Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Pastors May Defy IRS Gag Rule

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU
 
meegbear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 12:58 PM
Original message
Pastors May Defy IRS Gag Rule
Source: online.wsj.com

A conservative legal-advocacy group is enlisting ministers to use their pulpits to preach about election candidates this September, defying a tax law that bars churches from engaging in politics.

Alliance Defense Fund, a Scottsdale, Ariz., nonprofit, is hoping at least one sermon will prompt the Internal Revenue Service to investigate, sparking a court battle that could get the tax provision declared unconstitutional. Alliance lawyers represent churches in disputes with the IRS over alleged partisan activity.

The action marks the latest attempt by a conservative organization to help clergy harness their congregations to sway elections. The protest is scheduled for Sunday, Sept. 28, a little more than a month before the general election, in a year when religious concerns and preachers have been a regular part of the political debate.

It also comes as the IRS has increased its investigations of churches accused of engaging in politics. Sen. Barack Obama's denomination, the United Church of Christ, has said it was under investigation after it allowed the Democratic presidential candidate to address 10,000 church members last year. Last summer, the tax agency said it was reviewing complaints against 44 churches for activities in the 2006 election cycle. Churches found to be in violation can be fined or lose their tax exemptions.

Read more: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB121029464937179517.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
sinkingfeeling Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 01:00 PM
Response to Original message
1. Disgusting. Then let's eliminate all the election laws! I should be able to pay people to vote like
want them to.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Bacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #1
71. BULL! Right Wing Churches have done this for years!
Thousands of churches have been spitting out Republican talking points for years and they are given a pass! Yet, ONE Episcopal Church in Pasadena CA speaks out against Bush and the IRS goes all out to nail it! Disgusting

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 09:22 AM
Response to Reply #71
77. Because of "religious cronyism" this President puts our
democracy at risk. Another good reason for impeachment. He ignores the Constitution for his own political gain.

Congress controls the purse yet allows Bush to dip into the treasury for his favorite religious groups. The Secretary of Treasury should be in jail for that since he failed to protect our public funds.

They grow wealthy and fat wanting to pick their own candidates for public office. They force their religious agenda on us.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Bacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 10:57 AM
Response to Reply #77
86. If they wanna play, Make 'em pay!
Edited on Sun May-11-08 10:57 AM by Joe Bacon
It's time to turn the spigot off on the REAL welfare queens like The Crouch's, Pat Robertson, Benny Hinn, Hagee, James Robinson and all the other asshole bible beaters. Make 'em render under Caesar and pay taxes like everyone else. It's time to tax all of the churches. Make 'em pay if they wanna play!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eShirl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 01:02 PM
Response to Original message
2. I thought the IRS only investigates liberal churches for that?
or am i wrong?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
kestrel91316 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 02:12 PM
Response to Reply #2
9. Let's just say they are a lot more aggressive going after the liberal churches.
They have their marching orders, you know.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 06:20 PM
Response to Reply #2
41. The Christian Coalition lost its tax exempt status.
The Christian Coalition was originally a 501c3 org. Once they became clearly associated with the Republican Party, the IRS yanked their tax exempt status. The CC is by far the best known organization to lose 501c3 status.

So, no, it's not just liberals who get investigated.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #41
60. Not soon enough.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joe Bacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 10:59 AM
Response to Reply #60
87. Make Dogbeater Dobson focus on his own family!
TIme to take that Cadillac driving creep off of the Je$u$ Gravy Train once and for all!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikeytherat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 10:07 AM
Response to Reply #41
102. Was the CC ever an official church, or just a PAC filing as a 501(c)?
mikey_the_rat
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeff In Milwaukee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #102
103. The were never a "church"
The Christian Coalition originally filed for tax exempt status as a 501(c)(3) public service organization. After a 10-year review period (oy), the IRS eventually denied the Christian Coalition tax-exampt status. It's now organized as a 501(c)(4) organization, which means that the Christian Coalition doesn't have to pay taxes on its revenues, but contributions by its supporters are not tax deductible.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 11:09 AM
Response to Reply #102
106. The Christian Coalition was specifically founded as a PAC
Robertson himself said the purpose of the Christian Coalition was to put Jesus into politics. Why in HELL it ever got 501(c)3 status I don't know--it was specifically constituted as the kind of organization that shouldn't have it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dbackjon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 01:03 PM
Response to Original message
3. Let them pay taxes
The theocrats want their cake and eat it too. Give up your tax-exempt status, and talk all you want.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheDebbieDee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 01:17 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. I agree. If churches want to get political, then they can
pay taxes like ANY OTHER for-profit organization!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 03:03 PM
Response to Reply #4
22. And receive no Faith Based Charity public dollars.
That is illegal anyway. Bush takes billions from our treasury to use for his own religious cronyism (Fascist that he is).
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
axollot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 09:59 AM
Response to Reply #22
82. While NO fan of faith based charity policy......
I've seen churches here able to *GIVE* more to those that need it (I live in the South) than ever before the faith based policies went into effect. Since, I do help many people in my community get food and other necessities that they simply cannot afford on their measly SSI income, I'm the person that drives people to the churches for it. (ON MY DIME - which is about all I've got to my name a dime and a few pennies!) There is also paperwork that is filled out, I'm guessing to be able to report where the Fed dollars are going.

