Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Octavius on July 18, 2004, 04:27:18 AM
-
"Falwell is thumbing his nose at the IRS," Lynn said. "He must not be permitted to use a tax-exempt ministry to engage in partisan politics. The vast majority of America's religious institutions play by the rules. He should too."[/size]
[edit]: Heh, forgot the link. here (http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6813&abbr=pr&JServSessionIdr012=8a4tnf4su1.app1b&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241)
-
not that I care about Jerry Fallwell but do you know the orriginal source of this quote or do you make it a general practice of quoting yourself?
-
how embarrassing, I forgot the link. Hang on
-
Since when did ministers become 2nd class citizens and cant have opinions and the freedom to voice them any where they please.Tax exempt or not, big deal.Just where in the hell do you think the talk of our freedom and over taxation started..OH no God forbid it started in the churches and the churches played a large part in the war for freedom.If u are black where u think the talk against slavery started...joes bar and grill? No the churches in the north.How many of you have said anything about the most reverand jessie jackson and his combining polictics and preaching emmm.I havent heard anything on it.Hell he even shakes down corp.and doesnt pay taxes on it.What ,you dont think ,a preacher or someone in a church never picked up a rifle to defend your freedom?It may be chick in norway and canada and other places to throw preachers in jail for preaching how they always have,but believe me when you try it here the outcome will be very different.
What ever happen to the liberals favorite line...if you dont like it just turn the knob...Well just turn the knob...I dont like a lot of things preachers say , and i hate what people like m.moore say but we must have freedom for both, or 1 day someone will come to take a freedom from you that you like and who will be left to fight for it then?
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Since when did ministers become 2nd class citizens and cant have opinions and the freedom to voice them any where they please.
No one is trying to take away his freedom of speach. He can continue to say whatever he wants. However, if he is going to campaign for a candidate with church funds[/i], then the church becomes a PAC...which is fine...no problem there at all...but they have to give up the tax exempt status afforded to churches.
There is a very clear and bright line between church and PAC. And every preacher in the land should know it by now. In a church sermon or function[/i] you can talk about God and religion all you want...you can talk about the importance of voting...you can talk about the importance of voting for a candidate that represents your views...you can talk about the attributes that a candidate should have...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. The preacher can still say what ever he wants though.
-
Thumbing one's nose at the most omnipotent organisation in the world is not smart.
-
So what happens to your tax status if you invite the candidate to speak to your congregation? Is not that a de facto endorsement?
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So what happens to your tax status if you invite the candidate to speak to your congregation? Is not that a de facto endorsement?
That one is a little more muddy. Depending on the circumstances it may not be legally considered a endorsement under the IRS rules.
Churches can invite candidates to speak so long as they afford equal opportunity to the other opposing candidates. Fundraising for the candidate while at the church function is not allowed. Also, church officials cannot make statements that indicate a bias during the function.
They can also invite individuals running for office to speak in an "non-candidate" role. The non-candidate role means that no mention should be made that the speaker is running for an office and no campaigning can be done. Churches do not have to afford equal time in this situation.
-
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.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
So what happens to your tax status if you invite the candidate to speak to your congregation? Is not that a de facto endorsement?
I don't believe candidates may address a congregation if they are discussing their political views or seeking contributions.
-
Originally posted by storch
I don't believe candidates may address a congregation if they are discussing their political views or seeking contributions.
^^:aok
-
Originally posted by storch
I don't believe candidates may address a congregation if they are discussing their political views or seeking contributions.
don't think that's ever stopped many of them, from both parties.
-
re. What churches can and cant say.
