CDZ Religious freedom
- Thread starter Tommy Tainant
- Start date
Penelope
Diamond Member
- Jul 15, 2014
- 60,265
- 15,803
- 2,210
The God of Abraham was probably Baal. Moses made laws after Abraham and if Abraham had known Moses laws he would of given Ismael double inheritance.
The Right of the Firstborn
15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father’s strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.
God is generic and all gods are equally right to whoever believes. How many sects of Judaism and Christianity are there??? All thinking something different.
Penelope
Diamond Member
- Jul 15, 2014
- 60,265
- 15,803
- 2,210
Paula Wright investigated by GOP and refused to answer. Nothing but prosperity preachers.
Televangelists escape penalty in Senate inquiry
They need to start paying taxes on everything. They prey on people to get their money. Give and it shall be given.
Televangelists escape penalty in Senate inquiry
They need to start paying taxes on everything. They prey on people to get their money. Give and it shall be given.
well named
poorly undertitled
- Oct 2, 2018
- 432
- 84
- 80
I could have written my post more clearly, but you missed the point. It is true that churches are automatically granted 501(c)(3) status without having to bother with all the administrative overhead and registration. But they are required to adhere to 501(c)(3) rules, or they can lose that status, and thereby lose their tax exemption.
You wrote that "tax laws can't be applied to religious institutions, because of the [Establishment] clause." That's not true, and that's the point I was challenging. The court in the Pierce Creek case (in the link above) rejected that argument. The rules aren't really enforced very strictly, but that's not because the Establishment clause forbids it.
Look at his hands.
Yeah... small.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,558
- 52,805
- 2,290
As long as they don't violate U.S. law or the Constitution, they can do what they want.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,558
- 52,805
- 2,290
Except for Islam...Right? They seem to be making it a big deal whatever you may think about religion......
Penelope
Diamond Member
- Jul 15, 2014
- 60,265
- 15,803
- 2,210
Look at his hands.
Yeah... small.
He is pulling her into him and how inappropriate. He can put them on her shoulder, but right under her boobs. UGH!
Tommy Tainant
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #52
It isnt a legal issue. More to do with reticence and manners. We have street preachers and the like but you wouldnt discuss it in the pub or work.
That's fucking scary, right there!
Anti-blasphemy laws and Freedom of Speech are mutually exclusive to each other.
That's fucked up.
Tommy Tainant
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #53
Nope. We dont discuss religion full stop. I worked in a business that was multi faith and we never discussed religious issues. We all got along nicely.
- Banned
- #54
Nobody has ever been prohibited from saying that since the U.S. became a country; that's just hysterical rubbish spread by assorted deviants and sociopaths.
- Banned
- #55
No, they aren't; the govt. can't require them to comply. The IRS can't even audit them without express permission for the Director and the AG both.
Nobody has taken any church to the SC precisely because nobody is stupid enough to waster their money on such an obvious loser of suit. The best the IRS can do is maybe find a pastor or a minister abusing the tax code by say, using a church owned airplane for private use; that is a taxable perk, and all paid church employees and contractors have to pay the same payroll taxes as any other employee does. They nailed some preacher on that just a couple years ago for doing that, and another in Dallas for not reporting something like $348,000 in income. They did not touch the church or the ministry themselves.
You need to go read the Peirce Creek case again.
well named
poorly undertitled
- Oct 2, 2018
- 432
- 84
- 80
You can read it yourself, here. The entire logic of the decision would make zero sense if one begins with the assumption that the Establishment Clause forbids the taxing of churches. It would be impossible under such a reading of the clause for any bona fide church (to use the language of the decision, pp. 6-8) to lose tax exempt status.
"Plaintiffs argue that the IRS has no statutory authority to revoke the Section 501(c)(3) status of a church unless it determines that the church is not a bona fide church. It is undisputed by the parties that the Church at Pierce Creek is a bona fide church, and the IRS does not argue, nor has it ever argued, that it revoked the Section 501(c)(3) status of the church because it doubted that the Church at Pierce Creek is a bona fide church. Instead, the IRS asserts that it revoked the Section 501(c)(3) advance determination because the church undertook partisan political activity in direct violation of Section 501(c)(3)....
