100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Should a church be able to openly participate in politics! | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Unknow
on
Thu 11/06/08 06:52 PM
|
|
If a not for profit did the same I would call them on it to..Why does everyone have to have your beleives, your political agendas..What makes you so dam Godly? What gives you thr right to say whats right and wrong for someone else??? God gave us FREEWILL Perhaps you should target planned parent hood then. They donated over $4.5 million to fight Proposition 4. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Unknow
on
Thu 11/06/08 07:11 PM
|
|
The IRS rules for churchs and charities
Exemption Requirements To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) are commonly referred to as charitable organizations. Organizations described in section 501(c)(3), other than testing for public safety organizations, are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions in accordance with Code section 170. The organization must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, and no part of a section 501(c)(3) organization's net earnings may inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual. If the organization engages in an excess benefit transaction with a person having substantial influence over the organization, an excise tax may be imposed on the person and any organization managers agreeing to the transaction. Section 501(c)(3) organizations are restricted in how much political and legislative (lobbying) activities they may conduct. For a detailed discussion, see Political and Lobbying Activities. For more information about lobbying activities by charities, see the article Lobbying Issues; for more information about political activities of charities, see the FY-2002 CPE topic Election Year Issues. Accessibility | FirstGov.gov | Freedom of Information Act | Important Links | IRS Privacy Policy | U.S. Treasury http://www.irs.gov/charities/charitable/article/0,,id=96099,00.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Planned Parenthood is a "non-profit" organization, as a matter of fact they even get government grants, however the problem with the tax exemption code is the word substantial. Substantial is very vague, and making donations to people who are fighting a certain proposition can be written off pretty easily as long as it is not accompanied with lobbying.
Oh the wonderful loop-holes in US law. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kerry O, I fail to see how that contradicts anything I have said? Forgive me but could you explain your views on this? The way I see it, if nothing else, the wording of the first amendment makes it clear that this was to protect religion from the government, not the other way around. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." Considering the history of the reason many people came to America in the first place, (King controlling the Church of England) this would also make sense in a historical context. Please also see the response sent to the Danbury Baptists by Jefferson. He makes it clear that the issue at hand is the government involving itself with the affairs of the church not the church involving itself with the affairs of the government. "To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut. Gentlemen The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing. Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem. Th Jefferson Jan. 1. 1802." -Ken Well Ken, then I suggest you and your fellow religionists like Pat Robertson attempt to do things like compel candidates for office to pass religous tests, mandate prayer in the public schools and get public money for religious education and then get back to us. Hasn't been working too well over the last 200 some years, has it? -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It all boils down to representation coupled with taxation. Taxation without Representation is what started the whole revolution and it's not without precedent or sound judgement that the Founders and courts since then have held that the Separation of Church and State to be a persistent legal doctrine. To do otherwise would be Representation without Taxation.
-Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Ken21
on
Fri 11/07/08 03:37 AM
|
|
Well Ken, then I suggest you and your fellow religionists like Pat Robertson attempt to do things like compel candidates for office to pass religous tests, mandate prayer in the public schools and get public money for religious education and then get back to us. Hasn't been working too well over the last 200 some years, has it? -Kerry O. Hm, it seems I have upset you by presenting facts Kerry. I am hardly a "religionist". I am just capable of comprehending the meaning of Jefferson's statement and the 1st Amendment of the constitution. I am not suggesting that the government mandate prayer in public schools, or that candidates for office should have to pass religious tests, or that there should be public money for religious education. I am merely stating the fact that if a church wants to support some form of legislature it is well within their right to do so. Also, the original intent of the 1st Amendment and Jefferson's concept of "seperation of church and state" was to protect the church from the government not vice versa. So unless you have a response to that, that does not involve an attack on what you assume to be my personal beliefs (ie calling me a religious zealot) then I will lay that to rest and move on to your next response. If you want to call a church donating to a cause Representation without taxation then you should also be targeting Planned Parenthood, Let California Ring, the ACLU, and any other tax exempt organization that has opposed or supported state and federal legislature. An organization supporting something truly means very little if the people voting on it don't support it. However, since there are no laws or anything else to support this or oppose it, it is little more than an opinion as is your statement. -Ken |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Churches have always been involved in politics
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I just saw on the news where a Church of Latter Day Saints donated over 1 mil$ to support Prop8 in California..To me that's is wrong and they should lose their tax exemption!!! That is totally wrong. I'll tell you something that two churches did by me. A Catholic man that I know went to church two weeks before the election. The priest told the congregation that they would no longer be Catholic if they voted for Obama. Our newspaper did an investigation on another church here. Again, it was a Catholic church. During the sermon, the priest was comparing Obama with Hitler and told the congregation that they would go to hell if they voted for him. I am a firm believer of separation of church and state. what they say inside the church is there own business and they have that rite if not dont you think something would have been done in REV Wrights church or for that matter Faracons. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Quick history lesson. Separation of Church and state is not a law of any kind. It is shorthand for a phrase that Jefferson used in a letter to the Danbury Baptists. The phrase used was "wall of separation between church and state,". The intent of this was that the government would not get involved in church affairs, not the other way around. This concept was added into the constitution as the 1st Amendment which you may know as Freedom of Religion, Press, and Expression which states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." As you can see there is nothing there addressing the church getting involved in federal affairs. So love it or hate it, there is really nothing even implied in the idea of "separation of church and state" that says the church cannot/should not be involved in the government. How about another quick history lesson. In the 1400s-1500s, the pope and the catholic church had such influence over the affairs of state that they were able to talk King Phillip of Spain into starting the Inquisition, during which time the church ordered non-believers converted at point of death. Does the church belong in politics? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why is not the church entitled to support the candidate they wish to support
they should have lost their tax exemption long ago they are a for profit organization with a payroll (they can deduct their charitable acts at tax time)[i have known individuals that do more to help others than i have seen some churches do and they have to pay taxes] separation of church and state is totally out of control -- it does not say if yer in a church you can not be in govt -- it says govt can not be in the church -- no where in the constitution does it say the govt and the state should be separate what it says is --- """"""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;""""""" the part of that most people forget is (prohibiting the free exercise thereof) so if a judge is a member of a religion and wants a religious item in his domain then he should be permitted to have it not only does the prohibition of such item infringe on his freedom of religion (by prohibiting the free exercise thereof) it also infringes on his right of free speech (""""""or abridging the freedom of speech""""""") such a symbol is his expression (a form of speech) of his beliefs so we need to get back to the basics and quit reading into things that are not there the church ahsa as much right to be in politics as you do the govt does not have as much right to be in religion as you do tho |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The impious presumption of legislators and and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical;...
-- Thomas Jefferson, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
