(08-02-2014 04:08 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 04:00 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 02:03 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 01:48 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  My Pastor has stated this possible scenario unfolding where churches could lose their tax-exempt status if they refused to acknowledge gay marriage and not permitting it within the church. The article centers on the FFRF's complaint about the IRS failing to uphold a court ruling to monitor churches' endorsing political candidates or conducting activities considered to be "politicking." I hope that with all the recent controversy and bad PR from the Lois Lerner fiasco the IRS is only offering a token response to the FFRF's complaint. Saying you are going to do something vs. actually enforcing it are two different things. On the other hand, this is a way for the IRS to get their "foot in the door" to monitor churches and the threat that the monitoring will only increase over time and lead to more restrictions placed on churches. If that happens, it's time to draw a line in the sand. Enough is enough! Don't tread on my church!

You don't have a right to a tax deduction for a church or any other private club.

No tax deduction, no taxpayer funding - no restrictions.

Your argument is moronic. No restrictions seriously? So a mosque should be forced to accept a Jew as a member? A Christian church accept an atheist? A Synagogue accept a Muslim? There is a difference between accepting the right of others to peacefully co-exist and forcing religious organizations to accept those who don't agree with the tenants of that religion.

There are hundreds of tax exempt LGBT organizations and their primary purpose for existing is to promote a political (GAY) agenda so stop with the BS. NO tax exempt organization is allowed to promote a political agenda.

My point is that ANY organization receiving a tax deduction can be made subject to restrictions as a condition of maintaining the deduction. If a church or country club wants to maintain their independence, the only Constitutional way to guarantee it is to not take the deduction.

That goes for the LGBT caucus or Second Baptist Church, both of whom are heavily engaged in political advocacy

It would be hard to ever enforce your point when organizations like the NAACP are almost exclusively political and the United Negro College fund only provides scholarships to African Americans. You cannot cherry pick issues you disagree with and the IRS cannot is not supposed to look the other way for one organization while attacking another for like activity. Of course we know the Lois Lerner IRS does operate with a political agenda in mind.

(08-02-2014 04:13 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 03:52 PM)Claw Wrote:  The IRS will take a butt whipping in court.

On what grounds. The way the IRS works is that they don't investigate unless someone makes a complaint. So the FFRF makes complaints, which then sets off investigations by the IRS.

You guys are perfectly welcome to form your own organizations to monitor political speech at mainstream/minority churches.

One can use religious speech in political ways. I say that should be allowed but grounds for taking away a tax deduction.

Its not trying to silence a church to demand that they not use tax free dollars to engage in politically motivated speech (regardless of whether or not a Jesus is thrown in the speech somewhere). They have the right to say whatever they want and advocate whatever they want. They have zero Constitutional rights to a tax deduction while doing so.

And you do know which Churches are out there on a regular basis pushing one political point, agenda or candidate most often and most openly, right? You think the IRS or DOinJ is going to touch that?

Sorry, even your vehement hatred for our religious institutions isn't going to change that.

(08-02-2014 04:16 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 04:08 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 04:00 PM)THE NC Herd Fan Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 02:03 PM)Tom in Lazybrook Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 01:48 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  My Pastor has stated this possible scenario unfolding where churches could lose their tax-exempt status if they refused to acknowledge gay marriage and not permitting it within the church. The article centers on the FFRF's complaint about the IRS failing to uphold a court ruling to monitor churches' endorsing political candidates or conducting activities considered to be "politicking." I hope that with all the recent controversy and bad PR from the Lois Lerner fiasco the IRS is only offering a token response to the FFRF's complaint. Saying you are going to do something vs. actually enforcing it are two different things. On the other hand, this is a way for the IRS to get their "foot in the door" to monitor churches and the threat that the monitoring will only increase over time and lead to more restrictions placed on churches. If that happens, it's time to draw a line in the sand. Enough is enough! Don't tread on my church!

You don't have a right to a tax deduction for a church or any other private club.

No tax deduction, no taxpayer funding - no restrictions.

Your argument is moronic. No restrictions seriously? So a mosque should be forced to accept a Jew as a member? A Christian church accept an atheist? A Synagogue accept a Muslim? There is a difference between accepting the right of others to peacefully co-exist and forcing religious organizations to accept those who don't agree with the tenants of that religion.

There are hundreds of tax exempt LGBT organizations and their primary purpose for existing is to promote a political (GAY) agenda so stop with the BS. NO tax exempt organization is allowed to promote a political agenda.

My point is that ANY organization receiving a tax deduction can be made subject to restrictions as a condition of maintaining the deduction. If a church or country club wants to maintain their independence, the only Constitutional way to guarantee it is to not take the deduction.