I still believe it leaves far, far to much room for dirty politics AND it is AGAINST seperation of church and state. No one should feel bad that they need help, when they seek it, because they've not been going to 'church' (Remeber, this is the South *sigh*) - and now those doleing out *can* (although, amazingly I've not seen it yet) preach the "word" to that person attempting to make a mix-match set of grocery items into several meals! Fer fuck sake, they ain't Jesus......

Cheers
discumbobulated
Sandy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Dogtown Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 02:35 PM
Response to Reply #3
12. Agreed
but I think they should all pay taxes, like any other business.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 09:16 AM
Response to Reply #12
76. It is like a corporation is it not?
And many of them as rich as one. Corporations and religious organizations are tax exempt. They are ruining our democracy since they fail to support the public services and freedoms.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cstanleytech Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #3
88. 100% agree. NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Coexist Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 01:28 PM
Response to Original message
5. fine let them pay taxes and no more deductions for their congregations.
not a problem.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 01:37 PM
Response to Original message
6. they are not going to do anything
to kill the golden goose. if they had to pay taxes on their property holdings they would go broke.the supreme court is not going to strike the separation of church and state out of the constitution...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FiveGoodMen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 02:42 PM
Response to Reply #6
14. "supreme court is not going to strike the separation of church and state out of the constitution"
That's optimistic!

What do you think they've been packing the courts for?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 03:05 PM
Response to Reply #14
23. No they instead make their own laws.
Only the legislative body (elected) of government is allowed to do that.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
dogfacedboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 12:43 AM
Response to Reply #23
61. Aren't most of the Supreme Court justices agents of the Vatican?
Why would they strike down a group of insurgent organizations that they conspire with?
Organized religion is as big of a problem in the World as drug addiction, especially in the US.

The separation of church and State must be strengthened and maintained by ANY means necessary.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 08:49 AM
Response to Reply #61
63. Five RW Catholics are on the court
They aren't the average American Catholics. They answer to the strict dogma of the new Pope. Bush did it for votes giving them our money and rights.

It's called "religious cronyism". Fascism is what Bush is about.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #61
100. That is indeed true...and it is no coincidence
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
BR_Parkway Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 01:41 PM
Response to Original message
7. Preach on - we'll use the extra tax money to get kids health insurance
What Would Jesus Deduct?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
AnneD Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 04:16 PM
Response to Reply #7
35. 'What would Jesus deduct....'
Edited on Fri May-09-08 04:17 PM by AnneD
Twelve dependents:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
axollot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 10:09 AM
Response to Reply #35
83. LMAO - but don't forget Mary, which makes 13 dependents! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tempest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 01:49 PM
Response to Original message
8. They already are defying the rule
How many churches who supported Bush and trashed talked Gore and Kerry from the pulpit have lost their exempt status?

None.

Look at the church that is openly supporting McSame. Nothing is being done about it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 02:15 PM
Response to Reply #8
10. The church as an organization didn't support him.
The pastor did, as a private citizen. His speech wasn't held at the church nor during a worship service. Clergy have the right to endorse anyone they choose. Churches as corporate entities can't. Which is why there's a DU bumper sticker on my car, but none on the church bulletin boards.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tempest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 02:51 PM
Response to Reply #10
17. Several pastors were supporting Bush from the pulpit
And they were reported to the IRS. And the IRS did nothing.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 03:11 PM
Response to Reply #17
25. All agency heads no longer represent the people but
Bush. That is reason for dismissal since we pay for them and they took an oath of office to us not him. Let him support them.

