Welcome to Gaia! ::

Old Blue Collar Joe
Noogie
Old Blue Collar Joe
Gotta apply the rule to all non-profits. Separation of Church and State really just means state cannot endorse a religion. Doesn't really mean a damn thing about churches.
If this does get their status revoked, it should be applied to ALL non-profits across the board who support a particular candidate.
Of course, reality is, if they endorse a specific candidate, they should also remove any federal money they receive immediately, so that they know damn good and well it's not being done for political favor.
How exactly is it a separation if one can meddle with the other? 'Cause I can tell you now that that is not a separation. Like, at all.


Separation of Church and state was implemented so that, unlike England, the government couldn't establish a 'government religion', it wasn't anything more than that. It doesn't mean that Churches aren't allowed to have opinions on candidates that are going against their teachings.

It was implemented on the basis that people could not be forced by the government to b e apart of one religion or another. Thus the point of the secular state, since religious involvement in government (and vice versa) create a de facto theocracy.
N3bu
Old Blue Collar Joe
Noogie
Old Blue Collar Joe
Gotta apply the rule to all non-profits. Separation of Church and State really just means state cannot endorse a religion. Doesn't really mean a damn thing about churches.
If this does get their status revoked, it should be applied to ALL non-profits across the board who support a particular candidate.
Of course, reality is, if they endorse a specific candidate, they should also remove any federal money they receive immediately, so that they know damn good and well it's not being done for political favor.
How exactly is it a separation if one can meddle with the other? 'Cause I can tell you now that that is not a separation. Like, at all.


Separation of Church and state was implemented so that, unlike England, the government couldn't establish a 'government religion', it wasn't anything more than that. It doesn't mean that Churches aren't allowed to have opinions on candidates that are going against their teachings.

It was implemented on the basis that people could not be forced by the government to b e apart of one religion or another. Thus the point of the secular state, since religious involvement in government (and vice versa) create a de facto theocracy.


But nowhere does it say they cannot have an opinion on who is best suited to lead the nation. Way too much being read into it.
Old Blue Collar Joe
N3bu
Old Blue Collar Joe
Noogie
Old Blue Collar Joe
Gotta apply the rule to all non-profits. Separation of Church and State really just means state cannot endorse a religion. Doesn't really mean a damn thing about churches.
If this does get their status revoked, it should be applied to ALL non-profits across the board who support a particular candidate.
Of course, reality is, if they endorse a specific candidate, they should also remove any federal money they receive immediately, so that they know damn good and well it's not being done for political favor.
How exactly is it a separation if one can meddle with the other? 'Cause I can tell you now that that is not a separation. Like, at all.


Separation of Church and state was implemented so that, unlike England, the government couldn't establish a 'government religion', it wasn't anything more than that. It doesn't mean that Churches aren't allowed to have opinions on candidates that are going against their teachings.

It was implemented on the basis that people could not be forced by the government to b e apart of one religion or another. Thus the point of the secular state, since religious involvement in government (and vice versa) create a de facto theocracy.


But nowhere does it say they cannot have an opinion on who is best suited to lead the nation. Way too much being read into it.


A pastor can have a opinion. A church can not implicitly through that opinion endorse a political agenda specific to current governing.

For example, I would consider a local pastor saying abortion is wrong an obvious and tame opinion. I would consider a pastor telling his congregation vote Romney 'cause he's anti-abortion over the line.
N3bu
Old Blue Collar Joe
N3bu
Old Blue Collar Joe
Noogie
Old Blue Collar Joe
Gotta apply the rule to all non-profits. Separation of Church and State really just means state cannot endorse a religion. Doesn't really mean a damn thing about churches.
If this does get their status revoked, it should be applied to ALL non-profits across the board who support a particular candidate.
Of course, reality is, if they endorse a specific candidate, they should also remove any federal money they receive immediately, so that they know damn good and well it's not being done for political favor.
How exactly is it a separation if one can meddle with the other? 'Cause I can tell you now that that is not a separation. Like, at all.


Separation of Church and state was implemented so that, unlike England, the government couldn't establish a 'government religion', it wasn't anything more than that. It doesn't mean that Churches aren't allowed to have opinions on candidates that are going against their teachings.

It was implemented on the basis that people could not be forced by the government to b e apart of one religion or another. Thus the point of the secular state, since religious involvement in government (and vice versa) create a de facto theocracy.


But nowhere does it say they cannot have an opinion on who is best suited to lead the nation. Way too much being read into it.


A pastor can have a opinion. A church can not implicitly through that opinion endorse a political agenda specific to current governing.

For example, I would consider a local pastor saying abortion is wrong an obvious and tame opinion. I would consider a pastor telling his congregation vote Romney 'cause he's anti-abortion over the line.