why is not the church entitled to support the candidate they wish to support they should have lost their tax exemption long ago they are a for profit organization with a payroll (they can deduct their charitable acts at tax time)[i have known individuals that do more to help others than i have seen some churches do and they have to pay taxes] separation of church and state is totally out of control -- it does not say if yer in a church you can not be in govt -- it says govt can not be in the church -- no where in the constitution does it say the govt and the state should be separate what it says is --- """"""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;""""""" the part of that most people forget is (prohibiting the free exercise thereof) so if a judge is a member of a religion and wants a religious item in his domain then he should be permitted to have it not only does the prohibition of such item infringe on his freedom of religion (by prohibiting the free exercise thereof) it also infringes on his right of free speech (""""""or abridging the freedom of speech""""""") such a symbol is his expression (a form of speech) of his beliefs so we need to get back to the basics and quit reading into things that are not there the church ahsa as much right to be in politics as you do the govt does not have as much right to be in religion as you do tho You know, I think you make a valid point... If a church wants to openly support or belittle a political figure, it is only fair that the government, without banning a specific religion, should be able to tax the income of said "church." If there is no seperation of church and state, as argued, then there is no reason to give a for profit business "special expemtions." We wouldn't do it for the oil or coal industry. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well i think the church is a for profit business
and should be treated as such |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How about another quick history lesson. In the 1400s-1500s, the pope and the catholic church had such influence over the affairs of state that they were able to talk King Phillip of Spain into starting the Inquisition, during which time the church ordered non-believers converted at point of death. Does the church belong in politics? I am aware of that. But the question at hand isn't "does the church belong in politics?" because that is a very subjective question, the answer will be based on each individuals opinion. The question is, can the church legally be involved in politics and if so why does it maintain its tax exemption. So legally yes, the church can be involved in politics, if you have read my prior posts you will know my reasoning on this. And second, the church can maintain its tax exemption despite being involved in politics because it is a not for profit organization (some churches adhere to this more than others but essentially they all fall under that umbrella) and churches DO NOT receive any government funding. By the way, adj4u, nearly all non-profit organizations have a payroll and do pay at least some people to work for them. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Unknow
on
Fri 11/07/08 02:22 PM
|
|
How about this..The electoral college was formed so that states with a high populous couldn't control the elections..So the same principle should apply to Church's..Since we have freedom of religion, no one religion should have more input to any political process without the same advantages allowed to all religions..Something that makes you go hmmmmmmmmm...If you want the church involved in policy its only fair!!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Ken21
on
Fri 11/07/08 02:48 PM
|
|
How about this..The electoral college was formed so that states with a high populous couldn't control the elections..So the same principle should apply to Church's..Since we have freedom of religion, no one religion should have more input to any political process without the same advantages allowed to all religions..Something that makes you go hmmmmmmmmm...If you want the church involved in policy its only fair!!! The way it seems to me, what you are failing to realize is that a church can only give so much support. Essentially it boils down to the beliefs of the congregation. If they are going to that church, they most likely believe in the side the church is supporting anyway. The church isn't "forcing" their opinion on anyone, they are only letting it be known. There are often times, even churches that are on opposite sides of a proposition. California's Props 4 and 8 are prefect examples of that. Essentially all the church can do is offer propaganda, which is no different than any other non-profit, so my question is, are you attacking church so strongly because of the fact it is a non profit or because of the fact that it is a non-profit with religious ties? No disrespect meant by that question, but in order for me to defend my position and understand what we are really discussing here I need to know if the issue is the religion or the tax exemption. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Unknow
on
Fri 11/07/08 03:00 PM
|
|
How about this..The electoral college was formed so that states with a high populous couldn't control the elections..So the same principle should apply to Church's..Since we have freedom of religion, no one religion should have more input to any political process without the same advantages allowed to all religions..Something that makes you go hmmmmmmmmm...If you want the church involved in policy its only fair!!! The way it seems to me, what you are failing to realize is that a church can only give so much support. Essentially it boils down to the beliefs of the congregation. If they are going to that church, they most likely believe in the side the church is supporting anyway. The church isn't "forcing" their opinion on anyone, they are only letting it be known. There are often times, even churches that are on opposite sides of a proposition. California's Props 4 and 8 are prefect examples of that. Essentially all the church can do is offer propaganda, which is no different than any other non-profit, so my question is, are you attacking church so strongly because of the fact it is a non profit or because of the fact that it is a non-profit with religious ties? No disrespect meant by that question, but in order for me to defend my position and understand what we are really discussing here I need to know if the issue is the religion or the tax exemption. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Ken21
on
Fri 11/07/08 03:21 PM
|
|
