Inauguration

[Gulo Blue]

don't engage in political activities on tax-exempt property, in the capacity of a preacher.

so reverend/priest can go to an anti-war rally, speak out, etc. he has a First Amendment right to do that.

He can't do that in church.

he can preach about Christ's message of peace and non-violence in Church, but he can't explicitly tie this to current events.

he can say he views abortion as wrong, but should parse out that its a personal decision and should not need a political solution (eg a ban). he should not advocate political solutions to anything. he should stick to his mythical
mumbo jumbo, and leave it at that.

religion is a personal choice; religious practice is free to be conducted in the private sphere.

There already is a law and I think its enough.

https://www.irs.gov/uac/charities-churches-and-politics

To expand beyond this to encompass anything political is impossibly broad.

 

[Michchamp]

oh.

well then... carry on.

 

[b311j]

But how much of that $83 billion would have to come out of the social services churches provide? THIS LINK, which I don't think is pro-religion biased (it comes at it to debunk the claim that Catholic charities provide half the social services in the US), estimates that just the Catholic cut of it is $30 billion. 22% of the US is Catholic, so that $30 billion is probably not the lion's share of religious provided social services. It could easily be well over $83 billion. There's a fair chance this idea would take from one hand and give to the other. Zero net gain. Could be significantly worse than zero net gain if religions are more cost effective than government agencies and I'd argue they might be since they utilize a lot of volunteer labor.

So is it your position that churches would (could) donate less if they had to pay taxes? A cynical person may ask, are churches only this generous because they have so much extra income. I'm not sure which is the lesser of 2 evils here. Organized religion gives government a real run for its money (pun intended) on that front. Especially the Catholic church. They would probably be able to give even more if not for the need of defense attorneys and pedophile relocation programs. (And no, I'm not saying all Catholic priests are that way, nor Catholicism tolerant of it).

 

[Gulo Blue]

So is it your position that churches would (could) donate less if they had to pay taxes? A cynical person may ask, are churches only this generous because they have so much extra income. I'm not sure which is the lesser of 2 evils here. Organized religion gives government a real run for its money (pun intended) on that front. Especially the Catholic church. They would probably be able to give even more if not for the need of defense attorneys and pedophile relocation programs. (And no, I'm not saying all Catholic priests are that way, nor Catholicism tolerant of it).

If you have less money, you have less money to be generous with, regardless.

 

[KAWDUP]

don't engage in political activities on tax-exempt property, in the capacity of a preacher.

so reverend/priest can go to an anti-war rally, speak out, etc. he has a First Amendment right to do that.

He can't do that in church.

he can preach about Christ's message of peace and non-violence in Church, but he can't explicitly tie this to current events.

he can say he views abortion as wrong, but should parse out that its a personal decision and should not need a political solution (eg a ban). he should not advocate political solutions to anything. he should stick to his mythical
mumbo jumbo, and leave it at that.

religion is a personal choice; religious practice is free to be conducted in the private sphere.

So Kemosabe, what color is the sky in your world? You want to restrict speech in church? You can say anything you want, but just not something that disagrees with your world view. No hypocrisy there, uh uh.

Should I add a ""der der" so you get it?

 

[Michchamp]

So Kemosabe, what color is the sky in your world? You want to restrict speech in church? You can say anything you want, but just not something that disagrees with your world view. No hypocrisy there, uh uh.

Should I add a ""der der" so you get it?

please leave me alone.

 

[b311j]

So Kemosabe, what color is the sky in your world? You want to restrict speech in church? You can say anything you want, but just not something that disagrees with your world view. No hypocrisy there, uh uh.

Should I add a ""der der" so you get it?

As long as they are able to take advantage of the tax exemptions, I agree with the gag order. If they want to give that up and pay like the rest of us have to, then even though I may not agree with them, by all means please endorse whoever or whatever they want. If the Church is going to get special privilege, it should come with some restrictions.

 

[KAWDUP]

As long as they are able to take advantage of the tax exemptions, I agree with the gag order. If they want to give that up and pay like the rest of us have to, then even though I may not agree with them, by all means please endorse whoever or whatever they want. If the Church is going to get special privilege, it should come with some restrictions.

So basically, tax exemption is a bribe to shut up about anything political.

Moral questions, like abortion, have been political issues, at least as long as I have been alive. I can't imagine a church today that should not be allowed to preach on what is right and wrong as it pertains to that issue. If you draw the line like Michchamp has, I fall back to the slippery slope argument, and can't imagine a world where tying its moral judgments to current events should ever be disallowed.