That goes for the LGBT caucus or Second Baptist Church, both of whom are heavily engaged in political advocacy

It would be hard to ever enforce your point when organizations like the NAACP are almost exclusively political and the United Negro College fund only provides scholarships to African Americans. You cannot cherry pick issues you disagree with and the IRS cannot is not supposed to look the other way for one organization while attacking another for like activity. Of course we know the Lois Lerner IRS does operate with a political agenda in mind.

I say enforce the rules across the board. And I'd take it further than that. I don't think that ANY private club or organization should be eligible for tax free treatment unless they prove that they provide a tangible and measurable benefit to all segments of society.

(08-02-2014 03:49 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  If the IRS determined that a church was not following these guidelines they are subject (as any non-profit) to fines and/or losing their tax exempt status. Therein lies the rub. There is genuine concern that the IRS will overstep the bounds of interpretation of the rules or perform selective enforcement of the rules for its own purposes (see Lois Lerner).

This is indeed a concern, but what seems to happening now is that some churches are deliberately flouting the law and not even being investigated (confirmation from churches below). This is at least part of what motivated the lawsuit.

Quote:FFRF and the IRS filed an agreement on July 17 to dismiss the lawsuit voluntarily, following communications from the IRS that it no longer has a policy of non-enforcement against churches. Adelman’s decision and order agreed that FFRF may voluntarily dismiss its lawsuit “without prejudice,” meaning FFRF can renew the lawsuit if the IRS reverts to its previous inaction.

http://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/...9eOuH.dpuf

Quote:Going one step further, if the liberal agenda continues to be pushed and advanced, it is possible that the tax exempt laws could be changed to require a church to recognize/perform gay marriage for example.

Perhaps. This would lead to interesting First Amendment questions. A religious university could be denied access to federal funding until it rescinded its policy against interracial marriage and dating, but I don't think there has ever been a similar holding involving a church.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Jones_...ted_States

Quote:Under that scenario, a church would not be required to obey and could continue operating without tax exempt status. However, I guarantee that many churches would cave in to the IRS under this forced tax incentive and I believe that is just wrong.

So for thirty pieces of silver, the churches would betray their God? I would hope that most wouldn't, but of those that do, isn't the blame on the church?

Quote:Thus back to my earlier post, the IRS needs to stay out of the pulpit when it comes to church doctrine.

I don't believe in a politicized tax code, but I would have more sympathy for churches if it weren't for stunts like this.

Quote:On September 28, 2008, Alliance Defending Freedom conducted the first Pulpit Freedom Sunday. Starting with 33 pastors from 22 states in 2008, Pulpit Freedom Sunday participation has grown steadily to a high of 1621 participants in 2012. Pastors who have participated have openly preached sermons that make specific recommendations about the candidates for public office and, in many cases, these pastors send their sermons directly to the IRS. . . .

The IRS seems to have simply ignored Pulpit Freedom Sunday.

http://blog.speakupmovement.org/church/c...responded/

This is simply ADF and these churches attempting to have the benefits of the 501©(3) tax designation without the associated burdens.

(08-02-2014 04:35 PM)jh Wrote:  This is indeed a concern, but what seems to happening now is that some churches are deliberately flouting the law and not even being investigated (confirmation from churches below). This is at least part of what motivated the lawsuit.

FFRF and the IRS filed an agreement on July 17 to dismiss the lawsuit voluntarily, following communications from the IRS that it no longer has a policy of non-enforcement against churches. Adelman’s decision and order agreed that FFRF may voluntarily dismiss its lawsuit “without prejudice,” meaning FFRF can renew the lawsuit if the IRS reverts to its previous inaction.
http://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/...9eOuH.dpuf

I never said that a church that abuses tax exempt provisions should not be investigated or held accountable. On the contrary, the Bible clearly states to the church to "give to Caesar what is Caesar's." Churches and parishioners are expected to follow the laws and regulations of the locale in question. On the flip side, the IRS should be held accountable for its actions and practices as well.

Quote:So for thirty pieces of silver, the churches would betray their God? I would hope that most wouldn't, but of those that do, isn't the blame on the church?

Ultimately, yes. And, shame on them. Some churches have already changed or watered down traditional doctrine in order to be more acceptable to society's wants and desires in the name of PC. I can only imagine (I hope I'm wrong) that if tax incentives were imposed to influence church behavior/operations that more would fold instead of standing for what God intended.

Quote:I don't believe in a politicized tax code, but I would have more sympathy for churches if it weren't for stunts like this.

On September 28, 2008, Alliance Defending Freedom conducted the first Pulpit Freedom Sunday. Starting with 33 pastors from 22 states in 2008, Pulpit Freedom Sunday participation has grown steadily to a high of 1621 participants in 2012. Pastors who have participated have openly preached sermons that make specific recommendations about the candidates for public office and, in many cases, these pastors send their sermons directly to the IRS. . . .

