The 501c3 designation is what has destroyed the church

[harmonica]

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.

..the bible is irrelevant to it .....if they are helping people without profit , fine--no tax

You’re missing the point. You all are. None of the churches should be taxed simply because they shouldn’t be taxed, not because they owe something in return for this gift. The government bribed the church with a tax free designation and they accepted it, and in exchange gave up a certain part of their right to free speech. That’s the point I’m trying to make. Why would you want to go to a church that literally can’t say certain things the government says they can’t?

Shouldn't be taxed simply because they shouldn't be taxed is where your confusion is. They're not special, if I have to pay property tax then so should they and if they're going to be exempt, thus raising MY tax bill - then there's got to be some incentive on the part of the tax-payer as well.

They're not electepresentatives with any right to use my money for partisan politics. That's pretty straight forward.

You don’t know me well, apparently. I don’t want ANYONE being taxed. Taxation is theft, plain and simple.

..how will the country be governed then without taxes? no military/no border patrol/no TSA/etc?

 

[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.

..the bible is irrelevant to it .....if they are helping people without profit , fine--no tax

You’re missing the point. You all are. None of the churches should be taxed simply because they shouldn’t be taxed, not because they owe something in return for this gift. The government bribed the church with a tax free designation and they accepted it, and in exchange gave up a certain part of their right to free speech. That’s the point I’m trying to make. Why would you want to go to a church that literally can’t say certain things the government says they can’t?

Shouldn't be taxed simply because they shouldn't be taxed is where your confusion is. They're not special, if I have to pay property tax then so should they and if they're going to be exempt, thus raising MY tax bill - then there's got to be some incentive on the part of the tax-payer as well.

They're not elected representatives with any right to use my money for partisan politics. That's pretty straight forward.

You don’t know me well, apparently. I don’t want ANYONE being taxed. Taxation is theft, plain and simple.

So it's a great argument to say "hey, in particular the church shouldn't be taxed and therefore...their tax exemption shouldn't come with any stipulations?"

As opposed to making a thread about not taxing anyone period?

There's a word for that.

Once everyone's exempt, you'd have some sort of an argument here.

You’re still missing me man. All I’m trying to say is that if you’re going to worship in a church, do it in one that doesn’t owe the government jack shit.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

the 1st says "congress shall make no laws" and a 501c3 is a law isnt it??

and where does it say you can give up your rights???

and it doesnt matter if you can,,its the government that cant,,,

 

[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.

..the bible is irrelevant to it .....if they are helping people without profit , fine--no tax

You’re missing the point. You all are. None of the churches should be taxed simply because they shouldn’t be taxed, not because they owe something in return for this gift. The government bribed the church with a tax free designation and they accepted it, and in exchange gave up a certain part of their right to free speech. That’s the point I’m trying to make. Why would you want to go to a church that literally can’t say certain things the government says they can’t?

Shouldn't be taxed simply because they shouldn't be taxed is where your confusion is. They're not special, if I have to pay property tax then so should they and if they're going to be exempt, thus raising MY tax bill - then there's got to be some incentive on the part of the tax-payer as well.

They're not electepresentatives with any right to use my money for partisan politics. That's pretty straight forward.

You don’t know me well, apparently. I don’t want ANYONE being taxed. Taxation is theft, plain and simple.

..how will the country be governed then without taxes? no military/no border patrol/no TSA/etc?

Through taxation based on voluntary actions, you know, the ones laid out in the constitution?

 

[mdk]

...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...

"Can't preach politics from the pulpit"

is the only thing churches are prohibited from doing in order to attain and keep their 501c3

Which I feel is a violation of several constitutional principles and liberties. Churches have always played a important role in the social and political changes of this nation. Much that came from the pulpit.

 

[G.T.]

..the bible is irrelevant to it .....if they are helping people without profit , fine--no tax

You’re missing the point. You all are. None of the churches should be taxed simply because they shouldn’t be taxed, not because they owe something in return for this gift. The government bribed the church with a tax free designation and they accepted it, and in exchange gave up a certain part of their right to free speech. That’s the point I’m trying to make. Why would you want to go to a church that literally can’t say certain things the government says they can’t?

Shouldn't be taxed simply because they shouldn't be taxed is where your confusion is. They're not special, if I have to pay property tax then so should they and if they're going to be exempt, thus raising MY tax bill - then there's got to be some incentive on the part of the tax-payer as well.

They're not elected representatives with any right to use my money for partisan politics. That's pretty straight forward.

