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.
February 13th marked a sad day for religious liberty in America, as the federal government took the unprecedented step of seizing a church to satisfy an alleged tax debt. Armed federal marshals forcibly removed parishioners and clergy from the Indianapolis Baptist Temple (IBT), bringing an end to years of legal challenges that ended with the Supreme Court refusing to hear an IBT appeal.
Amazingly, the tax dispute arose not over a failure to pay income taxes per se, but rather over the failure of the IBT to follow tax withholding rules. The tax code forces all employers, including churches, to act as collection agents for the IRS by presumptively withholding a portion of every employee's paycheck for federal taxes. The IBT steadfastly has refused to withhold taxes from its employees, arguing that religious beliefs prevent it from acting as an agent for a secular government agency. Two important facts have been largely overlooked in the ensuing controversy. First, the IBT (unlike most churches) also refused tax benefits available to it through registration as a tax-exempt religious organization. Second, more than 60 present and former IBT employees successfully passed IRS audits, meaning they paid in full taxes the IBT had not withheld. So the heart of the dispute really was about IBT's principled refusal to do the government's bidding. The real motivation behind the IRS seizure was not to satisfy a tax bill, but rather to set an example for any other churches that might dare to question their obligation to act as tax collectors.
The IBT tragedy is about religious liberty, not taxes. Churches should not be required to pay or withhold taxes any more than they should be given tax dollars from the government. The First amendment grants churches the absolute right to freely exercise their religious beliefs without interference from government. When tax laws force churches to act as collection agents for the IRS, this precious right is lost. The income tax represents the ultimate entanglement between churches and the government. When churches file income tax returns, the government becomes intimately familiar with their activities. Only those faiths deemed valid by IRS bureaucrats are rewarded with partial tax-exempt status. This entanglement chills true religious expression, because churches may alter their message to quell criticisms of government and avoid audits. When the government has the power to tax churches, it ultimately has the power to control them.
The state-loving media scarcely mentioned the IBT story, with brief articles predictably portraying the church as a fringe organization that avoided its taxes. This follows an established pattern of characterizing religious conservatives who protest the federal government as dangerous extremists, implicitly associated with militias and racists. Imagine the national media coverage, and resulting public outrage, if a minority church was seized over a refusal to pay taxes. Protestors supporting left-wing causes like abortion, affirmative action, environmentalism, feminism, AIDS, and animal rights consistently are shown as courageous martyrs fighting for principle against an unfeeling society and government. Conservative protestors, however, are shown as sinister bigots who selfishly refuse to follow benign laws and politically correct social rules.
The IBT story has resounded with many Americans, however. A strong undercurrent of dissent has manifested itself below the mainstream media radar, on radio talk shows and websites. My office has received hundreds of angry letters, emails, and phone calls denouncing the government's actions. People of all faiths understand that the threat to religious liberty affects all Americans. No society can remain free if it lacks strong institutions to challenge an overreaching government.
The same people who criticize the IRS's action on this matter are going after Clinton for pardoning Marc Rich, who also failed to pay required taxes for 10+ years. Where's the difference here? What if Marc Rich owned a non-profit company instead of a for-profit company?
Nicely said, and good point. If the church avoids paying taxes for 10 years, and is NOT punished; why bother going after Rich (or me when I make some bucks).
"Amazingly, the tax dispute arose not over a failure to pay income taxes per se, but rather over the failure of the IBT to follow tax withholding rules."
"...more than 60 present and former IBT employees successfully passed IRS audits, meaning they paid in full taxes the IBT had not withheld."
Here is the difference.
And that is immaterial. The Indianapolis Baptist Temple owed the FICA taxes in question, not the IBT employees.
If you don't LIKE the law, get it CHANGED.
Ron Paul is right. You cannot tax or otherwise lay charge to a right.
Here is Paul's earlier statement on this issue:
FOR RELEASE:
December 12, 2000
Congressman Ron Paul, 14th District of Texas, Calls for an End to Withholding Taxes
Indiana Church is the Latest Victim of Outrageous Rules Washington, D.C. - Congressman Ron Paul today urged his colleagues on Capitol Hill to abolish the IRS withholding rules, as a Baptist congregation in Indiana faces seizure of its church building for allegedly failing to participate in the withholding regime.
Paul introduced the "Cost of Government Awareness Act" (HR 4855) earlier this year, which would eliminate the withholding tax deception and put an end to forced collection of income taxes by employers. Recent national news stories centering on the plight of the Indiana Baptist Temple have sparked renewed interest in Paul's legislation.
"Had Congress passed my bill, the Baptist Temple might have been spared," Paul stated. "Instead we are about to witness an extraordinary and unprecedented event in U.S. history: the seizure of a church by federal agents because of a tax debt. The Temple, like an increasing number of private employers, simply objects to being forced to act as an agent for the IRS by collecting withholding taxes. It's a crime that the congregation may lose its home because of a principled refusal based on religious faith to do the job of the IRS."
Under current rules, all employers (including churches and non-profit organizations) must withhold income taxes from employee paychecks, resulting in a presumptive interest-free loan by employees to the Treasury. Employers spend huge sums and countless hours complying with the withholding scheme. Worst of all, taxpayers are deceived by the direct removal of taxes from their paychecks. "The government knows that the easiest way to tax Americans is by taking payments directly from their paychecks," Paul added. "The premise is that the taxpayer won't miss the portion of his paycheck that he never gets."
"It's time to end the deception of withholding taxes and stop forcing employers to act as IRS collection agents," Paul concluded. "The Indiana Baptist Temple unfortunately is just the latest victim of this terrible IRS practice. I want all employers, not just churches, to be free from rules which force them to act as IRS agents."
Sorry, poobah, but like our forefathers, resistance is mandatory. You were born into the wrong society. Have you considered Cuba?
Actually, I don't want withholding ended as a goal, like Ron Paul seems to support (although it might be a good first step).
I want the income tax ended.
But pretending it's illegal or something silly like that ain't going to feed the bulldog.
And generally suggesting that a FReeper whose position you disagree with go to a Communist country is beneath the dignity of this fine forum.
OK, so it's illegal to tax any newspaper corporation, or Hollywood studio...
Methinks your interpretation (and Dr. Paul's) of the 1st Amendment is off-target.
If the Feds have a problem with people not paying taxes, prosecute the people. The Church is not responsible. The property should never have been seized.
Bump!
Anyone who defends this illegal immoral tax system will likely get the same reaction from me.
I'm pleased to see that we agree on it's inappropriateness... sorry for the aspersion.
Anyone who supports the forceful confiscation of property in America will always be an enemy of mine, even if they are only deceived. It is a primary communist/tyrannical tenet, and I will oppose it in every respect.
OK, so would you terribly mind explaining just HOW the government collects the money it IS due in taxes if the person refuses to pay WITHOUT some sort of civil forefeiture?
Or do you just think those of us who DO obey the tax laws should just suck it up?
Well, no, the employee owed it. Churches are tax exempt. It was a tax on his income. The IRS, though, wants taxes collected *before* them come due which is why they require others to collect them.
Sorry, the church was NOT tax exempt here.
Please notice self advacated Christan's Geo. W. and Ashcroft are doing exactly nothing about it.
OK, so would you terribly mind explaining just HOW the government collects the money it IS due in taxes if the person refuses to pay WITHOUT some sort of civil forefeiture?
1. The IRS shouldn't exist at all.
2. The IRS should never have a financial stake in confiscating property
3. The IRS should never have the authority to close down a Constitutionally protected organization
4. The IRS should never be able to confiscate the property of those who did no wrong (I still have no idea whose names are on the title and deed to the property, so if it only the church board members, who are the only ones who took an action that was against the laws of the land as currently and socialistically written, then I'll drop this one).
So you're asking us to find some justifiable way that the Federal gov't could collect monies and seize properties to support an abhorrent and unjust tax system? Sorry, I can't do it, and neither can they. That's part of the problem here. In fact, that's my main blankety-blank-blank point... like Communism (and its support for income taxes), the IRS's current system CANNOT work, and should not exist as it presently does, hence the calls to change it! Drastically! NOW!!!! Please.
Okay?
Fine, but UNTIL this ideal tax system is in place, you have to fund things with the present one.
You are also using an interpretation of the 1st Amendment that has NEVER flown, going back to the Federalist papers.
You are also using an interpretation of the 1st Amendment that has NEVER flown, going back to the Federalist papers.
BZZZZZT! Wrong! No, I'm using the text of the Constitution of the United States of America, before the 63rd Congress turned the US onto the Marxists path. I'm discussing the basis for tax law, and why it ought to be returned to its original construction, not Freedom of Religion.
But since you mention it, the 1st Amendment DOES remind us of our God-given right to "petition the government for the redress of grievances", yet tax laws can no longer be legally challenged in the Judicial Branch. Since the Legislative Branch is not likely to overturn its own usurpation of power, and the Executive has no Check or Balance in challenging established law, nor the power to create new laws, we are effective left without it.
Any thoughts on that?
Fine, but UNTIL this ideal tax system is in place, you have to fund things with the present one.
And lest I forget the other half of your attempt to distract from the real issue... no, we DON'T have to wait for the system to be ideal, and we DON'T have fund the IRS dragon, nor the 90% of Federal programs and constructs that are unConstitutional in nature. That's why we need to wake people up to the fact that we're being robbed of our money, rights, and Freedoms, to satisfy the whims of those who would have us work for the benefit of others, against our will, and even in unequal amounts. That's also why we need you to stop approaching this as a call for support for some preacher man. It's not. It's a wake-up call to an unjust taxation scheme. Now, get on this bandwagon and put the spurs to 'er!!!
BZZZZZT! Wrong! No, I'm using the text of the Constitution of the United States of America, before the 63rd Congress turned the US onto the Marxists path. I'm discussing the basis for tax law, and why it ought to be returned to its original construction, not Freedom of Religion.
Except that in order to do this, you are using an interpretation of the First Amendment that the Founding Fathers never intended, and it is based in part on selectively misreading the language thereof.
But since you mention it, the 1st Amendment DOES remind us of our God-given right to "petition the government for the redress of grievances", yet tax laws can no longer be legally challenged in the Judicial Branch.
No it means that, for example, you may NOT argue in court that Indiana is not part of the United States, nor may you argue that the U.S. District Court has no jurisdiction because you are a "white Preamble natural sovereign Common Law De Jure Citizen of the Republic/State of Texas," nor may you argue that the IRS is actually a private corporation and not part of the United States government, to use just a few of the REAL fruitcake arguments that surface from time to time, nor may you argue that the Sixteenth Amendment was not ratified (because that is expressly OUTSIDE the jurisdiction of the court and is a political question between Congress and the various states).
To the average citizen who has a Federal case in progress, goofball frivolous lawsuits by guys saying "Don't tax him, don't tax me, tax that behind that tree" means that their case is on hold while the judge restrains himself from saying "Bailiff, SLAP HIS PEE-PEE!" Personally, I propose that the TP not be fined by the bench; instead, the TPer must, upon the ruling against him that his case is frivolous, be forced to pay $1,000 to each person on the docket behind him for wasting THEIR valuable time.
