More than 1,000 pastors plan challenge IRS endorse candidate

PrintSmith wrote: A newspaper is a commercial enterprise selling a product, just as every other commercial enterprise is. They are not taxed for participation in political speech as the federal government threatens to do with religious organizations. Apples and pears Dog. Now if Congress had put something in the tax code specifically to levy an additional tax above and beyond the regular ones if the newspaper published political speech - then you have something that at least approaches equivalency with the tax threatened to be levied on a religious organization for their political speech.

q.
My point exactly. If a church decides to engage in the arena of Caesar, then they play with the same rules a other players, just as if they engage in commercial activities. They receive tax exempt status for charitable works not for profit taking or political activism

PrintSmith wrote: The power to tax is the power to destroy - Justice Marshall, McColloch v Maryland.

Allowing the federal government to tax a religious entity, for any reason, is giving to the federal government the power to destroy the free exercise of religion in the Union. You might not agree with the principles espoused by the religion, you may think the whole thing is a fairy-tale, but you may not attempt to chill the free exercise of the religion by levying a tax on the expression of it.

Jehovah's Witnesses are set up as a corporation, they have been almost from the beginning (late 1800's). This allows them all sorts of benefits as a company, versus the restrictions put on not-for-profit religious organizations. Granted they don't get involved in politics (it's against their doctrine), but they could if they wanted to. And as a for-profit corporation... they pay taxes.

There's nothing restrictive having a religious organization pay taxes. You're making that up.

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: The power to tax is the power to destroy - Justice Marshall, McColloch v Maryland.

Allowing the federal government to tax a religious entity, for any reason, is giving to the federal government the power to destroy the free exercise of religion in the Union. You might not agree with the principles espoused by the religion, you may think the whole thing is a fairy-tale, but you may not attempt to chill the free exercise of the religion by levying a tax on the expression of it.

Jehovah's Witnesses are set up as a corporation, they have been almost from the beginning (late 1800's). This allows them all sorts of benefits as a company, versus the restrictions put on not-for-profit religious organizations. Granted they don't get involved in politics (it's against their doctrine), but they could if they wanted to. And as a for-profit corporation... they pay taxes.

There's nothing restrictive having a religious organization pay taxes. You're making that up.

Interesting, you learn something new every day. I have a JW cousin and they are very non-political but I didn't know about the incorporation thing.

Since they were persecuted, could the non-political thing be one of the ways they try to stay below the radar?

LOL wrote: I personally think Celebs and Preachers should stay out of politics, but that's just IMO

Call that and raise. Anyone who wants to run for office should be killed. We should draft candidates at random out of voter registrations. Elect those who try hardest to lose.

Maybe we could screen for problem solvers. Tax anyone in elected office 1/10th of their net worth per year. Get er done or go broke.

PrintSmith wrote: A newspaper is a commercial enterprise selling a product, just as every other commercial enterprise is. They are not taxed for participation in political speech as the federal government threatens to do with religious organizations. Apples and pears Dog. Now if Congress had put something in the tax code specifically to levy an additional tax above and beyond the regular ones if the newspaper published political speech - then you have something that at least approaches equivalency with the tax threatened to be levied on a religious organization for their political speech.

Honestly, Printsmith, sometimes I wonder about you. Newspapers don't get the tax exempt status that churches get, so you wouldn't have to tax a newspaper "above and beyond the regular ones" to make the situations equal - you'd just have to tax the religious organization the same as the newspaper or make the newspaper tax exempt.

Since we're supposed to have a separation of church & state in this country, the easiest way to maintain that would be for the churches to stay out of politics. If they keep pushing at this and find themselves taxed as a result, they open themselves to other government regulations that they don't want. That seems pretty short-sighted to me.

I think Obama must be wishing the same thing re: celebs. This hurts him, he already has the idiot vote locked up.

"Madonna strips for Obama, offers profanity-laced endorsement"

http://thehill.com/capital-living/in-th ... ndorsement

Blazer Bob wrote:

LOL wrote: I personally think Celebs and Preachers should stay out of politics, but that's just IMO

Call that and raise. Anyone who wants to run for office should be killed. We should draft candidates at random out of voter registrations. Elect those who try hardest to lose.

Maybe we could screen for problem solvers. Tax anyone in elected office 1/10th of their net worth per year. Get er done or go broke.

Blazer Bob wrote: This hurts him, he already has the idiot vote locked up.

Nah, RMoney has the teabaggers in his pocket, along with all the rest of the "values voters"... Obama can't top that for the idiot-vote.

FredHayek wrote:

The Liberals GOP Twin wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: The power to tax is the power to destroy - Justice Marshall, McColloch v Maryland.