In this case, the Secretary determined, in compliance with the procedures set forth in CAPA, that the Church at Pierce Creek, while it remained a bona fide church, was not an organization described in Section 501(c)(3) because it had published or distributed a statement in opposition to a candidate for public office. Because the Secretary determined that the Church at Pierce Creek was not an organization described in Section 501(c)(3), he had the statutory authority to determine that it was no longer a church that was exempt from taxation under Section 501(a) and to revoke its Section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. See 26 U.S.C. § 7611(d)(1)(A)."
It should already be apparent here that it is the church's status as a 501(c)(3) organization (even when assumed under 508(c), cf. p. 7) that exempts it from taxes, not the establishment clause. But the court also deals with a constitutional claim directly (emphasis added):In this case, the Secretary determined, in compliance with the procedures set forth in CAPA, that the Church at Pierce Creek, while it remained a bona fide church, was not an organization described in Section 501(c)(3) because it had published or distributed a statement in opposition to a candidate for public office. Because the Secretary determined that the Church at Pierce Creek was not an organization described in Section 501(c)(3), he had the statutory authority to determine that it was no longer a church that was exempt from taxation under Section 501(a) and to revoke its Section 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status. See 26 U.S.C. § 7611(d)(1)(A)."
"Plaintiffs next contend that the revocation of their tax-exempt status violated the right to free exercise of religion guaranteed by the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000bb, (“RFRA”) and the First Amendment... [snipped discussion of RFRA]....
While plaintiffs probably are correct that the revocation has imposed a burden on their ability to engage in partisan political activity and may deter some people from contributing money to the Church, they have failed to establish that the revocation has imposed a burden on their free exercise of religion. Plaintiffs were offered a choice: they could engage in partisan political activity and forfeit their Section 501(c)(3) status or they could refrain from partisan political activity and retain their Section 501(c)(3) status. That choice is unconnected to plaintiffs’ ability to freely exercise their religion. Plaintiffs therefore have not demonstrated that the IRS substantially burdened their free exercise of religion....
In fact, the only way in which the revocation of Section 501(c)(3) status has had any effect on plaintiffs’ exercise of religion is that the Church may now have less operating money to spend on religious activities because it is a taxable entity. The fact that plaintiffs may now have less money to spend on their religious activities as a result of their participation in partisan political activity, however, is insufficient to establish a substantial burden on their free exercise of religion. See Jimmy Swaggert Ministries v. Board of Equalization of California, 493 U.S. 378, 391 (1990) (“to the extent that imposition of a generally applicable tax merely decreases the amount of money appellant has to spend on its religious activities, any such burden is not
constitutionally significant”). Cf. Bob Jones Univ. v. United States, 461 U.S. 574, 603-04 (1983) (“Denial of tax benefits will inevitably have a substantial impact on the operation of private religious schools, but will not prevent those schools from observing their religious tenets”).
Even if plaintiffs could establish a substantial burden, the government has met the compelling interest standard. The government has a compelling interest in maintaining the integrity of the tax system and in not subsidizing partisan political activity, and Section 501(c)(3) is the least restrictive means of accomplishing that purpose. See Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680, 699-700 (1989) (“even a substantial burden would be justified by the ‘broad public interest in maintaining a sound tax system,’ free of ‘myriad exceptions flowing from a wide variety of religious beliefs’”); Adams v. Commissioner, -- F.3d --, 1999 WL 111126 (3rd Cir. 1999) (“The least restrictive means of furthering a compelling interest in the collection of taxes . . . is in fact, to implement that system in a uniform, mandatory way”); Christian Echoes National Ministry, Inc. v. United States, 470 F.2d at 856-57 (“[T]he limitations imposed by Congress in Section 501(c)(3) are constitutionally valid. The free exercise clause of the First Amendment is restrained only to the extent of denying tax-exempt status and then only in keeping with an overwhelming and compelling Governmental interest: That of guarantying that the wall separating church and state remain high and firm”). Plaintiffs therefore cannot prevail on their free exercise claims."