If you do not like the laws, then get the Legislature to CHANGE them, by "petitioning the government for redress of grievances." Clogging up the docket with arguments that have been shot down EVERY SINGLE TIME THEY ARE OFFERED never was, and never WILL be, an absolute right.
Since the Legislative Branch is not likely to overturn its own usurpation of power,
Please explain, IN DETAIL, where the Legislative Branch has exceeded its authority.
and the Executive has no Check or Balance in challenging established law,
As the Founding Fathers intended, BTW.
nor the power to create new laws, we are effective left without it.
Please clarify this last point--your syntax broke down at the end. I assume you mean that we therefore have no course of redress.
Any thoughts on that?
If you really think that, then you're saying the only option is armed revolt. Sorry, I've seen enough war, I'm not signing on. Have a nice life.
***...HOW the government collects the money it IS due in taxes...***
I reject your premise that the govt is 'due' the taxes. Until the WWII period, no one had ever paid taxes from their income. If they had taken five cents from my grandfathers paycheck, he would have shot someone.
I cannot undertake to outline the whole history of this illegal system, why it was instituted in the first place, and how it has completely perverted our whole society and our founding father's intent.
Just to give you the flavor of what I'm talking about, we can start with Woodrow Wilson and two Swiss banker brothers named Warburg. While one was working with Wilson to set up the 'Federal Reserve', the other was ferrying suitcases full of money to Russia to support Lenin's 'revolution'. Since Lenin swore his purpose was to overthrow the capitalist system, one has to wonder at this sizeable investment.
Of course, the Soviet Union survived for 70 years by repeated infusions of western capital. We used to 'sell' grain to the SU for pennies, and the difference was made up by Americna taxpayers.
That is just one early example of how the American working public has been 'harvested' for decades to drive the greedy engine that runs the world. Never have the bankers had to risk one dime, because all their enterprises have been underwritten by the American taxpayer. Just a few years ago, in the Clinton years, you may remember a $ 40 billion windfall for Mexico... the money never crossed the border... it went to bankers to ease the debt load.
Now, what about something more meaningful to your pocket book. How about the 'govt agencies' - which are all unconstitutional. For example, the Dept. of Education; they confiscate billions of dollars from the taxpayers' pockets, then tell local school boards, "If you want any of this money you have to do the things we say." If the money were left in the local communities, it could accomplish a whole lot more... but local school boards cannot raise taxes because so much goes to Washington.
It goes to Washington where about 60-70% is wasted in corruption and administration. In the case of the DoE, it is run by the teachers' unions, so they mandate that local school boards waste huge amounts on 'administrative' jobs and programs, so little gets down to the student level.
Again, following the education example, if money were the answer to education, we would have the smartest children in the developed world; instead they are at the bottom. We are told that more money is needed - at the federal level - which will perpetuate the current error.
And, as long as this corrupt tax system persists, there is NO WAY to correct this horror.
The same holds true with highways; with housing; with health care... on and on. For every dollar that leaves a community for Washington, very little finds its way back to that community. Yet the only solution we ever hear is that we need to pay more.
I assure you that will never stop until they have confiscated all your earnings... that is how one sets up a tyrannical oligarchy... and we are well on our way to arriving there.
There is no Constitutional authority for any of these 'agencies'... except that they exist under interstate commerce, because the states have to go to Washington and beg for the money that has been taken out of their communities.
I tell you clearly, the only outcome of this system is the total enslavement of the Americna people. ...and that is why more Americans are doing what their forefathers told them to do: resist!
Sorry to be so wordy ... I had hoped to do this more briefly... but I hope I have made my point.
Thank you for your query.
ps: I have in my possession a certified copy of an affidavit filed in a federal court case in Idaho, in which the IRS swears under oath that it is not an agency of the federal government.
While I have never pursued the matter, I understand it is chartered in Delaware - like most private corporations - and I think it is listed as a subsidiary of the Federal Reserve - which is also not a government agency.
...more than 60 present and former IBT employees successfully passed IRS audits, meaning they paid in full taxes the IBT had not withheld.
40% of the employees did not, and have not since 1984. The organization refused to pay these unpaid taxes. Tell me why it's different again? So, if Marc Rich paid 60% of what his company owes in back taxes, you'd be okay with writing the rest off as uncollectable, AND continue to allow his company to operate without any repercussion? I think not. The church's seizure was not because it is a church.
And the day they confiscate everyone's earnings...it's called Galt's Gulch, son.
If the Feds have a problem with people not paying taxes, prosecute the people. The Church is not responsible. The property should never have been seized.
No, the employer is responsible for paying these taxes. I know because I am an employer.
Where did you get this "40%" figure? The article said 60 PRESENT, not 60 PERCENT.
. Churches should not be required to pay or withhold taxes any more than they should be given tax dollars from the government. The First amendment grants churches the absolute right to freely exercise their religious beliefs without interference from government. When tax laws force churches to act as collection agents for the IRS, this precious right is lost.
Garbage, garbage, garbage. What this is about is the withholding of taxes from the checks of non tax exempt employees. It has nothing to do with the separation of church and state. It is not unconstitutional, and has never been so held. In fact, lower courts have repeatedly so held, and the Supreme Court obviously thinks granting certioriari to hear such a ludicrous case is a waste of its time.
The seizure is a victory for honest taxpayers and those that choose to follow the rule of law. The minister of this lawless and tax cheating outfit is lucky his butt is not headed to the slammer, which is where I would be sending it is I had any say in the matter.
The IRS, though, wants taxes collected *before* them come due which is why they require others to collect them.
NOT as a 1099 -sub contractor- you are responsible for your oun taxes
you NEVER would see the irs do this to a "BLACK" church- just a conservative white church.
You were not wordy, sir or madam, you were right on target!
I will also interject that the Libertarian solution to the current tax fiasco comes in two parts. You touched on the first very eloquently. That is to say, we must return the federal government's role back to its constitutional limits. If all the federal government did was fulfill its constitutional role, the income tax would not be needed. All functions could be funded with federal excise and import taxes.
Secondly, user fees could fund all other functions of government, carried by the states. States should seek to privatize as much of the functions of government as possible. The private sector is lower costing, and far more sensitive to the needs of its customers. And one thing is certain, a private company is not likely to treat you as if they were your big brother, parent figure, or god.
If all roads aren't privatized for example, then the people who use them should pay for them. Technologies such as "Smart Tag" now make such a vision efficient as well as principled. If Conservatives truly believed in personal responsibility, then they would fight so that those who do not own cars, don’t have to pay for the roads.
We must certainly do away with laws governing non-violent consensual behavior. Of the two million prisoners today, 60% are there even though they’ve never physically harmed anyone, or someone else’s property. The cost to state governments is outrageous.
There are certainly ways to have a fair and just society, and the current tax scheme is not that way. Think about all the rights that have been violated because of the income tax, and the puppet Nazi’s at the IRS. There is a better way!
Maybe that's because they know the bible, and the bible tells us (wether we like it or not):Titus 3:5 Put them in mind to be subject to principalitites and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work.
This church should have knew this.
Only if it goes against God's laws are we to refuse to obey the law of the land we live in. That doesn't mean we can't fight something we don't like LAWFULLY though.
Where did you get this "40%" figure? The article said 60 PRESENT, not 60 PERCENT.
Ouch.
Well, all I know is that I have read that just over half of the employees had to pay the taxes themselves, including penalties. The other taxes remain unpaid.
Well, all I know is that I have read that just over half of the employees had to pay the taxes themselves, including penalties. The other taxes remain unpaid.
Please provide your source for this information. All stories I have seen on the topic, which include a few mainstream ones and the ones posted above and at WND, state that all the taxes were paid in full.
Thanks.
MA
Do you know if the church paid the employer portion of FICA taxes? If not, the IRS views that as theft, and slaps on personal liability as well as corporate.
So what was the IRS upset about, if all taxes were paid in full? Or are you saying that the church paid the FICA taxes, and even though there was no income tax withholding, all the employees paid up? Ya right.
That's a big stretch.
No, I take that back -
- that's a HUGE stretch!
Where was the 'attack' on Religious Liberty?
Were they all forced to deny God?
Or was it that they failed to comply with duly enacted tax laws?
Did you even read the article above? If so, why are you posing questions that were clearly answered in it?
MA
All it says is that the church failed to follow tax withholding rules. It did not distinguish between income and FICA taxes. It did not say whether the employees paid their taxes. Did you really comprehend the thrust of my posts? I assumed the issue was about withholding, and went from there.
From the above article: [bold mine]
The tax code forces all employers, including churches, to act as collection agents for the IRS by presumptively withholding a portion of every employee's paycheck for federal taxes. The IBT steadfastly has refused to withhold taxes from its employees, arguing that religious beliefs prevent it from acting as an agent for a secular government agency. Two important facts have been largely overlooked in the ensuing controversy. First, the IBT (unlike most churches) also refused tax benefits available to it through registration as a tax-exempt religious organization. Second, more than 60 present and former IBT employees successfully passed IRS audits, meaning they paid in full taxes the IBT had not withheld. So the heart of the dispute really was about IBT's principled refusal to do the government's bidding. The real motivation behind the IRS seizure was not to satisfy a tax bill, but rather to set an example for any other churches that might dare to question their obligation to act as tax collectors.
From this earlier story at World Net Daily: [bold mine]
The church's lawyer said the IRS audited approximately 60 of the church's ministers and found they had all filed their own tax forms and paid all taxes due, including the total amount of their FICA taxes. Therefore, the taxes in question had already been paid, the church claims. Nevertheless, IBT says the IRS sent half of the FICA taxes back, saying the church should have collected and remitted them instead of the individuals who paid them. fin
It seems pretty clear to me that this seizure was not about "cheating" on taxes owed. Please provide a source for your assertions to the contrary.
MA
Ok. But it is odd indeed that the employees would pay their own FICA taxes when it is an employer responsibility, and their are really no forms for the employee to do so. I remain skeptical. I also would be amazed if ALL the employees paid their taxes through sending in estimated tax payments.
There's more info on that in the world net daily stories. There is a whole series of them (You will pull up a bunch if you go to www.worldnetdaily.com and do a search on "IBT".)
Before they separated themselves from the FedGov, if I remember the story correctly, they had a big meeting with all the employees and they all agreed to do it this way. The employees filled out "independent contractor" tax forms (maybe 1099 - not sure on the form #), and were paid extra money by the church to cover the cost of the extra taxes they'd be liable for as contractors. The church wasn't trying to avoid paying the taxes, just to avoid acting as tax collectors for FedGov.
If any of the workers had cheated, doesn't it stand to reason that the IRS audit would have caught them? Sixty were audited and no discrepancies found.
Regards,
MA
Bump
I'm amazed at the collective pile on that occurs every time the IBT is mentioned. It seems that some people just don't get it. And the Rich comparisons are just, well, too rich. I wonder how long it takes for the rest of the country to realise that we are not free. Or is it just me? Meanwhile anytime anyone wants to look through Title 26 as I have they will be hard pressed to find any mention of the income tax being anyting other than voluntary. Until the flat taxers and their bar graphs show up and shout any discourse down while promoting a bill that is relishing in squandor in congress.... Anyway, thanks for trying.
