Whose Truth Should We Be Allowed To Hear?

[pknopp]

Religious organizations are tax exempt thus the constitutional argument they cannot comment on politics, but they do and abortion has been the tool that brought them into politics. The irony here they care more for the unborn than the living child, suppose they were taxed and that money actually contributed to helping living children and women in tough situations? Caged children don't matter either, demonstrating the hypocrisy of religion. But seriously medicare, medicaid, social security, minimum wage, have done more good for Americans than all the hallelujahs combined and guess who did them. Democrats. Yep.

A religious entity most certainly can speak on politics. What they are not supposed to do is come out and support a particular candidate.

A church most certainly can state that abortion is wrong. What they are not supposed to do is say "Abortion is wrong so vote for Candidate A".

Are there some that do this? There are. I absolutely hate what Franklin Graham is doing. To me it completely negates the message he should be promoting for many.

I condemn those who claim to be pro-life but ignore the problems people face after the birth all the time but your generalizations are just that. There are many who care after the child has been born.

Latrobe Street Mission

"A religious entity most certainly can speak on politics. What they are not supposed to do is come out and support a particular candidate."


Why not?


If a school teacher can, why not another American?




Possibly you've a distant association with the Constitution....
Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,…

Because it's tax law. If you dislike that, change it.

Charities, Churches and Politics | Internal Revenue Service

 

[22lcidw]

Your thread title perfectly describes right wing crazy. There is no "My" truth or "Your" truth. There is only truth that is the same for everybody.

Truth is what you charge people for. That crazy ends up with mass violence or a dictatorship eventually.

 

[DBA]

1.Two points right at the start: the Democrats are the party of the rich….Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg…..Hunter Biden. The old tale that the Republicans are the party of the rich? A fable.

The TRUTH is that is pretty evenly split but the the rich seem to slightly prefer the GOP 33% to 32% for the Dems.

As income increases so does the likelihood of voting Republican. The trend flips when you hit the ultra-wealthy and switches to favoring the Democrats.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Religious organizations are tax exempt thus the constitutional argument they cannot comment on politics, but they do and abortion has been the tool that brought them into politics. The irony here they care more for the unborn than the living child, suppose they were taxed and that money actually contributed to helping living children and women in tough situations? Caged children don't matter either, demonstrating the hypocrisy of religion. But seriously medicare, medicaid, social security, minimum wage, have done more good for Americans than all the hallelujahs combined and guess who did them. Democrats. Yep.

A religious entity most certainly can speak on politics. What they are not supposed to do is come out and support a particular candidate.

A church most certainly can state that abortion is wrong. What they are not supposed to do is say "Abortion is wrong so vote for Candidate A".

Are there some that do this? There are. I absolutely hate what Franklin Graham is doing. To me it completely negates the message he should be promoting for many.

I condemn those who claim to be pro-life but ignore the problems people face after the birth all the time but your generalizations are just that. There are many who care after the child has been born.

Latrobe Street Mission

"A religious entity most certainly can speak on politics. What they are not supposed to do is come out and support a particular candidate."


Why not?


If a school teacher can, why not another American?




Possibly you've a distant association with the Constitution....
Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,…

Because it's tax law. If you dislike that, change it.

Charities, Churches and Politics | Internal Revenue Service

What a stupid response.

It is a Democrat law, based on what I've demonstrated to be the Democrat attempt to impose Soviet speech standards.


But I will take it as your admission that it is unAmerican and you cannot find a good reason for it.

AND....a reason why your earlier post about not voting against the Democrats, is absurd.

 

[pknopp]

Religious organizations are tax exempt thus the constitutional argument they cannot comment on politics, but they do and abortion has been the tool that brought them into politics. The irony here they care more for the unborn than the living child, suppose they were taxed and that money actually contributed to helping living children and women in tough situations? Caged children don't matter either, demonstrating the hypocrisy of religion. But seriously medicare, medicaid, social security, minimum wage, have done more good for Americans than all the hallelujahs combined and guess who did them. Democrats. Yep.

A religious entity most certainly can speak on politics. What they are not supposed to do is come out and support a particular candidate.

