Can churches promote political candidates?

[jamesrage]

They should be taxed because they're a business. What's wrong with that?
.

So you want christians to shut the **** up when it comes to political issues and which canidates closely match their views while at the same time you want to tax the churches?

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

So you want christians to shut the **** up when it comes to political issues and which canidates closely match their views while at the same time you want to tax the churches?

So you scored a big fat zero on the reading comprehension part of the SAT, didn't you?

Churches can say any damn stupid thing they want to. They've said a lot of incredibly stupid things over the centuries, and the mindless drooling masses have listened and obeyd. I'm certainly not one to oppose a totally pointless tradition, if that's what people want to waste their time on.

They should simply pay taxes like every other business. What's unfair about that?

 

[ludahai]

t Does this post serve any other purpose other then flame?
Also, when have I supported communist reds in Beijing? Pro-unification does not mean pro-communism. Pretty lame Lu, I'd expect better from you.

It serves to show how hypocritical your statements are.

 

[ludahai]

Well I haven't studied USSC case law. Perhaps you can give me the Cliff Notes version of how it is relevant.

In McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice Marshall wrote, "The power to tax involves the power to destroy." The case involved the creation of the Second Bank of the United States, which had a branch in Maryland. The State of Maryland proposed to tax the bank of all profits. The Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional. The Constitution gave the Congress the right to create a national banking system. Thus, "...that power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create; that there is a plain repugnance."

The Congress has an enumerated right in the Constitution to create a bank. The right to religious expression and freedom is enumerated in the First Amendment of the Constitution. If the government has the right to tax religion (especially considering it is non-profit to begin with - what profits are there to tax?), that implies that the government can destroy the free exercise of religion through taxation of it. That is an anathama to the Constitution and to the wisdom and legal genius of Chief Justice Marshall.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

In McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice Marshall wrote, "The power to tax involves the power to destroy." The case involved the creation of the Second Bank of the United States, which had a branch in Maryland. The State of Maryland proposed to tax the bank of all profits. The Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional. The Constitution gave the Congress the right to create a national banking system. Thus, "...that power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create; that there is a plain repugnance."

The Congress has an enumerated right in the Constitution to create a bank. The right to religious expression and freedom is enumerated in the First Amendment of the Constitution. If the government has the right to tax religion (especially considering it is non-profit to begin with - what profits are there to tax?), that implies that the government can destroy the free exercise of religion through taxation of it. That is an anathama to the Constitution and to the wisdom and legal genius of Chief Justice Marshall.

It's one thing to tax a religion...not sure how that would work, does God have a bank account, or would the government have to accept sacrificial lambs?

It's another thing to tax a business. Making churches pay for the services they extract from the community, just like the mini-market on the corner, isn't unreasonable. It's not like I"m suggesting they create a special tax just for con-men or anything like that. No, I'm just saying that if all men are created equal, as it says in the DoI, and if all men are guaranteed equal protection under the law, then the legitimate psychoanalysts should pay no higher and no less a rate than the sky pilots in the old movie theater next door or than the gangsters running the cathedral in the ritzy part of town.

It's all business, it's all the same. Money comes in, money goes out. That's religion in it's totality.

 

[ludahai]

It's one thing to tax a religion...not sure how that would work, does God have a bank account, or would the government have to accept sacrificial lambs?

They could go to the Pentateuch or something to see how God made the ancient Israelites do it I suppose.

It's another thing to tax a business. Making churches pay for the services they extract from the community, just like the mini-market on the corner, isn't unreasonable. It's not like I"m suggesting they create a special tax just for con-men or anything like that. No, I'm just saying that if all men are created equal, as it says in the DoI, and if all men are guaranteed equal protection under the law, then the legitimate psychoanalysts should pay no higher and no less a rate than the sky pilots in the old movie theater next door or than the gangsters running the cathedral in the ritzy part of town.

You obviously have a prejudice against religions and people who are religious.

It's all business, it's all the same. Money comes in, money goes out. That's religion in it's totality.

Businesses are taxed on their profits! The Church is a non-profit enterprise.

 

[jamesrage]

So you scored a big fat zero on the reading comprehension part of the SAT, didn't you?

Churches can say any damn stupid thing they want to. They've said a lot of incredibly stupid things over the centuries, and the mindless drooling masses have listened and obeyd. I'm certainly not one to oppose a totally pointless tradition, if that's what people want to waste their time on.

They should simply pay taxes like every other business. What's unfair about that?

