Posted on 07/27/2006 8:20:43 AM PDT by xzins
Ha! The fact that they have to choose which of the IRS classifications they want to be in shows their lack of freedom. This argument reminds me of something I ran across on DU the other day.
In my opinion, a true lack of freedom is the government requiring you to fit into one of their classifications. The "give-up-your-property" group or the "give-up-free-speech" group. In either case you lose and the government wins. That's slavery.
Preaching politics is God's work?
Actually, they still to this day enjoy tax exemption without having to formally apply for it (unlike non-church organizations). But they must take formal steps to abandon it, if they wish.
Unfortunately , too many churches have forgotten which master they should serve.
Precisely. Bullseye.
Excellent comment.
The free exercise provision of the 1st amendment means they cannot curtail my religion, and taking some of my worship money given to God certainly curtails my religion.
If I give the offering plate 10 bucks for the church charities, and only 9 bucks gets there, then they have curtailed my worship of God via charity by $1.
My "exercise" was not "free." It was "curtailed/limited/lessened" by official government act."
I could case less about a mortgage deduction, besides it isn't that big a deal when you are only getting it times your tax rate. If it was a deduction from taxes it might be meaningfull.
Personally it means nothing since I haven't had one in 20 years after I paid off the only I ever had and any property since then has been for cash.
Unless the candidate is a liberal Democrat. Extra points if the church is predominantly black.
The IRS is selectively enforces their rules to muzzle conservatives, pure and simple.
Right on the money! (no pun intended)
Excellant point! And one that needs making over and over again until it sinks in!
100% agreed ... and the economy of the country and the taxpayers as well will benefit financially also.
There is no revoking involved. Churches have always been considered tax free, with or without any tax exempt status. This would be a new thing and something that would be at odds with the establishment clause and certainly the concept of Separation of Church and State. Being tax exempt has always been an assumed right of the church since the beginning.
I misused "their" in post #47. It is annoying. It has me regularly apologizing. My typing gets ahead of my internal grammar checker, and I see it after I hit the "post" button.
:>)
I'm not going to dignify this idiocy...
Then you're barking up the wrong tree. I don't happen to agree with the IRS regs. I just don't get too worked up about them because no one is "railroaded" into anything.
And I also don't support Jones' bill because it applies only to churches. Include all non-profits (NRA, Planned Parenthood, etc) and that would be different.
It is a fact that preachers must be free to speak about anything.
As mentioned in a previous post, they are following the example of their religion: Jeremiah, Isaiah, Amos, Hosea, other prophets, John the Baptist, Jesus, etc.
Down through history it remains true: Luther, Hus, Wickliffe, Assissi, etc.
It is my religion to say from the pulpit: "Abortion is Sin because it's murder. John Kerry supports abortion. Don't support John Kerry."
Jesus would say far more cutting than that. He'd tell John Kerry a parable about a rich, inconsiderate guy that ended up in the burning fire of hell.
"I don't think clergymen should be preaching politics from the pulpit. "
And I don't think the IRS should be able to stifle free speech under color of governmental tax laws.
There are many organizations that should not be taxed at all and that could be done even more effectively under the provisions of the FairTax - and with far less punitive measures.
They could speak, ventriloquate, or fart as much as they want. They might have to start paying taxes, though.
So, then, you think others should have their speech limited because they take the mortgage deduction? I mean, after all, they are getting a government benefit, so they should shut up about the government.
Is that what you're saying?
"Preaching politics is God's work?"
As sure as a prophet ever preached against a king or a kingdom, it is.
There is. The right of people to freely associate for their own noncommercial purposes should not be infringed by taxation. The monies volunteered for the purposes and goals of the org are speech. Everyone knows the meaning of "BS walks and money talks".
What most folks don't get is that Freedom and the 1st Amendment's prohibition on infringement of Free speech goes beyond protecting simple words spoken in a closet. It covers association of folks with similar ideas and goals. It prohibits the govm't from ever promoting and sanctioning one groups goals and ideas over another's. The only valid justification for doing so is to identify and sanction rights violations.
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.