***it's called Galt's Gulch***
I guess that's Atlas Shrugged... don't know why, but I never read it. From the year's of mention on FR, it seems right on point.
***If all roads aren't privatized for example, then the people who use them should pay for them. ...If Conservatives truly believed in personal responsibility, then they would fight so that those who do not own cars, don’t have to pay for the roads***
To some extent, such a system is supposedly in place now; the fuel tax is supposed to pay for roads, and those who use them more buy more fuel.
Here in central Florida, however, they seem to have perverted that also. The fuel taxes seem to go into the 'general funds', while all the roads built here are either toll roads, or they involve the widening of current streets ad nauseum, taking peoples front yards, closing people's businesses, and making traffic congestion an assured outcome. Such use of road taxes [building toll roads] basically constitutes outright theft!
I have tried variously over the years to get local media attention to fiscal responsibility rather than ever-rising taxes. I suppose it won't surprise you to hear that they have completely shut me out.
The media, rather than protecting the Constitution - as our fathers foresaw - have taken the odd position of opposing their customers and supporting the establishment of a socialist oligarchy. Just last week I wrote the asst chief editor of channel 2 news here, and asked him if he had any vision of the future he wanted for his children and grandchildren in a country that is becoming less and less free.
He never answered me. These imbeciles think that when the priviledged class is established, that they will be card-carrying members. They've learned nothing from history.
Thanks for you kind response.
FReegards,
Bob Ireland [since about '96]
Where's the difference here?
Two differences. One, not one penny was cheated out of the IRS. They recieved every penny and even more than they would have gotten had the Church withheld and paid the taxes to the government. And two, Churches are not taxable entites. The government understood this until 1984.
'And that is immaterial. The Indianapolis Baptist Temple owed the FICA taxes in question, not the IBT employees. If you don't LIKE the law, get it CHANGED.
If they wanted to create such a law, they needed to change the Constitution first. And you have to break an unconstitutional law to challenge it. More churches need to break this law and challenge it in other districts so the Supremes will hear it.
Methinks your interpretation (and Dr. Paul's) of the 1st Amendment is off-target.'
And your interpretation is far to the left of your favorate President, FDR, who clearly stated that such tax is Unconstitutional.
When there was discussion about bringing churches under the new Social Security system in the days of President Franklin Roosevelt, he quickly replied:
And so it would.
Were they all forced to deny God?
But once it is firmly established that Churches are subserviant to Government, the Government will start chipping away at the belief system of Christians. If you want to keep your status as a Church, you will have to accept immoral sexual behavior and so on. Make no mistake, this is a big step down an ugly path.
So what was the IRS upset about, if all taxes were paid in full? Or are you saying that the church paid the FICA taxes, and even though there was no income tax withholding, all the employees paid up? Ya right.
This is all about control. The IRS as a matter of public record, repaid to individuals the payroll tax they paid to create this 'tax debt' for the church. The IRS wants to establish their authority over churches.
For what it's worth, the underlying issue here from the government's side is do they have the right to collect taxes of any kind from religious organizations? They fought for that right (illegal or unconstitutional, that is not the point).
What they realize is that the last remaining large sum of untaxed money in the USA is that of the properties of religious organizations. That is what government wants. Given enough time, they will find justification to rule that the properties of churches/religious organizations must be taxed (and from reading on this thread, lots of people will not care a whit if they do this, regardless of whether or not it runs contrary to the Constitution).
For some of the irreligious conservatives/libertarians among, the 1st Amendment guarantees of freedom of religion are open to disregard. (Freedom from religion being more to their taste).
'Ok. But it is odd indeed that the employees would pay their own FICA taxes when it is an employer responsibility, and their are really no forms for the employee to do so.'
Have you ever worked as a subcontractor? There are basic forms that attach to your 1040 to which you pay these taxes. Your usually report such self-employed income on your schedule E, then calculate your Social Secuity tax on Schedule SE, and that number is then added to your form 1040. Generally, Self-employed people submit payments to the IRS on a quartly basis. Millions of people do this.
Replacing withholding with a lump bill would be a useful first step, especially if you presented your check for the lump bill at your polling place.
When I made the post I didn't know they were "subcontractors." Of course they weren't, per the law, but that is another matter.
MadameAxe claims per her quoted squibs that the "subcontractors" paid all their FICA taxes. Which is it?
Uh, the Supremes refused to hear the case.
All disobeying this law in other districts will do is give the IRS more money.
And my argument against this is crystal clear: I do not want the government defining what is and is not a church. Period.
You seem to want to give that power to government, ignoring that your proposal is a FAR more insidious threat to religious liberty than withholding FICA is.
What's interesting is that, here in California, where the power crisis shows us all that Adam Smith's invisible hand is giving Gray-Out Davis the finger...
Atlas Shrugged has suddenly gotten very popular. People are buying it; it's getting checked out from the library regularly; and my friends and acquaintances are starting to discuss it.
Look's like I'll have to read it, myself. I've heard the Galt's Gulch references for years, and somebody posted an excerpt from the book (where one of the main characters is being tried for the unpardonable sin of outcompeting his business rivals) during the Microsoft antitrust fiasco.
Sounds like it's coming home to roost here in sunny CA...maybe we'll be able to write a real-life sequel, Atlas Surfed.
Are you insane? Mark Rich DID NOT OWN A NOT FOR PROFIT company. It is not the same thing. Churches are not supposed to incur federal taxes! Taxes are taxes, churches shouldn't pay taxes on anything - not even salaries! The employees should pay their taxes, but that is NOT the churches responsibility!
Mr. Ireland, I am a new Libertarian and have been studying up as quickly as possible, can you recommend some good websites that offer easy explanations of policy. I am trying to convert my mom and am close to doing so. Just need some help.
Thanks
"IRS Church Seizure is a Tragedy for Religious Liberty ."
This has nothing to do with religion. They could have been selling tacos on that property and it still would have been seized because the managers did not follow the tax laws.
If anything, the feds gave the church more leeway to try to resolve the issue than a non-church would have received. But in the end, since the god they claim the church represents didn't see fit to write 'em a check to pay their back taxes and fines, I think we can call this episode closed.
'Uh, the Supremes refused to hear the case.'
The Supreme Court generally waits until there is some disagreements in the lower courts before they take a case. Since this is the first case, there is no disagreements between districts.
'All disobeying this law in other districts will do is give the IRS more money. '
The price that is paid for freedom. There are hundreds of churches out there that refuse to submit to the IRS. Rev. Dixon was the most vocal and got targeted as an example.
And my argument against this is crystal clear: I do not want the government defining what is and is not a church. Period.
Then why must a church register to the IRS AND submit to their rules. You not only give the IRS the ability to define what a church is and isn't, you give them some power over the church.
You seem to want to give that power to government, ignoring that your proposal is a FAR more insidious threat to religious liberty than withholding FICA is.
And what "power" might that be??? I don't want the IRS coming within 100 yards of a church. You have the IRS going through the churches finacial records to make sure all taxes were paid on "employees" and whatever else the IRS wants to check. Nice try.
'MadameAxe claims per her quoted squibs that the "subcontractors" paid all their FICA taxes. Which is it?'
Up until 1984 the government considered people working for a church as subcontractors and could be voluntarily treated as employees, if the church desired. In 1984, the law was changed to attempt to force churches to withhold payroll taxes. Rev. Dixon fought this change in front of Congress as unConstitutional, because it forced churches to become a tax collection agent of the state. As the most vocal opponent, the IRS then targeted Dixon's church. Rev. Dixon treated his people as subcontractors to challenge this law to prevent the IRS from having such jurisdiction over churches. The people paid all their payroll taxes as subcontractors (which are also referred to as 'self-employed'). Self-employed = Subcontractor, if that's all you were asking.
'This has nothing to do with religion. They could have been selling tacos on that property....'
The Constitution I read says nothing about Congress being able to make laws concerning the establishment of a business. It does say something about religion. And that is the hangup. If you want a Constitution made of toilet paper, I can't argue with you.
And my argument against this is crystal clear: I do not want the government defining what is and is not a church. Period.
Then why must a church register to the IRS AND submit to their rules. You not only give the IRS the ability to define what a church is and isn't, you give them some power over the church.
Guess again. I do NOT give the IRS the right to define a church. I merely treat them as ANYONE ELSE who pays employees, completely unmindful of the nature of their organization. No need to "register" as a church; they are merely another organization hiring workers. If they don't want to pay FICA, they can either (a) not hire anyone at all, or (b) carefully structure the relationship to one that actually IS contractor/client as opposed to employee/employer.
You seem to want to give that power to government, ignoring that your proposal is a FAR more insidious threat to religious liberty than withholding FICA is.
And what "power" might that be???
You are obviously having a hard time reading. I do not want to give the power to define what is and what is not a church to the government. If you are not taxing "churches," but you ARE taxing non-church entities, you need to define exactly what a "church" IS and what it IS NOT. If you want to give government that kind of power, you are a bigger fool than I previously thought.
I don't want the IRS coming within 100 yards of a church.
Fine. The church then should not pay employees if it follows the Revealed Wisdom of the Reverend Always Right. Either it structures the relationship properly, or it solicits the work as a tithe, or it does without the work.
You have the IRS going through the churches finacial records to make sure all taxes were paid on "employees" and whatever else the IRS wants to check. Nice try.
And I can guarantee you that going into the audit with your videocamera recording will ensure that the audit sticks ONLY to the legitimate issue at hand.
Taxes are taxes, churches shouldn't pay taxes on anything - not even salaries! The employees should pay their taxes, but that is NOT the churches responsibility!
That's not what the law says.
'No need to "register" as a church; they are merely another organization hiring workers. If they don't want to pay FICA, they can either (a) not hire anyone at all, or (b) carefully structure the relationship to one that actually IS contractor/client as opposed to employee/employer.'
Sounds like a restiction on what a church can and can not do. Why can't a church pay people for doing deeds for them however this wish without involving the IRS?
'Guess again. I do NOT give the IRS the right to define a church. I merely treat them as ANYONE ELSE who pays employees, completely unmindful of the nature of their organization.'
Churches are not 'everyone else', they are religion establishments with significant Constutional protections based on a large history of abuses of tying government and church together. Churches are not supposed to be subjects of the federal government.
'That's not what the law says.'
And that's way this law must be fought. Rev. Dixon has spent a lot of time fighting this unConstitutional law. Churches can not be made servants of the federal government.
Apart from the fact that taxes should be abolished, as I recall this Church didn't pay taxes for years despite repeated warnings to do so. IMO, had they entered entered into an independant contractor agreement with each church employee, this siezure could have been avoided.
Sounds like a restiction on what a church can and can not do.
And churches are not allowed to engage in interstate kidnapping, nor are they allowed to counterfeit currency, nor are they allowed to engage in violent insurrection against the government...
