The 501c3 designation is what has destroyed the church

[ding]

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,,,

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

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

thats subjective to what you think evil is,,,and based on your comment so far its evil for a person to speak their own minds,,,

 

[Grumblenuts]

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.

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..

 

[progressive hunter]

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,,,

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

I'm gonna go ahead and call you a fucking liar,,,

you dont have the first clue what they did on a day to day basis

 

[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,,,

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.

 

[ding]

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,,,

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

I'm gonna go ahead and call you a fucking liar,,,

you dont have the first clue what they did on a day to day basis

That’s your call.

 

[ding]

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.

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.

 

[Paulie]

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,,,

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.

 

[ding]

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,,,

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.

 

[Paulie]

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,,,

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.

I don’t even understand how you reconcile this position. You’re seeing the church as a building rather than what it really is, which is just a place people are worshipping. This “place” could just as easily be out in the wilderness somewhere, or on a beach, or in someone’s house. The body of Christ is the congregation of his followers it isn’t a building. Who are you or anyone else to tell a congregation of people ANYWHERE in this country what they can or can’t say?

 

[Paulie]

Listen, if your position is that the church SHOULDN’T do it but not that they CAN’T do it, then I’ll exit the debate because I don’t really care to discuss what they SHOULD be saying I only care to discuss and debate what someone thinks they CAN’T say. Luckily in this country I can move to a different church if I feel they’re saying something I feel like they SHOULDNT be saying.

 

[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.

I don’t even understand how you reconcile this position. You’re seeing the church as a building rather than what it really is, which is just a place people are worshipping. This “place” could just as easily be out in the wilderness somewhere, or on a beach, or in someone’s house. The body of Christ is the congregation of his followers it isn’t a building. Who are you or anyone else to tell a congregation of people ANYWHERE in this country what they can or can’t say?

Churches are institutions comprised of individuals. So I don’t see a church as a building. I see it as a community of people who voluntarily participate in a cause greater than themselves. And that cause is to promote fellowship and virtues within the community for the express purpose of giving thanks, praise and worship to the creator.

I’m not saying it. Common sense and common decency say it. Church isn’t a campaign headquarters.

 

[G.T.]

Listen, if your position is that the church SHOULDN’T do it but not that they CAN’T do it, then I’ll exit the debate because I don’t really care to discuss what they SHOULD be saying I only care to discuss and debate what someone thinks they CAN’T say. Luckily in this country I can move to a different church if I feel they’re saying something I feel like they SHOULDNT be saying.

It's just a basic value...not to want someone who isn't an elected representative using your tax money to promote their political agenda.

Its wrong for any secular 501c3s, and its wrong for any Religious establishment. But there they are getting special treatment and not paying taxes which in a vacuum makes everyone else's taxes higher to compensate.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

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.

I agree, but the first Amendment protects a church DOUBLY. They dont need the IRS' permission to speak on ANYTHING

I agree. But they’re only beholden to the government if they choose to take the tax free designation. So a church only gets to operate tax free if they accept government control. It’s a dangerous game to play.

No, that's accepting their argument. I suppose eventually churches will lose their tax exempt status as the culture gets dumbed down by liberalism, but churches HAVE freedom of speech/religion without jumping thru government hoops AND they also owe NOTHING to Ceasar.

I dont remember what day it is, but there is one day a year where the few brave churches challenge the 501c3 nonsense and NOT ONCE has the IRS done anything about it because they know they'd lose a Constitutional challenge.

Black churches dond allow themselves to be intimidated by this nonsense, and neither should we

 

[Paulie]

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.

I don’t even understand how you reconcile this position. You’re seeing the church as a building rather than what it really is, which is just a place people are worshipping. This “place” could just as easily be out in the wilderness somewhere, or on a beach, or in someone’s house. The body of Christ is the congregation of his followers it isn’t a building. Who are you or anyone else to tell a congregation of people ANYWHERE in this country what they can or can’t say?

Churches are institutions comprised of individuals. So I don’t see a church as a building. I see it as a community of people who voluntarily participate in a cause greater than themselves. And that cause is to promote fellowship and virtues within the community for the express purpose of giving thanks, praise and worship to the creator.