Where is the brave Congressional member who will point this out? Cowards who have also abused the Constitution for religious support with our tax dollars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
greiner3 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 02:33 PM
Response to Original message
11. The solution?
Take away tax exempt status from ALL churches!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MessiahRp Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 02:40 PM
Response to Reply #11
13. I agree.
They're going to preach politics anyway because of the people in power and the IRS' unwillingness to go after them. Take Tax Exemption away and you equally penalize everyone for the sins of churches when it comes to politics over the past decade or more.

Rp
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Judi Lynn Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 02:43 PM
Response to Reply #11
15. You're right! They should pay the price of admission, just like the rest of us if they're going to
participate in the election.

They can't have it both ways.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rubberducky Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 02:50 PM
Response to Original message
16. If I recall right, the Catholic church came out against Kerry in `04.
Believe me I do recall right, because this is what caused me to leave my church. I got involved with a huge fight with my family over this. I was in such a rage when the priest gave his sermon to support bush, I can still feel the fury I felt then. Did he give names? Oh, no! He was much more cowardly than that. Just pushed us toward "the only candidate the church could support".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 03:07 PM
Response to Reply #16
24. And Bush gave them money for doing so.
If those tax free dollars and Faith Based Charity funds weren't allowed the Catholic church would have gone bankrupt a long time ago. They close inner city schools and churches to build new ones in the rich, white suburbs.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 03:47 PM
Response to Reply #16
27. You don't recall right
I don't know what your priest said, but the Church as a whole certainly didn't endorse Bush
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 03:53 PM
Response to Reply #27
29. They should fire our Bishop because he sent an Anti-Kerry guidance for voting letter to each Parish
within our Dioceses that was DISTRIBUTED with the newsletters THE WEEK BEFORE the 2004 Presidential Election. :wow:

To add insult to injury, I knew that I had to switch Parishes when I noted some of my fellow Parishioners handed out "BUSH/CHENEY 04" bumper stickers after mass ... yeah, in the Parish Parking lot. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 04:11 PM
Response to Reply #29
34. Who was the Bishop?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 10:36 PM
Response to Reply #29
57. The members should fire him since you could have lost
Edited on Fri May-09-08 10:44 PM by mac2
your tax exempt status. Any person, clergy, or group supporting any candidate at church would force me to leave that parish. I'm more fearful of losing my religious freedom and democracy than not being able to worship god at that place of worship. I can do that anywhere.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
northzax Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 12:39 AM
Response to Reply #29
72. ah, see there is no rule, nor should there be
concerning using the church to point out a percieved moral failing of a politician, especially one who is a member of that faith. There is nothing wrong with a church talking about how candidates stand on particular issues, indeed they would be remiss in not doing so.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #72
78. If that were true then you would lose half your members
since many Americans pratice birth contorl, etc. against the policy of their church.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
axollot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 10:22 AM
Response to Reply #29
84. I've not been in our church here enough in NE FL around
election times to know if I'd see something like that - but BOY would I make some enemies if they did. I'd have to change my daughter's school too! She will be going to Catholic School this fall starting Kindergarten.

Cheers
Sandy
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pab Sungenis Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 04:48 PM
Response to Reply #27
36. No?
Cardinal Ratzinger, Now Pope Benedict XVI, said that Catholics who voted for Kerry risked excommunication.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 05:01 PM
Response to Reply #36
37. I notice you provide no link for that ridiculous claim
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tempest Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 05:35 PM
Response to Reply #37
39. The pope said pro-choice politicians risked excommunion
http://www.tldm.org/news7/Ratzinger3.htm

The logical extension of that is voters risked excommunion as well by supporting a pro-choice candidate.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 06:07 PM
Response to Reply #39
40. "Virgin Mary's End Time Prophecies" isn't my favorite news source. Can't you do better than that?
And what you've actually provided is apparently: a webpage from "Virgin Mary's End Time Prophecies" summarizing a summary from LifeSiteNews.com of a report in L'Espresso

Kerry's name does appear on that webpage, but only in the name of link to another page of "Virgin Mary's End Time Prophecies" which cites a report from the wingnut news source NewsMax

You are certainly free to follow rightwing nutjobs when interpreting the meaning of comments from various Vatican persons -- but I personally regard that as a questionable and unreliable procedure
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #37
44. I do remember them saying he could no longer take communion.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 06:45 PM
Response to Reply #44
45. You remember "them"? Couldn't you be more precise?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 08:12 PM
Response to Reply #45
49. Talking heads on the TV. A link or two. Google will answer your questions.
Edited on Fri May-09-08 08:17 PM by alfredo
http://www.cwnews.com/news/viewstory.cfm?recnum=32830


Kerry said to be excommunicated

Los Angeles, Oct. 18, 2004 (CWNews.com) - A consultant to the Vatican has said Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has incurred the penalty of excommunication from the Catholic Church.

