Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-14-2016, 12:24 PM
 
9,345 posts, read 4,329,567 times
Reputation: 3023

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
I thought I did. There are all sorts of non-profit groups that get ignored by the IRS.

The FFRF itself is a non-profit, yet it exists to be a political entity.


I think you're naive.


What political party or candidates does the FFRF endorse?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-14-2016, 12:26 PM
 
19,942 posts, read 17,201,874 times
Reputation: 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander View Post
What political party or candidates does the FFRF endorse?
Do you believe the only way to be political is to endorse a candidate?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2016, 12:27 PM
 
Location: California side of the Sierras
11,162 posts, read 7,642,612 times
Reputation: 12523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
Do you think no other non-profit ever gets involved in politics?
Not all non-profits are prohibited from getting involved in politics. "Non-profit" and "501(c)(3)" are not synonymous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2016, 12:34 PM
 
9,345 posts, read 4,329,567 times
Reputation: 3023
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
Do you believe the only way to be political is to endorse a candidate?


No if you wish to widen political to things like one should help your fellow human then all churches should be political. I believe that the tax code stipulates what they can and cannot do and as long as any group stays within the terms of the tax code they are not doing anything wrong but if they set outside of it then they are. I would think that the FFRF is doing exactly what their charter states and would have been accepted by the IRS as non political. That is just my guess as I am not a constitutional or tax expert nor do I play on on City Data.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2016, 12:35 PM
 
Location: California side of the Sierras
11,162 posts, read 7,642,612 times
Reputation: 12523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
I thought I did. There are all sorts of non-profit groups that get ignored by the IRS.

The FFRF itself is a non-profit, yet it exists to be a political entity.


I think you're naive.
From their website:

Quote:
What is the Foundation's purpose?

The purposes of the Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., as stated in its bylaws, are to promote the constitutional principle of separation of state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.
Promoting a constitutional principle and educating the public do not qualify the FFRF as a political entity.

Do you know of an instance wherein the FFRF supported a political candidate or campaign? That would be prohibited.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2016, 12:37 PM
 
19,942 posts, read 17,201,874 times
Reputation: 2017
Quote:
Originally Posted by Petunia 100 View Post
From their website:



Promoting a constitutional principle and educating the public do not qualify the FFRF as a political entity.

Do you know of an instance wherein the FFRF supported a political candidate or campaign? That would be prohibited.
All they do is politics. They are purely a political group, dabbling in religion.

And a poor job at that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2016, 12:38 PM
 
Location: California side of the Sierras
11,162 posts, read 7,642,612 times
Reputation: 12523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
Do you believe the only way to be political is to endorse a candidate?
Did you even bother to read the IRS rules on this matter, linked earlier by mensaguy? It sounds as though you did not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2016, 12:42 PM
 
Location: California side of the Sierras
11,162 posts, read 7,642,612 times
Reputation: 12523
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
All they do is politics. They are purely a political group, dabbling in religion.

And a poor job at that.
Here are the IRS rules. Please point out which part you believe the FFRF has violated:

Quote:
The Restriction of Political Campaign Intervention by Section 501(c)(3) Tax-Exempt Organizations
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are absolutely prohibited from directly or indirectly participating in, or intervening in, any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes.
Certain activities or expenditures may not be prohibited depending on the facts and circumstances. For example, certain voter education activities (including presenting public forums and publishing voter education guides) conducted in a non-partisan manner do not constitute prohibited political campaign activity. In addition, other activities intended to encourage people to participate in the electoral process, such as voter registration and get-out-the-vote drives, would not be prohibited political campaign activity if conducted in a non-partisan manner.
On the other hand, voter education or registration activities with evidence of bias that (a) would favor one candidate over another; (b) oppose a candidate in some manner; or (c) have the effect of favoring a candidate or group of candidates, will constitute prohibited participation or intervention.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2016, 12:52 PM
 
Location: Jamestown, NY
7,840 posts, read 9,205,646 times
Reputation: 13779
Quote:
Originally Posted by mensaguy View Post
I understand being tired. I also understand running a 501(c)3 organization and having to stay out of anything political. I was president of a community band and had to turn down political candidates who wanted us to play for campaign rallies. We did play for an inauguration once, but we viewed that as a civic activity not specifically political.

The link to the IRS regulation is here: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-pr...-organizations

From the link: "Contributions to political campaign funds or public statements of position (verbal or written) made on behalf of the organization in favor of or in opposition to any candidate for public office clearly violate the prohibition against political campaign activity. Violating this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes."

BTW, this regulation page is only 3 paragraphs long. I encourage everyone to go read it. Religion isn't even mentioned. The regulations apply to every organization that is granted tax-exempt status under the IRS regulations. They are all treated the same. Churches, community theater, libraries, food pantries, symphony orchestras, free health clinics, art institutes, community bands, etc.

Well, gee, don't go around confusing folks with facts!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2016, 12:58 PM
 
Location: Northeastern US
20,020 posts, read 13,496,411 times
Reputation: 9946
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vizio View Post
Clinton routinely appeared in black churches every time he got in trouble. He is called 'the first black president" for a reason. No one seemed to mind that, though.
Actually this article explains in depth why that label was given to him (by Toni Morrison originally).

Quote:
“People misunderstood that phrase,” Morrison would later say. “I said he was being treated like a black on the street, already guilty, already a perp.”

Now, one can make all sorts of arguments over whether the pursuit of Clinton was, in fact, analogous to how black people have been regarded across American history. But Morrison was not giving Clinton an award. She was welcoming him into a club which should not exist.
That said, presidents have attended church for reasons sincere and not so sincere and I don't think having a president attend a church is what's at issue in this discussion. A church isn't endorsing a president's politics by allowing them to visit, anymore than your church would be endorsing my politics by allowing me to visit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:34 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top