Trump wants to allow religious institutions to openly advocate political views - tax-exempt

[ChrisL]

These churches need to concentrate more on their charitable work, rather than involve themselves in politics. Their work is to help needy people.

Atheists lecturing religious people on what they should do. Simply hilarious.

Well, that's pretty much the only good thing that they do. Accentuate the positive.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

I don't like that the guy in your sig line is flipping me off. I want to punch him out!

You can go to his grave site and dig him up if you so desire and if that is your thing.

If he was an equine creature, rather than a human, then that would be pointless. She'd just be beating a dead horse.

And Freedom of Speech is in the Constitution!

In the very same sentence as religious freedom. The two go together.

 

[martybegan]

Considering they make a profit, that would be a no-go.

Not necessarily. There's always a way around this. However do churches not make a profit? Do they not spend their money? It all starts getting rather dark and sinister. If I run a business and all profits go into my bank account for my own use, isn't that the same as me running a church and doing the same thing?

Not really, and because non-profits claim tax immunity, they have to open their books as wide as a 10 lane highway to the IRS to show that no funny business is going on. At that point the IRS says "nuh uh" and away goes your tax exempt status.

The closest real example you can probably find is Scientology, and the IRS dogged their asses for decades, only giving up because the Scientologists evidently had better lawyers, and a TON of money they needed to keep in the hide-y hole. For most people, it wouldn't be worth the effort.

But then isn't there an element of picking and choosing? This is the issue here. Scientology, did they pick and choose whether to give them the exemption? Do they know what's going on? Profit being made? Etc.

There is always some room for "picking and choosing". The Scientology case is unique, due to the combination of powerful people who are adherents, and their overwhelming amount of lawyers they throw at anything that looks at them sideways.

Scientology is an example of an abuse of the system maybe, but it isn't a reason to throw out the system all together.

Of course, and I think you've got a great example there. Problem comes when others want to abuse it too. Why not just not have tax free for anything? Would seem to then get rid of the abuse. Why is religion special?

Why is any non-profit organization special?

Remember people in these organizations still pay income taxes, it's not entirely tax free. I think the main gripe isn't even about corporate taxes, its about property taxes. The problem is most of these Churches/synagouges/mosques sit on prime real estate in old historic buildings. If you taxed them as any other property, they would probably have to be sold just to pay the tax bill.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Tax churches like business.

They're not businesses.

Are they not? They seem to be selling something, people seem to pay for it.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

What does Freedom of Speech have to do with separation of church and state? You want to live in a theocracy??? Are you insane?

One Amendment; the first in the Bill of Rights…

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

Freedom of religious practice, and freedom of speech, are enumerated immediately adjacent to one another, in the very same sentence.

To prevent a “theocracy”, it it neither necessary nor justifiable to suppress either of these rights as a condition of exercising the other. I think that if anything, the disenfranchisement of religiously-influenced opinions has brought about overtly insane public policies.

 

[ChrisL]

What does Freedom of Speech have to do with separation of church and state? You want to live in a theocracy??? Are you insane?

One Amendment; the first in the Bill of Rights…

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.​

Freedom of religious practice, and freedom of speech, are enumerated immediately adjacent to one another, in the very same sentence.

To prevent a “theocracy”, it it neither necessary nor justifiable to suppress either of these rights as a condition of exercising the other. I think that if anything, the disenfranchisement of religiously-influenced opinions has brought about overtly insane public policies.

Right, make no law respecting the establishment of religion. The religious right wants to make plenty of laws based upon their religious views.

There is nothing wrong with some traditional morals and values and that should not be demonized, but the religious right is destroying the republican party and is going to have more and more negative effects on the party as time goes on, I'm sure.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Ok, we keep any reference to God or Jesus Christ out of the school system...in exchange? The LGTBQ doesn't have the ability to preach queerness as normal in grade schools.,...deal????

It only goes to show how insane things have become, that you even think that we should have to concede anything, in exchange for denying the “right” of a disgusting movement of immoral sexual perverts to groom and indoctrinate our young, for the purpose of setting them up for sexual abuse and exploitation.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Not necessarily. There's always a way around this. However do churches not make a profit? Do they not spend their money? It all starts getting rather dark and sinister. If I run a business and all profits go into my bank account for my own use, isn't that the same as me running a church and doing the same thing?

