CDZ Religious freedom

[Picaro]

religion influencing your political system.

That remains to be seen and I live in the US.

Religion is no big deal in the UK. Its not something that people are comfortable discussing , and those that do so are considered a bit odd.

Except for Islam...Right? They seem to be making it a big deal whatever you may think about religion......

Nope. We dont discuss religion full stop. I worked in a business that was multi faith and we never discussed religious issues. We all got along nicely.

Except for the no go zones in Britain...right? where muslim rape gangs are raping British girls, while the police and social service bureaucrats look the other way...you mean like that?

Well, Tommy and the faux 'Left' or just completely baffled as to why anybody thinks that stuff is criminal and wrong, which is why he started the thread in the first place, to complain about those uppity Xians and how they frown on the darndest things.

 

[Picaro]

Pre-Trump>

IR-2007-190, Nov. 19, 2007

WASHINGTON — The Internal Revenue Service today reminded section 501(c)(3) organizations, including charities and churches that federal law prohibits them from becoming directly or indirectly involved in campaigns of political candidates.

IRS Reminds Charities and Churches of Political Activity Ban | Internal Revenue Service

Post-Trump>
Trump signs order seeking to allow churches to engage in more political activity

President Trump on Thursday signed an executive order aimed at making it easier for churches to participate in politics,

Ah, the fear is palpable among the sociopaths and deviants ... Most deviants know their mental illnesses aren't as popular as they claim, even in California, where the Prop 8 victory proved they were only a little bit of truth away from being 'De-legitimized', and now rely only on rogue judges appointed by a criminal syndicate. The irony is that it's that 'censorship' by prudes that keeps them in business, since if the media was able to really show what 'Gay Community Values' really were their 'Rights' hoax would dead forever in about a week. No more grooming kids for rape, no more injecting 6 year olds with hormones, no more giving Joys of Anal Sex seminars to 10 year olds in public schools, it all goes away.

 

[sparky]

yeah Picaro>

~S~

 

[well named]

Ah, what a distortion of the issues here.

You: tax laws can't be applied to religious institutions, because of the [Establishment] clause.

Me: that's not true, <cites court decision, provides argument>

You: Ah, what a distortion of the issues here

Me: ...?

I'm not sure what issues I was discussing besides your false claim about the Establishment Clause forbidding the taxing of churches. I agree that it's pretty tangential to the OP of this thread, so probably enough has been said about it, But I didn't make you write what you did, and one option you might consider is just admitting that your statement was wrong and moving on. It's OK to be wrong, I do it all the time.

 

[Picaro]

"According to the court’s decision, the church may also reapply for tax-exempt status as long as it does not engage in campaign speech regarding a particular candidate. And, it does not have to pay taxes on donations given to the church despite the fact that its tax-exempt status had been previously revoked

“This is an important development in the area of protecting the First Amendment rights by clearly outlining the avenues available for churches to participate in the political process,” Sekulow added.

Friday’s ruling could be appealed to the full."

Church loses tax-exempt status - WND

waffle waffle waffle waffle ....

Did the case go to the Supreme Court? ....

 

[well named]

I linked the actual court decision. No where does it make any statement like the one you have bolded. I'm not sure why you think that author is a more authoritative source than the actual court decision.

Secondly, that statement is ambiguous. Does the author just mean that the court did nor order the church to pay taxes on donations received as a consequence of the ad they ran? Note that the ad called for "tax-exempt donations". That interpretation of your bolded sentence would make sense, given that the ad ran before their 501(c)(3) status was revoked, but it's also irrelevant to the conversation we are having, which is about whether or not the Establishment clause precludes taxation of churches. It's also irrelevant that the church was allowed to re-apply for a tax-exemption.

In fact, the absurdity of your argument should still be apparent in that very statement: if they are immune to paying taxes because of the establishment clause, then why would it ever be necessary to re-apply for a tax exemption? The article also quotes the original judge stating very plainly that the IRS has the power to revoke the tax-exempt status of a church. Again, this is nonsensical if the constitution precludes any taxation of churches. I'm not sure I can make this any clearer.

 

[Picaro]

I linked the actual court decision. No where does it make any statement like the one you have bolded. I'm not sure why you think that author is a more authoritative source than the actual court decision.

Secondly, that statement is ambiguous. Does the author just mean that the court did nor order the church to pay taxes on donations received as a consequence of the ad they ran? Note that the ad called for "tax-exempt donations". That interpretation of your bolded sentence would make sense, given that the ad ran before their 501(c)(3) status was revoked, but it's also irrelevant to the conversation we are having, which is about whether or not the Establishment clause precludes taxation of churches. It's also irrelevant that the church was allowed to re-apply for a tax-exemption.

In fact, the absurdity of your argument should still be apparent in that very statement: if they are immune to paying taxes because of the establishment clause, then why would it ever be necessary to re-apply for a tax exemption? The article also quotes the original judge stating very plainly that the IRS has the power to revoke the tax-exempt status of a church. Again, this is nonsensical if the constitution precludes any taxation of churches. I'm not sure I can make this any clearer.

Sorry, but the straws you're grasping at broke a long time ago.

Nor does the revocation necessarily make the Church liable for the payment of taxes. As the IRS explicitly represented in its brief and reiterated at oral argument, the revocation of the exemption does not convert bona fide donations into income taxable to the Church. See 26 U.S.C. s 102 ("Gross income does not include the value of property acquired by gift....").

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/USCOURTS-caDC-99-05097/pdf/USCOURTS-caDC-99-05097-0.pdf

It also doesn't prohibit churches from opposing legislation or laws. See the lesbian nut job Mayor of Houston's attempt to subpoena a pastor's summons over her degenerate campaign over the Faggot Community's desire to give sicko freaks legal access to molest little girls in women's restrooms as another case that went nowhere re religious rights.

The ruling doesn't say what you want it to say. It in fact does almost nothing except reinforce the guideline that a church organization cannot endorse or oppose specific candidates; it does not restrict a pastor from doing so on his own, i.e. they merely tripped over a technicality, and in no way lost their tax exempt status. In fact the term 'exempt' doesn't apply, since they don't need the IRS's permission to 'exempt' them; the Constitution bars the IRS or any other govt. agency from interfering with them.

If they are primarily a political organization, then they aren't a church in the first place, so they aren't covered by the establishment clause. If they are going to tax churches the way you wish they would, then they would also have to tax political parties and every other charity.

See also
“Congress is not required by the First Amendment to subsidize lobbying.” Regan
v. Taxpayers With Representation, 461 U.S. 540, 546 (1983).

and ...

Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense and Ed. Fund, 473 U.S. 788, 800-02 (1985)

If churches were actually banned form any political activity then the entire Civil Rights Movement and 90% of black churches would have been shut down.