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.
Location: In a little house on the prairie - literally
10,202 posts, read 7,928,903 times
Reputation: 4561
Advertisements
The FRFF (Freedom From Religion Foundation) wrote the following letter to the IRS about a Christian Academy superintendent in Vancouver, WA endorsing a county candidate. The Academy has 501(c)(3) status, and as such, is restricted from making those types of endorsements.
The FRFF sued the IRS to uphold the law restricting such politicking, and in a 2014 settlement, the IRS agreed that they would start.
Religious organizations need to understand... they CAN NOT promote or endorse candidates. Period. They think because they got away with it for years, that they still can. Oh, I'm sure there will be a lot of squealing and complaining, but the 1st Amendment is pretty clear, as are the court cases.
Listen for yourself if you care, and see how clearly this man says he represents his Academy.
Well, I'm pretty big on church/state separation. I dislike that churches are tax-exempt in so many capacities, but I am willing to give them that. Many do much charitable work, etc. like many other tax-exempt 501C3s.
But if a church or church leader is going to preach politics, talk about who should be voted for or against, etc. they aren't doing the work of any god, they are politicizing a church. At that point they cease to be a church and are as much a political organization.
Various members of a congregation can meet anywhere outside a church to talk about politics. That's fine. If it's going to happen within a church, with this or that pastor, minister, etc., preaching politics, then yes, they should be taxed.
The FRFF (Freedom From Religion Foundation) wrote the following letter to the IRS about a Christian Academy superintendent in Vancouver, WA endorsing a county candidate. The Academy has 501(c)(3) status, and as such, is restricted from making those types of endorsements.
The FRFF sued the IRS to uphold the law restricting such politicking, and in a 2014 settlement, the IRS agreed that they would start.
Religious organizations need to understand... they CAN NOT promote or endorse candidates. Period. They think because they got away with it for years, that they still can. Oh, I'm sure there will be a lot of squealing and complaining, but the 1st Amendment is pretty clear, as are the court cases.
Listen for yourself if you care, and see how clearly this man says he represents his Academy.
Well, I'm pretty big on church/state separation. I dislike that churches are tax-exempt in so many capacities, but I am willing to give them that. Many do much charitable work, etc. like many other tax-exempt 501C3s.
But if a church or church leader is going to preach politics, talk about who should be voted for or against, etc. they aren't doing the work of any god, they are politicizing a church. At that point they cease to be a church and are as much a political organization.
Various members of a congregation can meet anywhere outside a church to talk about politics. That's fine. If it's going to happen within a church, with this or that pastor, minister, etc., preaching politics, then yes, they should be taxed.
There is no constitutional ban on pastors or anyone commenting on a political issue. But there is one that says that Congress should stay out of our religion. Funny how that got turned around over the last 200 years.
There is no constitutional ban on pastors or anyone commenting on a political issue. But there is one that says that Congress should stay out of our religion. Funny how that got turned around over the last 200 years.
Is there anything in the tax laws that state it? A church could be totally political and not voilite your constitution but us there anything in the constitution that prohibits taxing churches?
I don't think most church members would care one way or the other whether they are tax exempt but I do think the government is overstepping in telling anyone what they can or cannot say from the pulpit.
There is nothing in the Constitution allowing religions to be tax free. It is time to remove the tax assistance for religions.
Does that mean that the government is going to get another location for their senior meals and meals on wheels. I don't know whether our church gets any money from our government for providing space for things like this but I seriously doubt it.
I don't think most church members would care one way or the other whether they are tax exempt but I do think the government is overstepping in telling anyone what they can or cannot say from the pulpit.
I 5hink is more a position of breaking the rules of tax exemption rather then saying what you can say from the oulpit. It seems to me that in 2008 some on the right were trying to get some churches stripped of their tax exception as they were telling their members to vote for liberal pkatforms. If there are regulations then they should be followed or repealed.
Does that mean that the government is going to get another location for their senior meals and meals on wheels. I don't know whether our church gets any money from our government for providing space for things like this but I seriously doubt it.
Your church property is tax free. Are you saying your church only does good because they are not taxed?
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.