You don’t know me well, apparently. I don’t want ANYONE being taxed. Taxation is theft, plain and simple.

So it's a great argument to say "hey, in particular the church shouldn't be taxed and therefore...their tax exemption shouldn't come with any stipulations?"

As opposed to making a thread about not taxing anyone period?

There's a word for that.

Once everyone's exempt, you'd have some sort of an argument here.

You’re still missing me man. All I’m trying to say is that if you’re going to worship in a church, do it in one that doesn’t owe the government jack shit.

I understand that - but the premise is flawed is all I'm pointing out.

When someone enters a contract regarding limitations on their speech, and without duress, that's a voluntary and binding contract and there's no point in bringing up the 1st amendment at all - - - that's like waiving my right to a fair trial and then crying from jail that my rights were violated. It's dishonestly invoking rights violations where they don't at all exist.

 

[Paulie]

...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...

"Can't preach politics from the pulpit"

is the only thing churches are prohibited from doing in order to attain and keep their 501c3

Which I feel is a violation of several constitutional principles and liberties. Churches have always played a important role in the social and political changes of this nation. Much that came from the pulpit.

Exactly.

 

[Paulie]

You’re missing the point. You all are. None of the churches should be taxed simply because they shouldn’t be taxed, not because they owe something in return for this gift. The government bribed the church with a tax free designation and they accepted it, and in exchange gave up a certain part of their right to free speech. That’s the point I’m trying to make. Why would you want to go to a church that literally can’t say certain things the government says they can’t?

Shouldn't be taxed simply because they shouldn't be taxed is where your confusion is. They're not special, if I have to pay property tax then so should they and if they're going to be exempt, thus raising MY tax bill - then there's got to be some incentive on the part of the tax-payer as well.

They're not elected representatives with any right to use my money for partisan politics. That's pretty straight forward.

You don’t know me well, apparently. I don’t want ANYONE being taxed. Taxation is theft, plain and simple.

So it's a great argument to say "hey, in particular the church shouldn't be taxed and therefore...their tax exemption shouldn't come with any stipulations?"

As opposed to making a thread about not taxing anyone period?

There's a word for that.

Once everyone's exempt, you'd have some sort of an argument here.

You’re still missing me man. All I’m trying to say is that if you’re going to worship in a church, do it in one that doesn’t owe the government jack shit.

I understand that - but the premise is flawed is all I'm pointing out.

When someone enters a contract regarding limitations on their speech, and without duress, that's a voluntary and binding contract and there's no point in bringing up the 1st amendment at all - - - that's like waiving my right to a fair trial and then crying from jail that my rights were violated. It's dishonestly invoking rights violations where they don't at all exist.

There’s an EXACT reason to bring up the 1st, and that reason is that you’d be a fool to worship in a church that voluntarily gave up that right.

 

[G.T.]

Shouldn't be taxed simply because they shouldn't be taxed is where your confusion is. They're not special, if I have to pay property tax then so should they and if they're going to be exempt, thus raising MY tax bill - then there's got to be some incentive on the part of the tax-payer as well.

They're not elected representatives with any right to use my money for partisan politics. That's pretty straight forward.

You don’t know me well, apparently. I don’t want ANYONE being taxed. Taxation is theft, plain and simple.

So it's a great argument to say "hey, in particular the church shouldn't be taxed and therefore...their tax exemption shouldn't come with any stipulations?"

As opposed to making a thread about not taxing anyone period?

There's a word for that.

Once everyone's exempt, you'd have some sort of an argument here.

You’re still missing me man. All I’m trying to say is that if you’re going to worship in a church, do it in one that doesn’t owe the government jack shit.

I understand that - but the premise is flawed is all I'm pointing out.

When someone enters a contract regarding limitations on their speech, and without duress, that's a voluntary and binding contract and there's no point in bringing up the 1st amendment at all - - - that's like waiving my right to a fair trial and then crying from jail that my rights were violated. It's dishonestly invoking rights violations where they don't at all exist.

There’s an EXACT reason to bring up the 1st, and that reason is that you’d be a fool to worship in a church that voluntarily gave up that right.

You thanked this below post...which you're apparently agreeing with me now was incorrect...that's where the confusion lies. It's not a violation when it's voluntary and in exchange for something.

"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"

 

[harmonica]

...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...

"Can't preach politics from the pulpit"

is the only thing churches are prohibited from doing in order to attain and keep their 501c3

Which I feel is a violation of several constitutional principles and liberties. Churches have always played a important role in the social and political changes of this nation. Much that came from the pulpit.