Weak argument. Try again.
The IRS as a matter of public record, repaid to individuals the payroll tax they paid to create this 'tax debt' for the church.
The above statement you made would not be true if the employement taxes were paid by the subcontractors. That would be paying them twice. Either there are net taxes owing in this matter or their or not. The church would only be liable if the ersatz subs failed to make the payments on their own.
No they are NOT to be servants...they merely have to OBEY basic laws required of ALL Americans regardless of skin color or religous beliefs.
And churches are not allowed to engage in interstate kidnapping, nor are they allowed to counterfeit currency, nor are they allowed to engage in violent insurrection against the government...
Those are criminal activities. Comparing criminal activities to government regulating everyday activities a church engages is absurd.
Uh, you SAID that the church is completely immune from ALL Federal law. Those are all Federal laws.
Getting hoist on your own petard is a mite painful...
'The above statement you made would not be true if the employement taxes were paid by the subcontractors. That would be paying them twice. Either there are net taxes owing in this matter or their or not. The church would only be liable if the ersatz subs failed to make the payments on their own.'
The above statement was absolutely true. All taxes were paid by the individuals. The IRS audited the individuals, but determined the church should have paid the taxes instead of the individuals. The IRS refunded the tax to the individuals, and then demanded that the church pay all those taxes. The IRS kindly added penalties and interest to the tax bill. It sounds absurd, but that is what happened. This isn't about paying taxes, but about control.
'Uh, you SAID that the church is completely immune from ALL Federal law. Those are all Federal laws.'
I never said any such thing. I said that churches can not be made servants of the federal government and tha Congress can't pass laws concerning how church establishments are run. I never said churches can kill people.
'No they are NOT to be servants...they merely have to OBEY basic laws required of ALL Americans regardless of skin color or religous beliefs.'
Why does the First Amendment specifically protect the establisment of religion? Is this a meaningless clause? If Churches were just meant to be treated as any other entity, why doesn't the First Amendment protect the establishment of churches and businesses? I am really curious as what "shall make no laws" means to you....
Why does the First Amendment specifically protect the establisment of religion?
And there is your problem! The Establishment clause forbids Congress from setting up an official national church--it does NOT protect churches from any and all Federal laws as you hold.
Except that when the government enforces those laws against churches, they WOULD be interfering in the management of the church in question.
'And there is your problem! The Establishment clause forbids Congress from setting up an official national church.
So, according to the great Poohbah, as long as the government doesn't set up a national church they are not violating the First Amendment. Why not pass a law that taxes 90% of contributions to all those rich churches? Why not require churches to have homosexual priests? Why not tell churches they can only have 50 members at a time? All perfectly Constitutional under your interpretation.
Please take the time to call this toll free number, for a great four minute message from US House Representative Dr Ron Paul about the federal government's seizure of the Indianapolis Baptist Temple.
Call: 888.322.1414.
IT'S TOLL FREE
'Except that when the government enforces those laws against churches, they WOULD be interfering in the management of the church in question.'
Crimes of murder or kidnapping have nothing to do with the establishment of religion. Requiring churches to register with the government and withhold and submit taxes for things that are clearly related to spreading their religion, very much do. It's not that hard. Really.
Those would interfere with the free exercise clause, which has (since the Federalist Papers) been held to prohibit interference with church doctrine. However, if a church's "doctrine" involves preaching sedition and the violent overthrow of the United States government, or if it involves interfering in interstate commerce, to give a couple of examples, then the free exercise clause no longer applies. This dispute is an example of that issue coming to the surface. That's why we have a court system, BTW.
The withholding requirement can, in no way, be viewed as a violation of the free exercise clause, because there are multiple options for ensuring that one's church does not have to meet the requirement. Also, the courts have repeatedly ruled that the tax code has a purely secular purpose and that it is NEUTRAL with respect to religion (i.e., it neither unduly favors NOR impedes the free exercise of religion), which IS the historical stance (dating back to those pesky Federalist papers again) regarding the 1st Amendment.
Now, if you want to throw out over 200 years of jurisprudence, and give the Congress the authority to define what is and what isn't a church, you're welcome to advocate that. Personally, I think you're extremely foolish to advocate such.
As for me, I'm working in my community to build grass-roots support for an NRST that would scrap the Internal Revenue Code instead of pretending that it somehow doesn't apply to me for some arcane reason known only to myself and a few like-minded silly folk.
BTW, the Supremes WILL take a case if the law appears unconstitutional on its face (which IS your stance), regardless of whether or not the appelleate courts disagree on its application. The fact that they declined to take the case suggests that YOUR belief regarding the law's Constitutionality is grossly in error.
***Atlas Surfed***
Ha! ...the book has certainly gotten alot of 'press' here on FR over the years, and various FReepers have assumed the name John Galt from time to time.
As to California, I see first hand how a communist idiot can be protected by the media, so that his failings are everyone else's fault. Amazing.
But of course even the media cannot change reality; I am personally lobbying my county commission here in central Florida very hard to recruit all those golden-goose companies out of Silicon Valley, since we can offer all the things Cal can - except earthquakes! ...and high taxes!
Arguing with you is like trying to nail Jell-O to the wall. You say one thing, then tack back the other way when you're called on it, then dash back to the other side when someone argues against THAT.
Here's a point: tax laws have nothing to do with an establishment of religion, just as the laws forbidding sedition, or murder, or kidnapping have nothing to do with an establishment of religion.
Now, if you want to throw out over 200 years of jurisprudence...
For over 200 years, Congress has never attempted to bring churches under the iron first of the IRS, so that point favors my position. It wasn't until 1984, when the government finally determined that it may tax churches. Prior to that, the tax laws concerning churches were Constitutional.
I am not a libertarian - although I play one on the internet. ;-) I am flagging Gonzo on your query, since he keeps up with all the FReepers and their proclivities much better than I, and might direct you to the person who can answer your question.
There is a poster with the screen name 'Libertarian Liz', I think... perhaps her. Poohbah mentioned Atlas Shrugged by Ayan Rand... which seems to be the essential text book in libertarianism.
[For my part, I'm just an old-time reactionary {right -wing extremist} who believes in the Constitution, and remembers somewhat the good ol' days. I really want my children and grandchildren to be free, not tax serfs to an oligarchy.]
Sorry,
FReegards,
Bob Ireland
'You say one thing, then tack back the other way when you're called on it, then dash back to the other side when someone argues against THAT.'
Oh please, show me one example of this. And spare me your idiotic position comparing murder laws to tax laws.
For over 200 years, Congress has never attempted to bring churches under the iron first of the IRS, so that point favors my position.
Actually, it's immaterial to your position. The US Government deciding to not use an enumerated power for any length of time does NOT make subsequent use of the power unconstitutional.
It wasn't until 1984, when the government finally determined that it may tax churches. Prior to that, the tax laws concerning churches were Constitutional.
In your grossly flawed opinion, of course.
The IRS refunded the tax to the individuals, and then demanded that the church pay all those taxes.
I don't believe it. To persuade me that that is what happened, you will need to get a story from a non kook source that says this.
No problem! Thanks for the help!
Your argument is silly and your interpretations are amusing too...I think your name has gone to your head.
SunStar observes: "The same people who criticize the IRS's action on this matter are going after Clinton for pardoning Marc Rich, who also failed to pay required taxes for 10+ years. Where's the difference here? What if Marc Rich owned a non-profit company instead of a for-profit company?
Thanks ranks as one of the all time dumbest arguments I've ever heard on the FR website. I can't believe that this should even be necessary, but here goes. The difference is that the IBT is a church with fundamental Constitutional freedom of religion protections placed in the Bill of Rights through the wisdom of our founding fathers. Unlike Marc Rich, who even if he were a non-profit corporation, is still not a church or a religion. What he is, is a traitor that renounced his American citizenship. DUH!
'Your argument is silly and your interpretations are amusing too...I think your name has gone to your head.'
I didn't think you could provide an intelligent answer to my questions. Thanks for the confirmation.
Poohbah intones: "If you don't LIKE the law, get it CHANGED.
Who said anything about "like"? The complaint is that the law is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The governments failure to abide by the Constitution is the issue here. Not "like" and "dislike".
Poohbah says: "But pretending [withholding is] illegal or something silly like that ain't going to feed the bulldog."
In the case of churches, nobody's "pretending". It is more than simply illegal, it is flat outright unconstitutional. "Congress shall make no law..." No means no.
"So the heart of the dispute really was about IBT's principled refusal to do the government's bidding."
At least SOMEONE gets it!!!!
Do you obey a law BECAUSE it's the law.....or ONLY if it is morally and Constitutionally correct???
I believe, that as Americans, it is our solemn duty to defy and disobey laws that are morally wrong or that are Un-Constitutional.
Otherwise...we are no different than those who turned a 'blind eye' to the goings on at places like Aushwitz.....but then again...'they' were only following orders....and obeying the law.
redrock
SunStar asserts: "40% of the employees did not, and have not since 1984 [paid all taxes in full]."
BZZZZT. Wrong! The IRS itself admits that 100% of all employees and former employees paid 100% of all taxes owed.
SunStar asserts: "No, the employer is responsible for paying these taxes. I know because I am an employer."
Wrong! Not if the employer is a church. The 1st Amendment exempts them. "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting...the free exercise [of religion]". If in their free exercise they act on their sincere belief that it is against God's law to act as a tax collector for a secular governmental body, then it is prohibiting the free exercise of their religious belief's, QED.
Torie says: "The seizure is a victory for honest taxpayers..."
"Torie", good handle, it fits.
SunStar says: "Well, all I know is that I have read that just over half of the employees had to pay the taxes themselves, including penalties. The other taxes remain unpaid."
BZZZZT. Wrong again. 100% of all employees and former employees paid 100% of ALL taxes due. There has never been any mention made of any of these employees being charged any penalties.
Jim asks: "Where was the 'attack' on Religious Liberty? Were they all forced to deny God?"
So now the PR flak for the BATF is going to expound on the meaning religious liberty? Didn't get drenched in enough blood in Waco, Jim?
Always Right says: "More churches need to break this law and challenge it in other districts so the Supremes will hear it."
ABSOLUTELY!
Poohbah states: "...my argument against this is crystal clear: I do not want the government defining what is and is not a church. Period."
Now we get to the crux of your opposition! Brilliantly stated, Poobah. And this is really worth a thread (or several) to discuss. But just to get a jump on that thread, I argue that the moment a Bill of Rights promises to stay out of religions business, you automatically set the government up in the position of determining what is, and is not, a legitimate, and sincerely held religion and what is a just a scam set up to avoid certain laws. How do you avoid that?
Man, it sure does takes you a long time to get to the point, though!
Well said.
americangirl1 says: "The employees should pay their taxes...that is NOT the churches responsibility!"
But SunStar responds: "That's not what the law says."
But that IS what the Constitution says. Game, set, match.
Poohbah says: "The Establishment clause forbids Congress from setting up an official national church--it does NOT protect churches from any and all Federal laws as you hold."