The consultant made his statement in a highly unusual letter to Marc Balestrieri, a Los Angeles canon lawyer who formally sued John Kerry in ecclesiastical court for heresy.

Balestrieri, who launched his case earlier this year by filing a heresy complaint in Kerry's home archdiocese of Boston, told EWTN's "World Over" program on Friday that he had received an unusual, indirect communication from the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith regarding the pro-abortion stance.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 09:35 PM
Response to Reply #49
51. Just to respond to that particular bullshit link, here's the follow-up:
Vatican denies it responded to lawyer seeking Kerry's excommunication

... "The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has had no contact with Mr. (Marc) Balestrieri," said Dominican Father Augustine DiNoia, undersecretary of the congregation ...

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0405749.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 09:51 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. Have you any info? Links?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 10:06 PM
Response to Reply #52
53. American Catholic Bishops publish, ever four years, some guidance on "Faithful Citizenship"
Here's the 2007 link: http://www.faithfulcitizenship.org/

In 2003, Bush decided to "reach out" to Catholic voters, which means (of course!) that the rightwing noise machine set out to misrepresent Kerry and his relation to his church. In particular, we heard constant noise about Kerry and excommunication; the rightwing located a couple of extremist clergy who promised not to give Kerry communion -- and used that to argue that the Church was telling people not to vote for Kerry. Meanwhile, a rightwing group calling itself "Catholic Answers" combined selective excerpts from the 2003 Faithful Citizenship document with an anti-Dem organizing drive and intimidation tactics, as discussed in the following interesting piece from the National Catholic Reporter:

February 17, 2005
Bishops' "Faithful Citizenship" undermined by conservative groups

By Joe Feuerherd

Diocesan social action directors charged with taking the church's election-year message to the faithful were harassed from below and, in some cases, subverted from above.

Harassment came from parish- and diocesan-based conservatives who viewed a second term for George W. Bush as a secular second coming; the subversion from some bishops and clergy who placed the "five nonnegotiable issues" promoted by a conservative Catholic group (abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, human cloning, and gay marriage) over the teaching promoted by the U.S. bishops ...

Then, in early 2004, an El Cajon, Calif.-based conservative group, "Catholic Answers," published its "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics," a 2,500-word pamphlet that urged Catholics to vote based on the "five nonnegotiable issues." Said the pamphlet, "It is a serious sin to deliberately endorse or promote any of these actions, and no candidate who really wants to advance the common good will support any action contrary to the nonnegotiable principles involved in these issues."

In the outreach effort that ensued, the diocesan social action directors were blindsided. Millions of copies of the "Voter's Guide for Serious Catholics" were distributed in church parking lots and foyers and inserted in parish bulletins. Catholic Answers took out a full-page ad in USA Today, and proponents of the nonnegotiables disrupted efforts to promote the bishops' official view of the 2004 election. It was political hardball, with some social action directors subject to e-mail campaigns in which chanceries were flooded with correspondence questioning their orthodoxy and commitment to church teaching ...

http://www.nationalcatholicreporter.org/washington/wnb021705.htm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
alfredo Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 10:17 PM
Response to Reply #53
54. Good info.
I don't think we will see as much illegal action by churches this year. They see a Dem stands a good chance of winning, and their chances of losing their tax free status increases. You know what they say about payback.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #53
56. Bush gave them our public tax money for votes.
I call it religious cronyism. Catholics don't all agree on Vatican church policy why would they agree on a political agenda? The country has many religions and non-religious citizens. Why should they support Bush favored ones?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatholicEdHead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 07:22 PM
Response to Reply #53
69. Catholic Answers is still at it
They banned politics in their forum online, but on their main page, they link to their taxable spin off which is highly partisan. They do everything but name formal names.

http://www.caaction.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=81&Itemid=72


:puke:

The "5 non-negotiable issues" are still there. :puke: Notice they only lean Republican.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 10:09 PM
Response to Reply #69
70. I'd be interested in any links you provide re: Nauman/Sebelius
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
CatholicEdHead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 12:28 PM
Response to Reply #70
89. Here is their current discussion
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=239218