Not really, and because non-profits claim tax immunity, they have to open their books as wide as a 10 lane highway to the IRS to show that no funny business is going on. At that point the IRS says "nuh uh" and away goes your tax exempt status.

The closest real example you can probably find is Scientology, and the IRS dogged their asses for decades, only giving up because the Scientologists evidently had better lawyers, and a TON of money they needed to keep in the hide-y hole. For most people, it wouldn't be worth the effort.

But then isn't there an element of picking and choosing? This is the issue here. Scientology, did they pick and choose whether to give them the exemption? Do they know what's going on? Profit being made? Etc.

There is always some room for "picking and choosing". The Scientology case is unique, due to the combination of powerful people who are adherents, and their overwhelming amount of lawyers they throw at anything that looks at them sideways.

Scientology is an example of an abuse of the system maybe, but it isn't a reason to throw out the system all together.

Of course, and I think you've got a great example there. Problem comes when others want to abuse it too. Why not just not have tax free for anything? Would seem to then get rid of the abuse. Why is religion special?

Why is any non-profit organization special?

Remember people in these organizations still pay income taxes, it's not entirely tax free. I think the main gripe isn't even about corporate taxes, its about property taxes. The problem is most of these Churches/synagouges/mosques sit on prime real estate in old historic buildings. If you taxed them as any other property, they would probably have to be sold just to pay the tax bill.

I don't know why they're special. I guess people feel they're donating money and this shouldn't be taxed. But the reality is that these companies act like businesses nowadays, some of the employees at the higher end are earning millions.

Property tax is an issue, but then again isn't it always?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Tax churches like business.

They're not businesses.

Are they not? They seem to be selling something, people seem to pay for it.

Nope.... people donate to maintain the church and pay the pastor. Get a clue.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

There is nothing wrong with some traditional morals and values and that should not be demonized, but the religious right is destroying the republican party and is going to have more and more negative effects on the party as time goes on, I'm sure.

Your claimed “destruction” and “negative” effects remain hypothetical and, at best, unproven. In the mean time, our society is experiencing obvious and undeniable ills that are quite obviously the result of the disenfranchisement of religious and moral opinions. We've allowed the Godless, the perverts, and the insane to have their say, while denying the voices that would oppose them; and you have to be blind and/or ignorant to not see the destructive and tragic impact that this has had, and continues to have.

 

[ChrisL]

There is nothing wrong with some traditional morals and values and that should not be demonized, but the religious right is destroying the republican party and is going to have more and more negative effects on the party as time goes on, I'm sure.

Your claimed “destruction” and “negative” effects remain hypothetical and, at best, unproven. In the mean time, our society is experiencing obvious and undeniable ills that are quite obviously the result of the disenfranchisement of religious and moral opinions. We've allowed the Godless, the perverts, and the insane to have their say, while denying the voices that would oppose them; and you have to be blind and/or ignorant to not see the destructive and tragic impact that this has had, and continues to have.

MOST people are more moderate and are not religious extremists. While I agree that SOME stuff goes too far, I'm sure you know that I disagree with many of your more extreme views and so do a lot of other people. Would I want someone like you making or having any power to sway lawmakers based on your extremism? NO.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Tax churches like business.

They're not businesses.

Are they not? They seem to be selling something, people seem to pay for it.

Nope.... people donate to maintain the church and pay the pastor. Get a clue.

Yes, I get it. And they're not buying anything? I mean, they're getting something out of the church, right? And then they're paying for the church, right? It's the same as going into a shop and buying something spiritual with the shop saying they don't have a fixed price, they can choose how much they want to give.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Tax churches like business.

They're not businesses.

Are they not? They seem to be selling something, people seem to pay for it.

Nope.... people donate to maintain the church and pay the pastor. Get a clue.

Yes, I get it. And they're not buying anything? I mean, they're getting something out of the church, right? And then they're paying for the church, right? It's the same as going into a shop and buying something spiritual with the shop saying they don't have a fixed price, they can choose how much they want to give.

No it is not the same. Good grief.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Good.. then let's tax the government.

 

[SmokeALib]

There is nothing wrong with some traditional morals and values and that should not be demonized, but the religious right is destroying the republican party and is going to have more and more negative effects on the party as time goes on, I'm sure.

Your claimed “destruction” and “negative” effects remain hypothetical and, at best, unproven. In the mean time, our society is experiencing obvious and undeniable ills that are quite obviously the result of the disenfranchisement of religious and moral opinions. We've allowed the Godless, the perverts, and the insane to have their say, while denying the voices that would oppose them; and you have to be blind and/or ignorant to not see the destructive and tragic impact that this has had, and continues to have.

