Pastor : I'll 'hold my nose,' vote for Mormon Romney

[Polk]

Why is it so difficult for people, especially politicians, to understand "Congress shall make no law"?

You honestly think the government is entitled under the constitution to punish people with a tax because they support a certain politician?

It's not a punishment to take away a handout.

Not taking a person or organization's money is not a handout.

It is in the context, as other people's money is going to subsidize the church's activities. Since church land is exempt from property taxes, I'm required to pay more than I otherwise would to pay for the roads their parishioner use to get to services, the cops they need to direct traffic on Sunday mornings, etc.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

It's not a punishment to take away a handout.

Not taking a person or organization's money is not a handout.

It is in the context, as other people's money is going to subsidize the church's activities. Since church land is exempt from property taxes, I'm required to pay more than I otherwise would to pay for the roads their parishioner use to get to services, the cops they need to direct traffic on Sunday mornings, etc.

That's a stretch, to say the least.

 

[Dick Tuck]

You all have no idea what you are talking about.

A 501(c) is a non-profit organization.

ANY non-profit organization is eligible for tax exempt status...religion has nothing to do with it.

The PASTOR can say whatever he wants.

The pastor is an employee of the 501(c)3...being an employee of a 501(c)3 does not negate the pastors 1st amendment right to expressing HIS PERSONAL OPINION.

It is ONLY a violation if the pastor makes "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."

Clearly he is making a statement on behalf of himself...not the organization.

Your personal bias against religion clouds your logic application of the law.

Take off your anti-religion blinders and look at the facts.


Link to the IRS statement ffrom which this information was gleaned...The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations

If he does endorse a candidate, during a service, in the church, the IRS might make a 502(C)4 out of him.

 

[dblack]

Not taking a person or organization's money is not a handout.

I suppose you could balk at calling it a "handout", but it's special privilege afforded to only specific kinds of businesses and institutions. It goes against basic concepts of equal protection. It's a very corrupt sort of government, really, where organized interests are bought off with special treatment - and then kept in line via threats of withholding it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Pastor : I'll 'hold my nose,' vote for Mormon Romney

Remember that Pastor who supported Rick Perry a few months ago who started a bunch of media talk by calling Mormons a cult? Looks like he is voting for Romney now.

I thought it was interesting. Not sure if it's significant at all, but Interesting nonetheless.

I SO FAR have met only two republicans I discuss politics with who say Romney's religion matters a great deal. One is LDS, the other noted "my mother never would have, but I don't THINK his being a Mormon will stop me from voting for him".

Romney religion matters not, but his mirror image of obama does.

 

[dblack]

It's not a punishment to take away a handout.

Sure it is. A quite effective punishment. It extends government's power under the guise of benefactor. Insidious stuff.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Not taking a person or organization's money is not a handout.

I suppose you could balk at calling it a "handout", but it's special privilege afforded to only specific kinds of businesses and institutions. It goes against basic concepts of equal protection. It's a very corrupt sort of government, really, where organized interests are bought off with special treatment - and then kept in line via threats of withholding it.

Then the argument should not be for taking that "privilege," a term as misleading as "handout" in my opinion, away from the church, but to apply it to everyone else.

 

[dblack]

Then the argument should not be for taking that "privilege," a term as misleading as "handout" in my opinion, away from the church, but to apply it to everyone else.

Whatever you call it, it's preferential treatment. I'm pointing out the way it is used to enhance government power. It's essentially the same as the way government uses tax incentives to manipulate us. People are so easily fooled into thinking it's okay because "hey, free perks!", but there's nothing free about it. Everything comes with a price, and when we start letting government pick and choose who has to follow the rules, and who gets special breaks, then equal protection and the rule of law are sacrificed.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Then the argument should not be for taking that "privilege," a term as misleading as "handout" in my opinion, away from the church, but to apply it to everyone else.

Whatever you call it, it's preferential treatment. I'm pointing out the way it is used to enhance government power. It's essentially the same as the way government uses tax incentives to manipulate us. People are so easily fooled into thinking it's okay because "hey, perks!", but there's nothing free about it. Everything comes with a price, and when we start letting government pick and choose who has to follow the rules and who gets special breaks then equal protection and the rule of law are sacrificed.

So like I said, apply it to everyone. Churches don't pay property tax? Good. Let's eliminate everybody else's property taxes as well. Then you have equal protection once again.