How is giving over 1mil$ to support a proposal just propaganda..So the larger Church's with more money can and will push their religious beliefs in politics..That's my problem..Hey Im a Christian and believe in god but believe religion has no place in supporting government policy..I didnt call church a nonprofit organization but I beleive under nonprofit law all money over saleries and overhead has to be donated to a charity and not donated to a political platform..I might be wrong I am not sure about the money over salaries and overhead, however take a step back from that argument for a moment and look at it in a broader perspective. Yes the larger churches can contribute more, but so can larger special interest groups such as the ACLU, and continuing in that trend the larger corporations such as microsoft, and boeing. I remember my father telling me once in response to a feeling I had about life not being fair, he told me "That's the way life is, the golden rule in life is he who has the gold, makes the rules." Sadly, I find that to be very true now that I am old enough to actually understand it. I have been giving you facts of law, and constitution. If you want my personal opinion there should be a donation limit on everyone if you want truly fair and equal representation. But at the end of the day it is the voters who decide. From my experience most people at the churches I have gone to have been people of at least average intelligence and people who were independent thinkers. That being said, there are always the going to be the people who will vote whichever way the church recommends, but are they really any different than the people who always vote by their political affiliation? Our government is by no means the perfect system, but the way I see it, the more federal restrictions citizens request, the more federal restrictions citizens will get, and some day, way down the road, we will no longer be citizens but subjects. The idea of democracy is that the people don't need an extremely large and strong central government, but the more restrictions we vote to place on ourselves the closer we come to tyranny. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
KerryO
on
Fri 11/07/08 03:57 PM
|
|
Hm, it seems I have upset you by presenting facts Kerry. I am hardly a "religionist". I am just capable of comprehending the meaning of Jefferson's statement and the 1st Amendment of the constitution. I am not suggesting that the government mandate prayer in public schools, or that candidates for office should have to pass religious tests, or that there should be public money for religious education. I am merely stating the fact that if a church wants to support some form of legislature it is well within their right to do so. Also, the original intent of the 1st Amendment and Jefferson's concept of "seperation of church and state" was to protect the church from the government not vice versa. So unless you have a response to that, :::snippage:::: Oh, I do indeed. I give you Jefferson himself, speaking about Christianity and government: "Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards uniformity. -Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782 Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because if there be one he must approve of the homage of reason more than that of blindfolded fear. -Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Peter Carr, August 10, 1787 Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination. -Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom I concur with you strictly in your opinion of the comparative merits of atheism and demonism, and really see nothing but the latter in the being worshipped by many who think themselves Christians. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Richard Price, Jan. 8, 1789 They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of god, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: and enough, too, in their opinion. -Thomas Jefferson to Dr. Benjamin Rush, Sept. 23, 1800 History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. -Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, Dec. 6, 1813. And lastly, for your edification, Kenny: "Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, February 10, 1814 -Kerry O. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Unknow
on
Fri 11/07/08 05:31 PM
|
|
How is giving over 1mil$ to support a proposal just propaganda..So the larger Church's with more money can and will push their religious beliefs in politics..That's my problem..Hey Im a Christian and believe in god but believe religion has no place in supporting government policy..I didnt call church a nonprofit organization but I beleive under nonprofit law all money over saleries and overhead has to be donated to a charity and not donated to a political platform..I might be wrong I am not sure about the money over salaries and overhead, however take a step back from that argument for a moment and look at it in a broader perspective. Yes the larger churches can contribute more, but so can larger special interest groups such as the ACLU, and continuing in that trend the larger corporations such as microsoft, and boeing. I remember my father telling me once in response to a feeling I had about life not being fair, he told me "That's the way life is, the golden rule in life is he who has the gold, makes the rules." Sadly, I find that to be very true now that I am old enough to actually understand it. I have been giving you facts of law, and constitution. If you want my personal opinion there should be a donation limit on everyone if you want truly fair and equal representation. But at the end of the day it is the voters who decide. From my experience most people at the churches I have gone to have been people of at least average intelligence and people who were independent thinkers. That being said, there are always the going to be the people who will vote whichever way the church recommends, but are they really any different than the people who always vote by their political affiliation? Our government is by no means the perfect system, but the way I see it, the more federal restrictions citizens request, the more federal restrictions citizens will get, and some day, way down the road, we will no longer be citizens but subjects. The idea of democracy is that the people don't need an extremely large and strong central government, but the more restrictions we vote to place on ourselves the closer we come to tyranny. 
|
|
|
|
|
