SC priest: no communion for obama voters

[RetiredGySgt]

Only an idiot would claim it has no effect on Gov't. Ironically, you pwn yourself in your very next paragraph. Clearly you believe that Churches openly supporting Obama effect gov't.



And yes, that means you can remove tax exempt status from Churches that openly supported Obama, etc.

You are wrong. Churches have the same right as citizens, they can participate in the democratic process. The 1st Amendment protects them from Government interference. A church and its leaders can participate in the election process any legal way they chose. This includes advice their followers to vote as the church feels is correct. This includes not providing services to its followers if they do not follow the edicts of the church.

Government has no right to get involved at all. The 1st Amendment and the so called Separation of Church and State are to protect churches FROM the Government, not the other way around. You can not deny religions the right to participate in the democratic process.

 

[Article 15]

Yes.

I bet Sarge thought that the libs would try to spin the issue to make it ok for churches to openly support Obama but illegal to openly oppose him.

 

[jillian]

You are an idiot. Or have you forgotten the 1st Amendment?

You need to go back and check the law. Churches are not allowed to be used for political purposes. You know, that whole separation of church and state thing. And for EXACTLY the reason seen here because the thought always was that religious influence could be misused by denying people their RELIGIOUS rights for voting a particular way.

Let them pay taxes on the tithes from all those Obama voters. Bet they didn't give them back their church donations.

 

[Article 15]

You are wrong. Churches have the same right as citizens, they can participate in the democratic process. The 1st Amendment protects them from Government interference. A church and its leaders can participate in the election process any legal way they chose. This includes advice their followers to vote as the church feels is correct. This includes not providing services to its followers if they do not follow the edicts of the church.

Government has no right to get involved at all. The 1st Amendment and the so called Separation of Church and State are to protect churches FROM the Government, not the other way around. You can not deny religions the right to participate in the democratic process.

Wow.

You have no clue what you are talking about.

It's stunning.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You need to go back and check the law. Churches are not allowed to be used for political purposes. You know, that whole separation of church and state thing. And for EXACTLY the reason seen here.

Let them pay taxes on the tites from all those Obama voters. Bet they didn't give them back their church donations.

Go ahead cite the law that states Churches give up any right to participate in the democratic process. Provide some passage from the Constitution that says a religion can not participate in said process, being a lawyer it should be easy for you to do so.

 

[jillian]

I bet Sarge thought that the libs would try to spin the issue to make it ok for churches to openly support Obama but illegal to openly oppose him.

That's because he's so busy railing against the unfairness of everyone not agreeing with his narrow, little world view, that he imagines in his little head that everyone is being mean to him.

If he wanted to know who was being mean to him, he'd be more concerned about "the base" and how they treated Romney because he was a Mormon.

 

[Care4all]

I think that it's might actually be illegal.

That is to say that church could lose its not-for-profit status.

Separation of Church and state and all that, you know?

Churches do not receive some special tax exempt status because they are a Church....

THAT would be breaking the first amendment because, "Congress shall make no law.....", so congress can NOT legislate tax law solely for Churches...Churches fall under tax law that covers ALL nonprofits and qualifies for this status in the saqme manner a United Way would qualify for this status.

However, PART of this not for profit status comes some rules, and one of these rules for all of these nonprofits is that they can NOT be involved in politics from the pulpit, or on top of the soap box if a non religious entity that is a nonprofit....or they lose this status.

These laws are not writen for Churches alone, because as mentioned, that would be unconstitutional since congress can write no law regarding any church....

is my understanding of it....???

care

 

[CSM]

And they've been skirting the law for a long time now.

Church and State isn't a one way street.

Care to cite the relevant verbage in the Constitution where it is unlawful for a church (religion) to influence its constituents regarding political matters?

"Amendment I
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."

The way I read it the onus is on Congress and not the churches and in fact specifically states the Congress shall make no law "prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". Congress enacting any law interfering with any religion's belief or right to free speech would be just plain illegal.

The whole tax exemption question is different story. In fact, there should be NO tax exempt status for any "non-profit" organizations. Tax the hell out of them until they dry up and blow away.

 

[Macintosh]

You are wrong. Churches have the same right as citizens, they can participate in the democratic process. The 1st Amendment protects them from Government interference. A church and its leaders can participate in the election process any legal way they chose. This includes advice their followers to vote as the church feels is correct. This includes not providing services to its followers if they do not follow the edicts of the church.

What a surprise - you're wrong.

Consider Branch Ministries and Dan Little, Pastor, v. Charles O. Rossotti, Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service:

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

The IRS revoked the exemption status of a church who placed an ad in the Washington Times, telling Christians they should not vote for Bill Clinton. The church claimed the revocation was a violation of their right to free speech. The Court concluded:

For the foregoing reasons, we find that the revocation of the Church's tax-exempt status neither violated the Constitution nor exceeded the IRS's statutory authority. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed.​

Government has no right to get involved at all. The 1st Amendment and the so called Separation of Church and State are to protect churches FROM the Government, not the other way around.

False. It goes both ways.