No, the establishment clause does not protect them, but the "Free Exercise" clause does. It specifically says that "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting...the free exercise [of religion]". That sounds pretty clear to me that they are protected from laws that Congress may enact that affect their free exercise of religion.
The IRS itself admits that 100% of all employees and former employees paid 100% of all taxes owed.
Did the "church" pay their matching employee withholdings? No, they did not.
I suppose you think they went after this "church" because of some other reason besides the fact that they ignored the tax laws.
BZZZZT. Wrong again. 100% of all employees and former employees paid 100% of ALL taxes due. There has never been any mention made of any of these employees being charged any penalties.
You've been spending too much time in the mountains...
ALL EMPLOYERS MUST PAY MATCHING WITHHOLDING TAXES IF THEY HAVE EMPLOYEES.
This church failed to do so for FOURTEEN years. Do you want to address the truth or continue to misrepresent what happened?
But that IS what the Constitution says. Game, set, match.
Employee taxation and withholding by employers (even if the employer is a church) does not affect the free exercise of religion. Dipshit.
It is a pity none of us, or apparently anybody else around here, knows the exact facts, and has the ability to back them up with credible sources. So we all just emote in the mist, including moi. Wouldn't it be nice if someone gathered ALL the facts, and posted them cogently, and let the chips fall where they may? Is FR still capable of that, or are we all too lazy?
SunStar asks: "Did the "church" pay their matching employee withholdings? No, they did not."
Independent Contractors pay 100% of the FICA taxes as did these "employees". Important point here: All FICA taxes were paid.
SunStar screams: "ALL EMPLOYERS MUST PAY MATCHING WITHHOLDING TAXES IF THEY HAVE EMPLOYEES."
If they have employees, yes. If they have independent contractors, no.
SunStar says: "Employee taxation and withholding by employers (even if the employer is a church) does not affect the free exercise of religion. Dipshit."
It affects the free exercise of religion for any religion that holds (as some do) the sincere belief that it is against God's law to act as an agent of the state (which is what collecting withholding taxes does).
As to the "Dipshit" comment. If you can't keep your mouth and attitude under control, you'd best consider another forum. Your mouth is writing checks your butt can't cash.
Torie says: "It is a pity none of us, or apparently anybody else around here, knows the exact facts."
I'm going to presume for the moment that you haven't availed yourself of the FR search engine. But if you will select either "articles" or "replies" from the FR menu bar and then use the search engine, that you will find at the top of the page, and select "articles only" and then input the following: title:"ibt" -or title:"indianapolis baptist church", you will find over 9 articles detailing the "true facts" at the IBT church. And when you review these articles you will find additional links to many further references to facts in this case.
What I have found uncontroverted is that the "employees" (actually, independent contractors), paid all income taxes and FICA taxes due and that when the IRS audited their returns they found nothing due and owing. (This was admitted in court documents by the IRS). What the IRS did in response was to return half of the FICA money to the "employees" saying that the church, not they, owed this money to the IRS.
There is no dispute that independent contractors are responsible for the entire sume of tax + FICA. What is in dispute is the employment status of those that performed work for the church, ie, employee or independent contractor. Also in dispute is the legal status of the IBT. Up until 1984 they had been a 501 C(3) tax exempt corporation under another name. In that year they formally put an end to and dissolved the previous corporation and adopted no further corporate status of any kind. The court specifically refused to acknowledge that the previous corporation and its status had been ended and dissolved.
Thanks for the number, dude.
What is the uncontroverted source that the independent contractors paid all the income and fica taxes, and the IRS refunded them because they were really employees and went after the church? I don't believe a word of it until I see the beef - hard beef from credible sources. It is beyond belief.
Torie asks: "What is the uncontroverted source that the independent contractors paid all the income and fica taxes."
Good grief man! I just took the time and trouble to put together a nice email for you with the info on where to get the facts. What do you want me to do? Hold your hand and take you there? Go do it yourself like everyone else has done. It's not that hard.
The uncontroverted source that you specifically asked about is the IRS itself in court documents. You'll see reference to it as you go through those FR threads.
I didn't receive the email. Sorry.
Sorry, Torie. I misspoke in post 119. Not an email, but rather post #116. And specifically, the search results mentioned in the 1st paragraph. That will give you more info than you can handle. Although most of the threads are long, you can use your "Page Down" key to rapidly search for any links of interest.
I'm not interested in doing a search through slews of irrlevant information from dubious sources about ridiculous constitutional arguments etc. I'm interested in one specific piece of information from a credible source that has been asserted here as being true. So far no one has come up with it.
From an 12/10/200 AP story published in the Nando Times, posted on freerepublic
The church's lawyer said the IRS audited approximately 60 of the church's ministers and found they had all filed their own tax forms and paid all taxes due, including the total amount of their FICA taxes. Therefore, the taxes in question had already been paid, the church claims. Nevertheless, IBT says the IRS sent half of the FICA taxes back, saying the church should have collected and remitted them instead of the individuals who paid them.
From the November 5, 200 Vigo Examiner:
Even though the evidence shows that the taxes in question have been paid by those who serve the church, the Internal Revenue Service insists that it is the function of a New Testament Church to collect and pay taxes to the IRS. According to some First Amendment advocacy groups across the nation, this may be the first time that a church has ever been seized for alleged taxes and penalties.
From the SierraTimes by Paul Zimmerman:
He and Dr. Dixon again reiterated that this is about control, not taxes. As they've shown in the past, FICA and other federal taxes were paid by each of the ministers individually and that there are no unpaid taxes. The issue is that the IBT did not withhold the taxes and pay them and that the IBT does not bow to the state, but rather serves God.
Plus google search revealed one Washington Post article that said the members paid their own payroll taxes, but Washington Post doesn't allow you to access it.
And if you can find the 7th circuit court docket #00-761 on the net, the Government asserted that the members were not liable for the payroll tax that was refunded and IBT didn't refute that point.
Sorry, the first artlicle was acutally a Worldnet daily article that was posted on that thread,
The Indianapolis Star has achieves with shows the first paragraph, but you have to purchase to get the whole story. A search through their archieves revealed this article Baptist Temple's Case Article ID No. 1999218120, (Published on Friday, August 6, 1999 THE INDIANAPOLIS STAR):
'The Internal Revenue Service has dogged the Indianapolis Baptist Temple for years. This summer, a federal judge gave the government permission to seize temple property after determining the church had failed to withhold income and Social Security taxes as required by law.
The Southside church says there is no law requiring it to act as an agent for the IRS, and to do so would violate its religious convictions. Moreover, church staff have paid their individual federal income taxes on their own.
You misquote the 1st Amendment, which may be contributing to your confusion. First, knock it off with the ellipses.
The relevant verbiage is as follows:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
The first part, as you correctly point out (and Always Right consistently gets wrong, which IS what I was responding to), forbids the establishment of a national religion. The second part does NOT offer a blanket immunity from any and all Federal laws as you claim--it merely forbids laws that purposefully target a particular expression of religion (for example, Congress may not outlaw the wearing of sacramental clothing by Catholic priests).
Laws that just happen run afoul of a few people's religious sensibilities while affecting everyone in the United States equally (such as tax law that does not differentiate as to whether the employer is a religion or not) are not a priori unconstitutional (for example, there may be a church whose sincerely held tenets require the advocation of violently overthrowing the duly constituted government United States; however, that religion could NOT claim Constitutional protection for activities pursuant to that tenet, and can reasonably expect to have members jailed for engaging in said activities).
The key here is that the IBT did have two other options for structuring their operations to avoid the liability for withholding: one was to actually structure their operations as client/contractor instead of employer/employee; the other was to rely on donated labor. This is in no way an onerous burden, and the courts have consistently held this position since the earliest days of the Republic.
Try the official Libertarian Party web site if you're talking about "big-L" Libertarians.
'The first part, as you correctly point out (and Always Right consistently gets wrong, which IS what I was responding to), forbids the establishment of a national religion.'
No, your narrow opinion of the establishment clause is what is out of whack. It goes much deeper than that. The purpose of the Establishment clause is to forbid the corruptive influences on religion by the government. With the IRS now having tax collecting authority over all churches, those corruptice influences will flourish.
Now you're wandering away from Constitutional scholarship and into metaphysics. I guess I claim the win.
'Now you're wandering away from Constitutional scholarship and into metaphysics. I guess I claim the win.'
In your psychotic dreams, you may....
Ok, thank you, we are making progress. Now all we need is to verify the IRS refunded the employee tax payments, and then went after the church for them, as opposed to disagreeing with the church's assertion that the employees in fact paid all taxes due.
The first part, as you correctly point out (and Always Right consistently gets wrong, which IS what I was responding to), forbids the establishment of a national religion.
See Engel v Vitale, 370 US at 431:
[The Establishment Clause]...Its first and most immediate purpose rested on the belief that a union of government and religion tends to destroy government and to degrade religion.
Your narrow interpretation is not supported by the court. Of course I only agree with the 'degrade religion' part of that ruling. I think the current interpretation of the establishment clause as a separation of church and state goes too far in that it is used to surpress religious expression.
Wow. You post ONE SENTENCE from that case. I'm SO unimpressed. And the "union of government and religion" refers SPECIFICALLY to establishment of a national church.
How about posting a LITTLE more info, like WHAT this case was about, who the parties were, AND the outcome?
Poohbah demands: "First, knock it off with the ellipses."
Virtually all style manuals, especially the Government Style Manual and the New York Times Style Manual, requires the use of an ellipsis "when the ommission of a word(s) is necessary for the complete grammatical construction of a sentence, but not required for the understanding of it."
Since the Free Exercise clause of the 1st Amendment is only comprised of 11 of the 45 words found in the Amendment, the use of ellipses is not only permissive, it is mandatory, when quoting or trying to understand that clause.
Poohbah asserts: "The relevant verbiage is as follows: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Wrong Poohbah! You quoted BOTH the "Establishment" clause AND the "Free Exercise" clause. But the only clause relevant to the IBT arguments is the Free Exercise clause. Neither side has raised any Establishment clause issues. Therefore, the proper quote for the Free Exercise clause is the one I provided, to wit: "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting...the free exercise [of religion]"
Poohbah asserts: "...it merely forbids laws that purposefully target a particular expression of religion..." (emphasis added)
Wrong! It doesn't matter whether they "purposefully targeted" or not. That is not the test. It doesn't matter whether the law targeted relgion or not. It doesn't matter whether it was purposeful or not. Read the 1st Amendment again. The only test it provides is whether the law interfered with the free exercise of the religion to the degree that it amounted to a prohibition. And that does not mean a prohibition of the entire religion. Simply ransgressing a single tenet of that relgion is sufficient to raise to the level of a 1st Amendment violation.
Poohbah asserts: "Laws that just happen [to]run afoul of a few people's religious sensibilities while affecting everyone in the United States equally...are not a priori unconstitutional..."
Wrong! First off, I will not allow you to get away with trivializing the matter with your phrase: "...a few people's religious sensibilities". These are deeply held religious convictions.