Look at the end of the first page for a link to the KS Governor response right from the KS Legislature site. Of course everyone else is in the standard "pro-abortion means excommunication" mood. :puke: Many there can quote Canon Law and CCC to the letter. :eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
struggle4progress Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 02:56 AM
Response to Reply #52
62. Then again: KS archbishop tells Goveror Sebelius to stop taking communion (2008)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #36
42. He also came out against the Iraq War. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 10:37 PM
Response to Reply #42
58. So should we all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-12-08 10:28 AM
Response to Reply #36
98. I remember all the fuss about it in the Kerry election.
That Cardinal violated our Constitution and laws by trying to control the election. His church should lose tax exempt status or at least those under his rule.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeff In Milwaukee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 10:55 AM
Response to Reply #27
104. A couple of lunatic bishops said they would deny Kerry communion...
because of his stance on abortion. That doesn't constitute a political endorsement.

What's more, Kerry's own Bishop back in Massachusetts was a Kerry supporter.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
18. Some information about 501(c)(3) status
Named for the relevant section of the US Tax code, 501(c)(3) corporations include the following:

Corporations, and any community chest, fund, or foundation, organized and operated exclusively for religious, charitable, scientific, testing for public safety, literary, or educational purposes, or to foster national or international amateur sports competition (but only if no part of its activities involve the provision of athletic facilities or equipment), or for the prevention of cruelty to children or animals, no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual, no substantial part of the activities of which is carrying on propaganda, or otherwise attempting, to influence legislation (except as otherwise provided in subsection (h)), and which does not participate in, or intervene in (including the publishing or distributing of statements), any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for public office.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/26/501(c).html">U. S. Tax Code, section 501, sub-section (c)(3)


The whole purpose of including religious organizations in this list of non-profit corporations comes down to the way many religious organizations come together in mutual support during hard times (or at least used to.) There is no inherent right for a religious group to claim status as a 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation; as such, they should be held to exactly the same standard that would be applied if, say, Underwriters' Laboratories or the National Little League Federation were to start campaigning for political candidates or lobbying lawmakers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 03:01 PM
Response to Reply #18
21. What do they do with all the tax free exemption but build
Edited on Fri May-09-08 03:02 PM by mac2
bigger churches, buy up hospitals, run candidates for office, and destroy our democracy for a theocracy. They are dangerous when rich.

Our founders wanted rid of religious tyranny and power. Using god to do war, suck money out of members and the community is not religion but a few who want to prosper off it.

I only see a few churches feeding them. They can't do it all nor do they intend to. That's why government is there to help the needy in the first place.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #18
92. All of these organizations can lobby for non-partisan political issues.
You may only know of the lobbying work of conservative churches and organizations, but many progressive churches have lobbying offices in Washington, working against the war, for the rights of glbt people and other minorities, for health care reform, etc. All of this work would end if churches lost their 501c3 status.

501c3 refers only to partisan lobbying and speech. These organizations are allowed to lobby on non-partisan social and political issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 02:55 PM
Response to Original message
19. I absolutely think they should be free to speak.
But they have to be willing to give up the tax advantages that they now hold.

It's the wanting it both ways that puzzles me. Non-profits of all sorts are used to sticking to the mission and staying away from electoral candidate politics...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #19
20. It is insulting to their members since they support him and
Edited on Fri May-09-08 03:08 PM by mac2
his organization. He shouldn't make decisions about their political choice. You can say it is his own choice but he is making it theirs too by talking about in their church as a leader.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
JerseygirlCT Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 07:38 PM
Response to Reply #20
47. Yes, I see what you're saying
The individuals supporting the church are the ones really on the line if the church loses its non-profit designation.

OTOH, they can vote on his actions with their feet - and their checkbooks. If he steps over the line, the money might go away, and then he might have to put up or shut up, you know?

A *responsible* non-profit, and non-profit leader would NEVER endanger donors in this way. Obviously, that's not what we're dealing with here though.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
damntexdem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 03:44 PM
Response to Original message
26. Good for them:
public institutions need the tax money their churches should be paying in future.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crimsonblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
28. tax the hell out of EVERY single of these churches...
make them go bankrupt. Reposess their land. Religion is the single greatest cause of pain and suffering in the world. More people have died in the name of religion than any other cause.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ShortnFiery Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 03:55 PM
Response to Reply #28
30. But consider not taxing direct donations to Hospice/Addiction and other outreach programs? eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
crimsonblue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 04:06 PM
Response to Reply #30
31. any organization that is faith based should NOT be tax-emempt.
irregardless of the organization. Keep religion the FUCK out of my life!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #30
64. They can get public funding.
Edited on Sat May-10-08 08:53 AM by mac2
They aren't allowed to teach religion and have to hire people of every religious group or none...much like the government. Religious organizations have ruined the public sector groups that existed before. The needy suffer.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jmowreader Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 11:49 AM
Response to Reply #30
108. Hospice yes, addiction no
You may want to read http://www.orange-papers.org, especially http://www.orange-papers.org/orange-cult.html.