Allowing the federal government to tax a religious entity, for any reason, is giving to the federal government the power to destroy the free exercise of religion in the Union. You might not agree with the principles espoused by the religion, you may think the whole thing is a fairy-tale, but you may not attempt to chill the free exercise of the religion by levying a tax on the expression of it.

Jehovah's Witnesses are set up as a corporation, they have been almost from the beginning (late 1800's). This allows them all sorts of benefits as a company, versus the restrictions put on not-for-profit religious organizations. Granted they don't get involved in politics (it's against their doctrine), but they could if they wanted to. And as a for-profit corporation... they pay taxes.

There's nothing restrictive having a religious organization pay taxes. You're making that up.

Interesting, you learn something new every day. I have a JW cousin and they are very non-political but I didn't know about the incorporation thing.

Since they were persecuted, could the non-political thing be one of the ways they try to stay below the radar?

Nope... it's their belief that the Greek Scriptures (New Testament) speaks against being involved in politics. They far from stay below the radar. Their stance in the 1940's on not saluting the flag went all the way to the Supreme Court of The United States. Their belief in not accepting blood transfusions has garnered them plenty of public scrutiny.

But their status as a corporation has also afforded them certain legalities that would not be available to a not-for-profit religious organization.

appleannie wrote:

PrintSmith wrote: A newspaper is a commercial enterprise selling a product, just as every other commercial enterprise is. They are not taxed for participation in political speech as the federal government threatens to do with religious organizations. Apples and pears Dog. Now if Congress had put something in the tax code specifically to levy an additional tax above and beyond the regular ones if the newspaper published political speech - then you have something that at least approaches equivalency with the tax threatened to be levied on a religious organization for their political speech.

Honestly, Printsmith, sometimes I wonder about you. Newspapers don't get the tax exempt status that churches get, so you wouldn't have to tax a newspaper "above and beyond the regular ones" to make the situations equal - you'd just have to tax the religious organization the same as the newspaper or make the newspaper tax exempt.

Since we're supposed to have a separation of church & state in this country, the easiest way to maintain that would be for the churches to stay out of politics. If they keep pushing at this and find themselves taxed as a result, they open themselves to other government regulations that they don't want. That seems pretty short-sighted to me.

What we are supposed to have is a government free from an established religion and religion free from government intrusion so that each person may worship in accordance to their individual conscience. If someone believes that it is unconscionable to allow human life to be destroyed while it is in the womb and endorses one candidate over another based on that religious belief, how is the separation that is supposed to exist violated by their expression? The law as established by the Constitution and judicial "interpretation" is that there may not be a State imposed religious qualification for the holding of an office, not that individuals may not impose their own restrictions based upon their own religious beliefs in deciding for whom to vote. By threatening a religious leader with the penalty of a tax for endorsing one candidate over another based on their religious views, isn't that the same as essentially levying a tax on them for their religious views?

Would all Catholic Churches lose tax exempt status if one pastor of one parish endorsed a candidate or only the one that the priest was pastor of? Would they regain their exempt status if a new pastor was assigned and would the new parish of that pastor then lose theirs because he was their pastor? What the IRS and the federal government are doing is threatening to tax an entire group of people because one person spoke an endorsement of a candidate based on their personally held religious beliefs. That is essentially what the law boils down to.

Newspapers and other media outlets are taxed the same regardless of whether they engage in political speech or not, thus their taxation is not in any way subject to their participation or lack of participation in political speech. That is not the case with the law regarding churches. With them they will only be taxed if they participate in political speech, which is the same as levying a tax on them for participating in political speech. That is why the equivalency argument you are attempting to draw if flawed. For it to be a valid one there would have to be a law in place which subjected them to taxation only if they chose to participate in political speech. Newspapers are subjected to no additional taxes if they choose to participate in political speech, nor are they subjected to less taxation if they choose not to participate in it. The law is unique to religious institutions for participating in political speech. They are taxed if they participate, they are not taxed if they don't. That is using the power of government to intrude in both the free exercise of religion and abridge the right of free speech, two things they are expressly forbidden to do. The crux of the law is that a tax is levied for participation in political speech.

The law is unique to religious institutions for participating in political speech. They are taxed if they participate, they are not taxed if they don't. That is using the power of government to intrude in both the free exercise of religion and abridge the right of free speech, two things they are expressly forbidden to do. The crux of the law is that a tax is levied for participation in political speech.

And? If religions feel that they as institutions have the right to dabble in politics, then all they have to do is give up their tax-free status - I think it would be a big mistake, to go there but I also think the situation as it exists is fair. Printsmith, it seems to me that you expect the law to respect religious beliefs but you don't expect religion to respect the law. If you want to change the law, what do you think religious institutions should be willing to give up in return or do you think they should get a freebie?