..the churches are not perfect....they can be wrong also
..they rape children and then the hierarchy tries to cover it up
..they TORTURED people
...they punished Galileo
...they pillaged a CHRISTIAN city for -------------$$$$$
Siege of Zara - Wikipedia

 

[G.T.]

...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...

"Can't preach politics from the pulpit"

is the only thing churches are prohibited from doing in order to attain and keep their 501c3

Which I feel is a violation of several constitutional principles and liberties. Churches have always played a important role in the social and political changes of this nation. Much that came from the pulpit.

That's true, but it doesn't give them special status over anyone else that has done same and it doesn't give them some divine right to not be taxed for their property like most everyone else.

The fact that the exemption exists at all is in honor of what you've just said which...isn't a good enough reason for me but that part's merely subjective.

 

[Flash]

..how will the country be governed then without taxes? no military/no border patrol/no TSA/etc?

Nobody has ever said we need NO government. Some government is legitimate. We need a few necessary government functions like military, police, courts etc. It is good to pool our money and build roads funded through a user fee like a fuel tax. Most people would agree to pool their resources for a minimal level of literacy education.

However, our filthy ass government has become bloated and out of control and is much larger than it should be. There should be absolutely no welfare, subsidies, grants, entitlements or bailouts from the government. We don't need good portion the government agencies that are sapping wealth from the productive economy.

 

[Paulie]

...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...

"Can't preach politics from the pulpit"

is the only thing churches are prohibited from doing in order to attain and keep their 501c3

Which I feel is a violation of several constitutional principles and liberties. Churches have always played a important role in the social and political changes of this nation. Much that came from the pulpit.

..the churches are not perfect....they can be wrong also
..they rape children and then the hierarchy tries to cover it up
..they TORTURED people
...they punished Galileo
...they pillaged a CHRISTIAN city for -------------$$$$$
Siege of Zara - Wikipedia

You’re confusing church and god now. God is everywhere you don’t need to be in a church to worship your creator.

 

[mdk]

...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...

"Can't preach politics from the pulpit"

is the only thing churches are prohibited from doing in order to attain and keep their 501c3

Which I feel is a violation of several constitutional principles and liberties. Churches have always played a important role in the social and political changes of this nation. Much that came from the pulpit.

..the churches are not perfect....they can be wrong also
..they rape children and then the hierarchy tries to cover it up
..they TORTURED people
...they punished Galileo
...they pillaged a CHRISTIAN city for -------------$$$$$
Siege of Zara - Wikipedia

Of course they are not. The church has a long and rich history. And let’s be real, a lot of that history is positively awful and barbaric.

 

[Paulie]

You don’t know me well, apparently. I don’t want ANYONE being taxed. Taxation is theft, plain and simple.

So it's a great argument to say "hey, in particular the church shouldn't be taxed and therefore...their tax exemption shouldn't come with any stipulations?"

As opposed to making a thread about not taxing anyone period?

There's a word for that.

Once everyone's exempt, you'd have some sort of an argument here.

You’re still missing me man. All I’m trying to say is that if you’re going to worship in a church, do it in one that doesn’t owe the government jack shit.

I understand that - but the premise is flawed is all I'm pointing out.

When someone enters a contract regarding limitations on their speech, and without duress, that's a voluntary and binding contract and there's no point in bringing up the 1st amendment at all - - - that's like waiving my right to a fair trial and then crying from jail that my rights were violated. It's dishonestly invoking rights violations where they don't at all exist.

There’s an EXACT reason to bring up the 1st, and that reason is that you’d be a fool to worship in a church that voluntarily gave up that right.

You thanked this below post...which you're apparently agreeing with me now was incorrect...that's where the confusion lies. It's not a violation when it's voluntary and in exchange for something.

"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"

I don’t know where we got confused but I never agreed that was incorrect. Maybe over semantics involving legalities concerning the 1st, but at the end of the day, if you waive a constitutional right in return for some kind of gain then you’re a fool.

 

[Paulie]

...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...

"Can't preach politics from the pulpit"

is the only thing churches are prohibited from doing in order to attain and keep their 501c3

Which I feel is a violation of several constitutional principles and liberties. Churches have always played a important role in the social and political changes of this nation. Much that came from the pulpit.

..the churches are not perfect....they can be wrong also
..they rape children and then the hierarchy tries to cover it up
..they TORTURED people
...they punished Galileo
...they pillaged a CHRISTIAN city for -------------$$$$$
Siege of Zara - Wikipedia

Of course they are not. The church has a long and rich history. And let’s be real, a lot of that history is positively awful and barbaric.