There have been times in our country when people have tried to suppress almost everything,newspaper buildings burnt down,and yes owners of newspapers and reporters killed.The very same thing has happened with churches.There will always be thugs in any country.The so called seperation of church and state is pure myth started in the early 1960s by an supreme court that threw out every previous supreme court ruling concerning this topic because they were an enlighten court.Storch was right about lbj,although I dont think it is time for court battle yet.Crowmaws writing was very well done much better than I can do, but the arguements were,I believe in accord with the freedom from religion crowd.Until till the 60s ministers aways have been a force in politics.I say crowmaw what do you think would happen I f you tried to throw lincoln in jail,he campained in many churches, ok than so did FDR,and so did many others.The left is very much involved in not only trying to silence preachers but christians as well.There are 2 main stream ministers [that I can think of now] that are either in court or soon will be because of their sermons on homosexuality.Because of the inherit evil in mans heart once you start down this road it will never stop.It will only take1 generation to destory A merica and the Judeo/christian heritage that gave us our freedom.We are now at the crossroads.
-
Falwell? lol...he's the knucklehead that wanted the childrens show Teletubbies banned because he thought one of the characters was gay? I was laughing so hard I can't remember which one!
(http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol18/issue13/music.reciews.teletubbies.jpeg)
-
Falwell thumbed his nose at the IRS??? Damn, I'm beginning to like this guy.:aok
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Churches shouldn't be tax exempt anyway, unless they meet the same requirments that other non or not for profit businesses do.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!
-
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
-
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.
-
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?
-
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!
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
Silat....greatest enemy
So you say a christian is your greatest enemy,ok question,Its 2oclock in the morning and you are leaving your favorate bar just a little bit drunk.You hear footsteps behind you ,turn,you see 2 rough looking christians[males] with bibles in their hands,Would you be more or less afraid than if you saw 2 rough looking arab muslims their faces wrapped in cloth and chanting about allah?
-
Does anyone else find this whole nonprofit vs churchs non-taxable thing amusing?
And then theres the whole irony of we can't have churchs taxed because then government would be involved in religion. But then churchs have the right to participate in government...
You guys really need to make nonprofit MEAN nonprofit. Not tax-dodge.
And if a religious organisation wants to hook into politics then politics should be free to hook into it.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Silat....greatest enemy
So you say a christian is your greatest enemy,ok question,Its 2oclock in the morning and you are leaving your favorate bar just a little bit drunk.You hear footsteps behind you ,turn,you see 2 rough looking christians[males] with bibles in their hands,Would you be more or less afraid than if you saw 2 rough looking arab muslims their faces wrapped in cloth and chanting about allah?
Given total religious history, I'd take the Muslims.
-
vulcan you are intellectually dishonest.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Given total religious history, I'd take the Muslims.
Or uninformed historically. Given the state of schools and the PC environment in the developed world, could be either or both.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Does anyone else find this whole nonprofit vs churchs non-taxable thing amusing?
And then theres the whole irony of we can't have churchs taxed because then government would be involved in religion. But then churchs have the right to participate in government...
You guys really need to make nonprofit MEAN nonprofit. Not tax-dodge.
And if a religious organisation wants to hook into politics then politics should be free to hook into it.
Vulcan, you're entirely (deliberately???) missing the point of the regulations. Churches can NOT participate in partisan politics and remain tax exempt. They CAN make statements about moral beliefs and ethical principles. If a tax exempt religious organization engages in endorsements or campaigning, they lose their tax exempt status.
Any questions?
-
Originally posted by demaw1
vulcan you are intellectually dishonest.
Really? Study a little history...
I disagree with many Muslim beliefs, but I also disagree with many Christian beliefs. Having a quick look at history, most of the religious wars have been started by Christians (and been extremely brutal).
Muslim behaviour in the last 60 years has been pretty attrocious, however it has generally the case of a minority of fanatics. Then again theres been some pretty bad stuff from the Christian side (the Slavic states for example) as well.
But when you step back and say look at the last 500 or so years the Muslims have been much more well behaved and contributed much more to civilisation than the Christians.
I'm sure if you take a small population of Christians, bottled them up in a small state, under a baking hot sun, with the Israeli's poking them every now and then, you'd produce a few suicide bombers.
