Pulpit Freedom Sunday.

[bodecea]

Would you rather have preachers across the country telling their flock that a vote for a certain candidate imperils their souls to eternal damnation, I think you would.

If they pay taxes, they can tell their flock what ever they want.

Oh ok, so you agree with us then. You see dumbass, Pastors DO pay the same exact income taxes that you do so we can all say you support them saying whatever they want. Thanks.

Churches pay their taxes? Religions pay taxes? Well then, problem solved.

 

[occupied]

Matters of Conscience, especially relating to Free Speech are above the Authority of Government to Regulate. Using the Tax Codes to Extort or Blackmail Religious Institutions into compliance with the Whims, schemes, Scams, of It's making, is both an Abuse and an Abomination. We have both a Responsibility and an Obligation to Witness, and tell the Truth about what we see. You don't like that? Bear your own Witness to the Truth from Your Own Unique Perspective. ... Or would you prefer to have someone threaten to shut you up, using the Power of Government, and the Threat of Blackmail or Extortion?

Would you rather have preachers across the country telling their flock that a vote for a certain candidate imperils their souls to eternal damnation, I think you would.

Supporting certain paltforms and candidates DOES threaten their souls, so it is a matter of faith and duty for a Pastor to teach their flock this truth. The govt, according to our Constitution, has no right to dictate how or what a Pastor preaches according to his faith.

So does the Tailiban, where do you draw the line between guidance and spiritual coercion for worldly political purposes? Hint: there is no line, it's all coercion and an affront to the treasured philosophy of free will.

 

[Salt Jones]

Would you rather have preachers across the country telling their flock that a vote for a certain candidate imperils their souls to eternal damnation, I think you would.

If they pay taxes, they can tell their flock what ever they want.

Oh ok, so you agree with us then. You see dumbass, Pastors DO pay the same exact income taxes that you do so we can all say you support them saying whatever they want. Thanks.

Does your church pay taxes on all the money it collects? I know you know the difference.

 

[OKTexas]

Matters of Conscience, especially relating to Free Speech are above the Authority of Government to Regulate. Using the Tax Codes to Extort or Blackmail Religious Institutions into compliance with the Whims, schemes, Scams, of It's making, is both an Abuse and an Abomination. We have both a Responsibility and an Obligation to Witness, and tell the Truth about what we see. You don't like that? Bear your own Witness to the Truth from Your Own Unique Perspective. ... Or would you prefer to have someone threaten to shut you up, using the Power of Government, and the Threat of Blackmail or Extortion?

And here is the true danger....thinking that a religion is above the rule of law.

This particular law has never been tested in the courts, I seriously doubt that is will be upheld, the only way to know is to test it.

 

[bodecea]

I think the time has come to end such tax exempt status.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Matters of Conscience, especially relating to Free Speech are above the Authority of Government to Regulate. Using the Tax Codes to Extort or Blackmail Religious Institutions into compliance with the Whims, schemes, Scams, of It's making, is both an Abuse and an Abomination. We have both a Responsibility and an Obligation to Witness, and tell the Truth about what we see. You don't like that? Bear your own Witness to the Truth from Your Own Unique Perspective. ... Or would you prefer to have someone threaten to shut you up, using the Power of Government, and the Threat of Blackmail or Extortion?

Was that stunning display of pablum intended to actually say anything, or was it just random word salad?

 

[Jarlaxle]

Would you rather have preachers across the country telling their flock that a vote for a certain candidate imperils their souls to eternal damnation, I think you would.

If they pay taxes, they can tell their flock what ever they want.

Oh ok, so you agree with us then. You see dumbass, Pastors DO pay the same exact income taxes that you do so we can all say you support them saying whatever they want. Thanks.

Are you LYING or are you just REALLY STUPID?

 

[Jarlaxle]

I think the time has come to end such tax exempt status.

The time came a VERY long time ago.

Never mind tax-exempt status, some churches (with the Roman Catholic Church topping the list) should be shut down under RICO as being organized criminal organizations.

 

[occupied]

I think the time has come to end such tax exempt status.

I disagree, it would open the door to allowing churches to become primarily political organizations, for the good of the country we must hold the line against legitimizing a nation of extremist Westboroughs.

