The 501c3 designation is what has destroyed the church

[ding]

Listen, if your position is that the church SHOULDN’T do it but not that they CAN’T do it, then I’ll exit the debate because I don’t really care to discuss what they SHOULD be saying I only care to discuss and debate what someone thinks they CAN’T say. Luckily in this country I can move to a different church if I feel they’re saying something I feel like they SHOULDNT be saying.

It's just a basic value...not to want someone who isn't an elected representative using your tax money to promote their political agenda.

Its wrong for any secular 501c3s, and its wrong for any Religious establishment. But there they are getting special treatment and not paying taxes which in a vacuum makes everyone else's taxes higher to compensate.

By that logic you must disagree with matching contributions to campaigns. That’s tax payer money being given to someone running for a political office.

So is it a basic value to not to want someone like that who isn't an elected representative to give them your tax money to promote their political agenda?

 

[Paulie]

When a church takes the 501c3 non profit designation it becomes beholden to the state. It is for all intents and purposes a bribe that was accepted in exchange for the church operating to specifics such as what they can and can’t say as part of their service.

“God’s Law, given to Moses for the people of Israel, forbade the taking of a bribe, “for a bribe blinds the discerning and perverts the words of the righteous” (Exodus 23:8). The same rule is repeated in Deuteronomy 16:19: “You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show partiality, nor take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous.”

You can look your church up through the IRS’s search portal for 501c3 designated churches. If your church happens to be one, I suggest you switch. I know that’s going to be difficult to do because of the way human patterns and behavior work but it’s something to consider.

I agree, but the first Amendment protects a church DOUBLY. They dont need the IRS' permission to speak on ANYTHING

I agree. But they’re only beholden to the government if they choose to take the tax free designation. So a church only gets to operate tax free if they accept government control. It’s a dangerous game to play.

Here's the day I was thinking of. I forgot they went after Randall Terry on this.

Indeed, even though hundreds or even thousands of clergy around the country have explicitly and deliberately engaged in partisan political speech from the pulpit as part of an annual “Pulpit Freedom Sunday”—and then sent the recorded evidence to the IRS—the agency has persistently refused to take the bait and take away any churches’ 501(c)(3) status. The only such instance anyone can cite is a 1995 case in which the IRS denied the nonprofit status of an upstate New York church after it took out a full-page newspaper ad warning Christians not to vote for Bill Clinton.

Trump’s Executive Order on Churches Is a Nonsolution to a Nonproblem—With a Dangerous Side Effect

I don’t agree with it. Trump is making the right call here.

 

[ding]

I don’t derive right and wrong from popular opinion. They stand on their own.

If your goal is to turn church services into campaign rallies, I’ll fight that because it is wrong.

my goal is to fight for free speech from any fascist that dares to try and take it,,,
like you are right now,,,

The only restrictions on free speech applies to government. You don’t have a right to free speech at work, right? Does that bother you?

And for the record, I’m not proposing laws or regulations. We already have too many of those. I am proposing common sense. Common decency.

It is not decent to use a position of religious trust as a vehicle to promote men. Especially when it comes to politics. Whatever happens between congregants is one thing, but the institution should not be promoting candidates.

Ideals and values? Yes.

I don’t even understand how you reconcile this position. You’re seeing the church as a building rather than what it really is, which is just a place people are worshipping. This “place” could just as easily be out in the wilderness somewhere, or on a beach, or in someone’s house. The body of Christ is the congregation of his followers it isn’t a building. Who are you or anyone else to tell a congregation of people ANYWHERE in this country what they can or can’t say?

Churches are institutions comprised of individuals. So I don’t see a church as a building. I see it as a community of people who voluntarily participate in a cause greater than themselves. And that cause is to promote fellowship and virtues within the community for the express purpose of giving thanks, praise and worship to the creator.

I’m not saying it. Common sense and common decency say it. Church isn’t a campaign headquarters.