If they have to pay taxes then they should be able to donate to political canidates,they should be able to run campain commercials they and their symbols should be allowed on any tax payer funded property like any other group.Of course I know fake christians,atheist and most liberals will not want that.

If Churches have to pay taxes then so should NAACP,ACLU and any other so called non-profit orginization.

 

[tryreading]

yes, the government just cant promote churches..

This is wrong. A church is given a massive benefit in exchange for following some 501 (c)(3) rules. It is given a double gift in that it is not taxed, and its contributors can deduct their donations to the church. In order to receive this benefit, the church cannot involve itself in politics except in non-partisan ways like holding a generic voter registration drive.

Churches that want to be tax exempt must apply for 501 (c)(3) status, and agree to the rules therein in order to receive the benefits. They know the rules up front. They can opt to stay out of the 501 (c)(3) program at that time if they reject those rules. But by signing and becoming a 501 (c)(3), they acknowledge and accept that they must follow the laws involved with the status. They have decided to follow those laws.

Any churches that want to break the laws involved with their 501 (c)(3) status must be taxed, then they can back any candidate they want to in as partisan a way they want to. But they can't agree to the laws for their benefit, then break the laws because they desire to.

So you want christians to shut the **** up when it comes to political issues and which canidates closely match their views while at the same time you want to tax the churches?.

As above, Christians don't have to shut up about anything. All they have to do is decide whether they want their churches to be tax exempt or not. But they must not break the law.

 

[tryreading]

If they have to pay taxes then they should be able to donate to political canidates,they should be able to run campain commercials they and their symbols should be allowed on any tax payer funded property like any other group.Of course I know fake christians,atheist and most liberals will not want that.

If Churches have to pay taxes then so should NAACP,ACLU and any other so called non-profit orginization.

Having their symbols on public property is a different ball game, not related to this subject.

Also, tha NAACP, ACLU, and any other organization that has 501 (c)(3) status must follow the same rules as any church with that status.

 

[ludahai]

As above, Christians don't have to shut up about anything. All they have to do is decide whether they want their churches to be tax exempt or not. But they must not break the law.

Any Christian (even a priest) can say whatever they please so long as they are not speaking on behalf of the Church or congregation. The tax exempt status of a particular Church is NOT dependant on the public silence of its members.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

If they have to pay taxes then they should be able to donate to political canidates,they should be able to run campain commercials they and their symbols should be allowed on any tax payer funded property like any other group.Of course I know fake christians,atheist and most liberals will not want that.

If Churches have to pay taxes then so should NAACP,ACLU and any other so called non-profit orginization.

Who cares what the Christians want (funny, you put the word "fake" in there, as if there was any other kind), or the atheists, or the commie-libs? Religious kooks are citizens, too, free to enjoy the full exercise of their First Amendment guarantees.

Yes, all businesses should pay taxes. Glad you agree.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

You obviously have a prejudice against religions and people who are religious.

I'm better than they are. Modesty prevents me from saying more.

Businesses are taxed on their profits! The Church is a non-profit enterprise.

Businesses also pay property tax. As do not-for-profit companies. Except for churches, for some reason.

 

[jfuh]

It serves to show how hypocritical your statements are.

No, it's completely irrelevant to the topic.

 

[ludahai]

Businesses also pay property tax. As do not-for-profit companies. Except for churches, for some reason.

Once again refer to the doctrine, "the power to tax implies the power to destroy."

 

[earthworm]

They can promote political candidates all they want. They just have to give up their tax exempt status if they do. Could be a problem though for some of those mega-churches otherwise known as the all white suburban tax exempt country clubs.

Here I agree, at least to an extent , with the Democrat.
The churches must do this very carefully, I guess most do, so why the fuss ???
I'll bet the atheists and/or their supporters are behind this !

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Once again refer to the doctrine, "the power to tax implies the power to destroy."

So, mindlessly qouting poorly understood dictums from judges ruling on non-related issues is your pinnacle of argumentative skills?

An equal and impartial tax applied to all businesses can in no way be construed as a means of coercion or destruction by a government opposed to any religious kookery. If Bob's Dry Cleaner sits on an eighth of an acre, and pays a thousand dollars a year in property tax, and Tim Conman's Church of Jesus Christ, Grifter sits on two eighths of an acre next to Bob's, Tim should have to pay twice the tax than Bob.

Of course, property tax is a little more complicated than simple acreage, but the principal is the same. Assessed value of land, buildings, and equipment realizes a certain tax. Function of business is not important.

