Skip to comments.
IRS Threatens Political Speech
US House ^
| 24 Jul
| Congressman Ron Paul
Posted on 07/27/2006 8:20:43 AM PDT by xzins
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 341-343 next last
1
posted on
07/27/2006 8:20:45 AM PDT
by
xzins
To: P-Marlowe; jude24; OrthodoxPresbyterian; blue-duncan; Corin Stormhands; Alamo-Girl; PatrickHenry
Speech is speech, regardless of the setting. There is no legal distinction between religious expression and political expression; both are equally protected by the First amendment. Religious believers do not drop their political opinions at the door of their place of worship, nor do they disregard their faith at the ballot box. Religious morality will always inform the voting choices of Americans of all faiths.
Starting to get to the heart of the issue.
The heart of the issue is that the government shouldn't be in the business of taking anything that belongs to God.
2
posted on
07/27/2006 8:23:20 AM PDT
by
xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Supporting the troops means praying for them to WIN!)
To: xzins
The supposed motivation behind the ban on political participation by churches is the need to maintain a rigid separation between church and state If that's the case, then why are the IRS regs re: electioneering applicable to all 501(c)(3) non-profits, not just churches?
There is no "right" to tax-exempt status. If you accept it, you know full well what you're getting yourself into.
There's a real simple solution to all of this for churches -- abandon their tax-exempt status & electioneer as much as they want. Some conservative churches have done just that so they don't have to serve two masters.
3
posted on
07/27/2006 8:28:51 AM PDT
by
gdani
To: gdani
Which came first, the IRS or the Constitution?
4
posted on
07/27/2006 8:29:59 AM PDT
by
xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Supporting the troops means praying for them to WIN!)
To: Taxman; ancient_geezer; Principled; EternalVigilance; rwrcpa1; phil_will1; kevkrom; n-tres-ted; ...
Actually, I think the best manner to remove his weapon from the arsenal of the left is NOT to legislate specifically against it, but to remove their power to discriminate using the tax laws.
Passing the FairTax into law for taxation would eliminate their ability to use this threat since income - no matter the source - would not be taxed; only consumer consumption. Churches would then be free to have free speech under the Constitution as originally intended (and not now practiced).
It's time for the FairTax!!!
5
posted on
07/27/2006 8:31:53 AM PDT
by
pigdog
To: xzins
Which came first, the IRS or the Constitution? Explain why that's relevant.
6
posted on
07/27/2006 8:33:57 AM PDT
by
gdani
To: xzins
"I agree with my colleague Walter Jones of North Carolina that the political views of any particular church or its members are none of the governments business. "
Perfect. Then abolish the tax-exempt status of that [and other] church[es] and charitable tax exemption for its members and other individuals - and everyone will live happily ever after. [the government would still have a legitimate interest in the activities of places similar to Finsbury mosque in England, though]
7
posted on
07/27/2006 8:34:30 AM PDT
by
GSlob
To: xzins
If the church were to organize political volunteers to work on a campaign, I can see an issue. What is said in church should never be a concern of the government.
8
posted on
07/27/2006 8:35:55 AM PDT
by
pgyanke
(Christ embraces sinners; liberals embrace the sin.)
To: gdani
There is no "right" to tax-exempt status. If you accept it, you know full well what you're getting yourself into.
There's a real simple solution to all of this for churches -- abandon their tax-exempt status & electioneer as much as they want. Some conservative churches have done just that so they don't have to serve two masters.
I disagree.
I think there is a distinct difference in a PAC and a church, and that the pastor/preacher/minister/rabbi has a right, indeed a duty, to call it as he/she sees it.
The tax exempt status is related to churches being charitable organizations. It should not be used for a muzzle and leash.
I do not believe the church should be going door-to-door or manning the phone lines to influence the vote for a candidate, but have not seen that happening either.
9
posted on
07/27/2006 8:37:37 AM PDT
by
NonLinear
(He's dead, Jim)
To: xzins
It's okay - the American left assured me that the Constitution was never intended for Conservatives. Just themselves.
10
posted on
07/27/2006 8:38:07 AM PDT
by
Tzimisce
(How Would Mohammed Vote? Hillary for President! www.dndorks.com)
To: gdani
>Which came first, the IRS or the Constitution?