A church most certainly can state that abortion is wrong. What they are not supposed to do is say "Abortion is wrong so vote for Candidate A".

Are there some that do this? There are. I absolutely hate what Franklin Graham is doing. To me it completely negates the message he should be promoting for many.

I condemn those who claim to be pro-life but ignore the problems people face after the birth all the time but your generalizations are just that. There are many who care after the child has been born.

Latrobe Street Mission

"A religious entity most certainly can speak on politics. What they are not supposed to do is come out and support a particular candidate."


Why not?


If a school teacher can, why not another American?




Possibly you've a distant association with the Constitution....
Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,…

Because it's tax law. If you dislike that, change it.

Charities, Churches and Politics | Internal Revenue Service

What a stupid response.

It's a simple fact. Oddly people (you) get upset over someone replying to a question with simple facts.

To note, it was updated under Reagan.

Internal Revenue Code - Wikipedia

 

[PoliticalChic]

Religious organizations are tax exempt thus the constitutional argument they cannot comment on politics, but they do and abortion has been the tool that brought them into politics. The irony here they care more for the unborn than the living child, suppose they were taxed and that money actually contributed to helping living children and women in tough situations? Caged children don't matter either, demonstrating the hypocrisy of religion. But seriously medicare, medicaid, social security, minimum wage, have done more good for Americans than all the hallelujahs combined and guess who did them. Democrats. Yep.

A religious entity most certainly can speak on politics. What they are not supposed to do is come out and support a particular candidate.

A church most certainly can state that abortion is wrong. What they are not supposed to do is say "Abortion is wrong so vote for Candidate A".

Are there some that do this? There are. I absolutely hate what Franklin Graham is doing. To me it completely negates the message he should be promoting for many.

I condemn those who claim to be pro-life but ignore the problems people face after the birth all the time but your generalizations are just that. There are many who care after the child has been born.

Latrobe Street Mission

"A religious entity most certainly can speak on politics. What they are not supposed to do is come out and support a particular candidate."


Why not?


If a school teacher can, why not another American?




Possibly you've a distant association with the Constitution....
Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,…

Because it's tax law. If you dislike that, change it.

Charities, Churches and Politics | Internal Revenue Service

What a stupid response.

It's a simple fact. Oddly people (you) get upset over someone replying to a question with simple facts.

To note, it was updated under Reagan.

Internal Revenue Code - Wikipedia

That's not an answer, you moron.....I am eminently familiar with the rules.


I posted this:

Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

“The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?

Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.




And some fool posts the regs and considers it news.



Now.....answer the question:
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????




Be careful: if its the first time you've tried to think you may be subject to an aneurysm.

 

[PoliticalChic]

8. “There is a story, often told, that upon exiting the Constitutional Convention Benjamin Franklin was approached by a group of citizens asking what sort of government the delegates had created. His answer was: "A republic, if you can keep it."

At the heart of that story is that the rights promised to Americans must be jealously guarded. The evil who attain power are smart enough to wrest away those rights bit by bit, in such as manner that those sated on bread and circus, material rewards, won’t notice.

Our right to free speech is the trophy they are after. Their acolytes who control social media hide behind their ownership of the platforms, so they can ban views they don’t like. Democrat LBJ made it punishable for religious leaders to criticize political officials. What possible compelling government interest could this represent????




“When Justice Samuel Alito began his question to Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, the government lawyer surely had no idea that his answer would ensure his defeat in the case at bar "” and radically change American elections. The case was Citizens United v. FEC, and Stewart"™s task was to defend key provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, the landmark campaign finance law that restricted corporations"™ ability to fund electioneering communications in the weeks immediately before an election. Stewart"™s basic argument to the Court was that the case law was clear: BCRA"™s limits on corporate election advocacy followed established precedent. During the oral argument, Justice Alito asked Stewart if, under Stewart"™s view of the doctrine, Congress had the constitutional authority to ban books that included electioneering messages if published by a business corporation.

Stewart first tried to avoid the question but eventually gave in. Yes, he said, the government can ban books.”