Second, read the 1st Amendment again. It does NOT provide any test of equal applicability of the law. Indeed, your "equal applicability" argument is invalid because the 1st Amendment itself sets religion aside as a special (i.e., not equal) category stating that "Congress shall make no law..." (emphasis added)
That is not to say that there are not ANY execptions to that prohibition upon Congress, for certainly there are. But they are few and narrow exceptions that arise only when the activities of a religion violate the objective rights of another (and "another" would include the sovereignty and right of a state to exist). But even then, a "balancing test" would be required to adjudicate the matter.
Thank You.
If they have employees, yes. If they have independent contractors, no.
If they were independent contractors, the IRS wouldn't be charging the church (employer) those matching FICA taxes.
Look, I understand your frustration with the church seizure, especially being that it is a first, and it comes in personal conflict with many Americans.
That being said, I am also an employer, and I do have employees and outside contractors. I know the rules for both. If a contractor works inside my company for more than 20% of the time, then he would be an employee, and I would be required to pay FICA taxes. Additionally, outside contractors are also required to have a business license and a permit from their city to work out of their home. Do you honestly think that every person who worked at that church for the past 14 years fit these criteria?
If you can't keep your mouth and attitude under control, you'd best consider another forum.
Thanks for the suggestion, newbie.
SunStar says: "I am also an employer, and I do have employees and outside contractors. I know the rules for both. If a contractor works inside my company for more than 20% of the time then he would be an employee..."
SunStar, as impressed as I am with your credentials, you should understand that you are not the only one here that has had an experience or two. Do not presume that others here are lacking in similar experiences. From my profile page you can see that I too am a bay area resident. I have been here for over 50 years and I have been both an employee as well as an independent contractor (many times). I have never been asked (as you suggest) for a business permit or business license. NEVER. NOT ONCE.
Nor is there any requirement by the IRS or FTB that contractors working "more than 20% of the time" must be considered employees. My most recent contract position was an 8 month stint, full time, as a development engineer at a firm designing DVD drives. I repeat, as a contractor. That 20% claim of yours is pure poppycock that makes me doubt you have ever hired anybody, much less a contractor.
Now maybe the difference is that all my experience has been as an engineer or maybe that 20% figure is just an internal requirement of your company or maybe the rules have changed overnight. Maybe. But I doubt it.
But I do understand the game the IRS & FTB play with IC status and have seen them use that as an excuse to go after an employer, as they did in the IBT case. What you've got to understand is that this case is about, as Representative Ron Paul said in his article: "The real motivation behind the IRS seizure was not to satisfy a tax bill, but rather to set an example for any other churches that might dare to question their obligation to act as tax collectors." That is what all this was about. The underlying question was about the extent of protections granted by the Free Exercise clause of the 1st Amendment, not tax law. Tax law was just the vehicle used by the IRS used to push the issue.
SunStar rants: "Thanks for the suggestion, newbie."
Just like in post 136, where you foolishly presumed yourself to be the house expert on what independent contractor status is, here you presume that you know how long I've been a FReeper. Well junior, don't let that profile page fool you. I've been a member far longer than that page says and far longer than yourself. (Hint: handles change)
Besides getting that mouth of yours under control, it looks like maybe you should also spend a little time working on that overgrown ego.
OFF
To paraphrase you: Now you're wandering away from the discussion. I guess I can claim the win.
Just like in post 136, where you foolishly presumed yourself to be the house expert on what independent contractor status is, here you presume that you know how long I've been a FReeper.
You're an ass. You've been foolishly presuming yourself to be the expert on the law the whole time. This is a forum, with differing opinions. And, your opinion is not the truth, or better than anyone else's.
Well junior, don't let that profile page fool you. I've been a member far longer than that page says and far longer than yourself. (Hint: handles change)
You're right, they do. And you just made the same presumptive mistake too, junior.
Besides getting that mouth of yours under control, it looks like maybe you should also spend a little time working on that overgrown ego.
Who is the one with the ego here, 'Boot Hill'? I suggest you stop projecting your own interpersonal issues onto me. It makes you look like a fool.
Oh, and by the way, you can stuff any further insults where the sun don't shine, boot licker.
"The real motivation behind the IRS seizure was not to satisfy a tax bill, but rather to set an example for any other churches that might dare to question their obligation to act as tax collectors."
Fine with me. I don't see churches as being any different than any other non-profit organization, all of which must withhold employee taxes. The churches shouldn't see themselves as any different either, just because the fall under tha category of 'religion.'
To paraphrase you: Now you're wandering away from the discussion. I guess I can claim the win.
If you think that insulting someone when you have no real response is the same thing as winning an argument. That's what the Democrats do all the time.
SunStar says: "I don't see churches as being any different than any other non-profit organization...The churches shouldn't see themselves as any different either, just because the fall under tha[t] category of 'religion'."
THIS IS GREAT! Finally, we get to the crux of your argument in the IBT case and what really has got your panties in a bunch.
Your argument is not so much whether the 1st Amemdment places special protection for religion into the Bill of Rights, for indeed, it obviously does. That is not in dispute (although some may argue about the level of that protection). But rather, you are arguing that these protections should never have been placed in there, in the first place. You argue, in effect, for the removal of these protections and relegating churches down to the status of a mere corporation. Your argument is less with IBT and their claim of religious freedom, than it is an argument you seem to have picked with the Founding Fathers who crafted those religious protections and put them in the Bill of Rights in the first place.
That's amazing! That means that all the other arguments you offered on this long thread were just a smokescreen for your underlying anti-Constitutionalist beliefs and anti-religion bias that you've just now revealed. Is this based upon some hostility you harbor towards religion in general or is it directed more towards one particular religion? Or is it based on some commonly held religious tenet you find particularly offensive or distasteful? Whatever the cause, it is good that you finally were able to get this off your chest because now we can offer the necessary help: Get used to it. We aren't going to change the Constitution to suit your hateful view of religion.
SunStar, cravenly hiding behind his keyboard, utters: "You're an ass...boot licker...Dipshit."
I find it quite telling about one's character that they would direct such derogatory slurs to someone in an anonymous forum, that they would never have the courage to repeat to that person's face.
If I am in error for presuming your lack of personal integrity in such matters, allow me to extend the opportunity for you to explain that to me in person. I will be available for a brief private discussion of these matters in the parking area adjoining the Valley Overlook at Hwy 9 and Hwy 35 for an hour between 9pm and 10pm, Tuesday, March 6, 2001. If you're not there, I will understand. But then, so will everyone else.
That means that all the other arguments you offered on this long thread were just a smokescreen for your underlying anti-Constitutionalist beliefs and anti-religion bias that you've just now revealed.
Try again...
I find it quite telling about one's character that they would direct such derogatory slurs to someone in an anonymous forum, that they would never have the courage to repeat to that person's face.
Please... Your comments insulted my intelligence, mine were gruff remarks at the end of a poignant statement, simply for expletive effect. Mostly because you disregard everything I say as intellectually inferior. (As if your opinions are more important than mine...)
If I am in error for presuming your lack of personal integrity in such matters, allow me to extend the opportunity for you to explain that to me in person. I will be available for a brief private discussion of these matters in the parking area adjoining the Valley Overlook at Hwy 9 and Hwy 35 for an hour between 9pm and 10pm, Tuesday, March 6, 2001. If you're not there, I will understand. But then, so will everyone else.
It's always gotta be on your terms, doesn't it?
And you say I am the one with the big ego? I think not. Enjoy playing with yourself next Tuesday, because I won't be there. But it isn't because of a "lack of personal integrity" or any other spin you try and place on me.
Besides, I hate Santa Cruz (but not religion, as you suggest; you just can't see past your own opinions).
SunStar says: "Try again...
This is the best you can do? I quoted you as denying the basic freedoms guaranteed in the BOR, presented a cogent argument in support of that observation and all you can say in response is: "Try again"? Maybe you should take your own advice and "try again" or give up and go away.
SunStar says: "Your comments insulted my intelligence..."
Time after time on this thread you couldn't even state the proper facts of the case correctly, much less debate the underlying philisophical arguments and now you claim I insulted your intelligence? I'm afraid you need to start taking responsibility for your own shortcomings and not put them on others.
SunStar says: "[my comments] were gruff remarks at the end of a poignant statement, simply for expletive effect."
They were neither "gruff", nor "poignant", nor "simply for effect". They were derogatory slurs that would have earned you a slap upside the head had you said them to my face. Pretending your slurs were merely "gruff" is pure BS. You should learn speak the truth of the matter and to take responsibility for your actions.
Nobody "disregarded everything you say". I reponded directly to most of the relevant points you made. Any inference you made about suppossed "intellectual inferiority" has been made exclusively by you, not by me. I never called you names. I never used slurs or derogatory words against you. I just argued with you and presented good, well reasoned and thought out opinions And that must be what you can't handle.
You're a woman, aren't you?
They were neither "gruff", nor "poignant", nor "simply for effect". They were derogatory slurs that would have earned you a slap upside the head had you said them to my face.
Hmm... Funny, I feel the same way about you. Maybe I will show up on Monday to "discuss" (as you put it) these issues.
Pretending your slurs were merely "gruff" is pure BS. You should learn speak the truth of the matter and to take responsibility for your actions.
Um, okay massah... You're right in all cases. I know that's what you want to hear, anyway.
This is the best you can do? I quoted you as denying the basic freedoms guaranteed in the BOR, presented a cogent argument in support of that observation and all you can say in response is: "Try again"? Maybe you should take your own advice and "try again" or give up and go away.
Well, you were and still are wrong about my intentions and views, and you don't seem to be capable of actually giving and taking in a conversation (only giving), so it is you who should give up and/or go away.
You're a woman, aren't you?
Why? Thinking about taking back the "slap" remark? What difference does it make? Is it because you're used to overpowering women into submission and want to make sure I'm not a woman who is mouthing off?
Well, that's the great thing about anonymous forums. I don't have to actually know you, and you don't have to know me. I'm glad, because I'd hate it if you were my friend or relative.
Conversing with you has been a wonderful ulcer-causing experience. It's people like you that make others become liberals.
I feel sorry for your kids.
SunStar says: "Maybe I will show up on Monday..."
That's Tuesday. Still can't keep the facts straight, can you?
SunStar says: "...you were and still are wrong about my intentions and views..."
That could be, but all I had to work from were your own words.
SunStar says: "...What difference does it [being a woman] make?"
It explains alot to me about your inability or unwillingness to: a.)learn the facts of the IBT case before arguing your position, b.)stay on point, c.)refrain from personal attacks, d.)avoid stretching the truth, e.)avoid emotional tantrums and screechiness.
SunStar says: "...Conversing with you has been a wonderful ulcer-causing experience. It's people like you that make others become liberals."
Since it is physically impossible for one party to cause either of those things to happen to another, I can only point out to you once more: When are you going to start taking responsibility for your own actions and stop blaming others for them?
There is one last point that I failed to address in my previous post to you:
BH said: "They were derogatory slurs that would have earned you a slap upside the head had you said them to my face."
SS responded: "I feel the same way about you."