My view is different. I'd have no issue with the preacher saying 'Vote Romney because he's anti-abortion' acceptable. I would NOT find it acceptable to find that 'The National Baptist Convention has voted to fully support Romney because Obama is the Devil'.
Honestly, I'm a little on the fence on this one. Mostly because as a churchgoing Catholic who attends English Mass early Sunday morning (as opposed to the Spanish or the Somali(?) masses that the church has later in the day... the parish is a very multicultural community.), the most political statement the priest ever talks about is "praying for God to help our political representatives approach the issues facing the country with open minds and hearts so they may create policies that benefit everyone."

Not exactly the whole "support political candidate A or B because issue X" you're complaining about...

Old Blue Collar Joe
I'd have no issue with the preacher saying 'Vote Romney because he's anti-abortion' acceptable. I would NOT find it acceptable to find that 'The National Baptist Convention has voted to fully support Romney because Obama is the Devil'.


Now that's something I could actually support.

Will the IRS actually do anything about these preachers in the future?

As the Zen Master says, "We'll see."
agrab0ekim
The reason churches (and any religious institution) is exempt is due to the fact that to tax is to regulate is to destroy, thus to tax is a violation of the first.


So some piss-poor slippery slope reasoning is the rationale behind the non-taxation of religion? Who knew.
azulmagia
agrab0ekim
The reason churches (and any religious institution) is exempt is due to the fact that to tax is to regulate is to destroy, thus to tax is a violation of the first.


So some piss-poor slippery slope reasoning is the rationale behind the non-taxation of religion? Who knew.

Not slippery slope, the court called them one-and-the-same
agrab0ekim
azulmagia
agrab0ekim
The reason churches (and any religious institution) is exempt is due to the fact that to tax is to regulate is to destroy, thus to tax is a violation of the first.


So some piss-poor slippery slope reasoning is the rationale behind the non-taxation of religion? Who knew.

Not slippery slope, the court called them one-and-the-same


Which court and what decision?
azulmagia
agrab0ekim
azulmagia
agrab0ekim
The reason churches (and any religious institution) is exempt is due to the fact that to tax is to regulate is to destroy, thus to tax is a violation of the first.


So some piss-poor slippery slope reasoning is the rationale behind the non-taxation of religion? Who knew.

Not slippery slope, the court called them one-and-the-same


Which court and what decision?

"The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment"
"Those who can tax the exercise of this religious practice can make its exercise so costly as to deprive it of the resources necessary for its maintenance."
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) (internal cites omitted)

NOTE, the court has not overturned this concept, but in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York 397 U.S. 664 (1970) 397 U.S. 664 (1970), they did find that, as a privilege, it is a grace. I am not sure how this meshes with the Murdock quotes, but the court is moving away from my position. (see Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1 (1989) for the court's modern view)
Wendigo's avatar

Manly Explorer

8,750 Points
  • Invisibility 100
  • Money Never Sleeps 200
  • Super Tipsy 200
azulmagia
agrab0ekim
The reason churches (and any religious institution) is exempt is due to the fact that to tax is to regulate is to destroy, thus to tax is a violation of the first.


So some piss-poor slippery slope reasoning is the rationale behind the non-taxation of religion? Who knew.
Main reasoning at th' time was the states mostly grandfathered in established churches, and stood poised, were taxation allowed, to give one church (or really, one sect of Protestantism) a break, but exclude others. That is less of an issue presently.
agrab0ekim
"The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment"
"Those who can tax the exercise of this religious practice can make its exercise so costly as to deprive it of the resources necessary for its maintenance."
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) (internal cites omitted)

NOTE, the court has not overturned this concept, but in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York 397 U.S. 664 (1970) 397 U.S. 664 (1970), they did find that, as a privilege, it is a grace. I am not sure how this meshes with the Murdock quotes, but the court is moving away from my position. (see Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1 (1989) for the court's modern view)


I don't think we're talking about taxing the "exercise of a privilege" but taxing organizations that happen to rake in a substantial amount of dough.

Also by that logic, businesses should be tax free too.
azulmagia
agrab0ekim
"The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment"
"Those who can tax the exercise of this religious practice can make its exercise so costly as to deprive it of the resources necessary for its maintenance."
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) (internal cites omitted)

NOTE, the court has not overturned this concept, but in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York 397 U.S. 664 (1970) 397 U.S. 664 (1970), they did find that, as a privilege, it is a grace. I am not sure how this meshes with the Murdock quotes, but the court is moving away from my position. (see Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1 (1989) for the court's modern view)


I don't think we're talking about taxing the "exercise of a privilege" but taxing organizations that happen to rake in a substantial amount of dough.

Also by that logic, businesses should be tax free too.