Gotcha - SCOTUSblog

UCLA School of Law’s Adam Winkler discusses the "gotcha" questions he fears supporters of the Affordable Care Act cannot answer.

www.scotusblog.com

If American citizens acquiesce to this march toward subservience, then Franklin’s warning was for naught.

 

[alang1216]

1.Two points right at the start: the Democrats are the party of the rich….Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg…..Hunter Biden. The old tale that the Republicans are the party of the rich? A fable.

The TRUTH is that is pretty evenly split but the the rich seem to slightly prefer the GOP 33% to 32% for the Dems.

Being a Democrat, I understand you don't actually read books....so you'll pass on this one that documents that the Democrat Party is the party of the rich:

View attachment 395434


“The New Leviathan,” David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin

1. In the conventional wisdom, it is Republicans and the political right, with their corporate sponsors and big-money donors who make up the “party of the rich,” while progressives speak for the poor and powerless.
   1. And conservatives are agents of an economic “ruling class” organized to defend its social privileges.
   2. And Democrats are the party of “working Americans and their families.”
   3. “They're for the powerful, we're for the people!” Al Gore, http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_nf=1&gs_mss=Al%20Gore%3A%20They&pq=obtunded%20definition&cp=38&gs_id=6g&xhr=t&q=Al%20Gore%3A%20They're%20for%20the%20powerful%3B%20we're%20for%20the%20people&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=Al+Gore:+They're+for+the+powerful%3B+we're+for+the+people&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=708bd950daecd80b&biw=1152&bih=773
2. This is standard progressive folklore. Provably false.
3. As of 2009, the financial assets of the 115 major tax-exempt foundations of the Left add up to $104.56 billlion. Not only is this total not less than the financial assets of the 75 foundations of the Right, it was more than ten times greater! [p. 8]
   1. Bradley, Olin, Scaife, the “Big Three” conservative foundations, not one has assets exceeding $1 billion. (Olin has been defunct since 2005).

Scaife Foundation has assets totaling $244 million.

Bradley Foundation, $623 million.

1. Fourteen progressive foundations do, including Gates, Ford, Robert Wood Johnson, Hewlett, Kellogg, Packard, MacArthur, Mellon, Rockefeller, Casey, Carnegie, Simons, Heinz, and the Open Society Institute.

Ford alone has 16 times what Bradley has.

Soros has claimed that he has donated over $7 billion to his Open Society organizations.

The leading Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, $33 billion.

1. With over $100 billion in tax-exempt assets at their disposal, left-wing foundations have been able to invest massively greater amounts in their beneficiary groups. Ford gave more in one year than Scaife in 40!
   1. “By compiling a computerized record of nearly all his contributions over the last four decades, The Washington Post found that Scaife and his family's charitable entities have given at least $340 million to conservative causes and institutions… The Ford Foundation gave away $491 million in 1998 alone.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/scaifemain050299.htm

Top Ten Donors, 2016 Campaign:

Fahr LLC, Renaissance Technologies, Paloma Partners, Newsweb Corp., NextGen Climate, Priorities USA, Soros …..to the Democrats: $311 million

Los Vegas Sands, Adelson Clinic, Elliott Management, Renaissance Technologies….to Republicans: $110 million
Organization Profiles



Shall we get to Soros???

You're right I was confused. When you said the Dems were the party OF the rich I thought you meant they were the party FOR the rich. If your numbers are correct there are many successful and rich people in America who care about those who are neither rich nor powerful. And on the other hand, there is the GOP.

 

[pknopp]

Religious organizations are tax exempt thus the constitutional argument they cannot comment on politics, but they do and abortion has been the tool that brought them into politics. The irony here they care more for the unborn than the living child, suppose they were taxed and that money actually contributed to helping living children and women in tough situations? Caged children don't matter either, demonstrating the hypocrisy of religion. But seriously medicare, medicaid, social security, minimum wage, have done more good for Americans than all the hallelujahs combined and guess who did them. Democrats. Yep.

A religious entity most certainly can speak on politics. What they are not supposed to do is come out and support a particular candidate.