Nobody says it needs to be a campaign headquarters but what we’re talking about here is that they can’t even mention a candidate to their congregation. Even if the pastor just simply said “trump 2020” it’s a violation of the 501c3.

I’m fine with you believing that a church shouldn’t discuss politics. But if you believe we should legislatively be stopping it, then that’s where we part ways.

Again, you don’t believe he is discussed among the congregants?

I’m still not seeing why churches need to be tax exempt. Their donations are tax free already.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

When a church takes the 501c3 non profit designation it becomes beholden to the state. It is for all intents and purposes a bribe that was accepted in exchange for the church operating to specifics such as what they can and can’t say as part of their service.

“God’s Law, given to Moses for the people of Israel, forbade the taking of a bribe, “for a bribe blinds the discerning and perverts the words of the righteous” (Exodus 23:8). The same rule is repeated in Deuteronomy 16:19: “You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show partiality, nor take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous.”

You can look your church up through the IRS’s search portal for 501c3 designated churches. If your church happens to be one, I suggest you switch. I know that’s going to be difficult to do because of the way human patterns and behavior work but it’s something to consider.

I agree, but the first Amendment protects a church DOUBLY. They dont need the IRS' permission to speak on ANYTHING

I agree. But they’re only beholden to the government if they choose to take the tax free designation. So a church only gets to operate tax free if they accept government control. It’s a dangerous game to play.

Here's the day I was thinking of. I forgot they went after Randall Terry on this.

Indeed, even though hundreds or even thousands of clergy around the country have explicitly and deliberately engaged in partisan political speech from the pulpit as part of an annual “Pulpit Freedom Sunday”—and then sent the recorded evidence to the IRS—the agency has persistently refused to take the bait and take away any churches’ 501(c)(3) status. The only such instance anyone can cite is a 1995 case in which the IRS denied the nonprofit status of an upstate New York church after it took out a full-page newspaper ad warning Christians not to vote for Bill Clinton.

Trump’s Executive Order on Churches Is a Nonsolution to a Nonproblem—With a Dangerous Side Effect

I don’t agree with it. Trump is making the right call here.

Right. I dont agree either. I was just trying to think of the day pastors "revolt" against the unconstitutional Johnson Amendment. I just linked to the article because it jogged my memory.

My point was. The IRS is afraid of this going to the SC because theyll lose.

Churches should ignore it. They should be exempt regardless.

 

[Paulie]

my goal is to fight for free speech from any fascist that dares to try and take it,,,
like you are right now,,,

The only restrictions on free speech applies to government. You don’t have a right to free speech at work, right? Does that bother you?

And for the record, I’m not proposing laws or regulations. We already have too many of those. I am proposing common sense. Common decency.

It is not decent to use a position of religious trust as a vehicle to promote men. Especially when it comes to politics. Whatever happens between congregants is one thing, but the institution should not be promoting candidates.

Ideals and values? Yes.

I don’t even understand how you reconcile this position. You’re seeing the church as a building rather than what it really is, which is just a place people are worshipping. This “place” could just as easily be out in the wilderness somewhere, or on a beach, or in someone’s house. The body of Christ is the congregation of his followers it isn’t a building. Who are you or anyone else to tell a congregation of people ANYWHERE in this country what they can or can’t say?

Churches are institutions comprised of individuals. So I don’t see a church as a building. I see it as a community of people who voluntarily participate in a cause greater than themselves. And that cause is to promote fellowship and virtues within the community for the express purpose of giving thanks, praise and worship to the creator.

I’m not saying it. Common sense and common decency say it. Church isn’t a campaign headquarters.

Nobody says it needs to be a campaign headquarters but what we’re talking about here is that they can’t even mention a candidate to their congregation. Even if the pastor just simply said “trump 2020” it’s a violation of the 501c3.

I’m fine with you believing that a church shouldn’t discuss politics. But if you believe we should legislatively be stopping it, then that’s where we part ways.

