The Johnson Amendment

[Ikari]

I believe churches should not pay taxes and its members should be free to exercise the right to free speech. There are plenty of examples where leftist gives handouts, hell’s bells, handouts is what keeps the leftist party alive. So why is this “handout” any different? Is it due to bigotry? Hate? What?

If churches were to pay taxes, I believe the people should be able to choose a state religion, put Nativity Scenes on public property, and practice their religion in public schools without fear of being harassed by school officials. That’s fair. You leftist preach fairness right?



There are no “captive audiences,” LMAO, that’s hilarious! Anyway, lol, you either believe in the freedom of speech or you don’t. And since the church is a private organization, their money is their money not the gov’t’s. So there really isn’t any “handouts” in that regard.

It is a captive audience. Do you know what that means? It doesn't mean someone has you at gun point, duh. Events such as high school graduations are considered captive audiences.

Regardless, if Churches have their hands in the public til, there may be some constraints. There's no such thing as a free lunch. This is for all tax-exempt organizations, not just Churches.

 

[DamnYankee]

So you're just making things up. OK, noted.

I made a point using an example, big whoop? Can't you grasp that? LOL

A congregation is a captive audience.

No its not. Your assertion is not only ridiculous, its wrong. lol

And irrelevant.

 

[DamnYankee]

It is a captive audience. Do you know what that means? It doesn't mean someone has you at gun point, duh.

Regardless, if Churches have their hands in the public til, there may be some constraints. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

There's free lunches if you are a leftists, hell they thrive on freebies. lol What makes this freebie any different?

 

[Ikari]

No its not. Your assertion is not only ridiculous, its wrong. lol

And irrelevant.

It is not wrong, nor irrelevant. To be a member of a church, you to to services. While at a service, that's where you are at. Other sorts of events, like high school graduations, are also considered captive audiences.

So before spouting off at the mouth, perhaps do some research. It will help your arguments not be based in ignorance and assumptions if you check it out first.

Now it matters, because if you're going to have people preaching political advice and telling folk who to vote for with a captive audience, you cannot do so on the government's dime. There are general rules for dealing with captive audiences and what can be done/said. Since Churches receive government subsidy and their congregation is considered a captive audience, they cannot preach politics or advise their congregation who to vote for.

Now if they revoke their tax-except status, they can do as they like.

it's really that simple.

 

[Ikari]

There's free lunches if you are a leftists, hell they thrive on freebies. lol What makes this freebie any different?

Dumb arguments are dumb. This is just absurd propaganda against a side you happen to disagree with. Not even for "leftists" are there such things as a free lunch. Everything must be paid. This handout to the Church is no different than any other government handout, it comes with strings attached.

 

[DamnYankee]

Dumb arguments are dumb. This is just absurd propaganda against a side you happen to disagree with. Not even for "leftists" are there such things as a free lunch. Everything must be paid. This handout to the Church is no different than any other government handout, it comes with strings attached.

You brought up “handouts.” So why is your argument not dumb? I mere pointed out there are many freebies, oh sorry, handouts, the leftists pass around all the time, but that’s okay. But not okay for the Christian church. Where’s the “strings” attached to Obamaphones for one? Or free diapers? Or free rent? Or free money? Hmmmmm.

 

[DamnYankee]

it is not wrong, nor irrelevant. To be a member of a church, you to to services. While at a service, that's where you are at. Other sorts of events, like high school graduations, are also considered captive audiences.

rotflmao.

 

[Ikari]

rotflmao.

laugh all you want, then look it up and educate yourself.

 

[DamnYankee]

laugh all you want, then look it up and educate yourself.

No,no, you're hilarious. I don't need to look it up.

Your anti Christian/free speech arguments are just what I expected. Lol

 

[Ikari]

You brought up “handouts.” So why is your argument not dumb? I mere pointed out there are many freebies, oh sorry, handouts, the leftists pass around all the time, but that’s okay. But not okay for the Christian church. Where’s the “strings” attached to Obamaphones for one? Or free diapers? Or free rent? Or free money? Hmmmmm.

Obamaphone...hahahha, the subsidies for phone lines started under Clinton and Bush upheld them.

