TAX FREE) exercise of their religion. I don't think you are right, I think the disgusting dyke who caused this controversy knows better, and it is typical of the morass which has been created by howling for diversity at the expense of community.

The tax free status is conditional on not being a political organization. While I find that very imperfect, there isn't a political organization in the country that wouldn't immediately route all their funds through sympathetic churches for the spending advantage over their opponents.

This is also about fraud, not speech, which was missing from the early news reports.

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

Grandpa's Spells wrote: They can, as long as they are upfront about their political agenda and pay taxes.

Administrative law trumps the Constitution?

There's nothing in the Constitution about not paying your taxes. An individual will find himself having all sorts of rights infringed if he tries to dodge the IRS.

Individuals are not churches. Churches have Constitutional protection that other tax exempt organizations do not. IRS rules do not trump the Constitution. Judicial courts trump administrative courts.

buckethead wrote:We may be losing focus. I don't think the problem is "talking politics" in church. Isn't the problem actively campaigning for/against a specific candidate?

According to Lois Lerner? Absolutely!

Grandpa's Spells wrote:The tax free status is conditional on not being a political organization. While I find that very imperfect, there isn't a political organization in the country that wouldn't immediately route all their funds through sympathetic churches for the spending advantage over their opponents.

This is also about fraud, not speech, which was missing from the early news reports.

Churches are not political organizations or campaigning. They cannot run for, or hold, political office. They cannot force people to vote a certain way. However, they also cannot be saddled with laws, including being subject to taxation, which will infringe the free exercise of their creed.

Also, this is not about fraud. It is about an allegation of fraud being used to harm and harass people freely exercising their religion in a country founded on the principle of free exercise of religion.

Section 501(c)(3) of the tax code describes a certain type of organization, and makes that kind of organization exempt from the federal income tax. If an organization fits the description, it can apply for recognition that it qualifies for the exemption.

Churches and very low income organizations don't even have to apply to claim this exemption and not pay taxes. That's obviously going to be a problem. If you look at the criteria, the way most churches operate, they don't really fit the description at all. One of the doesn't-fit criteria is that most churches will want to talk politics.

Forcing a church to meet any criteria at all would have to be seen as a restriction. But nobody forces anybody to take the 501(c)(3) exemption.

So maybe there should be an unconditional exemption for churches. You could argue about that but as it stands right now, there is no such exemption. Churches have somehow been assumed to fit - assumed to be mostly apolitical - and nothing could be further from the truth. So it is just another case of the tax code being brutally complicated and arcane, inconsistent and at times even self contradictory. Sound familiar? Same is also true of the Torah, the rest of the Old Testament, the New Testament, the Koran, the Hindu encyclopedia, etc.