Again, you don’t believe he is discussed among the congregants?

I’m still not seeing why churches need to be tax exempt. Their donations are tax free already.

So then we agree on the main principle that churches shouldn’t be taxed on their donations, which would render the 501c3 useless. It’s draconian control and trump is ending it, THANK GOD. He campaigned on it and he followed through on it. It’s only an EO but as the chief executive he can direct the IRS not to enforce.

 

[ding]

The only restrictions on free speech applies to government. You don’t have a right to free speech at work, right? Does that bother you?

And for the record, I’m not proposing laws or regulations. We already have too many of those. I am proposing common sense. Common decency.

It is not decent to use a position of religious trust as a vehicle to promote men. Especially when it comes to politics. Whatever happens between congregants is one thing, but the institution should not be promoting candidates.

Ideals and values? Yes.

I don’t even understand how you reconcile this position. You’re seeing the church as a building rather than what it really is, which is just a place people are worshipping. This “place” could just as easily be out in the wilderness somewhere, or on a beach, or in someone’s house. The body of Christ is the congregation of his followers it isn’t a building. Who are you or anyone else to tell a congregation of people ANYWHERE in this country what they can or can’t say?

Churches are institutions comprised of individuals. So I don’t see a church as a building. I see it as a community of people who voluntarily participate in a cause greater than themselves. And that cause is to promote fellowship and virtues within the community for the express purpose of giving thanks, praise and worship to the creator.

I’m not saying it. Common sense and common decency say it. Church isn’t a campaign headquarters.

Nobody says it needs to be a campaign headquarters but what we’re talking about here is that they can’t even mention a candidate to their congregation. Even if the pastor just simply said “trump 2020” it’s a violation of the 501c3.

I’m fine with you believing that a church shouldn’t discuss politics. But if you believe we should legislatively be stopping it, then that’s where we part ways.

Again, you don’t believe he is discussed among the congregants?

I’m still not seeing why churches need to be tax exempt. Their donations are tax free already.

So then we agree on the main principle that churches shouldn’t be taxed on their donations, which would render the 501c3 useless. It’s draconian control and trump is ending it, THANK GOD. He campaigned on it and he followed through on it. It’s only an EO but as the chief executive he can direct the IRS not to enforce.

It’s only useless when it comes to donations, right?

If they are selling merchandise or running a home remodeling business, then tax the fuck out of it.

 

[Paulie]

This is one of the many reasons the deep state is fighting this man so hard. He’s changing the whole game and the cabal is scared shitless to the point where they’re literally just putting any story out whatsoever that hurts him whether it checks out or not. This battle is bigger than I think a lot of you realize.

The cabal’s days are numbered.

 

[G.T.]

Listen, if your position is that the church SHOULDN’T do it but not that they CAN’T do it, then I’ll exit the debate because I don’t really care to discuss what they SHOULD be saying I only care to discuss and debate what someone thinks they CAN’T say. Luckily in this country I can move to a different church if I feel they’re saying something I feel like they SHOULDNT be saying.

It's just a basic value...not to want someone who isn't an elected representative using your tax money to promote their political agenda.

Its wrong for any secular 501c3s, and its wrong for any Religious establishment. But there they are getting special treatment and not paying taxes which in a vacuum makes everyone else's taxes higher to compensate.

By that logic you must disagree with matching contributions to campaigns. That’s tax payer money being given to someone running for a political office.

So is it a basic value to not to want someone like that who isn't an elected representative to give them your tax money to promote their political agenda?

I dont know every scenario where its occurring, Ding. Its not something Im deeply invested in, as far as activism or affecting change. Its merely a basic principle not to use taxpayer money to promote a political agenda unless you were elected as a representative, which gives you the right to do so.

 

[Grumblenuts]

No. I want to place restrictions on religion and politics from colluding.

Ouch. I had thought you were on the other side of this. Guess not.

