Mega-churches VS the IRS

[Nekojin]

Originally Posted by Jason

The First Amendment clearly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech....

I seem to have missed the part in the Bible that states, "Thou shalt vote Republican, and advertise for their campaigns."

Keep the politics out of religion, keep the religion out of politics. Pastors using their pulpit to advocate political issues or politicians is little more than using the influence of their station to push a personal agenda.

[bara]

Originally Posted by Nekojin

Keep the politics out of religion, keep the religion out of politics. Pastors using their pulpit to advocate political issues or politicians is little more than using the influence of their station to push a personal agenda.

A good argument for keeping religion out of politics is prohibition. Which was primarily forced down peoples throats by many protestant religious groups at the time.


Nothing good came from this 'noble' experiment.

[Andara Bledin]

Originally Posted by bara

A good argument for keeping religion out of politics is prohibition. Which was primarily forced down peoples throats by many protestant religious groups at the time.

Interestingly enough, while prohibition's roots are firmly seated in religion, so were it's staunchest opponents (including the Roman Catholic Church, who held that the government should not define morality).

What really pushed it through, however, was plain old xenophobia. Alcohol was mostly sold in pubs, and pubs were mostly in city centers, and city centers were primarily filled with immigrants. The declaration of war against Gernamy essentially silenced all German-Americans, who were heavily on the wet side. Add in that women's suffrage was often tacked on with prohibition (women being the most common champions of the idea at the time, since it was largely men who drank to excess), and that added a whole new political angle that is often overlooked. And last, but not least, the income tax had just been re-introduced with wording to keep it from being repealed again, and it was believed that the funds from that would cover the shortfall that prohibition would introduce.

^-.-^

[Rapscallion]

Originally Posted by Jason

The First Amendment clearly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech....

I disagree. They can say what they want. However, they have to expect to be treated like everyone else.

No taxation without representation? Works the other way as well.

Rapscallion

[Duelist925]

Originally Posted by Rapscallion

I disagree. They can say what they want. However, they have to expect to be treated like everyone else.

No taxation without representation? Works the other way as well.

Rapscallion

Pretty much this. If you want to play, ya gotta pay.

[Hyena Dandy]

I don't mind churches not being taxed - In the same manner other non-profits should not be taxed. Not a different one. With practically no oversight of spending, there's no way to make sure that... Well... They're really non-profit.

If they don't get anyone looking at their expenses, how do you know they're NOT participating in politics?

[Jason]

Originally Posted by Rapscallion

I disagree. They can say what they want. However, they have to expect to be treated like everyone else.

No taxation without representation? Works the other way as well.

Rapscallion

Then propose an amendment.

[crashhelmet]

Originally Posted by Jason

Churches were completely free to preach about candidates from the day that the Constitution was ratified in 1788 until 1954. That’s when the rule known as the ‘Johnson Amendment’ was enacted. Churches are exempt from taxation under the principle that there is no surer way to destroy religion than to begin taxing it. As the U.S. Supreme Court has noted, the power to tax involves the power to destroy. The real effect of the Johnson Amendment is that pastors are muzzled for fear of investigation by the IRS.

In 1954, Johnson was facing re-election to the Senate and was being aggressively opposed by two non-profit anti-Communist groups that were attacking Johnson’s liberal agenda. In retaliation, Johnson inserted language into the IRS code that prohibited non-profits, including churches, from endorsing or opposing candidates for political office. In effect, Senator Johnson used the power of the go-along Congress and the IRS to silence his opposition. Unfortunately, it worked. Some in Johnson’s staff claimed that Johnson never intended to go after churches, only the two “nonprofits” in Texas. Nevertheless, his sly amendment to the tax code affected every church in America, and it is a violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States.

The First Amendment clearly states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech....

Did you write this article or did you just lift your entire paragraph from it?

Here's a pretty good article showing both sides of the argument, citing Supreme Court cases int he process.
From FindLaw.com

The truth of the matter is that these pastors can easily get around this law. It only obstructs them from influencing in an official setting. So in other words, from the pulpit or within the church itself. That doesn't stop them from encouraging their parishioners as a "normal citizen" or at events without ties to their church.

[Aethian]

Originally Posted by Rapscallion

I disagree. They can say what they want. However, they have to expect to be treated like everyone else.

No taxation without representation? Works the other way as well.

Rapscallion

Originally Posted by Jason

Then propose an amendment.

Jason, you realize Raps isn't American right?

[Rapscallion]

Originally Posted by Aethian

Jason, you realize Raps isn't American right?

I'm also easily amused.

Rapscallion