MOST people are more moderate and are not religious extremists. While I agree that SOME stuff goes too far, I'm sure you know that I disagree with many of your more extreme views and so do a lot of other people. Would I want someone like you making or having any power to sway lawmakers based on your extremism? NO.

It's better they be swayed with cash, perks, and favors. The reason The Clinton Foundation was created.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

MOST people are more moderate and are not religious extremists. While I agree that SOME stuff goes too far, I'm sure you know that I disagree with many of your more extreme views and so do a lot of other people. Would I want someone like you making or having any power to sway lawmakers based on your extremism? NO.

An important point to a government of the people, by the people, for the people, is that all of the people are given an equal voice, and equal power to influence how they are to be governed, regardless of how “extreme” someone else may find someone's opinions to be.

Why would you deny me my right, equal to your own, to have a say in how I am to be governed?

It is well worth pointing out that there are positions opposite of mine, and far more extreme than mine, that are being allowed disproportionate representation, with very destructive effects; while those of us who oppose the more radical elements of those opinions are being suppressed and disenfranchised on the basis that our opinions are “religious”.

 

[ChrisL]

There is nothing wrong with some traditional morals and values and that should not be demonized, but the religious right is destroying the republican party and is going to have more and more negative effects on the party as time goes on, I'm sure.

Your claimed “destruction” and “negative” effects remain hypothetical and, at best, unproven. In the mean time, our society is experiencing obvious and undeniable ills that are quite obviously the result of the disenfranchisement of religious and moral opinions. We've allowed the Godless, the perverts, and the insane to have their say, while denying the voices that would oppose them; and you have to be blind and/or ignorant to not see the destructive and tragic impact that this has had, and continues to have.

MOST people are more moderate and are not religious extremists. While I agree that SOME stuff goes too far, I'm sure you know that I disagree with many of your more extreme views and so do a lot of other people. Would I want someone like you making or having any power to sway lawmakers based on your extremism? NO.

It's better they be swayed with cash, perks, and favors. The reason The Clinton Foundation was created.

Sorry, but this country was founded because the pilgrims were fleeing from an oppressive theocracy.

 

[ChrisL]

MOST people are more moderate and are not religious extremists. While I agree that SOME stuff goes too far, I'm sure you know that I disagree with many of your more extreme views and so do a lot of other people. Would I want someone like you making or having any power to sway lawmakers based on your extremism? NO.

An important point to a government of the people, by the people, for the people, is that all of the people are given an equal voice, and equal power to influence how they are to be governed, regardless of how “extreme” someone else may find someone's opinions to be.

Why would you deny me my right, equal to your own, to have a say in how I am to be governed?

It is well worth pointing out that there are positions opposite of mine, and far more extreme than mine, that are being allowed disproportionate representation, with very destructive effects; while those of us who oppose the more radical elements of those opinions are being suppressed and disenfranchised on the basis that our opinions are “religious”.

You express your opinions all the time! You do have a right, at the ballot box.

 

[jillian]

I didn't like that too much at all.
Sundays will be all about politics .. I get upset when a church hi jacks its community for political reasons..

he can't do that. the court would strike it down.

oh right.... he wants to corrupt the court.

 

[jillian]

There is nothing wrong with some traditional morals and values and that should not be demonized, but the religious right is destroying the republican party and is going to have more and more negative effects on the party as time goes on, I'm sure.

Your claimed “destruction” and “negative” effects remain hypothetical and, at best, unproven. In the mean time, our society is experiencing obvious and undeniable ills that are quite obviously the result of the disenfranchisement of religious and moral opinions. We've allowed the Godless, the perverts, and the insane to have their say, while denying the voices that would oppose them; and you have to be blind and/or ignorant to not see the destructive and tragic impact that this has had, and continues to have.

MOST people are more moderate and are not religious extremists. While I agree that SOME stuff goes too far, I'm sure you know that I disagree with many of your more extreme views and so do a lot of other people. Would I want someone like you making or having any power to sway lawmakers based on your extremism? NO.

It's better they be swayed with cash, perks, and favors. The reason The Clinton Foundation was created.

poor loony toon.... the Clinton foundation does charitable work

I realize charity isn't something the Donald understands.

dismissed.