A church most certainly can state that abortion is wrong. What they are not supposed to do is say "Abortion is wrong so vote for Candidate A".

Are there some that do this? There are. I absolutely hate what Franklin Graham is doing. To me it completely negates the message he should be promoting for many.

I condemn those who claim to be pro-life but ignore the problems people face after the birth all the time but your generalizations are just that. There are many who care after the child has been born.

Latrobe Street Mission

"A religious entity most certainly can speak on politics. What they are not supposed to do is come out and support a particular candidate."


Why not?


If a school teacher can, why not another American?




Possibly you've a distant association with the Constitution....
Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,…

Because it's tax law. If you dislike that, change it.

Charities, Churches and Politics | Internal Revenue Service

What a stupid response.

It's a simple fact. Oddly people (you) get upset over someone replying to a question with simple facts.

To note, it was updated under Reagan.

Internal Revenue Code - Wikipedia

That's not an answer, you moron.....I am eminently familiar with the rules.

You weren't until I provided them to you.

 

[alang1216]

Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

I certainly hope you defend all men of faith with equal vigor:

Over the past six months, at least five prominent US imams have been caught on tape preaching violence against Jews in sermons at mosques across America.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1.Two points right at the start: the Democrats are the party of the rich….Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg…..Hunter Biden. The old tale that the Republicans are the party of the rich? A fable.

The TRUTH is that is pretty evenly split but the the rich seem to slightly prefer the GOP 33% to 32% for the Dems.

Being a Democrat, I understand you don't actually read books....so you'll pass on this one that documents that the Democrat Party is the party of the rich:

View attachment 395434


“The New Leviathan,” David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin

1. In the conventional wisdom, it is Republicans and the political right, with their corporate sponsors and big-money donors who make up the “party of the rich,” while progressives speak for the poor and powerless.
   1. And conservatives are agents of an economic “ruling class” organized to defend its social privileges.
   2. And Democrats are the party of “working Americans and their families.”
   3. “They're for the powerful, we're for the people!” Al Gore, http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_nf=1&gs_mss=Al%20Gore%3A%20They&pq=obtunded%20definition&cp=38&gs_id=6g&xhr=t&q=Al%20Gore%3A%20They're%20for%20the%20powerful%3B%20we're%20for%20the%20people&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=Al+Gore:+They're+for+the+powerful%3B+we're+for+the+people&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=708bd950daecd80b&biw=1152&bih=773
2. This is standard progressive folklore. Provably false.
3. As of 2009, the financial assets of the 115 major tax-exempt foundations of the Left add up to $104.56 billlion. Not only is this total not less than the financial assets of the 75 foundations of the Right, it was more than ten times greater! [p. 8]
   1. Bradley, Olin, Scaife, the “Big Three” conservative foundations, not one has assets exceeding $1 billion. (Olin has been defunct since 2005).

Scaife Foundation has assets totaling $244 million.

Bradley Foundation, $623 million.

1. Fourteen progressive foundations do, including Gates, Ford, Robert Wood Johnson, Hewlett, Kellogg, Packard, MacArthur, Mellon, Rockefeller, Casey, Carnegie, Simons, Heinz, and the Open Society Institute.

Ford alone has 16 times what Bradley has.

Soros has claimed that he has donated over $7 billion to his Open Society organizations.

The leading Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, $33 billion.

1. With over $100 billion in tax-exempt assets at their disposal, left-wing foundations have been able to invest massively greater amounts in their beneficiary groups. Ford gave more in one year than Scaife in 40!
   1. “By compiling a computerized record of nearly all his contributions over the last four decades, The Washington Post found that Scaife and his family's charitable entities have given at least $340 million to conservative causes and institutions… The Ford Foundation gave away $491 million in 1998 alone.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/scaifemain050299.htm

Top Ten Donors, 2016 Campaign:

Fahr LLC, Renaissance Technologies, Paloma Partners, Newsweb Corp., NextGen Climate, Priorities USA, Soros …..to the Democrats: $311 million

Los Vegas Sands, Adelson Clinic, Elliott Management, Renaissance Technologies….to Republicans: $110 million
Organization Profiles



Shall we get to Soros???

