|
DaddySatyr -> RE: Anyone looking for a church to boycott? (3/2/2012 12:10:34 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
quote:
ORIGINAL: DaddySatyr
quote:
ORIGINAL: Hillwilliam
I think the problem here is assuming that churches are the only nonprofits who are prohibited from political activity to maintain their status.
I think the tax code # is 401c nonprofit.
Even fraternal organizations such as Elks and Moose are prohibited from political activity in their meetings or they lose their non profit status. You can talk about politics in the lounge all you want but in any official capacity or in meetings, it is explicitly VERBOTEN by the charter of the organization.
If the local lodge said "Vote for X (even if he is a member)" during a meeting, they lose their status and national can revoke their charter.
Churches are SUPPOSED to abide by the same rules. They're above the law so they don't.
As soon as a minister puts on his vestments, he is acting as an officer of that organization and as such is prohibited by IRS tax code, not the constitution, from talking politics.
Sorry, HW. The issue here is "If you are a non-taxed entity, you can have no say in politics". That's a nice fairy tale but the truth is just about every PAC in the country is a non-taxed entity and the IRS code is 527 (The term used to describe tax-exempt PACs). Now, if we want to make the issue: "No one with tax-exempt status can offer a political opinion", I'm all for it. But, that means ALL such organizations; not just the ones that we don't want to have a voice.
That would be really fun. Every PAC would have to pay taxes on the donations they receive. With a lot of them receiving well over $1,000,000 per year, that puts them squarely in the 50% bracket.
I'm down for that.
Peace and comfort,
Michael
Thats the diff between a 401c and a 527. As I said though, it isnt the constitution as many claim. It's the IRS.
But, the issues are inter-woven. As long as PACs enjoy tax-exempt status (and, obviously, their raison d'etre is to influence politics), then you can't say: "Churches don't pay taxes, they can't voice a political opinion". Talk about hypocrisy? It comes down to: people not liking what the churches say. That's very valid but, it is not a reason to shut them up. If you think they're so ridiculous, give them a bullhorn and let them shoot themselves in the foot with their idiotic ideas and opinions.
(As a small aside: you can't seriously believe that because a church enjoys tax-exempt status that they are not allowed to use their website to "preach" to their flock about how "good Christians (or whatever term they use) would not support this law because ...". That is preaching to their flock. Their flock lives in a secular world. This also re-invokes the first amendment. If you censor the ministers of the church as to what they can say {preach against birth control and the church loses its tax-exempt status} then you would be prohibiting the free exercise of religion because you would be denying the people the ability to hear what their church has to say.)
Fair enough. If you want to say that "Any organization that enjoys tax-exempt status is prohibited from voicing a political opinion" (Like I've already said), I'm all for it but let's not be duplicitous and speak out of both sides of our mouths?
The liberals in this country are all for freedom of speech; unless your praying in a school or espousing an opinion with which they don't agree. They're all for freedom of information unless you want to know if your teen-aged daughter has had an abortion. They're the first to claim that anyone that says that 50 years of welfare programs has failed, miserably is obviously a racist. They throw around terms like "vast right wing conspiracy" and then, they accuse the other side of using "the politics of fear".
Sorry. No sale.
Peace and comfort,
Michael
|
|
|
|