And there are a lot of restrictions and qualifications necessary to obtain those subsidies. They are aimed at helping the poor.

but your argument is essentially "leftists have handouts...so I should too!". Great. Your church DOES get handouts. Just can't preach to a captive audience about who they need to vote for.

 

[Ikari]

No,no, you're hilarious. I don't need to look it up.

Of course not, you don't want to risk be proven wrong, huh?

Your argument is based in ignorance and assumption. By definition, a church congregation is considered a captive audience. Deal with it.

Your anti Christian/free speech arguments are just what I expected. Lol

And your propaganda is what I expected. lol

 

[DamnYankee]

Obamaphone...hahahha, the subsidies for phone lines started under Clinton and Bush upheld them.

They are not called Obamaphones for nothing.

They are aimed at helping the poor.

So are churches.

but your argument is essentially "leftists have handouts...so I should too!". Great. Your church DOES get handouts. Just can't preach to a captive audience about who they need to vote for.

Churches raise their own money, the money they raise is theirs. Money belongs to the people, not gov't. Why do you seem to think it is okay for some people to get "handouts," and others not? Seem to me you have yourself a load of hypocrisy, bigotry, or some other hangup.

 

[DamnYankee]

Of course not, you don't want to risk be proven wrong, huh?

Proven wrong about what? My opinion?

Your argument is based in ignorance and assumption. By definition, a church congregation is considered a captive audience. Deal with it.

Your argument appears to be based on hypocrisy with a healthy helping of bigotry.

And your propaganda is what I expected. lol

That's a real knee slapper! LMAO

 

[Ikari]

They are not called Obamaphones for nothing.

Of course not. The reason is propaganda

So are churches.

They are designed to collect money. That's why those mega churches have ATMs in their lobbies. And chruches are free to donate to charity if they want. If they did a good enough job, we wouldn't need the government programs as well. But they don't, so we do.

Churches raise their own money, the money they raise is theirs. Money belongs to the people, not gov't. Why do you seem to think it is okay for some people to get "handouts," and others not? Seem to me you have yourself a load of hypocrisy, bigotry, or some other hangup.

Seems to me, you cannot make an argument without resorting to petty insults.

The church can have their handout, but they cannot preach to captive audiences about who they can vote for in such a case. Churches generate income, lots of businesses generate income, they have to pay taxes. Churches own lots of property, lots of businesses and individuals own property. Guess what...they have to pay taxes on those. A church gets it for free.

So really what you're arguing for is free money for the things you want while decrying "free money" spent on social programs. If you want free money, you may have to agree to some terms to get it. In this case, it's that a church cannot preach politics or tell their congregation who to vote for while in service. Deal with it.

 

[Ikari]

Proven wrong about what? My opinion?

That a congregation is considered a captive audience. Because it is.

Your argument appears to be based on hypocrisy with a healthy helping of bigotry.

Hello irrational deflection, good to see you're thriving well in this argument

That's a real knee slapper! LMAO

It really is.

 

[DamnYankee]

Hello irrational deflection, good to see you're thriving well in this argument

Back atcha.

It really is.

Yep, in a leftist kind of way. LOL

 

[Ikari]

Yep, in a leftist kind of way. LOL

In a "I can't make an argument without resorting to insults, partisan rhetoric, and propaganda" kind of way, lol.

 

[DamnYankee]

In a "I can't make an argument without resorting to insults, partisan rhetoric, and propaganda" kind of way, lol.

You should practice what you preach.

It's like your silly free speech argument about DJT on another thread.

 

[Ikari]

You should practice what you preach.

It's like your silly free speech argument about DJT on another thread.

Listen, I get it, you want free money for the organization you like. It's cool. Your organization in fact gets free money. In exchange for the free money, they cannot preach politics or tell their captive audience who to vote for. If you don't like it, you don't have to take the free money.

 

[NotreDame]

But within the laws we have, the Churches do get government handouts, and government handouts come with strings. In this case, it is the restriction on being able to tell a captive audience who to vote for.

Federal tax exempt status is not appropriately characterized as a "government handout." Tax exempt status means the entity/business/person is not having its income or the equivalent of income taxed. In other words, the government is not taking through taxation what someone, some entity, or business is earning as income. Allowing people, businesses, and entities to keep all of what they earn as income, or its equivalent, from taxation is not a "government handout."