Twelve-step is one of the worst religions there is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
starroute Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 04:07 PM
Response to Original message
32. It's the Alliance Defense Fund again
They're often behind this sort of thing. A few years ago, they helped a history teacher who had been dismissed for teaching religion in his public school classroom to sue the school. They were also involved in school cases involving a pupil who wanted to sit indoors and read his Bible instead of participating in recess, a second grader who was not allowed to sing a particularly aggressive hymn in a school talent show, and a school board that was told it was unconstitutional to pray at its meetings.

They've filed lawsuits on behalf of a student in San Diego who was suspended for wearing an anti-gay t-shirt and three families in Kentucky who wanted to take their children out of school tolerance classes on the grounds that it violated their free speech rights.

And they're funded by Blackwater's Erik Prince.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MarinCoUSA Donating Member (783 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 04:07 PM
Response to Original message
33. If they win you will see "The National Church of the Republican Party" in a NY second.
- And "The Nation Church of the Democratic Party" as well.

Since the time of Saint Ronnie the repuke-fundies have been abusing this particular tax law with loud screaming impunity. And in the process created million $ political organizations and hugely influenced electoral politics ever since (FYI, it wasn't until (about 10 years later) when the Clinton admin IRS finally forced the Christian Coalition to obey the law (a consent order divided the charity and political operations and within a week thereafter (Hypocrisy, thy name is) Ralph Reed resigned to work with the repuke Jack Abramoffs of the world.

And I alway enjoy wing nuttery 1st amendment hot air conflating their privilege of receiving tax deductible contributions with the right of free speech. Like their right of religions express to glue health clinic doors and block sidewalk access to clinics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joey Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
38. Conservatives want a church run state n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 09:36 AM
Response to Reply #38
79. They don't know what they are asking for.
They should live in a country with a theocracy and see what it is like. The church tells you how to live your life and pay up for God or else. People fled Europe to get away from them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joey Liberal Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 04:33 PM
Response to Reply #79
93. That is what is so sad about the whole thing
The republicans don't have any idea about what they will get if they win this issue.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Politicub Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
43. Maybe this will end the tax free status of churches
After all, if all they become are forums for political posturing, why should they get a tax break?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #43
80. Then they aren't spiritual but government directed right?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Retrograde Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 06:56 PM
Response to Original message
46. Let them politic away
without their tax exemptions!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
stanley01 Donating Member (16 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 07:57 PM
Response to Reply #46
48. tax them all
whether university college or church we pay    they all pay
including non profits  unless they do not take a salary
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 09:38 AM
Response to Reply #46
81. and our public funding. They want it all.
Edited on Sun May-11-08 09:40 AM by mac2
It doesn't matter if our tax dollars go to their religious group even if we aren't members or disapprove of them. It could reverse and they be the victims from larger religious groups.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mikehiggins Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 09:05 PM
Response to Original message
50. IRS "GAG" RULE? How about the Constitution? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 10:30 PM
Response to Reply #50
55. No it's separation of church and state.
A clergy is a leader and can influence his flock. If they want freedom of religion then they can do as they want as a person but keep it out of the church. Not all church members would agree on any candidate. If they do they are pressed to do so. Some even asked to leave or are harrassed. It's been done.

"GAG" no? They still can do as they please outside their church. No one goes in the voting booth with them. Things of the soul should be practiced there not government is what it is about. Guess you want your religious faith to rule?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 04:36 PM
Response to Reply #55
67. Actually, they can do what they want in the church.
Churches and clergy--even in our professional capacity--have complete freedom of speech. I can say anything I want--even endorse a candidate--in the pulpit. What we do not have is a constitutional guarantee of tax exempt status. Tax exemption is an IRS regulation, not a constitutional right. So, I can say anything I want anywhere I want. But, if I make partisan political statements in the pulpit, my church has to pay taxes. I won't be arrested. The church will not be closed. Thus, this is not a gag rule.

