SC priest: no communion for obama voters

[RetiredGySgt]

The argument has seemingly bifurcated here. The original discussion pertained to religious organizations and if by endorsing a certain candidate or position they are violating the First Amendment, thereby giving cause to have their tax-exempt status revoked. Now we seem to be discussing if tax-exempt organizations in general, like Planned Parenthood and MoveOn.Org, should lose their exemption status for participating in an election process.

According to the Tax Code Care posted, they should.

No there are separate laws that cover non profits like Moveon.org. The claim that just being tax exempt prevents political participation is false.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Good point, and one I hadn't thought of

He's (ironically) using his authoritywithin the church to deny his parisioner their civil right to freedom of religion

This may actually go worse on that chucch than I'd originally thought.

Before I thought the church was merely violating the tax laws, but denying people their civil rights?

Interesting.

No one has a right to make a religion conform to them. They have no "civil right" as you claim.

 

[Care4all]

there are political action committees that are tax exempt, who are NOT nonprofit charties, and the money people donate to them, are not tax deductible for the donors.

there are different tax laws for charties verses political organizations

 

[Ravi]

Again this Priest did not encourage his flock to vote one way or the other. He simply said AFTER the fact if you voted for Obama you sinned. Which IS a position a church can take.

I don't know if that's correct. A tax exempt can lobby, but they cannot engage in political activity. Basically, the church can say it was a sin to vote for a pro-abortion platform but they cannot name the candidate. Kind of like saying it's a sin to have voted for a Mormon follower, but not it's a sin to vote for Mitt Romney.

And I think you are wrong about moveon.org. I don't believe they are tax exempt.

The most that could happen is the Catholic church would be stripped of their tax exempt status and more than likely what will happen if they'll be made to pay a small fine.

 

[Sunni Man]

Before I thought the church was merely violating the tax laws, but denying people their civil rights!

Taking Communion has become a Civil Right??

 

[editec]

No one has a right to make a religion conform to them. They have no "civil right" as you claim.

Yes, I understand that argument, and it definitely does have merit.

STill, I suspect that the parishioners of that church who are being denied communion could fairly easily take that church or at least that priest to court to debate that argument.

This issue is really much more interesting than if the church had advocated voting for one person or the other before the election.

Then it would be an open and shut incomes tax violation of their 501 (c) status.

But punishing after the fact those who this priest thinks voted wrong puts the whole question into another level of legal philosphical wierdness.

Interesting case.

Wonder how the POPE is going to come down on it?

I doubt that he'll support that priest's decision to deny his parishioners communion, to be honest.

He might just duck the whole issue entirely though.

fascinating

 

[Macintosh]

I'm only a second-year law student, so my knowledge in regards to tax law is rather meager. Too, it's boring as hell. Rather than post a bunch of legal mumbo-jumbo, here is a Washington Post article from 2005. Apparently the IRS was investigating the NAACP.

NAACP Resists IRS Investigation
Group Calls Probe Politically Motivated
By Darryl Fears
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, February 1, 2005; Page A09

The NAACP announced yesterday that it is refusing to comply with an Internal Revenue Service investigation into its tax-exempt status that was launched last year after its chairman criticized the Bush administration in a speech.

Interim President Dennis Hayes said the probe, ordered just weeks before the presidential election, "was clearly motivated by partisan politics and intended to divert us from impartial voter registration." The NAACP and other groups registered thousands of black voters, a group that, exit polls showed, voted heavily against the president in November.

The IRS said its investigation seeks to determine whether Julian Bond violated federal regulations that bar certain tax-exempt organizations from engaging in most forms of political activity. Bond's comments about Bush and Democratic Party leaders were made during the NAACP's annual convention last summer in Philadelphia.

"The timing of the investigation is critical here," said Angela Ciccolo, an attorney for the NAACP, the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization. "The remarks were made in July, and in October, when we're trying to register African American voters, we get this order. We think it's important to stand up to this type of intimidation, especially in an election year."

Ciccolo said the NAACP would not respond to an IRS summons that requested Bond's speech and specific financial information. Ciccolo declined to reveal the specifics of the IRS request.

In a letter to the IRS sent late last week, the NAACP said Bond's statements "were consistent with the organization's long-standing practice of advocating positions in the interest of minorities in the United States without regard to election cycles."

IRS spokesman Terry Lemons, echoing previous remarks by IRS Commissioner Mark W. Everson, said the investigation is not politically motivated. "The bottom line is that when we make a decision, it is based on tax law. It is not based on politics," Lemons said.

The IRS can take a number of steps when a person or agency fails to respond to a summons, Lemons said, including dismissing the case or requesting further investigation by the Justice Department.

The probe was launched Oct. 8 in the heat of the presidential race. Three weeks later, Reps. Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.), John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and Fortney "Pete" Stark (D-Calif.) wrote Everson to express outrage and request an explanation.

The congressmen wrote that "it is obvious that the timing of this IRS examination is nothing more than an effort to intimidate members of the NAACP, and the communities the organization represents, in their get-out-the-vote effort nationwide."

Everson replied that two other congressmen, whom he declined to name, requested an investigation. Everson wrote in a December letter that other nonreligious charitable organizations were being investigated for similar reasons.

"We sent letters to twenty non-church organizations between August 31 and November 2, 2004," the commissioner wrote. "A review of the names of those organizations indicates that the group represents a broad cross-section of the tax-exempt community and a wide range of viewpoints."