 

[RosieS]

A citizen has freedom of speech. If a pastor wants to stand in the town square or speak at a town hall meeting about politics, fine. That is the same free speech as anyone.

But until that pulpit, that church building AND the land it sits on pays the property tax and the school tax and the library tax and the fire protection tax I pay as a homeowner...

shut up about politics in churches that are exempt from local taxation.

Regards from Rosie

 

[bodecea]

I think the time has come to end such tax exempt status.

I disagree, it would open the door to allowing churches to become primarily political organizations, for the good of the country we must hold the line against legitimizing a nation of extremist Westboroughs.

I would say, from its inception as a support religion for Slavery and the Confederacy, the Southern Baptists are already there....and in Utah, the Mormons are already there.

 

[jtpr312]

If they pay taxes, they can tell their flock what ever they want.

Oh ok, so you agree with us then. You see dumbass, Pastors DO pay the same exact income taxes that you do so we can all say you support them saying whatever they want. Thanks.

Churches pay their taxes? Religions pay taxes? Well then, problem solved.

Reading comprehension problems slick? If "they" pay "their" taxes, "they" can tell, (now here we go, follow along), "their[/B]"-(1.Belonging to or associated with the people or things previously mentioned or easily identified. 2.Belonging to or associated with a person of unspecified sex) flocks what ever they want. It's obvious the poster was saying, from the context of both his post and the post he was responding to, that preachers can say whatever they want if they pay taxes. Preachers DO pay taxes, therefore the poster agrees that seeing as how preachers pay taxes they should be allowed to say whatever they want. Try to keep up.

 

[bodecea]

Oh ok, so you agree with us then. You see dumbass, Pastors DO pay the same exact income taxes that you do so we can all say you support them saying whatever they want. Thanks.

Churches pay their taxes? Religions pay taxes? Well then, problem solved.

Reading comprehension problems slick? If "they" pay "their" taxes, "they" can tell, (now here we go, follow along), "their"-(1.Belonging to or associated with the people or things previously mentioned or easily identified. 2.Belonging to or associated with a person of unspecified sex flocks . It's obvious the poster was saying, from the context of both his post and the post he was responding to, that preachers can say whatever they want if they pay taxes. Preachers DO pay taxes, therefore the poster agrees that seeing as how preachers pay taxes they should be allowed to say whatever they want. Try to keep up.

Oh, I do keep up. I keep up so well, I can tell when you are blowing smoke.

So...back the the reality that Churches should no longer have tax exempt status. I look forward to that day. Our national budget could use that shot in the arm in revenue too.

 

[occupied]

I think the time has come to end such tax exempt status.

I disagree, it would open the door to allowing churches to become primarily political organizations, for the good of the country we must hold the line against legitimizing a nation of extremist Westboroughs.

I would say, from its inception as a support religion for Slavery and the Confederacy, the Southern Baptists are already there....and in Utah, the Mormons are already there.

I grew up in the Southern baptist organization and know all too well how they try to take over every aspect of their follower's lives, assholes have been trying to become the highly flawed, war loving, poor hating conscience of America for decades and I despise them thoroughly.

 

[OKTexas]

Why is it that no one is questioning this law, or the historical context in which it was passed.

Let me give you a few things to consider.

Passed in 1954 and proposed by a southern democrat.
What movement was just getting started in the US. Hint, Civil Rights.
Where did the prominent civil rights leaders come from. Hint, Churches

Could this law possibly be a remnant of the democrats civil rights oppression campaign.

Let's see who can actually be intellectually honest. Can you still defend the law in historical context.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Matters of Conscience, especially relating to Free Speech are above the Authority of Government to Regulate. Using the Tax Codes to Extort or Blackmail Religious Institutions into compliance with the Whims, schemes, Scams, of It's making, is both an Abuse and an Abomination. We have both a Responsibility and an Obligation to Witness, and tell the Truth about what we see. You don't like that? Bear your own Witness to the Truth from Your Own Unique Perspective. ... Or would you prefer to have someone threaten to shut you up, using the Power of Government, and the Threat of Blackmail or Extortion?

That might be a concern if it was the case, but it’s not.