Also, it isn't specific to churches. There's no special rule for churches. Churches are tax exempt under rule 501(c)3 of the Internal Revenue Code. This is the same rule that applies to oh, the American Cancer Society, the Humane Society, your favorite children's charity.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 09:00 AM
Response to Reply #67
73. What Constitution are you reading?
You can do as you want and say if you don't take tax exempt status. It is a church and not a government organization or political party.

If you are a good citizen you keep your political endorsement of any candidate private in church and not force it on others. Keeping religion out of government is important since it ruins democracy. History proves that over and over. That's why the founders put it in the Constitution because they thought it critical to retaining our democracy. Freedom to worship as you please or not.

Because of the separation clause we have many religious groups who do very well and prosper. This is not true in many other countries in the world today.

I certainly don't want my clergy supporting or giving my money to anyone running for public office. It's my private decision not theirs.

I can tell you are trying to use every angle such as free speech. It's wrong for you to endorse any candidate in your church. Many people have left churches because of it. It isn't good for your church in the long run since you lose your freedom of worship and speech in the end under theocratic rule. You also lose funding and tax free benefits. The most powerful religious group wins and the others live under tryanny.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #73
90. I don't do it. But not because of the Constitution.
The government has no right to limit anyone's free speech rights--not even churches. The courts have ruled consistently on this. The limit of partisan speech by churches is not in the Constitution. Indeed, the establishment clause limits government's ability to tell churches what to say or not. Remember, the Constitution is about the limits of governmental power, not those of citizens or corporate organizations.

You may not want pastors and churches entering into political speech, but the Constitution guarantees their right to do so. The tax code says that if they do, they must forfeit their tax exempt status. Again, this is not a Constitutional mandate. The Constitution guarantees free speech even for citizens and organizations you would not grant such freedoms too.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-12-08 09:49 AM
Response to Reply #90
96. No it is not legal or right. Do you need to read the law and
Edited on Mon May-12-08 09:55 AM by mac2
Constitution to understand that? Free speech has it's limits when it comes to religious organizations. This is an important part of the Constitution to preserve religious liberty and protect democracy.

Free speech has it's limits regarding slander, personal safety, bigotry, etc.

If you don't respect the law in our democracy regarding separation you can not be a good citizen. Read the reason why our founders thought separation was so important. Go to a country with a "theocracy rule" and see if you like living under their control over your religious beliefs and life.

The Constitution is not a "mandate". It is the legal contract all states agreed to (ratification by 2/3rd states) regarding how we would run our government and what powers they would be limited to. You seem to distort it for your own power/wealth and self interest for a theocracy type rule.

I do not remember the courts ruling that it is allowed over and over. The IRS certainly won't agree with you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oak2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 02:44 PM
Response to Reply #96
109. Uh, no
Edited on Tue Jun-03-08 02:47 PM by Oak2004
If anything the right for churches and clergy to speak is even stronger than for non-religious groups.

Churches are absolutely free to endorse candidates, and a few have foregone nonprofit status to do so. Nobody comes after those churches for "violating the constitution" (it is extremely difficult for private individuals and private organizations to violate the Constitution: the Constitution describes the powers of the government). But the IRS does expect them to pay their taxes.

Political groups have to pay taxes. This is true whether they're a campaign organization, a "527", or a church that decides to advocate for specific candidates.

Trust me (and the minister above): those of us who do religious or nonprofit work know the laws on this as well as (for example) publishers know libel law -- we deal with it constantly.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri May-09-08 10:39 PM
Response to Original message
59. Greedy little traitors is what they are.
Edited on Fri May-09-08 10:40 PM by mac2
No country has allowed so many religious groups to thrive. Nor have as many and diverse ones. They have grown fat and greedy because of it. Shame on them for wanting to destroy the goodness of the American people.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Jeff In Milwaukee Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #59
105. Martin Luther King, Jr. was a fucktard....
Oscar Romero - Asshole
Desmond Tutu - Bastard
Ghandi - Goddam Foreigner

Your stupidity on this subject is profoundly breath-taking. Nearly every liberal or progressive movement in the history of this nation has had people of faith as its core supporters. Abolition of slavery. Child Labor Laws. Civil Rights.