I point to this:
In its 1970 opinion in Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York, the high court stated that a tax exemption for churches "creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. [An exemption] restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other." The Supreme Court also said that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." Taxing churches breaks down the healthy separation of church and state and leads to the destruction of the free exercise of religion.

I'm going with this rather than any inane posting in this forum.

 

[tomdalton22]

As long as they are able to take advantage of the tax exemptions, I agree with the gag order. If they want to give that up and pay like the rest of us have to, then even though I may not agree with them, by all means please endorse whoever or whatever they want. If the Church is going to get special privilege, it should come with some restrictions.

so you are OK with violating their freedom of speech?

How is it different than Planned Parenthood supporting Hillary?

 

[Gulo Blue]

So basically, tax exemption is a bribe to shut up about anything political.

Moral questions, like abortion, have been political issues, at least as long as I have been alive. I can't imagine a church today that should not be allowed to preach on what is right and wrong as it pertains to that issue. If you draw the line like Michchamp has, I fall back to the slippery slope argument, and can't imagine a world where tying its moral judgments to current events should ever be disallowed.

I point to this:
In its 1970 opinion in Walz vs. Tax Commission of the City of New York, the high court stated that a tax exemption for churches "creates only a minimal and remote involvement between church and state and far less than taxation of churches. [An exemption] restricts the fiscal relationship between church and state, and tends to complement and reinforce the desired separation insulating each from the other." The Supreme Court also said that "the power to tax involves the power to destroy." Taxing churches breaks down the healthy separation of church and state and leads to the destruction of the free exercise of religion.

I'm going with this rather than any inane posting in this forum.

That's a good point. Why is there a fundamental assumption that the normal state for everything should be to be taxed, and not getting taxed is an exception? It should be the other way around.

 

[b311j]

so you are OK with violating their freedom of speech?

How is it different than Planned Parenthood supporting Hillary?

Violations are already happening. Government giving special treatment to the Church is also unconstitutional. Pay the tax, say what you want.

 

[b311j]

So basically, tax exemption is a bribe to shut up about anything political.

Moral questions, like abortion, have been political issues, at least as long as I have been alive. I can't imagine a church today that should not be allowed to preach on what is right and wrong as it pertains to that issue.

.

Who is the church to decide what is right and wrong? Based on the immorality found in the Bible I'm not sure they are the best judge.

 

[Michchamp]

That's a good point. Why is there a fundamental assumption that the normal state for everything should be to be taxed, and not getting taxed is an exception? It should be the other way around.

everything that relies on funding from or burdens the public treasury - even if its indirect - should be taxed in order that the tax burden doesn't fall disproportionately on anyone.

I'm curious if the wealth/property of clergy is tax exempt as well. Anybody know? This may not matter much for those who take a "vow of poverty" (priests or nuns) but for millionaires like Joel Osteen or Pat Robertson... why?

 

[Gulo Blue]

everything that relies on funding from or burdens the public treasury - even if its indirect - should be taxed in order that the tax burden doesn't fall disproportionately on anyone.

I'm curious if the wealth/property of clergy is tax exempt as well. Anybody know? This may not matter much for those who take a "vow of poverty" (priests or nuns) but for millionaires like Joel Osteen or Pat Robertson... why?

Well that's not remotely true (can I say that in a statement of opinion?) The government has all sorts of burdens that shouldn't be taxed. That's a huge part of government, taking money from one thing to apply it to something else that needs it. If you are sufficiently poor and unable to work, there's nothing to tax in comparison to the burden you represent. I think the idea is weird, in particular from anyone that leans left.

I like the second part though, good question. It looks like clergy pay taxes, but there are loophole problems. "Ministers of the gospel" (that seems like an inappropriate qualifier for tax law) can deduct housing expenses, which allows the rich ones to get away with a ton of tax avoidance.

 

[Michchamp]

Well that's not remotely true (can I say that in a statement of opinion?) The government has all sorts of burdens that shouldn't be taxed. That's a huge part of government, taking money from one thing to apply it to something else that needs it. If you are sufficiently poor and unable to work, there's nothing to tax in comparison to the burden you represent. I think the idea is weird, in particular from anyone that leans left.

...

okay Mr. Literal, its just a general principle and of course there are big exceptions from taxation for things the state wants to incentivize, and people/firms that can't afford it. more to my thinking here than this post.

 

[KAWDUP]

Who is the church to decide what is right and wrong? Based on the immorality found in the Bible I'm not sure they are the best judge.

For the church members not for the non-believers. Church has every right to do that.