If the establishment clause by itself forbade taxation of churches, all of this would be moot. It wouldn't even make sense, and the plaintiffs would have simply appealed the ruling on that basis. Instead they made a claim under the free exercise clause and it was rejected. Religious organizations have no recognized constitutional right to be exempt from taxation. While plaintiffs probably are correct that the revocation has imposed a burden on their ability to engage in partisan political activity and may deter some people from contributing money to the Church, they have failed to establish that the revocation has imposed a burden on their free exercise of religion. Plaintiffs were offered a choice: they could engage in partisan political activity and forfeit their Section 501(c)(3) status or they could refrain from partisan political activity and retain their Section 501(c)(3) status. That choice is unconnected to plaintiffs’ ability to freely exercise their religion. Plaintiffs therefore have not demonstrated that the IRS substantially burdened their free exercise of religion....
In fact, the only way in which the revocation of Section 501(c)(3) status has had any effect on plaintiffs’ exercise of religion is that the Church may now have less operating money to spend on religious activities because it is a taxable entity. The fact that plaintiffs may now have less money to spend on their religious activities as a result of their participation in partisan political activity, however, is insufficient to establish a substantial burden on their free exercise of religion. See Jimmy Swaggert Ministries v. Board of Equalization of California, 493 U.S. 378, 391 (1990) (“to the extent that imposition of a generally applicable tax merely decreases the amount of money appellant has to spend on its religious activities, any such burden is not
constitutionally significant”). Cf. Bob Jones Univ. v. United States, 461 U.S. 574, 603-04 (1983) (“Denial of tax benefits will inevitably have a substantial impact on the operation of private religious schools, but will not prevent those schools from observing their religious tenets”).
Even if plaintiffs could establish a substantial burden, the government has met the compelling interest standard. The government has a compelling interest in maintaining the integrity of the tax system and in not subsidizing partisan political activity, and Section 501(c)(3) is the least restrictive means of accomplishing that purpose. See Hernandez v. Commissioner, 490 U.S. 680, 699-700 (1989) (“even a substantial burden would be justified by the ‘broad public interest in maintaining a sound tax system,’ free of ‘myriad exceptions flowing from a wide variety of religious beliefs’”); Adams v. Commissioner, -- F.3d --, 1999 WL 111126 (3rd Cir. 1999) (“The least restrictive means of furthering a compelling interest in the collection of taxes . . . is in fact, to implement that system in a uniform, mandatory way”); Christian Echoes National Ministry, Inc. v. United States, 470 F.2d at 856-57 (“[T]he limitations imposed by Congress in Section 501(c)(3) are constitutionally valid. The free exercise clause of the First Amendment is restrained only to the extent of denying tax-exempt status and then only in keeping with an overwhelming and compelling Governmental interest: That of guarantying that the wall separating church and state remain high and firm”). Plaintiffs therefore cannot prevail on their free exercise claims."
You are correct that there exist other federal laws which place restrictions on the processes by which the IRS may audit churches, but those are irrelevant to the claim you made about the establishment clause.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 112,558
- 52,805
- 2,290
Except for the no go zones in Britain...right? where muslim rape gangs are raping British girls, while the police and social service bureaucrats look the other way...you mean like that?
Bob Blaylock
Diamond Member
- Banned
- #58
Psalms 53:1:
- The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.
Last edited:
Tilly
Platinum Member
- Banned
- #60
Ah, what a distortion of the issues here. The church ran a paid political ad against a specific candidate, Bill Clinton. While a pastor has free speech to say whatever he wants, like anybody else, and can talk about political issues as they concern Christians, they can't use tax exempt money to endorse specific candidates or oppose them by paying for political ads. The pastor and the congregation would be free to use their own money as private citizens to do so, and they would be free to oppose things like abortion and homosexuals and their propensity for pedophilia or anything else to do with social issues to their heart's content
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
India Bows to Trump, Accepts All U.S. Trade Conditions and Tariffs- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 16
-
Chinese Companies Are Moving Their Manufacturing to the U.S. in Order to Avoid Trump’s Tariffs- Started by excalibur
- Replies: 2
-