You're right I was confused. When you said the Dems were the party OF the rich I thought you meant they were the party FOR the rich. If your numbers are correct there are many successful and rich people in America who care about those who are neither rich nor powerful. And on the other hand, there is the GOP.

In another time and place I will give you the lesson on crony capitalism which explains those rich supporters of oppression, allied with the Democrats for their personal gain.

If I gave you another lesson today, your head might explode.
Not saying that that's a bad thing....

 

[PoliticalChic]

Religious organizations are tax exempt thus the constitutional argument they cannot comment on politics, but they do and abortion has been the tool that brought them into politics. The irony here they care more for the unborn than the living child, suppose they were taxed and that money actually contributed to helping living children and women in tough situations? Caged children don't matter either, demonstrating the hypocrisy of religion. But seriously medicare, medicaid, social security, minimum wage, have done more good for Americans than all the hallelujahs combined and guess who did them. Democrats. Yep.

A religious entity most certainly can speak on politics. What they are not supposed to do is come out and support a particular candidate.

A church most certainly can state that abortion is wrong. What they are not supposed to do is say "Abortion is wrong so vote for Candidate A".

Are there some that do this? There are. I absolutely hate what Franklin Graham is doing. To me it completely negates the message he should be promoting for many.

I condemn those who claim to be pro-life but ignore the problems people face after the birth all the time but your generalizations are just that. There are many who care after the child has been born.

Latrobe Street Mission

"A religious entity most certainly can speak on politics. What they are not supposed to do is come out and support a particular candidate."


Why not?


If a school teacher can, why not another American?




Possibly you've a distant association with the Constitution....
Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,…

Because it's tax law. If you dislike that, change it.

Charities, Churches and Politics | Internal Revenue Service

What a stupid response.

It's a simple fact. Oddly people (you) get upset over someone replying to a question with simple facts.

To note, it was updated under Reagan.

Internal Revenue Code - Wikipedia

That's not an answer, you moron.....I am eminently familiar with the rules.

You weren't until I provided them to you.

There will never be a subject about which you know more than I.

Let's remind all that you still won't answer the question that brought you slithering in:

Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

“The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?

Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

I certainly hope you defend all men of faith with equal vigor:

Over the past six months, at least five prominent US imams have been caught on tape preaching violence against Jews in sermons at mosques across America.

Did you see your quote "preaching violence'?


Where do you find that herein?

Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

“The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?

Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.

 

[pknopp]

Religious organizations are tax exempt thus the constitutional argument they cannot comment on politics, but they do and abortion has been the tool that brought them into politics. The irony here they care more for the unborn than the living child, suppose they were taxed and that money actually contributed to helping living children and women in tough situations? Caged children don't matter either, demonstrating the hypocrisy of religion. But seriously medicare, medicaid, social security, minimum wage, have done more good for Americans than all the hallelujahs combined and guess who did them. Democrats. Yep.

A religious entity most certainly can speak on politics. What they are not supposed to do is come out and support a particular candidate.

A church most certainly can state that abortion is wrong. What they are not supposed to do is say "Abortion is wrong so vote for Candidate A".

Are there some that do this? There are. I absolutely hate what Franklin Graham is doing. To me it completely negates the message he should be promoting for many.

I condemn those who claim to be pro-life but ignore the problems people face after the birth all the time but your generalizations are just that. There are many who care after the child has been born.

Latrobe Street Mission

"A religious entity most certainly can speak on politics. What they are not supposed to do is come out and support a particular candidate."


Why not?


If a school teacher can, why not another American?




Possibly you've a distant association with the Constitution....
Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,…

Because it's tax law. If you dislike that, change it.

Charities, Churches and Politics | Internal Revenue Service

What a stupid response.

It's a simple fact. Oddly people (you) get upset over someone replying to a question with simple facts.

To note, it was updated under Reagan.

Internal Revenue Code - Wikipedia

That's not an answer, you moron.....I am eminently familiar with the rules.

You weren't until I provided them to you.

There will never be a subject about which you know more than I.

Let's remind all that you still won't answer the question that brought you slithering in:

Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

“The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?

Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.

It was signed under Eisenhower. LBJ wasn't president until 1963.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Religious organizations are tax exempt thus the constitutional argument they cannot comment on politics, but they do and abortion has been the tool that brought them into politics. The irony here they care more for the unborn than the living child, suppose they were taxed and that money actually contributed to helping living children and women in tough situations? Caged children don't matter either, demonstrating the hypocrisy of religion. But seriously medicare, medicaid, social security, minimum wage, have done more good for Americans than all the hallelujahs combined and guess who did them. Democrats. Yep.

A religious entity most certainly can speak on politics. What they are not supposed to do is come out and support a particular candidate.

A church most certainly can state that abortion is wrong. What they are not supposed to do is say "Abortion is wrong so vote for Candidate A".

Are there some that do this? There are. I absolutely hate what Franklin Graham is doing. To me it completely negates the message he should be promoting for many.

I condemn those who claim to be pro-life but ignore the problems people face after the birth all the time but your generalizations are just that. There are many who care after the child has been born.

Latrobe Street Mission

"A religious entity most certainly can speak on politics. What they are not supposed to do is come out and support a particular candidate."


Why not?


If a school teacher can, why not another American?




Possibly you've a distant association with the Constitution....
Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,…

Because it's tax law. If you dislike that, change it.

Charities, Churches and Politics | Internal Revenue Service

What a stupid response.

It's a simple fact. Oddly people (you) get upset over someone replying to a question with simple facts.

To note, it was updated under Reagan.

Internal Revenue Code - Wikipedia

That's not an answer, you moron.....I am eminently familiar with the rules.

You weren't until I provided them to you.

There will never be a subject about which you know more than I.

Let's remind all that you still won't answer the question that brought you slithering in:

Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

“The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?

Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.

It was signed under Eisenhower. LBJ wasn't president until 1963.

You can run, but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.


Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

 

[pknopp]

Religious organizations are tax exempt thus the constitutional argument they cannot comment on politics, but they do and abortion has been the tool that brought them into politics. The irony here they care more for the unborn than the living child, suppose they were taxed and that money actually contributed to helping living children and women in tough situations? Caged children don't matter either, demonstrating the hypocrisy of religion. But seriously medicare, medicaid, social security, minimum wage, have done more good for Americans than all the hallelujahs combined and guess who did them. Democrats. Yep.

A religious entity most certainly can speak on politics. What they are not supposed to do is come out and support a particular candidate.

A church most certainly can state that abortion is wrong. What they are not supposed to do is say "Abortion is wrong so vote for Candidate A".

Are there some that do this? There are. I absolutely hate what Franklin Graham is doing. To me it completely negates the message he should be promoting for many.

I condemn those who claim to be pro-life but ignore the problems people face after the birth all the time but your generalizations are just that. There are many who care after the child has been born.

Latrobe Street Mission

"A religious entity most certainly can speak on politics. What they are not supposed to do is come out and support a particular candidate."


Why not?


If a school teacher can, why not another American?




Possibly you've a distant association with the Constitution....
Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,…

Because it's tax law. If you dislike that, change it.

Charities, Churches and Politics | Internal Revenue Service

What a stupid response.

It's a simple fact. Oddly people (you) get upset over someone replying to a question with simple facts.

To note, it was updated under Reagan.

Internal Revenue Code - Wikipedia

That's not an answer, you moron.....I am eminently familiar with the rules.

You weren't until I provided them to you.

There will never be a subject about which you know more than I.

Let's remind all that you still won't answer the question that brought you slithering in:

Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

“The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?

Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.

It was signed under Eisenhower. LBJ wasn't president until 1963.

You can run, but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.


Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

It was signed under Eisenhower.

 

[Blues Man]

The premise of the OP is once again ridiculous.

"Allowed to hear"

And who would be the one you would allow to censor what you are "allowed" to hear?

Since you are a big government republican I'll wager you think some idiot in the government as long as he is a republican idiot should be the one to tell us what we are allowed to hear, read, say and think.

 

[alang1216]

1.Two points right at the start: the Democrats are the party of the rich….Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg…..Hunter Biden. The old tale that the Republicans are the party of the rich? A fable.