I’m not saying it. Common sense and common decency say it. Church isn’t a campaign headquarters.

Nobody says it needs to be a campaign headquarters but what we’re talking about here is that they can’t even mention a candidate to their congregation. Even if the pastor just simply said “trump 2020” it’s a violation of the 501c3.

I’m fine with you believing that a church shouldn’t discuss politics. But if you believe we should legislatively be stopping it, then that’s where we part ways.

 

[ding]

Listen, if your position is that the church SHOULDN’T do it but not that they CAN’T do it, then I’ll exit the debate because I don’t really care to discuss what they SHOULD be saying I only care to discuss and debate what someone thinks they CAN’T say. Luckily in this country I can move to a different church if I feel they’re saying something I feel like they SHOULDNT be saying.

I’m actually saying quite a few things.

1. Churches don’t need to be tax exempt because donations are tax exempt.

2. The guy on the pulpit can say and do anything he wants. No one is preventing him from doing so.

3. Churches are not campaign headquarters.

4. Churches teach ideals and values.

 

[G.T.]

Listen, if your position is that the church SHOULDN’T do it but not that they CAN’T do it, then I’ll exit the debate because I don’t really care to discuss what they SHOULD be saying I only care to discuss and debate what someone thinks they CAN’T say. Luckily in this country I can move to a different church if I feel they’re saying something I feel like they SHOULDNT be saying.

I’m actually saying quite a few things.

1. Churches don’t need to be tax exempt because donations are tax exempt.

2. The guy on the pulpit can say and do anything he wants. No one is preventing him from doing so.

3. Churches are not campaign headquarters.

4. Churches teach ideals and values.

Property taxes.

 

[Paulie]

Listen, if your position is that the church SHOULDN’T do it but not that they CAN’T do it, then I’ll exit the debate because I don’t really care to discuss what they SHOULD be saying I only care to discuss and debate what someone thinks they CAN’T say. Luckily in this country I can move to a different church if I feel they’re saying something I feel like they SHOULDNT be saying.

I’m actually saying quite a few things.

1. Churches don’t need to be tax exempt because donations are tax exempt.

2. The guy on the pulpit can say and do anything he wants. No one is preventing him from doing so.

3. Churches are not campaign headquarters.

4. Churches teach ideals and values.

Well then you took the extremely long scenic route to this because this wasn’t clear at all in what you were saying. The tax exempt or not tax exempt part of this is what is destroying the church. Our churches should at the very least be discussing with their congregations the problems our government is causing us. That’s the whole point of this thread is to shed light on the draconian 501c3 issue.

 

[Paulie]

Listen, if your position is that the church SHOULDN’T do it but not that they CAN’T do it, then I’ll exit the debate because I don’t really care to discuss what they SHOULD be saying I only care to discuss and debate what someone thinks they CAN’T say. Luckily in this country I can move to a different church if I feel they’re saying something I feel like they SHOULDNT be saying.

I’m actually saying quite a few things.

1. Churches don’t need to be tax exempt because donations are tax exempt.

2. The guy on the pulpit can say and do anything he wants. No one is preventing him from doing so.

3. Churches are not campaign headquarters.

4. Churches teach ideals and values.

Property taxes.

Listen I’m fine with a church still having to participate in that tax. But that’s a municipal level tax anyway and is for a different discussion.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

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.

I agree, but the first Amendment protects a church DOUBLY. They dont need the IRS' permission to speak on ANYTHING

I agree. But they’re only beholden to the government if they choose to take the tax free designation. So a church only gets to operate tax free if they accept government control. It’s a dangerous game to play.

Here's the day I was thinking of. I forgot they went after Randall Terry on this.

Indeed, even though hundreds or even thousands of clergy around the country have explicitly and deliberately engaged in partisan political speech from the pulpit as part of an annual “Pulpit Freedom Sunday”—and then sent the recorded evidence to the IRS—the agency has persistently refused to take the bait and take away any churches’ 501(c)(3) status. The only such instance anyone can cite is a 1995 case in which the IRS denied the nonprofit status of an upstate New York church after it took out a full-page newspaper ad warning Christians not to vote for Bill Clinton.

Trump’s Executive Order on Churches Is a Nonsolution to a Nonproblem—With a Dangerous Side Effect