"Destroy the goodness of the American people" you say? Something like 85% of the American people identify themselves with some kind of religious faith. If anybody is looking to destroy someone, it would appear to be you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Joanne98 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 08:56 AM
Response to Original message
65. Bring it on!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
John Kerry VonErich Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 09:16 AM
Response to Original message
66. Well...
It also comes as the IRS has increased its investigations of churches accused of engaging in politics. Sen. Barack Obama's denomination, the United Church of Christ, has said it was under investigation after it allowed the Democratic presidential candidate to address 10,000 church members last year. Last summer, the tax agency said it was reviewing complaints against 44 churches for activities in the 2006 election cycle. Churches found to be in violation can be fined or lose their tax exemptions.


All because of Jeremiah Wright in the oppositions view.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 09:04 AM
Response to Reply #66
74. They should have known better.
Edited on Sun May-11-08 09:07 AM by mac2
When the church leader retires in a huge mansion and has CEO like pension...then that attracts attention from the IRS (and probably complaints from the community or members). The IRS has to make sure their Faith Based funding and tax free status is not being abused.

I have to say it was rather blatant to think this was acceptable. Pat Robertson did not get away with it. So the excuse that other clergy get rich is no excuse.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
muryan Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat May-10-08 05:33 PM
Response to Original message
68. If they don't pay taxes, they shouldn't benefit from public services
Like firefighters, police officers, or any other person whos salary is paid by our tax dollars.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 09:09 AM
Response to Reply #68
75. Jerry Falwell owned the whole town in VA
Edited on Sun May-11-08 09:14 AM by mac2
When the tax payers wanted some money to run the town he said no. I don't know what is happening since he died. I think his son took over.

It is wrong and it is greedy.

http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/10806.html
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Critters2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 01:28 PM
Response to Reply #68
91. I assume you feel this way about all tax exempt organizations.
Regulation 501(c)3 is not specific to churches. It also grants tax exemptions to everything from hospitals to some day care centers to all kinds of foundations and charities. To do away with 501(c)3 is to place a hardship on all tax exempt organizations.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-12-08 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #91
97. See post #96.
If you can't understand this then you have a block. Don't force your religion or candidates on us or the rest of your church.

Getting on another subject is just a distraction tactic and not the issue at all.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thunderdog Donating Member (48 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun May-11-08 10:38 AM
Response to Original message
85. Churches have ALWAYS engaged in politics.
And regardless of this ruling, they always will.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-12-08 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #85
95. But not public funded to ran candidates like now.
They are richer than any time in our history. Some are as large and wealthy as corporations. They have the same powers to rule and destroy democracy.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Skittles Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 04:16 AM
Response to Reply #85
99. which is why they should ALL PAY TAXES n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mac2 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon May-12-08 09:32 AM
Response to Original message
94. This is the bottom line for you to consider.
"Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law." --Thomas Jefferson, Feb 10, 1814
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oak2004 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 03:14 PM
Response to Reply #94
110. And it isn't
Churches don't become tax exempt because they are Christian. They become tax exempt because they are nonprofits.

Now I absolutely agree that many of the wealthy church empires, a la Pat Robertson, are violating the spirit, and probably the letter, of what it means to be a nonprofit. So too are some of the large secular "nonprofits", like the American Red Cross. It is probably in the public interest to increase enforcement of existing nonprofit laws (and I don't mean on the politically unconnected, uninfluential nonprofits, as Bush has used tax law against the working poor -- I mean against the big guys). And it may be in the public interest to tighten the definition of a nonprofit.

But what you're forgetting is that for every abusive megachurch there are dozens of community based churches which are not rich, whose ministers live on poverty level or near poverty level salaries, and which do, to the best of their ability, serve the community and their congregation.

Not all of them are Christian. Some of them aren't even theistic. You could take your (I presume) atheism or agnosticism and plunk yourself down in a Unitarian church, or an Ethical Culture church, or in a number of other denominations and individual congregations, and not only would nobody bat an eye, you'd probably find others of like mind. Those denominations and individual congregations emphasize the search for truth, and ethics, not belief.

Eliminate nonprofit status for churches, and it's those and other responsible denominations which would be the first to go bankrupt. The big megachurch/media conglomerate/corporate belief industry churches, with their vast income and holdings, would chug right along.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mitchum Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 10:01 AM
Response to Original message
101. Tax ALL of those pulpit-dwelling grifters
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
KansDem Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Jun-03-08 11:31 AM
Response to Original message
107. Can I be an undercover IRS agent?
I could go into these suspect churches and sit through a sermon and record it!

sit through a sermon--hmmm, I'd better be paid well!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue May 14th 2024, 11:44 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Latest Breaking News Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC