quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Your histrionics notwithstanding, the tax-exempt regulations assume the church is operating in what a reasonable individual would consider a religious activity. The sign is clearly a political statement. If the church posted a sign opposing a change in a referendum on liquor laws, that could reasonably be considered within the religious realm since it is an issue in which a church could be considered acting on a religious belief. Or, a sign supporting Right to Life is within reason. Having John McCain or any candidate speak at the church is not a violation unless the offering is given to him.

First off, the ‘reasonable person’ standard is a moving target. What would be reasonable to one community, or the people within it, wouldn’t be reasonable to another.

And what is political is clearly contextual. If a local politician was a strong supporter of local liquor laws, and the opposing candidate was against them, then advocacy of those laws could be seen as ‘political’.

In fact, of all the potential political issues that could be addressed, Obama’s Muslim sounding name is really the least political – indeed, it appeals to something much more base, that is xenophobia.

quote:

This action is so clear-cut, the only way to justify it is to say that any religious organization can engage in any political activity, which is not the intent of the tax-exempt regulations as they apply to religious organizations.

The original intent of tax exemption wasn't to prevent political activity, it was to prevent government entanglement with religion, and to acknowledge the benefit that religious and charitable organization are to communites.

It was the amendment to the exemption that was an attempt to do this, but it in effect subverts the entire purpose of tax exemption.

Basically, you are proposing churches have a free ride on political activity. This will lead to excesses like the founding of organizations like the Swift Boat Church, the St. Ron Paul Church of Liberty, etc. I'd prefer churches simply be taxed like any other business and nobody will care whether Pastor Dingledopper puts a political message on the church sign.

quote:

Basically, you are proposing churches have a free ride on political activity. This will lead to excesses like the founding of organizations like the Swift Boat Church, the St. Ron Paul Church of Liberty, etc. I'd prefer churches simply be taxed like any other business and nobody will care whether Pastor Dingledopper puts a political message on the church sign.

quote:

ORIGINAL: phreddy

people from all over the North American continent are talking about it. it is geting more views from the news that it would from traffic if they left it up there for 10 years.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Basically, you are proposing churches have a free ride on political activity. This will lead to excesses like the founding of organizations like the Swift Boat Church, the St. Ron Paul Church of Liberty, etc. I'd prefer churches simply be taxed like any other business and nobody will care whether Pastor Dingledopper puts a political message on the church sign.

The law in question didn't exist until the '50s - any evidence at all that anything like this happened before then?

Not only that, but the Church has often been at it's best when it was political; supporting the Revolution, abolitionism, civil rights, anti-abortion, etc.

quote:

And it's at it's worst when engaged in partisan politics. Stances on issues are different than supporting or opposing specific candidates using church resources. There's an internet myth that goes around crediting Lyndon Johnson with these regulations, but no evidence exists that these rules were made to benefit either major party.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

And it's at it's worst when engaged in partisan politics. Stances on issues are different than supporting or opposing specific candidates using church resources. There's an internet myth that goes around crediting Lyndon Johnson with these regulations, but no evidence exists that these rules were made to benefit either major party.

Well, just to be clear, I don't think that sign is the Church at it's best, it is actually a church at it's worst. But all the issues I listed were to some degree 'partisan', because invariably a party lines up with a particular issues.

The bottom line is, in principle I support as much freedom as possible when it comes to political speech and religious expression; I don't see anywhere in the Constitution that makes them mutually exclusive, as long as the state isn't compelling anyone to do anything.

quote:

And it's at it's worst when engaged in partisan politics.

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451

quote:

ORIGINAL: phreddy

people from all over the North American continent are talking about it. it is geting more views from the news that it would from traffic if they left it up there for 10 years.

Which is, of course, the right reason to do it.

quote:

But when the state grants special privileges (such as tax exemption) the state has to have some guidelines.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

But when the state grants special privileges (such as tax exemption) the state has to have some guidelines.

I don't see it as a 'special privilege' I see it as respecting the free exercise of religion by avoiding unnecessary entanglement by the state in church affairs, and the recognition of the state of the benefit of charitable and religious organizations.

In fact, the abuse is really in limiting the exemption; it should have no limitations other than a demonstration that the the organization in question is not actually a religious or charitable one.

quote:

ORIGINAL: colliefan

quote:

And it's at it's worst when engaged in partisan politics.

So, the church should of never been involved in such things as the abolition movement in England, the establishment of child labor laws, and the establishment of the SPCA?

And how do you propose to tax the church? On its land? Its buildings? The offerings it receives? Most churches strugle just to meet budget. Taxing them would close them.

quote:

Not having to pay taxes is a privilege. Ask Wesley Snipes.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Jhud

quote:

Not having to pay taxes is a privilege. Ask Wesley Snipes.

I don't know that Wesley made the argument that he should be exempt because he was a religious or charitable organization, though to call what he did 'acting' would be, I suppose, an act of charity.

quote:

I'd tax churches just like any other business. Property taxes, taxes on profits, sales, etc. If some churches close, I'm fine with that. The ones that stay open will be the ones that parishoners support. Churches close now when they can't pay their bills.

quote:

ORIGINAL: colliefan

quote:

I'd tax churches just like any other business. Property taxes, taxes on profits, sales, etc. If some churches close, I'm fine with that. The ones that stay open will be the ones that parishoners support. Churches close now when they can't pay their bills.

So, you would tax not-for profits such as inner-city food pantries and medical clincs? What about Planned Parenthood abortion mills? Would you force them to pay a tax on their revenue?

quote:

I'd leave non-religious nonprofits alone (they are covered under a different set of regulations and have greater reporting requirements). Religious groups could operate as nonprofits under these regulations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: colliefan

quote:

I'd leave non-religious nonprofits alone (they are covered under a different set of regulations and have greater reporting requirements). Religious groups could operate as nonprofits under these regulations.

Why? And need I remind you the SC has declared Secular Humanism a religion.

quote:

What is the relevance to Secular Humanism

quote:

ORIGINAL: cow451

Would the congregants be as supportive if they had to pay taxes on their tithes to this church?