• news
  • MONDAY SEPTEMBER 29 2008 2:30 PM

First Shots Fired in Religion vs. IRS Battle

Submitted by BatAttaK

Edited by nicole_powers

Tags: constitution, IRS, religion, SCOTUS, taxes



Yesterday the first volleys were fired by the religious Right against the IRS code that prohibits churches from endorsing candidates from pulpit.

Source

In 1954 Congress amended the tax code to prohibit certain non-profit groups from intervening in a political campaign involving candidates. The provision allows the IRS to strip the offending church of their tax-exempt status.

The Associated Press reported that "...33 pastors in 22 states were to make pointed recommendations about political candidates Sunday, an effort orchestrated by the Arizona-based Alliance Defense Fund." This effort was premeditated and well thought out.

The conservative legal group plans to send copies of the pastors' sermons to the IRS with hope of setting off a legal fight and abolishing restrictions on church involvement in politics.

Erik Stanley, senior legal counsel for the Alliance Defense Fund, said hundreds of churches volunteered to take part in "Pulpit Freedom Sunday." Thirty-three were chosen, in part for "strategic criteria related to litigation" Stanley wouldn't discuss.



So what exactly was said from the pulpits on Sunday? Did it really violate federal law? Most definitely.

At the independent Fairview Baptist Church in Edmond, Okla., pastor Paul Blair said he told his congregation, "As a Christian and as an American citizen, I will be voting for John McCain."



It is sad to see that the Republicans have now resorted organized violations of Federal law in order to win this election. Just when you thought the playing field could not get any more dirty the Right pulls this.

So do these pastors have a chance of fulfilling their goals? Not likely with the current lineup of SCOTUS Justices. Robert Tuttle, a professor of law and religion at George Washington University, said there's "virtually no chance" courts will strike down the prohibition. However if McCAin does pull off his perceived Hail Mary play and wins in November the current line-up on the Supreme Court is sure to change.

Not all religious institutions are pleased with the battle lines being drawn. If there is a wholesale revocation of the IRS tax code as it relates to churches many institutions will have to give up programs and services that benefit the community.

Roman Catholic Archbishop John Favalora of Miami wrote that the archdiocese abides by IRS rules in part because "we can do a lot for our communities with the money we save by being tax-exempt."



My only hope is that these churches will not succeed and that the organizers will be brought up on Federal conspiracy charges.

Image © Austin Cline; Original Poster: Nazi Propaganda

  • PERMALINK
  • PRINT
  • Digg This
  • Email To A Friend
 

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 11

Next

Comments
petepolly

petepolly

Antarctica
August 2008

SEP 29, 2008 09:52 PM

Stiles said:
petepolly, what does "we the people" mean, as it is written in the constitution? You know, the first three words?



Stop evading the issue.

Stiles

Stiles

Philadelphia, PA
November 2002

SEP 29, 2008 09:55 PM

petepolly said:

Stiles said:
petepolly, what does "we the people" mean, as it is written in the constitution? You know, the first three words?



Stop evading the issue.



Coming from you, the king of moving goalposts, that's rich. You're the guy saying that the words in the constitution are static. Answer the question, or get laughed out of the room.

Again.

BatAttaK

BatAttaK

Reston, VA
OLD SKOOL

SEP 29, 2008 09:57 PM

Here's the thing...on the slim chance you would actually read something prior to forming an opinion take a look at this. The IRS outlines 21 separate scenarios that would and would not violate the current tax code. I think that this one fits the current situation just nicely, does not infringe upon freedom of speech, and certainly falls within the letter of the law.

Situation 5. Minister C is the minister of Church L, a section 501(c)(3) organization and Minister C is well known in the community. Three weeks before the election, he attends a press conference at Candidate V's campaign headquarters and states that Candidate V should be reelected. Minister C does not say he is speaking on behalf of Church L. His endorsement is reported on the front page of the local newspaper and he is identified in the article as the minister of Church L. Because Minister C did not make the endorsement at an official church function, in an official church publication or otherwise use the church's assets, and did not state that he was speaking as a representative of Church L, his actions do not constitute campaign intervention by Church L.

petepolly

petepolly

Antarctica
August 2008

SEP 29, 2008 10:03 PM

Stiles said:

petepolly said:

Stiles said:
petepolly, what does "we the people" mean, as it is written in the constitution? You know, the first three words?



Stop evading the issue.



Coming from you, the king of moving goalposts, that's rich. You're the guy saying that the words in the constitution are static. Answer the question, or get laughed out of the room.

Again.



You are changing the subject!

Means what it says, as in "we the people of this nation do XYZ"

petepolly

petepolly

Antarctica
August 2008

SEP 29, 2008 10:04 PM

BatAttaK said:
Here's the thing...on the slim chance you would actually read something prior to forming an opinion take a look at this. The IRS outlines 21 separate scenarios that would and would not violate the current tax code. I think that this one fits the current situation just nicely, does not infringe upon freedom of speech, and certainly falls within the letter of the law.