>Explain why that is relevant.<
Explain why it is not.
To: NonLinear
I think there is a distinct difference in a PAC and a church You're correct. PACs - because of they way they are set up & run - are not subject to these same IRS regs. And nothing to my knowledge prevents a church from reincorporating as a PAC.
12
posted on
07/27/2006 8:41:18 AM PDT
by
gdani
To: gdani
There's a real simple solution to all of this for churches -- abandon their tax-exempt status & electioneer as much as they want. Some conservative churches have done just that so they don't have to serve two masters.As if it were that easy to get out of serving your government master. The government owns you. You are their slave, regardless of which church you attend. Did you think this was a free country or something?
The real answer is for the citizenry to wake up and reclaim their birthright of liberty. Ditching the 16th amendment and abolishing the IRS would be part of that. UNtil that happens, we're just houseslaves, some more happy than others.
To: gdani
Why it's relevant?
Who gave the right to free exercise of religion? The IRS?? What did churches do between 1789 and whenever the IRS showed up....apply for 501 status because they just sensed it would come about some day in the future?
The point is, of course, that none of your rights are granted you by men. They come from God. If they didn't, they'd just revoke the 1st amendment some day, and you'd be left talking to your dog for security purposes.
Another question: If I'm giving a hundred bucks as my worship of God, and you beat me up and take half of it away, was I able to worship God as MUCH as I wanted to?
14
posted on
07/27/2006 8:47:09 AM PDT
by
xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! Supporting the troops means praying for them to WIN!)
To: gdani
You're correct. PACs - because of they way they are set up & run - are not subject to these same IRS regs. And nothing to my knowledge prevents a church from reincorporating as a PAC.I see, life isn't so bad. Our political masters and the overseer class, the bureaucrats, have set up classifications with regulations for our own good. But there are procedures for applying to change your classification so your speech falls under a different set of regulations. Follow their procedures and life is easy and you can say what you want inside the correct classifications, as long as it follows the corresponding regulations of speech. Seems like freedom to me.
To: xzins
One of the disappointments of helping to elect PUBS in the executive and legislative branches has been their willingness to support and pass new laws limiting our freedoms. CFR is just the tip of the iceberg.
It is especially frustrating to see the selective enforcement that the career bureaucrats practice.
16
posted on
07/27/2006 8:48:33 AM PDT
by
wmfights
(Lead, Follow, or Get Out Of The WAY!)
To: xzins
Having been a lobbyist I know the difference between overt political influencing and simply sermonizing. While it is OK to talk about issues in the pulpit from a religious perspective, a church hosting a partisan campaign rally or openly campaigning for or against candidates is not permissible. This is true for all 501(c)(3) tax exempt non profits whether they are churches or other organizations.
This part of the tax exempt code is for CHARITIES and the organization must be doing some kind of charitable work to qualify ...hence donations made to 501(c)(3) organizations are deductible from personal income tax.
Note there are some other tax exempt organizations that CAN legally lobby particularly those approved under 501(c)(6)...for example industry trade associations. If an organization wants to lobby and remain exempt from federal income tax they can, but donations to that organization are not tax deductible.
17
posted on
07/27/2006 8:51:15 AM PDT
by
The Great RJ
("Mir wölle bleiwen wat mir sin" or "We want to remain what we are." ..Luxembourg motto)
To: gdani
Actually, there's an even better solution as pointed out earlier. Get rid of the present income tax system that allows such control or, alternatively, penalizes those who do not agree with such control.
Pass the FairTax bill as the tax law for the country!! It eliminates the sort of controls mention in the first paragraph of this post. It will also increase purchasing power for almost every taxpayer AND it will greatly boost the economy of the country as well.
18
posted on
07/27/2006 8:53:32 AM PDT
by
pigdog
To: gdani
19
posted on
07/27/2006 8:54:56 AM PDT
by
6ppc
To: xzins
The IRS is flippin' evil.
20
posted on
07/27/2006 8:55:22 AM PDT
by
JamesP81
("Never let your schooling interfere with your education" --Mark Twain)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 341-343 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson