• 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 ... 

4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

 ... 11

Next

Comments
petepolly

petepolly

Antarctica
August 2008

SEP 29, 2008 10:30 PM

Katieesq said:
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.



No thanks I am androgynous.

Stiles

Stiles

Philadelphia, PA
November 2002

SEP 29, 2008 10:33 PM

petepolly said:

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.



Firstly:

whoosh

Secondly, you pronouncing it so, does not make it so.

Again.

God, this is tiring. Go read some books, figure out what the law actually means, and get back to us. Until then, you are wasting everyone's time.

Cheyenne

Cheyenne

SUICIDEGIRL

USA

SEP 29, 2008 10:33 PM

petepolly said:

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.



so you think that women and minorities should still not be able to vote? Because, you say "it still means what it says." When it was written, that's what it meant...

petepolly

petepolly

Antarctica
August 2008

SEP 29, 2008 10:38 PM

xfinitex said:

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?



So you all think that only one person could have Libertarian ideals?

FYI in the state of Texas they have over 130 candidates on the fucking ballot, more than 65% of either of the two "major" parties reference

Sound like only a few people to you?

Stiles

Stiles

Philadelphia, PA
November 2002

SEP 29, 2008 10:38 PM

Cheyenne gets the point.

Accuser

Accuser

Dana Point, CA
October 2006

SEP 29, 2008 10:39 PM

zoom image

Jesus, man, give it a fucking rest. How many keyboards do you go through daily?

petepolly

petepolly

Antarctica
August 2008

SEP 29, 2008 10:41 PM

Cheyenne said:

petepolly said:

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.



so you think that women and minorities should still not be able to vote? Because, you say "it still means what it says." When it was written, that's what it meant...



The constitution did not at that time define who could or could not vote. It does now. It did not at that time explicitly allow, or prohibit votes by women, or minorities, that was left to the states.

I have never stated or implied that I thought that suffrage should be limited on the basis of sex or ethnicity, and I don't.

Cheyenne

Cheyenne

SUICIDEGIRL

USA

SEP 29, 2008 10:43 PM

petepolly said:

Cheyenne said:

petepolly said:

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.



so you think that women and minorities should still not be able to vote? Because, you say "it still means what it says." When it was written, that's what it meant...



The constitution did not at that time define who could or could not vote. It does now. It did not at that time explicitly allow, or prohibit votes by women, or minorities, that was left to the states.

I have never stated or implied that I thought that suffrage should be limited on the basis of sex or ethnicity, and I don't.



if that is the case, then why couldn't women and minorities vote?

and your previous post totally implied that. (by the way you worded it.)

Stiles

Stiles

Philadelphia, PA
November 2002

SEP 29, 2008 10:44 PM

edit: too slow

Accuser

Accuser

Dana Point, CA
October 2006

SEP 29, 2008 10:46 PM

SO.

CHURCHES SHOULD NOT BE TAX EXEMPT, ESPECIALLY IF THEY'RE GOING TO PROMOTE A POLITICAL VIEW.



Discuss.

petepolly

petepolly

Antarctica
August 2008

SEP 29, 2008 10:58 PM

Cheyenne said:

petepolly said:

Cheyenne said:

petepolly said:

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.



so you think that women and minorities should still not be able to vote? Because, you say "it still means what it says." When it was written, that's what it meant...



The constitution did not at that time define who could or could not vote. It does now. It did not at that time explicitly allow, or prohibit votes by women, or minorities, that was left to the states.

I have never stated or implied that I thought that suffrage should be limited on the basis of sex or ethnicity, and I don't.



if that is the case, then why couldn't women and minorities vote?

and your previous post totally implied that. (by the way you worded it.)



Because that was how the laws in the British colonies had been set up and that was how British law worked in general for centuries before that time.

We inherited our legal system from the British you know, we were a set of British colonies in North America.

As I said the way the original Constitution was written the matter was left in state hands. It would not have passed with any more liberal language IMHO, Jefferson tried to insert a diatribe against slavery in the Declaration of Independence blaming the British Monarchy for slavery in the British colonies which had a lot of truth to it, but minimized the fact that slave owners in those colonies [like him] were of course part of that system.

This was left out because they needed the slave owners to win the war, and they would not hear anything about an end to slavery which is what Jefferson wanted, and implied would happen with a successful revolution. it did, about 90 odd years later, many years after the British had freed all their slaves in other colonies.

Political compromises can be quite ugly.


Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

SEP 29, 2008 11:02 PM

I love when people SIMULTANEOUSLY argue that the Constitution should be interpreted by its plain language AND argue that one needs to consider context and outside authority when interpreting the Constitution. So hysterical, so ironical, so predictable.

Everyone should realize this and realize how fucking full of shit those people are.

Cheyenne

Cheyenne

SUICIDEGIRL

USA

SEP 29, 2008 11:05 PM

petepolly said:

Cheyenne said:

petepolly said:

Cheyenne said:

petepolly said:

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.



so you think that women and minorities should still not be able to vote? Because, you say "it still means what it says." When it was written, that's what it meant...



The constitution did not at that time define who could or could not vote. It does now. It did not at that time explicitly allow, or prohibit votes by women, or minorities, that was left to the states.

I have never stated or implied that I thought that suffrage should be limited on the basis of sex or ethnicity, and I don't.



if that is the case, then why couldn't women and minorities vote?

and your previous post totally implied that. (by the way you worded it.)



Because that was how the laws in the British colonies had been set up and that was how British law worked in general for centuries before that time.

We inherited our legal system from the British you know, we were a set of British colonies in North America.

As I said the way the original Constitution was written the matter was left in state hands. It would not have passed with any more liberal language IMHO, Jefferson tried to insert a diatribe against slavery in the Declaration of Independence blaming the British Monarchy for slavery in the British colonies which had a lot of truth to it, but minimized the fact that slave owners in those colonies [like him] were of course part of that system.

This was left out because they needed the slave owners to win the war, and they would not hear anything about an end to slavery which is what Jefferson wanted, and implied would happen with a successful revolution. it did, about 90 odd years later, many years after the British had freed all their slaves in other colonies.

Political compromises can be quite ugly.




and..that did not make much sense to me at all..sry.
a minute ago, you said it still means what it says. now you say it doens't mean what it says....

Subrosa

Subrosa

San Francisco, CA
July 2004

SEP 29, 2008 11:07 PM

petepolly said:
Because that was how the laws in the British colonies had been set up and that was how British law worked in general for centuries before that time.

We inherited our legal system from the British you know, we were a set of British colonies in North America.


I'm sorry, we've already decided that the doctrine of stare decisis is horseshit. Try again.

DevilsReject

DevilsReject

Cleveland, OH
February 2007

SEP 29, 2008 11:10 PM

Subrosa said:

petepolly said:
Because that was how the laws in the British colonies had been set up and that was how British law worked in general for centuries before that time.

We inherited our legal system from the British you know, we were a set of British colonies in North America.


I'm sorry, we've already decided that the doctrine of stare decisis is horseshit. Try again.



you arrogant lawyers! Where do you get off doing something like that?

tongue

Previous

PAGE: 

1 ... 

4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8

 ... 11

Next

featured interviews