quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

And so, massive horseshit spewed, with no facts, and no actual anything you said actually happening. There is no proof, only innuendo and impugnment that an atheist group had done such a thing, or the IRS gave a fuck more about them than some shiteating rigtwing fucking imbeciles filing hallucinatory lawsuits.

Nor did you prove any causality with 'That led to this'.

You got your dick in your hands.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy


Here's my favorite:


20. “When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obligated to call for help of the civil power, it’s a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.”
~Founding Father Benjamin Franklin, letter to Richard Price, October 9, 1780

Hmmm...the two big "professors of religion" who don't think God has taken care of "their side" enough and so go to the government for help from a civil power are:

The Reverend Jesse Jackson
The Reverend Al Sharpton

I'm not aware of any government subsidies going to support the churches of either Rev Jackson or Sharpton.

Or are you talking about their civil rights activism?

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

You offered nothing, nothing that led to this. And no proof such a deal was made, it is all hallucinatory shitbreathing.

Show me the documents from the irs because of this and the deal they made.

You aint got it, no more than anyones got a real birth certificate showing Ronald 'Dutch' Reagan was born in The Netherlands.

But we know he was because why else would they call him Dutch.

Same level of proof given here.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I'm not aware of any government subsidies going to support the churches of either Rev Jackson or Sharpton.

Or are you talking about their civil rights activism?

When a church organization gets large it will often encorporate a for profit branch for things like "Community Organizing" and seek federal funds through that means.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Oh! You mean Dubbya's "Faith-based initiatives".

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

I'm not aware of any government subsidies going to support the churches of either Rev Jackson or Sharpton.

Or are you talking about their civil rights activism?

When a church organization gets large it will often encorporate a for profit branch for things like "Community Organizing" and seek federal funds through that means.

Oh! You mean Dubbya's "Faith-based initiatives".

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

W probably got the idea from Sharpton and Jackson. It's Sharpton who owes something like $4.5 million is state and local taxes. Those taxes wouldn't be owed by a church.

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

You offered nothing, nothing that led to this. And no proof such a deal was made, it is all hallucinatory shitbreathing.

Show me the documents from the irs because of this and the deal they made.

You aint got it, no more than anyones got a real birth certificate showing Ronald 'Dutch' Reagan was born in The Netherlands.

But we know he was because why else would they call him Dutch.

Same level of proof given here.

Keep swimming. How about from their own website?

The Freedom From Religion Foundation sued the Internal Revenue Service for failing to enforce electioneering restrictions against churches and religious organizations, calling it a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and of FFRF’s equal protection rights. FFRF filed the lawsuit Nov. 14, 2012, in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. At the time of our suit, the IRS had not publicly announced any church audits since 2009, when a federal court in Minnesota ruled that an IRS official who had authorized a church audit was not of sufficient rank. After a restructuring in 1998, the IRS had not designated officials who could institute audits under the Church Audit Procedures Act of 1984...

...FFRF reached an agreement with the IRS in July 2014 that resolves, for the time being, the issues in FFRF’s federal challenge. Specifically, FFRF was informed that since 2010, the IRS has flagged churches involved with political intervention, including churches that submitted materials as part of “Pulpit Freedom Sunday.” FFRF was also informed that an IRS review committee determined that 99 churches were marked for “high priority examination.” The IRS could take enforcement action against some of those churches, which were marked for potential illegal political intervention between 2010-13. Since the IRS demonstrated it does not have a blanket policy or practice of non-enforcement of political activity restrictions, the parties moved for a joint dismissal of the case.

http://ffrf.org/legal/challenges/ongoing-lawsuits/item/16261-ffrf-sues-irs-over-non-enforcement-of-church-electioneering-restrictions

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

quote:

ORIGINAL: CreativeDominant

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

You offered nothing, nothing that led to this. And no proof such a deal was made, it is all hallucinatory shitbreathing.

Show me the documents from the irs because of this and the deal they made.

You aint got it, no more than anyones got a real birth certificate showing Ronald 'Dutch' Reagan was born in The Netherlands.

But we know he was because why else would they call him Dutch.

Same level of proof given here.

Keep swimming. How about from their own website?

The Freedom From Religion Foundation sued the Internal Revenue Service for failing to enforce electioneering restrictions against churches and religious organizations, calling it a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and of FFRF’s equal protection rights. FFRF filed the lawsuit Nov. 14, 2012, in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. At the time of our suit, the IRS had not publicly announced any church audits since 2009, when a federal court in Minnesota ruled that an IRS official who had authorized a church audit was not of sufficient rank. After a restructuring in 1998, the IRS had not designated officials who could institute audits under the Church Audit Procedures Act of 1984...

...FFRF reached an agreement with the IRS in July 2014 that resolves, for the time being, the issues in FFRF’s federal challenge. Specifically, FFRF was informed that since 2010, the IRS has flagged churches involved with political intervention, including churches that submitted materials as part of “Pulpit Freedom Sunday.” FFRF was also informed that an IRS review committee determined that 99 churches were marked for “high priority examination.” The IRS could take enforcement action against some of those churches, which were marked for potential illegal political intervention between 2010-13. Since the IRS demonstrated it does not have a blanket policy or practice of non-enforcement of political activity restrictions, the parties moved for a joint dismissal of the case.

http://ffrf.org/legal/challenges/ongoing-lawsuits/item/16261-ffrf-sues-irs-over-non-enforcement-of-church-electioneering-restrictions

And finally your shitbreathing is convicted out of your own mouth. The IRS looks at organizations that are tax exempt because they are not political, when they heavily engage in political speech, because that is not what the law allows.

That is a far cry from some fucking magic sky wizard propagandist saying only 'vote your conscience' leading to a torture of particular shitbreather for that statement. From your own post:

<snip>
Church Audit Procedures Act of 1984
</snip>
St. Wrinklemeat (old Dutch) signs this into law, and you shit your pants and gnash your teeth that it is not being scrupulously not enforced here:

<snip> Since the IRS demonstrated it does not have a blanket policy or practice of non-enforcement of political activity restrictions, the parties moved for a joint dismissal of the case. </snip>

But the hallucinators, having not read past the yellow journalism headlines now take the factless rightwing propaganda stance that Obama is trying to take your sky wizard propagandists away...........

Yeah, no.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Churches can say "vote your conscience".
They can print out fact sheets for all of the candidates, pointing out their stands on "issues of conscience".

Officially endorsing specific candidates is probably over the line, though it can be heavily implied.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Not necessarily true about those taxes. Some "church owned" lands are still taxable. We saw that here in Orlando with televangelicals and their mansions used for guests/staff/etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

W probably got the idea from Sharpton and Jackson. It's Sharpton who owes something like $4.5 million is state and local taxes. Those taxes wouldn't be owed by a church.

Not necessarily true about those taxes. Some "church owned" lands are still taxable. We saw that here in Orlando with televangelicals and their mansions used for guests/staff/etc.

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Churches can say "vote your conscience".
They can print out fact sheets for all of the candidates, pointing out their stands on "issues of conscience".

Officially endorsing specific candidates is probably over the line, though it can be heavily implied.

quote:


Talking about issues from the pulpit and telling people what the church believes is right or wrong happens EVERY Sunday. That's religion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HunterCA

quote:

ORIGINAL: JVoV

Churches can say "vote your conscience".
They can print out fact sheets for all of the candidates, pointing out their stands on "issues of conscience".

Officially endorsing specific candidates is probably over the line, though it can be heavily implied.

Ya, well, that may be true. But have you noticed any time a politician goes to talk to a black audience it's always in a church...or mostly. I have no problem with that mind you.