The TRUTH is that is pretty evenly split but the the rich seem to slightly prefer the GOP 33% to 32% for the Dems.

Being a Democrat, I understand you don't actually read books....so you'll pass on this one that documents that the Democrat Party is the party of the rich:

View attachment 395434


“The New Leviathan,” David Horowitz and Jacob Laksin

1. In the conventional wisdom, it is Republicans and the political right, with their corporate sponsors and big-money donors who make up the “party of the rich,” while progressives speak for the poor and powerless.
   1. And conservatives are agents of an economic “ruling class” organized to defend its social privileges.
   2. And Democrats are the party of “working Americans and their families.”
   3. “They're for the powerful, we're for the people!” Al Gore, http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sugexp=les%3B&gs_nf=1&gs_mss=Al%20Gore%3A%20They&pq=obtunded%20definition&cp=38&gs_id=6g&xhr=t&q=Al%20Gore%3A%20They're%20for%20the%20powerful%3B%20we're%20for%20the%20people&pf=p&sclient=psy-ab&oq=Al+Gore:+They're+for+the+powerful%3B+we're+for+the+people&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&fp=708bd950daecd80b&biw=1152&bih=773
2. This is standard progressive folklore. Provably false.
3. As of 2009, the financial assets of the 115 major tax-exempt foundations of the Left add up to $104.56 billlion. Not only is this total not less than the financial assets of the 75 foundations of the Right, it was more than ten times greater! [p. 8]
   1. Bradley, Olin, Scaife, the “Big Three” conservative foundations, not one has assets exceeding $1 billion. (Olin has been defunct since 2005).

Scaife Foundation has assets totaling $244 million.

Bradley Foundation, $623 million.

1. Fourteen progressive foundations do, including Gates, Ford, Robert Wood Johnson, Hewlett, Kellogg, Packard, MacArthur, Mellon, Rockefeller, Casey, Carnegie, Simons, Heinz, and the Open Society Institute.

Ford alone has 16 times what Bradley has.

Soros has claimed that he has donated over $7 billion to his Open Society organizations.

The leading Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, $33 billion.

1. With over $100 billion in tax-exempt assets at their disposal, left-wing foundations have been able to invest massively greater amounts in their beneficiary groups. Ford gave more in one year than Scaife in 40!
   1. “By compiling a computerized record of nearly all his contributions over the last four decades, The Washington Post found that Scaife and his family's charitable entities have given at least $340 million to conservative causes and institutions… The Ford Foundation gave away $491 million in 1998 alone.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/scaifemain050299.htm

Top Ten Donors, 2016 Campaign:

Fahr LLC, Renaissance Technologies, Paloma Partners, Newsweb Corp., NextGen Climate, Priorities USA, Soros …..to the Democrats: $311 million

Los Vegas Sands, Adelson Clinic, Elliott Management, Renaissance Technologies….to Republicans: $110 million
Organization Profiles



Shall we get to Soros???

You're right I was confused. When you said the Dems were the party OF the rich I thought you meant they were the party FOR the rich. If your numbers are correct there are many successful and rich people in America who care about those who are neither rich nor powerful. And on the other hand, there is the GOP.

In another time and place I will give you the lesson on crony capitalism which explains those rich supporters of oppression, allied with the Democrats for their personal gain.

If I gave you another lesson today, your head might explode.
Not saying that that's a bad thing....

I look forward to your dissertation. Will you include Bill and Melinda Gates?

 

[Taz]

Answer correctly, and you will never vote Democrat.



1.Two points right at the start: the Democrats are the party of the rich….Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Mark Zuckerberg…..Hunter Biden. The old tale that the Republicans are the party of the rich? A fable.

2. And, second, but more important point is that the Democrat party is the party of censorship, of opposition to free speech.
In an America supposedly guided by the Constitution, wherein we find the first amendment… Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,…we find the major political party doing, and planning to do, exactly that.


Consider this:
Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

“The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?

Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.