And had I directed derogatory slurs at you, I would have expected nothing less. The difference is that NOT ONCE did I ever attack you in any derogatory way. I may have attacked your arguments, but not you. That kind of disrespect only came from your lips and has been a one-way street.
I'll make you a deal. If you can go back over this thread and point out to me even one instance where I directed any such slurs or derogatory comments at YOU (or anything like them), then you can have "The Macy's Window Option".
(Details upon request. Void where prohibited by law. You must 18 years of age or older to enter. Employees of FR are not eligible to play.)
"...What difference does it [being a woman] make?"
It explains alot to me about your inability or unwillingness to: a.)learn the facts of the IBT case before arguing your position, b.)stay on point, c.)refrain from personal attacks, d.)avoid stretching the truth, e.)avoid emotional tantrums and screechiness.
Ahh... So you are a sexist then. Do you beat your wife when she has a different opinion than you?
The difference is that NOT ONCE did I ever attack you in any derogatory way.
Oh yeah? Well, here is a short list. (Although I'm sure you'll find away to blame your comments on me, or twist them around to claim that when I called you an "ass" or "boot licker," that my comments are somehow worse than your personal attacks...)
Thanks ranks as one of the all time dumbest arguments I've ever heard on the FR website.
Here you are saying that my opinions do not matter, that they are somehow inferior to yours, and that I am somehow less smart than you, simply because my opinions differ from yours.
Besides getting that mouth of yours under control, it looks like maybe you should also spend a little time working on that overgrown ego.
Here you attack my opinions again, and say that I have an ego problem, when it's perfectly obvious that we both simply have differing opinions, and that you cannot accept mine without insulting me.
That means that all the other arguments you offered on this long thread were just a smokescreen for your underlying anti-Constitutionalist beliefs and anti-religion bias that you've just now revealed. Is this based upon some hostility you harbor towards religion in general or is it directed more towards one particular religion? Or is it based on some commonly held religious tenet you find particularly offensive or distasteful? Whatever the cause, it is good that you finally were able to get this off your chest because now we can offer the necessary help: Get used to it. We aren't going to change the Constitution to suit your hateful view of religion.
Here, instead of attempting to understand my opinion, you made baseless accusations and called me a hateful anti-religious bigot. Not a personal attack? Yeah, right.
You're a woman, aren't you? ...It explains alot to me about your inability or unwillingness to: a.)learn the facts of the IBT case before arguing your position, b.)stay on point, c.)refrain from personal attacks, d.)avoid stretching the truth, e.)avoid emotional tantrums and screechiness.
Again, instead of trying to hear me out, you dismissed me as "a woman" in order to undermine any difference in opinion so that you could attempt to claim gender superiority over me and therefore "justifiably" dismiss my opinions simply because you are a male. You're baseless sexist remarks seem to show your true colors.
And you claim I have the ego problem? You say that you didn't fling insults at me? I'm the bad guy here and you're not?
(I'm sure you'll find a way to turn this post around on me, just like you've done the whole time.)
Well, I'm waiting... Please hit me again. How else will I know you love me?
BH: "The difference is that NOT ONCE did I ever attack you in any derogatory way."
BH: "Thanks ranks as one of the all time dumbest arguments..."
SS: "Here you are saying that...I am somehow less smart than you, simply because my opinions differ from yours."
First, if you can't separate the difference between an attack on an argument with an attack on you, then you don't understand the basics of argument and debate or fail to have the intellectual or emotional resources necessary to engage in it. I attacked your argument, not you.
Second, the use of "dumb" ("Marked by the lack of understanding or reason") to attack the terribly flawed analogy you offered, comparing the IBT case to the Marc Rich pardon, was entirely appropriate and I can only presume that you agreed, since you failed to offer ANY rebuttle to the several arguments I included in that post.
The rest of the diatribe you present are just further examples of the same fallacy you fell prey to above, that of being unable to distinquish between an ad hominem attacks and valid attacks on your arguments, and as such, rebuttle would simply prove redundant. But at least you broke the boredom a little by punctuating them with your occasional fudging of the truth and I thank you for that small kindness.
First, if you can't separate the difference between an attack on an argument with an attack on you, then you don't understand the basics of argument and debate or fail to have the intellectual or emotional resources necessary to engage in it. I attacked your argument, not you.
Second, the use of "dumb" ("Marked by the lack of understanding or reason") to attack the terribly flawed analogy you offered, comparing the IBT case to the Marc Rich pardon, was entirely appropriate and I can only presume that you agreed, since you failed to offer ANY rebuttle to the several arguments I included in that post.
The rest of the diatribe you present are just further examples of the same fallacy you fell prey to above, that of being unable to distinquish between an ad hominem attacks and valid attacks on your arguments, and as such, rebuttle would simply prove redundant. But at least you broke the boredom a little by punctuating them with your occasional fudging of the truth and I thank you for that small kindness.
Here's a post to end this thread once and for all:
Go f*ck yourself.
SunStar focuses all remaining faculties and manages an imaginative: "Go f*ck yourself."
ROTFLMAO Better put some ice on those bruised feelings before they turn black and blue!
Better put some ice on those bruised feelings before they turn black and blue!
That must be what you tell your family after you beat them up... "Now honey, I'm sorry. Put some ice on those bruised arms of yours, you anti-constitutionalist whore."
The difference is, Mark Ritz owed taxes, the church didn't.
The difference is, Mark Ritz is not protected by the US Constitution from government mandate while the church is.
If you weren't so anti religious and ignorant of the US Constitution, I bet you could have figured the differences out for yourself.
Agreed!! Take a look at this web site. I hon't know if there is any validity to their position but it is interesting.
www.givemeliberty.org
SunStar fantasizes: "...you anti-constitutionalist whore."
Sounds like self-projection. Don't be so hard on yourself.
RE:post6
OK, but don't you speed, or spit on the sidewalk. Those who use this as an argument are hypocrits.
re:reply 51
And this is exactly why Bush's "faith based initiative" should be challenged. Once Churches are more and more beholden to the govt. for the largess they dole out, they will be just as enslaved as the rest of us.
And under the same hammer.
Guess what? If I speed or spit on the sidewalk, and get caught, I accept the consequences.
It's called being a grownup--something the IBT pastors haven't figured out yet...
RE:post 115
Since the church is paying "employees" or independent contractors with money that was by parishoners or otherwise given for the purposes of the church, anything that affects that in the slightest, violates the Constitution. The church did not hire these people to produce a product or service in the interest of profit. They were furthering the work of the church. The church was only following the tenets of the Bible in that a workman is worthy of his wages. As I read the COnstitution, that makes any effort to require the church to do anything under the tax laws a violation of the Constitution.
The class envy promoted by the liberals has even gotten to those supposedly conservative.
The difference is, Mark Ritz owed taxes, the church didn't.
Hmm... I thought the church owed 14 years in unpaid matching FICA taxes.
The difference is, Mark Ritz is not protected by the US Constitution from government mandate while the church is.
So what you are saying, is that under your assessment of the Constitution, churches cannot be held liable for breaking any U.S. laws?
So, under your beliefs, any non-profit organization which is religious in nature, can avoid any laws they want, including employment requirements, and that when they do, the government cannot take any action?
Then I guess all a criminal needs to do is set up a church so that they can avoid prosecution. In fact, Mark Rich should just set up the "Church of Mark Rich" and then, avoiding his taxes will be protected under law!
If you weren't so anti religious and ignorant of the US Constitution, I bet you could have figured the differences out for yourself.
Welcome to the debate... Thanks for the insult. It must have took a lot of thought to repeat what Boot Hill wrote multiple times. You guys are soulmates. Do you beat your wife too?
Sounds like self-projection. Don't be so hard on yourself.
Very intuitive. You are quite good at avoiding points of discussion which you cannot spin your way.
Well, you asked for it. Time to put up or shut up.
SunStar says: "You are quite good at avoiding points of discussion..."
You didn't offer any "points of discussion" other than your usual childish derogatory slurs. Time to get back on the meds SunStar.
wcbtinman tells SunStar: "Time to put up or shut up."
You'll get a kick out of this one, tinman. SunStar is a one of a kind, a breed apart. Doesn't bother to get the basic facts, subplants a foul mouth for logic or reason, fudges the truth and really can throw a fine old temper tantrum when you use SunStars own words to pillory SunStar's aguments. Here is a fun example of the "twist the facts" game, (a SunStar specialty), in SunStar's post # 166 to you:
SunStar says: "Hmm... I thought the church owed 14 years in unpaid matching FICA taxes."
Of course the facts are much different than SunStar alleges and SunStar well knows it. SunStar has been reminded of this multiple times on this thread. The matching FICA taxes were paid. They were paid by the people who earned the wages, as any independent contractor must do. But the IRS, in a childish fit of pique, returned the matching funds to the workers demanding that the church, instead, should pay them.
I'm glad you are pleased that I am here because somebody needs to keep you big government, IRS loving, tyrannical secularist in your place. By the way I've quit beating my wife, now I just kick the shit out of anti-constitution creeps like you.
I don't really give a damn if you believe the garbage you are spewing or not. But you are wrong.
(By the way, saying that you want to "kick the shit" out of me violates three FR posting guidelines: "refrain from abusive attacks... and using profane language", and "materials promoting violence, threats or illegal acts, etc. ".)
Next thing you guys will be saying is that Free-Speech and 2nd Amendment organizations should also be immune to tax laws and prosecution.
(The left-wing special interest groups also want special treatment for their fringe agendas. No one on FreeRepublic supports that, but somehow it's different if it's related to religion. But anyone who questions your stance is an "IRS loving, tyrannical secularist" or an "anti-constitution creep". Just like anyone who questions special treatment of left-wing special interest groups is a "right wing fanatical extremist" or a "right-wing religious nut". It seems the far left and the far right have many similarities when it comes to their special interest groups.)
It seems to me that Freedom of Religion doesn't mean 'Freedom to Evade Employment Taxes'. If you don't like my opinion, that is why you have your own. It doesn't mean yours is more important or more relavant than mine.
<<"By the way, saying that you want to "kick the shit" out of me violates three FR posting guidelines: "refrain from abusive attacks... and using profane language", and "materials promoting violence, threats or illegal acts, etc. ".)'>>
You mean me? The one who beats my wife. Wonder who said that?
<<"'It seems to me that Freedom of Religion doesn't mean Freedom to Evade Employment Taxes'.">>
It means that religious freedom can only be guaranteed when the government can't make laws which can mean death for those who don't agree with them. That is exactly what has happened to IBT. I though that was one of you and your buddies interests, like when nothing using tax money can even remotely mention anything Christian.
I agree. Also, think about this. What if the meaning of the establishment clause is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment.....of religion"..... meaning a place, or organization, or group tht practicies religion, as opposed to:..."an establishment of religion"...as it is currently connotated?
This may be addressed in the Federalist Papers, and I'm not yet through with them, but I think it might make for an interesting argument in that looking at the clause as pertaining to a physical place or entity, would negate this IRS law in question, or at least make the distinction narrower and clearer.
Comments?
Sunstar says: "...saying that you want to "kick the shit" out of me violates three FR posting guidelines..."