You really want government telling a church what it can and can’t say to it’s congregation? If you take the existence of taxation out of this, all that says is that you support the suppression of free speech. The tax aspect of this is what has muddied the waters for way too long.

C’mon dude, I was pretty specific in what I wrote. Stop trying to argue it was something more.

We have great examples from our history of churches debating social issues. None of the founders tried to promote themselves when they were promoting ideals.

This is true. But I happen to believe this stranglehold on the church is what has kept the right from being able to nominate much better candidates for republicans. We’ve been getting stuck with the establishments choices because the church hasn’t been allowed to discuss alternative candidates among their congregation. This matter is important because of the way people bind themselves to groupthink. I wish it wasn’t the case but it is, until we reach a higher level of consciousness, which I believe is happening.

Pretty simple solution. Pay your taxes then say whatever you want like anyone else.
Don't want tax exempt status? Don't file as a tax exempt entity..

Are labor unions tax exempt?

Because they certainly aren’t limited in the way you describe.

In what way? Not religious so just a distraction from the topic in any case. And they too should not file as tax exempt if they're going to be all butt hurt over any limitations that come with filing as tax exempt.

 

[Paulie]

I don’t even understand how you reconcile this position. You’re seeing the church as a building rather than what it really is, which is just a place people are worshipping. This “place” could just as easily be out in the wilderness somewhere, or on a beach, or in someone’s house. The body of Christ is the congregation of his followers it isn’t a building. Who are you or anyone else to tell a congregation of people ANYWHERE in this country what they can or can’t say?

Churches are institutions comprised of individuals. So I don’t see a church as a building. I see it as a community of people who voluntarily participate in a cause greater than themselves. And that cause is to promote fellowship and virtues within the community for the express purpose of giving thanks, praise and worship to the creator.

I’m not saying it. Common sense and common decency say it. Church isn’t a campaign headquarters.

Nobody says it needs to be a campaign headquarters but what we’re talking about here is that they can’t even mention a candidate to their congregation. Even if the pastor just simply said “trump 2020” it’s a violation of the 501c3.

I’m fine with you believing that a church shouldn’t discuss politics. But if you believe we should legislatively be stopping it, then that’s where we part ways.

Again, you don’t believe he is discussed among the congregants?

I’m still not seeing why churches need to be tax exempt. Their donations are tax free already.

So then we agree on the main principle that churches shouldn’t be taxed on their donations, which would render the 501c3 useless. It’s draconian control and trump is ending it, THANK GOD. He campaigned on it and he followed through on it. It’s only an EO but as the chief executive he can direct the IRS not to enforce.

It’s only useless when it comes to donations, right?

If they are selling merchandise or running a home remodeling business, then tax the fuck out of it.

No, none of those things should be taxed. I refer again to the constitution’s clear authorization of what can be taxed. Excise, duty, tariff. That’s it. All 3 of those are taxes that are based on voluntary action. I’d be fine with a national sales tax if we absolutely had to have more tax revenue. I recognize that taxation is a necessary evil for a functioning government that can defend our rights here and overseas. But not on the backs of our labor or charitable contributions. EVER.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Indeed

As Laycock explains, as currently drafted, the Johnson Amendment serves an important function, because it currently prevents churches and other 501(c)(3)s from becoming “a huge loophole in the campaign finance laws” that would allow churches to participate more freely in pouring dark money into elections, without any fear of disclosure requirements. All of this comes with the added benefit that donations to churches or 501(c)(3)s are tax-deductible. The electoral consequences of giving special status to church money could be profound.

 

[progressive hunter]

both of those are ideas,,,so you want to control people and their ideas ,,,

If that’s how you need to see it, go for it.

I see the distinction and that’s all that matters to me.

thats how it is, not how I see it,,,
as long as you know the world doesnt revolve around you and your feelings,,,

I don’t derive right and wrong from popular opinion. They stand on their own.