 

[dblack]

So like I said, apply it to everyone. Churches don't pay property tax? Good. Let's eliminate everybody else's property taxes as well. Then you have equal protection once again.

That'd be ideal, sure. But that's not likely to happen. As long as there is a law that requires us to pay taxes, it should be apply to everyone.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

So like I said, apply it to everyone. Churches don't pay property tax? Good. Let's eliminate everybody else's property taxes as well. Then you have equal protection once again.

That'd be ideal, sure. But that's not likely to happen. As long as there is a law that requires us to pay taxes, it should be apply to everyone.

I disagree. The less people paying taxes the better. Just because I'm being robbed doesn't mean I want everyone else to be robbed as well.

 

[dblack]

I disagree. The less people paying taxes the better. Just because I'm being robbed doesn't mean I want everyone else to be robbed as well.

I suppose I'm sympathetic to your view, but I encourage you to think about it more. Equal protection and rule of a law are fundamental to freedom. Violating them is a greater threat to liberty than taxation.

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

I disagree. The less people paying taxes the better. Just because I'm being robbed doesn't mean I want everyone else to be robbed as well.

I suppose I'm sympathetic to your view, but I encourage you to think about it more. Equal protection and rule of a law are fundamental to freedom. Violating them is a greater threat to liberty than taxation.

When equal protection and the rule of law lead to greater theft then they have nothing to do with liberty. Increasing taxes, which is the result of what you're advocating, doesn't protect liberty.

 

[Cammmpbell]

So like I said, apply it to everyone. Churches don't pay property tax? Good. Let's eliminate everybody else's property taxes as well. Then you have equal protection once again.

That'd be ideal, sure. But that's not likely to happen. As long as there is a law that requires us to pay taxes, it should be apply to everyone.

I disagree. The less people paying taxes the better. Just because I'm being robbed doesn't mean I want everyone else to be robbed as well.

I've been to every board on this Internet since 1994. This one is the most bent Right Wing bunch of muthers around. Kinda' reminds me of FAUX News

Does Rupert Murdoch own this bunch too

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

That'd be ideal, sure. But that's not likely to happen. As long as there is a law that requires us to pay taxes, it should be apply to everyone.

I disagree. The less people paying taxes the better. Just because I'm being robbed doesn't mean I want everyone else to be robbed as well.

I've been to every board on this Internet since 1994. This one is the most bent Right Wing bunch of mutherfuckers around. Kinda' reminds me of FAUX News

I bet you haven't.

 

[Missourian]

You all have no idea what you are talking about.

A 501(c) is a non-profit organization.

ANY non-profit organization is eligible for tax exempt status...religion has nothing to do with it.

The PASTOR can say whatever he wants.

The pastor is an employee of the 501(c)3...being an employee of a 501(c)3 does not negate the pastors 1st amendment right to expressing HIS PERSONAL OPINION.

It is ONLY a violation if the pastor makes "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."

Clearly he is making a statement on behalf of himself...not the organization.

Your personal bias against religion clouds your logic application of the law.

Take off your anti-religion blinders and look at the facts.


Link to the IRS statement ffrom which this information was gleaned...The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations

If he does endorse a candidate, during a service, in the church, the IRS might make a 502(C)4 out of him.

My understanding is that he can state his personal opinion anywhere at any time. That's the first amendment. It is only a violation if he endorses a candidate on behalf of the organization.

As in "The First Baptist Church of Springfield endorses Mitt Romney".

Or "The Church believes that Mitt Romney is (good, bad, whatever)".

Or, during a service the pastor tells the congregation that THEY should vote for Mitt or Rick.

Is stating that "He will hold his nose and vote for" a candidate, even in his official capacity, an endorsement on behalf of the organization?

I'd say no, if he is stating his personal opinion, even in his official capacity, he is speaking for himself, not the organization.

I could convincingly argue the opposing perspective as well, but the First Amendment is the deciding factor...even in his official capacity, as long as he is stating his own opinion, and not endorsing on behalf of the Church, he has not infringed upon the regulations involved in maintaining the churches tax exempt status.

​

 

[Staidhup]

That'd be ideal, sure. But that's not likely to happen. As long as there is a law that requires us to pay taxes, it should be apply to everyone.

I disagree. The less people paying taxes the better. Just because I'm being robbed doesn't mean I want everyone else to be robbed as well.