ROTFLMAO -- SunStar raising the issue of FR guidelines? Talk about the height of hypocrisy! And this from the same one who regularly calls posters "dipshit", "ass", "boot licker", tells them to "get fucked" and makes other aspersions against their family. Talk about chutzpah!
Of course one has to wonder how SunStar could possibly consture tberry's comment as a threat were it not for SunStar having an over abundance of that particlar substance tberry describes in the quote.
As you can see, SunStar watching is a macabre sport. It is not often that that you see someone, that when given enough rope, will willingly tie into a knot, put it around their neck, throw the other end over a tree limb and begin pulling on it as hard as they can.
wcbtinman says: "What if the meaning of the establishment clause is: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment.....of religion"..... meaning a place, or organization, or group tht practicies religion, as opposed to:..."an establishment of religion"...as it is currently connotated?"
I've read of a couple of alternative meanings to the Establishment Clause, but I am not sure I fully understand the one mention. Please expand on it for me.
I knew that I would have trouble gettin this across. Sorry I'm not as eloquent as some. Maybe if I re-write the passage with commas inserted to give inflection.
Congress shall make no law regarding, an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof....
If we consider a restaurant, an "establishment" ie: "a place of residence or business with it's furnishings and staff"(Websters) and we consider a church with it's rectory, buildings, staff, etc to be the "establishment" referred to in the Bill of Rights, then the meaning of the clause is different from the accepted norm. If you also look at the following phrase, "...Or prohibit the free exercise thereof..." then it seems to me that the Bill of Rights is trying to say two things regarding religious activities.
Churches are not to have any laws written by Congress that would affect a religious "establishment", nor are they to do anything that would affect any of the "activities" of those establishments. Looking at the the seperate phrases of the clause IMHO, obviates the argument that the clause only applies to govt creation of a state sanctioned religion or church.
This is similar to the arguments about the 2nd amendment where the militia is referred to in one phrase, and the people are referred to in the next. Just a matter of perspective.
Well I'm glad I asked you to explain some more about your idea. That is an interesting way of viewing the Establishment Clause.
If I understand you properly, you could (roughly) rephrase that clause to read: "Congress shall make no law about a church". I think though that would make the Free Exercise Clause redundant. If Congress was prohibited from making laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, then why would they need an additional clause to prohibit them from making laws "about churchs", since churches and religions are so intimately a part of one another?
My reading of the history (for what it's worth) behind that clause seems to suggest that the founding fathers were trying to block the Federal government from establishing an official church like in England. In fact, the phrase "established church" was a common one, even then, for the Church of England. There were examples of this starting to take hold in state governments. Virginia, for instance, had a religious test to qualify for office in the state legislature that consisted of membership in a particular church (don't recall which one).
Differing views of that clause are held by others that also have to do with particular definitins of the words used. Try substituting the words of the Establishment Clause with these definitions:
respecting
1. about
2. giving honor to
establishment
1. to make
a. who is doing the "making"? The government or the people?
2. a business or institution (wcbtinman)
religion
1. any system of spiritual belief
2. any traditional religion
3. christianity
4. a particular denomination of christianity
wcbtinman says: "Churches are not to have any laws written by Congress that would affect a religious 'establishment'..."
Interesting sentence construction. Notice that by simply changing the underlined word from "affect" to "effect" you easily slide from your interpretation of the Establishment Clause to the more traditional interpretation with one letter!
"...why would they need an additional clause to prohibit them from making laws "about churches"...."
I can't say really, except, one could ask the same question about the 2nd amendment. Why did they need to mention the militia, when the RKBA was obviously intended for the "people", who are the total of the militia? A little bit redundant?
I guess it just makes sense to me that there is an attempt on their part to clarify or expound as to the purpose of one phrase with additional phrases to make the intent broader and therefore to further limit the power of Congress as a legislative body.
I will continue to read the Federalist Papers and other documents of the day to see if I can gain further understanding.
I though that was one of you and your buddies interests, like when nothing using tax money can even remotely mention anything Christian.
I disagree with this. I also agree with putting the 10 Commandments back in school, etc.
Was I talking to you? I'm already through with you and your back-and-forth contradictions of thought.
wcbtinman says: "...one could ask the same question about the 2nd amendment. Why did they need to mention the militia, when the RKBA was obviously intended for the "people", who are the total of the militia? A little bit redundant?"
Good point and that double clause in the 2nd, rather than clarifying the writers intentions as they hoped, has caused no end of grief while the gun grabbers intentionally (or otherwise) misinterpret it. I hold, as many do, (and I think history agrees) with that the first clause of the 2nd Amendment was explanatory of the reason or need for the second or main clause. That the RKBA was not for purposes of target practice, hunting or even self-protection from criminals, but rather to protect against the loss of our freedoms and sovereignty resulting from either enemies either foreign or domestic.
I don't think you are suggesting in your origninal argument about the 1st Amendment that the same would apply to the 1st Amendment, i.e., that the first clause (the Establishment Clause) was put their as an explanation or reason for the second clause (the Freedom of Expression clause). Am I correct in this assumption?
If in your reading you come across any clarifying language I would really be greatly interested in being flaged about that with a citation about where to look.
SunStar asks: "Was I talking to you?"
You are now! But then, I also thought you declared this thread to be officially termintated back in post 156 during one of your little temper tantrums. Let's see if I fully understand the vast powers you've assumed here at FR: You get to terminate threads at will and you get to decide who can respond to your posts. I stand in awe of your powers.
I am just amazed for over 200 years, our government at all levels went out of their way to exempt churches from tax laws when they were clearly practicing religion. Your narrow interpretation of the first Amendment does not fly with pre-1984 US history. I will grant that obviously the founders did not want the establishment of a state church, but the 1st Amendment has meant a lot more throughout our history.
A collection of IBT and recent church persecution-related links on FR.
Federal agents are making their move on IBT right now!
RUBY, WACO, MIAMI, Now WACO III Feds(Jack BootsHave Stormed &)Seized Church In UnPrecedented Move!
U.S. seizes church(Indianapolis Baptist Church) and we yawned
What the Seizure of the Indianapolis Baptist Church Means to America
THE REAL FACTS IN THE CASE OF US VS IBT
Mr. Bush, give back this church (we ain't big brother's keeper!)
Waco III NAZI Church TakeoverUpdate:Ashcroft PraisesTakeover-Redress of Grievance-Several Articles
IRS Church Seizure is a Tragedy for Religious Liberty
Paul and Civil Obedience in Romans 13:1-7
BAPTIST CHURCH UNDER SEIGE BY AUTHORITIES IN SO. CALIF.
Another Christian Church Under the Gun -- For Helping The Homeless!
Rendering unto Caesar: Joseph Farah calls Christians to resist tyranny
Church Property Seized
Always Right says: "Your narrow interpretation of the first Amendment does not fly with pre-1984 US history."
What narrow view? I'm perplexed as to what you are referring.
I took your statement in post #177:
"My reading of the history (for what it's worth) behind that clause seems to suggest that the founding fathers were trying to block the Federal government from establishing an official church like in England. "
to mean that as long as the government doesn't establish an offical national church, they are not violating the 1st Amendment. I may be wrong about you, but I know some people take that position.
Thanks for the links, but you left off my two posts on this topic:
Waco III NAZI Church TakeoverUpdate IBT: (Thread 2)
Fatih-Based Initiatives and the IBT
Always Right says: "I took your statement in post #177...to mean that as long as the government doesn't establish an offical national church, they are not violating the 1st Amendment."
Oh gosh no. The quote of mine that you provide was referring only to the the first half of the Freedom of Religion protections of the 1st Amendment. Those protections are comprised of both the Establishment Clause (mentioned in the quote you provided) AND the Free Exercise Clause.
My post in #177 mentioned that latter clause only in passing reference. What I feel that second clause means is just what it says: "Congress shall make no law...prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]". While it doesn't prohibit Congress from making a law that simply applies to a religion (e.g., a street parking regulation), it does say "no law prohibiting the free exercise".
And in defining the meaning and intent of the word "prohibiting", I find I am in agreement here with those Supreme Court decisions on other fundemental rights that holds that an "infringement", "usurpation" or "hindrance" of any degree amounts to a "prohibition" (this does address the use of any so-called "balancing tests" applied between competing rights). In other words, "no law prohibiting" does not mean Congress is allowed to pass "some laws that only infringe a little bit".
I hope that clears this up, as I am FULLY in support of the Constitutional right of the IBT to refuse to either pay taxes to, or act as a tax collector for, any secular government. The Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment absolutely forbids such. Nothing could be more elemental.
And you are right when you state that the governments position is a recent (circa 1984) re-writing of the history of the Freedom of Religion provisions of the 1st Amendment. This is a watershed event fundamentally re-defining our God given rights and only a relatively few people seem to grasp the magnitude of what has occurred.
"... you left off my two posts on this topic:"
Thanks for the additional links & they have been added to the collection. :-)
Your assumption is correct.
I will be glad to post any info I come across that helps me clarify and understand this issue.
This is a watershed event fundamentally re-defining our God given rights and only a relatively few people seem to grasp the magnitude of what has occurred
I think this about says it all. In fact it shows how successful the brainwashing of the masses has been in the government run schools. Does anyone wonder why they don't like to teach American Revolutionary War history? Why so few know anything about Patrick Henry's famous "Give me liberty or give me death" speech or the events leading up to that momentous occasion. The death of a preacher from being scourged for refusing to take a government license and to pay the TAX. Patrick Henry was a witness to that scourging. Life was pretty harsh under the British Crown, if you didn't follow the rules.
Wireline asks: "Does anyone wonder why they don't like to teach American Revolutionary War history?"
The contemporary PC term for this devine miracle is the "War of Independence". The PC can't even get the word "Revolution" past their lips unless they proceed it with the word "October".
Wireline says: "Why so few know anything about Patrick Henry's famous...speech or the events leading up to that momentous occasion."
You are the first to remind this thread of the Parson's Cause (1763) and it's close parallel to the IBT case. And just like in the present IBT case, the parson had refused to pay the tax upon his church. The only difference being that in Patrick Henry's day we had a few heaven blessed great men and a populace that understood from whence freedom came and were not too cowardly to stand to defend it.
Our forefathers fought (among other things) against England's taxation even though all of those taxes amounted to only a few percent. Today, our taxes are over 50% and the people, even some here on FreeRepublic, stand in support of this unconstitutional and illegal seizure of the IBT church and in support of the governments oppression.
One poster even went so far as to openly declare: The government's seizure is "Fine with me. I don't see churches as being any different than any other non-profit organization." As if the 1st Amendment never existed and as if our founding father hadn't paid the price for that freedom in blood! There is only one thing left to say to such quislings:
"...depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen."
--Samuel Adams
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.
[
Top
|
Latest Posts
|
Latest Articles
|
Self Search
|
Add Bookmark
|
Post
|
Abuse
|
Help!
]
FreeRepublic , LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 Forum Version 2.0a Copyright © 1999 Free Republic, LLC |