The government has no dominion over religious freedom period. The idea that nonprofit status disappears because a pastor speaks out on political issues is crazy and tyrannical.
Any Church who receives a subpoena should refuse to comply and force the issue to the Supreme Court.
Now, to your larger point about Churches and POLITICAL speech, as in endorsing candidates, speaking out against others behind the pulpit I'm in FULL AGREEMENT with you that any church who wishes to do so should jettison their tax exempt status and have at it! (I've held that position for decades, btw. Silencing the churches via tax exempt status has done alot of damage to morality in this country, IMO.)
The government cannot tax the exercise of religious freedom. That is why churches are tax exempt.
A church is a congregation of believers who gather together to worship and contribute from their already taxed income to pay for their expenses they incur as a church.
Do you really want the government to be able to tax Christians for exercising their right of freedom of religion?
irs=feds
subpoenas- state
even with your wacko theory the state or city does not have jurisdiction
Nazis had laws, regulations and rule to, they were evil. this is no different.
In the immortal words of those revered philosophers, Shawn Spencer and Burton Guster:
“Suck it!”
With all due respect I think you’re wrong.
Refer to pages 3 and 5 of the pamphlet you linked to. Basically it says there two points to consider:
1. A church can’t promote a specific candidate for office. This isn’t relevant here. In addition however, they can instruct their members about the teachings of the church and urge them to vote accordingly. For example, urging its members to not vote for pro choice candidates. They just can’t mention them by name.
2. A church can’t “devote a substantial part of their activities to
attempting to influence legislation”. This is the relevant portion in this case. The fact of the matter is most legitimate churches don’t spend the majority of their time attempting to influence legislation. Indeed, the churches in the Houston area I’m sure aren’t doing this. And haven’t done this.
There is a “test” provided on page 5 to examine this in more detail. However it’s on a case by case basis. Again though, even if the IRS were to peruse this action against the churches in question (and this is the salient point too, the IRS is the only one who can prosecute on such grounds, not local governments) they would have to show these churches attempted to influence legislation substantially as compared to their other activities. So at least over 50% of their time devoted to influencing legislation. Anything less would not be “substantial” by any reasonable definition.
I doubt those churches spend more than 50% of their time attempting to influence specific pieces of legislation. So their tax exempt status doesn’t prevent them from fighting against thus one ordinance.
FU-Fags!
I don’t think mayors have the right to prosecute anyone.
You are wrong, sir.
The laws passed by Congress that established these IR regulations were and are violations of the 1st Amendment, which forbids Congress from passing any law that does what those laws, in effective, do.
We are not obligated to obey laws and regulations that are violations of the U. S. Constitution. In such cases, we should never wait for a USSC decision to take that stance. This particular case is such an obvious violation that it should not even be in question.