The 501c3 designation is what has destroyed the church

[Paulie]

If you give someone a gift of $10,000 why would it need to be taxed?

It’s already been taxed.

there's a lot of double, triple sometimes quadruple tax fuckery going on. its gross

All we have to do to stop it is all stop paying the taxes. If everyone stopped paying them there’s literally nothing they could do about it.

 

[ding]

But getting back to churches and free speech.

Debating social issues is a great thing in church. We have a rich heritage of doing so.

Endorsing candidates? Bad fucking idea.

Promoting candidates? Bad fucking idea

Recommending candidates? Bad fucking idea

But discussing social issues and how it pertains to right and wrong? That's a good idea.

so you dont think people in church should give suggestions as to who they think would be a good choice in the next election???

That’s right.

I don’t want collusion between politics and religion.

To me endorsing candidates leads to collusion. Whereas endorsing ideas doesn’t.

so you dont want people endorsing candidates,
and how does religion and politics collude with each other???

you seem to be missing the point that its people doing these things not religion,,,and youre calling for people control

No. I don’t want representatives of the church endorsing candidates from the pulpit.

I’m ok with them endorsing ideals and values because they are in the business of teaching ideals and values.

The founding fathers of freedom and liberty didn’t promote themselves in their churches. They promoted ideals like abolition.

so you want to control people and what they say to others,,,

GOT IT,,,

SORRY BUT THAT VIOLATES THE 1ST AMENDMENT,,,

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

 

[progressive hunter]

But getting back to churches and free speech.

Debating social issues is a great thing in church. We have a rich heritage of doing so.

Endorsing candidates? Bad fucking idea.

Promoting candidates? Bad fucking idea

Recommending candidates? Bad fucking idea

But discussing social issues and how it pertains to right and wrong? That's a good idea.

so you dont think people in church should give suggestions as to who they think would be a good choice in the next election???

That’s right.

I don’t want collusion between politics and religion.

To me endorsing candidates leads to collusion. Whereas endorsing ideas doesn’t.

so you dont want people endorsing candidates,
and how does religion and politics collude with each other???

you seem to be missing the point that its people doing these things not religion,,,and youre calling for people control

How does religion and politics collude?

Through individuals.

so your solution is to control the people and what they say or dont say ,,,

 

[Paulie]

I’m totally fine with a church endorsing candidates. It’s free speech. If you don’t like the candidates your church supports then go to a different church.

 

[progressive hunter]

so you dont think people in church should give suggestions as to who they think would be a good choice in the next election???

That’s right.

I don’t want collusion between politics and religion.

To me endorsing candidates leads to collusion. Whereas endorsing ideas doesn’t.

so you dont want people endorsing candidates,
and how does religion and politics collude with each other???

you seem to be missing the point that its people doing these things not religion,,,and youre calling for people control

No. I don’t want representatives of the church endorsing candidates from the pulpit.

I’m ok with them endorsing ideals and values because they are in the business of teaching ideals and values.

The founding fathers of freedom and liberty didn’t promote themselves in their churches. They promoted ideals like abolition.

so you want to control people and what they say to others,,,

GOT IT,,,

SORRY BUT THAT VIOLATES THE 1ST AMENDMENT,,,

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

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

 

[Grumblenuts]

And was expressly written to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions

Bullshit.

A state religion (also called an established religion or official religion) is a religious body or creed officially endorsed by the state. A state with an official religion, while not secular, is not necessarily a theocracy, a country whose rulers have both secular and spiritual authority. State religions are official or government-sanctioned establishments of a religion, but the state does not need be under the control of the religion (as in a theocracy) nor is the state-sanctioned religion necessarily under the control of the state.

The first amendment to the US Constitution states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." The two parts, known as the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" respectively, form the textual basis for the Supreme Court's interpretations of the "separation of church and state" doctrine.[40] Three central concepts were derived from the 1st Amendment which became America's doctrine for church-state separation: no coercion in religious matters, no expectation to support a religion against one's will, and religious liberty encompasses all religions. In sum, citizens are free to embrace or reject a faith, any support for religion - financial or physical - must be voluntary, and all religions are equal in the eyes of the law with no special preference or favoritism.

Giving churches a tax break is giving them a "special preference or favoritism" at my expense.