-
Originally posted by Simaril
Vulcan, you're entirely (deliberately???) missing the point of the regulations. Churches can NOT participate in partisan politics and remain tax exempt. They CAN make statements about moral beliefs and ethical principles. If a tax exempt religious organization engages in endorsements or campaigning, they lose their tax exempt status.
Any questions?
Yes, is this what is happening in real life, or just the theory.
Get my drift?
-
Yes, it happens in real life, and the religious organizations I'm familiar with take great pains to do things right.
Even if bad apples exist, they don't define the whole bushel. Categorical statements -- that all people of a ceratin belief or ceratin color or ceratin country behave a certain way - are a short step from frank prejudice. So, even if ,IF Falwell or someone like him breaks the rules, it is patently unfair and dishonest to imply that all religious organizations should be tarred with the same brush.
Quote: Given the total of all religious history, I'd take the muslims -- Vulcan
I also find it endlessly interesting that many in developed world are generous and open minded with all belief systems except christianity.
-
Vulcan re; study history.
Vulcan I thank you for a very reasoned reply.I am sorry maybe I am really tired[Iam] I cant get my brain around your post as I think it is to vague to reply to. It did get your point a cross not saying it didnt, but I would have to have some idea of the wars you thought christians started. That would give me an idea who you believe christians are starting 500 years ago.
It has not been a case of minority fanatics not for some 3000 years + or_ [for you this is not a trap so dont fall in it]
The only time the muslims or their fore fathers behaved well was when they didnt have the power to do anything else.
Name two things that are good the muslims have given to civilisation.
The Judeo/Christian foundation has given the world,Britian,America,Israel,[and a few others] From these came freedom,liberty,English common law,rights,women treated as equals,not 2nd class citzens or dogs as in some places.Ownership of land for common people,education,oppertunity,freedom of religion,the right to be safe in your home,the right to vote to remove bad leaders with out all the bloodshed.
Yes this is some what simplistic,and didnt happen over night and is still in a state of change for the better.
No there would be no suicide bombers even the muslims know this for they have said,final victory will be ours because they love life and we love death.
-
Originally posted by Vulcan
Does anyone else find this whole nonprofit vs churchs non-taxable thing amusing?
And then theres the whole irony of we can't have churchs taxed because then government would be involved in religion. But then churchs have the right to participate in government...
You guys really need to make nonprofit MEAN nonprofit. Not tax-dodge.
And if a religious organisation wants to hook into politics then politics should be free to hook into it.
Why does nonprofit have to mean nonpolitical?
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Silat....greatest enemy
So you say a christian is your greatest enemy,ok question,Its 2oclock in the morning and you are leaving your favorate bar just a little bit drunk.You hear footsteps behind you ,turn,you see 2 rough looking christians[males] with bibles in their hands,Would you be more or less afraid than if you saw 2 rough looking arab muslims their faces wrapped in cloth and chanting about allah?
Fanatics Demaw. They scare me. Christian or otherwise. Get it?
-
Silat re; fanatics
Fanatics can only scare you if you believe one thing is no better than another.[euro equality] If you can decern between good and evil you will not fear.
Do not fear them that can kill your body,rather fear him that can destory your soul.
-
Originally posted by demaw1
Silat re; fanatics
Fanatics can only scare you if you believe one thing is no better than another.[euro equality] If you can decern between good and evil you will not fear.
Do not fear them that can kill your body,rather fear him that can destory your soul.
what language is this word you used: 'decern'?
what does it mean?
-
Xtronato re discern
I wish to ask all to please forgive the tendency of my fingers to go in a different direction then they are told. When I was going to school typing was for the ladies, who knew. I do not have time to learn the right way to type, as for many years I have been busy building large custom homes for people. As I know for a fact I will make many mistakes typeing and a few spelling I ask your forgiveness now and in the future, thank you Demaw.