The 501c3 designation is what has destroyed the church

[Picaro]

The left clearly doesn’t understand this issue. As is usually the case.

lol now this is ironic ...

 

[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

lol no it isn't; it doesn't prevent a preacher from talking about politics, either. Quit reading crank sites.

I NEVER SAID IT DID,,,

put your glass's on before you read a comment next time,,

 

[Picaro]

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.

Churches don't forfeit any speech rights whether they incorporate all or part of their church activities, neither do Pastors; they just can't operate as if they also a 501.c4, i.e. a non-profit operating as a political organization. The rule of thumb is "over 50% of time and expenses or so, and campaigning for specific candidates", and even that hasn't ever been taken to the SC, so that's still open as well. They can endorse policies all they want, like anti-abortion, opposing faggots adopting children, etc, to their hearts content. If a Robert Jeffress or a Billy Graham want to make a personal appearance at a rally for a candidate, he is just as free to do so as you are. He just can't stick signs with the candidate's name on church property. If the congregations wants to hang signs opposing abortions , they're free to do so.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Fraud Thriving In U.S. Churches, But You Wouldn't Know It

 

[Grumblenuts]

"It's now impossible for Congress and the White House to deny their objective: to politicize the trusted charitable nonprofit community by authorizing unlimited, unfettered and untraceable political money to flow through the nonprofit sector to benefit partisan special interests," said Tim Delaney, head of the National Council of Nonprofits.

"Charitable nonprofits are not in the business of partisan politics and are not here to be used to hide or launder political money," Delaney said.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The prohibition was passed without controversy in 1954 by a Republican Congress, signed by a Republican president, and has been supported and strengthened on a bipartisan basis by administrations of both political parties.

But the political activities prohibition — also known as the “Johnson Amendment” — is now under attack. Although sometimes framed in terms of religious liberty, the effect of a full repeal would broadly impact the charitable sector, and likely lead to the creation of an array of new 501(c)(3) “super dark money groups” — entities organized as charities or religious organizations, but that operate as tax-deductible vehicles for wealthy donors to secretly influence elections.

 

[Grumblenuts]

House Ways and Means Committee Chair Kevin Brady (R-TX) just snuck a “manager’s amendment” into the House GOP Tax bill that seeks to open up the floodgates to yet another kind of unaccountable political spending that would further undermine our democratic process.

The egregious amendment seriously undermines the separation of Church and State, allowing churches, synagogues, mosques, temples, and other religious organizations to help candidates without fear of losing their tax exempt status — enabling more secret money to flow into elections while their donors enjoy a tax deduction and can remain anonymous.

 

[Picaro]

A lot of whining, innuendo, sniveling deviants, and no evidence, same as with the 'impeachment' scam.

Left wingers were in fact the first to make widespread use of churches in their political agendas; see all the 'Reverends' like Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, MLK, and thousands and thousands more, and then the commie led 'Anti-War' types from the Catholic Churches and assorted 'Social Justice Warriors', ad nauseam. Few questioned their rights to do so then, in the 1950's and 1960's, 1970's, 1980's.

 

[Picaro]

The prohibition was passed without controversy in 1954 by a Republican Congress, signed by a Republican president, and has been supported and strengthened on a bipartisan basis by administrations of both political parties.

But the political activities prohibition — also known as the “Johnson Amendment” — is now under attack. Although sometimes framed in terms of religious liberty, the effect of a full repeal would broadly impact the charitable sector, and likely lead to the creation of an array of new 501(c)(3) “super dark money groups” — entities organized as charities or religious organizations, but that operate as tax-deductible vehicles for wealthy donors to secretly influence elections.

Charities and non-profit organizations are not the same thing, and 501.c3 corp is not synonymous with Churches. There is a reason the SC won't touch a case with such claims couched in such terms, and the IRS will not audit a church except via very tight rules and without express permission from the Commissioner. Faggots and baby killers can whine and cry all they want about it, we al know why they're whining and it has nothing to do with anything except censoring religious leaders and churches.

