Posted on 07/18/2006 2:58:24 PM PDT by aceintx
Edited on 07/18/2006 3:04:41 PM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
But I will admit this might have started out a political ploy -- but it is a good rule, if evenly applied.
All I have to say is:
"STAY OUDDA BUSHES!
OK, you lost me...
White churches I suppose . They won't dare go after a black church I bet . . .
During the 2000 campaign Jesse Jackson was filmed at a Black Church screaming "Stay Oudda Bushes!" It was all over the MSM.
The church nor his organization had their tax-free status affected.
And no doubt there are plenty on the left who would love to see even more churches PACIfied.
The excise tax is the most ergregious part.
Not only must the church pay back-taxes (with interest and possible penalties) on all of its earnings going back several years, the IRS also slaps an additional 10% "excise" tax against the church's future offering-collections at the plate that lasts for up to three additional years. Outrageous.
However, there is pressure to construe the restrictions more broadly than endorsing a candidate, and to speak out on issues generally, like same sex marriage if there is a referendum. I would hope the tax restrictions would be construed narrowly so as not to eviscerate the rights of churches to speak out substantively on moral issues of the day without fear of losing tax exemption.
Since When did the 1st Ammendment take away the free-speech rights of PASTORS, and other church workers...
"Churches should look after people's souls and leave politics alone": THAT IS ABSURD!
No such right has been taken away. This is about taxation, not free speech.
"Churches should look after people's souls and leave politics alone": THAT IS ABSURD!
Absurd how? I guess my idea that churches should look after souls is pretty radical after all.
Let them pay taxes and talk all they want.
NAACP Chairman Julian Bond "condemned the administration policies of George W. Bush on education, the economy and the war in Iraq" in a July 11 speech.
Tax law prohibits charities organized under section 501(c)(3) from taking sides in political campaigns. The law restricts these organizations because donations are tax-deductible for the donor and in effect are subsidized by the government.
Frances Hill, an authority on non-profit groups at the University of Miami Law School, called it "amazing" that the IRS would audit a group based on a public speech.
"Usually you would look for some activity other than disagreeing with policies," she said.
http://tinyurl.com/6woft
I think the issue is freedom of religion actually. Only certain ones are free these days.
I have been consistent in calling for even treatment -- NO church should be calling for a specific candidate, breaking the Nation's laws, endorsing or refuting oridnances/propositions, etc.
You want to be a lobbyist, file accordingly. You want to be a church, stay out of it and look to saving souls.
Seen this one? Ties in nicely with your "Vote Early, Vote Often" thread.
The new First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, aside from prohibited activities; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, unless John McCain says so; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, except for when they shouldn't, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances, so long as the content of the petition is approved by the Attorney General and the courts.
Part of the IRC:
It should be noted, however, that many types of political activities that are not
campaign activities are permitted to some extent. The key distinction is that non-campaign political activities cannot support or oppose a particular candidate.
Permissible political activities under the IRC, so long as no candidate is endorsed or opposed, include: educational activities, such as conducting public forums at which social, political, and
international questions are considered; compiling voting records of Members of Congress, so long as the record is not widely distributed to the general public during an election campaign; publishing candidate responses to a questionnaire on a variety of subjects; issuing report cards that indicate whether legislators support or oppose the organizations views; issue advertising(this is usually considered lobbying); nonpartisan public opinion polling; non-partisan voter registration drives meeting the requirements of IRC § 4945(f);
Thanks -- seems reasonable to me. It is clear the statute intent is to limit the "political" aspect.
For example, the Church's stance on abortion is based on pure moral grounds. But that is inextricably tied to the political world. That makes sense.
But for a Cardinal to tell people to break the law on supposed moral grounds is pure politics.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.