That’s been by design for hundreds of years to oppress believers.

 

[harmonica]

...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...

"Can't preach politics from the pulpit"

is the only thing churches are prohibited from doing in order to attain and keep their 501c3

Which I feel is a violation of several constitutional principles and liberties. Churches have always played a important role in the social and political changes of this nation. Much that came from the pulpit.

..the churches are not perfect....they can be wrong also
..they rape children and then the hierarchy tries to cover it up
..they TORTURED people
...they punished Galileo
...they pillaged a CHRISTIAN city for -------------$$$$$
Siege of Zara - Wikipedia

You’re confusing church and god now. God is everywhere you don’t need to be in a church to worship your creator.

there is no god--plain and simple ..so your post is wrong/worthless/etc

 

[G.T.]

So it's a great argument to say "hey, in particular the church shouldn't be taxed and therefore...their tax exemption shouldn't come with any stipulations?"

As opposed to making a thread about not taxing anyone period?

There's a word for that.

Once everyone's exempt, you'd have some sort of an argument here.

You’re still missing me man. All I’m trying to say is that if you’re going to worship in a church, do it in one that doesn’t owe the government jack shit.

I understand that - but the premise is flawed is all I'm pointing out.

When someone enters a contract regarding limitations on their speech, and without duress, that's a voluntary and binding contract and there's no point in bringing up the 1st amendment at all - - - that's like waiving my right to a fair trial and then crying from jail that my rights were violated. It's dishonestly invoking rights violations where they don't at all exist.

There’s an EXACT reason to bring up the 1st, and that reason is that you’d be a fool to worship in a church that voluntarily gave up that right.

You thanked this below post...which you're apparently agreeing with me now was incorrect...that's where the confusion lies. It's not a violation when it's voluntary and in exchange for something.

"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"

I don’t know where we got confused but I never agreed that was incorrect. Maybe over semantics involving legalities concerning the 1st, but at the end of the day, if you waive a constitutional right in return for some kind of gain then you’re a fool.

Here's what's was confused, in my opinion...

you agree they voluntarily did so, here:

you’d be a fool to worship in a church that voluntarily gave up that right.

But you're agreeing that it's a violation of the right.

the adjective voluntary, in this scenario, precludes the possibility of it being a violation. Follow that? That's what's confusing.

 

[Paulie]

You’re still missing me man. All I’m trying to say is that if you’re going to worship in a church, do it in one that doesn’t owe the government jack shit.

I understand that - but the premise is flawed is all I'm pointing out.

When someone enters a contract regarding limitations on their speech, and without duress, that's a voluntary and binding contract and there's no point in bringing up the 1st amendment at all - - - that's like waiving my right to a fair trial and then crying from jail that my rights were violated. It's dishonestly invoking rights violations where they don't at all exist.

There’s an EXACT reason to bring up the 1st, and that reason is that you’d be a fool to worship in a church that voluntarily gave up that right.

You thanked this below post...which you're apparently agreeing with me now was incorrect...that's where the confusion lies. It's not a violation when it's voluntary and in exchange for something.

"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"

I don’t know where we got confused but I never agreed that was incorrect. Maybe over semantics involving legalities concerning the 1st, but at the end of the day, if you waive a constitutional right in return for some kind of gain then you’re a fool.

Here's what's was confused, in my opinion...

you agree they voluntarily did so, here:

you’d be a fool to worship in a church that voluntarily gave up that right.

But you're agreeing that it's a violation of the right.

the adjective voluntary, in this scenario, precludes the possibility of it being a violation. Follow that? That's what's confusing.

Take out “violation” and everything else I stand by. That was my mistake.

 

[mdk]

...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...

"Can't preach politics from the pulpit"

is the only thing churches are prohibited from doing in order to attain and keep their 501c3

Which I feel is a violation of several constitutional principles and liberties. Churches have always played a important role in the social and political changes of this nation. Much that came from the pulpit.

That's true, but it doesn't give them special status over anyone else that has done same and it doesn't give them some divine right to not be taxed for their property like most everyone else.

The fact that the exemption exists at all is in honor of what you've just said which...isn't a good enough reason for me but that part's merely subjective.

I think they should be free to say whatever they wish from the pulpit and still remain tax exempt. The Johnson Amendment is the government’s heavy handed excuse to control speech from the pulpit. If individual members of the church find what’s being endorsed objectionable then they are free to find a more accommodating parish that aligns with their views.