FYI, as a non-profit, they literally don't rake in ANY dough
If businesses were part of freedom of religion (or if Lochner were still good law) you'd be right
agrab0ekim
azulmagia
agrab0ekim
"The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment"
"Those who can tax the exercise of this religious practice can make its exercise so costly as to deprive it of the resources necessary for its maintenance."
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) (internal cites omitted)

NOTE, the court has not overturned this concept, but in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York 397 U.S. 664 (1970) 397 U.S. 664 (1970), they did find that, as a privilege, it is a grace. I am not sure how this meshes with the Murdock quotes, but the court is moving away from my position. (see Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1 (1989) for the court's modern view)


I don't think we're talking about taxing the "exercise of a privilege" but taxing organizations that happen to rake in a substantial amount of dough.

Also by that logic, businesses should be tax free too.

FYI, as a non-profit, they literally don't rake in ANY dough
If businesses were part of freedom of religion (or if Lochner were still good law) you'd be right


I can think of plenty of religions and cults that are but thinly disguised profit-making ventures, like one created in recent times by a certain second-tier science fiction writer, for instance.
azulmagia
agrab0ekim
azulmagia
agrab0ekim
"The power to tax the exercise of a privilege is the power to control or suppress its enjoyment"
"Those who can tax the exercise of this religious practice can make its exercise so costly as to deprive it of the resources necessary for its maintenance."
Murdock v. Pennsylvania, 319 U.S. 105 (1943) (internal cites omitted)

NOTE, the court has not overturned this concept, but in Walz v. Tax Commission of the City of New York 397 U.S. 664 (1970) 397 U.S. 664 (1970), they did find that, as a privilege, it is a grace. I am not sure how this meshes with the Murdock quotes, but the court is moving away from my position. (see Texas Monthly, Inc. v. Bullock, 489 U.S. 1 (1989) for the court's modern view)


I don't think we're talking about taxing the "exercise of a privilege" but taxing organizations that happen to rake in a substantial amount of dough.

Also by that logic, businesses should be tax free too.

FYI, as a non-profit, they literally don't rake in ANY dough
If businesses were part of freedom of religion (or if Lochner were still good law) you'd be right


I can think of plenty of religions and cults that are but thinly disguised profit-making ventures, like one created in recent times by a certain second-tier science fiction writer, for instance.


The law says that any 501c3 isn't able to, and that is prima facie evidence that if they are a 501c3 they are not doing as you describe
feel free to provide PROOF (we both know iwth conjecture) to the contrary
agrab0ekim
azulmagia
I can think of plenty of religions and cults that are but thinly disguised profit-making ventures, like one created in recent times by a certain second-tier science fiction writer, for instance.


The law says that any 501c3 isn't able to, and that is prima facie evidence that if they are a 501c3 they are not doing as you describe
feel free to provide PROOF (we both know iwth conjecture) to the contrary


Raising the issue of 501c3 is circular logic. It's like saying the ability to factually consent to intercourse magically manifests itself when the moment the subject reaches the legally mandated age.

Religion has always been just another line of business. In fact, insofar as there is no state-backed church (which is a good business strategy in itself) they're even more like mundane businesses than ever before. Any grifter can start one. Scientology is only the most brazen case, but we also have cases of gurus from the East amassing fleets of Cadillacs, and I remember when Oral Roberts declared that a giant Jesus appeared to him in a vision and told him that he would be called to heaven unless he could raise a million dollars (the actual sum may have been more than that). And the Catholic church is just about the all-time champion in terms of raking in the religious dough. Sales of indulgences (literal tickets to heaven), sales of relics, the medieval religious tourist racket. Not to mention its vast real estate and fine arts portfolios. Or nearer to our own time, no matter how much charitable money flowed into Mother Teresa's hospice, it remained as shitty as it was when Mother Teresa died as it was on the day it was opened. Meanwhile, Mother Teresa went to a real hospital whenever she got sick. I taking in more money than overhead isn't profit, then I don't know what is.

Billy Sunday probably said it best: If God ain't real, then preachers are making money on false pretenses. While I've never seen the movie in question, the boy preacher, Marjoe Gortner, had a change of heart later in life, and helped documentarians make a movie illustrating just how he bilked people out of their money.

And business, in turn, is religion insofar as the phenomenon of value has spooky, fetishistic overtones (as pointed by You-know-who with the beard). Hell, the biggest reason we have writing is probably due to the Sumerian priests needing to have a better handle of the ocean of goodies that were flowing into their temples. And the revenues flowing into the Egyptian temple of Amon-Ra (itself the size of a theme park) during the New Kingdom is just jaw-dropping, even by the standards of a modern industrialized nation. (Yes, I've looked at the figures.)

In any event, insofar as churches are not taxed, they are subsidized, just not in the positive sense. In the meantime they will be making a pretty good living telling us how bad accumulating material wealth is, as well as selling a bill of goods that can only be checked out after our funerals.

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games