 

[Care4all]

Care to cite the relevant verbage in the Constitution where it is unlawful for a church (religion) to influence its constituents regarding political matters?

"Amendment I
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."

The way I read it the onus is on Congress and not the churches and in fact specifically states the Congress shall make no law "prohibiting the free exercise thereof;". Congress enacting any law interfering with any religion's belief or right to free speech would be just plain illegal.

The whole tax exemption question is different story. In fact, there should be NO tax exempt status for any "non-profit" organizations. Tax the hell out of them until they dry up and blow away.

fyi
read my post above yours....

 

[jillian]

What a surprise - you're wrong.

Consider Branch Ministries and Dan Little, Pastor, v. Charles O. Rossotti, Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service:

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

The IRS revoked the exemption status of a church who placed an ad in the Washington Times, telling Christians they should not vote for Bill Clinton. The church claimed the revocation was a violation of their right to free speech. The Court concluded:

For the foregoing reasons, we find that the revocation of the Church's tax-exempt status neither violated the Constitution nor exceeded the IRS's statutory authority. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed.​

False. It goes both ways.

Of course it goes both ways. You can't have freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What a surprise - you're wrong.

Consider Branch Ministries and Dan Little, Pastor, v. Charles O. Rossotti, Commissioner, Internal Revenue Service:

FindLaw | Cases and Codes

The IRS revoked the exemption status of a church who placed an ad in the Washington Times, telling Christians they should not vote for Bill Clinton. The church claimed the revocation was a violation of their right to free speech. The Court concluded:

For the foregoing reasons, we find that the revocation of the Church's tax-exempt status neither violated the Constitution nor exceeded the IRS's statutory authority. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed.​

False. It goes both ways.

Except this catholic priest did nothing to influence their vote, he simple said AFTER they voted they had to confess. So remind me how he "influenced" the election again?

 

[Article 15]

Except this catholic priest did nothing to influence their vote, he simple said AFTER they voted they had to confess. So remind me how he "influenced" the election again?

You're a real hoot, Sarge.

 

[CSM]

fyi
read my post above yours....

As I said, the whole tax exempt question is another story. The church was not disbanded or it's members considered criminals. The implication here is that if the church in question is willing to pay taxes then they can say and do as they like within the law. I have no problem with that. If the Congress were to raise the tax rate for non profits to excessive levels such that said church could not exist then that too would be another story.

I do have a problem with tax law and the IRS but that is another thread entirely.

 

[Macintosh]

Except this catholic priest did nothing to influence their vote, he simple said AFTER they voted they had to confess. So remind me how he "influenced" the election again?

I know that. I've not claimed that the church should have their tax-exempt status revoked. I did not say that at all. I was simply clearing up the misconception that churches can do whatever they want with no legal repercussions. That's not true, as the aforementioned case proves.

The argument, however, is if using a church to preach politics is unconstitutional. According to legal precedent, it is. But I remember a speech Obama gave in a Chicago church. The church allowed it, so why wasn't their tax-exempt status revoked?

I don't take a position on this issue because I'm not entirely certain, as a law student, that religious officials lose their right to freedom of speech. It's a tricky issue. My purpose in this debate is to clear up misconceptions where I can. Both sides make good points. Currently, I simply have no position on whether or not churches should lose their tax-exempt status.

 

[CSM]

Of course it goes both ways. You can't have freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion.

The case cited here doesn't say religious organizations cannot express political views. It is clear to me that if a religious organization chooses to do so they are in danger of losing their tax exempt status. Again I have no problem with that. I do have a problem if folks belief that a religion (or any other organization) cannot express views and advise members on political issues.

The day the Congress or any other branch tries to make or enforce such a law will indeed be the day the United States ceases to be a democracy.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You're a real hoot, Sarge.

No answer I see. He made no effort to tell them NOT to vote for Obama. He simply said after they did they had to confess. He did not influence the election at all.

I do however suggest that all those black churches lose their tax exempt status since they DID preach from the pulpit and did attempt to influence the election.

As for the McCain supporters I do not recall the churches actually doing anything other then acknowledging they wanted him to win. NO preaching, no demands their followers actually vote for him at all. But hey remove their tax exempt status too.

Ohh by the way tax exempt entities CAN participate in the election process. Or have we forgotten Moveon.Org?

 

[Care4all]

here is the law, or an explanation for it...sent to the political parties...

DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20224
COMMISSIONER
TAX EXEMPT AND
GOVERNMENT ENT ITIES
DI V ISION
April 18, 2008
Democratic National Committee
Attn: Andrew Tobias, Treasurer
Republican National Committee
Attn: Tim Morgan, Treasurer
Democratic Senatorial Campaign
Committee
Attn: John B. Poersch Jr., Treasurer
National Republican Senatorial Committee
Attn: Stan Huckaby, Treasurer
Democratic Congressional Campaign
Committee
Attn: Brian L. Wolff, Treasurer
National Republican Congressional
Committee
Attn: Keith A. Davis, Treasurer
Green Senatorial Campaign Committee
Attn: David Jette, Treasurer
Green Party of the United States
Attn: Jody Grage, Treasurer
Reform Party of the USA
Attn: Beverly Kennedy, Treasurer
Constitution Party National Committee
Attn: Joe Sanger, Treasurer
Natural Law Party of the United States
Attn: Leslie Brooks, Treasurer
Socialist National Committee
Attn: David Schaich, Treasurer
Libertarian National Committee
Attn: Aaron Starr, Treasurer
Dear Sir or Madam:
During each presidential election, press reports often raise questions about the role charitable
organizations may play in the political debate. This year is no exception. That is why we have
issued a news release on the subject in every presidential election year since 1992 (e.g. IR-
2007-190, issued November 19, 2007, copy enclosed).
The reason I am writing is to provide you with the rules charitable organizations, including
churches, must follow with respect to political activity. With this knowledge, you can help
ensure that during this election season your committee and the candidates you support do not
inadvertently jeopardize the tax-exempt status of any charitable organization.
Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code that are exempt from
federal income tax are prohibited from directly or indirectly participating or intervening in any
political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office. Charities,
educational institutions and religious organizations, including churches, are among those that
are tax-exempt under this code section.
Whether a tax-exempt charitable organization is engaging in prohibited political campaign
2
activity depends upon all the facts and circumstances in each case. For example, organizations
may encourage people to participate in the electoral process by sponsoring debates or forums
to educate voters, distributing voter guides, or conducting voter registration or get-out-the-vote
drives. If the debate or forum, voter guide, or voter registration or get-out-the-vote drive shows
a preference for or against a certain candidate or party, however, it becomes a prohibited
activity.
Thus, under federal law tax-exempt charitable organizations are prohibited from endorsing any
candidates, making donations to their campaigns, engaging in fund-raising, distributing
statements, or becoming involved in any other activities that may be beneficial or detrimental to
any candidate. Even activities that encourage people to vote for or against a particular
candidate on the basis of nonpartisan criteria violate the political campaign prohibition of section
501(c)(3).
The federal courts have upheld this prohibition on political campaign activity, most recently in
Branch Ministries v. Rossotti, 211 F.3d 137 (D.C. Cir. 2000). The courts have held that it is not
unconstitutional for the tax law to impose conditions, such as the political campaign prohibition,
upon exemption from federal income tax.
The prohibition on political campaign activity applies only to tax-exempt charitable
organizations, not to the activities of individuals in their private capacity. The political campaign
activity prohibition is not intended to restrict free expression on political matters by leaders of
charitable organizations, including churches, speaking for themselves, as individuals. Nor are
leaders prohibited from speaking about important issues of public policy. However, for their
organizations to remain tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3), leaders cannot make partisan
comments in official organization publications or at official organization functions, including
official church publications and functions.
Similarly, the prohibition on political campaign activity does not prohibit charitable organizations
from having contact of any kind with individuals who are candidates for public office. Depending
on the facts and circumstances, a charitable organization, such as a church, may invite political
candidates to speak in their capacity as candidates without jeopardizing its tax-exempt status if
the organization takes steps to ensure that:
• It provides an equal opportunity to other political candidates seeking the same office,
• It does not indicate any support of or opposition to any candidate, and
• No political fund-raising occurs in conjunction with the speech.
A charitable organization may invite a political candidate to speak in his or her individual (noncandidate)
capacity if the organization takes steps to ensure that:
• The candidate speaks only in a non-candidate capacity,
• Neither the candidate nor any representative of the organization makes any mention of
the election or candidacy of the individual, and
• No campaign activity occurs in connection with the candidate’s attendance.
If the IRS finds a section 501(c)(3) organization engaged in prohibited campaign activity, the
organization could lose its tax-exempt status and it could be subject to an excise tax on the
3
amount of money spent on that activity. Since 2004, the IRS has conducted limited scope
examinations of allegations of political campaign activity by section 501(c)(3) organizations.
While less than half of the allegations received resulted in an examination, the IRS found
political campaign intervention in over two-thirds of the organizations examined. As we are
primarily interested in educating organizations and promoting compliance, in most of these
cases we alerted the organization to the violation and strongly cautioned them not to repeat the
activity. We proposed revocation only in a few egregious cases.
For more detailed information, see our website at Tax Information for Charities & Other Non-Profits. There, in addition to other
items, you will find:
• IRS Revenue Ruling 2007-41 that outlines a number of scenarios to help charities and
churches understand the ban on political campaign activity and actions that may arise,
and
• Publication 1828, Tax Guide for Churches and Religious Organizations, that discusses
the political campaign prohibition as it applies to churches.
I hope this information is helpful. If you have any questions, please contact Judith Kindell at
(202) 283-8964.

 

[CSM]

Of course it goes both ways. You can't have freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion.

Interesting how you put that.... I prefer this:

"You can't have freedom FROM religion without freedom OF religion".

 

[Macintosh]

Of course it goes both ways. You can't have freedom OF religion without freedom FROM religion.

Well, there is a difference. We have freedom FROM a government sanctioned religion, but we do not have freedom FROM religion. If I walk down the street wearing a crucifix around my neck that is clearly visible, you have no right to tell me to remove it.