If your goal is to turn church services into campaign rallies, I’ll fight that because it is wrong.

my goal is to fight for free speech from any fascist that dares to try and take it,,,
like you are right now,,,

The only restrictions on free speech applies to government. You don’t have a right to free speech at work, right? Does that bother you?

And for the record, I’m not proposing laws or regulations. We already have too many of those. I am proposing common sense. Common decency.

It is not decent to use a position of religious trust as a vehicle to promote men. Especially when it comes to politics. Whatever happens between congregants is one thing, but the institution should not be promoting candidates.

Ideals and values? Yes.

of course I have free speech at work,,,I may work for an asshole but hes a tolerant asshole,,,
now he might fire me for calling him an asshole but he will regret it since we are the same person,,,

who are you to say what common sense and decency is to others???

to me your an asshole if you think you can tell others what they can or cant say in their own house,,theres nothing decent about that,,,in fact its pure evil,,,

I dont understand why you are so afraid of people speaking freely in their own churchs/houses,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

how do you know what they did 230 yrs ago???

Because I read books.

Ben Franklin and Daniel Webster were big abolitionists who got that message out through the churches. Which was pretty much how all social issues were discussed.

what political office were they running for???

and do you have transcripts of every conversation they ever had in and around a church???

NO YOU DONT,,,so stop acting like you do,,,

They weren’t. That’s my point. They also weren’t promoting others for office. They were promoting ideals.

Sometimes there’s a person running for office that fits those ideals better than anyone else. It’s a shame they can’t support that person openly because they took the bribe, err, I mean 501c3.

Refer to scripture about bribes. 501c3 is a bribe. “We’ll give you tax free status but you can’t discuss politics with your congregation.

Draconian bullshit.

You don’t think the congregants discuss it amongst themselves?

All I am saying is that a church is a place to promote ideals and values. Not people.

AGAIN YOU WANT TO TELL OTHER PEOPLE WHAT THEIR VALUES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE BASED ON YOUR STANDARDS,,,

WHAT ARE YOU A FUCKING NAZI TOO??

 

[Grumblenuts]

So then we agree on the main principle that churches shouldn’t be taxed on their donations, which would render the 501c3 useless. It’s draconian control and trump is ending it, THANK GOD.

And they still aren't so who cares? And yet this apparently redundant, "useless" thing somehow amounts to "draconian control"? W T F ?

He’s changing the whole game

W T F ? Whatever you're smokin'.. I gotta try some..

 

[Picaro]

When a church takes the 501c3 non profit designation it becomes beholden to the state. It is for all intents and purposes a bribe that was accepted in exchange for the church operating to specifics such as what they can and can’t say as part of their service.

“God’s Law, given to Moses for the people of Israel, forbade the taking of a bribe, “for a bribe blinds the discerning and perverts the words of the righteous” (Exodus 23:8). The same rule is repeated in Deuteronomy 16:19: “You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show partiality, nor take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous.”

You can look your church up through the IRS’s search portal for 501c3 designated churches. If your church happens to be one, I suggest you switch. I know that’s going to be difficult to do because of the way human patterns and behavior work but it’s something to consider.

This topic has been beat to death. The OP is just rubbish propaganda. Churches are not required to incorporate, they aren't required to stop talking about faggots or abortions or anything else that involves laws, morality, politics, sex, anything covered under the bible, and preachers are personally free to expound on any issue they want, and to endorse anybody they want, as they always have, like any other citizen. Quit listening to dumbass hicks who keep getting caught using their luxury jets and yachts for personal use while not reporting their use on their income taxes; they're just stupid, and you are, too , if you keep spouting their nonsense as fact.You idiots don't know the differences between 501.c's and 501.4's anyway, so quit starting these dumbass threads without making sure you do. Why bring up 501.4's? If you don't know why that matters re this topic, you're one of the dumbasses.

Churches are tax exempt, but wages and income paid to their employees and sub -contractors are subject to the same taxes everyone else has to pay on such income, and in fact most pastors and ministers, if they're lucky enough to pull in more than the personal deduction in the first place, which most don't, pay as 'self-employed', i.e. on 1099's, which means they also pay their own SS, FICA, and other payroll taxes, which is more than the usual assorted whining faggot and sociopaths pay on their personal wages and payroll taxes.

 

[progressive hunter]

When a church takes the 501c3 non profit designation it becomes beholden to the state. It is for all intents and purposes a bribe that was accepted in exchange for the church operating to specifics such as what they can and can’t say as part of their service.

“God’s Law, given to Moses for the people of Israel, forbade the taking of a bribe, “for a bribe blinds the discerning and perverts the words of the righteous” (Exodus 23:8). The same rule is repeated in Deuteronomy 16:19: “You shall not pervert justice; you shall not show partiality, nor take a bribe, for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise and twists the words of the righteous.”

You can look your church up through the IRS’s search portal for 501c3 designated churches. If your church happens to be one, I suggest you switch. I know that’s going to be difficult to do because of the way human patterns and behavior work but it’s something to consider.

This topic has been beat to death. The OP is just rubbish propaganda. Churches are not required to incorporate, they aren't required to stop talking about faggots or abortions or anything else that involves laws, morality, politics, sex, anything covered under the bible, and preachers are personally free to expound on any issue they want, and to endorse anybody they want, as they always have, like any other citizen. Quit listening to dumbass hicks who keep getting caught using their luxury jets and yachts for personal use while not reporting their use on their income taxes; they're just stupid, and you are, too , if you keep spouting their nonsense as fact.

AS YOUVE READ IN THE COMMENTS,, THERE ARE SOME THAT WANT THAT TO STOP AND RESTRICT SPEECH TO anyone speaking in a church to a limited set of topics,,,

so this topic is far from dead

 

[Grumblenuts]

this topic is far from dead

I have to agree. Death Angel's seemingly unintentional sharing of this link:
Trump’s Executive Order on Churches Is a Nonsolution to a Nonproblem—With a Dangerous Side Effect
has been the only mention of the true issue at stake thus far. Thank you, Death Angel.. for finally letting the cat out of the bag. It was getting stinky..

 

[Picaro]

thats a violation of the 1st amendment,,,

churchs dont need permission to have a church,,so the 501c3 is also a violation of the 1st A

It's not a violation when they're doing so voluntarily. I couldn't possibly... even begin to understand why that little nuance would be confusing to anyone.

doing what voluntarily??

They are voluntarily taking a tax exemption in exchange for not being political in their speech. The entire pact, and that it's completely voluntarily, makes that particular 1st amendment right a non-sequitur.

You can waive your own rights, like your right to a fair trial, your right to privacy, your right to free speech, etc etc etc - - when it's voluntary. That's never been an issue, or the point.

the 1st doesnt say a thing about you or me,,,its about what the government cant do,,,and a 501c3 violates that ,,

not sure why some cant see that little nuance,,,

No, the 501c3 is not an imposition, it is a voluntary contract. That means there's no violation of rights, because anyone is free to forfeit a right if they so choose.

Churches only have to get a letter from the IRS stating they operate under 501.c status, they don't actually have to form a corporation; this allows people who tithe and donate to deduct the donations from their taxes. Some churches incorporate their 'charities and other activities as 501.c's, as it simplifies the tax issues for foundations and private corporations. That's all it does. There is nothing to tax, anyway, unless the 'church' is a fraud and really a private business and the 'owner' isn't paying his taxes on his income.

 

[Paulie]

The left clearly doesn’t understand this issue. As is usually the case.

 

[Picaro]

[]
thats a violation of the 1st amendment,,,

churchs dont need permission to have a church,,so the 501c3 is also a violation of the 1st A

lol no it isn't; it doesn't prevent a preacher from talking about politics, either. Quit reading crank sites.