This is simply ADF and these churches attempting to have the benefits of the 501©(3) tax designation without the associated burdens.

Churches and parishioners are not perfect and can make mistakes. Don't let the mistakes of a few define all church behavior as a whole. However, the greater issue from my perspective is how far should the IRS be allowed to regulate a church? Contributing church funds directly to a political campaign is one thing (I don't agree with that btw) but potentially regulating for tax purposes what a pastor says from the pulpit in front of a congregation that is there by free choice is not something that I agree with.

(08-02-2014 08:19 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  

(08-02-2014 04:35 PM)jh Wrote:  This is indeed a concern, but what seems to happening now is that some churches are deliberately flouting the law and not even being investigated (confirmation from churches below). This is at least part of what motivated the lawsuit.

FFRF and the IRS filed an agreement on July 17 to dismiss the lawsuit voluntarily, following communications from the IRS that it no longer has a policy of non-enforcement against churches. Adelman’s decision and order agreed that FFRF may voluntarily dismiss its lawsuit “without prejudice,” meaning FFRF can renew the lawsuit if the IRS reverts to its previous inaction.
http://ffrf.org/news/news-releases/item/...9eOuH.dpuf

I never said that a church that abuses tax exempt provisions should not be investigated or held accountable. On the contrary, the Bible clearly states to the church to "give to Caesar what is Caesar's." Churches and parishioners are expected to follow the laws and regulations of the locale in question. On the flip side, the IRS should be held accountable for its actions and practices as well.

Quote:So for thirty pieces of silver, the churches would betray their God? I would hope that most wouldn't, but of those that do, isn't the blame on the church?

Ultimately, yes. And, shame on them. Some churches have already changed or watered down traditional doctrine in order to be more acceptable to society's wants and desires in the name of PC. I can only imagine (I hope I'm wrong) that if tax incentives were imposed to influence church behavior/operations that more would fold instead of standing for what God intended.

Quote:I don't believe in a politicized tax code, but I would have more sympathy for churches if it weren't for stunts like this.

On September 28, 2008, Alliance Defending Freedom conducted the first Pulpit Freedom Sunday. Starting with 33 pastors from 22 states in 2008, Pulpit Freedom Sunday participation has grown steadily to a high of 1621 participants in 2012. Pastors who have participated have openly preached sermons that make specific recommendations about the candidates for public office and, in many cases, these pastors send their sermons directly to the IRS. . . .

This is simply ADF and these churches attempting to have the benefits of the 501©(3) tax designation without the associated burdens.

Churches and parishioners are not perfect and can make mistakes. Don't let the mistakes of a few define all church behavior as a whole. However, the greater issue from my perspective is how far should the IRS be allowed to regulate a church? Contributing church funds directly to a political campaign is one thing (I don't agree with that btw) but potentially regulating for tax purposes what a pastor says from the pulpit in front of a congregation that is there by free choice is not something that I agree with.

This only applies to white Christian Churches.

(08-02-2014 08:19 PM)UCGrad1992 Wrote:  I never said that a church that abuses tax exempt provisions should not be investigated or held accountable. On the contrary, the Bible clearly states to the church to "give to Caesar what is Caesar's." Churches and parishioners are expected to follow the laws and regulations of the locale in question. On the flip side, the IRS should be held accountable for its actions and practices as well.

Agree completely. And it is a shame that the IRS has shown itself to be so untrustworthy that reasonable people are justified in believing it to be incapable of actually doing its job impartially.

Quote:Churches and parishioners are not perfect and can make mistakes. Don't let the mistakes of a few define all church behavior as a whole. However, the greater issue from my perspective is how far should the IRS be allowed to regulate a church? Contributing church funds directly to a political campaign is one thing (I don't agree with that btw) but potentially regulating for tax purposes what a pastor says from the pulpit in front of a congregation that is there by free choice is not something that I agree with.

I agree that not all churches should be tainted by ADF's campaign. But neither should the ADF be ignored--they are a prominent civil rights organization actively promoting civil disobedience to create a test case. In this respect the FFRF and ADF are actually partners--both want IRS enforcement.

I agree that conditioning tax-exempt status on what is said from the pulpit is problematic, especially if it evolves to where even issue advocacy is restricted (this does not appear to be the case here). But what if the pastor, acting in his capacity as pastor, is telling people who they should vote for? That is what the ADF is recommending and is something that I believe is prohibited for any 501©(3) organization (as you noted, the tax code is complicated). Should churches receive special treatment or be held to the same standards?