Religious organizations are free to speak out concerning political issues, just don’t expect to do so tax exempt.

If tax exempt status is an issue, merely create the political entity for political advocacy.

The First Amendment does not guarantee free expression in absolutely every venue and medium, restrictions are allowed provided there are ample alternate avenues of communication, which Section 501(c)(4) provides.
.

 

[bodecea]

Why is it that no one is questioning this law, or the historical context in which it was passed.

Let me give you a few things to consider.

Passed in 1954 and proposed by a southern democrat.
What movement was just getting started in the US. Hint, Civil Rights.
Where did the prominent civil rights leaders come from. Hint, Churches

Could this law possibly be a remnant of the democrats civil rights oppression campaign.

Let's see who can actually be intellectually honest. Can you still defend the law in historical context.

I have no problem with ideas coming from churches. They should not have tax exempt status tho. That needs to go away.

 

[Barb]

Why is it that no one is questioning this law, or the historical context in which it was passed.

Let me give you a few things to consider.

Passed in 1954 and proposed by a southern democrat.
What movement was just getting started in the US. Hint, Civil Rights.
Where did the prominent civil rights leaders come from. Hint, Churches

Could this law possibly be a remnant of the democrats civil rights oppression campaign.

Let's see who can actually be intellectually honest. Can you still defend the law in historical context.

Could very well be, and what you say makes sense. I still think churches should be taxed.

 

[PredFan]

Here is a good argument from someone much smarter than me on Constitutional law.


Churches are Tax Exempt as a Matter of Constitutional Right
Mar 6, 2009 — Stanhose
The U.S. Supreme Court stated in Lemon v. Kurtzman in 1971 that non-taxation of churches is undergirded by “more than 200 years of virtually universal practice imbedded in our colonial experience and continuing into the present.” Here is why: There is a distinction between constitutionally separate “sovereigns.” For one sovereign entity to tax another leaves the taxed one subservient to that authority. This is true both in the symbolic statement of paying the tax and in the practical effect of supporting the sovereign party. So, in our constitutional structure, states may not tax each other, and they may not tax property of the federal government. The District of Columbia does not tax the property owned by foreign governments, and New York does not tax the property owned by the United Nations.

So, too, churches in America are not subservient to the government. The First Amendment to the Constitution requires that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The Constitution prevents the government from wielding its authority to control churches. Churches in this way differ from all other businesses and organizations. They are a unique institution whose existence is not derived from government authority, nor even from governmental acknowledgment. Churches preceded the birth of our nation and will remain long after its death. They transcend geographic and ethnic boundaries.

While the church is not subservient to the government, neither is the government subservient to the church. Although government can aid or support virtually all types of social or educational institutions which have a public purpose with the use of tax money, the Supreme Court stated in 1948 that “no tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions.” Thomas Jefferson coined the highly referenced “wall of separation” between church and state (but not in the Constitution, as many people assume). The separation he referred to must be bilateral and reciprocal. Whatever the degree of separation required by the Constitution, it is surely this: the government may not make the church subservient by taxing its existence.

In Walz v. Tax Commission, the Supreme Court noted that the church’s “uninterrupted freedom from taxation” has “operated affirmatively to help guarantee the free exercise of all forms of religious belief.” The much misunderstood “separation between church and state” is in truth designed to restrict the sovereignty of each over the other. That is, it is designed to achieve a position for each that is neither master nor servant of the other. Exemption from income taxation is essential for respect of the church as a separate sovereign entity. Otherwise the government has the power to encumber and even terminate churches if such taxes are not punctually paid or cannot be so paid in full. Indeed, as the high court noted many years ago, “the power to tax involves the power to destroy.”

The fact that the Constitution mandates a tax exemption for churches is one of the best reasons why churches are not taxed.

You were doing well until the last statement. Going from the very good argument you made to the words; "the Constitution mandates a tax exemption for churches" is too large a leap.

 

[PredFan]

Hope they tax the fuck out of every one of you, the American Christian Taliban needs to be slapped down, theocracies are dangerous as fuck to liberty and damned if you people do not want one, badly.

I guess you think that most churches aren't supporting obama.

I'll bet a moronic hack such as you would support a church that endorsed obama.