Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
I think a more interesting discussion as a spin-off of this thread is your view on taxes.Take out “violation” and everything else I stand by. That was my mistake.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.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.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.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.
"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"
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.
..I totally agree--to much $$$$$$ wasted on crap....but we need some taxes..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.
Why should my taxes be higher, is the question - not what some guy who actually CARES FOR Church thinks.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....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 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.
You owe your servitude to those from whom you derive benefits.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.
.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?..the bible is irrelevant to it .....if they are helping people without profit , fine--no taxWhen 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.
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?
You don’t know me well, apparently. I don’t want ANYONE being taxed. Taxation is theft, plain and simple.
..don't some of the churches help the poor/etc?? that's good and helps the state/etc....?Why should my taxes be higher, is the question - not what some guy who actually CARES FOR Church thinks.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....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 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.
I'm speaking from the vantage point of a tax-payer, not a Church goer, and I'm not seeing any compelling reason for the special treatment. That's all.
The State is a fucking cult.a church is not the state, tax laws have multiple options under voluntary compliance all being indiscriminate to not take advantage of the options, just pay the tax.
anything less than the state is a cult, separate but equal is determined by scotus as being discriminatorily unconstitutional. being religious is not a tax exemption.
I don't have any issue with charities being tax exempt - but the Church wouldn't need the Religion designation in that case, they'd only need the charity designation and charities also don't ... or aren't supposed to be anyhoo ...political if they are tax exempt...don't some of the churches help the poor/etc?? that's good and helps the state/etc....?Why should my taxes be higher, is the question - not what some guy who actually CARES FOR Church thinks.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."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 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.
I'm speaking from the vantage point of a tax-payer, not a Church goer, and I'm not seeing any compelling reason for the special treatment. That's all.
GT where did you go??I understand that - but the premise is flawed is all I'm pointing out.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.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?"You don’t know me well, apparently. I don’t want ANYONE being taxed. Taxation is theft, plain and simple.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.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?
They're not elected representatives with any right to use my money for partisan politics. That's pretty straight forward.
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.
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.
Why should my taxes be higher, is the question - not what some guy who actually CARES FOR Church thinks.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....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 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.
I'm speaking from the vantage point of a tax-payer, not a Church goer, and I'm not seeing any compelling reason for the special treatment. That's all.
The State would like to remedy that situation.....Remember what Oboingo did with charitable contributions?..don't some of the churches help the poor/etc?? that's good and helps the state/etc....?
? what?The State would like to remedy that situation.....Remember what Oboingo did with charitable contributions?..don't some of the churches help the poor/etc?? that's good and helps the state/etc....?
Why Are President Obama And The Democrats Against Charity?? what?The State would like to remedy that situation.....Remember what Oboingo did with charitable contributions?..don't some of the churches help the poor/etc?? that's good and helps the state/etc....?
That's a different argument, though - the 1st clause of your first sentence. I agree with that sentiment, as well - but my answer wouldn't be to throw my arms in the air and say, "heyyy!!! free money for churches...free money for secular groups...free money for everybody!!!"Why should my taxes be higher, is the question - not what some guy who actually CARES FOR Church thinks.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."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 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.
I'm speaking from the vantage point of a tax-payer, not a Church goer, and I'm not seeing any compelling reason for the special treatment. That's all.
I don’t like that secular groups are free to organize, associate, and endorse candidates all the while remaining tax exempt, but churches cannot. It doesn’t sit well with me and I haven’t attended a church service that wasn’t a funeral or bapstism in an age. I am still there a lot for volunteer work, though.
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.
Where did I go?GT where did you go??I understand that - but the premise is flawed is all I'm pointing out.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.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?"You don’t know me well, apparently. I don’t want ANYONE being taxed. Taxation is theft, plain and simple.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.
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.
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.
did you find where in the first A you can give up your rights or that the government can make a law if you volunteer???
You’re missing the point. The point is that they should ALL be tax-free with literally nothing owed in return for it.
the SAMURAI !!!!!!---good one thereWhy Are President Obama And The Democrats Against Charity?? what?The State would like to remedy that situation.....Remember what Oboingo did with charitable contributions?..don't some of the churches help the poor/etc?? that's good and helps the state/etc....?
If the Government had the power to tax them at a different rate in a discriminatory way, then your second paragraph would be pertinent.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.
But why should government have the power to compel anyone, or any organization, to waive any right, or give up anything, as a condition of being allowed to exercise another right?
The whole point of religions being allowed tax-exempt status is to protect them from the sort of government interference that would unavoidably come from being subject to taxation. And yet, it is being held as an excuse to impose the sort of interference that it was supposed to protect.