3. As Liberals/Democrat have grown stronger, they now apply the same censorship everywhere they can. For several months, perhaps longer, there has been a constant complaint by conservatives that they have been banned, censored, ‘shadow banned,’ whatever, on social media. One might argue that these are privately owned, by wealthy Democrats/Liberals, and that they are simply supporting their party.
I say it is unamerican and requires the same response that government used in citing monopolies.
The fact is, Democrat/Liberals/Progressives have no intention of allowing debate, as they always lose same. And, they use the same advantages to silence the other side when they gain power in government.



4. Which brings up the Supreme Court case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. “The case revolved around the documentary Hillary: The Movie, which was produced by Citizens United. Under the McCain-Feingold law, a federal court in Washington D.C. ruled that Citizens United would be barred from advertising its film.[18] The case (08-205, 558 U.S. 50 (2010)) was heard in the United States Supreme Court on March 24, 2009. During oral argument, the government argued that under existing precedents, it had the power under the Constitution to prohibit the publication of books and movies if they were made or sold by corporations.” Citizens United (organization) - Wikipedia



5. While those not paying close attention might have been fooled into believing that the case was about whether a particular entity could use money in a particular manner, it was actually a case of the Democrats claiming the right to censor speech.

In particular, it is the Democrats forbidding criticism of politicians. Democrat politicians...and their policies and practices.

And this thread is a cautionary tale for the upcoming election.

Well, at least you stopped breaking Godwin's Law, you krazy skank. You're welcome.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Religious organizations are tax exempt thus the constitutional argument they cannot comment on politics, but they do and abortion has been the tool that brought them into politics. The irony here they care more for the unborn than the living child, suppose they were taxed and that money actually contributed to helping living children and women in tough situations? Caged children don't matter either, demonstrating the hypocrisy of religion. But seriously medicare, medicaid, social security, minimum wage, have done more good for Americans than all the hallelujahs combined and guess who did them. Democrats. Yep.

A religious entity most certainly can speak on politics. What they are not supposed to do is come out and support a particular candidate.

A church most certainly can state that abortion is wrong. What they are not supposed to do is say "Abortion is wrong so vote for Candidate A".

Are there some that do this? There are. I absolutely hate what Franklin Graham is doing. To me it completely negates the message he should be promoting for many.

I condemn those who claim to be pro-life but ignore the problems people face after the birth all the time but your generalizations are just that. There are many who care after the child has been born.

Latrobe Street Mission

"A religious entity most certainly can speak on politics. What they are not supposed to do is come out and support a particular candidate."


Why not?


If a school teacher can, why not another American?




Possibly you've a distant association with the Constitution....
Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech,…

Because it's tax law. If you dislike that, change it.

Charities, Churches and Politics | Internal Revenue Service

What a stupid response.

It's a simple fact. Oddly people (you) get upset over someone replying to a question with simple facts.

To note, it was updated under Reagan.

Internal Revenue Code - Wikipedia

That's not an answer, you moron.....I am eminently familiar with the rules.

You weren't until I provided them to you.

There will never be a subject about which you know more than I.

Let's remind all that you still won't answer the question that brought you slithering in:

Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

“The 1954 federal Johnson Amendment prohibits a pastor from talking about candidates from the pulpit in light of Scripture. Thus, based on what a pastor says about an election from the pulpit, the tax code allows the government to tax a church. Consider that in light of the Internal Revenue Service's increasingly vague regulations, and you have a recipe for the censorship of religion. The IRS, through those vague regulations, reserves for itself tremendous discretion and power to decide which churches to punish for violations of the Johnson Amendment and which not to punish.”
Why don't churches pay taxes?

Any reading of the first amendment will prove this to be unconstitutional.

It was signed under Eisenhower. LBJ wasn't president until 1963.

You can run, but you can't hide.
So saith the Brown Bomber.


Under Democrat/Liberal LBJ, the law was passed that deprived pastors of their right of free speech.
What possible compelling government interest could this represent????

It was signed under Eisenhower.

Having been given several opportunities to answer, and punting each time, it is clear, both, that you cannot find a reason to deprive religious folks the right to free speech...

...and that you are a lying sack of offal.