Posted on 09/16/2006 8:12:50 AM PDT by oxcart
Exactly. I may not like what they stand for but this reeks.
Hey Geezer,
With all due respect, no one's speech is being abridged here. The truth is, a government benefit is being withdrawn (tax-exempt status) for a violation of an agreement between said organization and the federal government (IRS) for the affording of above mentioned benefit. I am sure you know this already but were simply in a rush to post your thoughts.
Political speech is not being violated, just the taxpayer's subsidy of it. The pastor is free to show the Bush assassination movie or Fahrenheit 9/11 in lieu of his sermon, if he so chooses. He just can't expect the taxpayers to subsidize it.
Political speech is not being violated, just the taxpayer's subsidy of it.
Bull, a tax is not a subsidy it is a cost on the citizen.
The lack of a tax on ones productivity as measured by income is the appropriate condition of all American citizens. One should be taxed on that which one is benefited by society as measured by their consumption, not on that which the contribute to society as measured by their income.
In no case should any right expressly protected under the Constititution be abridged by the requirement of payment of any tax.
The Constitution and Bill of Rights are clear on this issue.
Taxes are expressly collected on for the payment of the nations bills not the basis of regulating or conditioned on the behaviour of the individual citizen.
Constitution for the United States of America:
- Article I Section 8: "The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises,
to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States;
as limited by the enumerated powers granted to Congress under the Constitution, all else is reserved to the States or the People respectively.
- The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Furthermore there is an express prohibition under the 1st amendment against Congress (i.e. the national government) enacting any law at all reducing freedom of speech, the press or freedom of peaceful assembly and petition of grievence. Regardless of whether one is an individual alone, or in peaceful assembly of individuals as an organization.
- Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
As it is apparent neither the Congress nor the Courts respect these provisions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, it is incumbent upon us the People to ensure the proper recognition of the limits of power imposed up that national government through the election of those representatives that will see that which is necessary to restoring the original protections under the Constitution.
Exactly how is the taxpayer subsidizing it? The fact that a church is tax exempt does not mean you have to pay anything. If they win against this guy I'm all for going after Jerry Falwell and his cronies as well.
This is unfair and wrong. I will defend anyones right to have an opinion, even if I disagree.
What kind of politics does Falwell push?
That's really not a serious question is it?
Yep. Sure is.
Sure O.K. I'll bite:
http://www.nljonline.com/
With articles such as:
Left-Wing Christians Just Don’t Get It
I don't know, maybe you can tell me.
The point is that this pastor did not tell his congregation to vote for Kerry he explicitly told them he was not telling them who to vote for. I give Falwell the same leeway (Actually i don't give a cat's a%$)
But telling me one of these pastors (or both IMHO) don't have a political bent. Come on.
i say good luck to both of them, doesn't hurt me..
Falwell is not charged with politicing at church. He is a political commentator outside of church, but from what I can see of his sermons, they are not political speech.
BUT - I agree with you, if a church, whatever it's bent, encourages one party or candidate over another, then they should be willing to pay business taxes like any other business. In fact, as a practicing Christian, I would rather pay taxes and not be beholden to the Feds, or feel that I have to separate politics and religion (which I don't think is really possible). My religion guides my politics.
This is ghastly wrong, if it extends to issue advocacy.
From what i can see this pastor did not encourage one party over another he was against the War in Iraq and Tax cuts, he states that he did not tell his congregation how to vote.
Again the whole thing reeks.
I am constantly amazed that church leaders are not helping us pass the FairTax.
Were the FairTax in place, there would be no 501 c3 distinction, and churches could rightly exercise their FRee Speech rights.
With all due respect, no one's speech is being abridged here. The truth is, a government benefit is being withdrawn (tax-exempt status) for a violation of an agreement between said organization and the federal government (IRS) for the affording of above mentioned benefit. I am sure you know this already but were simply in a rush to post your thoughts.
Political speech is not being violated, just the taxpayer's subsidy of it. The pastor is free to show the Bush assassination movie or Fahrenheit 9/11 in lieu of his sermon, if he so chooses. He just can't expect the taxpayers to subsidize it.