NAACP Resists IRS Investigation (washingtonpost.com)
​

So it's clear that all tax-exempt organizations, not simply churches, are not supposed to involve themselves, as a corporation, in the election process. It seems registering new voters is about all they are allowed to do.

 

[YWN666]

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.

There is sometimes confusion in the way "freedom FROM religion" is defined. I define it as the freedom to live without any religion. I have seen some who argue against freedom FROM religion define it as the right to not be exposed to anyone else's religion. I don't think anyone is seriously arguing the latter.

 

[Macintosh]

Yes, I understand that argument, and it definitely does have merit.

STill, I suspect that the parishioners of that church who are being denied communion could fairly easily take that church or at least that priest to court to debate that argument.

It would be thrown out of court immediately. "Separation Between Church and State" goes both ways.

 

[Macintosh]

There is sometimes confusion in the way "freedom FROM religion" is defined. I define it as the freedom to live without any religion. I have seen some who argue against freedom FROM religion define it as the right to not be exposed to anyone else's religion. I don't think anyone is seriously arguing the latter.

Which is why I said we have freedom from a government sanctioned religion. Personally, I believe the whole thing has been taken too far. Companies not allowing their employees to say "Merry Christmas," groups filing lawsuits because Town A decided to put up a "Merry Christmas" sign. It's ridiculous.

 

[strollingbones]

the way i read this...the priest has decided its a "sin" to vote for obama ...after all confession is to confess one's sins. does the priest have this power or not?

 

[Macintosh]

the way i read this...the priest has decided its a "sin" to vote for obama ...after all confession is to confess one's sins. does the priest have this power or not?

I don't know. Ask the Pope.

 

[Shogun]

God calls "men who lay with men" an abomination and are to be stoned.

Yes, the Bible says that plain and clear!

quote the scripture, motherfucker. As soon as you post an OT quote I'll remind you what else the OT says about all sorts of things that you also don't react to.

 

[Shogun]

SO just because a Government does evil a good Christian should go along with it? I suggest YOU understand the passage. One must do as the Government says so long as the Government is NOT doing evil. Your position is foolish and baseless.

your god wasn't concerned with CEASAR, you dumb bastard. Your reward in in heaven and not some social dominance over any nation. Jesus didn't dominate Rome when he could have FORCED his teachings with little effort. You pharisee christians are a joke.


DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT FUCKING ROME WAS NOT OUT DOING SHIT THAT YOUR GOD DIDN'T AGREE WITH? Gosh, brainiac, j dawg sure did start a fucking dogma rally at the gates of Rome, didn't he?

 

[Shogun]

So you choose Homos over God.

I am sure He will be happy.

homos are REAL and covered by the Constitution. Your god isn't. Simple, really.

 

[YWN666]

Which is why I said we have freedom from a government sanctioned religion. Personally, I believe the whole thing has been taken too far. Companies not allowing their employees to say "Merry Christmas," groups filing lawsuits because Town A decided to put up a "Merry Christmas" sign. It's ridiculous.

I have been following this whole "war on christmas" controversy since Bill "O'Really" started whining about it a few years back and I think it is all a scam to get attention for O'Reilly. Contrary to the assertions made by O'Reilly, I have seen no evidence to support the claim that businesses were forbidding their employees from wishing customers a Merry Christmas. They may have been prompted to use "Happy Holidays" if they did not know the religion of the customer but they were given the discretion to say Merry Chrsitmas if they knew the customer celebrated Christmas. O'Reilly wants us to believe that christians are having their rights taken away but all it is is a business trying to be inclusive of the beliefs of all its customers and not alienating potential customers. He wants businesses wishing every customer Merry Christmas. That would be the same as a guy named Joe demanding that they greet every customer by saying "Hi Joe!"
On one hand he says christians are the majority and should dictate the way thing should be and on the other he plays the "we're poor persecuted christians who just can't catch a break" act.

 

[Shogun]

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

The first amendment doesn't suggest that church's cant be taxed. You are still free to worship while your tithes get the same treatment any other business gets.

 

[Macintosh]

I have been following this whole "war on christmas" controversy since Bill "O'Really" started whining about it a few years back and I think it is all a scam to get attention for O'Reilly. Contrary to the assertions made by O'Reilly, I have seen no evidence to support the claim that businesses were forbidding their employees from wishing customers a Merry Christmas. They may have been prompted to use "Happy Holidays" if they did not know the religion of the customer but they were given the discretion to say Merry Chrsitmas if they knew the customer celebrated Christmas. O'Reilly wants us to believe that christians are having their rights taken away but all it is is a business trying to be inclusive of the beliefs of all its customers and not alienating potential customers. He wants businesses wishing every customer Merry Christmas. That would be the same as a guy named Joe demanding that they greet every customer by saying "Hi Joe!"
On one hand he says christians are the majority and should dictate the way thing should be and on the other he plays the "we're poor persecuted christians who just can't catch a break" act.

JERSEY; O Little Town of Litigation . . . - New York Times

It's not all a hoax.

 

[Shogun]

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.

You clearly have no clue as to why all those former Brits decided to come to the new world while their former state was saturated with a particular dogma. Indeed, If you can limit profanity and filter every other aspect of the first amendment according to your dogma junkie whims then enjoy the turnabout.

 

[Shogun]

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.

It's fucking HILARIOUS how poeple like you have a tendency to BOLD the "make no law prohibiting" portion of the first amendment while glossing over and trying to ignore the "Shall make no law respecting the establishment of" portion...