Situation 5. Minister C is the minister of Church L, a section 501(c)(3) organization and Minister C is well known in the community. Three weeks before the election, he attends a press conference at Candidate V's campaign headquarters and states that Candidate V should be reelected. Minister C does not say he is speaking on behalf of Church L. His endorsement is reported on the front page of the local newspaper and he is identified in the article as the minister of Church L. Because Minister C did not make the endorsement at an official church function, in an official church publication or otherwise use the church's assets, and did not state that he was speaking as a representative of Church L, his actions do not constitute campaign intervention by Church L.



Why the fuck should he not make the endorsement at church from the pulpit?

Stiles

Stiles

Philadelphia, PA
November 2002

SEP 29, 2008 10:10 PM

petepolly said:
[
You are changing the subject!

Means what it says, as in "we the people of this nation do XYZ"



Bzzzt! When the Constitution was written, "We the people" referred to white male landowners, and nobody else. Slavery was legal, women and minorities had no rights.

Obviously, things change: Constitutional amendments and the Supreme Court are the two ways it happens in that area, and nobody's amending the Constitution again anytime soon.

This makes the SCOTUS the arbiter of the Constitution as it applies to law. Period.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

SEP 29, 2008 10:12 PM

petepolly said:

The writers of the bill of rights clearly had the specific intent to protect political speech from ANY federal government intervention of any kind at all.


I'm sorry, earlier you said that the First Amendment only applied to Congress. Now you're saying it applied to ANY federal government intervention. How can you reconcile this? Are you saying that there might be depth to the words beyond the "plain" meaning?

"SHALL MAKE NO LAW" has no exceptions, no excuses no evasive bullshit.

It means exactly what it says, "congress shall make no law".





Please use authority. You're (obviously) wrong, but I want you to try to prove it like you fabulously failed to try to explain abortion law in that thread you ran away from last time.

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

SEP 29, 2008 10:13 PM

petepolly said:
No it is not my ignorance, it is your arrogance, and that of a lot of lawyers.


Ironical!

Cheyenne

Cheyenne

SUICIDEGIRL

USA

SEP 29, 2008 10:14 PM

Stiles said:
petepolly, what does "we the people" mean, as it is written in the constitution? You know, the first three words?



didn't it mean something to the effect of white males who owned property back then? (honestly curious about that.)


EDIT: NVM...SAW YOUR RECENT POST...MUST'VE TYPED AS I WAS TYPING. LOL

TheFuckOffKid

TheFuckOffKid

NEWSWIRE

Australia

SEP 29, 2008 10:17 PM

Subrosa said:
Please use authority.


He is the authority in such matters, and you are merely an arrogant lawyer.

DevilsReject

DevilsReject

Cleveland, OH
February 2007

SEP 29, 2008 10:18 PM

i keep waiting for him to start a sentence with "But Ron Paul said......"

xfinitex

xfinitex

East Lansing, MI
August 2005

SEP 29, 2008 10:23 PM

DevilsReject said:
i keep waiting for him to start a sentence with "But Ron Paul said......"



So you're saying this is Livertarian's secret panda twin?

Katieesq

Katieesq

USA
June 2008

SEP 29, 2008 10:27 PM

This thread could have catalyzed a really interesting debate riddled with Supreme Court case citations ( love love love ), but instead, we get this.

Eff you petepolly. We could have been talking about Bob Jones University v. United States by now.

petepolly

petepolly

Antarctica
August 2008

SEP 29, 2008 10:29 PM

Stiles said:

petepolly said:
[
You are changing the subject!

Means what it says, as in "we the people of this nation do XYZ"



Bzzzt! When the Constitution was written, "We the people" referred to white male landowners, and nobody else. Slavery was legal, women and minorities had no rights.

Obviously, things change: Constitutional amendments and the Supreme Court are the two ways it happens in that area, and nobody's amending the Constitution again anytime soon.

This makes the SCOTUS the arbiter of the Constitution as it applies to law. Period.



No it meant that only white male land owners could vote in most states. In some states IIRC even as early as the revolution non landowners could vote, and owning land was not a big deal then, with such a small population and huge amount of land.

So what? We do not allow people under 18 to vote. We do not allow felons to vote in many states.

So what?

It still means what it says.

Stiles

Stiles

Philadelphia, PA
November 2002

SEP 29, 2008 10:30 PM

Katieesq said:

Eff you petepolly. We could have been talking about Bob Jones University v. United States by now.



Or Hustler v. Falwell

weeeeeeeee

Previous

PAGE: 

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

 ... 11

Next

featured interviews