Do you not think that having to pay for the priviledge of speaking your mind is an abridgement of that right?
This church is exempt from paying federal taxes under the law that governs non-profit groups. If X dollars of taxes need to be raised to run the federal government and this church is exempt from paying their share, who do you think is going to make up the difference? A subsidy means someone pays your share.
You and I cannot be forced to subsidize (i.e. carry the tax burden for) someone else's free political speech.
You are overlooking the obvious, you are paying taxes on your contribution to society as measured by income for your "right" to exercise free speech.
Those who contribute a portion of their income to charitable organizations simply don't owe a tax on their charity by any measure.
Neither you nor those who contribute to society in anyway should be taxed on the produce of that contribution at all.
Furthermore no person should ever be required to pay a tax in order to exercise an unalienable right.
The issue is not what an organization or person does not pay in taxes while exercising unalienable rights. The issue is the fact you are required to pay a tax in order to freely engage in that which the Bill of Rights guarantees as an right of such magnitude that it warrants a place in the Bill of rights and an express prohibition against Congress to make any law whatsoever in regards the right of political speech in any context.
If you must pay a tax to engage in free and open political speech that is not a right, it becomes a privilege granted on your good behavior in governments eyes.
You hit the nail on the head.
This church is exempt from paying federal taxes under the law that governs non-profit groups.
One, any church or other "nonn-profit" that generates earnings from business enterpise or financial investment is taxed under federal law there, is no such thing as an exemption from income taxes for any organization.
Two, any non-profit or church for that matter that employs anyone must pay the same employer's excise as any business, matching taxes on the wages paid to employees for SS/medicare. Churches are taxed on payrolls the same as any business or self-employed person.
There is no exemption to non-priofits or churches from paying federal income taxes under the federal tax law period.
OTOH, individual charity that one contributes to society through charitible organizations, whatever their nature, is deductible from one's own income as it rightfully should be.
The deduction from one's income that results in a payment of less tax, is no more than the tax that that would be otherwise required of you if you did not engage in a charitable act of giving your own own income ( the fruit of your contribution to society for your productive labor.)
In short your whole argument is based on a fallacious premise from the gitgo.
The reality is that you are arguing that you should be taxed not only on your productive contribution to society in economic terms, you should also be taxed in regard to your contributions to society in the form of charity out of your earned substance, all for a privilege to exercise political speech that is actually a right that Congress is forbidden to make a law regarding in the first place.
In short you have been had by buying into the idea that you owe taxes on your contributions to the betterment of society as measured by your income rather than being taxed on the benefits you derive from society as measured by your consumption.
One, including any non-profit group, should pay consumption taxes not taxes on productivety(i.e. income), as held to be the appropriate means of collecting federal taxes when this nation was formed in the first place.
"Imposts, excises, and, in general, all duties upon articles of consumption, may be compared to a fluid, which will, in time, find its level with the means of paying them. The amount to be contributed by each citizen will in a degree be at his own option, and can be regulated by an attention to his resources. The rich may be extravagant, the poor can be frugal; and private oppression may always be avoided by a judicious selection of objects proper for such impositions. "
"It is a signal advantage of taxes on articles of consumption that they contain in their own nature a security against excess.
They prescribe their own limit, which cannot be exceeded without defeating the end proposed - that is, an extension of the revenue."
But under no circumstance can any unalienable right guraranteed under the Constitution in the Bill of Rights no less be abridged by predicating such exercise on the payment or non-payment of a tax whatever its nature. For "Congress may make no law" in that or any regard touch upon freedom of speech. There is no exception in that language.
You and I cannot be forced to subsidize (i.e. carry the tax burden for) someone else's free political speech.
You are being taxed allowing you to exercise your own supposed free political speech, just as everyone else is subject to the same federal tax including charitible and all non-profit organizations.
When will the IRS start going after those churches where the Clintons and other Dems preach their political views over the pulpit?
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.