"Government handout" is money the government has received from taxation and redistributed to other people, businesses, or entities. In other words, "government handout" is money the government possesses and/or owns and is giving to some entity, person, business.

Now it matters, because if you're going to have people preaching political advice and telling folk who to vote for with a captive audience, you cannot do so on the government's dime.

Such a church would not be doing so on "the government's dime." The church would be doing so on its own "dime."

The other issue is whether the government should be permitted to condition receipt of a government privilege, such as tax exempt status, on the basis of foregoing the exercise of a constitutional right, in this instance free speech in the form of political speech.

 

[DamnYankee]

Listen, I get it, you want free money for the organization you like. It's cool. Your organization in fact gets free money. In exchange for the free money, they cannot preach politics or tell their captive audience who to vote for. If you don't like it, you don't have to take the free money.

I've explained it to you already. Re-read the thread.

 

[NotreDame]

Listen, I get it, you want free money for the organization you like. It's cool. Your organization in fact gets free money. In exchange for the free money, they cannot preach politics or tell their captive audience who to vote for. If you don't like it, you don't have to take the free money.

The church is not receiving or obtaining "free money" from the government. The church is operating on its own money.

You are characterizing tax exempt status in a rather peculiar and inaccurate manner.

A parallel would be tax deductions, which permit people to keep more of their income by shrinking the amount of income to be taxed. Tax deductions are not "free money" from the government. Neither are tax deductions government "handouts." After all, the money belongs to the people earning it, making it, receiving as compensation for some labor/conduct performed, its the peoples' money. The government permitting people to keep more of their money through deductions does not rationally constitute as a "handout" or government free money. Similarly, neither does tax exempt status qualify as government handout or government free money.

 

[DamnYankee]

The church is not receiving or obtaining "free money" from the government. The church is operating on its own money.

You are characterizing tax exempt status in a rather peculiar and inaccurate manner.

A parallel would be tax deductions, which permit people to keep more of their income by shrinking the amount of income to be taxed. Tax deductions are not "free money" from the government. Neither are tax deductions government "handouts." After all, the money belongs to the people earning it, making it, receiving as compensation for some labor/conduct performed, its the peoples' money. The government permitting people to keep more of their money through deductions does not rationally constitute as a "handout" or government free money. Similarly, neither does tax exempt status qualify as government handout or government free money.

I would imagine someone calling themselves a "libertarian" would have rudimentary knowledge of such things. Apparently not.

 

[Ikari]

The church is not receiving or obtaining "free money" from the government. The church is operating on its own money.

A business operates on its own money too, but it has to pay taxes on its property and profit. Churches do not have to pay that, thus it is government subsidy.

A parallel would be tax deductions, which permit people to keep more of their income by shrinking the amount of income to be taxed. Tax deductions are not "free money" from the government. Neither are tax deductions government "handouts." After all, the money belongs to the people earning it, making it, receiving as compensation for some labor/conduct performed, its the peoples' money. The government permitting people to keep more of their money through deductions does not rationally constitute as a "handout" or government free money. Similarly, neither does tax exempt status qualify as government handout or government free money.

Tax deductions can be "free money" because they government still has to collect that money for another source. The taxpayers foot the bill. Child credits, for instance, are subsidies to families. It's subsidized through other tax payers. The government doesn't spend less money because it gave a certain class of people a credit. They take that money they would have collected from other people.

In this case, Churches get free use of land (normal individuals and businesses would have to pay taxes on that) and do not have to pay any taxes on the money it brings in. Well any 501C organization, it's not limited to Churches. But all tax-exempt organizations of this class are subjected to similar restrictions. Because they are receiving this very substantial and generous break, they cannot use their positions to politicize and tell people who to vote for.

It's really that simple.

 

[Ikari]

I've explained it to you already. Re-read the thread.

you've explained nothing except that you think churches should get free play all the way around. They shouldn't have to pay taxes on the land/property they own, they shouldn't have to pay taxes on the money they bring in, but they should be allowed to use their power and position to preach politics and tell their congregation how to vote.