I've been to every board on this Internet since 1994. This one is the most bent Right Wing bunch of mutherfuckers around. Kinda' reminds me of FAUX News

Not so fast rocket scientist, just because someone disagrees with your opinion doesn't make them any more a motherfucker then you are. We can all agree to disagree unless of course your hand is on someones else's wallet. As for plugging ones nose prior to voting, kind of reminds me of every election we have had sense 1984. Regardless, America has a choice, remain in never never land, or wake up and understand the country is broke and tough cuts need to be made. Neither the front runner or current fool on the hill, provide a reality check, just the same old game, continued devaluation of the living standard in America, promotion of crony capitalism, and further expansion of government at the expense of individual freedom.

 

[beagle9]

If he did this from the pew he needs to have his tax exempt status revoked.

Isn't the very reasoning for the tax exemption, mainly because Churches do help the poor and needy in times of trouble, and for this they have been granted by government a tax exempt status ? Now just because a pastor or church goer is wanting the right person or the lesser of two evils to get the job in which they will be represented by, then why should they lose their exemption over that?

Now if there is a problem where they are not doing what the exemption is for or was intended for, in which is to help the poor and needy in a charitable way as much as they possibly can, and this when the call does come, then maybe the government should look into this situation before allowing them to remain tax exempt, if they are not doing what they are suppose to be doing in such a thing.... For any red blooded American to then voice their opinions on a president or canidate in which they may like, or a policy in which they may like, (IMHO) should never be a problem at all in America. The blacks, whites and etc. have been using their pulpits for years doing these very kinds of things, so what is the big deal now ?

 

[Dick Tuck]

You all have no idea what you are talking about.

A 501(c) is a non-profit organization.

ANY non-profit organization is eligible for tax exempt status...religion has nothing to do with it.

The PASTOR can say whatever he wants.

The pastor is an employee of the 501(c)3...being an employee of a 501(c)3 does not negate the pastors 1st amendment right to expressing HIS PERSONAL OPINION.

It is ONLY a violation if the pastor makes "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."

Clearly he is making a statement on behalf of himself...not the organization.

Your personal bias against religion clouds your logic application of the law.

Take off your anti-religion blinders and look at the facts.


Link to the IRS statement ffrom which this information was gleaned...The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations

If he does endorse a candidate, during a service, in the church, the IRS might make a 502(C)4 out of him.

My understanding is that he can state his personal opinion anywhere at any time. That's the first amendment. It is only a violation if he endorses a candidate on behalf of the organization.

As in "The First Baptist Church of Springfield endorses Mitt Romney".

Or "The Church believes that Mitt Romney is (good, bad, whatever)".

Or, during a service the pastor tells the congregation that THEY should vote for Mitt or Rick.

Is stating that "He will hold his nose and vote for" a candidate, even in his official capacity, an endorsement on behalf of the organization?

I'd say no, if he is stating his personal opinion, even in his official capacity, he is speaking for himself, not the organization.

I could convincingly argue the opposing perspective as well, but the First Amendment is the deciding factor...even in his official capacity, as long as he is stating his own opinion, and not endorsing on behalf of the Church, he has not infringed upon the regulations involved in maintaining the churches tax exempt status.

​

This disputes that unerstanding:

The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations

 

[Missourian]

If he does endorse a candidate, during a service, in the church, the IRS might make a 502(C)4 out of him.

My understanding is that he can state his personal opinion anywhere at any time. That's the first amendment. It is only a violation if he endorses a candidate on behalf of the organization.

As in "The First Baptist Church of Springfield endorses Mitt Romney".

Or "The Church believes that Mitt Romney is (good, bad, whatever)".

Or, during a service the pastor tells the congregation that THEY should vote for Mitt or Rick.

Is stating that "He will hold his nose and vote for" a candidate, even in his official capacity, an endorsement on behalf of the organization?

I'd say no, if he is stating his personal opinion, even in his official capacity, he is speaking for himself, not the organization.

I could convincingly argue the opposing perspective as well, but the First Amendment is the deciding factor...even in his official capacity, as long as he is stating his own opinion, and not endorsing on behalf of the Church, he has not infringed upon the regulations involved in maintaining the churches tax exempt status.

This disputes that unerstanding:

The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations

Uh...that is the very link I posted in my original post...the one you quoted.

See:

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.​