Actually it's not. Any gift you receive is literally tax exempt for you. Even gifts which exceed the gift tax threshold.

I'm not talking about gift taxes and never did.

Are churches exempt from having to pay taxes? The short answer is "yes."
For purposes of U.S. tax law, churches are considered to be public charities, also known as Section 501(c)(3) organizations. As such, they are generally exempt from federal, state, and local income and property taxes. "Exempt" means they don't have to pay these taxes. This is so even though they may earn substantial amounts of money.

Why are churches classified as charities? Because, under American tax law, charitable activity includes the advancement of religion.

I see nothing charitable about advancing religion. I see it as annoying interference at best. I would gladly support secular institutions doing genuinely charitable works including serving as free public meeting places. I detest being forced to vote in a church every year. That interferes with my free exercise clause.

Donations to churches are gifts.

No shit. I'm talking about the rest. If I could make it any bigger I would.

 

[ding]

If you give someone a gift of $10,000 why would it need to be taxed?

It’s already been taxed.

there's a lot of double, triple sometimes quadruple tax fuckery going on. its gross

All we have to do to stop it is all stop paying the taxes. If everyone stopped paying them there’s literally nothing they could do about it.

I’ll have to ask my employer if they are down with not withholding. But sure, I’m game. I get destroyed because I have a W-2 instead of a 1099.

Which is probably why the government made such a big push to motivate companies to have less 1099ers on their payroll.

I work in an industry where there were a lot of contractors and my company pushed them away from 1099s. It was definitely a tight rope act for them.

 

[Paulie]

so you dont think people in church should give suggestions as to who they think would be a good choice in the next election???

That’s right.

I don’t want collusion between politics and religion.

To me endorsing candidates leads to collusion. Whereas endorsing ideas doesn’t.

so you dont want people endorsing candidates,
and how does religion and politics collude with each other???

you seem to be missing the point that its people doing these things not religion,,,and youre calling for people control

No. I don’t want representatives of the church endorsing candidates from the pulpit.

I’m ok with them endorsing ideals and values because they are in the business of teaching ideals and values.

The founding fathers of freedom and liberty didn’t promote themselves in their churches. They promoted ideals like abolition.

so you want to control people and what they say to others,,,

GOT IT,,,

SORRY BUT THAT VIOLATES THE 1ST AMENDMENT,,,

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.

 

[ding]

That’s right.

I don’t want collusion between politics and religion.

To me endorsing candidates leads to collusion. Whereas endorsing ideas doesn’t.

so you dont want people endorsing candidates,
and how does religion and politics collude with each other???

you seem to be missing the point that its people doing these things not religion,,,and youre calling for people control

No. I don’t want representatives of the church endorsing candidates from the pulpit.

I’m ok with them endorsing ideals and values because they are in the business of teaching ideals and values.

The founding fathers of freedom and liberty didn’t promote themselves in their churches. They promoted ideals like abolition.

so you want to control people and what they say to others,,,

GOT IT,,,

SORRY BUT THAT VIOLATES THE 1ST AMENDMENT,,,

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

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.

 

[Paulie]

If you give someone a gift of $10,000 why would it need to be taxed?

It’s already been taxed.

there's a lot of double, triple sometimes quadruple tax fuckery going on. its gross

All we have to do to stop it is all stop paying the taxes. If everyone stopped paying them there’s literally nothing they could do about it.

I’ll have to ask my employer if they are down with not withholding. But sure, I’m game. I get destroyed because I have a W-2 instead of a 1099.

Which is probably why the government made such a big push to motivate companies to have less 1099ers on their payroll.

I work in an industry where there were a lot of contractors and my company pushed them away from 1099s. It was definitely a tight rope act for them.

Doesn’t help that mortgage companies make you pay your property tax into escrow, but I suppose that’s the only way they can really be assured that the property they still legally own while you’re under the loan is being paid for to Uncle Sam.

Brings the whole argument to the idea of getting rid of all this taxation and reducing the size of the government to the way it was intended.

 

[progressive hunter]

so you dont want people endorsing candidates,
and how does religion and politics collude with each other???

you seem to be missing the point that its people doing these things not religion,,,and youre calling for people control

No. I don’t want representatives of the church endorsing candidates from the pulpit.

I’m ok with them endorsing ideals and values because they are in the business of teaching ideals and values.

