- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: IRS made deal to scrutinize churches
Posted on 8/1/14 at 6:10 am to Qwerty
Posted on 8/1/14 at 6:10 am to Qwerty
Thanks.
Ron Reagan Jr. Is on the board of the FFRF. One would think, the way black churches blatantly flaunt electioneering restrictions, that conservatives would favor this.
If Churches want tax exempt status, don't get involved in politics. It's as simple as that.
quote:
The original lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Madison in 2012 alleged that the IRS was violating the U.S. Constitution by not enforcing the federal tax code, which prohibits tax-exempt religious organizations from electioneering. The FFRF argued that churches and other religious organizations have become increasingly more involved in political campaigns, "blatantly and deliberately flaunting the electioneering restrictions." The lawsuit asked the court to order the IRS to initiate enforcement of the electioneering restrictions against churches and religious organizations.
Ron Reagan Jr. Is on the board of the FFRF. One would think, the way black churches blatantly flaunt electioneering restrictions, that conservatives would favor this.
If Churches want tax exempt status, don't get involved in politics. It's as simple as that.
6
Posted on 8/1/14 at 6:14 am to Vegas Bengal
quote:
If Churches want tax exempt status, don't get involved in politics. It's as simple as that.
So you're saying that the black churches that conspired with the DOJ during the 2012 election cycle should be taxed? The racism is strong in your statement.
Posted on 8/1/14 at 6:29 am to Vegas Bengal
quote:
the way black churches blatantly flaunt electioneering restrictions, that conservatives would favor this.
Reading between the lines you are acknowledging that black churches are more politically active and this, if applied equally, assuming no scandals and not a smidgeon of corruption, would hurt them more because you are defending it.
This is about free speech and freedom to practice whatever religion you want. It's one of the founding principals this country was founded on. If you can't see the dangers, and if you see all of this as progress you cannot be helped.
DOJ and black churches. Whites not afforded same treatment
This post was edited on 8/1/14 at 6:33 am
Posted on 8/1/14 at 8:52 am to Vegas Bengal
quote:so what?
Ron Reagan Jr. Is on the board of the FFRF.
quote:
One would think, the way black churches blatantly flaunt electioneering restrictions, that conservatives would favor this.
No. Unlike many progressives--conservatives don't consider trashing the Constitution and impeding religious freedom worth an election advantage. quote:Silly. Why should churches be barred from politics?
If Churches want tax exempt status, don't get involved in politics. It's as simple as that.
Posted on 8/1/14 at 11:06 am to Vegas Bengal
quote:
If Churches want tax exempt status, don't get involved in politics. It's as simple as that.
No, it's not that simple at all. Churches are now under threat for speaking out against things that go against their beliefs.
But we all know that's 100% fine with you.
Posted on 8/1/14 at 12:37 pm to Vegas Bengal
This is only a futile intimidation play.
Everyone knows that any church can print the positions of all candidates on a card/brochure without advocating a candidate.
So in esence if one candidate gets a check on being for abortion and homosexuality, the church has raised the issues and spotlighted their candidate without officially endorsing anyone, and this is 100 percent legal.
But the government wants to intimidate those that don't understand the facts.
Everyone knows that any church can print the positions of all candidates on a card/brochure without advocating a candidate.
So in esence if one candidate gets a check on being for abortion and homosexuality, the church has raised the issues and spotlighted their candidate without officially endorsing anyone, and this is 100 percent legal.
But the government wants to intimidate those that don't understand the facts.
Posted on 8/2/14 at 8:53 am to Vegas Bengal
quote:Frankly, I don't favor it either way. But obviously based on the IRS's recent partisan malfeasance, conservatives will have zero confidence in provisions for fair enforcement.
One would think, the way black churches blatantly flaunt electioneering restrictions, that conservatives would favor this.
Page 1 of 1
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News