 

[ding]

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,,,

They weren’t. That’s my point. They also weren’t promoting others for office. They were promoting ideals.

Sometimes there’s a person running for office that fits those ideals better than anyone else. It’s a shame they can’t support that person openly because they took the bribe, err, I mean 501c3.

Refer to scripture about bribes. 501c3 is a bribe. “We’ll give you tax free status but you can’t discuss politics with your congregation.

Draconian bullshit.

You don’t think the congregants discuss it amongst themselves?

All I am saying is that a church is a place to promote ideals and values. Not people.

AGAIN YOU WANT TO TELL OTHER PEOPLE WHAT THEIR VALUES ARE SUPPOSED TO BE BASED ON YOUR STANDARDS,,,

WHAT ARE YOU A FUCKING NAZI TOO??

I don’t see how I am doing that. But go ahead and believe that.

 

[ding]

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,,,

The only restrictions on free speech applies to government. You don’t have a right to free speech at work, right? Does that bother you?

And for the record, I’m not proposing laws or regulations. We already have too many of those. I am proposing common sense. Common decency.

It is not decent to use a position of religious trust as a vehicle to promote men. Especially when it comes to politics. Whatever happens between congregants is one thing, but the institution should not be promoting candidates.

Ideals and values? Yes.

of course I have free speech at work,,,I may work for an asshole but hes a tolerant asshole,,,
now he might fire me for calling him an asshole but he will regret it since we are the same person,,,

who are you to say what common sense and decency is to others???

to me your an asshole if you think you can tell others what they can or cant say in their own house,,theres nothing decent about that,,,in fact its pure evil,,,

I dont understand why you are so afraid of people speaking freely in their own churchs/houses,,,

You actually don’t. Go ask your employer. Better yet, test it by telling your coworkers things your employer disagrees with. Keep doing it over and over again. Then after you get fired try suing him for infringing on your free speech. Then you will discover I am right.

 

[ding]

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.

Pretty simple solution. Pay your taxes then say whatever you want like anyone else.
Don't want tax exempt status? Don't file as a tax exempt entity..

Are labor unions tax exempt?

Because they certainly aren’t limited in the way you describe.

In what way? Not religious so just a distraction from the topic in any case. And they too should not file as tax exempt if they're going to be all butt hurt over any limitations that come with filing as tax exempt.

In the way all tax exempt organizations are. They don’t pay takes on the money the organization takes in.

Are labor unions tax exempt?

 

[Polishprince]

...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

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 definitely agree with this. The Johnson Amendment has never actually been challenged in court, and I can't see how it would be constitutional. All moral issues have political dimensions from abortion to slavery.

 

[progressive hunter]

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,,,

The only restrictions on free speech applies to government. You don’t have a right to free speech at work, right? Does that bother you?

And for the record, I’m not proposing laws or regulations. We already have too many of those. I am proposing common sense. Common decency.

It is not decent to use a position of religious trust as a vehicle to promote men. Especially when it comes to politics. Whatever happens between congregants is one thing, but the institution should not be promoting candidates.

Ideals and values? Yes.

of course I have free speech at work,,,I may work for an asshole but hes a tolerant asshole,,,
now he might fire me for calling him an asshole but he will regret it since we are the same person,,,

who are you to say what common sense and decency is to others???

to me your an asshole if you think you can tell others what they can or cant say in their own house,,theres nothing decent about that,,,in fact its pure evil,,,

I dont understand why you are so afraid of people speaking freely in their own churchs/houses,,,

You actually don’t. Go ask your employer. Better yet, test it by telling your coworkers things your employer disagrees with. Keep doing it over and over again. Then after you get fired try suing him for infringing on your free speech. Then you will discover I am right.

why would I sue my boss for telling me what I cant say on his property???

HIS HIS PROPERTY!!!


you still dont understand only government can infringe on free speech,,,

 

[ding]

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,,,

The only restrictions on free speech applies to government. You don’t have a right to free speech at work, right? Does that bother you?

And for the record, I’m not proposing laws or regulations. We already have too many of those. I am proposing common sense. Common decency.