 

[tryreading]

Here I agree, at least to an extent , with the Democrat.
The churches must do this very carefully, I guess most do, so why the fuss ???
I'll bet the atheists and/or their supporters are behind this !

You didn't read the article. The people behind the complaint are leaders of a couple dozen churches in Ohio. A minister of one church saw that another church was violating the law, so he complained and had the backing of many other churches. One church group is trying to keep another honest.

 

[tryreading]

Any Christian (even a priest) can say whatever they please so long as they are not speaking on behalf of the Church or congregation. The tax exempt status of a particular Church is NOT dependant on the public silence of its members.

This has already been made clear. We are talking about churches, not individuals who are not in any way speaking for their church.

 

[earthworm]

Errrrrr, I should read the article and then state a well informed opinion rather than just emoting ???

Well, then the other law-abiding churches do have a point..
I'd do away with the oppressive property tax and replace it with a fairer more logical tax....
A way of skirting a tough problem...

Is there a sales tax on Bibles ???

 

[Thorgasm]

In McCulloch v. Maryland, Chief Justice Marshall wrote, "The power to tax involves the power to destroy." The case involved the creation of the Second Bank of the United States, which had a branch in Maryland. The State of Maryland proposed to tax the bank of all profits. The Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional. The Constitution gave the Congress the right to create a national banking system. Thus, "...that power to destroy may defeat and render useless the power to create; that there is a plain repugnance."

The Congress has an enumerated right in the Constitution to create a bank. The right to religious expression and freedom is enumerated in the First Amendment of the Constitution. If the government has the right to tax religion (especially considering it is non-profit to begin with - what profits are there to tax?), that implies that the government can destroy the free exercise of religion through taxation of it. That is an anathama to the Constitution and to the wisdom and legal genius of Chief Justice Marshall.

I am not sure what the first amendment has to do with tax code. The tax code says that non-profit organizations cannot endorse political candidates. If their agenda is charity for those in need, then they have no business in politics. If churches don't have profits then your USSC case has nothing to do with this. You want it to sound like anything taxed can be destroyed. Let's abolish all taxes then. Either it is that or as an atheist, I want my tax exempt status!

 

[ludahai]

I am not sure what the first amendment has to do with tax code. The tax code says that non-profit organizations cannot endorse political candidates. If their agenda is charity for those in need, then they have no business in politics. If churches don't have profits then your USSC case has nothing to do with this. You want it to sound like anything taxed can be destroyed. Let's abolish all taxes then. Either it is that or as an atheist, I want my tax exempt status!

I am addressing Scarecrow's point regarding taxing Churches as a business.

Frankly, if the Fair Tax were adopted, this would all be moot.

 

[ludahai]

So, mindlessly qouting poorly understood dictums from judges ruling on non-related issues is your pinnacle of argumentative skills?

Actually, I believe I have made the link rather effectively. The right to religion is a Constitutionally guaranteed right. Government does NOT have the right to destroy it.

Actually, as I have already said. I support the Fair Tax. It's adoption would make this discussion moot.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

I am addressing Scarecrow's point regarding taxing Churches as a business.

Frankly, if the Fair Tax were adopted, this would all be moot.

No it wouldn't. There'd still be the state and local taxes.

 

[Scarecrow Akhbar]

Actually, I believe I have made the link rather effectively. The right to religion is a Constitutionally guaranteed right. Government does NOT have the right to destroy it.

Actually, as I have already said. I support the Fair Tax. It's adoption would make this discussion moot.

Yeah, what you've failed to do is make any connection between equitable taxation and destruction. Since there isn't any, you can't, so I'm not surprised. You just want to quote homilies as a means of replacing thought.

 

[ludahai]

Yeah, what you've failed to do is make any connection between equitable taxation and destruction. Since there isn't any, you can't, so I'm not surprised. You just want to quote homilies as a means of replacing thought.

The overwhelming majority of churches operate with no profits. If you force them to pay taxes, you are going to put a financial strain on a large number of churches. I am not talking about these yuppie country club mega pseudo-Churches. I am talking about your corner black baptist church that has precious few funds and is trying to provide for the needs of its community on as little as possible. And the rural Catholic parish that relies on the offerings of its parishoners. LEt's not forget the services provided by most church groups to the community. You WOULD destroy a large number of churches with such taxation, and that would be a great loss to many communities. You obviously either have an engrained anti-religious bias OR you simply fail to understand how most local parishes and congregations operate.