Author Topic: IRS and Jerry Falwell (Read 1187 times)

demaw1 · « **Reply #15 on:** July 18, 2004, 12:58:27 PM »

xrtoronto,please keep laughing I dont want u to stop,man I wish i could see u in 70 years whereever u are and see whos laughing then,so I dont give a rats bellybutton please keep laughing.

Simaril · « **Reply #16 on:** July 18, 2004, 02:02:34 PM »

XToronto, it was the purple one.

CrowMAW, thanks for your comments in clarifying the legal status. It's simple enough to get around, too -- all they have to do is create a PAC and separate their activities. In fact, many have done jsut that. I think James Dobson's is called Family research Council, and Pat Robertson has one too. Seems a good way to separate the activities, so "God's endorsement" isnt an issue.

These rules protect all of us, and in fact are the very rules that Gore violated when he raised funds at the Buddhist monastery. If you jumped on that, you have to jump on this.

AKIron · « **Reply #17 on:** July 18, 2004, 02:04:10 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Simaril
These rules protect all of us, and in fact are the very rules that Gore violated when he raised funds at the Buddhist monastery. If you jumped on that, you have to jump on this.

Since you brought that up, what ever happened about that? However, they aren't the same thing, Falwell isn't a candidate.

Sandman · « **Reply #18 on:** July 18, 2004, 02:05:51 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by crowMAW
but, the moment you say the candidate's name, or say vote Democrat, or vote for the incumbant or vote for the challenger, then you have just created a political action committee and PACs are not tax exempt.

I've been to a few churches that hand out "voting guides".

Hasn't seemed to affect their status.

SOB · « **Reply #19 on:** July 18, 2004, 02:16:30 PM »

Churches shouldn't be tax exempt anyway, unless they meet the same requirments that other non or not for profit businesses do.

AKIron · « **Reply #20 on:** July 18, 2004, 02:47:35 PM »

Well, if we're gonna start pulling tax exempt status from nonprofits for expressing political views we can't stop with churches, the NAACP and ACLU will have to start paying as well.

crowMAW · « **Reply #21 on:** July 18, 2004, 04:41:15 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Sandman
I've been to a few churches that hand out "voting guides".

Hasn't seemed to affect their status.

Voter's guides are deemed OK, so long as they do not specifiy which candidate that the congregation should vote for. They can list all the candidates and their views on issues. The preacher can say our church believes in X, Y and Z values. But the preacher cannot then say that candidate Smith believes in X, Y and Z values too, so that is who you should vote for.

Seriously, the easiest thing for any non-profit to do is to create their own PAC separate from the primary organization.

But personally, I think that the entire concept of non-profit tax exemption is flawed and should be done away with entirely except for entities providing government-like services (ie Goodwill or Habitat for Humanity which provide welfare services; private schools; etc). Then churches and tree huggers can do whatever they want politically.

Simaril · « **Reply #22 on:** July 18, 2004, 07:28:21 PM »

You forget one of the first constitutional battles in US history -- Daniel Webster arguing before John Marshall about a state's claimed power to tax a private nonprofit college. (Dartmouth? I don't remember for sure.)

"The power to tax is the power to destroy"

The founding fathers specifically forbade taxation of religious organizations because in europe taxation had been used to support the establishment of the state religion (the real point of the U.S. Constitution's Establishment clause), and used taxes to selectively pressure other faiths. For example, national tax revenues would be used to support Church of England expenses and ministers, while all the other denominations could be forced to pay extra taxes -- since they officiallly weren't the church at all.

tax exemption is a key part of religious freedom, for without it the government becomes a participant in religious endeavors. I genuiniely want them out of that field!

Simaril · « **Reply #23 on:** July 18, 2004, 07:31:20 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by AKIron
Since you brought that up, what ever happened about that? However, they aren't the same thing, Falwell isn't a candidate.

Gore waffled on the key point with his infamous "no controlling legal authority" comment. Technically I guess he was in the clear because of whatever this controlling authority thing meant, but people also pretty much figured out he got caught with his hand in the jar -- but couldnt be accused because of the technicality.

And while Falwell isn't a candidate, the issue is political fundraising by nonprofits -- not who would get the funds

Silat · « **Reply #24 on:** July 18, 2004, 08:35:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by storch
This law to which you refer was actually an executive order by LBJ in a successful attempt to curb critizism for his "Great Society" legislation prior to it being signed into law.

Preachers in the south were railing against LBJ and his policies and that was how he silenced them. He denied all people of faith hence their right to hear the political opinions of the leaders from the pulpit.

This (law?) needs to be challenged in the courts.

Imagine if the same criteria were applied to the NAACP also a not for profit and in the same category as churches.

Many homosexual not for profits also actively participate in political debate with no challenges to their tax exempt status.

I hope they do cite Reverend Falwell and I hope that this will be fought in the courts. I believe that with the current crop of legal counsel providing pro bono service to the faith community we may at last be able to have our political views shared openly from our pulpits and the battle to win back the culture from the leftist extremists can earnestly begin.

Great post, thanks for sharing it.

Please provide information on "Homosexual not for profits" that are breaking the law. And I implore you to turn them in to the IRS.<
You constantly bring up leftists as the enemy of this country. Reading this board has shown no such thing. I have not read one letter from a so called leftist that isnt for defeating the terrorists. Or for that matter any "leftist" that is for tearing down this country.
On the other hand those who believe their God is the only one,and want the rest of us to follow their rules are our greatest enemy. Hmmm sounds alot like those fanatics in the middle east we are currently fighting.

rpm · « **Reply #25 on:** July 19, 2004, 08:52:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Curval
Thumbing one's nose at the most omnipotent organisation in the world is not smart.

What does Wal-Mart have to do with this?

AKIron · « **Reply #26 on:** July 19, 2004, 09:27:10 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by rpm371
What does Wal-Mart have to do with this?

Have no fear, Wal-Mart is being taken care of. The suit filed against Wal-Mart alleging discrimination against women will ensure they fill their management positions without regard to ability and reduce this retail giant to the level of mediocrity required by liberals everywhere. Long live the socialist movement! Viva la Revolucion!

Curval · « **Reply #27 on:** July 19, 2004, 10:48:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by demaw1
xrtoronto,please keep laughing I dont want u to stop,man I wish i could see u in 70 years whereever u are and see whos laughing then,so I dont give a rats bellybutton please keep laughing.

What did toronto do to you man?

Are you a loyal Falwell fan who believes that the purple teletubby is a homo? If so I am beginning to laugh too.

AKIron · « **Reply #28 on:** July 19, 2004, 02:03:28 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Curval
What did toronto do to you man?

Are you a loyal Falwell fan who believes that the purple teletubby is a homo? If so I am beginning to laugh too.

It's true!

"Starfish… fish stars… it’s all the same to me," says Lisa Montgomery, a single mother with 3 small children. Square Pants is a pervert and children shouldn’t be watching him. He’s worse than that homo Teletubby."

http://www.foxiestnews.com/pr03.htm

demaw1 · « **Reply #29 on:** July 19, 2004, 07:37:47 PM »

Curvel re; toronto...

Xtoronto has not done anything to me,nothing.But I went back to see what I might have said,I see nothing demeaning,no name calling,nothing close to what has been said about me because of my views.If you can find 1 demeaning word,anything about his character,his views,whatever,tell me and I will take it up with him within 1 hour of finding out.Thanks.... Fallwell, know very little about him...tubby tele never heard of it.But I do know the price of freedom,sometimes you must put up with weirdos[not saying they are dont know enough about them] and within reason stand up for their rights or 1 day the majorty might think you are weird then who will stand up for you.