The founding fathers of freedom and liberty didn’t promote themselves in their churches. They promoted ideals like abolition.

so you want to control people and what they say to others,,,

GOT IT,,,

SORRY BUT THAT VIOLATES THE 1ST AMENDMENT,,,

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

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,,,

 

[ding]

That’s right.

I don’t want collusion between politics and religion.

To me endorsing candidates leads to collusion. Whereas endorsing ideas doesn’t.

so you dont want people endorsing candidates,
and how does religion and politics collude with each other???

you seem to be missing the point that its people doing these things not religion,,,and youre calling for people control

No. I don’t want representatives of the church endorsing candidates from the pulpit.

I’m ok with them endorsing ideals and values because they are in the business of teaching ideals and values.

The founding fathers of freedom and liberty didn’t promote themselves in their churches. They promoted ideals like abolition.

so you want to control people and what they say to others,,,

GOT IT,,,

SORRY BUT THAT VIOLATES THE 1ST AMENDMENT,,,

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.

 

[progressive hunter]

so you dont want people endorsing candidates,
and how does religion and politics collude with each other???

you seem to be missing the point that its people doing these things not religion,,,and youre calling for people control

No. I don’t want representatives of the church endorsing candidates from the pulpit.

I’m ok with them endorsing ideals and values because they are in the business of teaching ideals and values.

The founding fathers of freedom and liberty didn’t promote themselves in their churches. They promoted ideals like abolition.

so you want to control people and what they say to others,,,

GOT IT,,,

SORRY BUT THAT VIOLATES THE 1ST AMENDMENT,,,

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.

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

 

[ding]

No. I don’t want representatives of the church endorsing candidates from the pulpit.

I’m ok with them endorsing ideals and values because they are in the business of teaching ideals and values.

The founding fathers of freedom and liberty didn’t promote themselves in their churches. They promoted ideals like abolition.

so you want to control people and what they say to others,,,

GOT IT,,,

SORRY BUT THAT VIOLATES THE 1ST AMENDMENT,,,

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

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.

 

[Paulie]

so you dont want people endorsing candidates,
and how does religion and politics collude with each other???

you seem to be missing the point that its people doing these things not religion,,,and youre calling for people control

No. I don’t want representatives of the church endorsing candidates from the pulpit.

I’m ok with them endorsing ideals and values because they are in the business of teaching ideals and values.

The founding fathers of freedom and liberty didn’t promote themselves in their churches. They promoted ideals like abolition.

so you want to control people and what they say to others,,,

GOT IT,,,

SORRY BUT THAT VIOLATES THE 1ST AMENDMENT,,,

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.

 

[ding]

No. I don’t want representatives of the church endorsing candidates from the pulpit.

I’m ok with them endorsing ideals and values because they are in the business of teaching ideals and values.

The founding fathers of freedom and liberty didn’t promote themselves in their churches. They promoted ideals like abolition.

so you want to control people and what they say to others,,,

GOT IT,,,

SORRY BUT THAT VIOLATES THE 1ST AMENDMENT,,,

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.

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.

 

[progressive hunter]

so you want to control people and what they say to others,,,

GOT IT,,,

SORRY BUT THAT VIOLATES THE 1ST AMENDMENT,,,

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

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,,,

 

[progressive hunter]

so you want to control people and what they say to others,,,

GOT IT,,,

SORRY BUT THAT VIOLATES THE 1ST AMENDMENT,,,

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.

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,,,

 

[ding]

No. I don’t want representatives of the church endorsing candidates from the pulpit.

I’m ok with them endorsing ideals and values because they are in the business of teaching ideals and values.

The founding fathers of freedom and liberty didn’t promote themselves in their churches. They promoted ideals like abolition.

so you want to control people and what they say to others,,,

GOT IT,,,

SORRY BUT THAT VIOLATES THE 1ST AMENDMENT,,,

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.

I don’t believe that is the root cause of having poor choices in our elected officials.

I believe the root cause is society itself. We’ve lowered our standards of conduct. As such we get the candidates we deserve.

Apparently they need to be puritans or at least very good at hiding their sexual discretions.

That’s never really been high on my list for selecting leaders. I want guys like Churchill and Truman and Eisenhower and JFK. Those guys were definitely not saints. But they were great leaders.

 

[ding]

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

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,,,

And my goal is to fight for good over evil.