It is not decent to use a position of religious trust as a vehicle to promote men. Especially when it comes to politics. Whatever happens between congregants is one thing, but the institution should not be promoting candidates.

Ideals and values? Yes.

of course I have free speech at work,,,I may work for an asshole but hes a tolerant asshole,,,
now he might fire me for calling him an asshole but he will regret it since we are the same person,,,

who are you to say what common sense and decency is to others???

to me your an asshole if you think you can tell others what they can or cant say in their own house,,theres nothing decent about that,,,in fact its pure evil,,,

I dont understand why you are so afraid of people speaking freely in their own churchs/houses,,,

You actually don’t. Go ask your employer. Better yet, test it by telling your coworkers things your employer disagrees with. Keep doing it over and over again. Then after you get fired try suing him for infringing on your free speech. Then you will discover I am right.

why would I sue my boss for telling me what I cant say on his property???

HIS HIS PROPERTY!!!


you still dont understand only government can infringe on free speech,,,

There you have it. No free speech.

 

[progressive hunter]

my goal is to fight for free speech from any fascist that dares to try and take it,,,
like you are right now,,,

The only restrictions on free speech applies to government. You don’t have a right to free speech at work, right? Does that bother you?

And for the record, I’m not proposing laws or regulations. We already have too many of those. I am proposing common sense. Common decency.

It is not decent to use a position of religious trust as a vehicle to promote men. Especially when it comes to politics. Whatever happens between congregants is one thing, but the institution should not be promoting candidates.

Ideals and values? Yes.

of course I have free speech at work,,,I may work for an asshole but hes a tolerant asshole,,,
now he might fire me for calling him an asshole but he will regret it since we are the same person,,,

who are you to say what common sense and decency is to others???

to me your an asshole if you think you can tell others what they can or cant say in their own house,,theres nothing decent about that,,,in fact its pure evil,,,

I dont understand why you are so afraid of people speaking freely in their own churchs/houses,,,

You actually don’t. Go ask your employer. Better yet, test it by telling your coworkers things your employer disagrees with. Keep doing it over and over again. Then after you get fired try suing him for infringing on your free speech. Then you will discover I am right.

why would I sue my boss for telling me what I cant say on his property???

HIS HIS PROPERTY!!!


you still dont understand only government can infringe on free speech,,,

There you have it. No free speech.

and your point is???

 

[Blackrook]

The churches have as much right as anyone else to speak on political issues. They should have challenged this unconstitutional law when it was first enacted.

 

[Picaro]

Well, it's such a popular right wing conspiratard fantasy I guess it will just keep being repeated, like all the other fake news. In real life, we know it's just dumbass ministers trying to use church property as personal comps without paying taxes on it making up bullshit to lie to their constituents about, like the guy who used the ministry's private jet just to fly to his house in Vail or somewhere a zillion times instead of hiring his own plane as he should have and getting nailed by the IRS for it. If these types can get a few million halfwits all jacked up and lobbying for 'protections' for themselves from non-existent 'threats to religious freedom' all the better.

 

[Picaro]

...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

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 definitely agree with this. The Johnson Amendment has never actually been challenged in court, and I can't see how it would be constitutional. All moral issues have political dimensions from abortion to slavery.

It doesn't restrict churches from being churches, nor free speech, that's why you can't see anything there. It's never been challenged on those grounds because those grounds don't exist, it's tax dodging preachers whining about getting caught using church funds and property as if it was their own private property and sniveling about it.

 

[Paulie]

Well, it's such a popular right wing conspiratard fantasy I guess it will just keep being repeated, like all the other fake news. In real life, we know it's just dumbass ministers trying to use church property as personal comps without paying taxes on it making up bullshit to lie to their constituents about, like the guy who used the ministry's private jet just to fly to his house in Vail or somewhere a zillion times instead of hiring his own plane as he should have and getting nailed by the IRS for it. If these types can get a few million halfwits all jacked up and lobbying for 'protections' for themselves from non-existent 'threats to religious freedom' all the better.

You’ll be ok.